Posts by Omicron

Have a quick look in your config if steam-outputting reactors is enabled.

The fact that vanilla Minecraft has gobbled up some previously free (for modding) IDs does not make the suggested approach wrong. It just means that it's impossible to port the world over without losing anything, no matter what you do*. Which, considering the sheer amount of changes in vanilla alone (not to mention Forge and the mods themselves), isn't really surprising. There's at least one, likely multiple world-breaking updates in there that you're hitting all at once.

The best you can hope for is a solution that ports over most things. The suggested approach does that.

* (Of course, if anyone feels able to prove me wrong...)

Open the config file of your old Industrialcraft version. Inside, you can see the IDs used.

Open the config file of your new industrialcraft version. Replace the IDs in the new version with the IDs in the old version.

CPW has a twitter account (@minecraftcpw) that he uses and checks on a daily basis. Other than that, I'm sure player or Thunderdark can catch him for you on Forgecraft, IRC or Teamspeak.

As for nerfing/removing vanilla enderchests, it strikes me as odd. They cannot be color-coded, so you can ever only have one per player; they need to be recrafted everytime you break them; and they cannot be automated. Pretty much all they're good for is as a small personal safe that no other player can access.

2.3.0.3 was the last version still built for classic IC2. If you use .0.4 or .0.5 you should be fine.

Type-1 reactors are fairly easy to heat. Unfortunately, having the Nuclear Control addon installed is pretty much mandatory at this point, since you need a way to measure temperature.

I build an industrial information panel, hook a sensor kit up to the reactor, and then place in all the plating that I want to use. Then I just use some kind of reactor fuel to inject heat - quad uranium cells work pretty well, especially if you group them up, but you probably want to keep something smaller around for the last few degrees. I bring it as close as I can to the melting point as indicated by the info panel. Then I insert the actual setup and MOX fuel. Since it doesn't affect the hull heat at all, you can stop worrying about it.

Type-2 reactors are much more difficult, though. You need to bring the heat up, but not quite as close as before. Then insert the MOX fuel cells and the components without core transfer. Then, after you switch the reactor on, rapidly insert all the core transfer relevant components. Start with the ones there are the least of; ideally you can shiftclick the type with the largest amount in last, courtesy of inventory tweaks.

The classic branch is discontinued. Try IC2 experimental instead (see link in the banner up top)

Unfortnately this does not explain the issue I am seeing.

For starters, what you wrote is true for reactors that exchange heat with the hull. Pretty much every normal uranium design does this. First, the cells dump heat straight to the hull, and second, the cooling system pulls it back out. That's possible with MOX reactors too, as I outlined under option 2 in the opening post.

However, the reactor I was testing with in the post directly above yours is a type-1 MOX reactor. It has zero core transfer rate. The cells dump their heat directly into heat exchangers, and the vents take it directly from the heat exchangers. The hull is never involved, and hull heat remains rock stable.

Secondly, even if it was a type-2 MOX reactor, the only thing that changed in the layout between the five test runs were the heat platings, which are never evaluated for any heat mechanics beyond increasing the maximum hull capacity. The rest of the setup is preserved exactly, just shifted to another position. This means that the evalutation sequence is also preserved exactly. There should not be any difference in how much heat is in the hull at any specific point in time between any of the setups above; hence, they should provide identical output.

All my machines are running on a 512 EU/t line with just one transformer upgrade, including the recyclers. The new thermal centrifuge doesn't even need one, it can do HV by default.

However, I would still disconnect all cables, because you are probably going to blow up the cables and/or machines simply by virtue of the e-net behavior changing. Right now, you can have 20 goethermal generators all feeding into one batbox, since the batbox can take packets sized 32 EU and the geothermals output packets sized 20 EU. But the new e-net doesn't allow for an infinite number of packets anymore. It simply adds up all packets that would be transmitted in each tick into one. So those 20 geothermals are now trying to insert one 400 EU packet into your batbox each tick. Kaboom! Heck, even two geothermals at once will overload it. Six geothermals will be okay on a basic machine (120 out of 128 EU/t), but seven won't.

