Cbarre23

Primitive fire starting

Recommended Posts

You're hanging at base camp, too short on food for a long trek, out of matches to start a fire for one reason or another. You have plenty of dry guts lying around (cuz you know, who doesn't?!) Wouldn't it be nice to be able to start a friction fire with the many many sticks lying around, or perhaps better yet, take some of the mentioned dry guts and fashion a bow drill fire starter. Poof, suddenly an ember, then add tinder and all of a sudden you're warm.

Probably not likely on a windy or snow day, but feasible on calm days and indoor fire pits.

Edited by Cbarre23
Spelling correction
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be a good idea (posted many times, but well...). Maybe the features should be :

  • Needs 1 rock, 3 sticks, and 1 cured gut to craft the firestarting kit
  • High calorie consumption per use
  • Degrades 5-10% per use
  • Low fire starting probability, something like 10-20% (that drops dramatically in bad weather)
  • Long time needed to start a fire

This could be balanced : you no longer have any matches ? You're not totally out of the game, but you better have calories to burn. This could work as a last-chance item.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said many times before, no, it would not be. Because friction fire is impossible to make in TLD conditions, in fact I doubt you would be able to create it indoors, let alone outdoors. Indoors, maybe - if the tinder and wood was sufficiently dry, you could attempt it, and it would cost you lots of calories and lot of effort to create a fire like this. I suppose friction fire could be an option for INDOOR fires only, the same way Magnifying glass is the option for OUTDOOR fires only.

For all-purpose renewable fire, Flint and steel is the only way to go. The whole point of creating friction fire is that you cause enough friction to turn the wood into a small smouldering coal which is difficult enough with a desert dry firewood. In TLD, the reason why your clothes get wet overtime is because the air is saturated in water, it is snowing microscopical snowflakes all the time - so the humidity in air and in firewood is always constant. Drying it indoors would be the only way to get it to dry out, and even indoors there will be certain amount of humidity, depending on how insulated the home is. Flint and steel creates a spark which has much higher temperature than the smouldering coal you would make with friction ever has - and to create it, all you need to do is strike those two things against each other. It would still require some level of firemaking skill, but you would be able to start fire this way even in damp conditions, which is why flint and steel is used by hunters in arctic ages to this very day. So, good luck rubbing your sticks, I will be rooting for you while I sit by my nice campfire that I made with a rock and a piece of steel.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mroz4k said:

Because friction fire is impossible to make in TLD conditions

I suppose friction fire could be an option for INDOOR fires only, the same way Magnifying glass is the option for OUTDOOR fires only.

because the air is saturated in water,

Really good points here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 8:42 PM, Mroz4k said:

In TLD, the reason why your clothes get wet overtime is because the air is saturated in water, it is snowing microscopical snowflakes all the time - so the humidity in air and in firewood is always constant. 

My clothes do not get wet over time unless it is actually snowing. The humidity in the air is not constant and will go up and down depending on the weather system that is moving through at the time. 

This fire starting method is possible in TLD conditions. The whole purpose of using friction is to create a hot ember that you then transfer to dry tinder. Flint and steel is easier but it also requires dry tinder to start a fire. Humidity alone will not stop you from creating a friction hot ember. 

So yes it is hard (and indoors would be easier then outdoors) but still possible.    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PleXD said:

My clothes do not get wet over time unless it is actually snowing. The humidity in the air is not constant and will go up and down depending on the weather system that is moving through at the time. 

This fire starting method is possible in TLD conditions. The whole purpose of using friction is to create a hot ember that you then transfer to dry tinder. Flint and steel is easier but it also requires dry tinder to start a fire. Humidity alone will not stop you from creating a friction hot ember. 

So yes it is hard (and indoors would be easier then outdoors) but still possible.    

Dont argue something you know next to nothing about.

