Posts by mementh

Quote from SpwnX

The past suggestions about it by me (look at the dates of the threads OP):
Suggestion : Terraformer biome-change
Suggestion : Terraformer Rework (With this one being the oldest, but also the most detailed and also contains the above)

@blockmaster: plutonium blueprint would be a "wasteland blueprint". Plants die, animals aswell, water gets polluted. Basically if IC2 added a new biome called "Fallout wasteland" it would fit perfectly.
This biome would also be created by meltdowns and similar stuff in a big big radius.
Terraforming (or other biome changing methods) would be the only way to restore it back to normal.

Quote from Blockmaster139

Biome changing would be very cool.

I've had another crazy idea for a blueprint, probably won't get implemnted, but if somebody wants to make it go ahead. Okay, so you craft the TFBP with 4 Plutonium and it gets you a mutation blueprint. This would turn Grass into brighter shades of green, make trees grow extra branches, make animals grow really large(or maybe shrink :D), erode rocks, set things on fire, maybe even more crazy stuff. It probably doesn't really fit IC2, but it sounds cool in my head and I would like to see some new blueprints

make the polution one generate radioactive waste ?
so that the changes to the biome make a farm there make trace ammounts of uranium ?
or there is a new liquid of sludge that can be purified but have the radiation collected?

Quote from Blockmaster139

That actually makes a lot more sense lol. If we're going to make reactors even more scary though, they're gonna need a buff.

MASSIVE buff.. currently it makes more sense to use windmills then reactors for easy power generation long term.

Quote from kantanshi

I'm making upgrades, distilling the water to use in the machine to make distilled water defeats the purpose.

you need to distill and have it go into a canning machine or condensor without a upgrade to can it ( best idea )

and once you made all you need then make it use just distilled water

or use a solar distiller ( pretty cheap ) to make the distilled water

Quote from Chocohead

What do you think could be done then? Upgradeable range? Actually change biome of the area? Support changing biome into modded biomes? All those would be cool.

hmm currently make it a combo of those..
add range.. uses more power LOTS LOTS of power

and make it change the biom itself.. require 4 ( sorta like a quarry in buildcraft does) to set the chunks biome ( can only change a whole chunk not a partial? )
and have a UI showing progress since it has to change a chunk all at once not part at a time
I would say make it regerate the biome if it can.. delete and rebuild ? ( regenerate ores as a option for those that add new mods to rebuild old mined out areas)

but this would take days upon days normal.. upgrading the transfromer and speed would use lots and lots of power ( say total power used to rebuild a full chunk un upgraded 100m-500m ? total to rebuild with upgrade 1billion to 5 billion?)

use distilled water! wont calcify.. also removing and replacing cleans it

thanks will have to have to miner go over some land again but should have good pickups then

Quote from VirMan

OK i got it working with strange results - i'm putting there 100 hu, but it can't keep up with 1 milibucket/s of water... even on low pressure valve.. so if this is valve should it output only steam if pressure is not high enough ? or this is experimental and video is made with some other version ??

you need 200 hu/t 221 mb and 1 mb/t of water to make superheated
100 will only get you regular steam which is 1 mb and 1 mb setting

poke poke

is the mod still being checked/updated?

I am curious is the ore here being mined by the miner/adv miner?

what would i need to add to the config to add it ?

additionalValuableOres = OreDict:IC2:itemoreiridium, OreDict:itemoreiridium ? or am i getting it wrong?

Quote from MauveCloud

mementh, I finally finished watching your video, and I can't imagine myself building such a complicated setup for around 802 EU/t - now that you've corrected the formula in the google spreadsheet, building that reactor takes about 4.76 times as much lead as an EU-style reactor, but produces less than double the output of a good EU-style reactor. The 420 EU/t design might take more uranium, but by the time you have enough lead to make 343 ingots of it, there's a good chance you'd also have enough uranium for 2 or even 3 such reactors.

Edit: I also have some suggestions that might help you shorten your video a bit, though probably not down to the suggested 15 minutes:
1. Use a superflat world. That way you don't have to spend time clearing away plants or putting in extra dirt to allow yourself to walk around the reactor. If you're concerned about being able to get under the reactor to direct some of the fluid exchangers up, you could lay down a few extra layers of dirt ahead of time with plenty of room around the reactor, or you could see if your design would work with the side assemblies rotated 90 degrees so that the fluid exchangers wouldn't need to point up.
2. Cut the sequences where you're just building an identical structure on a different side of the reactor - you can just say you've done so.

for 1.. that could work..

sadly for 2 i don't have a editing program and honestly don't want to get that much into it editing at the moment.. I am just using OBS to make/upload

ok.. so i was playing around with my 2 5x5 nuke setup.. and when someone suggested that windmills would be a cheaper solution to nukes.. giving more power less risk...

i decided to test it out...

i used reinforced stone to go up the 160 ( was on a super flat world and was already like 30 up)

used the reinforced stone and build like 8 windmills up above my nukes ...

then the game started to get laggy and my minimap ( journymap ) started giving errors about a lack of memory..

logged out and saw the client was using nearly 1.1 gigs of ram ( alot for java )

restarted java and went back up and all seemed good till i tested adding in another windmill and 2-4 blocks into it the game started to lag and got the memory issue again..

restarted and destroyed the windmill setup and I am figuring that the combination of either 3 systems ( 1 nuke offline 1 nuke working and the 8 windmills) overloaded the games memory some and nearly caused a crash?

ideas? thoughts? or was this a fluke to it?

