45-minute video +Yay, internet speeds!
Would you build this?
- Thread starter Reika
- Start date
-
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
You should be able to just install it manually. I have no idea when the next FTB updates are.
EDIT:
Just hotfixed v16b for DragonAPI and RotaryCraft to fix the fractionator.
Last edited:
Any chance we might see Rotarycraft Cogtrains? Even if not Railcraft linking compatible, being able to put a wound wind spring or charged magnetic thingy into a locomotive to go up slopes more efficiently than a dozen furnace carts, would be very nice. Perhaps with a more advanced/powerful one that could run off of an Industrial Coil?
This. So much this.
Documentary makes a mod for me and I really love the Rotarycraft handbook!
(Probably the absence of such a guide that is keeping me from reactorcraft. Really interested in the fusion reactor though!)
45-minute video += fun times. >_<
Forgive me for asking, I get that bandwith can be small, but how can your ping be so high nowadays?
It does sound like something for Railcraft, but it'd be nice to have in packs without Railcraft, like Horizons. I just think it'd be cool to have one I could use to haul goods up from a boring machine.
Also, I'd guess she's got sat internet, like I do.
Unless it's dial-up, which is still around, and gets slower every year.
Also, I'd guess she's got sat internet, like I do.
Unless it's dial-up, which is still around, and gets slower every year.
Last edited:
Actually, that was a fairly good score. I have seen it hit far worse (image below), even up to 70000ms+.
The reason is that I live in a neighborhood almost exclusively populated by people aged 70+, so most have no computers, let alone internet. And the ISP is not going to spend tens of millions of dollars rewiring a neighborhood (whose telecom hardware dates from the 60s at best) for a handful of customers.
Worse is that I do not live alone and am presently being harassed because everyone else's connection is nearly nonexistent.
I might push an update on Monday, but I'm concentrating the next few days on BnB since I'm so far behind on it.
Though I still need to find time to talk to Reika about an idea for meteorcraft.
This is why we can't have nice things. T_T
Well, if you think you can manipulate these guys...So awesome. I wish there was some way I could buy you better internet....
I have a question on turbine implementation. As I understand it, in real-world power systems, there's almost always a high pressure turbine and at least one low pressure turbine, occasionally with a medium-pressure turbine in between. High pressure steam, straight from the [boiler/reactor/etc], is typically piped into the high pressure turbine, which is actually rather small. The high pressure turbine is enclosed in a casing, which traps the steam run through the high pressure turbine and pipes it into the much larger low pressure turbine.
Here's a paper on one specific implementation at a power plant in Ohio, with lots of numbers that I don't claim to fully understand. In their implementation, they have one high-pressure, one intermediate pressure and four low pressure turbines in parallel.
I'd like to ask, is the one-size-fits-all (though seemingly low-pressure) turbine an intentional design decision for simplicity, or something of an oversight?
Assuming it isn't intentional, perhaps I could suggest a compromise between having dozens of low pressure turbines by adding a high and perhaps intermediate pressure turbine into the mix, which would generate power at varying levels of efficiency and maybe even safety.
For example, the most efficient (and safe?) possible setup could be to pipe steam first into a covered high pressure turbine, which would output steam then into a covered intermediate pressure turbine and finally into an uncovered, low-pressure turbine. This would take the greatest amount of space, operate at the greatest efficiency and not present any danger in the form of loose, hot steam to damage nearby entities.
A smaller and simpler but less-safe and efficient setup would involve one high pressure and one low pressure turbine. Steam is piped into a high-pressure turbine, with medium-pressure steam piped into a low-pressure turbine. The medium-pressure steam would run the low-pressure turbine, but would lose some amount of energy compared to the same steam being piped through a medium-pressure turbine first, and would present some amount of danger as hot, loose steam, though less than an uncovered high-pressure turbine.
Another example would be a setup that only involves uncovered high-pressure turbines, operating at lower-efficiency (because the steam, which still has energy, is just dissipated into the surrounding area), and with reasonably high levels of danger because there's lots of hot steam simply being vented into the area around the turbine.
You could also add a small explosion risk, like if you try running a low-quality flywheel too quickly. Piping HP steam into an LP turbine would just explode, and piping HP steam into a MP turbine might degrade it over time, eventually leading to failure. Perhaps covering a HP turbine without venting its MP-steam output would lead to pressure build-up over time, causing catastrophic failure of the casing and possibly damage to the turbine. The list of possibilities go on.
