NuclearCraft - A Modern Physics Mod

turbodiesel4598

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
167
0
1
Hey there!

I guess this is a page for NuclearCraft on the FTB Forums. There is an MCF thread, a CurseForge page where downloads can be found, and a GitHub site where you can report bugs and look at the source files.

I also have a YouTube channel where I upload videos highlighting the changes with each update, and a Discord Server to discuss all things NuclearCraft!

Any questions, suggestions, problems or whatever you have can be posted here, and I will reply to you as quickly as I can ;)

Tom
 
Last edited:

RenzosNips

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
202
0
0
Just want to say, I really look forward to playing with this mod.
It's been sitting in my pack for a while now, and I'm finally coming toward the end of tweaking recipes and configs, so it *should* be soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

turbodiesel4598

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
167
0
1
Just want to say, I really look forward to playing with this mod.
It's been sitting in my pack for a while now, and I'm finally coming toward the end of tweaking recipes and configs, so it *should* be soon.
Hope you enjoy using it when you get there :)
 

RealKC

Popular Member
Dec 6, 2015
1,004
534
109
King of the Hill
Not yet, but they are planned :)

...You will find that there seems to be a lot that's planned... just want to get the synchrotron version of the particle accelerator done first.
So, this means you'll have some sort of trubines too?

Edit: if you don't get a notification fkr me quoting you, member with the id 415 will get it
 

turbodiesel4598

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
167
0
1
So, this means you'll have some sort of trubines too?
Yep - the reactor design itself will be very similar (the structure), but it will not give out RF directly - as a result, it will be more fuel efficient.
The fusion reactor may change, too, so that it actually looks more like a fusion reactor, but that is not a big priority.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Yep - the reactor design itself will be very similar (the structure), but it will not give out RF directly - as a result, it will be more fuel efficient.
The fusion reactor may change, too, so that it actually looks more like a fusion reactor, but that is not a big priority.
Good idea to start this thread, that means I can quit pming you :)

For your fusion reactor designs, perhaps consider something other than a tokamak design. Tokamak's have been done to death. Stellerators are just as plausible (one was in the news recently for generating helium plasma I believe)

I replaced Big Reactors with NuclearCraft in my Infinity Expert game. While I'm not a huge fan of magical-box reactors (fuel in power out) I'm enjoying the complexities of managing the different fuel types.

As a result I have three reactors right now because their configurations (graphite vs coolant) can vary greatly depending on the fuel types, and I don't want to waste too much, say, thorium if I have piles and piles of it. Pretty fun :)
 

RenzosNips

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
202
0
0
@Pyure since you have experience with it, how are you liking it? Do you like the progression? And how do you feel about the fuel consumption and/or energy produced? Also, are you using default configs or what did you change?
I haven't tackled Nuclearcraft yet, since the configs updated a version or two ago, and I'm curious to know the opinion of someone who has actually used it.
 

turbodiesel4598

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
167
0
1
For your fusion reactor designs, perhaps consider something other than a tokamak design. Tokamak's have been done to death. Stellerators are just as plausible (one was in the news recently for generating helium plasma I believe)
My original plan is a spherical tokomak, rather than the, as you say, commonly used ring tokomak, as there is already going to be a ring in the form of the particle accelerator in the mod , so I want there to be some variation - I'll look into possible other designs such as the stellerator as well, though.
As a result I have three reactors right now because their configurations (graphite vs coolant) can vary greatly depending on the fuel types, and I don't want to waste too much, say, thorium if I have piles and piles of it. Pretty fun :)
Thorium is a tricky one - nowadays, players care more about power than 'energy per fuel cell', or whatever - I had considered halving the Thorium lifetime and doubling the heat and power, but with the introduction of the speed upgrades, I didn't feel it was necessary - Thorium is now a good source of U-233 in speed reactors, which in turn is a better source of Pu-242 (and Pu-239) than U-235.
 

KingTriaxx

Forum Addict
Jul 27, 2013
4,266
1,335
184
Michigan
If nothing else ever works in your mod, I am perfectly happy as long as the Nuclear furnace exists.

