Mod Feedback [By Request] RotaryCraft Suggestions

TomeWyrm

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
898
1
1
First, limiting the output based on the power stored inside makes sense. Yes, they were excessive, and yes, the uses that I tested in 164 were abusive.

Second, I realized that one option is to hook up a gearbox to them as they discharge -- on discharge, they are a low torque, high RPM power discharge. So the biggest obvious loss is the high-speed transfer from a "charging" coil to a "discharging" coil. In other words, coil A is charged by an engine; when it gets a comparator up to power two, it is switched into discharge mode, and charges a second coil; switch back when comparator goes to power zero. You could do a very high speed transfer, which gave a very low time of "waste" (you can't store the engine output while coil 1 is discharging). Combine this with a "Don't discharge coil 1 into coil 2 while coil 2 is powering something" override, and it's not even that complicated of redstone to control both coils. Other than the "4 steam engines or a gas engine to charge a coil", I didn't see anything in the 1710 changelogs that would break this yet.

So a coil can still be used as a battery, and provide output power like an engine can. The big thing that I see on that chart is that the stored energy doesn't seem to make sense -- if I have 16KW of input power, I can only store 2Kw in the coil. I thought that batteries stored small amounts of power over time, to have a large total amount in the battery. It seems reasonable to me that a coil could be wound at low power over time to store high power inside it -- that's the definition of a crossbow, for example.
The issue is that the method you store kinetic energy in a coil by means that as you store more energy, it gets harder to store more energy, it's also nearly completely a function of torque... Think of a rocket weighing one pound trying to lift a rope that increases in diameter as it lifts into the air. Sure ten pounds of thrust will work just fine at first, but you're going to hit that limit eventually. Same thing with springs. Go wind an old-fashioned clock or a windup toy, note how you have to use more force as time goes on? Same principle, just a more linear to aid in usage (actual springs have a much more exponential curve from what I remember).

Actually not on discharge, on CHARGE. Gearboxes on discharge won't help you with the loss of charging/discharging. That's like hooking a transformer up to a discharging battery to try and charge another battery. Hook the transformer up between the charger and the battery, you'll be able to charge a bigger battery. There's nothing wrong with pumping a bank of engines into an industrial coil (heck, with Electricraft you can pump a very impressive amount of power from a large bank of low-powered engines into a single motor), so that hasn't been broken. What has been broken is the ability to take a steam engine pop it into a coil, wait for... some amount of time I don't want to figure out the math for right now, and get tungsten, repeatably, without having to make the normally required infrastructure for a gating material.

It's lowered the number of uses a bit, but not quite as bad as it seems at first. You can't use it to power things you probably couldn't power already anymore, but if you need a quick boost of power, but don't want to set up an engine, you can still do that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reika

Reika

RotaryCraft Dev
FTB Mod Dev
Sep 3, 2013
5,079
5,331
550
Toronto, Canada
sites.google.com
Quick question- Why not make the tungsten smelt time longer?
If the smelt time is longer than what a coil powered furnace can heat; then you'd need the microturbine.
(and it wouldn't be expensive fuel wise either since a bucket lasts a few minutes once you rev up)
I like this idea, but I am not sure it is implementable depending on how I hack the furnace.
 

Lethosos

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
898
-7
0
If you used the standard furnace crafting interface, you can change the value of smelting time. This in integral to every furnace recipe.

Sent from my Puzzle Box of Yogg-Saron using Tapatalk 2
 

keybounce

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,925
0
0
The issue is that the method you store kinetic energy in a coil by means that as you store more energy, it gets harder to store more energy, it's also nearly completely a function of torque... Think of a rocket weighing one pound trying to lift a rope that increases in diameter as it lifts into the air. Sure ten pounds of thrust will work just fine at first, but you're going to hit that limit eventually. Same thing with springs. Go wind an old-fashioned clock or a windup toy, note how you have to use more force as time goes on? Same principle, just a more linear to aid in usage (actual springs have a much more exponential curve from what I remember).

Actually not on discharge, on CHARGE. Gearboxes on discharge won't help you with the loss of charging/discharging.
I agree that there's a "harder to charge as it gets more charged" issue. And the whole thing with the discharge gearbox trick was just to work around what I saw as a limit of the output graph.

