Mod Feedback [By Request] RotaryCraft Suggestions
- Thread starter Reika
- 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
Whoa... did not expect that kind of defensiveness, let me try and keep this calm for a second,
It can't be done, that's fine thank you for your response.
I was referring to the fuel enhancer, sorry, but the solution I discussed is here;
http://imgur.com/oYUizEi
Being unused until later sounds like your intent with this mod, which is fine. with that in mind though, perhaps rexamining the usefulness of the other cables as pyure suggested might not hurt.
the early part where you would be forced to continually supply lubricant. Either way this is not a primary concern of mine, just passing on the comments.
I dont think I complained about, nor asked for the ability to go from blast furnace to endgame... I never asked for it to be gated with rare resources, nor did I say the mod was just like gregtech, in fact I feel it's far from it. The artificial gating by using common but mass resources is something gregtech does. So early game gregtech you're getting a ton of copper for your blast furnace (a common resource) and similarly in rotary craft you are instead planting, harvesting and processing canola. It is a similarity but surely that was never meant to imply the mods are alike in any other respect. It would appear you're making some pretty hefty assumptions about our opinion of your mod. I also dont believe it was your intent to make RC slow or unpleasant to play, in fact I felt the pace quite acceptable personally and having a boring machine running within a few days is very much on par with the time it would take to get a quarry going.
I understand you get alot of flak from other developers who don't like you're ideas or people who think they have better solutions but that was not the intent of the post. My postings were not in that line of thinking at all. We enjoy your mod and are in no way attacking its design or you, merely presenting impressions, providing feedback and you as the developer are free to do, or not do, what you wish with it. Furthermore I appreciate the time you've taken to engage the community, answer questions and clarify content. This entire conversation has unfortunately been fairly unproductive and apparently insulting to you, for which I apologize. Keep up the good work, we'll limit our feedback to actual bugs in the future.
It can't be done, that's fine thank you for your response.
I was referring to the fuel enhancer, sorry, but the solution I discussed is here;
http://imgur.com/oYUizEi
On this I a merely relaying a sentiment that has been sharing by many on our server, that electricraft is best left ignored until later when you can fully implement loss less cabling and redesign your base space requirements.
Being unused until later sounds like your intent with this mod, which is fine. with that in mind though, perhaps rexamining the usefulness of the other cables as pyure suggested might not hurt.
Hrm... first time I ever personally played with rotarycraft I was breaking bedrock on day one from punching logs. If it were used purely as its own mod perhaps, but most modpacks will have ways to just skip much of
the early part where you would be forced to continually supply lubricant. Either way this is not a primary concern of mine, just passing on the comments.
Ouch... Ok fair enough, go on...
I dont think I complained about, nor asked for the ability to go from blast furnace to endgame... I never asked for it to be gated with rare resources, nor did I say the mod was just like gregtech, in fact I feel it's far from it. The artificial gating by using common but mass resources is something gregtech does. So early game gregtech you're getting a ton of copper for your blast furnace (a common resource) and similarly in rotary craft you are instead planting, harvesting and processing canola. It is a similarity but surely that was never meant to imply the mods are alike in any other respect. It would appear you're making some pretty hefty assumptions about our opinion of your mod. I also dont believe it was your intent to make RC slow or unpleasant to play, in fact I felt the pace quite acceptable personally and having a boring machine running within a few days is very much on par with the time it would take to get a quarry going.
I understand you get alot of flak from other developers who don't like you're ideas or people who think they have better solutions but that was not the intent of the post. My postings were not in that line of thinking at all. We enjoy your mod and are in no way attacking its design or you, merely presenting impressions, providing feedback and you as the developer are free to do, or not do, what you wish with it. Furthermore I appreciate the time you've taken to engage the community, answer questions and clarify content. This entire conversation has unfortunately been fairly unproductive and apparently insulting to you, for which I apologize. Keep up the good work, we'll limit our feedback to actual bugs in the future.
