31–40 of 139 posts
Anyone remember this one? A screenshot can be found in the PDF at the end.
[1] https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:29043408
It's neat. What exactly am I controlling with the steam generator lever, the pump at the bottom? With the control rods it's more obvious since they move on the diagram.
Seems impossible to make it meltdown and explode. Shutting off the coolant just makes it automatically SCRAM. No incoming tsunamis threaten to swamp your diesel generators, no xenon pits to slowly climb out of. Booooring. ;-)
Seems impossible to make it meltdown and explode. Shutting off the coolant just makes it automatically SCRAM. No incoming tsunamis threaten to swamp your diesel generators, no xenon pits to slowly climb out of. Booooring. ;-)
I must seem completely seem out of place nowadays, but I actually learned that in school in Germany. Not to the nitty gritty detail, of course, but we spent a double lesson on every reactor type. What I've taken from it and remember to this day is that you usually can determine the reactor type from the shape of the building.
Seems impossible to make it meltdown and explode. Shutting off the coolant just makes it automatically SCRAM. No incoming tsunamis threaten to swamp your diesel generators, no xenon pits to slowly climb out of. Booooring. ;-)
I want to build a game where players assemble various components into engines or systems. Building the required system is itself a bit of a puzzle, but then players must also demonstrate that they can control the system using sensors and switches, etc, despite failures of various components. Can you build a reactor? If something breaks, can you figure out what broke using the sensors you placed? Can you fix the system with the switches you placed?
My favorite thing about flight simulators was always the simulated avionics. I get to click simulated buttons and watch simulated gauges, I love it.
Seems impossible to make it meltdown and explode. Shutting off the coolant just makes it automatically SCRAM. No incoming tsunamis threaten to swamp your diesel generators, no xenon pits to slowly climb out of. Booooring. ;-)
My biggest beef with nuclear (and I've always said this) is its just so unsexy. No mushroom shapes, no passionate explosions followed by restful oblivion at the end. Its just reliable and faithful and keeps on pluggin' away. I like to live a little dangerously, and you should too!
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/05/sellafield-...
The primary reason for porting this to a modern platform was ( as far as I understood ) so that it could be run on interactive events for schools and such. It's definitely more optimised for fun than realism. I remember a few good memories of various people who were actually nuclear engineers complaining that realistically the demand would never change that fast on any commercial nuclear power plant!
The very first nuclear plant simulator I ever played with was a primitive text-based program, running on a DEC 11/780. To win the game you had to average a certain number of MWh over each turn (days). It seemed easy, just turn it on and let it run, but there was a catch. The game simulated normal fatigue, meaning that the longer it ran, the more likely something would go wrong. Also, the higher power you ran, the fas…
Might it have been Oakflat Nuclear Power Plant Simulator[1] you're thinking of? I'm not aware of a version that ran on the DEC but it might very well have existed and it sounds quite similar. I can certainly credit it for developing my unhealthy fascination with nuclear power. Also perhaps my unhealthy tendency to push buttons and see what happens! [1] https://www.mobygames.com/game/62490/the-oakflat-nuclear-pow...