Concerning the list of good reactor designs.

1st Official Post

    Rick has stated, twice, that he will no longer be maintaining the reactor design sticky, and that somebody else needs to take over.


    There' has been zero discussion on this in the thread, I don't believe many people saw his posts. I am willing to take over, but I will understand if others feel that someone else should, in which case we need a different volunteer.

    Quote from Requia

    Rick has stated, twice, that he will no longer be maintaining the reactor design sticky, and that somebody else needs to take over.


    There' has been zero discussion on this in the thread, I don't believe many people saw his posts. I am willing to take over, but I will understand if others feel that someone else should, in which case we need a different volunteer.


    When was the last time the list *needed* to be updated? I mean, sure... there might be one or two people with some novel ideas, but unfortunately no one has really had anything to meaningfully contribute to that thread in quite some time. Generally, it's yet another newbie who is absolutely convinced that he has the best reactor design EVAR... without consulting the original post which generally has one or more reactors which is strictly superior.

    I've posted a few upgrades on that thread without realizing it was no longer supported, so the interest in getting it replaced seems valid to me.
    I am not willing to do the effort myself, but I have a suggestion. Do it the capitalist way, competition. Post a competing thread with the same idea, starting with the same info, and actually update it with relevant designs. Everyone starts pointing people to the better thread, then a mod comes along and unstickies the outdated one and stickies yours. That's my 2 copper nuggets. I'd love to see my breeder designs in that thread, both hybrid and the upgrade to the standard. Thank you for being willing to maintain it.

    Thanks for Giving drill access to miners!

    A new list would be cool. I would have a suggestion: not only list vanilla IC2 reactors, but make a second cathegory underneath that suppports Gregstech Addon elements like the Reactor Planner v3 does.

    The problem is that CRCS designs really aren't all that cost effective in terms of EU/t per resource investment until you run it for extensive periods of time, due to the number of cooling towers which effectively multiply your initial resource investment.

    i guess we have to contact a mod as he already gave his ok.
    and if that is possible why not get it managed by 2-3 guys so it wont die soon and updates come fast.
    they could make decisions based on what the forum wants considering layout and stuff.



    Quote from Rick

    Iam not updating the first post anymore someone else has to do it i dont have time for it.


    Candidates:
    Requia


    I am ok with my thread and way to lazy for more.

    Change the scheme, alter the mood. Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind.


    [b][i][u][url=' [url='http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7745']HAYO CORP: Nuclear Power (FREE: Reactor Blueprints)


    I second the nomination, however I am also too occupied with Life and Stuff to maintain a thread that busy.

    • Official Post

    I could probably also do the job, but only the part where I maintain the thread, as I don't have a good idea which plan is good and which is not.


    I am online very often though. Not too busy in real life yet. :whistling:

    Proposition:


    Anyone who wants to post a new design has to ALSO post the design in the list of good designs it is challenging for it to be considered, and why it is superior. Having proper submission formatting guidelines will also help cut down on the crap. These two will cut down the number of posts to be actually considered dramatically and make the workload manageable.


    For example of formatting


    Link To Reactor Design


    RESOURCES NEEDED (including -all- CRCS Cooling Towers):


    SUC


    CRCS cooling tower link


    BREEDER INFORMATION:

    Probably a good idea, if nothing else it'll very rapidly weed out the people who didn't bother to read what's already there.


    I'm gonna post screenshots as well as links to the planner too, which will make looking at everything easier.

    yes , there is not much stuff to check if it is better,
    just output, eu, eff, buildingcost, maintaining cost.
    And you can always contact me if you have doubt with a design,
    maybe also ShneekyTheLost.


    agreed to shneekey


    as for now the List of "moderators"


    Requia
    Industrial Miner


    optional
    ShneekyTheLost
    Skavier470


    PS: I contacted our almighty dragonlord to ask what possibelities we have regarding Ricks thread.

    Change the scheme, alter the mood. Electrify the boys and girls if you'd be so kind.


    [b][i][u][url=' [url='http://forum.industrial-craft.net/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=7745']HAYO CORP: Nuclear Power (FREE: Reactor Blueprints)

    I'm just gonna make a thread once I get this godawful quarry/scrapper combo running, and we'll see what the dragon overlord does with it.

    My proposed rules/outlines, a rough outline for feedback before the thread goes up (looking like this quarry is gonna take a while):


    Reactors will be judged based on overall efficiency and overall output, that is, the assumption that the reactor is powering a fabricator for UUM to replace its own components, insanely high copper running cost setups beware!


    Breeders will be judged based on percentage efficiency (that is, a 100% efficient reactor will produce 8 re-enriched uranium per uranium brick, this means a 4:1 reactor is 75% efficient, a 20:1 reactor is 95% efficient, while a 84:1 is 98.8% efficient, formula is (n-1)/n) and the average time per re-enriched cell. Submissions must include corrected costs to deal with the heating cell resource cost bug, I'm not doing the math myself.


    Special purpose reactors get to ignore the normal judgement rules, a case must be made for what said purpose is (IE, a reactor meant to power miners does not necessarily need to avoid massive copper consumption, what it needs is a minimum of non stackable parts).


    I will be considering gregtech reactors in their own section afterall, this do to realising how incredibly bad the rest of the internet is at reactor design, and I want to spread a single link around that will combat the stupid, it'll depend on if Greg feels I'd be stepping on his toes, I PMed him to ask. Judgements will be different here, as near unlimited copper will be assumed (cost of lava centrifuges, at 1 per 80 copper per cycle, will be added to the setup cost of the reactor), and thorium based breeders are always 100% efficient (no uranium needed for the active isotope), judgements will be made on whether or not the output rate of a breeder is actually sane, I don't believe anybody is capable of using 1 re-enriched uranium every 50 seconds.