What's wrong with energy loss?

  • Sorry for my bad english.
    I'm using IC2 2.6.11-ex110.


    And still can't understand how energy loss is working. I don't care about it when using MV or HV on small distances. But I have problems when I want calculate distance, where energy loss really may cause problems.


    In description of cables you can see their loss per block:
    Tin/Copper cable - 0.20 EU/block;
    Gold cable - 0.40 EU/block;
    Iron cable - 0.80 EU/block.
    Are these numbers are correct?


    For example, I use 1 solar panel that have output: 1 EU/t.
    1/0.2 = 5 blocks.
    But when I try it (in creative mode), energy works on 10 blocks (less with every block) and on 11th energy dissapear.


    Ofcourse, I can remember, that 1 EU/t works on 10 blocks. But the question is: how can I calculate energy loss for big distances?


    P.S. Sorry for stupid question.
    P.P.S. Also have problems with iron fences (they don't work as ladders). Can you explain please?

  • Could you not just divide the length of the wire by the distance to lose 1 EU/t? For example, copper cable loses 1 EU/t every 5 blocks, so if you had 20 blocks of copper cable you'll do 20 divided by 5, which is 4, meaning that you lose 4 EU/t for energy going through that wire.


    As for Iron fences, the need to be placed on top of a powered magnetiser, and you need to be wearing metal boots (might not work with other mods' boots, so try iron and gold, if they don't work then it is bugged.)

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

  • Well its easy to calculate the EnergyLoss. You simply start with 0.1 From the beginning and add per wire the loss of it on top...
    Also the Values you say are partly only right... Because the Loss Values actually change between insulation. (Thats why i added in IC2 Classic a way to show the loss)
    And if the loss is higher then the energy thats getting sended then it stops.
    In the solar panel you are partly missinformed. Yes it produces 1EU per tick but it has a 2EU EnergyBuffer so you actually can go 2x the distance. But you get only half the time the energy because it needs 2 Ticks to generate 2EU
    (Note: In 1.9.4 in classic there will be a way to show the energy flow + Loss Information of each indiviual part + total loss at that position)

  • Thanks for answers!


    Actually I don't rightly asked my question. I understand how calculate total energy loss. But my calculations didn't matched with 0.2 EU/block. As Speiger said it because of solar panel's output - 2 EU/t.


    So now I can be sure that energy loss values in descriptions of cables are correct.


    Still have problem with iron fences, I think they're bugged...

  • As for Iron fences, the need to be placed on top of a powered magnetiser, and you need to be wearing metal boots (might not work with other mods' boots, so try iron and gold, if they don't work then it is bugged.)

    The iron fence tower goes next to a magnetiser, so that the side with the 2 white rectangles (which is where the fence should connect to but doesn't :|) is facing it.

    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.

  • The iron fence tower goes next to a magnetiser, so that the side with the 2 white rectangles (which is where the fence should connect to but doesn't :|) is facing it.


    Yeah thats true. But you have to know this change too:
    Magnetizer no longer charges the Blocks so you have to constantly power the Magnetizer so you can move up...
    (Before it was you charge the iron fences and then you were able to move up even if the Magnetizer was empty)

  • It works when iron fence tower on the side with 2 rectangles! (Thought it must be on top of magnetizer).


    Thanks for help!

  • Yeah thats true. But you have to know this change too:
    Magnetizer no longer charges the Blocks so you have to constantly power the Magnetizer so you can move up...
    (Before it was you charge the iron fences and then you were able to move up even if the Magnetizer was empty)

    It makes much more sense now, as the charge wouldn't just stay in the fences magically until someone walked into it.

    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.

  • Yeah it makes partly more sense... But the way it is solved is not really server friendly & you can no longer make charge based systems... (Like charging for a short time and then you can only go up once a ladder)
    (And the none serverfriendly system is because you make 4x more block checks per tick (times the player) and if a lot of players do that at once you can get a drag only from that (because its using the entity ticktime)

  • It checkt every 20 Ticks if the blocks are charged if not it recharges them. If the Magnetizer was empty it did not check at all.
    And comparing both to each other. When a people grab on to these things its first: Checking more blocks at once (simply 2-3 Blocks iterating through all Iron Fences + 4 Horizontal Coliding blocks each tick times the entities) The amount of lag thats added by the old way is yeah constant but does not get more then it is before... The other side gets a lot more then it was before...


    Simply: Yeah when nobody uses it at all then doing it the Exp way is better. But iron Fences are fences and when you use them for decoration its actually causes lag when player walks just nearby them....


    So yeah... I think the way you are doing is more laggy. Unless you prevent the placing of them unless they are connected to a magnetizer...
    But even then the impact change on the use is drasticly higher then the original thing...


    But ic2exp went only that route because they run out of blockstates because it would need 16 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 (256 BlockStates)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Speiger ().

  • Regarding the fact, that on a server, 99% of the time, a player is *not* using an iron fence, having it only check, when necessary (Experimental way) is better.
    When iron fences are used for decoration and a player colledes with the fence, it checks 6 blocks (assuming the fences are not stacked on top of each other), and that is less, than what you do with a single magnetizer.

  • The normal senario is that the Fences are stacked... So the more you use the laggier it will be and the curve with the Exp System goes way higher then the old way is ever going.... (Its still 5 * (2 or 3) times more checking)
    On Top of that you have the Magnetizer still ticking. Making every tick almost the same amount of lag as it would do with the fence checking... And since the original system was delayed the amount of lag is actually less then the the current... (Simply dissable ticks in the magnetizer of IC2 Exp and yes then it is true or decrease the trickrate to 1/20 and then it would less laggy. But else no its way laggier in that use...)
    Em yeah.... Makes so much snese...

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Speiger ().