MgT2 and T5 computers

[AnotherDilbert]

The problem is, as I see it, much the same as older science fiction and contemporary reality. Younger generations of players (or readers) are going to have a hard time with the suspension of disbelief if we have 5 tons dedicated to a ship's computer when they grew up on smart phones and pads.

So show them a "real" computer. Smartphones are in general just a terminal displaying information produced or stored in vast computer centres.

Every time you use a web browser, Youtube, Netflix, social media, messaging apps, navigation, voice recognition, digital assistant, Spotify, or even a simple phone call, you use a "real" computer with the smartphone as a mere terminal.


"Real" computer (Google):

Yes, the entire building is a "computer" or data centre with parts of the power supply in the foreground.


Slightly less dumb terminals:

Your svelte smartphone wouldn't do anything much without being connected to a "real" computer, including phone calls.

To test it you can put your phone into airplane mode. It's still a computer and can do a lot of things, but most of the things you use it for every day will no longer work.

 

[Condottiere]

Well, I'm not a computer scientist, but I'm guessing it's a question of storage capacity, and the ability to crunch numbers at speed, so if the astrogation and jump control programmes are below a terabyte in size, and faster than either punch cards or magnetic tape, I'd speculate an iPhone would blow out of the water either a technological level five and/or seven mainframe.

Or supercomputer.

 

[rzg6f]

I had a problem working on the computer room floor and looking at the machines I was running in 1982 with the computer rules. I was already 'fixing' the rules then.



OTOH I don't have a problem with the large dtons and power usage. Doubly so using the pure CT rules with how many hits they can soak up compared to the actual drives and power plants and weapons. They can take hits that would eliminate your entire engineering bay.


Explain they are the full electronics of the ship AND sensors, that should cover any qualms younger players have with it.

With the old deck plans, the avionics section pretty much covers sensors, etc. But what I've said in the past is that, even though Han Solo can calculate it within a couple of minutes, calculating astro navigation and jump space is, well, astronomical. With all the things that can go wrong, you need that much space for that much computing power, like SETI using volunteer PCs the world over to compute data.

But as things get smaller and faster, and considering how long the technology has to develop until we're in the "Far Future," that justification gets met with more and more scepticism until I just have to say...

Hey, this is Classic Traveller from the late 70s - it's Old Skool - just go with it and have fun!

 

[robject]

Well, I'm not a computer scientist, but I'm guessing it's a question of storage capacity, and the ability to crunch numbers at speed, so if the astrogation and jump control programmes are below a terabyte in size, and faster than either punch cards or magnetic tape, I'd speculate an iPhone would blow out of the water either a technological level five and/or seven mainframe.

Or supercomputer.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

If you're running spreadsheets and the web, you only need a laptop.

But: A one-man business with an economic data presence of any kind needs 2 tons of volume for the machine room. This includes access and simple, effective heat management, plus everything else.

Since Traveller is a game, the computer needs to balance benefit with cost. And volume is always more effective than price in imposing cost. Let's explore the rationalization of volume requirements for the computer.

 

[robject]

YOUR NETWORK REQUIRES SPACE

I am a computer scientist, but I regularly lose sight of what it takes to run a secure data center, because like everyone else, I use a smartphone, work off of a laptop, and have a relatively small-footprint computer at home.

For computer geeks who are serious about their home network, there will be a closet devoted to a rack and its wired connections. Call that 1/2 ton as a minimum. And that's a hobbyist.

In a small business where data is (economically) important, you'll get something like the Geek Pub's setup. For amusement purposes I refer everyone to https://www.thegeekpub.com/271580/new-building-network/. Start at 1 minute in for the electronics shopping and installation.

His machine room is, oh, call it 2m wide by 6m deep by 3m tall. Call it 36 cubic meters... in other words, maybe 2.5 tons.

From there it's easy to handwave a linear growth pattern as needs grow.

 

[robject]

PHYSICAL CONSIDERATIONS

If there is support for any cabling whatsoever, even if it's not used, then you immediately have a volume requirement for cable management and routing out of the rack.

Connection electronics is bundled with the wireless radios, so that doesn't add volume.

The 1U is probably never going away. It's small enough to fit into any rack, and as the TL goes up, you can jam more into it before worrying about heat. At some point you'll have a brain installed there, and THAT is certainly the volume limit for the computing engine. Call it a couple liters?

Battery (PowerCell) backup is probably along the 1U form factor. You'll want more than 8 hours' power, if you're a typical paranoid player. Regardless, that and the heat management system all fit inside of the RACK. A minimum rack size looks to be 1/4 ton?, but I'm probably wrong.

