Mark I CASUC 1310EU/t

Using BCIC2Crossover will make the reactor chambers work with pipes.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I'm not sure why you want to up-convert it to 2048 EV packets when you could just use a HVT to down-convert it to 512 packets and run the glass fiber cable you wanted to.

- I would just use one 4x insulated HV cable going into the high side of a HVT then glass fiber out (for each reactor) [just make sure the HVT doesn't get a redstone signal], assuming the glass fiber cable isn't too long you'll have zero loss that way.

You could hook multiple reactors up to a HVT (to use less of them) but I'm not sure what would happen if you send it more then 2048 EU / tick (which would happen since you said each reactor is ~1300 EU/t).

The pic is rather confusing as I can't see where/how you were trying to hook up a redstoned HVT that was failing. Also I don't like the wall of cables on the side, as running cables like that causes rampant cable splitting calculations to happen (painters are your friend).

MFSU only accepts 512 EU/t. If you want to store that energy, you need at least 3 per reactor.

> also i wanted to point
out that i'm trying to run a single mascerator with the theoretical max
of 20 overclocker upgrades (thats why i made this)

20 OCs want 3325 EU per operation. You need at least 1 Energy Storage Upgrade since the Macerator's internal storage is only 625 EU.
You can supply the 3325/tick a couple of ways. Have a bank of 7 MFSU supplying 512EU/t power over a single glass fibre cable.

In theory you could have a couple of backward HV transformers between the MFSU and the Macerator but I'm not sure if they'll support 3 transformer upgrades and run off EV. That needs testing Still, that's not really a practical suggestion. You'd still need a bunch of MFSU to feed the transformer to make EV.

SCIENCE!

Consider also that the wiki states there's a hard limit of "about 8000EU/t" so my maths say that although you may be able to power more than 20 OCs, they won't provide any benefit.
Kind of like paying $10,000 for a kebab. The man will happily take your money but it doesn't get you any more kebab than you would've gotten for $7.

Quote from Metalchic

ITS ABOUT THE WHY NOT! NOT THE WHY!

anyway i found the breakpoint to be at 13 for the furnace i'll check if any of the others are differnt this puts the output at afraction over 1 tick per operation, i doubt it'd be noticable.

Yeah, I noticed some discrepancies with the overclocker section of the wiki last night so I took a look then did some maths.
Apparently only 16 overclockers are needed to max a Macerator [3689 EU/t], 13 for a furnace [1351 EU/t] and 10 for a recycler [109 EU/t]. Anything after that and you're just paying more for the same kebab, also the "hard limit" is actually 32, since anything over 32 would be considered 32. (though things start getting out of hand past 18 overclockers)

Quote from AkhkharuXul

Yeah, I noticed some discrepancies with the overclocker section of the wiki last night so I took a look then did some maths.
Apparently only 16 overclockers are needed to max a Macerator [3689 EU/t], 13 for a furnace [1351 EU/t] and 10 for a recycler [109 EU/t]. Anything after that and you're just paying more for the same kebab, also the "hard limit" is actually 32, since anything over 32 would be considered 32. (though things start getting out of hand past 18 overclockers)

I wrote that section of the wiki. Maths is not my best subject so if you have some corrections, please explain how you got to them and I'll update it.

Quote from xenoflot

I wrote that section of the wiki. Maths is not my best subject so if you have some corrections, please explain how you got to them and I'll update it.

I peeked at the code. The formula at the top for power consumption changed going from IC 1.64 to 1.70. Now it's 1.6^x instead of 1.5^x (where x is the number of overclockers) the speed increase hasn't changed though, it's 0.7^x. [so each overclocker makes the machine 30% faster and uses 60% more energy/tick.]

I did make one assumption that the energy_consume * operation_length = cost for 1 operation. [ Which would mean a standard machine (like the macerator) without any overclockers would process 1 item in 20 seconds, using 800 EU to do so. I didn't bother actually testing that though. ]

To figure out the maximum number of effective overclockers I solved for 1 since anything less then 1 tick gets increased to 1 tick (or else at a certain point the machines wouldn't actually consume any energy). So 400*0.7^x = 1 .... 0.7^x = 1/400 {0.0025} which is where I got 16 from (or 17, wasn't sure at first, then looked at how java handles integers and saw that 16 should be correct).

I made a lua script to do all the maths for me (cos I wanted to know how overclockers affected the operation costs): --- Warning, spoilers ---

From the original wiki text, it increases the EU/Op (cost) by X% and reduces the Time/Op (time) by X%. It further suggests that there is a hard limit of 1 op/t. I can't tell from the wording if the listed 8000EU/t is also a limit or a consequence of the 1 op/t.

I was basing my rules of thumb on the listed 8000EU/t limit which in retrospect may have been a poor choice. I should calculate it to the point where an operation takes only a single tick.

So we need to establish how long an operation currently takes. Then we stack the OCs and the point where the op drops below 1 tick is the limit. Of course this is tricky since different materials take different lengths of time to process.

