IC2 Expermental Feature Discussion

... is it just me, or is the metal former really, really slow? I went to make some reinforced glass last night, and saw, "OK, mixed alloy ingots need plates now and I'm apparently supposed to use a metal former for those." And so I made a metal former and ... by the time it had rolled enough plates to make two mixed alloy ingots, I was wondering why I hadn't just used a forge hammer. It looks like a good machine, but dear lord Finagle, it needs to be faster. Right now it's like watching paint dry.

There is one thing I'm curious about though. It has three operating modes — roll plates from ingots, extrude wire from ingots, cut wire from plates. Why are there two different ways of making wire with the same machine? Are there more uses of that "cutting" operation that I'm not aware of yet?

Quote from SpwnX

Transformers, tons of them, upgrades are a good idea.

I'm not sure I see how that helps at the moment. Unless I give each LV machine its own dedicated LV transformer off the LV rail, and likewise for MV machines. (Though it seems kind of weird to have to transform LV down to LV.) Right now it basically means my LV rail is really a MV rail, and my MV rail is really a HV rail, so I have LV-transformers outputting MV and MV-transformers outputting HV. This makes my brain hurt.

Quote from CaerMaster

I'm not sure I see how that helps at the moment. Unless I give each LV machine its own dedicated LV transformer off the LV rail, and likewise for MV machines. (Though it seems kind of weird to have to transform LV down to LV.) Right now it basically means my LV rail is really a MV rail, and my MV rail is really a HV rail, so I have LV-transformers outputting MV and MV-transformers outputting HV. This makes my brain hurt.

What? I think you're confused and too hung up on how you remember the old versions to work.

The new system is a great simplification. You forget all other numbers and only look at EU/t. All sources inputting EU/t into a cable or machine are summed up each tick, and only that one EU/t number is used for calculation. There is no more packet size because packet size is always 100% identical to EU/t.

Your four geothermals output 4x 20 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 80 EU/t.
Your four MFEs output 4x 512 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 2048 EU/t.
Your four MV transformers output 4x 128 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 512 EU/t.
Your four LV transformers output 4x 32 EU per tick, so the load on the downstream is 128 EU/t.

Now, I assume that you have your transformers set up so that each individual MFE feeds into its own dedicated MV transformer, and then again into a dedicated LV transformer. If all four MFEs would output into the same cable, you'd have that 2048 EU/t pulse going around and nuking all your MV transformers, because they can only take 512 EU/t. If all the MV transformers output into the same cable, you'd have a 512 EU/t pulse nuking all your LV transformers.

One thing you should notice: transformers no longer output 4 packets per tick, because there's no such thing anymore as multiple packets per tick. Under the old system, a LV transformer had 128 EU/t input and 128 EU/t output. it didn't step down EU/t at all, just EU/p. However, under the new system, stepping down means actually throttling throughput by 75%. You don't lose any power, it just goes through much more slowly. If you want to step down 512 EU/t into four 128 EU/t lines, you need four MV transformers. But the moment you let those four transformers output into the same cable, it's going to sum up right back to 512 EU/t again. There are no more packets, there is only EU/t.

Downstream, all your machines are fine with the 128 EU/t they're getting, because all machines can now handle MV by default (thermal centrifuge even does HV). If NEI says they can only take 32 EU/t, that's a lie. Only batboxes and luminators are limited to 32 EU/t. However, the moment you add a fifth LV transformer, you have 160 EU/t on the line, and that will blow everything up.

You can now either give each individual machine its own MV transformer (throttling the 160 EU/t down to 128 EU/t), or instead you can insert transformer upgrades into your machines. That will allow them to accept up to 512 EU/t. This means you to completely remove all your LV transformers and simply feed the machines from your four MV transformers. Or, you know what would be even easier? Forget those 4 MV transformers too. Just feed the line from one MFE. If you still want the storage of all four, hook the MFEs up serially.

In the past, transformer trees such as yours were useful because they allowed you to transmit several thousand EU/t over a line that could only handle 32 EU/p. Under the new system, forget all that. It's much easier. Just transmit the several thousand EU/t as they are, and use transformer upgrades to make sure your machines can take it. Instead of having transformers at the start of the line (right after storage), you now have transformers at the end of the line (inside your machines, as upgrades).

Quote from SirusKing

Its about as slow as a furnace for me. Also, pretty sure the cutter makes Casings somehow.

The electric furnace does one operation in 130 ticks. The metal former does one operation in 500 ticks. They're nowhere near the same speed, unless you're overclocking the metalformer at least 2-3x

Quote from Omicron

What? I think you're confused and too hung up on how you remember the old versions to work.

Well, yeah. this is my first experience of IC2 2.0.

Quote

The new system is a great simplification. You forget all other numbers and only look at EU/t. All sources inputting EU/t into a cable or machine are summed up each tick, and only that one EU/t number is used for calculation. There is no more packet size because packet size is always 100% identical to EU/t.

