Forum Replies Created
September 4, 2015 at 00:22 in reply to: Train is "blocked", even thought there is an available route for it. #19444
Click on the “routes” icon to enable the route display. This will show you that both the forwards and backwards route will try to take the same track. The train on the single track is not planned to switch to the side track.
The reason is that you placed too many signals. Never place a signal where a stopped train would block traffic. More exactly: Never place a signal on the single track side of a switch.
You also placed signals on the two-track side of the switch – also too many. Train fever uses a score system to determine which path to choose – passing a signal in correct direction has a bonus. Passing a signal in opposite direction reduces the score. The route you created will pass one correct and one opposite signal on both tracks, so the AI cannot choose one based on signal scores and will use the shorter track length.
When creating such a passing siding, only ever place ONE signal at both double track ends, and no signal on the single track parts. And check if the route will use both tracks.
The 20 minutes are wall clock, not game time. And it translates to roughly 1.66 years of game time, or 1 year and 7 months.
Assuming that fast forward is double game speed, it would be 10 minutes wall clock, and double fast forward would mean 5 minutes wall clock. The real values might be longer because the in-game time would count, and this time is delayed by the necessary calculations. Any frame rate drop or stutter will affect in-game time somehow.
On the other hand, it won’t matter. Whenever a person is given a new destination, because new buildings are raised in other cities, the currently effective travel time will be calculated. This is based on the obvious values for walking distances, and the approximated times for waiting and traveling with bus or train. These times are affected by service frequency: Have more trains will service a stop more often will reduce waiting time.
If the destination can be reached within 20 minutes, the connection will be made, and the person starts traveling this route. However, if due to traffic jam, the actual travel takes more than 20 minutes, this will not abort the journey – it will only affect the future choices of how to travel. If public transport used to be fast enough, but then got worse, maybe the car is fast enough. If even the car is too slow, the destination will be replaced with one that is closer.
For cargo this means that the demand for a route will plummet, and trains will travel almost empty. This usually is devastating for your economic success, because driving demand down is easily done within a month – driving it up is limited to one unit per month increase, and the stops in increase because the factory has to be upgraded.
You have to use waypoints to ensure that a line is always using a different track than the one selected by the game by default. I do think that the game itself tries to spread out lines in a station as much as possible, but it cannot do this work if your tracks don’t support it.
Waypoints can be either the explicitly given waypoint sign, or any signal (no matter from which direction you approach it), or one of the plenty waypoint mods available online. You’d arrange it in the line route just like a station, i.e. from station A to the waypoint to station B. Note that trains don’t reverse at waypoints, only at stations.June 22, 2015 at 21:19 in reply to: BUG: Name of station tag is different to name of station building #18916
It’s by design. You can group stops, and the individual buildings are then put under a common label – that is the blue icon, which can have a name on it’s own, which is shown in the route list. And the individual components of a grouped stop also have their name.
This is by design, and has been so since release last year. And yes, it’s a little bit confusing – but it’s not a bug.
Of course there is a mod for this: http://www.train-fever.net/filebase/index.php/Entry/10-Cost-mod-v2-1/
The only thing that cannot be changed by mods until now is that cities will accept the generic goods only and nothing else. All the industry chains before the final goods can be changed, even with more steps than “raw”->”goods”.
However, in contrast to all other mods, these cargo mods are very much incompatible to each other because they all change the single list of existing items in TrainFever. You can play with only one at a time. And changing to a different one will force you to start a new game, because the created industries on the map won’t be refreshed. So this sounds a bit annoying to me.
Maybe this will be better solved with the US DLC, which should generally allow switching the environments between European and American – sounds like you might also be able to add more of these to separate the cargo mods.
I believe it is hardcoded into the game, so it can’t be changed via mods.
February 7, 2015 at 11:40 in reply to: Is it possible to change time untill what year you can buy a train? #16758
- This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by n00b.
The vehicle editor contains some very nasty bugs (at least in version 1.1.1571) that can put an edited file into an unusable state (i.e. TrainFever won’t run anymore), so be careful and make backups. Or know how to manually fix the lua code in the .mdl files.
Actually, scrum is to create the most value for the customers in a given timeframe, and is all about doing what the PRODUCT OWNER decides to be a priority because HE decides what will be the thing that gives the most value.
Nobody in this forum is the product owner. And nobody will get his priorities as a customer fulfilled directly, because it is almost certain that the priority of each individual customer differs enough so that fulfilling one exactly will only ever create value for this one particular customer, but will probably create next to zero or even negative value for everyone else.
And there is another aspect in scrum that I’d like to see here more: Trust. The customers do trust the programmers that they are able to fulfill their task, otherwise they’d stop the project. Every customer can do this individually at any time: Uninstall the game and quit playing. There’s no money back, but at least you won’t waste more time, will you?
I’d absolutely like the idea of having more info about what is planned for the future, but if I have to choose between having more information, or having more features implemented and bugs fixed, I will choose the latter and wait for updates being announced after they happened. Works for me.
Es gibt Dinge, die sind einfach schlecht bis gar nicht parallelisierbar. Wenn du für eine Rechenoperation ein Ergebnis einer vorherigen Rechenoperation brauchst, hilft es nix, wenn du theoretisch parallel auf mehreren Kernen rechnen könntest – durch das Kern-Umschalten und den Wartecode wird das parallelisierte Ergebnis tatsächlich LANGSAMER berechnet, als wenn man es direkt seriell rechnen würde.
Ich weiß nicht, was man bei TF parallel berechnen könnte. Ich weiß auch nicht, wo das Problem liegt, es zu tun. Ich maße mir allerdings nicht an, die Entwickler deswegen als unfähig zu bezeichnen. Ich behaupte auch nicht, dass die Entwickler “nichts gemacht” haben in der Richtung – meine persönliche Erfahrung mit dem Spiel ist nämlich eine andere.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find your language to sound too offensive to be taken seriously.
From the outside, it isn’t possible to decide what is hard to do and what is easy in the train fever code. It might be that implementing crossings would require a complete internal rewrite of core components. It might be that it only requires some effort that hasn’t been of high enough priority until now. It might be that there are several tasks already being done or on the to do list that are required to allow starting with crossings. I’m pretty sure we will see them in one way or another – or we will see a final statement that they are not possible.
Until this notice has been posted, I’m pretty sure everything will be done to get crossings into the game.
I didn’t read this suggestion as “pick a free platform”. Picking the one with the least path penalty is already implemented, and this should be always the same, unless penalties change.
And I think the discussion about dynamic platform allocation won’t be resolved for a long time. For me, it isn’t a priority. In fact I’m very happy that it is not dynamic, as this tends to be more realistic. Trains do use the same platform in reality, unless there are reasons like delays or works on the track.
I do understand that players coming from OpenTDD et al do like the different possibilities there. It is just a different design decision made by the developers.
Everybody here: You did realize that the screenshot shows a huge debt, didn’t you? IMO it isn’t possible to spend money if you are in the red. This isn’t saying that the game didn’t get more annoying with the update, just that it shouldn’t be possible to destroy anything if you lack the funds – even before the last update.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 7 months ago by n00b.
Points 1 and 2: Yes, would be convenient, and the developers know about it. We all wait for that update. Until then, build more switches.
Points 3, 4, 5: Use waypoints. Problem already solved IMHO.