Posts by MauveCloud

Quote from Chaoschaot234

Thanks for the Replay. I hope the Arc Furnace from Immersive Engineering is enough todo this work, so I'll proof this, because Arc Furnace = Arc Furnace, or not?

I haven't used Immersive Engineering myself, but I looked up its Arc Furnace on the FTB wiki, and based on the recipes listed, it seems closer to being a substitute for the GT Alloy Smelter than for the GT Arc Furnace. The IE arc furnace combines an ingot or grit with dust or another grit to get an ingot of some sort of alloy (and occasionally some slag), while the GT arc furnace takes various components and machines plus some oxygen to return up to 4 types of ingots and nuggets, roughly equivalent to the amount used to make the input (rounded down to avoid exploits), except that iron is converted to wrought iron, copper is converted to annealed copper, and non-metallic constituents like wood and rubber are converted to ashes.

Quote from Chaoschaot234

Today I found out that some recipes are using wrought iron dust/ingots/plates ... how is it obtainable? Normal Iron Ingots are don't "morphing" into GregTech Iron Ingots (if available).

I searched through the hole NEI but no recipe was found, any ideas?

Last I knew, GT5u had two common ways of making wrought iron:
1. put regular iron nuggets in a furnace to get wrought iron nuggets, then combine them into ingots (slow and expensive in terms of charcoal/EU, but necessary until method #2 becomes available)
2. put iron ingots in an arc furnace.
Those can be hard to find in NEI, and I think some builds have had bugs that caused them to be hidden. Has that come back?

Update: I downloaded several older builds of IC2, and even back to version 0.90, the number of blocks a mining laser can dig through was based on the explosion resistance of said blocks. I still want to know: Why was this suddenly changed for the 1.8 builds to base it on the hardness instead?

According to TacoGerbil, SpongeForge appears to interfere with the generation of Rubber Trees in MC 1.10.2, so idk if it's ready for use with IC2/GT yet. (or is it IC2 that isn't ready for SpongeForge? maybe somebody else can figure that out)

Yes. It does nothing if you try to shoot it into empty air, but if you shoot at a target block, it generates a 3x3 pattern of beams, directed horizontally, up, or down, depending on the angle formed between the player and the target block. Thus it can be used to make a nice 3x3 horizontal tunnel, vaguely similar to the Railcraft Tunnel Bore (although without the placed rails, gravel fill, etc.), though it's not limited to purely North, South, East, and West.

It costs 10500 EU per use, and each beam seems to have roughly the same penetration as horizontal mode, but since horizontal mode costs 3000 EU per use (the wikis that say 1250 EU are out of date, I checked this myself by recharging the laser in a disconnected MFE before and after and comparing the MFE's power level), it's much more efficient to dig a tunnel using 3x3 mode (at least compared to using the mining laser in horizontal mode).

Update: I found the 3x3 mode, which is presumably what the "9 times more fun" message was about, though it's not documented anywhere I've been able to find - the IC2 Wiki, the official FTB Wiki, and the unofficial FTB Wiki all have pages about the mining laser, but none of those have been updated to explain how the 3x3 mode works.

Also, I did some more detailed testing of the penetration distance of horizontal mode in the two different versions of Minecraft (using IC2 2.2.826 and 2.6.81 respectively), and I've looked at decompiled code for both versions. I think the 1.7.10 version goes by blast resistance, and 1.10.2 goes by hardness. However, looking at the decompiled code, I don't understand how it ends up digging so far through sand in 1.7.10, or why this was changed for the 1.8 builds, while it had apparently been left alone for so long in the 1.7.10 builds.