Humidity in the air is ever-constant issue. In rainforests, for example, it is next to impossible to create friction fire for the same reasons - the air is so soaked in water that the friction fire is next to impossible to create. In a wet enviroment with a dry wood the ignition temperature is about twice-thrice as high as is in a dry enviroment. Outside temperature also plays an important part - in temperature below zero, the ember attempt gets cooled down much faster then in 40 degrees Celsius of a desert. With both wet firewood and enviroment it is impossible to create friction fire altogether as the temperature neccesary for that is about 16 times higher. I dont care to remember exact temperatures of the back of my head, but I remember that for a dry conditions and ideal firewood, the ignition for friction fire is somewhere around 200 degrees. That is in a desert, where the air moisture is extremely low. In arctic, it is extremely high - the differences being somewhere around 80 - 90% (I believe most deserts have 10 -15% of water in the air, and caves, rainforests and arctic regions all have around 90-95%). In arctic, it would easily be 600 to 700 degrees neccesary. Through friction fire, most people are capable of creating 300 degrees strong temperature by bow drilling. 500 is what I expect would be a maximum of an experienced survivalist. That is still nowhere near enough to create a fire in arctic conditions. I will be happy to try and make a video or at least picture evidence once the winter and snow comes and I have some free time.

When steel is hit against the sharp edge of the flint, the steel is cut of and these steel shavings are ignited through friction and chemical reaction (they oxidize to the point where they are ignited). The temperature they produce is around 1000 degrees celsius. That is enough to ignite dry material in arctic conditions, with a single spark. And by ignite I dont mean it will burst out in flames, but in this case, the spark is the ember, and it needs to be placed on the tinder bundle - after that, it is a matter of blowing it to flames, but that part is the same for both friction fire and flint and steel fire making. Now, wonder why firestarters are so "great" at making fire? Because the metal shavings produced by firestarters burn at temperatures 3000 degree Celsius. There should be no doubt now that flint and steel fire is possible in arctic, albeit very difficult, whereas friction fire is impossible to do. 

Nobody argued how the friction fire works - yes, you need to create an ember, but in order to get to that point, you need to raise the temperature of that said ember to a point of ignition, othervise all you will make is a black hole that is charred and maybe hot to touch, but not hot enough to start smouldering. With the presence of ever lasting air huminidity, it is next to impossible. Countless survival experts attempted fire by friction in rainforests and failed because of air humidity alone - not even mentioning that the temperatures of below zero cool down your ember at a much higher speed than the 30 degree celsius weather of a rainforest ever could.

Even magnifying glass method makes more sense then friction fire - because magnifying glass works like a heater - the concentrated beam of light in a specific area will keep increasing the temperature of that part of tinder - so as long as the beam of light is not interrupted by clouds, the temperature can rise up to the 600 degrees neccesary for the smouldering. But human power is just not sufficient enough to create a 600 degrees worth of temperature by friction alone, especially not if the surrounding temperature is below zero degree Celsius, which cools down the ember too fast.

If you spend time outdoors in TLD, your clothes will keep getting wet, they just get wet faster if it starts snowing. Feel free to test it, but note that sunny weather actually dries your clothes. If it is not sunny, but not snowy either, in time you will get wet clothes regardless - the moisture rises up but very slowly, faster on more difficult modes.
Besides, I was not really taking about the TLD weather system, as much as I was talking about the real life situation. TLD is mostly built on reality, and I was trying to prove my point that fire friction methods should not appear in the game, because they would not be realistic in that situation in real life.

For someone who knows a decent amount about fires and firemaking, the fact that TLD would allow for friction fire in arctic conditions would be rather immersion breaking.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so here is a link James WHITE, 1913 - Handbook of Indians of Canada on pages 165-167 talks about fire-making. 

Here is a quote 

This is the simplest and most widely diffused type of fire-generating apparatus known to uncivilized man. Among the Eskimo and some other tribes the simple two-piece fire drill became a machine by the use of a hand or mouth rest containing a stone, bone, or wood socket for the upper end of the drill, and a cord with two handles or string on a bow for revolving the drill. By these inventions uniform and rapid motions and heat pressure were effected, rendering it possible to make fire with inferior wood. The four-part drill consisted of two kinds: (a) The cord drill, which requires the co-operation of two persons in its working, and (b) the bow drill, which enables one person to make fire or to driU bone and ivory. The distribution of these varieties, which are confined to the Eskimo and their neighbours, follows no regular order; they may be used together in the same tribe, or one or other may be used alone, although the presumption is that the cord drill is the older. The hearth alone embodies two interesting modifications which reflect the environment. In one the canal leads down to a step or projection from the side of the hearth, and in the other the drilling is done on a longitudinal slot in the middle of the hearth, the object in both cases being to prevent the fire from falling into the snow.

