• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

1 Follower

About TheMule



Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. that's ok if your goal is to get rid of the gas. If you want to turn it into something useful, princes destroy 90% of it, while standard/dense/squeaky pufts destroy only 5%.
  2. This is just the game engine skipping events to keep with the pacing of the game. We've seen this in dups pausing to decide what to do next, critter skipping movement/animation, etc.
  3. I think he was an active user on this forum some time ago. Anyway, I feel that's a problem. The ONI community is split. This forum, reddit, youtube, facebook are separated bubbles. I try and be active on all of them (facebook being the one I'm less active on). My goal is helping people, in particular promoting progress in the game, at all costs, almost. In my early days I was stuck in a loop of restarting and focusing in getting everything right from the start, and wasn't 100% happy about it, the game looked a bit dull, repetitive and boring. Then I realized that it was all me. I was playing it that way. And I see this happening on a lot of people. People with 200+ hours of playing who never made it to space, never built a boiler of any kind, still figuring out the "best" way to grow mealwood, when, at least IMHO, the best way is to stop doing it ASAP. I was there, and I want to help these people move out of that danger zone, where they may get bored at the game while actually playing only 10% of it. The fact that the game feels good from the start may be part of the problem, admittedly. Even now, I'd play the first 100 cycles over and over and find it entertaining enough. To the point that probably it'd be a good idea for Klei to release a free demo version limited to the first 100 cycles. But, I divert. Now, part of my "job" is cross-referencing among platforms. 50% of the times, I comment on reddit with links to either posts on this forum or videos on YT. I think raising awareness of advanced gameplay is very important for the longevity of the game. FYI, Francis John is very active on YT, and among the most popular ONI content creators. He creates also a small "Slashdot Effect" when he features something, the minibase mod being a perfect example. Having a video of someone building a design in survival, with the right amount of explanation, is very handy. FJ usually includes a savefile to download, too. And since he often puts the original reference in the description and people can backtrack to more extensive and theoretical explanations, with text and pics and comments, it's all in one place. So 'as featured on Francis John', or 'watch FJ's video on the "rocket chimney"', or 'stone hatch ranching Francis John's style' has become quite a customary reference habit for many people, at least for me. Or on reddit. now, that would be great. But it's also time consuming.
  4. Exactly. Can you please tell me what is wrong with that? Are you arguing that he didn't make the concept popular? You know, the number of people who do that skyrocketed after his Xmas video last year. Frankly I don't understand people who are pissed off by Francis John popularity. He never claims credits to his name, he just makes popular videos. Anything that appears in his videos is going to be popular. If anything, he helps some niche concepts find their way to mainstream. Just like his mini sour gas boiler inspired many people experimenting with bead exchangers. I see nothing wrong with that.
  5. Correct. That's what I said. Instead you wrote: Heat and heat flow (transfer) are two different concepts to me. A process may involve heat flow w/o involving heat. If something is untouched by a process, then it's not involved in it. Heat is an amount of energy (thermal). In heat transfers the amount of energy doesn't change. Only its distribution (position). OTOH, in a heat deletion process, heat is involved, by definition. The fact that heat moves doesn't imply that heat changes. The fact that heat changes doesn't mean that heat moves. They are two different concepts. If you move your car 10 meters down the road you still have a car (movement isn't change). If something destroys your car that's different. It's possible without moving it but you no longer have a car (change isn't movement). When I say 'nobody destroyed you car' that doesn't mean it's still in the same place. When I say 'zero heat changes' that doesn't mean 'no heat transfer'. I said that heat, heat flow and temperature are three very different concepts. I've never said there're are completely unrelated. When an AT runs, heat doesn't change. It's just moved around. From the coolant to the AT itself. It's not a process that creates or destroys heat. Heat changes for you only because you're looking at the AT only. If you look at the coolant too, heat doesn't change. Please define 'specific heat'. I know of SHC. SHC is defined in terms of deltas, not absolute quantities. Correct (assuming that the second A is B). But do we agree that heat in A + heat in B = constant? I just look at both sides of the equation. It's not necessarily a "global" view, it's a complete view. Of course heat in A changes, but you can't ignore what happens in B. Say that A is hotter than B. If A is left alone (perfect insulation) heat doesn't change. You put B in contact with A. You can say that heat in A decreases, but your system is no longer just A, it's both A and B, and if you say "heat in the system has decreased", you're just ignoring part of it. If you consider the A+B system, heat hasn't changed. This is an example of a situation in which what happens is a heat flow but zero changes in the heat. Of course you can choose what "the system" is at your convenience. You can say that heat flows out of A and that causes a decrease in heat. But we both know there's a B out there, we can use to balance the equation of heat. And we know that because, w/o B, no change happens. That's what you did above with the AT. Yes if you look only at the AT, its temperature increases, there's an increase in heat. But we both know there's a B out there, the coolant, that balances the heat equation to zero. The change in heat exists only in a partial view of what's happening. In a complete view, heat doesn't change, its only moves from B to A. It's flow w/o change. Compare to what a steam turbine does. Say A is a steam chamber (at 200C) and a steam turbine. It's completely insulated. As the turbine runs, the heat in A decreases. I can say "the heat in the system decreases" and there's no B. I'm not ignoring anything. You can't balance the heat equation. Heat doesn't flow out at all. Heat in A decreases because it is deleted. It's change w/o flow. Take a insulated pool of water with a tepidizer in it. Heat doesn't flow in yet heat in A increases. You can have both a positive and a negative change in heat with heat flow being zero (maybe if you consider A's components there's an internal flow, but we're looking at A as a whole). Both the turbine and the tepidizer are conversion processes. One converts heat into electrical energy (causes a negative change in heat and a positive change in energy), the other converts energy into heat (a positive change in heat and a negative change in electrical energy). Processes that just move heat around (or use its natural flow thanks to temperature) are not conversion processes.
  6. I said popularized, not proposed first. Can you name those five people?
  7. I differentiate between heat and the flow of heat. Temperature changes do not necessarily involve heat. Most of then time, it's just heat moving. In general, to me an object and its position are two different things. You can change an object w/o changing its position. You can chance its position w/o changing the object. Question: when you put a hot body and a cold body in contact, what changes? There's a heat transfer, their temperatures change. Does heat change? No. It just moves. In that sense, heat (= the amount of thermal energy) is not involved in the process. Heat is not "converted" into anything. I'm making this point because a turbine operates differently. If you compare before and after, heat does change. Heat is converted into energy. No. I said the opposite, literally. I wrote that zero heat is created, I never wrote that zero heat is moved. Just by the fact that there's an AT, heat is moved. I use the AT to create a loop, essentially. Yes, it's a closed loop, meaning the external flow is zero. Other than the 1.5C reset thing, the liquid pump that adds 2kDTU/s, and the SHC difference between oil and petroleum, no heat is created/destroyed. Other people who use a thermium AT usually include a tepidizer as heat source. They let (a bit of) heat out of the system via the petroleum, and they need to add back some now and then. I use a second heat exchanger between the supercoolant and the outgoing petroleum, instead of the tepidizer. BTW I make no claims about my system being better in any way. Nor that it was clever thinking. I just had no space for a tepidizer and decided to use outgoing petroleum instead. I doubt it makes much difference, the energy spent by the tepidizer in those designs is minimal. Actually the tepidizer versions are much easier to start up. In my case, the secondary exchanger had little thermal buffer and the AT created temperatures way below petroleum freezing point... I had to add a valve on the outgoing pipe to reduce the flow to 1kg/s to avoid breaking the pipe, and had to store -200C petroleum in a reservoir. Later I mixed it with 100C petroleum once an equilibrium in the boiler was reached. But the whole point is that a petroleum boiler does not need a heat source.
