I've not used a single piece of glass fiber in my singleplayer world in the entire two months I've played with IC2 experimental. I crafted a few pieces used as ingredients in advanced reactor components and such, but not a single one placed anywhere in the world.
Of course, that might have more to do with the fact that HV cable isn't as completely useless right now as it used to be, because energy loss over distance hasn't been reimplemented yet...
Ooof, let's not go with case 2, okay? 
I'm as much for accurate models as the next guy, but that just smacks of overcomplicating things on a grand scale.
I think JaxFireheart made a good argument for case 1, too. It makes sense to focus on power production. Having the advantage of the model being both super simple to calculate and broadly compatible is a great bonus.
Thanks for your input, guys!
Might be related to http://bt.industrial-craft.net/view.php?id=767
Well, if both absolute -and- relative heat levels are a factor in MOX output, then you're going to see a bunch of six-chamber reactor designs filled with heat plates in spare slots.
The interesting thing here will be the cost effectiveness of that design. Will it be worth the price of extra chambers and the copper in the heat plating to increase the size of a reactor just to have a higher cap and current heat value? Where will the diminishing returns be?
MOX reactors will need to be approached differently than standard reactors.
This is something I'm raring to find out about. For example, I made these three reactors for the express purpose of comparing the value of extra plating to the value of extra cooling for higher efficiency and/or output.
But I can't be confident in my findings until the location-specific output bug is fixed. I'm also pretty sure that we'll see different output numbers then for our existing MOX designs, so trying to judge cost effectiveness now is pretty much an exercise in futility.
Regarding the efficiency calculation proposal, I remembered last night that MOX fuel only runs half as long as uranium fuel. Now I'm not sure if this should be significant... I mean, the EU/t difference is what it is, no question, and so long as you have fuel available you have an effectively permanently on reactor in either case, ignoring cycle times. But technically, if you were using efficiency in order to try to describe what each single fuel rod can do for you, and you wanted full comparability to uranium reactors, then you'd have to go by total energy created per cycle, not EU/t. You can't directly see that number anywhere ingame, but conveniently the runtime difference of one half means that all you need to do is divide the MOX efficiency numbers by two after the calculation presented further up.
That would result in an efficiency of 12, not 24, for the example numbers I used. Which is, admittedly, still a darn good number - three times as high as many of the best balanced uranium designs.
The question is, should an effeciency 4 uranium design that gets its fue rods replaced with MOX but remains otherwise unmodified automatically get downgraded to eff 2, because the running time halved? Or should it still remain efficiency 4, because that's what the cell configuration is?
Brainstorming about how to express efficiency of MOX reactors.
This gets a bit silly, since you have what effectively comes out to three two different internal efficiency values multiplying another for the final number. You have the efficiency that comes from fuel cells having neighbours to bounce off of in the setup, just like uranium. But you also have the efficiency that comes from how high percentage wise the reactor heat is; in other words, how close you are to blowing up. The closer to doom, the better. And then in addition to that, you also have the efficiency that comes from how hot your reactor is, absolutely. The hotter the better. (that was a bug)
Currently I'm leaning towards calculating it via EU/t, since that's a metric the player has easy access to, either via the eu-reader (when it works again) or via the industrial information panel (because if you want to use MOX reactors you need to install Nuclear Control anyway).
Step 1: Add up your number of individual fuel cells; a dual cell obviously counts as 2, a quad cell as 4
Step 2: Multiply by reactor base output as defined in your config file. Default 5, is equal to the output of a single fuel cell at eff 1
Step 3: Divide your recorded EU/t output by that number
Example: I have a reactor outputting 577 EU/t from two dual MOX fuel cells, two reflectors and tons of plating. My IC2 config is set to reactor base output 6.
---> 4 cells * 6 EU/t = 24 EU/t
---> 577 EU/t / 24 EU/t = 24.04
If my reactor base output was 5, as the default, I would be seeing an output of 481 EU/t, resulting in the following math:
---> 4 cells * 5 EU/t = 20 EU/t
---> 481 EU/t / 20 EU/t = 24.05
And the results are comparable to uranium reactors, since the formula applies to them too. Take this popular design:
---> 6 cells * 5 EU/t = 30 EU/t
---> 100 EU/t / 30 EU/t = 3.33 ...which is exactly what the reactor planner says.
To sum up, this method gives us a number that is directly comparable to uranium reactors and is (within a tiny margin of error) independent of the user's reactor base output config, eliminating mistakes like I just love making them all the time. 
What do you guys think? Can you come up with any flaws in my train of thought? Are there any edge cases where this doesn't work out that I might have missed? Got a better idea to measure MOX efficiency? Let me know!
And I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for a bugfix so we can start making designs for real... 
