Version 1.337 is out!, watch out for them reactor changes ;)

  • I'll probably disable bucket/ice cooling entirely and replace it with a proper addition-block of some sort. Eventually something you can use instead of a chamber, not providing coloumns, but large amounts of cooling.

    Heh I was just looking at the "halved the effectiveness of water buckets" and was like "why do you hate us?" but... since it's just a temporary thing til the real deal shows up, I guess that's ok. :) [You know we can still make our crazy reactors, they just need to be twice as crazy now :)]. Guess it's fair since reactors output twice as much now :)

  • Agree.
    Eloraam is talking about making her engines MUCH more complex. There will be steam production of some sort (I would guess that you could either build a regular boiler that uses fuel or when you tech up enough make it a nuclear boiler or even a fusion boiler) then a maze of pipes and valves and control switches and then turbines connected to generators and then condensors.



    All of it simulated with presumably fun consequences if you use a poor design...


    I think if and when this happens, IC2 should either allow us to disable the IC2 reactor or I guess we as players could nerf the IC2 reactor and regular generators. That would give us an in-game reason to make ELoraam's much more complex contraptions. Just pretend the IC2 reactor is actually a thermal radiosotope generator like the one uses in the Voyage space probes.

  • I'll probably disable bucket/ice cooling entirely and replace it with a proper addition-block of some sort. Eventually something you can use instead of a chamber, not providing coloumns, but large amounts of cooling.

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. (ok, that's enough)


    Please don't. That would kill a whole science branch inside the IC2. There would be no great challenge to accomplish if anyone could just link couple of blocks together and run it efficiently.

  • I actually prefer the idea of a total reactor overhaul.


    The 'core' chamber for the fuel, a series of blocks that form a thermal conductance loop; a steam generator and a 'cooling' block of somekind (which 'pumps' heat from one side to the other). Steam-power would be the 'pressure' differential in heat from hot side to cold side of a component. Insert that other proposal's different steam generator rankings here.


    Actually why not just use 'machine blocks' as the conductance line?

  • I actually prefer the idea of a total reactor overhaul.


    The 'core' chamber for the fuel, a series of blocks that form a thermal conductance loop; a steam generator and a 'cooling' block of somekind (which 'pumps' heat from one side to the other). Steam-power would be the 'pressure' differential in heat from hot side to cold side of a component. Insert that other proposal's different steam generator rankings here.


    Actually why not just use 'machine blocks' as the conductance line?

    Yeah. Why don't we just go back to one-block reactor-uranium-refining thing. You just placed it and enjoyed your energy afterwards. Let everyone have exactly the same thing in their basements.


    EDIT: (^SARCASM - this is not my opinion, stop pms)

  • Well, i am all for more complexity. I would love it if we had to pump water. Cool said water down. Insert said water to reactor core through the use of another set of pumps. Wait for the water to cool the reactor core and turn into steam. Use said steam for a steam generator (a lot more effective than the other types of generators we have) and then needing to cool said steam and store it to remove any radioactive contamination from it. Venting radioactive steam would cause all redstone based circuits in the area to to haywire and kill off any living thing in the area such as animals, mobs and plantlife! (including the player, unless in a radioactive suit)
    Then, depleted uranium cells would need to be extracted by machine (unless the player wants to go into the core and fetch them by hand... Using a radioactive suit which will degrade over time when exposed to radioactive elements or steam etc) and fed into a breeder.
    And there would be nuclear waste products that would have to be put in a storage compartment that is shielded and buried underground. Going in there without a radioactive suit would mean you DIE a horrible death.


    There should be failure rates on all equipment so that if one coolant pump would fail for a moment there needs to be redundancy... Should an simulated earthquake happen there is a chance of radioactive steam leaking from the pipes (which could happen during normal operation too but not on the scale we would see during a quake) which would require a Fukushima hero workforce to clean up.


    Or, just make the whole reactor block and chambers a lot more complex allowing some very interesting new designs to crop up.


