Not sure how more explicit I can write the part I quoted in bold than it already being written white on black in the first post.mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 amoh 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.
Just for you if the reactor has N nuclear reactor entities I will measure (N % 100)% of the distance between reactor and the hypothetical consumer before said consumer.mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 amSo where do you measure then ? ( let say for you it doesn't matter, but for my design it's important what can i do ?).mrvn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:57 amNeither 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.
I never said an infinite train would be measured on density. It can't be measured, it can't be build, it can't be put in a blueprint, it can't be put in a savegame, it can't be submitted here at all.
I said tileable designs would have to be compared on density if in doubt. But you seem to be reading very selectively so no matter what I write it says what you want it to say.
Ignoring that part where you claim 1 == 1/2. Or where you confuse "load" with "leave". More selective reading I guess.mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 amthat'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.mrvn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pmWhat 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 501°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.
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 >500° 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 ?
Yes, such a design I would call stupid. Why would you purposefully only fuel the reactor moderatly if the heat exhcnager aren't getting enough heat? A simple change to the design to throw in more fuel would beat it. Those cases should eliminate themself. No artificial elongation happening there.
maximized != maximum. should != must. More selective reading.mmmPI wrote: ↑Sat Oct 30, 2021 6:48 amyes 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.)mrvn wrote: ↑Fri Oct 29, 2021 2:52 pmI 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.
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 ?
That only 2xN reactor designed would give the best results is just a prediction by me. Could be wrong. it's not a rule. Maybe an U shaped reactor is better and allows for longer trains?
I have no idea why you keep on it. Probably because you like to hear yourself talk as they say and must have the last word in any discussion. You might have noticed that there isn't a single submission so far. So no matter what you submit you would already win no matter how many points I would dedact for rule breaking.
This wasn't supposed to be a contest to crown the mister nuclear reactor 2021. The point was to get to see some crazy reactors and one-up each other by improving on each others designs.