Quote from: Crawford Tillinghast;1039956I've been thinking about this too.  How about analogue computers?  AFAICT, analogue computing became a dead end, when digital computers overtook the analogue ability to do things faster.

Also known as Babbage Engines, as per chirine ba kal's post above. A lot of Ken MacLeod's books use nano-tech "hard coded" mechanical computers, to prevent the post-singularity AIs from corrupting the programming.

In Traveller, the ships are like 40 years old or something. That's why they don't use modern electronics, we're lucky if our mobile phones last 40 months.

How'd you like to be six weeks out in the void and your system crashes? "Updating operating system, please do not turn off... 1%..."

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040065Can't you just say, 'the physics/chemistry of this universe are slightly different, such that these particular advances simply don't work?' I mean, sure a hypothetical chem major player might fume about how one can create a universe where glass exists but silicon chips can't keep getting more data-dense or something along those lines, but for the rest of your group, wouldn't that work?

That what it would have to be since transistors were never a theoretical issue. The general idea was understood during the first decades of electronics. The problem was making them them reliably, small enough and affordably. In short a engineering problem. You could just postulate that space travel began earlier. That way you have decades instead a few years with older style electronics. Another path is that solid state is developed as our own timeline but instead of general purpose computers everything is purpose built with closed architectures aka nintendos, xboxes, and PSxs. A tradition of wide open boxes never takes hold and everything is tightly controlled. That would slow down software/interface development which would produce a retro feel for decades.

That is a good one and would slow down advancement quite a bit depending on how long that lasted.

Another one on a similar track is that the tech is black-boxed much like the old Furby system was to prevent reverse engineering. All that tech is in just one propriatory hand rather than here there and everywhere.

Which though doesnt addredd Groves original setup. I still think the main hurdle will be weight issues in getting massive computers into space and the give-take of their fragility vs resistance to certain types of damages. Theres going to be a push to get those nav computers smaller.

It is similar to the advancements needed to get a viable space suit that could withstand micrometeor impacts. The suits actually got bulkier as we have layered more and more protection into the suits after realizing the hazards. And while bulkier, they are alot more protective.

Quote from: estar;1040137That what it would have to be since transistors were never a theoretical issue. The general idea was understood during the first decades of electronics. The problem was making them them reliably, small enough and affordably. In short a engineering problem. You could just postulate that space travel began earlier. That way you have decades instead a few years with older style electronics. Another path is that solid state is developed as our own timeline but instead of general purpose computers everything is purpose built with closed architectures aka nintendos, xboxes, and PSxs. A tradition of wide open boxes never takes hold and everything is tightly controlled. That would slow down software/interface development which would produce a retro feel for decades.

Quote from: Omega;1040175That is a good one and would slow down advancement quite a bit depending on how long that lasted.

Unless I am misreading you two, what you are looking at is a failure of that society to produce a possible technology (because space travel happened first in the discovery process, or the like). I am suggesting changing the rules of the universe such that the solid state electronics aren't feasible (in a way that is as reliable, durable, cost-effective, or whatever else makes them preferable to the vacuum tubes and the like).

Thing is, we live in a pretty convenient for computers universe (such that the computers are the least hand-wavy part of most space-based sci fi). Metal is conveniently ductile and malleable, conducts well and we've found many that work well either in vacuum or in our atmosphere (or both). Later, we've found out that flexible fiber-optic cable is both plausible and can transmit huge amounts of data. Silicon (or gallium arsenide) make really good microprocessor chips. Things line up really well for making more and better, faster, etc. computers. Why not change one of those things to... just not?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040191Unless I am misreading you two, what you are looking at is a failure of that society to produce a possible technology (because space travel happened first in the discovery process, or the like). I am suggesting changing the rules of the universe such that the solid state electronics aren't feasible (in a way that is as reliable, durable, cost-effective, or whatever else makes them preferable to the vacuum tubes and the like).

One could always have Alien Space Bats rewrite the rules, the challenge is coming in up with something that is plausible without ASBs.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040191Thing is, we live in a pretty convenient for computers universe (such that the computers are the least hand-wavy part of most space-based sci fi). Metal is conveniently ductile and malleable, conducts well and we've found many that work well either in vacuum or in our atmosphere (or both). Later, we've found out that flexible fiber-optic cable is both plausible and can transmit huge amounts of data. Silicon (or gallium arsenide) make really good microprocessor chips. Things line up really well for making more and better, faster, etc. computers. Why not change one of those things to... just not?

The problem with plausibility is that despite the prevalence of silicon it just the best of many alternative for semi conductive materials. That the theoretical underpinnings were developed along with everything else with the invention of electronics in the first place. And trying to make any type of hard science fiction over changes to physical laws is hard without every things devolving into a Stirling style Dies the Fire situation where ALL electronics are not possible.

At some point one is better off going the Star Trek/Star War route and make it a non realistic science fiction setting. Just create a an internal logic to keep the science fiction feel aka Star Trek.

Or knock the advance of space technology and material technology out of sync with each other so the amount of time for vacuum tubes being used is prolonged.

Quote from: estar;1040205The problem with plausibility is that despite the prevalence of silicon it just the best of many alternative for semi conductive materials. That the theoretical underpinnings were developed along with everything else with the invention of electronics in the first place. And trying to make any type of hard science fiction over changes to physical laws is hard without every things devolving into a Stirling style Dies the Fire situation where ALL electronics are not possible.

At some point one is better off going the Star Trek/Star War route and make it a non realistic science fiction setting. Just create a an internal logic to keep the science fiction feel aka Star Trek.

