Mod Feedback [By Request] RotaryCraft Suggestions

[desht]

You'll have to go back and look at the discussion history, but let me make a short point. A hydrokinetic dam has a huge body of water behind it, not a small trickle. Some of the math we bantered about shows a heavy bias toward pretend water.

If you have a hydro that scaled by how big a pool of water was behind it then that'd be great. Otherwise I have sworn off hydros.

I actually had a thought about how hydros could be more balanced.

Problem: As you point out, hydros realistically need a large body of elevated water to supply the energy to drive them. Minecraft makes this unrealistic by allowing a single source block to create an everlasting waterfall. Without fundamentally changing Minecraft water mechanics (which I'm not suggesting), it's hard to make hydros balanced.

Suggestion: Run a low-priority task to scan for nearby water blocks attached to the source block which is providing water for the hydro engine. Occasionally convert one of those water blocks at random to dirt/sand/gravel/clay, at the lowest point of the body of water. What this simulates is the silting up of a watercourse that would happen anyway if you take energy from a flowing body of water. The player then either needs to a) use a really large body of water where a little silting-up isn't a big deal, or b) use a small body of water and spend time maintaining the water supply by clearing out the solids that accumulate before the body of water "dries up" completely.

Care would need to be taken to not impact server performance, but I'm thinking of only scanning a few blocks every few seconds/minutes, which should not be excessive. This way you get to keep the large-scale renewable energy, but need to either choose/build a really good site, or be prepared to spend time maintaining a smaller water source.

Edit: I suppose something like this could easily be defeated by using a small pool and an array of block-breaking blocks (turtles, TE terrain smashers, etc.). No trivial way around that, I guess.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Realistically it's not the volume of water, its the difference in height [hydraulic head].

Having a large volume just means you can run for longer before running out.​

Whether it'll be possible for a hydrokinetic to trace up the waterfall and check for source blocks directly above it? [possibly causing them to decay?]

Though with decay, you'll end up with 2 wide pools instead of 1 wide.​

It would be nice to have a config/separate mod to turn off buckets, so you can't carry an infinite source of water.
-this'll also build into the realistic side of using pumps and pipes to move water around.

 

[desht]

Realistically it's not the volume of water, its the difference in height [hydraulic head].

Having a large volume just means you can run for longer before running out.​

​

Yeah, I appreciate that - but some liberties need to be taken, given that Minecraft's water mechanics don't work anything like this world's do. Given that hydros provide (a lot of) free energy, requiring significant investment in construction and/or maintenance of a suitable site is probably reasonable.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Which is why I was thinking water block decay, you'll have to have a large enough tank up there otherwise it'll get drained.

The silting mechanic is kinda cool, but I think a lot of players will just leave a buildcraft quarry sat over it. Free dirt and free energy.

 

[desht]

Which is why I was thinking water block decay, you'll have to have a large enough tank up there otherwise it'll get drained.

The silting mechanic is kinda cool, but I think a lot of players will just leave a buildcraft quarry sat over it. Free dirt and free energy.

Yeah, sneaky players will always find a way. But if other mods come into play, there's probably no winning. Removing source blocks could be counteracted by Aqueous Accumulators and BC Floodgates, for example.

 

[1M Industries]

Yeah, sneaky players will always find a way. But if other mods come into play, there's probably no winning. Removing source blocks could be counteracted by Aqueous Accumulators and BC Floodgates, for example.

And this has been suggested before, and if I remember correctly, the answer was no.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Yeah, sneaky players will always find a way. But if other mods come into play, there's probably no winning. Removing source blocks could be counteracted by Aqueous Accumulators and BC Floodgates, for example.

Rotarycraft has a liquid spiller so there's no winning regardless. At least that method will require a bit of ingenuity to setup.
(And if buckets are turned off it'll take a bit of effort to get water up there to start with)

 

[ljfa]

Am I doing it wrong or why can't I charge tools in the worktable?

This spring has a charge of 608 kJ.
Doesn't work with the spring boots either, I had to cheat them in to be charged

 

[Reika]

Am I doing it wrong or why can't I charge tools in the worktable?
View attachment 13378
This spring has a charge of 608 kJ.
Doesn't work with the spring boots either, I had to cheat them in to be charged

Fixed in v3.

 

[Demosthenex]

Does anyone have figures on which jet engine is more fuel efficient? I'm curious between the microturbine and the jet engine which is more efficient in combination with the ECU. If no one has numbers, I may make some.