A similar discrimination is observed in the selection of tinder. The Eskimo prized willow catkins; the Indians of the N. W. coast used frayed cedar bark; other tribes used fungi, softened bark, grass, or other ignitible material"

Also you might want tell this guy that making fire in a rainforest does not work. Primitive Technology (youtube channel)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I am starting to think you may not know what you are talking about. 

Factors affecting the arctic - Jump down to Humidity

Here is a quote

Overall, humidity in the Arctic atmosphere is low.  In some places, Arctic air is as dry as air in the Sahara desert.  Humidity tends to be higher over the oceans and in coastal areas in summer, when water vapor evaporates from the relatively warm ocean surfaces.  Humidity is lower over land areas, such as Canada, where there is less water to evaporate.  In winter, humidity is very low because surface temperatures are very cold and very little water evaporates into the atmosphere.  At this time of year, sea ice covers much of the Arctic Ocean, preventing evaporation from ocean water.  However, in areas where there is no sea ice cover in areas, there can be a lot of evaporation and fog can form, making the ocean look as if it is steaming .

Do you want to revise your above answer?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PleXD said:

Also you might want tell this guy that making fire in a rainforest does not work. Primitive Technology (youtube channel)

Thanks for the link.. nice to see an Aussie doing this stuff, for a change. (and yep, he lives in Far North Queensland.. that's almost as tropical rainforest as you can get)

Edited by JAFO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PleXD said:

Here is a quote

Overall, humidity in the Arctic atmosphere is low.  In some places, Arctic air is as dry as air in the Sahara desert.

It's the same in the Antartic.. contrary to what one might expect, it's very dry, to the point it's technically classed as a desert. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 3:40 PM, JAFO said:

Thanks for the link.. nice to see an Aussie doing this stuff, for a change. (and yep, he lives in Far North Queensland.. that's almost as tropical rainforest as you can get)

It is good to see. Also the fact he never says a word in any of his videos makes a nice change. 

 

On 8/17/2017 at 5:39 PM, StrayCat said:

That could be a good idea (posted many times, but well...). Maybe the features should be :

  • Needs 1 rock, 3 sticks, and 1 cured gut to craft the firestarting kit
  • High calorie consumption per use
  • Degrades 5-10% per use
  • Low fire starting probability, something like 10-20% (that drops dramatically in bad weather)
  • Long time needed to start a fire

This could be balanced : you no longer have any matches ? You're not totally out of the game, but you better have calories to burn. This could work as a last-chance item.

I would say bring down the degrades factor to 1-2% as the High calorie consumption, low fire starting probability (rises dramatically with your fire level) and length of time needed to start the fire (also decreases with fire skill) is plenty to keep it balanced. 

I would also say put either a rabbit skin or a deer skin into the recipe list to make a pouch to keep everything dry as you travel and a cedar or fir wood piece also for the base. 

So it would look something like this

  •  Needs 1 cedar, 2 sticks, 2 cured rabbit skins and 2 cured gut to craft the firestarting kit
  • High calorie consumption per use
  • Degrades 1-2% per use
  • Low fire starting probability, something like 20% (that drops dramatically in bad weather) for fire level 1, 30% for fire level 2, 40% for fire level 3, etc
  • Long time needed to start a fire (decrease with fire level)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 6:42 AM, Mroz4k said:

 In TLD, the reason why your clothes get wet overtime is because the air is saturated in water, it is snowing microscopical snowflakes all the time

I have no idea what the heck  @Mroz4k is talking about there....my clothes have NEVER gotten wet in ANY playthrough unless it was snowing out to some degree, or I fell through the ice. The one exception to this is walking on some bodies of ice.....specifically the ice in the middle of FM, your boots and socks will eventually get wet and then frozen from just walking over the ice. I believed they had intended to add this to all ice, but it typically doesn't happen to me with the ice lake in ML, or the ice in CH. Unless they changed it recently in Wintermute. I haven't started a new Sandbox since the Story came out....

That being said, again my clothes have NEVER gotten wet unless it was lightly snowing outside, or worse than lightly snowing...or I fell through weak ice and into water....

