Not really. Already generated chunks save plutonium anyway. If you nerf plutonium veins this fully affect only new worlds. Don't tell me you started new world every time worldgen changed a bit. Like disabled bluepower marble maybe?
Why you do not love RTG? As a huge fan of automatization I found they ideal solution for midgame power generation.
You missed my point sir. I'm just saying that your game will be different from a person starting a new world, and that the new world is the new "legitimate" standard of play for that pack. People can do whatever they want to mod their infitech2, but there's only a single standard. I definitely don't start a new world unless Jason tells me its a good idea, but I absolutely do delete stuff that is no longer a standard part of the game. Example: I used to have 20 stacks of plutonium. Now I have 60 plutonium, which I estimate is legitimate. Any plutonium I dig up, I'll delete.
Your way of playing is
totally fine. Its awesome. Have fun, mass-RTGs are great! It just wouldn't be default experience if you care about that sort of thing. (I have to care: I test the pack)
Sure, I would've preferred more complexity rather than "throw tons of plutonium and iron at the problem". However, it is the only mid-game renewable power source in the pack. Also, that people use it in spite of the cost is indicative of a deeper problem, namely that everyone uses non-GT power generation - IC2 reactors, Big Reactors, RTG clusters, RC boilers and turbines - because GT power generation is so horribly inefficient.
This is definitely a problem, although more with the pack than with GT. GT didn't participate in the power inflation circle-jerk that most other mods play, so it doesn't always place nice with those other mods. The ideal solution is configuration options so that you can adjust that power in a given pack. Big Reactors is a genius for this don't you think?
IMO there is a fundamental imbalance between the power required by GT machines and the power its generation mechanics are able to supply, tier by tier, without insane machinery acrobatics and resource supply.
That's the challenge, and its intentional. Its also why the mod isn't as popular. Its for the tip-of-the-pyramid players who see that imbalance and say "I can figure out a way to make it work anyway." If it was any easier, those elitist asshole players wouldn't have anything to play, amirite?
Of the three mentioned non-GT power sources, Big Reactors is the most efficient, and even with the complexity incurred by the necessity of conversion, it would've been my favorite, if not for the fact that automated control of an actively-cooled reactor requires mods not in the pack.
I gotta think you're right here. Do you know how to calculate the EU you can get from a single yellorium ingot in a realistic infitech2 scenario? (1 turbine?). But fwiw an actively cooled IC2 Thorium Reactor is also stupidly, incredibly efficient. And I have way more thorium than yellorium.
You're wrong about automated it though. You may not like the tools you can use, but my BR reactor is automated to operate efficiently. It turns on every few RL days and runs for a day or two until my central power system is around 85% full, then it shuts down until its around 15% full. Residual spin on the turbine tends to creep up the power another 5% or so. I'm not gradually setting the rod insertion points based on my central storage, but I could if I wanted to (using several redstone ports) and it would be less efficient anyway.
IC2 reactors have the problem that fuel supply can't be automated at all unless you use only one kind of fuel rod
This isn't actually a problem. For the numbers we're talking about, a multi-rod-type vs single-rod-type reactor design is totally irrelevant unless you're just looking for reasons not to use it. Citation: my single-rod-type reactors are incredibly efficient and automated.
Btw, I recently switched my MOX setup from a 2-type setup (4 duals, 2 singles) to a 4-dual setup. I was initially concerned I was going to lose efficiency. Blackpalt over at IC2 pointed out that my new design was just as efficient overall.
which left the RTG cluster as my preferred method of mid-game power generation, even if you consider that it's the least efficient by far in terms of output per unit of material invested.
You sneaky, word-mangling bastard.
If you draw a graph demonstrating the efficiency of RTGs vs every other energy source in this game, RTGs at a point pass all the others in
total output per material and continue to keep rising. If you quadrupled the amount of every resource you poured into every RTG, this would still be the case. If you multiplied it by 100 it would still be the case (assuming you played long enough).
As an efficiency buff, you're being a bit coy here: you don't care about point-output, you care about
efficient output. Admit it, you're being sneaky.
So far I've built several RTG generators and pellets. They're powering a few farms and my thaumcraft AE system.
They were incredibly, ridiculously, depressingly cheap once I found a single plutonium vein.
