[ReactorCraft] Fission Reactor Simulator!

[yuyuyzl]

Hey guys i'm just introducing my ReactorCraft Fission Simulator.

As a player, after days of waiting in the Superflat, i decided to write a simulator of it. And here it is.

Link: http://yuyuyzl.github.io/ReactorCraftSimulator/

Simple enough I think, choose one from the block list and place it in the "world" by clicking the cell on the left...
Nothing could go wrong except your reactor exploded XD but if you find something unusual or something that makes you uncomfortable, feel free to send a issue or just reply me here.

UPDATED 16/02/26 #2
Added ambient temperature, 30 by default.

UPDATED 16/02/26,
WOW! BREEDERS!
Well, there's something i have to say that the sodium heater will automatically transform its heat to steam, but keep in mind to have enough heat-exchanger in game!
...fixed the algorithm of heat to make sure it would work the same as the mod itself.
...add a plutonium counter, but will only calculate the efficiency by uranium/steam.
Test this: http://yuyuyzl.github.io/ReactorCra...8121835000000000508222805000000000500303005_1


UPDATED 16/02/24,
Feel free to drag some fuel rod and explode them in the table! AND, evaluate the power of your atomic bomb by seeing how many neutrons escaped!

UPDATE: 16/02/22,
Now you can share your atomic bombs to others! HOORAY!
Try this: http://yuyuyzl.github.io/ReactorCra...0202020200321212121230020202020000300000300_1
maybe it's a bit long...but works(

Thanks.

 

[Pterodactlol]

I like this, it is much faster to test designs. I would like to see simulators for breeders and pebble beds, if that wouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[yuyuyzl]

I like this, it is much faster to test designs. I would like to see simulators for breeders and pebble beds, if that wouldn't be too much to ask.

THX!
in fact i'm trying to understand pebble bed XD, reading code and something~

 

[yuyuyzl]

Have no idea about why i can't edit the post...
Todo:
1. add solid blocks and they should work as a neutron absorber.
2. a fuel counter, that's what i need too!
3. maybe more reactors like breeder and pebble bed

 

[yuyuyzl]

well easy things to do, just added 4 solid blocks as an absorber as the mod in game, and a fuel counter.

 

[RavynousHunter]

Wow, this is really nice. Only critiques I can think of is that the UI is a little bit less responsive than I'd like and a slider for height would be nice. Other than that, this is quite well-made.

 

[yuyuyzl]

Wow, this is really nice. Only critiques I can think of is that the UI is a little bit less responsive than I'd like and a slider for height would be nice. Other than that, this is quite well-made.

OH YES, that bothers me for a long time XD but i have not found any height-self-adjust divs or something like that...
maybe more google should work...

 

[RavynousHunter]

You could do like the BigReactors simulator and assume that the blocks placed are the same regardless of height, making height merely another variable in the calculation. Actually makes more sense in ReC, since layering happens more often and with greater uniformity. At least, in my experience.

 

[yuyuyzl]

You could do like the BigReactors simulator and assume that the blocks placed are the same regardless of height, making height merely another variable in the calculation. Actually makes more sense in ReC, since layering happens more often and with greater uniformity. At least, in my experience.

oh you mean that kind of height well i have not tried to stack my reactors lol maybe i need a test in the game (i usually make another one)

 

[RavynousHunter]

Mine are usually a 3x3x4 put above Y-128 to take advantage of some slight environmental cooling. Even in deserts, they're good with two rows of boilers, but they do run a little warm. Single one of those setups give you enough steam for an HP turbine with a little extra, its quite handy.

 

[yuyuyzl]

Mine are usually a 3x3x4 put above Y-128 to take advantage of some slight environmental cooling. Even in deserts, they're good with two rows of boilers, but they do run a little warm. Single one of those setups give you enough steam for an HP turbine with a little extra, its quite handy.

Well maybe you are using uranium? that's a lot more stable than plutonium but i feel it's a waste of the uranium ore...
i prefer a breeder with a cooler reactor and use plutonium to maximum the fuel efficiency,like this one:
http://yuyuyzl.github.io/ReactorCra...0202220200321211121230020222020000300000300_1

 

[RavynousHunter]

Ooh, I like that one, I'll have to mark it. Though, I've never really gotten the hang of exchanger-based reactors...I'm never sure exactly how many exchangers I really need, nor how many boilers they can operate.

 

[Pyure]

Somewhere in this forum I've designed a hybrid breeder/fwr and I'd love to know if the simulator would be able to handle it. Can't find the damn thing though :\

 

[yuyuyzl]

Somewhere in this forum I've designed a hybrid breeder/fwr and I'd love to know if the simulator would be able to handle it. Can't find the damn thing though :\

ummm... well i'm wondering how do you really hybrid it because, according to Reika's source code, neither fission neutron nor decay neutron can trigger the breeder reaction.
but still curious about the reactor you made lol, give me the link plz

 

[Pyure]

ummm... well i'm wondering how do you really hybrid it because, according to Reika's source code, neither fission neutron nor decay neutron can trigger the breeder reaction.
but still curious about the reactor you made lol, give me the link plz

I've been trying. It leverages residual heat of a breeder reactor to generate water steam. I don't remember the specifics.