Or knock the advance of space technology and material technology out of sync with each other so the amount of time for vacuum tubes being used is prolonged.

I feel like there should be a middle ground. I remember reading things like Isaac Asimov's Foundation, and noting the force fields and personal fusion packs and FTL as violations of hard science, but not the futuristic room-sized computers and so on. I feel that there should (always a dicey word to throw in there, I know) be a middle ground where 'it's hard sci, except computers just don't work as well' that doesn't rely on a society which somehow didn't figure out superconductors, but did figure out ... some other things we're still working on.

On some level, it is a doylist issue--computers solve too many problems that we still want in our fiction (/genre RPGs), so we want to nerf those, while still being able to have the rest of the sci fi 'realistic' (because... I don't know, we want to ).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039916Cars are going smaller, use less fuel, more efficient.  Computers have gotten smaller, and use less electricity, more efficient.  Aircraft engines use less fuel now, more efficient.  Humanity refines, for good or ill, we refine a technology to a size that we are comfortable with.

From a European perspective. On the other hand, most cars in the US market look to me like they got steadily injected with more and more yeast after a brief slimming in the 80's. Selling points include seats that tower high over shorter cars, perceived safety by driving a very large object, interiors that are like mobile living rooms with padded chairs and televisions in them, etc. But yes, those are still about perceived "comfort" - just what that means can be different and lead to some things staying large or getting larger.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040065Can't you just say, 'the physics/chemistry of this universe are slightly different, such that these particular advances simply don't work?' I mean, sure a hypothetical chem major player might fume about how one can create a universe where glass exists but silicon chips can't keep getting more data-dense or something along those lines, but for the rest of your group, wouldn't that work?

Yes. I think (mb wrong) that you could have something that induces EM noise that can't be shielded out, so signals have to be stronger to have reliable values - more power and heat probably means they can't be too small and delicate.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040210I feel like there should be a middle ground. I remember reading things like Isaac Asimov's Foundation, and noting the force fields and personal fusion packs and FTL as violations of hard science, but not the futuristic room-sized computers and so on. I feel that there should (always a dicey word to throw in there, I know) be a middle ground where 'it's hard sci, except computers just don't work as well' that doesn't rely on a society which somehow didn't figure out superconductors, but did figure out ... some other things we're still working on.

Star Trek is a middle ground, it for the most part serious science fiction exploring issues despite based in part on "rubbery" science. Beyond a few handwaviums like dilthium crystals they don't go into depth with their technology.

As for Asimov's Foundation series it science fiction focused on the implication of technology that can effect the grand sweep of history. It actual technological basis is about as solid as Star Trek's technological foundation even by the standards of his times. But since it obviously not the focus it doesn't take away anything from the books.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040210where 'it's hard sci, except computers just don't work as well'

<-- This is easier to make a plausible future out of. Computer are what they are due to sociological factors. The technology just establishes the playing field, how the game is played out is dependent on the personalities involved. It plausible some point of departure in the past half century caused the default form factor of computer to be a vastly less usable form. A world where every computing device is a closed box Nintendo style machine. Or each computer has one function and one function only jealously guarded by draconian IP laws.

While everything is driven by transistors, the overall feel would be very much what we expect from raygun and tubes style future.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1040210On some level, it is a doylist issue--computers solve too many problems that we still want in our fiction (/genre RPGs), so we want to nerf those, while still being able to have the rest of the sci fi 'realistic' (because... I don't know, we want to ).

Computer are tools not magic. For example communications, if you read the Martian by Andy Weir, despite all the radio equipment left on site Mark Watney was unable to communicate with even a  Martian satellite because a specific piece of radio equipment, a dish, was needed. In a tabletop roleplaying game comm devices are denoted by range because for the most that all you really need to know. But in the real world it more complex than just raw range. The ability to focus the radio power output is also important as well.  

If one doesn't like a particular piece of technology being magical in operation then often studying the real world details will yield stuff that you can incorporate without turning it into a hard core simulation.

Note: The Ares III mission had backups but the backups are on the Mars Ascent Vehicle which was taken by the crew when they had to leave after Watney was hit in the dust storm.

Finally, doing the retro computing stuff is fine, it Star War style science opera in terms of technology and many enjoy that. Just say that how the world operates, don't get into the reasons why and run your campaign. Or go Star Trek, establish a few ground rules about how things works and everything follows from those premises.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1039817Im working on a sci-fi setting with a bit or retro-tech (think 80s sci fi movies) and am theorizing an alternative history where the electronic revolution we enjoy today was stymied in the 80s for several reasons. The result is a future, space faring society, with no cellular networks, no internet, no micro-computers and the like but massive mainframes and DOS bound work stations, heavy and clunky mechanical based, rather than electronic, construction elements etc.

So... basically Classic Traveller?

One way to do it is the discovery of a hyperspace drive that is a dimension where distances are shorter, but tech past a certain point just does not work or actually combusts or explodes. To travel the stars your ships need those older style techs. Or TORG style and your tech is actually transformed into lower era tech if it violates the axioms.

Or you could do it TORG style. The very axioms of the universe just do not allow tech past a certain era to work. Possibly to the point that no one CAN think of those higher techs even, keeping the world in a perpetual 1920s level with some weird science thrown in to allow space travel. Things that arent possible in the normal universe. Have a look at the Nile Empire book foe that. Taken to its extreme is the Living Land where anything past the stone age fails and processed materials like clothes start to decay rapidly.

So you can just tell the players that in this setting the universal axioms do not allow tech past a certain era. Thats all you really need and that is how TORG did it.