Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Harlequin)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Sun Oct 21 11:00:01 2001
Hoi Chummers,. This is my first post so I shall endevor to make it a
good one :)

All this talk about cybereyes and cams in the shadowbeat thread got me
thinking, has it ever been established how much a Mp is in bytes or K?
Has Mike M ever stated either officialy or off the record (ie in IRC)?

Also on a side note I have developed a advanced unarmed combat system
for SR a while back. I have taken several yrs of martial arts and put
that knowledge to good use. Would anyone here be interested in seeing
it? If so ill be happy to post it.

Harlequin
Admin of the Shadowland IRC Server @ shadowland.ath.cx
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Alex Rudnick)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Sun Oct 21 13:20:00 2001
> has it ever been established how much a Mp is in bytes or K?
As far as I can tell, this is intentionally an emphatic "no!" ... you'll
also notice that we never get speeds for SR computers in mHz or MIPS or
anything like that. The reason for this is to avoid having direct
comparisons 'tween the specs on current-day machines and the ones in SR.
The developers can't really know what sort of computers will be out in a
few years, and if they pinned down just how fast that Fairlight Excaliber
is, say 4 gigahertz or something that would have sounded absurdly quick a
few years ago, well, in a year or two, you might have something like
that on your desktop, and then they'd look silly.

> Would anyone here be interested in seeing it? If so ill be happy to
> post it

Please; I'd like to see it.

TGITH
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Sun Oct 21 13:30:01 2001
According to Harlequin, on Sun, 21 Oct 2001 the word on the street was...

> Hoi Chummers,. This is my first post so I shall endevor to make it a good
> one :)

Welcome. Hope you enjoy your stay :)

> All this talk about cybereyes and cams in the shadowbeat thread got me
> thinking, has it ever been established how much a Mp is in bytes or K?
> Has Mike M ever stated either officialy or off the record (ie in IRC)?

I thought you said you were going to make a _good_ post? ;) In short, the
answer is: there is intentionally no link between pulses and bytes. The
classic example is one of the editions of GDW's Traveller science-fiction
RPG, where starship computers had something like 16 KB of memory... FASA
did not want to make that kind of mistake with SR, and so invented a
measure for computer memory with no basis in reality.

> Also on a side note I have developed a advanced unarmed combat system
> for SR a while back. I have taken several yrs of martial arts and put
> that knowledge to good use. Would anyone here be interested in seeing
> it? If so ill be happy to post it.

You're bound to get a lot of feedback on it, so by all means, go ahead.
However, please note that posting attachments to the list is forbidden, as
is posting HTML, so you would have to post it as plain text in a message,
which (depending on what you wrote it in) may mean some converting and
editing is in order.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Those Who Do Do Not Know the Past are Doomed to Reboot it"
-- Paranoia R&D Catalog
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+@ UL P L++ E W-(++) N o? K w+(--) O V?
PS+ PE(-)(+) Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++(-)>$ tv+ b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (zixx)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Mon Oct 22 12:35:01 2001
Alex Rudnick wrote:
> > has it ever been established how much a Mp is in bytes or K?
>
> As far as I can tell, this is intentionally an emphatic "no!" ... you'll
> also notice that we never get speeds for SR computers in mHz or MIPS or
> anything like that. The reason for this is to avoid having direct
> comparisons 'tween the specs on current-day machines and the ones in SR.
> The developers can't really know what sort of computers will be out in a
> few years, and if they pinned down just how fast that Fairlight Excaliber
> is, say 4 gigahertz or something that would have sounded absurdly quick a
> few years ago, well, in a year or two, you might have something like
> that on your desktop, and then they'd look silly.

For my own CPunk-game, I actually guesstimated both CPU-power and storage
systems, using Moore's law and some wild guesses. I ended up with serveral
YottaFLOPS (that's 1e24 FLOPS , for those interested) per mainframe-CPU, by
the year 2091. Unless quantum-computers suddenly start working (large-scale,
no slashdot-links, please), I'm probably save, but do you really need that?
I'm a computer-science guy, so I get a bit of mental masturbation out of it,
but as I have no idea what kind of algorithms they have by then, I can't tell
how long a specific task is going to take anyway.
For storage, you're more likely to invent data-formats (and compression rates
for those formats) that fit your idea of how much data should fit onto a
certain media. If you don't want a single chip to store 340 years of HQ
video, your video-format will simply have 300.000x200.000 pixels, with 100
images per second. This is not quite as possible with Audio, as there is a
certain limit to what will enhance your experience, and that's not that much
data (on the other side of the spectrum is 3D-video, which takes up scary
amounts of storage when uncompressed).
The one good thing about it is that you can finally say that simple text is
not going to take up a measureable amount of space, even when you D/L a whole
library. :)
As for SR, sure, the MP-costs for data given in the books don't seem sane at
all (if one second of simsense is 1MP, no hermetic library in the world will
ever be that big), but usually, they are quite OK for regular gameplay. If
you have a very decker-oriented game with people who try to use their RL
computer science skills, things might break, but so will the whole Matrix, so
storage is not going to be the biggest problem. :)

