Oh I've seen the amount in the hatch. That's what I've been monitoring. Usually it's almost full when there's a SHS surplus and empty when there's a defecit. I use fluid regulators to pull 750 mB/t from each of 4 output hatches to total 60 B/s. I lower the HC input until I see the output hatch values decrease from max (implying a SHS defecit) then raise the HC input slowly until the output hatch's internal storage doesn't move. If I increase the HC input the output hatch will start to fill. If I lower it the output hatch will empty. This is why I'm confident in my observation.
Posts by willis936
-
-
Oh wow I've never noticed that. I'll get back to you in about 4 hours.
-
Can you answer the second part of my question about the value in the tooltip please?
I can't right now because I'm at work but I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for. I lower the HC input until I see the SHS output hatches dropping in capacity then I increase grew HC input until the SHS output hatch stays at the same capacity (meaning exactly 60 B/s are being produced). -
Weird.
Going by the numbers I posted several pages ago, if I provide 4500 mb/s HC, I'd expect to get 4500 / 2 * 20 = 45000 mb/S of SHS.I'll be home in 6 hours, I'll have to test it again. :\
How are you getting your numbers-per-second?
When you mouse-over the steam in the gui of the output hatch, what value do you see in the tooltip?
I'm using fluid regulators on the LHE HC input and steam outputs. I'm monitoring by liking at the hatch capacity or fluid regulator capacity while pulling a constant amount of steam. -
-
Latest version?
Any integrated circuits?
5.08.29. No integrated circuits. -
Pyure: I'm getting exactly 60 B/s of SHS for 4.5 B/s HC. I don't remember your numbers but I was under the impression that "double" would be 60 B/s SHS for 6 B/s HC
-
Well, the way reactorcraft destroys the nature with an added fog/smog effect would be nice. But that is just the visual, not the functional part. Both are nesseary for an good implementation.
Well if tree farm nerfs is the primary goal then you just have to aggressively destroy wood and sapling blocks. -
Here is another fun fact:
it only takes 4.5 B/s of hot coolant to make 60 B/s of superheated steam in the LHE. Much like lava this input is lower than expected for the given output. I'm not complaining but in this case the difference is significant (25%). -
Yo are multiple input hatches on large turbines working? I'm getting fucky results. When feeding two hatches it will only spin for a split second then stop for a few seconds. It never builds up speed. I don't think I've made any mistakes in the setup.
-
In GT6 overclocking will be changed too. Since new Machines will accept +100% packet Size (for reference: +300% would be a tier change) and therefore run a bit faster on some Recipes if you for example dump more Energy into the adjacent Electric Motor of a Machine, it will simply run faster without loosing Efficiency (unlike a Machine of the higher Tier would).
Every time I learn something new about GT6 the same thought enters my head: "sounds complicated" -
I think the current OC system is a core mechanic of GT5 and shouldn't be changed. It makes energy expensive. You can argue that you'll always make LV multimachine arrays but is that what anyone really ends up doing for anything beyond ore processing? At the end of the day if you want fast on demand crafting you need a lot of very fast machines. Parallelization only goes so far. Removing the OC energy nerf would throw the entire balance out of whack and honestly make energy crises a thing of the past. While playing (almost to fusion age) the entire game is one long energy crisis. 2x lower tier machines do not equal one higher tier machine. One takes more EU to be able to process serially.
Also
"how do you want to make your fusion fuel?"
"Well
I could make 96 LV electrolyzers OR
I could make 48 MV electrolyzers OR
I could make 24 HV electrolyzers OR
I could make 12 EV electrolyzers OR
I could make 06 IV electrolyzers ORI could make 3 LuV electrolyzers"
those don't exist lolDo the material costs. It just doesn't add up.
-
Well obviously some people do, or we wouldn't have assembled that design in the first place.
All of that is the standard "wishlist" stuff people would like to see involved with pollution. None of it is counterproductive. Some of it may be tricky to implement. None of it is "Day 1 out the door" stuff if I'm doing the implementation.Its open-source guys. If you want to fork the project or do a pull request, go for it. If it doesn't break anything else, it will probably be accepted.
