Jump to content

A bad chemistry simulator?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Whispershade said:

I feel like you're assuming the hydrogen generator is burning the hydrogen. Maybe it is fusion. ;) I mean the premise of the game is you're printing people and drilling with beam weapons.

Actually, this line of thinking is pretty interesting. Normally Hydrogen gas is combusted with Oxygen to produce energy (and water). Hydrogen will also spontaneously react in a similar way with Chlorine gas to produce energy and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Could be a good use for that pesky Chlorine floating around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Whispershade said:

I feel like you're assuming the hydrogen generator is burning the hydrogen. Maybe it is fusion. ;) I mean the premise of the game is you're printing people and drilling with beam weapons.

I was thinking about it also. So I suggest to call the device accordingly. Though you need a special H3 or better H4 to have a fusion. I mean if the guys call the device a fusion reactor - will be some solution. Cause we may be able in the future to print androids. But we will never be able to burn hydrogen without consuming oxygen. 

An other solution would be just to write in the description that "In this process the oxygen should be involved, but you know what? Oxygen is not included." :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Atomicorange said:

Actually, this line of thinking is pretty interesting. Normally Hydrogen gas is combusted with Oxygen to produce energy (and water). Hydrogen will also spontaneously react in a similar way with Chlorine gas to produce energy and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Could be a good use for that pesky Chlorine floating around...

This is actually an awesome idea! https://www.britannica.com/science/hydrogen-chloride

It should produce about the same amount of energy. Though H2Cl seems to be even more toxic than Cl2. Also it can be easier stored as flued as it condenses already by -86C. 

 

Maybe something for developers to look into. For example make an Chlorine gaser. Should be easy enough to implement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kasper747 said:

I was thinking about it also. So I suggest to call the device accordingly. Though you need a special H3 or better H4 to have a fusion. I mean if the guys call the device a fusion reactor - will be some solution.

All the generators are named after the input they receive not how they process. You could even argue the Manual generators receive manual labor as input to produce power. But in this context the hydrogen generator is the least offensive.  The Coal Generator and the Natural Gas Generator seeing as how they both produce CO2, almost certainly are implied to be burning their input but not consuming oxygen.

At the end of the day this game is more about design and failure than it is an edutainment (I can't believe that passed spell check) game about chemical processes. In fact, it is more a game about thermal processes than chemical interaction as nothing explicitly interacts on a chemical level at this point. All you can really do is heat up, cool down, and electrolysis.

If you really want a game about fake chemistry there is SpaceChem.  But even that is really a visual programming exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Natural Gas Generator required oxygen when it was still named Methane Generator and it wasn't remotely fun. They removed the oxygen requirement and renamed it in the same update so I think we are to assume that natural gas has oxygen mixed in.

No excuse for hydrogen generator. Likely not required because that isn't fun either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Risu said:

The Natural Gas Generator required oxygen when it was still named Methane Generator and it wasn't remotely fun. They removed the oxygen requirement and renamed it in the same update so I think we are to assume that natural gas has oxygen mixed in.

Actually the description of natural gas in the game states that it is a mixture of various alkanes. I think they just renamed it to that because the term is more well known (at least in the context of power production) and because methane in natural reservoirs is usually in a mixture with other alkanes irl.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Risu said:

The Natural Gas Generator required oxygen when it was still named Methane Generator and it wasn't remotely fun.

I didn't have any problems with it, it was just matter of pairing it with sufficient oxygen production (electrolyzer). IIRC the oxygen requirement was removed because it was buggy - it was mixing oxygen into the CO2 output, then it was choking on the CO2 it had stored. And it was removed with a promise that the oxygen requirement may return later 

IMO its oxygen consumption actually increased net power output because it allowed you to generate more hydrogen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Whispershade said:

All the generators are named after the input they receive not how they process. You could even argue the Manual generators receive manual labor as input to produce power. But in this context the hydrogen generator is the least offensive.  The Coal Generator and the Natural Gas Generator seeing as how they both produce CO2, almost certainly are implied to be burning their input but not consuming oxygen.

At the end of the day this game is more about design and failure than it is an edutainment (I can't believe that passed spell check) game about chemical processes. In fact, it is more a game about thermal processes than chemical interaction as nothing explicitly interacts on a chemical level at this point. All you can really do is heat up, cool down, and electrolysis.

If you really want a game about fake chemistry there is SpaceChem.  But even that is really a visual programming exercise.

Hydrolysis and temperature management. Hydrolysis works fine, but that is is being screwed straight away with hydrogen generator. Temperature management works probably the best. But than there is no dependency between temperature and pressure and heat does not move from top to bottom. Some. Also any burning process and also hydrolysis is a chemical reaction. My point is that to make more realistic heat management is of much more effort than realistic chemical reactions.

