[Robots] Three more questions

[Fritz_Brown]

Ouch, Ptah. That's more like FF&S than I think 2-4601 is hoping for. I would say that starting with "hull" is still easiest.

2) Then have a minimum locomotion requirement built on that basis (assume some minimum load/mass). Design the locomotion.

3) A power minimum based on the locomotion. Then double for a standard robot. (A standard robot means no really funky requirements.) You don't have to pick the power source at this time - just know the minimum.

4) Add appendages. Increase volume slightly and increase mass and check to see if mass exceeded the assumption (for those folks who want a 25l chassis with 300 8m long tentacles. ). Check power requirements. This includes a head if desired.

5) Add the brains and sensors. Check volumes against desired location (for the designer who wants to build indivdual neutrino sensors into bug antennae). Check power requirements.

5a) Add applications, etc.

6) Add tools, weapons, etc. Check volumes against desired locations. Check mass against locomotion requirements. Check against power requirements.

7) Plus up anything for which you still have room - power, locomotion, brains, etc.

A little more LBB than yours, I think, Ptah.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Ouch, Ptah. That's more like FF&S than I think 2-4601 is hoping for. I would say that starting with "hull" is still easiest.

2) Then have a minimum locomotion requirement built on that basis (assume some minimum load/mass). Design the locomotion.

3) A power minimum based on the locomotion. Then double for a standard robot. (A standard robot means no really funky requirements.) You don't have to pick the power source at this time - just know the minimum.

4) Add appendages. Increase volume slightly and increase mass and check to see if mass exceeded the assumption (for those folks who want a 25l chassis with 300 8m long tentacles. ). Check power requirements. This includes a head if desired.

5) Add the brains and sensors. Check volumes against desired location (for the designer who wants to build indivdual neutrino sensors into bug antennae). Check power requirements.

5a) Add applications, etc.

6) Add tools, weapons, etc. Check volumes against desired locations. Check mass against locomotion requirements. Check against power requirements.

7) Plus up anything for which you still have room - power, locomotion, brains, etc.

A little more LBB than yours, I think, Ptah.

 

[Ptah]

Fritz you wound me. I thought I was as far away from FF&S as a man could be.

In outline form it might seem more but I think it is less than FF&S and Striker. Striker is what I have any experience with and I really had a hard time starting with volume and then having to fit everthing in, add up power requirements then try to fit the power plant in etc.

Also mass, to me, seems to be the operative variable for vehcile locomotion, where volume can be almost anything within reason. Subsuming power plant into parts also makes it more building block like, in that it is already taken care of. Let me explain it a differnt way, since as it runs through my head I feel it is simpler.

You want a robot with two arms and optical and audio sensors, and two legs.

You choose the arms from a table as well as the sensors.

You want to mount the sensors on a head, this is under the "manipulator" table choose one big enough.

You total the mass of these components. Add on any mass you wish the robot to be able to carry.

Total the volume.

Choose your legs, use the total mass to determine how big your legs need to be.

Check to make sure the legs you chose allow the volume you have. I view this as a very generous limit meant to preclude absurd results like mounting large light weight structure on legs which while not too heavy may unbalance the robot. So 99% of the time if mass is OK you will look and say OK on volume

Your done. If you go with the stock power plant nothing more needs to be done. If you want extra power, add a stock xtra power plant.

You don't need to worry about being underpowered or over your volume limit. You don't need to worry about fitting things into a chassis. The only figure you need to really track is mass.

If you want an idea how big the "chest" of the robot for game description purposes (since it has no impact on robot statistics) is use "the volume that is power plant" numbers for each component and total them.

The tables can also have descriptions such as "man-sized arms", "tank-sized head/turret" to give an idea of what selection of parts will end up with a man-sized 'bot, tank-sized bot etc.

That seems pretty simple to me. Let me compare to your points next.

 

[Ptah]

Fritz you wound me. I thought I was as far away from FF&S as a man could be.