Pretty much every setup in classic IC2 includes situations where you have parallel inputs into single cables - heck, I think every single player ever will eventually build a bank of MFSUs that all output into the same line. This will absolutely kill anything you hook up under the new e-net rules, even if the cable can manage it (and even mighty glass fiber of 8192 EU/t will melt if you have more than four MFSUs).

You don't put U-235 into fuel rods, in either form. You need to use some U-235 and some U-238 to craft "enriched uranium fuel" (or something similar, can't check right now). The recipe is the same as MOX fuel, just replace the plutonium with small U-235 parts.

Is power loss even enabled already? I know for example shocking from uninsulated cables and EU/t limits are not enabled.

Breeding no longer exists. You put the depleted rods into the thermal centrifuge to get plutonium out of them.

Then, when you have collected a lot of plutonium, you can make MOX fuel, which gives bonus EU/t if the reactor runs hot. That's the replacement for the old breeder reactor mechanic, so to speak.

Aaaaand it's back up.

Quote from KumagawaM

propose a problem in this post:
Table of craft is locked

could be a bug?

Note that MCPC servers are not officially supported by IC2. They usually work but there's no guarantee.

Quote from masterzh

Hi guys any idea about new E-Net system? What are those major changes? Sorry if it was already discussed.

The basic gist is that you can no longer transfer multiple packets over a cable or into a machine at the same time. If the mass fab says "I accept 512 EU/t", then that means one and only one MFE outputting 512 EU/t, not an arbitrarily large number of MFEs outputting 512 EU/t to make the mass fab run at many thousands.

Oh, and MFE, 512 EU/t? Yes, most things were bumped up a power tier in order to account for the fact that you must now use bigger "voltages" in order to get any real amount of power anywhere. For example, regular machines now accept MV without needing transformer upgrades, only the batbox and the luminator specifically request LV. In my version (build #231) all the machine tooltips say 32 EU/t but that's wrong. They actually handle 128 just fine. The CESU is new in between batbox and MFE, and handles the tier 2 storage and power supply. Glass fiber now handles 8192 EU/t, meaning it is still your "cable to end all cables".

Gotta love it when you get to call 32 pixel textures "high definition", eh?

I've always considered 32-64pix to be the sweetspot for Minecraft's engine. Anything above it has a severe tendency to become too busy and high-frequency (of course, if you're doing cell graphics like Sphax, you can go higher without running into issues, but not everyone likes that look, and the advantage of high resolution is limited in that graphics style to begin with). With better texture filtering and potentially even fullscreen supersampling coming in 1.7, that number will likely move up a tier.

There always remain these people that purport that great gameplay doesn't need great graphics. But I say: why not combine great gameplay with great graphics? As such, I'm glad that IC2 is stepping up the native resolution. More pixels always leave more room to screw up and miss the "look and feel" of Minecraft, as some HD texture packs have shown that for all their resolution fail to look good in the world... but from what I've seen, Sirus seems to know what he's doing, so more power to him.

Basically, if it's in the official designs thread it is the best self-cooling design that's known to these forums, period. That list only contains the creme of the crop.

Of course, if you play GregTech or IC2 Experimental, you have additional fuel choices.

Well, advancent vents are the weapon of choice in MOX reactors, after all - if you want maximum cooling without core transfer. And, I wouldn't worry so much about that one diamond per vent, the rest of the vent is also noticably expensive now that basic vents require motors Of course, at the time you can afford MOX fuel rods, you should be well covered on the resource front. Compress some coal if necessary.

