Posts by HeadHunter67

    After watching Direwolf's videos on teleporters and this mod, I decided to give it a try today. Built a pad in my base, built the personal teleporter, linked them, and rode the long rail out to a vast abandoned mine complex about 1100m away. Teleported home with no problem! But it still means a 2 minute railcart ride to get there... so I built another pad there and linked it to the first. Tried my personal teleporter... and wound up in the Void. Had to revert to a previous save - which meant all the work I've done since last night was LOST (it was that, or all my expensive gear!)

    So I suppose you can clearly guess what my vote was. I'm reluctant to use the mod until that's fixed. I know it seems "cool" and somehow makes sci-fi sense, but there's honestly no reason the teleporter should even work without designated target data - it should be no different than the in-game ones in that regard.

    I am eagerly awaiting the fix. Those of you who feel it's "fun" to be sent someplace where you lose everything with no hope of reclaiming it, feel free to go to the Nether and jump in lava, OK?

    Miner? Why so complicated. With redpower you make a eu free cobblestone generator and with only IC2 you can make a cactus farm. Yes the recyclers will use up some energy but it will still be like 3x eff than just without scrap. So eff needed before you get any surplus eu would be ~2 which is easily achievable. My CASUC reactor alone as over 4 eff ad in a breeder and effective eff will be over 7 eff.

    We should never be setting the balance of IC2 based on how other mods let you cut corners. The energy cost to produce the UUM to make uranium should be fair solely on what it takes to make it in "vanilla" IC2. If you're going to bring other mods into it, then let's just talk about Too Many Items.

    Actually, the ideal way to do water mills would be to have them generate energy for each block of water that moved past them. So, you put it next to a river or waterfall, and it would accumulate a small amount of EU per tick. This would make output comparable to solar, and the size of an array would be limited by terrain or the user's hydro-engineering skills.

    This REALLY needs to work with the Mining Laser. It's the primary reason I don't use an otherwise awesome tool. Hopefully that can be added in an upcoming patch.

    Also, it would be nice to see portable energy storage of a higher tier - requiring the relevant crystals to craft and having a somewhat larger storage capacity.

    Added Tesla Coil and CF Sprayer. Breeders -- I hardly understand myself :) I'd be a bad teacher on that subject.

    I just watched the CF Sprayer video and found it very informative. I have always wanted to work with it but wasn't sure quite how to do it. Sadly, I'm playing on a very old world (before clay became abundant), so I may invest the 5 UU-M to make 48 blocks of the stuff. :)

    Keep up the good work and thanks for helping me to learn more about IC!

    I am concerned with the legitimacy of your players' item gathering and/or the time they must spend on the server to gain such ludicrous resources in five days. Unless they are hardcore players who have run the routine before, then they may have simply hacked in the items. If they have somehow managed to acquire them legitimately, then I applaud their work, and you should too! They most certainly deserve the full effects of quantum armor, and I disagree that it is too powerful for the cost.

    I agree that one should laud the efforts of those who can construct a Quantum Suit in 5 days of play, but I don't find it so far-fetched. I started using IC about two weeks ago - admittedly on an existing world - and within 3 days I had completed my suit legitimately.

    But that should not be seen as downplaying the expense! Not counting the normal metals, it takes 4 diamonds (PLUS the 10 needed to make an MFE and then upgrade it to an MFSU to charge the suit!) and more importantly, 56 UU-Matter. That's no small feat.

    Sounds like the OP is unhappy that no one's using his model railroad.

    From what I recall, chunks are 16x16x128. Their dimensions go from bedrock to the build limit of the sky. (this is why I had to get the On A Rail achievement to find any tin on my old world).

    Aside from that, however, it's probably good advice to confine any complicated mechanical system to a single chink - particularly one with such dire consequences for catastrophic failure. Certainly worse than the old railcar boosters.

    No, it isn't. Rick's is more efficient, AND less expensive. Your design generates 6M EU for 4 cells (1.5 eff), his is 4M EU for 2 cells (2 eff).

    The only edge this has is that it generates more total power in one cycle and 50% more EU/tick. But honestly, if you are using that much power, economy probably isn't your concern and you can get twice as much power out of the same number of cells in a 2-chamber design.

    Indeed, that's a good idea. I will certainly keep that in mind for future builds. I can pretty well visualize how I'd set it up.

    Still, it helps to keep in mind that any design that's cooled by surrounding water, that gets above that threshold, will need such a means of constantly replenishing the water or it will overheat.

    I've been fortunate that none of my "lessons learned" have come at the cost of a meltdown or explosion.

    Thank you for the answers and suggestions. The reason I had asked is because I was using a safe 2-chamber design from MJEvans (similar to one posted in this thread but just a different layout) and decided to try one of his 3-chamber designs.

    Sadly, it seems that the reactor planner doesn't take evaporation of the surrounding cooling water into effect when projecting maximum temperature or run time, because it got hotter than expected and I had to cool it off early. Fortunately, no harm was done.

    But honestly, the 2-chamber, 3-cell designs with 2.33 efficiency are more than adequate for my needs, so I'm going to go back to that. It's good to know that the extra chamber won't hurt, and may give me a little more safety.

    Now, if only there was a UU-Matter recipe for uranium! Alblaka should add it as one of the 7 remaining 8-slot possibilites... :thumbsup:

    Yeah, I discovered that as well when working with your 3-chamber MkII-1 EC design last night.

    The Readtor Planner may not take that into account when calculating maximum operating temperature or how long a reactor can run. It would seem that the projected results are under the assumption that the specified amount of cooling water will remain in the chamber at all times, regardless of the hull temperature.

    Fortunately, I was able to pull the cells, swap out the cooling components and apply ice to get it back down to a temperature where I could replace the water, so there was no incident. But it shows that even presumably "safe" designs can have unforeseen effect.

    Hello all,

    I'm basically a novice nuclear engineer - so far I've had no mishaps because I tend toward safe designs, so when I screw up I'm able to avoid catastrophe. I've been reading the threads here and experimenting on my own, but I still have some questions:

    1) Aside from the expense of crafting them, is there ever a reason not to have more chambers? Even if the slots are not used, it would seem that a reactor with more chambers will have a higher heat capacity and integrity. If I am using a plan for a smaller reactor, the main change would simply be a shorter cooldown time. Is that true?

    2) Is there a way to remove chambers? I tried wrenching one and all it does it open up the interface.

    3) If individual chambers cannot be removed, how does one go about moving a reactor? I would presume you need to wrench the generator itself, but if you have chambers on every side and they cannot be wrenched, how is that possible?

    Thanks in advance for your advice and helpful suggestions.