In outline form it might seem more but I think it is less than FF&S and Striker. Striker is what I have any experience with and I really had a hard time starting with volume and then having to fit everthing in, add up power requirements then try to fit the power plant in etc.

Also mass, to me, seems to be the operative variable for vehcile locomotion, where volume can be almost anything within reason. Subsuming power plant into parts also makes it more building block like, in that it is already taken care of. Let me explain it a differnt way, since as it runs through my head I feel it is simpler.

You want a robot with two arms and optical and audio sensors, and two legs.

You choose the arms from a table as well as the sensors.

You want to mount the sensors on a head, this is under the "manipulator" table choose one big enough.

You total the mass of these components. Add on any mass you wish the robot to be able to carry.

Total the volume.

Choose your legs, use the total mass to determine how big your legs need to be.

Check to make sure the legs you chose allow the volume you have. I view this as a very generous limit meant to preclude absurd results like mounting large light weight structure on legs which while not too heavy may unbalance the robot. So 99% of the time if mass is OK you will look and say OK on volume

Your done. If you go with the stock power plant nothing more needs to be done. If you want extra power, add a stock xtra power plant.

You don't need to worry about being underpowered or over your volume limit. You don't need to worry about fitting things into a chassis. The only figure you need to really track is mass.

If you want an idea how big the "chest" of the robot for game description purposes (since it has no impact on robot statistics) is use "the volume that is power plant" numbers for each component and total them.

The tables can also have descriptions such as "man-sized arms", "tank-sized head/turret" to give an idea of what selection of parts will end up with a man-sized 'bot, tank-sized bot etc.

That seems pretty simple to me. Let me compare to your points next.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Ouch, Ptah. That's more like FF&S than I think 2-4601 is hoping for. I would say that starting with "hull" is still easiest.

2) Then have a minimum locomotion requirement built on that basis (assume some minimum load/mass). Design the locomotion.


3) A power minimum based on the locomotion. Then double for a standard robot. (A standard robot means no really funky requirements.) You don't have to pick the power source at this time - just know the minimum.

I'm OK to this point.

4) Add appendages. Increase volume slightly and increase mass and check to see if mass exceeded the assumption (for those folks who want a 25l chassis with 300 8m long tentacles. ). Check power requirements. This includes a head if desired.

Here's where I've always gotten into trouble. I have limited volume. Every thing must fit in this volume as my locomotion is based off of it. If i'm off in my volume I need to recalculate my locomotion.
Now keeping track of volume for the arms is easy, but there is a hidden volume I have yet to account for -that of the power plant. I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be. Let me continue further down.

5) Add the brains and sensors. Check volumes against desired location (for the designer who wants to build indivdual neutrino sensors into bug antennae). Check power requirements.

5a) Add applications, etc.

6) Add tools, weapons, etc. Check volumes against desired locations. Check mass against locomotion requirements. Check against power requirements.

Now I need to add my power plant right? I guess I first see how big of one I need, if its too big to fit I need to replace a component. But there are 2 interelated variables to consider, volume and power consumption. The degree of relation varies from component to component. This makes it hard to just drop something to get things to fit.
Or do I go with a bigger chasis, especially if some of my components are "fixed" in the design, e.g., 5cm Plasma Gun? If so then I need to start all over from step 1.

7) Plus up anything for which you still have room - power, locomotion, brains, etc.

Now if I have extra power, mass, and/or space no problems. But I've never been able to get a Striker design right the first time, with the mass, volume, power juggling act. It's not so much having three variables but letting them vary when they can be reduced/tied together.

If you know your power source will be X, and in game terms Y liters of power plant X produces Z power then why not include it in the volume and mass of the components that require power. Thus, power is not really an independent variable but can be expressed in units of volume.

For example if you know an arm will require M energy points to function then you know it requires N liters of power plant to function, inlcude N in the arm building block component. That way you can build your 'bot without having to worry about not saving enough room for the power plant.

Does that make sense? I think this could be done with the LBB 8 numbers from what I remember. Sadly, I no longer have that book.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Ouch, Ptah. That's more like FF&S than I think 2-4601 is hoping for. I would say that starting with "hull" is still easiest.