Quote from VirMan

Hi - i'm trying to generate more power by using steam kinetic generator.
For now i hooked up heat exchanger to steam generator, and it receives heat -> good.
Then it is hooked up by liquid exchanger to steam generator, but it refuses to accept water, instead water can flow right through it to the other side appearing at output(?) as some milibuckets/tick... of water.
I tried to hook up fluid pipe, also to kinetic steam generator -> which with fluid ejector upgrqade pumps fluid to whatever pipe is hooked to it. So i tried to make steam/water circuit with fluid exchangers, but steam generator is not accepting water input.

also - should i hook kinetic generator to steam kinetic generator ? or just plug cable directly ?

i made a video a bit ago that goes through the enire setup..
http://youtu.be/_Zn7UGDkQn0 it takes time but shows just about everything needed

Quote from SpwnX

Very interesting spreadsheet you got there.
It proves glass fiber ultimate superiority.

Actually, i think IC2 should substitute glass fiber with silver cables.

Quote from SpwnX

Very interesting spreadsheet you got there.
It proves glass fiber ultimate superiority.

Actually, i think IC2 should substitute glass fiber with silver cables.

*GLARES*

silver is super super rare.. and uses 1 dust to make glass fiber.. so its already "silver"
I would say it does prove its best.. copper is right behind in all tests before.. but can't handle the load gonna test copper cables with transformers to downgrade to 128 and see how that works.. i am thinking either it will be equal to the regular spreadsheet or equal to fibers loss ammount..

At what point does a battery (MFSU etc) blow up? need to know this for propper testing whats the max a thing could get? or can a battbox take a 512 hit? knowing this will know if you need a transformer to go INTO a box and if there is loss there..

Quote from Blockmaster139

Can we grind melons and pumpkins? If not, add those too.

i like the idea of being able to do this it makes more sense

in my test ( only did transformer 8k eu/t one on MFSE )
https://docs.google.com/spread…3XFnwZ1k/edit?usp=sharing

orginal run
100 block
99.8610325 % got there

200 block
99.721045% got there

with the 8k tranformer ( i used 4 MFSU's to get the full 8k eu/t)

100 block run
99.937695% got there

200 block run
99.8639275% got there

So amping up the voltage does help.. overall, but only save around 0.0766625% for the 100 block run and 0.1428825% for the 200 block run.

not sure how well this will be long term

Quote from Chocohead

IRL transformers do have loss, so the fact you lose a bit of EU using them makes sense. I don't think it's anything to do with the voltage, simply they take some EU.

gonna test tonight with things

see if amping up the voltage is worth the hassle of it

So i did a test..

100 run of EACH cable.. and a Full battbox. then made that box go to another run of 100 to another box

did this for a CESU, MFE and a MFSU each one was fully charged and i tested at 100 and 200

https://docs.google.com/spread…3XFnwZ1k/edit?usp=sharing

unless cables melt/pop it looks like copper is the best for MFSU's if you don't have glass fibre

best would be glass fibre then copper then gold then HV then tin for all boxes..

I noticed as well the class of box looses energy as well.. i am not sure why but i believe the precentage should have been across the board the same for the cable.. but a MFSU = less loss just by being a MFSU?
I am half thinking voltage levels play a HUGE part in this.. and might re-do the experiment with transformers to see how that plays out. incoming and outgoing to the level the box should support
I would not be surpised to see some loss but less if say the voltage is at 8k eu/t to see more loss at 2k/t and more at 512/t and so on..

anyone else have ideas?

did not get video done.. was playing warcraft alot and was working on the Enet cable loss situation

Quote from Morpheus1101

So i've gotten to very very late game and used the Digital Miner in multiple places an got quite alot of machines and building stuff for the sake of building it an seeing how it works an what it does etc ... i got 10 Kinetic Carbon Wind Generators going but i dont see how to use or connect anything to the Generator's ... Am i missing something ?

sadly this guide is no longer valid for the current version of IC2.. sorry

new system has to have a rotor a box to spin in and a box that takes the spin and makes electricity

Quote from Mine_Sasha

I hesitated to tell you to run 200 cables and test the losses of 200 x cable Mementh, I first fought it was a bad idea

hmmm it will be on a creative world where it does not matter and i will do the same test..

i would love to know each cables 99.9% leangth.. IE how far can you go and loose only .1% of the energy per cable.. its something i will test as well and to find out which is most efficient

My belief is that there should be no loss when it goes INTO a block only in the cables.. and transformers or battery blocks should reset the loss situation

Quote from Blockmaster139

That seems like a very bad test mementh, especially due to the limitedness of the cables. You should have used 1 battery from batbox to batbox, all cables support LV

will try that.. and try to do a 100 and 200 cable run .. i was playing on my "normal" game that i enabled cheats to test.. will do it on my regualr test world tonight!

Quote from Blackpalt

I think you did something wrong setting up the reactor, check the components, im two version late and as far as i know they haven't changed anything fundamental in how the heat vents work. Checked the changelog and since with the new versions they changed something in mox reactors but not with regular reactors so it should not matter.

It worked just fine for me and has done so for a lot of people for quite some time. Could you give me a picture of the setup? seems weird it works for me but not for you

I will do a video tonight to show you ... resisted because it would be weird.. but i used the parts you show in that planner... is there ANYTHING missing?

try the new planner and see if it blows up for you.. because i am getting consistant results