One example being a simple “Optional sidepass”:

This will cause deadlock in TF while it should not, if trains were not completely blind & following pre-calculated paths.

Solution: When train enters “Waiting for free path” mode, let it try to search for an alternate paths to the next destination.

You can use 120 km/h switches on your passing loop, or use the “slower”part to handle empty traffic.

I really don’t see how this can be useful outside of this quite niche situation.

I really don’t see how this can be useful outside of this quite niche situation.

Stations for example, trains from the same line would no longer be bound to a single platform. With priorities later on, faster trains could overtake slower ones.

But most importantly it would work more realistically, it is in OTTD this way for a reason.

BTW, I would not call sidepasses a “niche situation”, as network grows, I need them left & right.

This is the part where I say “LTP” 🙂

This is not OTTD. This is TF. It follows different approach for its cargo model and traffic management. The binding of lines to platforms is actually a feature. I have already discussed that dynamic allocation of platforms can be as much of a detterent as it is a feature: /forums/topic/suggestion-platform-selection-and-more-platforms/ . Wise use of waypoints, to sort lines by their speed and target, in order to ensure least amount of switching, can achievie statistically better results.

In your case, the niche approach is to have a “main” and a slower “detour” if main is occupied. However, this is suboptimal. If an empty train occipies “main” then loaded train will have to use the much slower “detour” immedietly degrading line performance. Unlike in TTD, where in such case you’d get less payment, in TF you’ll pay with slightly diminished production at the source.

In TF it is best to optimize the “loaded” path for maximum speed at all times. Thus such optional pathing would be a detterent. Also, take into account that in TF, unlike in TTD, you can control the speed at which train goes on the “off” direction of the switch, or even create a symmetrical switch, so both branches of the passing loop would have the same throughput.

Just don’t create 46km/h switches everywhere.

I labeled this thread as SUGGESTION for better & more resonable pathing system that will work for TF same as it does in OTTD. It will only ADD to this game, add more depth & possibilities.

Dynamic (free platform) alocation will actually drastically improve default station behavior which is really unreliable. U cant really be sure what platform line will ALWAYS use, unless u setup waypoints, which will work the same even for dynamic allocation.

Algorithm works like this:

1. find fastest path (respecting one-ways) to next stop or waypoint
2. follow it untlil “path blocked”
3. try to find fastest unblocked path (respecting one-ways) to next stop / waypoint
4. SUCCESS – go to 2.   FAIL – repeat 3.

In TF it is best to optimize the “loaded” path for maximum speed at all times. Thus such optional pathing would be a detterent.

This is literaly a feature that will only reduce deadlocks without negatively affecting gameplay. It will respect any player made waypoints & one ways.

Deadlocks are not caused by poor pathing, but by incorrect junction placement and construction. This remains true from the earliest versions of TTD, through TTDpatch and OTTD. Sure, OTTD has more elaborate signalling system, but its most advanced signalling – path based signals, are what TF implements.

The only difference is the static pathing of TF. Sure, OTTD can do dynamic platform allocation, but does it so in the dumbest way possiblem, and then it is useful just for drop-off stations near big industries and for passenger traffic. If you want to have passing loops in OTTD with more then three trains then you need to set up the whole shebang just like you would in TF – using path signals. Otherwise the system will deadlock.

My point is – TF offers you 95% of functionality of OTTD’s signals, but also offers what OTTD cannot offer. Sure, having some features of OTTD’s signalling would be nice, even if because that would be less confusing for begginers. But I, personally, don’t see them as being all that useful.

Interesting factoid: in my last OTTD game ( about 3 years ago ) I have used only path signals in a manner identical to what TF does now.

My advice is that you think first, then act and keep an eye on the line colour to see how the path is created to spot any issues with it. If you need to have 2 trains from the same line at the same station at the same time, it’s wrong anyways.

The deal is, that the game already does so. Follow a vehicle with its properties open. Everytime a vehicle cannot reserve a path on its line, it will display “waiting for free path” and will start braking. This is the time when a new path is searched for.

In that case, the bi-directional loop would work, it does not!

If TF has all content of OTTD (planes, ships), some simplfications may come acceptable, but it does not.

Unless I define waypoint for each line & platform, I experiencing 2 different lines picking same one & not recalculating if it’s blocked, even when there is one completely free.

Deadlocks only result on bad designs and dynamic path selection would cause even more of them.

How exactly? I never ever had problem with it in OTTD.

This is not OTTD.

Pathifinding is a way of finding best path between 2 points, it can work same for TF as it does for OTTD. Lines are system that says where train goes, not how it gets here!

If you need to have 2 trains from the same line at the same station at the same time, it’s wrong anyways.

Better than having it standing on the main track blocking all other traffic!