Electricity to EMC, is it possible?

[GreenWolf13]

This thread got off topic really fast.

[andrewdonshik]

What IS APS anyway? Plus, it's possible to turn electricity into pneumatic, just not very fast.

My view was from a realism standpoint. APS is Advanced Power Systems

[Frog81]

My view was from a realism standpoint. APS is Advanced Power Systems

Okay, but what if you used the electricity to power a supercompact pneumatic generator?

[gavjenks]

No, my point is that a solar collector/nuclear fission should create electricity, not pneumatic. Anyway, now that I got it to install correctly, it's pretty nice, I just can't figure out most of it. :/

Eherm,

Either one of these easily converts rotary to linear motion. Cranks are also capable of turning linear into rotary, which is what you would need if you wanted to convert from a redstone engine to an electric generator (generator is just a motor spun from external energy).

Most common example of linear motion -> rotary motion: every car in the world (pistons -> wheels)

Alternatively, if you had a constant source of pneumatic pressure, you could simple turn a rotary turbine with vanes on it like a reverse fan (as they do in real world fuel burning power plants)

[andrewdonshik]

Eherm,

Either one of these easily converts rotary to linear motion. Cranks are also capable of turning linear into rotary, which is what you would need if you wanted to convert from a redstone engine to an electric generator (generator is just a motor spun from external energy).

Most common example of linear motion -> rotary motion: every car in the world (pistons -> wheels)

Alternatively, if you had a constant source of pneumatic pressure, you could simple turn a rotary turbine with vanes on it like a reverse fan (as they do in real world fuel burning power plants)

Stop bringing physics into MC! Also, the realism thing was an excuse for I couldn't get it to install right.

[Frog81]

Stop bringing physics into MC! Also, the realism thing was an excuse for I couldn't get it to install right.

Physics DO NOT BELONG IN MC. If they did, hopping off a hundred block cliff into 2 blocks of water would pulverise you and turn your items into goo and dust.

[gavjenks]

I didnt bring physics into it. Somebody else was complaining about how linear motion could possibly generate electricity...

[GreenWolf13]

I didnt bring physics into it. Somebody else was complaining about how linear motion could possibly generate electricity...

...and then you brought physics into it. As said before, physics don't belong in Minecraft.

[gavjenks]

...and then you brought physics into it. As said before, physics don't belong in Minecraft.

I don't think you understand. If physics are irrelevant, then why was he complaining about linear motion being translated into electricity...? That is basically the same thing as saying "it's physically impossible!" To which the only reasonable response is one that likewise involves physics, since that's what he asked for.

Secondly, why shouldn't physics be involved in minecraft? Just because a lot of things are unrealistic doesnt mean it makes no sesne to discuss how they could be, or how they might be. Nobody has actually given any real argument for this... Not only is it amusing, but many of the mods could benefit from being a little bit more realistic, in situations where it doesn't obviously conflict with gameplay value.

[warpspeed10]

But E = Mine Craft^2

[Frog81]

I don't think you understand. If physics are irrelevant, then why was he complaining about linear motion being translated into electricity...? That is basically the same thing as saying "it's physically impossible!" To which the only reasonable response is one that likewise involves physics, since that's what he asked for.

Secondly, why shouldn't physics be involved in minecraft? Just because a lot of things are unrealistic doesnt mean it makes no sesne to discuss how they could be, or how they might be. Nobody has actually given any real argument for this... Not only is it amusing, but many of the mods could benefit from being a little bit more realistic, in situations where it doesn't obviously conflict with gameplay value.

Hmm, let's see-

If minecraft had physics, hopping off a hundred block cliff into water would squish you,

If minecraft had physics, if you wore heavy DM/RM/Nano/Diamond/Quantum/Iron/Gold armour, it would weigh you down and make you move slowly.

If minecraft had physics, a track with constant booster rails every 1-5 blocks would speed up a cart until it reached its terminal velocity, and anything it hit would basically die instantly.

Need more examples?

[GreenWolf13]

Hmm, let's see-

If minecraft had physics, hopping off a hundred block cliff into water would squish you,

If minecraft had physics, if you wore heavy DM/RM/Nano/Diamond/Quantum/Iron/Gold armour, it would weigh you down and make you move slowly.

If minecraft had physics, a track with constant booster rails every 1-5 blocks would speed up a cart until it reached its terminal velocity, and anything it hit would basically die instantly.

Need more examples?

If Minecraft had REAL world physics. It has physics, just not real world physics. You literally cannot have a sandbox game without physics.

