Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As a general rule, don’t put a signal anywhere u don’t want a train to stop. It seems to me u would never want a train to stop on the main line before the branch, remove that signal and u should be fine.
I agree with the lack of rail design tools, but what u experience with your trucks and trains sitting and waiting endlessly is no bug. TF was designed with a realistic demand based economy simulator which is the complete opposite of the ultra convenient Utopian supply based economy simulator that almost every other transport/city builder game ever made uses.
If cars and trains are just sitting there and the factory isn’t producing, then u tried to force demand where it doesn’t exist. To be blunt, u did it wrong!! as did I at one point.
And your road building errors aren’t bugs either. There’s probably some existing infrastructure or terrain feature that is preventing your road from being built. TF makes u really plan your growth carefully.
Give it a chance, its much deeper than most builder/transport games despite it’s thin featureset.
I actually like the fact that some roads require demolishing buildings to upgrade. This is a real world problem that all cities face and adds to the challenge.
Either rip up an entire neighborhood (mind numbingly simplistic and unrealistic), cheat, or engineer a solution like real cities do. Parallel roads, Ring roads, light rail, elevated express ways, one ways, lots of imaginative ways to solve the problem.
Do you live in same universe?Did you noticed that race cars have mods for loose weights?Did you try to pull a simple wagon by your personal car?
(Well, if you have one.
)Did they tell you about Newton’s movements law?Yes, I forgot about fast and furious, train version. Yes weight is directly proportional to acceleration, but NOT speed. Let me reiterate that, weight has NOTHING TO DO WITH SPEED, in a newtonian world.
@Gasolene wrote”train gets up to speed, more weight can actually save fuel.” Oh, you have just invented a perpetum mobile. Great. That explains a lot.
U should fire your physics teacher, no one said anything about creating energy or a perpetual motion machine. An object in an antmosphere spends less fuel per mile then, at a constant speed, if the force of friction due to air is less than the innefeciency of the engine, all other things being equal. which is precisely why long fright trains exist, one they get up to speed they are **almost free.
@LB Much thanks, this is great
..or you can use the timeless mod
Timeless mod is actually the complete opposite of what I want.
If you create an alternate route you can remove any road in the game. You still have full control over every road in the game. There are no roads that are indestructible.
I believe that once weight factor is added, then time limit for cargo would be rised. Therefore the slow power full engines come to play, it would be shame to limit range of delivery so much.
Now its just speed, so all winner is a good fast locomotion. Power is not important now.
Weight has little to do with speed, once a train gets up to speed, more weight can actually save fuel. Trains travel at the same speed regardless of weight. Power has nothing to do with the weight, more to do with how many inclines are encountered. e.g. Mountain trains need more power than Prairie trains.
1 I do not think I understand your answer. Cargo should not move by itself unless you are playing against some a.i. player like RT (for what I remember). Cargo moving by itself is strange to me. And more important creating strange behaviour like moving cargo by itself although transport is available. It is like competing to some sort of ghost.
Cargo moving on its own if rail/truck transport is available simply means that you have not provided a viable economic alternative. You cannot force someone to ship with you, you only provide an option. This is modeled after real life and ads much more depth than most simple supply based video games.
2. Well that can be reflected in the price you get. Perishable more based on speed then others. But in the end price should be based on speed, not distance, and demand. The distance is the fault in this.
In real life, distance is the primary factor. Since you do not get to choose what or where goods are shipped, you need to provide a viable option. If you don’t provide an economic shipping option, it will not be used.
5. What I claim is that price you get for a transport should be related to the demand of a city. Transporting goods to a small town = less money. Goods to a bigger town is more money unless this town is already receiving a lot of goods.
This might be easier to understand, but this logic is completely backwards. Why would transporting goods to a small town yield less money per product. Yes there are less buyers, but you would simply ship less. Typically small town residents pay significantly more for a product than big city dwellers because the distance to ship is greater.
Best price: big city, high demand, quick delivery.
Worst price: low demand, slow delivery. Second part can have a bigger influence if cargo is perishable.
Again, not how the real world works at all. Fast shipping does not magically affect the price of a product. I pay the same for a Car whether it was shipped in 1 week or 6 weeks. However, if it was shipped from a local factory I may pay less than if it was shipped from Japan. This is exactly what is modeled in TF.
