@scubamatt I tire of this rather quickly, again you just pick out the things that further your argument while cleverly dodging what we where in fact talking about at the start of this.. If you didn't read what I had said, I regretted not being more precise with my words. And had fixed my statement.. Your still going after the "crushed bones" thing and picking and choosing certain parts of sentences. And now your actually getting quite obnoxious about it to boot.
The free diving record I had commented on was another correction on my part. Yet you again obnoxiously set forth on another tangent.
If you could be so inclined to now apply what you have just thrown out there and apply that to the depths we are actually talking about 1000+ meters (3280 feet) you couldn't. Not with the gear stated above by you.
Its very easy to make someone look horribly wrong by misdirecting the topics at hand.. Heck you should have been a lawyer.
The math I included above Is completely sound.. Keep multiplying that number the deeper you go down.. A human body NO matter what mixtures are in your tanks, without the proper gear you would be done.. By your own admission this is fact..
Instead of me being "out of my depth" (clever by the way) why don't you leave your shallow arguments behind and come into the deep end.
I feel like I already had this argument about how it is perfectly possible for a human to survive vast amounts of pressure as long as internal pressure is that same as external pressure, although in that case it was about the possibility of very deep sea bases that have pressurized interiors. It's the same issue really: massive internal pressure + massive external pressure = effectively no pressure.
Jeez! This whole thread went from improving the game to some of the longest comments I have seen, all to dices diving facts! While educating an neat I do think we have gone slightly off topic here.
To get back to the original subject of the thread ... there's basically two beacon-related changes I'd like to see:
Range-to-target shown for all beacons (deployable and automatic) just as for signals;
Automatic beacons generated by Seamoths and Cyclops show the name assigned to the vessel.
For my seabases, I just drop a beacon in a corner of the base somewhere with the name of that base. There's no need for a separate auto-generated seabase beacon.
To get back to the original subject of the thread ... there's basically two beacon-related changes I'd like to see:
Range-to-target shown for all beacons (deployable and automatic) just as for signals;
Automatic beacons generated by Seamoths and Cyclops show the name assigned to the vessel.
For my seabases, I just drop a beacon in a corner of the base somewhere with the name of that base. There's no need for a separate auto-generated seabase beacon.
Yes, and yes. Both of these suggestion would be great additions. I still like the idea of a built in base beacon though.
To get back to the original subject of the thread ... there's basically two beacon-related changes I'd like to see:
Range-to-target shown for all beacons (deployable and automatic) just as for signals;
Automatic beacons generated by Seamoths and Cyclops show the name assigned to the vessel.
For my seabases, I just drop a beacon in a corner of the base somewhere with the name of that base. There's no need for a separate auto-generated seabase beacon.
I made a post on Reddit with a bunch of additions I'd love to see in the game. I won't get into all of them here as they're not relevant to this discussion.
But one that was, that I'd love to see, is a tab on the PDA that lists all current active beacons (Including signals, changing them from inventory items to something that unlocks beacon locations on this page).
They would be seperated by type (Lifeboat, Vehicle, Base, Beacon, Signal) and they could be individually activated/deactivate from this page. So you'd only see the nav markers you'd want to see.
As for range to beacon I'd love that too. And if the devs want to add some kind of tech cost to it maybe make it one of those head equipment slot items (Navigational Rangefinder or something).
To drag the conversation somewhere between the improvements to the game and the tradeoff of realism, and mostly to hear myself speak (see myself type?), I ask a question of Scubamatt and make a suggestion:
The game obviously makes tradeoffs between realism and acceptable breaks in reality, all as Scubamatt said in the name of fun. I too have no desire to do decompression stops.
The biggest break from reality I think is the compressed time scale which is represented by really short day/night cycles mixed with otherwise real-time movement. I think this results in the relatively short duration of air tank capacity, and is an acceptable break to represent the diurnal nature of the ecosystem.
Another is the now-thoroughly-discussed nature of pressurized-air diving (traditional SCUBA) and non-pressurized air diving in pressure-hulled vehicles.
