Rallying the troops for TNE/TDR II

Scott K. writes about GDW taking up his offer to participate in
the rules design for MegaTraveller: The New Era:

> I'm going on vacation starting tomorrow.  I expect to be back around the
> 17th.  Now, Mark pointed out that perhaps we don't need an coordinator,
> and I am not really fully coordinated enough to take on the task of
> coordinating it ALL.
>                        ........                I feel that a coordinator
> while not absolutely necessary, will certainly help.  The crew of GDW
> is gonna have limited patience listening to 300+ people all giving
> contradictory views on the TML.
>
> What *I* would like to do would be to have folks send their ideas on craft
> design to me.  I'll go through it and pick up the best ideas and try to
> incorporate as many as I can into a coherant write up for them to read.

How much do you plan on changing material we submit?  It's one thing
to act as a reviewer, but I'm not sure I want my material editting
*before* it gets to GDW.  Other than that one quibble, I agree that
there should be only one (or very few, at least) contact with them to
avoid overwhelming them with input.

> Computers:
> One area we all know that is in need of touching up is computers.  Nobody
> has a good answer for what a model 1 computer is.  Nobody knows how a
> robot brain compairs to a Model 1.  That is a big problem with the design
> system.  I however am the original Computer-0 guy.  I think that perhaps
> we should try to hammer together a system to try to equate robot brain
> design to the various Model 1's, 2's, 9's etc.  I would love to hear some
> input from the *REAL* Computer Jocks out there.   (Mark?  James?)

I'm willing to give it a shot.  I'd like to work with James, but unless
his work schedule changes, I suspect there's vanishing small chance he'll
have the time to contribute.  BTW, are we writing from scratch, reviewing
existing drafts, or both?  If working from existing stuff, how do we get
the original material from GDW?

> Since the virus is coming into the game, it will be important that what
> computers that *DO* exist will be usable and realistic.  This also, may
> allow us to introduce some cyber-punkish computer stuff into Trav.  This
> may or may not be desirable.  I don't know, but it is something we might
> look into.

It would be nice to have some direction and guidelines from GDW.  For
example, I'd hate to spend a month developing rules for netrunning only
to discover that they don't want that sort of thing in MT:TNE as it makes
it look too cyberpunkish.  We need a little boundary criteria, don't you
think?

BTW, I'd also like to work on a unified combat system (at *least* personal
and vehicle, but inclusion of air, sea, and space combat would be nice too).

> It seems to me that while I am competant enough to put together a summary
> of craft design stuff, I am not well aquainted enough to go through all
> of traveller and find all the strengths and weaknesses.  I know *ZERO*
> about trade and commerce stuff, while Steve, Hans, Wildstar and others
> really know the stuff.  I suspect there are rather a few of us who could
> take on the task of coming up with a definiteive critique of various
> aspects of Traveller.  Let's play to our strengths:

Since Trade & Commerce is so badly broken in current MT, I think this is
definitely an area the our 'pros' need to concentrate on.  Steve H., Wildstar,
Rob Dean, and Dow Rieder are the first names that come to mind here.  I
notice that only Steve and Rob are in this mail header, so I think Dow
and Derek (what *is* his real name, anyway?) should definitely be asked
to participate.  (I'm including both of them in this shotgun reply, on the
chance that they'll be interested.)

> I would suggest that if someone feels competant enough to coordinate some
> aspect, please volunteer to do so.  Then we can get our best people working
> in their best areas on some tough problems.

With the regular TML PBEM on summer hiatus and other RPG activities
currently in cold-storage, I'll volunteer.

Assuming I get majority approval (and some contact info from Scott), I'll
contact Loren right after I get back from vacation (I should be back on
June 29th)and see if I can get some design guidelines for the new rules.
Most of you know what a stickler for detail I am, so I think I could
organize things reasonably well.  I promise not to stomp anyone's ideas,
as long as they don't conflict with any guidelines set down by GDW.
I promise to pass on only material in a form approved by the original
author, i.e. I'm not going to re-write it after you submit it.  I *will*,
however,do spelling and grammar checking on submitted material and query
the author for corrections before passing any material along, OK?  And
finally, I promise to make sure that GDW gets all the appropriate names
listed in the final product, and SPELLS THEM RIGHT!! :^)

Later,
	- Mark

In your letter dated Mon, 8 Jun 92 13:54:27 PDT, you wrote:
>
> > Since the virus is coming into the game, it will be important that what
> > computers that *DO* exist will be usable and realistic.  This also, may
> > allow us to introduce some cyber-punkish computer stuff into Trav.  This
> > may or may not be desirable.  I don't know, but it is something we might
> > look into.
>
> It would be nice to have some direction and guidelines from GDW.  For
> example, I'd hate to spend a month developing rules for netrunning only
> to discover that they don't want that sort of thing in MT:TNE as it makes
> it look too cyberpunkish.  We need a little boundary criteria, don't you
> think?
>
> BTW, I'd also like to work on a unified combat system (at *least* personal
> and vehicle, but inclusion of air, sea, and space combat would be nice too).


OK.  GMTA.  I just posted a notice last night on GEnie asking about guidelines
for TNE.  No answer yet.  We should probably get together a list of things that
we think _should_ be considered (like do it yourself computer rules) and run it
by them, even without waiting for guidelines. Doing serious work is not prudent
yet.


> And
> finally, I promise to make sure that GDW gets all the appropriate names
> listed in the final product, and SPELLS THEM RIGHT!! :^)

Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!

Rob (A:V) Dean (-:

> > And
> > finally, I promise to make sure that GDW gets all the appropriate names
> > listed in the final product, and SPELLS THEM RIGHT!! :^)
>
> Good luck!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, er, OK.  Let me amend that to, "I promise to try my *hardest* to make
sure that GDW..." :^) :^)

Later,
	- Mark

Mark Cook writes:
>Scott Kellogg:
>
>>Computers:
>>One area we all know that is in need of touching up is computers. Nobody
>>has a good answer for what a model 1 computer is. Nobody knows how a
>>robot brain compairs to a Model 1. That is a big problem with the design
>>system. I however am the original Computer-0 guy. I think that perhaps
>>we should try to hammer together a system to try to equate robot brain
>>design to the various Model 1's, 2's, 9's etc. I would love to hear some
>>input from the *REAL* Computer Jocks out there.  (Mark? James?)

One small suggestion: Get the tech levels explicitly divorced from the
Terran dates. Just because we make it today on Earth dosen't mean it
HAS to be TL 8 (or is 1990 TL 9? I forget. Anyway, you get the point).
This will allow us to define computer models as we like it. So what if
Terra had a computer TL of 12 or 13 in 1990? Obviously we're going to hit
a plateau in a few years... ;-).

>I'm willing to give it a shot. I'd like to work with James, but unless
>his work schedule changes, I suspect there's vanishing small chance he'll
>have the time to contribute. BTW, are we writing from scratch, reviewing
>existing drafts, or both? If working from existing stuff, how do we get
>the original material from GDW?

I think the best thing to do is work out a list of subjects and submit it
to GDW. Then they can tell us what they're willing to listen to. Saves us
doing a lot of work that will just be disregarded anyway.

>It would be nice to have some direction and guidelines from GDW. For
>example, I'd hate to spend a month developing rules for netrunning only
>to discover that they don't want that sort of thing in MT:TNE as it makes
>it look too cyberpunkish. We need a little boundary criteria, don't you
>think?

That would be nice, yes.

>With the regular TML PBEM on summer hiatus and other RPG activities
>currently in cold-storage, I'll volunteer.
>
>Assuming I get majority approval (and some contact info from Scott), I'll
>contact Loren right after I get back from vacation (I should be back on
>June 29th)and see if I can get some design guidelines for the new rules.

Good.

>And finally, I promise to make sure that GDW gets all the appropriate
>names listed in the final product, and SPELLS THEM RIGHT!! :^)

Good luck, mate ;-).



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

Mark F. Cook [email removed] writes:
> I'm willing to give it a shot.  I'd like to work with James, but unless
> his work schedule changes, I suspect there's vanishing small chance he'll
> have the time to contribute.

Argh. Life sucks (sometimes). While I have spent most of my time
programming advanced software systems, I have a little experience with
TL7 robot programming from college, where I took a robot programming
class. We programmed a small (24", one-armed) robot and got a good
overview of mostly modern robot systems and technology. Suffice to say
robot programming is still in the stone age, moreso even than
conventional programming.

Off the top of my head, here's some of the problems with TL7 robots:

touch sensors
	dynamic range: human tactile and internal sensors can
	distinguish delicate forces on the order of 10e-5 Newtons to
	crushing weights of 10e3 Newtons, using a log scale. Force
	sensors on TL7 robots are usually linearly scaled in a narrow
	band engineered for a specific task. My robot had notoriously
	flaky microswitches to gauge "force".  Usually we programmed
	it to squeeze four clicks past switch close and hoped it was
	strong enough to grasp the object without crunching it or
	having the motor slip and get out of sync with the program.

	pattern recognition & perception: humans have millions of
	tactile sensors on their bodies which are all coordinated with a
	pattern-recognition system that can distinguish the broken edge
	of an egg shell from steel net. Robots are typically limited to
	a few dozen channels of sensor data.

visual sensors
	computer vision is barely out of its infancy. Often embedded
	sensors in the environment are a good idea - like office robots
	using a magnetic stripe embedded in the floor.

manipulators
	force: human muscle groups, made from collections of tiny
	contracting fibers, can exert from 10e-5 to 10e3 Newtons of
	force in fine gradations, depending on the number of coordinated
	units. Again, TL7 robots are usually linearly scaled in a narrow
	range.

	coordination: muscles are arranged in groups and feedback
	mechanisms regulate and coordinate their force signal by
	comparing sensor data with the goal in real time. Humans can
	regulate force feedback in about 1/5 to 1/10 a second for
	unpracticed tasks and as little as 1/30 second for highly
	practiced and programmed tasks.

	range of motion: muscle systems can exert different levels of
	force depending on the particular segment of their range of
	motion - for example, the bicep is strongest when the forearm
	and upper arm are near a 90 degree angle, and weaker at the
	extremes.

	blockage: Also, the muscle controller unit is inherently
	cognizant of the range of motion the limb is capable of
	depending on its physical parameters, location, and environment
	(through integrated sensor data). If the limb is asked to do
	something impossible, this becomes evident in the sensor data.

Robot programming
	guided: a robot with adequate sensors can be taught to record a
	particular set of motions by being walked through it, either
	programmatically or physically. It can then replay the
	remembered motions any number of times. Spray-painting robots
	are often taught in this way.

	programmed: a robot may be directly programmed in a robot
	programming language. These languages are moderately arcane and
	while they perform the basic deed, are not particularly
	inspiring.  Basic problems exist, like:

		reaching the limits of the range of motion
			(and still thinking you're moving)
		not taking into account how heavy the object is
			you're moving (arm droops)
		failure to realize your force varies with position
		poor real-time response
		lack of high-level pattern recognition
		no innate integration between sensors and manipulators
		poor ability to resync with the real world if you slip
		bumping into unexpected objects
		dealing with anything unexpected, in general
		failure to realize that the limbs themselves have mass
			and take space (it's easy to write a program
			that doesn't take into account that the item of
			interest is three feet down a narrow well and
			that your arm must reach straight down)
		mapping cartesian coordinates to robot coordinates
			(ie. position (3,5,-1) corresponds to shoulder
			joint 350 deg. Mark 27 degrees, elbow joint -90
			degrees, etc. tough from both a mathematical and
			practical standpoint - try and move a robot arm
			at a constant speed along an arbitary straight
			line in real time! Hah! I dare you!)
		combine the last two (limb space consumption with mapping)
			and you have a really major disaster, since
			every point on the robot arm must be tracked,
			which animal systems handle innately.
		programming doesn't lend itself well to dealing with
			large ranges of logrithmic, fuzzy data with
			near-instant common feedback systems.
		much of the work involves dealing with multi-dimensional
			analog information that naturally should be
			integrated or differentiated, items which are
			unnatural or expensive to perform modern
			software systems.

Well, that's a modestly outdated state of the art. Robot systems sorely
lack 3-1/2 billion years of evolution of sophisticated systems,
subsytems, networks, and goal-oriented integration systems. At TL7-8 We
are exposed to the white-box view of the internals of how all the
systems work, a totally different view than our internal experiential
views suggest.

James

James says:

>Argh. Life sucks (sometimes). While I have spent most of my time
>programming advanced software systems, I have a little experience with
>TL7 robot programming from college, where I took a robot programming
>class. We programmed a small (24", one-armed) robot and got a good
>overview of mostly modern robot systems and technology. Suffice to say
>robot programming is still in the stone age, moreso even than
>conventional programming.
>
>Off the top of my head, here's some of the problems with TL7 robots:
>
<many problems deleted>
>
Holy smokes!  Kind of makes me glad I didn't take any robot courses  8+)
I guess that 3-1/2 billion years makes quite a difference, eh?

>James
>

BTW, has anyone read James P. Hogan's _Code_of_the_Lifemaker_ ?  All about
human's finding and interacting with a robot civilization on Titan.  Of course
those robots were created by an alien protoplasm race, but due to accidents and
evolution, the robots developed sentience and a civilization on a fuedal level.
I enjoyed it a lot.

If you aren't interested in the interaction part, read the prolog at least,
which explains how the civilization developed from a self-directed (but not
sentient) mobile factory/starship.  I found it verry interesting.

P.
- ----------
In the dark no one can hear the color of your eyes.
Disclaimer:  This is me.  Do I sound like anyone else?

Paul Baughman          PHB100 @ psuvm.psu.edu

Team TML:  The follwing was gotten from GEnie this morning.  Doesn't
look too good just yet.

Rob

 ------------
Category 20,  Topic 16
Message 18        Mon Jun 08, 1992
GDW.SUPPORT [Loren W]        at 20:52 EDT

We don't have writer's guidelines yet, Rob, but we are in the process of
formulating our playtesting plans. Frank will be in charge of the starship
combat system (Frank designed that used in the original Traveller).
 Other than that, we have nothing we are willing to let outsiders see.
    Loren Wiseman
 ------------