The machine is in its own room for (a) heat management, and (b) air particulate management. You will ALWAYS want clean air in the machine room. Even if that doesn't take up space (and note that even the Scout requires "air filters"), it does require a dedicated room with a closed door. The room itself therefore is subject to (human) constraints at least. Namely, a 1m wide door, probably a 2m wide wall-to-wall, and therefore at least 2m deep, and most likely more.

In other words, a room by itself requires at least 1 ton.

 

[MThompson016]

I'm completely with you, robject.

Heat management and power supplies are going to drive up much of the volume. I worked on the MK 98 Mod 4 and 6 Fire Control systems for Fleet Ballistic Missiles. The forced air cooling system had a separate fanroom for the main system. The computer boxes in the missile compartment, had fans as well, but no cooling (moving ambient temperature air).

Power supplies? Big. Two large 60 Hz AC to High Frequency (kHz) AC motor generators, that fed into rectifiers. Those rectifiers fed into large power distribution panels, about 1.6m tall by 1m wide, and 1m deep.

The entire purpose of this floating data center was to precisely calculate how a missile had to fly from a semi-random point in the ocean to drop warheads on precise locations. For the Defensive Weapons Subsystem, there was about half the computer volume dedicated to sonar and fire control. All of it mounted in shock-hardened, water-resistant enclosures. Again, dedicated forced air cooling and redundant power supplies.

 

[robject]

YOUR SMARTPHONE RUNNING JUMP-1

Given the above blather, let's talk about what players should be able to try.

The smartphone has plenty of computing power, and it has a radio by which it can talk to a ship's computer.

So, there must be an app for that.

Let's say there's an Astrogation app that bypasses the ship's computer, and talks directly with your jump drive -- assuming it has its own wifi server up (why not?). It's a small add -- call it a 1 liter overhead that includes connectivity hardware and software, ports for hardline maintenance, networking ports, space for antennae and heat management. It's certified, built in, and shipped with the jump drive.

Let's assume that it's as secure as the ship's computer -- in other words, you didn't download the app from Ling-Standard-Nintendo's Play Network or whatever.

In fact, you cannot download an app from anywhere, because you are extremely concerned with security. So this is a "secure" phone with its own ecosystem.

Now the jump drive won't talk to you, because it does not allow unauthorized connections. You don't want it to be insecure, either. So you have a bridging app that allows communication with the jump drive from your secure app on your secure phone.

OK, now we have to authenticate. Do we have authentication running on the jump drive? Yes we do, because we can't trust people.

We also have a data center on this jump drive. Why? Because we need to know who is authorized -- WHAT is authorized -- and we don't have a network to rely on. So we carry the chunk of the network we're interested in, IN that jump drive's processor. It's not a large volume of electronics -- call it another liter, but it IS ruggedized, duplicated (somewhere else), and can't be stolen, hacked, whatever. Or maybe it can, but that's something the players would have to specifically ask for. We also need to take heat management and the potential for cabling into account. It is probably typically wireless, so there's a little radio there too.

These controls might warrant another control panel on our jump drive. Call it half a ton for access.

Slopping a whole bunch of numbers together, let's say that adds one ton to the jump drive, mostly for access and heat management, and a tiny bit of volume.

Now let's do the same thing for the maneuver drive, power plant, each sensor, life support, and each turret. On a Beowulf, that's two turrets. So +1t for the M-drive, +1t for the Power plant, +1t for each sensor, +1t for life support, and +2t for the turrets.

So in order to run things computerless, we need 7 tons more volume to put those functions on the components.

Or we can conglomerate all that control in one space and factor out all the redundant equipment. And call that the ship's computer.

 

[robject]

Heat management and power supplies are going to drive up much of the volume. I worked on the MK 98 Mod 4 and 6 Fire Control systems for Fleet Ballistic Missiles. The forced air cooling system had a separate fanroom for the main system. The computer boxes in the missile compartment, had fans as well, but no cooling (moving ambient temperature air).

Power supplies? Big. Two large 60 Hz AC to High Frequency (kHz) AC motor generators, that fed into rectifiers. Those rectifiers fed into large power distribution panels, about 1.6m tall by 1m wide, and 1m deep.

Granted, these are TL7 volumes. The Far Future shrinks down these requirements: capability might grow faster than heat and power needs.

PowerCells, for example, are more powerful than today's battery backups.

Assume it's so. 1t seems quite reasonable for a networked, secure, small business data center.

 

[robject]

BEOWULF ECONOMICS

I've demonstrated that a computer room is not an obsolete concept, and its sizes are not based on computing power.

With several staterooms and maybe 80t of cargo, do we have space for a 1 ton computer costing MCr1?

