• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Computers!!!!

now that i have your attention.....



I have a PURELY intellectual question for once. just curious as to what YOUR opinions are as to limiting minimum computer sizes by dTon. what do you feel is the why and wherefore of it and/or do you actually use it.

and for no good reason at all whartung is not allowed to answer in less than 5000 words......

tee hee
tee hee
tee hee
 
To paraphrase the Mos Eisley Cantina bartender...

"NO FLAMERS NO FLAMERS!"

:)

...limiting minimum computer sizes by dTon. what do you feel is the why and wherefore of it and/or do you actually use it.

Not sure I understand the question. Do you for example mean why can't a TL15 model/4 computer be less than 4 dtons? As in smaller because it's higher than it's TL of introduction?

Or is the question something else?

Oh wait! Do you mean minimum required computer by dton of ship?
 
umm.. yes?
actually what i was gearing towards is yes the ship size vs computer model number. sorry i should have made that a little bit clearer. ok whartung, 4000 word limit instead.....my bad
 
This is fundamentally connected to the question of Acceptable Approximations. Since that is a religious argument for Traveller gearheads, you will get either topic avoidance or flames, with little chance of anything in-between.
 
How about flaming topic avoidance?

"Do you have flaming topic avoidance? Is there an itch here you just have to scratch, or do you have fatigue preventing you from scratching that recurring itch. Preparation QLI may be the cure you're looking for..."

I...I don't have time right now. But I can come back later.... :-)
 
Me, I like the linkage, as for me the computer has come to be mostly wiring harness. It's the real TL limit for ships in the OTU.

I feel, however, the specific numbers are a bit off for my tastes. (I'd like Model 9 to be around 20 KTd... not 1,000,000...
 
just curious as to what YOUR opinions are as to limiting minimum computer sizes by dTon. what do you feel is the why and wherefore of it and/or do you actually use it.

I have no problem with it as presented in High Guard. Once you accept FTL travel and reactionless drives, it becomes harder to sweat the little stuff. I think that the model 1 computer pre-dating the diode is odd, but it never seemed to hurt my TL 12 Free Trader.

I see a missed opportunity in the computer progression since ALL of the computer models are just multiple CPU and MEMORY units able to run the exact same software (except for the Jump Software). It might have been more interesting to create a basic unit of CPU/MEMORY unique to each TL and let the model of the computer represent the number of modules installed in that computer. Then there might be a size/cost difference between a TL 9 Model 3 Computer and a TL 13 Model 3 Computer (both could still run the Jump-3 Software).

I would also have liked to see the other software linked to the computer model number (Target-3 requires a model 3 computer, Evade-4 requires a model 4 computer). High Guard sort of did this by dropping the software and linking the combat details directly to the computer number.


Overall, starship computers seemed OK to me and I liked having a minimum computer for each ship size, I just think that more could have been done with computers vs ship sizes. One suggestion that I heard was to use the computer size ABOVE the minimum required for a hull size as the combat modifier in HG (instead of just the computer model). So a ship needing a model 2 computer because of it's size installing a model 5 computer would get a +3 combat bonus (instead of +5). I thought that this was an elegant concept.


[edit: I forgot to answer the Why of your question. Bigger ships have more 'widgets' that need monitoring, so the ship needs a bigger computer for normal operations.]
 
Last edited:
.........I see a missed opportunity in the computer progression since ALL of the computer models are just multiple CPU and MEMORY units able to run the exact same software (except for the Jump Software). It might have been more interesting to create a basic unit of CPU/MEMORY unique to each TL and let the model of the computer represent the number of modules installed in that computer. Then there might be a size/cost difference between a TL 9 Model 3 Computer and a TL 13 Model 3 Computer (both could still run the Jump-3 Software).

I would also have liked to see the other software linked to the computer model number (Target-3 requires a model 3 computer, Evade-4 requires a model 4 computer). High Guard sort of did this by dropping the software and linking the combat details directly to the computer number.


Overall, starship computers seemed OK to me and I liked having a minimum computer for each ship size, I just think that more could have been done with computers vs ship sizes. One suggestion that I heard was to use the computer size ABOVE the minimum required for a hull size as the combat modifier in HG (instead of just the computer model). So a ship needing a model 2 computer because of it's size installing a model 5 computer would get a +3 combat bonus (instead of +5). I thought that this was an elegant concept.


[edit: I forgot to answer the Why of your question. Bigger ships have more 'widgets' that need monitoring, so the ship needs a bigger computer for normal operations.]



i personally like the idea of using the "optional" size modification for making advanced computers as listed, but i do it automatically, as a built in feature of more advanced technology being used to make the less advanced computer cores. i also reverse the system for "prototype" computers- such as when a society discovers parallel processors but have used linear cores for decades.

linking the programs to the model number is a nice idea- i will have to steal it, but i disagree with the flat "more widgets, more complex computer" idea. an 8088 can monitor thousands of widgets, just not with as many bells and whistles or with the speed a new dual core could. If maybe it could be considered that all sorts of subsystems were included in the "computer" much as all the extras included under the definition "bridge" i could agree with that.... whachewtink? include the computer, plus backups (which i just figured out a nifty solution of sorts for - got the size difference between starship comps and computer design to actually mesh, still need to play with it though). add in life support controls (which will skew my solution above) and anything else which my tired brain wont allow me to think of....
ideas?
 
OTU miscalculation!

