Re: (2535) Computer size, <and Component Volume>

> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1991 22:11 CDT
> From: [email removed]
> Subject: (2535) Computer size
>
> The reason I asked about computers is this:
>
> Basically, a starship has 3 computers running in parallel.  Each one
> checks the answers provided by the other two.  If one disagrees with the
> other two, the two out vote the errant one and it is noted.
>
> If one computer is consistantly giving wrong answers it is shut down and
> says FIX ME!!!
>
> So, If the volume of a computer is actually the work station volume, then
> in a starship case it shouls only be 1/3 of that.  And a car with computer
> aided control should have less volume because it doesn't have a work
> station right?

I think Scott is correct here.  Starship computers may include workstations
with all the peripherals, but vehicle and fighter control computers will be
specialized for one type of I/O and operation.  Thus, we have to assume that
the volumes given in the rule books are the actual volumes of the computers,
not including hypothetical workstation peripherals.

> Where am I coming from and why am I babbling so:
>
> Right now, a TL5 car with no computer and a top speed of 100kph
> will perform the same as a TL8 computer with a model 0 at a top
> speed of 100kph.  As far as I can see there is no difference that the
> rules will generate.  Actually a TL8 car with anti-lock braking smart
> suspension etc will perform much better (I would guess anyway)
> What I am looking for is a small computer that would be usable in a small
> vehicle to get just a lousy +1 in difficulty rolls that doesn't require
> the Cr 900,000 model 1 computer!  Right?
>
> So all you vehicle theory guys, what do you say?

My first response would be to "wing it", since what you say makes sense.  I
also pointed out recently that having a Model 7 in your grav tank ought to
give you a noticeable +dm in vehicle combat, which is basically the same idea.


<Discussion of maintenance issues deleted>

> Unfortunately, trav designs are a volume critical process.  There are almost
> no designs that have space left over.  It all gets called the cargo bay
> or in some cases the fuel tank.  That means that there is ZERO room left for
> a mechanic to crawl around in an engine compartment.
>
> Does any of this make sense?

It does.  However, is there anything lost if we make the assumption that the
volume given for a piece of equipment includes the minimum necessary space
around it for maintenance and access?  That would explaing why a lot of heavy
metallic components (like internal combustion engines) get a gross density
equal to that of water...

Rob Dean