Even better if there are different type of “town” goods, like cars, food, etc creating different types of demand per town per good.
This is currently modeled into the game, I’ve seen a city export goods from and import goods on the same platform at the same time on the same train. You could reason that the town was exporting tv’s and importing cars.
It sounds like you want to replace the realistic demand based system with one that is perhaps easier for the player to use. I actually prefer the demand based system is it adds alot of depth that you don’t see in most supply based games. The real world runs on demand, not supply.
– cargo does not move by itself. You move it.
This is up to the factory owner, if you provide an alternative for them they will use it. You cannot force walmart to use the FedEx network, you can only provide the option and if it saves them money, they will use it.
– the quicker you deliver something, the more money you get (average speed). (Money also based on the demand.)
It’s based on distance, not time as it is in real life. There’s no overnight option with rail freight.
– the flipside must be in the costs for trains, trucks and infrastructure, but running and initial.
?not sure what you’re saying here
– factories can give an indication how much they are willing to produce. This can change over the years.
They do, and do. Currently factory production (based on demand) is given with a potential max and changes over time.
– no strange 20 minute rule on cargo, the longer it takes, the lesser the money (your average speed will come down)
If you can’t deliver a product in 20 min, your rail network is not efficient. This is an abstraction of real life. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they turned this off, it may break the demand engine since all factories would now have 100% demand.
– towns will have a demand, also changing over the years and related to the amount of people (or shops?). Receiving money is also related to this demand. This will make the strategy of delivering all to the same town less profitable.
Again, towns currently do have a demand out of a 100 that changes over time. If you supply a town with goods, it’s max will increase over time but it’s demand will decrease. Meaning eventually goods will need to be shipped further or the factory will shut down.
Yes, but you have to build strategically. Since you don’t choose where goods are shipped, you need to build your transfer hub in an attractive centralized place using the hub/spoke system. The factories will use your transfer station if is saves them money. They will spend the least time+money as possible to get the goods to the destination.
There’s no guarantee the factories will use your station, if they have a better solution they will use that first. You have to make you central freight transfer very accessible
You can reach this state “de facto” by editing the resource files and ensure that anything created before year X is permanent ( just set yearTo = x property to 0 ) and anything introduced past that year is never introduced ( set yearFrom = x to absurdly high value – say 99999 ). Time will pass normally, but your technology will be frozen at a given year.
That’s exactly what I want, I don’t’ mind if the years keep incrementing. Much thanks.
Where do I find these resource files, and can I make this into a mod for easy enabling/disabling.
I’ll second the above, especially the double junction. What a PITA it is to split a set of double tracks at the moment! If you can do it in something as relatively simple as Cities in Motion, this is a BIG omission from TF.
It is not an omission, double junctions are currently possible using a switched double junction. They take about 6 seconds to create, and do not use any additional space. Definitely not a PITA. Maybe u just need to see an example.
CiM does not reflect realistic railroad design. Most modern networks use a switched double junction, single lead junction or Flyovers (NYC subway). Again, it’s not the crossing that is complex, it’s the signalling. Maybe CiM does not realistically model signalling. I have used Train simulators (Tz2012) to create crossings, and what a nightmare getting a simple signal to work and be efficient.
What you’re referring to is a level junction or diamond junction or flat junction. This is not needed nor should it be implemented. I’ll explain…
In real life, those kind of crossings are generally considered a nuisance and require trains to travel very slow over them, there’s no good reason to use them. You may see these on light rail or trams, not major heavy rail commuter lines. Train fever does not include the correct type of signal and the complexity of that signal would frustrate most people. e.g. the NYC subway avoids these types of crossovers as they create more headaches than solutions – there few spaces they remain are a headache in rush hour.
A merge is considered a more simpler and safer. This is where on line merges with the second before diverging. This type intersection can be achieved with basic path signals included in TF.
Most people complaining about missing diamond crossovers have no idea how complex the signalling would be.
Yes and No. The products can trade between cities. I have one city that has a steel mill, most of its products are shipped to a nearby city. It also receives alot of products from another nearby city via train. All products look the same and their destination is pre determined before it leaves the mill. But it is possible for inter city exchange as products work like people.
