Drip Cooling Termination

[trukogre]

4 hours ago, llunak said:

Feel free to, but it's ultimately pointless. As pointed out above, the specific heat capacity of polluted water is way off. It doesn't work to try to prove something right based on something wrong. So as long as heat of polluted water itself is broken, there's no point in discussing anything based on that. Even if water sieve in-game were correct based on this in-game setting, then a lot of related stuff is broken anyway.

Interestingly enough, most in-game materials seem to have their specific heat capacity correct (if https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-d_391.html is to be trusted). Besides polluted water the only other one wrong I could find is hydrogen. Oxygen, (clean) water, tungsten, diamond are exactly what the table says, or reasonably close. So it looks like Klei did their homework and just few elements are wrong for some reason.

One way or another, heat in ONI is broken.

 

The error in hydrogen's spec heat is actually not a problem for me, in reality hydrogen is very difficult to use as a coolant because it penetrates seals/materials and is very light.  The lack of density of hydrogen isn't modeled by ONI, so lowering its specific heat in a way kinda compensates for that, in that it goes some way towards making it's value as a coolant a bit closer to it's real value.  The problem with the inaccuracy of the specific heat of polluted water is that ONI has all these mechanisms to convert polluted water to water and back again.  If they'd even change the spec heat of normal water to 6 to match polluted water, that would be infinitely superior to the current system, and would actually more effectively reflect water's value as a coolant, as currently water's superior density when compared to the other usable coolants in ONI isn't modeled, so in a sense that would be a simlar compensation as hydrogen's variance from reality.  This is something that people are often not considering, as soon as you accept some deviations from reality, of which ONI has plenty, you have to start evaluating other elements or deviations not only in terms of how they fit with the part of ONI that matches reality, but also how they fit with the parts of ONI that simply don't.

[TheScaryOne]

23 hours ago, Giltirn said:

Radiation cooling is used on the space station and other similar places. Basically you have a big A/C unit with the hot part connected to radiators. I think this is a good solution in ONI as it would require a little more thought than just replacing the rim with radiators; you have to build a heat exchanger to concentrate the heat into a liquid which is then piped around inside the radiator. For example building thermal aquatuners to dump heat into a pwater reservoir. It would also be a mid-late game solution as getting to the edge of the map is far from trivial!

I did the math. The 100 ft long radiator on the ISS dissipates as much heat as two wheezeworts, or something like that. Radiating heat into vacuum is HARD.

Dumping hot stuff into vacuum isn't.

[0xFADE]

Hmm. They would have to allow and simulate some heat loss through pipes that are exposed to vacuum at the edge of the map.  Or possibly more simply slight radiation of anything exposed to the vacuum.  The vacuum of space isn't really as empty as the vacuum we have in game. 

[PhailRaptor]

3 hours ago, llunak said:

...(the result should be Joules, not Watts...

But aren't Watts just J/s?  And we're dealing with only a single second, are we not?  You're right, the end unit would be J not W, but I don't see that making a significant difference, given then context.

[llunak]

2 hours ago, trukogre said:

This is something that people are often not considering, as soon as you accept some deviations from reality, of which ONI has plenty, you have to start evaluating other elements or deviations not only in terms of how they fit with the part of ONI that matches reality, but also how they fit with the parts of ONI that simply don't.

Yeah, that KhanAkademy video made me think and I've reconsidered. I now think there's no way for ONI to get even anywhere close to being realistic. As I said before, if basics are wrong (or "wrong", for game purposes), anything built on top can't be right either, so conservation of energy can't work if ONI doesn't have conservation of mass. So now I think heat deletion in ONI will always exist, it's just a question of whether it will be blatantly obvious and possibly making the game worse (I find the water sieve belonging here).

It's actually an interesting problem and I don't know if there's a way to solve it. To avoid heat deletion in ONI, all devices would need to output roughly the same heat as they receive (plus possibly adding their own from the work). But that brings problems, for example how to keep heat when plants pretty much destroy water (and thus heat), hatches destroy mass and some devices turn one element into another? And the conservation of heat using the "absolute" heat in Joules described above[*] can't work, because if every conversion kept the same "absolute" energy, then Rock granulator converting 100 kg of obsidian (0.2 J/g/K) to 100 kg of sand (0.8 J/g/K) would effectively freeze the sand, creating a major heat deletion feature. But then igneous rock has 1 J/g/K, so soaking up heat into it and then converting the hot igneous rock to sand the way things work now also deletes heat. A tough one, unless I'm missing something important.

