I would like to be able to change GregTech's Deuterium and Tritium into the Reactorcraft version.
Is this possible?
Is this possible?
Changing two liquids of the same type into one another.
- Thread starter Furious1964
- 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
- Status
If possible, I think the MFR unifier might be the only way. Pretty sure this can handle liquids as well as items/blocks. You will have to test this yourself by piping liquid in and out again trying both the RC and GT liquid as the inputs to see if it will convert at all. I dont use either of these mods so I dont know if they are compatible (probably not knowing greg).
I've heard of a player using Gregtech to power their RC fusion reactor, so I'm sure it's possible.
Also, they might be interchangeable without needing to be unified. I would try just using the GT liquid, OP.
Tried pumping in the GregTech liquids and nothing happened. Will try the Unifier.
No, Unifier doesn't work on RC's liquids. If you can post a link to a video about using GT liquids in an RC Reactor, I would appreciate it very much.
No, Unifier doesn't work on RC's liquids. If you can post a link to a video about using GT liquids in an RC Reactor, I would appreciate it very much.
Last edited:
If you find a way, I am going to break it. It is an extreme balance problem and craps all over the realism, too.
You should've kept that to yourself, so that they don't suspect anything when they post their exact process.
I doubt it to be possible to begin with. The fluid registry does not work like the Ore Dictionary; there, you register multiple items to the same tag, and that is used to allow interchangeability.You should've kept that to yourself, so that they don't suspect anything when they post their exact process.
With the Fluid registry, Forge only allows one entry per name. So if I register "jet fuel", and some other mod loads after me and registers another fluid with the same name, Forge rejects it and their mod ends up using my jet fuel (assuming they coded it correctly to refer to FluidRegistry.getFluid() and not hardcoding it to their now inaccessible fluid).
My ReactorCraft fluids are all registered to unique names to prevent interchangeability, so I doubt any mod would allow it. Seeing as the automatic code does not know the function or the process, from its perspective, there is no difference between allowing those two to be incompatible and allowing say, "ethanol" and "uumatter" to be.
Please stop toting this realism crap. Every time you don't like something you say it breaks realism. Please think of another word or just refuse that your mods be placed in any packs with any other mods.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I looked into how you make deuterium with GT. It is not in line with the RC balance or with real life, and to demand I allow it anyways smacks of entitlement.
Also, in case you missed the point, realism is the primary driving force in my two main tech mods. If it is not realistic, it does not go in. Period. End of story. No discussion.
Reika da bawce!
But seriously, the GT fusion reactor makes no sense, and it produces far less power than the ReactorCraft fusion reactor anyway, so why the hell would you even build a GT fusion reactor when the ReactorCraft one is objectively better in the first place?
I don't want to make this a big thing, I'm only replying because of your "entitlement" comment. Nobody and I mean nobody in this thread has demanded that you add anything, so slow your roll.
Just so i'm understanding correctly, realism in your mods is a 3ft square nuclear reactor to produce tritium, and realism in your deuterium production is an electrolysis process not run off of electricity but off of...a shaft? Am I wrong in coming to the conclusion that production of fusile/fissile materials has been scaled up dramatically as well? because the Savanna River site is massive, and the amount of tritium it produced in the years it ran isn't very much.
This is the main reason you get the eyerolls at times when you pull the realism card. You blanket your mods with the word, and try to use it to shoot down every idea that doesn't make sense to you, and yet there are still glaring examples within your mods that I wouldn't consider "realistic."
If this is true, the GT fusion is more realistic, and only because of it's power output. It still outputs far too much power to be realistic, as we were only just recently able to sustain fusion and get a minuscule profit in energy. The "real" ReactorCraft reactor is banging out how much power? Yeahhh... Realism!Reika da bawce!
But seriously, the GT fusion reactor makes no sense, and it produces far less power than the ReactorCraft fusion reactor anyway, so why the hell would you even build a GT fusion reactor when the ReactorCraft one is objectively better in the first place?
I disagree, given the tone of the post I am replying to.
Where did that figure come from? 3ft is less than a block.
Have you never heard of a Van De Graaff? They run off of rotational power.
"Isn't very much" by industrial standards maybe. Compared to my machines, it is much, much larger. My neutron irradiation chamber, from an industrial-scale fission reactor, makes less than a cubic meter per minute. That is pitifully small.
As was on the "would you build this" thread, Realism does not necessarily mean "this has currently been built", but "this is in accordance with all known laws of science".
