Just as an idea, try removing Multiverse. If that doesn't work, try IC2 on a Cauldron server with nothing else (no mods or plugins) as it might well be broken anyway.
I just got my hands on a Cauldron + Forge 1388 build, and IC2 seems to be working perfectly with this build. So the problem was definitely the cauldron-1.7.10-1.1381.06.221 build.
What plugins do you have, I've seen them cause IC2 machine faces to become screwed up before.
Not a lot of plugins, and I haven't changed them in ages. Dynmap-Towny, DynmapCBBridge, Essentials, EssentialsGroupManager, EssentialsSpawn, LWC, Multiverse-Core, Questioner, TerrainControl, Towny, Vault, WorldEdit, WorldGuard. Of those, the only one recently changed or added was TerrainControl, which is active at world generation time only and I haven't really started messing with it again yet. (And in any case, I re-added it after the IC² problem manifested.) I can't see why any of them would be touching IC², unless it's some kind of fakeplayer issue involving Towny, in which case I would expect it to have been broken all along. (I did have some problems in 1.6.4 getting Buildcraft and TE3 machines that place or break blocks to work inside Towny towns, but it never affected IC².)
No mods were added during the relevant time period, and the exact same Forge mods that are present on the Cauldron server are also present on the Forge test server anyway. (The whole reason for the Forge test server to exist at all is so that I can distinguish between mod conflicts/Forge version issues and mod/Cauldron issues. If it works on the Forge server but not on Cauldron, I know there's some kind of Cauldron-specific conflict.)
I've once previously seen IC² machines render in odd orientations, on a much older server version (1.4.7 I think), but that time they were just rotated and still worked.
I have a Cauldron 1.7.10 private server with IC² installed. I haven't build a lot of different machines yet, I've been busy getting the world set up right, the plugins tuned, the modpack all working together, etc, but everything that I did make worked perfectly up to Forge 10.13.2.1343 and IC² 717. When I upgraded to Forge 10.13.3.1381, all IC2 machines stopped working; they are rendered face-down and their UIs cannot be opened. I updated to IC² build 718 but it made no difference. Meanwhile on my straight Forge-only test server (non-Cauldron), with the same mod versions, everything is fine and all IC² machines work perfectly. I cannot roll back to 10.13.2.1343 without also rolling back CodeChickenCore and a variety of other mods.
Does anyone know of a fix for this problem? I'm guessing it's a problem with cauldron-1.7.10-1.1381.06.221 and all I can do is wait for another new build, but if there's some tweak to make it behave, I'd love to hear it.
(Yes, I know I'm using an orphaned server. But if I want both mods and plugins, I'm kind of short of choices on that front until Sponge actually releases.)
Player,
I acknowledge and accept your redistribution terms, and have added a complying notice to the descriptive page of my STRICTLY PRIVATE mod pack, to which I will provide you with a link if you wish.
Also, thanks again for your hard work. 
Player,
I checked back in the thread a few pages but didn't see anything relevant.
I understand it's recently been discovered that the reason jungles, redwood forests and other biomes with lots of large trees are so laggy in Minecraft is because Minecraft is doing light level checks for every individual leaf block of every tree, frequently resulting in thousands of light-level checks per second being performed. Does this fall into the class of coding stupidities that Fastcraft could perhaps fix?
Maybe support isn't the correct word, i just want it to work with cauldron as Player said some time ago:
I'd second this, actually. I don't mind if the benefit is reduced; I love what it does for the performance of my client, and wish I could get even some of the same optimizations on my server. That said, I understand the difficulty of doing so at this point. Those of us who run plugin-enabled servers are a bit between a rock and a hard place until Sponge is ready for use, at this point.
What is the difference between an Advanced Machines rotary macerator and an IC2 macerator?
Well obviously I expect it's faster. I was kind of hoping for a summary of specs - how fast on how much power - vs. an IC2 ore washer. But I guess I can do some side-by-side tests myself...
57.1.2:
- Added shift-click support to vacuum canners and thermal washers. Note: you cannot shift-click items into a vacuum canner.
I think I missed this addition. What's the difference between an Advanced Machines thermal washer and an IC2 ore washer?
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.
Ha! I didn't think of that. Good thinking.
GregTech autocrafting tables has a dust piler mode, which can be used for making big dusts out of the smaller ones.
That's another possibility for what I used. I don't remember for sure, so I'm just going to have to try all of the available options and see which works best.
But what I cam e over for right now: Apologies for not using the bug tracker, but it won't let me create an account (keeps failing different ways). Perhaps someone who has an account set up can enter it for me? I just discovered an exploitable material-multiplication bug with metal formers in build 281 (and possibly others).
