Errata - that difficult subject

[AnotherDilbert]

Curses. Leaves a bit of a headache between 0.05 CP and 0.5 CP. If for example you need 0.07 CP, you're adding 100 to 400 liters to something. I'm not sure what it is about control panel design that would set a bottom line of 100 to 400 liters.

For e.g. a car a minimum of 0.4 kl is probably quite reasonable, but not for a motorcycle.

If we look at p65, we find that M-drive units are explicitly used in fractional amounts.

I would not be upset if some vehicles used a fraction of a control panel, for a good reason (but not add-ons).

 

[Carlobrand]

...
I would break this down to something like:
If its control point (CP) needs are very low, a craft can get by without a computer.
Obviously? (Except by p60.)

The “linked” control panel units have a limited amount of computer intelligence built into them.
Fluff? This MIGHT be connected to the previous sentence?
...

Yeah, that's where I get stuck too. It MIGHT be related to the previous sentence - and intended to modify step 4, even if it's out of place - or it might be fluff. If the sentences that follow it were intended to clarify that, they didn't. I'd like to be able to use one or two linked panels without a computer since it does bridge the gap a bit better, and of course I can if I'm doing a house-rule thing, but since the project is a ship designer that others might use, I'm loathe to go putting my own uncorroborated ideas into it. It just doesn't make sense they'd entirely do away with the link-needs-computer bit - which these few sentences seem to do - without being very explicit about it. A few confusing sentences in an erratum about another step aren't really an explicit rule change. I think I'm inclined to just write them off as confusing fluff. Ah well.

For e.g. a car a minimum of 0.4 kl is probably quite reasonable, but not for a motorcycle.

If we look at p65, we find that M-drive units are explicitly used in fractional amounts.

I would not be upset if some vehicles used a fraction of a control panel, for a good reason (but not add-ons).

I agree about the add-ons.

 

[Carlobrand]

Except ... belated thought, sorry ... Errata adds data on the ARC, the basic drop drop capsule that also serves as the base structure of the EARC. Those capsules are controlled by a hand computer: "Guidance is by on-board inertial navigation with a hand computer providing guidance and control." The hand computer, per the Imperial Encyclopedia, "Provides services of a supercomputer (equivalent to Model/1 in computing power)..." It's TL11, 0.2 liters, mass 0.5 kg, costs Cr1000.

There's no reason to link a hand computer to a non-linked panel, and a TL7 electronic control panel would have been capable enough to be described as having a simple autopilot that could detect range to ground and decelerate accordingly without a need for a TL11 addition. I suspect whoever designed it put that in a) because rule of cool, and b) because it reduced weight and volume consumed. It's an isolated example, and an odd one: a player could use that example to run his Free Trader off of his hand computer.

This isn't an unlikely scenario, looking at the high-end computers. I would have called that hand computer TL13 at least, or maybe made it a TL12 hand computer equivalent in power to a Model/0; that would have made it available to applications like that ARC without creating problems elsewhere (like creating a tool your gamemaster can give to potential hijackers to give you ulcers). Still, those high-tech computers are quite breathtaking.

Just talking at this point. The high tech panels are kind of pointless - the TL9 panel provides the best ratio of volume to performance because of the way they did that incremental increase in CPs provided. Based on the performance of those high-tech computers, and extrapolating from the little hand computer, I'd permit a limited number of panels to be used without a computer:

TL #panels
8 1
9 2
10 10
13 100

At the low end, that provides a transitional phase for smaller vehicles before you need to bring in a Model/0 (or two). At the higher end - well, that's partly because it gives you a reason to use higher tech panels (you could declare that only the TL10 and TL13 panels will allow you to continue to use maneuver and weapons, as described in the combat rules, when the computer is destroyed, discouraging players from using the cheaper equipment) and partly just because the TL13 computer is so much more powerful than its TL8-9 counterparts, and it's likely the TL13 panel is similarly more powerful than its TL8-9 counterpart, though no doubt some of that is consumed providing the holographic interface.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Except ... belated thought, sorry ... Errata adds data on the ARC, the basic drop drop capsule that also serves as the base structure of the EARC. Those capsules are controlled by a hand computer: "Guidance is by on-board inertial navigation with a hand computer providing guidance and control." The hand computer, per the Imperial Encyclopedia, "Provides services of a supercomputer (equivalent to Model/1 in computing power)..." It's TL11, 0.2 liters, mass 0.5 kg, costs Cr1000.

Agreed, and this neatly solves your problem at higher TLs. If the Hand Computer is equivalent of a m/1 it can reasonably be used as a m/1 to control linked control panels, as shown by the ARC. At 0.0002 kl it is trivially small.

 

[Carlobrand]

Agreed, and this neatly solves your problem at higher TLs. If the Hand Computer is equivalent of a m/1 it can reasonably be used as a m/1 to control linked control panels, as shown by the ARC. At 0.0002 kl it is trivially small.

I still think that little puppy should be TL13. It's pretty potent tech for something that's not much bigger than a Kindle, and the TL11 mainframe's only about 5 or 6 times more powerful than a Model/1. But, yeah, the super-Kindle would cover 12 kiloliters with a lot of capacity to spare.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I still think that little puppy should be TL13. It's pretty potent tech for something that's not much bigger than a Kindle, and the TL11 mainframe's only about 5 or 6 times more powerful than a Model/1.

I don't think TL11 is especially unreasonable. A modern smartphone has far more processing power than an early Cray, and far more and faster storage.

So a late TL7 handcomp is more than the equivalent of an early TL7 ~1 Dt supercomputer.

 

[Carlobrand]

I don't think TL11 is especially unreasonable. A modern smartphone has far more processing power than an early Cray, and far more and faster storage.

So a late TL7 handcomp is more than the equivalent of an early TL7 ~1 Dt supercomputer.

Fair point. Late TL11 goodies might be using techniques that end up showing up in the TL12 mainframes.

 

[Carlobrand]

Open-topped

Playing around with the air/raft design, ran into an unexpected puzzle. Per MT Referee Manual craft design Step 11, "Open Vehicle": "For open-topped, choose an open-top percentage between 5 percent and 20 percent. Reduce chassis weight and price by the selected percentage."

Rough translation: 5 to 20 percent of the hull goes away. Presumably this 5 to 20 percent is the top of the vehicle. By extension, the bottom's 20%, and the front, sides, and back are the remaining 60%. Vastly oversimplified but they were doing this without setting actual dimensions; one could always decide on dimensions corresponding to the volume and then figure out what percentage really is the top and what part of that they want to remove, if they want to go to the trouble. This is the MT equivalent to the Striker business of removing the deck armor to make an open-topped vehicle, with more control over how much is removed.

The problem is, this variable percentage doesn't actually say anything useful. It's open-topped ergo you can't have cupolas or turrets, and you can't have life support, and the occupants and cargo are most likely exposed to the elements. To what extent? Truck cab open top, with the passengers enclosed but the payload exposed? Or fishing boat open-topped, with everybody and everything on the deck exposed? Doesn't seem to matter - none of it gets cupolas or life support.

You're left to your own judgment, but the designs are variable enough to make that tricky. You go with 20%, but your design is mostly engines and fuel tanks and such, which technically means all the machinery is exposed.
A Chevy convertible's maybe 10% open as these rules go, with the engine and luggage compartments covered. A Ford Pickup is likewise around 10%, with the engine compartment and cab covered but the bed exposed.

What I'm thinking is that to determine what percentage to use, I'm going to need to figure out what I want exposed and what percentage of the total volume that is, then divide that by 5 to get the 5 to 20% value they mention. Works, but then you should be able to have life support for the enclosed portion - as you might with a truck-like vehicle or a vehicle with an enclosed driver compartment but an open passenger compartment (like some cabin boats). Rules stipulate no life support if the vehicle is enclosed. That would need to change to no life support in the portion of the vehicle that is not enclosed.

Or, would it be better to think of a pickup as a fully covered vehicle in which cargo is strapped to the top, aft of the passenger section? Eliminates concerns about cargo volume, at least with respect to the vehicle itself. Loaded volume would vary quite a bit.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Playing around with the air/raft design, ran into an unexpected puzzle. Per MT Referee Manual craft design Step 11, "Open Vehicle": "For open-topped, choose an open-top percentage between 5 percent and 20 percent. Reduce chassis weight and price by the selected percentage."

Presumably a fully open-topped vehicle is 20%, a pickup perhaps 15% or 10% with a crew cab? I would assume it's the payload that is open, not the machinery.

I agree it is not well-defined, but up to the Referee.

I would hesitate to try to make complete rules about this since they would tend be very complex.

 

[whartung]

5% is a sunroof.

 

[Carlobrand]

...I would hesitate to try to make complete rules about this since they would tend be very complex.

It's more a case of trying to come up with something that can be turned into an equation for the design spreadsheet, so I can handle it by just making some selections and letting the spreadsheet do the calculations. I wouldn't want to add that level of complication to an already complicated design system unless I had technology shouldering the load.

The current set-up doesn't give me any reason to select less than 20%, since the same disadvantages are felt regardless of the percentage left open and selecting the maximum reduces weight and cost. This way I can click a few options and have pressure for the driver while having the cargo bed open so I can take more cargo volume.

 

[Hyphen]

Crudest model of a vehicle is a rectangular box, with the front and back being one square unit each (1 x 1, each), the sides being 2 square units each (2 x 1, each side) and top and bottom also being 2 square units each (2 x 1, each).

