AE2 P2P Confusion!

[GreenZombie]

Thank you! Thank you for actually making sense. Instead of talking about backbones and subnetworks and weird askii pictures and carrier networks, you actually understood that I don't understand all this strange lingo, you put it in black and white and it made sense, and I managed to fix my system, so thankyou friend

Yeah. Sorry about that. I realized you were having difficulty grasping there were two different networks but didn't quite explain it as elegantly as Someone Else.

 

[Jayrey]

Yeah. Sorry about that. I realized you were having difficulty grasping there were two different networks but didn't quite explain it as elegantly as Someone Else.

That was part of it, but my main difficulty was understanding the phrases you were using such as the "backbone network" and stuff and I couldn't follow those pictures in the slightest.
I also didn't realise that I had to have each network separately leading back to the controller, which was a good, simple way of explaining it I feel.
One thing I'm still not quite sure about though, is what exactly the limitations of the cables between the 2 p2p tunnels is, what can those cables do and not do

 

[GreenZombie]

That was part of it, but my main difficulty was understanding the phrases you were using such as the "backbone network" and stuff and I couldn't follow those pictures in the slightest.
I also didn't realise that I had to have each network separately leading back to the controller, which was a good, simple way of explaining it I feel.
One thing I'm still not quite sure about though, is what exactly the limitations of the cables between the 2 p2p tunnels is, what can those cables do and not do

See, I didn't say that, because that is actually wrong

Imagine if you will, that you have build a fully fledged AE2 network with storage, and autocrafting, and a Controller etc - but it has a few channels spare.

Now imagine that you want to build a totally separate AE network, much wider, but which happens to have the first network in its center. Wouldn't it be neat to use that existing cabling? Add a P2P tunnel to each side of the existing network and this is what you have. Two completely separate networks, but the outer network is being tunneled across the inner network.

The Inner network can, in fact, carry as many P2P tunnels as it has channels available - its this networks job to carry the cost of the P2P tunnel channel usage.

And, if you shift rt-click on one P2P tunnel, you can right click on multiple other P2P tunnels to link them ALL to the first tunnel. So there is no 1:1 requirement. This allows you to link one controller sub network, with a crafting sub net and a storage subnet, distributed all over the place.

 

[Someone Else 37]

That was part of it, but my main difficulty was understanding the phrases you were using such as the "backbone network" and stuff and I couldn't follow those pictures in the slightest.
I also didn't realise that I had to have each network separately leading back to the controller, which was a good, simple way of explaining it I feel.
One thing I'm still not quite sure about though, is what exactly the limitations of the cables between the 2 p2p tunnels is, what can those cables do and not do

Channels powering P2P tunnels can (and will) do everything any other channel can (one powering a drive, say), except go through another P2P tunnel. That's the only difference.

There's really two ways to make use of P2P. One is as I described in my last post here, and it to have one big network that manages all of its own channels. I personally like this paradigm, as when you have an application that requires exactly 33 channels, you can set it up it with one P2P tunnel and a couple dense cables for the first 32 channels, and just have the last channel go straight back to your controller through the same cable that's powering the P2P tunnel.

The other option is to use a completely separate network to manage your channels. This seems to be the more popular option, as it saves a few channels on your main network. Most commonly, you'll see people use small "ad hoc" networks (with up to eight channel-using devices and no controller) for this, and use a separate subnetwork for each area they want to supply with channels, like how in his last SSP Let's Play, Direwolf20 had one subnet going out to his Blood Magic area, another to the Thaumcraft area, etc. However, there's no reason that you couldn't use one network with a controller for all your storage, autocrafting, etc. and a separate network with its own controller dedicated to managing the channels of your main network. Soaryn's done this, much to the confusion of Direwolf. The main thing to keep in mind here is that the subnetworks are not part of your main network- their sole purpose is to move your main network's channels from point A to point B, and they have absolutely no idea what goes through those channels. This is where coloring your cables helps a lot- it keeps you from getting the different networks confused with each other. It's also where you see people using those quartz fibers, to supply power to the subnet without getting the channels mixed together.