Posts by Pyure

Quote from Marius8

you probably saw it already, but in the screenshot, you are missing 80 Hu/s compared to the design.
since the uranium cells still produce the 1280 Hu heat, and you only dispatiate 1200, it is only natural, that it overheats over time

Marius, I confess, I don't understand.

If I'm using the same design, with the same amount of cooling, but somehow generating 80 hu/s LESS heat than the design, shouldn't I be actually over-compensating the cooling?

(Put another way: If the design produces 1280 in the design, and is stable, I assume its cooling 1280 as well, which means mine should be cooling 1280 since its the same design)

I've actually simply decided that the planner itself must no longer be fully compliant.

Quote from Blackpalt

stable mark 1, its the high output low efficiency reactor from the regular reactor thread.

I would use the maximum efficiency thought as it is a lot more efficient (more than double)

I might have said this several times before but all the designs found in this thread works for 5x5 reactors and they are all stable mark 1 reactors

[Official] New Reactors design thread.

To calculate the 5x5 output just double the heat generated in the old reactor planer.

Due to how the heat generation scales with efficiency for 5x5 generators it is a lot better to use efficient designs rather than high output low efficiency generators.

The best full scale stable mark 1 reactor from that thread is this one
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…adh05nlzbpykw84kwczan05q8

Stable, cheap and produces 1280 Hu/s with only 12 uranium rods, half of which isnt even quad core. doesn't require any diamonds. Also since it produces 1280 Hu/s you can also easily automate it with ic2 only. You use 6 steam cycles (just watch memenths video) with 12 liquid heat exchangers fully loaded for 1200 Hu and you then dump the rest into a liquid heat exchanger with only 8 heat exchangers and a stirling which uses exactly 80 hu.

IMO the best reactor by far for 5x5 as it stands right now both with respect to price, ease of setup and efficiency.

Ofc it still gets crushed cost for cost by windpower but as far as 5x5 reactors go, this is the one you should go with. it also works well with a stirling setup or just as a regular reactor so you can easily adjust how complicated you wanna go.

Also about windpower: The carbon wind turbines last FOREVER. we are talking hundreds of in game hours. i had one since the start of my current survival server and its down to like 80%. The amount of power you can produce before you break one of those wind turbines is absolutely insane

Display More

Blackpalt, its been a while.

I was tinkering with IC2 reactors today and decided to try this reactor. It still registers as a stable reactor in the planner but seems to very slowly overheat in practice.

Any clue why?

This is probably after 15-20 minutes running. (Screenshot)

http://imgur.com/hlGUkEi

Friendly reminder:

If you have issues with GT5u please post them on github. friendly url: https://github.com/Blood-Asp/GT5-Unofficial/issues

Particularly for questions regarding the LHE, turbines, boilers, anything I've overhauled.

If this doesn't work for you you can always feel free to PM me or hunt me down on the FTB forum where I regularly handle GT5u inquiries. I don't follow this thread and don't see updates here (other than reading anything Blood himself posts)

Thanks and happy Wednesday!

Found it!
Greg posted it in 2012 and credited to SSD.

[Reactor Designs] The GregTech-Thread for Reactor Designs! (Please dont spam me like Rick, with tons of noobish Plans, PLEASE!!!)

"More Expensive Thorium Reactor by SSD
Produces: 112.000.000 EU at 112 EU/t with Eff 7
Runs forever * /
"

Blackpalt, I just realized you gave me credit for a reactor design.

Just an FYI, I got that from somewhere on this forum. I would have assumed it was yours.

I don't wanna take credit for someone else's cleverness

Someone mentioned there were some inquiries about stuff I may have coded here. Just a friendly reminder that you should submit any bugs/problems at https://github.com/Blood-Asp/GT5-Unofficial/issues. I check github hourly during the day and respond promptly if its something I can address.

If you have any questions or suggestions that aren't suitable to github feel free to drop me a PM on the FTB forum. I may or may not get PMs here, think I'm blocking them at the moment. I'm not current on what's going on in this thread in the slightest so I won't know unless you bring it to my attention.

Thanks and happy Monday

PS: If anyone (pleasant) here has been working a lot with Large Turbines and frequents the FTB forum and wants to drop me a line, I need feedback on some numbers. Plzthx.

Quote from axlegear

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. 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.