2) Then have a minimum locomotion requirement built on that basis (assume some minimum load/mass). Design the locomotion.


3) A power minimum based on the locomotion. Then double for a standard robot. (A standard robot means no really funky requirements.) You don't have to pick the power source at this time - just know the minimum.

I'm OK to this point.

4) Add appendages. Increase volume slightly and increase mass and check to see if mass exceeded the assumption (for those folks who want a 25l chassis with 300 8m long tentacles. ). Check power requirements. This includes a head if desired.

Here's where I've always gotten into trouble. I have limited volume. Every thing must fit in this volume as my locomotion is based off of it. If i'm off in my volume I need to recalculate my locomotion.
Now keeping track of volume for the arms is easy, but there is a hidden volume I have yet to account for -that of the power plant. I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be. Let me continue further down.

5) Add the brains and sensors. Check volumes against desired location (for the designer who wants to build indivdual neutrino sensors into bug antennae). Check power requirements.

5a) Add applications, etc.

6) Add tools, weapons, etc. Check volumes against desired locations. Check mass against locomotion requirements. Check against power requirements.

Now I need to add my power plant right? I guess I first see how big of one I need, if its too big to fit I need to replace a component. But there are 2 interelated variables to consider, volume and power consumption. The degree of relation varies from component to component. This makes it hard to just drop something to get things to fit.
Or do I go with a bigger chasis, especially if some of my components are "fixed" in the design, e.g., 5cm Plasma Gun? If so then I need to start all over from step 1.

7) Plus up anything for which you still have room - power, locomotion, brains, etc.

Now if I have extra power, mass, and/or space no problems. But I've never been able to get a Striker design right the first time, with the mass, volume, power juggling act. It's not so much having three variables but letting them vary when they can be reduced/tied together.

If you know your power source will be X, and in game terms Y liters of power plant X produces Z power then why not include it in the volume and mass of the components that require power. Thus, power is not really an independent variable but can be expressed in units of volume.

For example if you know an arm will require M energy points to function then you know it requires N liters of power plant to function, inlcude N in the arm building block component. That way you can build your 'bot without having to worry about not saving enough room for the power plant.

Does that make sense? I think this could be done with the LBB 8 numbers from what I remember. Sadly, I no longer have that book.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Ptah:
Here's where I've always gotten into trouble.

Well, for most robots, I think you will find the appendages add a proportionally small volume. (Why I picked the example I did....)

As far as accounting for the PP volume, that is subsumed into the "PP minimum" and the "assume some minimum load/mass". When you decide the size and locomotion, this will give you a range of remaining volume v mass v power. You decide to pick a standard PP (and I am assuming LBB8 tables here - you don't have an infinitely variable volume for your PPs - they are size X or Y or Z and you can stack them as necessary to make your robot run) and check its volume requirements and mass. If they exceed your initial choices, you need to start over. (I didn't explicitly mention this in my first post, and I should have been clearer.)

Originally posted by Ptah:
I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be.

That's why I said to double the locomotions power requirement to find your initial size of PP.

Originally posted by Ptah:
If you know your power source will be X, and in game terms Y liters of power plant X produces Z power then why not include it in the volume and mass of the components that require power.

Mainly because LBB8 assumes discrete units for all its power sources. You can't have a PP produce 42.5 units of power, though you may have exactly that as a requirement. Just like you can't buy a 4.5v battery. You can, however, build your system to accomodate 3 C-cells, or use a 9v, and accept unused capability.

Let me figure out this idea, and I can give an example....

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by Ptah:
Here's where I've always gotten into trouble.

Well, for most robots, I think you will find the appendages add a proportionally small volume. (Why I picked the example I did....)

