So I figured out the exact formula for Fission Rate. It can be shortened to (75*turbine_output)/fuel_out. Which makes it 3 components in addition to the 2 used for the turbine_output. I could explain why and how it works if you're interested in that.
Of course. If you think it will help the viewers, go ahead and explain it. I can’t promise everyone at the Failroad will understand it but DrFreenote probably will. Haha.
The reactor produces energy based on the amount of heat it has. Temperature ranges from 0 to 10000 and the produced energy from 0 to your reactors maximum output. With a stable turbine speed (turbine_speed = (load*100)/reactor_max_output) 5000 temperature will always give you the maximum reactors output and 2500 temperature gives you 0.5*reactor_max_output. So needed_temperature = (5000*((load*100)/reactor_max_output))/100 or needed_temperature = (5000*turbine_speed)/100. To reach that temperature we need our fission rate. Temperature scales linearly off of the fission rate with temperature = fission_rate * 2*fuel. So with a single thorium rod (100 fuel or also called heat potential) an increase of fission rate by one will increase the temperature by 200. That would make fission_rate = needed_temperature/2*fuel or (5000*turbine_speed)/(100 * 2*fuel) or (50*turbine_speed)/2*fuel. The problem is it does so only after a certain point which I call minimum fission rate. Everything below that point nets 0 temperature while everything over it gets you the temperature described above (starting from 0). The minimum fission rate is calculated as min_fission_rate = 100/fuel * turbine_speed/100 * 50 which can be shortened to (50*turbine_speed)/fuel. Now add to that the one from above fission_rate = (50*turbine_speed)/fuel + (50*turbine_speed)/(2*fuel). It is essentially the minimum fission rate plus the fission rate needed to achieve your target temperature. It can be shortened once again to (75*turbine_speed)/fuel which is the thing you actually plug into the set_fissionrate of your reactor. That will give you the absolute minimum fission rate needed to generate your energy and therefore maximizing fuel efficiency. On a very short testing my thorium rod held about 50% longer compared to the inbuild automatic control. You may notice that the generator produces one less energy than your load, that has to do with the game rounding numbers but shouldn't have any impact on your devices. On a side note I could not get the reactor to catch fire, it can overheat for ~13 sec with 4 Volatile Fulgurium Rods and a load jump from 0% to 100% but it would need 20sec to start burning. And as a small disclaimer I got all the formula above by doing some tests, writing down the numbers and staring really hard at them but so far they work perfectly and I have no evidence that any of them could be wrong.
@@RemnantReader Very nice! I did understand some of that and I'm sure DrFreenote will get the whole thing. Glad you were able to improve upon our design.
So we get in the end: Turbine output = Load value / (0.01 * Reactor's max output) Fission rate = (Turbine output [another wire from divide component if I'm not mistaken] * 75) / fuel_out Did i get it right? 🤔
I've figured out overcharge protection! You can't regulate the reactor on a dime anymore, but batteries still work! Just redirect the power into the batteries to create a load whenever the power exceeds load with a bit of fluctuation protection.
I use a 5C controller, what you'll need are the following: - 2x memory components - 2x divider components - 1x multiply component (pmax is the reactor's max power, including upgrades/talents) Turbine output = load_value_out divided by pmax/100 (so for the humpback the pmax divided by 100 is 31) Fission Rate = turbine output*75 / fuel out pmax/100 = memory cell (1) 75 = memory cell (2) Wiring is basically in the order written load value out is gonna sit in signal_1 - memory cell(1) is gonna sit in signal_2 | divider(1) = hooks to set_turbine_output turbine output sits in signal_1 - memory cell(2) gonna sit in signal_2 | multiplier(1) multiply component sits in signal_1 - fuel_out sits in singal_2 | divider(2) = hooks to set_fissionrate // I'm terrible at writing instructions.
@@FailroadExpress I'm not sure how much more efficient this is in comparison to the automatic controller but I did a rough burn rate of a single uranium fuel rod at 2000 kW constant load and my 5C controller came to be around 20% ish more efficient. Some stuff I did do to suit my needs better; at the helm I've installed a lever which once it's pulled will OC the system by about 1.5 times the current load, the lever is basically hooked up to my mem cell (1) which holds the pmax/100 (the lower you go with this value the more output you'll have in relation to your load) So to achieve this, you need 2 additional relay cells, 1 multiply cell and another mem cell. mem cell(3) will hold the multiplying value which for 1.5 times of the load is 0.667 mem cell(1) goes into signal_1, mem cell(3) goes into signal_2 | multiplier(2) mem cell(1) goes to relay(1) multiplier(2) goes to relay(2) relays(1)(2) both get hooked to divider(1) Set the relay hooked to mem cell(1) to ON Set the relay hooked to multiplier(2) to OFF Set lever TOGGLE and STATE - OFF //1.5 times is a conservative amount, if you want 1.7 or 2.0 for the subs that can take it then 0.588 and 0.5 are your values - or just go wild with it :))
What I've learned post update is that most reactors can handle 4 fuel rods using built in auto controller. Gotta put all 4 rods in while the reactor is cold then turn it on. Im glad to see newer solutions but im convinced this is to complicated for most baro players.
