Posts by Trael

Confirmed, there is no unexpected mechanics making heat leave plating faster when reactor is shut down in those conditions.

Reactor seems to cool pretty much ok and so, but plate regeneration is not counted in planner properly.

Expecially in those ones any outside plate cooling mechanism would make it less cost efficient than building multiple your design reactors.

Hmm i guess i have to just be dissapointed in fact that reactor plates dont seem have all that much use in this version.

Guess ill have to look even that original design to see if it works. Well those results would have been quite awesome and made plates almost most common material in reactor. Too bad there seems to be only 3 components mostly available to use in reactors then.

Well atleast i can rest my mind on getting suboptimal but still ok results by just directly chaning plates to cooling cells and distributors.

Thanks Rick for your time. =)

Explanation that comes to my mind would be that they store heat inside themselves distributing it among themselves and survive completely based on fact that run time is so short, but it seems as potential bug to me too. I think that ill fire up minecraft first time in creative mode to confirm that quickly.

luckily run times and cooldown times are so short that wont need to wait for multiple hours of reactor just running to see if it starts to melt or gather heat with those designed run/cooldown rations.

[Final addition to post: Interresting stuff most likely closer to bottom, and this upper part seems to end up being just path showing some of tought process and some analysis that led there.]

Yeap as said, closer to different version than clearly beating. Happy to notice i didnt have any clearly noticeable major oversight that would have rendered my design clearly unusable right there.

(with me normally [atleast before late late resource situations] i normally end up with situations where i have mediumsized piles of ores but im half cronically lacking in lapis or redstone. Hmm should maybe bother more with explorational tunneleering.)

But back to matter in hand. Trues found it interresting how i recerive 13% better average output with only 87,7% of cooling and exact same heat production, to be honest doing that design was what made me notice how mark 3+ seems to have yet another way to look at design: "instead of how to make it warm slower, how to make it just cool faster after cycle" and fact that those 2 dont seem to be as directly linked as i used to think. (last night almost all layout tests i made ended up having reactor plates in them with quite nice looking [even tho often quite minor] positive effect. In some places just slightly but direcly performing better than heat dispensers, most times causing as we see here situation of less cooling but faster cooling between running periods.

Okey... now that im looking at effectivenes / price of those few components (ok have to admit trying to see if i can push my design to even 0.1 eu/t or so outperform yours while costing same or less...) noticed something in simulation, not sure if its feature of simulation or was there something i had missed this far:

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…ky1asnroky0p1ge7j6r5ukphc
58.5 eu/t

compared to

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…x515bv1s7oneku73e0h2n4hds
58 eu/t

Guessing that might be rounding thing in calculations, becouse reactors are each other just mirrored up and down, leading to question how exact decimals are in average output calculation. hmm but yeah haha with 20 enviroment water like in your design i seem to outperform you with 0.1 eu/t [didnt even notice but now].... But still come out costier (your: 265 copper, 117 bronze vs. my: 263 copper, 120 bronze) in ores even tho im still that minor ammount of cheaper in rubber, red... and advantage of 0.1eu/t is quite questionable, expecially when it leads to so short generation & cooldown time (47s & 10min 12s) most likely loosing more to non perfect timings.

As i rememberd from last night mine seems to be quite ok with removal of components causing just shorter cycle instead of dimishing aver. Production
even to point where _theoretically_ seems that stripped version:

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…vee3b6hzon8aymslmk36l2h34
Same reactor but just reduced from couple of costy and slowly cooling components.

Now at: [Less cooling than you and _more_ heat generated per tick]
62 eu/t {52s run, 636s cooldown} (compared to: 58,4 eu/t {224s run, 2917s cooldown)
just same or tiny ammount cheaper than your design[my (your) {%} resource]
:
253 (265) {95,5%} Copper
140 (141) {99,3%} Tin
120 (117) {102,6%} Bronze
208 (209) {99,5%} Iron
97 (121) {80,2%} Rubber
98 (112) {87,5%} Redstone
32 (40) {80%} Glowstone
32 (40) {80%} Lapiz

Even tho i sceptical on what my reactor would produce as Effective Eu/t even with quite masterfully made timings.

