GT Fusion reactor, but more fun. Thats what I see. I will pass this on to a good friend of mine who once built 47 of Gregs fusion reactors for server power needs before a reset, most of the work for which was done in about a week. So yes, people out these will build many of these, my only request can you make a low render config, just something that turns off the moving parts of it all for lower end GPU. I love this and I just want to walk inside my base when multiples of these are rendered at once, because knowing myself and others these will be a main power source.
Would you build this?
- Thread starter Reika
- 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
I have a quick question. Does the design not allow you to place blocks in the center of the torus? When I built my base i built a large cylindrical room with a 3x3x33 column of project red lamps and i want to build this reactor in there when you release this. http://www.reddit.com/tb/1mep2v this is what i previously made with gregtech but yours looks so badass i need to to replace it.
Also. As an ameture chemist and physics fanatic, could you make a cloud chamber? I am building one in real life and it would be amazing to see it in minecraft.
As for the Fusion reactor and as some other people have mentioned, a particle accelerator would be a great way to sap some power from that. But lets keep it realistic. Particle accelerators are in no way going to be able to make any visible amount of a transmuted element. Antimatter is out of the question if you want to keep it realistic( i know it can be made, although not in usable amounts).I think it would be extremely fun to be able to smash elements together and form new elements though, and even have all the elements from the periodic table. Cyclotrons would be better suit for transmuting elements like technetium and others. Thank you for your fantastic mods. I hope that in the near future you allow us to expiriment with particle accelerators, cylcotrons, chemistry and others.
Also. As an ameture chemist and physics fanatic, could you make a cloud chamber? I am building one in real life and it would be amazing to see it in minecraft.
As for the Fusion reactor and as some other people have mentioned, a particle accelerator would be a great way to sap some power from that. But lets keep it realistic. Particle accelerators are in no way going to be able to make any visible amount of a transmuted element. Antimatter is out of the question if you want to keep it realistic( i know it can be made, although not in usable amounts).I think it would be extremely fun to be able to smash elements together and form new elements though, and even have all the elements from the periodic table. Cyclotrons would be better suit for transmuting elements like technetium and others. Thank you for your fantastic mods. I hope that in the near future you allow us to expiriment with particle accelerators, cylcotrons, chemistry and others.
As long as the blocks do not get in the way of the moving parts, the reactor will still operate. That said, the blocks will probably interfere and hurt efficiency.
What use would it have?
Movement is not the problem; it is no harder to render something at a 47-degree or 112.5-degree angle than it is to render it at zero. The problem is the sheer polygon count.
It cannot tell what direction you are looking at it from, so it would not know if you are looking in the open ends.
That is another problem.
You did not understand what I am trying to say here. Your turbine models are modelled after turbines missing their casing. If you remade your turbines to look like turbines that are actually in use:
Yes, but then the model is a big boring box that provides little information on things like turbine damage, spin rate, steam content, and so on.
In line with squirrel_killers post above, this would make a nice server community project. Setting one or two up to provide power to the entire server. I haven't played rotarycraft, but other than rf (since you used that as an example), is it capable of converting to other energy types, or would you need PC's powerconverters for that?
RotaryCraft has its own set of torque to (mod energy) and (mod energy) to torque converters. (Well, torque and speed). Covering Steam (railcraft), MJ (Buildcraft), EU (IC2) and RF (TE3) that I can see.
You could leave open one ring in the casing so you can see some of the blades moving.
Also, you can also see the blades from the front and back.
Main point is, the model will take less polygons, and will take less fps.
I thought you mentioned the fps taking a dive while looking at them.
Back to your idea, I like it.
It seems to use plasma, there seems to be a couple of mods around using plasma.
Perhaps it is interesting to think of a universal plasma framework? Like liquids?
example: I could try to create plasma with Atomic Science's fusion reactor and siffon it to your device and have some additional config file define the resulting effect.
ps: sorry if these html tags show up, the forum editor doesn't show on my browser.
Last edited:
I would be in favor of the lower impact models, because there's people who play on extremely bad computers for gaming, such as myself
At best I get about 40 fps on Resonant Rise, but I regularly get between 5-15 fps in my base, which doesn't really have any moving parts. Just machines with a little dynamic image on one of their faces..
So one of those would mean I would have between 0 and 1 fps by the sounds of what you were saying..
Would it be possible to have a "Boring" box model in the config at least?
At best I get about 40 fps on Resonant Rise, but I regularly get between 5-15 fps in my base, which doesn't really have any moving parts. Just machines with a little dynamic image on one of their faces..
So one of those would mean I would have between 0 and 1 fps by the sounds of what you were saying..
Would it be possible to have a "Boring" box model in the config at least?
No idea if the question has been asked, but how much player input would building this generator require? It certainly looks very cool, and I am sure producing a whole lot of power is very satisfying. But I can see building it getting somewhat boring if all I have to do is place 1500 blocks in exactly predetermined locations. If I can influence the effect based on how I build, that would be very interesting.