@@FailroadExpress i noticed that with the bang-bang variant, now you must set it on manual, and flip it from cold and dont touch it, if you move the sliders it goes wonky a bit, but if you just leave it alone, it's a flatline just like it use to be
I know this is quite late, but one thing I realized about the "multiple rods in reactor" issue many people are scared of is the fact that the reactor will very slowly react to you putting in an extra fuel source and will keep fission at similar level due to automatic being so slow to decrease fusion/turbine. But if you put an extra rod, control the reactor manually for about 5-10 seconds until temperature is stable and switch to automatic, by then fission rate will be set to what it needs to be and reactor can control freely. This isnt an issue after reactor is stable with fuel rods due to both fission and turbine turning very slowly, so you are unlikely to have fission outdo turbine and create excess heat due to both being very slow to turn automatically. Fulgurium fuel might be an exception, dont use it unless you wanna risk or have a manual control system.
The popular "minimumest temperature" reactor controller uses *Fissionrate = 75 × Turbineoutput / Fuel* (usually with a simple override to 0 if overheating is detected). It creates no excess heat. This reactor controller uses *Fissionrate = Kt × 50 × (Turbineoutput + 50) / Fuel* with Kt going from 0 to 1.1 depending on temperature as a brake/booster. When reactor is at max power (Turbineoutput = 100) this *50 × (Turbineoutput + 50)* part becomes equal to *75 × Turbineoutput* (=7500), but at lower loads it linearly provides extra fission to keep temperature up - at 5,000° (at zero load it's equal to 2500 - which provides 5,000° reactor temperature). Making reactor stay at higher than necessary fission rate & temperature at low loads makes it better prepared for load spikes at expense of fuel. It also makes a temperature regulator based on a constant 5000 temperature simple. I don't know how optimal "50 × (T + 50)" is. For example, "60 × (T + 25)" will produce 3,000° temperature at no load. For pairs of these numbers you can just input into desmos: x(100 + y) = 7500 (ideal maximum) xy = 2500 (half target temperature) and for 2500 you'll get 50 and 50. But this way temperature controller needs more complex input instead of just a memory component with 5000 in it, or a completely different design altogether.
Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, it was difficult to get this controller as simple as possible while still working. What you suggest might very well work better. Appreciate the effort you put into it.
I noticed that "cold" reactors with that 0-75 (0° - 5,000°) line lose power completely for a few seconds when there's a power spike. And I have no idea (and curious) how much fuel they consume at temperatures below 3,000°, which is supposedly "ineffective mode". If I understood correctly how reactor heat works, for any proper *x(Trb + y)* the stable temperature of the reactor should be *2×(Turb(x-50) + xy)* And that's the temperature that the temperature regulator circuit should work with. E.g. with x=60 and y=25 (which should supposedly produce 3,000° at 0% load, 4,000° at 50% load, and 5,000° at 100% load) it's *20×Turb + 3000* - so one extra memory for 20, one multiplication, one addition, and 3000 instead of 5000 in the original memory component. This is where some testing is needed to find out if this works at all, whether it's worth the trouble, and which performs better. For science
"Making reactor stay at higher than necessary fission rate & temperature at low loads makes it better prepared for load spikes at expense of fuel." Finally an answer for why the FC I'm using blows in that regard. I'm using Ironic and Dead's FC but it always runs at critically low temps. That explains why it's always hissing and farting intermittently. I think I'm going to ditch that in favour of this.
I've made a guide around 1 year ago (after the update that killed the Bang Bang) based on this system. In fact the system you are describing is how reactors are coded in Barotrauma. The exact equation (Fissionrate = 50 × (Turbineoutput + 50) / Fuel) can be found inside the code of the game. However not in this state but solved for the temperature. What temperature you may ask. You see the "50" that is added to the TurbineOutput is not a random number but it is the Temperature divided by 100. I explain all that in the Steam guide. I do not use the coeffcient "Kt" that you added and instead I use a 3 component safety system to regulate the temperature below a certain point that the user can set but the Kt might be smart too. To be honest the system that you described is much better than the one in the video and that's why I made the guide alltogether. It uses only 9 components (6 without the safety mechanism) and it allows you to refulate the temperature at exactly 5000 degrees. At the same time you can yourself set ANY temperature by adding 1 more memory component and the reactor will immediately start operating at that temperature with 99.9% accuracy (+-1 degrees). The customization options is insane an the safety system that I added is just an effective a simple solution. The bare minimum system only needs 6 components, manual temperature control needs 7 while adding the safety system makes that 10 components. It's a shame that the 5 component reactor is taking over despite it being inferior in almost every way. It's only advantage is needing 1 less component. It always fails in power spikes (due to always maintaining low temperature) and you can't really customize it and add subsystems to it. It also straight up doesn't work in many custom reactors. This is actually the first I see someone other than me mention this system in YEARS. It was semi-popular before the bang-bang reactor and the PIDs eclipsed it (and for a good reason) but after they both died it now is (and I say that being as unbiased as I can be) the best Reactor Control System using Components. Lastly I disagree with you saying it needs a much more complex input. In fact as I already said it only requires 6 components or 7 if you want to set the temperature youself.
