embracing retro 'puters

[Grav_Moped]

Still, you only have to bother with it if you're simulating a body that is sufficiently massive to perturb the orbits of the other bodies you need to simulate. In comparison to the mass of stars or planets your 200 ton free trader is inconsequential to the point that the perturbation it causes is within the measurement error of your instruments.

My concept here (and I concede it's just lampshade-hanging) is that there's something about Jumpspace that makes some objects more gravitationally significant there -- particularly at J-2 and up -- than they are in normal space. Also note that in the LBB5 Jump TL retcon, J-2 is two TLs above J-1, implying that J-2 is significantly more difficult than J-1.

 

[kilemall]

Actually, you can use LINPACK on both. Most numerical computing libraries (including those behind systems such as MATLAB, R or Numpy) use LINPACK, LAPACK or a BLAS compatible backend these days.

That state of the art big data platform you're using - yep, that's FORTRAN in the back end. Now get off my lawn.

Dad did Fortran in the 60s, I never did.


And your point that the phone may be able to execute Cray programs doesn't eliminate my point that the programming dev and overall skill/hours that went into Cray work is not done for far more capable physical platforms but instead are crutches for rapid development work that consumes the performance that should be there if the same level of effort and optimization was done today.



Oh, and-


Real men use Assembler.

 

[Straybow]

F111s had fly by wire controls well before the F16 - and were famous for crashes caused by a bug in the software. IIRC the F16's claim to fame is that the airframe is not naturally stable in flight (which gives it agility) so it needs active control to remain flying.

The computer running the F111's fly by wire system had 4k of memory.

The only thing I find about it is a single F-111E modified by NASA to test fly by wire engine controls before the F-16 was flown. NASA also had a single F-8 modified as a digital flight control testbed. Concorde is the first production aircraft with analog fly by wire flight controls.


Modern controls have more code and memory for display than for the actual control logic, which is highly optimized for speed..

 

[Straybow]

So if one wanted to use more modern knowledge on computers/computing when designing a ship, how would you represent it? That they take up no tonnage or space or what?

As for jump casettes, are they like these types of magnetic data storage devices?

Design of bridge, gunnery, and such would be based on workstations for the crew, at a minimum 5 per dT. I would work on the assumption that the computer hardware space is included in the workstation space. Jump cassettes would just be data packs representing vectors for all known bodies large enough to be a problem. Once you've loaded it into your ship, you'd never need it again except as backup.

 

[kilemall]

Design of bridge, gunnery, and such would be based on workstations for the crew, at a minimum 5 per dT. I would work on the assumption that the computer hardware space is included in the workstation space. Jump cassettes would just be data packs representing vectors for all known bodies large enough to be a problem. Once you've loaded it into your ship, you'd never need it again except as backup.

Hmm, not the way I read the economic game implicit in the game mechanic.


There were subtle things hidden in the interaction between CT starship operations, trading, and software costs.


Jump cassettes were to get you to the next system and ultimately incur a higher cost, until you could pool together enough money to get the Navigation program.



So you would crawl and scrape to get that first program advantage and be able to jump to other destinations then just trade lanes, get that first single turret with a cheap pulse laser to start getting mail contracts, sink millions more in or risk the individual development route to get more capability, etc.



And I don't think self-erasing media is hardly retro at all- much like movies we download for a few days' rental, but rights to access it are gone at the end. The kind of software companies that can make million credit program fees stick aren't going to give away the milk. No incentive to buy programs if you can just plug in cheap cassettes and run off that forever after.


Have to think less like an engineer and more like a cost sink/goal game mechanic.

 

[whartung]

One of my favorite anecdotes was from a special on Voyager.

Couple things of note.

One, that the "technology" for Voyager was set in 1972. That gave them 5 years to work everything out before launch.

Anyone who has worked with the Government, with military hardware knows that there is a quite a bit of "old" tech out there in the wild today. This stuff was old in the early 80's when I worked with it. Ancient hardware specified in 10-20 year old contracts. If you're used to the modern fast moving computing era, DoD stuff can come as a bit of a shocker.