Basically, a spring-based battery can be charged for lots of power. Consider a crossbow with a crank. You've got, as I understand it, a gear-based winder to permit a low torque, high RPM human arm to store lots of power, by converting it to higher torque for winding. High movement on the power input, low movement on the power storage.

But should I be able to get more power out in a period of time than my power source could get out. I'm banking a lot of power over time into something that will discharge it in a short burst.

Now, maybe a real world industrial coil doesn't behave the way that the smaller coils/springs that I'm used to behave. I am aware of "zero-loss" spring powered systems -- put a weight on a spring (mounted on a moveable platform) at point A, let the compression drive the platform to point B, remove the spring, platform can return to A from the de-compression. So getting as much out as you put in is doable (the weight lost potential energy in the process).

These coil discharge curves seem to indicate that they can't store as much power, or discharge rapidly. They aren't banking energy, and are very weak batteries.
 

MongrelVigor

Member
Jul 29, 2019
124
0
10
Lubricated surfaces:

8 stone slabs and a bucket of lubricant makes 8. Players and mobs making contact with a lubricated slab continue in the direction of their current momentum, only losing a very small percentage of their speed. Potential for a lot of fun, especially if you can get them working on stairs. Ramps yo. Might be better and more fun than minecarts in a lot of ways

Edit: maybe make a crash test dummy too

Edit 2: maybe also add screw driver adjustable 90 degree curved pieces, viable for horizontal and vertical redirects
 
Last edited:

keybounce

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,925
0
0
So ... in a mod about rotating power sources you want a rotating ground block.

Does rotation speed of player equal rotation speed of input? Can it be used to launch the player?

===

Lubricated blocks: Add in something to take a 90 degee turn.
 

Reika

RotaryCraft Dev
FTB Mod Dev
Sep 3, 2013
5,079
5,331
550
Toronto, Canada
sites.google.com
Lubricated surfaces:

8 stone slabs and a bucket of lubricant makes 8. Players and mobs making contact with a lubricated slab continue in the direction of their current momentum, only losing a very small percentage of their speed. Potential for a lot of fun, especially if you can get them working on stairs. Ramps yo. Might be better and more fun than minecarts in a lot of ways

Edit: maybe make a crash test dummy too

Edit 2: maybe also add screw driver adjustable 90 degree curved pieces, viable for horizontal and vertical redirects
Is this not essentially path blocks again?
 

keybounce

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,925
0
0
I did not see a ReactorCraft suggestion thread, so I'll put this here.

A "Skyblock map" option in the config. If true, then a reactor meltdown will only destroy the reactor, and not pollute the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure

Celestialphoenix

Too Much Free Time
Nov 9, 2012
3,741
3,204
333
Tartarus.. I mean at work. Same thing really.
By the time you could build a reactor, surely you could afford to expand the platform a little?

I'm thinking a fair compromise would be a realistic way to clean up the mess. This'll probably involve removing all the contaminated materials and placing them in storage units (similar to Reika's current nuclear waste).
The problem lies in getting the radiation out of the air, presumably some kind of vacuum+filter or a chemical charge to dissipate it onto the ground/surface.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reika

Reika

RotaryCraft Dev
FTB Mod Dev
Sep 3, 2013
5,079
5,331
550
Toronto, Canada
sites.google.com
By the time you could build a reactor, surely you could afford to expand the platform a little?

I'm thinking a fair compromise would be a realistic way to clean up the mess. This'll probably involve removing all the contaminated materials and placing them in storage units (similar to Reika's current nuclear waste).
The problem lies in getting the radiation out of the air, presumably some kind of vacuum+filter or a chemical charge to dissipate it onto the ground/surface.
Or lots and lots of water.
 

keybounce

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,925
0
0
By the time you could build a reactor, surely you could afford to expand the platform a little?
The whole issue of "Ruined within a range of 60 - 200 blocks". Even in a late-game skyblock, that can be a really LARGE distance / world destroyed.

Alternatively: How about a skyblock setting for the terraformer, to generate blocks from the void, as a late-game way to make enough room (rapidly) for playing with reactors?
 

Lethosos

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
898
-7
0
An equally valid option is to actually change the Chernobyl explosion to basically an extra-large standard MC explosion with a puddle of waste in its place. At the very least you'd reward people with the foresight to have blast-proof containment rooms in place.

Sent from my Puzzle Box of Yogg-Saron using Tapatalk 2