So confused why?
A short lived type of reactor design relied on heating up coolant cells (or vents for tighter timings) in an EU reactor then cooling them down in a fluid reactor to effectively double the energy production. In stopping that, damaged reactor components will now claim to not be usable in a fluid reactor once damaged. Providing they're not taken out they will actually work fine (if you do you will have to put them in an EU reactor to cool back down).
Really they should mark the reactor they were heated up in, thus only ones heated within an EU reactor would have the tooltip, but alas the check is more basic than that.
Thank you Chocohead,
Is there anyways you could help me figure this out a bit more?
So is it actually normal to damage vents in a fluid reactor, or am i supposed to have the an eu reactor then the fluid reactor combination to use that vent.
And if not is there a way not to damage the vents, or even what are best vents to use for fluid reactors?
Based on my research i think that using heat vents and advanced heat vents along with heat exchanger advanced exchanger and component exchangers that are used to output hu.
I am trying to make save 200hu fluid reactor that i could leave with pulsed cycles to get me some plutonium.
It is totally normal for the vents to take damage whilst running, the only concerns are ever if they take damage faster than they can cool down again (which applies to anything in a reactor). For uranium reactors all the vents can be suitable, MOX ones tend to avoid overclocked ones however as they draw more heat than they can cool which is no good when the hull heat is high.
So essentially this doesnt effect the heat unit production:Quote
So venting of any kind is just to make sure the reactor runs smoothly.
I noticed that if you don't have any vents heat units will not generate, i have not noticed any change using component heat vent or tested reactor heat vent or over-clocked.
My concern is that if i use those hu will not produce because of descriptions like this:Quote
The Overclocked Heat Vent removes heat from itself and from the reactor hull.
Quite the opposite, the HU production is entirely dependent on vents. Compared to an EU reactor where the power comes from the EU rods being ticked, fluid reactors determine the fluid heating from how much heat the vents cool by.
For an EU reactor the vents are just there to cool it down, you can cope quite happily without them if you using something like a 10k cooling cell to absorb the heat instead. A fluid reactor however does nothing if a coolant cell absorbs all the heat, the vents are key to the design for it to actually produce anything.
The descriptions of reactor components is complicated somewhat from the difference in behaviour, as well as the difference between the reactor's heat and HU output that is often not clear. Many of them are from long before fluid reactors were even conceived too, although normally they are just potentially confusing rather than necessarily wrong.
Ah I see, so a vent is essential for heat unit production. And all vents are qualified for heat unit production I assume. essentially its ok to remove heat as long it is by a vent then. Is ic2 open source? if it is it probably gonna blow my mind to point ill never want to read code again but it could be helpful.
A short lived type of reactor design relied on heating up coolant cells (or vents for tighter timings) in an EU reactor then cooling them down in a fluid reactor to effectively double the energy production. In stopping that, damaged reactor components will now claim to not be usable in a fluid reactor once damaged.
Since I don't think it is necessary to create a new topic for posting my ideas about the type of reactor that Chocohead mentioned, I'll post my ideas about this reactor here.
To my knowledge, the type of reactor that Chocohead mentioned is still possible, just with more manual work. The player can break the pressure vessel of a fluid reactor, turning the fluid reactor into a EU reactor, thus being able to put the heated coolant cell in, and then repair the broken pressure vessel to get a heated coolant cell in a fluid reactor and generate double the energy. I can't think of a simple way to fix that though.
I think this type of reactor is quite balanced overall. Although this type of reactor can produce more energy per fuel rod, it is much more expensive than a conventional one and meant to be used in late game to save precious uranium/plutonium when not duplicating uranium/plutonium via uum (I'm not sure if I got that right). As you know, using this type of reactor requires an eu reactor, at least 1 fluid reactor (perhaps 3-4 to dissipate the heat in time), a bunch of things associated with the fluid reactor, and an optional logistics system to transport the coolant cells around automatically. Therefore, it is only achievable in mid-late game when resources are plenty enough. As a consequence of high power generation by using mutiple reactors and getting the components in and out of the reactors in time, this type of reactor is quite risky since it is much more likely to lose a component and any one reactor meltdown will cause devastating destruction. Also, designing such a fully automatic safe-running reactor complex is a difficult and interesting challenge, too. I'm curious why they are removed and I hope they can be re-implemented.