Ya me english suckie math good lol. I didnt mean to imply you dont know how the pulverisor works 
[1.6.4]Crash Landing [Hardcore, HQM] version 1.1.x BETA STABLE
- Thread starter Iskandar
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
After more research, depending on taste/need the pulverizer would only be better for certain metal inputs.Ya me english suckie math good lol. I didnt mean to imply you dont know how the pulverisor works
For example:
Iron Gravel/sand/dust Ore produces 2x pulverized iron with the off-chance of making nickle
Aluminum Gravel/Sand/ produce the next 'finer' tier of aluminum ore block with the off-chance of making pulverized aluminum
Actually, if you're looking to min/max your ores, best best is to go with the hammer-filled AA vice the Pulverizer for breaking down ore sand/gravel. It's been stated the the chance of the Pulverizer increasing ores through byproducts is lower than the Hammer [any unenchanted version] dropping extra stuffs.
@SmokeLuvr1971 When I said 'same chance' I meant 'similar chance'. Not necessarily the same chance for extra's, but rather that there was a chance for extras.
With that said, thanks for the info! time to design an AA hammer system and SFM crafter
With that said, thanks for the info! time to design an AA hammer system and SFM crafter
You sure about the iron gravel ore? When I tested last (back in 1.12.1 beta) it worked like the others. basically I would break them down to the dust ores and block them up and store them in barrels until i used them in the high oven.
Dusts are the only one that triple, yes. Quest book even notes this.
Yes, pulverizers are slightly less efficient than hammers, by roughly 10% of unenchanted ones. It makes up for it by replacing the need for a barrel (to hold new hammers), a bunch of hammers(and the need to make new ones), an activator, a block placer, a sifter, and a hopper or equivalent, and some way to automate all of that. Basically, you get to sacrifice some efficiency to simplify your production line. Plus, if your computer is borderline, it also cuts down on lag.
Yes, pulverizers are slightly less efficient than hammers, by roughly 10% of unenchanted ones. It makes up for it by replacing the need for a barrel (to hold new hammers), a bunch of hammers(and the need to make new ones), an activator, a block placer, a sifter, and a hopper or equivalent, and some way to automate all of that. Basically, you get to sacrifice some efficiency to simplify your production line. Plus, if your computer is borderline, it also cuts down on lag.
It's all good. I'd actually forgotten about how the Pulverizer works when grinding down ore gravel/sand [similar to how it works when grinding down ore blocks]. I did distinctly remember that it was stated [I think in the quest book?] that using a Pulverizer has a 'lower' chance than using hammers to break down ore sand/gravel for extra stuffs. Just putting it out there for you, Grydian2, and whoever else was following along...@SmokeLuvr1971 When I said 'same chance' I meant 'similar chance'. Not necessarily the same chance for extra's, but rather that there was a chance for extras.
With that said, thanks for the info! time to design an AA hammer system and SFM crafter
With how the Pulverizer works in mind, it seems like you'd get a better yield using the Hammer/AA combo anyway. And I'd highly suggest using an AutoPackager for the heavy-lifting [ore-block assembly]. It'll save you plenty of SFM programming time and it doesn't need a logic card/machine frame to build IIRC.
yeah I forgot the hammer's extra chance is 50 percent I thought it was less. Thats what I get for not double checking.
@Iskandar Suggestion: Instead of completely removing the reactor controller's recipe, make it require cyanite or blutonium. Either would require at least one visit to a reactor city to make a functioning reactor before a controller could be crafted while opening up possibilities later in gameplay. I've visited 10+ citys and only found one with reactors so far. And am struggling to power an MFR laser.
"Why not just make a bigger reactor". Multiple smallish reactors(3-long rods, 5 per reactor) are better at conserving fuel verses a single large reactor where the combined power outputs are similar.
"Why not just make a turbine". Water. Though I'm producing more than excessive amounts of water I'm not creating enough to keep a moderately powerful turbine running. There's also a bug with the turbine multiblock structure(or rather how a 'complete' structure is detected) that MAY lead to game crashes and possible world corruption. This bug will not be fixed for 1.6.x
"Why not visit more cities" Isn't 10+ frustrating enough...
