[discussion] lv transformer workaround

techmago · Oct 13th 2011

I know that everyone will hate me, but i cant agree in any way with that lv transformer workaround.
you should chose between MV, HV or Ev to transmit your energy, depending the distance and the current (the ammount of eus that should travel, so bottle hole should always be an issue), but what we get is a lv line transporting more than 128 eu with no problems.

Stop thinking the in easy way, think about the right way: this shouldn't be possible.

Alblaka · Oct 13th 2011

The issue is it would force people to plant up to 4x receivers behind each transfo.
4 Batboxs behind a LVtranfo? no problem.
4 MFE behind a MVTransfo? Hmm, kinda expensive for a basic MV-line
4 MFSU behind a HVTransfo? wtf

The current solution is fine, afaik, because it permits to plant a single storage unit right behind the transfo.
As well, please keep in mind this will still bottleneck the system if used uncautiously, as the storage unit limits the output of the line to what you suggested (and what the first implementation was).

Don't think we need much change here.

[discussion] lv transformer workaround

Share

Users Viewing This Thread