Transformers + Tin cables = lossless transfer of any eu/t over any range

[coolmodi]

Tin cables have wrong/broken eu loss.

For every cable, loss in % over 40 blocks, per block EU loss taken from eu-reader.

    Uninsulated | Insulated -> eu lost per block per package
Tin:     3.125% | 25%  -> 0.025 | 0.2
Copper:    9.3% | 6.3% -> 0.3   | 0.2
Gold:        4% | 3.5% -> 0.5   | 0.45
HV:          2% | 1.8% -> 1.025 | 0.95
Glassfiber     ~0.001% -> 0.025

Uninsulated tin has the same loss/block as glassfibre for some reason, making it rediculously good, while insulated is too bad imho.

With transformers it's possible to do e.g MFSU -> HVT -> MVT-> 16 LVT -> tin cable to 16 LVT -> MFSU with even less loss for some reason.

Numbers with MFE (doesn't take as long): MFE -> MVT -> 4x LVT -> 20tin cables+the ones on the transformers -> 4x LVT -> MFE results in only 2176EU lost that's 0.1% over ~21 cables + 2glassfiber on both ends.

[coolmodi]

Ok, if I just do batbox -> 40 tin cables -> batbox there IS loss, insulated ones having WAY more actually, with uninsulated ones having very minor loss!

Tin: 3.125% over 40 blocks

Tin insulated: 25% over 40 blocks

Something is wrong there I guess. The problem I described originally was probably just the loss of the uninsulated tin cables not beeing noticable over the glass cables?! If i would try it over more range it would probably show, but it's just way to low!

[coolmodi]

For every cable, loss in % over 40 blocks, per block EU loss taken from eu-reader.

    Uninsulated | Insulated -> eu lost per block per package
Tin:     3.125% | 25%  -> 0.025 | 0.2
Copper:    9.3% | 6.3% -> 0.3   | 0.2
Gold:        4% | 3.5% -> 0.5   | 0.45
HV:          2% | 1.8% -> 1.025 | 0.95
Glassfiber     ~0.001% -> 0.025

Uninsulated tin has the same loss/block as glassfibre for some reason, making it rediculously good, while insulated is too bad imho.

Edit: I tried that 2048EU/t -> 16 LV-transformer thing again over longer range, the loss is there, it was just so few missing EU when I tried it with 20 blocks that I thought it was the glassfibre cables. I'll edit the OP to reflect all my new findings now.

Edit: Doing the transformer thing still decreases the loss for some reason, making it nearly nonexistant with uninsulated tin cables. See OP.

[coolmodi]

I guess I found the error that is responsible for all of this. Loss aparently can only ever be whole EU, so over 20 blocks I still get 32EU packages with tin cables, but over 40blocks I get 31EU packages!

It rounds up until 39 blocks, from 40 onwards it's 31EU/t. That means everything up to 39blocks can be done lossless with (uninsulated) tin cables.

Simple "solution": Make it round down instead, with only <20 block range it wouldn't be a real problem I guess.

Better solution: Make loss not an integer, but i have no clue if that has any bad consequences.

Edit: Also the broken(or is normal tin supposed to be even higher?) loss for insulated tin remains.

[Aroma1997]

Ok, so this E-Net is supposed to be exactly the same as IC2's old E-Net. And IC2's old E-Net worked with Integers and rounding everything up. This will not change in Uncomplication. However the fact that uninsulated tin cable is better than insulated tin cable IS a bug.

[coolmodi]

In classic it was copper that had 32EU/t i think, and that had much higher loss, which didn't create this problem. Now we have tin with it's very low loss/block at 32EU/t which just doesn't work.

Edit:

http://tekkitclassic.wikia.com/wiki/Copper_Cable

http://tekkitclassic.wikia.com/wiki/Ultra-Low-Current_Cable

See, copper lost 1EU every 3 blocks, tin was a 5EU/t cable, and you couldn't step down to 5EU/t, making this problem nonexistant. A loss of at least 0.05 (for insulated) would fix this to some degree, while still leaving the use of tin, as it's still better than copper for every single early setup, even on moderate ranges, it would just not be better for transmitting higher currents all around your base, it would still be abusable though.

But imho tin should have the old copper loss (which the insulated version already has!), right now all cables up to gold have their old values, they are just one energy tier higher. It makes them better, and obviously breaks tin completely.

That insulated tin cable beeing so high is actually not the bug I think, the bug is rather the noninsulated still having the old ultra low current loss. Make tin like copper was in classic and everything is fine. Then there would at least be a real non broken use for LVTs and copper cables, and that's energy transmission early on.

Edit: I also think this is the intended use for both those cables in IC2 now (if enet wouldn't still be wip), tin to connect machines, copper for transmission. Maybe add it as a config option? But I really think uninsulated tin should also just get old copper value (1 every 3 blocks), that would be more classic like afterall :)

[Aroma1997]

These values will be the same with the old E-NEt and in IC2's E-Net once it's finished, since I will fix this bug in IC2 itself (changing the values in IC2 itself). The thing is: higher tier cables still need a higher energy loss to make you not only use one single type of cable in your base, but to make you use different kinds of cables (or fiber cable) for different kinds of voltages. How about a conduction loss of a loss of 0.2EU/packet/block for tin cables and 0.15EU/packet/block for insulated tin cables?

[coolmodi]

I came back just now to write that just taking the old copper values (0.3 and 0.2) would probably be a bit too much in %lost compared to the current copper, but 0.2 and 0.15 sounds reasonable.

And I don't know if I just don't understand you correctly, but higher tier cables (when used with their highest supported package) need to have less EU percentage lost, like IRL. You should use HV for general transmission, because it gives the smallest loss, and then transformers and gold/copper/tin depending on what machine you want to supply, with beeing able to get rid of tin and it's huge loss completely with those input upgrades.

Edit: Ok now i get it, you talk about EU loss per block, yeah that needs to be higher for the higher tier cables obviously, didn't even think about that :)

[Aroma1997]

Yes, there is a difference between absolute loss (EU/packet/block) and relative loss (EU/EU/packet/block)

[coolmodi]

Saw the "Fix cables not having proper Energy loss." change in IC2, guess this is the fix, thx :)

[Aroma1997]

It should be.