Make and place a metal former. You don't even have to power it; in fact the exploit works better if you don't power it. Place a single ingot of any metal in the input slot. Control-left-click the ingot as though you'd put in one ingot too many and want to transfer one back. Shazam! Watch 63 ingots appear in your inventory like magic.
AAAAAGH!! Disregard, disregard. PEBCAK. User error.
......I didn't realize I'd somehow switched NEI into cheat mode. This is how I look with egg all over my face. 
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
I thought casings were made by rolling plates? ...I guess I'll figure out sooner or later what the cutting mode is good for. (I assume at a pinch, I can use it to turn leftover plates into wire, if I need that type of wire.)
And yeah, it took four overclockers and a transformer upgrade to get my metal former up to a reasonable speed.
Huh. I have mine sitting there perfectly happy on a 512 EU/t line, equipped with just one single transformer upgrade.
Then I'm utterly mystified how, because if I put a single transformer upgrade into a metal former and connect it to 512EU/t, it explodes. (Retested just this morning with build 280.)
Speaking of thermal centrifuges, I did a bit of experimenting last night with ore washers and thermal centrifuges. (By the way, if I connect a thermal centrifuge to a 512EU HV line without a transformer upgrade, it explodes too.) It's not as much magnificent automation-fun as the Greg Tech industrial grinder, but I think I can build a pretty decent ore processing system out of them. Not sure yet how best to auto-reassemble the tiny dust piles though. I don't remember which type of autocrafting table I used for that in 1.4.7 — too long ago — but I have a bad feeling it might have been the XyCraft one. I'll have to experiment.
Just tested this in a test world. You're correct: no transforming losses and transformer output is split between output sides.
I'm curious. Lacking a working EU reader, how did you manage to tell? I asked because I couldn't tell for sure.
Quote
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.
Oh, I understand perfectly well that it wasn't designed to model electricity, but the way the old e-net worked made electricity actually a very good working metaphor. It didn't have resistance, but it had "current" (the number of packets flowing) and "voltage" (the size or strength of the packets), and transformers converted fewer large packets into more smaller ones (or so I was led to believe) or vice versa, and if you had an electrical background and thought of it in those terms, it was pretty obvious what to do and pretty hard to go wrong. (Or was I mistaken and they actually just threw away the other 75% of the packet?)
I didn't realize until today that the new e-net had been this radically revised. Knowing that, it's obvious that the electrical-current metaphor no longer works. (There's a meta-discussion here about misleading terminology, but I'm not going to get into it now.)
There are just as few questions I'm not certain I'm clear on: In the new model, there are no 'transformer' losses, right? A transformer will only take in as much power as it can output on its connected downstream lines? (I'm pretty sure you already said that, just want to make sure I have it right.)
So suppose I have an LV transformer with output cables on two faces. It can output 32 EU/t on each face, or 32 EU/t total? I'm ASSUMING that it's 32 EU/t total output, shared between all the output faces with anything connected to them, correct? And because it's total output, not per-face, there's no way you can intentionally or inadvertently cross-connect multiple output faces of a single LV transformer that will result in more than 32EU/t on the cable?
What? I think you're confused and too hung up on how you remember the old versions to work.
Well, yeah. this is my first experience of IC2 2.0.
QuoteThe 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.
OK, I could see that was the effect, but I didn't realize packets had actually gone away and there was no longer any concept of "current" separate from "voltage". So far, I'm going to take a lot of convincing that this new metaphor is an improvement. It means that I can't just add more current at the same voltage on a rail to power more machines at the same voltage any more.
QuoteNow, 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.
Yes, I figured out last night that I had to do that now.
QuoteOne 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.
Which made sense, and accurately reflects (well, except for conversion losses) the way real transformers work. Double the voltage, half the current; halve the voltage, double the current.
QuoteHowever, 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.
So transformers aren't actually transformers any more, they are restrictors.
QuoteDownstream, 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).
Not the metal former. The metal former will explode at 128EU/t. Go ahead, ask me how I know.
QuoteYou 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.
So in the new scheme, there is no longer any reason to connect storage devices in parallel to get increased current, and in fact you CAN'T increase the current, you can only increase the voltage.
QuoteIn 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.
I think we have different ideas of "easier" here. The new system, I think, is going to require excruciating care with every power system change or load change to make sure that nothing is going to be receiving more power than it can handle.
QuoteJust 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).
Yeah, I see that. Under the new revised system, the only sensible way to handle it is to distribute power at the highest available voltage, and have individual transformers restrictors as late in the line as possible.
Thanks for the explanation of how the new e-net works. As previously said, I think I'm going to take a lot of convincing that the new model is a good idea. I presume a major motivation was to reduce CPU load?
