Gluconeogenesis does indeed recycle carbon from inside the cell. However, that still doesn’t really answer how the carbon originally enters the cell. Sure, that could be the handwaved part. Maybe there’s invisible carbon fixation or an unknown source. I still personally feel that it would be weird if photosynthesizers need CO2 to turn an energy source into glucose but cells with the new organelle don’t. But maybe that’s not a big deal.
About these other ideas like separating carbon fixation from Thylakoids or going back to the upgrade idea… Yeah, they do divert from the current plan. They could still be worth considering in my opinion, but sorry if they are diverting too much from the discussion. We can stick to the current plan if that’s preferable.
I mean we’ve gamified so much that there’s a free glucose cloud that appears out of thin air next to the player when they return from the microbe editor. Compared to that this is a really minor nitpick.
Considering that elemental sulfur is a solid, it should be like current iron.
Sulfates, nitrates, hydrogen sulfide and ammonium serve as environmental compounds.
Sulfates and nitrates should be like current O2 and CO2.
Hydrogen sulfide and ammonium need to be absorbed by cells based on environmental concentration and absorption capacity, and enter storage to work. (Create a process of absorbing (synthesizing) material based on environmental concentration based on the size of cell surface area and membrane type?)
Hydrogen sulfide still has naturally generated clouds in Hydrothermal vent and other special patches.
If ammonia entering the breeding progress bar is regarded as amino acid synthesis, should it be regarded as a controllable process? By coordinating with the process regulation function, cells can reduce consumption by slowing down growth, and photosynthetic bacteria can hibernate at night. This process may also be combined with the environmental tolerance of cells, reducing the rate and efficiency of amino acid synthesis in less adaptable environments.
“I wonder if we can rename hydrogen sulfide to just “Sulfur” and have it treated as both a compound cloud in the form of hydrogen sulfide and as an environmental compound as atmospheric sulfur/sulfates.”
As a high school chemistry teacher: please no.
Hydrogen sulfide en sulfates are completely opposite in redox value. Put simply: while they all contain the element Sulfur, they are complete opposites in terms of chemical reactions.
That applies to their role in micro-organisms as well. It would be the equivalent of unifying your “glucose” and “CO2” compounds to a single compound and naming it “Carbon”.
This is equivalent to abstracting multiple compounds into a single chemical element. This will turn Thrive into a chemical element collection game, which is too bad. The conversion of chemical elements with different valence in different compounds is an important form of material cycle.
Yeah, on Discord too. The new Discord username update thing changed his profile picture so he just decided to go ahead and ensure that the eye truly sees everything now.
I don’t know. If such a benchmark exists, it should hopefully be relatively easy to find with google.
Which has never lead to an increase in bugs… Just kidding, that’s definitely a way to have a fresh batch of new bugs by reimplementing something. Still for us this will be irrelevant if the switch to using an external physics engine goes well. Also funnily enough for Godot 4 there is already a premade integration module to swap out the Godot physics for the Jolt physics engine.
Attempted to design an extremely long rod-shaped cell. Due to the fact that the current engulf ability mainly depends on the size of cells, we will obtain the following situation:
Even if the engulfed cells are reduced, they still exceed the range of predators.
Based solely on size, it’s still too rough. More consideration should be given to cell shape.
According to the data I have consulted, iron respiration (not the Chemosynthesis with oxygen to iron oxide in the game now. Why does the nature have pure iron, and shouldn’t the reducing agent be Fe2+ ?) is an extracellar respiration, because Fe3+mainly exists in the form of solid precipitation, which means that it is unrealistic for cells to collect and store Fe3+.
Fe3+ can be used as an environmental compound and its concentration can affect the rate of iron respiration. But this homogenizes with oxygen, and the gameplay is too monotonous. (NO3- can do this directly because it participates in the Nitrogen cycle as a play method)
Considering that Fe3+has a certain solubility and mainly exists in the form of solid precipitation, its concentration can be unevenly distributed within the region. In the current game, there are iron blocks (the red ones should look like Fe (OH) 3 precipitates). If there are Fe (OH) 3 precipitates, a decreasing Fe3+concentration will be distributed around them. This concentration can be opened by the chemical receptor to the Fe3+concentration field, unlocking the tendency of AI towards Fe3+behavior.
