Factorio Forums

If standing next to an active reactor harm your health, then very hot heat pipes should be usable to make a wall against biters !

mmmPI wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:52 pm If standing next to an active reactor harm your health, then very hot heat pipes should be usable to make a wall against biters !

YES!!! That is top factorio!

it's really funny when people pick one simple detail and talk about realism, yet ignoring thousands of other "gamified" stuf.

and ait's almost always most annoying thing, they come with.

just mod it, if you want more annoyances in game, that's my answer.

Hannu wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:43 pm It would not be very entertaining to get cancer after 200 hours of gaming and lose the megabase because you have got radiation or carcinogenic chemical 160 hour before.

Just press the "continue", not "load last save" or "restart game". The new character will be as new one.

Short answer to the suggestion: NO. It will not add realism.

I once worked with radioactive materials and I have even been in a reactor. There are procedures and protections.

You don't "just get irradiated" for working with them or being near. If it did... we'd tell them to go jump off a bridge... because we would NOT work on it.

So... a mod is the right way to address it. It lets those that want it have it, those that don't want it NOT have it, and realism does not get hurt.

As others said... It would only make sense if the game would really be an absolute survival nightmare and be all about realism. Where everything in the game is out to kill you and even a simple mistake could end lethal.

There are some games out there that are like that and they also have their justified fanbase because sometimes those games as punishing as they are, they can be fun too. True masochists will know.

I don't think that Factorio is that kind of game though. Because the only threat in the game are the biters and they aren't much of a threat anymore once you automate the defense. Not to speak about realism altogether because there's not really much realism in there.


Maybe a realism-mod could do all that.

Airplane pilots get more radiation than nuclear power plant workers , stop getting your "info" from HBO.

Termak wrote: Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:58 pm Airplane pilots get more radiation than nuclear power plant workers , stop getting your "info" from HBO.

So true. Only *dumb/reckless* nuclear power plant workers get unhealthy levels of radiation.

If you want realistic nuclear reactors go build one in your backyard

dangerous_beans wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:19 am If you want realistic nuclear reactors go build one in your backyard

Who said i haven't?

No.

Why not? Because thinking that people get damaged by standing near nuclear reactors is ignorant and wrong.

https://youtu.be/5QcN3KDexcU?t=407

JCav wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:08 am No.

Why not? Because thinking that people get damaged by standing near nuclear reactors is ignorant and wrong.

https://youtu.be/5QcN3KDexcU?t=407

hmm, standing next to a non-functioning reactor is totally different to standing next to a working reactor, because thinking that people would not get damaged by standing near a working nuclear reactor is ignorant and wrong.

mrvn wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:33 am But what should really get you is the uranium being transported on open belts or in your pocket.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. I like the general idea of having to be careful of radiation damage to your character but it needs to be based on real life somewhat. Its not the reactors that bother me, but when I'm surrounded by chests full of U235 and I'm having no ill effects it does strike me as odd, suspension of disbelief/immersion blah blah

Therefore the damage should not be based on proximity to certain buildings but proximity to U235/nuclear fuel/uranium fuel cells. They should cause minor (immediate) damage based on their amount and their proximity to a character. The damage effect should be reduced if the uranium/fuel is inside a building. i.e. a pile of u235 in your inventory will do the most damage, slightly less if its loose on the ground or on a belt, slightly less still if its in a chest (maybe there could be additional 'lead-lined' chest that blocks more) or assembler or cargo wagon, and much less if its inside a reactor or centrifuge (we can assume such buildings are designed to block harmful radiation from escaping, like their real-world counterparts). Nuclear fuel in a locomotive should give the lower amount of damage like a centrifuge (being near or travelling in nuclear ships and submarines is safe) but a cargo wagon should only give the same protection as a chest (unless a lead-lined cargo wagon is also added). So a nuclear powered locomotive hauling iron/circuits/whatever should be safe to ride in for a while but a rocket fuel powered loco hauling U235 should not.
U238 and uranium ore should be almost-entirely-harmless, as they are in real-life.

