I have a few questions regarding blueprints
1 ) Are blueprints just for nanofabbers? Could you get blueprints for nanoswarms to be used with a general nanohive, or get blueprints for augmentations to be used with a healing vat?
2 ) How modifiable do you think blueprints might be in Eclipse Phase? My thoughts are that blueprints are not limited to being just data, but they can also be programs. These blueprints may include variant designs, and/or have an understanding of what it is they are supposed to build and how to make modifications to it. For instance, not all knives look the same. They often have different lengths, different shapes, different handles, and may have various designs etched or painted on it.
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
Question regarding blueprints
Sun, 2012-07-22 19:12
#1
DivineWrath
Question regarding blueprints
Mon, 2012-07-23 10:54
#2
Arenamontanus
1: I think blueprints are
1: I think blueprints are usually linked to a particular manufacturing method, so the same blueprint is unlikely to work well for a fabber, a swarm or a healing vat. Just consider how to get overhanging parts to remain in place when you make them using a myriad independent devices rather than a manufacturing environment. That said, it wouldn't surprise me that some blueprints have metadata instructing how to interpret them in different environments, a bit like how some programs have enough preprocessing to be compiled on very different architectures. But these are likely rare and deliberately created.
2: I think most blueprints are customizable in a lot of ways, again somewhat depending on quality and maker. The knife blueprint probably allows you to vary practically all parameters, including downloading textures and sound effects, tracking information or why not a rep-link (so everytime you stab somebody it gets reported on your and their rep blogs)? The problem is that advanced objects are so complex that most customization is best left to the experts: you really don't want to tinker too much with the emergency farcaster settings...
—
Mon, 2012-07-23 15:13
#3
TadanoriOyama
What Eclipse Phase calls a
What Eclipse Phase calls a blue print I think we would call a 3D modeling program. You can probably look at the produce in AR or VR and make changes in a simple Simulspace program within the restrictions set by the manufactorer.
For restricted blueprints this is probably fairly limited, alllowing you to adjust size, color, or materials within a set of parameters. It's also probably a very polished interface.
For free blueprints there might be a wider range of options for changes and a likewise a range in the quality of the interface client. Open source prints probably also let you make changes that will alter the quality of the item and may or may not alert you that you've altered something that will prevent the item from functioning as intended. It depends on the individual who created the plans and what iteration of the plans we've picked up.
I think of it like HTML or CSS. It isn't too difficult to open an existing webpage and make some changes without alot of knowledge while extensive changes (or trying to make one from scratch) takes alot more skill.
—
[img]http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9730/reintsuserbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/4205/nightcartelbanner.jpg[/img]
Mon, 2012-07-23 15:39
#4
Xagroth
Personally, I see it as
Personally, I see it as "compiled" and "uncompiled" versions for commercial blueprints (the open source ones, or those each player programs, are open to modifications without any trouble), whereas the compiled ones will work either on CM or Hive, but not both.
Also, it was mentioned somewhere, dunno if in The Eye or another post, that blueprints can have "tolerance", that is, the possibility of changing the composition of certain parts to conform to avaiable materials or purposes (for example, a non-metalic gun, or one you can change the grips to be made of anything).
In game terms, I tend to try to place all the limitations I can think of when my players buy a CP product, while I place almost none in open source ones (just "safety limitations" that can be disabled anyway). The reason is marketing: limited products will force more purchases, while unlimited ones wont.
See the light bulbs in the real world: the companies designed ones to "die" after a while, because the first ones would never waste away (so each time you read that a company is studying a century-old light bulb which has been on forever, thats BS ^^).
Mon, 2012-07-23 19:02
#5
Decivre
DivineWrath wrote:I have a
Since nanoswarms are a newer technology, I generally assume that blueprints designed from nanofabricators are able to be used with assembler swarms, due to backwards compatibility. However, some blueprints might be created solely with nanoswarms in mind, meaning that they are not compatible with the traditional nanofabricator. This probably is only in few cases, such as large objects that aren't built from smaller parts (of which there would rarely be a nanofabricator big enough for them).
As for healing vats, I assume they use completely different "blueprints" that function on a wholly different level from normal fabrication. A healing vat doesn't simply fabricate an implant, it also holistically integrates it with a subject's biology. That's a whole lot more complex than simply building something. It probably includes a lot of information regarding proper hormone balance, neural reconfiguration, and tons more. Plus it will house a broad spectrum of that information for a multitude of possible morphs (in fact, in my games I restrict implant blueprints to a specific morph, though one can reconfigure blueprints with a proper programming test).