  8. That's why I made the electricity analogy. The physical phenomenons caused by charges and those caused by moving charges, and those cause by differences of potential are completely different. It would be incorrect to say that the PSU in your PC consumes electrons (charges). Electricity is about potentials, or rather, their difference (we call voltage) and the flow of electrons (we call current). We actually started taking advantages of the physical phenomenons that depend on voltage and those that depend on current long before we learned about electrons. The difference between charge, current and voltage is not a paradox, it's not an arbitrary distinction I make. Let me make another analogy. I would be incorrect to say that a hydroelectric power plant converts water into electricity, despite the name. Water isn't involved in the process, in the sense that it comes out exaclty as it goes in. It's completely unaltered. Changing the position of something is completely different from changing something. What creates power is water flow, not water. You can use a pump to push water into a turbine. Create a flow and use it to create electricity. It can't be power positive, of course, but you can do that. You're not changing the water, you're just moving it around, and it's its movement (the flow) that creates electricity. So what do you need for a power plant? You need a way to create a flow w/o a pump. One way is to use a difference in height (technically gravitational potential). You can have all the water in the world, but you can't get electricity if there's no mean to create a flow. What creates the opportunity for a gain in energy is the difference in height. That's the thing you need. You say: wait, water isn't involved in the process? how's that? Well, try and replace water with another liquid with the same properties. The hydroelectric power plant works just the same. It does not depend on water. What matters is potential energy. A better name for it would be gravipower, not hydropower. Compare to what we do in ONI with a hydrogen power plant. Water is changed in the process. The amount of energy produced is proportional to the amount of water consumed. Now, that's a thing that converts water into power. Really, water, the flow of water, the (gravitational) potential are three very different concepts. Charge, the flow of charge, the (electrical) potential are three different concepts. Heat, the flow of heat, the temperature are three different concepts. The analogy isn't 100% accurate (temperature is kinetic energy), but there is an analogy. Want another, less accurate, analogy? Other than it's a bit poisonous, I have no problem with 5kg of lead. I can hold it, I could use it to exercise. I'm not concerned about walking around my house holding it. It create a "flow" of lead, 5kg at about what? 1m/s? 0.5m/s? Not a problem. But, I'd rather stay away from a flow of lead at 500 m/s, even if it's only a few grams of it, if you know what I mean. It doesn't matter if it's exacltly the same flow as me walking around the room holding a 5kg weight. It's not the flow per se the problem. It doesn't matter if it's way less lead. The amount of lead is not the problem. It's not the material even, if it were copper I wound't be happy either. The difference between the speed of the bullet and my speed running away from it is the problem. Or at least the biggest part of it. The physical phenomenons caused by lead, the flow of lead, and by even a small flow of it when the speed difference is huge, are completely different. Lead, the flow of lead, the speed of it are three very different concepts. Again it's not a paradox, it's not an arbitrary distinction I make. I don't know what else to say. Maybe that the amount of heat in a warm bathtub is incredibly larger than the amount of heat in the tip of a solder, but when you touch both with your hand you learn the difference between heat and temperature the hard way, enough not to forget about it for the rest of your life?
  9. Well, technically a context switch is much more CPU intensive when switching among tasks (processes), than among thread inside the same task. There's very little to switch. It's true that at the CPU level, with superscalar architectures, it slows down everything, but at system level the cost is negligible compared to switching tasks. That's the point of having threads. Anyway, it's kinda pointless because an application can create threads dynamically, based in the number of cores you have. It's possible that an application runs with 16 threads on a 16 cores CPU, and 2 threads on a 2 cores CPU. Actually, it's rather common. Correct. And there lies another problem. If you want the simulation to deterministic, you have to consider the cells ordered. That is, you start with one cell, then compute the adjacent cells in a specific order, and so on. It's not something that's easy to turn into a parallel algorithm, one than can use multiple thread effectively. It's pointless to have 128 threads if 127 of them are waiting on the result of the first one before they can begin processing. Thanks to the work of a lot of smart people here, we know a lot about how ONI works. We're now able to create and control waterfalls, beads, only because someone studied how liquids interact. But, a lot of that depends on cell/elements behaving consistently. Meaning there's a specific order when updating them.
  10. A good example: a volcano provides very hot stuff, but not a lot of heat. You can't run 12 ST on a single volcano. That's the difference between temperature and heat. "as long as you have a material colder than..." means that you're looking at the temperature, not heat, literally. Yes, it's having the right temperatures to create the heat flows you need that saves power. Heat is not involved, excluding the 1.5C phase reset bug.
