Transport thoughts.

[keith.lamothe]

Of course, then people will complain about a giant starship only taking one "slot" in the transport, but I think that is livable.

But quibbling over slot counts is so fun!

And thus we'll leave it at the most unrealistic possible (microfighter == dreadnought), to allow maximum quibbling room!

[Kjara]

Hmm, are microfighters actually smaller than eyebots or deflector drones?

[FrostyThePyro]

I think its obvious.  Transports  are multidimensional and thus have infinate space within them, the transport limit is actualy based on processing power.  The trick with storing things in non-euclidian space is getting it back, thus 200 is simply the maximum amount of ships the transport can keep track of within its confines, and though could technicly load more than that, it would be nigh imposible to get it back.

Thats my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[keith.lamothe]

Reminds me of an idea I heard from a Computer Science professor in our low-power-computing research group about having mobile/battery-powered units use a (much bigger) wireless-networked device's ram to store the pagefile instead of the local harddisk since the speed difference could exceed network latency in that case. 

He asked if there were any problems with that and I responded "Page?  What page?"

He then asked if there were any problems with it aside from fault-tolerance.

I always was the smart aleck

[ShadowOTE]

Interesting idea, at least until you step outside and realize you just switched wireless networks... or Apple launches a new gadget and saturates the bandwidth

[SmileyFace]

Of course, then people will complain about a giant starship only taking one "slot" in the transport, but I think that is livable.

But quibbling over slot counts is so fun!

And thus we'll leave it at the most unrealistic possible (microfighter == dreadnought), to allow maximum quibbling room!

Hehe, so inversely, are microfighters too small to fit inside transports now the docking bays are so large?