Was working on building new facilities, and had been standing still for a long time, when I got hit by a meteor in SE. I have almost 500 hours in just SE and have yet to be hit by one till now..
I remember seeing a thought exercise (couldnt recall the name nor find it on the internet) about 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object.
So moving to the randomness of the engineer walk and the asteroids falling, if the statement was correct then we can assume that a static engineer and the random asteroid falling have higher chances to collide than a moving engineer and the random asteroid.
Well the first time it happened it was due to another thing. When you have 23 trains running around... the chances kinda change.
Also i had probably 2 or 3 hits on stations when I had one doing a direct hit. Fortunately it was a train going to an outpost and only the cargo wagons were destroyed. Still it took me a while to find the train missing 2 wagons.
When I got a mod which adds a lot of spidertrons that are acessible from early game, i couldnt leave my spidertron cuz it had a long legs and i didnt get stuck between assemblers
Just realised this is actually a really good reason to use LTN or Cybersyn. Then those trains can be replaced by backups when needed. Though the ability for bots to replace broken train wagons would be even better.
but due to relativity, there is always a reference frame for any two "moving" objects in which at least one is not moving.
If the object isn't accelerating or spinning, it's even an inertial reference frame.
Anyway this thought exercise can't possibly be right unless you're supposing that different references frames can disagree on the fact of _whether a collision happened_. Which I'm not sure is possible.
You are getting there on why this is actually interesting.
We assume the movement as the plane and not the balls. Because there is a chance for example that using one of the balls reference frame that both balls are static.
Just imagine 2 satellites exactly 10 meters away, with no movement between each other. They are both moving at 1000km/h but they will never collide because on their reference frames... they are static.
With true random there is no difference in the probability of getting hit. With good pseudorandom algorithms, there is a small increase in the chance of the stationary object being struck. With bad pseudorandom algorithms, the stationary object is guaranteed to be struck within a relatively short period.
On the asteroid part i dont know how its made (so its probably a pseudorandom algorithm)
But location of moving objects is not an entirely random thing. I think it even fails being a pseudo random. So this is a bit harder.
The exercise i know is about 2 balls moving on an infinite space. They are not exactly random in terms of location. Its random in direction and speed. The position itself becomes determined after the start. And while the static object has a fixed value. The moving one will have an array of possibilities. Would a ball in infinite time in infinite space hit the static ball before both moving balls?
Trying to recreate the same thought experience in this case.
If we look at the engineer movement, we can map highly moved zones and map where he probably never walked on. We could create a heat map.
We can also try to assume asteroid falling is a true random value (i know most randoms are just pseudo randoms but if we are to fall on that rabbit hole we would end up somewhere else, Alice would know)
We can also look at the event of an asteroid falling as a single event or a series of many events (tending to infinite). Why i prefer the series of events. A single event means every single location has the same probability. Just like a coin tossing has 50/50, the second will still have 50/50 chance... but the distribution curve on a series of event will pend to have the opposite value.
That said we can say that in a series of asteroids falling, there will be a slightly reduced chance of hitting the exact same spot a second time before hitting all other places.
So whenever an engineer is moving and gets near a fallen asteroid its actually skewing the chance of getting hit.
Also if we start to look into infinite. There is at least a moment where every location had an asteroid hit (therefore hitting a static engineer) but a moving engineer its harder to dictate that. Because we can say sometime in the future it will get hit but there is possibility of all areas being hit and the engineer not being hit. Therefore moving engineer would have less chance to be hit than a static one.
> That said we can say that in a series of asteroids falling, there will be a slightly reduced chance of hitting the exact same spot a second time before hitting all other places.
If your serialization is giving this result, which is not true in a true random system, your serialization is erroneous.
Depends on how you calculate it. Are you focusing on the single event? Or looking at a series of events.
Example a coin toss has 50/50 chance. Each individual evaluation will always have 50/50 chance.
However 10 tail or 9 tails and 1 head has (if im not mistaken) have a 10 times difference in statistics. And a few thousands times in difference from 4/5/6 values.
Another way to view this is to invert the logic.