    But as it stands now, i don't why buckets where nerfed so bad considering the difficulties involved in making a bucket based CASUC where an ICE based is simply a matter of putting a inlet pipe and feeding it with ice blocks.



    EDIT:


    Oh, and if reactors aren't meant to be CASUC then remove the ability to SUC them like you proposed. Just don't make it "easy mode" please. I don't want to build one out of a few bits and bobs and then be able to leave them to their little thing.
    It should be a complete art form to design a reactor IMHO and to get that extra EU/t would require some extreme tinkering to accomplish the goals.



    water can be pumped which is a huge advantage over icecooling.


    Also eff should be doubled. 2 uran cells making 40 eu/tick should give 4 eff not 2 but reactor planner shows 2.


    How would you make ICE unless you pumped water? The pump can pump water and unlike 1.23 you can now attach a pump to a compressor to make snowballs which you them compress into ice.
    Thus water can be pumped for ice too.


    And efficiency of uranium hasn't been changed. 2 cells still give 2 eff, not 4 and the planner is correct.

  • Quote

    And efficiency of uranium hasn't been changed. 2 cells still give 2 eff, not 4 and the planner is correct.

    Correct, now uranium gives 2 million to 10 million EU / cell ... does this make efficiency even more important now? Discuss.
    And is breeding even more important now?

  • i wonder why ice got buffed and water buckets nerfed.

    Because no one was touching the compressor/snow balls, lol...


    Never really touched nuclear myself, but I also disagree with the disallowing of water/ice for coolant in reactors. Granted, it's created some overpowered designs during it's usage, but the expense/logistics of a CASUC reactor merits the EU output. It's actually quite a challenge to design/setup a reactor where not only you had to funnel in materials faster than a second, but also the ability to have constant resources (even if they are infinite) at a time to keep up with the heat consumption of said designs...

    Would anyone like to try a Slowpoke Tail?! Only 1 Million Yen!


    Quote

    this isn't about arrogance or ego, I have a block that I put a lot of freaking work into


    Every Mod Author, in existence. And yet, you STILL say otherwise.

  • Correct, now uranium gives 2 million to 10 million EU / cell ... does this make efficiency even more important now? Discuss.
    And is breeding even more important now?

    Wrong? Isn't the fuel life unchanged but the output doubled? That would mean double the EU/cell and the "efficiency" number is actually the same as how many million EU you get per uranium stick.

  • Wrong? Isn't the fuel life unchanged but the output doubled? That would mean double the EU/cell and the "efficiency" number is actually the same as how many million EU you get per uranium stick.


    What he meant was that, if you can get twice the amount of EU/t and thus twice the amount of EU's out of a cell then efficiency is also more important. But he forgot about the other two generators (The normal one and Geothermal ones) having been buffed as well.
    Efficiency is:


    Time to find said resources = Value of said resources = energy content of said resources


    It takes just as long as before to find uranium ore and lava and trees... So rarity hasn't changed and neither has the energy content relationship between said resources... Except for bio fuels and such small things, but that only makes uranium ore less valuable in relation to the other type of generator... So if anything, the value of U-Cells has decreased and thus efficiency isn't as important anymore. Instead, EU/t is still quite important so that you can outperform those other generators by a large margin. It just happens that the highest possible EU/t also has the highest possible efficiency but requires you to make a CASUC generator...


    Another way of saying it is, nothing much has changed except you now need less generators, geogenerators and reactors to do the same amount of work as you had to have in 1.23.

  • Wrong? Isn't the fuel life unchanged but the output doubled? That would mean double the EU/cell and the "efficiency" number is actually the same as how many million EU you get per uranium stick.

    The only thing that's changed is the amount of EU / cell (since the output is doubled) some people may want to use a new convention for efficiency where it's the amount (in millions) of EU that each cell produces. [so efficiency would be doubled] but it seems a little silly to me. Since the lowest possible reactor would be 2 with that convention, up to 10 8.88.