Also, technically this is a suggestions thread. Is there a tips and tricks thread, or shall I start one? ;]

 

[Plasmasnake]

Does anyone have figures on which jet engine is more fuel efficient? I'm curious between the microturbine and the jet engine which is more efficient in combination with the ECU. If no one has numbers, I may make some.

Also, technically this is a suggestions thread. Is there a tips and tricks thread, or shall I start one? ;]

Gas Turbine is the clear winner.

Gas Turbine produces 67.109MW of power and consumes 5340mB of fuel per minute (89mB per second)
Microturbine produces 2.097MW of power and consumes 4000mB of fuel per minute (~67mB per second)

If you cannot see the massive difference already, imagine that the power is outputted every second for both engines (A total of 60 times per minute). How much total power would we get after two minutes? How much fuel did it require?

Gas Turbine: 8053.08 MW - 10680 mB
Microturbine: 251.64 MW - 8000 mB
*The Gas Turbine consumes more fuel during its start-up phase, but the poor microturbine cannot hope to keep up with the efficiency of that either*

Since the ECU just scales down the fuel usage by some unknown % that is the same, regardless of the engine as far as I know, the Gas Turbine will always be more efficient than the microturbine, as well as being more powerful.

 

[Demosthenex]

Gas Turbine is the clear winner.

Gas Turbine produces 67.109MW of power and consumes 5340mB of fuel per minute (89mB per second)
Microturbine produces 2.097MW of power and consumes 4000mB of fuel per minute (~67mB per second)

If you cannot see the massive difference already, imagine that the power is outputted every second for both engines (A total of 60 times per minute). How much total power would we get after two minutes? How much fuel did it require?

Gas Turbine: 8053.08 MW - 10680 mB
Microturbine: 251.64 MW - 8000 mB
*The Gas Turbine consumes more fuel during its start-up phase, but the poor microturbine cannot hope to keep up with the efficiency of that either*

Since the ECU just scales down the fuel usage by some unknown % that is the same, regardless of the engine as far as I know, the Gas Turbine will always be more efficient than the microturbine, as well as being more powerful.

That was really my consideration, was it more efficient to run a MT at 100% or a GT at 25%. Awesome.

 

[Reika]

The ECU is also far less efficient on turbine engines as of v1 or v2.

 

[ljfa]

I guess it's better to operate more than one bedrock breaker on one gas turbine as opposed to regulating the gas turbine down.

 

[Omega Haxors]

This is incorrect: Rotarycraft machines get exponentially less efficient as you increase power to individual machines. For example, the grinder only looses 3 seconds out of 45 every time you double the speed.
Therefore, if you want to get the maximum efficiency per kW, simply make more machines instead of overclocking one.

That being said, increasing the number of machines obviously costs more resources, and since both hydrokinetics and grinders cost nothing but steel there may be a point at which it may actually be more efficient to just make another hydrokinetic then make more grinders. I would need to know the average lubricant yield of a canola seed, as well as the consumption rate of hydrokinetics to calculate that, however, which are both unknowns to me.

For example, you can power 128 grinders from one hydrokinetic, all operating at minimum power. This is 2.8444 canola seeds per second, compared to 0.111 seeds per second if you poured all that power into one grinder.

When dealing with things such as the extractor, you want to give it as much power as you can get away with. The reason I suggested 4 AC/Steam engines into a single grinder rather than individuals is because of the torque requirement for the grinders matches perfect with 4 steam engines, and AC engines allow you to squeeze out a little extra speed on top of that.

Even though operations per second slow down the more power you give it, it's still very worth making them faster. If you're down to 1 operation per second, even a small lowering will make a significant increase in your productions.

I admit that my findings on the hydrokinetic to get lube were flawed; I forgot to use speed gearboxes in my tests.

Not anymore. I like this fix particularly well because it does not harm intended ElectriCraft use at all while hopelessly breaking its ability to skip the techtree.
https://github.com/ReikaKalseki/ElectriCraft/commit/c14fe1e966978b2dd2b9b98da44c268cae866bec

From my limited understanding of your coding style it seems you added a converter unit upgrade requirement for Induction motors. Is there anything else i'm missing?

The ECU is also far less efficient on turbine engines as of v1 or v2.

Why change this? Other engines, especially the converter units, have access to vastly superior efficiency options. If anything it's the converter units that need to be hit with an efficiency nerf. I mean the RF/Mj converters can produce 8192 watts with 2 RF/t when fully upgraded and at their lowest setting. Even at the early game you can easily create 5 RF/t; the only time the RF/Mj costs start to get significant is when you reach half a gigawatt, at 94 RF/t. Not to mention they can easily reach a jet engine worth of power with a very good source of RF.