  11. I can't really explain it any better than this, sorry: heat, heat flow, temperature are separate concepts. As an analogy, not 100% accurate, think of charge, current, voltage. Current being a flow, voltage being a delta in potential. You can have an incredible amount of "excessive heat from elsewhere" but if it's in the form of 100000t of pwater at 49C, you can't use that to help in your example. In order to preheat something you need something hotter than it. Hotter does not mean "with extra heat" it mean "with higher temperature". 100000t of pwater at 49C contain much more heat than 100kg at 100C. But in your example, 100000t can't be used to preheat your material that is already at 50C. Instead, you can use 100kg at 100C for that purpose, despite it has incredibly less heat that 100000t at 50C. Hence my statement, it's temperature you need, not heat. The job of the AT is to increase the temperature not to increase the amount of heat. It's not adding extra heat that saves you from using an AT, it's having something already hot enough. It's not about heat, it's about temperature. Actually a petroleum boiler is a perfect example of that. The counterflow exchanger does all the preheating. You don't use external heat for that (at least in most designs). You just need something hot enough, and people on this forum went long ways to try and minimize the heat flow it needs. Heat flow (not heat itself) causes temperature changes, and a temperature change is what makes oil turn into petroleum. We can't make the flow zero, but we try. I decided to use an AT to create an opposite flow. I do use power, but it's not to create heat, it's to create a flow. There are zero heat sources in my boiler (well, excluding a liquid pump). Some people prefer not to do that. They use something with temperature high enough, and let heat flow out of it. It's the heat flow that makes the boiler work. Heat moves through it but it's not consumed, or converted into anything. When you attach a boiler to the magma biome, you're letting heat flow - a very tiny amount - out of it. It doesn't disappear from the map. It's in the petroleum that comes out. As a whole, the asteroid isn't getting any colder. Compare this with a geothermal plant with turbines. Heat is extracted and converted into power. It's removed from the map, and electrical energy is added. In the process, the asteroid gets a lot colder. With 12 turbines running at 850W each (about 10kW, the same of 5 petroleum generator in a typical 10kg/s boiler scenario), a lot colder. Really a lot. If the devs fix the 1.5C reset temp in "phase" change bug, which causes unexpected heat deletion in the oil -> petroleum conversion, I think people with the knowledge of @mathmanican may even be able to design a boiler that needs such a small heat flow that it may go below the threshold the game uses to track temperature changes. At that point you just need something hot enough.
  12. "if" "PeopIe keep asking me if I know about cycle times. Well I used to program a ZX Spectrum in assembly(**), the only way to get custom (bad) sound effects. All it had was a buzzer pretty much directly controlled by the CPU. You had to do the timing yourself, looking up cycles times of every machine instruction on paper, since there was no assembler that did that. When I started, actually, I had no assembler at all, I had to lookup the op codes on paper, and write the program as a long sequence of hex numbers. (*) So yeah, I think I know about cycles on low end computers." Let's say I know enough that it never crosses my mind that I know enough about how ONI works to think I can tell the devs at Klei how they should do their job. There are people there that know the internals of their code much more in depth than I do, know how to develop a game such ONI much better than I do, and even if they spent a month in training me I wouldn't be sure I could offer any advice or critique. And that's with 38 years of experience in programming. (*)There was no GPU, of course. The CPU had to update the video memory to do graphics at the same time it was playing a sound and stay in tune. (**) Not professionally, unfortunately. Or fortunately since I was well underage at the time. So yes - although very badly and amateurishly - I actually did that.
  13. No I never said that. What I've said is you need an AT to concentrate the heat. There's a natural flow of heat: that is from high temp to low temp. Another way of looking at it, is that heat tend to spread around. You need an AT to put it all in a single place, from low temp to high temp. So what happens in an AT cooling loop is that heat moves (by itself) from the target to the coolant - if the coolant is at a lower temp - then it's moved by the AT from the coolant to itself, usually against the natural flow, that is, the AT is hotter than the coolant, and finally from the AT heat moves (naturally) to the environment, if it's colder. The whole purpose of the AT is to move heat against its natural flow. That's the thing you can't do w/o an AT (or a regulator). That's also why temperature matters differently from heat. You can have all the heat in the world, but if the temperature is below the temperature you need, w/o an AT all that heat is no use to you. I'm sorry I feel the same. Clearly you don't seem to understand the difference among heat, the flow of heat, and temperature, and clearly I'm failing at explaining it. There's no point in continuing this discussion.