Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix rotary hearth furnace parallel not taking energy discount into account #2756

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: 1.20.1
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Gregor0410
Copy link

…n calculating max parallel

What

The rotary hearth furnace does not take into account the energy discount from the coils when calculating the max parallel, causing the rotary hearth furnace to have a lower parallel count than expected in some cases.

Implementation Details

Recipe modifiers ebfDiscount and ebfOverclockOnly were created, and ebfOverclock changed to use these. The recipe modifiers for rotary hearth furnace was changed to ebfDiscount, then parallel hatch, then ebfOverclockOnly

Outcome

The rotary hearth furnace appears to have the correct behaviour now, further testing may be necessary

@Gregor0410 Gregor0410 requested a review from a team as a code owner January 16, 2025 19:58
Copy link
Member

@Ghostipedia Ghostipedia left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

idk if this is the best choice.

I don't know if it's best not to unify this to EBF as well (vs leaving the old EBF overclock) but this is also a balancing concern, so I am unsure if we want to have this.

It comes down to if we want to allow substantially more parallels for RHF. And we're still undecided

@Ghostipedia Ghostipedia dismissed their stale review January 30, 2025 05:04

Balance Concern, Nothing inherently wrong, needs further discussion externally

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants