Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: February 07, 2014, 08:36:16 AM »IIRC this is the technobabble from Traveler, which I think is where Steveliftedborrowed them from.
Guilty as charged
Guilty as charged
Posted by: sloanjh
« on: February 07, 2014, 08:11:32 AM »As I understand mesons in most sci fi sense its a mass of quarks and anti-quarks (as real mesons are a pairing of the two) that phase in and out of existence as they travel. So it would be timed so when going through the shields and armor of a ship its phasing but when it is going through the interior component it is in a phase that is the same as the reality we live in and therefore able to interact with it. My very limited understanding of actual mesons says this explanation is not, strictly speaking, impossible just out of our current grasp. But that is off topic.
Not quite. In the real world, as you say, a meson is an unstable particle composed of a quark and an anti-quark. Because it's unstable, it has a finite life-time (very similar to a radioactive half-life) which indicates the time it takes to undergo total matter-anti-matter annihilation (I love saying "total matter-anti-matter annihilation") and turns into other particles like photons. The technobabble is that you speed the mesons up to close to the speed of light so that the relativistic time dilation factor keeps them alive long enough to travel into the other ship, where they decay. If they're neutral mesons like pi0 they'll only interact with the armor using the strong force (not electro-magnetism) so they'll slide right through and decay inside the other ship. IIRC this is the technobabble from Traveler, which I think is where Steve
John
Posted by: Sematary
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:10:44 PM »I think mesons are far more unrealistic tbh, how can any weapon go right through all kinds of shielding, armor, do no damage to crew but specifically hit internal systems that are made from the same kind of material that the armor is?
As I understand mesons in most sci fi sense its a mass of quarks and anti-quarks (as real mesons are a pairing of the two) that phase in and out of existence as they travel. So it would be timed so when going through the shields and armor of a ship its phasing but when it is going through the interior component it is in a phase that is the same as the reality we live in and therefore able to interact with it. My very limited understanding of actual mesons says this explanation is not, strictly speaking, impossible just out of our current grasp. But that is off topic.
On topic, I totally agree with your point, Alex. A ship with AI should have the AI components be more susceptible to HPM, if for no other reason than balance and it fits the in game logic even if we don't fully understand what that logic is.
Posted by: Antsan
« on: February 06, 2014, 05:28:12 AM »Yes but remember what we are comparing it to here. Which task do you think is harder to develop an AI to do, repairing a unknown and random failure, or normal operation of an engine/missile launcher?Actually I think that deciding what and when to shoot was one of the harder problems in AI. Not targeting, of course.
The thing is that you cannot do these things from a remote location when assuming that communication still happens at light speed.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 27, 2013, 03:07:00 PM »Just take a look at modern combat naval ships. They all reduce crew requirement and increase the efficiency of the ships by quite a margin. I think that the new US carrier will reduce the crew compliment by nearly 20% because of new and automated systems.
I's only reasonable to think that this will be even more common in the future. I also think that it is just as easy to render a crew useless than it is with an AI system, if perhaps not even more so.
But this is a Sci-Fi discussion so you can pretty much conjure up any techno babble to justify pretty much anything...
I's only reasonable to think that this will be even more common in the future. I also think that it is just as easy to render a crew useless than it is with an AI system, if perhaps not even more so.
But this is a Sci-Fi discussion so you can pretty much conjure up any techno babble to justify pretty much anything...
Posted by: Narmio
« on: November 27, 2013, 02:20:48 PM »Yes but remember what we are comparing it to here. Which task do you think is harder to develop an AI to do, repairing a unknown and random failure, or normal operation of an engine/missile launcher?Control, maintenance and diagnostics of complex automated systems actually exists in the real world right now. This paper: http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1057/1057%20maxent04.pdf is just the first of thousands of results for "neuroadaptive control", which is applied AI researcher lingo for "intelligent system which monitors and diagnoses a complex factory or other facility". Sure, that's a long way off controlling an entire spaceship's systems, but we can't regulate a tokamak's plasma field right now either. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't hard, it's just that what's possible and what's not possible for intelligent systems can be a highly unintuitive thing.
My point was not that It couldn't be done, but that replacing the human engineering/maintenance is one of the last areas the AI and Automation would find itself into. After all someone needs to be left repairing the robots too, right?
