Maker Technology

[kilemall]

I am trying to keep it simple. Size = Days +/- Flux isn't a huge rules overhead in my opinion.

Lets have a look at how your suggestion for adding complexity might work.

Say an ACR Cr1500 and a PGMP is Cr10,000 so roughly x10 more complex. Say they're both around Size 4, so the ACR take 4 days and the PGMP takes 40 days?

Doesn't really hit the spot for me I think, but you might be pointing me in the right direction.

Think 4 hours/40hours instead.

Also, I have size implied in the maker needing greater tonnage for larger objects increasing, and a speed advantage for makers that are several times the size of the object in question. It doesn't all scale quite like I want, but it's in the ballpark discouraging players from just printing out grav tanks in a day.

So complexity x size starts costing serious sunk capital, not to mention whatever tonnage opportunity costs there are lugging it around on your ship. Past a certain size, I would expect makers to operate back at the base/HQ.

 

[Ulsyus]

Does everyone see a Maker as, for want of a better term, a big box into which go the raw materials for an item, and out of which the finished item emerges?

One concept that might be worth considering is that it may be possible to label a collection of automated/robotic constructing elements all disparate parts of a maker. After all, that is what's happening inside the structure of a maker, isn't it? That way you don't need a series of enormous Size 6 Makers to construct a building, just the correct muster of Maker Modules that will work together, coordinated by the control unit.

 

[Reban]

Conceptually I see a Maker as being a machine with about half its internal volume filled with plant producing polymers, ceramics, and metals from raw stocks. There's a construction space with interchangeable tooling, robotic arms, etc. This part of the Maker can probably contain different atmospheres, vacuum and be subject to different gravities.

Finished and near-finished products and components roll out of the hatch when the timer hits zero.

My idea is that the construction happens inside the Maker.

When you describe all the same robotic systems and tooling acting on something outside the machine I think: Construction Robot.

But they are related technologies.

 

[vegas]

I did say that was a fault in my proposal. Using the Size of an object is quick and easy way to figure out how long a build should take.

Sorry, I don't think I was clear. My point wasn't about you left out complexity (which you did raise), it is that you were relying on size codes, which increase linearly for (quasi) logarithmic increases in length, whereas the time should be a function of volume which increases at a cube of those roughly base 10X steps. The volume increase is so much larger than the size code step, I wouldn't think the relative times made sense.

I thought it was easier to see at the big end of the scale, but maybe it is easy at the small end too. If it takes a 1 unit of time for a maker to build a 7mm diameter coin (size 1 object - that is a really tiny coin by the way), there is no way that a 200mm tall book (size 3 object) only takes 3 units of time. A 200 mm cube has is over 23,000x the volume of 7mm cube, and Maker build time should scale with volume. Neither the coin nor the book is a cube, but clearly you can fit a lot more than 3 coins in the volume of a book.

 

[kilemall]

Does everyone see a Maker as, for want of a better term, a big box into which go the raw materials for an item, and out of which the finished item emerges?

One concept that might be worth considering is that it may be possible to label a collection of automated/robotic constructing elements all disparate parts of a maker. After all, that is what's happening inside the structure of a maker, isn't it? That way you don't need a series of enormous Size 6 Makers to construct a building, just the correct muster of Maker Modules that will work together, coordinated by the control unit.

A reasonable assumption, any one module would just need to be big enough to handle the largest part, not necessarily the whole thing.

I'm shying away from figuring out the chemical/welding/printing/gravitic/shaping/biovat sort of breakdown Aramis was talking about and just focusing on game effect and decision.

However, one detail to consider is that a specialized maker would have modules for only X type of equipment, a generalized make anything you might need maker would have a whole lot of modules not in use for one making session and critical for another. So you really need to look at costing the players for greater breadth of possible coverage.

Another thought that came to mind- the maker can cover the Ship's Locker mechanic. Just specialized with the raw materials and ability to build simple vacc suits/tools/survival equipment/minor parts, restocks automatically for items lost/used, and can make more items inth e same category at some time cost and supply limit.

