So here's a ridiculously complicated one.
How many LV centrifuges, assuming constant full-inventory loads of rotten flesh that never run out, would need to be running simultaneously in order to make enough methane to run a 512v gas turbine constantly?
I am completely serious about this.
Awesome. I am very excited about the oil processing and very much like how it's being done. :3
I made sure to report my latest known bug on Github just now. Presently I been getting bear to make scripts to workaround it. Dream-master said it was caused by IC2 changing all it's meta-data.
Hey, anyone in GT5U having trouble making advanced heat vents? It shows up for me but when I try to make it it just disappears and won't craft.
You and Axles report of your Post are both right. For one thing Axle is obviously just being selfish (as in trying to destroy the whole system, even though Bloody will obviously put a config to it), for the other thing, you said Axle should become an Emo, what is indeed an insult.
I bet Bloody will just read through the constructive stuff and ignore the bullshit that has been accumulating all around it.
I'm starting to observe a trend where more and more peeps on the IC2 forum seems to be leaning more in favour of an aesthetic or realistic pollution theme. Its running counter to the previous discussions I've had. But when even peeps like Spankx start to speak against the balanced design its hard to ignore and I have little interest in pushing balance on a crowd that doesn't want it.
What I'm probably going to do is simply disable pollution by default so nobody gets affected by it unless they explicitly want to, at least until I can be talked around to incorporating some of the peripheral ideas.
Alternatively I may modularize it and let someone else code a distinct, more colorful version. There's zero reason my version needs to be the Only True Way. Blood in particular has said he might do a version one day.
I just wish he'd stuck to that observed trend and conclusion instead of backtracking all the way back to the 'my way or else' mentality. It has nothing to do with me wanting to 'destroy the system'. I simply feel that forcing a highly unpopular and restrictive, unrealistic system on GT5U players will alienate them. If it was indeed modularized or configureable, it would be great. Give the players a choice. I just hope Bloody at the very least makes it toggleable if he's going to add it at all in this as-is one-variable-nerfs-all implementation. But i've said all this before.. I just wanted to reply to the 'wanting to destroy the system' comment. I feel that's casting me in an unfair light. It's not like i'm the only one pleading here, even he admitted that the community preference is for aesthetics and realism.
This is all making me seriously consider trying to teach myself Java. But I wouldn't know where to start and it would probably go into the garage of 'things I didn't want badly enough to overcome'. I doubt I can afford to hire a tutor or take classes.
Just a quick note about one thing: Effecting certain blocks that can be everywere in the world is really difficult to do. With that i mean mostly all the ideas about pollution effecting any sort of plant. While i hope that vanilla plants extending vanilla behavior (Trees) create events i can catch and modify, there are many other plants i can't easily access. For example the crops. To effect them, i would need to scan EVERY BLOCK in EVERY LOADED CHUNK to find them. Same with most other mod plants. To effect the IC2 Crops i only have some hope with using reflection... Doing that for every mod i would like to effect... Meh...
I know a smidge about plants and crops and how MC does checking blocks, so I agree, plants are kind of off the docket as something easily implemented. If it's even possible, doing it in some way that splits it by-chunk and delays it may work, like a periodic block scan every hour or something but.. eh. I don't really see a way to make this work realistically. I could be wrong, but it seems a much more insurmountable problem than others.
Normally i'm ALL for function first, but there IS a point where the cost to performance/lag has to be considered. GT is a mod that often teeters on the edge. It's pretty intensive.. so you have to be more careful than usual about the load placed on the server or client.
I take a very Dwarf Fortress approach to it: function function function, don't worry about performance until it causes it to become unplayable to people with normal, middle-grounds systems. Which would be like a <2.4 GHz dual-core with 3GB or RAM today, IMHO. If you have worse than that.. you really shouldn't be expecting to game on it.
For reference, my GT5U server is running off a 3.3 GHz Phenom II quad-core with 4 GB DDR2-ECC memory and a trio of SSDs in Raid0, backing up hourly to a 1TB HDD.
Ah, forgot to mention, having trouble loading the wiki right now, else i'd look it up already. I'm pretty sure the issue is on my end. I wasn't even able to post until a few minutes ago. Cox cable is.. ...not a good ISP. I've been on the IRC channel for most of my questions today.
Ah, good. I've never played much with large boilers, i've always been very green solar+diesel route. This is my first time messing with large boilers, and wanted to make sure I wasn't shooting myself in the foot somehow.