If anyone hasn't made one, it's so fast, it does a full stack in the time a normal furnace takes to make one item. It's so fast that only translocators are capable of matching it's throughput speed. (Maybe Maxed AE buses, but I've not tried those.) Best Furnace Ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Type1Ninja

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
@Pyure since you have experience with it, how are you liking it? Do you like the progression? And how do you feel about the fuel consumption and/or energy produced? Also, are you using default configs or what did you change?
I haven't tackled Nuclearcraft yet, since the configs updated a version or two ago, and I'm curious to know the opinion of someone who has actually used it.
Bear in mind I'm not the best person to ask...I like things to be more complex than the average players so your mileage may vary.
Also, bear in mind that the mod's in early development and the dev has demonstrated that he'll completely overhaul mechanics from version to version. Some stuff is clearly of the placeholder variety.

So far my experience has been mostly positive. The reactors are closest in comparison with BigReactors rather than ReactorCraft or IC2.

In terms of shape, they're more limited: you can strictly do cubes of vary sizes. That said, a 17x17 sounds a lot smaller than it is: its an absolutely massive structure to look at, and you'll need to do some serious quarrying just to build the structure, never mind actually filling it.

Speaking of filling it: the fuel rod mechanic is way more limited. You have a central fuel rod in the middle of the multiblock which is strictly structural. There's no placement of rods to work with neutron chain reactors or anything like that. Fuel in, power out. Other than the rod placement itself, this is very much like early Big Reactors (prior to turbines).

The fuel is where the mod shines at this point. You can mine various radioactive ores and reduce them to various isotopes. There's now a "decay hastener" block which I feel wasn't a great idea: I would have preferred to see this rolled into the reactors themselves. A sort of decay-breeder perhaps. But it lets you decay one element/isotope into another if you prefer a fuel farther down the chain.

As far as power output goes, its nothing shocking. Its deliberately following the benchmark of "other mods" (as per his videos), which means Big Reactors. I have a 13x13 LEU (low-enriched uranium, a weakass fuel) which is packed tight with graphite and produces....I think 39k RF/t if memory serves. Critically, the mod is rather configurable, so I believe you can tweak these values to taste on a pack by pack basis. My wiring capabilities wouldn't be able to handle any of the good fuels (of which there are oxidized, mox, plutonium and HEP.)

Unlike Big Reactors, heat is dangerous. Its mindlessly simple to deal with (don't turn on your reactor if it says it generates any heat) but if you're up late after a night of serious drinking and aren't paying attention, an errant graphite block can erase your base and possibly your neighbor's.

I haven't tried fusion yet because its under severe construction.

I feel that the mod needs more reactor "types". Something that lets me "transmute" fuels somehow at the cost of severe energy potential. (in other words, plutonium might have higher energy potential than LEU, but if all I want to run is LEU, then somehow transmuting plutonium to LEU at a shitty conversion ratio...and doing this via an actual reactor process, not the hastener...would be coolies.)

Which means breeders of some sort, which I happen to know is already on the list.

Pic1: Yep, 39k rf/t
2016-02-07_19.32.52.png

Pic2: Might make sense to have multiple reactors (pictured: a pair of 9x9s and a 13x13 in the back-right.
2016-02-07_19.32.32.jpg

Pic3: Close-up of the 13x13. The interior is just shy of 2200 blocks. You don't want to fill this without a builder's wand if you can help it. Filling it with a good balance of graphite and coolant meant a 20k difference in energy output if memory serves.
2016-02-07_19.32.37.jpg

My original plan is a spherical tokomak, rather than the, as you say, commonly used ring tokomak, as there is already going to be a ring in the form of the particle accelerator in the mod , so I want there to be some variation - I'll look into possible other designs such as the stellerator as well, though.
I have no idea if the stellerator makes sense from a "fun" perspective, it was just the only alternative that came to mind.

Thorium is a tricky one - nowadays, players care more about power than 'energy per fuel cell', or whatever - I had considered halving the Thorium lifetime and doubling the heat and power, but with the introduction of the speed upgrades, I didn't feel it was necessary - Thorium is now a good source of U-233 in speed reactors, which in turn is a better source of Pu-242 (and Pu-239) than U-235.
There's a bit too much fuel in the world gen for people to care about fuel efficiency, which makes that worse. When did you add speed upgrades to reactors? I thought I saw you use them several videos ago but I don't see a slot for upgrades in the reactor.