[gavjenks]

Hmm, let's see-

If minecraft had physics, hopping off a hundred block cliff into water would squish you,

If minecraft had physics, if you wore heavy DM/RM/Nano/Diamond/Quantum/Iron/Gold armour, it would weigh you down and make you move slowly.

If minecraft had physics, a track with constant booster rails every 1-5 blocks would speed up a cart until it reached its terminal velocity, and anything it hit would basically die instantly.

Need more examples?

No, I don't need more examples, because I don't understand what your point is in presenting these or any examples in the first place?

Those and every other example are worth talking about in terms of real world physics. By having that discussion, we can either:

1) Change the game to make it more realistic by adjusting that feature. This is the correct solution if and when a feature is unrealistic AND is not providing any particularly necessary or useful gameplay value.

2) Realize that the example is actually physically realistic, and not worry about it. OR

3) Decide that it is unrealistic, BUT that it provides a truly important gameplay value that makes it not worth changing to make it more realistic.

ALL of these outcomes are useful and/or informative, and are worth considering. In the case of your particular examples:

In order

If minecraft had physics, hopping off a hundred block cliff into water would squish you

This is outcome #1 and #3 sort of at the same time: it's obviously unrealistic. And at hard levels of gameplay, it would definitely make a more enjoyable game if it were changed to be more realistic. Hardcore players would certainly appreciate the added challenge of having to plan your mountain climbing better, or having to gauge the depth of water for safety. At easier levels of gameplay, it would probably annoy casual gamers if they had to worry about that.

So by thinking about physics, we have arrived at a useful conclusion: it might be worth suggesting that the game be changed for hardcore players to MAKE it more realistic. Perhaps a good idea for a mod, etc.

If minecraft had physics, if you wore heavy DM/RM/Nano/Diamond/Quantum/Iron/Gold armour, it would weigh you down and make you move slowly.

This is a very similar outcome to the first example. Easy mode should probably ignore it, but it might be worthwhile to make hard mode actually slow you down, like you say. Also, in SMP, it would make sense to slow you down, to discourage people from turtling away from danger in OP armor, and making pvp more enjoyable.

Again. Useful conclusion and good ideas for mods or changes, thanks to considering physics. By thinking about this in terms of physics, I thought of an actual gameplay balance issue that exists right now and that could be solved by changing physical realism.

If minecraft had physics, a track with constant booster rails every 1-5 blocks would speed up a cart until it reached its terminal velocity, and anything it hit would basically die instantly.

This is an example of outcome #2: It's just simply a bad example, because you're incorrect about it being unrealistic in the first place. Minecarts are in fact quite realistic in their motion. A minecart moving along a straight track will have friction, and will require boosters just to keep moving (how many boosters is arbitrary, since we don't know how much friction tracks have).

And if you applied an obscene number of boosters, then the cart would speed up until it was moving very quickly, but as you say, it would hit terminal velocity. This would be a function of air resistance, track friction, track elesticity, lift from the cart acting as an airfoil, etc. etc.

Since you know literally NONE of those values, you have no way of saying what terminal velocity "should" be, or whether it "should be enough to kill somebody" or not (you also have no idea what the mass of a minecart is, so you can't calculate momentum. A piece of paper thrown at 80 miles an hour won't hurt you at all, for example). If air in minecraft is just especially thick, or whatever, then it might make perfect sense that terminal velocity is in fact 8 blocks per second.

This means that we probably should not take physics into account in the case of minecart speed, because there is no reasonable realistic number versus an unrealistic number. Instead, it should entirely revolve around a speed that balances well with the cost of minecarts and how far apart people build things.

[andrewdonshik]

3) Decide that it is unrealistic, BUT that it provides a truly important gameplay value that makes it not worth changing to make it more realistic.

*ahem* Minecart Boosters/Boat superspeed much? *ahem*

[gavjenks]

*ahem* Minecart Boosters/Boat superspeed much? *ahem*

I have no idea what you're implying. Are you saying those things are bad for the game? good for the game? That they are realistic? unrealistic? And what does it have to do with the value of considering physics? None of this is clear. Please rephrase in complete sentences.

[andrewdonshik]

I have no idea what you're implying. Are you saying those things are bad for the game? good for the game? That they are realistic? unrealistic? And what does it have to do with the value of considering physics? None of this is clear. Please rephrase in complete sentences.

Unrealistic, but really added to the game. Sorry about that. It encouraged people to have large complex setups, over "I need my cart to go, let's just get redstone power!."

[gavjenks]

Unrealistic, but really added to the game. Sorry about that. It encouraged people to have large complex setups, over "I need my cart to go, let's just get redstone power!."

