1. Welcome to our bug report and feature request forum.
    • For game exploits, post in the Private Issues forum. Please provide details in your message.
    • For all other suggestions and reports:
      • Apply the appropriate prefix to your post
      • Please include every detail (such as how a mechanic works or how to reproduce a bug)
      • Remember that new features need to be balanced and fair.

[suggestion] Upgrade GregTech & remove overclocking energy penalty

Discussion in 'Suggest + Report Bugs + Get Help' started by glitch80, 10 May 2013.

Page 1 of 2
  1. glitch80

    glitch80 Active Member

    Joined:
    26 March 2012
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    232
    There has been quite a bit of talk about the server resources consumed by all the slow machines players must build for GregTech, and the large automations needed to support them.

    My suggestion would be to upgrade GregTech (so that all machines can be upgraded), and eliminate or reduce the overclocker energy penalty. That would allow players to run far fewer machines, and the reduction or lack of a penalty would remove any reason to spam machines.

    The IC2 modification is extremely simple. Line 202 of TileEntityElectricMachine.class sets energy consumption based on the number of overclockers used in a machine:

    Code:
    this.energyConsume = ((int)(this.defaultEnergyConsume * Math.pow(1.6D, overclockerUpgradeCount)));
     
    #1 glitch80, 10 May 2013
    shields42, Seweiwer, Shadow and 5 others like this.
  2. Smudgerox

    Smudgerox Active Member

    Joined:
    9 October 2012
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    77
    I like your idea a lot, however I think the problem with upgrading GregTech (and the reason it hasn't been upgraded) is the fusion reactor changes... What will happen to them? Will we be refunded the raw materials used to make it so we can put them back into the new one? Will they just give us the whole new setup in exchange? I think I should make a new thread about that. Sorry for going off topic.
     
    #2 Smudgerox, 10 May 2013
  3. buttonsinpjs

    buttonsinpjs Active Member

    Joined:
    22 January 2013
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    150
    Version 2.90f adds the upgrades.
    Version 2.90g adds the new fusion reactor.
     
    #3 buttonsinpjs, 10 May 2013
    gknova61, LordDrahcir, Shadow and 1 other person like this.
  4. Neonbeta

    Neonbeta Person who did stuff and things

    Joined:
    2 March 2012
    Messages:
    2.603
    Likes Received:
    757
    I'm pretty sure that's the reason why sk wasn't updating gregtech, because he thought that version adding the ability to upgrade machines was in the same version that added the new fusion rectors.
     
    #4 Neonbeta, 10 May 2013
  5. DSoS

    DSoS Member

    Joined:
    6 December 2012
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    18
    If I am understanding this correctly, Gregtech could use overclocker upgrades just like the IC2 machines (macerator, recycler, E. Furnace, etc.)?
     
    #5 DSoS, 10 May 2013
  6. xCromyx

    xCromyx Gamer With an Eye-patch

    Joined:
    15 October 2012
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    178
    Or SK could just make it so that overclockers give a 10% increase to both speed and power usage, and set an upper limit or go with the current cap of 32(Ithink).
     
    #6 xCromyx, 10 May 2013
  7. glitch80

    glitch80 Active Member

    Joined:
    26 March 2012
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    232
    Sounds about right. The idea is to cut back on the machine spam that lags the server. It would make things a bit cheaper to do, but with the reduction in the size of AE networks, the server would run much better.

    I did some math, and if I could upgrade my machines with the 10%/10% settings cromy suggested, I could remove more than 100 export buses. With similar results across the server, that would have a significant impact.
     
    #7 glitch80, 11 May 2013
    Roken, xXMadNessXx and buttonsinpjs like this.
  8. gknova61

    gknova61 Farbes Lover

    Joined:
    17 March 2012
    Messages:
    1.238
    Likes Received:
    350
    Imagine being able to supply a Fusion Reactor with only 2 Centrifuges and 1 Electrolyzer :O
     
    #8 gknova61, 13 May 2013
  9. NolanSyKinsley

    NolanSyKinsley IRC lurker

    Joined:
    2 November 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    179
    I fear the gregtech update, a lot of people's nuclear reactors will go boom.
     
    #9 NolanSyKinsley, 13 May 2013
  10. glitch80

    glitch80 Active Member

    Joined:
    26 March 2012
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    232
    Yeah, I don't think it will be that big a deal. A warning a bit before the update, and anyone using nuclear power can take precautions.
     