Zixx
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Harlequin)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Mon Oct 22 19:35:01 2001
zixx wrote:

>Alex Rudnick wrote:
>
>
>For my own CPunk-game, I actually guesstimated both CPU-power and storage
>systems, using Moore's law and some wild guesses. I ended up with serveral
>
Just a quick clarification. Moores law has NOTHING to do with cpu speed.
It states the transisters in a cpu will roughly doubble every 18 months.
Don't worry, alot of ppl misunderstand the law as you have. :)

Harlequin
Admin of the Shadowland IRC Server @ shadowland.ath.cx
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (zixx)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Tue Oct 23 11:10:01 2001
Harlequin wrote:
> zixx wrote:
> >Alex Rudnick wrote:
> >
> >
> >For my own CPunk-game, I actually guesstimated both CPU-power and storage
> >systems, using Moore's law and some wild guesses. I ended up with serveral
>
> Just a quick clarification. Moores law has NOTHING to do with cpu speed.
> It states the transisters in a cpu will roughly doubble every 18 months.
> Don't worry, alot of ppl misunderstand the law as you have. :)

Well, in asynchronous CPUs, it should be about(!) the same (actually a bit
lower, which is great for me, because it pushes me a bit farther onto the
save side). I believe the clock should be killed. My game reflects that ;)

Anyway, I never stated that the execution speed doubles...:/

Zixx
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Harlequin)
Subject: Mp Clarification
Date: Tue Oct 23 11:20:00 2001
--------------040806030509060606090605
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



zixx wrote:

>Harlequin wrote:
>
>>zixx wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Rudnick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>For my own CPunk-game, I actually guesstimated both CPU-power and storage
>>>systems, using Moore's law and some wild guesses. I ended up with serveral
>>>
>>Just a quick clarification. Moores law has NOTHING to do with cpu speed.
>>It states the transisters in a cpu will roughly doubble every 18 months.
>>Don't worry, alot of ppl misunderstand the law as you have. :)
>>
>
>Well, in asynchronous CPUs, it should be about(!) the same (actually a bit
>lower, which is great for me, because it pushes me a bit farther onto the
>save side). I believe the clock should be killed. My game reflects that ;)
>
>Anyway, I never stated that the execution speed doubles...:/
>
>Zixx
>
True you didnt, but you certainly implied it. As if not then why bring
up moores law? As transister count is a bit pointless when the topic
was how fast cpu's are. As for 'about the same' its been calculated and
you are right its a bit slower, 10-20% slower depending on the time
period your looking at.

No matter, water under the bridge.

Harle


--------------040806030509060606090605
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
zixx wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E15w3Az-0003a7-00@********.kundenserver.de">
<pre wrap="">Harlequin wrote:<br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">zixx wrote:<br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Alex Rudnick wrote:<br><br><br>For my
own CPunk-game, I actually guesstimated both CPU-power and storage<br>systems, using
Moore's law and some wild guesses. I ended up with serveral<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Just a quick clarification. Moores law has NOTHING to
do with cpu speed.<br>It states the transisters in a cpu will roughly doubble every
18 months.<br>Don't worry, alot of ppl misunderstand the law as you have.
:)<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>Well, in asynchronous CPUs, it
should be about(!) the same (actually a bit <br>lower, which is great for me,
because it pushes me a bit farther onto the <br>save side). I believe the clock
should be killed. My game reflects that ;)<br><br>Anyway, I never stated that
the execution speed doubles...:/<br><br>Zixx<br><br></pre>
</blockquote>
True you didnt, but you certainly implied it. As if not then why bring up
moores law?&nbsp; As transister count is a bit pointless when the topic was how
fast cpu's are. As for 'about the same' its been calculated and you are right
its a bit slower, 10-20% slower depending on the time period your looking
at.<br>
<br>
No matter, water under the bridge.<br>
<br>
Harle<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------040806030509060606090605--

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Mp Clarification, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.