Unfortunately he's saying that "prospecting" worked 6 months ago, and if it doesn't anymore, its because someone (Greg) made a performance tweak.
I'm not clear on whether he's addressing PotC or a GT Hammer.
[1.7.10][LISTED] InfiTech 2 Modpack v3.2.21 [HQM][GregTech balanced hard-mode modpack]
- Thread starter Jason McRay
- 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
I'm not clear on whether he's addressing PotC or a GT Hammer.
RTG is just one of the infinite power sources, it's just one of the easier ones. I mean while I haven't actually tried it I've at least shown in test worlds that using solar panels for power is totally viable, and only partially just because I wanted to show it can be done. I've actually been seriously considering doing it in the single player world I'm about to start as I fell away from the server. Just have to decide whether to use PFAA or not, apparently it covers everything coming in the swanky world gen update so no need to wait for that. The infinite power sources though are just a concern, while tree farms barely fall into that they kind of do with golems, a lot less then actual ones like golem + kinetic, RTG, solar panels, etc., etc.
I used the Thaumcraft Pick.
Also do not forget that Mark 2 fusion needs the thorium byproduct.
It would be nice if treefarms would drain nutriens from the ground and grew slower and slower until fertilizer is applied or they regenerate over time (bonemeal/lamp of groth also stop working). That would limit treefarms to realistic speeds.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. Prospecting with the PotC seems to work for Thaumcraft shards, lava, water and other non GregTech ores, so it looks like this is a GregTech specific setting.
Yep.I used the Thaumcraft Pick.
Also do not forget that Mark 2 fusion needs the thorium byproduct.
It would be nice if treefarms would drain nutriens from the ground and grew slower and slower until fertilizer is applied or they regenerate over time (bonemeal/lamp of groth also stop working). That would limit treefarms to realistic speeds.
I've also been meaning to harass you on this topic to add a GT Extras or GT5u module for pollution. Any charcoal generator should generate pollution, and if a chunk is polluted, it should clog up and slow down some operations (such as further charcoal generation)
Might be limited to GT charcoal generation of course, dunno how you'd tweak anything else.
My guess is: GT ores do not transfer their NBT tags, that include the information what ore they really are, when they are not visible on any side. That lowers the data transfer Server->Client with normal view range from ~2,5MB to ~1,5MB.
Looks on my list for later 5.09.xx features. Jep, allready there.
Jep, but forced for all treefarms
Jebus! I've been wanting this for years!
Bonus if you can make pollution propagate a bit to adjacent chunks. And make machines from other mods skip their tick events somehow
(no I don't think that's really possible)You could make that into gregtech.Jep, but forced for all treefarms
(+config option because i think many people wouldnt be happy about it)
Tree grows and turn the block underneath into a different kind of dirt thats unfertilized were trees cannot grow and rightclicking with a fertilizer (apatite or ic2 fertilizer) would change it back into regular dirt also adding a machine that can do the fertilizing automaticly and something like a very slow "plants growing tick" to turn this dirt back into regular dirt (30mins or more).
With that you nerfed every treefarm
without nerfing the early game "manual" treefarm
Last edited:
Once upon a time in another lifetime I used to make a living primarily in game design and development.
I picked up something called a "soft" control, versus a "hard" control.
A "hard" control would be "Players may not generate power using coal."
A "soft" control would be "Players will gain progressively reduced returns using coal."
I've always been a massively huge fan of soft controls, because you can apply it to just about any game design problem, and since its all numbers-based, you can adjust it in fine degrees until you reach a balance-point you like.
I'd much rather see tree farms become progressively less useful over time than get rid of them. It should be a scenario where the first 512 eu/t are simple to put together with charcoal, but to get 1028 eu/t you'd need (for instance) 4x as much tree-farm. And so forth. Players can still do it, but there's a strong incentive to modernize.
I picked up something called a "soft" control, versus a "hard" control.
A "hard" control would be "Players may not generate power using coal."
A "soft" control would be "Players will gain progressively reduced returns using coal."
I've always been a massively huge fan of soft controls, because you can apply it to just about any game design problem, and since its all numbers-based, you can adjust it in fine degrees until you reach a balance-point you like.
I'd much rather see tree farms become progressively less useful over time than get rid of them. It should be a scenario where the first 512 eu/t are simple to put together with charcoal, but to get 1028 eu/t you'd need (for instance) 4x as much tree-farm. And so forth. Players can still do it, but there's a strong incentive to modernize.
I have actually always thought IC2 nuclear output to be too low compared with other EU/t generation options especially when you take into consideration cost/complexity. I tend to avoid it in packs I play as I find scaled early game power gen (charcoal farm) good enough.
In my opinion, maybe a slight nerf to coal farm and a buff to serious buff to nuclear. Maybe disable the liquid boilers... creosote becomes useless as a fuel making the draw/efficiency of a tree farm less. Sort of the same reason why lava is not a valid fuel source in liquid railcraft boilers.
Really, for this pack, all things that can consume steam to create EU should do so at the same steam unit per eu/t generation ratio; assuming 100% efficiency. The upgraded generators are simultaneously more efficient and capable of outputting more max power making them worthwhile to get. To make things like nuclear more attractive given that standardization, nuclear steam unit creation rate should be buffed. Basically, allow more steam consuming turbines to use the same nuclear reactor. More steam -> more turbines -> more EU/t per reactor. In this way, the transition to nuclear is worth the cost as the scale required to rival that of a boiler farm is drastic. Something like, 1 nuclear reactor can replace 20 full sized LP boilers and without creosote, that would be one serious undertaking.
I also think, in this pack, all powergen that is not steam/fusion based should be disabled. So, no direct power from bigreactors, need the liquid IC2 reactor instead of the standard one, etc.
