Exploding Batbox

  • Hello,


    i testing the newest IC2 Version 2.0.133 and my Batbox Exploding at 3x8EU Solar Input.
    Is this a Bug or a annoying Feature ?


    Best Regards, Holy

  • I say that it is an WIP feature, which causes explosions when EU/t exceeds the previously maximum packet size.
    For example, 32 EU/t for the batbox.


    I'm curious how you are going to deal with transformers without packets.
    You need to have a second power value to really be able to set-up/down the power without loss or potential for abuse.

  • I'm quite certain transformers have internal capacity equivalent to the higher voltage packet size meaning there shouldn't be any losses.

  • I'm quite certain transformers have internal capacity equivalent to the higher voltage packet size meaning there shouldn't be any losses.


    power losses/gains
    pre-experimental build, they would adjust the EU/t and the packets. IE: HV-MV would be this, 1 packet @ 512 EU/t : 4 packets @ 128 EU/t.
    Now, without packets you'd only get out 128 EU/t, losing 384 EU/t
    do the reverse and you'll see a massive potential for power abuse combined with transformer upgrades on machines.
    RL power does something similar, V and Amps change with transformers, but the total Wattage must stay the same, provided the transformer isn't pulling off just a portion of the power.
    A power system with only one number doesn't work with transformers.

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

  • Thats the main flaw of current E-net system, it has only Voltage. Thats not good.
    Voltage, Amperage, Wattage and Resistance should be implemented in my opinion.


    Wattage : EU/t - Total EU per tick transferred, this is what the EU-Reader shows.
    Voltage : "Packet size"
    Amperage : "Amount of Packets"
    Resistance : "% of EU lost over distance"


    Cables should have three factors. :
    Voltage is determined by the smallest packet size of EU that is flowing through it.
    Amperage is determined by the Amount of packets that are flowing through.
    Resistance is determined by cable type, but it is also affected by voltage and amperage. Resistance is lowered if Voltage is increased and increased if Amperage is increased.
    If Resistance exceeds a limit (if more than X % of energy is being dissipated as heat), the cable overheats and melts.


    So, the more packets flowing in a cable, the bigger is the loss, so you can't stack infinite amounts of packets, otherwise you are going to lose more and more energy.
    Voltage increase is still useful to transfer energy with less losses however you have to deal with up-down transformers.
    Transformers would work similar to the way it did before the e-net overhaul.



    Example 1:
    2048 EU/t -> Energy Transfering wire -> Input machine
    would have 64 times less loss if compared to:
    64 packets of 32 EU/t -> Energy Transfering wire -> Input machine.


    Example2:
    32 EU/t -> 128 EU/4t -> 512 EU/16t -> 2048 EU/64t -> Energy transfering wire -> 512EU/16t -> 128 EU/4t -> 32 EU/t -> Input machine
    would have 64 times less energy loss if compared to :
    32 EU/t -> Energy Transfering wire -> Input machine


    I'm making a suggestion for this.


  • ok, so what is replacing the packets? that was the "amps" from pre-experimental era
    otherwise the transformer turns into a fancy voltage regulating diode and does not remain a transformer

  • ok, so what is replacing the packets? that was the "amps" from pre-experimental era
    otherwise the transformer turns into a fancy voltage regulating diode and does not remain a transformer

    When i asked him about packets and e-net system...

    packets are gone, yes


    the concept and implementation is highly unfinished though, ofc it will still be possible to transfer lots of energy. Using much higher voltage is probably the way to go there.

    I'm going to suggest a new implementation (refining of what i wrote above)

  • i hope he gets the parallel and series power additions correct
    right now it is parallel (packet increase) but the experimental build has it series right now

  • power losses/gains
    pre-experimental build, they would adjust the EU/t and the packets. IE: HV-MV would be this, 1 packet @ 512 EU/t : 4 packets @ 128 EU/t.
    Now, without packets you'd only get out 128 EU/t, losing 384 EU/t
    do the reverse and you'll see a massive potential for power abuse combined with transformer upgrades on machines.

    You haven't actually tried it out in-game, right?


    Guess what, I just did. Had a line of batbox -> LV transformer with RS -> CESU and putting a RE battery in batbox gave me a bit under 10k EU in the CESU (some EU was stuck in batbox and transformer)
    Same line the other way around also put a bit under 10k EU to batbox.


    In short, transformers work just fine in experimental.

  • You haven't actually tried it out in-game, right?


    Guess what, I just did. Had a line of batbox -> LV transformer with RS -> CESU and putting a RE battery in batbox gave me a bit under 10k EU in the CESU (some EU was stuck in batbox and transformer)
    Same line the other way around also put a bit under 10k EU to batbox.


    In short, transformers work just fine in experimental.


    so then, what replaced the packets? something had to to prevent any problems. Unless the transformer suddenly got an internal EU storage of infinite size to store and slowly release the EU

  • so then, what replaced the packets?