...Sirus, you're either a terrible troll, or remarkably clueless for someone with a developer tag (Yes I know you're just a sprite artist, but still)
6x U-238 + 3x plutonium crafts 1x MOX reactor fuel, which when the fuel rod is depleted and centrifuged, returns 3x plutonium + 1x small plutonium.
Thus MOX fuel will convert 54 U-238 into 1 plutonium without losing anything else in the process (and generating a ton of EU). The resulting plutonium can be used for more MOX fuel rods, or for the radioisotope generator where it will passively generate EU for all eternity.
If you truly have over 14 thousand U-238 stocked, then you could be making that into enough plutonium to fully fill 17-18 radioisotope generators, for a passive energy income of 272 - 288 EU/t. Also, with a decently efficient MOX reactor setup like the one I have in my world, that could be generating over 2.8 billion EU during the conversion process.
Therefore, it's round enough, and to save processing power/RAM I suggest that textures are kept within the bounds of 16 pixels by 16 pixels.
The Forge guys benchmarked this when they added native HD texture support. The performance difference between 16x and 32x was within the margin of error of the measurement. The difference between 32x and 64x as well. You'd have to go from 16x to 64x to have a delta that could even be reproducably measured.
Wish I could cite you the source, but that was ages ago and I've completely forgotten where I came across it =/
Of course, if you used something like, I dunno, a first generation based Atom netbook or something, the story might be different... but even vanilla Minecraft doesn't get more than 20 FPS @ 1024x600 with short view distance on that, so only the most masochistic of users would even attempt modded content.
And while you're at it, retexture vanilla buckets. They're round!!!!!!!!1111one 
Actually integrated GPUs should work quite nicely due to the way MC handles textures nowadays
Fixed that for you
Not too long ago, Minecraft's texture handling was fairly bad. Only 1.5 fixed that.
Also, don't forget that most integrated GPUs are Intel. In fact, almost two thirds of all PC GPUs on the planet are Intel, even when counting discrete cards. And the thing about Intel GPUs is that they're not doing too well with OpenGL games. Like, you know, Minecraft. That too has recently seen improvements but the drivers are still behind the competition.
Noooooo clearly GregTech must stay ugly, can't have people start liking it all of a sudden now can we 
Did you spawn in and/or place down your replacement machine in Creative mode? I once had issues getting the scanner and pattern storage to work together in a test world, they only started behaving if I crafted them by hand and placed them in survival mode. Admittedly, that was a large number of versions back (over 80 builds at this point).
If experience has taught me anything, then it is the fact that the ability to read or write is apparently not considered a requirement to get into nuclear engineering by the community... 
If you know both the input amount and the output amount, you can tell. The EU-reader may be disfunct, but the EU display inside of storage units is not In this case, a CESU transferring through a LV transformer into a batbox in the first test, and into three batboxes connected to individual faces in the second.
Just tested this in a test world. You're correct: no transforming losses and transformer output is split between output sides.
Nice, is about time uranium was less rare without quarries
...until you realize that one block of uranium ore costs 677,700,000 EU to make.
Or well, ca. 12,306,300 EU and ca. 18,100 recycleable blocks (the entire contents of an 18x18 quarry at sea level). Take your pick.
Not the metal former. The metal former will explode at 128EU/t. Go ahead, ask me how I know.
Huh. I have mine sitting there perfectly happy on a 512 EU/t line, equipped with just one single transformer upgrade.
Current, Voltage, etc, pp
You might understand it better if you stopped using those terms. The old system had nothing to do with how voltage, current and so on really operate. The new system still has nothing to do with it. If you attempt to compare the way the e-net works with what you know of real electricity, you're going to trip over misunderstands left, right and center.
Just think of EU/t. There's no reason to use any other term, anywhere, ever. Since EU/t is in effect power (that is the one RL comparison that does work - energy over time), this may seem counterintuitive and in fact "wrong" in many places - but it would only be wrong IRL. In IC2, it simply works like that. Machines have an EU/t limit. Transformers have an EU/t throughput. Generators have an EU/t production. Why bother making up extra terms and seeking parallels where there are none?
I found 16 valid scannable recipes so far. Basically just stuff that can be mined/dug, plus iridium.
- stone
- cobblestone
- dirt
- gravel
- sand
- coal
- restone
- lapis
- diamond
- iron ore
- copper ore
- tin ore
- lead ore
- gold ore
- uranium ore
- iridium ore
I'm not sure I see how that helps at the moment. Unless I give each LV machine its own dedicated LV transformer off the LV rail, and likewise for MV machines. (Though it seems kind of weird to have to transform LV down to LV.) Right now it basically means my LV rail is really a MV rail, and my MV rail is really a HV rail, so I have LV-transformers outputting MV and MV-transformers outputting HV. This makes my brain hurt.
