[GregTech-5][1.7.10-FORGE-1355+][Unofficial but approved Port][Stable] Even GT5 Experimental is slowly getting stable.

Oh I've seen the amount in the hatch. That's what I've been monitoring. Usually it's almost full when there's a SHS surplus and empty when there's a defecit. I use fluid regulators to pull 750 mB/t from each of 4 output hatches to total 60 B/s. I lower the HC input until I see the output hatch values decrease from max (implying a SHS defecit) then raise the HC input slowly until the output hatch's internal storage doesn't move. If I increase the HC input the output hatch will start to fill. If I lower it the output hatch will empty. This is why I'm confident in my observation.

I don't go to the End Till I need iridium later in the game, it is my way of nerfing flight, I don't make a jetpack till I go to the end.

Quote from willis936

Oh I've seen the amount in the hatch. That's what I've been monitoring. Usually it's almost full when there's a SHS surplus and empty when there's a defecit. I use fluid regulators to pull 750 mB/t from each of 4 output hatches to total 60 B/s. I lower the HC input until I see the output hatch values decrease from max (implying a SHS defecit) then raise the HC input slowly until the output hatch's internal storage doesn't move. If I increase the HC input the output hatch will start to fill. If I lower it the output hatch will empty. This is why I'm confident in my observation.

Yep, that's the spot.

When you mouseover it while its "empty" though you'll see a value (so long as its generating steam). I'm confident in your observation too, I just want more observations. It may provide me information I can use to identify an issue.

Ah that's what I didn't know: the rate is exposed when empty.

Quote from Blood Asp

In GT5 it is just too deep in the core to be simply changed by a config or even making sure it would not break anything.

I know

I've attacked this problem a number of times. Every time I think I have a simple solution, something comes up and bites me in the ass and breaks it.

GT5 really was constructed solidly on the overclocked tiers thing.

Quote from Pyure

GT5 really was constructed solidly on the overclocked tiers thing.

Its sadly, but we should leave with that.

Quote from Pyure

Explain "a balanced way to set things on or off" please? I'm not sure what you're requesting here.

The notion of making it configurable is the only way to make it balanced for a "whole community". Since the hardcore players want stuff like lava nerfed into the ground, and other players want it completely left alone. Is balance finding the middle ground, or trying to give everyone a truly positive experience?

For what its worth, I'm open to leaving it in an extremely friendly configuration by default, and letting people crank up the difficulty themselves if they want to.
I'm also open to looking into different overall mode packages, similar to Forestry, so that you can just change one thing to make a big swathe of changes. But that would be a later change.

Now that is closer to what I would like to see. I disagree with bear on this. I know he hates configuring stuff but, as an operator of two servers, configs are god to me. The ability to configure and toggle even tiny details is integral to managing balance and inter-mod compatability, so whatever is implemented should be highly configureable.

Now as far as the 'detailed' interaction or Tier 2 or whatever we're calling it, i'd like to open a bit of discussion on how to implement each 'piece' of the overarching pollution to do what I suggested in an implementable way, if you'd be willing. I would suggest a logistical flow of how to do them, then you would let me know if that's actually possible or not based on how the code does or doesn't work. Sort of bridge the gap between coder and idea-guy to find what the working compromise is. You've already ellaborated a bit (especially SpawnX) on why Pwater would be problematic to implement, so i'm throwing that back to the drawing board, but I don't see why the other ideas would be difficult if a simple check was added to pollution affected machine. Say, let's isolate one aspect- reduced EU output on oxygen-users when polluted. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to periodically check, say every 1200 ticks, to see if the pollution level is above certain levels and, if so, it sets a flag of 0-5, each 1 being a 20% reduction in EU output. That would be it for solar. For boilers, diesel engines, and small gas turbines, it would divide by 2 so they can still have some useability even in the worst pollution, but still badly effected. I don't see that as being terribly laggy or difficult to implement? Just add a string to check and limit if there, and just on the machines affected by such.
That's one idea, and seems similar to- but more flavorful and machine-specific than- the overarching pollution variable you originally proposed. If you can work that out then i'll continue and we'll see if we can't come up with a way to make it both easy to code and implement as well as nitty-gritty.

Alternative idea:
Toggleable value of 'Pollution Implementation' that can be set to 'Standard' or 'Dynamic', and if dynamic it will use all the configureable 'module' parts of the pollution impacts, such as machine-specific stuff, the water thing when we find a solution we can all agree on, environmental hazards, etc.
This way you can implement the simplified pollution-variable-nerfs-everything originally proposed and have it in and working, then add the dynamic modules and test as they come.

