The Final Word on Steam Boiler Efficiency
- Thread starter Omicron
- 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
it THROTTLES the fuel so if you had had fuel and the milt throttles it by 4x then the faul will last a quarter of the time not produce 4x more power
Does that theoretically meant the fuel will give you 4 times the total power compared to no throttle at all?
you get an equal amount of power. the only difference is the speed that you get it. if a bucket of liquid force lasted for 100 ticks and produced 4 mj/t it produces 400 mj. with a throttle like milk (lets say its throttle is 4) the liquid force will last for 25 ticks and produce 16 mj/t. it will still produce 400 mj, it will just produce it in a much shorter timeframe.
Changed disclaimer to reflect the fact that Railcraft 8.3.0.0 renders this analysis outdated. Boilers got a complete rework.
The math has changed quite a bit, yes:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38558957/Minecraft/Railcraft/boiler_changes.txt
Perhaps the more impactful change is the impending solid fuel nerf, that is 50% across the board, save blaze rods, which got a slight buff, but are still not worth doing:
- CHANGE: Unified and standardized all Steam production code in all devices.
- CHANGE: Fuel adjustments: Blaze Rods 800->1000, Coal 3200->1600, Coke 6400->3200, Coke Block 57600->28800 (fixes Short overflow issues with furnaces).
- CHANGE: Reduce Coke Oven cook time: 3000 -> 1800
Last edited:
Erm, no. If all this was about was a fuel value change I wouldn't even have bothered with the disclaimer. You've missed the point entirely because you're examining the system from your existing frame of reference while not noticing the fact that the system has already left that frame behind.
The fuel change is secondary... in fact, to me personally, it's irrelevant. The important and interesting part is where the fuel consumption formula changed. I don't really care so much if coal is 1600 HU or 3200 HU, because we don't know what a "HU" is anymore, what it stands for. We don't know how long it will drive a boiler at hot or cold temperatures, and we don't know how much steam it generates. The value may end up similar to what it previously was, or it might be lower, or it might be higher, we'll see. Only when this old table is once again populated with new, valid figures, we can start comparing fuel values. Anything else is unscientific and the results will not represent reality.
And when we compare them, we also need to take into account the big picture, such as the fact that heatup costs as we know them are passé (ar at least vastly reduced). That's 12,000+ charcoal you do not have to spend on your 36 HP solid boiler anymore. Many millions of HU saved, regardless of whether it's the old or the new fuel values.
The new Railcraft version isn't yet on my server (it managed to come out the day after I spent six straight hours on a really big update). When it gets there, I'll start looking into things, on my own time. Besides, I'm expecting Forecaster is going to give us a new edition of his fantastic online calculator shortly, if he hasn't already. Considering how much more useful that is than a cobbled together spreadsheet, I'm inclined to defer to his work and give an independent confirmation rather than another full analysis.
I agree, Omicron. I should have included my 2x assumption was predicated that the heat-up math would result in the same heat values at max. temp. That could indeed be a bad assumption and RC 8.2 and prior heat values may indeed be different than 8.3 heat values at max. temp.
I personally care far more about max. temp fuel consumption than heat-up. I have no problems barreling extra start-up fuel.
I personally care far more about max. temp fuel consumption than heat-up. I have no problems barreling extra start-up fuel.
While I can appreciate (and be humbled by) Omicron's analysis, I remain unconvinced of the relevance of the topic in practice. Regardless of how the final numbers play out in 8.3, as long as a boiler can be fueled by a renewable resource (which can be created for a trivial cost), the highest output boiler will always be the most 'efficient.'
Put another way, this thread seems to be measuring efficiency as (Efficiency=Power/fuel), while in my opinion, the only practical concern is the cost of producing that fuel, or (Efficiency=Power/fuel cost). If, via Steve's carts for example (moment of silence for MFR), you can create infinite charcoal and/or biomass for a marginal start up cost and trivial upkeep, fuel cost approaches zero, making output the only real concern.
So yes, I'd say the size of the tree farm remains the only unanswered question.
Put another way, this thread seems to be measuring efficiency as (Efficiency=Power/fuel), while in my opinion, the only practical concern is the cost of producing that fuel, or (Efficiency=Power/fuel cost). If, via Steve's carts for example (moment of silence for MFR), you can create infinite charcoal and/or biomass for a marginal start up cost and trivial upkeep, fuel cost approaches zero, making output the only real concern.
So yes, I'd say the size of the tree farm remains the only unanswered question.
While you are correct from the standpoint of a modpack like Unleashed and the playstyle you prefer, that is not universally true. Just like a mod needs to be balanced against itself alone first and foremost, an analysis of a mod's game mechanics need to be done in the context of that mod alone, first and foremost. Everything else can later be built on top of that. You need to follow proper procedures and method when doing research or you won't get a representative, universal answer.
