How does Gravitation Suite get along with the latest IC2 experimental versions for 1.10.x nowadays? I fully realize that the mod is tagged for 1.7.10, and that there were some massive changes in 1.8, but hey: asking is free And if I expect the worst, I can only be positively surprised.
Yeah, Talonius' planner didn't show that properly either, because it never updated to this new heat-based MOX system. But I'd be fine with seeing the base heat.
Feature request: display the cooling system's total heat removal per second capacity and the fuel rod's total heat per second generation as separate values. And display the performance data at all times, regardless of whether or not the design is valid.
Talonius' planner showed these separately, and I always made extensive use of the feature because it allowed me to "design by proxy". I could for example just experiment with different fuel rod configurations to find out one that most closely produces a very specific heat value. Or design cooling systems without fuel rods inserted so you are not space constrained, and just see how high you can push it. It also lets you figure out very quickly what the individual performance of each part is without having the wiki open in the background (and still remain unsure because the wiki is outdated in many places).
Right now, in your planner I can only see some data if I make a design that completes a full cycle, and then less than I like. If the design does not complete a full cycle, it won't show me any data at all. That way, I am often left guessing as to what I actually need to do to make it valid. How many extra points of cooling capacity do I actually need? Or if a design is valid, how many points of excess cooling does it have, that I might get rid of by removing parts for a cheaper build? I can't tell if it's one point or a hundred.
Basically, the more numbers you show at all times, the better!
Strange, that's not quite what I meant. Pasting into an empty code box works for me, but if there had been some text there already (including spaces, which would not be obvious), adding the pasted code to the existing text wouldn't work.
Well, if it works, it works? I'm happy as an easter bunny that there's a new planner around, in any case. Keep up the good work!
"Mid power low running cost" (note: I have personally confirmed in creative mode with IC2exp build 658 that the overclocked heat vents in the lower right will break after almost 800 seconds, followed by a rapid increase in core temperature, so this design doesn't qualify as Mark I any more):
As an aside, this has been known for a long while, Requia just never fixed it due to being inactive. When Thunderdark reworked the reactor system for IC2 Experimental, the behavior of basic heat exchangers was subtly changed (I believe they exchange more heat with the core than Talonius' old planner assumes). That is why this design breaks.
There is an easy fix, however, with some component reshuffling and replacing an advanced vent with an overclocked one:
So the fuel rod layout (and with it, the reactor performance) is still valid. It just needs to have the heat routed differently.
Ah, yes. pasting over an existing code instead of pasting into an empty code box worked. How oddly speific
In case people want to put the designs from the first post of this thread into my new planner (see IC2 Experimental Reactor Planner open beta), here are some codes for that:
How could I import those codes into your planner? I can paste them into the "Code" field, but nothing I do actually makes the program read it and update the grid (or even just the simulation).
At the time the list was assembled, you could run it at 99.9% heat because there was no melting behavior then (just spreading random fires around). Then came a moment when reactors were changed to melt indestructible blocks to stop people encasing them in such things and completely disable the random fires. Which of course had the entirely foreseeable side effect of being able to melt bedrock. This led to the melting behavior being changed again, restoring the standard melting behavior from the days of yore.
I ultimately decided against recalculating the numbers because it was unclear where the final intent of the devs lay. And then I kind of stopped having free time so I also stopped maintaining the list. (Thankfully it seems like no new direct exchange reactors are cropping up for the time being.)
For now, you can easily get performance at 85% by dividing output/efficiency by 5 and then multiplying by 4.4. Or just multiply by 0.88 if you're using a calculator.
(...) could someone come up with a more powerful/efficient reactor design, without using any components that draw heat out the reactor hull?
The list I've maintained in this thread on page six (linked from the OP) is exactly that - all of them are direct exchange reactors that are heat stable even when turned off / out of fuel. All you need is have a look at it.
Now, I understand that you can't open the reactor planner links (though temporarily toggling your security settings down and then back up after you're done would solve the problem), but unless you tell us what you want, we cannot really help you. The answer to "could someone come up with a powerful and efficient reactor without hull exchange" is "yes, we already did that". But I could link you 0-chambers or 6-chambers, reactors focused on efficiency or focused on output, reactors with running cost and without running cost, reactors with reflectors and without reflectors, reactors with low diamond cost and ones that make diamonds cry... unless you specify your use case and/or your desired specs, it's pointless trying to guess :p
I wish there had been class projects like this when I was still in school... :O
What I was trying to say in the above post is that I do not have the time to maintain such a thread anymore. However, I encourage anyone who wishes to step up to the task.
Maybe these ones will push Omicron over the edge to include them
If you'd like to help out with that, it would be great if you guys could assemble a list of hull exchange reactors you consider to be the best of the crop.
In fact, maybe it's time for a new thread entirely. Requia's old thread contains at least one design which no longer works in IC2 Experimental, and this thread here isn't necessarily apparent as a resource. Maybe find a moderator to unsticky Requia's old thread, and instead sticky a new one dedicated to IC2 Experimental. It could be structured something like this:
- Table of Contents
- Disclaimer about the outdated reactor planner, and what it is still useful for nowadays
- The nuclear fuel lifecycle (showing how uranium ore goes through various types of reactors and eventually converts into 100% pure plutonium that ends up in RTGs)
- List of uranium reactors (bug- and sanity-checking Requia's list will go a long way, I expect)
- List of direct exchange MOX reactors
- List of hull exchange MOX reactors
For the direct exchange MOX reacvtors, you can just copy&paste the list I made in this thread, which seems fairly complete at this point (I haven't seen entries challenged in a while). But it's probably not a good idea to have me manage a potential new thread, because I really have very little spare time at the moment. I've even stopped playing Minecraft for the time being because I've got too much else going on that I need to deal with. It would be a small but appreciated weight off of my conscience if someone could take over maintaining this.
