Make wire loss relative to packet size.

Currently there are five power levels:

0: - 1-3, tin wire.
1: 1-32, Copper wire (1x ins)
2: 128, Gold wire (2x ins)
3: 512, Glass/Diamond wire (3 rubber of ins)
4: 2048, ReIron - HV

Following the documentation on the wiki/forums the corresponding lossless distances; loss being determined /only/ by cable type and length.
0: 39
1: 4
2: 2
3: 19 or 39 (different values for each source)
4: 1

However in the real world when using a higher grade of cable losses only decrease for the same signal over the same run length. Thus I would think that this would be a more normalized result metric:
0: 1.25 @ 32eU * except this would burn/blow up first.
1: 4 @ <= 32eU
2: 8 @ <= 32eU
3: 128 @ <= 32eU ** This uses such a costly component in it's construction.
4: 64 @ <= 32eU

2: 2 @ 128eU
3: 64 @ 128eU ** This uses such a costly component in it's construction.
4: 16 @ 128eU

3: 19 @ 512eU ** This uses such a costly component in it's construction. (same as current value?)

4: 4 @ 512eU

4: 1 @ 2048eU

In other words, I think that the loss metric should be relative to a packet size, and that transferring a smaller packet should benefit proportionally to the change in packet size. (So transferring 32eU/t over 128eU/t rated cable would have 4x the blocks before loss distance; 1eU/t (solar panel as an example) would have 128x the loss distance)

Except that experimental data disproves that idea:

http://forum.industrial-craft.…page=Thread&threadID=2072

Quote from Hotbread

this would make the game run even slower, it takes a decently good CPU to run a small workspace without lag, because of the calculations of the EU per tick going thru wires and such, this idea would add yet another calculation for every single bit of wire.... just no, just, no.

What basis do you have for this? As far as I know I am suggesting the formula's complication be increased by a single additional multiply op. The packet's size should already be in L1 cache and the additional operation would be absolutely negligible in comparison to all the other factors. Plus the possibility of simplifying in game power distribution nodes could actually reduce the expensive parts of the operation by reducing the search tree for power draw/sink operations.