What? I think you're confused and too hung up on how you remember the old versions to work.
The new system is a great simplification. You forget all other numbers and only look at EU/t. All sources inputting EU/t into a cable or machine are summed up each tick, and only that one EU/t number is used for calculation. There is no more packet size because packet size is always 100% identical to EU/t.
Your four geothermals output 4x 20 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 80 EU/t.
Your four MFEs output 4x 512 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 2048 EU/t.
Your four MV transformers output 4x 128 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 512 EU/t.
Your four LV transformers output 4x 32 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 128 EU/t.
Now, I assume that you have your transformers set up so that each individual MFE feeds into its own dedicated MV transformer, and then again into a dedicated LV transformer. If all four MFEs would output into the same cable, you'd have that 2048 EU/t pulse going around and nuking all your MV transformers, because they can only take 512 EU/t. If all the MV transformers output into the same cable, you'd have a 512 EU/t pulse nuking all your LV transformers.
One thing you should notice: transformers no longer output 4 packets per tick, because there's no such thing anymore as multiple packets per tick. Under the old system, a LV transformer had 128 EU/t input and 128 EU/t output. it didn't step down EU/t at all, just EU/p. However, under the new system, stepping down means actually throttling throughput by 75%. You don't lose any power, it just goes through much more slowly. If you want to step down 512 EU/t into four 128 EU/t lines, you need four MV transformers. But the moment you let those four transformers output into the same cable, it's going to sum up right back to 512 EU/t again. There are no more packets, there is only EU/t.
Downstream, all your machines are fine with the 128 EU/t they're getting, because all machines can now handle MV by default (thermal centrifuge even does HV). If NEI says they can only take 32 EU/t, that's a lie. Only batboxes and luminators are limited to 32 EU/t. However, the moment you add a fifth LV transformer, you have 160 EU/t on the line, and that will blow everything up.
You can now either give each individual machine its own MV transformer (throttling the 160 EU/t down to 128 EU/t), or instead you can insert transformer upgrades into your machines. That will allow them to accept up to 512 EU/t. This means you to completely remove all your LV transformers and simply feed the machines from your four MV transformers. Or, you know what would be even easier? Forget those 4 MV transformers too. Just feed the line from one MFE. If you still want the storage of all four, hook the MFEs up serially.
In the past, transformer trees such as yours were useful because they allowed you to transmit several thousand EU/t over a line that could only handle 32 EU/p. Under the new system, forget all that. It's much easier. Just transmit the several thousand EU/t as they are, and use transformer upgrades to make sure your machines can take it. Instead of having transformers at the start of the line (right after storage), you now have transformers at the end of the line (inside your machines, as upgrades).
Its about as slow as a furnace for me. Also, pretty sure the cutter makes Casings somehow.
The electric furnace does one operation in 130 ticks. The metal former does one operation in 500 ticks. They're nowhere near the same speed, unless you're overclocking the metalformer at least 2-3x
ngc4896, I think you need to calm down a bit. Making a 5-word post every few hours isn't really the way to go about this. It just makes you look impatient and unfocused, and leaves the people who might want to help you at a loss as to how to respond. That's why nobody posted any replies.
IC2 Experimental is a beta stage release that's actively being worked on, and features change all the time. You won't find documentation happening until it stabilizes. That's just the way things go. For you as a player, this means you're going to be the one who needs to figure out how things work. Also, if you're a newcomer to modded Minecraft, you might want to start elsewhere - IC2 is going away from being an introductory mod and more towards something for experienced players.
1.) Invest a few minutes ingame to try and see if you can get the feature to work. Try a rational, structured approach: have you checked NEI yet? Have you found all the buttons in the mystery machine's GUI? Have you tried setting up a test world to experiment with setups?
2.) Search online resources. You were pointed to a thread here on the forums that has a lot of information on new features, for example. Google can also direct you to other places that might be discussing the mod. Furthermore, youtube has plenty of videos where the new features are being actively used, or maybe even explained in detail. Recordings from Forgecraft are always a good source of information, but since IC2 made its builds public early on, you'll find other sources too.
3.) When all of that didn't yield results, ask here on the forums. In your post, name exactly what you are trying to get to work, describe what you have tried before, and if it's a situation where it might help, provide a screenshot. Above all, invest a little effort in your language and grammar so your post is understandable.
We're here to help, but we're not here to hold your hand.
As for your question: the scrap goes into a mass fabricator, as it always has in IC2, even before the rework of the uu-matter system. Even the un-updated wiki could have told you that much, and one quick glance in NEI would have shown you that yes, the mass fabricator still exists today and still performs the same function.