Obviously the balance was done to prevent easy cheese slapping 2 components on and being able to throw whatever rods you want in with no repercussion is OP now you still can automate it with incredible efficacy but now you actually HAVE to wire it with some complexity for such an effect. So imo its a fair change despite wire nuts hating having to wire a bunch more to make it work, but that's how I feel the more powerful the effect the more complex the wiring will have to be and if you like making subs nothing is stopping you from just building it into the sub to avoid doing that at the start.
i can't follow what's going on (and it nearly being 5 am is not helping) so all im hearing is "the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't"
... So I just came here fresh from blowing myself and my submarine up after trying the Bang Bang configuration, only to find out it was obsolete, now I get to make a multi sync beast of a circuit board. Yay!
In my testing, any number of fuel rods (and any type of fuel rod) should work with this controller, though with one uranium fuel rod you may be limiting your power output to about 80%. Two or more would be my suggestion.
2:29 suppose the ship has an engineer that chose the talent "Buzzin" wich increases the reactor max output by 10%, are there any other major modifications that need to be done besides adding 10% to the max output before dividing by 100?
i tuned my engine to an output of 7000, is the set value for the second memorie component still 50? or is that in relation to the 30 wich now is a 70 on my sub? same question about the 3 other memorie components in my example still 5000, 1000 and 1?
I’m not too sure one how all of this works, but is there any way to make the turbine output change faster? Our junction boxes keep getting fried whenever we make a drastic change in acceleration and from what we can see the turbine output is the problem.
I just started this game and to be honest I‘m kinda relieved that this trick is not the best solution anymore. Maybe that‘s beginner-talk but I hated the idea of electrical wiring doing my job. It‘s really cool that it‘s possible but it doesn‘t seem like it‘s the intended way to play 😅 I just wanted to find out how to operate the reactor without starting a fire and every single tutorial recommended using this trick instead of just explaining the damn mechanics
@@legioncresswell9592 I set up batteries to be always plugged into the grid, both output and input. Then adjust the charging rate inversely to load such that when the sub is using lots of power the battery charge rate is 0%, and when the sub isn't using much power the charge rate is 100%. It also helps to have slightly different charge rates for each battery, so they don't all finish charging at the same time This setup really helps to smooth out power demand, mostly eliminating overvoltage/undervoltage issues.
Never been amazing at Math nor do I understand logic gates that well, but I'm trying to gather enough knowledge to put together a custom Submarine which uses a bunch of different controllers for various tasks Doesn't help that it'll be my first try at a sub, but thank you for coming up with such neat guides, will definitely help and will definitely credit you once it's done
Wondering if this still works for winterhalter with a way bigger max output. Used this for Dugong and Humpback and it worked with no problem at all, but when it came to winterhalter, it just kept overheating and putting out way too much output
thanks for the video, bit of a tinker to get it working for me I had a wierd thing/bug (maybe 1.0 update thing or a problem between the chair and keyboard); the mem components setings were saved in sub editor, but once i loaded my sub with the auto reactor into the world (test and campaign) the values were blank. steam benchmark worked fine (that how i saw the values were missing) Edit : loaded thé world then went and added the values with my cacarcter in the world. Works like a dream
I play in a team of two, so I certainly can't stand there and operate the reactor manually. If the AI's are too dumb to do this, we ought to be able to make a controller that can handle it.
so has there been any update on a controller that might be better with the information provided in the comments? I am trying to set one up but just getting nowhere but confused.
Ok, but what is the difference? Isn't it will be just as slow as bing-bang (both for FR and TO), but with more steps that doing the same thing with more precise outputs that we don't need?
Do you actually need to use 4 fuel rods to make it work? It was working fine with 1 fuel rod for me, but still was lacking power whenever I was doing a lot of stuff. Any way to fix it?
Is this design still viable? I set it up on a sub with my friends, but it's burning out the electrical systems all over the place. I paid attention to warnings on the reactor and output, and I'm finding it's been running the system with high output almost all the time.
hello fren. i have a suggestion for future circuit guides if you ever consider it. i drew your circuit on a piece of paper, then i revised it for cleanliness and readability for a more final draft. consider providing a PDF or img in the description for reference! :). thank you for the vid, works better than auto controls so what more can i ask for?
