Posts by Natesky9

  • Energy Net improvements

    This whole thread is talking about improving the e-net (Preferably for the most current version), considering that many features had to be disabled because of complications of the mod
    for example, cables not working at all, things randomly blowing up, cables getting fried for no apparent reason.
    I'm only suggesting a few harmless additions to the e-net so provide those mechanics without adversely affecting gameplay.


    But first, when I say "channels" I don't mean that cables have individual routes on each cable. a "cluster" of cables is calculated as one process, or a channel, with emitters and recievers. There won't be multiple "packets" going along one line. Instead, every emitter sends as much as it can, split between them, to reach the cable's limit.
    There also won't be any "fried" cables in this, only a physical limit to the amount of current allowed. This is to ease the difficulty of learning a new power system.


    It isn't perfect, but it's a step to fix it

  • Energy Net improvements

    20 cables of 10 wires apiece in theory is less laggy than 2 cables of 100 wires apiece for calculating connected tiles.
    For transferring eu, only the emitters and receivers get calculated.
    For a game mechanic, cables could be made to only connect to the same type of cable, allowing for more compact wiring.


    As for the percentage loss, remember that it is only 1% for every number of cables. Thinking back, didn't we have something similar? I remember solar panels being useless after 5 cables of distance.
    Higher tiers of cable /should/ have a higher loss, if designed improperly. Besides, if you're maxing out a gold cable with 512eu/t, then you can afford to lose 5eu/t for connecting a machine up to 60 blocks away. Honestly, that's generous.

  • Energy Net improvements

    I think you misunderstood a couple of things, although I see the consideration.


    The cables themselves actually won't tick to search for connections. That is only done whenever there is a change in that particular line.
    The calculation would only be in accepting eu from emitters and transferring the eu to recievers. And as for the "parallel" eu that we see in sending multiple packets, that's effectively what this is doing. Except instead of sending the individual packets, they're rather divided up *to reach* the cable maximum current. This also means that if you're drawing 33 eu on a tin cable, you will reach a deficit, even with 3 batboxes powering one line.


    The percentage loss is an incentive to /not/ make huge cables, and in doing so, make smaller (and less cpu intensive) power systems.
    A pretty happy median is about 16 blocks. At that point, making a cable 100 blocks longhas a 6% loss. Even at 128/t with this, you're losing 8eu.
    Could be more, but that's up to the balance team

  • Energy Net improvements

    Excuse me i Necro an old post, but I've noticed that barely any progress has been made with the E-net for a very long time. Having a bit of experience with tile logic in a few of my projects, I can offer a few alternatives, some that might even improve the previous methods of e-net calculations.


    One such method is to simply allow each cable to ONLY accept up to it's maximum potential through any one point. This would allow a physical limit, and give incentive to upgrade to higher tier cables, as well as remove the "iffy" logic of "add one more generator, everything goes 'splodey". This method would simply force users to either use better cables, or design smarter designs. (Something that AE2 is currently promoting, I might add)


    Speaking of which, that too is another method that could be used for the new e-net. It would create "channels" of each cable, and simply use this as an array to designate emitters and receivers, at which I would recommend adding a calculation to split emitter's output so that all emitters output into the same "channel" equally. That would remove the issue of draining one storage before another.


    Now, for the mechanics of the e-net, many features could be implemented easily. I for one, would recommend that a flat energy loss does not get used. The reason is that it would be a disadvantage, and there would be no incentive to build smarter wiring. Everything would just be a mess. Tons of cables means large arrays, and more calculations. If the player is encouraged to build smarter, then the game will run alot smoother.


    First mechanic: Energy loss is calculated as such: (WARNING - MATH AHEAD)
    Loss = floor(CableCount/ConfigCluster)
    Where Loss is the percentage loss of EU
    CableCount is the amount of connected cables
    and ConfigCluster is the value at which 1% energy is lost for every x number of connected cables


    This calculation means that for every "cluster" of wires
    (clusters get calculated by every touching wire, gets re-calculated on block updates)
    there is a percentage loss for every packet transfer, starting at the point that the "cluster" contains x connected cables. This, of course, means that super long cables incur a percentage penalty when they're chained together, but simply adding a transformer or energy storage block resets the loss back to 0.