From my understanding of the physics, and what is represented in the game, I ask Scubamatt this: It would seem that even in the pressure-hulled vehicles, we're still breathing ambient-pressure air, would it not? This would most easily explain the speed and ease at which we transition from "inside" to "outside" no matter what depth we are at. If the interior of the vessels and bases was maintained at sea level pressure, there would need to be air locks, and a lengthy transition period.
Yet the moon pool is stated in-game to be a pressurized room enabling free transition into the ocean. That is how moon pools actually work, as was very neatly show and partially explained in the movie The Abyss (less accurately in seaQuest DSV). You are also able to transition into and out of the Cyclops diving hatch without a lock, as well as the Seamoth docking bay (which has hatches, yes, but not locks per se). This all points, to me at least, to the vessels all being maintained at ambient pressure.
The catch is that the bases must be reinforced against pressure as must the vehicles.
Ultimately I believe these are acceptable breaks from reality that allow the devs to combine the excitement of open-water scuba diving with the awesomeness of piloting submersibles and building deep-sea bases. I'm ok with them both.
I also believe that the lack of any sort of pressure-related physiological issues can be explained away with futuristic technobabble. It is stated in-game that human-modification is a real thing, with knowledge and ability imprints along with general life-extending technologies. I think it would be acceptable to believe that the player character possesses just such a modification that negates gas saturation and pressure-related percentage issues, along with the aforementioned all-environment body suit that can protect the player character from exposure.
Yes, there is definitely a conflict of physics in the game, most noticeably at every interface of air/water.
Look at how the hatches are portrayed in game - they have a visible hinge on one side, and do not change the dimensions of a tubular corridor when installed. This clearly implies a simple 'opens like a door' mechanic, but if that were the case, the base would immediately flood. Of course, at any real depth, water pressure would make the door impossible to open anyway - like being trapped in a car underwater, you wouldn't be able to push the door outward against the water pressure pushing inward. Likewise opening a hatch on the side of the Alien Containment chamber would immediately start draining it into your base, and be impossible to *shut* once you opened it, until the water inside had drained below the level of the hatch.
I think the best way to reconcile the way the bases are presented to us now, is to say that there must be force fields of some type at work. Something that works with the surface tension of the water, perhaps, to keep it from rushing in and filling the base/vehicle. Think of the force fields in Star Trek, or the Star Wars movies, that keep a hangar bay at normal pressure, but allow a shuttlecraft/spaceship enter and exit the hangar directly into space. When you go through the hatch there is no animation of it opening/closing, but you do see water running off you when you enter the air side of the interface. Same thing would work for the Moon Pool, but it would obviously require much more energy (the area needing to be covered by the field is hundreds of times larger), which might explain its higher construction requirements. A certain amount of base energy is required to energize the force fields, and this is why none of your base buildings actually support life/air pressure until they get at least one point of power from something like a Solar Panel, Bioreactor, etc. With a force field, base structures would be stronger, but perhaps not strong enough by themselves to resist increasing water pressures (hence the need to reinforce them structurally, and why an unpowered base at great depth begins flooding/taking damage).
The Cyclops would work exactly the same (it has a visibly similar hatch inside the armored doors that open as you approach).
The Seamoth could not work that way, though. It has an actual open/closing animation. If there is a force field at work, it would have to be off when the hatch is open, and on when it is closed (energizing as the vehicle is refilled with air).
Our basic suit, before upgrades to Radiation/Stillsuit, is listed (in the PDA) as a 'hermetically sealed unit' meant to protect you from environmental extremes. That specifically includes absence of pressure (space) as well as planetary atmospheres and so forth. In real life, a space suit is built quite differently from a deep sea diving submersible, as one has to contain pressure while the other must resist it. The only way our suit could do both would be for some sort of force field combined with the suit's construction materials. If that is the case, then the suit could possibly regulate our gas exchange to prevent decompression sickness (DCS), at least down to a significant depth. Unfortunately, no amount of technobabble can fully explain why we don't have decompression sickness -or- a crush depth. Real world physics says we have to have one or the other, or we don't share the same physiology as our in game character. You may be right and our character is simply someone who is *not* the same internally as we are in real life. Perhaps his lungs have been replaced/improved with a semisolid matrix (think of a dense sponge), which would make him many times more resistant to crushing pressure (since he is no longer an essentially hollow vessel). He'd still need breathable air, but maybe the pressure/quality of it wouldn't be much of an issue. That would solve the crush depth problem, and greatly reduce the risk of DCS, since he could breath at much lower pressures than a real world scuba diver would at the same depth. Another possibility would be modifications to his blood (adding nanites or something similar), or modifying his heart/liver/kidney/lungs, in both cases to change the way his body handles gas bubbles expanding (the real cause of DCS). /shrug There isn't really a good way to explain the lack of DCS if we breath high pressure air at depth, without some really significant alteration to our character's physiology.
