IC2 Experimental Wiring System Feedback

The new system is basically the same as the old, except:

• Cable loss isn't implemented yet.
• When it is, it will be proportional to the capacity, therefore glass fibre will be the most lossy - but with the highest capacity.
• Cable explosions aren't implemented yet.
• Packets merge instead of being sent separately <- This is the biggest change.

In the old system, this would be equivalent to only being able to send one packet/tick over any connection.
The new system has several consequences:

• You will need a lot more transformers.
• Transformers in step-up mode seem to be useless - they would make explosions more likely.
• With some types of generators, explosions are unpredictable.
• You can't make arbitrarily big clusters of generators or storage units.

Quote

MFSU --2048 EU/t line--> 4 HV-Transformer --4x 512 EU/t lines--> 16 MV-Transformer --16x 128 EU/t lines--> 64 MV-Transformer --64 32 EU/t lines-->
===========|=================================|================================== |=================================== |
===========\/================================\/==================================\/===================================\/
========EV Machinery=======================HV Machinery=======================MV Machinery===========================LV Machinery

The new system is basically the same as the old, except:
Cable loss isn't implemented yet, when it is, it will be proportional to the capacity, therefore glass fibre will be the most lossy - but with the highest capacity.
Packets merge instead of being sent separately <- This is the biggest change. (this would be equivalent to only being able to send one packet/tick over any connection).

The new system has several consequences:
You will need a lot more transformers.
With some types of generators, explosions are unpredictable.
You can't make arbitrarily big clusters of generators or storage units.

Display More

Ah, so now it makes more sense. In other words, you actually have to plan out your wiring system (like a schematic drawing) in order to effective balance your load (Consumers of power) with your line (Producers of power). Surprisingly, this is highly realistic, as it is Ampacity that dictates how current flow can be manipulated before the wire burns up its insulation, or fries the machine that's down the line...

The easiest way to distribute energy would be to separate your Generators into a cluster that fed into one Transformer line, and throttle the dynamic outputs of all of them into a Transformer. Then, have the outputs from the Transformer lead into your Energy Storage (in the electrical case, your Capacitors) under the streamlined "voltage" (which is represented as the combined EU/t being generated)...

For simplicity sake, Current is represented as the # of Packets, so in this case it just equals 1.

As far as cable loss goes, a flat percentage system could work to determine how packets lose power as they enter the line. In this case, you could design your conductors as follows:

Insulated Copper Cable --- 3% EU loss --- Limit to 32 EU/t (LV) -------- {31}
Uninsulated Copper Cable - 6% EU loss --- Limit to 32 EU/t (LV) ------- {30}
Uninsulated Gold Cable ----- 10% EU loss - Limit to 128 EU/t (MV) ----- {115}
1xInsulated Gold Cable ----- 7% EU loss --- Limit to 128 EU/t (MV) ---- {119}
2xInsulated Gold Cable ----- 4% EU loss --- Limit to 128 EU/t (MV) ----- {123}
Glass Fiber Cable ------------ 6% EU loss --- Limit to 512 EU/t (HV) ----- {481}
Uninsulated R.Iron Cable --- 14% EU loss - Limit to 2048 EU/t (EV) ---- {1761}
1xInsulated R.Iron Cable --- 10% EU loss - Limit to 2048 EU/t (EV) ---- {1843}
2xInsulated R.Iron Cable --- 7% EU loss -- Limit to 2048 EU/t (EV) ----- {1905}
3xInsulated R.Iron Cable --- 4% EU loss --- Limit to 2048 EU/t (EV) ---- {1966}

{#} represents actual amounts (rounded up) that you would receive at full ampacity for your wire. This percentage system would also need to be independent of wire length, as that system proved to punish gold and iron cable too fiercely. So in result, your "resistance" would decrease with the amount of insulation on said wire, reducing energy loss by heat, and helping keep power in the system. In the Minecraft sense, this would just mean that wires could be of any length, so long as you did not overload them, and were properly insulated (keeping demand on rubber for wiring systems)...

The new cable system actually would reward players for stepping up-down power intelligently, as there are cases where running full Ampacity on a fully insulated EV line saves more EU/t than simply using one type of cable to solve all your wiring needs. Keep in mind that this chart doesn't include Tin Cable, as I find that wire a bit harder to balance against a non-existent Transformer level...

So basically, your Transformers would be used to standardized the level of EU/t output, and wires would be used to effectively distribute said power to consumers in efficient packet management...