Consider the Beowulf's price is around MCr50 (?), so the Model/1 computer is 2% of the total cost, and 0.5% of the total volume.

If you're concerned about volume, then you really should be looking at the jump drive. An Improved model with higher efficiency costs the same, and gains you 2 tons from fuel.

In other words, the computer volume does have a cost, but there is low-hanging fruit that doesn't require changing the rules.


Mongoose, however, solves this for you by having computers with no volume at all. And I don't think it does serious harm to the game. But, I suspect that volume shows up in other ways.

When playing Mongoose, use their rules. When playing anything else, computer volume is reasonable, and a reasonable trade-off.

 

[MThompson016]

Good point on the power volume. Right now, ships will typically generate 60 Hz power for major AC systems. 400 Hz AC is used for radars and certain electronics (gyroscopes) as it provides a better baseline for rectifying into DC.

And I like your point on the volume for cables. One CAT5 cable doesn't take up a great deal of space, but forty-eight? There's a considerably sized cable bundle.

 

[robject]

Good point on the power volume. Right now, ships will typically generate 60 Hz power for major AC systems. 400 Hz AC is used for radars and certain electronics (gyroscopes) as it provides a better baseline for rectifying into DC.

And I like your point on the volume for cables. One CAT5 cable doesn't take up a great deal of space, but forty-eight? There's a considerably sized cable bundle.

Yeah. Now I do think that the Far Future will be wireless: not only will wireless communications be far advanced, but wireless power transmission will be firmly established and commoditized long before.

So while I doubt there will be a lot of networking cable in a starship, yet I am sure the capability will still be there, so the connection box would be yet another 1U in that machine case, along with the computing module, power supply, battery backup, cooling apparatus, and local datastore.

That datastore, by the way, will be small. At high TLs it will be a holographic crystal or something even more interesting. There will also be hardware that manipulates said datastore, and then the apparatus needed to keep that hardware working under adverse conditions for a reasonable period of time. All in all though that will fit nicely in a 1U.

For heat management, I assume there will be cheap fractal heat storage-sinks, sold in a modular array, that are changed out when a ship gets its yearly maintenance. Each sink is good for X weeks or months, and the cluster is sufficient to keep electronics cool for a year. That sort of thing.

BASE ASSUMPTIONS

I have three.

(1) The Future is Modular by Function. Modules are function-based. You can have all-in-one units, but in the end the atomic element is Functional.

(2) The Unit of Computer "Modules" is the 1U. I break down computer function into 1U volumes.

For sophont Ease Of Use, the 1U is fairly nice. While I can see a "carousel" similar to the old DVD changers, I really think the 1U's volume is superb for encapsulating just about any sort of Functional Module you'd need. If your computer needs it, there's a 1U that has it.

In other words, it all averages out to the 1U. Maybe each component varies in needed volume, but on the average for any reasonable purpose you just budget 1U per function.

This doesn't mean I believe the Far Future adheres to the 1U standard. It just means I can communicate computer architecture in a meaningful way with the 1U... and with the Rack below:

(3) The Unit of Computing is the Rack. Like #2, the "rack" is the ideal unit of computing power, having adequate space to hold enough 1Us to do things required of Traveller ship computers.

Racks may be half empty; you still buy and install a rack. At these levels of granularity, you are concerned with modularity above all.

 

[robject]

COMPUTER CLOSETS and MONGOOSE TRAVELLER

My conclusion, which is borne out by the Mongoose Traveller rules themselves, is that the ship's computer DOES indeed take up volume on the ship, but the design rules contain enough "slop" to account for that without specifically requiring design to account for it.

This is not unreasonable. And in fact since this and the power plant were specifically changed, Mongoose has very specific reasons for subsuming computer volume into the other components of the ship.

The interesting questions, then, include "WHERE is the computer in Mongoose ship designs, then?"

Traveller5 to the Rescue

I just had a thought: I've potentially already answered this question in my earlier reductio. Namely:

Each major component has its own computer. Mongoose ships have that small overhead on every component, and they're networked together by a central node whose job is only? to route messages.

Perhaps that overhead shows up in the lack of stage effects. T5 ships can reclaim a significant amount of space due to tech level improvements. Mongoose's options are more limited: this mismatch can be partly explained by the hidden, invariant computer volume in Mongoose ships.

The Effect is Hidden UNTIL...

Here's a more interesting alternative that appeals to me. Because of the computer mismatch, perhaps T5 computers have some hidden benefit.

If they did, it wouldn't be in the T5 rules. And Mongoose ships don't have a disadvantage in the Mongoose rules.

