Is Rotarycraft stupidly difficult or am I the stupid one?

  • Please make sure you are posting in the correct place. Server ads go here and modpack bugs go here
  • FTB will be shutting down this forum by the end of July. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord

Omicron

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,974
0
0
Regardless of that opinion on the conversion factor, these are the laws we play by, and comparisons between machines are emergent from these laws. A Buildcraft combustion engine will drive a RoC borer far faster than a Buildcraft quarry, and a RoC gasoline engine won't even make a Buildcraft quarry twitch (and a RoC fuel powered engine would make said quarry crawl with slothlike vigor). As such, it is undisputable that the borer is the far more frugal and efficient platform.
 

dothrom

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
501
0
0
Regardless of that opinion on the conversion factor, these are the laws we play by, and comparisons between machines are emergent from these laws. A Buildcraft combustion engine will drive a RoC borer far faster than a Buildcraft quarry, and a RoC gasoline engine won't even make a Buildcraft quarry twitch (and a RoC fuel powered engine would make said quarry crawl with slothlike vigor). As such, it is undisputable that the borer is the far more frugal and efficient platform.
And essentially setup and forget. Assuming you decided to fuel it via tesseract and not tanks sitting on site.
 

zemerick

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
667
0
1
How efficient are they at scattering depleted uranium across sovereign nations?

No offense, but not everybody has the same rosy outlook that you do on tanks. Just saying. :p

Pretty inefficient, especially since we're removing depleted uranium for I believe tungsten. That's a long slow process though, and of course tungsten has its own problems.

They don't have wings... And don't fly.

Does being thrown out of a plane count as flying?:)
 

midi_sec

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
1,053
0
0
Pretty inefficient, especially since we're removing depleted uranium for I believe tungsten. That's a long slow process though, and of course tungsten has its own problems.
Removing != Removed. Two wars in the region in 20 years (I saw them both), and cumulatively I'd say in the millions of rounds fired. Don't forget that.

But hey, since we can't nuke them and genocide is technically illegal, give 1,000 years of cancer to the people amirite? That'll teach them.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,334
7,191
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Regardless of that opinion on the conversion factor, these are the laws we play by, and comparisons between machines are emergent from these laws. A Buildcraft combustion engine will drive a RoC borer far faster than a Buildcraft quarry, and a RoC gasoline engine won't even make a Buildcraft quarry twitch (and a RoC fuel powered engine would make said quarry crawl with slothlike vigor). As such, it is undisputable that the borer is the far more frugal and efficient platform.
The boring machine, in terms of running-cost versus output, is by far the best return on investment for any automated mining machine I have ever seen. And that's without the efficiency upgrades.

Efficiency IV makes it run so ridiculously cheap its almost comical.
 

malicious_bloke

Over-Achiever
Jul 28, 2013
2,961
2,705
298
The boring machine, in terms of running-cost versus output, is by far the best return on investment for any automated mining machine I have ever seen. And that's without the efficiency upgrades.

Efficiency IV makes it run so ridiculously cheap its almost comical.

Silence!

You know if you keep pointing things like this out they'll only get nerfed :p
 

kilteroff

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
229
0
0
How efficient are they at scattering depleted uranium across sovereign nations?

No offense, but not everybody has the same rosy outlook that you do on tanks. Just saying. :p

There's plenty of other weapon systems that use DU besides the Abrams, it's only sabot rounds that are made of it, and we don't fire those willy-nilly, they're only useful against heavily armored targets like enemy tanks :p[DOUBLEPOST=1409867862][/DOUBLEPOST]
They don't have wings... And don't fly.

Wings are a crutch. ;)

t-80u%252520firing%252520in%252520midair.jpg
 

Omicron

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
2,974
0
0
Wings are a crutch. ;)

You know, while I know exactly what's going on here (firing a blank during a fullspeed jump for a public show), I can't help but always look at these still frames as if it was some sort of cartoon and the tank was comically being launched backwards from the recoil of its own cannon :D
 

kilteroff

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
229
0
0
You know, while I know exactly what's going on here (firing a blank during a fullspeed jump for a public show), I can't help but always look at these still frames as if it was some sort of cartoon and the tank was comically being launched backwards from the recoil of its own cannon :D

Firing in mid-air / turning / what have you, isn't a problem actually. The guntube is gimballed and de-coupled, it automatically compensates for changes in elevation so the gunner doesn't have to be a savant to hit targets while moving.