[Official] New Reactors design thread.

  • Anyone want to try for a "Most EU/t in a 4-chamber, efficiency be damned" setup? I hit 305 EU/t but it required some abomination of single/dual/quad cells in a messy setup. I can get 300 with five quads or a symmetrical setup using four quads and two duals, which is rather unpleasant. I'm sure other nuclear engineers could do better.

  • Slightly more expensive (1 diamond instead of none) but doesn't loose heat: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…r3oepvu0d8x1vrioqa74tbls0


    Why is not losing heat important? Even heat-neutral, this will never stay stable above zero heat, as almost all designs with OC vents do. I'd rather remove the unnecessary exchanger in the second to last row, like so.


    I don't have access to my IC2 Experimental reactor component cost spreadsheet right now, but instinctively I'd favor Karatemango's design over OndraSter's. All other things being equal and price being likely very similar, the latter has a (minor) running cost.

  • Anyone want to try for a "Most EU/t in a 4-chamber, efficiency be damned" setup? I hit 305 EU/t but it required some abomination of single/dual/quad cells in a messy setup. I can get 300 with five quads or a symmetrical setup using four quads and two duals, which is rather unpleasant. I'm sure other nuclear engineers could do better.


    The best I can manage is 260 EU/t at efficiency 3 after five or ten minutes of trying, so nowhere near your best.


    Why only four chambers?


    Edit: I made 260 in my next attempt, instead of 240. Still nowhere near 300.


    Edit #2: I made 300 and 305 a fair while later.


    Edit #3: Finally hit 320. I think you can tell it's 3am: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…w6kln7fljtnvm1b3ykfg7u2o0

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Korlus ().

  • Not quite sure how it fares, but it suits what I look for in a reactor:


    LINK


    Mark I EA
    2 Chambers
    EU/T: 160
    EEU/T: 160
    Efficiency: 4
    Overall efficiency: 3.46
    Cost: 632 copper, 79 rubber, 44 tin, 32 redstone, 152 iron, 2 glowstone, 80 gold, 2 lapis, 8 uranium
    Components: 2x quad uranium cells, 12x component (or advanced) heat exchanger, 16x overclocked heat vent
    Running cost: None


    Design is relatively simple to remember, considering it follows a strict pattern.



  • Overall, not bad, but it costs more in everything but iron vs. the mid level #1 reactor: LINK.
    It also has greater running costs as well as setup.

  • Overall, not bad, but it costs more in everything but iron vs. the mid level #1 reactor: LINK.
    It also has greater running costs as well as setup.

    What about THIS?
    It has a cheaper running cost (4.80UU vs 9.60UU, so half) for the same 160EU/t but costs about 100UU more to set up, making it more efficient only after about 22 full cycles. It also sits inside the same 3 chambers.


    I also have THIS, which has no running cost and 409UU for 140EU/t, which is just lower than the one above but benefits from only needing uranium (making it a slightly cheaper alternative).

  • What about THIS?
    It has a cheaper running cost (4.80UU vs 9.60UU, so half) for the same 160EU/t but costs about 100UU more to set up, making it more efficient only after about 22 full cycles. It also sits inside the same 3 chambers.


    I also have THIS, which has no running cost and 409UU for 140EU/t, which is just lower than the one above but benefits from only needing uranium (making it a slightly cheaper alternative).



    This is all regarding the first reactor design:


    The first one is *significantly* more expensive to create - 228 more copper, 72 more rubber and 62 more gold, with marginally less iron and tin (40 and 16).
    While you're correct about the UU to continue to run, measuring in UU is difficult to get your head around what with the latest changes to how UU works, or if people are using Gregtech etc. To put it in more easily comprehensible figures:


    Each cycle (2 hours, 46 minutes) uses up 32 copper vs. 16 copper - to make back the 228 copper difference in construction, you're looking at around 14 cycles (on the old system), or ~38.5 hours of run-time before you break even.



    Under the new system, using copper plates instead of dense copper plates, and with new recipes as under experimental, the cost difference to start with goes down slightly, but the run-cost difference decreases significantly.



    Depending on how you're automating, getting an equal amount of both single and dual rods can be problematic, as can getting them into the right slots.




    ... That doesn't mean it won't work for you, just that I wouldn't recommend it to somebody over the other.
    (Note: I understand the advantages, but as you've already listed them, didn't see the need to contrast)



    For the second reactor:


    It's actually a pretty good design. Having had to run 0-cost reactors for a long time, I quite like it, but again, when you're looking at higher efficiency and higher output vs. lower running cost, you come to the classic tradeoff; and the reason why there are multiple different reactors for each "type" in the first post of this topic. Depending on what you're willing to afford etc, either would be good.

