PC Fundamentals of Survivor

[BFT2020]

As both a mechanical engineer and working for a major Automotive OEM, you would never want to use a screw to fasten your wheels to the vehicle as screws do not have the necessary retention force needed for the application at hand.

not sure whether people didn't get the point or just wants to bug me...or this is all just some language problem.

Anyway, for everybody's total-off-topic information:

They both exist.

View attachment 29702

The first picture is the lug nut style fastening system used in primary American vehicles.  The second picture are wheel bolts as an alternative to the lug nut style fastening system (example I know German vehicles use this system).  Both are "bolt" system type of fasteners, though the wheel stud is more of a threaded shaft that is pressed into the hub while the wheel bolts fall under the traditional bolt category.

Neither of those examples are screws though.  I do know of two instances where screw is used around tires - one being a screw in type wheel stud and the second being rim screws used to secure the tires to the rims (typically in drag racing situations).

Easiest thing to say is just wheel fasteners as that covers both styles above.

And yes, I do have a copy of The Machinery’s Handbook at my desk.

One issue I have with the link provided is that they state the difference between screws and bolts in the US is more of a legal definition.  That is not correct.  Bolts by the nature of their design have a significant higher clamping force compared to screws.  That is one of the reasons they are used to fasten wheels to vehicles (another reason are bolts / nuts are easier to assemble and disassemble which is necessary for wheels as you will be removing and reinstalling them as you maintain your vehicle).  If any engineer out there tells you that they are simply interchangeable, no...just no.....  A bolt used where a screw would be sufficient would be okay, but using a screw where a bolt is required - I would be extremely worried about the fastener holding up to the task.

not sure whether people didn't get the point or just wants to bug me...or this is all just some language problem.

I just went into a detailed response on this subject, I am not one to judge  

 

[theFlu]

No it would not, as he wants the change so it would be more realistic. It would replace one unrealistic situation with another.

The jar simulation would remain near-exactly as unrealistic, while the intellectual ability of our survivor character would become way more realistic. In sum sounds like an improvement in realism to me, even though it still remains a zombie game.

 

[Rotor]

7D2D is great, IMnsHO for the following reasons:

Some people play for the looter shooter.

Some people play for the world building/destruction aspect.

Some people play for the tower defense.

Some people play for the survivalist aspect.

I fall in the last one, and mix the others to support my survival.  The current water mechanic goes against my survivalist immersion.  Have I adjusted?  Sure, I dont lack water, I use the DiY water filter MOD.  I may have had to drink from my hands once.  Does it break immersion absolutely.

Is funny to me how some argue that the past mechanic was easy, but there is a trader and vending machine where you can get everything.

Maybe the intent is not to make it harder but, once again, force you back to the trader.

/shrugs I dont know , since the trader to me is immersion breaking from an all alone survivalist PoV in game.

And yes, there are MODs I know.  I havent even dowloaded the MOD to add jars.  I am using the MOD to make my own filter.  Because I should be able to.

I guess if the intent was to force me to the trader, then mission accomplished, in the early game.  As I did sell junk to buy liquids from vending machine.  So,  then I downloaded the water filter MOD.

I have nothing against MODs, until the day that the MOD makers retire, and is why some innate survivalist elements should be part of the core game.  

Yes, it is not MY game, I only play it and provide feedback.  No different than all the others I have played.

 

[warmer]

For all the complaining about how unrealistic it is for glass jars to disappear, I don't hear anyone complaining about how unrealistic a dew collect that makes 3 glass jars a day is.

 

[Deadfordays]

As far as water goes, honestly, unless you are not using vendors or playing in a single biome without rivers or lakes, try and locate a water purifier mod for your helmet. I play almost exclusively in coop with 2-4 other players that are family and I would safely say within the first 7 days we find a water purifier mod, or the instructions for one.  We then share the helmet to drink from a water source and then as we progress and find more filters, dehydration is irrelevant. We still make dew collectors, but they are pretty much just for cooking or ingredients for recipes.  I don't mind the lack of jars anymore, it does make it a challenge at first, but it becomes less of an issue fairly soon. 

 

[Rotor]

For all the complaining about how unrealistic it is for glass jars to disappear, I don't hear anyone complaining about how unrealistic a dew collect that makes 3 glass jars a day is.

Have yet to build one.   Ya, bad implementation as well.

 

[meilodasreh]

I just went into a detailed response on this subject, I am not one to judge  

Ah then it was a language thing on my side, I was simply referring to/defining "screws=part with outside thread" and "nut=part with threaded hole/inside thread", and assumed you did know only one type to attach a wheel, but there's these two.

My bad.

So it was meant more like "bolts and nuts fit together, via same thread" (more in the machining context), but the term "screw" is more common for the parts e.g. in woodworking, where you screw it right into the material you want to construct/tighten/connect/whatever...?