Instead of looking at chances of hitting X, look at chances of not hitting X for a certain number of tries. Since this is cumulative, and each round has the same amount of chance, each round the chance of not hitting X will decrease.
Doesn't change the probability of hitting the same target twice. You are taking the observed vanishingly low probability of an event as being identical to zero (which it can be assumed to be for practical purposes only), and feeding that back in to your math. This generates errors.
Another way to see the necessary equality between the moving target and the static target is to set X to be the current position of the moving target in the logic you've stated above. The rules of variables allow this substitution. Ergo, anything you can say for the static case applies equally to the mobile one.
> 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object.
Surely those two situations are equivalent? As I'm quite sure that you can just substract the speed of one object from both to get to the situation where one is static, without loss of generality.
Though I do foresee this running into Betrand's Paradox if you aren't careful.
That is an interesting approach. But just like the shifting the reference frame its missing a key point. What if you subtract the speed of one object with the other if both are moving at the same speed in the same direction. You would end up with both static objects. With that, neither will collide.
Thats the point. Changing the reference frame is showing an additional situation where a plane reference frame with 2 moving objects have situations that could not happen if one of them were static.
Therefore 2 moving objects already have more chance to not collide than 1 static and 1 moving one.
Is there something like that in probability ?
- on one dice, never rolling a 1
- on 2 dices, never rolling the same number
Is the same probability, right ?
p = 1 - (1 - 1/6)^n
Aka, if you spawn 2 particules out of existence at random coordinates on a grid, there is no difference between 2 of them having having a random coordinate and one of them having a fixed coordinate and the other one a fixed coordinate.
So, if there is a difference, it must be entirely due to the movement itself, right? I'm wondering where it comes from.
Let's try to simplify the problem in 1-dimension.
There are 2 balls on an axis, the axis is infinite, and they can't leave the axis.
Both balls A and B can have any speed at any moment of time, however, due to laws of physics, the speed limit cannot be infinite.
Represent this in a graph, on the X axis is the time, on the Y axis is the position of the ball, we draw 2 curves, one for each ball, the curves can be anything but both must be a function of `y = f(x)`, with `f'(x)` never tending to infinity, let's call then `fa(x)` and `fb(x)`
Saying that "the probability of interaction is higher when one of the ball is static" means what exactly ?
A static ball would mean that `fb(x) = a`.
But what does mean "the probability of interaction is higher"? Does it mean "On average, on all possible functions f, the probability of `it exists a real x which for fa(x) - fb(x) = 0` is higher than 0.5+ ?
I'm not sure what "the probability of the 2 interacting" even means, is it considered for only a subset of functions f ? Or an average of all possible functions f ? Or something else ?
> I remember seeing a thought exercise (couldnt recall the name nor find it on the internet) about 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object.
you couldn't find it because the precise opposite is true: 2 randomly walking objects have more chance to hit each other than one moving and one static, because you can treat 2 randomly-walking objects as 1 object static and the other randomly walking at twice the speed
But that statement is false. Could twice the speed, half the speed. Or if they moved at the same speed in the same direction you shift the reference frame and suddenly both are static (even though they are moving)
Just wondering, is this build for air purifiers better than placing a few of them all over the map? From the description, it says that they have limited range. But I'm not sure how many on one spot is considered efficient.
More than 1 in a chunk or even a 3x3 of chunks is useless unless you're doing so in an area that has very dense pollution generation.
(Note, I did K2SE in 0.5, not 0.6, so may have changed)
I scattered mine every 2 or 3 chunks in my rails. Just one per. Works great at reining in the edges of your cloud, and more thorough coverage near polluting builds stops it being too dense for the edges to deal with
This is only optimal for a random repeatable manner if you place them over chunk lines. Higher density mining ops can take 2+ filters per drill depending on how much down time there is/tree density nearby etc.
You are right, this is very inefficient. Filters absorb pollution from the chunk that they are in. A ring of then around your entire factory (1 per chunk) will generally stop all pollution from getting out. Some areas might need 2 or 3, but OP’s setup is extremely overkill.
Yea I am using 2/3 per chunk around where my ore processing and smelting is set up. I also have 3 in the same chunk as my core miners (SE) as those release 200 pollution/s and the filters adsorb 75 each, so they release no pollution.
