[1.5.1/1.5.2] Modular Forcefield System v2 Classic 2.3.0.1.15

Quote from Searge

It's quite simple. All versions that are not coming from Thunderdark are derivative versions of the mod. That's true for Cal's UE version of MFFS and for our classic version of the mod. Now I'd prefer to stop discussing this topic and focus on the next steps in bringing you a stable release of MFFS classic.

This is not true. My version, (if you even call it a version since it is independent) is not a derivative and is independent from the GPL license legally. It does not use any code or textures from the old MFFS and was coded from the ground up. It's a completely different mod, both in code and in terms of theme and style. The only thing similar are the ideas of the mod. Ideas cannot be called "derivative". I had a lawyer look through my code in comparison to the original as well as the development and this is pretty much confirmed. Debate if you want, but this is a fact. Anyway, this is the end of discussion.

Quote from calclavia

I had a lawyer look through my code in comparison to the original as well as the development and this is pretty much confirmed. Debate if you want, but this is a fact. Anyway, this is the end of discussion.

This is hilarious and yes, I agree, end of discussion. I recommend you to just stay away from this thread, as your mod is completely independent, there is no reason at all to discuss anything related to it in this thread.

The MFFS machines linking, is the coordinates of the machines they're linked to absolute or relative?

Quote from calclavia

I had a lawyer look through my code

Talk about taking things too seriously...

I haven't seen this reported yet, but using the most recent version in the OP with IC2 .304 causes an IC2 API crash. I've deleted every single instance of the IC2 API I could find that wasn't in IC2 itself so I think this is an actual API change failure. I could be wrong; if so, could someone please tell me how they get it working?

EDIT: Removing MFFS allows the game to work normally, deleting the IC2 API folder inside MFFS does not.

Quote from MagusUnion

Talk about taking things too seriously...

Talk about naive as all hell.

Quote from Bigglesw0rth79

Talk about naive as all hell.

You take me WAY too seriously. There's a such thing called 4th wall, you know.

I'm still trying to decide if I want to use this version of MFFS. I mean, there are three versions now. Cal's with it's super fancy graphics(but I think it can generate the fields without any weird resources), this one(true to the v2 by thunderdark, thus will need weird ores but doesn't have insanely fancy graphics), or Immibis's version(no ores needed but doesn't have some of the v2 features).

Truth be told, I'm still kind of pissed that Cal decided to remove the in game manual from the multitool. Not a really big deal, it's just that AFAIK he hasn't added a different way to look up how things work in game.
But that's all kind of moot because I'm quick enough to catch on usually.

Long story short I wish one didn't need to mine that stuff to generate fields.

The question is, what is the main problem with Forcicium? I personally like the idea that a resource is required to keep the force fields running, not just energy. But I would agree if you complain about Forcicium spamming storage and chests unnecessary. I'll check if there are more effective ways of storing Monazit and Forcicium.

Forcicium requirement and Monazit worldgen could be an option in the config file, but we'll discuss it internally first before a decision can be made about adding this kind of option.

So what are your opinions, would it be better to create more effective ways to store large amounts of Forcicium/Monazit or should the requirement be optional (a config file setting)? Keep in mind that we try to keep it as compatible with Thunderdarks version as possible.

Quote from Searge

The question is, what is the main problem with Forcicium? I personally like the idea that a resource is required to keep the force fields running, not just energy. But I would agree if you complain about Forcicium spamming storage and chests unnecessary. I'll check if there are more effective ways of storing Monazit and Forcicium.

Forcicium requirement and Monazit worldgen could be an option in the config file, but we'll discuss it internally first before a decision can be made about adding this kind of option.

So what are your opinions, would it be better to create more effective ways to store large amounts of Forcicium/Monazit or should the requirement be optional (a config file setting)? Keep in mind that we try to keep it as compatible with Thunderdarks version as possible.

I really don't mind having to mine Monazit to keep my force fields running, but it can't be a storage hog when you don't use it. I think there should be something like forcicium blocks or refined forcicium, that would make it use less inventory space.

Also, making it optional would be the best of both worlds.

I suppose I just miss the old way of doing it. Well, how I always thought it worked anyway. You could run massive fields... with a massive infrastructure. A CASUC reactor could in theory generate enough power to run the system which protects your base from monsters back then(in my head canon).
I wouldn't mind using Forcium except it's kind of hard large amounts of it some times.

I would love a way to simply jam more energy into a device and have it run on nothing but energy... But alas, I use GregTech so using the Matter Fabricator means I'm almost always not going to have a surplus of UUM. I suppose a way to generate forcium in a fusion reactor wouldn't hurt for us who use GregTech. Well, I'm getting off topic because I have currently got Cal's version installed so I can see if it can run without green rocks.