Edits:
I think blutonium would be the 'best' choice for the recipe. As not only does it require a running reactor (for cyanite), but the reprocessor(to turn cyanite into blutonium; requiring water). As such, it requires more infrastructure to make, and... gives blutonium a use since the turbine controller recipe is removed
"Why not just make a bigger reactor". Multiple smallish reactors(3-long rods, 5 per reactor) are better at conserving fuel verses a single large reactor where the combined power outputs are similar.
"Why not just make a turbine". Water. Though I'm producing more than excessive amounts of water I'm not creating enough to keep a moderately powerful turbine running. There's also a bug with the turbine multiblock structure(or rather how a 'complete' structure is detected) that MAY lead to game crashes and possible world corruption. This bug will not be fixed for 1.6.x
"Why not visit more cities" Isn't 10+ frustrating enough...
Edits:
I think blutonium would be the 'best' choice for the recipe. As not only does it require a running reactor (for cyanite), but the reprocessor(to turn cyanite into blutonium; requiring water). As such, it requires more infrastructure to make, and... gives blutonium a use since the turbine controller recipe is removed
Last edited:
Really? I was under the impression the reactors are supposed to be more efficient per RF the bigger they are, following the square/cube law.
A turbine gives back the water you used to make the steam in the reactor. You can do a closed loop.
For RF outage, larger reactors are better. That is 5 rods are better than 3. BUT they consume more than linear fuel the larger they are. (Assuming the rods have the same amount of spacing between themselves and the casing, and any 'coolant' is the same)
As for turbines, its not an entirely closed loop. Some water is returned to the reactor but you lose substantial amounts of water per each 'loop'(water to steam in reactor, steam to turbine, steam to water in turbine, water back to reactor)
Last edited:
Yes, the usage increases quadratically (proportional to surface area), but the output increases cubically (with volume), thus giving you a better ratio. You just need to keep your reactor roughly cubical, just increasing height will be no good. I recall in Agrarian Skies Purple Mentat ran a laser drill at max speed using a 9-cube (standard 5 rods design) that used up less yellorium than the drill produces. I checked, the two packs have the same power and fuel usage multipliers.
Have you tested that? I know the system forms a closed loop in vanilla big reactors and I recall someone talking here about how their turbines only need a couple of buckets up front and run indefinitely. Are you sure you don't have something wrong with your steam/water transportation?
Last edited:
exactly the biggest challenge with water and steam big reactors is getting the water and steam across as fluiducts just don't have the capacity, if you use tesseracts then you will be able to send it all across
As long as output and input has a recognisable inventory, little, if any.
Been transferring essence from Grinder with SFM, Water from A>B for soul sand creation etc
By limits, I mean throughput [assume you knew this, as this is the prob with methods discussed above IRT BR]. Are you saying SFM has little/no throughput limits? I like but many will decry 'OP! OP! OP!' and the dreaded 'Hammer of Nerf' will soon fall.
IF it did it's rendered irrelevant by virtue of each operation being so fast. As is the highest possible transfer rate IIRC is something like one full drum to another in an operation.
But that's not overpowered since liquid transfer is not all that useful in all honesty and very little will actually require such large scale transfer in the first place.
*Needs to test if it works in a Deep Tank[DOUBLEPOST=1413168855][/DOUBLEPOST]Update into version 1.12b and first thing that pop up was that Mob griefing was false.
15 minutes later.
Edit: Image didn't load? hmm imgur to the rescue
Edit: If it wasn't obvious, Everything under the pyrotheum went kaboom
Last edited:
IF it did it's rendered irrelevant by virtue of each operation being so fast. As is the highest possible transfer rate IIRC is something like one full drum to another in an operation.
But that's not overpowered since liquid transfer is not all that useful in all honesty and very little will actually require such large scale transfer in the first place.
*Needs to test if it works in a Deep Tank[DOUBLEPOST=1413168855][/DOUBLEPOST]Update into version 1.12b and first thing that pop up was that Mob griefing was false.
15 minutes later.
Edit: Image didn't load? hmm imgur to the rescue
Edit: If it wasn't obvious, Everything under the pyrotheum went kaboom
Create a new world and mob griefing will be disabled. its just a bug that the save it comes with doesn't have it enabled.