Last edited:
http://notch.tumblr.com/post/443693773/the-world-is-bigger-now
so you're cramming a VdG into a cubic meter along with electrolysis? wow. realistic.
but...it's not in accordance to anything. known science just produced their first net profit from fusing atoms, so you take that as "ok, imma build a giant reactor that spits massive power, since it is now real"?
Edit: Also, VdG's would be completely impractical for powering your electrolyzer. the current produced by a VdG would be insufficient for the obvious accelerated process you're running in your machine. If such a thing were even possible, you'd need higher amperage than the VdG could give you.
forgot one, sorry
no, you misunderstand what i meant. savanna river is a site that covers 300'ish square miles, it was in operation from the 1950's til the 1980's. it only produced roughly 450lbs of material in that span of time. your machines dwarf it's production.
edit to my edit: I hope you're not taking this personally. I'm half playing devils advocate, half shining light on the absurdity of some of your realism arguments.
Last edited:
That gives you little data about the actual size of a block. Blocks are one cubic meter, as per the "Cave Game" video Notch released very early on.
A VDG can be built in any size. I have seen handheld ones. The electrolysis cell is similar. Also, they are not in the same block space, so they are not both "crammed into a cubic meter".
No, it is fully in accordance with the laws of physics. The reason we do not yet have full-scale fusion reactors is a simple one of cost and efficiency. Right now, we have to put in more energy than we get out because we are not yet efficient enough when heating or containing the plasma.
To say this makes fusion power not in line with the laws of physics would be akin to saying that because the early human-powered aircraft could not maintain lift was proof mechanical flight is impossible.
Amperage is simply a change in current over time. Given that you can build many hundreds of coulombs of charge in the VDG with enough power, and it is dissipated in 0.05s, that means you are capable of reaching currents exceeding those from a power plant.
One, that "300 square mile" facility encompasses all that empty space, roads, and parking lots between structures. Looking at the satellite imagery, the actual facility takes up less than 1% of that.
Two, that site was geared towards nuclear weapons production. Plutonium was the product of choice; tritium was a side product.
You are also coming across as extremely rude given some of the wording you have chosen (eg "wow. realistic." and "Yeahhh...Realism!"). Furthermore, half of your arguments are based on rather seriously flawed premises, and are also starting to edge towards "unreasonable expectations of realism", that I cannot reasonably reproduce in a mod, within the game engine (like one guy who said "if your [sic] mod's so realistic, why do your machines float?").
Finally, and I think this is being overlooked:
Even if you do not agree with the arguments I am making, it changes little about what has to go into the mod. All content is ultimately my decision alone, and frankly, I think I am rather ahead of most authors for providing any sort of justification for content beyond "it's my mod, deal with it".
lol... this is the last point by point i'm doing with you. this is getting ridiculous.
red pill/blue pill time. click it, or don't.
it's also on the "official" minecraft wiki, also here.
so with all that behind it, I'm pretty sure it's widely accepted that 1 block = 1 cubic meter, even today.
built to the laws of physics
and
physically possible to be built to function as intended
are two different concepts.
"we are not yet efficient enough" in RL translates to "is not yet feasible" or "is not yet possible." I think the latter is more descriptive of a fusion reactor that produces a large net power gain. At least today it is, on 8/4/14.
that's a minecraft facility of epic proportions...sides that are 176 chunks long. no big deal, right?
The point was not how large the facility is. My point was that your blocks condense larger processes into smaller blocks (like your tritium production), and then when it's convenient, you cling to the realism banner as if it means something at that point.
I also understand the limitations of the game engine, that's part of what my points have been about; you have to make concessions when implementing things to conform to the engine's limitations while still keeping the attention of the player (game design), but then almost in the same breath you'll rip somebody to shreds for their idea not being realistic?
is it real, or is it not? it can't be both. A simple "I do not like it" or "It does not fit the scope of this mod" are both assertive, truthful, and they don't put blame of why the idea is unacceptable to you on "realism." besides, a little assertiveness never hurt anybody.
Your defensive tone is on you, and your insecurities alone. I say insecurities because you've made comments in other places suggesting what happens if a mod author doesn't add popular features; that implies a bit of fear to me, and the tone carries over when you insinuate that people in this thread were pressuring you, and you parrot the whole "realism" shtick again as a shield.
All i was ever saying is that your "Realism" card is old, worn out, and laughable at best when you try and use it on minecraft. I was just trying to find a humorous (to me) way to illustrate that even on the best attempts at realism, they still fall short because of the limits of the game itself, and also gamedesign. This is minecraft, so we all pretend a little bit even on "real" mods.
red pill/blue pill time. click it, or don't.
yeah, cavegame is old. that post i linked was in 2010, post-cave game.
it's also on the "official" minecraft wiki, also here.
