Posts by AkhkharuXul

Quote from MJEvans

I should remind you that I'm looking at three factors. Effectively when the reactor is on in relation to a window of run capability (heat), how much /power/ it produces as a result, and how much /fuel/ is used to obtain that (is any wasted 'starting' it up)?

Quote

I wonder:
a) what the startup delay between redstone off and reactor is (or if it simply checks once per second at a specific offset).
b) How many cycles of thermal rise are associated with the pulse of 'off' including regions during which no power is consumed.
c) If any fuel is used during the non-power production time periods.

I'll help you simplify, everything a reactor does, it does once per second. [So the second answer for A]
for B if you mean reactor pulse when you say pulse, the answer would be 1. (as it "gains" heat once per second, regardless of if the power is being used or not, as long as the reactor is on an running, it is producing heat as well as power.)
C) No. If the reactor is off (powered with redstone) it will use no fuel(uranium), produce no heat (unless you have more passive heating then cooling --- which is usually not the case so the reactor will usually cool based on it's cooling), and produce no power.
[[Sorry I just peeked again and... the reactor "updates" once per second, but produces power based on the last update tick for the next 20 ticks. (since it produces EU/t not EU/s :P) so if it was running and then was supplied with redstone power, it will continue to produce power until the next reactor pulse, when it will stop producing power and not produce power for the rest of that second. So theoretically you could waste almost a second's worth of power if the MFSU were just below full with that setup.]]

*tests new version* Very nice, works flawless (as far as I can tell).

The only improvement I can think to suggest is more values between 9000 and 10000 heat (like 9250 and 9750) since 9-10k is the sweet spot for breeding. [and possibly as mentioned above, if the monitors could display the current reactor temperature (maybe updated once / second -- as long as it doesn't cause lag) but that would just be gravy.]

@ reaper it looks like this:

(repeaters on the sides are just for looks, I had to add the one in the middle or it would sometimes just toggle on/off with the low heat monitor [high is on the left and low is on the right])

(A more compact version (also shows the orientation of the NOT gate better))

[Both the screenshots are with both monitors off (cold reactor) to show better. I tested both designs and they worked.]

Really nice add-on. I don't usually go for IC2 add-ons but this one definitely looks solid.

Also when testing the above cooldown switch system with Redpower and vanilla wiring, I noticed some "unusual" behavior with the vanilla wires.

A Themal Monitor placed adjacent to a reactor core will cause any vanilla wires connected to the core to become powered [so will automatically shut-off the reactor]. I had to place a vanilla repeater adjacent to the core to negate this "feature". I don't know if this can be avoided, so just a heads up to anyone using vanilla wires to connect to the reactor w/ a repeater.

Ed: Just tried to reproduce the result, didn't work the first time, and got infinitely powered wires the second time so yeah... repeaters are your friend. [Seems to be an issue with the IC reactor, not this add-on]

Ed2: After further testing, seems to be related to this mod, as I was able to get a Thermal Monitor to power a Reactor Chamber, even when no wires were involved.. So I'm probably just doing it wrong

Quote from xenoflot

OK, just tested and it seems you're correct. The difference between 15 and 16 OCs over a stack of cobble was noticeable but I couldn't determine a difference between 16 and 17. Even a 0.3 tick per operation when multiplied 64 times becomes almost a second which should've been noticeable even with my Mk I Optical Measuring Device. We can thus conclude that the 1.3 is rounded down to 1 which adjusts my numbers by 1, as you say.

Thanks again for your feedback.

And to any of you who haven't been to university, this is what's called Peer Review and it's a foundation of modern science. SCIENCE ROCKS!

Indeed, and to science! Yeah, the code doesn't allow for partial tick operations, it rounds to whole numbers. And yes, my tests concluded the same thing (and I see you've updated the wiki). So grats we figured it out [I tried with 1 less and 1 more overclocker .. along w/ the online stopwatch and it's ~3 seconds vs ~6 seconds for a stack (when it takes 2 ticks / operation) so it is easy enough to notice... and was amusing to assemble... and I only blew up 1 furance by forgetting to put in the transformers before hooking up to power :)]

Now Metalchic just needs to figure out how to supply ~3700 EU/t to a Macerator w/ 16 overclockers...