Still, I think it makes sense to at least avoid the obvious ones. The water->basin->pwater->sieve cycle is lame, makes it easy for new players to ruin their base, doesn't make much sense and if it's really been intentionally done by the devs in order to help destroy heat ([citation needed], still) then that's a needlessly obscure and complicated solution of handling the problem.

[*] Described incorrectly in Watts, which is J/s, but that makes it something different then (that would be like saying that speed and distance are the same).

[trukogre]

3 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

But aren't Watts just J/s?  And we're dealing with only a single second, are we not?  You're right, the end unit would be J not W, but I don't see that making a significant difference, given then context.

I think the end result should indeed be watts he's just mislabeled the left units, spec heat is J/g K not J/g/s, right>

3 hours ago, TheScaryOne said:

I did the math. The 100 ft long radiator on the ISS dissipates as much heat as two wheezeworts, or something like that. Radiating heat into vacuum is HARD.

Dumping hot stuff into vacuum isn't.

I don't see how it's that hard.  Just build 10000 feet of pipes/radiator, now it dissipates as much heat as 200 wheezeworts. Problem solved.  Building pipes is hard in space because raw material is expensive and it has to stand up to the environment, unless you have an entire asteroid of raw material at your disposal, then it seems not that hard.  Or, let the outer wall of the asteroid be your radiator, etc.  This all depends on the conditions on the surface, which are currently undefined.  Once they're defined, we'll know what's up.  

[ImpalerWrG]

On 4/30/2018 at 10:59 AM, TehPlayer14 said:

For that accuracy the Game either would have to cheat updating all the data or be able to take advantage of all cpu cores to tick every tile

No it doesn't, heat of fusion is simple calculation to perform.  When a mass of material in the game would gain/lose heat that would cause it to phase transition you just divide the heat delta by the fusion cost and only phase change that amount of mass, not the whole thing.

I'm guessing that you have no programming background.

[XEVEN]

On 5/1/2018 at 7:26 PM, ImpalerWrG said:

No it doesn't, heat of fusion is simple calculation to perform.  When a mass of material in the game would gain/lose heat that would cause it to phase transition you just divide the heat delta by the fusion cost and only phase change that amount of mass, not the whole thing.

I'm guessing that you have no programming background.

On 5/1/2018 at 7:26 PM, ImpalerWrG said:

 

An ONI map is something like a hundred thousand tiles and it's doing a lot more than just checking for phase changes. How many times per second each tile is calculated I don't know, but anyone coherent knows that you would want to keep this as lean and optimized as possible.

[clickrush]

You can always view fixed heat outputs as chemical reactions that suck up energy, which is definitely intended by the devs. It would surprise me if the devs ever changed it. That is actually the way cooling often works in real life. Cooling systems sometimes use some endothermic chemical reaction or a state change cool down things.

[Giltirn]

7 hours ago, clickrush said:

You can always view fixed heat outputs as chemical reactions that suck up energy, which is definitely intended by the devs. It would surprise me if the devs ever changed it. That is actually the way cooling often works in real life. Cooling systems sometimes use some endothermic chemical reaction or a state change cool down things.

I can't imagine any chemical reaction which takes a fixed number of moles of input at any temperature between zero and infinity and produces fixed temperature output.

[clickrush]

48 minutes ago, Giltirn said:

I can't imagine any chemical reaction which takes a fixed number of moles of input at any temperature between zero and infinity and produces fixed temperature output.

No but I can imagine a video game that simplifies real world rules into something that is feasable to implement and fun to play with,

[llunak]

On 22. 5. 2018 at 10:18 AM, clickrush said:

You can always view fixed heat outputs as chemical reactions that suck up energy, which is definitely intended by the devs.

For about the 10th time at least, citation needed. Everybody repeats this, but nobody can back it up.

Without that, your claim is in the same category as "the Earth is flat".or "people normally use only ten percent of their brain".

