Hmm... I've seen this before, I think. Try disabling IC2's sounds from its config -- I recall some others having similar symptoms (including a lack of errors in the FML log) and I seem to recall killing the sound system helped them.
Posts by narc
-
-
My reactor [reference] isn't BAD, it uses less resources and has a lower cooldown period.
You must have an interesting definition of resources -- your reactor uses five uranium, whereas raGan's only uses three. Also, last I checked, 55 minutes was less than 59 minutes, so raGan's also has a shorter cooldown. raGan's reactor is even cheaper in one-time costs (copper, tin, bronze, etc), because he's using fewer heat pumps, leaving more room for actual cooling components.I don't think it was a bad effort, and you should feel good for independently reaching a fairly decent design, but it's not as good as raGan's.
-
IC² has a "special" BC-API, which is only getting loaded, when BC is loaded.
Using that API like any other Mod would do, would have the Sideeffect, that IC² has to come in two diffrent Versions (one for BC2 and one for BC3).
Ah, comprendo. I had wondered how that particular trick was achieved.
Trycatching time... I'm still heavily in for a 1.103b
Yes, there do seem to be a batch of small fixes coming together, aren't there?
-
Both of these are low-efficiency generators -- you're only getting 10 EU/t from each lone uranium cell, and 20 EU/t from the two linked ones in the first nuke. The problem with that is that you're massively wasting uranium, which has the potential to give you up to 50 EU/t from a single cell (surrounded by four others), just to keep from dealing with the cooling requirements (130 heat generated per cycle).
It's much better to build multiple high-efficiency reactors than one low-efficiency one, since your uranium gets closer to producing those ideal amounts of power from each cell. Look at Rick's thread of excellent reactor designs, for instance -- two of his 70 EU/t reactors will output more than either of your reactors, and will only need six uranium cells in total, where you're using 10 for each!
Considering the one-time cost of building the reactor is amortized over time and approaches zero, the only real cost of nuclear engineering is how much uranium you put in over time, and with Rick's designs you're getting more power for less uranium.
-
I don't think this is something IC2 can fix -- you're missing a mod providing the Buildcraft API. Though I would've expected Forestry to provide it. It might be faster to bug Sengir about it.
-
My primary answer to the OP's question is: nuclear reactors are fun. This is all the reason I need to "bother" with nuclear engineering. This is similar to Gaxx's requirement for potential explosions, now that I think of it.
I do have one specific point to make about this, though:
70 Solars:
Namely: one-time costs don't compare, as far as I'm concerned -- my games are always long and therefore all my one-time costs are effectively zero (or, at least, trivial). The only real difference becomes fuel cost, which is zero for the free energy generators (solar, wind, water) and nonzero for nukes.Realistically, though, fuel costs aren't enough to dissuade me from using nukes -- I also use geothermals powered by lava gathered from the overworld (not the effectively infinite nether lava, which I count as cheating), which gives not only non-zero fuel costs, but also nontrivial transport requirements. Building systems to manage these problems is part of the fun!
Oh, while I'm doing my devil's advocate bit, nobody seems to have brought this up: solar arrays (and other free energy generators) can be set up incrementally, giving you nonzero power income from the moment the first one's built and set down. Compare nukes which generate nothing until they're set up and fueled (but provide more power once ready, and can be set up faster than the equivalent solar array).
That's my two cents. Have at it!
-
^ Yep, no issues with it in 1.97.
-
[...]"balance," but which in reality, is an entirely arbitrary enforcement of defectiveness and scarcity.
I read that as "balance, which in reality is balance". If you don't like requiring resources for maintenance, well... isn't that what creative mode is for?
I'm with Alec on this one, I don't see your point. You like creative mode, go right ahead and play that way. It's your game, bro.
-
For slightly more resources you could build two of these (taken from Rick's thread) and get 10 more EU/t. Rick's thread also has some good short-cooldown Mk IIs.
-
Well, http://reddit.com/r/ic2suggestions is free... Good luck getting folks to use it, though.
-
Rick's design is better: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…r94liy4i8m6fl9xfn9xtde3pc
Oh, that's excellent, reduces the costs by a bit more of everything. Neat! Thanks for the link.
[...]SUC is not only alternative to MK-1/2, as there is redstone.
True, but I was sticking to the Mk. I setups since that's what we started with. That Mk. II is mighty impressive, though.
-
If you don't mind dropping to 40 EU/t, I have a design I'm quite proud of: http://www.talonfiremage.pwp.b…rgtjvfau5jvi89ugrvhombcqo
Eff. 2 is pretty much the maximum for two nuke cells, and the innards can't really get any cheaper unless you go SUC.
-
Honestly, this sounds like a 4096 fix that isn't quite working. The default blueprint itemID (according to my config) is 3818, and that's definitely under 4096. If IC2 thinks its iron furnace is at the same ID, it could cause this to happen.
Alternatively, if this were on a server, I'd say the server and client were disagreeing on block IDs, but then TMI wouldn't really react to that.
-
To further the excellent description from Zjarek, note that the wiki says "up to 5 EU per packet", not per tick.
Come to think of it, I wonder if the EU reader might include "(largest packet seen: X EU)" in its output? Wouldn't really be useful, but it might hint to readers that EU/t is not all there is to the IC2 energy net.
-
Oh, darn, I see what you mean. You might be able to reduce that to one block (under the reactor, with a torch under it), assuming that's an accepted redstone input. That would make the shutdown signal take an extra two ticks to arrive at the generator, but that actually just about matches the 600,600 EU on the timing scale. Hell, if you wanted to minimize the cooldown time, there is always the extra space in the reactor for a bit more cooling capacity.
As to wasting EUs, the only way I can think to do that while keeping things safe is probably to have a bit of overflow (maybe a batbox's worth) that only receives current when the main MFE is full. Not sure if it would react in time to keep from wasting one or two ticks' worth of power, but it should be a fairly simple addon to the auto-cutoff.
Using vanilla redstone only... an EU detector cable could detect if power is flowing out of the MFE (and prevent the reactor from starting up). Another MFE on the other end of the switch+detector cables could be set to "output if partially filled", preventing the reactor from starting up while the last batch of 600k EU has yet to be consumed. As the maximum output rate for an MFE is 128 EU/t, this should serve as sufficient time to cool down the reactor, I think.
Darn it, now you've made me want to build this reactor and try it.
-
Well, you left two external cooling blocks as air instead of water -- correcting that makes the cooldown time 15 minutes after 600k EU have been output (technically, it's 15m 20s after 600,600 EU, which is the closest I could set the timing scale). Top heat level at about 5,000 means it shouldn't even evaporate water, which is good, as long as your MFE safety cutoff works.
Consider pairing with a switch cable that can be turned on (allow power through) after the MFE is charged, while keeping the redstone signal to the reactor on (letting the reactor keep cooling). With Redpower, consider using a state cell or timer to automatically cool down for 16 minutes (extra one minute buffer), which could also trigger the MFE flush.
-
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to update the OP here to mention that Rocket Science isn't being worked on by its original developer anymore, and that the last version is not IC2 1.97 compatible? Might help.
-
ModloaderMP hasn't been a requirement for Forge for two or three months now, I think. Similarly, Modloader hasn't been necessary for a month or two.
MLMP is particularly bad as it tries to pretend to be a mod, but isn't, so you get that error you got there (or something like it).
-
I counted 34 in my config/IC2.cfg, though I don't guarantee all of those are still actually in use -- I've had that config in place for a good long while. However, as Greg said, reducing them isn't feasible, as they all serve their purposes and are overloaded as much as possible.
Either way, also as Greg said, Forge lets us use all 4096 block IDs that are theoretically possible for the Minecraft engine to use, so it isn't a real problem anymore (assuming it ever was -- I count 46 files in my mods/ folder and I'm certain everything still fits under ID 255).
-
I'd still love a stationary cropanalyser though. One I can plug into my electric supply, and leave a bunch of seed bags overnight to be idenitified. Even using a Lappack is frustrating when you have a large breeding farm.
