Wireless modem messages over a long range

This was a suggestion by me along time ago. Basically, wireless over a long distance could take a tiny amount of time which is editable in the config as meters per tick. The default could be half of the max modem height, and can be turned completely off in the config. The only reason this is getting resuggested is because wireless modems were recently changed to be more realistic. Though I was shunned for suggesting it the first time, I hope you reconsider this.

Honestly, I like the fact that wireless range is limited. Partially because it make it more realistic (you're thinking of wireless modems like they're satellites, but they operate more like a mix between routers and wireless cards). But mostly because it forces you to be creative. You can have incredibly long range communications, you just have to be smart about how you implement it. What you're asking is for them to remove the part of ComputerCraft you don't like (that is, limited wireless range) and compensate for it with a teeny-tiny punishment (that is, a few milliseconds of delay for long-distance communications).

TheCoryKid, on 10 April 2013 - 05:17 AM said:

Honestly, I like the fact that wireless range is limited. Partially because it make it more realistic (you're thinking of wireless modems like they're satellites, but they operate more like a mix between routers and wireless cards). But mostly because it forces you to be creative. You can have incredibly long range communications, you just have to be smart about how you implement it. What you're asking is for them to remove the part of ComputerCraft you don't like (that is, limited wireless range) and compensate for it with a teeny-tiny punishment (that is, a few milliseconds of delay for long-distance communications).

Do you even read? I never said to remove the limit.

ds84182, on 10 April 2013 - 08:09 AM said:

TheCoryKid, on 10 April 2013 - 05:17 AM said:

Honestly, I like the fact that wireless range is limited. Partially because it make it more realistic (you're thinking of wireless modems like they're satellites, but they operate more like a mix between routers and wireless cards). But mostly because it forces you to be creative. You can have incredibly long range communications, you just have to be smart about how you implement it. What you're asking is for them to remove the part of ComputerCraft you don't like (that is, limited wireless range) and compensate for it with a teeny-tiny punishment (that is, a few milliseconds of delay for long-distance communications).

Do you even read? I never said to remove the limit.

I did read, several times to make sure I understood. And after reading it again, it still appears as though you are requesting the limit be removed:

Basically, wireless over a long distance could take a tiny amount of time which is editable in the config as meters per tick.

Rednet messages can't travel over a long distance currently (depending on how you define long), so it sounds like you are asking to remove the limit, but delay messages to compensate. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

TheCoryKid, on 10 April 2013 - 08:19 AM said:

ds84182, on 10 April 2013 - 08:09 AM said:

TheCoryKid, on 10 April 2013 - 05:17 AM said:

Honestly, I like the fact that wireless range is limited. Partially because it make it more realistic (you're thinking of wireless modems like they're satellites, but they operate more like a mix between routers and wireless cards). But mostly because it forces you to be creative. You can have incredibly long range communications, you just have to be smart about how you implement it. What you're asking is for them to remove the part of ComputerCraft you don't like (that is, limited wireless range) and compensate for it with a teeny-tiny punishment (that is, a few milliseconds of delay for long-distance communications).

Do you even read? I never said to remove the limit.

I did read, several times to make sure I understood. And after reading it again, it still appears as though you are requesting the limit be removed:

Basically, wireless over a long distance could take a tiny amount of time which is editable in the config as meters per tick.

Rednet messages can't travel over a long distance currently (depending on how you define long), so it sounds like you are asking to remove the limit, but delay messages to compensate. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

When I meant "long distance", I was talking about the range edge. Also, some programs (Like LyqydNet) can send packets a really long distance using routing.
Edit: Also there is no limit to the amount of data you can send in one packet, so the bigger the packet, the longer it takes.

This doesn't really make sense. Just adjust the rednet range in your config if it is too short, or use repeaters.

Lyqyd, on 10 April 2013 - 08:50 AM said:

This doesn't really make sense. Just adjust the rednet range in your config if it is too short, or use repeaters.

That's not what was implied. I meant that data going long distances (Approaching the limit) would take longer to get to the computer. It is not making the rednet range longer in any way.

That was not clear in your original post. That is a more interesting concept, though I don't think it has any real relation to "realism", as the delay introduced in the process would be extremely minimal in real life on the scales rednet uses.