    Packets are still there I believe, you just can't have more than one per cable network. If you have more than one thing adding energy to a network their outputs are added together into a single packet now and that's why things go boom.

    Unless the transformer suddenly got an internal EU storage of infinite size to store and slowly release the EU

    Transformers have always had internal storage.

  • Packets are still there I believe, you just can't have more than one per cable network. If you have more than one thing adding energy to a network their outputs are added together into a single packet now and that's why things go boom.

    Transformers have always had internal storage.

    packets are gone, before you could have infinite packets going down the line, now power devices add to the EU/t instead of adding more packets.


    no, they've never had internal storage, they used the packets to adjust the power without power loss, they behaved exactly as I posted above.


    the current E-net setup is totally fubar'd and needs to be replaced with a completely thought out setup.

  • packets are gone, before you could have infinite packets going down the line, now power devices add to the EU/t instead of adding more packets.

    I know how it used to work and I'm not quite sure how it works today. I am quite certain, thoguh, that there are still some sort of packets moving in cables. They are just different than they used to be.

    no, they've never had internal storage, they used the packets to adjust the power without power loss, they behaved exactly as I posted above.

    They most definitely did have. E.g if I had a LV transformer pulling power from MFE and feeding into a furnace then the transformer pulled 128 EU from MFE, kept that 128 EU in internal storage and sent out small packets whenever furnace asked for them. When that 128 EU ran out it requested another 128 EU packet from MFE. Without internal storage in the transformer the older system would either had HUGE energy losses or there would have been way too many tiny packets moving in the line between MFE and transformer. As neither happened I feel quite safe when saying they did have internal capacity, generally equal to the higher input/output EU value (128 for LV transformer, 512 for MV etc)

    the current E-net setup is totally fubar'd and needs to be replaced with a completely thought out setup.

    It's WIP and FAR from finished. You can't really say it's needs to be rebuilt when it has many features missing still.

  • I know how it used to work and I'm not quite sure how it works today. I am quite certain, thoguh, that there are still some sort of packets moving in cables. They are just different than they used to be.

    They most definitely did have. E.g if I had a LV transformer pulling power from MFE and feeding into a furnace then the transformer pulled 128 EU from MFE, kept that 128 EU in internal storage and sent out small packets whenever furnace asked for them. When that 128 EU ran out it requested another 128 EU packet from MFE. Without internal storage in the transformer the older system would either had HUGE energy losses or there would have been way too many tiny packets moving in the line between MFE and transformer. As neither happened I feel quite safe when saying they did have internal capacity, generally equal to the higher input/output EU value (128 for LV transformer, 512 for MV etc)

    It's WIP and FAR from finished. You can't really say it's needs to be rebuilt when it has many features missing still.


    technically you still have one packet per tick, but you can't exceed it, now you just add to the EU/t which is like BC, but BC you can't blow stuff up nor is there a voltage level (BC is supposed to be pneumatic energy, but it does quite follow those rules)


    It used to be parallel power connections now it is all serial.


    That isn't an internal storage like an MFSU or batbox, the transformer is just maintaining a min packet size when stepping up. If the setup is one packet input it would output every 4 ticks for stepping up. For stepping down it would simply output 4 packets every tick. The old EU meter didn't read the number of packets per tick, just the average EU/t of all the packets going through, which is one reason it would get screwy readings if you gave it too short a sample time.


    I wouldn't have put out this 1/4 finished product for public testing just yet. I would have gotten much farther along. Doing it this way makes cross mod compatibility a nightmare.

  • I wouldn't have put out this 1/4 finished product for public testing just yet. I would have gotten much farther along. Doing it this way makes cross mod compatibility a nightmare.

    It's public knowledge it's experimental, unstable and can have broken things. No one forces you to use it. You can always use the older versions and accompanying other mods-addons.


    Though I wouldn't say the new system is entirely horrible even in it's current state. Sure, it's a bit inconvenient but works good enough for me at least :)

  • I actually think the last thing we need is a revamped power system. Its quiet some time ago since the last N00b asked about how Packets and stuffs work, and I think a new system would, well, cause the N00bs to play Zergrush. With the IC² Forum being that weird Psionic Emitter Thingy one needs to bring right into the enemy base.

  • My guess for why the noobs have disappeared is that people just moved to FTB and energy conduits as they are completely foolproof and trivial to use.


    Also, I'd prefer if mods weren't targeted to them and therefore cut potentially interesting features.

  • My guess for why the noobs have disappeared is that people just moved to FTB and energy conduits as they are completely foolproof and trivial to use.


    Also, I'd prefer if mods weren't targeted to them and therefore cut potentially interesting features.


    I actually liked the balanced way of IC² back in 1.2.5, but of course, I would, like everyone here, like anything better!