Ic2 & Ae

1st Official Post

    First off, jeez... A lot has changed while I've been away over the past while (stupid RL stuff), also, I do apologize if this is in the wrong section, I figured a "general" inquiry like this would fit best here.


    Anyhow... I was wondering if that "bug" between IC2 Reactors and Applied Energistics was fixed? The one that Dire found when he was trying to automate his reactors with AE in his FC2 series where the Uranium Cells would stack if they were pumped in even though they weren't supposed to. I went looking through the forum and the bug tracker before making this post just to see if anyone else has had the same question as I do have actually received an answer and no dice (at least as far as I've gone back). If so, could someone recommend a build so I can throw AE and IC2 into an instance so I can work on this?

    • Official Post

    You can try the experimental versions, they are working somewhat stable, although i don't know much about the reactors interaction with AE.
    However, it works very well with GregTech regulators (given you know how to use it :D) .

    Quote from SpwnX

    You can try the experimental versions, they are working somewhat stable, although i don't know much about the reactors interaction with AE.
    However, it works very well with GregTech regulators (given you know how to use it :D) .

    Eh... I would, but nothing against Greg (I loved GregTech for the depth it provided), but the recent direction Greg's taken (total conversion a la BTW and TFC, but probably not as thorough) from what I'VE seen lately has kind of...I guess...scared me away from it, I suppose? However, this might seem a touch hypocritical, I might give it another shot just to rife through the config files and see what's changed in the time that I've been away (I'm guessing a fair bit @_@; also a little lazy to look through changelogs, again, hypocritical, I know, configs just tend to give me more detail to me than changelogs).

    Quote from TuxedoSteve

    I think it might have been fixed in experimental build #206


    "fix handling container items with stacksize > 1 in InvSlotConsumable"

    Build 206... I'll give it a look then, thanks

    Well, off to both the AE thread and the IC2 bugtracker, I just threw together an instance in 1.6.4 (too lazy to backdate Forge) and AE is still throwing stacked uran cells into the reactor. I tried with IC2 experimental builds 206 & 235.


    In case it isn't obvious to other people reading this thread, I'm going to both as I'm not sure which side this bug might be on (heck, it might be both for all I know).

    In the mean time you could use Computer craft to bypass the bug. Dire found a way in one of his recent videos.

    Quote from BillJoehobo

    In the mean time you could use Computer craft to bypass the bug. Dire found a way in one of his recent videos.

    Yeah, I've been meaning to get into CC for a little bit now. I'm going to look back through his videos after I watch today's to figure it out. Thanks for reminding me about that.

    Okay, I've been chatting with Algorithm over on AE's MCF thread and he believes that the stacking bug is completely on IC2's side. The relevant part of his post:

    Quote

    I don't see why forge would be involved the inventory has a stack size, and in the reactors case it returns 64, the item also has a stack size ( 64 ) I would think that making the inventory have a stack limit of 1 would solve the issue, plus you can easily get the shift clicking behavior to fall in line, I do so with the wireless access points, as the WAP's them selves have a different stacking limit then the normal 64 items per stack for boosters.

    The Forge mention is from the fact that I brought up the fact that someone made a note on the bug report I submitted on the IC2 bugtracker saying that they believe that one of the IC2 devs mentioned that this whole issue was a bug inside Forge as well. I'll make sure to make a note on my bug report linking to this post.


    I wouldn't say this is a game-breaking bug, but it's a definite annoyance.