Have you seen the concepts they have for new space suits? Instead of containing the astronaut in essentially a bag of atmosphere, it is an unpressurized reinforced neoprene bodysuit. It prevents decompression by mechanical pressure instead of atmospheric. They even describe it as essentially a wetsuit, with reinforcements at the body's "negative" spaces like the armpits and crotch. The benefits are much improved mobility and dexterity.
With a little added temperature regulation, it reads a lot like what our player character is wearing.
Have you seen the concepts they have for new space suits? Instead of containing the astronaut in essentially a bag of atmosphere, it is an unpressurized reinforced neoprene bodysuit. It prevents decompression by mechanical pressure instead of atmospheric. They even describe it as essentially a wetsuit, with reinforcements at the body's "negative" spaces like the armpits and crotch. The benefits are much improved mobility and dexterity.
With a little added temperature regulation, it reads a lot like what our player character is wearing.
I haven't seen these, do you have a link? When you say they prevent decompression, are you speaking of DCS (as in diving) or explosive decompression (suit ruptures in a vacuum)? I know that currently, astronauts do their EVA in extremely low pressure (approx 0.4 bar) after prebreathing oxygen for an extended period prior to the spacewalk. Low interior pressure keeps the suits from becoming rigid balloons with people trapped inside of them.
From your brief description, it sounds like nothing has fundamentally changed in the purpose of the two suits - one is containing high pressure within a zero pressure environment (force pressing outward), the other is containing low pressure in a high pressure environment (force pressing inward).
Hmmm...reading those two links, neither of those will work for diving. They are intended for zero atmosphere work, and only if they ever actually get a working prototype. They are the opposite of what we need for deep dives. They try to compress the astronauts body firmly but gently, to keep it from expanding like a balloon.
I'm really liking the beacon customisation ideas :-) so a good +1 for that.
I had an enjoyable read of the thread and must admit I had a little smirk when I saw the " 40m will crush you with just a wetsuit". my deepest dive so far is 32m. my dive budy was chasing a seahorse, and we only pulled up short because we were on nitrox (enriched air: longer time underwater, not magic anti crush system :-p ) and my computer was furious at me for even contemplating going further down. definitely was only rocking a wetsuit and run of the mill hobby level dive kit.
I have thought in game that a dive down to 700 m with my seaside was a touch sketchy, but I could never really put a finger on why, or how I would change it to make it feel more "real????" I must admit, having to park my moth as deep as it would go and make short mad dashes deeper t explore and back before running out of air was always a thrill, and having to be so exposed while doing it, so perhaps any change to that experience would take away from the feel of it.
I've read other forum posts about air lock situations and agree with the sentiment that the animations would be fantastic the first 5 times, alright the next 10, and teeth destroying ever after as you watch the same animation over and over, so with that in mind I'm ok with a slip from reality by hopping through a "door". maybe an airlock style door where you could opt to disable the animation? only works for bases though, in and out of the moth would be a whole new project!
Comments
*cough* futuretechnology *cough*
All the other nitty gritty info was nice also...
- Range-to-target shown for all beacons (deployable and automatic) just as for signals;
- Automatic beacons generated by Seamoths and Cyclops show the name assigned to the vessel.
For my seabases, I just drop a beacon in a corner of the base somewhere with the name of that base. There's no need for a separate auto-generated seabase beacon.Yes, and yes. Both of these suggestion would be great additions. I still like the idea of a built in base beacon though.