2 hours ago, Risu said:

The Natural Gas Generator required oxygen when it was still named Methane Generator and it wasn't remotely fun. They removed the oxygen requirement and renamed it in the same update so I think we are to assume that natural gas has oxygen mixed in.

No excuse for hydrogen generator. Likely not required because that isn't fun either.

I am surprised that it had ever required oxygen. I can understand that the game play need to be there. But maybe have it as a hardcore mode? Or maybe evaluate if there are ways to make it fun. **** for example with chlorine. Cause the combination of hydrogen reactor and hydrolysis machine producing excessive energy does not make any sense. Its like in Call of Duty M16 will use 9mm ammunition. Yes can be, but why one would make it this way???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kasuha said:

I didn't have any problems with it, it was just matter of pairing it with sufficient oxygen production (electrolyzer). IIRC the oxygen requirement was removed because it was buggy - it was mixing oxygen into the CO2 output, then it was choking on the CO2 it had stored. And it was removed with a promise that the oxygen requirement may return later 

IMO its oxygen consumption actually increased net power output because it allowed you to generate more hydrogen.

I can understand that as it is a problem we have in real live. I think this is one of the aspect of the live in on a "submarine" or on a planet as a closed environment. That all the crap produced we need to live with forever. I think at that point the heat and the plant can get a much more important role in the late game. For example a geothermal reactor are being considered to be the most reliable source of emotion free energy.

What do you think about following game play? I think it should be realistic to make using a concept of geothermal energy:

  1. At start use most conventional energy - the human labor.
  2. Get access to fossile fuel to free up man power.
  3. Start searching for a stem gazer and building CO2 storage during this time.
  4. When gazer is found build the geothermal plant around gazer.
  5. Start using plants and energy from the gazer to reduce the footprint that was left in previous stages.
  6. Support development of living beings as helpers to the effort.
  7. Further expansion that is driven by: Getting more dupes, more plants or animals or by the need to asquire some resources that are not renewable.

Geothermal-Energy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, chemistry and physics are both complex subjects that frankly, most people don't know much about, beyond the very basics.  Physics in the form of energy flow - besides being esoteric - might be super-boggy to the processor if done more thoroughly, and chemistry is just a slippery slope of having to add scores of elements if you're going to do it 'realistic'.  And in the end, if they don't do them, most people won't care, because they don't know.  Most people are not physics or chemistry majors and won't care if things they don't know about aren't in the game, or represented realistically.  However, most people can understand pushing water and air through pipes.  If you live in a home with central air, or have plumbing in your home, then you understand the notions required.  Everyone knows what a thermometer is.  Everyone can recognize the notion of a filter.  The game is an HVAC sim.   That's the part that is fun to play with, and the part that people can easily grasp.  If it were not for the very few people on these forums who do these detailed experiments, I'd wager most people would have no idea of the current under-the-hood mechanics. 

The funny thing about the ammo comparison, is that I've seen FPS games where you just pick up "ammo".  And that serves for all guns.  They don't name is specifically one caliber and let you use it in another, so it's not so jarring.  It works.  What some people are expecting of the physics and chemistry engines here is not comparable to ammo inconsistencies though.  It's comparable to an FPS game adding fatigue based on carry weight, especially if you don't sling your weapon, forcing you to clear mechanical and dud jams, forcing you to physically search your body for your next available clip, making switching weapons take a realistic amount of time, making you able to carry a pistol and one other weapon max, increasing mechanical jam chances if you don't disassemble and clean your weapon every clip, adding smoke to the battlefield from fire and weaponry, adding you slipping in the mud, and tripping on debris, making you readjust your ill-fitting GI helmet every so often, forcing you to look at and physically grab anything on the ground, rather than just running over the top of it, and just generally making your game life miserable with details that are just going to get in the way of what the game is about, and what makes it enjoyable.   In the case of ONI; digging, building, moving gas and water around.

Turbine idea could be fun, but with steam geysers, if all you have to do is pipe steam from geyser to turbine, I'd think you'd basically be adding free energy to the game, as the turbine would presumably cool the water as part of the process, and not just for free, but for energy.  One of, if not *the* primary problem of the game now is heat disposal, so turbines would be helping address that for energy to boot.  And maybe that's fine, there's only so many steam geysers, any further steam production would presumably generate more heat. But it seems like a generator without a downside (output to be dealt with), and that seems unbalancing to me.  Generating the steam on your own is another thing though, since it would require a lot more setup I'd think.

