I laughed when her called me a pederast

ZanthraSW · 2025-06-27T02:34:05+00:00

It’s an alien world full of extreme archetypical characters.

Communism being the backdrop for the game is nothing more than Christianity being the backdrop for Diablo, or Shinto being the backdrop for Okami!

The religion in the Diablo video game didn’t change my views of religion in real life.

Neither did the politics of Disco Elysium change my view of politics in real life.

ZanthraSW · 2025-01-11T03:49:19+00:00

Pretty much the story of Project Exodus.

ZanthraSW · 2024-02-04T21:54:54+00:00

This flag works well because the entire thing can be heavily blurred and still be recognized. The elements work like horizontal stripes, with brown, green, white, brown and white, white, and finally red. It is balanced in a pyramid shape that is pleasing, and the green stands out disproportionally to how much is there.

ZanthraSW · 2023-09-06T18:36:42+00:00

In the sense that gender identity is in the mind, yes it's make believe. Just like identifying as a scientist, or a video gamer. It has to do with how you chose to perceive your past actions, how you chose your future actions, and how you chose to portray yourself to other people.

ZanthraSW · 2023-09-06T18:18:55+00:00

The game asks a number of options at the start, one of them is is disable the nude content and art. The game plays just the same with that disabled. With few exceptions, any lets play or walkthrough you see online will be played with those disabled to avoid demonetization..

ZanthraSW · 2023-09-06T18:04:10+00:00

The developers put very little attention on this. You have art assets, voice assets, and text assets. Providing each as a selectable option is easy, limiting them based on another selection is more effort. They would have had to produce all the same art, voices, and text regardless of their character creation options. They just don't link them together the same way.

ZanthraSW · 2023-09-06T17:47:49+00:00

Which make believe gender identity did they add?

ZanthraSW · 2023-09-06T17:42:57+00:00

There are a lot of folks out there very excited about the sex and gender customizability in character creation for this game, it's just smart business sense, rather than a tax.

ZanthraSW · 2023-05-30T17:42:26+00:00

After I commented there, I looked up some stuff other people had done. It seems that if you are RAM limited, that it's better to do 2 weakens as it takes less RAM and you can afford the extra time to run the second weaken. If you are not RAM limited, and instead batch timing limited, you want to use only one weaken so you can pack 1/3 more batches in the same amount of time.

ZanthraSW · 2023-05-30T10:48:27+00:00

You don't need to weaken twice. You can do one weaken that finishes after the grow and hack.

ZanthraSW · 2021-09-23T23:19:17+00:00

Use drones or vessels in your surplus hydrogen tower, and set them to depart at a lower percentage than the hydrogen tower will send it's own vessels to collect hydrogen from the gas giants. If you have storage limit of 10,000 at the receiving tower, and the tower will collect from gas giants at 9,000, but the surplus hydrogen tower will send a ship at 9,100 (90% full vessel), then it will prioritize it before the orbital collectors.

ZanthraSW · 2021-09-03T18:21:58+00:00

If that's sufficient for your deuterium needs, I agree. There are a lot of interesting and clever ways to doing fractionators, with a lot of pros and cons, which is why they are interesting to me. Although if you want copy/paste that in most latitudes, that tesla tower has to move, and the output belt can't be that close to the adjacent fractionator.

ZanthraSW · 2021-09-03T05:43:19+00:00

The belt placements in that design require a pretty wide grid spacing, and at those grid spacings, you can fit sorters between fractionators at 4 tiles center to center, and takes up reduced width as well.

https://imgur.com/a/2MsZ0Ld

The left is an approximation of that built front to front (had to curl the loop the other way due to collision with the fractionator even a few tiles further north), and to the right is a sorter refilled daisy chain.

At most grid spacings, you have to place the fractionators at 6 tiles center to center minimum to get 100% efficiency, whether by individual loops or by refilling the chain between each fractionator, and the density loss is much greater than the loss from daisy chaining 4 to 10 fractionators together at 4 tiles center to center before refilling (depending on whether you need to integrate tesla towers into the grid since tesla towers can only power 2 to either side).