Sand (2.5 blast resistance, 0.5 hardness)
1.7.10: 62 blocks broken, 57 collected
1.10.2: 15 blocks broken, 13 collected

Netherrack (2 blast resistance, 0.4 hardness)
1.7.10: 71 blocks broken, 60 collected
1.10.2: 18 blocks broken, 17 collected

Grass Blocks (3 blast resistance, 0.6 hardness)
1.7.10: 55 blocks broken, 49 collected
1.10.2: 12 blocks broken, 11 collected

Dirt (2.5 blast resistance, 0.5 hardness)
1.7.10: 62 blocks broken, 55 collected
1.10.2: 15 blocks broken, 13 collected

Iron Ore (15 blast resistance, 3 hardness)
1.7.10: 15 blocks broken, 13 collected
1.10.2: 2 blocks broken, 2 collected

Stone (30 blast resistance, 1.5 hardness)
1.7.10: 7 blocks broken, 7 collected
1.10.2: 5 blocks broken, 4 collected

Cobblestone (30 blast resistance, 2 hardness)
1.7.10: 7 blocks broken, 7 collected
1.10.2: 3 blocks broken, 3 collected

Bricks (30 blast resistance, 2 hardness, but blacklisted for the laser in 1.7.10)
1.7.10: stops laser
1.10.2: 3 blocks broken, 2 collected

Obsidian (60 blast resistance according to IC2 wiki (changed from vanilla 6000), 50 hardness)
1.7.10: stops laser
1.10.2: stops laser

Glass (1.5 blast resistance, 0.3 hardness, but seems to be handled specially)
1.7.10: laser passes through, and can break blocks beyond the glass without breaking the glass
1.10.2: laser passes through, and can break blocks beyond the glass without breaking the glass

Quote from TomavX

I've downloaded latest build and I don't see the reason why some recipes in Wiremill give one wire per ingot and other give two wires (eg. Cobalt gives two, Gold gives one). I know that I can make two Gold Rods in Extruder and then I can make wires from rods. But I can also use Wire Extruder Shape to make wires directly in Extruder. I think that this makes Wiremill useless. Was It intended?

Have you looked at the EU and time costs for making wires directly in the extruder? It's been a bit since I've actually played GT5u, but last I knew, that took more EU and time than using a wiremill, especially since most materials you might want to make wires from need MV in the extruder, but only LV in the wiremill. Also, I think the wiremill might be the only way to get fine wire (although I don't remember if there's anything besides the soldering iron you might want that for)

With Minecraft 1.7.10 and a recent build of IC2, a mining laser in horizontal mode can mine about 56 sand, and nearly as much dirt or netherrack. When mining stone, it penetrates about 7 or 8 blocks iirc, and goes a bit further if it encounters ore.

With Minecraft 1.10.2, it only mines about 15 sand or 5 stone (I haven't got exact figures for other materials), and stops sooner if it encounters ore.

I found some entries in the changelogs that might be relevant, but I don't really understand why this has changed.

http://jenkins.ic2.player.to/job/IC2_18/57/changes
"Mining laser, misc fixes."

http://jenkins.ic2.player.to/job/IC2_18/176/changes
"Mining laser is now 9 times more fun"
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean - I doubt it's referring to scatter mode, because that generates 25 beams.

http://jenkins.ic2.player.to/job/IC2_110/2/changes
"Fix the mining laser range."
Unless the 1.7.10 range was somehow a lot higher than intended, it doesn't seem fixed to me.

Actually, I looked at decompiled code for IC2, and rubber trees can generate in any biome that qualifies as forest, jungle, and/or swamp (BoP grassland counts as swamp). Last I checked, sludgepit counted as both swamp and forest, which would make it an excellent place to look for rubber trees, except that it doesn't appear for me in biome_ids.json, so I'm not sure the 1.10.2 version of BoP includes that biome.

Edit: I tried looking around a bit in a couple of 1.7.10 BoP worlds (in creative mode) to see if I could find a sludgepit, but didn't have much luck. However, after looking at the wiki description of the Sludgepit, I'm less certain about it being a good place to look for rubber trees in the versions that include it - even if it has a high chance of attempting to spawn a rubber tree, that will presumably fail if the location is already blocked by other leaves.

Edit #2: I gave myself a biome radar and some biome essence ore, and with some sludgepit essence, I found one, and confirmed that IC2 rubber trees can generate in the sludgepit biome in 1.7.10, but not very many due to the overlapping canopy formed by the trees that BoP generates for that biome.

I haven't tried using retrogen, but I've seen IC2 rubber trees spawn in BoP worlds using both MC 1.7.10 and MC 1.10.2. Which Minecraft version are you using, and what biomes have you looked in?