Notch said:
so with all that behind it, I'm pretty sure it's widely accepted that 1 block = 1 cubic meter, even today.
The amperage is still a concern to me. Your machines must be running an accelerated process, because your machines outproduce their real counterparts by far. Glorified static electricity couldn't cope.Reika said:
Nobody said it wasn't in line with laws of physics. You're misconstruing my argument for the sake of your own.Reika said:
built to the laws of physics
and
physically possible to be built to function as intended
are two different concepts.
"we are not yet efficient enough" in RL translates to "is not yet feasible" or "is not yet possible." I think the latter is more descriptive of a fusion reactor that produces a large net power gain. At least today it is, on 8/4/14.
I'm still skeptical of the realism in this aspect of your production, but this is minecraft.Reika said:
I realize this. What you don't realize is 1% of 300 is still large when dealing with surface area. 1% of 300 square miles is edging close to 8 square km (converted it for ya).Reika said:
that's a minecraft facility of epic proportions...sides that are 176 chunks long. no big deal, right?
The point was not how large the facility is. My point was that your blocks condense larger processes into smaller blocks (like your tritium production), and then when it's convenient, you cling to the realism banner as if it means something at that point.
I apologize if you feel I'm coming off rude. Like I said, just shining light on oddities and absurdities. Don't take it personal.Reika said:
I also understand the limitations of the game engine, that's part of what my points have been about; you have to make concessions when implementing things to conform to the engine's limitations while still keeping the attention of the player (game design), but then almost in the same breath you'll rip somebody to shreds for their idea not being realistic?
is it real, or is it not? it can't be both. A simple "I do not like it" or "It does not fit the scope of this mod" are both assertive, truthful, and they don't put blame of why the idea is unacceptable to you on "realism." besides, a little assertiveness never hurt anybody.
No, not overlooked at all. As i said above, nobody nobody NOBODY requested anything of you. Somebody asked "why?" regarding breaking something that isn't even possible via api, and that's the closest it came. I wouldn't have even posted again on this thread had you not pulled out the big "E" word, but I notice it's getting thrown around a lot these days. Wouldn't want it to lose meaning, would we?Reika said:
Your defensive tone is on you, and your insecurities alone. I say insecurities because you've made comments in other places suggesting what happens if a mod author doesn't add popular features; that implies a bit of fear to me, and the tone carries over when you insinuate that people in this thread were pressuring you, and you parrot the whole "realism" shtick again as a shield.
All i was ever saying is that your "Realism" card is old, worn out, and laughable at best when you try and use it on minecraft. I was just trying to find a humorous (to me) way to illustrate that even on the best attempts at realism, they still fall short because of the limits of the game itself, and also gamedesign. This is minecraft, so we all pretend a little bit even on "real" mods.
We are in agreement on this. I said "square", but that was a mistype.
quote="midi_sec, post: 606689, member: 71833"]
The amperage is still a concern to me. Your machines must be running an accelerated process, because your machines outproduce their real counterparts by far. Glorified static electricity couldn't cope.
I'm still skeptical of the realism in this aspect of your production, but this is minecraft.
I realize this. What you don't realize is 1% of 300 is still large when dealing with surface area. 1% of 300 square miles is edging close to 8 square km (converted it for ya).
that's a minecraft facility of epic proportions...sides that are 176 chunks long. no big deal, right?
The point was not how large the facility is. My point was that your blocks condense larger processes into smaller blocks (like your tritium production), and then when it's convenient, you cling to the realism banner as if it means something at that point.
[/quote]
Scale is one thing that absolutely must be fudged in MC, or even a small setup would be 1000 blocks long.
I do not see any fundamental difference.
I do not "rip someone to shreds" for any reason outside of things like that "CapnGusi" idiot for "someone should take over RC".
Given how people react to my design decisions, I disagree.
I defend it the way I do because there is a veritable army of people who think my mods are so overpowered that they should be removed from every pack ever created and never used again. And yes, there is some fear, because I worry that someone may take them seriously.
I just wanna butt in here and say: So? Why does it matter if you're never used in any modpack again, ever? You would still be able make the mod, the people who disagree with those neigh-sayers would still enjoy and play your mod, AND since you've already gotten so much publicity from being on modpacks for awhile you would be much better off in that regard then before, anyway.
Besides, if people listened to those people, Gregtech would be in every single modpack.
And that's not even going into questioning the reasons why popularity is important to you...
By the way, I'm surprised no one mentioned the Light Bridge, the Scalable chests, Fans harvesting crops, and a lot of other examples of 'lolrealism' (Not saying that those are bad, by the way)
- Status