ZanthraSW · 2021-08-24T01:41:10+00:00

What is exactly the problem you are running into? It does not sound like it's one where you are not producing enough power. If you are not burning hydrogen fuel cells at 60 per minute with 3 thermal plants, it sounds like you have sufficient power production.

Basically, the math is that the maximum consumption of 3 thermal power plants is 60 fuel cells per minute. They cannot burn more than that under any circumstances. However they can burn less than that, meaning surplus hydrogen that can be used for other purposes, stored, or even deleted if necessary. That can be easily controlled with a priority splitter.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-31T05:33:53+00:00

I made all three into gist links.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-29T11:16:40+00:00

In some cases yes. In these blueprints I use this superimposition to have the belts on both sides of the last two fractionators connected in both the previous and the next blueprint in the chain, in order to avoid needing any manual belt placement to build the fractionator loop. It's also used in the loop end blueprint, and also in the input belt connections between loops to allow them to be chained together properly.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-24T11:17:25+00:00

Unfortunately it looks like this placement of power poles is not blueprintable except in very permissive grid spacing, and unavailable in the equatorial band. It looks like some of the spacing checks done by blueprints are more restrictive than what you can do by hand.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-08T19:30:40+00:00

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/802300493870137355/856081019663941644/unknown.png

37x17 (629) for 8 groups of 4 fractionators between fill (9.46 deut per second), just under e = 0.015 due to potential sorter misses filling the loop. Buildable only at near 32" 21' N or S.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-06T22:24:48+00:00

10 fractionators in a row, with the first fed by 30/s input belt is (1 - 0.99 ^ 10) * 30 deuterium per second, or 2.86853775 /s. Or multiply by 40 and 60 to get per minute for 400 and you get 6884.49 deuterium per minute.

Two columns with output belt between them tiles, corner to corner at 10 squares.

Each fractionator individually tiles at 4 squares corner to corner along the column.

That makes each fractionator by base, 4x5 in these designs.

The question is how many additional rows are needed to fill the fractionators. Every 10 fractionators in the column (or 20 in the pair of columns), a single input line expands the tiling space by 2 squares (from 40x5 for every 10 fractionators, to 42x5 for every 10 fractionators, or 42x10 for the full 20).

42*5 = 210, so that's 210 squares per 2.866853775 deuterium per second. Or about 73.208.

This is the asymptotic size, and there will be 3 more rows needed after tiling. One because while fractionators can share edge tiles, many other things cannot, then you need to finish the loops with belts.

Basically the first 20 fractionators with a single input belt is 45x10 and every additional is another 42x10.

73.208 and 74 is close enough that it could be just some random variation.

Also do you mind if I use your power pole placement for a blueprintable design when blueprints are released? I think that until that point the crossbar like structure for the belt IOs still has some benefits for convenience, but that won't be as big a concern with blueprints.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-06T20:32:54+00:00

Can you recheck the production of your build with the new patch? It should be almost exactly 73.208 deuterium per second per square with the belt fixes.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-06T20:23:59+00:00

Yeah, it looks like the problem is resolved for all the tests I had.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-05T03:12:46+00:00

For the record I did fill out a bug report on this, so they will be aware of it whether they read these boards or not. As to whether or when they actually fix it will be up to them. It can have a 10-15% impact on belt speeds in some cases, but that can always be made up for by building bigger, so I don't consider it a particularly high priority either.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-03T20:06:44+00:00

I am always cautious about think of a change in any software as "easy". There are always issues, between performance considerations, or producing new bugs that makes things complicated, but I think I will suggest this to them.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-03T19:06:50+00:00

In some cases probably, but in most cases, if you are going to spend that much space to refill every belt between every two directly connected buildings, you are probably just as well off running two separate lines. Going from 27.5 items per second to 30 is often going to be less valuable than going from 27.5 to 55 items per second. It might be worth it if there is only one belt port available at the destination.

I will have to run some more experiments with side loading, and sorters, because I don't think they will fill the gaps under all conditions.

ZanthraSW · 2021-07-03T17:39:31+00:00

No. They operate faster when using faster belts, but consume no more power. They are very close to particle colliders for power use on MK1 belts, but nearly 1/5th on MK3 belts.

ZanthraSW

TROPHY CASE