Lyqyd, on 10 April 2013 - 08:57 AM said:

That was not clear in your original post. That is a more interesting concept, though I don't think it has any real relation to "realism", as the delay introduced in the process would be extremely minimal in real life on the scales rednet uses.

Very true, but when people start using things like LyqydNet, transmitting huge amounts of info in a tick over 1000+ blocks (assuming it was completely chunk-loaded) seems a little odd. Now it is very true that on the scale that Minecraft uses with rednet looks like normal use of wireless electronics in the real world, we still should (and in the real world, will) have trouble sending very large packets. Now, I think I remembered CC to be more of a retro mod. I'm not saying that it should stay like that (Heck, we even have turtles!), but things could be a little slower with vast amounts of data. But to change things…. Wired Modems allow you to send a message basically to Farlands and back 5,000x faster than KurtJMac could ever go, so why don't we apply the limit there? Aren't we trying to encourage people to use the more expensive stuff because they work better? If that's the case, couldn't we nerf Wired Modems just a little bit?

In the real world things transmit at the speed of light. Why should CC be different.

And wired modems ARE limited. You're talking out of your ass.

Cloudy, on 10 April 2013 - 01:12 PM said:

In the real world things transmit at the speed of light. Why should CC be different.

And wired modems ARE limited. You're talking out of your ass.

In the real world a computer can display more than 16 colors. In the real world dirt and rock are affected by gravity. What's your point?

Cloudy, on 10 April 2013 - 01:12 PM said:

In the real world things transmit at the speed of light. Why should CC be different.

And wired modems ARE limited. You're talking out of your ass.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but 'speed of light'? Not so much.

Radio waves are transmitted at the speed of light. The main speed limiter is the timing of the data protocol that goes through those waves.

Minecraft has an infinite speed of light.

Dlcruz129, on 10 April 2013 - 04:47 PM said:

Cloudy, on 10 April 2013 - 01:12 PM said:

In the real world things transmit at the speed of light. Why should CC be different.

And wired modems ARE limited. You're talking out of your ass.

In the real world a computer can display more than 16 colors. In the real world dirt and rock are affected by gravity. What's your point?

The real world doesn't share our technology tree. It is perfectly possible that computers with more than 16 colours are impossible. What's YOUR point?

Hey people, come on.

There's one side who argues for the principle of the suggestion and one who argues against it.
The OP's suggestion is in the proper place and if it becomes a popular enough suggestion and/or the dev(s) feel like implementing it, then it might get implemented.
But why argue over what is more realistic and what isn't or who is right and who isn't?
This is a game; this is Minecraft with a world that consists of blocks and idiosyncratic physics.
Arguing for or against something in the game on the basis of reality doesn't make much sense.
It's really about what one would like to have in the game (for w/e reasons), if it's doable in principle and how practical it is to implement, as well as if that feature is in the spirit of the dev's vision. Popularity might change a dev's mind; after all it's made for the community.
But disussions that start to heat up over arguments of realism and what should or shouldn't be included are not constructive.

I'm sorry if I sound overly preachy here, I'm just trying to get us all down into the cool waters of reason.^^

I support this, but for different reason than what is discussed in the OP and the rest of this thread, along with possibly some additions to the idea.

I was thinking that rednet messages could be slowed down based on the size of the message being sent and the distance between the computers. Rather than an attempt at improved realism, I think it would bring an interesting new challenge to the mod. Right now you can send large strings instantly, making things like BitTorrent or CloudFlare in computercraft pointless. With slight slow-downs, we have more limitations that we can program work-arounds for.

Of course this should be a config option so that people who don't like it can disable it (or people who like it can enable it if not enabled by default).

For those of you who hate all necro posts, justification

EDIT: Just to clarify: this is still limited by rednet range

I don't know about everyone else here, perhaps I'm just super picky lol, but I hate my computer file getting cluttered up with IDs. If we were to extend the signal with the tools that are in the current version, it would take up a new computer, and a separate program to repeat the signal.

I think it would be cool to have a new block that repeats any signal it gets and extends the range that way. Though, I admit I'm not sure I would 100% like the idea of a whole new block for that one purpose. There are wifi signal repeaters in real life. So if you're going for realism, this is a real thing.

The GPS script can be easily modified to act as a repeater in addition to its primary task. Not that I wouldn't welcome a block that automatically performed both tasks, mind you, but it'd be possible to reduce folder clutter at least somewhat by implementing such a script yourself.