271 replies to this topic

[2DaT]

Koniving, on 17 March 2019 - 07:44 PM, said:

True. Thing is you've already built the heat up...
And then you lost the buffer for that heat.

What happens to liquid in a jug if the jug disappears?
We'll call that overheating.

In the case of removing the heatsink from your computer, you have a gallon jug.. For fun lets say its half full. Plenty of "heat" to spare!
Now you can't have that jug anymore, time to get a 16.9 ounce bottle.
But you must get the entire half gallon (64 ounces) into that 16.9 ounce bottle.
The mess on the counter, now, is what we call overflow... heat overflow is called overheating.

You can't compare an incompressible fluid to heat.

[Koniving]

2DaT, on 17 March 2019 - 07:51 PM, said:

You can't compare an incompressible fluid to heat.

Then watch it in real life.
The effects are INSTANT.

This is because the threshold for heat tolerance of the CPU is increased by the heatsink.
When you remove it, rather than spreading its heat across a huge volume of surface, all of its generated heat has only that tiny space to exist in, significantly amplifying how hot the thing is with less area (volume) to spread the heat.

You lost a chunk of your engine and a shitload of heatsinks... you lost the volume to store it.

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Koniving, on 17 March 2019 - 08:02 PM, said:

Then watch it in real life.
The effects are INSTANT.

If you remove LITERALLY THE ENTIRE COOLING ASSEMBLY, sure. Look ma, I'm using silly caps too!

And considering a Standard engine can hold up to 16 heatsinks all on its lonesome, it makes very little sense that an ST loss is taking out a proportion of heatsinks approaching 100%.

[Koniving]

IdToaster, on 17 March 2019 - 08:06 PM, said:

If you remove LITERALLY THE ENTIRE COOLING ASSEMBLY, sure. Look ma, I'm using silly caps too!

And considering a Standard engine can hold up to 16 heatsinks all on its lonesome, it makes very little sense that an ST loss is taking out a proportion of heatsinks approaching 100%.

The point is, that's what is happening in the game.
It didn't colder.

Its also comparing the liquid example, the heat's still there,it's the same amount, but the container is significantly reduced.


As for continuing that, this is using a container of water to increase the threshold for heat rather than a heatsink.

Do something similar without it, and you'd have a fried processor. This is because increasing the surface area for heat (the volume) increases how much heat you can have.

without suffering a catastrophic failure.

The engine comes with 10, you lost a chunk of the engine, a chunk of those heatsinks, and all the heatsinks in the side torso you lost. That's about the equivalent of taking the computer heatsink, cutting it in half and then removing that half.

[Wil McCullough]

You're still making the same mistake which is comparing the heat generated by an appliance using power to the power generator. You're deflecting. The only argument you're actually saying is that if your st gets blown off, you should lose your weapons.

You're not arguing that st loss = blown up engine at all. It's the opposite in fact.

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Koniving, on 17 March 2019 - 08:10 PM, said:

The point is, that's what is happening in the game.
It didn't colder.

Uh

Quote

It didn't colder.

Yeah I'll just assume you forgot to photoshop the verb in.

The things all your awful comparisons are forgetting is that you're losing actual chunks of the engine, which you yourself say holds most of the mech's heat. If (let's use some made-up numbers) 90% of the mech's heat is in there and you lose a 1/4th of it, then if there's even distribution 22.5% of the heat is trapped in that mass and just went bye-bye.

[K O Z A K]

Putting aside that very little that happens in MWO has a lot to do with real life physics (otherwise balance would be impossible) Prototelis is 100% correct, when you have a heat source (engine) that dissipates heat through heatsinks, when the heatsinks are destroyed it doesn't magically transfer heat back into the heat source. The system would certainly lose total heat limit and heat dissipation though, but the heat in the heatsinks would also be gone. If anything, the engine that can run on 2/3 parts would probably run cooler (compared to 3/3 of it's moving parts), but in mwo terms compared to how hot the weapons are that would be completely inconsequential. I can't believe this is even a discussion

[RickySpanish]

What if the heat doesn't just vanish though? We're treating destroyed heatsinks and the components they were housed in as longer existing, but except for arms that isn't the case - smashed torsi and legs remain attached. So, the question is whether exploding the internals of a component actually dissipates the heat, or if it spills back into the chassis instead. Perhaps a heatsink's heat capacity is a measure of how much heat it can absorb away from the critical parts of a component it is stored in, and when that component and the sink fails, the heat is emitted from the failing heatsink into the wreckage, which contributes to the nasty shut down effect. This started as a troll post, but I'm now at least semi serious...

I mean, what if Koniving is actually right, justcallyou Ash?

[K O Z A K]

If you shoot a hot chunk of metal off a mech, the heat in it doesn't teleport back onto the remaining mech, I'm sorry, I really can't dumb it down any more than this

[Kanil]

Hazeclaw, on 17 March 2019 - 09:29 PM, said:

If you shoot a hot chunk of metal off a mech, the heat in it doesn't teleport back onto the remaining mech, I'm sorry, I really can't dumb it down any more than this

The only chunks of hot metal that actually get shot off the 'mech are arms, though. It's entirely possible for a heatsink, engine shielding, or anything else to be damaged beyond functioning, but still present in the 'mech, heat and all.

[El Bandito]

IMO there should have been progressive heat penalty instead. Then PGI wouldn't have had to nerf energy weapons.