I don't think I've ever witnessed anything quite so selfish and narrow-minded.

You know what? Axle can go bugger himself with something sharp. I don't tolerate childish bullshit. I'm done here.

Quote from SpwnX

How come there arent machines that use air?
ALL burn-based generators. Those are machines just like the processing ones, except that those are used on energy generation.

Soil is used by IC2 crops and other plants.

Because Greg never implementing anything like "this machine requires air to work properly."

Affecting IC2 crops is probably possible, but crops from other mods would likely be unaffected. So its hard to commit to something that will be half-assed in a lot of popular packs.

Quote from Drawfox

I think that the simple way of doing is to only affect energy generation.
Hit hard the source, and you will end affecting everything. I think that best way, would be find a way to pollute water, that is the source of for almost every generator. I think that would be good enough.
If you affect both generation and consumption, you will be dealing a double penalty on players, that might be a little hard to balance;

This was the Original Great Design. Nip the problem at the source.

There's a small issue with people generating power from cross-mod sources and importing it in. I'm not a fan of descending to the level of other mods, but at the end of the day, every GT pack has generation from other mods.

I could probably pick and choose a few other-mod machines to victimize via reflection (the RC Steam Turbine comes to mind) but that's no way to git er done.

Quote from SpwnX

Not going all-green but all-tech to remove pollution is also a way that i'm willing to accept.
Pollution can be actively removed with a machine, over time with a considerable cost of energy and lots of disposable air-water filters.

I'm thinking the same thing. Dunno where you think these filters are supposed to go however. Miiiiight work as a machine cover.

Quote from SpwnX

Thats why we initially defined that only blocks that use water, air or soil are affected.

We definitely have machines that use water, but there are zero machines that use air or soil, with the exception of recipes involving dirt and air (if any).

I justified global machine impacts: machines have moving parts, particulate matter gets into it, blam. Clogged machine. On earth, its a stretch. On minecraftia, its tolerably explicable if we can't come up with anything better. (and, as per above, "machines that use water, air or soil" isn't in and of itself better)

Quote from SpwnX

The BBF doesn't make sense in the first place (bronze melting point compared to steel) but that aside, it is something that does burn (char)coal/coke to produce steel, requiring oxygen in its process.
Thus, it would be affected by slowing down the process OR requiring more (char)coal/coke per steel ingot.

EBF is not affected because it does not use air and when you need to reduce something, you use fluid oxygen inputted on a hatch.

Chemical reactors are not affected unless its a recipe that uses air or water. Same goes for distillery, electrolyzers, ore washers, autoclaves and whatever more might use air and/or water.

So it would make a lot of sense for you to ensure these are all disabled in your world. I notice you didn't suggest anything to offset any of these obstacles.

Quote from SpwnX

Now about pollution control:
Check for crops (IC2 crops), plants (tree leaves mostly) and sum them up.
That one value would increase the rate that pollution is dissipated.
That one value is updated once every one or two MC days (20-40 min) to prevent lag. This also might be good to have for any pollution triggered event.

Forward: I realize that you're not necessarily asking me personally to do this, and its just on the table.

I swore by all that is holy that I would not let people offset pollution in the early game by growing plants. Since it would take me weeks to implement it, and I won't use it, I personally won't do it.

If people don't understand that this is fair, and asking me to do it anyway is utterly dickish, they are welcome to bugger themselves with a flagpole. The fact that I don't personally like the idea doesn't make me a bad individual.

Quote from SpwnX

Edit: My idea of Early implementation of pollution: An universal value that will affect everything, air, water and soil, all at once.
Later on those might be separated, with the addition of a 4th variant, radiation.

That sounds about right. The "might be" is critical. There's no specific reason to believe it will happen, but no specific reason to believe it won't.

Quote from axlegear

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.

Display More

2) This is already the design. What did you think I was going to do that was different from what you want?

3)
Can we agree that depending on the engineering of a gizmo, it may or may not be susceptible to outside influences? If we're being utterly frank, the ONLY machines that would be severely impaired by pollution ever are solar and maybe...maybe...anything that depends on an open flame. If we run on THAT specific realism principal, the only purpose pollution would serve here would be as a "cute new toy" that runs alongside GT but doesn't integrate with it.

So instead, in Minecraftia, we have to assume that in addition to blocks floating in midair, we also find that pollution is moderately more interfering than on Earth.