Edited by Thrasador
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, PleXD said:

Also the fact he never says a word in any of his videos makes a nice change.

Turn on subtitles when you watch him.. he talks, but silently.. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/08/2017 at 6:43 AM, PleXD said:

I would say bring down the degrades factor to 1-2%

I would also say put either a rabbit skin or a deer skin into the recipe list to make a pouch to keep everything dry as you travel and a cedar or fir wood piece also for the base.

I can't see a fire bow being used many times... This is not the kind of tool that is made to be durable. 5% degradation lets the player use it 20 times, which is already plenty.
And no need for a special pouch, even the tinder is just stuffed in the backpack. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I stand corrected, and I will admit my mistake. I collect information from various sources so this must have came from a source I shouldnt have trusted. In fact, I have been doing research on arctic tribes so I knew I was wrong not so long after I wrote it, but work has kept me too busy to respond.

Still, humidity was just a single argument - you have yet to dispute my comment about the outside temperatures. Part of the reason why primitive firemaking methods are often associated with tropical tribes is that because of high outside temperatures and dried wood, this method is easier to create because the outside temperatures are not actively combating your attempts to heat up the coal powder you made to a smouldering point - when the temperatures are below zero, the surrounding cold quickly absorbs the heat created by friction. Hence why you simply get black powder, and hot stick but thats it. It may seem that you can get the stick hot enough faster then it cools down, and someone might, but it would be much more physically exhausting, and who knows if it would even be possible (on the other hand, doing it in tropical weather means the person sweats a lot, but that is still better then not being fast enough to get it to the right temperature).

During my research I have come across history experts reddit where they discussed the firemaking of Inuits, specifically how inuits lit their kudlaks (basically an animal fat lantern). There were two fighting opinions, much like in this situation - what method was used? Some said it was bow and drill because bow and drill is a method typical for all the tribes that came to America, others claim that they only used pyrites to create sparks. I believe the other theory - there is no lack of mineral resources up there but wood is rare, in a form of driftwood, or at most some small bushes. And they would need something for a tinder, and especially the friction fire sits a lot on the quality of the tinder used. I can imagine a well placed spark would, however, ignite the fat if in a very thin layer. Written evidence mentions both, but there is more solid description of how they collected the "fire stone" and used it instead).

There are several methods of fire making typical for arctic (hand pumps for example), but as far as I can tell, for it to have a decent chance at success, you need to be indoors. Which is something i can get behind. Indoors version of firemaking compared to "outdoors" glass method. Even the temperature inside is a bit more reasonable - if the insides are about -4 degree Celsius and outside -30, the first one is more likely manageable. And the handpump might be a better choice to the Bow and drill - because it needs to be crafted (on a bench, needs to be carved), but is more sturdy in the end, and takes more time to create. So game balance wise, I think it is better choice. Resources would be somewhat similar - some sticks, some cure gut for the line, and maybe a cured rabbit hide for a handle (or just the line, they also used leather lines quite often).

On 25. 8. 2017 at 7:19 AM, Thrasador said:

I have no idea what the heck  @Mroz4k is talking about there....my clothes have NEVER gotten wet in ANY playthrough unless it was snowing out to some degree, or I fell through the ice. The one exception to this is walking on some bodies of ice.....specifically the ice in the middle of FM, your boots and socks will eventually get wet and then frozen from just walking over the ice. I believed they had intended to add this to all ice, but it typically doesn't happen to me with the ice lake in ML, or the ice in CH. Unless they changed it recently in Wintermute. I haven't started a new Sandbox since the Story came out....

That being said, again my clothes have NEVER gotten wet unless it was lightly snowing outside, or worse than lightly snowing...or I fell through weak ice and into water....

