Config for the new E-Net

  • Hi everyone :D , I recently have seen that the new experimental E-Net with loss for 1.7.10 have been released and can be turned on in the configs :D , but I have a suggestion about the loss, when the loss of EU in cables will be completely implemented, can you add a config option for the loss per cable, so if I want to make the GlassFibre lossless, I can set the loss to 0 or if I want to make the HV cable very lossy, I can set it to 5, but don't forget to put the values by in a sidenote please. Make E-Net configurable :D Please

  • Hi everyone :D , I recently have seen that the new experimental E-Net with loss for 1.7.10 have been released and can be turned on in the configs :D , but I have a suggestion about the loss, when the loss of EU in cables will be completely implemented, can you add a config option for the loss per cable, so if I want to make the GlassFibre lossless, I can set the loss to 0 or if I want to make the HV cable very lossy, I can set it to 5, but don't forget to put the values by in a sidenote please. Make E-Net configurable :D Please

    this plus a option to turn off explosions of items or just cause them to not work (Ie bad power it just wont charge the internal ammount)

  • But that config option would be more for Debugging, like if you want to make an addon, or if you don't like boom boom :D

  • This:

    Code
    1. ; Use the new highly experimental current + voltage energy net model with energy loss.
    2. ; Only set this to true if you know what you are doing.
    3. useLinearTransferModel = false

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.

  • So i hooked up a 100 block run of cable for each type of cable..


    Right now explosions/meltdowns are not in...


    I xfered a from a MFSU to MFSU 1 energy crystal


    3 tests


    1 normal wire
    2 with Xformer transforming to 2048 in place of cable 50
    3 with a MFSU in place of cable 50





    Glass fiber
    1000000 998624
    99.8624%



    HV cable
    1000000 956827
    95.6827%



    Gold
    1000000 980455
    98.0455%



    copper
    1000000 991098
    99.1098%



    Tin
    1000000 990148
    99.0148%



    With a xformer in middle @ 50
    Glass fiber
    1000000 995926
    99.5926%



    HV cable
    1000000 891957
    89.1957%



    Gold
    1000000 956076
    95.6076%



    copper
    1000000 979581
    97.9581%



    Tin
    1000000 975246
    97.5246%



    With MFSU at middle 50
    Glass fiber
    1000000 998441
    99.8441%



    HV cable
    1000000 956675
    95.6675%



    Gold
    1000000 980389
    98.0389%



    copper
    1000000 991002
    99.1002%



    Tin
    1000000 990029
    99.0029%







    from what i can tell its worthless to run transformers or batteries to do anything to minimize the loss


    Some cables loose ALOT via a transformer strangely.. not sure why.


    IMHO a transformer or a new battery should reset the length and start over fresh...


    or am i missing something?

  • That seems like a very bad test mementh, especially due to the limitedness of the cables. You should have used 1 battery from batbox to batbox, all cables support LV

    Now you see me, now you don't...

  • That seems like a very bad test mementh, especially due to the limitedness of the cables. You should have used 1 battery from batbox to batbox, all cables support LV


    will try that.. and try to do a 100 and 200 cable run .. i was playing on my "normal" game that i enabled cheats to test.. will do it on my regualr test world tonight!

  • Also about that Transformer thing: it appears blocks have a small amount of loss when EU enters them. I had a Semfluid generator with biogas producing 13 EU/t(I changed that in the configs) and the MFSU directly adjacent to it was recieving 12.998 EU/t. Interesting, I like it :)

    Now you see me, now you don't...

  • I hesitated to tell you to run 200 cables and test the losses of 200 x cable Mementh, I first fought it was a bad idea :P

  • I hesitated to tell you to run 200 cables and test the losses of 200 x cable Mementh, I first fought it was a bad idea :P

    hmmm it will be on a creative world where it does not matter and i will do the same test..


    i would love to know each cables 99.9% leangth.. IE how far can you go and loose only .1% of the energy per cable.. its something i will test as well and to find out which is most efficient


    My belief is that there should be no loss when it goes INTO a block only in the cables.. and transformers or battery blocks should reset the loss situation

  • So i did a test..


    100 run of EACH cable.. and a Full battbox. then made that box go to another run of 100 to another box


    did this for a CESU, MFE and a MFSU each one was fully charged and i tested at 100 and 200


    https://docs.google.com/spread…3XFnwZ1k/edit?usp=sharing


    unless cables melt/pop it looks like copper is the best for MFSU's if you don't have glass fibre


    best would be glass fibre then copper then gold then HV then tin for all boxes..


    I noticed as well the class of box looses energy as well.. i am not sure why but i believe the precentage should have been across the board the same for the cable.. but a MFSU = less loss just by being a MFSU?
    I am half thinking voltage levels play a HUGE part in this.. and might re-do the experiment with transformers to see how that plays out. incoming and outgoing to the level the box should support
    I would not be surpised to see some loss but less if say the voltage is at 8k eu/t to see more loss at 2k/t and more at 512/t and so on..


    anyone else have ideas?

  • The transformer/strorage block resetting the cable length was a bug of the old system they are attempting to remove. You get more loss with the transformer because lower voltage => more loss, which is why you want to use higher voltages up to the max the cable can handle.

  • IRL transformers do have loss, so the fact you lose a bit of EU using them makes sense. I don't think it's anything to do with the voltage, simply they take some EU.

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.

  • IRL transformers do have loss, so the fact you lose a bit of EU using them makes sense. I don't think it's anything to do with the voltage, simply they take some EU.

    gonna test tonight with things :)


    see if amping up the voltage is worth the hassle of it

  • Woohoo, my first thread with a lot of discussion :D , and BTW, if an IC2 dev have seen this thread, can they please tell me if my suggestion is gonna be implemented :D

  • IRL transformers do have loss, so the fact you lose a bit of EU using them makes sense. I don't think it's anything to do with the voltage, simply they take some EU.


    What I was getting at was that with a transformer in the middle, half of the run is at the lower voltage, which has higher loss than the higher voltage half.