Oy vey. Time to get the stopwatch and do a little testing.

Quote from xenoflot

From the original wiki text, it increases the EU/Op (cost) by X% and reduces the Time/Op (time) by X%. It further suggests that there is a hard limit of 1 op/t. I can't tell from the wording if the listed 8000EU/t is also a limit or a consequence of the 1 op/t.

I was basing my rules of thumb on the listed 8000EU/t limit which in retrospect may have been a poor choice. I should calculate it to the point where an operation takes only a single tick.

So we need to establish how long an operation currently takes. Then we stack the OCs and the point where the op drops below 1 tick is the limit. Of course this is tricky since different materials take different lengths of time to process.

Oy vey. Time to get the stopwatch and do a little testing.

Display More

Ugh, do different materials take different lengths to process? (I thought process time was based on machine so .. yeah that might be my bad, I'll look)

Ed: ... I'm pretty sure it's based off machine type, not material type...

OK, did some testing. Your number of 20 secs per operation for a macerator is correct. Tested with both smoothstone and coal. I could've sworn that coal took longer to macerate but it appears not.

So Macerator and Extractor are 400t/op, Furnace is 128t/op and Recycler is 45t/op.

I define Maximum Benefit as the point where the length of a single operation first drops below 1 tick and is thus effectively 1 tick. Of course you're "wasting a small amount of power" but if you don't cross the threshold, you're not quite as fast as you can be.

Revised numbers using the 160% power in 1.71 are as follows:

Macerator: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Extractor: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Furnace: 14 OCs - 2161 EU/t
Recycler: 13 OCs - 176 EU/t

I shall now update my addition to the wiki. Thanks for helping out!
And sincere apologies for metalchic for highjacking her thread but it was in the name of science!

Quote from xenoflot

OK, did some testing. Your number of 20 secs per operation for a macerator is correct. Tested with both smoothstone and coal. I could've sworn that coal took longer to macerate but it appears not.

So Macerator and Extractor are 400t/op, Furnace is 128t/op and Recycler is 45t/op.

I define Maximum Benefit as the point where the length of a single operation first drops below 1 tick and is thus effectively 1 tick. Of course you're "wasting a small amount of power" but if you don't cross the threshold, you're not quite as fast as you can be.

Revised numbers using the 160% power in 1.71 are as follows:

Macerator: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Extractor: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Furnace: 14 OCs - 2161 EU/t
Recycler: 13 OCs - 176 EU/t

I shall now update my addition to the wiki. Thanks for helping out!
And sincere apologies for metalchic for highjacking her thread but it was in the name of science!

Display More

I'm pretty sure due to rounding you need 1 less... and I'm not sure on the recycler cos you should have gotten 11 not 13 [and 11 would be 176 EU/t --- well 175, rounding again (13 would have been like 450)]

Then again I could easily do some testing of my own and just check the time for x items with 16 or 17 overclockers in a standard machine, and 13 or 14 in a furnace, as well as 10/11 in a recycler. [Should be pretty simple to see if they're equal since if it were bring it up to 2 ticks / operation instead of 1 it'd take twice as long ] ---- guess it's not that simple since I need to be able to supply 6k EU/tick to test standard machines.... *ponders TMI*

k, updated the wiki.

Not sure what you mean by the rounding.
Recycler - OC's, EU/t, number of ticks

10
110.0
1.3

11
175.9
0.9

I'd think that the game would look at 11 or more OCs taking 0.9 or less ticks, round up to 1 whole tick and thus 11 OCs becomes your effective limit.
Do you disagree?

Quote from xenoflot

k, updated the wiki.

Not sure what you mean by the rounding.
Recycler - OC's, EU/t, number of ticks

10
110.0
1.3

11
175.9
0.9

I'd think that the game would look at 11 or more OCs taking 0.9 or less ticks, round up to 1 whole tick and thus 11 OCs becomes your effective limit.
Do you disagree?

Display More

1) You said 13 instead of 11 for Reclcyer OCs [hence my confusion].
2) Well you're correct, 0.9 gets rounded up to 1, however, 1.3 gets rounded down to 1 (so only 10 would be required, theoretically). [So, yes 11 will definitely make it 1 tick / operation, but 10 should be enough.]

3) The important fact is that -if- it's 16 instead of 17 OverClockers for the Macerator to run at 1 tick / operation then the difference in EU/t required is over 2k different [or 8 MFSU instead of 12 MFSU to power the thing]

-- I'll just install TMI to test

OK, just tested and it seems you're correct. The difference between 15 and 16 OCs over a stack of cobble was noticeable but I couldn't determine a difference between 16 and 17. Even a 0.3 tick per operation when multiplied 64 times becomes almost a second which should've been noticeable even with my Mk I Optical Measuring Device. We can thus conclude that the 1.3 is rounded down to 1 which adjusts my numbers by 1, as you say.

Thanks again for your feedback.

And to any of you who haven't been to university, this is what's called Peer Review and it's a foundation of modern science. SCIENCE ROCKS!