impyre

  • Content count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About impyre

  • Rank
    Member
  1. @Yoma_Nosme and @Mr.Trueba Any time you lock a door that a duplicant has plotted a path through, the path must be re-evaluated. If the destination area is no longer reachable the errand will be cancelled. Since airlocks often are the only point of access to an area by design, this means that usually dupes will start to do something, but if another dupe uses the lock first causing it to reset, it will definitely break the path. Fortunately, for this particular design the lock is re-enabled pretty quickly, so it *should* have minimal impact. However, this depends largely on how far said dupe is from the job and what the job is. If the job is to deliver coal from a distant storage to some point on the other side of the airlock, even intermittent path interruption may halt the job completely since any dupe taking a closer job would get to the airlock first and interrupt the path, which would then cause the dupe to give up the task. Once the task was picked up again, they'd have to start all over. There are two ways to mitigate this problem: 1) Have a second "bypass" airlock and ensure the main airlock is "preferred". You can do this by making the bypass airlock much longer (think "U" shaped). This would cause dupes to prefer the more direct path, and only alternate if their initial route was interrupted. 2) Having multiple airlocks to the same contiguous area but spread farther apart. (this is the optimal method) This only works well if your base is fairly large or your external area is fairly large (or both). The idea here is that instead of having a "bypass" airlock, you have two "main" airlocks. One is closer to your farms (or whatever), while the other is several dozen blocks away, closer to your bedrooms. This way, dupes will prefer the closer airlock generally, but can use the other if the one they are pathing towards becomes locked. Even if the bypass route then becomes locked later, they should normally switch back to the initial route. The only way to completely break path here is if both locks are used simultaneously (which shouldn't happen often unless you have a *lot* of dupes running through this area. If that's the case though, it might be a good indicator that it's time to expand your base.
  2. Expanding steel production might be helpful, especially with building the silo. Building a telescope is a priority, but it looks like you've got a start on that. Expand power production, you'll need it to operate a telescope and your scanners. Start steam production. You may be able to just get away with a single batch. Use steel pumps. You can expose a couple of those hot abyssalite tiles near the bottom (the 1500 C ones). Research destinations, train astronauts, build rocket, visit, build planetarium, research, repeat. Were you having a specific problem? It looks like you're already working toward astronaut training, which is good. That can take some time.
  3. @Saturnus I apologize, but failure to understand my argument doesn't make it any less valid. Also, I never said that's what you wrote. I'm afraid my efforts were wasted in that post, but I'll try to clear up any confusion on the matter. I was clearly not quoting you when I said that. The part I quoted was clearly indicated by the forum's formatting, and the quote was pasted in automatically. I didn't alter it in any way, it's an accurate quote. I was trying to illustrate how your generalized statement cannot possibly apply to all situations. I attempted to do this using a Socratic approach. (This is where you ask questions less for answers and more to cause your listener to actually think about the answers and the implications they carry.) For example, if a person says something like this: "Forgive me for asking but how can you prefer something without having tried the other option at all?" It implies one of three things: A) This person has no idea how you can prefer something without having tried an alternative, and would genuinely like to know. B) This person believes no one can prefer a thing without having tried an alternative, and is using a Socratic approach in an attempt to "enlighten" the recipient of the message (believing that if the recipient cannot sufficiently answer, they'll be forced to either change their words or re-evaluate their standpoint.) C) This person had doubts as to whether such a preference can reasonably be made about this specific subject, and wanted to know how the preference was formed. Since "C" is a simple miscommunication, I'll address it first. They should use specific language instead of generalized language so that it's clear that they're asking about this specific case. IE: "Forgive me for asking, but how can you prefer that airlock design if you haven't tried this other popular design?" This question actually asks the reader to explain the reason for their preference, if in a very indirect and confusing way. A better question might've been "Why do you prefer that airlock type, and was there any other information about the alternative version that set you against it?" I believe "A" is probably the least likely. In fact, I'm not even sure how this would really be the case. You'd have to have gone your entire life without ever developing any preference until trying at least one alternative. "B" seems to be the most likely case, especially considering that you believe my argument was invalid. Again, this rests wholly on the assumption that it's impossible to form a preference without trying an alternative. This is sometimes the case, but not always. In general, vast over-generalized statements like this tend to be false at least sometimes (if not frequently). I have yet to see an example of an over-generalized statement that is true 100% of the time. Finally, I'd like to address the use of the term preference. Here are a few ways it is defined: A greater liking for one alternative over another or others. The fact that you like something or someone more than another thing or person. Ignoring definitions which resort to using the word "preferred" to define "preference" (Which I find a bit redundant anyhow), you find that largely the word "preference" is, simply put, a way of expressing a difference between how much you like one thing, and how much you like another. So to revisit your statement: "...how can you say you prefer something over something else if you've never tried the other option" The above is immediately followed by the below: "At most you can say you don't like something, or you like something else." Using our dictionary, we can translate this; it means: "At most you can say you like A less than B", which also means "At most you can say you prefer B" My original post was meant to attempt to keep you on topic and help remind you that being argumentative isn't really all that helpful or constructive. It was also an attempt to get you to re-evaluate your position on preferences, or at the very least make room for validating the preferences of others (even if you don't respect those preferences). If you have any other confusions or questions about anything I've written, or complaints about my argument, my inbox is available to you.