I'll find it eventually

 

[Pyure]

Here we go.

Its probably out-dated by now. I don't recommend outright building one in your bedroom. The reflectors I know for sure aren't as potent now as they were back then.

 

[Reika]

I am ambivalent about this.

It does have a definite convenience, and can save time when testing long-term stability of a design.

However, it has five major issues:

• It takes almost all involvement out of the design process; aside from the actual placement of blocks (and even that may be removed too, see below), everything is automated for the player, even a (nebulous) "efficiency" value.
• If the BigReactors simulator is any indication - and that is for a mod that does not have the same difficulty or risk as ReactorCraft, at that - this will go viral and largely become a standard tool for the vast majority of players, perhaps - as with the BR simulator - to such a degree that most never even try designing without it.
• It makes "optimization" far easier. People - no doubt stuck in a mindset like seen in, again, BigReactors - endlessly ask for The Best Reactor Design. It is entirely possible that some optima exist in the implementation of the reactors, and this simulator will hugely expedite the process of finding them. This is doubly true if someone could write a script to make HTTP requests and simulate designs automatically. Combine that with a basic heuristic solver and you have a program that will calculate (one of) the best design(s) possible. Once something like that is found, it will spread and become the most-used. Just look at lisimba's HTGR "+" design. Even now, two years and dozens of versions (including several that break the design) later, it is still many people's default reactor and I still get bug reports about how it does not work. Or, again, BigReactors. I routinely see people posting builds that involve a BigReactor somewhere, and inevitably one of the top replies is always "why use that design, design Y from website X is so much better!".
  
• The "efficiency" value imparts a strong value statement on a given reactor; greater efficiencies are obviously, by definition, better. Yet ReC reactors are not designed to only serve one purpose. A reactor may be designed to maximize fuel life, or maximal tritium production, or lag-proofing. The kind of player most vulnerable to simply relying on this tool without understanding the meaning of the values is also the most likely to not realize that distinction.
• There are several cases where the output of this simulation do not map to what may happen ingame. The most obvious cases are version differences and/or quirks of the MC engine (eg chunkloading). And where the tool and the actual behavior will differ, I will get users reporting bugs to me using the tool, not the mod, as the baseline of what is to be expected. Again, "+" HTGR or even old youtube "set a magnetostatic to X" tutorials demonstrate this.

 

[Pyure]

I am ambivalent about this.

It does have a definite convenience, and can save time when testing long-term stability of a design.

However, it has five major issues:

1. It takes almost all involvement out of the design process; aside from the actual placement of blocks (and even that may be removed too, see below), everything is automated for the player, even a (nebulous) "efficiency" value.
2. If the BigReactors simulator is any indication - and that is for a mod that does not have the same difficulty or risk as ReactorCraft, at that - this will go viral and largely become a standard tool for the vast majority of players, perhaps - as with the BR simulator - to such a degree that most never even try designing without it.
3. It makes "optimization" far easier. People - no doubt stuck in a mindset like seen in, again, BigReactors - endlessly ask for The Best Reactor Design. It is entirely possible that some optima exist in the implementation of the reactors, and this simulator will hugely expedite the process of finding them. This is doubly true if someone could write a script to make HTTP requests and simulate designs automatically. Combine that with a basic heuristic solver and you have a program that will calculate (one of) the best design(s) possible. Once something like that is found, it will spread and become the most-used. Just look at lisimba's HTGR "+" design. Even now, two years and dozens of versions (including several that break the design) later, it is still many people's default reactor and I still get bug reports about how it does not work. Or, again, BigReactors. I routinely see people posting builds that involve a BigReactor somewhere, and inevitably one of the top replies is always "why use that design, design Y from website X is so much better!".
4. The "efficiency" value imparts a strong value statement on a given reactor; greater efficiencies are obviously, by definition, better. Yet ReC reactors are not designed to only serve one purpose. A reactor may be designed to maximize fuel life, or maximal tritium production, or lag-proofing. The kind of player most vulnerable to simply relying on this tool without understanding the meaning of the values is also the most likely to not realize that distinction.
5. There are several cases where the output of this simulation do not map to what may happen ingame. The most obvious cases are version differences and/or quirks of the MC engine (eg chunkloading). And where the tool and the actual behavior will differ, I will get users reporting bugs to me using the tool, not the mod, as the baseline of what is to be expected. Again, "+" HTGR or even old youtube "set a magnetostatic to X" tutorials demonstrate this.

