Glass Fibre Cable (overpriced!?!)

Quote from Fearless73

The IC2 Ex Team.

Firstly, thanks for a great mod that i've used from the very beginning.

Glass Fibre Cable used to cost a diamond per 8 pieces of GFC (if using silver as the added component). Now the recipe is 4 diamonds and 5 redstone to produce 9 energium dusts. then 2 energium dusts per piece of cable. That works out to be 9 pieces of GFC per 8 diamonds, or just under a diamond per piece)).

Now with the new kinetic Wind Gens that we have (that should be placed reasonably high up), GFC is really the only option to minamize EU loss.

Anyhow, someone maybe would like to look into a re-balance of GFC cost. 8 pieces per diamond is reasonable, I think! But, I'll leave it to you to decide.

Thanks for reading and all the work. Have a good one.

Phill.

Display More

Cable loss, when reimplemented, will function differently from what it used to in classic IC2. Better cables will have higher resistance IIRC. Cable loss should be in decimals per block now, not 1 per x blocks. Use the appropriate wire and don't jump straight to GFC.

You aren't meant to have lossless energy transfer anyway. If you really want to do that, maybe try hopper and minecarts with batteries/crystals.

better cables have HIGHER resistances? Where is the logic in that?
we are making some cables out of "expensive" materials and as such, they should have LOWER resistances than the others. even if IRL they aren't the same
the only reason they use aluminum cables IRL is they are lighter and cheaper than copper cables, not that they can handle higher loads.
heck, the only reason they use gold in high end components is for its resistance to rusting, not its resistivity, it is actually higher than copper. 22.14 nΩ·m gold vs 16.78 nΩ·m copper. 28.2 nΩ·m aluminum. 96.1 nΩ·m iron. 15.87 nΩ·m for silver which is actually the best outside of graphene (10 nΩ·m) or a super conductor. Diamond technically is in the insulator range and not a conductor at all (1 TΩ·m), though some colored diamonds act like semi-conductors....go figure.

what's not true?
and my post wasn't directed at you.

Quote from Fearless73

Just so that what I'm saying is clear. I do not have any problem with the efficiency degradation of cables within the game.
I am only pointing out that one single cable is costing almost 1 diamond. Where as previously the use of a diamond in a recipe would yeald 6/8 pieces of Fiber cable.
I know there are some smart people here with all the equasions and so-forth. I appreciate this.

My only point is about game balance and the cost of material to make the cable.

Thanks to those that replied. (p.s.. no problem Kye))

You need it for QEV/IV energy (max 8192) transference only I think, you can just use four parallel HV cables (max 2048) transferring EV for that, there is absolutely no reason to use Glass Fibre unless they decided to buff its resistance significantly.

Quote from Fearless73

U just don't get it LuL. Go lul somewhere-else and stop commenting on this thread plz.

Ad hominem is not going to get you anywhere here.

See here, glass fibre cable is not meant for casual use (logically, it shouldn't even conduct electricity). There are far better alternatives, both economically and in actuality. It is pretty much intended that glass fibre is expensive to prevent people from abusing its usage like back in classic IC2. Well I do agree they may be slightly overdoing it (maybe 0.75 - 0.85 diamonds/cable would be a better compromise) but glass fibre cable is not something cheap you're meant to have after 20 minutes of playing.

Edit 2: Seriously, diamonds aren't that hard to get. Get a Fortune pickaxe (even easier in 1.8). A Fortune II pick and a medium-sized diamond ore vein (about 4 diamond ores) can net you about 7 diamonds on average. Sure, you need some bookshelves and enchanting tables, but that's late midgame vanilla, and about early midgame in IC2. Not that tall of a technological barrier.

Edit 1: So I see you're ignoring me. That's fine. I'm not going to get angry from any internet arguments. Denial isn't going to get you anywhere either.

I too have no problem with the current cable setup...minus the voltage max on copper, but that's another issue, and the cost of the glass fibre cables as well. the recipe is fine except the output. it needs to be increased.

Quote from Kye_Duo

I too have no problem with the current cable setup...minus the voltage max on copper, but that's another issue, and the cost of the glass fibre cables as well. the recipe is fine except the output. it needs to be increased.

as i understand and have picked up.. glass fiber's MAIN benifit was less loss over distance! period! HV cable carried more but lost alot quickly!

What i understand is All cables will loose some over distance HV Gold Copper Tin! its that the higher costing will have less resistance ( i belive he messed up on that since it makes no sense to have higher cost offer lower reward) so over a 40 block strech you might loose say 20-30 eu/tick for HV. 45-55 for Gold 70-90 for copper and 100-150 for tin.

Also as i have picked up its no longer packet based, IE you can't send a million packets of 5 and not overload anymore. Total traffic will be a consideration along with the resistance?

i feel its a good solution, and able to be worked around.

Quote from mementh

as i understand and have picked up.. glass fiber's MAIN benifit was less loss over distance! period! HV cable carried more but lost alot quickly!

What i understand is All cables will loose some over distance HV Gold Copper Tin! its that the higher costing will have less resistance ( i belive he messed up on that since it makes no sense to have higher cost offer lower reward) so over a 40 block strech you might loose say 20-30 eu/tick for HV. 45-55 for Gold 70-90 for copper and 100-150 for tin.

Also as i have picked up its no longer packet based, IE you can't send a million packets of 5 and not overload anymore. Total traffic will be a consideration along with the resistance?

i feel its a good solution, and able to be worked around.

Display More

No, it's going to change.

"Voltage" (i.e. packets) will come back. Resistance will be variable depending on the amount that is passing through the wire OR the maximum "voltage" tolerance of the wire I believe (not entirely sure on that).

Proof (albeit somewhat outdated, from November):

Quote from Player

As I stated multiple times already the energy net is nowhere near its final state and voltage isn't implemented yet. The simulation does already use the correct algorithms, but the voltage values are being ignored atm.

Machines still explode by receiving too much energy at once, but right now current == energy and currents sum up. Later on the voltage will make machines explode and higher currents just mean more throughput at the cost of higher conduction losses.

when they do add the losses back in, it better be on the current side.
IRL what they do to overcome the losses in long distance power transmission is to jack the voltage way up to lower the current.
I wouldn't mind having to step up the voltage to prevent power loss, provided I don't have to do it just for going 40 blocks.