Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 565

Author Topic: Starbound - We have lift off.  (Read 944679 times)

hemmingjay

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #930 on: January 13, 2013, 03:56:09 pm »

 ;D  I love this place.
Logged
Only a simple mind can be certain.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #931 on: January 13, 2013, 05:06:53 pm »

Well, DF got the blood rain... I guess meat rain is the logical next step to this lack of logic.
Ehn, it's... not exactly illogical. Critters from the sky is a thing that happens. It'd be a fair occurrence for heavy weather planets, really.

Dunno if there'd be a point to doing it beyond amusement, though. Depends on if the bodies did damage on impact, or if some of them actually survived or whathaveyou.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Graknorke

  • Bay Watcher
  • A bomb's a bad choice for close-range combat.
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #932 on: January 13, 2013, 05:14:14 pm »

Does there need to be a point beyond amusement?
Logged
Cultural status:
Depleted          ☐
Enriched          ☑

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #933 on: January 14, 2013, 02:49:20 am »

Once again, you're thinking with tropes that apply to science fiction movies and some video games. In real life, you can easily waterproof robots.

Why is water dangerous? It can (slowly) corrode some metals, and it conducts electricity which causes shorts between contacts. If the exposed surfaces are made of alloys which do not rust or corrode in water, and all electrical contacts are insulated (a micro-thin layer of waterproof insulation would do it, though more likely sensitive electronics would be sealed) then it doesn't actually matter if water gets into the body of the robot, but there is no reason a robot can't have a flexible membrane over its entire body (synthetic skin) to keep water out altogether. This all assumes, once again, that the robot even uses electricity as its primary power source. It could use optical connections for data, which wouldn't be adversely affected by immersion. It could run on science fiction plasma or something. Hell the interior of the robot could be entirely filled already with heat-dispersing oil which repels water.

I mean you might as well say that fish people can't go out of water because they can't breathe, duh. Plant people can't go in caves, they need sunlight or they would wilt in the heat from lava. Its a silly generalization that may or may not apply to any specific plant/fish/robotic species.

Point being, robots having some sort of automatic vulnerability to water is a bit silly. These robots weren't built in the 1980's.

Numerous issues I previously stated were not addressed and are real world considerations. Movement through water (requires more power than air - larger, more power-hungry movement system etc), movable joints (particularly for the complex setup that would be required to mimic human behaviour), buoyancy etc. There is also the issue of efficiency and natural selection - a race of intelligent robots (in a science-fiction world) would be competing with other lifeforms/robots and if making all/most robots water-proof does not give them an edge and only serves to lower their efficiency versus the rest it would impact their survivability.

Electricity would most likely make a great deal of the energy produced/used, optical data or not, since the joints would be most likely driven by electricity and would be by far the most power hungry component. Data is not really the issue here, since any control circuitry would probably be quite small and indeed easily water-proofable.

Having a waterproof skin over the robot seems like a plausable solution to the electrical issues of water, but buoyancy and movement remain an issue. The skin would also have to be able to stretch alot while providing minimal resistance to movement (significant resistance to movement increases power consumption/motor size and lowers efficiency).

I understand the robot and water-vunerability issue is somewhat overblown in anything sciencey-fiction (a splash of water is enough to cause robots to explode, which is ridiculous), but submerging a real-life robot entirely in water is not a striaght-forward task. Obviously not impossible, but not simple.

If a robot was designed to go into water, then it would obviously be impervious to water to a reasonable degree, but if it is just a generic robot it is unlikely to be conditioned for water (since the process would add complexity, resources, energy and lead to a less efficient robot etc). This issue will likely extend well into the future. So for a generic faceless robot to be vunerable to water makes reasonable sense.

Quote
It could run on science fiction plasma or something. Hell the interior of the robot could be entirely filled already with heat-dispersing oil which repels water.

Quote
you're thinking with tropes that apply to science fiction movies and some video games.