However, I also think that big reactors went too far on the output side of things. Given the conversion required to make that power useful however, I am ok with it.
CAVEAT:
I haven't played this pack much and some of the above my already be in place.
Hah, good caveatI have actually always thought IC2 nuclear output to be too low compared with other EU/t generation options especially when you take into consideration cost/complexity. I tend to avoid it in packs I play as I find scaled early game power gen (charcoal farm) good enough.
In my opinion, maybe a slight nerf to coal farm and a buff to serious buff to nuclear. Maybe disable the liquid boilers... creosote becomes useless as a fuel making the draw/efficiency of a tree farm less. Sort of the same reason why lava is not a valid fuel source in liquid railcraft boilers.
Really, for this pack, all things that can consume steam to create EU should do so at the same steam unit per eu/t generation ratio; assuming 100% efficiency. The upgraded generators are simultaneously more efficient and capable of outputting more max power making them worthwhile to get. To make things like nuclear more attractive given that standardization, nuclear steam unit creation rate should be buffed. Basically, allow more steam consuming turbines to use the same nuclear reactor. More steam -> more turbines -> more EU/t per reactor. In this way, the transition to nuclear is worth the cost as the scale required to rival that of a boiler farm is drastic. Something like, 1 nuclear reactor can replace 20 full sized LP boilers and without creosote, that would be one serious undertaking.
I also think, in this pack, all powergen that is not steam/fusion based should be disabled. So, no direct power from bigreactors, need the liquid IC2 reactor instead of the standard one, etc.
However, I also think that big reactors went too far on the output side of things. Given the conversion required to make that power useful however, I am ok with it.
CAVEAT:
I haven't played this pack much and some of the above my already be in place.
Have you tried the new IC2 actively-cooled reactors yet? They bumped my 120 eu/t thorium reactor to 450 eu/t, and since it runs for a crazy amount of time, its pretty buff.
Thorium is a "high efficiency, low output" fuel, so if you want higher output numbers, you can get way, way more power out of a standard U-235 reactor.
For Big Reactors: we cannot get power directly. First, you HAVE to convert it to steam to get power, and then for this pack you HAVE to convert the power to eu, which is pretty tricky in and of itself.
Hah, good caveat
Have you tried the new IC2 actively-cooled reactors yet? They bumped my 120 eu/t thorium reactor to 450 eu/t, and since it runs for a crazy amount of time, its pretty buff.
Thorium is a "high efficiency, low output" fuel, so if you want higher output numbers, you can get way, way more power out of a standard U-235 reactor.
For Big Reactors: we cannot get power directly. First, you HAVE to convert it to steam to get power, and then for this pack you HAVE to convert the power to eu, which is pretty tricky in and of itself.
But 450 EU/t out of a reactor is really nothing when compared to 200 EU/t out of a railcraft turbine... concepts of scalability work against the reactor in this case. Now, if I could run 10 turbines off the steam output of a 5x5 IC2 liquid reactor (assume this is what you meant by the actively cooled reactor), then that is incentive to get there as the boiler count + infrastructure scale needed to run 10 railcraft turbines is huge when compared to the cost/complexity of a single reactor.
Good to hear that big reactors direct RF output is disabled. My caveat saved me
Please no ... the 100% energy boost when you make a liquid cooled reactor should be enough.
450eu/t with THORIUM and thorium is 5 times lower eu/t and lasts 5times longer.
Well, sir, be careful: you can't compare a steam turbine to a steam generator. Your 200 eu/t turbine requires, if i recall correctly, 320mb/t of steam, which has to come from somewhere.
The 5x5 IC2 reactors create steam. They're not creating power. Granted its "ic2 magical non-compliant" steam, but its still steam, and unless its superheated its considered 1:1 for value with RC steam.
I'm not 100% convinced on the 5-times-lower part. I know that's the design, but my thorium reactor generates around 900 hU, and I'm not seeing any 4500 hu/t reactor designs out there.
I'm surmising the combination of neutron reflectors and low-heat thorium is giving me an advantage (intended or otherwise)
My end targed for powergen progression is something like:
1. Coal/Solid Fluels (Steam -> MV age)
2. Oil/Liquid Fuels (MV -> EV)
3. Nuclear (EV -> IV)
4. Fusion (LuV -> ZPM)
5. Who knows?
I must make some more changes until this works, but that is my current idea.
1. Coal/Solid Fluels (Steam -> MV age)
2. Oil/Liquid Fuels (MV -> EV)
3. Nuclear (EV -> IV)
4. Fusion (LuV -> ZPM)
5. Who knows?
I must make some more changes until this works, but that is my current idea.
I guess my point is, it is much easier to create railcraft steam and use the turbines then it is to create the IC2 reactor and use the steam generator -> kenetic generator combo. Given that the cost/complexity of each setup is not 1 : 1, the quantity of the steam units per EU should not be 1 : 1 either. So, 200 EU/t using 320mb/t of steam is not equivalent to the 50 EU/t using 100mb/t of steam. So, 200 EU/t = 320mb/t from a single low complexity boiler -> turbine or 200 EU/t = 400mb/t of steam from an IC2 liquid reactor -> steam generator -> kenetic generator setup. The cost of IC2 is higher, the complexity is higher, and yet, the yields are lower... That is what I would like to see rectified.
Basically, steam from a boiler should not be as good or plentiful as steam form a reactor. Doesn't make sense.
EDIT:
Wanted to fix something, the steam units required per EU SHOULD be 1 : 1. The steam quantity generated by a reactor and a boiler should NOT be 1 : 1. Or, as the case actually is, 1.38 : 1. It should be more like 5.5 : 1.
Last edited: