Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Power Plants, Energy Storage and Reliable Energy Supply. All about efficient energy production. Turning parts of your factory off. Reliable and self-repairing energy.
mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:58 am
Then you are dual using it. Part is buffer, part is transport.

But when you fill the train from 2 heat exchangers (206.x steam/s) and empty it with a pump (1200 steam/s) it's not going to fill up.
then it's partly allowed partly not ?

also it's not really 1200/S there are roundings so it may be less, it may even mutiply, you can never know with fluid because of roundings, it's impossible to have an order of magnitude or wait, no those are your argument sorry. You do understand sometimes when it goes your way order of magnitude, it seems.

mrvn wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:58 am
Just more ways to nit-pick.

The situation was a fluid wagon you fill while a train unloads so you can empty it while the train switches for the next one. Intention: buffer. can't be any clearer.
that's not nit-pick, i want to win the contest but the rules are very imprecise to the point where i'm not sure they make sense.

User avatar
DaveMcW
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 3612
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by DaveMcW »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:04 pm
3) Who says I only have one rail track?

2 rail tracks can carry 23.66 fluid wagons per second. I don't think the rail track is the limiting factor. If you manage to make a tilable design the steam/s would be infinite.
Cool. With unlimited trains, we can use underground pipes to cross the tracks and make an infintely tilable design. Direct loading from heat exchangers is silly.

Tallywort
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:57 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by Tallywort »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:50 pm
That's just using the train as steam tanks. The first train will never leave so I would say that doesn't count.
I don't think that is the case, in fact I think that, unless the flow of steam between the stations is faster than the flow into the first train, then the first train will necessarily also need to leave at some point. With the only benefit being that you effectivily only have a single train worth of switching time for k number of filled trains.

EDIT : this k is not the same number as the number of stations in this layout. X-1 leaves when the wait between trains to station X is greater than the filling time, etc etc. So... I'd guess k to be something like k=c^X with c some constant greater than 1.

EDIT EDIT: reads top of this very page, and now I feel dumb. My assumption of the transfer between stations being as fast or slower as the first station getting filled actually didn't hold now did it?

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

here is a constructive proposition : maybe you can define "using the water wagon as tank" by "a situation where a certain % of fluid that goes inside the fluid wagon, is moved away before the wagon move with its wheels ".

or "every single unit of fluid that enter a fluid wagon must not leave the fluid wagon before the train move".

because talking about intentions is highly subjective and then the application of rules becomes arbitrary, which detract investing oneself.

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
So I've been thinking: What is the longest train you can fill from a nuclear reactor directly (heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon)?
Do use a fluid wagon as tank all I care. If you can make that work with going heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon I aplaud you.
Fluid wagon -> pump -> pump -> fluid wagon certainly does not fit the heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon requirement from the first post.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

it may be because i'm not very bright, but i'm not sure i understand what you mean.

is this ok with heat exchanger => pump => fluid wagon or not ?

is this ok using fluid wagon as tank ?

i don't have much intention at the moment i just realized it was possible i'm wondering if it's worth exploring

the red square are connected with heat exchanger
waow.png
waow.png (482.33 KiB) Viewed 1665 times

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

Is the blue path heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon? NO.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
Maybe have a through station with the reactor in the middle of the train and using only 2 pumps per fluid wagon? Fill 2 trains in parallel.
What did you mean ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
The steam per fuel should be maximized, which I believe only allows a 2xN reactor design.

But overall the steam per second it the deciding factor.
so we are allowed to waste fuel if it is to get more steam ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:15 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
Maybe have a through station with the reactor in the middle of the train and using only 2 pumps per fluid wagon? Fill 2 trains in parallel.
What did you mean ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:02 pm
The steam per fuel should be maximized, which I believe only allows a 2xN reactor design.

But overall the steam per second it the deciding factor.
so we are allowed to waste fuel if it is to get more steam ?
You can place the reactor between two rail tracks. Heat pipes in the middle, one heat exchanger going up, one going down. Maximum you can do if not using end stops.

Wasting fuel by overheating is bad. There are other ways to waste fuel like having an U shaped reactor. Less neighbor bonus.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:34 pm
Wasting fuel by overheating is bad. There are other ways to waste fuel like having an U shaped reactor. Less neighbor bonus.
the question was is it allowed or not ?

since you stay steam/s will be the deciding factor i assumed it wouldn't be a problem to waste fuel by having a reactor that is non-infinite. because a reactor that is 2N+1 is more efficient than a reactor only 2N, due to neighbor bonus. choosing a non-infinite reactor is already sub-optimal steam per fuel but it's still ok despite what you wrote right ?