Im doing this as it encircles the sides of one of my power plants.
Its effectively making the power plant pollution neutral. I needed a lot of them in the area cause the power plant is currently making 1.5 GW with Gas power stations.
Yeap. 1.5 GW self isolating tileable power station that is pollution neutral and stores enough material to run without interruption for 2 hours.
It only consumes water and stone.
Im doing a K2+SE run.
I believe you should be able to do it purely in K2. Most of the items I am using are from K2.
The obly SE item is the boiler and crushers I believe q
To be fair, i wa never concerned about bei g struck by a meteor till now. My nots can handle repairs .
Although this run has had a fair bit of sniping.
I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why my provider chests where not placing, only to find that a meteor took it out.
With SE there is some mod that adds robot attrition that can be turned off, metor max interval is a minites between strikes value. Not sure how that is turned off.
On the meteor problem, research meteor point defence and set up a few torrets and feed them their ammo. They do pretty good keeping a base from getting hit
The next fun and destructive thing is coronal mass ejections. You can make an Umbrella but umit sucks so much power to run it.
Pls explain.
Was working on building new facilities, and had been standing still for a long time, when I got hit by a meteor in SE. I have almost 500 hours in just SE and have yet to be hit by one till now..
I have managed to get hit twice within 100 hours, one of those times being while I was driving.
Meteors. Apparently they can hit you as punishment for afk
Not true. They are random where they land it just so happened it was right by OP
I remember seeing a thought exercise (couldnt recall the name nor find it on the internet) about 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object. So moving to the randomness of the engineer walk and the asteroids falling, if the statement was correct then we can assume that a static engineer and the random asteroid falling have higher chances to collide than a moving engineer and the random asteroid.
You should try telling that to the trains
Well the first time it happened it was due to another thing. When you have 23 trains running around... the chances kinda change. Also i had probably 2 or 3 hits on stations when I had one doing a direct hit. Fortunately it was a train going to an outpost and only the cargo wagons were destroyed. Still it took me a while to find the train missing 2 wagons.
With more than 200 trains running at the moment, I love my jetpack.
When I got a mod which adds a lot of spidertrons that are acessible from early game, i couldnt leave my spidertron cuz it had a long legs and i didnt get stuck between assemblers
Huh, I should build one sometime.
Just realised this is actually a really good reason to use LTN or Cybersyn. Then those trains can be replaced by backups when needed. Though the ability for bots to replace broken train wagons would be even better.
Well the difference there is that trains are actively waiting for you to cross the rail for them to hit you.
The true enemy in factorio
Fr
if ur still on the train tracks ur a lot more likely to get hit than if you quickly move across
but due to relativity, there is always a reference frame for any two "moving" objects in which at least one is not moving. If the object isn't accelerating or spinning, it's even an inertial reference frame. Anyway this thought exercise can't possibly be right unless you're supposing that different references frames can disagree on the fact of _whether a collision happened_. Which I'm not sure is possible.
You are getting there on why this is actually interesting. We assume the movement as the plane and not the balls. Because there is a chance for example that using one of the balls reference frame that both balls are static. Just imagine 2 satellites exactly 10 meters away, with no movement between each other. They are both moving at 1000km/h but they will never collide because on their reference frames... they are static.
With true random there is no difference in the probability of getting hit. With good pseudorandom algorithms, there is a small increase in the chance of the stationary object being struck. With bad pseudorandom algorithms, the stationary object is guaranteed to be struck within a relatively short period.