I tell ya, those things sure suck down the fuel, but if you want power yesterday..
Anyone know if there's any benefit at all to using distilled water in GT boilers over regular water, or is that purely an IC2 thing?
Sorry, but you seem to be backtracking right back to the original forced-progression blanket-barrier nerf draconian variable, undoing the progress we've all made discussing this. I haven't seen anyone support your simplified system yet, nor have you given any defenses beyond 'It's easier my way' and 'I won't do it' as justification for it's even existing in the first place. You have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to accept any opinion but your own, even in the face of overwhelming disagreement. You also demonstrate this 'my way or the highway, my right' approach to forcing your system into a mod a community uses, as if that were your right. The community has been speaking and you insist on going against the grain, which WILL upset them and WILL have negative consequences to GT5U. I hope sorely that it will be able to be toggled entirely off, or I fear it will have fatal repercussions to Gregtech 5U. I will not play with this simplified system.
This is the last i'll say on this topic.
1) I am aware, that's why I proposed what I did. Making a simple phase 1 so we can begin work on phase 2.
2) I can't figure out what you're asking here? What's the question?
3) Neither, I thought you were going to victimize ALL machines, regardless of sensibility of such. For example, why would an ore washer need clean air? Or a macerator? it makes no sense for those to be affected by air pollution and would just drag everything down to becoming a chore. Players like myself would resent that, as it would be impossible to see it as a logistics problem, but an artificial barrier instead. Think of it this way: it's the difference between shooting a basketball through a hoop from various angles to get better and better at it because it makes you feel good, versus having someone jeer at you and blow at it with an industrial prop fan while telling you that you should already be good enough to compensate and if you do get that good, they just walk away and noone cares.
Logical implementation vs. Annoying implementation.
Perhaps you should simply detail exactly what the envisioned system is? Because at present it seems we're all operating on the belief that it's just a 'pollution variable' which reduces efficiency universally, with the option to avoid using GT at all or shoot for the stars and max tier immediately, and take breaks if this would require longer than pollution allows, lest you be held back with slowdowns anyway?
EDIT: I'm gonna take a break for a while, so i'll check your response later and get back to you.
is it inappropriate to ask for the gravel, and sand small ores in GT6 be added to GT5u? combing the desert for tiny amounts would be better than nothing at all. Tin can just be such a pain in the ass early on, or even adding the option to use zinc wires in LV machine recipes. I have played GT5 through to HV+ at least 5 times, and except for getting lucky once, I always fight for tin early on.
If I am just a unlucky minority then, ignore this request.
Hey. Hey bro. Bro. Braaah. We have a tin vein on the server. Go mine it. The coords are -833,65,395.
Explain "a balanced way to set things on or off" please? I'm not sure what you're requesting here.
The notion of making it configurable is the only way to make it balanced for a "whole community". Since the hardcore players want stuff like lava nerfed into the ground, and other players want it completely left alone. Is balance finding the middle ground, or trying to give everyone a truly positive experience?
For what its worth, I'm open to leaving it in an extremely friendly configuration by default, and letting people crank up the difficulty themselves if they want to.
I'm also open to looking into different overall mode packages, similar to Forestry, so that you can just change one thing to make a big swathe of changes. But that would be a later change.
Now that is closer to what I would like to see. I disagree with bear on this. I know he hates configuring stuff but, as an operator of two servers, configs are god to me. The ability to configure and toggle even tiny details is integral to managing balance and inter-mod compatability, so whatever is implemented should be highly configureable.
Now as far as the 'detailed' interaction or Tier 2 or whatever we're calling it, i'd like to open a bit of discussion on how to implement each 'piece' of the overarching pollution to do what I suggested in an implementable way, if you'd be willing. I would suggest a logistical flow of how to do them, then you would let me know if that's actually possible or not based on how the code does or doesn't work. Sort of bridge the gap between coder and idea-guy to find what the working compromise is. You've already ellaborated a bit (especially SpawnX) on why Pwater would be problematic to implement, so i'm throwing that back to the drawing board, but I don't see why the other ideas would be difficult if a simple check was added to pollution affected machine. Say, let's isolate one aspect- reduced EU output on oxygen-users when polluted. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to periodically check, say every 1200 ticks, to see if the pollution level is above certain levels and, if so, it sets a flag of 0-5, each 1 being a 20% reduction in EU output. That would be it for solar. For boilers, diesel engines, and small gas turbines, it would divide by 2 so they can still have some useability even in the worst pollution, but still badly effected. I don't see that as being terribly laggy or difficult to implement? Just add a string to check and limit if there, and just on the machines affected by such.
