T5 License

[Reban]

I assume that you are not being facetious. I also am not sure if you fully understand what you are asking for.

Can your local shop handle 30mm or so of 5083 or 5085 Aluminum plate, along with steel (including nitrided steel cylinder sleeves), rubber, and glass? As I assume you want a fully operational vehicle, you are looking at about 5,000 or so drawing of the various components, and having to produce, more likely by computer-controlled milling, every individual part, down to the smallest screw, bolt, nut, and washer. Once that is done, then the vehicle is going to have to be assembled, most likely by hand, as this is a one-off product, which is not exactly what robots are designed for. World War 2 tanks ran about a dollar a pound in terms of cost. However, the M!!3 primarily used much more expensive aircraft-grade aluminum, rather than homogeneous steel armor. If I remember correctly from the book, The Industry-Ordnance Team, it took about 2000 man hours to assemble a tank, with not much change with the size of the vehicle. That did assume that the engine and power train was delivered as a completed unit. Your vehicle will have to assemble those from scratch. As an educated guess, I would put assembly time on the order of 3,000 man-hours, and you are not paying those assemblers fifty to seventy-five cents an hour either. Then you have the overhead charges for all of the equipment needed. With respect for ships built at the Royal Navy Dockyards, the Royal Navy included 25% for overhead. You need to factor this is as most US armored vehicles have been built at government-built plants operated by companies under contract. I do not think that you are going to like the final cost.

No I'm not being facetious. I'm looking for an ObTrav application of your credit calculations.

What I'm asking is; how does knowing the original price of an item in its year of manufacture help me calculate its cost in a time when Maker technology becomes ubiquitous?

Obviously an M113 could not be handled by the average home Maker system so i'm assuming a district or neighborhood sized Maker facility that could manufacture vehicle sized objects. Perhaps even a specialist Maker or factory that caters to the reproduction armour collector.

Assume complete designs for a functional vehicle in digital CAD format which I can purchase as a print on demand product or perhaps with limited rights to produce it.

Assume 3D printing and robotic assembly, although for specialist items I can see sub assemblies being bought in (a reason for interstellar cargo) and requiring fitting by skilled labor (perhaps the Tamyia/Airfix of the future will fill this niche, producing special parts and sub-assemblies that can be sent as a kit and integrated into a final product by someone with access to a Maker).

Technically an APC without armament is probably not classed as a weapon, although there might be compromises required such as a powerplant that meets local requirements so there's a variance from the original there.

So if I know the 1963 TL6/7 cost in credits can i calculate the cost to produce the same item at say at TL13?

For this example assume there is no constraint on cost, I'm imagining a collector of reproduction pre-spaceflight Terran armoured vehicles is either a very singular individual or a class of dilettante noble.

But the question is; can I use the "cost of the item as produced in the country of production and the year it was produced" to calculate or extrapolate its cost to produce in another time and another place?

 

[whartung]

Assume complete designs for a functional vehicle in digital CAD format which I can purchase as a print on demand product or perhaps with limited rights to produce it.

Assume 3D printing and robotic assembly, although for specialist items I can see sub assemblies being bought in (a reason for interstellar cargo) and requiring fitting by skilled labor (perhaps the Tamyia/Airfix of the future will fill this niche, producing special parts and sub-assemblies that can be sent as a kit and integrated into a final product by someone with access to a Maker).

What this brings up also is what the specifications for a complex object consist of. For example, a set of drawings and materials is not enough. I think given a box of parts labeled "M113" with a sticky note that says "assemble until it resembles a M113" would not be very useful. Assembly instructions will be necessary to code the robots. But even more so, there may be specific mechanical processes beyond simply fitting pieces together and screwing, bolting, or snapping them in place. Including things such as welding, but more so, things like heating and presses and such to put the parts together.

Finally, you would need to consider not just the physical parts, but also the necessary "software" that empowers the product. While you may want to build a M113 for nostalgia sake, but even if you simply wanted to keep the general form, the internal running gear would be certainly more advanced (electronic engine management for example), simply because you can and should (as it makes the machine more reliable).