Posted by: Shipright
« on: November 27, 2013, 01:18:51 PM »Do you know how far into metal a microwave penetrates? Look up skin depth and tell me that a ship with half a meter thick hull armour is going to be worrying about microwaves anytime soon. The AI and any other electronics are safe from the mircowaves until long after the crew is cooked. Also there is electronics in every other system on the ship but the microwave weapons only affect those which are basically exterior to the hull (sensors and fire controls).
Why are you assuming that the armor is metal? Or that you have any idea of the properties of any transnewtonian material.
In reality metals are extremely poor armor against lasers for many reasons and weapons like particle beams which will cause the deadly affects I linked to. Solid metal armor is entirely useless against kinetic weapons like rail or Gauss guns at the energy level used in the game where thin spaced layers and whipple shields are required.
Most importantly metals are heavy, and thus will be used sparingly and definitely not to blanket the entire hull.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:40:28 PM »Because that is the way game works? I don't know why Steve did what he did.
Exactly my point when it comes to HPM damaging electrical systems like AI, because its the way the game works
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:28:29 PM »I'm sure that Steve just did not want a damage model that was too complex, that is why sensor system is "behind" the armour. In reality they would be external to the armour. Putting them on the inside would be kind of pointless in a realistic point of view.
I don't see how system such as engines could really be behind armour, weapons also have to somehow be external or at least part of them need to be. The armour model in the game are just "simplified".
I don't see how system such as engines could really be behind armour, weapons also have to somehow be external or at least part of them need to be. The armour model in the game are just "simplified".
Posted by: Paul M
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:26:31 PM »If that is your entire argument, then how come the armor is currently protecting all these systems fully from all other kinds of damage?
I don't agree with you, and I do think that it would fit the game style and consistency that a weapon kind that only targets electronic systems also can target AI systems.
I think mesons are far more unrealistic tbh, how can any weapon go right through all kinds of shielding, armor, do no damage to crew but specifically hit internal systems that are made from the same kind of material that the armor is?
Because that is the way game works? I don't know why Steve did what he did. But there is no way a microwave beam penetrates even mm of metal, as I said to the other person look up "skin depth." At the end of the day the difference between a maser and laser in effect is negligable. If I hit your ship with a maser I'd bore a hole through exactly like I would with a laser. Since the weapon doesn't affect the hull armour it is not a maser but a high power microwave beam (which in another context would be called a cm band radar) and that isn't doing anything more than frying your antenna electronics and rendering you blind and deaf.
As for the justification of the meson gun...it is shakey but look up proton therepy or meson therepy or heavy ion therepy they all work on the principle of the range-energy equations and allow you to deposite the bulk of the energy deep into the body rather than on the surface. That is what the "meson cannon" is using as a principle. It isn't completely correct but it isn't completely incorrect.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: November 27, 2013, 12:03:16 PM »The targeting dish/emmitter dish is outside the hull for every one of those systems classified as electronic currently
If that is your entire argument, then how come the armor is currently protecting all these systems fully from all other kinds of damage?
I don't agree with you, and I do think that it would fit the game style and consistency that a weapon kind that only targets electronic systems also can target AI systems.
I think mesons are far more unrealistic tbh, how can any weapon go right through all kinds of shielding, armor, do no damage to crew but specifically hit internal systems that are made from the same kind of material that the armor is?
There's also the possibility that "automation" refers to tele-operated robotic arms, self-regulating systems, or whatever, rather than just AI. Anything which reduces the number of humans required at the cost of more machinery is automation, after all.
Yes but remember what we are comparing it to here. Which task do you think is harder to develop an AI to do, repairing a unknown and random failure, or normal operation of an engine/missile launcher?
My point was not that It couldn't be done, but that replacing the human engineering/maintenance is one of the last areas the AI and Automation would find itself into. After all someone needs to be left repairing the robots too, right?
Posted by: Paul M
« on: November 27, 2013, 11:58:21 AM »Do you know how far into metal a microwave penetrates? Look up skin depth and tell me that a ship with half a meter thick hull armour is going to be worrying about microwaves anytime soon. The AI and any other electronics are safe from the mircowaves until long after the crew is cooked. Also there is electronics in every other system on the ship but the microwave weapons only affect those which are basically exterior to the hull (sensors and fire controls).