OK, I could see that was the effect, but I didn't realize packets had actually gone away and there was no longer any concept of "current" separate from "voltage". So far, I'm going to take a lot of convincing that this new metaphor is an improvement. It means that I can't just add more current at the same voltage on a rail to power more machines at the same voltage any more.

Quote

Now, I assume that you have your transformers set up so that each individual MFE feeds into its own dedicated MV transformer, and then again into a dedicated LV transformer. If all four MFEs would output into the same cable, you'd have that 2048 EU/t pulse going around and nuking all your MV transformers, because they can only take 512 EU/t. If all the MV transformers output into the same cable, you'd have a 512 EU/t pulse nuking all your LV transformers.

Yes, I figured out last night that I had to do that now.

Quote

One thing you should notice: transformers no longer output 4 packets per tick, because there's no such thing anymore as multiple packets per tick. Under the old system, a LV transformer had 128 EU/t input and 128 EU/t output. it didn't step down EU/t at all, just EU/p.

Which made sense, and accurately reflects (well, except for conversion losses) the way real transformers work. Double the voltage, half the current; halve the voltage, double the current.

Quote

However, under the new system, stepping down means actually throttling throughput by 75%. You don't lose any power, it just goes through much more slowly. If you want to step down 512 EU/t into four 128 EU/t lines, you need four MV transformers. But the moment you let those four transformers output into the same cable, it's going to sum up right back to 512 EU/t again. There are no more packets, there is only EU/t.

So transformers aren't actually transformers any more, they are restrictors.

Quote

Downstream, all your machines are fine with the 128 EU/t they're getting, because all machines can now handle MV by default (thermal centrifuge even does HV).

Not the metal former. The metal former will explode at 128EU/t. Go ahead, ask me how I know.

Quote

You can now either give each individual machine its own MV transformer (throttling the 160 EU/t down to 128 EU/t), or instead you can insert transformer upgrades into your machines. That will allow them to accept up to 512 EU/t. This means you to completely remove all your LV transformers and simply feed the machines from your four MV transformers. Or, you know what would be even easier? Forget those 4 MV transformers too. Just feed the line from one MFE. If you still want the storage of all four, hook the MFEs up serially.

So in the new scheme, there is no longer any reason to connect storage devices in parallel to get increased current, and in fact you CAN'T increase the current, you can only increase the voltage.

Quote

In the past, transformer trees such as yours were useful because they allowed you to transmit several thousand EU/t over a line that could only handle 32 EU/p. Under the new system, forget all that. It's much easier.

I think we have different ideas of "easier" here. The new system, I think, is going to require excruciating care with every power system change or load change to make sure that nothing is going to be receiving more power than it can handle.

Quote

Just transmit the several thousand EU/t as they are, and use transformer upgrades to make sure your machines can take it. Instead of having transformers at the start of the line (right after storage), you now have transformers at the end of the line (inside your machines, as upgrades).

Yeah, I see that. Under the new revised system, the only sensible way to handle it is to distribute power at the highest available voltage, and have individual transformers restrictors as late in the line as possible.

Thanks for the explanation of how the new e-net works. As previously said, I think I'm going to take a lot of convincing that the new model is a good idea. I presume a major motivation was to reduce CPU load?

yeah, all those packets moving through lines was a major CPU load. but I don't like how they did the changes. They should have gone for a more realistic approach and added the amps onto each packet instead of just power. It is now an unforgiving version of BC power with line loss.

Quote from CaerMaster

Not the metal former. The metal former will explode at 128EU/t. Go ahead, ask me how I know.

Huh. I have mine sitting there perfectly happy on a 512 EU/t line, equipped with just one single transformer upgrade.

Quote from CaerMaster

Current, Voltage, etc, pp

You might understand it better if you stopped using those terms. The old system had nothing to do with how voltage, current and so on really operate. The new system still has nothing to do with it. If you attempt to compare the way the e-net works with what you know of real electricity, you're going to trip over misunderstands left, right and center.

Just think of EU/t. There's no reason to use any other term, anywhere, ever. Since EU/t is in effect power (that is the one RL comparison that does work - energy over time), this may seem counterintuitive and in fact "wrong" in many places - but it would only be wrong IRL. In IC2, it simply works like that. Machines have an EU/t limit. Transformers have an EU/t throughput. Generators have an EU/t production. Why bother making up extra terms and seeking parallels where there are none?

Is the working radius of the miner/OV-scanner increased to 6 blocks ?

Quote

You might understand it better if you stopped using those terms. The old system had nothing to do with how voltage, current and so on really operate. The new system still has nothing to do with it. If you attempt to compare the way the e-net works with what you know of real electricity, you're going to trip over misunderstands left, right and center.