I suppose the real reason they do is physical excersise then. I know for a fact that the inner layers somehow get wet over time, but as far as clothes go, the outer layer gets wet quicker - which is why sometimes it is worth changing your outer clothes for inner ones. If it is no air humidity like I thought, it must be physical excercise of the player (the more you move and tired you get, the more your clothes get wet) but this is not often a big issue as the sun can easily nullify this. Or maybe I am just not paying attention to small snows here and there, I dont consider that weather at all dangerous so that might be why (though I am always mindful of how wet my clothes are since I have gotten a frostbite by accident by keeping frozen boots on and attempting to harvest a cedar limb). As far as falling through ice, that will instantly put all your clothes from waist down as "100% wet", but that was never questioned. As far as clothes, getting wet - they all get wet overtime when walking, whether walking on ice or snow, just walking makes them wet. I have also learned to carry a spare of socks (and gloves) in my backpack, sometimes it is better to take them off and wear just socks. But socks on their own get wet pretty soon just by walking (obviously). On interloper I even often carried a spare of boots, but I think the reason why the clothes get so wet there is because it is snowing almost constantly in that mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I suppose the real reason they do is physical excersise then. I know for a fact that the inner layers somehow get wet over time, but as far as clothes go, the outer layer gets wet quicker - which is why sometimes it is worth changing your outer clothes for inner ones. If it is no air humidity like I thought, it must be physical excercise of the player (the more you move and tired you get, the more your clothes get wet) but this is not often a big issue as the sun can easily nullify this. Or maybe I am just not paying attention to small snows here and there, I dont consider that weather at all dangerous so that might be why (though I am always mindful of how wet my clothes are since I have gotten a frostbite by accident by keeping frozen boots on and attempting to harvest a cedar limb). As far as falling through ice, that will instantly put all your clothes from waist down as "100% wet", but that was never questioned. As far as clothes, getting wet - they all get wet overtime when walking, whether walking on ice or snow, just walking makes them wet. I have also learned to carry a spare of socks (and gloves) in my backpack, sometimes it is better to take them off and wear just socks. But socks on their own get wet pretty soon just by walking (obviously). On interloper I even often carried a spare of boots, but I think the reason why the clothes get so wet there is because it is snowing almost constantly in that mode.

If it's precipitating to any degree out, yes the outer layer gets drenched first....then the inner layer. That's why if your clothes have varried waterproof percentages, it best to put the higher percentages on the outside....because they get soaked more slowly. Swapping them like you do is probably a good way to extend how long you have until they are soaked through and start freezing....especially if you are planning on getting to shelter soon.....however swapping the clothes around may have also added to the confusion as to how they got wet....

Like I said FM is one of the most aggravating maps due to shoes and socks rapidly becoming wet just by walking over the ice on that map, even if it ISN'T snowing out.

If you want a confirmation of that one of the episodes Spoony posted in the forums was him getting frostbite on his toe from walking around the ice in FM and then going to sleep without drying his frozen socks and boots first. His socks and boots being the ONLY thing frozen. He was confused as to how they got like that in the first place.....but I knew, because it was happening to me too from walking around the ice there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

During my research I have come across history experts reddit where they discussed the firemaking of Inuits, specifically how inuits lit their kudlaks (basically an animal fat lantern). There were two fighting opinions, much like in this situation - what method was used? Some said it was bow and drill because bow and drill is a method typical for all the tribes that came to America, others claim that they only used pyrites to create sparks.

This is a fine example of what always amuses me about so-called "history experts"..  rather than accept the word of what those who actually observed the process have to say on the matter, they'd prefer to argue over various other possibilities, because clearly, people way back in 1913 can't be trusted to report accurately on what they saw:

On 8/23/2017 at 10:06 AM, PleXD said:

 James WHITE, 1913 - Handbook of Indians of Canada on pages 165-167 talks about fire-making. 

Here is a quote 

This is the simplest and most widely diffused type of fire-generating apparatus known to uncivilized man. Among the Eskimo and some other tribes the simple two-piece fire drill became a machine by the use of a hand or mouth rest containing a stone, bone, or wood socket for the upper end of the drill, and a cord with two handles or string on a bow for revolving the drill.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JAFO

Though there is some wood in the area where southern inuits live, the northern ones dont have access to anything more then certain bushes such as white arctic mountain heather, for example. It is good to remember that not all tribes were the same, in fact certain inuit factions would use fire friction as well because they lived in forested areas, but these factions wouldnt use kudliks for heat and fire, they would use regular campfires as wood fuel was readily available. It more depends on what access to their resources were. Perhaps they traded with the northernmost inuit which could bring lumber up there, but I think the heather and other bushes were more likely used for fires if not kudliks.