But there should also be defences to the radiation. I.e. power armour variants should block increasing amounts of radiation, and with enough energy shields you should be able to block it completely, however this will cause a constant drain of power from your personal energy source.

zOldBulldog wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:12 pm Short answer to the suggestion: NO. It will not add realism.

I once worked with radioactive materials and I have even been in a reactor. There are procedures and protections.

You don't "just get irradiated" for working with them or being near. If it did... we'd tell them to go jump off a bridge... because we would NOT work on it.

So... a mod is the right way to address it. It lets those that want it have it, those that don't want it NOT have it, and realism does not get hurt.

This is the 100% most important answer.

Concerns about "realism" alone, the current variant is the 100% most realistic version, because nuclear reactors don't generate hazardous level of radiation in their intact state, they are actually less radioactive than fossil fuel plants.

There is, however, a mod that simulates the nuclear fallout from an exploded plant by having it spew poison capsules when destroyed, that could be a meaningful update and would be pretty interesting.

Ormy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:50 am Therefore the damage should not be based on proximity to certain buildings but proximity to U235/nuclear fuel/uranium fuel cells.

Uranium 235 is not appreciably radioactive. It has a 700MY half life and doesn't require containment to remove the radiation hazard.

Ultros wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:01 am

Ormy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:50 am Therefore the damage should not be based on proximity to certain buildings but proximity to U235/nuclear fuel/uranium fuel cells.

Uranium 235 is not appreciably radioactive. It has a 700MY half life and doesn't require containment to remove the radiation hazard.

Wow I can't believe I never actually looked that up, how boring. I guess I always assumed it would be more radioactive given its huge fission cross-section.

Ok new suggestion, used-up fuel cells are now the dangerous item. Fission fragments are definitely highly radioactive, much shorter half lives.

Ormy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:10 am

Ultros wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:01 am

Ormy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:50 am Therefore the damage should not be based on proximity to certain buildings but proximity to U235/nuclear fuel/uranium fuel cells.

Uranium 235 is not appreciably radioactive. It has a 700MY half life and doesn't require containment to remove the radiation hazard.

Wow I can't believe I never actually looked that up, how boring. I guess I always assumed it would be more radioactive given its huge fission cross-section.

Ok new suggestion, used-up fuel cells are now the dangerous item. Fission fragments are definitely highly radioactive, much shorter half lives.

Used-up fuel cells are also used to pre-heat making the reactor a lot more efficient. That's one of the reasons nuclear plants want to store their waste locally as long as possible.

SkiCarver wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:42 am

JCav wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:08 am No.

Why not? Because thinking that people get damaged by standing near nuclear reactors is ignorant and wrong.

https://youtu.be/5QcN3KDexcU?t=407

hmm, standing next to a non-functioning reactor is totally different to standing next to a working reactor, because thinking that people would not get damaged by standing near a working nuclear reactor is ignorant and wrong.

I strongly suggest you educate yourself and watch that video. The MIT reactor is in fact functional, and 10' of water is enough to shield them from the radiation despite looking straight down into it.

You're welcome.

Short answer - no.

Satisfactory has this feature, and it cause more problems then fun in game.

JCav wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:40 pm

SkiCarver wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:42 am

JCav wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:08 am No.

Why not? Because thinking that people get damaged by standing near nuclear reactors is ignorant and wrong.

https://youtu.be/5QcN3KDexcU?t=407

hmm, standing next to a non-functioning reactor is totally different to standing next to a working reactor, because thinking that people would not get damaged by standing near a working nuclear reactor is ignorant and wrong.

I strongly suggest you educate yourself and watch that video. The MIT reactor is in fact functional, and 10' of water is enough to shield them from the radiation despite looking straight down into it.

You're welcome.

functional is not the same as functioning ... look it up .... Your welcome.