And there's the beauty of it. If a referee wanted to, he could impose a computer-processing-related benefit to T5 ships used as-is in a Mongoose game. Similarly, a Mongoose ship used as-is in a T5 game could suffer a subtle penalty under certain circumstances -- probably related to when the ship is suffering damage or other environmental stresses. That sort of thing.

Thus in one fell swoop, the computer "mismatch" between the rules only matters when you're using one ship with a different rules system.

This also opens up the hidden benefit of being able to use ships designed in T5/Mongoose interchangeably. And I love seeing those sorts of guidelines.

 

[robject]

REFERENCE

The Rack and the Rack Unit ("1U"). Dimensions and use are discussed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit

As I said already, the only thing special about 1U is that it's a VERY convenient and commoditizable size for both human-sized sophonts and the sorts of functionality you'd have in a business machine.

So the "reality" of Traveller is that there will be SOME sort of unit module of functionality that makes up its computers, because there are invariants in any machine design. That includes some concession to ergonomics.

Volume

I think the 1U displaces about 10,000 cubic centimeters. Appx 48cm x 48cm x 4.5cm. That's 10L -- which seems a little large to me, but probably is right.

In contrast, the "pizza box" on the floor of my desk looks to be about 45cm x 45cm x 10cm... surprisingly that's 20L... and I would NOT have predicted that.

And my Mac Mini is 19.7cm x 19.7cm x 3.6cm, or 1.4L. OK.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Normally, since my money isn't involved, I'd defer to someone with a larger degree of knowledge than I have on a subject.

2. However, since it's the internet, I have the time, and my gut feeling tells me I'm probably correct, I think I'll start dissecting Book Two and toss aside my feeling for some form of something more logical.

3. Mongoose side steps the issue by virtualizing and distributing computing.

4. Since I want to maximize my argument, I'll start with the technological level five mainframe weighing in at one tonne, costing two megastarbux, and ... For example, a model/1 computer has a CPU capacity of two, and an additional storage capacity of four.

5. Jump factor one computer programme requires a capacity of one, the same as the manoeuvre progamme.

6. As I recall, the Space Shuttle seems to get along quite well with a Four Eight Six.

7. Not quite, Orion project manager Matt Lemke told The Space Review in a recent interview. In fact, the computer hardware onboard the Orion eschews the cutting-edge, favoring gear that has been tried and tested for years. The three onboard Honeywell-built flight computers each run on two IBM PowerPC 750X single-core processors—dinosaur chips that have been around since 2002, and were used in Apple computers until the company switched to Intel chips in 2006. The computers are “not any faster than your smartphone,” Lemke said.

8. High Guard says model one doesn't require energy points.

9.Generate creates a flight plan which will govern the use of the jump program. The navigator or pilot can input specific co-ordinates into the computer concerning a destination, and the generate program will create a flight plan to take the ship there. In cases where a generate program is not available, starports have single-use flight plans (in self-erasing cassettes) available for all worlds within jump range for Cr10,000 per jump number. The generate program may be used independently and produces the required flight plan, which is then used by the computer when jump is performed.

10. Whatever the size of the astrogation results, they'd have to fit within cassette

11. Navigation controls the jump process after a flight plan has been produced. Flight plans must be fed into the navigation program, which then interfaces with the jump program to actually take a ship to its destination. To actually make a jump, both the jump and navigation programs must be functioning in the computer(the generate program need only run long enough to actually create the flight plan).

12. So essentially, the navigation programme instructs the jump programme how to behave, while the jump programme coordinates, I assume, both the fusion reactor and the jump drive.

13. And all four programmes, manoeuvre, jump one, generate and navigation, are the same size, and presumably require the same resources.

14. Let's assume capacity is random access memory, and storage is kilobytes of data, maybe megabytes.

15. Traveller wiki says that technological level five is the broadcast age, squeezed in between the mechanized age (four), and the atomic age (six).

16. That sort of narrows it down to around nineteen forty.

17. Which sort of eighty years later Apple is using five nanometre technology in it's products.

 

[whartung]

The problem is, as I see it, much the same as older science fiction and contemporary reality. Younger generations of players (or readers) are going to have a hard time with the suspension of disbelief if we have 5 tons dedicated to a ship's computer when they grew up on smart phones and pads.

I think that is the crux of the matter.

Good heavens.

Don't like big computers? Get rid of them. Done. Easy.

You get 1 whole dTon back removing the Model 1 from the Free Trader. 1 dTon does not make the FT eleventy thousand percent more profitable and successful.

Removing the tonnage for the computer has ZERO GAME PLAY impact.