Oh, I understand perfectly well that it wasn't designed to model electricity, but the way the old e-net worked made electricity actually a very good working metaphor. It didn't have resistance, but it had "current" (the number of packets flowing) and "voltage" (the size or strength of the packets), and transformers converted fewer large packets into more smaller ones (or so I was led to believe) or vice versa, and if you had an electrical background and thought of it in those terms, it was pretty obvious what to do and pretty hard to go wrong. (Or was I mistaken and they actually just threw away the other 75% of the packet?)

I didn't realize until today that the new e-net had been this radically revised. Knowing that, it's obvious that the electrical-current metaphor no longer works. (There's a meta-discussion here about misleading terminology, but I'm not going to get into it now.)

There are just as few questions I'm not certain I'm clear on: In the new model, there are no 'transformer' losses, right? A transformer will only take in as much power as it can output on its connected downstream lines? (I'm pretty sure you already said that, just want to make sure I have it right.)

So suppose I have an LV transformer with output cables on two faces. It can output 32 EU/t on each face, or 32 EU/t total? I'm ASSUMING that it's 32 EU/t total output, shared between all the output faces with anything connected to them, correct? And because it's total output, not per-face, there's no way you can intentionally or inadvertently cross-connect multiple output faces of a single LV transformer that will result in more than 32EU/t on the cable?

Just tested this in a test world. You're correct: no transforming losses and transformer output is split between output sides.

Just tried checking my power station at various points but found out the u-reader gives no information so I assume it's a WIP at this point?

Quote from Omicron

Just tested this in a test world. You're correct: no transforming losses and transformer output is split between output sides.

I'm curious. Lacking a working EU reader, how did you manage to tell? I asked because I couldn't tell for sure.

If you know both the input amount and the output amount, you can tell. The EU-reader may be disfunct, but the EU display inside of storage units is not In this case, a CESU transferring through a LV transformer into a batbox in the first test, and into three batboxes connected to individual faces in the second.

Quote from SirusKing

Its about as slow as a furnace for me. Also, pretty sure the cutter makes Casings somehow.

The electric furnace does one operation in 130 ticks. The metal former does one operation in 500 ticks. They're nowhere near the same speed, unless you're overclocking the metalformer at least 2-3x

I thought casings were made by rolling plates? ...I guess I'll figure out sooner or later what the cutting mode is good for. (I assume at a pinch, I can use it to turn leftover plates into wire, if I need that type of wire.)

And yeah, it took four overclockers and a transformer upgrade to get my metal former up to a reasonable speed.

Quote from Omicron

Huh. I have mine sitting there perfectly happy on a 512 EU/t line, equipped with just one single transformer upgrade.

Then I'm utterly mystified how, because if I put a single transformer upgrade into a metal former and connect it to 512EU/t, it explodes. (Retested just this morning with build 280.)

Speaking of thermal centrifuges, I did a bit of experimenting last night with ore washers and thermal centrifuges. (By the way, if I connect a thermal centrifuge to a 512EU HV line without a transformer upgrade, it explodes too.) It's not as much magnificent automation-fun as the Greg Tech industrial grinder, but I think I can build a pretty decent ore processing system out of them. Not sure yet how best to auto-reassemble the tiny dust piles though. I don't remember which type of autocrafting table I used for that in 1.4.7 — too long ago — but I have a bad feeling it might have been the XyCraft one. I'll have to experiment.

Quote from Omicron

If you know both the input amount and the output amount, you can tell. The EU-reader may be disfunct, but the EU display inside of storage units is not In this case, a CESU transferring through a LV transformer into a batbox in the first test, and into three batboxes connected to individual faces in the second.

Ha! I didn't think of that. Good thinking.

Quote from SpwnX

GregTech autocrafting tables has a dust piler mode, which can be used for making big dusts out of the smaller ones.

That's another possibility for what I used. I don't remember for sure, so I'm just going to have to try all of the available options and see which works best.

But what I cam e over for right now: Apologies for not using the bug tracker, but it won't let me create an account (keeps failing different ways). Perhaps someone who has an account set up can enter it for me? I just discovered an exploitable material-multiplication bug with metal formers in build 281 (and possibly others).

Make and place a metal former. You don't even have to power it; in fact the exploit works better if you don't power it. Place a single ingot of any metal in the input slot. Control-left-click the ingot as though you'd put in one ingot too many and want to transfer one back. Shazam! Watch 63 ingots appear in your inventory like magic.

AAAAAGH!! Disregard, disregard. PEBCAK. User error.

......I didn't realize I'd somehow switched NEI into cheat mode. This is how I look with egg all over my face.

Did you spawn in and/or place down your replacement machine in Creative mode? I once had issues getting the scanner and pattern storage to work together in a test world, they only started behaving if I crafted them by hand and placed them in survival mode. Admittedly, that was a large number of versions back (over 80 builds at this point).

We're sitting on 14k Uran 238 leftovers... is there any use instead of building cathedrals with it?