I ran into problems with minimum computer sizes when I went to build the C-Jammer. Trillion Credit Squadron gives very specific transport capacities of the original three Islands Cluster transports. My C-Jammer design comes out to 238,000 dtons - well above what TL 9 computers can support.

Rather than the required model/6 computer, I assumed the transports used multiple cooperating lesser models. The C-Jammer carries 24 model 3/fib computers to do the job of one model/6, and carries 12 model 3/fib as backup. In High Guard terms, it would have model/0 with respect to space combat; the massive network simply has too much raw data coming in to handle it all in real-time.

--Devin
 
I always just assumed 'computers' was secret code for 'computers,controls and electronic doo-hickeys'....not a box of cpu's and memory.

and as a gearhead, when I do mean it to be actual computers, I just use variant rules I found on the 'net years ago to make up the box of cpu's and memory...and even then, I don't sweat the numbers so long as it feels okay.
 
I ran into problems with minimum computer sizes when I went to build the C-Jammer. Trillion Credit Squadron gives very specific transport capacities of the original three Islands Cluster transports. My C-Jammer design comes out to 238,000 dtons - well above what TL 9 computers can support.

Wow, a broken 'official' starship ... what are the odds? ;)
Near 100%. :)
 
I always thought that the computer rules closely resembled the mainframes and minicomputers available at the time CT was first published. A significant amount of space and mass is required not only for the computer equipment itself, but also for any operator station, as well as the cooling plant and any equipment needed to make ship power suitable.

You're essentially installing a small data center onto the ship.
 
I always thought that the computer rules closely resembled the mainframes and minicomputers available at the time CT was first published. A significant amount of space and mass is required not only for the computer equipment itself, but also for any operator station, as well as the cooling plant and any equipment needed to make ship power suitable.

You're essentially installing a small data center onto the ship.

Yeah, which is why my hobbyhorse is the computer rules are broken, they were written before the microchip. I assume the actual computers that handle navigation and shipboard functions take up a trivial amount of the bridge tonnage and the "computer tonnage" actually refers to the sensor array. Using Book 5 computers mostly affect fire control and max jump, which are more reasonably sensor issues anyway.

That allows me to use canon construction rules, though it does skew my deckplans.
 
The Intel 4004 became commercially available in quantity in Q4 1971, at least according to Intel. This predates Traveler.

Minicomputers like the PDP11 and PDP8 were beginning to make use of VLSI memory, I/O, and logic components about the time that CT was published. In fact, it was the wide availability of TTL chips enabled the minicomputer revolution of the '70s and heralded the microcomputer revolution of the late '70s and early '80s.

The US Navy sets aside a considerable amount of tonnage on it's vessels for computer equipment.

If we're making analogues to current technology, the complexity of the microchips we can put into orbit is severely hampered by the amount of effort that goes into hardening it. Our smallest levels of miniaturization cannot be used, and much of the chip's surface area is consumed by error detection/correction and redundancy.

Making another comparison to modern technology, lets look at the amount of certification computer software and hardware goes through before it is allowed to control an aircraft carrying commercial freight or passengers by the FAA. Again, the most sophisticated technology is ahead of the hardware certified for this mission by 10-15 years. Imagine the headaches involved with getting something certified to fly with a planetary, or sub-sector sized government!

Yeah, which is why my hobbyhorse is the computer rules are broken, they were written before the microchip. I assume the actual computers that handle navigation and shipboard functions take up a trivial amount of the bridge tonnage and the "computer tonnage" actually refers to the sensor array. Using Book 5 computers mostly affect fire control and max jump, which are more reasonably sensor issues anyway.

That allows me to use canon construction rules, though it does skew my deckplans.

Uncle Bob

By your argument, since the introduction of electronically scanned radar, and ccd/solid state lasers (for lidar), that the sensors must be in small packages scattered about the hull, and therefore take up a fraction of the tonnage dedicated to that.

As GM, I would state that however fast the player states that many tons of computers may be, jump calculation, comms, fire control, and sensor data processing really take up the book stated fraction of processing power.

I would say that CT has some of the sanest, most reasonable computer rules of any RPG I've ever played, even compared to some of the cyberpunk ones where it is a focus.
 
Yeah, which is why my hobbyhorse is the computer rules are broken, they were written before the microchip.

wrong. microchips have existed since the late 1960's.

Intel's 4004 is 1971, and traveller is 1977, well after the first home computers... which were in 1974 or 75... the Apple 1 is 1976, and the Apple II in 1977...
 
What they said about microchips :) I usually figure the tonnage dispalced for the computers in starships goes to workstations, parts and software storage, work space (those techs have to do their work somewhere) and so on. In short everything related to the computer, not just the computer itself. That's how I lay it out in my deckplans as well.
 
Workstations is what the brdige is for.

Apple I and II, and the older home-brew computers were not well known outside of silicon valley in 1977. And it was not clear whaat the potential really was And IIRC the rules were written in 1973-76, published in 1977. By 1980 the geeks in our local group had already made the change I suggested above.

US Navy ships are designed to accomodate a lot of legacy hardware dating back to the 1960s.

Ship sensors are not all radar. They will also need wide aperature optical sensors, which takes mass and cost big bucks.
 
Oh, and before someone else suggests it, the "ships computer" does not run life support, regulate the engines, or do any housekeeping chores, because all these things go on quite nicely if the computer is destroyed. These functions are controlled by local processors, already part of the component tonnage.
 
Back
Top