Perhaps the best argument against requiring a multi-stage setup for maximum steam efficiency is that you'd need at least three unique fluids - HP steam, MP steam and LP steam - to prevent just looping a generic steam fluid back into a HP turbine. I do believe, however, that having multiple stages of turbine, if implemented correctly, would add to realism, and offer a greater degree of customization, all while keeping the whole setup looking interesting. Since the last stage of steam processing will always be uncovered, there will always be at least one animated block per line of turbines, this could also function as the middle ground between boring, unanimated "power boxes", and an arguably over-animated and monotonous setup as pictured in the OP.
I see that I've written quite a bit up to this point, so if you've gotten this far without tl;dring, thank you.
---
One last thing, which perhaps might not belong here; I posted about a bug in ReactorCraft in the Monster bug thread here, which would effectively cause character corruption and bad things to happen. I see in the v16 changelog there's mention of a "server crash" fix related to radiation sickness - did you address what I posted about too, while you were at it?
Here's a paper on one specific implementation at a power plant in Ohio, with lots of numbers that I don't claim to fully understand. In their implementation, they have one high-pressure, one intermediate pressure and four low pressure turbines in parallel.
I'd like to ask, is the one-size-fits-all (though seemingly low-pressure) turbine an intentional design decision for simplicity, or something of an oversight?
Assuming it isn't intentional, perhaps I could suggest a compromise between having dozens of low pressure turbines by adding a high and perhaps intermediate pressure turbine into the mix, which would generate power at varying levels of efficiency and maybe even safety.
For example, the most efficient (and safe?) possible setup could be to pipe steam first into a covered high pressure turbine, which would output steam then into a covered intermediate pressure turbine and finally into an uncovered, low-pressure turbine. This would take the greatest amount of space, operate at the greatest efficiency and not present any danger in the form of loose, hot steam to damage nearby entities.
A smaller and simpler but less-safe and efficient setup would involve one high pressure and one low pressure turbine. Steam is piped into a high-pressure turbine, with medium-pressure steam piped into a low-pressure turbine. The medium-pressure steam would run the low-pressure turbine, but would lose some amount of energy compared to the same steam being piped through a medium-pressure turbine first, and would present some amount of danger as hot, loose steam, though less than an uncovered high-pressure turbine.
Another example would be a setup that only involves uncovered high-pressure turbines, operating at lower-efficiency (because the steam, which still has energy, is just dissipated into the surrounding area), and with reasonably high levels of danger because there's lots of hot steam simply being vented into the area around the turbine.
You could also add a small explosion risk, like if you try running a low-quality flywheel too quickly. Piping HP steam into an LP turbine would just explode, and piping HP steam into a MP turbine might degrade it over time, eventually leading to failure. Perhaps covering a HP turbine without venting its MP-steam output would lead to pressure build-up over time, causing catastrophic failure of the casing and possibly damage to the turbine. The list of possibilities go on.
Perhaps the best argument against requiring a multi-stage setup for maximum steam efficiency is that you'd need at least three unique fluids - HP steam, MP steam and LP steam - to prevent just looping a generic steam fluid back into a HP turbine. I do believe, however, that having multiple stages of turbine, if implemented correctly, would add to realism, and offer a greater degree of customization, all while keeping the whole setup looking interesting. Since the last stage of steam processing will always be uncovered, there will always be at least one animated block per line of turbines, this could also function as the middle ground between boring, unanimated "power boxes", and an arguably over-animated and monotonous setup as pictured in the OP.
I see that I've written quite a bit up to this point, so if you've gotten this far without tl;dring, thank you.
---
One last thing, which perhaps might not belong here; I posted about a bug in ReactorCraft in the Monster bug thread here, which would effectively cause character corruption and bad things to happen. I see in the v16 changelog there's mention of a "server crash" fix related to radiation sickness - did you address what I posted about too, while you were at it?
I like the idea, but worry about implementation. It means three new fluids, four new steam types (each with their own block IDs), and a total rewrite of turbine code.
It sounds like the same bug.[DOUBLEPOST=1392526264][/DOUBLEPOST]FINALLY. I apologize for the poor video quality, but it otherwise would have taken a week to upload.
No, this idea is actually from the rare "nice guy" moments I have.