Posts by Zacherl

Quote from JaxFirehart

You are misunderstanding entirely.

Let's say the macerators in in series like so:

(MFE)
(MV Transformer)

(Mac1)

(Mac2)

(Mac3)

(Mac4)

Assume all of the macerators have 1 transformer upgrade.

The MFE is outputting 512 EU/t. The transformer steps that down to 128EU/t. Mac1 receives 128EU/t, but it only needs 4, so it sucks 4 EU/t from the cable and lets the remaining 124 EU/t continue down the line. Mac2 grabs another 4 and sends 120 down the line. Mac3 does the same, sending 116 down the line. Mac4 receives 116, consumes 4 and returns the 112 back to the MFE. So even though it's a 128EU/t line, only 16 EU/t is used. Technically, you don't even need the MFE or transformer upgrades, this could all be done with a BatBox, but it allows you to power a good amount of basic machines off of a single line without fancy wiring.

Display More

Im a derp I missed that one HV-Transformer block. It totally makes sense now. Thank you

Quote from JaxFirehart

Then don't feed them voltage higher than 128EU/t. Like I said, transformer upgrades only increase the power a machine can be exposed to before it explodes. Macerators only consume 2 or 4 EU/t (Can't remember exactly). Giving them transformer upgrades doesn't change that. So if you have a macerator with 4 transformer upgrades, it can be connected to a cable that carries no more than 2048EU/t, but the macerator will still only consume 4 of that. So if you have an MFE outputting 512 EU/t you need a transformer to bring it down to 128EU/t and then your machines need 1 transformer upgrade each. A 128 EU/t line can power a pretty good factory for a pretty good amount of time.

Im using the GregTech machine versions. As I understand the new IC2 E-Net it will distribute the MFE output euqally between the 4 Macerators. But ONLY if the macerator requests energy, right?. With all 4 macerators working that would be 128EU each. But with only 3 macerators that would be about 170EU ..

Or does the macerator requests energy even if its idling?

Quote from JaxFirehart

Transformer upgrades are your friend

Build your machines, load them with a single transformer upgrade and supply 128 eu/t transformer's don't increase energy usage, just the voltage allowed. This still means that each machine needs a transformer, but if it is an upgrade at least it doesn't take up space in the world.

Sure thats an improvement, but it does not exactly solve my problem. The machines can still explode (in a very unpredictable way) if the voltage is higher than 128. Lets say i have 4 Macerators operating at 128EU/p each. My power supply has an output of 512EU/t. Everything would work fine. But now imagine one of the macerators is going to idle and thus does not request energy any longer ... It would burst the 3 other macerators into pieces, because they would get a 170EU packet each :evil:

Quote from Epic Lulz

They will change. This version is still temporary.

Eventually, they will change back to the "voltage"-based system.

The current system exists to help optimize the E-Net code, if I'm not wrong.

I mean it's totally unpredictable and very difficult to automate. You can not have a large E-Net connected to a variable number of machines, like it was before the change. I REALLY hope the old packet based system (or something similar) will come back. It was even more realistic (the microwave in my reallife house wont blow up, if i turn off my computer ..)

Allright, thanks for the info. I dont care that much about packet loss.

The main issue with the new system is, that basically EVERY single machine needs a seperate transformer to prevent a big boom And if IC2 re-enables explosions for its machines again, the transformers may blow up as well

Im just not quite sure how to build an energy network, that is safe to use in future versions of IC2.

Hello guys,

i just started a new 1.6.4 world and noticed the IC2 E-Net has changed completely. I dont like the new mechanics, but well .. that does not matter i guess.

Will the E-Net change again in (near) future versions or does it stay "packetless"?

Best regards
Zacherl