And funny you should mention that source because that source was quoted as well, a lot. Now, if you read more then that particular quote, you would also read about the use of pyrites and flints, which were predecessors to flint and steel. Albeit it is thought that this method was not originaly used by the tribes when they came to America over the Siberian pass, back then it was still friction fire. Use of pyrite might have been taught from the scandinavians who entered the region sometimes in early Middle Ages. This part is written on the page of 165 of the source you quoted. But, this is a 1913 reproduction of a text originally written in 1907 by Bureau of American Ethnology, at least according to this canadian university.

The text you called calls Inuits Eskimos, but I suppose that is not really that important in the range of things - the more important quote I see is this one:
Quote I am more interested in:
Two methods of making fire were in use among the American ab­origines at the time of the discovery. The first method, by flint-and-pyrites (the progenitor of flint-and-steel), was practised by the [Inuit] and by the Athapascan and Algonquian tribes ranging across the continent from Stikine r. in British Columbia to Newfound­land and around the entire Arctic coast, and also throughout New England; as well as by the tribes of the N. Pacific coast. The infer­ence is that this method of fire-making at one time was general in this area, but the observations on which its distribution is based are from widely separated localities in which it is invariably used in connection with fire-making by wood friction. It appears probable that flint-and-pyrites, in view of its distribution in northern Europe , was introduced into America through Scandinavian contact, or is accultural either from Europe or Asia . The flint-and-steel is clearly an introduction of recent times.

I also remember reading up a czech book on mammoth hunters of the Czech lands, and while it was a "story" it was based on historical evidence. In there, the tribe carried their fire around everywhere, and at times, when it went out, they suffered a great deal because of it. At one point, however, they found pyrite and knew it was a stone that can "give fire". The story itself ended at point where the main hero of the story, a young boy-grown to man comes across the "fire by friction" discovery when he is using a small bow and stick to drill holes into his leather tunic for stick-buttons. The story is of course made up, but inspired by archeological discoveries and known facts of the paleolitical society back from 1918 when this book was finished. Mammoth Hunters by Eduard Štorch

Point I am trying to make here, connecting them together, is that as far as "discoveries" go, the fire through flint-and-pyrite is older method of fire making than "friction fire". At least that will be my assumption based on what I have read so far. Pretty sure I even learned this in history classes all those years ago. 
It make sense, if you think about it - it is more likely that the paleontical people were hitting rocks against each other and happened to pick up a pyrite somewhere long before they tried rubbing sticks together so intensively they would make fire through friction. However, eventually they switch over to friction fire, because even if it is harder to make fire this way, all they need for it is readily available dry wood, instead of having to search for a specific rock like pyrite, especially since they had very little idea of what mining is about.

Back to the game: This is why I still consider Flint and Steel a way to go rather then friction fire. Even though it seems that friction fire is not as difficult as I thought it would be in arctic conditions (still want to try it myself when winter comes :D) I would argue that such a feat would be beyond the capacities of general man/woman. Experience of someone who was born and trained a skill from young age because it was neccesary for their survival is not something you can learn very quickly. 

If the friction fire comes to the game, it should either be an indoor only option, or it needs to be performed in complete still wind and have a very low chance of fire creation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the book by James White and the quote because it was conveniently already written out for me and I was only posting to point out (as the claim was it was impossible) that is was possible from a historical view point.

However if you want a more in depth look try this Fire making Apparatus, Report of the national museum 1888 specifically pages 555 through to 571 which talks about tribes in Greenland, North Canada and Alaska (and conveniently it talks about Flint and steel/pyrites on page 571 onwards). 

On 8/27/2017 at 3:03 AM, Mroz4k said:

Still, humidity was just a single argument - you have yet to dispute my comment about the outside temperatures. Part of the reason why primitive firemaking methods are often associated with tropical tribes is that because of high outside temperatures and dried wood, this method is easier to create because the outside temperatures are not actively combating your attempts to heat up the coal powder you made to a smouldering point - when the temperatures are below zero, the surrounding cold quickly absorbs the heat created by friction. Hence why you simply get black powder, and hot stick but thats it. It may seem that you can get the stick hot enough faster then it cools down, and someone might, but it would be much more physically exhausting, and who knows if it would even be possible (on the other hand, doing it in tropical weather means the person sweats a lot, but that is still better then not being fast enough to get it to the right temperature).