Railcraft on its own does not add an infinite fuel loop. If it did, then we likely wouldn't have such a large variety of boilers - we'd have one, because one size fits all and there is no need to differentiate between use cases or initial conditions. But instead, Railcraft chose to go with a large variety of boiler sizes running at different efficiencies because that is the way the mod is meant to be played. You are meant to make an educated decision about what to build. The extra depth in game mechanics is intentional, not accidental. In that context, an analysis like this makes sense (not to mention that figuring out things like this is a game in itself for me, which I do for fun).
And the beauty of the thing is that this analysis does not become wrong or superfluous when you do add other mods that remove some of Railcraft's complexity by adding infinite fuel loops. Whether you choose to render it irrelevant through your own actions or not, it remains a fixed description of the laws of the game world. Just like in the real world, where the formulas behind how gravity affects us don't become wrong or superfluous just because we managed to render it irrelevant through our actions (by building airplanes that let us defy gravity). Much to the contrary, if we didn't understand gravity, we couldn't have built airplanes. And if nobody had bothered to understand boilers, we'd be struggling to find the right sized tree farm for them. You'd be surprised how little of all the knowledge you now take for granted was available when boilers were added.
Back when I first started this (actually just about one year ago now, in december 2012), nobody had any clue what "heatup" even meant for a boiler. Nobody knew how long it took. Nobody knew how much fuel it took, nor at which rate it would consume it at specific temperatures (not even at 100%). Nobody even knew the fuel values for over half of the possible fuel options because only a literal handful were documented and even NEI Plugins had no data to show you. All of this stuff was only starting to be brought to light, slowly, through independent research.
I did not make this analysis for any specific playstyle. Not for mine, not for yours. I was doing fundamental research, not applied research. I did it because forum discussions on how to run boilers at the time were fairly similar to a bunch of ten year old boys discussing sex - comprised half of enthusiasm, half of hearsay and at best a smattering of factual basis, and it was driving me freaking nuts just reading it. And I also did it because nobody had done it before, because it was a white spot on the map, waiting to be explored. I did it for science.
Railcraft on its own does not add an infinite fuel loop. If it did, then we likely wouldn't have such a large variety of boilers - we'd have one, because one size fits all and there is no need to differentiate between use cases or initial conditions. But instead, Railcraft chose to go with a large variety of boiler sizes running at different efficiencies because that is the way the mod is meant to be played. You are meant to make an educated decision about what to build. The extra depth in game mechanics is intentional, not accidental. In that context, an analysis like this makes sense (not to mention that figuring out things like this is a game in itself for me, which I do for fun).
And the beauty of the thing is that this analysis does not become wrong or superfluous when you do add other mods that remove some of Railcraft's complexity by adding infinite fuel loops. Whether you choose to render it irrelevant through your own actions or not, it remains a fixed description of the laws of the game world. Just like in the real world, where the formulas behind how gravity affects us don't become wrong or superfluous just because we managed to render it irrelevant through our actions (by building airplanes that let us defy gravity). Much to the contrary, if we didn't understand gravity, we couldn't have built airplanes. And if nobody had bothered to understand boilers, we'd be struggling to find the right sized tree farm for them. You'd be surprised how little of all the knowledge you now take for granted was available when boilers were added.
Back when I first started this (actually just about one year ago now, in december 2012), nobody had any clue what "heatup" even meant for a boiler. Nobody knew how long it took. Nobody knew how much fuel it took, nor at which rate it would consume it at specific temperatures (not even at 100%). Nobody even knew the fuel values for over half of the possible fuel options because only a literal handful were documented and even NEI Plugins had no data to show you. All of this stuff was only starting to be brought to light, slowly, through independent research.
I did not make this analysis for any specific playstyle. Not for mine, not for yours. I was doing fundamental research, not applied research. I did it because forum discussions on how to run boilers at the time were fairly similar to a bunch of ten year old boys discussing sex - comprised half of enthusiasm, half of hearsay and at best a smattering of factual basis, and it was driving me freaking nuts just reading it. And I also did it because nobody had done it before, because it was a white spot on the map, waiting to be explored. I did it for science.
This is really nice for theoretical efficiency but I can see why a lot of people criticize its usefulness. It's really only the first step in calculating what's most practical in any given situation. Assuming an initial boiler setup where material used are a serious concern and desired use is more important you would have to look at a lot more factors. Best solution would require assigning values to the required materials similar to the EE2 EMC values. Determine how many engines need to be ran and on what time frame. For example, you only want to run 2 engines constantly, you will need either a 2x2 HP or 2x4 LP. To decide which is better you would have to add the value of all the mats for each, including burned fuel for smelting etc, then add the value of all fuel burned in heatup, then calculate value of fuel per hour and finally pick your minimum run time for the engines. Adding a tank for a steam buffer would change the equation all over again.