Quote from bear989

is it inappropriate to ask for the gravel, and sand small ores in GT6 be added to GT5u? combing the desert for tiny amounts would be better than nothing at all. Tin can just be such a pain in the ass early on, or even adding the option to use zinc wires in LV machine recipes. I have played GT5 through to HV+ at least 5 times, and except for getting lucky once, I always fight for tin early on.

If I am just a unlucky minority then, ignore this request.

Hey. Hey bro. Bro. Braaah. We have a tin vein on the server. Go mine it. The coords are -833,65,395.

Quote from axlegear

Now as far as the 'detailed' interaction or Tier 2 or whatever we're calling it, i'd like to open a bit of discussion on how to implement each 'piece' of the overarching pollution to do what I suggested in an implementable way, if you'd be willing. I would suggest a logistical flow of how to do them, then you would let me know if that's actually possible or not based on how the code does or doesn't work. Sort of bridge the gap between coder and idea-guy to find what the working compromise is.

Its difficult to discuss Phase 2 in too much detail when we're not 100% sure what the foundation (phase1) is going to look like. Also, as fun as it is, putting the cart ahead of the horse in development is Deadly. With a capital D.

That said, everything below is Phase 1 anyway, so:

Quote from axlegear

I don't see why the other ideas would be difficult if a simple check was added to pollution affected machine. Say, let's isolate one aspect- reduced EU output on oxygen-users when polluted. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to periodically check, say every 1200 ticks, to see if the pollution level is above certain levels and, if so, it sets a flag of 0-5, each 1 being a 20% reduction in EU output. That would be it for solar.

I'm curious, what else did you think we might do here?
The distinction of "oxygen users" vs other machines set aside for now, the rest is identical. If a machine should suffer from air pollution, then every X ticks, we'll check if the pollution level is above certain levels, and if so, we'll see a reduction in output. EU output for generators if it makes sense, but hypothetically also a reduction in output for, say, a bronze blast furnace as well. Hypothetically. If the BBF makes no sense, maybe the EBF. Or a chemical reactor. Or whatever is a sensible victim of air pollution, so long as it can be identified via some sort of rule set.

Quote from axlegear

For boilers, diesel engines, and small gas turbines, it would divide by 2 so they can still have some useability even in the worst pollution, but still badly effected. I don't see that as being terribly laggy or difficult to implement? Just add a string to check and limit if there, and just on the machines affected by such.
That's one idea, and seems similar to- but more flavorful and machine-specific than- the overarching pollution variable you originally proposed. If you can work that out then i'll continue and we'll see if we can't come up with a way to make it both easy to code and implement as well as nitty-gritty.

Again, I'm not sure where you're differing here. Did you think I was going to leave these machines alone, or victimize them too hard, or what?

1) I am aware, that's why I proposed what I did. Making a simple phase 1 so we can begin work on phase 2.

2) I can't figure out what you're asking here? What's the question?

3) Neither, I thought you were going to victimize ALL machines, regardless of sensibility of such. For example, why would an ore washer need clean air? Or a macerator? it makes no sense for those to be affected by air pollution and would just drag everything down to becoming a chore. Players like myself would resent that, as it would be impossible to see it as a logistics problem, but an artificial barrier instead. Think of it this way: it's the difference between shooting a basketball through a hoop from various angles to get better and better at it because it makes you feel good, versus having someone jeer at you and blow at it with an industrial prop fan while telling you that you should already be good enough to compensate and if you do get that good, they just walk away and noone cares.
Logical implementation vs. Annoying implementation.

Perhaps you should simply detail exactly what the envisioned system is? Because at present it seems we're all operating on the belief that it's just a 'pollution variable' which reduces efficiency universally, with the option to avoid using GT at all or shoot for the stars and max tier immediately, and take breaks if this would require longer than pollution allows, lest you be held back with slowdowns anyway?

EDIT: I'm gonna take a break for a while, so i'll check your response later and get back to you.

Quote from axlegear

1) I am aware, that's why I proposed what I did. Making a simple phase 1 so we can begin work on phase 2.

2) I can't figure out what you're asking here? What's the question?

3) Neither, I thought you were going to victimize ALL machines, regardless of sensibility of such. For example, why would an ore washer need clean air? Or a macerator? it makes no sense for those to be affected by air pollution and would just drag everything down to becoming a chore. Players like myself would resent that, as it would be impossible to see it as a logistics problem, but an artificial barrier instead. Think of it this way: it's the difference between shooting a basketball through a hoop from various angles to get better and better at it because it makes you feel good, versus having someone jeer at you and blow at it with an industrial prop fan while telling you that you should already be good enough to compensate and if you do get that good, they just walk away and noone cares.
Logical implementation vs. Annoying implementation.