I made a post on Reddit with a bunch of additions I'd love to see in the game. I won't get into all of them here as they're not relevant to this discussion.
But one that was, that I'd love to see, is a tab on the PDA that lists all current active beacons (Including signals, changing them from inventory items to something that unlocks beacon locations on this page).
They would be seperated by type (Lifeboat, Vehicle, Base, Beacon, Signal) and they could be individually activated/deactivate from this page. So you'd only see the nav markers you'd want to see.
As for range to beacon I'd love that too. And if the devs want to add some kind of tech cost to it maybe make it one of those head equipment slot items (Navigational Rangefinder or something).
The game obviously makes tradeoffs between realism and acceptable breaks in reality, all as Scubamatt said in the name of fun. I too have no desire to do decompression stops.
The biggest break from reality I think is the compressed time scale which is represented by really short day/night cycles mixed with otherwise real-time movement. I think this results in the relatively short duration of air tank capacity, and is an acceptable break to represent the diurnal nature of the ecosystem.
Another is the now-thoroughly-discussed nature of pressurized-air diving (traditional SCUBA) and non-pressurized air diving in pressure-hulled vehicles.
From my understanding of the physics, and what is represented in the game, I ask Scubamatt this: It would seem that even in the pressure-hulled vehicles, we're still breathing ambient-pressure air, would it not? This would most easily explain the speed and ease at which we transition from "inside" to "outside" no matter what depth we are at. If the interior of the vessels and bases was maintained at sea level pressure, there would need to be air locks, and a lengthy transition period.
Yet the moon pool is stated in-game to be a pressurized room enabling free transition into the ocean. That is how moon pools actually work, as was very neatly show and partially explained in the movie The Abyss (less accurately in seaQuest DSV). You are also able to transition into and out of the Cyclops diving hatch without a lock, as well as the Seamoth docking bay (which has hatches, yes, but not locks per se). This all points, to me at least, to the vessels all being maintained at ambient pressure.
The catch is that the bases must be reinforced against pressure as must the vehicles.
Ultimately I believe these are acceptable breaks from reality that allow the devs to combine the excitement of open-water scuba diving with the awesomeness of piloting submersibles and building deep-sea bases. I'm ok with them both.
I also believe that the lack of any sort of pressure-related physiological issues can be explained away with futuristic technobabble. It is stated in-game that human-modification is a real thing, with knowledge and ability imprints along with general life-extending technologies. I think it would be acceptable to believe that the player character possesses just such a modification that negates gas saturation and pressure-related percentage issues, along with the aforementioned all-environment body suit that can protect the player character from exposure.
Thoughts?
J
Look at how the hatches are portrayed in game - they have a visible hinge on one side, and do not change the dimensions of a tubular corridor when installed. This clearly implies a simple 'opens like a door' mechanic, but if that were the case, the base would immediately flood. Of course, at any real depth, water pressure would make the door impossible to open anyway - like being trapped in a car underwater, you wouldn't be able to push the door outward against the water pressure pushing inward. Likewise opening a hatch on the side of the Alien Containment chamber would immediately start draining it into your base, and be impossible to *shut* once you opened it, until the water inside had drained below the level of the hatch.
I think the best way to reconcile the way the bases are presented to us now, is to say that there must be force fields of some type at work. Something that works with the surface tension of the water, perhaps, to keep it from rushing in and filling the base/vehicle. Think of the force fields in Star Trek, or the Star Wars movies, that keep a hangar bay at normal pressure, but allow a shuttlecraft/spaceship enter and exit the hangar directly into space. When you go through the hatch there is no animation of it opening/closing, but you do see water running off you when you enter the air side of the interface. Same thing would work for the Moon Pool, but it would obviously require much more energy (the area needing to be covered by the field is hundreds of times larger), which might explain its higher construction requirements. A certain amount of base energy is required to energize the force fields, and this is why none of your base buildings actually support life/air pressure until they get at least one point of power from something like a Solar Panel, Bioreactor, etc. With a force field, base structures would be stronger, but perhaps not strong enough by themselves to resist increasing water pressures (hence the need to reinforce them structurally, and why an unpowered base at great depth begins flooding/taking damage).
