Posts by Pyure

Quote from Natesky9

I've been playing around with IC2's reactors for quite some time, even before the rework, and I find that the best designs- the ones that "just work" never get posted. After all, if it isn't broke, why search for more? So that's why I want to share my tried and true setup that I frequently use.

"Bread and Butter"

This design is my number one for a few reasons. It has the exact amount of cooling it needs to maintain temperature whether it's on or off, meaning it's perfect for mox designs, and heating it up is laughably simple. There's no need to worry about swapping out components other than the uranium or mox cells, and there is virtually 0 downtime.

Heating up for mox is as simple as taking out the 6 surrounding heat exchangers and running the reactor for 24 seconds. Bam, instant 8k heat.
Double Quad mox generates 672 eu/t
Double quad uranium only generates 160

One of my favorite reactors for making plutonium

Display More

This one was posted on this thread. Its similar to yours in that it easily stabilizes. At 80% heat it generates 840 eu/t. Its the only IC2 nuke design I use, ever.

http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zkp9ynvk4yranpdd9x31o2t4w

Quote from swarmski

What are people using for their main EU Storage bank?

The best option used to be a bunch of MFSUs. Now that Blood Asp has implemented eu-reading on GT buffers though, GT Battery Buffers of whatever voltage you're working with are the better option. You have options for every era of the game to store your power in.

Quote from willis936

Have you tried using computer mods that can use peripheral calls?

Naw, that sounds complercated.

Awesome blood

Now if you can only figure out some way to output redstone signals based on the energy-stored in a battery buffer you will unlock achievement Godhood.

Quote from Bogdan-G

I'm not complaining, I ask, knowing that it is a fast Java language, a natural question arises. Most of the problems in mods and in the game lies in the code, not the power of iron. When A majority of users with very different characteristics of the final device is about the same code is executed, and there is almost no device where the execution takes place not long on the eyes, the output of who to contact problem is obvious.
I analyze some of the mods is long the total download time and trying to understand why for a long time, if you can do faster? Your mod uses a lot of people around the world, you do not care that it does not run as fast as we would like?

The thing you're missing is that the code isn't running slow. Its just doing a lot more work.

Thermal Expansion may seem to be running faster, but only because it has to setup a few mechanics. As a result it doesn't even have similar optimization code because there's so little work to do.

By way of contrast, GT has to set up millions of mechanics. There is far, far more work being done. If it used the TE logic to do it, it would take far longer.

The only way to get what you want the way you're suggesting it is to actually remove GT content. Maybe get rid of most of the materials or something. But that's not very fun for anybody.

For game balance reasons, output should scale with difficulty. MOX isn't just the best output, sadly its also the simplest to put together.

I realize you can't do much about that, its out of your hands. But it sucks that there's no good reason for me to make an actively cooled reactor.

Even if there was just a config option to make passively-cooled reactors output at 10% output (instead of 50%), that would help a lot. Bleh.

Sadly the e-net shows all the classic symptoms of vapor ware.
Its sorta like the fall of rome, where it happens so slowly that nobody believes its happening till they realized the event came and went a while ago.

That said, if anyone can stick it out and do the impossible, it'll be player.

Thanks again for all the fantastic upgrades Blood, you rock.

Agreed.

I looked through the configs last week and I couldn't see this, but I wish I could make all non-5x5 scale down to 20% output. *That* would be an incentive to "upgrade".

Quote from Chocohead

They totally do.

Your example (as a fluid reactor) - efficiency 1 to 10, 9.98 Average:
1000 * Copper Cable
60 * Copper Plate
22 * Diamond
48 * Gold Plate
420 * Iron Bars
174 * Iron Ingot
258 * Iron Plate
10 * MOX Nuclear Fuel
24 * Redstone
72 * Rubber
150 * Tin Plate

One above - efficiency 0.75 to 9.5, 5.13 Average:
640 * Copper Cable
118 * Copper Plate
4 * Enriched Uranium Nuclear Fuel
56 * Gold Plate
264 * Iron Bars
120 * Iron Ingot
187 * Iron Plate
12 * MOX Nuclear Fuel
144 * Tin Plate

A lot of it is down to cost, a more expensive design would normally net you a better reactor overall (like in this case). Mixing normal uranium and MOX normally makes designs a little funky, in this case using full MOX rather than 3 Quad MOX and 2 Dual Uranium would actually double the EU output in EU mode, and increase the average efficency to 9.5. Still falls short of your example, but can be run without any pre-heating what so ever to achieve it compared to yours which is dependant on a high heat level. I guess that's a good reason to invest in all the lead (and iron) needed for a full fluid reactor setup.

Display More

As you can see though the design I used wasn't a fluid reactor design, just a standard MOX that outputs a ton of eu/t at good efficiency.

I think my problem here is I keep asking the same question: Why should I stop making MOX reactors? They're way better than 5x5 reactors. I can make one in a few minutes, in a smaller space, and they crank out a ton of energy. Nobody seems to be able to tell me "You should use a 5x5 reactor because they give better efficiency" or "better point output" or anything like that.

As far as I can tell, they just suck.

Quote from Chocohead

Yeah, around there probably.

Btw choco, border collies rock. just sayin.

Any idea how efficiently that would burn fuel compared to, say, this thing? http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…zkp9ynvk4yranpdd9x31o2t4w

It consumes 60 uranium per cycle but I can comfortably run it at 900 eu/t (theoretical maximum of 1000 eu/t before your base becomes bowl-shaped). I'm not actually sure how much total EU it gives per 60 uranium sadly, so unless you're a hyper genius you might not be able to answer my question.

Ultimately I'm still trying to figure out a reason to abandon Good Old Simple MOX.

Edit: for clarity, that's a MOX reactor design from Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.
With the description:

6-Chamber Reactors
EU/tick: 1000
Efficiency: 20
Building cost: 396 copper, 153 tin, 657 iron, 36 lead, 48 gold, 22 diamond, 32 redstone, 2 glowstone, 2 lapis, 79 rubber
Running cost: 60 U-238 per cycle
Designed by: Blackpalt

A lot more would be, what, another 50%, making around 900 eu/t?

Quote from ThatGerman

Hi!

1216 Hu/s
Reactor planner hash: 21p7itq69ivrsdov69c72jy91k4eyvrsfqb27auqnv0v9lnk6x3eht6eufe2gzt0ul26wd0j4xms6ww
Screenshot attached.

You will need several fluid ports for that setup to work - I have 27, but I think 20 should be enough.

Display More

Remind me, what does this translate into in EU?

Quote from leagris

Anyway IRL you try to keep plasma within the Tokamak ring and at sufficiently high temperature.
Power generation is the result of fused atoms causing electrons unbalance and so an electric potential.
To match this, Plasma generators should become part of the ring.
Or, if use high tech pipes able to transport helium plasma as of currently defined (well GT He plasma is happy travelling inside tin cells or wax capsules),
Then Plasma generators should return fluid helium at same amount you fed He plasma in.

He Plasma should be a very hot gaseous fluid that set/fuse anything on fire at contact.

Breaking/damaging a loaded tokamak, or having it lose power while loaded should create an explosion the size of all coil blocks as TNT and let 32000 litters of He plasma escape in world, damaging blocks on its way up and around until it dissipate.

Display More

Fusion reactors shouldn't explode. If anything damages the reaction, fusion processes simply stop happening, and everything very quickly cools down.

There isn't enough plasma in a theoretical tokamak to approximate a TNT explosion as you described. It may take up a lot of space but its extremely diffuse. I wouldn't want to drill a hole in one and stand there like an idiot but if I was, I'd be the only person killed.

Quote from Chocohead

I forgot about trying that, will try. Is plutonium in/planned too?

Don't think its in, dunno if its planned. He's been churning out projects like a crazy person lately.

I'm 99% sure I didn't already ask this here but I'm tired so who the hell knows.

Anyone tinkering with Blood Asp's fork of GT? It adds back Thorium fuel cells.

I'm wondering if anyone's tried out the resurrected thorium in a 5x5.

You got your link and its caption backwards friend.

Awesome Blood

but ugh, research, ugh :p

Quote from SynfulChaot

I guess I am highly curious as to what makes the energy net so difficult to work on and why it's been broken since IC2exp's inception. Also why everyone seems loathe to fix what really does seem to be IC2exp's glaringly-obvious Achilles heel. I mean ... isn't it just an evolution of the IC2 Classic energy net? Can nothing be gleaned or adapted from that at all? If not, what about GregTech 5? Greg has managed to have a fully-functional IC2 Classic-like energy net for how long now? Is collaboration there impossible?

This.

Just adopt the damn GT enet and be done with it. Do it. There isn't anything that can be come up with that is so vastly superior that it justifies X years of IC2-hiatus.

IndustrialCraft is supposed to be a popular mod, not just one whose memory is sustained by oldschool users. I'd like to see this be true again.

Quote from SynfulChaot

With all of the features that IC2exp keeps receiving ... I must admit complete and utter bafflement that the very backbone of the mod, the EU energy net, is still in a state of complete disarray. I mean ... I do welcome the features and changes, but at the current point in time, EU, the transformers, and the different types of cable might as well not exist. RF is currently deeper in features than EU is ... and that just feels wrong!

To me it seems that the lack of a properly functioning energy net is the reason that many have abandoned IC2exp. I feel that when the energy net again functions with more depth than RF that people will start returning to the mod again. The rest of the mod is there. There are all the features of IC2 classic, as well as many new ones. But ... the crippled backbone is a glaring omission in what is otherwise a wonderful mod.

This one's a no-brainer. IC2 on its own is a footnote in modded memory these days purely because of the busted e-net. The only reason I even run into this anymore is purely because I play GT.

This is really disappointing because the rest of the mod seems to be moving in a decent modern direction.

Quote from Chocohead

I did speak to Player about it a few weeks ago about IC2's direction, he said it was not knowing a way to keep performance with the E-net with it being so complicated not being very motivating to work more on it. It'll get there eventually, but how long eventually will be is another thing

This is incredibly disheartening "Eventually" is code for "Vapourware." But god I hope I'm wrong.