Quote from xenoflot

k, updated the wiki.

Not sure what you mean by the rounding.
Recycler - OC's, EU/t, number of ticks

10
110.0
1.3

11
175.9
0.9

I'd think that the game would look at 11 or more OCs taking 0.9 or less ticks, round up to 1 whole tick and thus 11 OCs becomes your effective limit.
Do you disagree?

Display More

1) You said 13 instead of 11 for Reclcyer OCs [hence my confusion].
2) Well you're correct, 0.9 gets rounded up to 1, however, 1.3 gets rounded down to 1 (so only 10 would be required, theoretically). [So, yes 11 will definitely make it 1 tick / operation, but 10 should be enough.]

3) The important fact is that -if- it's 16 instead of 17 OverClockers for the Macerator to run at 1 tick / operation then the difference in EU/t required is over 2k different [or 8 MFSU instead of 12 MFSU to power the thing]

-- I'll just install TMI to test

Quote from xenoflot

OK, did some testing. Your number of 20 secs per operation for a macerator is correct. Tested with both smoothstone and coal. I could've sworn that coal took longer to macerate but it appears not.

So Macerator and Extractor are 400t/op, Furnace is 128t/op and Recycler is 45t/op.

I define Maximum Benefit as the point where the length of a single operation first drops below 1 tick and is thus effectively 1 tick. Of course you're "wasting a small amount of power" but if you don't cross the threshold, you're not quite as fast as you can be.

Revised numbers using the 160% power in 1.71 are as follows:

Macerator: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Extractor: 17 OCs - 5903 EU/t
Furnace: 14 OCs - 2161 EU/t
Recycler: 13 OCs - 176 EU/t

I shall now update my addition to the wiki. Thanks for helping out!
And sincere apologies for metalchic for highjacking her thread but it was in the name of science!

Display More

I'm pretty sure due to rounding you need 1 less... and I'm not sure on the recycler cos you should have gotten 11 not 13 [and 11 would be 176 EU/t --- well 175, rounding again (13 would have been like 450)]

Then again I could easily do some testing of my own and just check the time for x items with 16 or 17 overclockers in a standard machine, and 13 or 14 in a furnace, as well as 10/11 in a recycler. [Should be pretty simple to see if they're equal since if it were bring it up to 2 ticks / operation instead of 1 it'd take twice as long ] ---- guess it's not that simple since I need to be able to supply 6k EU/tick to test standard machines.... *ponders TMI*

Quote from xenoflot

From the original wiki text, it increases the EU/Op (cost) by X% and reduces the Time/Op (time) by X%. It further suggests that there is a hard limit of 1 op/t. I can't tell from the wording if the listed 8000EU/t is also a limit or a consequence of the 1 op/t.

I was basing my rules of thumb on the listed 8000EU/t limit which in retrospect may have been a poor choice. I should calculate it to the point where an operation takes only a single tick.

So we need to establish how long an operation currently takes. Then we stack the OCs and the point where the op drops below 1 tick is the limit. Of course this is tricky since different materials take different lengths of time to process.

Oy vey. Time to get the stopwatch and do a little testing.

Display More

Ugh, do different materials take different lengths to process? (I thought process time was based on machine so .. yeah that might be my bad, I'll look)

Ed: ... I'm pretty sure it's based off machine type, not material type...

Quote from xenoflot

I wrote that section of the wiki. Maths is not my best subject so if you have some corrections, please explain how you got to them and I'll update it.

I peeked at the code. The formula at the top for power consumption changed going from IC 1.64 to 1.70. Now it's 1.6^x instead of 1.5^x (where x is the number of overclockers) the speed increase hasn't changed though, it's 0.7^x. [so each overclocker makes the machine 30% faster and uses 60% more energy/tick.]