"Why don't we have a model 7 in our starship?" "Because it doesn't come with a model 7, and a Model 7 costs twice as much as our entire ship." "Why?" "Because that's how much Zack's Starship Computer Store sells them for."

If you don't like removing the tonnage, then "use it" for something else. "Captain has a bigger stateroom."

There are 2 game play impacts of computers. The first is during combat, juggling computer programs. That's the primary game play impact. Having to make the "tough decisions" of what program to run when. Outside of combat, they have zero impact. As exciting as space combat is, if your FT is in combat then -- well, so much for your trading campaign. If you think quibbling over fuel prices was worth the time, wait until you incur MCr of starship damage that you're on the hook for. (And if you can afford MCr to pay for repairs -- why the heck are you wasting time running a Trader when you can be on a beach somewhere? [Cue John Goodman from "The Gambler" here])

The other is the space they consume, but the only place this matters is on the Free Trader, as this is the primary element of the trading game. The game is NOT BALANCED around any other ship. It's BARELY balanced (if you even want to call it that) around the Free Trader. The 1 ton will have SOME impact on profitability (who doesn't want another ton of space), but considering there's already 82 tons available, adding 1 more is not a game changer.

And..that's it!

So, all this hand wringing, this DECADES LONG discussion of computer space, the terabytes of screed it has generated and, in the end, it actually doesn't make any difference to the game.

Amazing.

So, don't like it? Don't use it. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference.

 

[robject]

Well, that's true.

Also, I suspect the number of people who actually care is perhaps the same order of magnitude as the number of people who are involved in this thread.

E.G. somewhere around 20 people total. I assume the other 7 don't know or care about COTI.

 

[robject]

ANYWAY

So this whole diversion actually is helpful for me in exploring the wiggle room around Mongoose Traveller and Traveller5.

It's given me some helpful ideas for managing the differences in computer rules between the two systems -- and CT and MT as well. It's given me tools for how to use a Mongoose Traveller starship in a CT or T5 game, and vice versa.

The OP is about where the rules mesh and how to think about their differences.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, don't like it? Don't use it. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference.

While I basically agree with you: It does not matter for a Free Trader, but it does matter in some special circumstances, such as fighters.


Allocating 13 Dton or not for a m/9 computer in a fighter matters a lot, especially with an additional 12 EP = 24 Dton power + fuel.


This:

FN-0106K91-000000-05002-0        MCr 155          15 Dton
bearing            1  1                            Crew=2
batteries          1  1                             TL=15
                        Cargo=0 Fuel=2,9 EP=2,9 Agility=6

Dual Occupancy                                      0,7     154,6
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             0           15            
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                      1,8
                                                                 
Manoeuvre D                            6    1       2,6       1,3
Power Plant                           19    1       2,9       8,7
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                    2,9          
                                                                 
Bridge                                      1       4         0,1
Computer            m/9                9    1               140  
                                                                 
Mixed Turret        Full                    1       2            
  Weapon            Fusion             5    1                 2  
  Weapon            Missile            2    1                 0,8

Is rather different from:

FF-0106N91-000000-05002-0        MCr 218          85 Dton
bearing            1  1                            Crew=2
batteries          1  1                             TL=15
                      Cargo=0 Fuel=19,1 EP=19,1 Agility=6

Dual Occupancy                                      0,3     217,9
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             0           85            
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                     10,2
                                                                 
Manoeuvre D                            6    1      14,5       7,2
Power Plant                           22    1      19,1      57,3
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                   19,1          
                                                                 
Bridge                                      1      17         0,4
Computer            m/9                9    1      13       140  
                                                                 
Mixed Turret        Full                    1       2            
  Weapon            Fusion             5    1                 2  
  Weapon            Missile            2    1                 0,8

 

[rzg6f]

Good heavens.

...

So, all this hand wringing, this DECADES LONG discussion of computer space, the terabytes of screed it has generated and, in the end, it actually doesn't make any difference to the game.

Amazing.

So, don't like it? Don't use it. It doesn't matter. It makes no difference.

I think you have misunderstood me. Firstly, I haven't been here for decades.

Secondly, I didn't start the thread, I merely contributed my own interactions with new players concerning this topic which has come up at my gaming table.

Thirdly, I never said that I didn't like it. In fact, I stressed that I miss the old CT, and that's why I'm going back to it. But if you read my post carefully enough, I also thought that while changing the game is changing the aesthetics, experience, and feel of Traveller, younger players in my own experience have a problem with Far Future immersion when their own day-to-day experience with technology is more streamlined and compact.

I'm not handwringing, I have much better things to do. I thought the feedback would have been much more constructive here.