If nothing else ever works in your mod, I am perfectly happy as long as the Nuclear furnace exists.

If anyone hasn't made one, it's so fast, it does a full stack in the time a normal furnace takes to make one item. It's so fast that only translocators are capable of matching it's throughput speed. (Maybe Maxed AE buses, but I've not tried those.) Best Furnace Ever.
Its also (and fairly) the least energy-efficient furnace ever. 1 uranium = 8 coal :p
But yeah, every once in a while I'll be in a big rush and I'll toss something into the nuker.
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Also, are you using default configs or what did you change?
I forgot to answer this part:

I turned off mob spawning. The "Nuclear Monsters" or some such didn't feel like a "realistic" fit. There were also a bunch of Iron Golems named Paul absolutely wrecking the End, killing all the endermen. Awesome for pearl drops, but a bit silly :)

For Infinity Expert mode, I'd probably recommend cutting back the power output a bit. Perhaps to 75% or 50% of its current output. But that's to my personal taste.
 

turbodiesel4598

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
167
0
1
Wow - a lot of stuff to go through - I love it :)
If nothing else ever works in your mod, I am perfectly happy as long as the Nuclear furnace exists.
It was the first thing I added to the mod - feels like a long time ago now. It's purposely super inefficient, but very useful if you want to smelt a stack of something fast in the early game, and you have a bit of (at that point) useless uranium lying around.
In terms of shape, [the fission reactors] are more limited: you can strictly do cubes of vary sizes.
I hope to, at some point, come back to the fission reactors and make them more flexible.
There's now a "decay hastener" block which I feel wasn't a great idea: I would have preferred to see this rolled into the reactors themselves. A sort of decay-breeder perhaps.
The decay hastener was primarily added to decay neutrons, tritium and uranium-238 to thorium-230 - I just added the other recipes because, well, they just needed to be there. It can't be used to get more advanced fuels, though (you can't gain any plutonium from it, for example). It does a different job to fission - the reactor products are the result of neutron capture by the fuel, not the result of radioactive decay.
My wiring capabilities wouldn't be able to handle any of the good fuels (of which there are oxidized, mox, plutonium and HEP.)
This is an issue - the lack of cables. The problem is, so much effort would have to go into them if I was to add them, so I really don't feel it's worth it when the cryo-stabilised flux ducts of Thermal Dynamics are available.
I haven't tried fusion yet because its under severe construction.
The mechanics of fusion itself are pretty much done for now - it is definitely in a stable, usable state now - it's just the shape which may change in the future. I highly recommend getting some fusion reactors if you haven't got some already.
in other words, plutonium might have higher energy potential than LEU, but if all I want to run is LEU, then somehow transmuting plutonium to LEU at a shitty conversion ratio...and doing this via an actual reactor process, not the hastener...would be coolies.
You do get plutonium (and other products) from depleted cells... unless I misunderstand you here.
There's a bit too much fuel in the world gen...
Do you think the nuclear fuel ore rate should be lower by default, then?
When did you add speed upgrades to reactors? I thought I saw you use them several videos ago but I don't see a slot for upgrades in the reactor.
Check out the latest video on the YouTube channel for more info, but yeh, there are speed upgrade blocks to put in the fission reactor interior - they can seriously increase the depletion rate in bigger sized reactors if you have a lot of them (to produce Pu-238 more quickly).
 

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
I hope to, at some point, come back to the fission reactors and make them more flexible.
Have you floated the notion at all of trying to do an actual emergent fission design, with fuel rods interacting with each other? Not necessarily as hardcore-emergent as ReactorCraft (have you seen that mod?) but considerably less abstract than you have now?

I can't say I "recommend" it as such...the market for realism in fission is considerably smaller than for fuel-in-energy-out. But I'm curious if its on your roadmap regardless.


The decay hastener was primarily added to decay neutrons, tritium and uranium-238 to thorium-230 - I just added the other recipes because, well, they just needed to be there. It can't be used to get more advanced fuels, though (you can't gain any plutonium from it, for example). It does a different job to fission - the reactor products are the result of neutron capture by the fuel, not the result of radioactive decay.
I hope you notice I didn't suggest you should be able to "decay" an element to get a better fuel source. But breeders are a different matter altogether, and like you said can produce fuel from junk via neutron decay. My point that I failed to make is that some of the machines might be more interesting as reactors themselves. But you sorta addressed this below when you reminded me of the interior speed blocks.


