Stephen--
The FF&S computers are the farthest thing from "realistic." They were an
attempt to improve the computer situation (i.e., more capable, less
volume) without repudiating Traveller's history of way-too-big computers.
So the attempt to be consistent with previous editions if nothing else is
going to mostly ruin them. If you add onto that the fact that computer
advancement continues to outstrip anyone's anticipation, not just game
designers, that kills them the rest of the way.
Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size was
immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
computers.
> I hope everyone's gearing up for a great weekend!
>
> I haven't given up...totally on my near future FF&S project, though I will
> say that it's becoming less and less FF&S with a few bits added in and
> more
> and more "Atomic Rocket guidelines with FF&S filling in missing
> information" (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php)
>
> So that brings me to the question: Are FF&S computer's still 'realistic?'
>
> I put together a jump test probe and it's basically the smallest jump
> drive
> possible, 20 cubic meters of hydrogen to power two jump-1 hops and three
> fiberoptic computers, those come to 36 cubic meters, about a third of the
> total volume of the probe.
>
> Based on everything else that I've read that seems so out of proportion as
> to be laughable. So I figure that there has to be more to what the
> "computers" are rather than just the processing.
>
> Do the computer sizes need to be adjusted?
>
> To the fellow that suggested GURPS Space, there's a heck of a lot of merit
> to that system for roughing out a basic idea and unless you're going to be
> going through and calculating the delta V of every little part of your
> logistics chain, it's more than good enough and the results aren't "wrong"
> they're just not precise. Which once you get into the better drives isn't
> a
> problem, but interplanetary gas guzzlers like nuclear thermal rockets need
> something a bit more specific.
>
> --
> Stephen Rider
>
The FF&S computers are the farthest thing from "realistic." They were an
attempt to improve the computer situation (i.e., more capable, less
volume) without repudiating Traveller's history of way-too-big computers.
So the attempt to be consistent with previous editions if nothing else is
going to mostly ruin them. If you add onto that the fact that computer
advancement continues to outstrip anyone's anticipation, not just game
designers, that kills them the rest of the way.
Even in 1992 we knew that the only way to rationalize their large size was
immense amounts of hand-waving about interfaces and work stations,
cooling, peripherals and back-up capabilities, surge protectors and UPS,
etc. But mostly it was to keep some internal continuity with the LBB
computers.
> I hope everyone's gearing up for a great weekend!
>
> I haven't given up...totally on my near future FF&S project, though I will
> say that it's becoming less and less FF&S with a few bits added in and
> more
> and more "Atomic Rocket guidelines with FF&S filling in missing
> information" (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php)
>
> So that brings me to the question: Are FF&S computer's still 'realistic?'
>
> I put together a jump test probe and it's basically the smallest jump
> drive
> possible, 20 cubic meters of hydrogen to power two jump-1 hops and three
> fiberoptic computers, those come to 36 cubic meters, about a third of the
> total volume of the probe.
>
> Based on everything else that I've read that seems so out of proportion as
> to be laughable. So I figure that there has to be more to what the
> "computers" are rather than just the processing.
>
> Do the computer sizes need to be adjusted?
>
> To the fellow that suggested GURPS Space, there's a heck of a lot of merit
> to that system for roughing out a basic idea and unless you're going to be
> going through and calculating the delta V of every little part of your
> logistics chain, it's more than good enough and the results aren't "wrong"
> they're just not precise. Which once you get into the better drives isn't
> a
> problem, but interplanetary gas guzzlers like nuclear thermal rockets need
> something a bit more specific.
>
> --
> Stephen Rider
>