Then i thought what if i make an infinitly long line of reactor ( in case it's mandadory) , but i only feed 2 on each side every 10 reactor, because if you use only 1 heat exchanger per wagon, then you can have fuel and the inserters for the nuclear fuel between the rail and the reactor. And then you can make an infinitly long train, without overheating, due to only feeding some reactor in the very long array. There would be some adjacency bonus still but not the maximum.

You could say that's cheating because it's using more than one reactor, but you would be wrong, it's only 1 big one reactor, a very long array of core and it just happens that the maximum theoric adjacency bonus is not achieved because not all of them would be fed at the same time, ( we can't achieve the maximum anyway) from your answer you seem to consider it is ok right ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

Think of it as messsing up a jump while figure scating. You get points dedacted but it doesn't make your reactor magically disappear from this forum thread if you post one.

And I already know, that now that you can waste fuel, you will shamelessly do so to get that extra bit of length you can't get with keeping the reactor below 1000Β°C at all times. Like simply building an infinite chain of reactors, all powered with a train along it. There, infinite train, can't beat that. Not an interesting design.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:11 pm
And I already know, that now that you can waste fuel,
that means the answer is yes for wasting fuel ?

because if not that means infinite reactor is mandadory.

but if yes, then train are infinite ?

i mean it's ok to change the rule in the middle of the contest, that's something that can happens when the rule where not really well planned in the first place, like the infinity pipe were not allowed at first but then you changed your mind because it didn't make sense to not allow them while landfilling a lake except 2 tiles for a pump and landfilling after was allowed.

But this rule if you change it one way or the other, (imo) it doesn't make sense to call the contest "the longest" since the only design that could qualify will be infinite.

again maybe i'm not understanding well the contest, the example didn't really help me and the rules still don't make sense maybe i'm missing something.

Also maybe you could explain for the point system ( those that would be dedacted) it would be fair to know beforehand, otherwise how can one design something toward an objective if the scoring method is kept secret ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:04 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 7:11 pm
And I already know, that now that you can waste fuel,
that means the answer is yes for wasting fuel ?

because if not that means infinite reactor is mandadory.

but if yes, then train are infinite ?

i mean it's ok to change the rule in the middle of the contest, that's something that can happens when the rule where not really well planned in the first place, like the infinity pipe were not allowed at first but then you changed your mind because it didn't make sense to not allow them while landfilling a lake except 2 tiles for a pump and landfilling after was allowed.

But this rule if you change it one way or the other, (imo) it doesn't make sense to call the contest "the longest" since the only design that could qualify will be infinite.

again maybe i'm not understanding well the contest, the example didn't really help me and the rules still don't make sense maybe i'm missing something.

Also maybe you could explain for the point system ( those that would be dedacted) it would be fair to know beforehand, otherwise how can one design something toward an objective if the scoring method is kept secret ?
Only if you manage not to overheat it constantly. If you can come up with an infinite reactor design all the better for you. I can already two such designs in my head:

1) tileable with end stops, which would have fixed length trains but infinitly many of them,

2) stupidly long reactor with enough heat pipes to buffer all the heat of several fuel cycle and your train counting method for control.

The longer you make that the longer trains need to switch. An infinite reactor with infinite train would need infinite time to switch giving you 0 steam/s. So not a winner.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:27 pm
the longer you make that the longer trains need to switch. An infinite reactor with infinite train would need infinite time to switch giving you 0 steam/s. So not a winner.
well that's why i'm also asking for how you will evaluate the design, maybe you will decide after you see them, which is a bit special for a contest, ( it could be very much arbitrary),

i'm not sure to understand, let say i make a 1 wagon train, it will win over an infinite train because the 1 wagon train has more steam/S, but the contest is named the longest train based nuclear reactor, but the 1 wagon train beat the infinite train ? on the contest of the longest train based nuclear reactor ? because it has more steam per second ?

see why i'm getting confused there ? I thought since it's called the longest train based nuclear reactor now, that the infinite train would win over the 1 wagon train because the infinite train is longer.