I would imagine that if engines required oxygen, you'd have to either pipe the oxygen in, or pipe the waste out, for any generator that produces lots of gas as waste.  Because gases don't mix in ONI so CO2 for instance would crowd out O2 probably most of the time.  And honestly if generators took oxygen, you'd probably be making an easy PO disposal system.  Unless PO had downsides of course, such as causing occasional machine damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spoiler
On 8.7.2017 at 3:03 PM, brummbar7 said:

The thing is, chemistry and physics are both complex subjects that frankly, most people don't know much about, beyond the very basics.  Physics in the form of energy flow - besides being esoteric - might be super-boggy to the processor if done more thoroughly, and chemistry is just a slippery slope of having to add scores of elements if you're going to do it 'realistic'.  And in the end, if they don't do them, most people won't care, because they don't know.  Most people are not physics or chemistry majors and won't care if things they don't know about aren't in the game, or represented realistically.  However, most people can understand pushing water and air through pipes.  If you live in a home with central air, or have plumbing in your home, then you understand the notions required.  Everyone knows what a thermometer is.  Everyone can recognize the notion of a filter.  The game is an HVAC sim.   That's the part that is fun to play with, and the part that people can easily grasp.  If it were not for the very few people on these forums who do these detailed experiments, I'd wager most people would have no idea of the current under-the-hood mechanics. 

The funny thing about the ammo comparison, is that I've seen FPS games where you just pick up "ammo".  And that serves for all guns.  They don't name is specifically one caliber and let you use it in another, so it's not so jarring.  It works.  What some people are expecting of the physics and chemistry engines here is not comparable to ammo inconsistencies though.  It's comparable to an FPS game adding fatigue based on carry weight, especially if you don't sling your weapon, forcing you to clear mechanical and dud jams, forcing you to physically search your body for your next available clip, making switching weapons take a realistic amount of time, making you able to carry a pistol and one other weapon max, increasing mechanical jam chances if you don't disassemble and clean your weapon every clip, adding smoke to the battlefield from fire and weaponry, adding you slipping in the mud, and tripping on debris, making you readjust your ill-fitting GI helmet every so often, forcing you to look at and physically grab anything on the ground, rather than just running over the top of it, and just generally making your game life miserable with details that are just going to get in the way of what the game is about, and what makes it enjoyable.   In the case of ONI; digging, building, moving gas and water around.

Turbine idea could be fun, but with steam geysers, if all you have to do is pipe steam from geyser to turbine, I'd think you'd basically be adding free energy to the game, as the turbine would presumably cool the water as part of the process, and not just for free, but for energy.  One of, if not *the* primary problem of the game now is heat disposal, so turbines would be helping address that for energy to boot.  And maybe that's fine, there's only so many steam geysers, any further steam production would presumably generate more heat. But it seems like a generator without a downside (output to be dealt with), and that seems unbalancing to me.  Generating the steam on your own is another thing though, since it would require a lot more setup I'd think.

I would imagine that if engines required oxygen, you'd have to either pipe the oxygen in, or pipe the waste out, for any generator that produces lots of gas as waste.  Because gases don't mix in ONI so CO2 for instance would crowd out O2 probably most of the time.  And honestly if generators took oxygen, you'd probably be making an easy PO disposal system.  Unless PO had downsides of course, such as causing occasional machine damage.

As you describe - smoke, fatigue, switching weapons, limitation of weapons to carry. It is exactly what made Call of Duty and Battlefield realistic and successful games. Cleaning weapons or search for ammo is usually not done during short scenario featured in that games. So yes, most successful games do have all intuitive realistic features. If we speak about competence of players on the subject. Probably only few know the difference between 9mm and 5.54mm NATO. Still, there are no shooter that will mix them up. 

The heat disposal is only a problem in metha game. My proposal is actually to change the metha. 

Yes, they are the generators without downside. The only thing is they need to be found. Than it will be the challenge in the game. With renewable energy the main task is to find a proper location and after that you are served.

What do you mean with PO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kasper747 said:
  Reveal hidden contents

As you describe - smoke, fatigue, switching weapons, limitation of weapons to carry. It is exactly what made Call of Duty and Battlefield realistic and successful games. Cleaning weapons or search for ammo is usually not done during short scenario featured in that games. So yes, most successful games do have all intuitive realistic features.

Both Call Of Duty and Battlefield franchises including games that feature Jetpacks. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination realistic simulations. And beyond that there are a host of successful games which are quite clearly not constrained by modern realism in the area of shooters. Mass Effect, Halo, Doom 2016 do not have many of the features you describe.

Giving players intuitive features that are analogue to real life help ground the player and set expectations, but it is not a confining straight-jacket in which the developer must be bound. And there are other lessons to learn than just those of real life chemical engineering. Like problem solving and task management. Sometimes it is useful in these context to deviate from real life expectations, it gives people playing something to discover in how the world of the game works and how to take advantage of those differences. Playing the game teaches many things (the science of discovery, planning, design, management, the concept of sustainability), just not the things you appear insistent on it conveying.

And again I will very much reject the premise that 'most' games are successful because they are realistic.  That is most definitely not true.

PO stands for polluted oxygen, the most abundant gas in the game.

