I've even spawned the block in on a server using that pack and tried to force a crash and couldn't. Oh well, there are other infinite water generators so it's not too big a problem.hmm, makes sense that a google search didn't show anything. wonder what it is. would be kinda hard to fix if nobody knew.
NuclearCraft - A Modern Physics Mod
- Thread starter turbodiesel4598
- 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
Hey there man! Of course you can - the mod is dedicated to the public domain now
That's great, its going to be front and center in my challenge pack. Who needs big reactors when you have a complete tech mod with high customizable reactors.Hey there man! Of course you can - the mod is dedicated to the public domain now
V
violet
Guest
i'm honestly not sure of any in that pack though??? there are a lot of really important mods that are missing due to not being updated for 1.12.2 or something. like enderIO! i miss that one so much after playing this for awhile lol
I've been using the aqueous accumulator from TE, although there may be other options available. I personally never really used EnderIO much as I felt it made some key aspects of modded MC such as logistics a little too easy - I've always liked a bit of a challenge using BC or TD, but hey, that's just me
V
violet
Guest
well i must admit, it's been interesting having to be a lot more creative around things after coming from sky factory and being used to having ex compressum, solar flux and mystic agriculture! those mods really made stuff very easy in comparison.I've been using the aqueous accumulator from TE, although there may be other options available. I personally never really used EnderIO much as I felt it made some key aspects of modded MC such as logistics a little too easy - I've always liked a bit of a challenge using BC or TD, but hey, that's just me
I can imagine. I've played modded MC since the Tekkit days and things have certainly got 'easier' as mods have become more powerful... my problem with clever mechanics and the ability for machines, pipes, etc. to do complex jobs is that I'm far more likely to find 'the best' way of doing something more quickly, because the workload is shifted from the player, and it seems to me that as soon as there is a 'best' way to do things, then the fun of trying to figure stuff out disappears. It's part of the reason I made the fission reactor rules so easy to change and also why I want to make the fusion reactor a bit trickier to use.
Last edited:
By the way, we just passed 1.5 million downloads, which is awesome!
If it's in your pack, I find the Magneticraft infinite water block hard to beat most of the time. It doesn't seem to be limited the way the Aqueous Accumulator is.
I haven't gotten around to trying the Nuclearcraft one yet.
I haven't gotten around to trying the Nuclearcraft one yet.
Just a question for you all - what do you think about a penalty for over-cooling? Say you have a design that produces 100 H/t from the fuel, but cools at a rate of 200 H/t (for an overall -100 H/t), should there be some sort of power reduction, or shall we keep things as they are? It would mean that people would have more of an incentive to build reactors specifically designed to cope with each particular fuel type.
I don't have any major concerns, but I wouldn't want to fully break designs that deliberately try to be unsafe+and+efficient (e.g. what I call pulse reactors, or other on/off types)
Oh, your pulse reactors wouldn't be effected - I wouldn't penalise those.
Less RF/t - the fuel time would be the same (so less RF per rod overall).
Also, how about variable ring thicknesses for fusion reactors? The design of the core would need to change, but in general, would that be cool?
Perhaps increased variations in the amount produced, instead of something static. Overcooling means the reactor is cooling down almost to the point where it's no longer able to sustain itself, before building up enough heat to keep running. Maybe 10RF/t for 10 points of over cooling? So Producing a few thousand isn't going to see much difference if you've got one over strength cooler installed, but if it's all over strength it could be falling down to half your desired output.
I was thinking that there should be a configurable amount of leeway, say, at most roughly 5% overcooling by default before seeing a penalty. It can then be a basic linear efficiency equation like Min[100, 100 - 100*(current - (1 + leeway)*required) / current], which would give an efficiency curve that looks like this.
Last edited:
That works, though I'd still like to see that random jump so you might get full power, and you might get the lower power, or somewhere in between. But that's just me liking the RNG in my things.
Ah, I see what you mean... maybe we can do something more complex, but I never want to stray away from the idea that players can calculate how much power they will generate without actually building the reactor.
I agree, it should be a calculatable min and max. So if I get max 3k RF/t, if I have over cooling it'll waver between 2.8 and 3. That should encourage additional type mixing to provide minimal over cooling.
Idea : Make different blocks behave differently depending on temperature. Some can be destroyed at lower temperature than other, or change into other block, or change behaviour. Especially fuel chambers can react differently depending on fuel. Such as giving more energy and head with higher temperature. And/or having bigger bonuses for adjacency.
Tylor, I thought these ideas were silly for a moment but I think I misunderstood it.
By "temperature" do you specifically mean "reactor temperature" ?
If so, the underlying concepts here are actually interesting, since maintaining a specific reactor temperature would require some clever redstone timing.