Maybe when you explain how the ratings work it will be easier for me to understand

like which one of the 2 infinite design you have in mind would be the longest train ? if you had to choose

I had thought about a reactor where i would feed all the core all the time except for a few second here and there, because the rule (now) says "not overheat constantly" but i'm not sure how it could be interpreted. In case my intentions are to comply to rule ofc, but maybe you would think it's considered "constantly" if it's only say 12 per 12000, the time for a feeding inserter to do a swing, during this little period of time the reactor wouldn't be overheating, is that enough to qualify ? or do you need to slow down fuel injection by a certain amount of time for it to qualify ?

Also what if only a part of the reactor is overheating , but not another part is not, and then you change the parts , is it "constantly overheating" because there is always one part that is overheating ?, or is not constantly because it's not the same area ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

Of the two designs I mentioned one has fixed length trains and infinite steam/s and the other has an infinite train that never ever delivers any steam. If it never ever delivers any steam why should it count?

And yes, a 1 wagon train that delivers steam wins over a design that never ever delivers any steam.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:34 pm
I had thought about a reactor where i would feed all the core all the time except for a few second here and there, because the rule (now) says "not overheat constantly" but i'm not sure how it could be interpreted.
I would interpret that exactly for what it is, like I predicted you would do: Trying to get a specific wording for the rule so you can break it without breaking the letters of the rule.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:23 am
Of the two designs I mentioned one has fixed length trains and infinite steam/s and the other has an infinite train that never ever delivers any steam. If it never ever delivers any steam why should it count?
Well because the title of the contest is "nanana LONGEST TRAIN nanana", but then you say an infinite number of small train wins overs an infinitly long train. why ? that doesn't make sense, the aim is to make the longest train right ?

the amount of steam/second is not the unit in which train lengh are measured in case you didn't know. If the aim is to make the longest train, you do not measure the train by the amount of time it takes to fill it up, or the amount of things it can carry, instead train lengh is measured in wagon/locomotive or distance.

Therefore, even if they are faster individually, infinite amount of small train is not the same as the longest train because longest train means you cannot just count the lengh of one train, and addition the lengh of another train, it is 2 different train, not a longer train. Your method of calcul seems hazardous, irrationnal, undefined, arbitrary.

otherwise any design that's infinitly tilebale with an infinite amout of train has infinite steam/S, so again how do you pick the winner between the different design ? who will be the longest train between infinite amount of 1 wagon train, and infinite amount of 1 wagon train ?


mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:23 am
I would interpret that exactly for what it is, like I predicted you would do: Trying to get a specific wording for the rule so you can break it without breaking the letters of the rule.
i'm not sure to undersand why you say i'm trying to get a specific wording for the rule so i can break it. That's not the case, i'm trying to get a specific wording for the rule because i think at the moment it's not specific, it's inconsistent, irrationnal and unpredictible and therefore it makes it impossible to understand how you will evaluate designs, which makes it impossible for me to choose the design amongst my numerous attempts that would best qualify according to the interpretation of the unprecise rules you seem to establish as time goes.

If the rules were making sense they wouldn't need to be changed, you think it's me trying to get a wording for my personnal preference but really i feel it's because you didn't thought about the contest all that much, you made rules that don't make sense, like at the same time considering Steam/S and/or size of the train depending on reasons that are arbitrary, i'm just trying to help you make something more consistent. Especially if you predicted that the rules were to be scrutinized, questionned, or whatever, you could have make them so they wouldn't cause interpretation problem due to their imprecisions and lack of focus/ coherence.

It's never explained which design will win between a 1 wagon train design at 2 steam/sec overall , or a 2 wagon train design at 1 steam/sec overall. the one with the longest train or the one with more steam/s ? the name of the contest imply different answer than you explication, which makes it even more confusing.

Otherwise, any design with an infinite amount of parralel train could have infinite amount of S/second, and any design with the longest train, would have infinite train.
so which would be the longest between the 2 according to your rules ? the infinitly long train ? or the infinite amount of tiny train that carry more steam/s if you can't wait unfinite amount of time to measure the result ?

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:57 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:23 am
Of the two designs I mentioned one has fixed length trains and infinite steam/s and the other has an infinite train that never ever delivers any steam. If it never ever delivers any steam why should it count?
Well because the title of the contest is "nanana LONGEST TRAIN nanana", but then you say an infinite number of small train wins overs an infinitly long train. why ? that doesn't make sense, the aim is to make the longest train right ?
Lets measure at the delivery site where steam is used. Your infinite train never arrives. That's my point. It doesn't matter how long the train is if it never arrives. The delivered steam is 0. The arriving train has how many fluid wagons? Well, it never arrives to be counted.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:57 am
the amount of steam/second is not the unit in which train lengh are measured in case you didn't know. If the aim is to make the longest train, you do not measure the train by the amount of time it takes to fill it up, or the amount of things it can carry, instead train lengh is measured in wagon/locomotive or distance.