As nice as a '57 Chevy is, if you're driving it, a '57 Chevy with a 2016 crate motor from GM with modern materials and electronics is a "better" '57 Chevy.

So, it's just something to think about in terms of what goes in to the creation of complicated machinery.

(What partly inspired this is that in a recent Popular Mechanics article (print, can't find it online), they completely disassembled a modern dirt bike. It's, like, 1500 parts. And what pops in to mind is "Well, now you have the parts, can you put it back together". Parts alone do not a product make.)

 

[Timerover51]

No I'm not being facetious. I'm looking for an ObTrav application of your credit calculations.

What I'm asking is; how does knowing the original price of an item in its year of manufacture help me calculate its cost in a time when Maker technology becomes ubiquitous?

Obviously an M113 could not be handled by the average home Maker system so i'm assuming a district or neighborhood sized Maker facility that could manufacture vehicle sized objects. Perhaps even a specialist Maker or factory that caters to the reproduction armour collector.

Would you kindly explain precisely what you mean by "Maker Technology".

Assume complete designs for a functional vehicle in digital CAD format which I can purchase as a print on demand product or perhaps with limited rights to produce it.

As for the design drawings, they are the property of the United States government, and as such, when released, are in the public domain, free for use by anyone. I have, somewhere in my files, the schematic drawings and detailed specifications for the Japanese Baka suicide aircraft, in sufficient detail to allow for the building of an operational replica. It is possible, if you can afford it, to get a complete copy of the builder's plans for most US World War One and World War Two ships from the files of BuShips at the National Archives. Having done a reasonable amount of research at the National Archive in the Washington, D. C. area, it is amazing what you can get from them. Also, it can be quite disturbing at times.

 

[Reban]

Would you kindly explain precisely what you mean by "Maker Technology".

Maker Technology in Traveller is currently poorly defined but it appears in T5 and Agent of the Imperium.

Makers physically are self contained modules capable of producing FusionPlus powerplants, reproducing themselves or reproducing any item it has a template for.

Makers are related to the various Maker rules systems contained within T5 in that anything produced in ThingMaker, GunMaker, VehicleMaker, etc. is assumed to be capable of being produced by a Maker module (or Makershops) as well as more traditional production methods.

Makers are also carried aboard starships or gifted to planets that the Imperium wishes to integrate.

Maker technology is Travellers interpretation of what Rapid Prototyping, Subtractive CNC machining, robotic assembly, 3D printing and other automated and non traditional production techniques will ultimately become.

Maker technology enables widespread distributed manufacturing. It doesn't necessarily have any effect on the traditional factory for the mass production of consumer products,although a "factory" might become a place where lots of makers are, rather than a facility with a production line. It allows the consumer to source and tailor products and it allows designers to eschew the need to own or even to contract production facilities.

In the military sphere it allows a unit close to the frontline to do away with large inventories of spare parts or the need to depend on extended lines of communication to warehoused replacement parts. The US Marine Corps are currently trialing the Expeditionary Fabrication Unit (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVryJtW6IQ). In the future ammunition might be produced "as needed", fabricated by expeditionary units.

As for the design drawings, they are the property of the United States government, and as such, when released, are in the public domain, free for use by anyone. I have, somewhere in my files, the schematic drawings and detailed specifications for the Japanese Baka suicide aircraft, in sufficient detail to allow for the building of an operational replica. It is possible, if you can afford it, to get a complete copy of the builder's plans for most US World War One and World War Two ships from the files of BuShips at the National Archives. Having done a reasonable amount of research at the National Archive in the Washington, D. C. area, it is amazing what you can get from them. Also, it can be quite disturbing at times.

Whartung is correct in what he says; we're talking about more than just drawings. There's the plans for each and every component, the map for how these are assembled by robot or laborer and the firmware required to make something work.

Lets call all these things collectively a Template.