I am not disputing that cold makes it harder however if you take a look at the pages I posted above (there is a good diagram on page 561) its about the eskimo having a mouth piece that they can assert downward pressure with. More down ward pressure with more spin creates more friction and heat and possible that this prevented any issue of cold air acting against it. There is also mention that moss was sometimes used directly at the base. This too would act an an insulator. 

14 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

 

Point I am trying to make here, connecting them together, is that as far as "discoveries" go, the fire through flint-and-pyrite is older method of fire making than "friction fire". At least that will be my assumption based on what I have read so far. Pretty sure I even learned this in history classes all those years ago. 
It make sense, if you think about it - it is more likely that the paleontical people were hitting rocks against each other and happened to pick up a pyrite somewhere long before they tried rubbing sticks together so intensively they would make fire through friction. However, eventually they switch over to friction fire, because even if it is harder to make fire this way, all they need for it is readily available dry wood, instead of having to search for a specific rock like pyrite, especially since they had very little idea of what mining is about.

Back to the game: This is why I still consider Flint and Steel a way to go rather then friction fire. Even though it seems that friction fire is not as difficult as I thought it would be in arctic conditions (still want to try it myself when winter comes :D) I would argue that such a feat would be beyond the capacities of general man/woman. Experience of someone who was born and trained a skill from young age because it was neccesary for their survival is not something you can learn very quickly. 

I am not disputing that it is possibly an older method and far easier. I was just pointing out that it was possible to do.  

Back to the game: I believe the Firestriker is the in game method of flint and steel. But it would be good to have another method that can be crafted so that when all options run out you can craft something instead of relying on the magnifying glass.     

I am also happy to have it only cave/indoor/fishing hut use only.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PleXD said:

Back to the game: I believe the Firestriker is the in game method of flint and steel. But it would be good to have another method that can be crafted so that when all options run out you can craft something instead of relying on the magnifying glass.     

I am also happy to have it only cave/indoor/fishing hut use only.

 

I was going to agree with you all the way up to the point you made about firestarters.

This is a firestarter:
AuroraBlkGrp500.jpg

This is a flint and steel:
flint-and-steel.jpg
Those two things are something entirely different. While they both work on the same principle, they are so often mistaken for each other despite being universally very different.

Firestrikers are new age form of fire starting tool, made out of composite of iron and magnesium which will scrape off in big chunks, creating big sparks which have up to 3000 degrees temperature. It is basically thermite in your hands, but only sparks. This is why it is so incredibly easy to make fires using them.

As opposed to flint and steel, which is rather old method of fire making, and utilizes pure carbon steel instead of the iron-magnesium composites. It makes smaller sparks which have maybe 1000 degrees temperature. Both work on the same method but are ultimatedly very different things, mostly because even a complete beginner can make fire with a firestarter, but using flint and steel takes some practise as it is more difficult.

I still dont really like friction fire in TLD, unless it has some massive drawbacks, like only indoor/or no air blowing kind of firestarting method which takes a lot longer to make fire then the magnifying glass. I agree that natives are capable of using it even in low temperatures, but just like with rifle shooting in the game, I dont think this is a skill the survivor who was an ordinary civilized man/woman once can learn just by building more and more fires. Just like firing guns more and more wont teach him/her how to shoot from a farther distance, because they were not a military marksman beforehand, only a laic taught through practise, surviving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2017 at 3:32 AM, Mroz4k said:

There should be no doubt now that flint and steel fire is possible in arctic, albeit very difficult, whereas friction fire is impossible to do.

 

If you spend time outdoors in TLD, your clothes will keep getting wet, they just get wet faster if it starts snowing. Feel free to test it, but note that sunny weather actually dries your clothes. If it is not sunny, but not snowy either, in time you will get wet clothes regardless - the moisture rises up but very slowly, faster on more difficult modes.
Besides, I was not really taking about the TLD weather system, as much as I was talking about the real life situation. TLD is mostly built on reality, and I was trying to prove my point that fire friction methods should not appear in the game, because they would not be realistic in that situation in real life.

For someone who knows a decent amount about fires and firemaking, the fact that TLD would allow for friction fire in arctic conditions would be rather immersion breaking.