TLDR: this is good maths, great for any already highly advanced player to setup on a whim if they already have systems in place, but useless for practical use in a progressing play through.
TLDR: this is good maths, great for any already highly advanced player to setup on a whim if they already have systems in place, but useless for practical use in a progressing play through.
Correct. This is not a guide on how to play the game. It never was intended to be one, either.
It does tempt me to make up a small early boilers chart for those looking to get started with them though. Not entirely sure I want to invest that much time though. Would also be difficult to decide on a started tech base to assume, as every different ore processing block etc would change the entire equation again. Also would have to try and define fair values for material as the old EE2 EMC's aren't as valid with early access to charcoal farms and such these days. Might be a good project for after new years if i have time though...
EDIT: OK I did some quick number crunching to better show what I'm getting at. Just a quick building 2x2x1 HP boiler vs 2x2x2 LP, disregarding burners as both use same (they would have to be factored in when you get to needing a 3x3 base for LP.) Keeping in mind that i think some of the numbers need to be reevaluated with the ease of making charcoal farms now I did 2 calculation, one with EE2's value of 32 and another with 16(i think charcoal might even be worth less tbh). All smelting is assumed to be done in a standard furnace, stirling engines to run the rolling machine. Everything else is presumed to already be setup.
Charcoal - 32
Iron Bar - 96 + 32(n/8)
Steel Bar - 224 + 32(n/8)
Rolling machine 500 MJ per operation
charcoal = 1600MJ (stirling)
(500/1600)32 per 3 plate = 10
Iron plate = ((96*4)+32(4/8)+10)/3 = 136.667
Steel plate = ((224*4)+16+10)/3 = 307.333
LP tank = 2* 136.667 = 273.333
HP tank = 2*307.333 = 614.667
2x2x1HP VS 2x2x2 LP
HP= 4*614.667 = 2458.667
LP = 8*273.333 = 2186.664
Charcoal = 16
iron bar = 96+16(n/8)
Steel bar = 160+16(n/8)
Rolling machine operation
(500/1600)16 = 5
Iron plate = ((96*4)+8+5)/3 = 132.333
Steel plate = ((160*4)+13)/3 = 217.667
LP tank = 2*132.333 = 264.667
HP tank = 2*217.667 = 435.333
2x2x1HP VS 2x2x2LP
HP = 4*435.333 = 1741.333
LP = 8*264.667 = 2117.333
As you can see the biggest factor is the value you place on charcoal. Also keep in mine this is just the construction. Haven't even began to consider heatup then steam produced over a given time period. My initial estimates are that once taking them into consideration small LP will still be seen as better initially, though as you move up in power requirements and running time HP will overtake them(assuming the lower charcoal values, which I feel are more accurate).
EDIT: OK I did some quick number crunching to better show what I'm getting at. Just a quick building 2x2x1 HP boiler vs 2x2x2 LP, disregarding burners as both use same (they would have to be factored in when you get to needing a 3x3 base for LP.) Keeping in mind that i think some of the numbers need to be reevaluated with the ease of making charcoal farms now I did 2 calculation, one with EE2's value of 32 and another with 16(i think charcoal might even be worth less tbh). All smelting is assumed to be done in a standard furnace, stirling engines to run the rolling machine. Everything else is presumed to already be setup.
Charcoal - 32
Iron Bar - 96 + 32(n/8)
Steel Bar - 224 + 32(n/8)
Rolling machine 500 MJ per operation
charcoal = 1600MJ (stirling)
(500/1600)32 per 3 plate = 10
Iron plate = ((96*4)+32(4/8)+10)/3 = 136.667
Steel plate = ((224*4)+16+10)/3 = 307.333
LP tank = 2* 136.667 = 273.333
HP tank = 2*307.333 = 614.667
2x2x1HP VS 2x2x2 LP
HP= 4*614.667 = 2458.667
LP = 8*273.333 = 2186.664
Charcoal = 16
iron bar = 96+16(n/8)
Steel bar = 160+16(n/8)
Rolling machine operation
(500/1600)16 = 5
Iron plate = ((96*4)+8+5)/3 = 132.333
Steel plate = ((160*4)+13)/3 = 217.667
LP tank = 2*132.333 = 264.667
HP tank = 2*217.667 = 435.333
2x2x1HP VS 2x2x2LP
HP = 4*435.333 = 1741.333
LP = 8*264.667 = 2117.333
As you can see the biggest factor is the value you place on charcoal. Also keep in mine this is just the construction. Haven't even began to consider heatup then steam produced over a given time period. My initial estimates are that once taking them into consideration small LP will still be seen as better initially, though as you move up in power requirements and running time HP will overtake them(assuming the lower charcoal values, which I feel are more accurate).