  4. @Saturnus That seems a bit argumentative, and almost intentionally obtuse. Are you suggesting you have never known that you disliked an idea without first trying it? You've never heard someone suggest something and think to yourself, "Yeah, that sounds like a bad idea."? The whole "you've never tried it so you can't know" concept may work for some foods (I know I don't like overly spicy foods from experience, so I tend to avoid them, even those I haven't yet tried) and possibly for some experiences... but it simply doesn't work for most things. See exhibit A. Exhibit A: Person A: I haven't been able to find a decent job. Person B: What are you doing these days? A: Working at a grocery store. B: Hey, you should come out with me and work on the road crew. We make good money. A: Tell me more. B: We get up at 4AM, and work shovels for 12 hours. Sometimes we get to do other things. Make sure you bring plenty of sunscreen and water! A: I'll pass, thanks. B: But you haven't even tried it yet!
  5. Dupes in the Dark?

    It may well be the reason they've introduced the gas overlay, so that they have more room to play with lighting without having to worry about "can players see and identify gases". An alternative approach may be a factorio-style lighting setup. Darkness doesn't affect the character at all, only solar panels and the player. You cannot see *anything* at night. Of course, you can make it less obnoxious in settings, but I usually leave it because it gives me a reason to use lighting and the base/factory looks pretty nice at night when everything is pitch black expect where you have lighting. It also has a nice falloff effect, so you have that sortof-lit area near the edge. In factorio the falloff is very gradual, so how close you put your lighting when trying to light up an entire path just depends on how dim you are willing to accept in the areas between. You could also go for a Kenshi-style approach to lighting. Player can see fine, it's a bit darker but not too difficult to see. Darkness affects efficiency of work done. Percentage of light (below 50%) is related to work effectiveness. So at like 25% light level, you take twice as long to do something. Anything above has no effect (except on plants/solar panels). You might clamp it to some non-zero value to prevent it stopping work entirely. I like both approaches, but my personal favorite is the factorio style of lighting. It has the added benefit of resulting in a more realistic lighting setup, where you're unlikely to bother lighting areas that are infrequently traveled unless there's something there you want to be able to keep an eye on. (I would likely light up my water processing plant and my power plant.) Kenshi-styled lighting is the most "realistic" for gameplay and has the least impact on the player's ability to see the game, but it just doesn't feel as "fun" to me personally. Oh, I need power, and light, and oxygen to set up this work station, check, check, check. What's one more checkmark really? What does it really add to the gameplay? Of course, I think streamers probably hate the factorio style lighting. "Look at this guy streaming a black screen... tool". But then again, I don't stream so my opinion is limited on this perspective.
  6. Likewise. I eventually learned it, but I can't tell you how many times I connected them up backwards before learning the colors and symbols. Also, why can't we rotate sinks and showers like lavatories to swap input/output sides?
  7. I'd hazard a guess that "attacking" is really just digging a creature. Or maybe digging is just "attacking" a block? Where's @Oozinator? Maybe he can clear this up?
