FBR burns slightly slow at power level 4

I ran into this problem when tinkering with the FBR complex blueprint.
The enricment process in the main 3x reactor at power level 4 was slightly slower than expected.
When all reactors are at full output, This caused the complex to lose fuel gradually, making it not stable, though numbers & calculations sugget it should.

At power level below 4 everything works fine
But at power level 4 there is a steady 19-month cycle in statics graph, with 4 missing outputs.

that is 300 FBR burn cycles in 1140 seconds, namely 3.8 seconds/cycle, not the calculated 3.75s/cycle.
I guess it is somewhat related to the alignment of logic frames.

unfortunately since theres no way to store the four fuel fluids in tanks, the only storage is pipes and each given building, does the behaviour change when upgrading every fuel pipe to tier 4?

oh, right, in my case im using two set to fuel breed and six for power, all at max power all the time, this was intentional so that theres an excess of fuel production for space products

hm, there does seem to be something a bit weird with the reactor speeds, both spent fuel and enriched fuel in all reactors

seems to be a flaw with recipe tick timing

yea it does indeed look like the fuel ticking is something like 1 tick slower for the reactors compared to enrichment and reprocessing, but this doesnt seem to create an issue on my end

How do you compensate for this discrepancy?

cc @fbrnor [discord]

I have never noticed this, In fact in my testing of my new FBR build that i tested for 150 years the system was positive. Although i had a diffrent design that had NR2's.

But it seems that other people are having similar issues

on these types of designs that should be stable

I was asking because i have a sandbox blueprint and the problem is very on the nose

This ran stable on the sandbox

but it seems like these types of builds with no NR2 are having issues

which it shouldn't have issues

B396:H4sIAAAAAAAAClWOTU/CQBCGt19g1ZaKidGbR+OB6M2TMSiVGiINED2atR1xQ9ltZqcH/oy/1XalBPe0z7zP7L6O5d0M7ga3P7btx8PZJUKJymG+40ZTFEsheTGSJGiT5LHXewYJyIsUhcJ6FnXCkUSRfa9B0pygdO3ueaInaik0iUwnsqzoSWj+WUDODi72omlF+5nl+ykqUrQp4bAfc01DBMgBZ8AzUsisI3+BXOovhWvv7JoxZrljZvvH/VSUUO/mVUZ6rirMIOhuOQy2l493TtA84oXMrL40q0HvtM2HBZcroLiCorHYg7Emxoqi1npUCDtlbJTXuvpJ9K+DkCsj3DO3FtJGMBwbnrV89ddkseOO4TfzZ2i6NpP6/AJ6BgWApAEAAA==

fbrnor [discord] wrote:

but it seems like these types of builds with no NR2 are having issues

For how many years do you test the BP? could you also share the 2 BPs?

The second picture without the NR2's was taken from the post as a example. And my one uptop i ran for 150 years

and there is the BP

Looks like the NR2 is picking up the slack

As soon as i introduce the fix the graphs go flat (instead of having spikes and slow slopes)

Ah right and they dont have it so it's slowly dying

Fix after the red line

I'll have test the uranium consumption at this point

what was the issue? some rounding error?

Discarded integer remainder