Thanks for the suggestion. Dr. Freenote created a page on Steam about it and that link should be in the description. Though, it may not be exactly what you were looking for. Glad it worked for you as well!
Works great for me, put in 4 rods and nothing catches fire. However, it seems to me that the reactor is generating way too much power compared to what I'm using. Is that because of sub upgrades improving power output and efficiency? I see batteries fill up incredibly fast and then junction boxes getting damaged at alarming speeds, leading to continuous repairs
@@FailroadExpress Is the power output number and the line graph completely linear? For example, a workshop sub is producing 1000MW according to the graph, and the flat line is up 1/3 of the bar. Would the remaining 2/3 of the bar be about 2000MW?
@@Hit_by_a_Parked_Car Click on the link in the video description to head to the Steam page. You may be able to get your answer from the community or Dr. Freenote.
@@FailroadExpress I fixed it, I set a minimum to 3 instead of zero, on one of the division things, your video was helpful as it's easy enough to trace back mistakes
Not working. On 10000 power reactor it works fine when around 5000 power output. When the output goes up the temperature goes down to the point that reactor with 10000 load gives 5000 power max. Every 1kw of load is -1kw of output leading to moment where it goes all the way down to 0 when every system possible is draining power. If anything this system is good for auto-reactor-shutdown.
5 component reactor controller is better than this unnecessarily oversized design. Doesn't work faster than others. I analyzed your design. According to you the set_fissionrate = [(set_turbineoutput + 50)/(fuel_out/50)] * {1,1-[(temperature_out-5000)/1000]}. In fact it should be set_fissionrate = set_turbineoutput/(fuel_out/75). And if you want overheating protection (that even won't work, just like your temperature correction) you can multiply it by output 0 and negative output 1 from 'greater component' comparing the temperature with the value of around 6100 (that is the temperature at which your desing multiplies all by zero).
So I figured out the exact formula for Fission Rate. It can be shortened to (75*turbine_output)/fuel_out. Which makes it 3 components in addition to the 2 used for the turbine_output. I could explain why and how it works if you're interested in that.
Of course. If you think it will help the viewers, go ahead and explain it. I can’t promise everyone at the Failroad will understand it but DrFreenote probably will. Haha.
The reactor produces energy based on the amount of heat it has. Temperature ranges from 0 to 10000 and the produced energy from 0 to your reactors maximum output. With a stable turbine speed (turbine_speed = (load*100)/reactor_max_output) 5000 temperature will always give you the maximum reactors output and 2500 temperature gives you 0.5*reactor_max_output. So needed_temperature = (5000*((load*100)/reactor_max_output))/100
or needed_temperature = (5000*turbine_speed)/100.
To reach that temperature we need our fission rate. Temperature scales linearly off of the fission rate with temperature = fission_rate * 2*fuel. So with a single thorium rod (100 fuel or also called heat potential) an increase of fission rate by one will increase the temperature by 200. That would make fission_rate = needed_temperature/2*fuel or (5000*turbine_speed)/(100 * 2*fuel) or (50*turbine_speed)/2*fuel. The problem is it does so only after a certain point which I call minimum fission rate. Everything below that point nets 0 temperature while everything over it gets you the temperature described above (starting from 0). The minimum fission rate is calculated as min_fission_rate = 100/fuel * turbine_speed/100 * 50 which can be shortened to (50*turbine_speed)/fuel. Now add to that the one from above fission_rate = (50*turbine_speed)/fuel + (50*turbine_speed)/(2*fuel). It is essentially the minimum fission rate plus the fission rate needed to achieve your target temperature. It can be shortened once again to (75*turbine_speed)/fuel which is the thing you actually plug into the set_fissionrate of your reactor.
That will give you the absolute minimum fission rate needed to generate your energy and therefore maximizing fuel efficiency. On a very short testing my thorium rod held about 50% longer compared to the inbuild automatic control. You may notice that the generator produces one less energy than your load, that has to do with the game rounding numbers but shouldn't have any impact on your devices. On a side note I could not get the reactor to catch fire, it can overheat for ~13 sec with 4 Volatile Fulgurium Rods and a load jump from 0% to 100% but it would need 20sec to start burning. And as a small disclaimer I got all the formula above by doing some tests, writing down the numbers and staring really hard at them but so far they work perfectly and I have no evidence that any of them could be wrong.
@@RemnantReader *drools*
@@RemnantReader Very nice! I did understand some of that and I'm sure DrFreenote will get the whole thing. Glad you were able to improve upon our design.
