Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 62 guests
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Daryl » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:21 am | |
Daryl
Posts: 3562
|
I don't believe that any SiFi universe has had its tech analysed and debated remotely as much as this one. At times reading the arguments between some of the train spotters here I realise that they are treating it all as real instead of a story that started decades ago.
Personally I wouldn't even be able to start constructing a universe as detailed and consistent as this one, however there are obvious holes in tech and economics. This does not invalidate a damn good read though. If pressed to point out some holes I'd look at computer design stagnation and the small proportion of GDP being allocated to life and death struggles. |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by kzt » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:54 am | |
kzt
Posts: 11360
|
Well, sure. The economic assumptions behind the society are kind of nuts too. The claim was made that you can only have 1% of the population in the military without having the economy of the SKM collapse, but based on the manufacturing numbers, essentially 90% of the GDP seems to come from less than 1% of the population. Exactly what do the other billion plus people do that is so essential to the economy that recruiting some more feminist dance therapists and maybe some deconstructors of Soviet-Era Russian Literature via mime performance would crash the economy? The US had a vastly higher percentage in uniform during WW2, and a much higher percentage during the 1960s, which was not exactly a period of economic stagnation. Last edited by kzt on Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Relax » Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:56 am | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Maybe because the HH universe is set 2000 years in advance and yet the tech is straight out of the 60's when it was started to be written in the mid 90's... What kind of weird mental hoops are you jumping through where discussing a topic in regards to how fake it is, invalidates a good read? The fact one can discuss the gross particulars in error of reality rather VALIDATES its good read status. If realism is required to notch a "good read" sticker, there is not a single viable fiction book and most NF as well... << Shakes Head In Amusement >> _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by jgnfld » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:07 am | |
jgnfld
Posts: 468
|
You are quite correct given your assumptions. But, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don't think it--programming in the far future--means to RFC what you think it means.
|
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Relax » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:23 am | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
What is the title of this TOPIC thread... _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Joat42 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:35 am | |
Joat42
Posts: 2162
|
If we are talking about chess or any other situation where all the variables are known a computer will most likely always win which isn't really relevant to battles. But if we continue the chess analogy, a battlefield is like a chess board where you can't see all the opponents pieces or their correct positions. The pieces may even move in non-standard ways. That is why when we are talking about battles where not all information is known I rather have a human in the loop than a computer. --- Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer. Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool. |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Relax » Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:24 am | |
Relax
Posts: 3214
|
Uh, this is the vacuum of space, yes you can... An object in motion remains in motion... There is no stealth good enough in the Honorverse and there is also no where to HIDE. White noise generation(dazzlers) comes down to S/N ratio of your sensors and the prebuilt algorithms for processing. None of which is something a "human intuition" can see through as it happens in milli-nano second or shorter time space. _________
Tally Ho! Relax |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Daryl » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:07 am | |
Daryl
Posts: 3562
|
Come again, I said exactly the same thing as you did but in a slightly different way. A slightly off technical approach would only matter if the story wasn't well written.
Now a current David Drake series has an interstellar war analogous to the Trojan war times. He is a damn good writer but I have difficulty accepting that an ongoing viable means of combat at these speeds and distances is ramming, to the extent that they design specialist ships for it. I like trimeres as well as anyone, but not in this context. Still I am enjoying the series.
|
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by SharkHunter » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:36 am | |
SharkHunter
Posts: 1608
|
Given the speed of calculation and transmission required to control a missile at millions of kilometers against enemy electronic countermeasures/CM fire, etc. [assuming near peer level competency]...
...realistically, there is no requirement to have human intervention or even humans aboard to transit a wormhole. Which so far consists of the right person flipping a set of switches to configure the Warshawski sail when the sensors indicate the need to o so... within a several second period. Similarly, the need to have humans do the astrogation calculations at all, except in odd circumstances. Though likely what the astrogator is doing is selecting from optimum computer generated plans. ---------------------
All my posts are YMMV, IMHO, and welcoming polite discussion, extension, and rebuttal. This is the HonorVerse, after all |
Top |
Re: Tech they ought to have. | |
---|---|
by Joat42 » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:46 am | |
Joat42
Posts: 2162
|
Now you are just disingenuous. What you are saying is that any kind of ECM is not necessary because missiles doesn't maneuver, and good sensors, fast computers and algorithms can predict anything. And modern planes doesn't use chaff either, or any other kind of countermeasure, because computers! And your reasoning about why humans can't react to events at 1 ms to 1 ns scale is faulty, since the whole point of the human in the loop is to set up strategies and tactics dependent on what the enemy does or doesn't and then hand over control to computers. --- Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer. Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool. |
Top |