Anyway, the nice anecdote from the TV special.

The guy basically said "You have more computing power in your pocket than what is carried on Voyager".

And by that, he was not referring to your handheld. Rather, he was referring to the your car key/fob.

 

[Timerover51]

A comment on "old" government computers. The government purchasing cycle in the US runs something like this.

Year One: Someone decides that a new computer is needed, and writes up the specifications for the replacement.

Year Two: The individual convinces his superiors that this is a good idea and gets them to approve it.

Year Three: Superiors work on getting the new computer purchase into the budgeting process.

Year Four: Still working on getting budget approval. The budgeting people demand ironclad proof that the replacement is needed and will do a better job.

Year Five: In the budget and then goes to Legislature for approval. The legislators have to be convinced this is a good thing.

Year Six: Legislature approves purchase. Equipment is no longer available, and whatever comes closest to meeting the specifications is requested to be purchased as acceptable substitute.

Year Seven: Equipment is finally purchased.

Note, the above does assume that you are not talking about replacing a large number of computers as once. If that is the case, then prepare for a long wait.

 

[Straybow]

There were subtle things hidden in the interaction between CT starship operations, trading, and software costs.

Jump cassettes were to get you to the next system and ultimately incur a higher cost, until you could pool together enough money to get the Navigation program.

Subtle like a brick dropped on your toe. The cargo/passenger/ops-cost system already doesn't work, and the computer/software size and pricing is more of the same.

And I don't think self-erasing media is hardly retro at all- much like movies we download for a few days' rental, but rights to access it are gone at the end. The kind of software companies that can make million credit program fees stick aren't going to give away the milk. No incentive to buy programs if you can just plug in cheap cassettes and run off that forever after.

Have to think less like an engineer and more like a cost sink/goal game mechanic.

Not thinking like an engineer here. Thinking like a business. If somebody is selling single use jump cassettes and I can sell data packs and a bit of code to integrate it into the jump controller for the same price, I have a guaranteed market. Think of all the schlubs out there who feel extorted by the jump cassette racket who will beat a path to my retail website. Include encryption in the software and data packs so that your customers can't resell it but have unlimited use for themselves.


The engineer would write a program to download the public data on major body orbits and system plane orientation and use it to automatically plot jumps with a suitable menu and prompt interface. The ship's navigator can then manually enter the jump plot into the nav computer. It may take the guy an hour or two, but that's his job.

 

[kilemall]

Subtle like a brick dropped on your toe. The cargo/passenger/ops-cost system already doesn't work, and the computer/software size and pricing is more of the same.


Not thinking like an engineer here. Thinking like a business. If somebody is selling single use jump cassettes and I can sell data packs and a bit of code to integrate it into the jump controller for the same price, I have a guaranteed market. Think of all the schlubs out there who feel extorted by the jump cassette racket who will beat a path to my retail website. Include encryption in the software and data packs so that your customers can't resell it but have unlimited use for themselves.


The engineer would write a program to download the public data on major body orbits and system plane orientation and use it to automatically plot jumps with a suitable menu and prompt interface. The ship's navigator can then manually enter the jump plot into the nav computer. It may take the guy an hour or two, but that's his job.

Ok, you're going to have to convince me it 'doesn't work'.



From a sim perspective on how one might imagine interstellar trade goes, an arguable proposition.


But the design is not intended to be a sim, it's a game, with a progression built into the interaction of equipment, computers, trade, and economics to generate motivations for different actions, win big at commerce and pay costs to repair expensive damage.


The problem I think is most people did not like one aspect or another of the system, pulled the offending part out or ignored it, and stripped the gears of the interrelated parts.


Used together as an adventure gen/prod, it DOES work, IMO.




For instance, if someone tried to pull your business plan of data packs and undercutting the jump tape trade, those megacorps that are used to 1000 years of guaranteed profit out of underfinanced free traders are NOT going to go quietly into the night. It's a megacorps coming for you, and in a system of Rule of Men Not Law if you are in spitting distance of the 3I. It Won't Go Well For You.