So we get in the end:
Turbine output = Load value / (0.01 * Reactor's max output)
Fission rate = (Turbine output [another wire from divide component if I'm not mistaken] * 75) / fuel_out
Did i get it right? 🤔
Works like a charm, jammed 4 thorium rods in mine and it regulated just fine!
Awesome! It's almost as though it were ALIVE!
This video has shown me that I still don't have a single fucking clue about barotrauma.
I've figured out overcharge protection!
You can't regulate the reactor on a dime anymore, but batteries still work! Just redirect the power into the batteries to create a load whenever the power exceeds load with a bit of fluctuation protection.
Awesome! Thanks for the time.
I use a 5C controller, what you'll need are the following:
- 2x memory components
- 2x divider components
- 1x multiply component
(pmax is the reactor's max power, including upgrades/talents)
Turbine output = load_value_out divided by pmax/100 (so for the humpback the pmax divided by 100 is 31)
Fission Rate = turbine output*75 / fuel out
pmax/100 = memory cell (1)
75 = memory cell (2)
Wiring is basically in the order written
load value out is gonna sit in signal_1 - memory cell(1) is gonna sit in signal_2 | divider(1) = hooks to set_turbine_output
turbine output sits in signal_1 - memory cell(2) gonna sit in signal_2 | multiplier(1)
multiply component sits in signal_1 - fuel_out sits in singal_2 | divider(2) = hooks to set_fissionrate
// I'm terrible at writing instructions.
Wow. Just 5 components. We might have to try that out sometime. Thanks for sharing
@@FailroadExpress I'm not sure how much more efficient this is in comparison to the automatic controller but I did a rough burn rate of a single uranium fuel rod at 2000 kW constant load and my 5C controller came to be around 20% ish more efficient.
Some stuff I did do to suit my needs better; at the helm I've installed a lever which once it's pulled will OC the system by about 1.5 times the current load, the lever is basically hooked up to my mem cell (1) which holds the pmax/100 (the lower you go with this value the more output you'll have in relation to your load)
So to achieve this, you need 2 additional relay cells, 1 multiply cell and another mem cell.
mem cell(3) will hold the multiplying value which for 1.5 times of the load is 0.667
mem cell(1) goes into signal_1, mem cell(3) goes into signal_2 | multiplier(2)
mem cell(1) goes to relay(1)
multiplier(2) goes to relay(2)
relays(1)(2) both get hooked to divider(1)
Set the relay hooked to mem cell(1) to ON
Set the relay hooked to multiplier(2) to OFF
Set lever TOGGLE and STATE - OFF
//1.5 times is a conservative amount, if you want 1.7 or 2.0 for the subs that can take it then 0.588 and 0.5 are your values - or just go wild with it :))
@@Adamonus Very cool. Do you use that on multiplayer or single player?
@@FailroadExpress 99% of time I just play by myself so SP.
What I've learned post update is that most reactors can handle 4 fuel rods using built in auto controller. Gotta put all 4 rods in while the reactor is cold then turn it on. Im glad to see newer solutions but im convinced this is to complicated for most baro players.
I think you’re right. Though, I also think that’s what the devs wanted. Haha.
@@FailroadExpress i noticed that with the bang-bang variant, now you must set it on manual, and flip it from cold and dont touch it, if you move the sliders it goes wonky a bit, but if you just leave it alone, it's a flatline just like it use to be
@@chadmageddon Thanks for the info. We will have to try that out next time we get a chance.
I know this is quite late, but one thing I realized about the "multiple rods in reactor" issue many people are scared of is the fact that the reactor will very slowly react to you putting in an extra fuel source and will keep fission at similar level due to automatic being so slow to decrease fusion/turbine.
But if you put an extra rod, control the reactor manually for about 5-10 seconds until temperature is stable and switch to automatic, by then fission rate will be set to what it needs to be and reactor can control freely.
This isnt an issue after reactor is stable with fuel rods due to both fission and turbine turning very slowly, so you are unlikely to have fission outdo turbine and create excess heat due to both being very slow to turn automatically.
Fulgurium fuel might be an exception, dont use it unless you wanna risk or have a manual control system.
The popular "minimumest temperature" reactor controller uses *Fissionrate = 75 × Turbineoutput / Fuel* (usually with a simple override to 0 if overheating is detected). It creates no excess heat.
This reactor controller uses *Fissionrate = Kt × 50 × (Turbineoutput + 50) / Fuel* with Kt going from 0 to 1.1 depending on temperature as a brake/booster.
When reactor is at max power (Turbineoutput = 100) this *50 × (Turbineoutput + 50)* part becomes equal to *75 × Turbineoutput* (=7500), but at lower loads it linearly provides extra fission to keep temperature up - at 5,000° (at zero load it's equal to 2500 - which provides 5,000° reactor temperature).
Making reactor stay at higher than necessary fission rate & temperature at low loads makes it better prepared for load spikes at expense of fuel.