Posted by: Shipright
« on: November 27, 2013, 11:10:30 AM »A digital based AI would be far more succeptable to microwaves than a human. In fact all delicate electronics would be. So just because you crew isn't killed, let alone killed instantly, doesn't mean microwaves are not or can't penetrate the hull. Furthermore some electronics are by their very nature more resistant to Microwaves or harder to harden against them.
It's not all that important, it's not like the game's particle cannons take Bremsstrahlung (see blow, scroll to particle beams) which would be FAR more damaging to human crew members than microwaves.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php
It's not all that important, it's not like the game's particle cannons take Bremsstrahlung (see blow, scroll to particle beams) which would be FAR more damaging to human crew members than microwaves.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php
Posted by: Paul M
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:36:56 AM »The wiki states the following:
"The High Power Microwave is not affected by armour but it is affected by shields. However, because of the HPMs effectiveness against shields and electronic systems, the single point of damage from the HPM causes three points of damage to shields."
"Once the shields are down, the High Power Microwave only damages systems classed as "Electronic". This currently includes sensors, fire control systems, ECM and ECCM."
Don't you consider integrated ship AI as a big part of "electronic systems"? I do.
I don't think Fire controls are external. They are computers located in the middle of the ship just like AI would.
The targeting dish/emmitter dish is outside the hull for every one of those systems classified as electronic currently, last I checked fire control systems for missiles had "antenna size." Every system in the ship uses electronics, inclusive of every weapon system but you can only kill sensors and ECM/ECCM (which likely are connected to the sensors anyway) with microwaves. Beam Fire Controls are the one system that doesn't specifically have an antenna and I have no idea if you can kill them with microwaves. Theoretically you should not be able to as all they are is a balistic targetting computer system that is telling your beam system where to point. But on the other hand nothing says they don't have sensors on the hull that could be overloaded by getting hit with the microwave beam.
You also can't cook the crew which tells you instantly that the microwaves are not penetrating the hull. So your AI is safe, just like your crew is safe.
Posted by: LizardSF
« on: November 27, 2013, 09:02:09 AM »To clarify: I was proposing that "Reduced Crew" or "Automation" be a single tech, probably researched in 10% increments up to maybe 50%, then "Full Automation", with it coming in to play only when units are designed. Thus, I can design a normal engine, as currently done, and there's a drop-down which has "Crew Reduction". Even simpler (but since when has Aurora been about simple?) it could be a function of class design: When you design a class, include a "reduced crew" setting as one of the many fields to fill in. It could even be a checkbox: If set, the crew is reduced by the currently researched automation tech. (So, if you're at "Automation 20%", and you check the box, all crew requirements are reduced 20% across the board.)
I think this would have utility for long-term deployment, esp. explorers and scouts. From an RP perspective, I feel sorry for the crews stuck on my sorium harvesters and asteroid miners. My Valdez-class sorium harvesters have crews of 322, and man, that's got to be the most boring duty imaginable.
There may be other benefits to partial automation, such as improved training speeds (fewer people to train, smaller work units that mesh more quickly, plus adaptive systems that learn the crew's habits and self-modify to accommodate them). OTOH, as others note, there could be increased risk of failure in combat from mesons and microwaves, as well as the possibility of hacking automated systems via ECM (ala the new Galactica).
Ultimately, it's just another dial to play with, and let's part of what makes Aurora fun.
I think this would have utility for long-term deployment, esp. explorers and scouts. From an RP perspective, I feel sorry for the crews stuck on my sorium harvesters and asteroid miners. My Valdez-class sorium harvesters have crews of 322, and man, that's got to be the most boring duty imaginable.
There may be other benefits to partial automation, such as improved training speeds (fewer people to train, smaller work units that mesh more quickly, plus adaptive systems that learn the crew's habits and self-modify to accommodate them). OTOH, as others note, there could be increased risk of failure in combat from mesons and microwaves, as well as the possibility of hacking automated systems via ECM (ala the new Galactica).
Ultimately, it's just another dial to play with, and let's part of what makes Aurora fun.