Reika, I'm just devil's advocating a bit here as per tradition. Please do your utmost to respond in a positive manner if you choose to at all so we can keep the discussion civil I want to be clear that I agree with you in principal that there are problems and that this isn't a black-and-white-the-tool-is-perfect scenario.

1) Players are currently somewhat discouraged from testing/tinkering with designs due to the danger involved. The tool addresses this niche to a degree. A superior solution would be an in-game tool that does something similar. Test-worlds/creative are not the same thing.
2) Very much agree with the problem, although I'm not sure I agree on how big a problem it is. I'm very torn on using BigReactors simulator to design reactors, but the truth is that computer simulations for a reactor are pretty realistic.
3) I hate it when any game simply gets resolves to its mathematical components and min-maxed, so I can't disagree with this. That said, its a problem that exists independently of a tool. If enough people play the mod and generate designs with steam-per-fuel efficiency results, this will happen.
4) Not really a problem generated by the tool at all. Average players will already know this. The few who are misguided in this area are going to be misguided by just about everything anyway.
5) Two parts. First part is 100% true, that the results are going to be out of sync. The latter is primarily a notorious Reika-specific issue regarding complaints That said, its still reasonably valid and reasonably addressed with a disclaimer on the tool.

 

[Reika]

Reika, I'm just devil's advocating a bit here as per tradition. Please do your utmost to respond in a positive manner if you choose to at all so we can keep the discussion civil I want to be clear that I agree with you in principal that there are problems and that this isn't a black-and-white-the-tool-is-perfect scenario.

1) Players are currently somewhat discouraged from testing/tinkering with designs due to the danger involved. The tool addresses this niche to a degree. A superior solution would be an in-game tool that does something similar. Test-worlds/creative are not the same thing.
2) Very much agree with the problem, although I'm not sure I agree on how big a problem it is. I'm very torn on using BigReactors simulator to design reactors, but the truth is that computer simulations for a reactor are pretty realistic.
3) I hate it when any game simply gets resolves to its mathematical components and min-maxed, so I can't disagree with this. That said, its a problem that exists independently of a tool. If enough people play the mod and generate designs with steam-per-fuel efficiency results, this will happen.
4) Not really a problem generated by the tool at all. Average players will already know this. The few who are misguided in this area are going to be misguided by just about everything anyway.
5) Two parts. First part is 100% true, that the results are going to be out of sync. The latter is primarily a notorious Reika-specific issue regarding complaints That said, its still reasonably valid and reasonably addressed with a disclaimer on the tool.

#1: Yes, hence my agreement that this tool has some valid utility. However, abundant solutions exist for dealing with the danger, and on top of that I see this, if it becomes used as I suspect it will, essentially guaranteeing that no user ever sees a meltdown (from a bad design, at least) again.

#2: I consider it big enough that it is the defining feature of how "learning progression" goes over in this community, as it is always on the forefront of anything even glancingly related to design.

For #3: ReC's player base is not large enough that it could be realistically done manually. A tool like this greatly accelerates the process, and lends itself to automation as described.

#4 is severely worsened by the tool, as it lowers the entry threshold and gives those least deserving of it a false sense of confidence. To quote a comment on a "follow the leader" rock melter tutorial I broke in v11, "I will use this to make it look like I understand RotaryCraft".

#5b: Just like the disclaimer on lisimba's page?

 

[Pyure]

#1: Yes, hence my agreement that this tool has some valid utility. However, abundant solutions exist for dealing with the danger, and on top of that I see this, if it becomes used as I suspect it will, essentially guaranteeing that no user ever sees a meltdown (from a bad design, at least) again.

#2: I consider it big enough that it is the defining feature of how "learning progression" goes over in this community, as it is always on the forefront of anything even glancingly related to design.

For #3: ReC's player base is not large enough that it could be realistically done manually. A tool like this greatly accelerates the process, and lends itself to automation as described.

#4 is severely worsened by the tool, as it lowers the entry threshold and gives those least deserving of it a false sense of confidence. To quote a comment on a "follow the leader" rock melter tutorial I broke in v11, "I will use this to make it look like I understand RotaryCraft".

#5b: Just like the disclaimer on lisimba's page?

No major disagreements with anything here. Just different perspectives. I think I'm more optimistic than you are about the negative fallout in general.

I really don't think the heuristic optimization in (3) is going to happen at all, and the types of players who really enjoy your mods aren't going to take advantage of it anyway.

For #5b, that's a problem inherent in every complex mod ever. Sometimes information gets out of date and causes problems. I don't think that anyone believes the solution is to discourage tutorials, walkthroughs and discussions about mods, even though all of these can generate that problem.

A better comparison for sake of mind might be the Big Reactors github repo, which currently has 80 open and 430 closed issues, none of which seem to refer to the simulator.