I did make one assumption that the energy_consume * operation_length = cost for 1 operation. [ Which would mean a standard machine (like the macerator) without any overclockers would process 1 item in 20 seconds, using 800 EU to do so. I didn't bother actually testing that though. ]

To figure out the maximum number of effective overclockers I solved for 1 since anything less then 1 tick gets increased to 1 tick (or else at a certain point the machines wouldn't actually consume any energy). So 400*0.7^x = 1 .... 0.7^x = 1/400 {0.0025} which is where I got 16 from (or 17, wasn't sure at first, then looked at how java handles integers and saw that 16 should be correct).

I made a lua script to do all the maths for me (cos I wanted to know how overclockers affected the operation costs): --- Warning, spoilers ---

Quote from Metalchic

ITS ABOUT THE WHY NOT! NOT THE WHY!

anyway i found the breakpoint to be at 13 for the furnace i'll check if any of the others are differnt this puts the output at afraction over 1 tick per operation, i doubt it'd be noticable.

Yeah, I noticed some discrepancies with the overclocker section of the wiki last night so I took a look then did some maths.
Apparently only 16 overclockers are needed to max a Macerator [3689 EU/t], 13 for a furnace [1351 EU/t] and 10 for a recycler [109 EU/t]. Anything after that and you're just paying more for the same kebab, also the "hard limit" is actually 32, since anything over 32 would be considered 32. (though things start getting out of hand past 18 overclockers)

Quote from Metalchic

based on the info on the wiki about oc upgrades i set out to figure it out for myself and this is what i've come up with:

the equation for figuring out the EU/t should be like this EU*(1.5^X) where X is the number of OC upgrades you have, at 20 this seems to break down and the machine uses far more energy than 6650EU/t (i'm feeind close to 10k EU/t into a maserator and its not working)

with transformer upgrades the machine will pull packets of 32, 128, or 512 depending on how many upgrades you have and how much it needs to refill its internal buffer. meaning that if you have to many OC upgrades (say 16) and only 32EU/t it will operate at a speed equal to how long it takes 32EU/t to fill up the required EU for the job (42 and 1/2 seconds according to my math, 1364EU)

i'm suspecting that at 20 upgrades you would need to imput EU/t equal to the entire job size per tick to make it run at full speed somthing like i'm not even sure becasue pumping 10k EU/t into a maserator with 2 transformer upgrades 64 storage upgrades and 20 overclocker upgrades still causes it to drop way way down in speed wilse still consuming 10k eu/t. thus i can only conclude that OC upgrades work like Overclocking does in real life, causing the machine its preformed on to become unpredictable.

Display More

Yeah, I was just getting confused with the wiki information on OverClockers as well... cos, things don't seem to add up.
I took a peek and it seems the wiki has the formula wrong it's EU/t * (1.6^x) where x = number of overclockers. [not 1.5^x] [[Apparently it changed going from IC 1.64 to 1.70]]

Which would explain your conclusion, that a machine instead of needing 6651 EU/t (with 20 overclockers) would require 24,179 EU/t to run continually. [apparently the difference between 1.5 and 1.6 is big, then again it's 60% more instead of 50% more *shrugs*]

*reworks the math* I'm not sure who came up with 20, but it seems like you only need 16 or 17 overclockers to make a standard machine (macerator/extractor/compressor) run at the 1 operation/tick maximum speed. [which would require only 3689 or 5903 EU/t to run continually] ... then again I'm tired so my maths could be wrong. [[13 or 14 overclockers to max an electric furnace @ 1351 or 2162 EU/t.... 10 or 11 for a recycler (111 or 176 EU/t) ]] -- Re-edit: I'm pretty sure the lower number of overclockers is correct. [16, 13 and 10 respectively]

Maybe I'm missing the point, but I'm not sure why you want to up-convert it to 2048 EV packets when you could just use a HVT to down-convert it to 512 packets and run the glass fiber cable you wanted to.

- I would just use one 4x insulated HV cable going into the high side of a HVT then glass fiber out (for each reactor) [just make sure the HVT doesn't get a redstone signal], assuming the glass fiber cable isn't too long you'll have zero loss that way.

You could hook multiple reactors up to a HVT (to use less of them) but I'm not sure what would happen if you send it more then 2048 EU / tick (which would happen since you said each reactor is ~1300 EU/t).

The pic is rather confusing as I can't see where/how you were trying to hook up a redstoned HVT that was failing. Also I don't like the wall of cables on the side, as running cables like that causes rampant cable splitting calculations to happen (painters are your friend).

Quote from Sarudak

What is the difference between gain and growth?

Gain is how much the plant produces when harvested. Growth is how quickly it grows. (or at least I'm pretty sure that's how gain works.)

Quote from Silwing

The problem is that they seem to grow, the sprites just aren't shown, so I can't see them when they are fully grown. Right clicking still yields the wheat as supposed to. The seed bag with no name simply has no name. The small popup usually backgrounding the name tag of items are just about a space wide with nothing in it, no text at all. I have seen the problem with my own mods when the name was not put in the language file.It seems like I am missing something in my IC-file or something like that?

Ah, invisible crops... definitely sounds like a "texture pack" type problem. You should probably re-post in the support or bugs forum. You can always try re-downloading and reinstalling (since you just place the file into the /mods folder), but idk if that will fix it (or what is causing the problem to be honest).

Quote

Crops can die off if the quality of the crop they're placed in dropped too far below their base requirement, causing a <=0 growth.

The seed bag with no name might be a bug. If it says "Unknown Crop" it's probably right, if it says "Unnamed" it might be borked. Also, I've noticed when trying to do the final analysis (to see the growth, gain and resistance) it'll use up the battery, but won't show results because there wasn't enough power in the battery to preform the test; Try with a completely full battery.

They are definitely mysterious, and I've had a hard time trying to plant them. One time I tried to plant, and it didn't work (even though I had just harvested cocoa from the same crop) so I got annoyed and broke the crop stick, replanted the crop stick, then was able to plant cocoa... *confused look*

Seems like cocoa beans can only be planted around sunset or is this just the game trolling me? (planted my first around dusk, then wasn't able to plant my second at all... then the one I had planted was stuck on stage two [full vines but no fruit] and finally popped, so I tried to plant the second and it worked, then looked at the sun, and it was about to go down)

Ed: Or maybe not.... but there's definitely some restrictions on planting cocoa beans/seeds....

I bred stickreed.... but then it didn't drop seeds

and, btw Venomilia drops purple dye [if it hasn't been mentioned] ... I'm still trying to figure out what's "poisonous" about it...

Quote from BrickedKeyboard

Wrong? Isn't the fuel life unchanged but the output doubled? That would mean double the EU/cell and the "efficiency" number is actually the same as how many million EU you get per uranium stick.

Quote

Additonally, many people will be interested in "How efficient is your reactor?"
We remember, a single uranium cell can produce 1kk-5kk, representing the effectiveness of a reactor, dependant on the amount of uranium cells surrounding the given cell. For this sake, another convention regarding Efficiency Ratings was introduced to Nuclear Engineering:
To determine the "Efficiency Ratio" of your reactor, count the amount of all uranium cell pulses (excluding those used for breeding, as they don't produce energy!) across the whole reactor and divide it by the number of uranium cells used.
The result will range from 1 to 5 (with a lot of decimals in between). It should be noted, however, that 5 can't ideally be reached, unless you got a infinite-sized reactor where each uranium cell is fully surrounded by 4 other cells each.
Depending on this number, your reactor can be ranked among following classes:
Efficiency E: 1
Efficiency D: >1 and <2
Efficiency C: >=2 and <3
Efficiency B: >=3 and <4
Efficiency A: >=4

Display More

The only thing that's changed is the amount of EU / cell (since the output is doubled) some people may want to use a new convention for efficiency where it's the amount (in millions) of EU that each cell produces. [so efficiency would be doubled] but it seems a little silly to me. Since the lowest possible reactor would be 2 with that convention, up to 10 8.88.

Quote

And efficiency of uranium hasn't been changed. 2 cells still give 2 eff, not 4 and the planner is correct.

Correct, now uranium gives 2 million to 10 million EU / cell ... does this make efficiency even more important now? Discuss.
And is breeding even more important now?