Last edited:
It is known, however, that boilers now consume a constant rate of fuel, but produces a lower quantity of steam at lower boiler temperatures. In other words, as it is heating up, it will slowly be able to produce more and more steam, rather than consuming less and less fuel to produce the same amount of steam.Erm, no. If all this was about was a fuel value change I wouldn't even have bothered with the disclaimer. You've missed the point entirely because you're examining the system from your existing frame of reference while not noticing the fact that the system has already left that frame behind.
The fuel change is secondary... in fact, to me personally, it's irrelevant. The important and interesting part is where the fuel consumption formula changed. I don't really care so much if coal is 1600 HU or 3200 HU, because we don't know what a "HU" is anymore, what it stands for. We don't know how long it will drive a boiler at hot or cold temperatures, and we don't know how much steam it generates. The value may end up similar to what it previously was, or it might be lower, or it might be higher, we'll see. Only when this old table is once again populated with new, valid figures, we can start comparing fuel values. Anything else is unscientific and the results will not represent reality.
And it made liquid fueled boilers completely obsolete overnight. Which I am not particularly happy about.
In fact, this is really my biggest complaint about the new system... charcoal is now the only fuel worth bothering with. All your lovely poetry about having a plethora of fuels... is thrown right out the window. It now all boils (pun intended) down to 'how many tree farms to turn into charcoal to run my boiler'. Because it's the only renewable fuel which is even remotely viable anymore. It doesn't matter really what the efficiency numbers are anymore, if you are running a boiler, you are running it on charcoal, because it is currently the only fuel source that is renewable that doesn't come with a massive infrastructure requirement.
Just from what I have played around with, the heating up curve feels to be roughly the same (with the bypass on solid-fueled boilers possible to obviate it), with the amount of steam being driven being on the same scale that fuel consumption used to be (i.e. 1/8th the steam production to begin with, sliding up to full steam production at full heat). However, I do not have enough concrete data to be able to say so with any certainty.
Oh neat, I didn't even notice that @CovertJaguar added the actual boiler code to the text file with the info on the changes. That's awesome of him and will save everyone a whole lot of effort. (Though I admit that it might have been fun to do it by hand, at least for a little bit. I'm masochistic like that )
I might tinker with it the coming weekend, or else the christmas holidays, as I'm an amateur with code and need time and quiet to make sense of what I'm looking at. But at least at first glance it looks interesting. I am a fan of the idea of scaling by steam output as opposed to fuel usage, because that's just such a big usability improvement. As for the fuel values, I'm not too worried. A lot of things have config settings nowadays, and if something turns out to be useless I can still lobby for it later (and/or just buff it for my worlds). But honestly, I'm slowly starting to get tree breeding down to an art form - I can quintuple output for either biofuel or charcoal compared to apple oaks, with just 3 cycles, starting from scratch. I don't foresee myself having any issues with either liquid or solid.
I'm a bit more sceptical as far as Railcraft on its own is concerned. Coke ovens cook much faster now, so if there is a direct fuel nerf then that change can counterbalance it. But you still need to procure the input (coal or wood) at a faster rate, and Railcraft itself helps little with that. Depending on how the numbers pan out, this might be a concession to the predominantly multi-mod environment nowadays.
)I might tinker with it the coming weekend, or else the christmas holidays, as I'm an amateur with code and need time and quiet to make sense of what I'm looking at. But at least at first glance it looks interesting. I am a fan of the idea of scaling by steam output as opposed to fuel usage, because that's just such a big usability improvement. As for the fuel values, I'm not too worried. A lot of things have config settings nowadays, and if something turns out to be useless I can still lobby for it later (and/or just buff it for my worlds). But honestly, I'm slowly starting to get tree breeding down to an art form - I can quintuple output for either biofuel or charcoal compared to apple oaks, with just 3 cycles, starting from scratch. I don't foresee myself having any issues with either liquid or solid.
I'm a bit more sceptical as far as Railcraft on its own is concerned. Coke ovens cook much faster now, so if there is a direct fuel nerf then that change can counterbalance it. But you still need to procure the input (coal or wood) at a faster rate, and Railcraft itself helps little with that. Depending on how the numbers pan out, this might be a concession to the predominantly multi-mod environment nowadays.