A list of good reactor designs (IC² v1.103 and earlier)


  • Rick is on vacation. Get him passinglurker ! Get him !


    Hope you don't mind that I'm not passinglurker, but:


    [...]Rules:
    -No useless eff 1, low eu/cost etc.[...]

  • Rick is on vacation. Get him passinglurker ! Get him ! .


    muahahahah... excellent
    Raufal your design will not make the list the reasons why will be highlighted by red and special emotes like this :cursing::cursing::cursing: also don't take what i say personally but no one is reading this threads rules so hanging the criminals at the entrance and saying "n00bs beware" is really the only option we have left.


    and finally raGan has 1up'ed you
    *nice mode on*
    sorry for being harsh but if you want to avoid flame read the rules i for one am willing to give you a second chance(but no more reactors in this thread from you for a while ok)
    WELCOME TO THE FORUMS :D:D:D

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

  • I'm not going to shout cause I already torched a guy on this page, but OriginalPhee did you perchance read all of the first post or the last 10+ pages of guys who's first post is posting a reactor? this isn't a development thread this is where reactors go after the tweaking and discussion is done. I for one don't think its list quality because because 2 eff is pretty bad for a reactor this big (heck there is a mk1 reactor that's half the size and gets 2.33 eff) simply put i could just take ricks starter reactor design and build 3 of them for the same cost. your design also makes the common mistake of checker boarding the HD's and cooling cells no reactor on the list does that. oh and if you can do me a favor tell your friends not to make the same mistakes you have just made.


    TL;DR: your reactor isn't good enough don't post another reactor in this thread again till you have a reactor that is considered legit by people other than your self, and warn your friends

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    The post was edited 1 time, last by passinglurker ().

  • I've played IC2 not to long for gather enought resources for building my own reactor right now (and testing it) but probably this day come soon, so I am glad to got find this site with some of useful projects and wonderful tool for safe experiments. I don't know really I should post my design already (without checking it when it don't working yet), but i wish to hear something wise first before I made any mistake.


    For clarify, after i've study some of yours designs, then I wanted develop it by myself (necessarily). For me this should be something safe enought for first run, provide good total power and should has heavy duty usage, because I don't wont to supervise it all the time ;p


    And it is:
    Mark II-9 with total power 20M EU and efficiency 92,7/100 EU/t, cooling time is 13 min


    As you can see:
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…troiup1drt7st33p9nsh6w85c

  • Your reactor is not that bad, but as you may have noticed, there is already one that does exactly the same on the list. There is no reason to use your reactor instead of the Cake's one and that makes your post here useless. If you want to discuss your design or ask for improvement, create a new topic.
    BTW only small change in your design can make it almost as good as the one on the list. (hint)

  • Ok, thank you for a clue. I am sure I did seen it before when I had stared created my one, and when I've trying do this by myself my attempt was very similar at the way of thinking (but not optimal). I can see now how the design may evolve to the perfect one, and how a small difference could make big gap between projects. But I am glad with my first attempt who was so close to the perfect Cake's reactor (I watching projects at forum since today only :p) - then I sorry for messing forum - I just was to exciting to noticed all details when I compared the results.


    Thanks again :)

  • oh...


    my...


    god...


    leave LEAVE AND NEVER COME BACK!!! welcome to the forums, but the crime you have committed here today is so atrocious if you say another word in the nuclear engineering subforum I will rip you a new one so big you will be split in two :cursing:


    is this a joke? are you trying to troll us? I mean really how can you make a worse reactor!? how can you make a worse post!? how can you post something so contrary to the rules of this thread in ignorance!?!? you can't have just read the thread title and assumed you knew what to do it even says to read the first post! did you skip to the last page with out reading it!? did you not see the n00b that i hanged and gutted myself with the sign that says "first time posters beware!"?


    *rages to hard and turns in to godzilla-hulk-cloverfield*
    *destroys Tokyo*

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

  • Well, if he's trolling, it's working. You've all taken the bait and bitten hard....


    The idea that this is a thread of good reactor designs seems just about dead. You may as well let people express their creativity in peace.


    Actually I've got a reactor design which is even better. By the rules it's allowed, because it's not an efficiency 1 reactor.


    For best results, plant it right in the middle of your base, and perhaps even apply a redstone signal to it, just to be on the safe side. Then wait for a really long time.


    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…20bxiol6zm2coxp3k2kwqwv7k

    The post was edited 3 times, last by DuncanS ().

  • "No useless eff 1, low eu/cost"
    Your reactor's eu/cost is 0 which makes it useless. Sorry.

    Absolutely. In fact, its most interesting feature, other than that it generates no power at all, and doesn't enrich any of the isotope cells in it, is that it nevertheless will eventually explode, even if you apply a redstone current to it.

  • yeah i guess your right i should stop playing with fire in the n00b spawning ground

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

  • there should be a cut off date to get on the list otherwise people will intentionally spam bad designs to get on the list

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

  • I thought that this designs (in first post) are at the peek of efficiency, but then I realized there is trivial improvement to eff 2,33 mk1 design, which gets rid of this useless reactor plating ;). http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…8g2me6s69yvc2od1my1isu2bk . It's always 4 copper 1 tin 1 iron 1 bronze less.


    good job :thumbsup:

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"