Spoiler: disclaimer (click to show/hide)
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #934 on: January 14, 2013, 12:20:50 pm »

Movement through water
How is this any less of an issue than with the other races? I mean sure, they will probably not be full of water and thus unlikely to have a fairly neutral buoyancy at the surface like humans do, but it's really up in the air whether they would sink or float more than humans. It certainly doesn't require "larger, more power-hungry movement systems" - it just means they will move less efficiently through water, whether paddling at the top or walking at the bottom. (Much like humans in liquids!)

There is also the issue of efficiency and natural selection - a race of intelligent robots (in a science-fiction world) would be competing with other lifeforms/robots and if making all/most robots water-proof does not give them an edge and only serves to lower their efficiency versus the rest it would impact their survivability.
There is a reason most animals are waterproof. Turns out things like rain or unexpected submerging are fairly common on most planets!

Quote
Electricity would most likely make a great deal of the energy produced/used, optical data or not, since the joints would be most likely driven by electricity and would be by far the most power hungry component.

This is actually a misconception on several fronts. First: One doesn't power 'joints'. That's just... kind of an absurd idea. I mean, really? Joints are points of rotation, and need to be well lubricated, but not powered.
Second: Assuming you just mean moving limbs in general, this is almost exclusively done with pneumatics or strict mechanical methods in robotics, neither of which are particularly impacted by the presence of liquids. It's relatively rare to have any electrical power transmission to these places. Even in a distributed system like that which provides humans with locomotion (and some robots do use such a system), the actual impetus is provided by an area that is generally dense and easily self contained, converting electrical energy into mechanical energy that is then transmitted to the bits that actually need to move.

Having a waterproof skin over the robot seems like a plausable solution to the electrical issues of water, but buoyancy and movement remain an issue. The skin would also have to be able to stretch alot while providing minimal resistance to movement (significant resistance to movement increases power consumption/motor size and lowers efficiency).

Quote
submerging a real-life robot entirely in water is not a striaght-forward task. Obviously not impossible, but not simple.
Sumberging a robot in water is exceptionally easy. :P Much like submerging a car in water, or a person in water, they generally won't stay functional for long if you leave them under there though, simple because they aren't adapted for it and maybe depend on some sort of fuel-air mixture to create mechanical power. But that could easily be duplicated by giving the robots some sort of breathing indicator... just like humans have! :P

Quote
If a robot was designed to go into water, then it would obviously be impervious to water to a reasonable degree, but if it is just a generic robot it is unlikely to be conditioned for water (since the process would add complexity, resources, energy and lead to a less efficient robot etc).
Most fields robots are built with significant water resistance, because it turns out that when you go outside, shit gets wet. This would seem double important to a race of robots exploring other worlds.

Quote
It could run on science fiction plasma or something. Hell the interior of the robot could be entirely filled already with heat-dispersing oil which repels water.
Quote
you're thinking with tropes that apply to science fiction movies and some video games.
The second half, at least, is something that is actually done.
Logged

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #935 on: January 14, 2013, 01:51:00 pm »

Numerous issues I previously stated were not addressed and are real world considerations. Movement through water (requires more power than air - larger, more power-hungry movement system etc), movable joints (particularly for the complex setup that would be required to mimic human behaviour), buoyancy etc.

Underwater motors/turbines. More efficient than whatever you're imagining (a robot with arms and legs trying to swim?). Not sure why you think joints are a problem. Buoyancy? Submarines handle it just fine.

What I don't understand is how anyone can be saying "UNDERWATER ROBOTS ARE IMPOSSSSIIBLEEEE" when they exist in the real world now and are in use. For example, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, when BP had their undersea camera up, you could see their underwater robots working deep underwater (from a camera mounted on one of them, IIRC). There was room for improvement, of course: They were remote-controlled and appeared to only have one camera per robot (so no depth perception), which probably had something to do with the terrible clumsiness they demonstrated when picking things up and so forth.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

BigD145

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #936 on: January 14, 2013, 02:30:46 pm »

What I don't understand is how anyone can be saying "UNDERWATER ROBOTS ARE IMPOSSSSIIBLEEEE" when they exist in the real world now and are in use. For example, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, when BP had their undersea camera up, you could see their underwater robots working deep underwater (from a camera mounted on one of them, IIRC). There was room for improvement, of course: They were remote-controlled and appeared to only have one camera per robot (so no depth perception), which probably had something to do with the terrible clumsiness they demonstrated when picking things up and so forth.

That was a multi-billion dollar (a quarter) corporation trying to spend as little money as possible, which I could see in Maia but not so much in Starbound.
Quote
Electricity would most likely make a great deal of the energy produced/used, optical data or not, since the joints would be most likely driven by electricity and would be by far the most power hungry component.

Quote
This is actually a misconception on several fronts. First: One doesn't power 'joints'. That's just... kind of an absurd idea. I mean, really? Joints are points of rotation, and need to be well lubricated, but not powered.
Second: Assuming you just mean moving limbs in general, this is almost exclusively done with pneumatics or strict mechanical methods in robotics, neither of which are particularly impacted by the presence of liquids. It's relatively rare to have any electrical power transmission to these places. Even in a distributed system like that which provides humans with locomotion (and some robots do use such a system), the actual impetus is provided by an area that is generally dense and easily self contained, converting electrical energy into mechanical energy that is then transmitted to the bits that actually need to move.

Muscles, or pneumatics/hydraulics, are powered. Often enough you want to keep things small and somewhat close to the joint or you end up with awkwardly large grasshopper limbs, which requires power near/in the "muscle".
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 12:33:16 pm by BigD145 »
Logged

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #937 on: January 14, 2013, 07:11:38 pm »

Movement through water
How is this any less of an issue than with the other races? I mean sure, they will probably not be full of water and thus unlikely to have a fairly neutral buoyancy at the surface like humans do, but it's really up in the air whether they would sink or float more than humans. It certainly doesn't require "larger, more power-hungry movement systems" - it just means they will move less efficiently through water, whether paddling at the top or walking at the bottom. (Much like humans in liquids!)

There is also the issue of efficiency and natural selection - a race of intelligent robots (in a science-fiction world) would be competing with other lifeforms/robots and if making all/most robots water-proof does not give them an edge and only serves to lower their efficiency versus the rest it would impact their survivability.
There is a reason most animals are waterproof. Turns out things like rain or unexpected submerging are fairly common on most planets!

And I already said that robots exploding on contact with water is silly. A robot being capable of functioning in rain seems quite reasonable and is very simple to do, and would almost be a necessity. Unexpected submerging is not really common accross the entire planet, only parts of the planets (floods etc). But then again people tend to die in floods too.

Quote
Electricity would most likely make a great deal of the energy produced/used, optical data or not, since the joints would be most likely driven by electricity and would be by far the most power hungry component.

This is actually a misconception on several fronts. First: One doesn't power 'joints'. That's just... kind of an absurd idea. I mean, really? Joints are points of rotation, and need to be well lubricated, but not powered.

This is pretty much a technicality, I am pretty sure it was clear what was meant.

Quote
submerging a real-life robot entirely in water is not a striaght-forward task. Obviously not impossible, but not simple.
Sumberging a robot in water is exceptionally easy. :P Much like submerging a car in water, or a person in water, they generally won't stay functional for long if you leave them under there though, simple because they aren't adapted for it and maybe depend on some sort of fuel-air mixture to create mechanical power. But that could easily be duplicated by giving the robots some sort of breathing indicator... just like humans have! :P

I was working under the assumption that the robot would be powered through something that does not need air at all, so that problem (and thus the solution involving a breathing indicator) would not exist. The part about robots not being adapted for water is pretty much my point - most would not need to in the same way that car's are (well, usually) not adapted to be submerged (but we have specialised submarines if the need arises).

