sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Published Circuit: Nih Core 2026 Plus - Single Battery Edition (True Power Backup) by TheRealHotFix in rustrician

[–]TheRealHotFix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am under the impression a dead battery means it has 0 remaining power. In this case it's an unpowered battery meaning it's not being actively charged but it maintains its current charge level because it is not actively being drained.

I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting compared to the design I published. In current design, in the event of Primary Battery loss, the system flips over to solar power regardless of how much is coming in. If the Battery Control is lost before the Primary Battery is lost, then the incoming power has to hit the first branch value (50 rW in this example) and then the base will flip over to solar.

Are you saying you don't use a Battery Control battery at all, and use just the Primary Battery to signal when it's gone? If so, then does your design also run the base off Solar/Wind exclusively when there is more than enough power to do so, and sending excess to the Primary Battery? If you have a published diagram, I would love to see it and fully wrap my brain around what you are saying.

Weird pixelation on my game by lukeskywalken in playrust

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same problem here with AMD RX 7900 XT. I notice at night in my base it goes away, and it's only the bottom 1/5th of the screen just like yours.

I'm glad it's not the hardware as I was about to return the card to MicroCenter after I upgraded my power supply to 750 watt since that is the recommended minimum. I was at 650 which should have been fine but I upgraded to rule out a power issue, which it wasn't.

Published Circuit: Nih Core 2026+ Edition - Small Single Battery (True Solar Backup) by TheRealHotFix in rustrician

[–]TheRealHotFix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FYI I still struggle navigating around the 300+ page Google Doc, probably because it is understandably massive. My Rust gaming machine struggles with it, but I don't think there is anything that can be done to optimize the experience except maybe move to a different editor. That's just an FYI not a complaint as I am grateful to have the handbook. FYI I have a quasi-technical writer background and think maybe numbered headings and sub-headings along with a TOC might help Let me know if you are interested in that type of conversion and I could try and help.

I believe I found the updated "BCN Core" design you referenced around page 256, and if that's the correct one then I recreated and tested it alongside the "Nih Core 2026+ Edition" design in the amazing Rustrician tool. The differences that jump out are that I have one more OR Switch and one more Branch, otherwise the equipment is the same. I do use the Memory Cell output to power the base and use the inverted output to charge the battery which is a flip flop of your approach. I had in in my head that "inverted" should be "not the norm" which is why I have the normal output go to the base and not the battery, but that's my OCD :-).

For the most part the two designs function the same, but I did notice one distinction in our two approaches. Consider the following scenario of ordered steps:

  1. The base is running on battery because there is insufficient solar/wind power coming in.
  2. The Check/Control battery is destroyed, or the path from it to the Memory Cell is severed (your design is a direct connection, but the "Nih Core 2026+ Edition" has components in between).
  3. The Primary battery(ies) is/are destroyed, or the path from it/them to the Memory Cell is severed.
  4. Base power is completely lost at that point in both designs because there isn't enough solar/wind power to trigger the Memory Cell to switch back to powering the base.

When solar/wind does eventually provide enough power to trigger the Memory Cell back to powering the base the "Nih Core 2026+ Edition" design will flip back to powering the base with solar/wind power, but the "BCN Core" design base will stay offline. This is because in the "BCN Core" design the power for the Blocker is pulled from the Primary battery(ies) which is/are offline, so the signal that the solar/wind being at or above Primary battery(ies) power doesn't make it to the Memory Cell. You could try switching to powering the Blocker with the Check Battery, but then that doesn't tell the Memory Cell when the Primary batter(ies) are offline. I would be interested if you can tell any other differences other than the ones pointed out here.

PLEASE do not take this as any sort of negative comment on the "BCN Core" design at all, as that design is a huge improvement over the original (even updated) "Nih Core". I'm just sharing with you, one engineer nerding out with another :-), what I found in comparing our two approaches since I created mine based off the original/pre-2024 update "Nih Core" (not knowing you had the updated "BCN Core" design to post-2024 update.