According to the IC2 wiki,

Quote

Rubber trees spawn only inside swamp and forest biomes and cannot be found in other biomes.

That's a bit out of date, since I have seen them in BoP grasslands biome as well, and possibly a few others, but if you've been looking in biomes like crag, sludgepit, and wasteland, that might be the problem.

Edit: also make sure you didn't disable rubber tree generation a few lines above. If you did, changing the tree density factor isn't likely to make any difference.

I think Aroma's first sentence is still useful. You can download a copy of IC2 for 1.4.x and open it to see how the default textures are arranged in the sprite sheets (I expect the default textures haven't changed that much, so you could look at the wiki or something to identify the default textures), and use that to determine which items and blocks are represented in the higher-resolution sprite sheets that you plan to cut apart for use in your 1.10 pack.

You probably have a leftover IC2.ini from an older version of IC2 (e.g. for Minecraft 1.7.10, where IC2:blockScaffold is apparently there by default, and possibly correct for that version of IC2).

You have two options here:
1. delete IC2.ini from your config folder and let IC2 make a new one. (this will make sure you get all the defaults)
2. change "IC2:blockScaffold" to "IC2:scaffold" on that line. (might lose a few entries that are included by default in the latest version, but could be more attractive if you've heavily edited your config)

There's this one: How i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb - Nuclear power guide and reactor designs

That site has been down since July 20th (or perhaps longer). However, the links can be pasted into the new reactor planner. If you really need the old planner (for IC2 Classic or something), Chocohead attached a copy of the standalone jar here: Reactor Planner for v1.106

Strictly speaking, I think IC2's version number is 2.6.x to go with Minecraft 1.10 or 1.10.2

Anyway, until crops are re-added for the MC 1.8+ versions of IC2 (which presumably has turned out to be more difficult than the devs expected, given the delays), my suggestion is to add the Forestry mod and use a Rubber Plantation to automate sticky resin gathering.

I have upgraded my computer today, and I'm planning to start a new single-player peaceful world in a day or so with MC 1.10.2 and at least the following mods (if possible; I think a couple of the LiteLoader mods had issues before, and I'm not certain they've been resolved):

Autofish
Batty's Coordinates Plus (Forge version)
BedrockLayer
Better Foliage
Biomes O Plenty
Control Pack
Easy Breeding
Fast Leaf Decay (by Olafski)
Forestry
Gravel Miner
IndustrialCraft 2
Inventory Tweaks
JEI
JourneyMap
Mouse Tweaks
Optifine
VeinMiner
Waila
Wawla

Can anyone suggest some mods to add that would be complementary, without adding much competing/redundant content? Availability of BDCraft texture patches for the mods would help, though it's not critical for said patches to be updated to 1.10.2 - I can try to tackle that myself if necessary.

Quote from Omicron

My logic is not off - I completely agree with you on the above point. I now accept that this setup is bug-free. If I didn't make myself clear enough, I apologize.

When I talked about the planner showing the wrong thing, I chose to examine the case in which the corner vent was removed (as stated), because I thought it would make a better example.

I'll raise an issue on github tomorrow, sure.

Apologies. Sometimes I get annoyed when people respond in a way that indicates they haven't read my posts well enough, but it seems I was guilty of that this time.

I have a feeling that tracking down why it says it only has 23 excess heating with the 17 OC vent setup instead of 36 will be difficult, though.

Quote from Omicron

They're not really that arcane. They just look at the heat level of themselves and all components they are able to interact with (which may or may not include the reactor core), and then move heat around between all of these reservoirs with the aim of balancing them out percentage-wise, up to the limits of their transfer capacity.

I beg to differ. I've actually looked at decompiled code, and there are some conditional statements that I still don't fully understand that make the finer details more complicated than that. Admittedly, that might have changed in recent builds - it's been a while since I've checked.

Quote from Omicron

I started to explain to you here why I specifically used component exchangers here - because they don't interact with the core. In this whole design, only the OC vents draw heat from the core. No other part does. Then I did some math, and it occurred to me what the problem might be. Namely, there are 18 OC vents in this design. Each draws 36 heat. 18x36 = 648. The reactor also outputs 648 heat. So, contrary to my initial assumption, the corner vent is actually forced to draw its full load. There is no bug with IC2 here.

