Except beacons are not affected by modules at all. This is why I said to include efficiency modules, because productivity is a given. Originally posted by PunCrathod:An unbeaconed unmoduled assembler takes almost 10MJ of power to make one rocket fuel. If you tile them you can bring down a whole row of their cost to a reasonable level. You say it's a wash, but it's literally a 1029 kW net per beacon. It's base energy consumption is 375 kW, so every beacon affecting it would reduce that consumption by 187.5 kW at a 16 kW cost. Rocket fuel with 4 productivity modules (any rank) in assembling machine 3 runs at half speed, so it takes 60 seconds to make. If it's affecting multiple assembers making rocket fuel, lets say 6 assemblers is reasonable per beacon, but I'm sure you can manage more if you're creative, this means that you can divide that 96 kW cost between 6 machines making it in effect a 16 kW cost. So it will give off -50% energy cost to nearby assemblers while itself will have a -80% energy cost. If you put the Mk III efficiency modules in the beacon they affect not only the assemblers, but the beacon itself does benefit from the efficiency module. You could possibly use the exploit on beacons where they are unpowered most of the time and only receive power during the tick where their effects are updated but I couldn't be bothered to do the math on that one. You can use beacons to bring the energy cost of the assembler down but then you just lose the energy on the beacons instead. So +8MJ but the assembler now takes about 70MJ to produce the rocket fuel. If you use 4 productivity modules then for every 132MJ(120MJ from solid+12MJ fromlightoil) you get 140MJ worth of rocket fuel. An unbeaconed unmoduled assembler takes almost 10MJ of power to make one rocket fuel. If you mean productivity, then yes, it would make rocket fuel come a bit closer (or surpass) the MJ cost of Rocket Fuel vs Solid Fuel. Originally posted by Warlord:Efficiency modules won't do anything for my numbers other than to reduce the power usage of the additional assemblers to make the Rocket Fuel. Efficiency modules tilt the equation in favor of rocket fuel. You're forgetting modules for the efficiency. But also in it being more dense than Solid Fuel (3x10 stacks of Rocket Fuel in a train is 3000 MJ, vs 50x3 stacks of Solid Fuel being 1800 MJ) and providing more acceleration in vehicles, so less fuel spent getting up to speed. Rocket Fuel makes up for it though, in being used in rockets of course. And this doesn't even count the 10 light oil that also is needed (another 12 MJ if turned into one more Solid Fuel), and the electricity used in the assembler to turn it into Rocket Fuel. 120 MJ of Solid Fuel (10x12 MJ) goes into a single Rocket Fuel (100 MJ). Interestingly, Rocket Fuel is less efficient than Solid Fuel when it comes to burning it. Since it takes 10 Solid Fuel to make 1 Rocket Fuel, that means you turn 100 Solid Fuel (2 stacks) to make 10 Rocket Fuel (1 stack). Solid Fuel can stack up to 50, and Rocket Fuel stacks up to 10. Originally posted by Warlord:Rocket Fuel stacks more than solid fuel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |