Posts by Talonius

    A mis-placed post on Rick's reactor design list has reminded me about something I missed...

    - The planner now copes properly (I hope) with designs that mix different cell types, the design will be run for the duration of the longest lasting cell.
    - If a Uranium/Plutonium cell expires mid-simulation, the planner will assume it gets replaced, needed resources will be adjusted accordingly.
    - Uranium/Plutonium cells that have been replaced in a design will be highlighted yellow and have additional tooltip info.

    Looks like I need to find out when the thorium/plutonium heat modifers are added.

    I'm dealing with unexpected results, for example: A quad uranium cell makes 96 heat per tick .. the planner assumed the GregTech wiki page was correct and marked quad thorium cells at 20 heat per tick (rounded up from 19.2), instead it appear quad thorium cells make 24 heat per tick.

    Edit: Also, quad plutonium cells were expected to make 192 heat per tic (double that of uranium), instead they make 216 heat per tick.

    Edit 2: It appears thorium does a 1/4 of the heat uranium does and plutonium does x2.25 more heat than uranium... I wonder if that's intensional

    Edit 3: The planner is updated to reflect the heat bonus added to greg's cells.

    After testing some things, I found out that your Planner doesnt work correctly with Plutonium and Thorium.

    I test the Designs in my Computer Cube and most of them cause explosions, after they got labeled "Full Cycle", by your Planner.

    I dont know how you coded that applet, so I cant give hints to fix that. All I can say is, that you should run it through the ComputerCube to proof that it works correctly. ;)

    Heh, the planner rounded down, your components round up.

    Since it seems stable enough and it doesn't look like it messes with previously made designs, the planner with the GregTech components added has been moved to the usual 'v3' url. The temp url is now broken.

    Grey indicates a component that the planner conciders unused.
    Yellow indicates components that need replacing or vents that arn't doing as much cooling as they could.
    Red indicates a melted component.

    The cooling value in brackets is the potencial cooling for the design, including the partialy used and unused vents.

    The bar at the top is the hull temperature of the reactor, it changes colour depending on how many heat 'milestones' it passes (Evaporate, Hurt, Melt, etc)

    Edit: I try to stamp out the mis-calcultions that mean the difference between a nice workshop and a nice hole in the floor. ;)

    I fixed the Total EU variable so it can handle values over 2.1 billion (you insane people), this should of fixed the minus EU/t and other odd values elsewhere.

    As for the extra UUM cost for each plutonium cell... it's not included. If you've got plutonium then most likely you need 16.6 million EU per UUM, thus it needs to be used in a design with overall efficiency of 4.16+ just to break even if you spent a UUM to 'upgrade' the uranium. The planner assumes you're using the Industrial Centrifuge method of getting the plutonium, even though doing so grants you far less total EU then using a breeder reactor. Unless I'm missing something about Greg-Tech.

    As for it melting a computer, bare in mind the planner is doing in a few seconds what a reactor in MC will be doing over 5.5 hours... I'm sure your system will be fine. Of course, sucessfully suppling the needed amount of lapis fast enough might be a whole different problem entirely.

    After finally having enough free time, I've attemped to add greg-tech's items to the planner. For the moment it's on a temporary url, atleast until I'm sure the new additions havn't broken old designs.


    Edit: A note about UU costs, they're still using the normal IC values, it to be used more as a comparision value when weighing up 'the best design'.

    Really nice addition. The overall profit in eu/t is based on a scrap fed mass-fab, but are the UU-matter numbers rounded up down or just rounded to the nearest integer?

    UUM numbers are currently rounded to the nearest integer, I've been pondering either rounding up or showing a couple of decimal places. The 'oveall' numbers are calculated from the unrounded values behind the scenes so either way, those won't change.