I thoroughly disagree. Boosters were neither complicated nor fun. It was just another piece of track next to the first one... on a slope. Not complex at all. And it was so blatantly unrealistic and absurd that it felt really dumb and made the game seem much less polished and stable. Nor did it provide any actual gameplay mechanic that boosters now do not provide. I'd say this is a classic and prototypical example of #1 actually.

Regardless of our disagreement about that, though, it seems clearly a good thing to talk about this issue in terms of physics, either way. Physics is indeed probably the primary reason they changed it to the way it works now, whether for better or for worse. If you don't consider physics, youll neither understand why the change happened, nor will you be able to usefully contribute to any argument or discussion about why it was good or bad or how it should evolve in the future.

[andrewdonshik]

I thoroughly disagree. Boosters were neither complicated nor fun. It was just another piece of track next to the first one... on a slope. Not complex at all. And it was so blatantly unrealistic and absurd that it felt really dumb and made the game seem much less polished and stable.

Regardless of our disagreement about that, though, it seems clearly a good thing to talk about this issue in terms of physics, either way. Physics is indeed probably the #1 reason they changed it to the way it works now, whether for better or for worse. If you don't consider physics, youll neither understand why the change happened, nor will you be able to usefully contribute to any argument or discussion about why it was good or bad or how it should evolve in the future.

I meant the complex part of it was if you were using different destinations. As of now, it's very simple, but with boosters, it was more complex.

[Frog81]

You are right I guess with boosters, but did you forget these are the TEKKIT forums? I was thinking of using HS rails and HS boosters. Using those, I think getting hit by a minecart moving at a hundred miles per hour could do some serious damage to a person. Plus, it is possible to determine the approximate weight of a minecart, because it is 5 iron ingots. 9 iron ingots makes a cubic meter, so I'd guess it would weigh about 5/9ths as much as an iron block, and cubic meters of iron are PRETTY DARN HEAVY.

[andrewdonshik]

You are right I guess with boosters, but did you forget these are the TEKKIT forums? I was thinking of using HS rails and HS boosters. Using those, I think getting hit by a minecart moving at a hundred miles per hour could do some serious damage to a person. Plus, it is possible to determine the approximate weight of a minecart, because it is 5 iron ingots. 9 iron ingots makes a cubic meter, so I'd guess it would weigh about 5/9ths as much as an iron block, and cubic meters of iron are PRETTY DARN HEAVY.

Doesn't matter. We can still discuss vanilla things for an argument.

[gavjenks]

1) Whoever said iron blocks are solid?

2) Minecarts go about 20 miles per hour maximum (non-HS rails), or about 40ish I think on high speed rails, not "hundreds of miles per hour"

[Frog81]

1) Whoever said iron blocks are solid?

2) Minecarts go about 20 miles per hour maximum (non-HS rails), or about 40ish I think on high speed rails, not "hundreds of miles per hour"

Actually, it depends. If you're counting by IRL hours, it could go thousands of blocks in an hour. If you're just counting ingame hours, yeah, nowhere near that. Well, I guess you could also use iron helmet for an example. But still. Having a helmet hurled at you at anything over 10 MPH would be PRETTY PAINFUL.

[gavjenks]

Actually, it depends. If you're counting by IRL hours, it could go thousands of blocks in an hour. If you're just counting ingame hours, yeah, nowhere near that. Well, I guess you could also use iron helmet for an example. But still. Having a helmet hurled at you at anything over 10 MPH would be PRETTY PAINFUL.

No, I'm counting real life hours. 1650 meters = about 1 mile, so "thousands or blocks" in an hour means like... a few miles per hour.

I wasn't guessing. I calculated it to be almost exactly 20 miles per hour for carts at max speed.

[Frog81]

No, I'm counting real life hours. 1650 meters = about 1 mile, so "thousands or blocks" in an hour means like... a few miles per hour.

I wasn't guessing. I calculated it to be almost exactly 20 miles per hour for carts at max speed.

Oh, you actually calculated it? And still, a metal helmet on a minetrack hitting you would be pretty painful. And I calculated it being in the nether. Since distances are 8x shorter in the nether, it would be moving at 160 MPH there. And this is getting seriously off-topic. This guy wanted a way to turn EU into EMC by using it to power a quarry or something, how'd it get into talking about physics? Also, if minecraft was more realistic, if you had iron armor, water would rust it. Liquids would leak through open doors. You'd die because of thin air if you went too high up. Also,zombies would just kill you in one hit because they'd infect you.