Think Microsoft with a Special Ops team and mercs on tap.

 

[aramis]

CT core trade & commerce is, fundamentally, perfectly fine as written if...
... one goes where the cargo's mods dictate and...
... one keeps the hold about 75% full
... one takes the word "Trader" to mean a character, not a ship.

It even works for J2.

The thing is, that third caveat is hotly debated. Having 2-3 PC's looking for cargoes makes a big difference; it's sometimes better to pay the split on the less valuable lot and run full.

Oh, and HP are a loss. You only want MP. DO NOT HIRE STEWARDS! (If you have stewards, the HP coupon holders can demand to bump a mid.)

After costs, Low Passage berths are about equal to cargo. Not worth it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Oh, and HP are a loss. You only want MP. DO NOT HIRE STEWARDS! (If you have stewards, the HP coupon holders can demand to bump a mid.)

After costs, Low Passage berths are about equal to cargo. Not worth it.

I would disagree.

Take a simple J-1 400 Dt ship:

Income potential (with freight) kCr 89 per jump.

Add 10 low berths:

Income potential increases slightly to kCr 92 per jump.

Add 8 Mid passages:

Again income potential increases slightly to kCr 97 per jump.

Instead add 7 High passages (the same number of staterooms):

Income potential increases to kCr 102 per jump. High passage is more profitable than mid passage, if we can fill the staterooms.


The key is to fill the ship. Adding a steward allows us two rolls, both for high and mid passages, increasing the chances of filling the staterooms.

The same goes for low passages, adding a few berths allows us another roll for paying customers, making it easier to find revenue. Cargo is generally allocated in blocks of 5 Dt, having a few extra Dt of cargo hold is generally wasted, better fill it with a few low berths, increasing the chances of filling that few last Dtons.


Of course, compared to speculative cargo, passengers might just be a low-yielding nuisance.

 

[BRJN]

Of course, compared to speculative cargo, passengers might just be a low-yielding nuisance.

If you use Merchant Prince freight rules and have (a) a crew member with Broker skill and (b) two mutually-compatible worlds (such as In and Ri) close to each other, then passengers of any sort are a low-yield high-maintenance nuisance.

However if the goal is to have adventures rather than earn money, then the passengers are a necessary prerequisite; they provide Patrons and Rumors beyond what the crew can locate on their own.

When I ran the character inferred by my sig through a 5-year span of trade runs, the Firm's fortune was made when he rolled Gems on the Speculative Trade Table. He bought low, sold high, and nearly paid-off-in-full the ship's mortgage with the proceeds.

 

[kilemall]

CT core trade & commerce is, fundamentally, perfectly fine as written if...
... one goes where the cargo's mods dictate and...
... one keeps the hold about 75% full
... one takes the word "Trader" to mean a character, not a ship.

It even works for J2.

The thing is, that third caveat is hotly debated. Having 2-3 PC's looking for cargoes makes a big difference; it's sometimes better to pay the split on the less valuable lot and run full.

Oh, and HP are a loss. You only want MP. DO NOT HIRE STEWARDS! (If you have stewards, the HP coupon holders can demand to bump a mid.)

After costs, Low Passage berths are about equal to cargo. Not worth it.

Hmm, I can show that even factoring in financing and crewing costs for running light, passenger traffic pays on a per ton basis, and can be reasoanbly profitable sticking to pop 5 and higher routes.

The point about how HP ticket holders can bump MP is a bad thing eludes me, you WANT more HP to defray the cost of the Steward.


The one really solid point is that there is an opportunity cost to paying for Steward salary plus life support plus lost revenue vs. selling another MidPassage for that stateroom. My numbers show that you have to get 6 HP passengers before you even start turning a profit vs. just going MP.


However, that assumes that the HP passenger rolls will pay MP rather then not travel, as planets short of pop 8 are a bit dicey filling out even the Free Trader's 6 HP/7 MP berths.


I always assumed that if you aren't providing HP amenities, the HP passengers won't show, and so Stewards were necessary to make sure you never run empty staterooms at low pop planets. Like everything else in the Trade/Ship game, you are on thin margins until you gamble big or go home on adventure missions/doing crime/trade speculation/juicy charter.