That's one idea, and seems similar to- but more flavorful and machine-specific than- the overarching pollution variable you originally proposed. If you can work that out then i'll continue and we'll see if we can't come up with a way to make it both easy to code and implement as well as nitty-gritty.
Alternative idea:
Toggleable value of 'Pollution Implementation' that can be set to 'Standard' or 'Dynamic', and if dynamic it will use all the configureable 'module' parts of the pollution impacts, such as machine-specific stuff, the water thing when we find a solution we can all agree on, environmental hazards, etc.
This way you can implement the simplified pollution-variable-nerfs-everything originally proposed and have it in and working, then add the dynamic modules and test as they come.
Note: IRL, steam expands to as much as 110 times it's volume as water when heated. This considerably extreme expansion is why steam remains one of the most primary core methods of power generation from heat. Other materials do exist which expand similarly much, but not many do, very few do moreso, and none are practical, feasible, or cost-effective in any significant volume, mostly due to most being gas at all but the most extremely low temperatures, thus making it impossible to make a positive-output system due to the power requirements to cool it to liquid again, etc. etc.
Steam is amazing.
Ah, thank you for the clarification. I was unfamiliar with some of those terms. Wish I knew how to code well enough to come up with stuff. There's a million 'tiny things' and a few dozen 'big things' i'd love to see done, even if just as a seperate 'add-on'/plugin mod.
No worries. Understood. Topic closed.
Unless i'm mistaken, this is Bloody Asp's thread? Wouldn't he be the one to decide to close it or not? Or decide how GT5U progresses? Or am I completely mistaken on who's developing it?
I'm sorry that you aren't interested in listening to the opinions of others, and have taken a sour grapes approach. I'm only trying to provide constructive criticism. I wish that I could present my opinions in a manner you would consider. I had, and still have, no intention to upsetting or attacking you, only to give opinions on how I feel Gregtech 5U should progress for the interests of me and the players on my server, as well as the community. At present, I have only heard your own opinion regarding support for a simplified pollution mechanic, thus I cannot make any other conclusion than that it would be unpopular. Most I have spoken to feel it would be not just unpopular, but disruptive. That's all.
That's what i'd reccomend. It's pretty large, this camp that dislike your super-simplified polution variable. It really, truly, does not add to gameplay. I understand that you play GT for completely different reasons than everyone else, your points are made. However, I am trying to point out the larger community of GT players who play for realism and immersion and would be negatively impacted by a ham-handed pollution approach. I'd like to quote a PM from bear here:
"[8:43:56 PM] bear hamman: if pollution gets implemented the way pyre is talking I will disable it in my SP world. Forced progression is not right
[8:45:39 PM] bear hamman: we all play our own ways and there is enuff force progression in the curcuits. witch I don't mind. but this is just forcing players to play someone elses way"
Your way does not feel balanced (and whether it is or not is another argument entirely- one I also disagree with, but that's a digression)- it feels to players like a shoehorned requirement. This will feel aggressive and make players feel victimized. It's a discouragement, not an encouragement. A penalty, not a reward. A problem, not an obstacle. Does this make sense?
Also, ignoring your attempts to get me to argue or feel bad, i'll note that my comment about 'suggesting coding is insulting' is meant generally, not specifically. Anyone could have said that to me, or anyone could have said that to someone else, and it would be the same. Telling people 'Do it yourself, then' is bad taste. That's all. It's not a personal attack, it's just a factually bad idea to do.. Think of it in another context. Say, you go to a grocery store, and the checkout person tells you to bag your groceries yourself, because it's not company policy to bag for you. (Which is the case for almost all stores, actually! Certainly wal-mart and target). However, how does that make the customer feel to be told that so flippantly? Pretty bad. Whether or not it's your intention, what we get from that response is 'I'm lazy, do it yourself'.
It sounds like the old GT4 upgrade module/overclocker module method, but limited to 1 (+100%), else go to a new tier (+300%).
Note to above: Catalyst purification mostly uses palladium, which is AFAIK useless in GT otherwise.