Positively, a lot of your questions & concerns can still be addressed just by sharing them with the community. I can point to several RoC/ReC "experts" on this forum alone who could bring a different perspective on how to tackle various obstacles.
Since you're newly posting here I can just recommend you still engage in discussions about what's working and what's not. Which is more fun for everyone concerned anyway
PS: check out @Ieldra's posts in particular these days, as he's pioneering some bizarre ways to use these mods I hadn't ever considered before. Ditto @Demosthenex.
Since you're newly posting here I can just recommend you still engage in discussions about what's working and what's not. Which is more fun for everyone concerned anyway
PS: check out @Ieldra's posts in particular these days, as he's pioneering some bizarre ways to use these mods I hadn't ever considered before. Ditto @Demosthenex.
The fuel enhancer does indeed not have the same slot-lock mechanisms, but duplicating resources has no effect. It would have been easier to load in a few stacks of each resource and then not had to worry about the cobblestone.
What version was this? Most of the skips have been nerfed severely in recent versions.
This is a sentiment I get a lot too, but it is one that usually comes from a mindset of "thinking is too hard, I wanna grind" or - this is more common from other mod devs - "stop being stubborn and do things like everyone else does it, being unique is a bad idea and going to end up hurting you". It does not help that these sentiments are often delivered with blatant hostility or arrogance. Other times people attack the fundamental design tenets; one major mod dev once told me that the idea of a realistic mod was "kind of stupid". Another told me to "not be surprised once your mod ends up on a do-not-use list because of their disbalancedness". And then there are the legions of server owners who want to burn me at the stake for daring prevent them from selling access to my machines. And then the players who have trouble grasping concepts like "power = speed*torque" and then leave a five-page rant - often with so many spelling/grammar errors it looks more like another language than English - in my email inbox about how "nerds don't play games" or how I am "discriminating against those who don't have university degrees". Or that I am just elitist and "unkind to people who don't have IQs of 200".
[/rant]
And this is why I responded in the manner that I did; I get defensive whenever I think the discussion is turning into another "your mod is broken and your ideas suck" lecture. I - probably helped by the fact I missed you saying you were only relaying these opinions and not generating them - lumped you in with the same people who say things like the above, and reacted accordingly.
I apologize for making that assumption and do want to say that input is always welcome - my creation of this thread can attest to that. There is no need to
Last edited:
Don't blame Pyure if it ends up causing you a problem. I'm sure he's not the only one who was thinking what he had the "nerve" to actually say. I sure was.
Anyway, no offense but you do come across as coarse at times. I don't think it's what they actually say that trips you, but it's how they say it.
How it is said often does matter. Present me a bug report "We crashed on this today", and I will respond either "Fixed in vX" or "I will look into this". Or perhaps ask more information. Post it with "OMG OMG OMG I CRASHED HELP ME RIGHT NOW", and I will tell you to calm down. Post it with "fix your mod, this is why noone likes it" will earn a rather unkind response.
Similarly, if people say something like "the need for lubricant makes some of this fairly difficult to get", I will calmly explain tiering. If they instead say "it makes the game unpleasant" or say that it "is designed to be slow and like GT", I get defensive.
well that's where you need to have the thicker skin. people are going to be people (read: stupid).
edit: unless you want people to note that yes, Reika doesn't take any shit, and make it known.
The problem is that once that lack of shit-taking is known, it is interpreted as "<PERSON> is mean".
I think this already is known, and it is true. I would like to not receive "bug" reports about how redstone conduits do not power extractors, how gearboxes wear down with no lubricant, or how iron does not work in place of HSLA. I would also like not to receive bug reports for a 1.5 beta version released 18 months ago and be met with accusations of laziness when told I am not going to fix it. But I do not see the connection between this and being inherently unkind, hostile, or dismissive.
Ninja with my point exactly.