Therefore, even if they are faster individually, infinite amount of small train is not the same as the longest train because longest train means you cannot just count the lengh of one train, and addition the lengh of another train, it is 2 different train, not a longer train. Your method of calcul seems hazardous, irrationnal, undefined, arbitrary.

otherwise any design that's infinitly tilebale with an infinite amout of train has infinite steam/S, so again how do you pick the winner between the different design ? who will be the longest train between infinite amount of 1 wagon train, and infinite amount of 1 wagon train ?
The length of the train is still my main concern but steam throughput is important too. Because otherwise you will make a really really long train that takes a million years to fill and claim it's the longest. If I can make the train half the size and have it deliver 4 times the steam then I take that as a win. I didn't say the length of the train gets ignored and only steam/s counts too.

As you say a tileable design has infinite steam/s. And infinite amount of trains. And if they are the same size you can still look at the density. How many trains/tile? How much steam/s/tile? So not all tileable designs are equal.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:57 am
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:23 am
I would interpret that exactly for what it is, like I predicted you would do: Trying to get a specific wording for the rule so you can break it without breaking the letters of the rule.
i'm not sure to undersand why you say i'm trying to get a specific wording for the rule so i can break it. That's not the case, i'm trying to get a specific wording for the rule because i think at the moment it's not specific, it's inconsistent, irrationnal and unpredictible and therefore it makes it impossible to understand how you will evaluate designs, which makes it impossible for me to choose the design amongst my numerous attempts that would best qualify according to the interpretation of the unprecise rules you seem to establish as time goes.

If the rules were making sense they wouldn't need to be changed, you think it's me trying to get a wording for my personnal preference but really i feel it's because you didn't thought about the contest all that much, you made rules that don't make sense, like at the same time considering Steam/S and/or size of the train depending on reasons that are arbitrary, i'm just trying to help you make something more consistent. Especially if you predicted that the rules were to be scrutinized, questionned, or whatever, you could have make them so they wouldn't cause interpretation problem due to their imprecisions and lack of focus/ coherence.

It's never explained which design will win between a 1 wagon train design at 2 steam/sec overall , or a 2 wagon train design at 1 steam/sec overall. the one with the longest train or the one with more steam/s ? the name of the contest imply different answer than you explication, which makes it even more confusing.

Otherwise, any design with an infinite amount of parralel train could have infinite amount of S/second, and any design with the longest train, would have infinite train.
so which would be the longest between the 2 according to your rules ? the infinitly long train ? or the infinite amount of tiny train that carry more steam/s if you can't wait unfinite amount of time to measure the result ?
Why don't just post one of your designs or all of them and see what I say? So far all your posts have been about circumventing rules and every time I tell you how I would judge or why it breaks the rules set out in the first post you refine it to a more elaborate circumvention to get around the latest explanation. Go back and read the first post. The rules have not changed.

As said numerous times now the 2 wagon train design at 1 steam/s would be eliminated by being able to halve the train length and still fill the train at 1 steam/s. To fill a train that slow you must be artificially elongating the train somewhere. It would count at the reduced train length. And then the comparison is between 1 wagon at 2 steam/s and 1 wagon at 1 steam/s. Which one is better do you think? It's in the rules in the first post: how short a train can you fuel without the reactor overheating when burning fuel without pause?

How often did I mention now that an infinite train has 0 steam/s, never manages to leave the reactor, never arrives to deliver steam? How many ways do I have to say how I count an infinite train? You are beating a dead horse. It started with with an infinite amount of locomotives to fake a longer train. That one was actually still workable because of your switching idea where the train only needs to move by the amount of fluid wagons. But since I would obviously count fluid wagons and not locomotives in the comparison you abandont that.

You also seem to be fixated at only looking at the overall steam/s now. Look at the rules again. It's a deciding factor. When you can't decide between two designs because they have the same length trains then the steam/s decieds. Maybe it isn't clear from that but it's mend to be steam/s for each train, not total. It's better to fill the train faster.

There is only one modification to the rules that I should make: That a tileable design is judged on density so the infinite factor get removed from the equation there.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
The length of the train is still my main concern but steam throughput is important too.