  8. @blash365 "not ideal" is quite the understatement here. For 8 dupes (a reasonable number), playing at any speed, you'd need to constantly monitor the jobs queued and what order they're in. It's like trying to read minds. Not only that, but disabling a pump will cause the jobs for that pump to have to be re-configured (meaning the dupe may well decide to do other things first). I feel that turning pumps on and off to control which pump is used for what job is much closer to "not possible" than to "not ideal", which isn't to say that it's strictly speaking impossible... but I'm certainly not about to do that lol. EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, it's a fairly practical solution early game when you're likely to only have one or two pumps anyway and can turn one off without it having a huge effect on something critical like oxygen production. But somehow I don't think that this is the position the OP is in here. It sounds more likely they have several pumps, many dupes, and don't want to deal with them constantly running out of their way to move liquids for planned constructions/liquid locks/filling radiators, etc. I kinda like this idea, it might also be a good idea to implement on fridges, food storage, and other storage containers as well. Default configuration is range=0 ("Whole Map" or "infinite"). Which basically gives the behavior we have now. Changing the range setting to have a number value greater than 0 tells the pump how far away from a job giver/target it can be (in tiles) before it's allowed to be used. This means you won't have to do anything silly like try to associate it with each item you want supplied. It will automatically become associated with each object within it's supply range. Of course, this means: If you have a pump set to supply some terrariums with a range of 15 And another pump further away used for cooking And the terrarium pump runs dry for some reason The terrariums will *not* be supplied from the cook's pump. This behavior is expected though, and in fact may be the desired behavior. This would allow you to empty, say, a single pool into a specified reservoir, without having to worry about overflow, dupes draining other wells to move water around for no reason, etc. If this were implemented for fridges/food storage you can set up raw food storage that does *not* have the range to supply your dining tables (preventing hungry dupes from eating inefficiently). And all without any change to default behavior.
  9. Thanks for the responses. I'll see what I can decipher.
  10. Oooh, how about adding an optional "title" for dupes. It could be set to something witty by default, and maybe each hat has a default title associated with it, so if you change hats it changes the title... but only if it's not a custom title... custom titles should never be changed automatically. I also *really* like @goboking's method of surnames. It's so close to how surnames actually were often used... who could forget such classics as shoemaker (shumacher), miller, smith, farmer, weaver, cooper, taylor/tailor.
  11. @natanstarke But that's kindof the beauty of the new skill system isn't it? You can multi-class dupes. Even though you will no longer have a dupe able to do *everything*, multi-classing is still a very real thing. Having a dupe be *only* a rancher would be a waste of a perfectly good dupe. And if you've got morale to spare, then he/she can spend their spare time digging, researching, cooking, etc. Cooking will probably be what I do, since they will likely be the ones collecting eggs and slaughtering critters. Oh, and can we get a slaughter critters job?
  12. Does anyone have all the formulae and know the in's and out's of temperature? What I'm after specifically: Temperature formula When and where it's calculated Is temperature stored and modified for objects? Are any other values associated with temperature stored and modified? Are any values derived from it? if so, what values? how? where/when? I realize that I'm probably asking questions that no one here can answer, but I figured it'd be worth a shot.
  13. Thanks @JoeW. We always appreciate the consideration and the communication.
  14. I like the hamster-wheel power sensor. Although, I'd remark that if you can overproduce your power and build enough storage capacity, it may make more sense to invert the logic. (Especially true if you use coal more as a backup) Use the wheel to *enable* the coal generators, rather than keep them turned off. This would minimize sensor wheel up-time. Is that even possible? EDIT: Maybe using multiple wheels, just have the last one be a lower priority (so the others are occupied first), then if the last one is being used, you know to turn on the coal generators.
  15. You have to shunt the excess when you feed a system with a constant input but need to reserve processing throughput for recycling activities. Wasting power by overproducing is a good method. If using steam for cooling, I'd recommend venting the steam instead of recycling it. You could set up automation to allow recycling steam only if water is below a certain threshold. This would create even more power excess, but it would make cooling more efficient and help keep water overflow from being as much of a problem.