 

[clickrush]

34 minutes ago, llunak said:

For about the 10th time at least, citation needed. Everybody repeats this, but nobody can back it up.

Without that, your claim is in the same category as "the Earth is flat".or "people normally use only ten percent of their brain".

 

People generally don't need to prove/cite things that are general knowledge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic_process

 

[Oozinator]

1 hour ago, llunak said:

For about the 10th time at least, citation needed. Everybody repeats this, but nobody can back it up.

Without that, your claim is in the same category as "the Earth is flat".or "people normally use only ten percent of their brain".

 

Stay friendly and obey the system, or i call german cops!
They are in "beast mode"!
Think twice!

 

[llunak]

1 hour ago, clickrush said:

People generally don't need to prove/cite things that are general knowledge

 

I wasn't questioning the first part of the quote, but the last part. The "definitely intended by the devs" part.

Not so long ago, some people on this forum used to back up the drip cooling bug as a feature intended by devs (and they'd probably be surprised if the devs ever changed it, too).

So, to make the question clear this time: What makes you think that fixed output temperature is a feature intended by devs and not the same/similar case as the drip cooling bug, a stop-gag temporary workaround, or anything else? Do you have anything better than "everybody says it because everybody else says it"? Just because something gets repeated often by people doesn't mean it must be true.

 

[clickrush]

2 hours ago, llunak said:

I wasn't questioning the first part of the quote, but the last part. The "definitely intended by the devs" part.

Not so long ago, some people on this forum used to back up the drip cooling bug as a feature intended by devs (and they'd probably be surprised if the devs ever changed it, too).

So, to make the question clear this time: What makes you think that fixed output temperature is a feature intended by devs and not the same/similar case as the drip cooling bug, a stop-gag temporary workaround, or anything else? Do you have anything better than "everybody says it because everybody else says it"? Just because something gets repeated often by people doesn't mean it must be true.

 

For me it's an assumption. But I can think of many reasons of why Klei implemented it this way.

1) Fixed output temp buildings would have been changed a long time ago if not intentional. Showers for example had a fixed output temp initially too until they decided that this doesn't fit the theme of the showers, which is a change that happened months ago. There are plenty of buildings that retain temperature in their I/O. This is enough reason to think that this is a feature.

2) It is obviously not a bug, but intentionally implemented this way.

3) It makes sense from a simulation game standpoint to have buildings that change the temperature of their outputs as mentioned above. Implementing it as a fixed number is an ok tradeoff.

4) The game would be unnecessairly hard w/o fixed heat output buildings. Fertilizer maker farms, electrolyzer builds, power plants and early/midgame water recycling are all cooled based on fixed heat outputs. There is probably more.

5) Having a cooling/heat destruction mechanism that is tightly coupled with material conversion adds complexity and thus depth, because if you want to cool something with that mechanic then you also need to think about the conversion I/O, the piping, controlling the supply/demand flow and the location etc. If it all were just Wheezeworts/AETNs then that would remove quite a bit of interesting decision making from the game.

6) The only other interesting cooling mechanic works through material conversion and boiling polluted water is the only one I can think of right now. The other material conversion that changes its specific heat capacity during state phase changes is refining crude oil into petroleum/nat gas, which actually increases heat.

7) It being a workaround is a possiblity, but not in the sense of what those buildings achieve, but more in the sense of how exactly they work. One could think of rules that make it more complex if that were needed. For example restricting the input temperature or calculating an actual energy conversion (which would make the output temp cooling % based) or a combination of those.

8) Drip cooling was obviously a bug and not a straight forward one. The issue with it was that it was too powerful for how simple it was on top of being completely unintuitive. In the last few updates Klei added more complexity to the game and ramped up the difficulty so it was sensible to change this mechanism alongside that. Also it is possible to imagine that it was tricky to fix, allthough not necessairily. None of these properties apply to fixed heat output buildings though.

[llunak]

1 hour ago, clickrush said:

For me it's an assumption.

Assumptions and the word "definitely" do not work well together. In fact, they pretty much contradict each other.

But thank you for the answer. So you, just like presumably everybody else, don't actually know and this all is just a speculation. That's what I wanted to know.

