Looking for Jump 6

[AnotherDilbert]

That design was specifically designed to min-max its capabilities in the context of a tournament scenario.

...

These are indications that the design is being presented in bad faith.

And that is, I suspect, the crux of the matter.

Engineering IS optimisation, or min-maxing. A jump drive, or current petrol engines, are the size and cost they are because generations of engineers have spent their lives optimising them

If you don't want to min-max you should really use randomly larger and more expensive starship components, but that is, I would argue, bad role-playing.


It is bad roleplaying to min-max characters (people), but you are certainly supposed to optimise engineering.


Would you buy a car with half the power and twice the fuel consumption of the rest of the market?

 

[whartung]

Would you buy a car with half the power and twice the fuel consumption of the rest of the market?

No, but it's highly unlikely you could actually buy such a (new) car as that. The market handles these problems for the consumer dynamically.

I mentioned this before, that the system has an entire suite (several in fact) of rules for designing starship, which players will implicitly min-max because they can, because they might think "it matters", but at the same time, we don't have a system for designing houses, or office buildings, or factory floors.

Because nobody cares about those. Who cares if your house is efficient or not. Who cares if your assembly line is efficiently laid out, or can readily be retooled. What compromises must be made between a efficient line and a flexible line (I have not idea)?

But, nobody cares in an RPG setting.

99.999% of the time, the ship is a House in space. We like to know how long it takes, and how much it costs, to go from Point A to Point B.

And that's about the extent of it.

Combat should be way down the list, as it's lethal and very, very expensive. Only the State can really afford combat. I don't even think Pirates can. And if the Pirate CAN afford combat, why the heck are they not just shoving that cash in to the market in a tax haven somewhere. And if that criminal enterprise is that profitable, to where combat costs are incidental, well, that smells of state sponsorship to me.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And that is, I suspect, the crux of the matter.

Engineering IS optimisation, or min-maxing. A jump drive, or current petrol engines, are the size and cost they are because generations of engineers have spent their lives optimising them

If you don't want to min-max you should really use randomly larger and more expensive starship components, but that is, I would argue, bad role-playing.


It is bad roleplaying to min-max characters (people), but you are certainly supposed to optimise engineering.


Would you buy a car with half the power and twice the fuel consumption of the rest of the market?

On the other hand, can you even buy a new car without seat belts, airbags, or anti-lock brakes?

Some engineering/cost optimizations are generally understood to be unacceptably risky.

 

[Condottiere]

As far as I know, all warships are compromises.

Even the Yamatos.

An interesting observation when reading one of Nuttall's novels, does however, compel me to overcompensate for life support, at least on the non budget starwarships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Would you buy a car with half the power and twice the fuel consumption of the rest of the market?

No, but it's highly unlikely you could actually buy such a (new) car as that. The market handles these problems for the consumer dynamically.

Yes, by putting the companies without thousands of engineers constantly optimising engines out of business.

There were plenty of engines available with what today would be considered subpar power, fuel consumption, and exhaust, but they have been replaced with better designs, since thousands of engineers have spent years optimising the technology.

On the other hand, can you even buy a new car without seat belts, airbags, or anti-lock brakes?

No, since those are legal requirements.

Without generations of engineers optimising design and production-ability they would be expensive or would not work after a few years. Again the companies without many engineers optimising every detail of a car would be out of business, so all car companies (or their suppliers) employs thousands of engineers constantly optimising their technology.


None of this is in any way an argument against optimisation, but for the necessity of constant optimisation.

 

[whartung]

Yes, by putting the companies without thousands of engineers constantly optimising engines out of business.

There were plenty of engines available with what today would be considered subpar power, fuel consumption, and exhaust, but they have been replaced with better designs, since thousands of engineers have spent years optimising the technology.

And during that era of design, cars were sold with those characteristics. Folks used what was available, rather than just waiting for better.

Surprisingly, there does not seem to have that much consolidation in the motor design industry, if anything it's been expanding a bit with the introduction of vendors from the emerging markets.

Sure, early on, everyone and their brother was doing this, but that's just natural market consolidation at work.

We have, what, at least 10 top tier consumer mass market motor engineering firms right now? Plus the ones in Korea, and, of course, China. And it's also just automobiles, there's also the motorcycles and such, and then, of course, electric.