I would like to know if there is a corresponding embodiment of this surface adjacency bonds in reality. I like this design, perhaps it will encourage cells to wrinkle.
Based on the knowledge I have, if Surface-adjacency bonuses come from adjacent cell membranes, those biochemical reactions that rely on membrane structure should benefit, especially utilizing ATP synthesis for oxidative physiology. Also, will external structures such as flagella affect the Surface-adjacency bonuses of internal structures? They do not affect the internal structure and cell membrane proximity.
A simple and intuitive method for calculating surface area is good and easy to understand. However, when calculating surface area and exposure, it is required that this is also the exposure of the entire cell. Otherwise, players may design a spring, cavity or fishbone. Perhaps it is necessary to use membrane generation for tuning?
One problem is that if the part placement mechanical is added, the existing Organelle replication mechanism will have a greater impact on cell design. The newly copied Organelle will appear outside the cell and destroy the original Surface-adjacency bonuses.
I want to know how this environmental adaptation is reflected. Is it a direct design that specifies the range of environmental conditions that this organism can adapt to, forcing it to only survive within this range? Or is it through environmental and biological design to determine a coefficient (which may resemble a bandtop filter) that, together with cell size or surface area, generates ATP consumption? (The initial conditions of cells can be set to be widely adaptable, so that cells do not need to consider specialized environmental adaptation when their size is small.)
And when players make significant modifications to their species adaptability in order to adapt to the new environment, if the player species remaining in those earlier areas follow the player’s changes, they may experience a large number of deaths. Should they be allowed to independently become new species?
Currently the idea is that this environmental tolerance acts as a range of preferred habitable conditions. If you are in a patch outside of these conditions, you will receive an osmoregulation/energy costs debuff depending on how far away from your preferred ranges you are.
For dealing with the complexity of cells in the macro, perhaps you could remove the unique hand-crafted cell shape and replace it with a simple representation based on check box options and sliders. Such as overall shape like sphere, oval, rod, extra long rod, and etc. Composition like mitochondria density, transport channel density, surface tendrils, and etc. Same could be applied to microbes. Construction of organs could start similarly, with first choosing general shape. Such as shpere, hollow sphere, rod, tube, and etc. After that you would pick from the collection of cells you have made to occupy the organ space. No need to specifically place any single cell in any particular place of the organ tissue. Finally, based on prewritten parameters, the game will decide what organ you are trying to create and give it the characteristics of that organ. Later on cells and organs that meet certain conditions will have further options for more specific cells and organs. Though this will reduce the possibilities of unique cells, unless you want a large amount of non lawk lifeforms, I think it will cover enough organismal diversity to make any biosphere well rounded.
Also for the space stage, biospheres could be made unchanging. Locked to the end result of any of the stages of other player’s games. With the one exception being perhaps the aware stage not having the player’s species. Only other space stage species will have the same abilities as the player species. This will reduce the concern of having to deal with alternate timeline events and organisms along with remove any need to generate a galaxy beyond picking biospheres out of the “thrivepedia”.
Here’s my prediction: this will be the worlds least intuitive system and players will constantly complain about why their creation gets marked as another organ and they are stuck trying to make one specific organ to advance in the game.
how would you make things like Stentor coeruleus - Wikipedia or things with unicellular external organs, i know there will be at least a few people who’d do that, i’m one of them.
Im not sure how this would be the case. You would still be able to alter the organs at the macro scale to make unique characteristics. Im not saying that this would permit organ jumping. It would start with simple things like strips of nerve cells, tubes, simple muscles, simple sensory organs, endocrine tissues and mixes of those. Players would continue tweaking those organs which would open up more unique and specific cells, tissues, and organs. I can’t imagine how someone would just get stuck if they are trying play with in familiar territory and not actively create something that barricade them from the next stage like a web nervous system, no bones, or passive respiration.