But you can still say "I screw a bolt into a threaded hole", or "screw a nut onto a bolt", right?

Well I like to claim my english is fine, but these little details still catch me.

...btw I knew a guy who bolted a screw in his nuts...heard he calls himself Sally nowadays.

 

[meganoth]

As both a mechanical engineer and working for a major Automotive OEM, you would never want to use a screw to fasten your wheels to the vehicle as screws do not have the necessary retention force needed for the application at hand.

The first picture is the lug nut style fastening system used in primary American vehicles.  The second picture are wheel bolts as an alternative to the lug nut style fastening system (example I know German vehicles use this system).  Both are "bolt" system type of fasteners, though the wheel stud is more of a threaded shaft that is pressed into the hub while the wheel bolts fall under the traditional bolt category.

Neither of those examples are screws though.  I do know of two instances where screw is used around tires - one being a screw in type wheel stud and the second being rim screws used to secure the tires to the rims (typically in drag racing situations).

Easiest thing to say is just wheel fasteners as that covers both styles above.

And yes, I do have a copy of The Machinery’s Handbook at my desk.

One issue I have with the link provided is that they state the difference between screws and bolts in the US is more of a legal definition.  That is not correct.  Bolts by the nature of their design have a significant higher clamping force compared to screws.  That is one of the reasons they are used to fasten wheels to vehicles (another reason are bolts / nuts are easier to assemble and disassemble which is necessary for wheels as you will be removing and reinstalling them as you maintain your vehicle).  If any engineer out there tells you that they are simply interchangeable, no...just no.....  A bolt used where a screw would be sufficient would be okay, but using a screw where a bolt is required - I would be extremely worried about the fastener holding up to the task.

I just went into a detailed response on this subject, I am not one to judge  

What you seem to miss is that the terms are used differently in the US and elsewhere (so it seems). If we regard the info on that UK website as somewhat accurate then at least in the UK a bolt is just a sub-category of screw and one that isn't exactly defined. So a bolt is a screw as well, but a screw might not be a bolt. 

I found multiple websites that had VERY different definitions of bolts and screws and their difference. The encyclopedia britannica seems not to adhere to your definition of screw and bolt as well.

The jar simulation would remain near-exactly as unrealistic.

How can that be when currently the jar simulation is that the jar is NOT simulated at all

 

[Rotor]

How can that be when currently the jar simulation is that the jar is NOT simulated.

Before or after drinking the water?  Specifics

https://chenmark.com/weekly-thoughts/specifics-bob/

 

[meganoth]

Maybe the intent is not to make it harder but, once again, force you back to the trader.

Maybe that you find it easy is because you are a veteran?

All alphas at least since A17 had been much much harder in their 0 version and were dimmed down heavily. Just as if the developers had balanced the game for the testers, who naturally are veterans as well. Then the game gets the exposure to the general public where veterans are a minority and suddenly the game gets trimmed down for Joe Average who is say 80% novice and 20% veteran-like.

Before or after drinking the water?  Specifics

https://chenmark.com/weekly-thoughts/specifics-bob/

If you understand that there is no jar even before you drink a jar of water then you understand the non-simulation of jars in 7D2D

 

[Rotor]

Maybe that you find it easy is because you are a veteran?

All alphas at least since A17 had been much much harder in their 0 version and were dimmed down heavily

If you understand that there is no jar even before you drink a jar of water then you understand the non-simulation of jars in 7D2D

So ignore the visuals?  Got it.

I mean I'm reality there is nothing, just 1s and 0s.

But I am not playing "The Matrix"

Atleast not that I know of .

 

[theFlu]

How can that be when currently the jar simulation is that the jar is NOT simulated at all

Indeed. That would be one of the premises of my statement.

Jar simulation type 1: "No simulation" == not realistic at all.

Jar simulation type 2: "There is One Jar that Symbolizes all the jars you'll ever need" == not realistic at all.

Not realistic at all == not realistic at all.

There are differences, but the realism is nearly exactly the same.

Yes, I'm feeding the mod again, but whatever, nites ...

 

[Urban Blackbear]

I'm just going to leave this here:

 

[meganoth]

Jar simulation type 1: "No simulation" == not realistic at all

Actually you are right, but that unrealism is the only reason you can run a game on a computer. Any game that is not the matrix is bound to have a lot of that type of unrealism. It also makes games fun. Think of a SF game where you have to fly months to a distant planet and it did actually simulate time.

For me that is a very different type of unrealism, the unrealism of you having to fill in the blanks. There is no jars, you have to imagine you are filling the water into containers.

This is similar to the unrealism of a book, which is as far from "your" realism as possible, where you have to fill in the blanks. But your imagination can be as realistic as you want.

This is different from an inconsistency to reality (not being able to get water from a lake is such an inconsistency, as would be a forced single jar) for example which makes it hard to imagine the realism. 