As far as accounting for the PP volume, that is subsumed into the "PP minimum" and the "assume some minimum load/mass". When you decide the size and locomotion, this will give you a range of remaining volume v mass v power. You decide to pick a standard PP (and I am assuming LBB8 tables here - you don't have an infinitely variable volume for your PPs - they are size X or Y or Z and you can stack them as necessary to make your robot run) and check its volume requirements and mass. If they exceed your initial choices, you need to start over. (I didn't explicitly mention this in my first post, and I should have been clearer.)

Originally posted by Ptah:
I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be.

That's why I said to double the locomotions power requirement to find your initial size of PP.

Originally posted by Ptah:
If you know your power source will be X, and in game terms Y liters of power plant X produces Z power then why not include it in the volume and mass of the components that require power.

Mainly because LBB8 assumes discrete units for all its power sources. You can't have a PP produce 42.5 units of power, though you may have exactly that as a requirement. Just like you can't buy a 4.5v battery. You can, however, build your system to accomodate 3 C-cells, or use a 9v, and accept unused capability.

Let me figure out this idea, and I can give an example....

 

[Fritz_Brown]

BTW, who can justify the x1.5 weight mod for pseudo-biological robots parts and pieces? Wouldn't they have to be smaller? And wouldn't you want them lighter weight so your pseudo-bio doesn't crash through the floorboards?

 

[Fritz_Brown]

BTW, who can justify the x1.5 weight mod for pseudo-biological robots parts and pieces? Wouldn't they have to be smaller? And wouldn't you want them lighter weight so your pseudo-bio doesn't crash through the floorboards?

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
BTW, who can justify the x1.5 weight mod for pseudo-biological robots parts and pieces? Wouldn't they have to be smaller? And wouldn't you want them lighter weight so your pseudo-bio doesn't crash through the floorboards?

You are confusing two separate things here.

The *components* of a pseudo-bio are heavier (and more expensive, and so on) than those of normal bots. That just means that pseudo-bios of a certain weight are going to be less capable than one that isn't constrained by a bunch of arbitrary aesthetic requirements.

Which, incidentally, is why the only reason why you would build pseudo-bios is to have sex with them. Otherwise, they are rubbish.

 

[alanb]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
BTW, who can justify the x1.5 weight mod for pseudo-biological robots parts and pieces? Wouldn't they have to be smaller? And wouldn't you want them lighter weight so your pseudo-bio doesn't crash through the floorboards?

You are confusing two separate things here.

The *components* of a pseudo-bio are heavier (and more expensive, and so on) than those of normal bots. That just means that pseudo-bios of a certain weight are going to be less capable than one that isn't constrained by a bunch of arbitrary aesthetic requirements.

Which, incidentally, is why the only reason why you would build pseudo-bios is to have sex with them. Otherwise, they are rubbish.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be.

That's why I said to double the locomotions power requirement to find your initial size of PP.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now I see. I thought that doubling was because it was a standard not custom design. You are building in a fudge factor to leave space. Since power plants come in predetermined adjustable sizes it's not such a drawback. My ignorance of LBB 8 is showing.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Fritz88:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
I won't know what that is until I've chosen all my components since I need to sum power requirements to determine how big it should be.

That's why I said to double the locomotions power requirement to find your initial size of PP.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now I see. I thought that doubling was because it was a standard not custom design. You are building in a fudge factor to leave space. Since power plants come in predetermined adjustable sizes it's not such a drawback. My ignorance of LBB 8 is showing.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by alanb:
You are confusing two separate things here.

The *components* of a pseudo-bio are heavier (and more expensive, and so on) than those of normal bots. That just means that pseudo-bios of a certain weight are going to be less capable than one that isn't constrained by a bunch of arbitrary aesthetic requirements.

Well... no. You have to multiply the entire robot x1.5 for weight (and x8 for cost - which doesn't bother me). I understand that means all the pieces are heavier - but that doesn't make sense.