I started writing some changes that I would like to see (really minor, superficial stuff) but then I wasn't sure if my style fit in with existing GT5 code conventions and if I was doing things the "right" way. I don't want to end up making the code hideous and have a bunch of special cases that only exist because I didn't understand the code.
-
Well fusion is trickier if you want to talk about radiation. It depends on the reaction. I don't think any should release x-ray or gamma (unless your fusion reactor sucks ass in which case it won't be producing energy). Most release neutrons and some release protons. I don't know if any release electrons or not (and if it even matters if they do). Anyway the neutrons are bad news but get captured by lithium shells around the containment device and produce heat in the process (so you can do your typical steam cycle). More difficult reactions such as p+B11 produce protons which are really bad news but get captured by EM fields for direct conversion to electricity.
Any working fusion design should be pollution free (though I can't say much about actually getting and refining the exotic materials necessary to make one).
Fission also typically does not "pollute" in any meaningful way. Reactors that use freshwater for the thermal cycle can increase the temperature of watershed which is bad for wildlife but I'm not sure any reactors actually use lakes or streams for the thermal cycle. It's almost unheard of for the water the fuel rods heat up to be the same water that runs through the turbines. There's usually an exchanger (similar to how GT5U does it now) so the only stuff that should be radioactive is coolant. I can see breaking pipes with coolant in it being Bad for the environment lol. Also pipes/tanks with hot coolant could need some sort of radiation shielding to avoid pollution idk. Seems like just another thing that doesn't add much to gameplay. -
BTW since we're talking about lava:
Can anyone suggest a scheme to transport lava from Nether to my base in the Overworld?
thermal expansion tesseracts
batteries + battery buffer (use with an energy detector + shutter module) or steel steam cells + turbine for item based power
fluid channel for the lavaIf that's not your thing you can use ender chests moving cells of bother lava and steam/batteries. You can discriminate which one goes where on both ends using item filters. This setup is a little less compact (more difficult to move) but works using vanilla items (or the common chickenchunks mod).
-
If I can I'll make it configurable so you can tweak it for machines where it bothers you.The point here isn't to model realistic pollution impacts. I can argue that a macerator would clog up from particulate matter, but its irrelevant. What I want to accomplish is "fuck, why are my macerators running so slow? Oh, its because I'm trying to run an EV industry from Lava. Aren't I lame."
But lava's such a natural choice. How much blood must be bled to earn stable EU? -
GT5 Is great, but there's a thing I miss from the GT4: We progressed creating new machines, instead of more powerful versions of the same that we already have.
I have a chest with lots of old machines, like lv and mv assembler, mv forming press and laser engraver.
It's good to have this option to upgrade to a better version, but I don't like this idea of building a machine to use a few times until it becomes totally disposable.
I prefer GT5 because of how much more there is to the logistics. The progress isn't spoon fed to you. You have a need to make more energy (because that's what's fun, right?) to process more materials and make bigger things to make more energy. You need to do much more complex designs in GT5 to get that power.With AE2 literally hundreds of machines get made, each with their own interface. One for tiny pipes, one for energy xtals, fluid extractor/solidifier combos for plates, nitrogen distillation for gunpowder for ITNT, etc. Even though the average machine gets used rarely they all have their use.
If GT5's lack of linearity bugs you don't even look at GT6. There's no straight path in materials. What you get day 1 is what you'll use on day 100. You'll be able to utilize the materials more effectively and get more of them but at tier 1 you have to choose between bronze, lead, and about 20 other metals. How you get your machines to do the things you want to is up to the materials you choose. There's no set breakpoint.
-
What's the word on the LHE output? Is a nerf inbound or am I safe to make a build assuming the current behavior is intended?
-
I think he means reversing the damage that's done. I agree it should be reversible so you don't artificially throttle your race to the finish to avoid living in a permanent hellscape.
-
Why not processing arrays of HV scrubbers? If you're really late game then it shouldn't hurt too much.