It also makes a temperature regulator based on a constant 5000 temperature simple.
I don't know how optimal "50 × (T + 50)" is. For example, "60 × (T + 25)" will produce 3,000° temperature at no load.
For pairs of these numbers you can just input into desmos:
x(100 + y) = 7500 (ideal maximum)
xy = 2500 (half target temperature)
and for 2500 you'll get 50 and 50.
But this way temperature controller needs more complex input instead of just a memory component with 5000 in it, or a completely different design altogether.
Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, it was difficult to get this controller as simple as possible while still working. What you suggest might very well work better. Appreciate the effort you put into it.
I noticed that "cold" reactors with that 0-75 (0° - 5,000°) line lose power completely for a few seconds when there's a power spike.
And I have no idea (and curious) how much fuel they consume at temperatures below 3,000°, which is supposedly "ineffective mode".
If I understood correctly how reactor heat works, for any proper *x(Trb + y)* the stable temperature of the reactor should be *2×(Turb(x-50) + xy)*
And that's the temperature that the temperature regulator circuit should work with.
E.g. with x=60 and y=25 (which should supposedly produce 3,000° at 0% load, 4,000° at 50% load, and 5,000° at 100% load) it's *20×Turb + 3000* - so one extra memory for 20, one multiplication, one addition, and 3000 instead of 5000 in the original memory component.
This is where some testing is needed to find out if this works at all, whether it's worth the trouble, and which performs better. For science
"Making reactor stay at higher than necessary fission rate & temperature at low loads makes it better prepared for load spikes at expense of fuel."
Finally an answer for why the FC I'm using blows in that regard. I'm using Ironic and Dead's FC but it always runs at critically low temps. That explains why it's always hissing and farting intermittently. I think I'm going to ditch that in favour of this.
@@surg23
Cold reactor economy mode can be toggleable with a switch too.
I've made a guide around 1 year ago (after the update that killed the Bang Bang) based on this system. In fact the system you are describing is how reactors are coded in Barotrauma. The exact equation (Fissionrate = 50 × (Turbineoutput + 50) / Fuel) can be found inside the code of the game. However not in this state but solved for the temperature. What temperature you may ask. You see the "50" that is added to the TurbineOutput is not a random number but it is the Temperature divided by 100. I explain all that in the Steam guide. I do not use the coeffcient "Kt" that you added and instead I use a 3 component safety system to regulate the temperature below a certain point that the user can set but the Kt might be smart too.
To be honest the system that you described is much better than the one in the video and that's why I made the guide alltogether. It uses only 9 components (6 without the safety mechanism) and it allows you to refulate the temperature at exactly 5000 degrees. At the same time you can yourself set ANY temperature by adding 1 more memory component and the reactor will immediately start operating at that temperature with 99.9% accuracy (+-1 degrees). The customization options is insane an the safety system that I added is just an effective a simple solution. The bare minimum system only needs 6 components, manual temperature control needs 7 while adding the safety system makes that 10 components.
It's a shame that the 5 component reactor is taking over despite it being inferior in almost every way. It's only advantage is needing 1 less component. It always fails in power spikes (due to always maintaining low temperature) and you can't really customize it and add subsystems to it. It also straight up doesn't work in many custom reactors.
This is actually the first I see someone other than me mention this system in YEARS. It was semi-popular before the bang-bang reactor and the PIDs eclipsed it (and for a good reason) but after they both died it now is (and I say that being as unbiased as I can be) the best Reactor Control System using Components.
Lastly I disagree with you saying it needs a much more complex input. In fact as I already said it only requires 6 components or 7 if you want to set the temperature youself.
Devs:
Shitting on intelligence and fun since making their game.
Obviously the balance was done to prevent easy cheese slapping 2 components on and being able to throw whatever rods you want in with no repercussion is OP now you still can automate it with incredible efficacy but now you actually HAVE to wire it with some complexity for such an effect. So imo its a fair change despite wire nuts hating having to wire a bunch more to make it work, but that's how I feel the more powerful the effect the more complex the wiring will have to be and if you like making subs nothing is stopping you from just building it into the sub to avoid doing that at the start.
Totally agree
Thanks for hearing us.
i can't follow what's going on (and it nearly being 5 am is not helping) so all im hearing is "the missile knows where it is because it knows where it isn't"
There’s a link in the description to a step by step guide. That may help. Get some rest.
holy crap
I aint never seen such a nerd.
I'm impressed.
subbed and +respect
Thanks! Glad our video helped.
... So I just came here fresh from blowing myself and my submarine up after trying the Bang Bang configuration, only to find out it was obsolete, now I get to make a multi sync beast of a circuit board. Yay!
Works amazingly on the humpback thank you
So, what is the best scenario for fuel rod load?
Should I keep my engine fully loaded at all times or one uranium rod will do the trick?