    #10 glitch80, 13 May 2013
  11. NolanSyKinsley

    NolanSyKinsley IRC lurker

    Joined:
    2 November 2012
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    179
    A lot (if not most) of people that use reactors do not understand the changes. Even over at the IC2 forums they are still scratching their heads a little wondering what the gregtech update did exactly. The online planner will not work for the gregtech update.

    The only way to find out if your reactor is truly safe if it uses thorium/plutonium is with a gregtech computer cube. Even then I cannot trust it 100%. It stops as soon as an item is either destroyed or a cell is depleted. It cannot calculate how long it can last if it is a MK II reactor, which can be dangerous. I am not sure it can handle stacks of items either, so I cannot trust it with my breeder design either as it requires a stack of some heat cells to maintain the temp.

    I am kinda excited for it though. Thorium now uses a multipulse system now, it sends out 2 pulses instead of 1. It may double the speed of my breeder!

    On another note, I do not believe reducing the energy cost of overclockers will increase server performance. Operations are operations, whether it is 50 operations spread across 10 machines or 1 machine, it is still the same stress on the server. It is the sheer number of operations that is the issue, making the operations happen on fewer machines will not help. The only thing it would help with is the power distribution calculations.

    The current limit with overclockers is the tick limit. A machine can only do one operation/conversion a tick, so 20/second. The only think keeping people running machines at this speed is the exponential power consumption. Making it so people can easily run machines at this limit seems to me a bad idea, possibly opening up the server to lag inducing exploits.
     
    #11 NolanSyKinsley, 13 May 2013
  12. xCromyx

    xCromyx Gamer With an Eye-patch

    Joined:
    15 October 2012
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    178
    Seems to me that calculating the processes of one block would be easier than 34 going at different times. Or is that thinking wrong?
     
    #12 xCromyx, 13 May 2013
  13. 0070071

    0070071 Too many arguments with Neon/Shad, or about GT.

    Joined:
    21 January 2012
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    14
    Well actually:
    So the lag from export buses would be reduced, which (coorect me if I'm wrong) play a major part in lag...
     
    #13 0070071, 13 May 2013
    Fluttermine likes this.
  14. Smudgerox

    Smudgerox Active Member

    Joined:
    9 October 2012
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    77
    I've been going over the changelogs to see what breaks/changes, and if we're gonna update, we need to go with either 2.90h or 2.90g because 2.90f adds the new fusion, but it doesn't actually function and breaks the old ones .-. (I think)

    I'm going to test 2.90h on the client right now, and see what happens. I'll probably be done ~10:30 AM PST
     
    #14 Smudgerox, 13 May 2013
  15. glitch80

    glitch80 Active Member

    Joined:
    26 March 2012
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    232
    Correct. While reducing the number of machines would perhaps have a nominal effect, the real impact would be to reduce the size of AE networks by several orders of magnitude.
     
    #15 glitch80, 13 May 2013
  16. Soraffe

    Soraffe Gealtach duine

    Joined:
    4 April 2013
    Messages:
    136
    Likes Received:
    25
    As long as reducing AE doesn't take a huge chunk away, I'm down with that idea.
     
    #16 Soraffe, 13 May 2013
  17. gknova61

    gknova61 Farbes Lover

    Joined:
    17 March 2012
    Messages:
    1.238
    Likes Received:
    350
    No, it doesn't break existing ones.
     
    #17 gknova61, 13 May 2013
  18. xXMadNessXx

    xXMadNessXx Beware of the MadNess

    Joined:
    28 January 2012
    Messages:
    1.219
    Likes Received:
    496
    Why not just add the new fusions? What speaks against them?
     
    #18 xXMadNessXx, 13 May 2013
  19. Neonbeta

    Neonbeta Person who did stuff and things

    Joined:
    2 March 2012
    Messages:
    2.603
    Likes Received:
    757
    Just don't ask. If you don't know what it's about, it doesn't concern you :p

    But seriously, don't ask, it's too painful.
     
    #19 Neonbeta, 13 May 2013
  20. glitch80

    glitch80 Active Member

    Joined:
    26 March 2012
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    232
    I'd be all for it. No pain, no gain Shadow. :p
     
    #20 glitch80, 13 May 2013
    Roken, xCromyx and xXMadNessXx like this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2