If the Maker has access to the Template and the raw or more probably the refined materials it can produce the finished product.

The Template doesn't have to come from original plans. An object can be scanned and recreated or a designer can virtually build a master model for a new product.

We could go one step further and use AI to gather all the known information about an object, interrogating databases for plans, reconstructing details from photographs and video, interrogating parts catalogs for the specs of component parts. Integrate all the information, build virtual prototypes and test them virtually, find the acurate model and send the design as a Template to be produced by a Maker.

The Traveller Universe I think assumes that the US government and any Copyright or IP it owns is long gone, although the data survives. TNE has technologically elevated dictators producing new versions of old Terran designs for example.

So, if you're making an equipment and supply catalog for T5 that presumably lists TL of manufacture as well as the cost in Credits, can I use that information to reproduce items at a higher TL?

If yes, will there be guidance as to how to account for the effect of higher TL's on the cost of manufacture (as well as other useful things like time to produce and QREBS effects?).

If no, can we come up with some good guidance or a suitable game mechanic?

 

[Timerover51]

Maker Technology in Traveller is currently poorly defined but it appears in T5 and Agent of the Imperium.

Makers physically are self contained modules capable of producing FusionPlus powerplants, reproducing themselves or reproducing any item it has a template for.

Makers are related to the various Maker rules systems contained within T5 in that anything produced in ThingMaker, GunMaker, VehicleMaker, etc. is assumed to be capable of being produced by a Maker module (or Makershops) as well as more traditional production methods.

Makers are also carried aboard starships or gifted to planets that the Imperium wishes to integrate.

Maker technology is Travellers interpretation of what Rapid Prototyping, Subtractive CNC machining, robotic assembly, 3D printing and other automated and non traditional production techniques will ultimately become.

Maker technology enables widespread distributed manufacturing. It doesn't necessarily have any effect on the traditional factory for the mass production of consumer products,although a "factory" might become a place where lots of makers are, rather than a facility with a production line. It allows the consumer to source and tailor products and it allows designers to eschew the need to own or even to contract production facilities.

My understanding of Maker is that it is the design process used to develop an item of equipment. Your understanding is that it is the technology used to produce the item of equipment. We are in two different universes here,

In the military sphere it allows a unit close to the frontline to do away with large inventories of spare parts or the need to depend on extended lines of communication to warehoused replacement parts. The US Marine Corps are currently trialing the Expeditionary Fabrication Unit (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPVryJtW6IQ). In the future ammunition might be produced "as needed", fabricated by expeditionary units.

As a former U.S. Army supply officer, and someone that does actually study logistics for fun as I find the subject extremely fascinating, I will not touch that with a light-year long pole.

Whartung is correct in what he says; we're talking about more than just drawings. There's the plans for each and every component, the map for how these are assembled by robot or laborer and the firmware required to make something work.

Lets call all these things collectively a Template.

If the Maker has access to the Template and the raw or more probably the refined materials it can produce the finished product.

The Template doesn't have to come from original plans. An object can be scanned and recreated or a designer can virtually build a master model for a new product.

We could go one step further and use AI to gather all the known information about an object, interrogating databases for plans, reconstructing details from photographs and video, interrogating parts catalogs for the specs of component parts. Integrate all the information, build virtual prototypes and test them virtually, find the acurate model and send the design as a Template to be produced by a Maker.

You mean data like the following:

These instructions are published for the information and guidance of
the ordnance personnel charged with the maintenance and repair of
this materiel. They contain a description of the General Motors 6-71
dual Diesel Engine Model 6046 for Medium Tanks M3A3, M3A5 and
M4A2, all of its component parts and accessories, and the clutch and
propeller shaft, as well as detailed instructions for their disassembly,
inspection, servicing, and assembly.