 

[kilemall]

I thought it was easier to see at the big end of the scale, but maybe it is easy at the small end too. If it takes a 1 unit of time for a maker to build a 7mm diameter coin (size 1 object - that is a really tiny coin by the way), there is no way that a 200mm tall book (size 3 object) only takes 3 units of time. A 200 mm cube has is over 23,000x the volume of 7mm cube, and Maker build time should scale with volume. Neither the coin nor the book is a cube, but clearly you can fit a lot more than 3 coins in the volume of a book.

I don't know that this is true. An air/raft chassis for instance is the largest assembled part, but the lifters, fusion plant and electronic controls are all more complex even though they are less volume.

Using your book example, the metallurgy smelting of a coin could be more or less complex then the book (depending on the nature of the coin particularly materials, required purity or alloys to duplicate the quality of the currency).

Conversely, it could be a 1 credit coin that only costs 2 credits to make, while the book costs 20 credits, so the book IMO should take 10x the time the coin does, maker capacity being equal.

IMO the place to cost the volume of potential objects is in maker volume capital cost.

 

[vegas]

I don't know that this is true. An air/raft chassis for instance is the largest assembled part, but the lifters, fusion plant and electronic controls are all more complex even though they are less volume.

I am suggesting that there are 2 independent elements of time for a Maker, volume and complexity, and these are getting conflated in your example.

For a discrete part, as aramis correctly pointed out up thread, really the only thing that matters to Maker time is volume. There is no complexity per se, only precision, and that just isn't a significant time adder. Either the Maker can hit that precision or it can't. So if we are talking about a single, discrete size 1 part or size 3 part, the time taken will not be 3 times the first for the later, but orders of magnitude longer as it scales with volume.

Now in your example, you are comparing parts with different complexity - bulk chassis versus high tech components, so the relative time to make these is not just a function of volume any more, it is a function of volume and complexity.

How to handle this without going rule crazy? You already pointed the way; make time a function of cost. You could mitigate that some if the party has certain sub-assemblies available in stores (the computer chips MM writes about) so that those highly complex technologies don't have to be built from scratch, then the only thing to deal with is volume again. You could mitigate it more with high-end or large-size Makers versus ship board workshops. You could allow molds to be built for very large items, so you only have to have the Maker build the mold and that scales with surface area (squared) instead of the volume (cubed). Put as many elements in as you want, but for game play purposes, if we are looking for a simple rule, which was Reban's idea with using the size codes, I think cost is probably the way to go and just let that capture volume and complexity in one go.

(For MTU, I think gravitic, jump, high-end electronic components have to come from stores and can't just be made from scratch with a Maker. YMMV.)

 

[Timerover51]

Why not one hour per 1.5 meter cube of volume for a starter, with a limit on minimum charges per hour of a pro-rated 15 minutes, and then add one additional hour for every metric ton of mass. For complexity such as drives, power plant, electronics, computers, and armament, add on top of the volume and mass time say 10 hours per dTon of volume.

 

[Ulsyus]

Tying complexity of processing to the cost of an item isn't a bad idea, but the idea of also adding in an element linked to volume and mass has benefits as well.

What about using the T5 TL stage effects to reduce the time take to produce something that is from a TL less than that of the Maker?

 

[Timerover51]

Tying complexity of processing to the cost of an item isn't a bad idea, but the idea of also adding in an element linked to volume and mass has benefits as well.

What about using the T5 TL stage effects to reduce the time take to produce something that is from a TL less than that of the Maker?

If you are processing the same amount of mass with the same volume with similar complexity, I fail to see why a difference in Tech Level would matter. A World War One Mark 4 Male Tank of the British should take at least the same amount of time as the equivalent mass of a World War 2 tank. In fact, given the larger volume, it should take longer. Face-hardened or high hardness steel plate might make a difference, due to the difference in crystalline make-up.

You might get a difference in time if you are working with vacuum tube equipment, such as the World War 2 AP-6 microwave air intercept radar compared to a transistorized version, given the problem of making the transistors and the circuits on the circuit board.