yes, but not having to use it at all is cheaper than that.
Posts by Kenken244
-
-
you're better off not using thick reflectors at all. just use the cheaper standard reflectors, and use an advanced regulator to replace them once they wear out. then you don't have to worry about berylium. as far as iridium reflectors go remember that without even counting the iridium required, it takes 32 cycles for it to pay for itself, which is several days of constant running. It is even more than that when you compare it to standard reflectors.
-
If you want a better , I suggest you check out gregtech. it does a good job of extending the tech tree of IC2.
-
Unless you use gregtech coolant cells.
-
NO! Your favorite game is MINECRAFT! *glares*
-
I'm glad this is back. some more documentation would be nice, though. And balancing. I would be willing to help with that, If you need it.
-
most of them are completely useless.
-
The helmet itself isn't that expensive, unless you got a whole bunch of advanced modules on it.
-
I don't know about a neutron reflector, but it might be cool to breed forcicium into a better form using a reactor.
-
I wouldn't nerf glass fiber cable in the early game without adding some alternatives, such as silver or electrum cable, that can carry HV and/or have a pretty low energy loss. alternatively, keep the recipe in, but have it have higher yield when using advanced machines.
-
I don't really consider thorium quad cells to have a high running cost, since they take eight times less copper to make
-
Needs more plutonium. though I suppose it could work with the old repeated wrenching concept that never really got anywhere.
-
-
He could do that, but why should he have to? those mods should handle their own balance. If someone is going to use an overpowered mod setup, then they expect things to be unbalanced. It's a lot of work that he should not have to be doing in the first place. He should handle the balance of his own mod, and if another mod is balanced with itself, but is unbalanced with this one, then it would make sense to change it.
-
It would probably be much cheaper than using cooling towers, though it requires a higher tier of progression in gregtech. However, since it requires energy, in the long run you would be better off using cooling towers.
-
it depends on the size and contents of the towers. reactor chambers are relatively cheap now. the 6 to 8 number was just an example, I haven't actually run any numbers. for example, your design that cooled 144/t per cell would not be very efficient, even though it provides maximum cooling per cell, since its cost per cooling is very high. Your other two designs seem very similar in cost, though. That would make your initial design better, as it provides 480 total cooling instead of 448.
-
Is there something supposed to be hard to understand? What I see is just basic spherical Geometry, nothing what causes headaches like sunlight for example.
Except that calculating sunlight requires spherical geometry. Anyway, a power transmission system would probably involve lasers, so there would be no spread. The energy loss would be a fixed amount based on the conversion and some slight increase based on the properties of the substance transferred through, (opacity, density, ect.) anyway, a mostly fixed loss would be useful for this sort of purpose, so that it becomes a reasonable alternative at extreme range, but very impractical over relatively short distances. -
depends. the real metric for cooling tower effectiveness is amount of cooling for the cost. It doesn't matter if you need 6 or 8 cooling towers, just how much it costs to build all of them.
-
I don't see how you would able to stack six coolant cells in a six chamber version without reducing the amount of cooling for each cell. the most I can get is four.
-
*snip*
I like those suggestions. It would be nice for coal to actually be a viable energy source so you aren't forced to use geothermals for a decent energy output early on.
