That it is way more efficient to tesseract fuel into combustion engines powering a quarry directly as opposed to setting up an engine station and tesseracting or just running energy with conduits? The former is more efficient in every sense of the word and I think it defies logic.
Regarding tesseracts: does anyone else think this is silly?
- Thread starter tyler f
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
Yes, it is silly. Energy loss from tesseracts is illogical if there isn't going to be item/liquid loss. We should as the author of TE to add item and liquid loss, too!
Energy transmission over distance is always tricky. Makes it more fun that way.
But liquids are energy. I don't see why they wouldn't have a loss.
Energy transmission over distance is always tricky. Makes it more fun that way.
Not really, if you know LUA. Moving energy cells around in ender chests is easy. And even if you don't know LUA, you can move steam/biofuel/oil/etc through a liquid tesseract into an engine with no loss in power.
It is an illogical addition for the energy tesseract to have if the liquid and item tesseract don't have it as well.
Going by e = mc^2, there's some truth to this. However, the simple fact is that liquid can be contained in a bottle, while energy (heat) will eventually leak out and equalize with the surroundings. Same principle applies here. Matter which is bound in a non-energy form will move through without issue. With energy, you are transmitting motion. It's not as tightly bound, and hence - you lose some.
No, it is not. When you're talking about remote, compact builds - the Energy Tesseract affords you a HUGE convenience in space alone. That cannot be understated. At 100 MJ/t, and assuming you are using combustion engines, you are replacing nearly 50 blocks with a single block at a remote location. The extreme convenience of this warrants the penalty. Being able to centralize your power generation and then distribute it so easily is absurdly powerful, and 25% is probably even too low.
I think I'd like to see the item and liquid tesseracts have a power requirement. That would be pretty neat
the problem is IIRC kinglemming was still trying to decide on a good way to incur losses on item and liquid tesseracts. I think having them require power would be nice (Energy tesseracts wouldn't, as they're using the power transmitted directly rather than taking it in from an outside source)
Why would anyone use anything but ender chests then? Liquid and Item tesseracts have to compete with an amazing and well-established item. Power tesseracts are doing something that until TE was so hard to do correctly that it simply was not done at all.
This would be the only logical conclusion. The energy cost for an energy tesseract is manifested in the power loss, effectively a transfer cost.
Gregtech's method of item transport and Redpowers powered transport items have variable costs based on stack size. That would be a good implementation. Adding distance requirements adds in some heavier calculations, however, and might not be the route to go considering how many items we move through whatever system we implement.
item tesseracts would be kinda useless with an energy requirement because of enderchests, butttt... liquid ones not so much. I mean, you have to set up machinery both sides, and power both sides too if you were to use enderchests rather than tess'
Not by design
.Also, if you really don't like this energy loss, you can just disable it in config or convince server owner to do this (it shouldn't need client changes).
If Item and Liquid Tesseracts get a power requirement added, it would only make sense to have to power one side per frequency. I mean, conceptually, they are two shadows of one four dimensional object, so powering one of them would distribute that power to every one of the same tesseract (frequency).
Edit: This also makes "power cost adjusted for distance traveled" conceptually illogical, therefore, KingLemming would not have to bother with calculating it practically.
Edit: This also makes "power cost adjusted for distance traveled" conceptually illogical, therefore, KingLemming would not have to bother with calculating it practically.
The ironclad security of Item Tesseract private frequencies would still give them a certain edge over Ender Chests in certain situations.
I agre I think the Tesseract system over all should have some sort of power requirement. This instead of power or item lost would make much more sense to me. And you could easyly make his happen by just adding a mode or channel to the Engery Tesseract labled something like "Grid Upkeep Channel" or the such. And just have a blanket X power cost. Heck for he ease of coding you dont even have to have to scale to your network size.
Using a diamond on the gold latch of an Ender Chest makes it a private-esque channel. The diamond latch basically adds your player name as a fourth "color," so any chest you use a diamond on, and has the same color sequence, is distinct from chests with the same colors, but no diamond, or the same colors, and a diamond used by another player.