0.4.1 Release Candidate testing


(Untrustedlife) #4

They are not all replaced and the eukaryotic ones are more efficient.


(Oliveriver) #5

The clouds look a lot better now. In 0.4.0 they were abnormally pixelated for me, but now they’re back to normal, i.e. closer to how they looked in 0.3.4. Nice job.

The hitboxes of the iron chunks are sometimes a little off. For instance, I’m touching the chunk in the following image. The rest of it was fine, just that side.

My flagella stopped moving for some reason. I think I had the same problem in 0.4.0. It happened after I died and respawned, both shortly after adding my first flagellum in the editor. I can provide logs if they’re useful for this issue.


(Untrustedlife) #6

Note:
Chunks can also be engulfed (All chunks,. including iron chunks) if you are the right size.


#7

The chunks use just spheres as the collision model.


(tjwhale) #8

That’s an interesting point about “why would you add a nucleus?” I’ll reflect on it a bit.

I think firstly it’s great if prokaryotic life feels like a cool way to play that is self sufficient, that’s great. I mean loads of life stays prokaryotic because it’s good. It’s also nice if both types are balanced.

Secondly yeah there should be some attractions there which you need a nucleus for, which is definitely doable I think. I mean you’ll need it to progress to later stages so that’s one reason in itself.


(He who abuses the search function) #9

Yeah I didn’t really know how to phrase it, but I meant that you don’t unlock any new functions. Anything from chemosynthesis to photosynthesis to cellular respiration has already been added by the prokaryotic structures already. The only issue was the absence of vacuoles for storage, but that stopped being too much of an issue once I realised cytoplasm gave a rather large bonus too. Without a nucleus you work with way smaller amounts anyway, so things like storage isn’t aren’t big issues either. (Reproduction goes faster too)

One thing I just realised was this: how come the AI bacteria have access to toxic vacuoles, even though they’re prokaryotic structures?


(Untrustedlife) #10

Those are actually oxytoxy producing proteins, and we simply havent allowed the player to add them and they dont have their own model, much liek nitrogen fixing proteins. They have been rebalanced aswell though so that will happen eventually.


#11

When you add the nucleus you double your cell size (and add a bunch of new hexes) so you can engulf many more things, including the (small enough) iron chunks. So if you are playing as a predator, I think there’s a definite advantage to adding a nucleus.


(He who abuses the search function) #12

I could already eat the smaller chunks without nucleus. The big ones were not possible, but I don’t think those will ever be without cheating.


(The Third Duke of Silly) #13

Rather scary laughter sounds


(Untrustedlife) #14

Nah its doable you just need a ridiculously large cell, in fact someone already did it


(He who abuses the search function) #15

Wait what… I though that was just a theoretical possibility. Well damn.

EDIT: Uhh okay quick question: How in the actual fuck? I’ve played for two entire hours and I only got to size 87, while I’d imagine you’d need at least 150 for the bigger chunks. My PC almost crapped itself because of the lag, and it would go into a state of ‘not responding’ for half a minute each time you went to the editor.


(Zahyyy) #16

You can already do it with a size of 87 hexes, as when you double your size before reproducing, you will get up to 174, which is enough, since the necessary size is as you said correctly 150 hexes


(He who abuses the search function) #17

Huh… Well now I know what to do after the exam week.


(Rathalos) #18

Hey, I tried the new build and I haven’t had major problems so far. The game had a long hang when I tried to enter the editor the fifth time, but after a few seconds it continued without crashing.

Chasing iron is a fun new playstyle, but I do have to ask: What exactly are you trying to represent with this process? The process you have in game right now is: Iron ions + CO2 -> ATP, but in reality bacteria that derive energy from iron use something more similar to: Iron ions + O2 → ATP (just the compounds relevant to the game). That’s why they’re iron-oxidizing bacteria. Some of these bacteria also use this energy to do: Iron ions + CO2 -> glucose, but this is more for growth than for energy production, and would require the glucose to be oxidised in anoter “organelle”.

So basically the rusticyanin should use O2 instead of CO2, or work just like the chemosynthesizing protein.


#19

The game runs the pseudo auto-evo system when entering the editor and if it decides to generate new epic cells (with a lot of organelles) it can take quite a few seconds to generate.

@Untrustedlife


(Untrustedlife) #20


We contacted actual microbiologists when we implemented it. Oxidizing is called oxidizing but actually doesn’t have anything to do with (you can “oxidize” without O2) (undergo or cause to undergo a reaction in which electrons are lost to another species., that’s the chemical definition) in terms of autochemolithotriphic bacteria on earth oxidizing is simply stripping positive ions from iron to have the energy to convert c02 into ATP directly. These organisms can derive all their cellular carbon from carbon dioxide, and they are thus able to grow without any organic compounds and without light. Such microorganisms are called chemolithotrophs or chemoautotrophs. Chemolithotrophic life is possible in the presence as well as in the absence of molecular oxygen. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9780470015902.a0021153

Though there are cases where it is using oxygen as an electron acceptor. But that’s not all cases and we wanted it distinct from our current hydrogen sulfide based chemosynthesis.

I was researching this for over a week before implementing it.We did our homework on this, anyway.


(Untrustedlife) #21

BTW sorry for the edits, I was on my phone and linked the wrong image and stuff and wanted to clarify my points.


(Rathalos) #22

Thanks for the reply. And I’m not meaning to imply you did not do your homework, sorry if it comes accross that way.

Oh yes, I know oxidising does not require oxygen, a large part of my education has also been in microbiology. I was just aluding to the origin of the word. Regardless, without oxygen you need another compound to “catch” the electrons for you. In order for a cell to derive energy from a reaction, there must be a potential difference in the right direction between the electron source (f.e. Fe2+) and the electron sink (f.e. O2). This is commonly visualized in the electron tower:


Basically in order to get energy from moving one compound to the left (oxidising it) you need to move another reaction lower on the tower to the right (reducing it). From what I remembered only really oxygen can really be used to oxidize Fe2+ but your own source offered that other possibility, I’ll have to look into it. But CO2 can definitely NOT be used to oxidize the iron. The autotroph part of chemoautotroph just means they produce their own organic compounds for growth from CO2, like plants do. (So CO2 is part of the growth process, not part of the producing energy process)

From the article you linked, you should keep in mind that chemolithotrophs are a broad group, and just because some of them do not use O2, does not mean the iron-oxidising ones don’t need it. As you can see in the tower, getting energy from iron is a lot harder than the others.


(Untrustedlife) #23

I appreciate the insight but I think what we have is a fairly accurate and digestable representation of some iron chemolithoautotrophs.

Also c02 can in fact be used as an electron acceptor. Even though it isnt in this case. (and as you stated, it cant in this case)

Also i don’t want to complicate the process too much.
as i said earlier ->

Though there are cases where it is using oxygen as an electron acceptor. But that’s not all cases and we wanted it distinct from our current hydrogen sulfide based chemosynthesis.