Display More

2) This is already the design. What did you think I was going to do that was different from what you want?

3)
Can we agree that depending on the engineering of a gizmo, it may or may not be susceptible to outside influences? If we're being utterly frank, the ONLY machines that would be severely impaired by pollution ever are solar and maybe...maybe...anything that depends on an open flame. If we run on THAT specific realism principal, the only purpose pollution would serve here would be as a "cute new toy" that runs alongside GT but doesn't integrate with it.

So instead, in Minecraftia, we have to assume that in addition to blocks floating in midair, we also find that pollution is moderately more interfering than on Earth.

Blanket-victimizing "all" machines during phase 1 is definitely on the table. A target objective would be attempting to define some sort of ruleset that lets us section off machines sensible (such all LV machines are victims but nothing else) then we can do that. It can be as simple as "all blocks that are multiblocks are victimized" or "all blocks that are LV are victimized" or "all blocks that have a fluid tank are victimized", etc etc.

Be advised: going through every machine and adding a bunch of custom pollution logic for individual machines is NOT ON THE TABLE. Blood won't do it. Greg won't do it. I won't do it. Rules are necessary, and that means some machines are going to be affected similar to other machines in ways that aren't 100% logical, and the user just has to deal with it.

Quote from SpwnX

The BBF doesn't make sense in the first place (bronze melting point compared to steel) but that aside, it is something that does burn (char)coal/coke to produce steel, requiring oxygen in its process.
Thus, it would be affected by slowing down the process OR requiring more (char)coal/coke per steel ingot.

EBF is not affected because it does not use air and when you need to reduce something, you use fluid oxygen inputted on a hatch.

Chemical reactors are not affected unless its a recipe that uses air or water. Same goes for distillery, electrolyzers, ore washers, autoclaves and whatever more might use air and/or water.

So it would make a lot of sense for you to ensure these are all disabled in your world. I notice you didn't suggest anything to offset any of these obstacles.

Quote from SpwnX

Now about pollution control:
Check for crops (IC2 crops), plants (tree leaves mostly) and sum them up.
That one value would increase the rate that pollution is dissipated.
That one value is updated once every one or two MC days (20-40 min) to prevent lag. This also might be good to have for any pollution triggered event.

Forward: I realize that you're not necessarily asking me personally to do this, and its just on the table.

I swore by all that is holy that I would not let people offset pollution in the early game by growing plants. Since it would take me weeks to implement it, and I won't use it, I personally won't do it.

If people don't understand that this is fair, and asking me to do it anyway is utterly dickish, they are welcome to bugger themselves with a flagpole. The fact that I don't personally like the idea doesn't make me a bad individual.

Quote from SpwnX

Edit: My idea of Early implementation of pollution: An universal value that will affect everything, air, water and soil, all at once.
Later on those might be separated, with the addition of a 4th variant, radiation.

That sounds about right. The "might be" is critical. There's no specific reason to believe it will happen, but no specific reason to believe it won't.

I think that the simple way of doing is to only affect energy generation.
Hit hard the source, and you will end affecting everything. I think that best way, would be find a way to pollute water, that is the source of for almost every generator. I think that would be good enough.
If you affect both generation and consumption, you will be dealing a double penalty on players, that might be a little hard to balance;

Quote from SpwnX

Thats why we initially defined that only blocks that use water, air or soil are affected.

We definitely have machines that use water, but there are zero machines that use air or soil, with the exception of recipes involving dirt and air (if any).

I justified global machine impacts: machines have moving parts, particulate matter gets into it, blam. Clogged machine. On earth, its a stretch. On minecraftia, its tolerably explicable if we can't come up with anything better. (and, as per above, "machines that use water, air or soil" isn't in and of itself better)

Quote from Drawfox

I think that the simple way of doing is to only affect energy generation.
Hit hard the source, and you will end affecting everything. I think that best way, would be find a way to pollute water, that is the source of for almost every generator. I think that would be good enough.
If you affect both generation and consumption, you will be dealing a double penalty on players, that might be a little hard to balance;

This was the Original Great Design. Nip the problem at the source.

There's a small issue with people generating power from cross-mod sources and importing it in. I'm not a fan of descending to the level of other mods, but at the end of the day, every GT pack has generation from other mods.

I could probably pick and choose a few other-mod machines to victimize via reflection (the RC Steam Turbine comes to mind) but that's no way to git er done.

Quote from SpwnX

Not going all-green but all-tech to remove pollution is also a way that i'm willing to accept.
Pollution can be actively removed with a machine, over time with a considerable cost of energy and lots of disposable air-water filters.

I'm thinking the same thing. Dunno where you think these filters are supposed to go however. Miiiiight work as a machine cover.