Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Speaking of weather changes – I did something like that in Transport Empire – when I still worked on it:
The A4 will get 145km/h coaches. BR 103.1 will also get 200km/h coaches in 1965.
The electtrification isĀ a moot point. There are not enough vehicles for it. There is much more depth in deciding to use high-speed track then to electrification.
From my research it seems that at least 10 more locomotives areneeded to make electrification a sensible strategic choice.
Hello there. Work is progressing nicely.I have made preliminary drafts and am now developing a sensible cost structure. So far I have decided:
1. Make it possible to use RE450 and TGV as standalone locomotives
2. Move freight cars to three distinct classes – 1850, 1910 and 1960 respectively. Modify capacities, speeds and costs. MY aim is to gravitate towards longer (10-15) freight trains as the norm.
3. To work around slow acceleration, passanger cars are going to get much lighter
4. On the flip side, to make freight trains heavier, freight cars are going to get much heavier then realistically they should. This is to force considering hills and tractive effort as actual problems to address.
5. Reduce citizen traffic speed to 50-60 km/h to encourage agents to use public transport. Hopefully, this will help with congestion in large cities.
6. Trackage, especially high speed, will be more expensive to build. Trains will be much cheaper to run.
I am now thinking about dropping the requirement to place catenary to use electric trains ( just like original TTD did not require them ). Yes, it is unrealistic, but:
– catenary poles are performance issue
– there are not enough trains to split them into ‘electrified’ and ‘not electified’ categories, forcing the player to electrify. For example there are periods in the game where only one ‘non electric’ train is available. And it is LNER A4…
– electrification interface is clumsy as hell
Of course, I will allow placement of catenary for aesthetic reasons ( for free ). To offset this, electric locomotives are going to be much more exspensive to buy.
What do you think?
fcsaba and tattoo.
Listen guys. This is a matter of objective reality. It is not possible, phisically, to make a better piece of software within the constraints UG is placed upon. Period.
You are faced with a binary choice – either close the company because you are low on funds, or release 90% ready game and polish as you go? What do you do? Because that is the choice UG had to make.
Granted, they effed up by trying to make their own engine, and that cost them dearly. Granted, they continue to eff up by not communicating with their community. But nonetheless, they still produced quite fine piece of software.
My advice to UG, would be to take example of Grinding Gear Games – people behind Path Of Exile. Unlike UG, GGG people are responding to community feedback, and are actively making the game that said community wants.
So what? They still released the game and are charging money for it arenāt they?
It is relevant because the game they released is on the level of what Chris Sawyer released 20 years ago. It could not be better, because it does not have the luxury of “unlimited” budget and audience of millions.
This is how capitalism works you know. If you have marchandise that is of limited demand, its quality will be lower and price higher then of marchandise of higher demand. There are atm 402 people playing this game ( according to Steam ).
You could bark at Activision or Blizzard for relasing a unpolished game for 30 euros.
I tell you this from a position of 8 years of experience and about 500.000 lines of written code.
Oh FFS!
The game was developed by 5 people over 2 years. OTTD was developed over a period of 10 years, on the basis of a game developed for another 10 years.
You know. I played a transport game that had very simple cargo model, annoying manual vehicle replacement, glaring pathfinding issues, choppy graphics, manual track upgrades and other issues.
You know what game that was?
Transport Tycoon Original.
Believe it or not, but TF is not far away feature wise from TTO. Comparing TF to a game that had 20 years of community backingĀ and thousands man-hours of effort behind it is dishonest.
Train Fever needs fixing of a few bugs, some features and polish.
I paid full retail price for TF and, as of yet, played for 51 hours. At this moment I can drop another 30 euros to make it better. Seriously.
The only thing I can complain about is Urban Game’s involvement in the game community ( or lack thereof ):/
bv: Modern european freight car is aboyt 20 tonnes empty and 80 tonnes full. This would imply 60 unit capacity, which is not true in game.
I have yet to play a game with a realistic acceleration for steam engines. Most realistic acceleration models appear to use a ‘constant power’ model, which is fine for diesel-electric, diesel-hydraulic and electric locomotives. But for steam locomotive a ‘constant force’ model, up to a certain speed, is required.
If devs wish, I can elaborate š
HeighborKid: It appears that TF uses realistic acceleration/deacceleration model. This may result in a different speed curve when a train is running A->B then when train goes B->A, which may result in what you are observing.
Anyways. The goal of my mod is to introduce somewhat level playing field for trains and trucks. My goal is to assume:
Trucks and buses are capacity limited – loads and loads of them are needed to service a given route, but setting them up is easy.
Trains are infrastructure limited – they are cheap to build and run ( per unit of capacity ), but their infrastructure is expensive to build.
For what I have gathered so far, it seems that cargo is weightless ( shame š ). Morevoer, the acceleration model is way too restrictive – it takes alot of space to reach full speed. In my tests I have increased power of locomotives by a factor of 10, and then inter-city trains were able to reach their full speed. Anyhow, I am still researching.
The game suffers from several typical “newbie” mistakes. Mostly around the UI, but not always. It overuses the ‘render to texture’ feature. That one is slow as hell. Most games will grudgingly use one or two RtR viewports. TF will happily open 100 of such windows. Another issue lies with, what 3D programmers call “batch count”. Generally, the usage of 3d API is not optimized, making too many heavy rendering calls for trivial issues. You can see this in, for example, line management window. Just go to any corner of the map, look away from the map, whereĀ you get a very high frame rate, and open the line manager.
I get a drop from 60fps to 40fps in such case. That is appaling.
The simulation part of the game does not seem to all that slow, to be honest, its the graphics part that pulls it down.
