Merry 9/11 and Happy Holidays - New General Megathread for the 11th-13th of September 2024
Merry 9/11 and Happy Holidays - New General Megathread for the 11th-13th of September 2024
Building implosion
In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, like bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels. This is typically done to save time and money of what would otherwise be an extensive demolition process with construction equipment, as well as to reduce construction workers exposure to infrastructure that is in severe disrepair.
Building implosion, which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods, typically occurs in urban areas[citation needed] and often involves large landmark structures.
The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down.
The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion". There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
- Stacy Loizeaux, NOVA, December 1996
Building implosion techniques do not rely on the difference between internal and external pressure to collapse a structure. Instead, the goal is to induce a progressive collapse by weakening or removing critical supports; therefore, the building can no longer withstand gravity loads and will fail under its own weight
Numerous small explosives, strategically placed within the structure, are used to catalyze the collapse. Nitroglycerin, dynamite, or other explosives are used to shatter reinforced concrete supports. Linear shaped charges are used to sever steel supports. These explosives are progressively detonated on supports throughout the structure. Then, explosives on the lower floors initiate the controlled collapse.
A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives.
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- ⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
- ✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
- 👊 Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
You're viewing a single thread.
Watching stuff about the ps5 pro being a bad idea and seeing gameplay footage and stuff in the background. I just don't get why anyone had bought a new console since the ps4 era. Nothing looks all that much better and every game looked boring as hell. From what I could tell everything was either Uncharted but not or Fps. Why would anyone shell out for a console where every game looks like it isn't fun?
The funny part about high fidelity and the complex geometries it needs is, a lot of PS4/PS5 games looked worse when upscaled to 4k than X360/PS3 games do upscaled to 4k (with less fancy reconstruction techniques). Like design has kind of stagnated, giving us as you point out ganes that don't look fun, and what we traded it for is extreme development times to meet the fidelity standards, and the end product ends up looking kind of bad. Like I may be overstating it a tad, but I feel aliasing and other artifacts were less noticeable in the 360/PS3 era.
I didn't get a console between a ps3 in 2007 and a replacement ps3 in 2009 when it yellow ringed until I got a switch in 2020. I could personally care less if graphics stopped at ps3 level and this stupid graphical arms race could end. It's inherently a race of dismissing returns, you can only double the polygon count until you may as well be doubling microbes, there's less and less return value for more and more work. It's been very clearly shown by a vibrant as hell indie scene that I stick to almost exclusively that there's a LOT of creative juices left in games but anything requiring this sort of high fidelity console or PC isn't don't it cause of the money sunk into the product. My peak Gamer Times were the 2000s and I was just as hyped on katamari damacy as mgs3 and still am and now i realize that's a bad example cause mgs3 itself is VERY different from a modern shooter cause there was no standard that everyone followed and the game worked better for it. Dual stick shooting shouldn't be for all games, for a stealth game it makes sense not to be able to move and shoot and even in shooters I kinda think it's dumb unless it's a Sci fi setting or something. You can't aim a gun good while walking and the gameplay reflected that and it's MORE FUN to decide whether to aim or move. Re4 with twin stick shooting would suck. If every element of gameplay that boiled into the modern AAA stew wasn't almost exclusively the stuff I don't like I may have followed. I'm just amazed they seem to just make the same 3 games over and over with marginal graphical improvements and the bottom hasn't fallen out already. It's probably cause I'm older and despite my very eclectic tastes in games, there had never really been a specific genre I prefer, I've always had a good radar for what's good and what looks good but is trash cause I was a kid and wanted to be sure the few games I could harness from my family per year was maxed out quality. Modern AAA seems like thq but with nice looking graphics
I think that maybe PS4-era graphical horsepower targeting PS3-era graphics would be great. At this point you can fit it in a portable form-factor, you'd easily hit a good framerate, and the image would be clean while not requiring ridiculous dev time. Which, I think is basically what the Switch 2 is rumoured to target (on the hardware side), and the OG Switch isn't terribly far from. Fully support it as hardware design, and yeah I'm not convinced we need much more, especially since the tradeoff is no games get released ever.
Video games have matured as an artfrom to the point production standards are necessary and gamers are mad