Extremely. In fact, today we are already seeing a rapid transition to open code, so that most software becomes completely modifiable. By the time we get to 10 AF, it's very likely that most software is stored in human-readable form. Not just as a means of ensuring modifiability, but also as a security measure.
So I imagine that blueprints are also fairly easily modified (should you have the necessary skills for the task).
The line between "data" and "program" is already a fairly muddy concept today. PDF files are a document format, but can also be a container for executable code. To that end, nanofacture blueprints effectively contain an instruction set for the movement of machines… so most ways you put it, it's executable code. The question becomes whether blueprints in 10 AF are akin to blueprints today (a slightly more complex version of CAD blueprinting) or if they are more complex: containing not only data on the shape of a final object, but a multitude of direction with regards to the specific order that the object need be constructed in. The former is not a program, but 3d imaging data that is converted into instructions by other software; the latter is a program through and through.
I personally assume the latter, with the base concept being that blueprints are low-level software designed to act as direct instruction code for a nanoswarm or cornucopia machine. Mods for equipment can be added on like software extensions to blueprints, but only if those mods have those specific blueprints in mind (so I can buy an armor upgrade for my flexbot blueprints to craft a flexbot with armor pre-installed, but can't use those blueprints to upgrade the armor of a slitheroid; nor may I probably use those blueprints to upgrade another brand of flexbot).
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.
[url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Tue, 2012-07-24 11:23
#6
OpsCon
Here's my question that came
Here's my question that came up in last night's game; Can you modify something, either by blueprints or by old fashioned work, to have chameleon cloaking, like a gun?
Our Ghost-Morph infiltrator/sniper wants to know because he'd like his gun to also be hard to see.
—
KT
Alex 'Iceshade' Andrade
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img]
[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo1_400.jpg[/img]
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo2_400.jpg[/img]
Tue, 2012-07-24 11:36
#7
Arenamontanus
I think it should be fairly
I think it should be fairly easy if you also have a blueprint for a invisibility metamaterial. Except of course that merging them requires a bit of (easy) engineering - you want the metamaterial on the outside surfaces and not on the inside, for example. I would suggest a Hardware: weapons roll.
—
Wed, 2012-07-25 02:57
#8
Decivre
OpsCon wrote:Here's my
That hits the issue right on the head. Effectively, someone needs to have access to the blueprints for a metamaterial that is durable enough to act as the outside shell for your weapon, then simply replace the outside shell of your weapon on its blueprints with the metamaterial. It would take relatively easy hardware and programming tests to achieve.
But there are problems with having a metamaterial weapon. The least of all being the visibility of your own weapon. You never want a weapon so easily hidden that you could lose it. :D
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.
[url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Wed, 2012-07-25 03:29
#9
NewAgeOfPower
Decivre wrote:
Other than the fact you can hide most of your rifle under your invisibility cloak, a Metamaterial weapon is perfectly fine.
Lost it? Bah! Get sonar/echolocation.
Next thing you know, you're running around your house like a chicken, except emitting odd clicking sounds while muttering "where did I put my keys"
—
As mind to body, so soul to spirit.
As death to the mortal man, so failure to the immortal.
Such is the price of all ambition.
Wed, 2012-07-25 05:15
#10
Re-Laborat
Decivre wrote:But there are
One of my cousins works for Fish & Game and has commented that every year a ridiculous number of camoflauged shotguns are reported lost during turkey season. Turkeys are apparently very visual, and wild turkeys are very clever, so turkey hunters tend to go extreme 'ghillie suit' when it comes to camoflauge. And apparently some idiots literally set their shotguns down and cannot find them again. In related news, at least some are found and turned in every year...Not nearly as many as are lost!
Wed, 2012-07-25 08:36
#11
Xagroth
Personally, I'd let an item
Personally, I'd let an item to be "modified" for free with a chamaleonic metamaterial: a spray can of paint! Of course, it won't last more than a few days, but when you are in a pinch, well...
As for the "I can't find my gun after" remember that in AF10 most firearms come with come electronic stuff (recognicion hardware, smart aim, etc...). Those systems are tied to the mesh insterts of the morph, so it's really easy for the gun to show itself in the GUI of the character.
Also, if you make the modification of the chamaleonic metamaterial to the weapon, then I think you can order the weapon to show different patterns, instead of being limited to mimic the surroundings. Since, again, this is made using the mesh, you can set the weapon to show designer's images or something that will make it easy to spot.
Finally, if those items are left open to mesh signals (in a purely passive version, unless "pinged" by their owner), it might be possible to send a broad signal that would scramble the signals, making the gun to show another pattern or even the chamaleonic cloaks. I suggest using cable instead of waves!
Wed, 2012-07-25 11:39
#12
DivineWrath
Regarding finding your missing gun.
