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

Quote from Blood Asp

The overlocking is based on the machines inside, not on the energy hatch. So to overclock them, use MV or HV electrolyzer.

A energy hatch accepts 2 amp. You can allways take higher tier hatches instead of more, so a single one is enough. using multiple is also fine. Usually the energ hash sould be 2 tiers higher than the machines inside. so IV machines need an ZPM energy hatch.

I guess my confusion is then why is a processing array with 16 LV electrolyzers and an EV hatch running like it's filled with MV electrolyzers. Do I need a 1x battery buffer next to the energy hatch?

Quote from Blood Asp

Maybe the GT recipe optimization works here? If input/output and EU/t can be devided by 2 it does that automaticly. That would result in half/quater/whatever runtime, but the output per cycle also would lower.

It's the H20 to H2 + O recipe so it's 20 EU/t (with 3000 H20 in, 2000 H out, 1000 O out over 1500 ticks). I expect 426.67 mB/s on average out of a single processing array but get 238.75 mB/s. I haven't done any measurement of the amount of water coming in or EU consumed but there are batteries for consistent EU and a surplus of water.

Quote from Blood Asp

The input hatches are big enough? 16*3000L = 48.000L at once. That is at last IV input hatch. With multiple PAs using the same input hatch it likely would be impossible to work right.

I'm using LuV hatches (56 buckets) shared 4 way. I guess that isn't big enough for either input or output...
Thanks.

Using 2x MV per array output now (48 B total). 4 PAs share 5 EV input hatches (200 B total, 50 B per). I'll get back with more science.

Also I'm noticing some weird RS cover behavior I really can't explain. I'll make on RS TX out, put a lever on it, then observe the output with several RS RX out covers. Some covers just refuse to act as the receiver. I'm fairly certain the channel is clear and have double checked that all covers are set to the correct frequency.

Don't use common input hatches. Outputs may be common, but not input.

Quote from Sapient

Don't use common input hatches. Outputs may be common, but not input.

What's the distinction between input and output hatches? Also all RX are on MV output hatches. The TX was on another face of one of the output hatches but I moved it to a pipe because of weirdness. I'll try moving it to a hull instead.

MV hull has the same behavior. Same with an EV battery buffer.

Also all MV output hatches also have a pump on them if that matters.

Quote from willis936

What's the distinction between input and output hatches?

48 buckets of water are consuming at once. In next tick for another PR there are not enough water, so he waits for at least 3 buckets and start processing (only several electrolyzers of 16) and so on.
If you want to be sure all 16 electrolyzers works you need to have enough water in input hatch for each one of them.
Output can be split between several hatches. Input works only from one per cycle.

Quote from Sapient

48 buckets of water are consuming at once. In next tick for another PR there are not enough water, so he waits for at least 3 buckets and start processing (only 1 electrolyzer of 16) and so on.
If you want to be sure all 16 electrolyzers works you need to have enough water in input hatch for each one of them.
Output can be split between several hatches. Input works only from one per cycle.

Oh I thought you were talking about the RS stuff.

Right now I have 2 MV output dedicated to each machine (it was easiest to retrofit) and 8x 2-way shared and 2x 4-way shared MV input hatches. I figured it all comes out in the wash as long as water production is fast enough and there are no plumbing problems. If the individual PAs have to wait and stagger themselves then does that present a problem? Does the PA start regardless of how much input is present?

Quote from willis936

Does the PA start regardless of how much input is present?

It starts working if at least one of containing machine can work. In case of water electrolysis at least 3 buckets of water required to start. It will use energy only for 1 machine and produce production from one.

Quote from Sapient

It starts working if at least one of containing machine can work. In case of water electrolysis at least 3 buckets of water required to start. It will use energy only for 1 machine and produce production from one.

Man this 75 second recipe is busting my balls. 96 buckets between two PAs? I'm not made of chrome. I can't afford many more hatches on these puppies either in terms of minimum tsteel casings.

Also wouldn't that "GT recipe optimization" thing overcome this issue? Anyways by changing to 5x HV output per 4 arrays and an IV+LV hull per single array it seems to be working properly. Now if only I could figure out why the RS covers are misbehaving...

Found a winner. LV machine hull is working. Very strange how the RS covers are so picky...

Does anyone know if the fluid regulator can be used to issue amounts only in the size of the output? For instance if I want to be able to turn D+T fusion off with a lever I need to make sure that D and T are only ever inserted in multiples of 16 mB. A simple shutter + machine controller is not sufficient. Would a fluid regulator + shutter + machine controller work?

Hey Bloody I was making a update video today and noticed that there is no sign of nylon in NEI. also there is tools that can be recycled made from epoxid but there is no recipe to create anything past plates.ingots/dusts.

Also thanks for nerfing the hell outta my carbon rotors, make iridium harder to make and require it for the screws all in one update.

The update does look great and thanks again for all the hard work man.

Quote

something had to be done against wind energy

You need to increase the energy output from a nuclear reactor and change the recipe for a windmill (for example to use the MV motor from
gretech).

@BllodAsp

It is well needed to have more beefed EU Production from nuclear reactors.

Ideas:
Fuel should last much longer while decreasing efficiency over time. I think something like:
1 fuel rod should produce enough heat for running a Nuclear reactor two RL weeks at full output.
Past two weeks, output shall decrease (halve every 7 days)

I'd also add, depleted nuclear fuel should require disposal infrastructure:
- Either process depleted fuel for by-products or re-enriching
- Either secure depleted fuel into radiation proof containers (special machine blocks crafted from depleted fuel into recipe)
- Depleted fuel safes would tick check for surrounding water on at least 4 sides or it will start to build up internal heat, eventually expload and release radiations and tiny dusts of radioactive material dust in a wide radius.

Alternate recycling of depleted material would be into a recycler with very high scrap or scrapbox yeld.

Finally, it would be a good time to add a radioactive biome.

Quote

Boosting nuclear output

I think it should be added only for fluid type nuclear reactor.

Quote

Fuel should last much longer

And I agree that need to increase the livetime of fuel rods. Now the fuel burns out too fast and with a large number of reactors replacement fuel annoying, so windmill looks better (livetime of windmill rotor 24 hours).