Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Class IIIa of k.k. priv. Aussig-Teplitzer Eisenbahn push a heavy freight on the Tiverton Hill. In spite of having two locomotives, trains usually go through the summit at speed of 17km/h
An example why waypoints are awesome.
In my balance mode freight trains are heavy, while passanger trains are light. Thus on a hill slow freights would crawl to ~15km/h, while passanger trains run at~40kmh ( note, it is 1873 ). So to ensure that freight does not block the traffic, the i routed it on the outside track. Sometimes I get scenes like below – slow freight is overtaken by express passanger:
Progress!
An improved version of Borsig freight locomotive meets a goods rake led by D1 and Earlier Borsig.
I am doing the recoloring now. Stay tuned
You could pretty much get trains to go wherever you wanted using signals, including using separate platforms, why did trains need waypoints and not buses, which you have absolutely no way of dictating the route for?
Not really. With a complicated network a reassignment of a trackage on a station or rebuilding a piece of track causes a daisy chain of cascading line reassignments. I had one a problem when I could fix assignment on station A, then it would go bad on station B, then I would fix B, it would reassign C, then fixing C would damage assignment at A. With waypoints I can now force proper assignment.
Moreover, now you can do buffering tracks, or two-three track tunnels and other tricks.
You need to create a full production cycle. For Wood it is
Forest —(wood)—> Sawmill —(goods)—> City Industrial district.
If you don’t transport goods from Sawmill to city, then the forest will not produce anything.
It is the simplest vector, because stock freight cars for wood also transport goods, so you can transport both cargoes on the same train, reducing the return trip without payload.
Find a triangle of Forest, Sawmill and a Nearby city, with roughly 1/2-1/3 of small map between them. Build a line with a station near the forest, sawmill and city, run line through them with 2-3 trains ( keep frequency below 10 minutes ). Forest should start producing.
Try: Small/Hilly/Easy/1850 game with seed: 1234567890
There is a forest near Tiverton and a Sawmill near Crewe. When you build a station near Tiverton Forest, to Crewe Sawmill, then a simple 2-station layout can transport wood to sawmill and goods to Tiverton.
Btw EDIT [b]DO NOT USE FULL LOAD[/b]. The game is flawed and does not give the correct orders to handle such loading. Just use standard full load any orders.
I most likely failed š
That is, however, due to feature creep.
Due to low density of vehicles in the beginning stage of the game I have decided to do some clever repaints. There are going to be extra 4 locomotives.
1. Borsig II, a blue repaint of Borsig, available 1862, Borsig is pushed to 1857
2. ATE Class IIIa, available 1869, brown repaint of prussian BR53/G3, goods engine
3. Prussian Class G4, a gray repaint of BR53/G3, a medium goods engine
4. Bavarian Class CV, a teal repaint of A 3/5. 800kw power, 80km/h, available 1898
I think the acceleration of a fully loaded train with 23 cars shouldnāt hit itās top speed within a few meters. You would think it would start out slower with a full load.
The problem is – cargo is weightless. So the best we can do is to attach certain statistically significant weight to freight cars.
This is actually very good request to devs – give us control over cargo weight.
You have to make capacity of vehicles a factor in a transportation game.
That is a balance issue. My Reasonable Balance Mod takes that into account. For example, most cargo carriers got a massive reduction of capacity. Initial freight cars now carry 2 units of cargo.
The game playes MUCH friendlier now ( along with cost reductions, obviously ).
This statement makes no sense at all.This is a game with economic features. There is no room for ānot always applicableā.
You can only play Train Fever for watching trains and passengers. Or you igonre all the rules of efficient play, that the game sets, play badly and be happy, that yorĀ“re making money.
ThatĀ“s not my definition of āit works fineā.And there are better games allready.
Ok. Let me elaborate.
The ‘Agent’ model, where each unit of cargo decides where it wants to go, is fine for cargoes such as passangers or mail. This part of the game works quite fine. There are balance issues, but the model is fine.
Granted, this could be modeled with statistical weighing model, which would be faster. Or with a hybrid model. But I digress. I am fine with agents.
But for bulk cargoes, such as coal or oil, such model is invalid. TF tries its best to emulate bulk freight with agents, but it cannot be done reliably. Which leads to half empty freight trains or other weirdness. That is where the model is not applicable. TTD did better job there. Better yet, Railroad Tycoon did a splendid job with this.
BTW – TF also fails because it tries to perfectly encapsulate cargo flows – that is amount of cargo produced has to equal amount of cargo consumed, which breeds its own problems.
10k people is peanuts. Modern computer should be able to manage several hundread thousands of those.
2006 game – Supreme Commander, could manage approx 3000 units, handle strategic zoom, do ballistic physics and network communication for 8 people. And was pretttier, and ran smoothly on GTX 8800 and Intel Q6600. On 80x80km maps.
2003 game – Railroad Tycoon 3 – could handle 40+ cellular automata handling cargo distribution, track several thousand units of cargo, animate over 600 vehicles and handle over 100 of industries. On an Athlon 1700+ with GeForce MX440.
TF is just suboptimally written.
Anyhow – I find it ironic, that for years in TTD we complained that passangers do not have sensible behavior. In TF they do, and it is quite awesome. But at the same time TTD had very simple, but effective freight model, while TF has something very, very subpar š
vinkandoi: I am playing with an early version of my Rasonable Balance Mod. The train on the screen costs about $220k per year. THe whole wood service yields aboyt 1.2M per year in income and about 500k in expenses.
Anyhow:
Year 1859 marks the completion of Battle Extension of the system:
The next logical step is to extend the system to Newbury, but that will require a costly demolishion at Tiverton.