MOX fuel lasts 10,000 seconds - the same as uranium did in old versions of IC2. The online reactor planner still shows that value. Uranium now lasts twice as long, 20,000 seconds.
As for the heat, depends on how it is implemented. First the melting function was added, then it was removed again, then it was returned, and nobody knows which of the two is ultimately intended. And then the devs stopped toying with it and started the 1.7 port instead. Right now, it's probably the safest bet to stay below 85% temperature.
And yes, the intended "final destination" for your nuclear waste is radioisotope generators (or nukes, if that's striking your fancy).
you need other mods for the automation of any reactor though.
Yes, but some reactors do not require automation to be efficient and convenient to operate. Hull exchange MOX reactors however do, because without it they cool down.
I did the tests, it's possible to automate core heat exchange reactors without heat loss with vanilla hoppers.
So you don't need any other mods. Does that mean they go on the list?^^
It's pretty easy to do for reactors using just 1 type of cells. I am still working on a method for multiple types, but I already have an idea that should work.
That's great to hear! I wish I was that good with hoppers, I have no idea how to sort stuff with them
If that is possible, then yes, they can be on the list. Theoretically. There is however another caveat: a while ago there was a "bug and/or feature" where heat exchangers had more hull transfer than advertised. This was discovered when this perfectly good reactor in Requia's recommendation list suddenly started melting down on people. If you go into the reactor planner and replace the first basic heat exchanger in the very bottom row with an advanced one, you can see the effect - too much hull transfer in this location causes the design to fail.
At the time I verified that this was indeed happening, and then reported it as a potential bug and asked for clarification if it was a feature. But I never heard back, and the changelogs mention no tweaks to reactor components. Therefore I must assume that this effect is still going on. It would be great if one of you could test this ingame with the reactor shown above. If the "bug and/or feature" still exists, then every hull transfer design using heat exchangers needs to be stresstested ingame - both for immunity to catastrophic failure, AND for whether it is even capable of holding its heat at all. Since the designs are so sensitive to having exactly the right amount of hull transfer, this "bug and/or feature" could screw them up massively.
This is a modified version of yours that is heat stable. However it still damages the components for some reason and i can't figure out why. Feel free to give it a go. ive tried some different setups but havent solved the problem.
There's no such thing as "damaged components". The damage bar is used to show how much heat the component is storing internally.What you are seeing here is simply the fact that a couple components are not at 0% heat anymore.
The reason for this are the heat exchangers, who attempt to balance the heat of all adjacent components, including the hull. At the start, all heat vents start at 0%, so the heat exchanger has no need to balance anything; it simply shuffles heat from the hull into the advanced vents (which can't draw anything on their own). During the first few dozen ticks however the adjacent OC vents begin accumulating internal heat, because they are not fully surrounded by component vents and thus cannot dissipate all of what they draw from the hull. The heat exchanger then begins to shuffle heat away from them, towards the advanced vents, which are still at 0% heat because they are only running at a fraction of their capacity so far. But because the mechanism is percentage-based, the exchangers don't transfer at their full capacity until the OC vents have built up a moderate amount of internal heat. Only then enough heat will be transferred to fully saturate the advanced vents, at which point the reactor becomes heat neutral and no further heatup of components occurs.
You can see this process happening in the reactor planner by drawing the "Time Limit" slider all the way to the left and then advancing it one by one using the arrow keys, while keeping an eye on the status of the OC vents and the reactor excess heating / total vent cooling numbers.
MFSUs and other storage devices can't draw power from anything, they can only receive it. The whole e-net is built on a basis of "if I have room in my internal buffer, advertise this fact so producers can send me packets". The reactor sends what it is capable of, and no more than that.
Now, unless you are playing multiplayer and someone messed with your reactor, I don't see how this one could possibly blow up either. You may have misplaced a component when setting it up initially; if the error is small enough, it can take nearly the entire cycle to overheat.
If you are using a switch, and the reactor still runs even if it is switched off, then it is getting a stray redstone signal from somewhere else. This can sometimes happen in compact bases. Check the surroundings of the reactor for other redstone things that might potentially affect it.
I know, this thread is kinda half a year old now, but I believe the design fits the topic best.
If you know of a thread that could use my design better, feel free to post it there or let me know. :0)
How about the thread titled "Alright, so: MOX reactor designs", usually found within the first three lines of this forum?
Back from vacation...
I like the math you can do with the plutonium efficiency number. It lets the player answer some questions with a simple division that normally take more effort. However, I'm not convinced that it makes for a better general KPI. No matter how you put it, it's simply the existing figure divided by an arbitrary constant. For all intents and purposes, you're still reporting the same number; no new information is incorporated through the mathematical operation because the constant contains none. On the flip side, you lose something - namely the comparison to uranium reactors. The ability to at a glance judge how good any given reactor is in comparison to any other reactor in IC2 is quite valuable for a player looking to get into nuclear power.
In the meantime, anyone know what the latest word on reactor heat behavior is? Will 85% be the new 100%, or was that rolled back/is planned to be rolled back?
Sir, I must ask you to please step away from the reactor designer slowly.
Which I have indeed never built