However, the output of your planner is not clear here. If I remove the bottom right vent, the planner says that there is 23 excess heating. However, what it actually should say is that there is 36 excess heating, because that is the unhandled amount that accumulates in the core every second. Additionally, the parts claim that they are cooling more than they actually do. It says that 625 out of 628 cooling is happening. Which makes sense at first glance, because one OC vent was removed, and therefore 20 vent cooling went away: 648-20 = 628. However, the 17 OC vents only manage to draw 612 heat from the core each second. How can the cooling system run only 3 points below capacity, when each turn it is fed 16 heat less than its capacity? I went and clicked the little "i" buttons for each active component, and indeed: all of them except two claim to be fully loaded. One is a component vent at 5:7 (row:column), which claims 14 of 16 capacity; the other the component vent at 3:5, which claims 15 of 16 capacity. Three short of maximum. But there's not enough heat for that!

So the actual thing that the planner should display in this case is both 36 excess heating and 19 excess (or better, "unused") cooling, at the same time. And the components should adequately reflect if their turn in the tick order comes up and there is no heat for them to interact with.

So, umm. Yeah. Consider it a bug report?

Display More

That does make it seem like my planner is calculating excess heating and cooling improperly, though perhaps they should be called "unhandled heat" and "unused cooling" respectively. However, I think your logic is off on one point: the reactor generates 648 heat each tick, but with 18 overclocked heat vents, none of that heat is accumulating in the core while those last. The heat is building up in that corner OC heat vent, because with only 2 adjacent component heat vents, that's only 28 heat dissipated from it per tick.

I've got a computer upgrade pending (there are a few parts that haven't arrived quite yet), so it may take take me a few days to get to it. In the meantime, perhaps you could file a formal bug report on GitHub.

Quote from Omicron

Hey Mauve, I don't suppose you could help me with my confusion above? Considering you wrote the planner, you must have some insight into ghow the components tick inside the reactor nowadays... (I hope )

I have a little insight, but not enough to figure out why that happens. I had a brief thought about the overclocked heat vent building up more heat than it could dissipate on its own due to being last in the tick order, but based on what you said about it only having 23 heat to draw from the reactor core, that's only 3 excess heat per tick, which the adjacent component heat vents should be able to dissipate in the following tick.

That design uses heat exchangers, which complicate things - the descriptions on the wiki don't adequately explain them, based on what I found when I decompiled the mod a while back, so I got special permission to adapt the decompiled code for my planner. However, none of them are adjacent to the failing overclocked heat vent.

There is an enhancement to the planner I've thought about a few times that might help to figure this out: I could add some advanced logging to track details of the reactor components after each tick. The details would be output to a csv file, which obviously could slow the simulation way down, so there'd be a warning about that.

Quote from amitarvind

I think his reasoning that it would be easier was a direct aim at plutonium production efficiency and ignoring EU/resource efficiency.

Huh? Can you explain that further? The only way I can think of that those "0-chamber" reactors can be more efficient at producing plutonium is in terms of space - they have 3 columns in one block space, as opposed to 1 extra column per block for added chambers. However, they would still each need a redstone signal, and if you wanted to automate them, setting up AE2 cabling and separate import/export buses (or whatever the MC 1.8+ equivalents from other mods are, I confess I haven't looked into that much yet) for each, that could end up taking up more space than using 6-chamber reactors.

Wow, I must be getting rusty, considering I'd forgotten about that thread. Also, the 43-rod design is actually an enhancement of a 41-rod design I came up with in that thread last year. I'm not sure how blackpalt figured that multiple small reactors would be easier, though, since the reactor requires 3 chambers to craft it, plus some extra components. 3 of those "0-chamber 14 rod" reactors would cost more total materials than a single 6-chamber 43-rod reactor, and only allow 42 rods total.

In answer to your question about the url or the code portion, take your pick. The new planner recognizes both. However, it's usually easier to grab the whole url, since you can just right-click the link and choose "copy url".