WrathOfDeadguy, on 17 March 2019 - 12:42 PM, said:

In before the usual "git gud" apologists whose match survival rate nevertheless took a nose dive after the torso loss nerf (really, it's a remarkable coincidence. Jarl's list is a wonderful thing).

To be fair it affects everyone equally, so I don't mind it too much. My survival rate actually stayed about the same cause I learned to save heat.

Edited by El Bandito, 18 March 2019 - 12:14 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

HammerMaster, on 17 March 2019 - 04:52 PM, said:

I'm the chump yet this crew is blowing themselves up.
Game base on BT. IS BT.

BT huh? ... Well, chump, since you are advocating BT, then how about we go BT and remove free target info sharing between mechs? I bet you wouldn't like that mr.hold-me-locks.

[PhoenixFire55]

HammerMaster, on 17 March 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

For the billionth time.
STOP RIDING YOUR HEAT.
You got by without BT style penalties and now you expect no penalties.
The entitlement stinks here.

Gotta love a guy brining up BT while having zero clue about BT. FYI, in BT most mechs are heat neutral or close to it. Hence if we would bring BT into this game then I'll be able to fire all weapons I got on my mech indefinetly statying at 0% heat all the time, thus having no penalty whatsoever from losing a torso as well. Oh and btw ... cooldown time for ALL weapons would be 10 seconds. Yes kids, thats right ... you will be able to fire your small laser only once every 10 seconds. Also Gauss rifles will have no charge mechanics, and of course the abomination that is ghost heat will be gone, along with quirks, and we will actually have double heat sinks that are ... well ... double, not 1.2-heatsinks. Oh ... and all lasers would be insta-damage pinpoint btw.

So ... are you sure you want to go full BT? ... Because I'm totally game having a heat neutral 4ERPPC Warhawk that can alpha your face all day long.

Sorry, chump ... yours isn't even an entitlement, its just cluelessness that reeks.

[PhoenixFire55]

Koniving, on 17 March 2019 - 06:38 PM, said:

Your car's radiator is a heatsink.

No it isn't. Study harder.

[PhoenixFire55]

Koniving, on 17 March 2019 - 07:25 PM, said:

Poke your radiator.
Tell it to that.

Or tell it to real life heatsinks.
Or to thermodynamics.
If you destroy the cooling system, you do not magically make the engine colder.
If you destroy part of the engine...
You do not magically make the engine colder.

https://driving.ca/a...-engine-cooling

Repeating the same bullsh*t ten times in a row doesn't make your bullsh*t any less stupid.

"Engine" produces heat all the time. Mech engine does not. Weapons produce heat. If I am not firing I am not producing any heat. Heat already produced isn't magically staying in the engine or the weapons, it is absorbed and dissipated by the cooling system, namely heat sinks. If a certain percentage of heat sinks are gone, that the exact same percentage of already generated heat is gone along with it.

If you would spend less time copy-pasting bullsh*t on the forum and more time reading books on thermodynamics you so gallantly quote, maybe you'd know this ...

Again. Study harder.

Khobai, on 17 March 2019 - 07:27 PM, said:

it does make sense. the car radiator example is right.

No it isn't. And neither is any further BS that compares a mech engine to a constantly generating heat source.

[zerosouL]

Its amusing to see that some people believe, really really believe that the heat transfer system make any gd sense. Lets go even further and transfer heat from killed mechs to its closest ally on the battlefield

Edited by zerosouL, 18 March 2019 - 01:00 AM.

[PhoenixFire55]

Kanil, on 17 March 2019 - 11:07 PM, said:

The only chunks of hot metal that actually get shot off the 'mech are arms, though. It's entirely possible for a heatsink, engine shielding, or anything else to be damaged beyond functioning, but still present in the 'mech, heat and all.

It would only make sense if a heat sink is critted without destroying the location its in. Otherwise I would like to take no damage whatsoever when my aleady destroyed side torso is getting repeatedly shot since its actually still there.

zerosouL, on 18 March 2019 - 12:58 AM, said:

Its amusing to see that some people believe, really really believe that the heat transfer system make any gd sense. Lets go even further and transfer heat from killed mechs to its closest ally on the battlefield

Yeah. And I think we should also transfer heat generated by lurming mech into its target, since you know ... those missiles carry a lot of heat on them, right?

[Jay Leon Hart]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2019 - 12:56 AM, said:

"Engine" produces heat all the time. Mech engine does not.

Again. Study harder.

No it isn't. And neither is any further BS that compares a mech engine to a constantly generating heat source.

Fusion reactions don't generate heat? QUICK! Someone go tell science the Sun isn't really warm!

[PhoenixFire55]

Jay Leon Hart, on 18 March 2019 - 01:34 AM, said:

Fusion reactions don't generate heat? QUICK! Someone go tell science the Sun isn't really warm!

When your mech stands still and doesn't fire your engine produces no heat. Deal with it. Nothing to do with actual fusion reactions.

[Jay Leon Hart]

PhoenixFire55, on 18 March 2019 - 01:38 AM, said:

When your mech stands still and doesn't fire your engine produces no heat. Deal with it. Nothing to do with actual fusion reactions.

That's because of Heat Sinks. Remember those.

The engine *is* a fusion reactor. You're wrong about the engine not generating heat. Deal with it.