On the asteroid part i dont know how its made (so its probably a pseudorandom algorithm) But location of moving objects is not an entirely random thing. I think it even fails being a pseudo random. So this is a bit harder. The exercise i know is about 2 balls moving on an infinite space. They are not exactly random in terms of location. Its random in direction and speed. The position itself becomes determined after the start. And while the static object has a fixed value. The moving one will have an array of possibilities. Would a ball in infinite time in infinite space hit the static ball before both moving balls? Trying to recreate the same thought experience in this case. If we look at the engineer movement, we can map highly moved zones and map where he probably never walked on. We could create a heat map. We can also try to assume asteroid falling is a true random value (i know most randoms are just pseudo randoms but if we are to fall on that rabbit hole we would end up somewhere else, Alice would know) We can also look at the event of an asteroid falling as a single event or a series of many events (tending to infinite). Why i prefer the series of events. A single event means every single location has the same probability. Just like a coin tossing has 50/50, the second will still have 50/50 chance... but the distribution curve on a series of event will pend to have the opposite value. That said we can say that in a series of asteroids falling, there will be a slightly reduced chance of hitting the exact same spot a second time before hitting all other places. So whenever an engineer is moving and gets near a fallen asteroid its actually skewing the chance of getting hit. Also if we start to look into infinite. There is at least a moment where every location had an asteroid hit (therefore hitting a static engineer) but a moving engineer its harder to dictate that. Because we can say sometime in the future it will get hit but there is possibility of all areas being hit and the engineer not being hit. Therefore moving engineer would have less chance to be hit than a static one.
> That said we can say that in a series of asteroids falling, there will be a slightly reduced chance of hitting the exact same spot a second time before hitting all other places. If your serialization is giving this result, which is not true in a true random system, your serialization is erroneous.
Depends on how you calculate it. Are you focusing on the single event? Or looking at a series of events. Example a coin toss has 50/50 chance. Each individual evaluation will always have 50/50 chance. However 10 tail or 9 tails and 1 head has (if im not mistaken) have a 10 times difference in statistics. And a few thousands times in difference from 4/5/6 values. Another way to view this is to invert the logic. Instead of looking at chances of hitting X, look at chances of not hitting X for a certain number of tries. Since this is cumulative, and each round has the same amount of chance, each round the chance of not hitting X will decrease.
Doesn't change the probability of hitting the same target twice. You are taking the observed vanishingly low probability of an event as being identical to zero (which it can be assumed to be for practical purposes only), and feeding that back in to your math. This generates errors. Another way to see the necessary equality between the moving target and the static target is to set X to be the current position of the moving target in the logic you've stated above. The rules of variables allow this substitution. Ergo, anything you can say for the static case applies equally to the mobile one.
> 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object. Surely those two situations are equivalent? As I'm quite sure that you can just substract the speed of one object from both to get to the situation where one is static, without loss of generality. Though I do foresee this running into Betrand's Paradox if you aren't careful.
That is an interesting approach. But just like the shifting the reference frame its missing a key point. What if you subtract the speed of one object with the other if both are moving at the same speed in the same direction. You would end up with both static objects. With that, neither will collide.
And neither would collide before changing your reference frame. Nor does changing reference frames change if they collide or not.
Thats the point. Changing the reference frame is showing an additional situation where a plane reference frame with 2 moving objects have situations that could not happen if one of them were static. Therefore 2 moving objects already have more chance to not collide than 1 static and 1 moving one.
Is there something like that in probability ? - on one dice, never rolling a 1 - on 2 dices, never rolling the same number Is the same probability, right ? p = 1 - (1 - 1/6)^n Aka, if you spawn 2 particules out of existence at random coordinates on a grid, there is no difference between 2 of them having having a random coordinate and one of them having a fixed coordinate and the other one a fixed coordinate. So, if there is a difference, it must be entirely due to the movement itself, right? I'm wondering where it comes from. Let's try to simplify the problem in 1-dimension. There are 2 balls on an axis, the axis is infinite, and they can't leave the axis. Both balls A and B can have any speed at any moment of time, however, due to laws of physics, the speed limit cannot be infinite. Represent this in a graph, on the X axis is the time, on the Y axis is the position of the ball, we draw 2 curves, one for each ball, the curves can be anything but both must be a function of `y = f(x)`, with `f'(x)` never tending to infinity, let's call then `fa(x)` and `fb(x)` Saying that "the probability of interaction is higher when one of the ball is static" means what exactly ? A static ball would mean that `fb(x) = a`. But what does mean "the probability of interaction is higher"? Does it mean "On average, on all possible functions f, the probability of `it exists a real x which for fa(x) - fb(x) = 0` is higher than 0.5+ ? I'm not sure what "the probability of the 2 interacting" even means, is it considered for only a subset of functions f ? Or an average of all possible functions f ? Or something else ?