Other people can rule that the HPs are desperate and will go on MP fare, in which case yes the MP-only way is better. I think the marginal maybe making money/maybe not design ethos argues for my interpretation, but YUMV.

Personally I think the way to think of passengers is paying rent for carrying capability you will use when using mercs/crew to do a big ticket action.




The other thing to keep in mind is most passenger ship plans put that Steward stateroom with the crew- if you do go MP only and fill out that stateroom it could be a security risk. That suggests that a more economically flexible standard would be to put the Steward stateroom in the passenger section, for 'better service'. Some ships might be set up for MP only, others a more 'traditional' arrangement.

One thing that is clear from looking over all this anew- the CT Type A has too many low berths, unless you are keeping them for 'special operations' or as a safety net for the whole crew too.

I think there is a solid case for getting rid of 12 of the 20 low berths, for whatever they can fetch (Cr300000 for 50% on up), and using the 6 tons for cargo, another stateroom possibly- or using mock low berths as a smuggling ploy.

 

[mike wightman]

Are people taking into account that each HP also costs you 1t of cargo space?

Or do people just assume the 100kg baggage allowance of the MP and the 1000kg HP baggage allowance are ignored?

I have always ruled that each HP requires 1 ton of cargo offset, and every ten MP require 1 ton of cargo also set aside (carry 1-10 MP and you lose 1t of cargo capacity, 11-20 MP and lose 2t etc.).

 

[kilemall]

Are people taking into account that each HP also costs you 1t of cargo space?

Or do people just assume the 100kg baggage allowance of the MP and the 1000kg baggage allowance are ignored?

I have always rules that each HP requires 1 ton of cargo offset, and every ten MP require 1 ton of cargo also set aside (carry 1-10 MP and you lose 1t of cargo capacity, 11-20 MP and lose 2t etc.).

Oh ya, HP is definitely an opportunity cost money loser in almost all scenarios with that- have to run the full 8 HP per Steward I think to make money and that's dicey. Again, doing HP to fill staterooms to defray financed costs so you have them for the Big Score.



Of course, one of the things you have to consider is how often you actually fill that hold. It's not lost opportunity if it's empty anyway. In some cases though I can see carrying speculative cargo for several jumps until I get a better price, in which case the opportunity cost is more.



With a paid off/bought finance free ship, the numbers get better.



If there is a ship application that cries for robots, Steward is the one. Well, and going in and scramming the leaky reactor.

 

[aramis]

I would disagree.

Take a simple J-1 400 Dt ship:
Income potential increases to kCr 102 per jump. High passage is more profitable than mid passage, if we can fill the staterooms.


The key is to fill the ship. Adding a steward allows us two rolls, both for high and mid passages, increasing the chances of filling the staterooms.

The same goes for low passages, adding a few berths allows us another roll for paying customers, making it easier to find revenue. Cargo is generally allocated in blocks of 5 Dt, having a few extra Dt of cargo hold is generally wasted, better fill it with a few low berths, increasing the chances of filling that few last Dtons.


Of course, compared to speculative cargo, passengers might just be a low-yielding nuisance.

You're overlooking the Cr2500 per jump for the steward, plus the lost stateroom (at KCr8 per jump). that's KCr10.5 per jump lost, and the canon sub-1KTd ships don't carry more than 8 passenger SR. Which means to be worth it, you MUST fill 6 HP. And that's before adding the 1/8 SR maintenance and 1/8 SR increase in monthly payment. And if you carry a load of mids because no highs were available, you've just lost that KCr10.5 for no gain.