And you know how much some mods LOVE to give you a stupid amount of RF. *coughbigreactorscough*

EDIT: Turns out TE dynamos can output 640 RF/t with max augments. Set up a pump in the nether and pop down two magmatic dynamos along with a tesseract and you're golden.

Frankly, I was strongly recommending that the hydros be nerfed, severely.

I can handle the extractors, but I was trying to setup one per stage. If Reika says that balance insists that he wants you to work it in one device, that's what I'll do.

Hydrokinetics are perfect where they are. Perhaps the lubricant costs could be fined tuned to be a little more expensive but other than that it's perfect. The most recent nerf to make them unable to be chained over 4 was the nail in the coffin for the biggest issue; spamming.

You pay in required space, lubricant, and required steel. When you need more power (and you will) there's always nuclear, the turbines, and converter units.

 

[abculatter_2]

When dealing with things such as the extractor, you want to give it as much power as you can get away with. The reason I suggested 4 AC/Steam engines into a single grinder rather than individuals is because of the torque requirement for the grinders matches perfect with 4 steam engines, and AC engines allow you to squeeze out a little extra speed on top of that.

Even though operations per second slow down the more power you give it, it's still very worth making them faster. If you're down to 1 operation per second, even a small lowering will make a significant increase in your productions.

I admit that my findings on the hydrokinetic to get lube were flawed; I forgot to use speed gearboxes in my tests.

For the extractor, or really just anything that isn't a grinder dedicated to making lubricant to feed its own hydrokinetic, a borer, or especially a bedrock breaker I would also reccomend just pouring more energy into one then making more. It's easier to do, less lag, and if you have the energy to spare then why not?

Also, I recently decided to do some calculations on something I had kinda realized when I recently powered my first extractor at one-operation-per-tick speeds, but had no idea at just to what extent it was: Apparently, operating machines at maximum speed actually gives them a sudden and dramatic boost in efficiency. For example, a grinder operates at maximum speed at 4MW, which is 8 hydrokinetics. Using my previous numbers, these could power 16 stacks of grinders, for 22.7552 operations per second. However, if you put all of this power into just one grinder, it would operate at 20 operations per second- close to the same amount, and definitely at a net positive of lube.
And I'm sure the amount of lag one overclocked grinder produces compared to 1024 minimum-power ones is at least an order of magnitude less.

I don't know how many other discrete-operations machines work like this, but it's an interesting and useful thing to keep in mind.

By the way, I meant to mention in my previous post but just found out I didn't: You can find the speed formulas for some machines in the RoC handbook near the beginning, under a tab that looks like a MC clock.

The ECU is also far less efficient on turbine engines as of v1 or v2.

You should add this to either the turbine's or ECU's RoC entry. This would be useful to know.
Also, the new anti-engine-spam mechanics for the shaft junction should be added to the handbook as well.

 

[ljfa]

Many informations from the newer versions are still missing or outdated in the handbook. I hope Reika gets it updated for thew next version.

 

[abculatter_2]

Why change this? Other engines, especially the converter units, have access to vastly superior efficiency options. If anything it's the converter units that need to be hit with an efficiency nerf. I mean the RF/Mj converters can produce 8192 watts with 2 RF/t when fully upgraded and at their lowest setting. Even at the early game you can easily create 5 RF/t; the only time the RF/Mj costs start to get significant is when you reach half a gigawatt, at 94 RF/t. Not to mention they can easily reach a jet engine worth of power with a very good source of RF.

Converters now require a crafted upgrade to be able to output more power then the current tier of tech you're at. These converters generally require advanced RoC materials: For example, level one requires ethanol crystals, and allows a converter to produce energy equivalent to a combustion engine. Level two requires the upgrade to be magnetized to 780 micronewtons, and allows the same level of production as an AC engine, and etc.

 

[ljfa]

780 micronewtons

It's 720 microtesla

 

[Reika]

Converters now require a crafted upgrade to be able to output more power then the current tier of tech you're at. These converters generally require advanced RoC materials: For example, level one requires ethanol crystals, and allows a converter to produce energy equivalent to a combustion engine. Level two requires the upgrade to be magnetized to 780 micronewtons, and allows the same level of production as an AC engine, and etc.

Actually, most of the tiers are set such that producing them yields less power than it took to make them.