Realistic Fusion Power Port


Adds a new way to make energy through nuclear fusion. A ported version of Romner_set's Realistic Fusion Power mod to Factorio 2.0

Content
15 days ago
2.0 - 2.1
1.93K
Power

b Port to 2.1?

a month ago

I don't know if anyone still supports this mod, but...
When attempting to load game with this mod, this error messages comes up:

Failed to load mods: RealisticFusionPowerPort/prototypes/entities.lua:62: attempt to index field 'horizontal_animation' (a nil value)
stack traceback:
RealisticFusionPowerPort/prototypes/entities.lua:62: in main chunk
[C]: in function 'require'
RealisticFusionPowerPort/data.lua:29: in main chunk

Too bad I am not a modder, otherwise I would post a fix.

a month ago

Yeah now that 2.1 is officially released, I'm in the process of porting it now, I'll probably be able to get it out this weekend, but it depends on how many issues I run into, I've already tackled several.

a month ago
(updated 15 days ago)

Ty for your time, and your response. I wish I could help, but lack of modding skills would end up me being one of your issues. 8-)

15 days ago

Okay, just posted the update. I had to make some minor changes so I think everything should be working correctly now, but let me know if something isn't, or if a building graphic isn't showing up.

14 days ago

Tx ! A very good mod which deserved to be ported to 2.0. As you said it s not the 2.0 version Ronner planned a long time ago, now, to do.

3 days ago

I've been building some of the initial "stages" of the RFP facilities (D-D, D-D + GS, D-D +GS 5%, etc.) and am encountering the same problem as when I first started using RFP two years ago: inability to figure out what mix of structures to make a workable fusion-type reactor site. This problem is what drove me to "shortcut" the entire process by simply doing all the research first and then building only the science pack maker, and then the anti-matter site. This is a shame, because skipping all the in-between steps sorta wastes all the time that had been put into creating the various fusion facilities.
The problem that I THINK I see is the power draw of the Plasma Heater. According to the tech, it initially needs 400MW which is a huge problem. Later tech levels are supposed to lower that need...but it's not. If you build an isolated D-D site and electrically separate the heater (I use Blueprint Sandbox for this) you find that the heater ALWAYS draws 400MW. This problem causes the power to bounce all over the place. This can be smoothed out somewhat by treating the D-D as if you were on Fulgora...build a few fields of accumulators. If you look at the D-D Heating Efficiency Tech and hover your mouse over the effect designated by the big red +, it says "Deuterium heating -75MW (for example). But according to the Electric Network Info window, that's not happening.

Anyways, the other stuff so far is working. No crashes or graphics glitches so far. Testing out the D-T stage and D-H3 stages are next.

2 days ago

Hi mmfac. When you say that later tech levels are supposed to lower the need of 400 MW, i remember (on version 1.0) i had to change the recipe each time i finished a bonus research.

2 days ago

I mean the upgrade was not automatic and so i had to change the recipe manually.

2 days ago

Yes. The upgrades are created by being newer/better recipes, which means the player has to check his structures as his tech advances. It's not the "standard" Factorio way of doing things where the tech bonus is applied in the background and shown in the Bonus window.

Also, it seems that the Plasma Heater power requirement...the one that is supposed to lower with tech...is also being done in a weird non-standard way. At least I hope so...
I think this tech bonus is actually a time element, in that the heater always draws 400MW during a cycle but does so for a shortened length of time. Which means the tech is not actually lowering the MW directly...it's lowering what real-life calls "MW-hrs". The heater still sucks in 400MW, but for a shorter length of time. That's my guess anyways.

a day ago

ok. I m agree with you.

New response