As said numerous times now the 2 wagon train design at 1 steam/s would be eliminated by being able to halve the train length and still fill the train at 1 steam/s.
It would count at the reduced train length
So the lengh of the train is the main concern, but the steam/s is the deciding factor in case a long train has less than a short train then the long train is to be divided by an arbitrary number to allow the comparaison of steam/s/wagon ?

that's still a contest of the longest train right ? but the unit for measurment is steam/s/wagon, and the long design or short design are judge on their steam/s output.

See why i'm confused ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
How often did I mention now that an infinite train has 0 steam/s, never manages to leave the reactor, never arrives to deliver steam? How many ways do I have to say how I count an infinite train? You are beating a dead horse. It started with with an infinite amount of locomotives to fake a longer train. That one was actually still workable because of your switching idea where the train only needs to move by the amount of fluid wagons. But since I would obviously count fluid wagons and not locomotives in the comparison you abandont that.
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
Lets measure at the delivery site where steam is used..

yeeee it's not a dead horse! now there's a delivery point !!!! that's usually the case from i've seen in other contest where a map is provided, which allow to circumvent many of the trouble you have in defining precisely a metric to measure the contest.

You did the opposite , you defined precisely the centerpiece, narrowing all freedom of design HEAT+PUMP+WAGN, while letting the outer definition of the contest unbound, ( distance ? metric ? map ? water ? ) open to interpretation, undefined, and then everytime i ask a question you act like if it was clear from the start what you have in mind. it's not, maybe i'm voluntarily exploring the various possibility to interpret the rules because i see many.

You can probably see where i'm going now, If the delivery point is very far away say 1000000 km, then the acceleration of the train matters less than its max speed. While if the delivery point is very close, then the max speed doesn't matter as much as acceleration.

You just switch from measuring the steam flow loaded onto a train to the steam flow delivered at another location situated at unknown distance. that's a pretty big change !!!

How do you expect me to post a design that's optimised enough to have a chance to win the contest if i can't compare how good my different design score between each others giving the distance during the official measurment ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
You also seem to be fixated at only looking at the overall steam/s now. Look at the rules again. It's a deciding factor. When you can't decide between two designs because they have the same length trains then the steam/s decieds. Maybe it isn't clear from that but it's mend to be steam/s for each train, not total. It's better to fill the train faster.

There is only one modification to the rules that I should make: That a tileable design is judged on density so the infinite factor get removed from the equation there.
Well i understand steam/s is the deciding factor when train have the same lengh, but you also just explained that a 2wagon 1/S second would be judged like if it was a 1 wagon0.5 steam/second, because it's considered an artificially elongated train otherwise it would beat a 1wagon 1/S train and it makes no sense.

So really the term you should use is steam/s/wagon not per train, if i may give a piece of advice, it would make it easier to understand no ?

Steam/s/wagon, DELIVERED, at a point, but then again, the distance and the method of delivery/measure is important.

A slow train would make less trip than a fast train in a certain amount of time, and therefore would give less steam/s, considering equal amount of wagon, but different number of locomotives.

You already modified the infinity pipe rule, you said water you come by train at first, then you said wasted fuel was inevitable and didn't really clarify how it would be bad, or worse, just that it shouldn't "overheat constantly", which is quite changing the perspective but is still vaguely defined imo.

Now you added a delivery point where things will be measured and tried to defined how infinite design would be judged.

but you didn't mention the distance at which is located that delivery point !!!

You think i will post one of my design now that the rules have changed ? you fool ! i will keep them secret until i'm sure i understand the rules. ( and also how you plan to evaluate the different designs but we're not there yet first let's make sure the rules are clear :) )

mrvn
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 5112
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:10 am
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mrvn »

mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:20 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
The length of the train is still my main concern but steam throughput is important too.

As said numerous times now the 2 wagon train design at 1 steam/s would be eliminated by being able to halve the train length and still fill the train at 1 steam/s.
It would count at the reduced train length
So the lengh of the train is the main concern, but the steam/s is the deciding factor in case a long train has less than a short train then the long train is to be divided by an arbitrary number to allow the comparaison of steam/s/wagon ?
No. That division is just correcting when you cheat. You are breaking the "how short a train can you fuel without the reactor overheating when burning fuel without pause?" part of the rules.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:20 pm
You can probably see where i'm going now, If the delivery point is very far away say 1000000 km, then the acceleration of the train matters less than its max speed. While if the delivery point is very close, then the max speed doesn't matter as much as acceleration.

