Anaryl wrote:
I avoid dignifying anything IceDreamer has to say as he enjoys bullying twelve year olds out of the game to make himself feel like a man.

Frankly I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

IceDreamer wrote:
I'm claiming the same thing I always have: The Engine throttles silos differently to everything else. If you can provide a video showing that it does this via step-down throttling, great, but I don't really care :p

Crotalus wrote:
While you guys were writing walls of text here I did some sandboxing and is now content I reached the correct assumption. I won't waste time making any proof about it though, I think I was pretty clear about the outcome of the empirical experiment.

Question is, have anyone of you spent time verifying / falsifying my claim or is that too much to ask? You guys sounded so sure you knew how / why the launcher stalled like they did (buildtime / buildpower / balancing blabla). Did you just theorycraft it or did you find that out by testing? In my view you're the ones claiming unicorns by just make up statements about how the stalling works... I tested your claims and they were wrong

Crotalus wrote:
The thing you all overlook is that nuclear silos throttle themselves if they dont get enough mass. For instance, if a silo requests 100 mass per second but only gets 10 mass it will lower it's mass drain from 100 to 90 next tick. This will continue until it fills it's 100 mass, then progress bar is increased one step and the cycle repeats. But if doesn't fill it's share before it reaches 0 mass drain this means it will stall indefinetly until there's mass in store.

Anaryl wrote:

How the engine prioritize the resources is in the engine.

You don't have access to it, so you are assuming that it's using the buildcost to do so.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, I'm just saying that copy/pasting the BP proves nothing as the resource system is not in LUA.

I'm not assuming anything. If you had bothered to read the post you would see that the numbers I quoted were functions of existing build characteristics with which players could test for results in sandbox.

As you do not have the source code either, how are you sure there is any prioritisation going on? You're saying I'm only assuming - but you're assuming that there is some kind of prioritisation in-engine. To which I say - well if you know something we don't - please share it with us.

All my numbers do is give you some tools to infer from your results *how* the mass is being prioritised or at least a reasonable approximation thereof. From there players can work out from testing what is actually happening behind the scenes.

Except that all the relevant code was not given, because we don't have access to a massive amount of the code which makes this game tick, hence PilOt's responses. Thanks to this fact, testing top trumps code in every single aspect of SupCom. The code is irrelevant. If something is happening in game, that's what happens; not being able to understand which code is causing something is beside the point, because we can't see it all.

Testing > Code

So you're arguing that because there isn't code that supports your assertion it must simply be missing? Not that it doesn't exist, it's just yet to be found, and exists in a place where it's existence cannot be either proven or disproven. Say, you wouldn't be a Christian would you?

Testing > Code

Come back when you've done something more technically proficient than updating the code comments.

Research>Code>test>Research>test>Code>test>research>code - it's kinda obvious when you say test first code after that you have never programmed before.

Lol. Calm down Anaryl. It's too funny that the mere insinuation that you don't know something has you completely unhinged. At what point did I "ask you to educate me" or call anyone's argument "invalid"? I'm stating what occurs while actually playing the game. You know, the one I dominate you in.

Being a forum queen is all well and good but in this instance it appears you don't have the information available to do even that; you're merely making your own assumptions. Let me know when you have a replay that contradicts anything I've said.