Ship's computers

>Scott ([email removed]) writes:

>>  As I said above, TL 15 starports are FAR to busy making mailitary and large
>>craft to make many free traders, thus the average free trader is about TL 12
>>or
>>so.  One can still run a free trader off a 1/bis, but it is not as tempting.

>Computer questions!  First off, what does 'bis' mean?  I remember that 'fib'
>meant something like 'fiber backup', but 'bis' escapes me.  "Big Information
>System"?

  As best as I can tell, it means "better."  In Old Traveller, the bis models
were identical to the normal ones, except that they had a mauch larger cpu and
no storage.  Thus, one could run better programs, but one had fewer options (in
general)  This was an artifact of the old traveller system where one had
specific programs that did things and took up generic space units.  I
personally liek the new system better where a bigger computer just controls
more stuff.

  Quoted stuff---------
Bob Mahoney                                     BITNET: [email removed]

Also, what actual effect does differing computer models have on ship's
functions, aside from the DM's to the various tasks?  For example, the 200-ton
trader detailed in the Starship Operator's Guide:  Is it doing all of this crew
recognition, entertainment holograms, etc. on a model 1 computer?  If it is
powerful enough to do all this, is there any reason to have a better (more $)
model?  And if it's not, why waste processing on 'frills' at the expense of the
DM's for combat, etc.?

- ----- End quoted stuff

  Hokay, here is what **WE** do. This is not very official....

  First off, a bigger computer lets you get by with less crew, or lets you use
better equipment with the same crew.  Second, the machinery gives you neat
combat DM's  We rule that most of that dreck they mention in the starship
operators manual can be run on most machines, but it gets better with tech
level and computer power.  When a combat situation comes up, you sht down your
library program and all the entertainment consoles, shoo the passengers back to
thier rooms, and lock all of the doors.  Thus, a combat is the ideal time to
try and take a ship over as its internal scanners may well be inoperative.
This is not so on a ship with *far* more computing power than it needs.

  Example:My current group was given an electronic warfare/tacint ship vaguely
disguised as a merchant ship.  They have three of every communicator ever built
at experimental tech levels.  (Read as "prone to failure at bad times")  Thier
electronics are fantastic, and thier computer would normally be a part of a
battleship.  A big battleship.  This little toy was built by Naval Intelligence
as a small spy craft.  Because it is so overpowered, it routinely keeps track
of all sorts of things that a normal ships computer would not.  (e.g recording
all intrument readings at all times, instead of the critical ones, recording
comm channels and sensor inputs much of the time on the off chance it will be
useful later, etc.)

  Now, I allow technology to fight it out on many occasions.  Breaking the
security on a coded transmission is child's play to a device like this, so it
is routinely done.  They usually have no problem crashing security on most
planets they go to, etc.  On the downside, it can be spotted.  After all, thier
software is only as good as the programmer.  While the hardware is almost
unbeatable, a clever person on a ground station might well notice the breakin
attempts and get them into heaps and piles of trouble, when they really were
not interested in the information.

  It is an equivalent circumstance to a band of space aliens coming to earth
and casually breaking into the NSA or CIA files just to see if they can do it.
This is would cause a great deal of trouble.

  By the way, to the person who mentioned you "pocket computer," I believe that
the model 1 is at or near mainframe levels of capability, pushing into the
supercomputer regions.  I do think it should be earlier than TL 11, but my
gripes about the weird, utterly non-linear technology scale are well known.

>Am I confused?  I think so.  (That would be standard.)

                                       Scott
                              Scott Ellsworth
                              [email removed]
                              [email removed]

Scott ([email removed]) writes:
>
> >Computer questions!  First off, what does 'bis' mean?  I remember that 'fib'
> >meant something like 'fiber backup', but 'bis' escapes me.  "Big Information
> >System"?
>
>   As best as I can tell, it means "better."  In Old Traveller, the bis models
> were identical to the normal ones, except that they had a mauch larger cpu and
> no storage. Thus, one could run better programs, but one had fewer options (in
> general)  This was an artifact of the old traveller system where one had
> specific programs that did things and took up generic space units.

Most importantly, there were a whole range of "Jump" programs, one for each
length of jump. The longer the jump, the larger the program. In addition to
the "Jump" program, you also had to run a "Navigate" program. A model 1
computer could run "Navigate" and "Jump-1" together, but not "Navigate" and
"Jump-2", which a scout/courier or far trader would need to do. A model 2
could do that, but cost MCr9, to the Model 1's MCr1, and in addition was
larger (2 tons vs. 1 ton). The model 1 bis could run "Navigate" and "Jump-2"
together, but only cost MCr4 and only took up 1 ton.

> Also, what actual effect does differing computer models have on ship's
> functions, aside from the DM's to the various tasks?  For example, the 200-ton
> trader detailed in the Starship Operator's Guide: Is it doing all of this crew
> recognition, entertainment holograms, etc. on a model 1 computer?

The model 1 has 2 units CPU, and 4 units store. It could run anti-hijack (1
unit) permanently, and alternate between, say, Manoeuvre, Library, Target,
and a couple of others, each requiring 1 unit.

>								    If it is
> powerful enough to do all this, is there any reason to have a better (more $)
> model?

Yes. A model 1 can't do a jump-2. It also can't run many programs at once, and
can't run some of the nicer ones at all, e.g. "Double Fire" (4 units).

> ...					  Thus, a combat is the ideal time to
> try and take a ship over as its internal scanners may well be inoperative.

Under the old rules, just before jumping it the ideal time for this, for the
same reason. The computer is running "Navigate" and "Jump-1", each 1 unit.
If it's a model 1, that's all it's doing.

>  By the way, to the person who mentioned you "pocket computer," I believe that
> the model 1 is at or near mainframe levels of capability, pushing into the
> supercomputer regions.

That was me, and I know that. That's why I didn't ask for pocket computers to be
available at TL 7 or 8.

Now for my next gripe. "Fib" means "fibre-optic back-up", and is supposed to
protect the computer against radiation damage. Firstly, a half-decent EMP would
fry the chips, regardless of whether or not fibre-optics were being used.
Secondly, nowadays fibre-optics are starting to be used in the main circuits,
never mind back-ups, and for speed reasons as well as protection. So here's
what I do. A computer designated "fib" has a backup alright, consisting of
redundant components. If the computer gets damaged, by radiation or anything
else, the damage may be either to the main computer or to its back-up. So there
are effectively two computers, which I refer to as A and B. When computer
damage occurs, I roll 1D; on a roll of 1-3, A gets it; on a roll of 4-6, B gets
it. Whichever is the least damaged is the one which is used. In fact, there are
not two distinct machines; the least damaged set of components is being used.
But it's a quick'n'dirty system which allows simulation of back-up.

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

I believe 'bis' stands for 'binary inline store' or something along
those lines.  As Adrian Hurt mentioned, it has 2 CPUs and extra memory
storage.  Personally, I have always found the Traveller computer rules
to have very little to do with modern computer science.  They seemed
more like computers of 15-20 years ago, when you had to exchange
disk packs to run a different program.  With current trends in optical
storage, fiber optics, multi-processing, micro-miniaturization (yes,
even Crays are getting tiny), etc., computers used to operate starships
would be much different than those portrayed in Traveller.

Do others have these same feelings?

Brett Slocum   UUCP: ...[email removed]
               Arpa: [email removed]
"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."