Now, I've been testing ingame, and much to my disappointment, MOX fuel seems quite buggy: EU output is highest when the fuel cells are closest to the left side of the reactor, and declines significantly the further right you move them, even if the design remains the same. Observe:

In my search for a decent efficiency, internal cooling MOX reactor, I wanted to test this design. In between taking various measurements with various amounts of plating and reactor chambers, I noticed the aforementioned bug. Note: I did make a silly mistake ingame, in the form of forgetting the two component vents in the design, but that didn't influence the test. Reactor temperature for the following five scenarios was always 59,520 / 59,500 / 70,000, minimally overshooting the melting point but irrelevant for testing purposes.

Scenario A: 578 EU/t
Scenario B: 552 EU/t
Scenario C: 529 EU/t
Scenario D: 508 EU/t
Scenario E: 489 EU/t

My first reaction: "What is this I don't even..."

This more or less means that while we can try to come up with designs under the assumption that things will eventually scale correctly, getting accurate numbers on how any given design actually performs ingame seems impossible right now.

EDIT: submitted bug report on this.

Okay, just tested the condensator reactor ingame. Good grief - with zero plating and at 8,400 / 10,000 heat, this thing produced 1,932 EU/t. With full plating and at 35,632 / 42,000 heat, it was pushing 2,915 EU/t. Finally, I bumped it up to 6 chambers and tested again at 66,352 / 78,000 heat: 3,331 EU/t. Definitely seeing diminishing returns there, but damn... that's more than 8 times the EU/t of the uranium variant, still with identical fuel layout and identical lapis consumption.

CRCS should see similar gains, considering the only difference is using coolant cells instead of condensators.

Still looking for a good and efficient internal vent reactor though...

The thing you're missing is that you can smelt crushed ore (from the macerator) and/or purisfied ore (from the ore washing plant) directly, without putting it any further through the production line. And after smelting, you can macerate the ingots up again to make dusts.

Basically, you're supposed to start with a macerator and furnace, then later add the ore washing plant in between them once you are well set up, and finally in the late midgame add the centrifuge (it's so power hungry that it's basically unusable for mass processing until you have a nuclear reactor anyway).

The issue with CRCS though is that they become difficult to automate in the absence of certain mods. As such I keep being hesitant about the idea of recommending them to the broad public.

Fun idea with the concept of supporting coolant cells with vents. Toyed around a bit, came up with this: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…on9lt7xgoqiv37kb0brx9nyy0
It's got a decent heat capacity, it has a good efficiency, it will work with single cells and quad cells too, and running it with dual cells won't spontaneously combust your bank of MFSUs (like quad cells certainly would). The 11 minute burst allows for a lot of power in a short time, after which the reactor can cool down. It almost, but not quite, manages a full cycle with single cells.

On the downside, the cooldown time is so massive that after running for 11 minutes in the dual cell config, you have to let it sit for 48 minutes to cool. Those few puny vents, expensive as they are, just don't really cut it, and the result is an effective EU/t of only around 17% of its actual rating. Provided you don't swap the coolant cells out, of course. But if you do, then you might as well go CRCS. Overall, I'm not sure that design is the way.

Some other food for thought: not only reflectors, but also condensators become more cost effective: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…styj6onfrmpbxg0ifwnzzo2g4
Conventionally we'd be looking at 240 lapis for 400 EU/t here, a rating that even non-condensator reactors can reach with internal cooling (albeit at the cost of uranium efficiency). But after the MOX multipliers, this thing should be putting out in the neighborhood of 2000 EU/t (a minimum of 1750 for running it at 85% temp, plus whatever bonus 35k absolute temperature adds). As you may remember, Direwolf20 built this to achieve a similar rating - at the staggering cost of 1371 lapis per cycle, instead of 240! (Note: MOX cycles are half as long, so it's 120 lapis per cycle, but over identical time the consumption speed is identical to uranium).

Still not sure if I'd want to run that - the issue of condensator replacement remains, since condensators can handle even less than coolant cells before needing replacement actually they can handle more, but it's a difference of 8.5 to 11 minutes in the above reactor, which is still not much at all. But at least this means we now no longer need to yell at every newbie who comes here with dreams of gigantic condensator fests... MOX fuel actually gives them a reason to exist.