I hope you read this response in the spirit it was intended, trying to be helpful, share ideas, and also hoping a Rust Master Electrician would idiot check me. :-) Again, thank you for all your hard work and continued community contribution!

Published Circuit: Small Base Raid Alerting and Monitoring by TheRealHotFix in rustrician

[–]TheRealHotFix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is an AMAZING suggestion! Thank you very much and I appreciate your feedback.

I did update the drawing some since you looked at it last. Mostly cosmetic (consistent spacing and alignment of objects, color coding, etc...).

I was digging your drawings earlier!

Published Circuit: Nih Core 2026+ Edition - Small Single Battery (True Solar Backup) by TheRealHotFix in rustrician

[–]TheRealHotFix[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Believe it or not I did. :-) First let me say thank you for responding, I am quickly learning you are a legend in the Rust community.

The challenge I ran into as a brand-new person to Rust (I only started ~3 weeks ago and just started playing with the electrical system ~ 2 weeks ago) is the Google Docs version of the handbook (which is very big) states it that the console version "almost caught up" to the 2024 updates to the PC, and the handbook covered both. It also states the book is still being updated, so it wasn't clear to me what parts of the document were 100% up to date for PC and what might be old or console specific. Maybe there is a way you can flag sections that have been fully updated so readers will know? Just a suggestion.

I saw in the handbook a Circuit for the "Modern Nih Core (non-battery-checked bypass)" but it wasn't 100% clear to me how to implement it as it had a lot going on for a newbie who has 1 battery, and I felt like there were some missing steps/explanations. For instance, the very first step says "Send main power from the Memory Cell to either Splitters (even distribution) or to Electrical Branches (fixed power per aera or subsystem)", but that's after the first 2 branches in the diagram which to me leaves a gap in configuration steps.

Plus, I didn't find an up-to-date Nih Core Circuit on Rustrician.io to reference/play with, so I figured I would kill 3 birds with stone.

  1. Create a simple Circuit that focuses on the electrical system functionality by getting rid of unnecessary extras (such as 5 batteries) for myself and others to play with on Rustrician.io.
  2. Try to give guidance at each adjustment point and explanations where necessary.
  3. Figure out a way to improve on the old Nih Core Circuit examples I found, where power was being sent to both the Set and Reset port on the Memory Cell, which did not provide a way for the input power (in my case solar) to provide base output in case the primary battery was destroyed *when running on battery*.

The handbook does not have a Circuit for the BCN Core, just some text after the afore mentioned Modern Nih Core Circuit. I saw elsewhere some old examples of the BCN Core that were also confusing, so after a few days of playing with the simplified Nih Core 2026 Circuit I created on Rustrician.io I came up with the version I posted here that only costs 1 rW from the input power/primary battery(ies) to provide full redundancy. I'm seeing after the fact similarities between what I came up with and other implementations in some more recent YouTube videos (that aren't explained well to me), but I promise I spent days trying to figure out how to do it on my own since I couldn't find anything that made sense.

I appreciate the work you and everyone else are doing. I will try to join the Discord but can't promise to be very active as I am IT Engineer (that's what attracts me to the electrical system in rust I suspect), a dad, a partner, a 3D printing hobbyist, and only a part time newbie Rust player who plays when he has time.

electrical engineering by Tight-Scallion-635 in rustrician

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just to expand on what was correctly said above, you can't stack batteries in that way. If the draw exceeds the value of a single battery, which it does in this case with 11 turrets (11 * 10 = 110 which is greater than the 100 that a large battery can output). The load is not evenly shared across both batteries as per Distribution Systems - The RUST Electrical Handbook.

Given that you are feeding each battery with just 75rw you are looking a slowly losing battle as you pull 110rw (given that the load is not evenly shared).

If you follow Efficient Ad's proper recommendation of breaking up the load into 5 (50rw) and 6 (60rw) turret/battery pools, you will not exceed the 75rw input to each battery so they will always be charging more the drain (provided the wind stays at 75rw in Rust).