Edit: My idea for a realistic shooter is for the first fatal shot you take to uninstall the game and any non-fatal shots send you to the hospital for six months doing rehab. (Or dying to infection with an amputated leg given the setting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Whispershade said:

Giving players intuitive features that are analogue to real life help ground the player and set expectations, but it is not a confining straight-jacket in which the developer must be bound. And there are other lessons to learn than just those of real life chemical engineering. Like problem solving and task management. Sometimes it is useful in these context to deviate from real life expectations, it gives people playing something to discover in how the world of the game works and how to take advantage of those differences. Playing the game teaches many things (the science of discovery, planning, design, management, the concept of sustainability), just not the things you appear insistent on it conveying.

I would add to that, very often in real life situations you get to a position where you don't fully understand the rules and the task is understanding them and adapting to them rather than bending or changing them to your liking. Such things happen every time you change jobs, enter a new school, or just go for a vacation to a new place. Expecting things to behave the way you're used to may leave you unhappy and frustrated where you could have had a lot of good time if you chose to adapt instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Whispershade said:

Both Call Of Duty and Battlefield franchises including games that feature Jetpacks. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination realistic simulations. And beyond that there are a host of successful games which are quite clearly not constrained by modern realism in the area of shooters. Mass Effect, Halo, Doom 2016 do not have many of the features you describe.

Giving players intuitive features that are analogue to real life help ground the player and set expectations, but it is not a confining straight-jacket in which the developer must be bound. And there are other lessons to learn than just those of real life chemical engineering. Like problem solving and task management. Sometimes it is useful in these context to deviate from real life expectations, it gives people playing something to discover in how the world of the game works and how to take advantage of those differences. Playing the game teaches many things (the science of discovery, planning, design, management, the concept of sustainability), just not the things you appear insistent on it conveying.

And again I will very much reject the premise that 'most' games are successful because they are realistic.  That is most definitely not true.

PO stands for polluted oxygen, the most abundant gas in the game.

Edit: My idea for a realistic shooter is for the first fatal shot you take to uninstall the game and any non-fatal shots send you to the hospital for six months doing rehab. (Or dying to infection with an amputated leg given the setting)

You are mixing different game types. Mass Effect is mainly a team play simulator. It is famous for its simulation of human interactions. One of the best simulations I am aware of. I have not played Halo, but I assume it is like Quake and Doom. I am quite sure that later versions had different ammunition and clips. Although these games have a different tradition. I even go so far to say that they are simulators of the fist Wolfenstein. Therefore some people are objecting them being too realistic.

However my point is, that even a jet pack is more realistic than M16 shooting 9mm. Becaus eif M16 will shoot 9mm it will be MP5.

Combustion reaction not consuming oxygen does not make any sense and leads a a game play that does not make sense. And there are few ways tome make the game make sense. Like some of the suggestions to use chlorine for hydrogen generator with HCl as a product or geothermic power. 

 

15 hours ago, Kasuha said:

I would add to that, very often in real life situations you get to a position where you don't fully understand the rules and the task is understanding them and adapting to them rather than bending or changing them to your liking. Such things happen every time you change jobs, enter a new school, or just go for a vacation to a new place. Expecting things to behave the way you're used to may leave you unhappy and frustrated where you could have had a lot of good time if you chose to adapt instead.

It is nice to say that. But there are concepts that are need to be followed. If I dont like something at my job, I will address it. But than again - I will not complain about suprt mario. 

I think it comes down to that. Is the game a simulator of a real world or an imaginary world? "Dont Starve" is a nice simulator of an imaginary world. 

So will this game be a simulator of imaginary physics or real physics? For now it is a simulator of an imaginary physic. And for that I will not advice my nephews to play it. As it is from one side too complex for them and from other side they do not learn anything. Or even worth, they learn wrong things.

 

But maybe I take it way too serious ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, kasper747 said:

So will this game be a simulator of imaginary physics or real physics? For now it is a simulator of an imaginary physic. And for that I will not advice my nephews to play it. As it is from one side too complex for them and from other side they do not learn anything. Or even worth, they learn wrong things.

This is my main issue with using RL units and materials but fantasy reactions.
Using made-up names for units and materials and it would be fine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kasper747 said:

So will this game be a simulator of imaginary physics or real physics?

It's relationship with physics is casual, at best.  I has gravity in a simple sense, it has weight as an additive value, and temperature.  It has no notion of momentum or force in any real sense, and I would guess never will.    Let me approach game comparison from a different angle: it's like you're looking at Sim-City, seeing that it has buildings, cars, and people, and then complaining it's a terrible GTA clone.  That's not what sim-city is trying to do, and even though ONI has some elements that use the names one might recognize in physics, it does not mean it's trying to simulate physics as a whole or even any significant part - real or imagined.  Nor does it need to in order to be enjoyable for the vast majority of people, who are not educated in physics or chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
  • Create New...