You just switch from measuring the steam flow loaded onto a train to the steam flow delivered at another location situated at unknown distance. that's a pretty big change !!!

How do you expect me to post a design that's optimised enough to have a chance to win the contest if i can't compare how good my different design score between each others giving the distance during the official measurment ?
Neither the distance or the max speed matters as that would just offsets the time when the first steam arrives. If you assume there are enough trains and you load a train every 10 seconds then a train will arrive every 10 seconds no matter the distance of max speed.

And I'm not measuring at the delivery site, that was just an attempt to get you to see that the infinite train is a non-go. I can describe it another way: The infinite train will never leave the reactor and a second train can never stop at the reactor. It will only ever fill one train and then the reactor is dead weight.

Or this way: You can't build an infinite train, the map isn't infinite. You don't have enough ram for it. It doesn't fit into a blueprint string or savegame. There are so many way that an infinite train is impossible I didn't put it in the rules. But I guess just for you I will have to.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:20 pm
mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
You also seem to be fixated at only looking at the overall steam/s now. Look at the rules again. It's a deciding factor. When you can't decide between two designs because they have the same length trains then the steam/s decieds. Maybe it isn't clear from that but it's mend to be steam/s for each train, not total. It's better to fill the train faster.

There is only one modification to the rules that I should make: That a tileable design is judged on density so the infinite factor get removed from the equation there.
Well i understand steam/s is the deciding factor when train have the same lengh, but you also just explained that a 2wagon 1/S second would be judged like if it was a 1 wagon0.5 steam/second, because it's considered an artificially elongated train otherwise it would beat a 1wagon 1/S train and it makes no sense.

So really the term you should use is steam/s/wagon not per train, if i may give a piece of advice, it would make it easier to understand no ?

Steam/s/wagon, DELIVERED, at a point, but then again, the distance and the method of delivery/measure is important.
What I wrote was it would be like 1 wagon with 1 steam/s. Same steam output, shorter train. And you've got it the wrong way around. If it is artificially elongated then I would cut it down for the count. Or maybe just not bother to judge it at all. To get 2 wagons to fill at 1 steam/s you have to split the output from a heat exchanger 200 ways. Which you can't with the heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon rule anyway. Or keep it really cool by having a extremely long heat pipe that just barely reaches 501Β°C at the heat exchanger. So I guess it doesn't have to break any rules, it could also just be stupid.

Steam/s/wagon and steam/s/train for trains with the same number of wagons doesn't change anything. The comparison will be the same. Use whichever you like better.
mmmPI wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 6:20 pm

A slow train would make less trip than a fast train in a certain amount of time, and therefore would give less steam/s, considering equal amount of wagon, but different number of locomotives.

You already modified the infinity pipe rule, you said water you come by train at first, then you said wasted fuel was inevitable and didn't really clarify how it would be bad, or worse, just that it shouldn't "overheat constantly", which is quite changing the perspective but is still vaguely defined imo.

Now you added a delivery point where things will be measured and tried to defined how infinite design would be judged.

but you didn't mention the distance at which is located that delivery point !!!

You think i will post one of my design now that the rules have changed ? you fool ! i will keep them secret until i'm sure i understand the rules. ( and also how you plan to evaluate the different designs but we're not there yet first let's make sure the rules are clear :) )
I modified the infinity pipe between heat exhcnagers rule because it's equivalent to having an offshore pipe there. Or a better wording would be: You can place an infinity pipe anywhere an offshore pump would fit. Having to waterfill and landfill tiles any time you try something different is a pain. The infinity pipe is just for your convenience.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't intend to post any sensible reactor anyway and by now you've scared away everybody else. Job well done.

mmmPI
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1601
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Contest: Longest train based nuclear reactor

Post by mmmPI »

mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 am
No. That division is just correcting when you cheat. You are breaking the "how short a train can you fuel without the reactor overheating when burning fuel without pause?" part of the rules.
oh i see it's breaking the rule that is not written explicitly, it's considered cheating but i couldn't tell beforehand because the rules are not clear, when do you divise train lengh? saying "when i cheat" is just a way to avoid the question. "When is it considered cheating ?" if you prefer.
mrvn wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 am
Neither the distance or the max speed matters as that would just offsets the time when the first steam arrives. If you assume there are enough trains and you load a train every 10 seconds then a train will arrive every 10 seconds no matter the distance of max speed.