Regarding finding your missing gun.
You could make your gun a robot. The AI could be programed to look for you if it thinks you lost it.
Alternatively, you could use a nanoswarm like smart dust to find it. Order them to move around until they bump into something they can't see. You then might want to get them to climb the object to get the object's dimensions. You would want to make sure it is your gun. You don't want to be walking up to another sniper thinking the hidden sniper is your missing gun.
Don't forget that you can get a memory augmentation for your morph so you never forget where you left your weapon... or so that you never forget to get a memory augmentation.
Wed, 2012-07-25 14:30
#13
Arenamontanus
DivineWrath wrote:You could
"Master! Master! *There* you are!"
"IIIIIIIEEE! It is coming right at us!"
—
Wed, 2012-07-25 15:21
#14
DivineWrath
Hmm... I thought that the
Hmm... I thought that the whole meta-design business may have been too much.
So not all blueprints would be universal. Its probably a buyer beware topic. You are taking risks if you rely on a blueprint produced by an unskilled amateur programers who has never tested their blueprints (they may not work to begin with). Likewise, a hypercorp that sells blueprints for profit is probably not going to make the blueprint too restricted or useless as to allow themselves to get sued (assuming that is still possible) or ruin the possibility for future business, but it will not be motivated to make the blueprints better than it needs to be. You would likely need a lot of money, good connections, good rep, and owed favors to get a universal blueprint with meta-design programing. Such a thing could put people out of business.
My thoughts on a blueprint with meta-design software would probably be best handled by being an AI, or some separate program that a programer may use (maybe both). A good Meta-Design AI should probably have the skill Programing (nanofabrication) of 30 with Academic: Nanofabrication of 80, making its target numbers be 70. Likewise, a good meta-design program should offer a +30 bonus to all relevant programming tests. A meta-design AI using a meta-design program is probably guaranteed success. Their price should start at [Expensive] as they have the potential to put the makers out of business.
Inferior meta-design software may cost as low as [High]. Such inferior programs might have skills not being as high as they could be, have smaller bonuses, or may have skill and programing that covers a narrower topic. For instance, the topic could be firearms or variations of a specific model of a gun (like a light pistol). Such meta-design could not be used to make something that falls outside its focus (though it might be able to make something half finished). For instance, a firearm meta-design AI could not design an energy weapon, but it probably knows enough to make the handle and trigger (connected to a non-existent firing mechanism), or it could design a convincing looking fake.
Wed, 2012-07-25 19:21
#15
DivineWrath
Regarding blueprint types
Regarding blueprint types
I'm following up on the idea that most blueprints are designed to used be used by only one type machine or production method.
After giving it some thought, I think these would be the major categories available.
-Workshop (Some one makes something the old fashioned way)
-Factory (possibly obsolete)
-Healing Vat (most blueprints are probably tailored to one specific morph)
-Cornucopia Machine
-Nanoswarm (protean nanoswarm to be precise)
-Nanohive
Any blueprint you could have is probably designed to work with one type of manufacturing method. A blueprint could be made or modified to be producible by any number of production methods, but it would probably require some extra effort to make it that way. Considering the similarities between CMs and nanoswarms, a protean nanoswarm can probably use CM blueprints without too much difficulty (the object produced may suffer some unforeseen defects, but it should otherwise be useable).
The workshop, factory, cornucopia machine, nanoswarm methods should produce similar objects despite the different construction methods. The nanohive is best suited to produce nanoswarms. The healing vat is best used add augmentations and implants into a physical body without surgery or disassembling a synthmorph.
Wed, 2012-08-08 13:49
#16
The Doctor
TadanoriOyama wrote:What
Sort of like the sliced-and-layered polygonal meshes fed into current-day 3D printers?
—
[img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/info_userbar.jpg[/img]
[img]http://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/argo_userbar.jpg[/img]
[url=https://drwho.virtadpt.net/graphics/blankbadge.png][img]http://drwho.vir...
Wed, 2012-08-08 14:40
#17
Gerzel
Oh factories are far from
Oh factories are far from obsolete. Economies of scale are still in effect.
Dedicated factories have advantages besides that. For starters you can put them behind closed doors and use what ever manufacturing process you like with them.
New factories also might not be built to spit out just a single item. Instead they may be built to utilize many manufacturing processes and churn out many different items in great numbers reading off of a queue and perhaps having an integral AI manage things so that waste streams work synergistically feeding into material streams if possible.
Larger items such as ships, vehicles and morphs also almost certainly require factories. It takes years for a biomorph to grow into completion. Probably some customization can be made during the final stages but still factory methods would be able to churn out far more than smaller workshop methods.
Sure the factories look and operate differently in EP but they are still alive and well like many things we know.
