Thats because redstone is not always worth 500 EU. It is worth 500 EU in storage blocks, but exactly 1 operation in machines. Macerator needs 625 EU for one operation, so it is effective to actually put it right into the machine, while putting it into electric furnace or extractor is actually waste.
Posts by raGan
-
-
I agree that the way basic generator works is annoying.
-
You basically want to be able to burn scrapboxes in generator for 9x more energy than regular scrap. Why not.
-
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…6yzemk84xyppuoeruypm2g9vk
Better version of the MKI-0 Reactor (first reactor in the list). Same output, fewer components and lots of free space for other stuff to add, like another 10 EU/t.
You are right, but it's all about price/performance and free space is not worth much. The designs on the list does the same and is cheaper than yours, and thus better. -
You know this is gonna become 10000x worse when new IC2 version is here with completely new reactor designs. But first few days should be calm xd as long as the reactor planner isnt updated :).
Added version number to this topic since this will be completely outdated when new version comes. Ill will link to this topic in the new list i make for the ppl that need the old designs for whatever reason that may be. Yes i know i mentioned this before but iam also very well aware of the fact ppl tend to miss things.
Yea I know, but why would Al buff it so much ? He was pretty reluctant before. I can't wait for the new new planner and I'm sure it will take no time to update it. (I take designs as sudoku
) -
Display More
Dunno if this design is new, but i just came up with it and i consider it pretty good:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…sfldd7cvnvwhvgivy14gjem9s
You can also add more colant cells/heat dispersers like this:
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…pwidrhkm75h8id9784bzj8htsThe first one is a mk2-1 so it needs a cooldown after every cycle, the second is a mk2-5 so it needs a cooldown every five cycles. it outputs 100 EU/t, the effective EU/t of the first one is 73.1 and of the second one is 87.3 EU/t
The efficiency is 1.67
I hope this isn't known yet
After seeing designs in the first post, you still consider it pretty good ? In my opinion any Mk II reactor under 2 eff shouldn't be considered good, unless it has decent EU output. To not just criticise, I made you a quick one.
Edit: another -
Shame there was no one to quote you before you removed it. I believe it would be magnificent design.
-
I agree with Ops. Also macerating it for energy would need to produce more than 745 EU (625 maceration + 120 per reed) to actually be worth it.
-
I'm starting to come to the conclusion that having as few as two HDs next to each other is a sign that there's room for improvement. Does that sound right?
Right. There are cases where it can't be avoided though. (for example Cake's design, I doubt it can be improved) -
Ok dont know why pic doesnt show in the editor it does show...just copy it and imagine it to be in my post.
Edit: If this is true, everything important to me is MAXEFF = 7. -
My reactor isn't BAD, it uses less resources and has a lower cooldown period.
Ok, not bad, but it takes little to no effort to make better one. Having 5 HDs next to each other is generally bad. Even when very similar uranium pattern is used, better results can be achieved. link -
Why is your reactor bad ? Because it is very easy to make better in every possible aspect. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…h8pbt1tw0rxt9pt16725gtatc
-
you could fill it up with coolant cells
-
I measure fail level of reactor designs like this by amount of heating plates that can be removed, without touching anything else, so reactor will still works exactly same.
8 of 17. Ouch. not a record by far, though.Strange, I was able to find 18 HDs and remove 9 of them. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…g13nbkhtogcnma96xe75d569s
I also keep posting this one. It has highest effective EU i have seen on Mark I and is in my opinion brilliant design, if uranium is not the problem.
-
You most probably haven't seen this one. http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…jzvr6yyevmgmhtm4j71n8bz9c
-
I'm not really sure if this one is worse then the ones on the first page so here it is.
http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…oszbi3xq1yeo876xoqe9qst1c
I am sure. -
it hs been improved to be even cheaper http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…8g2me6s69yvc2od1my1isu2bk
-
-snip-
I see. Luminators may be special case then ? Does it work with machines too ? I don't remember such thing being possible before. -
19 looks like melon to me.
-
If 32eu current is split 7-ways, you get ultra-low voltage with packets of 5 or below.
I believe you are wrong, sir. AFAIK, only current will change, not voltage. It means there will still be 32eu/packet, but lower eu/t, because packets will be sent less frequently. Only way to actually modify packet size is using transformers, which does not provide lower output than 32eu/p. I'm not 100% sure here, so let me know if it isn't that way.
To test this, you may set up 4 LV machines connected to single MFE. If it explodes, packets are not split.
