Reactor planner version 2

    Hello,

    First I´d like to say Thank You !!!! for this awesome tool. Without it building a reactor wouldn´t be fun.

    I think I found a little bug in the Reactor Planner 2. Well I´m not sure, we´re still running Industrial Craft 1.64 on our server. So maybe
    some values were changed with 1.7 and it´s not a bug.
    Anyway, I made thie reactor with Reactor Planner 1 some weeks ago.
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…w0a08g8f7ajah34

    In Reactor Planner 1 it would tell me that one depleted cell charges to 52% with each run. I build the reactor and the values were
    absolutely correct. with 2 runs, all 4 cells were charged to 100%.
    Now when I open this layout in reactor planner 2 it will tell me that one cell charges to 40,3% wich is not correct.
    So unless something changed with IC2 1.7 this values seems not to be correct.

    cheers

    Rick: If you make a design with a full stack of ice but no supply, then it'll use only one stack and then keep going as if there was no ice. If you want to know how long the design will last without the ice, then remove the ice from the design?

    sam3d: That seems correct, recharing in IC2 is based on chance:
    0 to 2999 hull heat: 1 in 8 chance of a uranium pulse charging up the isotope.
    3000 to 5999 hull heat: 1 in 4 chance
    6000 to 8999 hull heat: 1 in 2 chance
    9000+ hull heat: All pulses are sucessful.

    An isotope requires 5000 sucessful recharge pulses to be completely charged.

    The planner disguards the randomness and replaces it with averages, thus any charging done in a design with less than 9000 hull heat will vary in-game.

    The new planner keeps closer tabs on the heat / charge levels in the reactor design and I'd guess that the 40% is more accurate and the tests you performed in-game were above the average.

    Edit: If any other breeder user out there have also experienced constantly higher then expected charge levels, let me know.

    I understand. But I wonder, I made like 10-12 double runs with this design and it always charged all 4 cells to 100%. If the average is 40% I would assume that some
    runs shouldn´t have charged the cell to 100%´. Well I´ll keep an eye on it and tell you again how it works after like another 10 runs.

    anybody think that one day he is going to sabotage the reactor planner in the hope of blowing up the people who are finding these bugs ;) ?

    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!"

    This is meh supa-dupa fuck-yeah Nuclear Reactor.

    (Note: I has not tried it since I use geothermal c;)

    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/reactorplanner…aut50e970y23ghs
    160 EU/t, Full cycle, Max cycles: 1. Cooling time: (Just replace the cells), 12 Uranium Cells

    Objects Used
    Cooling Cells: 22
    Heat Dispensers: 20

    Resources needed
    Copper: 355
    Tin: 159
    Bronze: 132
    Iron: 234
    Rubber: 181
    Redstone: 200
    Lapis Lazuli: 60
    Glowstone D: 60

    "super long gay fucking signature that shouldnt even be here but you cant disable it or at least i cant find it god damnit i hate the internet and everyone on it. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

    umad Badspot? :P


    Steve shaves with a chainsaw.

    why are you posting this here?

    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!"