Quote from SpwnX

For example, 3 generators will output 30 EU/t together and thats it. Add another generator and a batbox will blow up as 40 EU/t exceeds the 32 EU/t maximum acceptance.

That, in a nutshell, is why this change is so freaking problematic.

Previously, all you had to know was which tier of power a given piece of equipment could withstand, and not plug it into a higher-juice line than it could take. You could add generation capacity at will without having to touch any of the rest of your network.

NOW, things are vastly more complicated. Adding generation capacity requires also running around to at least part of -- and potentially ALL of -- your entire power grid, bumping up the power capacity on every block on the line. In this particular example, wow, you have a lot of work to do: you've been using a batbox as storage/smoothing but now you're overdriving it so you need to replace it with a CFSU or better, but a CFSU emits higher power downstream than the batbox did so now you also have to upgrade everything downstream of it as well. Maybe you're lucky and that just means putting a new transformer upgrade into every single machine that was downstream of your batbox-turned-CFSU. Maybe you're less lucky and it means rewiring the whole thing as well because you used tin (in spec for downstream of a batbox!). Either way, adding one freaking generator just required you to also upgrade a ton of equipment in parallel.

I totally agree with Strill on this. This whole new situation is a lot HARDER to manage than the old one. What was the goal, really? The concrete complaints in this thread have all had to do with how silly it is to run a billion EU/t through a cable rated for 32 EU/p -- and the right way to address *that* is to explicitly limit cable capacity, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater and force everything to be explicitly managed by the player. YUCK.

Okay, rant over. Time for a concrete suggestion, on the assumption that the new "EU/t is all" regime is here to stay:

Cause all of the storage blocks (Batbox, CFSU, MFE, all of them) to behave as implicit transformers. That is, make it okay to plug 40 EU/t of upstream generation into a batbox without it blowing up; but it'll only deliver 32 EU/t downstream as before. Let it track tier thresholds too; why not? Plug 127 EU/t into a batbox, no problem but you only get 32 EU/t downstream of it. Plug 129 EU/t into it and let it pop as is currently the case with > 32 EU/t. (This would basically just make implicit and easy the workarounds that people will wind up using anyway, of always pairing a storage block with an appropriate transformer just to get the overpower protection. If everybody is going to be doing it anyway, that's a clear argument for building it into the model.)

If you do this, then adding that 4th generator causes you no problems downstream of the batbox; you're just wasting a little bit of capacity upstream of it. You run into actual issues when you want to pump up beyond your current tier's cabling & storage/transformer limits, but that's much more manageable. This cannot be stated enough: if you are making your users reconsider their entire networks just to add generation capacity, then your approach is bad.

Temporarily machine overvoltage explosions will not exist, since 2.0.303.

The system was intended to prevent confusion amongst newcomers I believe, who didn't know about the multiple packets per cable thing.

The current system also discourages (geothermal) generator spam and encourages more time spent on wiring design (which I don't know is a bad or good thing) because things are no longer "plug and play".

Encouraging more time spent on wiring design is the opposite of preventing confusion amongst newcomers.

In the new regime, it's much easier to accidentally screw up your grid than in the previous system. That is also not good for preventing confusion amongst newcomers.

Why is building a wall full of geothermal generators inherently bad, by the way? That's a serious question. You at least have to build the infrastructure for getting lava to them, and that's hardly trivial.

That question aside, making the whole power grid system significantly more problematic and fragile doesn't exactly strike me as the best approach to nerfing geothermal generators....

Quote from immibis

The new system is basically the same as the old, except:

• Cable loss isn't implemented yet.
• When it is, it will be proportional to the capacity, therefore glass fibre will be the most lossy - but with the highest capacity.
• Cable explosions aren't implemented yet.
  
• Packets merge instead of being sent separately <- This is the biggest change.

That's the first thing I noticed when testing a power grid setup. (I thought I had read - or at least heard Direwolf20 (?) say that they were individual packets, so maybe a little confusing at first..)

Quote

In the old system, this would be equivalent to only being able to send one packet/tick over any connection.
The new system has several consequences:

• You will need a lot more transformers.
• Transformers in step-up mode seem to be useless - they would make explosions more likely.
• With some types of generators, explosions are unpredictable.
• You can't make arbitrarily big clusters of generators or storage units.

I kind of like the new system, but yeah, I've noticed that you need a LOT more transformers. Here's what I tested.