NOTE: The term power plant is used to designate the twin engine
assembly. Individually, the engines are designated as Model 671LA24M
and Model 671LC24M. In the following description and throughout
this manual all references to the left and right side of the power plant
or of either engine are established as follows: The fan end is the rear
end and the left side is that side nearest the left side of the tank. The
transfer gear housing end is the front end and the right side is that side
nearest the right side of the tank. Both of these engines are right-hand
rotation as established from the front of the engine. The engine on the
right side of the tank is tne LA engine and the engine on the left side
is the LC engine.

The above from the maintenance manual for the twin GM Diesel power plant, as of September 1942.

Or this:

It is highly inadvisable to run a new engme at all
hot, as there is a considerable risk of "baking" the
rings into their grooves with burnt oil, a mishap which
can only be remedied by dismantling the engine completely.
For this reason it is inadvisable to run on a
weak mixture—e.g., by testing the altitude control for
more than a few seconds at ground level.

From the RAF Handbook on the Liberty aircraft engine from September 1918.

So, if you're making an equipment and supply catalog for T5 that presumably lists TL of manufacture as well as the cost in Credits, can I use that information to reproduce items at a higher TL?

I am writing the equipment and supply catalogue for use by any role-playing game using somewhat modern equipment, to include Space: 1889, Twilight 2000, the Morrow Project, and any version of Traveller, not just T5. Depending on how far back I go, it will also work with role-playing of earlier periods or very low Tech-level worlds.

If yes, will there be guidance as to how to account for the effect of higher TL's on the cost of manufacture (as well as other useful things like time to produce and QREBS effects?).

The cost of manufacture at higher Tech Levels for most items will be slightly to significantly higher, depending on the item. I am not sure if the necessary timber can be found for say a full-size replica of either the USS Constitution or HMS Victory. It might take several years to recreate the necessary Rodman manufacturing process to turn out a full-size 15 inch Rodman cast iron smoothbore, and the cost is going to be a lot more than the 13.2 cents per pound paid in 1863. Against that, I am assuming somewhat normal manufacturing processes, not your view of Maker Technology. Given your view, you can set the cost at whatever you like or think is right.

Given your view of the Maker system, I will not make any comments as to how long it will take to produce anything. As for QREBS, my own personal view is that is unworkable for a lot of items used in any role-playing game, and the use of which is going to get players very upset with any Game Master that uses the system.

If no, can we come up with some good guidance or a suitable game mechanic?

I will state what the item cost as the time of production, try to convert the cost into 1977-79 Dollars and assume the Credit is par, or what the current price of the item is, such as the multi-tool mentioned previously, or a replica 1861 Springfield rifle-musket. For characters wishing to purchase lower Tech Level items on the world of manufacture, say buying a M1911 .45 automatic or the equivalent on a Tech Level 5 World, I am planning to convert the price into the equivalent of ounces of gold with local value at $20 per ounce, with gold at 200 Credits to the ounce, per the value shown in Research Station Gamma. The does ignore the currency exchange rate system of Frank Chadwick from JTAS 4. It does make for a very simple exchange rate of 10 Credits per Dollar, and means that the 15 inch Rodman smoothbore would cost a character buying it 65,000 Credits, preferably in gold rather than the Imperial Plastic Currency.

 

[mike wightman]

Makers became 'real' machinery in MWM's novel Agent of the Imperium.

A quarantine fleet uses makers to put engines on asteroids to bombard a planet, IISS exploration missions 'gift' makers and fusion+ to distant worlds on the understanding that when the Imperium eventually expands the world will join the Imperium.

If you want to write for T5 I would recommend knowing the T5 rules very well, and reading the novel to get a greater insight into the 3I.

 

[Timerover51]

Q

Makers became 'real' machinery in MWM's novel Agent of the Imperium.

A quarantine fleet uses makers to put engines on asteroids to bombard a planet, IISS exploration missions 'gift' makers and fusion+ to distant worlds on the understanding that when the Imperium eventually expands the world will join the Imperium.

If you want to write for T5 I would recommend knowing the T5 rules very well, and reading the novel to get a greater insight into the 3I.