  • Eff is equally as important as before. It still correlates to the production value you can get from going green ;p


    What's changed is that /now/ it's harder to replace 'consumable' input generators with 'automated' input generators. Both because the carrot got bigger and also because the stick has struck.

  • Because no one was touching the compressor/snow balls, lol...


    Never really touched nuclear myself, but I also disagree with the disallowing of water/ice for coolant in reactors. Granted, it's created some overpowered designs during it's usage, but the expense/logistics of a CASUC reactor merits the EU output. It's actually quite a challenge to design/setup a reactor where not only you had to funnel in materials faster than a second, but also the ability to have constant resources (even if they are infinite) at a time to keep up with the heat consumption of said designs...

    Nobody even bothered about bucket cooling without Redpower 2 or BC installed.


    Eff is the amounts of eu produced per uranium cell. Output got doubled so eff has to be doubled too.

  • Nobody even bothered about bucket cooling without Redpower 2 or BC installed.


    Eff is the amounts of eu produced per uranium cell. Output got doubled so eff has to be doubled too.


    And they bothered with ice?
    Sure, you can stack ice giving you a total of 12,800 cooling per ice stack in 1.23 but did people actually make use of the SUC concept? Or did they move on over to CASUC immediately, skipping the SUC builds?
    There's not much gain to be had from either ice nor buckets unless you have a CASUC reactor. Then it's better to just make a MK I or MK II-E reactor. (Or a pulser using redstone timing circuits)


    EDIT:


    "Eff is the amounts of eu produced per uranium cell. Output got doubled so eff has to be doubled too."


    No it doesn't have to be doubled... Your efficiency ratio is not a measure of the amount of power you are getting out of your cells but a measure of the average number of cycles you get out of your cells.
    So if you pair two cell then both those cells will tick twice (for a total of 4 pulses) per reactor tick, thus giving you an efficiency rating of 2. If you pair 2 cells and slot another cell that isn't paired then you get a total of 5 pulses over 3 cells. It's a simple matter of dividing the number of pulses you get with the number of cells you have. Not the amount of EU you get, the tutorial post in this forum is outdated (and wrong in that regard)


    Saying anything else just shows how little you understand about the reactors...

  • Actually, his statement is not incorrect, merely misinterpreted. From the wiki:

    Quote

    Reactor Efficiency The amount of EU generated per Uranium Cell used.


    It's easy to see how someone could draw the wrong conclusion. After all, until the output was doubled, you could in fact use that means to derive the efficiency as well.

    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

  • Actually, his statement is not incorrect, merely misinterpreted. From the wiki:


    It's easy to see how someone could draw the wrong conclusion. After all, until the output was doubled, you could in fact use that means to derive the efficiency as well.


    Then the wiki article is also outdated and needs to be corrected... And it's also ambiguous:


    Quote

    Efficiency
    To calculate efficiency, take the number of uranium pulses a design makes per tick and divide it by the number of uranium cells it possesses.
    The number provided will show the efficiency rating a design has:


    Code
    1. Number Rating
    2. -------------------------------------------------------
    3. Exactly 1 EE
    4. Greater than 1 but less than 2 ED
    5. 2 or greater but less than 3 EC
    6. 3 or greater but less than 4 EB
    7. 4 or greater EA



    It might one have been possible to derive efficiency ratings from EU / cells but that was merely due to each pulse producing 5 EU and not 10 EU.
    Efficiency is the number of pulses you get from your cells and has always been. The definition has never actually had any relation to the amount of EU's you get.
    It just happened to be that it was possible to derive efficiency from total EU's because they happened to have a 5 EU/pulse generation.


    EDIT: I've updated the wiki article btw.

  • That's basically what I said...

    "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

  • That's basically what I said...


    No, you said he isn't incorrect. How can someone not be correct if they aren't wrong? (Untwist that...)
    If your math book states that the square root of 81 is 7 then it makes you incorrect when you in turn state the same. Just because you have been taught wrong doesn't make you safe from being incorrect.