First, I had two HV solars (using the compact solars mod), going into a storage unit. Worked fine until I added more solars along the same line. *kaboom*! (Note that little explosion in the background)

Then, I found this out -

Pack 4 HV solars around an EV Transformer. Then, put an MFSU (carefully... putting it the wrong direction WILL cause it to explode) in front of the EV Transformer. Repeat the pattern. It looks like this (since I saw someone asking for a diagram) -

(yeah, I'm partial to my spawn spots. Old Minecraft Alpha habit. :)) Still not sure why this doesn't cause the MFSU - not pictured since I was testing the Mass Fab. It was next to the EV transformer - to explode, but the "unprocessed" EU - for the lack of a better term - doesn't. I call this setup a "blade" since it looks sort of like a sword blade - or atleast a chainsaw.

As for EU loss, I hope it's a variable setting in the config file to increase/reduce it, especially for people who like to make huge builds. I'm still wondering how I'm gonna get hundreds of thousands of EU into my Mass Fabricator now.

Quote from ariosos

That's the first thing I noticed when testing a power grid setup. (I thought I had read - or at least heard Direwolf20 (?) say that they were individual packets, so maybe a little confusing at first..)

I kind of like the new system, but yeah, I've noticed that you need a LOT more transformers. Here's what I tested.

First, I had two HV solars (using the compact solars mod), going into a storage unit. Worked fine until I added more solars along the same line. *kaboom*! (Note that little explosion in the background)

Then, I found this out -

Pack 4 HV solars around an EV Transformer. Then, put an MFSU (carefully... putting it the wrong direction WILL cause it to explode) in front of the EV Transformer. Repeat the pattern. It looks like this (since I saw someone asking for a diagram) -

(yeah, I'm partial to my spawn spots. Old Minecraft Alpha habit. :)) Still not sure why this doesn't cause the MFSU - not pictured since I was testing the Mass Fab. It was next to the EV transformer - to explode, but the "unprocessed" EU - for the lack of a better term - doesn't. I call this setup a "blade" since it looks sort of like a sword blade - or atleast a chainsaw.

As for EU loss, I hope it's a variable setting in the config file to increase/reduce it, especially for people who like to make huge builds. I'm still wondering how I'm gonna get hundreds of thousands of EU into my Mass Fabricator now.

Display More

the reason for the compact solar behavior is that they only output EU every 4 ticks. and it is 512EU every 4th tick. The transformer converts it to every tick so it smooths out the output of the HV solar array. (at least this is what I've read)

i lost at least 10 CESU's when i was new to the new energy system.

i miss packets. everything was easy.

Quote from LeBratz

i lost at least 10 CESU's when i was new to the new energy system.

i miss packets. everything was easy.

What I miss is having large solar arrays that made them look like solar panels you see on space satellites. Nothing like having 2,097,152 EU/t (32x32 ultimate hybrid solars - not counting the ones on the ends of the fiber cable) coursing through fiber-optic cable headed for UU-matter production. Now it seems more than 2048 EU/t will make anything explode. Guess I'll have to use bees more. That being said, that's actually part of the fun of watching these mods progress. When one mod changes, or competes with another mod, it changes the pros/cons of using/interacting with other mods to achieve what you want. (now if only those uranium bees would update so that I can use the uranium dust... which, granted, will probably need IC2 machines to make. I'm dreading using uranium now in alveary mutator blocks... lol )

May be it be wise to add a safety fuses to all IC2 blocks so when overloaded its just shutdown with electrical sparks effect?

no sparks, machines and cables shoud just not accept invalid input at all.

for users with lots of spare time config option with explosion power can be added (and set to zero by default)

excuse me, i'm new with ic2 experimental, i don't understand english a lot so i am not able to find informations about it.

i tried in creative mode, to connect a mfsu (output rated 2048 eu/t) with a glass fibre, directly to an electric furnace (input max rated 32 eu/t)

and...

it simply works, when i expected an explosion of the furnace.

in the same way, i tried to connect a nuclear reactor, with 300 eu/t output, with insulated copper cable, to a batpack.

nothing exploded, the batpack charges in a second, no explosion of the batback and no explosion of any wire.

so, did i not understand how it works or the wiring system is "not active"??

i am using the last release (i think) industrialcraft-2_2.0.333-experimental.jar with minecraft 1.6.4 and forge 9.11.1.953 with no other mods installed