As I stated, I am not writing simply for Traveller 5, but a much broader audience. I have been wading through 5.0.9, but having things like QREBS used quite a lot before being defined on 150 does not make for easy understanding. I have yet to find out why BeastPower is even in the rules, as absolutely nothing uses it.

As for Marc's novel, I have about 200 or so other books to read that have a much higher priority. The current priority is Churchill's World War 2 series, several of the Army Green Book series on World War 2, about 4 volumes of Morrison's US Naval Operations of World War 2, a couple of Norm Friedman's U.S. warship design series, several USAF historical studies covering early WW2, as well as Gleason Archer's Biblical Difficulties book, and a couple of volumes covering the ethics of war. That does not count going through a lot of US intelligence booklets from WW2 looking for illustrations for use, along with looking for good copyright-free illustrations of civilian merchant ships. Right now, my light reading is Von Lettow-Vorbeck's East Africa Reminiscences and Bragadin's Italian Navy in World War 2, with an occasional treat of the Narnia series.

 

[Reban]

My understanding of Maker is that it is the design process used to develop an item of equipment. Your understanding is that it is the technology used to produce the item of equipment. We are in two different universes here,

Respectfully I'd say that your understanding is incomplete.

That's not actually a problem when writing a generic supplement but may lead to problems for your perspective buyers if they find integration with their chosen system is difficult or the authors assumptions deviate substantially from the established background of their game universe.

You mean data like the following:

>snip

The above from the maintenance manual for the twin GM Diesel power plant, as of September 1942.

.snip

Or this:

>snip

From the RAF Handbook on the Liberty aircraft engine from September 1918.

>snip

No I don't.

I am writing the equipment and supply catalogue for use by any role-playing game using somewhat modern equipment, to include Space: 1889, Twilight 2000, the Morrow Project, and any version of Traveller, not just T5. Depending on how far back I go, it will also work with role-playing of earlier periods or very low Tech-level worlds.

Ah. I was mislead by the origin of the thread where you asked about obtaining a license for T5.

Against that, I am assuming somewhat normal manufacturing processes, not your view of Maker Technology. Given your view, you can set the cost at whatever you like or think is right.

Given your view of the Maker system, I will not make any comments as to how long it will take to produce anything. As for QREBS, my own personal view is that is unworkable for a lot of items used in any role-playing game, and the use of which is going to get players very upset with any Game Master that uses the system.

I wasn't actually excluding traditional manufacturing from my query simply including maker technology because it does away with the need for and expense of specialist tooling and at Traveller tech levels might allow one to undertake unusual projects like reproducing an M113 to gift to the Duke that you know loves Terran military history to gain his favor.

I will state what the item cost as the time of production, try to convert the cost into 1977-79 Dollars and assume the Credit is par, or what the current price of the item is, such as the multi-tool mentioned previously, or a replica 1861 Springfield rifle-musket. For characters wishing to purchase lower Tech Level items on the world of manufacture, say buying a M1911 .45 automatic or the equivalent on a Tech Level 5 World, I am planning to convert the price into the equivalent of ounces of gold with local value at $20 per ounce, with gold at 200 Credits to the ounce, per the value shown in Research Station Gamma. The does ignore the currency exchange rate system of Frank Chadwick from JTAS 4. It does make for a very simple exchange rate of 10 Credits per Dollar, and means that the 15 inch Rodman smoothbore would cost a character buying it 65,000 Credits, preferably in gold rather than the Imperial Plastic Currency.

I was considering modelling the calculations on the Stage Effects found in T5, using the cost at the Base Tech Level to work out the cost of manufacture at a higher TL. I think the curve the costs would follow depends on two things; the assumption about the manufacturing capability at a given TL and the availability of special materials/skills.


Just out of curiosity to whom do you apply for a Space 1889 license? Frank Chadwick or Clockwork Publishing? And how easy is it to obtain multiple licenses for multiple rules systems to appear in a single sourcebook?

 

[Timerover51]

Respectfully I'd say that your understanding is incomplete.

Then I guess that ends the discussion. Have fun.