Print

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

[Footkerchief]

but it should not be taken for granted that wooden, rock and metal can be made into mechanisms the same size and quality.

That sums it up really.  Ideally once mechanisms are in the raws, we could just specify sets of requirements for material properties and let the game take care of it:

[MAT_REQ:MAX:BENDING_FRACTURE:600000]
[MAT_REQ:MIN:BENDING_ELASTICITY:1000]

And so on (numbers are pulled out of my ass).

[LegoLord]

I didn't mean elastic as a means to store energy, I did mean flexible - the ability to keep form while absorbing shocks - as opposed to brittle.

Stones are heavy. If you want to makes something that turns, you need an axis or pins, and narrow stone ones will break if you put a lot of weight on them. And stone parts are inevitably heavy. There's no problem with using stone weights etc, but that's not where the mechanism hinges on.

"brittle" does not mean it will snap in a hurry.  Adamantine is supposed to be brittle, but look at what you can make out of it.  Some steel items are made of a softer steel for purpose and shape, and a brittle (yet rigid) steel for support and shape.  Same thing applies to mechanisms and stone.  Besides, axles are made of wood in the game anyway.  They are seperate from the "mechanisms" item.

[Silverionmox]

but it should not be taken for granted that wooden, rock and metal can be made into mechanisms the same size and quality.

That sums it up really.  Ideally once mechanisms are in the raws, we could just specify sets of requirements for material properties and let the game take care of it:

[MAT_REQ:MAX:BENDING_FRACTURE:600000]
[MAT_REQ:MIN:BENDING_ELASTICITY:1000]

And so on (numbers are pulled out of my ass).

Yeah. I would set it pretty broad, to retain the option to make inferior mechanisms if there's nothing else.

I didn't mean elastic as a means to store energy, I did mean flexible - the ability to keep form while absorbing shocks - as opposed to brittle.

Stones are heavy. If you want to makes something that turns, you need an axis or pins, and narrow stone ones will break if you put a lot of weight on them. And stone parts are inevitably heavy. There's no problem with using stone weights etc, but that's not where the mechanism hinges on.

"brittle" does not mean it will snap in a hurry.  Adamantine is supposed to be brittle, but look at what you can make out of it.  Some steel items are made of a softer steel for purpose and shape, and a brittle (yet rigid) steel for support and shape.  Same thing applies to mechanisms and stone.  Besides, axles are made of wood in the game anyway.  They are seperate from the "mechanisms" item.

Adamantine is an exception in any case. Steel is a good example, because it is both hard and not brittle - as opposed to pig iron, which is hard, but too brittle and therefore needs extra processing into steel. Stone can't take that much weight: that's why apartment buildings can be built quickly and much higher than cathedrals: they have a frame made out of steel beams. A stone frame requires careful building and good planning (arches etc.), otherwise the thing will collapse. Stone beams won't take that much weight. Wooden axles in the game don't support anything, they're just used to transfer torsion between assemblies of mechanisms.. who need a kind of axis to turn around to generate that circular motion.

[LegoLord]

Yes, stone can't take much weight, but the in-game mechanisms aren't going to be tiny little cogs and things trying to support weight.  Even made from metal, mechanisms from this time frame were big.

[Silverionmox]

Sure, and that's why there should be a size difference. It could be tied to quality as well.

[LegoLord]

Sure, and that's why there should be a size difference. It could be tied to quality too.

No, mechanisms weren't made in variable sizes because they were always made in large sizes, such as what would be necessary for raising a drawbridge or opening a floodgate.  They were not made for tiny things like watches.  Watches didn't even exist.

[Footkerchief]

No, mechanisms weren't made in variable sizes because they were always made in large sizes, such as what would be necessary for raising a drawbridge or opening a floodgate.  They were not made for tiny things like watches.  Watches didn't even exist.

Unless you're defining anything larger than a wristwatch as "large," there was in fact some pretty significant variation in size -- "always in large sizes" is hugely misleading.  The Antikythera mechanism used finely made gears, and rachets, which would experience similar stresses to those on gears, were frequently used in the trigger mechanisms of siege engines and crossbows.  There were probably countless other ancient uses for small- and medium-sized machinery which have simply been lost -- the really large ones tend to hold up better.

[LegoLord]

Yes, wristwatch-sized mechanisms are generally the fragile ones.