If it's known and true why are you concerned with a rumor being "started" when it's not actually a rumor, and apparently has already been started? I'm lost at this point. I just jumped in because I saw you trying to blame @Pyure for a possible "reputation" due to your own words/actions at times.
I really don't have the time atm to break down what happened in this situation between you and Saereth, but at least two people in this thread "saw" it. So I'm not trippin.
consider me out of the convo.
wait, not yet..
Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
The concern would be where no shit was provided in the first place, and yet the no-shit-taken attitude is returned regardless.
If it walks a fine line, I'll call someone on it. If it gets out of hand (it hasn't) I'll use the report button.
If it walks a fine line, I'll call someone on it. If it gets out of hand (it hasn't) I'll use the report button.
Last edited:
As has since been clarified, caused by a misinterpretation/failure to notice a piece of rather important information.
Because this sort of rumor has been started before, and it caused damage.
While the experts are online, can I break in here with a technical question please?
Im confused by the gearbox chaining mentioned a page or two back:
I want to power my isotope centrifuge off my mainline hydrokinetic system. 32rad/s needs to go to 262krad/s. If Im using gearboxes, isn't that three 16x and a 2x or am I screwing up the math?
Im confused by the gearbox chaining mentioned a page or two back:
I want to power my isotope centrifuge off my mainline hydrokinetic system. 32rad/s needs to go to 262krad/s. If Im using gearboxes, isn't that three 16x and a 2x or am I screwing up the math?
Please tell me what percentage you are talking about? I can make a machine ('Robot' is an overused term) that walks and talks like a duck. That doesn't make it a duck.[DOUBLEPOST=1405625651][/DOUBLEPOST]
You can always go above the minimum power requirement.
going to say this as nicely as I can; instead of worrying about other people starting damaging rumors like this, perhaps you should re-evaluate why they may have come to this conclusion? I have many examples in the back of my head, but it's not me that needs to self-discovery in this situation.
?Yes?
I dont understand how that impacts gear ratios. Maybe I need to rephrase the question? If I have a 16x gearbox feeding into another 16x gearbox, does that give me a 1024x (16^2). Im confused by what Reika said about a 65536 ratio only ever needing two boxes. Even with CVTs wouldnt that be 32x, 32x, 32x, 2x?
Your math is perfect, provided you have sufficient torque to allow "power" afterwards.
Bearing in mind that every time you multiply your speed by X, you're dividing your torque by X. RoC doesn't deal in fractions of torque, so if you're left with <1 at the end, you'll get no power for your machine.
In this case you'll need 8192 torque, converted 16/16/16/2, to transform your 32 rad/s.
hth[DOUBLEPOST=1405626260][/DOUBLEPOST]
A later version of the mod introduces the high-ratio gearbox (256). That and a CVT would be 2 boxes and provide the same gearing.
Edit: to clarify, two high ratio gearboxes can gear 1 rad/s up to 65536, hence that number provided.
Also, I want to address the issue of ElectriCraft power loss.
I use silver wires rather frequently, and loss is almost negligible. The way you do that is by reducing the current and increasing the voltage. That way, every time you lose a volt to resistance, you lose little power, since power=current*voltage. For example:
Say your wire has a loss of 20V, and your supply is 100A at 12000V (1.2MW). You lose 20V*100A of power, or 2kW. If that was 1A and and 1.2 million volts, you lose 20W of power. The other way around, at 30000A and 40V, you lose 30000A*20V = 600kW.
I use silver wires rather frequently, and loss is almost negligible. The way you do that is by reducing the current and increasing the voltage. That way, every time you lose a volt to resistance, you lose little power, since power=current*voltage. For example:
Say your wire has a loss of 20V, and your supply is 100A at 12000V (1.2MW). You lose 20V*100A of power, or 2kW. If that was 1A and and 1.2 million volts, you lose 20W of power. The other way around, at 30000A and 40V, you lose 30000A*20V = 600kW.