This gives 1 + 1 + (2 x 8) = 10 squares. Take away the top two and you get a 20% reduction in surface area, aka an air/raft.

This means that an air/pickup truck will probably only have a 10% reduction - the back deck, leaving the cab area covered.

Does that help the visualisation?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's more a case of trying to come up with something that can be turned into an equation for the design spreadsheet, so I can handle it by just making some selections and letting the spreadsheet do the calculations.

OK, I would do something like this:

Fully Open (Willy's Jeep) : 20%

Pickup : 20% × Cargo / (Cargo + People) × 90%

Cabriolet : 20% × People / (Cargo + People) × 90%

Fully Enclosed : 0%

Where Cargo is space for cargo and People is space for people.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Petty erratum:

RM, p63:
Armor Table

AV _40 should be Mod __33.6
AV 105 should be Mod 9390

(The formula is 5 × 2^(AV-18)/8 (for AV≥14), rounded to three significant numbers.)

 

[Madmax]

Rules Question

I don't know where else to put this question, so it goes here.

In DGPs "Starship Operators Manual" pg. 60 there is a box in the bottom right corner titled "2 Implementing a warning light event".
The last sentence in the box is "Once the warning light event has occurred, define a fateful task that must be performed in order to keep"

In order to keep what?

My guess would be "in order to keep attempting the original task", but there are certainly other possibilities.

I might also guess that this has been answered before somewhere, but I have not been able to find it anywhere, nor do I especially know where to look.
Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!!!!

As a follow up I would also would like to know what, if anything, is supposed to happen if the task created for the warning light is failed, especially if it is a Catastrophic failure.

 

[jcrocker]

It's right under the point labelled '1. cross checks' so I'd go with something along the lines of "...keep the system from experiencing a mishap."

Exact events should depend on what system got the warning light/mishap, and how bad the mishap is. Life support? Air could get stale soon. Astrogation? Ship takes longer to get to the destination. Main power? Ships goes dark, hope you aren't skimming fuel.

 

[aramis]

[quote="MT Imperial Encyclopedia, p. 92, left column]System Crosschecks
crosschecks should be performed on all
asterisked tasks. To do so, declare the
task cautious. Otherwise, the task attempt
becomes uncertain, with a warning light
event to occur at a later time if Some
Truth is a result of the task. The warning
light situation produces a fateful task to
avoid the problem becoming more serious.[/quote]

This is the full text that was not properly boilerplated in...

 

[Madmax]

This is the full text that was not properly boilerplated in...

Oh, yes. I totally forgot that the Imperial Encyclopedia covered this as well!
Thanks very much.

 

[kaladorn]

Except ... belated thought, sorry ... Errata adds data on the ARC, the basic drop drop capsule that also serves as the base structure of the EARC. Those capsules are controlled by a hand computer: "Guidance is by on-board inertial navigation with a hand computer providing guidance and control." The hand computer, per the Imperial Encyclopedia, "Provides services of a supercomputer (equivalent to Model/1 in computing power)..." It's TL11, 0.2 liters, mass 0.5 kg, costs Cr1000.

When I was in college around 1991, one of the projects someone did was a hand-held autohelm program for a sailboat (under motor). That was the early 90s with limited computer power and yet it could easily steer the boat on its own or you could manually control things for docking. Call that TL 8.

I have little trouble imagining guiding a small pod or even a ship by TL-11.

That same autohelm, done now at TL-9, would be vastly more capable and could integrate a much larger range of functions. And the compute power behind it would be way more (as would memory) and would be far cheaper.

If we posit TL-11 somewhere at 2075 to 2125.... well, I expect we'll be headed for the singularity if we haven't reverted to TL-4 with crossbows and goalie masks....

I realize Traveller's ability to predict the advancement of computing systems and AI could not be prescient.

 

[kaladorn]

Following up on Don's Work

Having found some issues with at the battlestation design on pg 93 of COACC that isn't covered in the last release I have of Don's work, I've realized someone has to try to continue the errata collection.

I have several choices: Extend Don's document (the most sensible, but maybe someone can come up with reasonable reasons why this isn't proper or appropriate) or create an addenda document with any errata beyond Don's last release.

Does anyone have any suggestion of the appropriate approach to take?

Also, if you think creating errata documents requires either permission or approval from any of the powers that be, to whom should I speak? I believe Marc holds the rights to maybe everything but the DGP stuff (unless that has ever changed since I last looked) so it would seem to me he'd be the one to talk to (and he and I have talked once or twice over Linked In anyway).

Do I need that sort of imprimatur of legitimacy? Does anyone with authority need to review all errata?

I would like Don's work to be a living product (for those of us who still love the mess that MT was and is).

-kaladorn (TomB)