Take it from someone who lives in Northern Alberta (Close to the NorthWest territories), the climate here is not humid. We're well above sea level, the air is almost always dry. People install humidifiers in their homes because of how dry it is here. There is no moisture rising up from the ground to soak your clothes, that is just added to the game to help give substance. Realistically people get wet because they play in the snow and it melts around them, are wearing snow shoes that kick snow up at their legs, or finally the "Spring time" style of snow arrives which is normally quite wet and not powdery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've added my two cents, if this was to be add

On 8/17/2017 at 1:39 AM, StrayCat said:

That could be a good idea (posted many times, but well...). Maybe the features should be :

  • Needs 1 rock, 3 sticks, and 1 cured gut to craft the firestarting kit
  • High calorie consumption per use
  • Degrades 5-10% per use
  • Low fire starting probability, something like 10-20% (that drops dramatically in bad weather)
  • Long time needed to start a fire

This could be balanced : you no longer have any matches ? You're not totally out of the game, but you better have calories to burn. This could work as a last-chance item.

I would add level 5 starting ability to that list too, you shouldn't be able to do this without being a fire master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

Those two things are something entirely different. While they both work on the same principle, they are so often mistaken for each other despite being universally very different.

Firestrikers are new age form of fire starting tool, made out of composite of iron and magnesium which will scrape off in big chunks, creating big sparks which have up to 3000 degrees temperature. It is basically thermite in your hands, but only sparks. This is why it is so incredibly easy to make fires using them.

As opposed to flint and steel, which is rather old method of fire making, and utilizes pure carbon steel instead of the iron-magnesium composites. It makes smaller sparks which have maybe 1000 degrees temperature. Both work on the same method but are ultimatedly very different things, mostly because even a complete beginner can make fire with a firestarter, but using flint and steel takes some practise as it is more difficult.

thanks for pointing that out. Having never used a firestriker I assumed it was the same. 

My interest in this is having something you can craft/find so that when you run out of matches in Interloper you do not have to either keep a fire going 24/7 (meaning you cannot leave that base) or have to wait for a sunny day to make a fire. 

14 hours ago, Mroz4k said:

I still dont really like friction fire in TLD, unless it has some massive drawbacks, like only indoor/or no air blowing kind of firestarting method which takes a lot longer to make fire then the magnifying glass. I agree that natives are capable of using it even in low temperatures, but just like with rifle shooting in the game, I dont think this is a skill the survivor who was an ordinary civilized man/woman once can learn just by building more and more fires. Just like firing guns more and more wont teach him/her how to shoot from a farther distance, because they were not a military marksman beforehand, only a laic taught through practise, surviving. 

I am happy for their to be drawbacks although I am I do not entirely agree with your last statement here as I think people can learn if they need to. Plus there are books in the survivor side of the game.

Some of the restrictions can be after after reading 2 fire books some of the random stones that are lying around turn into usable form of pyrites that you can make a spark out of. After reading 3-4 fire books you learn the crafting recipe for friction fire. (this means your fire skill is going to be fairly high anyway before you even learn the recipe.)

In turn this would also make books worth reading and holding onto. you could use this method across all skills and crafting items (ie need to read a sewing book before you know how to make rabbit mitts etc) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a renewable fire source as well. Hence, flint and steel. If an ordinary person can smith scrap metal into an improvised knife and hatchet, or arrowheads, they should be able to craft the flint and steel as well. It really is nothing more then long steel spike that is bent in two places to make it more circular and easier to hold in hands. 

We already have stones in the game. Might as well give them a harvesting ability to turn them into flint, most people think that flint is the only stone that works with Flint and steel, but truth is that every stone which has a hardness of certain level can be used instead - people use quartz a lot for example. If the stone you have can be cracked into sharp, edged shards, it is a stone you can make work with the steel.

In time, the steel would get shaved down, but it would be rather durable form of fire making, one which is nowhere near as difficult as friction fire, and it can be crafted on a smithy - that adds an interesting twist to the game by making the forge more useful and providing yet another challenge for people to use the forge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself and probably many, many, others have requested flint be added to the game. Not only for fires....smashing rocks against flint to try to chip away at a sharp edge would open up primitive stone tool craft as another option before forging.....

This would possibly allow flint arrowheads, and a flint knife edge with a cloth or leather wrapped handle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now