This is an issue - the lack of cables. The problem is, so much effort would have to go into them if I was to add them, so I really don't feel it's worth it when the cryo-stabilised flux ducts of Thermal Dynamics are available.
Its definitely not in scope for your mod. This is purely a problem in the pack I'm playing where cryo-ducts are either expensive or annoying to make and I haven't bothered. To be fair, fluxducts transmit per connection, so I can leverage some of the faces of the controller block to to get more out of lower-grade cables.

Off-topic, this reminds me. Why don't spent fuel cells stack in the reactor output slot? Its a bit incongruous since they stack elsewhere.

The mechanics of fusion itself are pretty much done for now - it is definitely in a stable, usable state now - it's just the shape which may change in the future. I highly recommend getting some fusion reactors if you haven't got some already.
Gotcha, will do. Where does the particle accelerator factor into all this?

Do you think the nuclear fuel ore rate should be lower by default, then?
Most likely, but I don't have enough hours in yet to say "definitely."

Check out the latest video on the YouTube channel for more info, but yeh, there are speed upgrade blocks to put in the fission reactor interior - they can seriously increase the depletion rate in bigger sized reactors if you have a lot of them (to produce Pu-238 more quickly).
Shit I completely forgot it was an interior mechanism. This was the video I was thinking of. Good stuff :)
 

KingTriaxx

Forum Addict
Jul 27, 2013
4,266
1,335
184
Michigan
Why would I waste Uranium? There's absolute tons of Thorium lying around and it works just fine. Seriously I come back with 20 stacks of Railcraft Poor Ore, I'm not after efficiency. I just want it converted so I can use the stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyure

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
Why would I waste Uranium? There's absolute tons of Thorium lying around and it works just fine. Seriously I come back with 20 stacks of Railcraft Poor Ore, I'm not after efficiency. I just want it converted so I can use the stuff.
It didn't occur to me that thorium would work. I can't actually think of many better uses for thorium. Time to make a few more nuclear furnaces I guess. (where one is good, several is usually better)
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingTriaxx

Lethosos

New Member
Jul 29, 2019
917
-1
0
A "pocket reactor" that runs off of an internal store of Thorium is actually something that's still being bounced around as a means of getting stable power to rural areas. Runs 5 to 10 years, entire thing gets shipped elsewhere to be disposed of. That be an interesting thing to add?

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

Pyure

Not Totally Useless
Aug 14, 2013
8,347
7,214
383
Waterloo, Ontario
One thing I keep meaning to try is running a "dangerous" reactor to see if I can squeeze more efficiency out of it. I'm thinking something like running it on a pulsing cycle where it runs for a few seconds while heat goes up to 70%, and then it shuts down for a while and then starts back up again when we're down to 0%. Or maybe timing it to just hover around 70%. Easy to do with a flipflop gate and a timer.

The idea here is that a reactor with more graphite gets more energy per fuel, and as far as I can tell there's no spinup/spindown inefficiency. So by overloading the reactor with graphite and flipping it on and off I should be able to get more power out per fuel.

I think.

At least this project will give me a reason to use the blast resistant blocks :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lethosos

RealKC

Popular Member
Dec 6, 2015
1,004
534
109
King of the Hill
One thing I keep meaning to try is running a "dangerous" reactor to see if I can squeeze more efficiency out of it. I'm thinking something like running it on a pulsing cycle where it runs for a few seconds while heat goes up to 70%, and then it shuts down for a while and then starts back up again when we're down to 0%. Or maybe timing it to just hover around 70%. Easy to do with a flipflop gate and a timer.

The idea here is that a reactor with more graphite gets more energy per fuel, and as far as I can tell there's no spinup/spindown inefficiency. So by overloading the reactor with graphite and flipping it on and off I should be able to get more power out per fuel.

I think.

At least this project will give me a reason to use the blast resistant blocks :)
Remember to first test in creative
 
  • Like
Reactions: Booker The Geek