In my testing, any number of fuel rods (and any type of fuel rod) should work with this controller, though with one uranium fuel rod you may be limiting your power output to about 80%. Two or more would be my suggestion.
@@DrFreenote thank you
great stuff, thanks for the info. some certified magic here that im not going to poke too much into probably
Just diagnosed why my old control system caused full fiery Chernobyl... thanks for the updated controller man
Chernobyl bad. Glad we could help!
2:29 suppose the ship has an engineer that chose the talent "Buzzin" wich increases the reactor max output by 10%, are there any other major modifications that need to be done besides adding 10% to the max output before dividing by 100?
We haven't tried that yet. You may have to experiment with it and let us know what you find. Thank you for letting us know.
I did it and it still works, just add 10% then divide by 100.
@@ninjasamuraiul Awesome. This is great to know. Thank you for sharing!
Nice to know I haven’t the faintest idea what I’m doing
It’s alright. You pretty much need to be an electrical engineer to figure this stuff out. Or watch a bunch of tutorials and stuff.
wonderful also if you using iroh 6500 output works (65 on first memory)
Awesome tip. Thank you!
thanks for the design, look forward to trying this out with my friends
Hope you enjoy it. Not as simple as the old one but it should get the job done.
i tuned my engine to an output of 7000, is the set value for the second memorie component still 50? or is that in relation to the 30 wich now is a 70 on my sub?
same question about the 3 other memorie components in my example still 5000, 1000 and 1?
Keep all those numbers the same as in the video; 50, 5000, 1000, and 1. See if that works.
works great, put 52 instead of 30 bc of camel and guess it works with the output for everyship. Great video!
Awesome! Glad it's working for you. Thanks for the info.
I’m not too sure one how all of this works, but is there any way to make the turbine output change faster? Our junction boxes keep getting fried whenever we make a drastic change in acceleration and from what we can see the turbine output is the problem.
We are using the typhon2 and we did change the first memory
I’m not sure. A part of the update the devs made only allows the reactor performance to change so fast.
I just started this game and to be honest I‘m kinda relieved that this trick is not the best solution anymore. Maybe that‘s beginner-talk but I hated the idea of electrical wiring doing my job. It‘s really cool that it‘s possible but it doesn‘t seem like it‘s the intended way to play 😅
I just wanted to find out how to operate the reactor without starting a fire and every single tutorial recommended using this trick instead of just explaining the damn mechanics
Haha. Yeah. It becomes mundane after a while. Having to babysit the reactor can be a chore.
my brain broke
so on hoist the sails they tried to nerf auto reactors(glad they didnt succed), and now they killed assistant and some great perks
Haha. They certainly made it more complicated
I prefer using the default auto-reactor and using custom battery automation instead, seems easier to set up for multiple different subs.
can you elaborate on that?
@@legioncresswell9592
I set up batteries to be always plugged into the grid, both output and input.
Then adjust the charging rate inversely to load such that when the sub is using lots of power the battery charge rate is 0%, and when the sub isn't using much power the charge rate is 100%. It also helps to have slightly different charge rates for each battery, so they don't all finish charging at the same time
This setup really helps to smooth out power demand, mostly eliminating overvoltage/undervoltage issues.
Never been amazing at Math nor do I understand logic gates that well, but I'm trying to gather enough knowledge to put together a custom Submarine which uses a bunch of different controllers for various tasks
Doesn't help that it'll be my first try at a sub, but thank you for coming up with such neat guides, will definitely help and will definitely credit you once it's done
Glad we could help. Good luck building your first sub!
Wondering if this still works for winterhalter with a way bigger max output. Used this for Dugong and Humpback and it worked with no problem at all, but when it came to winterhalter, it just kept overheating and putting out way too much output
Hmm. I have no idea. We haven't used it on that model yet.
Your mind is amazing
What if you use the bang bang controllers with a signal repeater that just sends the signal more frequently?
thanks for the video, bit of a tinker to get it working for me
I had a wierd thing/bug (maybe 1.0 update thing or a problem between the chair and keyboard);
the mem components setings were saved in sub editor, but once i loaded my sub with the auto reactor into the world (test and campaign)
the values were blank.
steam benchmark worked fine (that how i saw the values were missing)
Edit : loaded thé world then went and added the values with my cacarcter in the world.
Works like a dream
Hey! Glad you were able to get it to work! thanks for the comment.
Thanks
Thank you a lot
I play in a team of two, so I certainly can't stand there and operate the reactor manually. If the AI's are too dumb to do this, we ought to be able to make a controller that can handle it.
so has there been any update on a controller that might be better with the information provided in the comments? I am trying to set one up but just getting nowhere but confused.
We haven't had time to create one.
It would not be working for me, it does the same as the automatic control. I don't know if it's because it's a custom ship or I did the wiring wrong
It may be because it's a custom ship. Other people have had the same issue with customs.
