Answering myself http://mystcraft.gamepedia.com/Mystcraft_Wiki XCompWiz is also an admin on the wiki.
Ask a simple question, get a simple answer
- Thread starter HeffronCM
- 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 playing a modpack (it's not FTB so I won't name it) and I get a ton of "mod XXX has updated" messages. What is the general advice - should we players go ahead and update mods ourselves, or is it much better to just wait for the modpack developer to incorporate all updates to various mods, and release a new modpack version? I much prefer the latter, however there's no guarantee a modpack will even see another update! Most of us would never know if a developer is still actively working on a modpack or not. When I begin play in a new pack and get a ton of "update" messages, that's generally not a good sign (but there could be good reasons why certain mods are being "held back", version-wise).
I would say just ignore them. Some of the messages relate to mod versions for higher MC versions which are obviously not an option. Some have been deliberately left out due to bugs, causing problems with other mods, lack of testing etc. And some times you cannot update mod A without updating library/API mod B. But then mod C, D and E depends on mod B too, but have not updated to the latest version yet(or they are buggy, cause problems or not tested properly in the modpack environment yet)...
I would only update a mod if you encounter a serious issue that is a problem for you, and the modpack creator have not made the update for whatever reason.
I'm guessing this is a fellow Resonant Rise player (guess how I figured). From what I gathered from their forums, you can turn some (not all) notifications from the cofhcore.cfg in the configs. Best I know.
That is useful, but I guess I wasn't good at explaining what I wanted. I want to feed the machine with minimum usage of block sides. Much How Logistics Pipes can be upgraded to transfer RF, thus using only one connection to power the machine, and interacting with it.
No, I don't think there is any way. Do note, however, that all machines from Applied Energistics draw energy from the network they're connected to, so (for instance) you don't need extra cables connecting to your chargers, inscribers, and assembly chambers if you've automated them using the full-block Interfaces.
Energy conduits, you say? EnderIO has ME conduits that are compatible with its other conduits. If you weren't aware of that and/or weren't already using them.
Maybe better now, it's been a while since I used EIO, but the EIO ME Conduits were a bit of a hassle at times. The reason was the way they connected (or refused to properly connect) to busses and flat interfaces unless an AE conduit was used between. It still made keeping wires tidy over distance and in tight areas, but it was enough annoyance to make me run AE conduit to most places rather than the EIO ones.
As I said, may be fixed. Your mileage may vary.
Ah, yes. Yeah, as far as I know, your observations are still true (EIO has its own facade system; I highly doubt they have or will integrate with Forge Mircopart); to attach buses and interface covers to machines, you'll need to use AE's cables. But the EIO cables are still useful when you need to have ME and power or item conduits occupying the same space, such as when they need to cross over other in a tight space, or if you're using EIO to automate your inscribers.
for my past few play-throughs ive just used the full block interfaces when i need them and they connect seamlessly to ae conduit(have not had a need to use the partiall block ones) . if the other issues still exist they have not bothered me enough compared to the space saved with being able to bundle multiple conduit types together being able to run energy conduits and ae conduits in the same block space is lovely with the option to add other conduit types to bundle and i can still use conduit facades .i personally think using ae cable for general lines of the network would probably look more ugly and use more space for literally no benfit (especially when a pack does not change/tamper with the conduit binder recipe)
This may not be a simple question, but here goes.
Recently I read up on the definition of world spawn, and how it's always loaded. I am not clear as to the possibility of changing its location by just using a bed. Or do I have to use commands?
The reason for this question is, if I understood it right, that it's an area that is constantly loaded. I'm far from where I spawned on world creation, and it seems wasteful to have a place I'm not using forcefully loaded.
Recently I read up on the definition of world spawn, and how it's always loaded. I am not clear as to the possibility of changing its location by just using a bed. Or do I have to use commands?
The reason for this question is, if I understood it right, that it's an area that is constantly loaded. I'm far from where I spawned on world creation, and it seems wasteful to have a place I'm not using forcefully loaded.
World spawn (without mods) can only be moved via the command /setworldspawn and modified using the gamerule spawnRadius (if playing on 1.9)
The world spawn is indeed always loaded. This can not be changed. You might be able to change the spawn location using mcedit and I believe there is /setspawn (not sure if that is indeed the right command) to change it.
However, I am not sure how changing the spawn location would effect the chunkloading and other things that depend on the world spawn location.
Also, world spawn is only a few static chunks and doesn't cause any load on the server process. Since there are no machines/tile entities at world spawn and no players there it really doesn't take any CPU to maintain it. The primary problem for chunk loading an area is the mod items that placed there. Over time with enough of them or some other issues is what causes tick rate issues. Not world spawn.
CoolSquid has it right. Do be aware that spawn chunks, although always loaded, behave somewhat oddly in some respects. For instance, plant growth won't happen in spawn chunks unless a player is also present to load then. There are a few other small quirks, but you can easily find more info on the Minecraft wikis.
Having a few empty chunks shouldn't hurt your system too much, but free chunkloading is nice (especially in the early stages of a world). Do be aware that any machines/systems you build in the spawn chunks can't be unloaded without moving the spawn somewhere else. This shouldn't be an issue most of the time, but any overly complicated or CPU intensive systems will hurt the performance of the entire world (as they are always loaded).
Worldspawn and moving it can be done on any of the usual versions, but the gamerule "spawnRadius", which dictates the spawn "area" size (by default 20x20 blocks) is only in 1.9