Quote
If a robot was designed to go into water, then it would obviously be impervious to water to a reasonable degree, but if it is just a generic robot it is unlikely to be conditioned for water (since the process would add complexity, resources, energy and lead to a less efficient robot etc).
Most fields robots are built with significant water resistance, because it turns out that when you go outside, shit gets wet. This would seem double important to a race of robots exploring other worlds.

As stated above, robots getting wet is not much of an issue and I agree with you. Most field robots are built with water resistance, but specialised ones are built to operate underwater. A robot exploring other worlds would be conditioned to deal with getting wet.

If they were exploring a variety of other worlds, not just earth ones, then it would seem to be almost a requirement to design different robots for different enviroments. Dealing with temperatures of near absolute 0/ hundereds of degrees etc. In this case some robots would most definetely be designed to be submerged in water - as well as various other liquids at different temperatures.

Underwater motors/turbines. More efficient than whatever you're imagining (a robot with arms and legs trying to swim?). Not sure why you think joints are a problem. Buoyancy? Submarines handle it just fine.

What I don't understand is how anyone can be saying "UNDERWATER ROBOTS ARE IMPOSSSSIIBLEEEE" when they exist in the real world now and are in use. For example, during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, when BP had their undersea camera up, you could see their underwater robots working deep underwater (from a camera mounted on one of them, IIRC). There was room for improvement, of course: They were remote-controlled and appeared to only have one camera per robot (so no depth perception), which probably had something to do with the terrible clumsiness they demonstrated when picking things up and so forth.

The discussion began over Starbounds robots, which have arms and legs and would likely try to swim human-style. Submarines handle Buoyancy fine, but the equiptment required to do so comes at a cost.

I don't know who is saying that underwater robots are impossible - I don't think anyone would claim that submarines do not exist.
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

Shadowlord

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #938 on: January 14, 2013, 09:09:07 pm »

If C-3P0 tried to swim human-style, I'd call him an idiot for not using a vehicle.
Logged
<Dakkan> There are human laws, and then there are laws of physics. I don't bike in the city because of the second.
Dwarf Fortress Map Archive

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #939 on: January 14, 2013, 09:18:34 pm »

I would almost swear to you C-3P0 has actually walked the bottom of a couple lakes in its lifetime. But... yeah, not tried a breaststroke or anything.
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Darkmere

  • Bay Watcher
  • Exploding me won't bring back your honey.
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #940 on: January 14, 2013, 10:01:42 pm »

C-3PO maybe, but (and yes. I looked this up. *sigh*) Commander Data definitely did.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
And then, they will be weaponized. Like everything in this game, from kittens to babies, everything is a potential device of murder.
So if baseless speculation is all we have, we might as well treat it like fact.

Devling

  • Bay Watcher
  • You're all a bunch of socialists!
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #941 on: January 14, 2013, 11:33:11 pm »

It's the attack of the walls of text!

Logged

Mongol13524

  • Bay Watcher
  • The mongols are and were cool.
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #942 on: January 15, 2013, 01:12:08 am »

Been excited for this since it was revealed. PTF.
Logged
If Nyquil isn't meant to be abused, then why does it come with a shot glass?

My old account on this forum is klingon13524.

alexandertnt

  • Bay Watcher
  • (map 'list (lambda (post) (+ post awesome)) posts)
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #943 on: January 15, 2013, 01:18:51 am »

It's the attack of the walls of text!

DIE!!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
This is when I imagine the hilarity which may happen if certain things are glichy. Such as targeting your own body parts to eat.

You eat your own head
YOU HAVE BEEN STRUCK DOWN!

Matz05

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Starbound - A flat yet infinite universe.
« Reply #944 on: January 15, 2013, 10:59:39 am »

That looks an awful lot like an AI cutting up papers on AI and repasting them into a mimicry of English grammer...
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 565