And I'm not measuring at the delivery site, that was just an attempt to get you to see that the infinite train is a non-go. I can describe it another way: The infinite train will never leave the reactor and a second train can never stop at the reactor. It will only ever fill one train and then the reactor is dead weight.

Or this way: You can't build an infinite train, the map isn't infinite. You don't have enough ram for it. It doesn't fit into a blueprint string or savegame. There are so many way that an infinite train is impossible I didn't put it in the rules. But I guess just for you I will have to.
So where do you measure then ? ( let say for you it doesn't matter, but for my design it's important what can i do ?).

If a train receive 250 steam per second/wagon, be it an infinite train, it would still be filled up in 100 second.

You say now infinite train are impossible, but the previous post you said they will be judge on density, so what is the truth here ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
What I wrote was it would be like 1 wagon with 1 steam/s. Same steam output, shorter train. And you've got it the wrong way around. If it is artificially elongated then I would cut it down for the count. Or maybe just not bother to judge it at all. To get 2 wagons to fill at 1 steam/s you have to split the output from a heat exchanger 200 ways. Which you can't with the heat exchanger -> pump -> fluid wagon rule anyway. Or keep it really cool by having a extremely long heat pipe that just barely reaches 501Β°C at the heat exchanger. So I guess it doesn't have to break any rules, it could also just be stupid.

Steam/s/wagon and steam/s/train for trains with the same number of wagons doesn't change anything. The comparison will be the same. Use whichever you like better.
that's exctly what i said, you will divide the long train to judge them as smaller train that where elongated. This means the metric is steam/s/wagon. not steam/s/train, because in this case you divide the long train per their number of wagon. You can say " use whichever you like better", but that doesn't make sense, it's not me who judge the design, you just explained that infinite train take infinite time to load, which is wrong, maybe you will also use other wrong reasonning to judge a design as "artificially elongated and thus needing to be divided so we can measure steam/S/wagon." That's why i'd like to know precisely beforehand.

the bald part is wrong, i was only taking made up number, now if you use a heat exchanger per wagon but you make it so that the temperature is >500Β° only 1/3 of the time due to moderatly feeding the nearby reactors, then it will only produce 1/3 of its max output, no need to split it between wagon, no need for extremly long heat pipe, that totally respect the rules HEAT EXCHANGER=>PUMP=>WAGON, will the train be divided then ? yes ? no ?

Is that what you call stupid ?

mrvn wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pm
I modified the infinity pipe between heat exhcnagers rule because it's equivalent to having an offshore pipe there. Or a better wording would be: You can place an infinity pipe anywhere an offshore pump would fit. Having to waterfill and landfill tiles any time you try something different is a pain. The infinity pipe is just for your convenience.

It's pretty clear to me that you don't intend to post any sensible reactor anyway and by now you've scared away everybody else. Job well done.
yes some rules needed be modified because they clearly had HUGE loopholes/faulty logic. like not allowing infinitypipe, but allowing waterhole+offshore pump was stupid ( that's where i use this word), since it's the same thing at the end taking up same space on blueprint, just more annoying to do. ( also that's why other contest propose a map, so that the water area is definite and finite maybe you could get some inspiration there.)

Also the rule saying steam/fuel was to be maximized, THAT CLEARLY CONTRADICTS the fact that train can be finite. Maximizing steam/fuel require infinite reactor. You said in your initial post " that only allow 2N design i think" Which is not true it only allows infinite 2N design in theory. You needed to clarify that in fact it didn' t matter if steam/fuel wasn't maximized. Otherwise it would have disqualified every N-1 design, with N infinite.

Yet some other rules still need be modified because they have faulty logic, but it seems more difficult for you to realize. like not precisely explaining what you considered "elongated train" or how does the rating system function precisely ? how will you do measurement ?

Those are also points that are detailled beforehand in other contest i"ve seen in case it help.

Why would i spent so much time trying to understand the rules if i didn't plan to post a design ? You think i'm going into such details for what reason if not winning the contest ? like annoying you ? what if i say it's pretty clear you didn't want to make a real contest just posted a random halfway-thought idea and now refuse to go in details enough for it to be potentially a real contest because that would mean recognizing it wasn't a serious contest in the first place ?

what is scary here ? again something where you decide because you feel the intentions of everyone else ?

Locked

Return to β€œEnergy Production”