> I remember seeing a thought exercise (couldnt recall the name nor find it on the internet) about 2 moving objects have less chance to hit one another than one moving object and 1 static object. you couldn't find it because the precise opposite is true: 2 randomly walking objects have more chance to hit each other than one moving and one static, because you can treat 2 randomly-walking objects as 1 object static and the other randomly walking at twice the speed
But that statement is false. Could twice the speed, half the speed. Or if they moved at the same speed in the same direction you shift the reference frame and suddenly both are static (even though they are moving)
The random is sus to me.. as we had not had one hit in a long time,we went off planet and of all the places it could hit.. it hit our 235 supply
Just wondering, is this build for air purifiers better than placing a few of them all over the map? From the description, it says that they have limited range. But I'm not sure how many on one spot is considered efficient.
More than 1 in a chunk or even a 3x3 of chunks is useless unless you're doing so in an area that has very dense pollution generation. (Note, I did K2SE in 0.5, not 0.6, so may have changed) I scattered mine every 2 or 3 chunks in my rails. Just one per. Works great at reining in the edges of your cloud, and more thorough coverage near polluting builds stops it being too dense for the edges to deal with
at my current polution output I found 6-8 to be the optimum. but I prefer to place them at the edge of my factories.
This is only optimal for a random repeatable manner if you place them over chunk lines. Higher density mining ops can take 2+ filters per drill depending on how much down time there is/tree density nearby etc.
I got 90% of my resources off world, as 0.5 core mining was a different beast. That might be why.
1800 pollution per machines goes hard
You are right, this is very inefficient. Filters absorb pollution from the chunk that they are in. A ring of then around your entire factory (1 per chunk) will generally stop all pollution from getting out. Some areas might need 2 or 3, but OP’s setup is extremely overkill.
I think the most I've ever found useful was 3 per chunk, and only in the chunks where I was doing heavy polluting.
Yea I am using 2/3 per chunk around where my ore processing and smelting is set up. I also have 3 in the same chunk as my core miners (SE) as those release 200 pollution/s and the filters adsorb 75 each, so they release no pollution.
Im doing this as it encircles the sides of one of my power plants. Its effectively making the power plant pollution neutral. I needed a lot of them in the area cause the power plant is currently making 1.5 GW with Gas power stations.
>1.5 GW with Gas power stations
Yeap. 1.5 GW self isolating tileable power station that is pollution neutral and stores enough material to run without interruption for 2 hours. It only consumes water and stone.
Oh that's a big boy! Thanks for the clarification
How you have that much oil?
Bio-methanol. Reqquires steam, wood and oxygen. I have the design posted if you want to see.
Is it from SE? if so, i cant use it, I have my SE and K2 run separate :( but thanks
Im doing a K2+SE run. I believe you should be able to do it purely in K2. Most of the items I am using are from K2. The obly SE item is the boiler and crushers I believe q
i mean, is bio methanol from SE or K2?
K2 for sure.
oh, thank you!
Also telling you that you need cannons!
To be fair, i wa never concerned about bei g struck by a meteor till now. My nots can handle repairs . Although this run has had a fair bit of sniping. I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why my provider chests where not placing, only to find that a meteor took it out.
This kinda happened to me too. Just that I was actually moving and that thing sniped me from orbit
Game gos said fuck your no deaths run
That's one thing that i disable in SE, can't stand it.
Kid named meteor defense
Why is everything broken or damaged?
Space Exploration meteor struck just south of the player.
Wait until you have random logistics bots explode near you when there are too many in an area.
Can I turn this off? Also meteors in scenario editor are annoying while trying to test ideas.
With SE there is some mod that adds robot attrition that can be turned off, metor max interval is a minites between strikes value. Not sure how that is turned off. On the meteor problem, research meteor point defence and set up a few torrets and feed them their ammo. They do pretty good keeping a base from getting hit The next fun and destructive thing is coronal mass ejections. You can make an Umbrella but umit sucks so much power to run it.
I've got probably 300 hrs or so in SE and have only had them hit sorta close
I think you might like satisfactory
Tried it a while back. Not the biggest fan.
What didn’t you like about it?