A mid berth at best rate costs you 1000 (LS) + 2083⅓ (MP) + 41⅙ (Maint) +4000 (cargo space lost to SR) = Cr7124.5, and makes Cr8000, for Cr885.5

A high costs, at best rate, the same Cr7124.5 for the passenger, plus 1/8 the sum of the same again for the steward plus his Cr1500/jump salary, for 8624.5/8, totalling Cr8202.5 for a perfect 8. (Keeping in mind, you'll almost never fill 6+ consistently except going to/from Pop 8+ worlds.
Pop 6-7 world generates an average of 3d-2d, +3 if target is pop 8+; this averages 3.5 HP unless destination is Pop 8+, when it averages 6.5.

running the numbers for pop 6-7 to Pop 8+

	67→67	67→89A	89→67	89→89A	A→67	A→89A
0	1722	457	210	6	0	0
1	651	305	210	24	0	0
2	735	420	336	60	0	0
3	780	540	480	120	36	0
4	780	651	624	210	108	0
5	735	735	750	336	216	0
6	651	780	840	480	360	36
7	540	780	876	624	540	108
8	420	735	840	750	756	216
9	305	651	750	840	900	360
10	205	540	624	876	972	540
11	126	420	480	840	972	756
12	70	305	336	750	900	900
13	35	205	210	624	756	972
14	15	126	120	480	540	972
15	5	70	60	336	360	900
16	1	35	24	210	216	756
17	0	15	6	120	108	540
18	0	5	0	60	36	360
19	0	1	0	24	0	216
20	0	0	0	6	0	108
21	0	0	0	0	0	36
22	0	0	0	0	0	0

[tc=7]All shown out of 7776 (for ease of comparison)[/tc]

Pops 67 to Pops 567 is 4668/7776 runs worse than breakeven... about 60%. (If you look at the table above, the discrepancy is the +1 for the steward's skill)

Pops 67 to pop 89A is 2373/7776, around 30.5% are below breakeven.

You're better off with the MP unless you have 7-9 berths for passengers and a stable run between pop 67→89A→67... but then you still need to limit to 8 HP until you have 12+. And so on. Spec cargo is a better bet per ton.

Admin hat on:
[m;]Also, please don't inline off-site images - they tend to disappear over time. Especially when important to your arguments.[/m;] The site has table markup for a reason (and I had to hack it in). Use E1=concat("[tr][td]",A1,"[/td][td]",b1,"[/td][td]",c1,"[/td][/tr]") to turn your spreadsheet entries into markup row by row. Then copy and paste that column inside [table] [/table] Tags. The other big reason for not posting images of tables - several regular posters are visually impaired, and a good number of lurkers. Tables in table format are readable by screen readers; tables as images are not.

 

[aramis]

Are people taking into account that each HP also costs you 1t of cargo space?

Or do people just assume the 100kg baggage allowance of the MP and the 1000kg HP baggage allowance are ignored?

I have always ruled that each HP requires 1 ton of cargo offset, and every ten MP require 1 ton of cargo also set aside (carry 1-10 MP and you lose 1t of cargo capacity, 11-20 MP and lose 2t etc.).

I forgot to add that to the cost of the HP. Which pushes it up to 9202.5 for perfect 8. Makes Cr797.5 profit.
At 7 HP, Cr9356.57. Cr643 profit.
For 6, it's Cr8124.5 for the passenger, plus (Cr1500+Cr7124.5)/6=Cr1437.42 = 9561.92. Still in the black, but less than a MP.
At 5, you're losing even more vs the MP.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Are people taking into account that each HP also costs you 1t of cargo space?

Or do people just assume the 100kg baggage allowance of the MP and the 1000kg HP baggage allowance are ignored?

I have always assumed a HP baggage allowance is 1 ton = 1000 kg.

So for a small ship you need a Dton or so for the baggage in total.

 

[Timerover51]

I am a bit confused. How did this go from a discussion of computers to a discussion of trade economics? Did I miss something?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You're overlooking the Cr2500 per jump for the steward, plus the lost stateroom (at KCr8 per jump).

No, salaries, life support, capital cost, maintenance, and increased crew space are clearly included in my examples.

running the numbers for pop 6-7 to Pop 8+

Sorry, I don't understand your table.

Spec cargo is a better bet per ton.

Agreed.

Admin hat on:
[m;]Also, please don't inline off-site images - they tend to disappear over time. Especially when important to your arguments.[/m;]

Sorry, I will do better.