Blanket-victimizing "all" machines during phase 1 is definitely on the table. A target objective would be attempting to define some sort of ruleset that lets us section off machines sensible (such all LV machines are victims but nothing else) then we can do that. It can be as simple as "all blocks that are multiblocks are victimized" or "all blocks that are LV are victimized" or "all blocks that have a fluid tank are victimized", etc etc.

Be advised: going through every machine and adding a bunch of custom pollution logic for individual machines is NOT ON THE TABLE. Blood won't do it. Greg won't do it. I won't do it. Rules are necessary, and that means some machines are going to be affected similar to other machines in ways that aren't 100% logical, and the user just has to deal with it.

Quote from axlegear

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.

Its difficult to discuss Phase 2 in too much detail when we're not 100% sure what the foundation (phase1) is going to look like. Also, as fun as it is, putting the cart ahead of the horse in development is Deadly. With a capital D.

That said, everything below is Phase 1 anyway, so:

Quote from axlegear

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.

I'm curious, what else did you think we might do here?
The distinction of "oxygen users" vs other machines set aside for now, the rest is identical. If a machine should suffer from air pollution, then every X ticks, we'll check if the pollution level is above certain levels, and if so, we'll see a reduction in output. EU output for generators if it makes sense, but hypothetically also a reduction in output for, say, a bronze blast furnace as well. Hypothetically. If the BBF makes no sense, maybe the EBF. Or a chemical reactor. Or whatever is a sensible victim of air pollution, so long as it can be identified via some sort of rule set.

Quote from axlegear

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.

Again, I'm not sure where you're differing here. Did you think I was going to leave these machines alone, or victimize them too hard, or what?

Quote from Blood Asp

In GT5 it is just too deep in the core to be simply changed by a config or even making sure it would not break anything.

I know

I've attacked this problem a number of times. Every time I think I have a simple solution, something comes up and bites me in the ass and breaks it.

GT5 really was constructed solidly on the overclocked tiers thing.

Quote from willis936

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.

Yep, that's the spot.

When you mouseover it while its "empty" though you'll see a value (so long as its generating steam). I'm confident in your observation too, I just want more observations. It may provide me information I can use to identify an issue.

Its handy, yep.

I should clarify: technically its the "amount of liquid in the hatch" you're seeing, but since the hatch gets emptied every tick, unless its backed up, it amounts to the same thing.

Quote from willis936

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).

Oh, got it dude, me too.

Lemme clarify: if you open the output hatch of the LHE (where steam comes out) you can mouseover the pretty steam texture on the black screen. While its running you don't usually see the steam itself (unless the hatch is backed up) but you can still mouseover where its supposed to be.

You'll see a number in the tooltip: that number is the steam output per tick. When you have a moment, as a troubleshooting measure, I'd love to know what that number is.

Quote from Drawfox

On my world, there's a huge vein even on the END, just to annoy me...

In every world I've played, for some reason the End is always absolutely filthy with Tin. Its everywhere. If there's 5 oreveins on the main island, 4 of them will be made of Tin.

Infitech2 though, with mods that modify the end: YMMV.

Quote from willis936

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.

Can you answer the second part of my question about the value in the tooltip please?

Quote from Blood Asp

The reason why i will not do that? Because it would invalidate a huge part of GT, namely all transforming beween different voltage tiers... If higher tiers would be the same or better efficiency, you would only build the highest tier machines and remove the low tier ones. The whole base would become one, at best two voltage tier/s and that would be simply booring...

Devil's advocate: fwiw, even Greg's thinking twice about this :p

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to keep ancient technology kicking around in your base just for diversity. If I make a better toaster, I should just recycle the old toaster's parts and move on.

Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to ensure even with just a couple tiers that its NOT boring!

Quote from Sapient

Than it could be done by two ways
1. 4x time 4x energy by tier, but if time is less than 1 tick - it is = 1 tick.
2. same, but it takes xN items from input and makes xN products to output every tick, where N = round(1/current process time).

Actually i don't think someone will make so high tier machines to have less-than-one-tick production speed. Even 1 per tick is much more than needed. So MV/HV should be enough for most reсipes. Except may be scanner/replicator.

If you can get everyone to agree that quadrupling the speed of each machine per tier is kosher I'll do that. (You won't :p)