I could see sensors being heavier - maybe. But, really, it just means if you make a pseudo-bio and keep it within reason (and give it a reasonable "torso" size), it will be mostly hollow. This is the trouble I'm having with my "butler" robot. He weighs 200kg, and has enough room left in him for 2 autorifles and 10 clips each (at least according to the kg=l concept (a la Striker). He's a big guy, but he ain't that big. Of course, if you use 1kg=1l during design, there's a lot less room in him (that leftover space is using 0l for all the equipment for which there is no volume listed).

Really, I could see reducing the capabilities (say a "Heavy Arm" can only do what a "Medium Arm" can, normally), but upping the weight seems counter to the whole design concept behind a pseudo-bio: making it lifelike will entail more miniaturization, not less.

Originally posted by Ptah:
Now I see. I thought that doubling was because it was a standard not custom design. You are building in a fudge factor to leave space.

Well, the doubling is for standard designs. If you want something freaky, you might want to more than double the requirements. So, half credit...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Originally posted by alanb:
You are confusing two separate things here.

The *components* of a pseudo-bio are heavier (and more expensive, and so on) than those of normal bots. That just means that pseudo-bios of a certain weight are going to be less capable than one that isn't constrained by a bunch of arbitrary aesthetic requirements.

Well... no. You have to multiply the entire robot x1.5 for weight (and x8 for cost - which doesn't bother me). I understand that means all the pieces are heavier - but that doesn't make sense.

I could see sensors being heavier - maybe. But, really, it just means if you make a pseudo-bio and keep it within reason (and give it a reasonable "torso" size), it will be mostly hollow. This is the trouble I'm having with my "butler" robot. He weighs 200kg, and has enough room left in him for 2 autorifles and 10 clips each (at least according to the kg=l concept (a la Striker). He's a big guy, but he ain't that big. Of course, if you use 1kg=1l during design, there's a lot less room in him (that leftover space is using 0l for all the equipment for which there is no volume listed).

Really, I could see reducing the capabilities (say a "Heavy Arm" can only do what a "Medium Arm" can, normally), but upping the weight seems counter to the whole design concept behind a pseudo-bio: making it lifelike will entail more miniaturization, not less.

Originally posted by Ptah:
Now I see. I thought that doubling was because it was a standard not custom design. You are building in a fudge factor to leave space.

Well, the doubling is for standard designs. If you want something freaky, you might want to more than double the requirements. So, half credit...

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Yes, Maladominus, the book says "chassis hits". If you put the brain in your head, you might want to take that into account (that's not where MY robots' brains are!)

I agree that putting the brain in a small "head" section is not such a good idea, especially when it can be more protected in the sturdier chassis section.

However, I do build robots with "heads" for one logical and functional reason: I put SENSORS (eyes, ears, etc) in the rotating head, which means the robot body does not have to move. Only the head has to rotate a bit... and voila, the robot head can essentially rotate and "see" and sense everything in a 360 arc.

So as far as my robot designs go, the heads are the containers for the sensors. The brain is located somewhere safer.

Of course, I'm sure some smart-ass here will tell me: why dont you just put eyes in all directions on your robot! Put eyes and ears in the front, in the back, on the left side, on the right side, and on their ass! That way they don't need a rotating head and they can never be surprised!

 

[Maladominus]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Yes, Maladominus, the book says "chassis hits". If you put the brain in your head, you might want to take that into account (that's not where MY robots' brains are!)

I agree that putting the brain in a small "head" section is not such a good idea, especially when it can be more protected in the sturdier chassis section.

However, I do build robots with "heads" for one logical and functional reason: I put SENSORS (eyes, ears, etc) in the rotating head, which means the robot body does not have to move. Only the head has to rotate a bit... and voila, the robot head can essentially rotate and "see" and sense everything in a 360 arc.

So as far as my robot designs go, the heads are the containers for the sensors. The brain is located somewhere safer.

Of course, I'm sure some smart-ass here will tell me: why dont you just put eyes in all directions on your robot! Put eyes and ears in the front, in the back, on the left side, on the right side, and on their ass! That way they don't need a rotating head and they can never be surprised!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, that works fine if you're not trying to make them un-scary.....

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Well, that works fine if you're not trying to make them un-scary.....