Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Skanky]

I decided to test this theory with an experiment.

Setup:
1 brook
6 passages leading from the brook
6 floodgates (all no-quality and made with the same material)
6 pressure plates (1 of each quality, all set to trigger on 1 level of water)
6 ramps (which don't affect results)


1 lever (above the unused mechanisms stockpile)
6 connections from the lever (to each floodgate, all mechanisms of the same quality)
6 bridges, all made of the same material
6 connections from pressure plates (to each bridge, mechanism quality is the same as the pressure plate)


The mechanism quality of the pressure plates and the links to the bridge decrease in quality from top to bottom. The top bridge is linked by masterwork mechanisms, the bottom bridge is linked by no-quality mechanisms.

Method:
1. Pull lever
2. The floodgates are all equal. They are made from the same material, are the same quality, and are linked to the lever with the same quality mechanisms. In theory, they should all open at the same time.
3. Water flows into each chamber, triggering the pressure plates all at the same time.
4. The masterwork pressure plate will use its masterwork mechanism links to open the top bridge first. The second-highest will raise second, and so on.

Results:




The bridges raised in exactly the WRONG order! The no-quality mechanisms raised its bridge first, the - and + quality mechanisms went up next. * quality came in fourth and then finally the highest quality mechanisms finished their work.

With 5 repetitions of the experiment, the masterwork mechanisms have still yet to beat the no-quality mechanisms in raising its respective bridge.

From this, I think it is safe to say that mechanism quality has no effect on the speed with which mechanisms work.

[Jackrabbit]

thank you for that useful insight.

[kaypy]

Nice work!

Ive always vaguely figured that there was no relation on the speed front, but its nice to see someone go to the effort to be sure.

[Angellus]

very nicely conducted experiment, thank you.

[Untelligent]

Nice, I was going to do something like this earlier but was too lazy.

[Eagle of Fire]

Now, do the exact inverse. Place the no quality up, and the highest quality down. Two results are possible:

1- The bottom bridges will all open in the same order again, proving your experiment is flawed somehow or
2- the bridges will open from top to bottom, proving your point.

[Omega2]

I'm thinking doing it in a brook might have changed the result a bit.

Have you tried that out with a pool of still water instead of a book/river? Better yet, why not use five different pools for each pressure plate instead so pressure on one side won't affect the other. Since the water physics seem a bit weird sometimes, I think it'd be better to try and control as many variables as possible.

[Feodoric]

Now, do the exact inverse. Place the no quality up, and the highest quality down. Two results are possible:

1- The bottom bridges will all open in the same order again, proving your experiment is flawed somehow or
2- the bridges will open from top to bottom, proving your point.

Wouldn't #2 be pretty interesting as well? Mechanism quality has an INVERSE effect on speed of activation?

Anyway, I'm betting the bridges will open from bottom to top again- Like Omega2 said, I think it's probably a result of water physics rather than mechanism quality.

[Skizelo]

It's nice to see some science.
Now could someone devise a test to see whether mechanism quality effects trap deadliness.

[Skanky]

I should note that in the other tests I ran, the bridges did not always open from bottom to top. Actually, that was the only time they opened in that order. Perhaps I should run a few more tests and record the results. Regardless, mechanism quality can't be said to affect the reaction speed of the bridges.

Regarding the brook water affecting results. I don't see that happening. Once the floodgates open, all that needs to happen to trigger each pressure plate is for 1/7 of water to travel 2 squares. I would expect reducing the water pressure by using still water rather than a brook would only serve to increase variability. Unfortunately there is variabilty from water physics, but I think that is limited by using a high-pressure water source and spacing the plates out from each other so the first few 1/7s of water used to trigger them don't affect the other pressure plates. Unfortunately, its the only way I can think of to have one dwarf's actions trigger 6 different sets of mechanisms at the same time.

The ultimate experiment, of course, would be 6 sets of differing quality levers connected to bridges with differing quality mechanisms, then triggering them one at a time and counting the frames from the lever being flipped to the bridge reacting... Is anyone here that bored?

[Omega2]

Correct me if I'm wrong or missed some of the reasoning here, but wouldn't it be simpler to connect a single lever to all those bridges, directly, and vary only the quality of the mechanisms used to link everything up instead of relying on water physics? Or that's not what's being tested here?

Speaking of testing, I just linked three doors to a single well-crafted lever using three different qualities of mechanisms (no modifier, finely-crafted and exceptional). All opened at exactly the same time with barely any noticeable delay at 60FPS. Not sure if that means much, though.

[Brian]

Whenever I hook multiple things of any kind of a lever, they all end up going off at the same time, regardless of quality mechanisms.  That's why to test with separate levers fired off at once.

[Omega2]

Well, I think that'd confirm the idea that different qualities don't have an effect on activation speed. Which sounds a lot more intuitive than the "the better the slower" or fully random effects Skanky's been getting by testing it with interconnected water systems, which I think are the result of the water physics interfering with the results. That's why I suggest digging six different trenches, fill them up with 7/7 water, then do it again without interference from the brook. An additional lever and six floodgates should allow the running water to fill the trenches and then seal it off so there is no outside interference and water physics would be more predictable.

[Nesoo]

Yeah, I'd suggest a different method for activating those pressure plates. Either suspend water over them then have that water fall on them by opening hatches (activating at >0 water), or fill the 1x1 chamber that they're in with water then use a floodgate to let that water out (activating when <7 water). Either should eliminate any effects that water physics might be having on the results. Personally, I'd go for the hatches one, though both methods could be set up the same way for easy resetting, or even changing the pressure plates; in fact, you may have inspired me to try this out myself...

It was an interesting experiment regardless

[Strangething]

It's nice to see some science.
Now could someone devise a test to see whether mechanism quality effects trap deadliness.

I was noodling the idea of a gauntlet of traps to dispose of goblin prisoners. Sort of a trial by *large, serrated disc*. Maybe I can make it a science experiment as well.