If you generate more than the hatch can take -> booom!
...I had no idea. That's valuable info. Wiki-time 
Posts by Pyure
-
-
Thaumium turbines optimal flow is 24.000L/s or 1200L/t. 1200L/t / 2 *1.05Effiency = 630 Eu/t. That is not HV, it is EV, so you have to use an EV Dynamo Hatch.
Its not clarified in the wiki, but intuitively it seems to me that it should have generated 512 eu/t in this case and discarded the rest.
Alternately it would be very nice (and, again, intuitive) if the turbine could generate 1-32 amps depending on the dynamo hatch you use. In Muramasa's case, it would generate up to 2 amps.
That said, given it probably emits a single amp, EV is definitely the best choice as you suggest. And good observation on the larger turbine item/rotor.
-
I'm currently also coding in C# at work. When i'm coding. Most the time the last two months was SysML/UML...
The last month for me has been technical documentation for an API I wrote.At least its a hockey stat API so its kind of interesting. I guess.
-
The bug that came from the last update comes from switching some integers to floats to calculate exact values for water return.
But yes, the optimal flow is not quite optimal right now. My first plant about the large turbine was even more complex, but once i failed to calculate it perfectly myself i cut out some stuff and left a mess inside.
Currently i think to change the optimal flow to be calculated from the last 200 ticks or so. I know how to but so far failed to get my motivation up to really do it.
Stay positive sir. This is the most exciting stuff to happen to GT in a long time, and there's a big line of people who appreciate all your efforts immensely. You're a superstarI'm not much of a Java programmer but I'm happy to try to help out. I do C# for a living, and they're basically identical anyway.
-
Blood, do the primary problems with the Large Turbine happen to center on the Optimal Flow logic?
I've been looking at the code, and I can't help but wonder if timing is always going to be a problem when trying to handle this. Specifically ensuring that you always have "only" the optimal amount of fluid after deleting the extra fluid. Since the GT hatches were never supposed to work this way (they're supposed to act as buffers) it's one of the first things I'd abandon if you can't get it to work right.
Its kinda neat but doesn't really add much to the game, especially since GT doesn't actually provide any way to throttle flow rates other than a few pipe tiers.
Oh, idea: screwdriver on a pipe-cover to throttle flow rates :p
-
That's nuts
I'm happy with the design I'm using tbh. I'm just frankly relieved that the 5x5 actually has some value.
Up till now I sorta refused to do anything except for non-5x5-MOX reactors. They're extremely easy to build and use and they breed plutonium. But if I plan on avoiding RTGs (and I do), then breeding plutonium is useless, and it goes through a fair amount of uranium 238 per cycle.
Now that Thorium has been added, its a whole new ball game. That stuff runs efficiently as hell. It returns a small portion of thorium back at end of cycle (25%? I forget) And it runs 5x as efficiently in a 5x5 setup. That last is the part that shocked me to my core.
-
Been getting a lot of testing done on 5u lately.
The Processing Array is absolute genius. What an amazingly clever multiblock this thing is, and super fun.
Still really enjoying the Distillation Tower. Glad this thing made a comeback. It seems considerably more powerful than the original, but I'm not really sure how to attack that. Reducing glyceryl output maybe?
Really excited about the Large Heat Exchanger and Large Turbine. The LHE is a bit buggy at the moment (Blood's aware)...I can't wait for the fixed version to play with. I'm a bit worried that Lava production on it may be a bit over-powered, but that's pure speculation at this point. (And seriously, lava's a bit ludicrous in almost every modpack ever anyway, so who cares)
The Large Turbine "turbine items" desperately needs clarification in the tooltips on optimal flow. The generic 10000L thing is highly misleading. And the "turbine items" should be renamed to "turbine rotor" because silliness.
Loving your work Blood Asp. Best thing to happen to GT in a long time. Thanks.
-
Yet people make posts about "help why does this happen?!" and the like. The old IC2 system was simple, and anything about the new system being complicated or anything is just speculation. Player already fixed the fibre your base up problem by making loss per cable anyway, so you'd literally only be lowering the loss per block using fibre rather than avoiding it completely.
Do you still see those posts anymore?I remember seeing them all the time on old IC2, but I don't remember the last time I saw such an inquiry on the GT thread. I've never seen it in our modpack thread.
I'll be honest, I frequently found the classic IC2 system hard to wrap my brain around, and some things seemed frankly counter-intuitive. But in GT, it all makes sense and happens the way I'd expect: machines can request X amps of energy. If the wiring can't handle X amps, it burns. If the voltage on one of those amps is too high, the machine explodes.
Don't ask me to clarify IC2 un-intuitiveness, because I forget details. Maybe you were able to carry as many packets as you wanted on a line? I forget.
-
Hmm....nope.
Fun and powerful mod, but would make some automation a bit too simple for this pack.
A combination of Blood Asp's Large Heat Exchanger and Large Steam Turbine should hopefully make it irrelevant.
-
Has player given any consideration to simply adopting Greg's model?
I really like player's design, but it has a couple problems:
1) he hasn't been able to optimize it to his satisfaction, afaik
2) it may not be intuitive to players (although to be fair I have yet to see how feedback is to be presented to the player)Greg's model is really simple to understand, has functional loss, and seems to perform satisfactorily as far as I can tell. It also dodges the age-old problem of wiring your entire base with fiber to avoid loss, which is nice.
-
I'm curious: is this addon compatible and worthwhile when playing GT5u with IC2 cables disabled?
Edit: to clarify, I mean the "IC2Classic E-Net" part. As you might guess from my interest in Gregtech, I'm not interested in the "uncomplication" of recipes.
If you test it, post your findings, I'm also curious. -
Could you tell me specifically what you want out of the reactor?
Also what transfer mods are you using cause that makes a lot of difference actually. if you have a fluid moving mod that allows you to have higher priority on the heat exchangers used for superheated steam we could probably use your 7 efficiency design to an even higher efficiency than the one above. Then you use 800 heat for superheated steam and you send the rest to stirling generators. in that case your rod configuration would produce 648 eu/tick at an efficiency of 40,5.
You've touched on everything sir.At face value, the 7-efficiency one is better, both in raw-efficiency and logistics (easier to automate 4 quad rods than a jumble) That said, 440 heat is kind of an awkward number, and I wouldn't be surprised if yours ended up being comparable via higher (100%) superheated steam ratio.
For transfer mods, I have all the usual. EnderIO, BC, ExUTils, AE2. Couple oddballs. I've actually been trying to think of a way to prioritize fluids w/o using the fluid regulator as that thing is crashing for me in IC2 752.
But, it may not be necessary....
GregTech 5u actually adds a multiblock large turbine which works with superheated steam directly. I'm not sure yet, but multiples of 100 may not be critical in that case. (I'll have a wider range of target-numbers to work with due to the variation of turbine rotors at our disposal).
-
Choco: verbing nouns like a boss.
Sadly I believe the LHE is busted at the moment but I suspect Blood ASp will have that straightened out shortly. (Tested last night with Lava, bugged results.)
-
900 hu/t can be directly translated to 450 EU/t with a stirling generator (2:1) or 675 EU/t with IC2 superheated steam systems (2:1.5) and even more EU (843,75 EU/t) if you use GT5U large heat exchanger at max efficiency (about 1:0.9375 If i didnt do the math wrong). I guess it is efficient eh.
...holy shit. Are you telling me that in a 5x5 configuration its ~5x more efficient? That would be the first ever reason I've seen to implement a 5x5. Praise the spirit gods! -
I tried that in my newer reactor planner, and as a fluid reactor, that design is predicted to produce an average of 895.84 Hu/s while running.
I actually use your planner sometimes. Would 900 hu/s be considered efficient?I'm actually more interested in overall efficiency (energy-per-fuel) than any other metric. Also, I see people typically concerned with producing multiples of 200 for their reactor. I'm hoping that's less critical for me since I'll be using some GT5u infrastructure.
-
I forgot about trying that, will try. Is plutonium in/planned too?
Choco did you ever end up trying a 5x5 Thorium Reactor?
Requires GT 5u of course.
I've assembled a simple passively-cooled thorium reactor which produces a meager 100 eu/t at 7 efficiency, but I have no idea if it would be suitable as a 5x5. Using something like this design courtesy of Greg.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…cathr1b1h594m7ewstl3b0u80
Seems to work just fine in 5u (so far.) Been running for all of 5 minutes though, so who knows what interesting craters time will produce.
What's the rule of thumb when determining the quality of a reactor in a 5x5 assembly?
-
According to the wiki, it requires "one Output Hatch per height(6)."
I'm actually a bit surprised the multiblock even formed with multiple output hatches on the same height. Now I'm curious if there's any way I can leverage that to my advantage. Gotta think on that one.
-
Display More
The efficiency is actually identical, the output is 80% of the 6 chamber versions. There are more perks to the 5 chamber version as well. First of all it is A LOT cheaper. The design itself is actually a lot more efficient than the 6 chamber version as it used only 8 heat exchangers compared to 12. Also it uses only 8 advanced heat vents compared to 22 and instead uses 16 really cheap regular heat vents. Of all the mox designs ive done this is the one i'm most happy with.
What i usually do is make two of these that share the side missing a chamber to make one combined large reactor with 12 blocks. Then i can easily blast proof and automate the reactors in the same reactor room with the same cabling for a sweet 1280 eu/tick which is usually enough for my needs.
But the biggest point is that it requires less plutonium (24 instead of 30) and is a lot cheaper to build. Don't know if these numbers are still relevant but if you compare them in the list at page 6 the difference is:
5 chamber- Building cost: 293 copper, 119 tin, 491 iron, 32 lead, 32 gold, 8 diamond, 24 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 55 rubber
6 chamber- Building cost: 396 copper, 153 tin, 657 iron, 36 lead, 48 gold, 22 diamond, 32 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 79 rubber
Dang, that's a revelation. Good to know.Next you just need to design an uber-efficient thorium reactor with GT 5U and you'll be good to go.
-
My personal favourite mostly due to automation purposes is actually the 5 chamber version of the one you posted pyure. (both are my designs)
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…duzb5665bp965tsMan...that is tempting. It looks like you take a considerable efficiency hit however, no?
Automating rod insertion is definitely something I'd like to do and this would make it easy-peasy.
-
At last Batteries or tools do not explode when put in a higher tier Batbuffer. Or should i change that?
I don't think it's necessary. But if you feel you gotta do it, it should work both ways:
* If a high voltage battery is discharging into a lower-tier machine, explosion
* If a high voltage machine is discharging into a lower-tier battery, explosion (smaller?)