[clickrush]

10 minutes ago, llunak said:

Assumptions and the word "definitely" do not work well together. In fact, they pretty much contradict each other.

But thank you for the answer. So you, just like presumably everybody else, don't actually know and this all is just a speculation. That's what I wanted to know.

No worries. But what you are interpreting out of this is a bit wild. Someone wrote the number 40 on the heat output of the carbon skimmer and 70 on the electrolyzer etc Those exact numbers didn't magically appear out of a bug. It is definitely intentional in the sense that there is no reason to think otherwise. The assumption part is about the reasoning behind that and if they keep it that way.

[llunak]

Sure, the 40 didn't appear there by magic. But pretty much everything else is a speculation and what I wanted to know was if there was any actual basis for the speculations other than the speculations themselves. For all we know, the "feature" may disappear again with the next update.

And even then, even the 40 may not be intentional, there's still a possibility that's an unintended mistake, temporary change that's stayed longer than expected, or whatever else. I'm a software developer too, I know how things work.

Anyway, enough speculating.

[Kabrute]

Because code, its not speculation that the devs are using a fixed value when they have options, if you don't believe the options exist look at showers, bathrooms, etc, there are examples of both in the game, hence the "declaration" but sine you are so stuck on the notion grab a copy of ilspy and check.  I did. 
Showers {
            new ElementConverter.ConsumedElement(new Tag("Water"), 1f)
        };
        elementConverter.outputElements = new ElementConverter.OutputElement[1]
        {
            new ElementConverter.OutputElement(1f, SimHashes.DirtyWater, 0f, true, 0f, 0.5f, true, 1f, 255, 0)
        };
vs the water purifier
            new ElementConverter.ConsumedElement(new Tag("Filter"), 1f),
            new ElementConverter.ConsumedElement(new Tag("DirtyWater"), 5f)
        };
        elementConverter.outputElements = new ElementConverter.OutputElement[2]
        {
            new ElementConverter.OutputElement(5f, SimHashes.Water, 313.15f, true, 0f, 0.5f, false, 0.75f, 255, 0),
            new ElementConverter.OutputElement(0.2f, SimHashes.ToxicSand, 313.15f, true, 0f, 0.5f, false, 0.25f, 255, 0)

Personally I haven't tried  changing that False flag to True but 313.15 is Kelvin for 40C, 40C being the in game output of the sieve.  Are you starting to see why the players believe it is intended behavior regardless of the excuse they may have come up with?

[llunak]

How does that change anything I said in my last comment?

Yeah, the 40 is there, nobody's disputing that. Everything else is a speculation.

 

[Kabrute]

please define

9 minutes ago, llunak said:

Everything else

because your argument is whether or not its intended, and its a hard coded value............. is the hard coded value intended?  I dunno, do they have options?  Yes, did they use those options?  No, so they must have intended, do you see where this is going?

[llunak]

There's a piece of garbage on the lawn in front of the block of flats where I live. Is it there? Yes, absolutely. Has somebody put it there? Presumably, it didn't crystallize out of thin air. Did that somebody have options? Of course, they certainly had the option of not putting it there. Did they put it there on purpose? I don't know, maybe they just dropped it by accident. Did they mean for it to stay there? I don't know, maybe they put it down just for a moment and then forgot about it or had more important things to do. Must they have intended it? I don't know. I can speculate, you can speculate, but we don't know for certain.

Just because something is there that doesn't mean for certain anything else besides the fact that it's there. Unless you know more, it's not certain why it's there, how long it'll be there or anything else.

So, unless you know more, everything else besides the 40 in the sieve code is a speculation and you actually don't know.

I don't have an issue with people claiming that the sieve removes heat or that they _assume_ the devs have made it that way with the intention of giving players a way to remove heat. I do have an issue with people making unfounded claims that it definitely must be that way, just because they assume so.

[Kabrute]

Ok, good luck, bye bye now

[Oozinator]

1 hour ago, llunak said:

 

I don't have an issue with people claiming that the sieve removes heat or that they _assume_ the devs have made it that way with the intention of giving players a way to remove heat. I do have an issue with people making unfounded claims that it definitely must be that way, just because they assume so.

I think you both have only a communicative error, about the definition of "intended", but fun to observe.