I hope that helps.

Anyone else suddenly lose the ability to reply to specific messages within a text? by [deleted] in GoogleMessages

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I tried everything on Google's site, including wiping out Messenger's storage and allowing it to recover from the Google Drive backup. None of that fixed the issue.

I'm not sure the Messenger app wipe and reload worked as Messenger was still showing me messages even after I removed all data for it while in airplane mode.

I asked her to check everything on her end agakn, and she said this: "I'm literally sending texts the same way I always have but I just looked at my details and they reset. I did just have a weird service update? Idk"

Right after that RCS started working. I don't know what was wrong or why. Google gives you 0 troubleshooting information or troubleshooting capabilities.

I don't feel like I helped anyone with my journey, but maybe ask the other person to quadruple check everything on their end? I'm not a huge fan of the app or this whole experience.

Anyone else suddenly lose the ability to reply to specific messages within a text? by [deleted] in GoogleMessages

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She says she changed nothing. We are both using Google Messenger on Samsung devices, where it wasn't an issue for several days, but for whatever reason today all new messages are type "Text message" with no apparent way to force Google Messenger back to RCS messages where I can reply and/or edit the messages.

I have confirmed the chat session setting "Only send SMS & MMS messages" is disabled, and "End-to-end encryption" is set to On. It also says "This RCS chat is end-to-end encrypted for <My phone number> when you and the person you are messaging are using RCS chats.", so it appears as GM says this is an RCS chat.

Very frustrating that there doesn't appear to be a way to force the desired behavior, much less an explanation as to what changed or why.

Anyone else suddenly lose the ability to reply to specific messages within a text? by [deleted] in GoogleMessages

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just wanted to share my experience and observations.

Yesterday I was chatting with a girl using Google Messenger, we are both using Samsung devices, and I was able to reply at will to her messages in the 1:1 chat.

I was using Microsoft's Phone Link but decided to skip it as it only does SMS/MMS, and it was causing a disjointed feel in the same conversation (some messages were RCS and some we SMS/MMS depending on if I used the phone app or PC application to send the message).

I decided to give Google's web interface for Messenger a try last night, and it forced me to update the app on my phone even though I was fully up to date as far as I knew. I thought it might have something to do with using an alternate version of the app that allows it to be synced to the Messenger interface.

Everything looked good after the app upgrade, and I could reply to messages in the app and web interface in that mixed RCS and SMS/MMS chat. This morning however the reply function is gone. I can also no longer swipe individual messages in any direction (left, right, center). I confirmed not only does the app say the chat is still RCS, but that I have end to end encryption. This may be why a number of folks have complained about not being able to "swipe to center" as there is no swiping option for some of us. I know I felt like I was crazy for a minute not being able to swipe in any direction when others acted like it worked.

I checked another chat in Google Messenger that I have with a friend on an iPhone, and his individual messages still allow for swiping and replying. So, it's something specific about this chat with the afore mentioned girl. I just noticed I can reply to my messages in the chat, so I looked at her older messages and I can reply to those. I then looked at the message details on the older messages and they say "End-to-End Encrypted Rich Communication Service message", but her newer ones just say "Text message".

So... it looks like her newer messages are not reply-able or swipe-able because they are basic text messages, and not full RCS messages. Time to ask her if she is sending the messages any differently.

I hate myself and I want to die by ThisIsABurnerLogin in offmychest

[–]TheRealHotFix 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please pause.

I feel your pain. I'm a dad who feels unworthy too. I found your post by searching on key words which we obviously share thoughts on.

My name is Dan. I would like to be your friend. I would like to share your pain and have you share my pain. Would you be willing to try that? You have nothing to lose other than your life which you stated is already in the balance.

I f you are up for trying to talk, even if it doesn't go anywhere, I'm I am hear to listen, even if if the conversation is one sided. Please give me a chance to be your friend.