01:33:29 MJ has joined #einsteinianroulette
02:32:42 Devastator: I've been amused at the return of popular 2D lately.
02:33:13 Devastator: probably cheaper to design for.
02:33:31 Devastator: good 3d can be really expensive these days.
02:43:22 Egan: well, retro style 3d is also a trend
02:46:15 Devastator: which may well be easier than modern 3d.
02:46:15 Devastator: although I suspect they wont' be redoing 'early 3d', just like they aren't doing really bad 2d.
02:48:14 Egan: yeah, it's easier to make that stuff now
03:04:47 Egan has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
03:27:09 MJ: Alright. I should go to bed. Goodnight
04:54:12 syv has joined #einsteinianroulette
04:54:38 syv: For once I actually have a job
04:58:06 syv: Compared to our backup, temperature is reading seven degress low (celcius), and dew point is reading one degree high. So DP is 8 higher than TEMP. Impossible.
04:59:41 syv: The automated system has decided DP must be wrong and TEMP the right one, I'm guessing because it's hardcoded to trust TEMP if there's a conflict.
05:01:58 Devastator: so which one's broken?
05:02:28 syv: It's normal for our backup (a handheld measuring temperature a quarter mile away) to be different by about a degree.
05:03:03 syv: But being off by seven degrees C is... very, very exceptional. I've never seen that before.
05:04:45 syv: One of my coworkers noticed the "valid" sensor reading was implausible, but didn't know how to get the discarded DP reading to see what was wrong; he just replaced both. And didn't call it in.
05:07:35 syv: It feels validating to be the guy who knows the system well enough to figure out what's actually wrong. Though, in all honesty, it doesn't *really* matter.
05:09:05 syv: Even id we distributed temperature readings eight C low, it would perhaps raise some eyebrows somewhere but I doubt it'd impact anything. And since the system's saying DP's out, someone would try to repair it, and notice the issue themself.
05:14:25 Devastator: I think temperature affects brake performance for landing.
05:16:17 syv: I wouldn't know, I'm not really a plane person. My dad would. >.>
05:16:31 syv: Temp affects air pressure, but we have a separate pressure sensor
05:17:23 syv: Presumably it gets triple redundancy while temp/dp get zero redundancy because pressure actually WOULD be really bad if we reported incorrect values
05:18:51 Devastator: Pressure would be worse.
05:19:02 Devastator: from what I know, wrong pressure could mean slamming into the ground or misjudging altitude.
05:19:22 Devastator: Temp might change runway grip estimates, which is less serious from what I know.
05:19:41 Devastator: and probably some things about engine performance for takeoffs.
05:19:57 syv: Seems logical, though I don't know.
05:20:30 syv: I feel like we should be trained on that kinda thing, *what* our readings actually mean in practice, but we aren't.
05:21:01 syv: We're purely trained in how to take readings, and how to report them. Nothing about what they mean to a pilot, or in a broader meteorological sense.
05:21:50 syv: I am pretty sure at least one of my coworkers wouldn't quite understand what's wrong with DP being eight degrees above temperature
05:22:36 syv: And most of them don't understand how any of it's really relevant to pilots. I know what I know purely because I've talked to my dad, who has an understanding of these readings from pilot training.
05:23:39 syv: I complain about my free lunch job too much
05:24:25 syv: May I ask you about your PM on the wargaming stuff? We don't have to chat about it now if you'd rather not.
05:25:07 Devastator: I've got time tonight.
05:26:12 syv: What is "Shock" in a normal wargame?
05:26:38 syv: Fire I'd take as attack, cohesion as you said is HP, and Morale seems obvious
05:26:58 syv: I used shock as short range fire, really, so I'd expect it to be different.
05:27:37 Devastator: fire damages cohesion, shock damages morale.
05:28:21 syv: Why? Why have two attack/HP pairs?
05:30:15 Devastator: for variety and unit mixing.
05:30:40 Devastator: like you can have formations that work against different sorts of units.
05:31:03 Devastator: in lines, they have more fire and less morale, say.
05:33:04 Devastator: you can add more stats, like 'strength' for how many actual dudes there are in the unit, or 'defense' for an overall multiplier to how hard a unit is.
05:42:40 syv: Variety and unit mixing is the reason I have so much complexity for mine.
05:43:08 syv: I had considered having cohesion and morale, but they were somewhat of a gestalt stat, playing off each other.
05:45:41 Devastator: using a third statistic to feed the other two is relatively common.
05:46:01 Devastator: but you can do whatever.
05:46:11 Devastator: those stats are just used to make entertaining battles.
05:46:30 syv: I'm well aware that complexity and fun are enemies
05:46:46 syv: PS is still my best system, and also my simplest in many ways
05:47:25 syv: PS was built off a good base of
PW games, and when
PW games were fresh in my mind
05:50:22 Devastator: anyway, Irony is having fun in Trence's memories.
05:50:28 Devastator: so you might want to read this bit of Extinction.
05:51:03 syv: The warfare game... the current design I have in the PM is intended mostly for simplifying actions taken during gameplay. The stat complexity is inherited from the gun game system, which broadly has... ten stats for a character.
05:53:04 syv: It's intended to target a fairly medium level of detail. Where you're managing squads basically, in conflicts between platoon~company sized units.
05:55:17 syv: I've considered handling it with a lower resolution, so the platoon is the smallest unit, with any changes to the units within the platoon affecting the platoon's stat balance. That's more like the wargames you're talking about, I think, with individual platoons having a few stats and an expectation of there being more like three+ in a conflict.
05:56:13 syv: But I felt with the numbers I'm using that it lost a lot of what I wanted. My game's fairly silly, deliberately so, where you have SMG and AMR units as very relevant unit types.
05:56:40 syv: In a more realistic design, individual infantrymen are way more similar than they are different, regardless of gear.
05:59:30 syv: The intended gameplay of this is for you to have three to fivish platoons, which have individually specialized squads, then you arrange them on a larger field and focus on 1v1s or perhaps 2v1s to gain territorial control. With the expectation that you'll only have three-ish actual fights with enemy units before the battle is functionally decided.
06:00:32 syv: I do think there's a lot of issues with this, note
06:00:59 Devastator: with platoons you're probably not talking about large unit combat anymore.
06:01:06 Devastator: they're not tiny, but they aren't really that large.
06:01:13 syv: I'm working on it out of addiction, not really because I think it's a clever or particularly good.
06:02:14 syv: I didn't think about my description very well when I wrote the PM. They're "large units" in the sense that normally when I work on this kinda thing, the smallest unit is a single soldier or maybe a fireteam.
06:05:19 Devastator: ahh, I thought you meant like regimental combat, like napoleonic era.
06:05:38 syv: Mhm. That's more what the words I said mean.
06:06:02 syv: Blame me being quick and dirty
06:06:38 syv: I don't really think about unit sizes beyond squad much, so they're not natural for me to use. I had to google them just now to be sure I was using them correctly. ._.
08:11:26 syv: A thunderstorm *and* serious sensor outages, oh boy I have a real job
12:09:38 syv has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
12:37:26 syv has joined #einsteinianroulette
13:15:26 syv has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
17:34:14 Egan has joined #einsteinianroulette
18:44:18 Egan has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
19:06:32 Egan has joined #einsteinianroulette
20:22:55 Egan has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
21:19:23 Egan has joined #einsteinianroulette
21:39:36 parisbre56[Away] has joined #einsteinianroulette
21:39:36 Topic for #einsteinianroulette: MJ should read Extinction!
21:39:36 Topic set by syv [Thursday 29 June 2023, 06:20:36]
Log file '2023-09-30.log' ends.
16024 bytes processed.