Posts by Chezzik

    In my opinion, if you want to only give one number for the heat vent, it should be 8.5, not 9. If you round up for every heat vent, then the total is going to be off by a lot.

    People who are competing to come up with the most effective design are probably looking at this as "I want to make 5-7 reactors, and get the most EU for the resources I spend". To most of us, we don't mind making a few extra iron bars for the first reactor, because we know that they'll eventually get use somewhere else. We just don't want to spend more on that first reactor than need.

    Also, we may have some iron bars already in our inventory before our first reactor! I don't think that there's any way to accommodate that.

    If you do want to do something far more complicated, you could output something at the end that says "Iron cost: 112-115 ingots". That would indicate to people that if they have 115 ingots, they can build this entire reactor without any more mining. If they are making multiple reactors, the average cost will be 112. Also note that although this concept is pretty easy, it could be somewhat difficult to implement. I'm not saying it's a necessary feature, haha!

    I guess my issue is not understanding why he used 2 for single as a base rather then 4 when they say one uranium cell produces 4 on its own.

    I know this reply is a few months late, but look at the formula for [Triangular Numbers]( The formula is:

    0.5 * (n * (n+1)

    So, if 4 is the base, then the amount for single uranium is likewise:

    4 * (0.5 * (n * (n+1)))

    Since 4 * 0.5 is 2, that's why you see 2 in the code.


    Speaking of code, I noticed that placing a single Heat Vent increases causes the tool to say "10 iron" for the costs, but from what I can tell, it only costs 8.5 iron, and always has only cost 8.5 iron. You can see a recipe for it [here](…strial_craft_2/heat_vent/), or by using JEI in the game. I looked in the code to see how it is calculated, and I just see that it is hardcoded to 10:

    1. public static final MaterialsList MATERIALS = new MaterialsList(
    2.         10, java.util.ResourceBundle.getBundle("Ic2ExpReactorPlanner/Bundle").getString("IRON"),
    3.         1, java.util.ResourceBundle.getBundle("Ic2ExpReactorPlanner/Bundle").getString("TIN"),
    4.         16.0 / 3, "Copper");

    As far as I count, you need 1.5 iron for the iron bars, 4 iron for the plates, and 3 iron for the electric motor, making a total of 8.5.

    Since all the other types of heat vents use the basic heat vent in their material calculations, and since every commonly used reactor contains heat vents of some type, the iron calculations in the official list of reactor designs are wrong on every single reactor listed. Am I just misunderstanding something about the crafting here?

    I also noticed that the heat exchanger code for transfer() looks extremely buggy. Your notes say that you adapted the code from IC2 code, so then I went and checked it, and wow, it matches. I find that to be a bit, um, unsettling. Is there a way that we can file bugs against the IC2 code?

    Likewise, your code for adjustCurrentHeat() returns a negative value in cases where the component overflows and in cases where it underflows. I checked IC2 decompiled code and saw the same thing. Since you are trying to mimic what we see in the game, you did the right thing, but wow, that is really interesting. I'm wondering if it is possible to abuse these bugs and make a reactor that performs far better than it should.

    Well, I don't understand that completely, but I think I get the idea. Basically, the duty cycle has to be something like 2.5:1. For every minute it runs, it needs to be off for 2 and a half minutes. There's many ways to do that :)


    Wow, I love the 3.5 efficiency on that!

    I've never run a Mk III before. The applet says that it can run 29 minutes, and then it needs a 106 minute cooldown. Is that what you do?
    Or do you just use a redstone circuit (or RP2 sequencer) to turn it on for a second and then off for 3?

    My nuclear reactors:
    http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.blueyonder.…1501521s1r11r10 Your starting reactor :) (Now even cheaper!!!)

    Hey, I've noticed that the when the planning tool changed (about 2 days ago), this reactor went from being a 'Mark I-O' to being a 'Mark II-8'. Was the tool incorrect before?

    Now that it is a II-8, I've found a way to bring it back to a I-O for just a small cost:

    I'm just wondering why the formula used by the planning tool changed. Who maintains the tool?

    The calculator is great! I'm glad that you have the percentage checkbox, and personally will always have it checked.

    Do you know anything about loss when combining multiple types of cable? When I have an array of solar cells or waterwheels, I usually use tin cable for all the junctions (no loss for 39 meters), then switch to insulated copper (no loss for 4 meters), before finally going to a batbox or transformer. But, I wonder if I could just alternate between tin and copper indefinitely without loss.

    Do you know how this is handled?

    What about forks? If there is 5 insulated copper for a line, it will have loss, but what if those 5 copper insulated pieces are forked, so that no path is longer than 4? Is there loss then?