Just disable worldgen and all the recipes?
...using the UE API for power management...
I can't simply disable things in it due to a fundamental part of IC2.
Posts by Hexicube
-
-
Not entirely sure this is the correct forum section to post this, but it seems to be the most appropriate in comparison to others.
I'm starting a modpack and there's a small hole in it that the IC2 reactor and miner would fill nicely (maybe the MF too, not sure yet). I'd like permission to make a small mod directly copying those and using the UE API for power management, and not having any other part of IC2 with it as they aren't needed (I'll likely come up with my own recipes using UE parts). I have no intention of claiming this work as my own (like, what would I gain from a mod that is clearly IC2 reactors without all the other things?) and intend to give full credit to the IC2 team if I'm allowed to do this.
Preferably I'd also like to be able to use textures directly from IC2 for the block textures and the items associated with these blocks (internal reactor components, scanners, mining pipe, drills), but that isn't too mandatory. It would make reactor internal design quite a bit easier for those familiar with it, though. Access to the source code so that I can remove pretty much anything that isn't what I want would be fantastic, as that would save me a lot of time doing this (and ensure the reactor planner is compatible with it for end-users' convenience), but I could try to do without if that's an issue.
I would appreciate a quick reply for this, even if it's just acknowledging that I've requested this, so I know I'm not waiting for a reply I may not end up getting.
-
It's currently running 639 EU/t at 7488 heat (Mox produces more EU at higher heat levels. Based on a % of maximum heat of hull... so plating doesnt increase power, just spacing in the heat band)
Did some googling and realised it was something in a newer version (the experimental one?), I'm still on MC 1.4.7 because my friends are doing a runthrough of yogcraft and I'm the server hoster for our shenanigans. Also, judging by the current designs, I don't think MOX reactors are being considered, seems like it's strictly based on designs you can do in the planner.
-
Display More
Stable Build for a MOX. 0 heat transfer to/from hull.
Warm it with this setup
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…tq2vngaxc50am5k8m2ecxiipyRun as this setup.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…4vrx0fnc1nj6pwhhro7v91gsmIt provides the safety of slowly warming up the hull, then you can power off the reactor. It will keep the heat, insert 2 quad mox in center, then place adv heat exchangers and restart the reactor. It will maintain hull heat with 0 gain/loss. Perfect to fire up and forget.
-edit-
The purpose of this type of reactor is to pull all heat from the 2 quad MOX cells, as they[Mox cells] generate the heat. Preventing anything from entering the hull, while simultaneously preventing any heat stored in the hull from transferring or venting out.Assuming the numbers on the reactor planner are correct, it's only churning out 160EU/t with a high running cost. Is there something about a MOX reactor I don't know about, or is it just quad-cell only reactors?
-
For the second reactor:
It's actually a pretty good design. Having had to run 0-cost reactors for a long time, I quite like it, but again, when you're looking at higher efficiency and higher output vs. lower running cost, you come to the classic tradeoff; and the reason why there are multiple different reactors for each "type" in the first post of this topic. Depending on what you're willing to afford etc, either would be good.
I do like reactors with no running cost, and the main reason they're 3-chamber designs is because of my setup. I like to have a 5x5x5 room so I could slot 8 reactors into that, leaving ample space in the centre for movement.
However, the power-hungry nuclear physicist would probably want to stick a nice 6-core reactor there (maybe the smaller ones would all be breeders to help the centre one along, could also make the room 7x7 to allow automation) and I came up with a 6-chamber design which costs about 700UU and produces a nice 46milEU from 12 rods (LINK). I have THIS which pumps out 52milEU for a similar cost but it's a 14-rod design and is less efficient because of that.
I should probably also go check out the non-dense plate recipes, sounds like it's a 2x2 of copper bars in your inventory though. If it is, that's pretty nice, I'm getting so tired of compressing all my copper and having none left over and over. I can take the energy hit, since I have nothing truly using my EU at all (want to use scrap for MF), so I just wait for a reasonable cobble supply from my miner. I might go automate a quarry with some cobble slab recycling setup.
[edit] 4.34 overall efficiency reactor: LINK
Comes in just a tad over the current max efficiency reactor, and flipping the dual/quad cell breaks the design. -
Overall, not bad, but it costs more in everything but iron vs. the mid level #1 reactor: LINK.
It also has greater running costs as well as setup.What about THIS?
It has a cheaper running cost (4.80UU vs 9.60UU, so half) for the same 160EU/t but costs about 100UU more to set up, making it more efficient only after about 22 full cycles. It also sits inside the same 3 chambers.I also have THIS, which has no running cost and 409UU for 140EU/t, which is just lower than the one above but benefits from only needing uranium (making it a slightly cheaper alternative).
-
Not quite sure how it fares, but it suits what I look for in a reactor:
Mark I EA
2 Chambers
EU/T: 160
EEU/T: 160
Efficiency: 4
Overall efficiency: 3.46
Cost: 632 copper, 79 rubber, 44 tin, 32 redstone, 152 iron, 2 glowstone, 80 gold, 2 lapis, 8 uranium
Components: 2x quad uranium cells, 12x component (or advanced) heat exchanger, 16x overclocked heat vent
Running cost: NoneDesign is relatively simple to remember, considering it follows a strict pattern.