  • For the second reactor:


    It's actually a pretty good design. Having had to run 0-cost reactors for a long time, I quite like it, but again, when you're looking at higher efficiency and higher output vs. lower running cost, you come to the classic tradeoff; and the reason why there are multiple different reactors for each "type" in the first post of this topic. Depending on what you're willing to afford etc, either would be good.

    I do like reactors with no running cost, and the main reason they're 3-chamber designs is because of my setup. I like to have a 5x5x5 room so I could slot 8 reactors into that, leaving ample space in the centre for movement.


    However, the power-hungry nuclear physicist would probably want to stick a nice 6-core reactor there (maybe the smaller ones would all be breeders to help the centre one along, could also make the room 7x7 to allow automation) and I came up with a 6-chamber design which costs about 700UU and produces a nice 46milEU from 12 rods (LINK). I have THIS which pumps out 52milEU for a similar cost but it's a 14-rod design and is less efficient because of that.



    I should probably also go check out the non-dense plate recipes, sounds like it's a 2x2 of copper bars in your inventory though. If it is, that's pretty nice, I'm getting so tired of compressing all my copper and having none left over and over. I can take the energy hit, since I have nothing truly using my EU at all (want to use scrap for MF), so I just wait for a reasonable cobble supply from my miner. I might go automate a quarry with some cobble slab recycling setup.


    [edit] 4.34 overall efficiency reactor: LINK
    Comes in just a tad over the current max efficiency reactor, and flipping the dual/quad cell breaks the design.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Hexicube ().

  • Assuming the numbers on the reactor planner are correct, it's only churning out 160EU/t with a high running cost. Is there something about a MOX reactor I don't know about, or is it just quad-cell only reactors?


  • Sorry for my misunderstanding. I had missed the fact that this was for non experimental designs.

  • It's currently running 639 EU/t at 7488 heat (Mox produces more EU at higher heat levels. Based on a % of maximum heat of hull... so plating doesnt increase power, just spacing in the heat band)

    Did some googling and realised it was something in a newer version (the experimental one?), I'm still on MC 1.4.7 because my friends are doing a runthrough of yogcraft and I'm the server hoster for our shenanigans. Also, judging by the current designs, I don't think MOX reactors are being considered, seems like it's strictly based on designs you can do in the planner.

  • This reactor designs thread is older than IC2 Experimental, so it includes only uranium designs. Requia doesn't seem to be around anymore to update it either. But since uranium reactors didn't actually change in IC2 Experimental, this thread is still perfectly useful as a repository of designs.


    You just need to keep in mind four things for 1.6.x:
    - Component recipes are completely different, so the build cost numbers given by the planner are wrong.
    - Running costs for multicells have all but disappeared. Dual cells are free, and quad cells only cost 2 copper and 1 iron per cell.
    - Cell lifetime has doubled, so you get twice the total EU at the same EU/t rating
    - UU-matter is now so expensive that calculating building costs or running costs in UU-matter is completely impractical (yes, even with scrap). Even a single condensator can pull a reactor into the negative if you try to fabricate lapis from UU-matter. So you might as well ignore that part entirely.


    Other than that, it's the same as ever... provided they fixed that bug with heat exchangers running twice per cycle. For MOX reactors, I started a new thread.

  • Admittedly I have not read all 24 pages of this thread yet. However, playing around with the reactor planner I noticed that "Beginner Reactor 3" (Zombie's), flipped upside down in the grid, results in component failure after 28 seconds as the lower heat exchangers/vents do not appear to do anything... I have not built this reactor in-game, but does anyone know if this is a glitch in the planner, glitch in IC2, or working as-intended?

  • Working as intended.


    A reactor "ticks" once per second. When it does so, it goes through all its components one by one, top left to bottom right. Therefore, the order of components is important. Flipping a design upside down can screw up the heat transfer between components because they do not activate in the right order anymore - imagine a bucket brigade that goes out of sync.

  • ^^^
    As a noob, I have been messing around with the designer all day..
    After a lot of trial and error, I have created (the worlds first?) stable MK5 reactor.


    MK5 - Designer


    Outputs 340 EU/t
    I think the efficiency is terrible, 2.4?
    It's been running for over an hour now and no components are degrading.


    I am not sure why this works, as the designer indicates a failure.
    If anyone knows, leme know.


  • If it's stable then it's not Mark V :P

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.