Thanks for your design!
Ok, but what is the difference? Isn't it will be just as slow as bing-bang (both for FR and TO), but with more steps that doing the same thing with more precise outputs that we don't need?
Had to be done. They changed the game in an update.
Hey, loved the intro lol. Just a heads up, the 'S' in your words are kinda harsh to hear. Might be something off with your mic setup.
Thanks for the comment. We'll check out his mic.
Do you actually need to use 4 fuel rods to make it work? It was working fine with 1 fuel rod for me, but still was lacking power whenever I was doing a lot of stuff. Any way to fix it?
You'll want to use 2 or more. 1 may not be enough.
Can someone list how many components is needed and which components they are? Thanks.
Thanks for the tutorial!
Could you make one more video with an upgraded version of this system?
We’ll see if Dr. Freenote has time. He may be working on something else.
Is this design still viable? I set it up on a sub with my friends, but it's burning out the electrical systems all over the place. I paid attention to warnings on the reactor and output, and I'm finding it's been running the system with high output almost all the time.
They’ve had many updates since this video, so it might not work anymore
@@FailroadExpress Crap, no worries, I'll fiddle with it some and look up other, more recent, guides in the meantime, thanks for the reply!
hello fren. i have a suggestion for future circuit guides if you ever consider it. i drew your circuit on a piece of paper, then i revised it for cleanliness and readability for a more final draft. consider providing a PDF or img in the description for reference! :). thank you for the vid, works better than auto controls so what more can i ask for?
Thanks for the suggestion. Dr. Freenote created a page on Steam about it and that link should be in the description. Though, it may not be exactly what you were looking for. Glad it worked for you as well!
Works great for me, put in 4 rods and nothing catches fire. However, it seems to me that the reactor is generating way too much power compared to what I'm using. Is that because of sub upgrades improving power output and efficiency? I see batteries fill up incredibly fast and then junction boxes getting damaged at alarming speeds, leading to continuous repairs
It could be. Another person had this issue and fixed it by altering the numbers. Their comment is on this video as well.
How can you find the maximum output of a Workshop sub?
I’m sure there’s a way but I don’t know how.
@@FailroadExpress Is the power output number and the line graph completely linear?
For example, a workshop sub is producing 1000MW according to the graph, and the flat line is up 1/3 of the bar. Would the remaining 2/3 of the bar be about 2000MW?
@@Hit_by_a_Parked_Car Click on the link in the video description to head to the Steam page. You may be able to get your answer from the community or Dr. Freenote.
The only way i know of is to check the reators output in the sub editor
Very good tutorial!
Lights my ship on fire :(
It's a custom ship
@@ardenfaust2527 Sorry to hear that. That's the opposite affect it's supposed to have.
@@FailroadExpress I fixed it, I set a minimum to 3 instead of zero, on one of the division things, your video was helpful as it's easy enough to trace back mistakes
@@ardenfaust2527 Great. Glad to hear you got it working!
Do i need to have the reactor in automatic control for this to work?
Check out the tester in the video description. You can run the test on that link and see. The link takes you to a steam page that Dr. Freenote set up.
Thanks a lot.
Not working. On 10000 power reactor it works fine when around 5000 power output. When the output goes up the temperature goes down to the point that reactor with 10000 load gives 5000 power max. Every 1kw of load is -1kw of output leading to moment where it goes all the way down to 0 when every system possible is draining power. If anything this system is good for auto-reactor-shutdown.
Should i use reactor controller for R-29 ?
sure, why not.
ok
Is this still effective in 1.0?
So Far, it appears to work. We haven't had anyone say otherwise.
doesn't really fix the problem though, my junction boxes get shredded to bits every time I need to break.
Sorry to hear that. There are some comments in this video that may help you. They have some slightly different math.
I'm currently revising the design regardless, I was hoping someone figured it out already but the results are mixed, either way it's fine.
CAN YOU PLEASE SLOW DOWN I ALMOST COMPLETLY GOT RID OF MY GAME
5 component reactor controller is better than this unnecessarily oversized design. Doesn't work faster than others.
I analyzed your design. According to you the set_fissionrate = [(set_turbineoutput + 50)/(fuel_out/50)] * {1,1-[(temperature_out-5000)/1000]}.
In fact it should be set_fissionrate = set_turbineoutput/(fuel_out/75). And if you want overheating protection (that even won't work, just like your temperature correction) you can multiply it by output 0 and negative output 1 from 'greater component' comparing the temperature with the value of around 6100 (that is the temperature at which your desing multiplies all by zero).
bang bang working just fine? started a new campaign and it's flawless
Glad it’s working for you. We honestly can’t explain why it still works for some but not others.
probably in the conversions you are trimming some values or decimals is my best guess