    It isn't a perfect fix, as it doesn't take into account the distance between inputs and outputs, but until a better solution is made, it's probably the best option.

  • Coolant Cell vs Universal Fluid Cell With IC2 Coolant

    Ahem

    Quote from DanQuixote

    I'm worried that I might be making a total noob mistake, but could someone tell me how to make coolant cells (ID#4199:9) instead of Universal Fluid Cells with IC2 coolant in them (ID#4100)?
    I feed empty cells, water, and lapis dust through the liquid/solid canning machine like I'm supposed to but it produces Universal Cells with coolant instead of the normal coolant cells. This would be fine, but universal cells w/ coolant can't be used to make 10K Coolant cells. I made sure that the liquid being used was the right coolant too by moving it to a fluid transposer, but to no avail.
    Any clue as to what I'm doing wrong?

    Universal fluid cells are the fluid containers of IC2. Think of them as just buckets. These are made with 4 tin item casings and a glass pane. The cells, which you use for coolant, are a single-use capsule. They are made by extruding a tin plate in a metal former to get 3. To swap the fluid over, just place the liquid in the world with the UFC (Universal Fluid Cell), then suck it up with the little tin capsule. Or, alternatively, place it in any fluid container and do it that way


    How does it work? NO ONE KNOWS! But here's a trick for you. UFC's can store between 1 and 1000 mb of fluid, and shift-right clicking on something with liquid in it will store the fluid. It doesn't even have to be an exact bucket- the UFC can store mb's at a time. (hint, use with UU matter)

  • Multi-block form of solar panels?

    I feel this would fit right in with the new implementations of the new power generation. However, much like the new wind mills and the soon-to-be water mills, the prior counterpart would probably vanish, which would be a shame.


    On that note, I feel that hu/t should have a slight advantage, much like reactors benefit from heat mode vs eu mode. I was kinda disappointed to see that the generator (stirling and eu) did the same exact thing, with the exception of the heat generator producing ashes.


    I think that hu/t machines should be the higher tier, much like kinetic generators and steam are. It makes them fit into late game better by being more expensive, complex, but also more rewarding.


    Point is, this is a very interesting concept, and I like it. Coolant can even be used for this purpose. I mean, crushed lapis is the only heat conducting liquid besides steam. My only concern is how big this thing is going to be

  • [Official] New Reactors design thread.

    These are all great, but I find that nearly every single one that has non-identical rod sizes isn't very viable for normal, automated use.


    *Puts these here*
    "Golden Beast"
    Very good as a standalone nuclear reactor, works perfect for 5x5, one of my personal favorites, no diamonds required



    "MOX Mayhem"
    This one is an amazing MOX design that benefits from high heat, but never siphons off from the hull, allowing this baby to just simmer at peak efficiency without worry.
    {Surprisingly enough, works with 5x5 reactors, since the vents are the only thing to gather heat, and 5x5 don't passively cool...}


    Some of my other designs are kinda just unique to their application. Like my reactor that I use for biofuel generation, or my blast furnaces. You'd be surprised at how many places reactors can fit right in

  • Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.

    Quote from Chocohead

    MOX uses plutonium, so getting it back at the end makes sense. MOX converts your U-238 to plutonium essentially.


    You've also yet to provide a name for your new fuel ;)

    I'm talking about the +1 tiny pile from depleted MOX. Basically, the byproduct of centrifuging depleted rods.
    Since MOX has half a lifetime of regular uranium, it's essentially a faster way to get more plutonium quicker. Which is fine, but if Plutonium is to be a late-game resource, it should be shifted to the lower tier fuel so that it isn't ridiculously abundant when you have 12 reactors and 96k plutonium


    Each type should have a unique role, I feel


    And as for a name, the names of the two most common nuclear fuels are just "Low enriched Uranium" and "High enriched Uranium"
    So I guess it would just follow that pattern, and the name would be "Highly enriched Uranium", for lach of a better name.


    I mean, you ARE using at least 3 times more U^(235) than regular uranium fuel...


    Despite the name, what do you think? It should be balanced, but a definite advantage over regular fuel

  • Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.

    Quote from Blackpalt

    It's a decent design, however you are using waaaaay to much heat exchangers. They only move around heat and removes none so try to keep them to a minimum.


    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.b…5qvym46y7aduzb5665bp965ts


    Since it only uses dual fuel rods its easily automated by filtering input and output of regular rods and spent fuel rods. So when the rods are spend they are automatically pulled out and then replaced with 4 new ones. wen using a combination of fuel rods you have to insert the fuel rods into specific slots which can only be done with a few very specific mods. Factorizations router comes to mind.


    This might be a bit long of a post, but bear with me.


    I used alot of heat exchangers in this because I was testing the fluid reactors, and I saw the heat jumping around alot, so I wanted to make sure to keep the heat less than a 1k difference. I've learned since then that the heat in the components will hover at about ~800 heat for most of the time regardless. Anyway, onto your design:
    This.. isn't very viable for automation without those few specific mods that can insert into a specific slot. There are only a handful of different combinations of fuel rods that are viable until more possibilities come out for specific insertion. IC2 could possibly lead the way in specified slot insertion, especially considering that not many common mods offer it, and the reactors are a prime candidate for exact location in inventories. I feel that the item sorter is far too underused, so maybe someday, that can be taken into consideration?


    Anyway, I've been compounding materials in survival, and I've hatched up an idea for more diversity. First, I've found a perfect design that I'm now using in EVERY one of my uranium 5x5 reactors from now on. And I have to say, once you find something great, if there's nothing better, then you just have to make more of them...


    [url = http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…15bxi33pdu1g7lgz7binwensw] "Dual Sardines" [/url]


    This one is probably the most efficient I can make given the current mechanics. This is as much power, efficiency, reliability, and convenience that I can manage to create. Yes, It's kinda expensive... Considering that to make it, you need 16 fluid ports, 16 heat exchangers, 16 stirling generators, 32 fluid ejectors, 128 heat conductors.... The list goes on and on. Upside is that I've found a way to design it without any diamonds - with the downside that it can't be used for MOX... BUT, you wouldn't be able to vent out enough heat with HALF the amount of rods anyway. Fact is, with only a few combinations, there's a limit to what's viable long-term.


    Onto my idea, why not add a new type of fuel rod?


    I've formulated an interesting mechanic for late game that would benefit fluid reactors, offer incentives to running MOX, open up a higher tier of power, and give more variety to nuclear.


    Benefit: Outputs higher heat than uranium, on par (or better) than MOX at 75% heat {4x heat}
    This makes it a great candidate for fluid reactors, as it will take up less slots, and provide plenty of heat
    Benefit: Lasts much longer than Uranium, due to a higher concentration of U^(235)
    Benefit: outputs much more power in a fluid reactor because of the first two
    Benefit: Doesn't use up U^(238), can be used in conjunction with MOX for best use of Uranium
    Benefit: Can be centrifuged to get (Insert extra-valuable nuclear material) exclusive only as a by-product of this fuel


    Disadvantage: BURNS HOT!
    Disadvantage: Because it give off much more heat, electrical generators can't extract pure energy as efficiently (1/4 EU output of Uranium)
    Disadvantage: Uses up precious early-game U^(235)
    Disadvantage: Uses up ALOT of U^(235), recommended only for nuclear physicists (But only self-proclaimed ones)
    Disadvantage: Did I mention it burns hot?


    Now I know that this is getting a bit long, so I'll try to condense this.
    The purpose for this fuel would be to introduce more diverse mechanics into nuclear design, and expand on the new reactor mode. It also gives new challenges for people to find new and interesting solutions to. plus, it's an entirely viable solution to late-game power, with the need for high levels of infrastructure. Oh, and one more thing, when i say that this new fuel uses U^(235), it's going to use 1 whole piece. Not just one tiny pile. Entire pellets. Not sure in what pattern or amount. But in Uranium, 3 tiny piles get used up. In MOX, 6 U^(238). So this new type of fuel would have to be balanced around this factor.


    Let me hear some of your opinions on this, and where you think it should fit in.


    Personally, I think that Plutonium should be taken out of depleted MOX. I feel that it could fill a larger role later on
    Also, found this: http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webp…/types%20of%20uranium.htm

  • Alright, so: MOX reactor designs.

    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