That's actually a lot of companies.

And think what's going to happen to all of that work in the next 20 years as they all seemingly withdraw from the fossil fuel market.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And during that era of design, cars were sold with those characteristics. Folks used what was available, rather than just waiting for better.

Sure, people bought the best optimised products available at the time. And if the companies hadn't continued to optimise their products they would be gone by now.

And think what's going to happen to all of that work in the next 20 years as they all seemingly withdraw from the fossil fuel market.

Combustion engines are not going anywhere any time soon. It's only the more affluent markets in Northern and Western Europe, North America, and perhaps highly polluted giant cities in Asia that are pushing electric cars. The rest of the world will continue to use combustion engines (and coal power) as long as that is cheaper.

 

[Condottiere]

I recall a study made where the police planted cars to be stolen and tracked them to their eventual destination; a lot ended up in hands of African politicians and businessmen, so once you replace the gas guzzlers, it should somewhat alleviate that issue.

With the Chinese, they have a severe problem with pollution, that the Party knows could be, and probably is, politically explosive, combined with other contributing factors, but they desperately need power.

 

[whartung]

Combustion engines are not going anywhere any time soon. It's only the more affluent markets in Northern and Western Europe, North America, and perhaps highly polluted giant cities in Asia that are pushing electric cars. The rest of the world will continue to use combustion engines (and coal power) as long as that is cheaper.

But that doesn't mean that the industry will continue to invest in engineering in them.

Today, much of the engineering done in cars is to adapt to emission and efficiency mandates.

Not the market per se, but overarching regulations.

Consider the gazillion small motorcycles sold today in emerging markets.

These machines are using motors that are long standing and proven. With a market defined by consumer demand and price vs external factors (like regulation), the companies are not necessarily motivated to make these small engines better. Rather, they're motivated to make building those engines more efficient to lower costs.

In many fields, we have lots of technologies and products that are "good enough".

Motors are "efficient and powerful enough", computers are "fast enough", phones are "right sized" with "good enough storage and cameras". A washing machine is a washing machine.

Now it's all packaging, marketing, and streamlining production and delivery rather than innovation in the product space.

So, it's not clear how much actual engine development will continue in mature marketplaces.

 

[Grav_Moped]

No, since those are legal requirements.

Without generations of engineers optimising design and production-ability they would be expensive or would not work after a few years. Again the companies without many engineers optimising every detail of a car would be out of business, so all car companies (or their suppliers) employs thousands of engineers constantly optimising their technology.


None of this is in any way an argument against optimisation, but for the necessity of constant optimisation.

Some US-made pickup trucks had fuel tanks inside the cab as late as the 1970s, though most designs had already shifted the tanks to the space under the cargo bed during the previous decade.

There are a few -- quite plausible -- engineering and design reasons for doing it that way. It provides a little side-impact protection, simplifies matters for aftermarket flatbed or other conversions, and it looks tidy.

There's a very obvious reason they stopped.

Some optimizations present unacceptable risks, even though they might not be prohibited explicitly.

 

[whartung]

Some US-made pickup trucks had fuel tanks inside the cab as late as the 1970s, though most designs had already shifted the tanks to the space under the cargo bed during the previous decade.

Are those the ones that NBC news lit up with rocket motors to "prove" they were unsafe?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Are those the ones that NBC news lit up with rocket motors to "prove" they were unsafe?

Different issue. You're talking about tanks under the truck bed, but outside the frame rails. These were inside the cab, literally behind or under the seats.

In this image, the back of a folded-forward bench seat is on the left and the rear wall of the cab is on the right. The fuel level sender is visible at the top center of the tank. The red at the far-right of the image is the doorframe. (There's an extraneous fanbelt on top of the tank.)

Aside from what might happen in a crash, keep in mind that the 12V outlet in cars was originally meant for a cigarette lighter, and ashtrays were standard. And car interiors get rather warm from sunlight. Now imagine what happens when the gasket for the fuel level sender deteriorates with age.

And keep in mind that gas stations have "no smoking" signs because it's possible some people actually need to be reminded not to...


Yes, gasoline vapor isn't quite that easy to ignite. I'm not going to test it from inside the truck, though!