Transformers, tons of them, upgrades are a good idea.
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. 
... is it just me, or is the metal former really, really slow? I went to make some reinforced glass last night, and saw, "OK, mixed alloy ingots need plates now and I'm apparently supposed to use a metal former for those." And so I made a metal former and ... by the time it had rolled enough plates to make two mixed alloy ingots, I was wondering why I hadn't just used a forge hammer. It looks like a good machine, but dear lord Finagle, it needs to be faster. Right now it's like watching paint dry.
There is one thing I'm curious about though. It has three operating modes — roll plates from ingots, extrude wire from ingots, cut wire from plates. Why are there two different ways of making wire with the same machine? Are there more uses of that "cutting" operation that I'm not aware of yet?
SpwnX — so at the moment it IS supposed to work this way? If parallel circuits now act as serial connections, how on earth are you supposed to have enough current on a circuit to fully power more than one machine, without blowing up machines?
I assume this is something to be fixed in the future ... right?
I've just updated my server to MCPC+ 1.6.4 (build 105 right now) and IC2-2.0 experimental build 274, and I'm seeing power behavior that appears to be wrong. (I assume this is the right place to ask about it.)
Here's the setup: I have (currently) four geothermal generators (the start of a planned bank of 12-16), feeding into four MFEs, to four MV transformers, to four LV transformers, to my 32 EU/p LV power rail. I've done basically similar power setups before with no trouble, and they have worked as expected. In the past, when I've added more generators, more MFEs, more MFSUs, more transformers in parallel, the LV rail is still LV, the MV rail is still MV, and the HV rail is still HV, just with more "current" available to power more machines simultaneously at that "voltage".
On MCPC+ 1.6.4 and IC2-2.0 build 274, what I'm seeing is that if I parallel-connect at any point, devices downstream of the connection act as though the voltage, not the current, has increased. Connect the output of the LV transformers in parallel, and my metal former explodes as though I'd connected it to MV. Connect the MV transformers in parallel, and LV transformers explode. Connect the MFEs in parallel, and MV transformers explode.
I cannot believe it's intended to be working this way. It would mean I would have to have completely separate storage, transformers, and power lines for each individual machine, and no two power lines even at the same voltage could ever be allowed to connect, which would be just completely insane.
Has anyone else experienced this behavior? Is there something I don't know about how the new power net works? Is it a bug in this build? Because this makes absolutely no sense.
(Footnote: Retesting with build 280 right now.)
I'm almost certain the non-experimental branch of IC2 won't get updated. You'll just either have to feed the geothermals manually or upgrade to the experimental.
Yeah, for now I've figured out a nicely clean way to automatically feed lava buckets into them (and pull empty buckets back out) using CodeChicken's Translocators. The only problem is that I haven't figured out a way, using any mod yet updated to 1.6.2, to automatically fill the lava buckets from a tank.
(Item translocators are also working nicely to retrieve ingots from induction furnaces, though oddly they don't work to retrieve dusts from a rotary macerator, though they worked with an base IC2 macerator.)
The experimental IC2 release isn't even an option until (a) it's stable and (b) installing it doesn't break half a dozen other mods. I'm already stuck because I can't upgrade Railcraft without updating to experimental IC2, and if I upgrade to experimental IC2, other mods break. (Buildcraft for starters, if memory serves. But I'd have to test again to be sure.)
No idea about 401 but in 175 they worked perfectly fine. I specifically tested it before posting here. I do vaguely remember using vanilla-IC geothermals at some point before experimental but unfortunately I can't remember if they allowed pumping or not.
I'm not using the experimental yet, too much breaks. In 401-lf, not only can I not find any way to get lava piped into a geothermal, I can't find any way to autofill lava buckets from a tank in order to pipe lava buckets to one. This makes geothermals usable at present only if hand-fed. (I'm eagerly awaiting the Thermal Expansion port and the return of liquiduct and the TE machines.)
Hey Immibis, what's the chance you could be talked into adding a clone of the Greg Tech thermal generator into Advanced Machines? It's not really that the thermal generator produces that much more power than the IC2 geothermal generator (it doesn't), the killer feature is that you can pipe lava into it instead of having to hack together some clunky way to get buckets or cans of lava fed into it.
I just ripped Greg Tech out of my servers today, tested to see whether your Core and Advanced Machines would work with Forge Multipart (they do), checked some items NEI, and realized that the ONLY things from GregTech I used that aren't already provided by something else are the thermal generator and the industrial grinder. And if it comes to that, I can live without the industrial grinder.
(What would be really awesome would be a thermal generator that still produced power only on demand, like the geothermal generator does, instead of running maximum output into already-full energy storage. That would be BETTER than Greg.)