Oh dear... at this point sorry for post just dragging longer and longer without much information value added (more like wondering and thinking aloud). But now it has been noticed, when doing mark 3+ reactors reactor plates are starting to be my favorite cooling component.

Found out that my design seems to start gaining performance when i even further reduce my cooling. O_o

If i can interrest you in taking look at:

Resource cheap variant:
70,9 Eu/t (46s run, 486s Cooldown)
5 Copper and 3 Tin costier than yours (bronze broken to copper & tin costs), But at same time
36 Rubber, 36 Redstone, 12 Lapiz & Glows cheaper than yours.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…i9z6cyi9l8ecjucyhmeq586io
Meaning 21,4% higher Effective Eu/t for cost of having shorter run & cooldown cycles.

Option where it led instantly after:
76,9 Eu/t (90s run, 874s cooldown)
30 Copper, 12 Tin and 6 iron costier than yours (Bronze again in those numbers), still same on other materials as one above,
36 Rubber, 36 Redstone, 12 Lapiz & Glows cheaper than yours.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…n6oa0f3w56ssm3oil1s7u54hs
Meaning 30,9% higher Effective Eu/t.

Nice side being that those 2 designs are just each other with added components meaning more potential in flexibility inside chamber.
.
.
.
O_O Sorry what, would someone confirm... just noticed that i can get extra Effectiveness without even altering run time by further _REMOVING_ cooling from that last design as further developement.

It seems that coolant cells and distributors are in some cases _the Enemy_ in mark V design.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…k9oqw0k2nco9phasfjm9vhpts
Mark V
Effeciency: 4
Average Eu/t: 87,2
Generation time: 90s
Cooldown time: 756s
Cost: 215 Iron, 267 Copper & 146 Tin

[49,3% higher average Eu/t compared to eff 4 reactor in first post.]

To be honest... if simulator is not miscalculating or presenting somethin. Now im starting to feel like potentially claiming to have outperformed your reactor.

And yes i produce way more heat and cool my reactor way less, while its running, But archieve superior cooldown when shut down for cooldown.

whew... now maybe some day clothes on... has been already hour or more from waking up and coming here after wc and brushing teeth...

Would love to hear your imput on those Rick.

Edit: Oh yeah and now i realise that update to ic2 and reactor planner has most likely arrived after those designs in this thread and changed balance causing my design to be more optimal than it would have othervise been. (<-- Disregard that, saw listing of new components and confirmed fact that reactor designers new version is behind different url.)

As beginning reactor designer with only really limited testing experience this far i have already for while been doubting myself about even asking or posting.

But do i in fact have (cant directly and clearly dare to think it as "beating" but more like) slight variation, with some potentially favorable flavours in it, from your mark5 eff 4 reactor.

Link: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…u1oyyxzc1ai78ivusl0fkn9j4
Eu/tick: 820
Average Eu/tick: 62
Efficiency: 4
Cost: (slightly more ores & slightly less exotic materials [lapiz & redstone])
Timing: Running time 126 secs and Cooldown time 1538 secs

Own plan from tonight for my potential upcoming high Eff. low maintenance reactor.
(Calculative cheap ecologyhippie that I am and for that reason mostly showing interrest in high eff reactors.)

"Reactor 2: (<-- What seems to be closest reactor from first post, now after i came here to see if someone had something clearly better designed)

Link: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…7ps011111101110

• Eu/tick: 820
• Average Eu/tick: 58,5
• Efficiency: 4
• Cost: Iron 209, Copper 265 and Tin 141
• Timing: Running time 224 secs and Cooldown time 2917 secs
• Credits: Rick"

So my question is, do those Reactor platings somehow mess up calculation and end up showing results better than get to happen when put to practice or am i missing something. Sorry if i end up taking someones time just to prove my design inferior in multiple ways, but interrested in hearing more about topic for educational purposes. And really happy if i can provide something worthy.

This night have been wondering why people dont seem to use almost any Reactor plates unless talking about breeders, considering that based on that simulator when suitably used they seem to give some promising results. (sorry for lenghtening my posting and tempting some offtopic conversation.)

Thank you for this fine collection, been inspiring to look around. (And if i end up double posting something, have to admit, looked throught only about 75% of all posts searching for someone saying something that obsolites that reactor [mostly expanding my search from start and end])