 

[Hellox]

I seen some people saying it makes game harder cause no infinite water with jars. In some regards I guess that may be true.

Yet, I think it is almost as easy if not easier than before with "magical water dispensers" that give you more than enough water each day that you don't even have to purify.

This game doesn't have much of a survival aspect of food or water , besides having the numbers.

Both food and water are plentiful in this game. Even if you play on day 200 multiplayer with everything ranshacked... the amount of food and water you get is enough to feed an army.

To jar or not to jar... I could careless, I like the idea of trying to get rid of infinite water and make game harder but could have been done by just making water finite as well..

Honestly think game really lacks the "hardcore" survivor feeling and isn't really going to change unless a lot of things do.

 

[theFlu]

There is no jars, you have to imagine you are filling the water into containers.

And then you have to imagine that your character _just won't_, when it comes to lakes?

Filling a nonexistent jar from a toilet bowl is "fine and unrealistic", but filling a nonexistent jar from a lake would be "wrong", how?

 

[meganoth]

And then you have to imagine that your character _just won't_, when it comes to lakes?

Filling a nonexistent jar from a toilet bowl is "fine and unrealistic", but filling a nonexistent jar from a lake would be "wrong", how?

I see I couldn't explain it for you to understand: For me the water changes we are talking about are two distinct changes with two distinct main reasons:

1) Removing jars from the game. Reason: TFP wanted all containers equally gone, no-shows, not simulated. A clean-up

2) Preventing the player from getting water from lakes except by drinking with heavy side effects. Reason: They wanted water to be scarce in early game and for the player to overcome this shortage over some time.

Note that each one of the changes is independent enough to be realized without the other:

1) You could have jars removed but using E on a lake would create say 10 units of water in your inventory. Just like E on a gasoline pump gives you a few units of gasoline.

2) Or the other way round you could have unlimited water jars like in A20 and just not be able to fill them from lakes or snow (in this case the dew collector would be slightly different, it would need you to insert empty jars to be filled).

I was talking about the first change and it clearly is not unrealistic but just leaving the details to your imagination. Many of you want to talk about the second change because it irks you, but then you pounce on the vanishing jars instead. That will only muddy the issues and not help you.

This is as if I wanted to have a broken thermometer fixed but complained about the bad weather.

 

[theFlu]

I see I couldn't explain it for you to understand:

I understand it just fine, I'm trying to get through to you that the OP here wasn't complaining about 1), he's complaining about 2), in all caps no less. Your counterpoint of "bet you didn't notice gas cans aren't there either" is counterproductive and only served to confuse the discussion. At this stage it feels intentional.

This is as if I wanted to have a broken thermometer fixed but complained about the bad weather.

The OP was asking for a jar, that he can fill at a lake. To which you went with "but I bet you didn't see there's no gas cans!". Sorry, but that doesn't look like a good faith argument from the get go.

A post later you go "you just haven't gotten used to the new way of solving emergencies" ... he was never talking about emergencies, just the fact that the player character is now stupid enough to be destroying whatever means he's using for fluid transfer - but only when he happens by a lake.

The problem isn't "the game is hard", the problem is "the game be stupid".

 

[Ramethzer0]

I see I couldn't explain it for you to understand: For me the water changes we are talking about are two distinct changes with two distinct main reasons:

1) Removing jars from the game. Reason: TFP wanted all containers equally gone, no-shows, not simulated. A clean-up

2) Preventing the player from getting water from lakes except by drinking with heavy side effects. Reason: They wanted water to be scarce in early game and for the player to overcome this shortage over some time.

Note that each one of the changes is independent enough to be realized without the other:

1) You could have jars removed but using E on a lake would create say 10 units of water in your inventory. Just like E on a gasoline pump gives you a few units of gasoline.

2) Or the other way round you could have unlimited water jars like in A20 and just not be able to fill them from lakes or snow (in this case the dew collector would be slightly different, it would need you to insert empty jars to be filled).

I was talking about the first change and it clearly is not unrealistic but just leaving the details to your imagination. Many of you want to talk about the second change because it irks you, but then you pounce on the vanishing jars instead. That will only muddy the issues and not help you.

This is as if I wanted to have a broken thermometer fixed but complained about the bad weather.

Now, if only we would be willing to pin this statement at the top of the forums as a scarecrow to prevent more threads on the same issue, we'd be set!

 

[meganoth]

understand it just fine, I'm trying to get through to you that the OP here wasn't complaining about 1), he's complaining about 2), in all caps no less. Your counterpoint of "bet you didn't notice gas cans aren't there either" is counterproductive and only served to confuse the discussion. At this stage it feels intentional.

No, he is complaining about both. And I could offer a few quotes but they stick out quite well, just reread his posts. Now would you please stop acting as his spokesperson, if he feels misrepresented he can and should speak for himself.

And I think we disected this issue enough, so I am out.