Wed, 2012-08-08 16:07
#18
Decivre
Gerzel wrote:Oh factories are
I think that factories likely have a place in the market for mass-manufacture and fast-production of goods. Nanofabrication is a fairly slow process, and likely does not produce something as quickly as traditional methods, Especially when you consider that 10 AF is perhaps a hundred years into our future, and nanotech is a fairly new process; they've had more time to perfect traditional manufacture techniques than we have.
Plus, factories make a great place to shove indentures and clanking masses into for low-cost labor without the need for AI software or programmer contracts.
I actually see many newer ship designs being designed purely with nanotech, much like newer habitat designs. Because not every person will have the means to purchase a ship, and they are more likely to be purchased by the hyperelite or by a contract with an entire group, hypercorps and contracted designers have more incentive to use nanofacture, which adds higher precision to the manufacture process. But older ship designs (especially pre-Fall ships still in production) can probably be built with traditional techniques.
Morphs are probably designed with traditional methods in the inner system, but outer system groups that don't have access to the means to produce a factory probably resort to nanofacture techniques. As times go on, newer morph models will likely require such a high degree of precision to design, that mandatory nanofacture will probably be inevitable. This is true for most, if not all, manufacture eventually.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.
[url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Wed, 2012-08-08 16:55
#19
Xagroth
I'd say that several parts of
I'd say that several parts of a nanofabbed ship are made in dedicated factories. Just bear in mind that those "factories" are more nanofabbers!
Imagine a chained "cooking" system: here you produce tons of very resistant metal plates for the hull, there you extrude kilometer after kilometer of cabling, etc..., and everything is assembled with nanosealing for perfect fit. Scale economies can be used in more than one way, even if the production chain evolves!
Wed, 2012-08-08 17:28
#20
Gerzel
Indeed. The parts of most
Indeed. The parts of most ships are probably nanofabbed. Though large parts are probably still forged. Large structural parts are probably built closer to forging than fabbing.
Wed, 2012-08-08 17:38
#21
Decivre
Xagroth wrote:I'd say that
In some cases yes, but not in all cases. Nanofacture has its disadvantages and advantages. Traditional methods can be used to shape and mold materials far faster than nanotech can. Furthermore, assembly lines can put together devices far quicker than a nanoassembler can produce it.
However, nanoassembly has the advantage in precision. Only older designs and new models built for traditional assembly will be able to be manufactured in traditional factory setups. Newer designs built to take advantage of the higher precision that nanofacture provides will be exclusively produced by nanofacture, as there is no way to produce the product otherwise.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age.
[url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Thu, 2012-08-09 00:51
#22
Arenamontanus
You might want to look at
You might want to look at convergent assembly models for nanofabrication. The first ideas people had for fabbers were nanomachines making everything at the same time (a vat building in 3D, like some scenes in The Diamond Age) or a sheet of nanomachines slowly extruding the product. But when you calculate things carefully it becomes clear that a hierarchical structure makes more sense for making macroscopic objects:
http://e-drexler.com/p/04/04/0507molManConvergent.html
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/convergent.html
Basically, you have nanoscale factories making parts that are assembled in microscale factories that produce parts for mesoscale factories that produce parts for macroscale factories. This speeds up things a lot.
So I would expect spacecraft assembly to have a similar hierarchical structure. A few parts like the hull might be nanoassembled "by hand" for maximal performance, but a lot of it is just robotic assembly of parts built in specialized fabbers.
—
Thu, 2012-08-09 01:11
#23
Gerzel
Also another factor is
Also another factor is nanoscale production is going to be energy intensive for macroscale projects. You don't need to know where every molecule in a ship hull is. For large supports and structural stuff macroscale forging processes are almost certainly the norm.
Thu, 2012-08-09 03:42
#24
Xagroth
Arenamontanus wrote:You might
This was exactly what I had in mind ^^. I suggest looking at STar Trek's Utopia Planitia shipyards too, the replicator tech is close enough to nanofabbing to we can make analogies. And you do not want to know what kind of stuff I did in some ST games with my engineer/amateur spy... (having blueprins hidden within my clothes, small explosive devices and detonators as other pieces, and force field disruptors as my rank pins... not to mention the small pieces to mount a phaser in my boots!). I am just very dangerous when I get the Ok to make my own stuff :p
Thu, 2012-08-09 15:23
#25
Arenamontanus
Gerzel wrote:Also another
For structural materials you want near perfect structure for maximal strength or resilience, but you don't need very complex structure. So you likely use specialised fabbers to produce struts, sheets and other key components - they are worth being energy-intensive to make.
Walls and floors can be made in bulk without any molecular precision.
—