The Cyclops would work exactly the same (it has a visibly similar hatch inside the armored doors that open as you approach).
The Seamoth could not work that way, though. It has an actual open/closing animation. If there is a force field at work, it would have to be off when the hatch is open, and on when it is closed (energizing as the vehicle is refilled with air).
Our basic suit, before upgrades to Radiation/Stillsuit, is listed (in the PDA) as a 'hermetically sealed unit' meant to protect you from environmental extremes. That specifically includes absence of pressure (space) as well as planetary atmospheres and so forth. In real life, a space suit is built quite differently from a deep sea diving submersible, as one has to contain pressure while the other must resist it. The only way our suit could do both would be for some sort of force field combined with the suit's construction materials. If that is the case, then the suit could possibly regulate our gas exchange to prevent decompression sickness (DCS), at least down to a significant depth. Unfortunately, no amount of technobabble can fully explain why we don't have decompression sickness -or- a crush depth. Real world physics says we have to have one or the other, or we don't share the same physiology as our in game character. You may be right and our character is simply someone who is *not* the same internally as we are in real life. Perhaps his lungs have been replaced/improved with a semisolid matrix (think of a dense sponge), which would make him many times more resistant to crushing pressure (since he is no longer an essentially hollow vessel). He'd still need breathable air, but maybe the pressure/quality of it wouldn't be much of an issue. That would solve the crush depth problem, and greatly reduce the risk of DCS, since he could breath at much lower pressures than a real world scuba diver would at the same depth. Another possibility would be modifications to his blood (adding nanites or something similar), or modifying his heart/liver/kidney/lungs, in both cases to change the way his body handles gas bubbles expanding (the real cause of DCS). /shrug There isn't really a good way to explain the lack of DCS if we breath high pressure air at depth, without some really significant alteration to our character's physiology.
With a little added temperature regulation, it reads a lot like what our player character is wearing.
I haven't seen these, do you have a link? When you say they prevent decompression, are you speaking of DCS (as in diving) or explosive decompression (suit ruptures in a vacuum)? I know that currently, astronauts do their EVA in extremely low pressure (approx 0.4 bar) after prebreathing oxygen for an extended period prior to the spacewalk. Low interior pressure keeps the suits from becoming rigid balloons with people trapped inside of them.
From your brief description, it sounds like nothing has fundamentally changed in the purpose of the two suits - one is containing high pressure within a zero pressure environment (force pressing outward), the other is containing low pressure in a high pressure environment (force pressing inward).
http://www.space.com/27214-skintight-spacesuit-biosuit-photos.html
And here's the Wikipedia article claiming the origin of the idea of mechanical-pressure suits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit
I had an enjoyable read of the thread and must admit I had a little smirk when I saw the " 40m will crush you with just a wetsuit". my deepest dive so far is 32m. my dive budy was chasing a seahorse, and we only pulled up short because we were on nitrox (enriched air: longer time underwater, not magic anti crush system :-p ) and my computer was furious at me for even contemplating going further down. definitely was only rocking a wetsuit and run of the mill hobby level dive kit.
I have thought in game that a dive down to 700 m with my seaside was a touch sketchy, but I could never really put a finger on why, or how I would change it to make it feel more "real????" I must admit, having to park my moth as deep as it would go and make short mad dashes deeper t explore and back before running out of air was always a thrill, and having to be so exposed while doing it, so perhaps any change to that experience would take away from the feel of it.
I've read other forum posts about air lock situations and agree with the sentiment that the animations would be fantastic the first 5 times, alright the next 10, and teeth destroying ever after as you watch the same animation over and over, so with that in mind I'm ok with a slip from reality by hopping through a "door". maybe an airlock style door where you could opt to disable the animation? only works for bases though, in and out of the moth would be a whole new project!
>OP is June 2016
Oh boy here we go with more "OMG LE NECRO XDDDDDD" spam instead of just reporting the thread or continuing the discussion.