As for a power use, I feel automated resource generation is not very interesting and also probably redundant by the time you acquire this thing. How about large scale mining, autobuilding or terraforming?
As for a power use, I feel automated resource generation is not very interesting and also probably redundant by the time you acquire this thing. How about large scale mining, autobuilding or terraforming?
The only things that have only one allowable location are the magnets themselves. The rest of the rules are more general, like "the setup must have X" or "the reactor must be (ideally completely) surrounded by neutron absorbers".
Mining is already covered, at thousands of ore per second.
I am toying with autobuilding, but it will not require this kind of power.
That said, I can imagine some potential things that will.
My main concern is that ReactorCraft only adds reactors, not machines, and is not required for RotaryCraft. Therefore, if I add such extreme-power machines to RotaryCraft, they will only be usable with ReactorCraft installed, and this is a major problem.
You would be able to see all of them looking in lengthwise. Holes would be very noticeable.
The act of having a render at all is most of it; the actual polygon count (per turbine) is only about 400 (which may sound like a lot, but compare it with a spider which takes ~60). The main problem is that a special TESR fires every render tick; this is most of the load, even if the render code does nothing.
I have designed it not to, as I am concerned with issues of realism and balance. Given this reactor's extreme power requirement, I am likely to get blamed if, say, AS plasma is not as difficult as mine. As for realism, it would open up the possibility of, for example, magic bees producing it, something I most certainly do not want.
Because of the large turbine count, I am toying with the possibility of a "high performance turbine" that only works on the fusion reactor, thus necessitating fewer turbines and helping with the FPS.
The other main render load - the plasma entities in the ring - cannot be avoided; they too fire every render tick, and the only way to make that less intensive is to cut plasma density, which kills reactor efficiency.
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
Have to agree with the "GT fusion reactor but more interesting" sentiment. It seems like a big part of the reason some players like GregTech is for the fusion reactor, because after a certain amount of investment you end up with enough power to build an entire world from scratch with UU-matter. It's always seemed rather boring to me, though, because ultimately it's just a matter of quarrying out 500 chunks or building a setup that can produce large quantities of UU-matter -> iridium, then a few pretty trivial steps for fuel production and power generation and suddenly you're producing as much power as 200+ fission reactors. The whole setup isn't particularly big, and definitely not interesting to look at.
An idea for using at least some of the power would be to sort of steal the GT thing of inputting different materials into the reactor to produce a useful output (which, to be fair, was "stolen" from reality anyway) rather than presumably just deuterium+tritium=He4 or deuterium+deuterium=He3, perhaps mercury + a ton of power to make gold, or perhaps moving further away from reality some way to produce bedrock, obviously used in tons of Rotarycraft machines, from raw materials instead of grinding up actual bedrock. Of course, reading into the thread I see it's already been suggested, but I can't be bothered deleting this paragraph this far in.
Definitely intriguing, I wouldn't encourage abandoning the idea if only so there's another well-developed mod for uber power production that isn't GT, which a large portion of the community doesn't want to go near for reasons that needn't be stated. And it isn't boring to boot!
An idea for using at least some of the power would be to sort of steal the GT thing of inputting different materials into the reactor to produce a useful output (which, to be fair, was "stolen" from reality anyway) rather than presumably just deuterium+tritium=He4 or deuterium+deuterium=He3, perhaps mercury + a ton of power to make gold, or perhaps moving further away from reality some way to produce bedrock, obviously used in tons of Rotarycraft machines, from raw materials instead of grinding up actual bedrock. Of course, reading into the thread I see it's already been suggested, but I can't be bothered deleting this paragraph this far in.
Definitely intriguing, I wouldn't encourage abandoning the idea if only so there's another well-developed mod for uber power production that isn't GT, which a large portion of the community doesn't want to go near for reasons that needn't be stated. And it isn't boring to boot!
No, because I do everything realistically as possible. This includes machine power requirements.
?
Well, you can burn down anything flammable with loose plasma, and anything in the beam dies instantly. Aside from that, not much.
No, it is not.
Also, I have refrained from saying this until now, but here is my other two reasons not to want to turn off models:
One, things larger than a block are impossible to make work, as a block is, well, a block. So a turbine, for example, will not be a big structure but a thin line of 5 blocks. Similarly, the solenoid in the center will be one block, not the massive object it actually is. The only way to get around this is hacky involving lots of invisible and continuously-checking blocks or a fundamental redesign involving traditional multiblocks, something I am not willing to do.
Two, models are one of the three main "selling points" of Rotary/ReactorCraft that set them apart (the others being realism and "extreme endgame" potential). I see nothing good that can come of giving the ability to turn off one of the most-liked pieces of the mod.
As long as there's a guide for how to do it then I would totally use it! This is for reactorcraft right? I haven't been able to find any documentation on it so you should probably make a little guide for this thing as it looks complicated.