I’ve tried doing what James suggests for Ex 7.3 Pak 128. But I set the p****enger_factor to something like 40. Mainly just to see how it affected game play but I also wanted the capacity of the infrastructure stretched.
The number of p****engers was silly, as you would expect, but it made for quite a different strategy of game play. They money I made was also huge, but lets ignore that for now (I ****ume that could be fixed with the speed bonus).
Most of my double track train lines were more like metros. That is, 1 line per double track, with very little sharing of tracks between lines, and very little “at grade” crossings.
Airports didn’t work, they were constantly over crowded and I found it hard to get more capacity out of them. And that was only using them as point to point (again only one line using them).
Buses were virtually useless (too much traffic) and tram infrastructure was almost always at capacity. Again, usually one line per track.
Don’t get me wrong, it was fun, having an extensive “Underground”, trams going everywhere and monorails criss-crossing the cities to try and get some cross connectivity and relieve over crowding at stations. However, it did lose the “if I build this line, will it make money?” because all lines made a profit. It also lost the challenge of efficiency, trying to share infrastructure between lines. Partly because there was no incentive (rolling in money) and there was rarely any free capacity.
I would be interested to hear how other p****enger_factor numbers affect the style of play, or any other tweaking of settings for that matter.
I too have found this problem. Playing a recent Sumatrans Nightly version (not sure exactly which one, downloaded the same time as Ex 8.0) with Ex. 8.0 and Pak 128.
I find that when generating a new map the cities are, as Brambo says, very spread out. The population is fine, but there is a lot of suburbia and very little city centre. I.e. lots of low level buildings and not many higher level ones.
I didn’t play the game for long enough to notice any difference with the town growth.
I did manage to fix the problem, which is why I didn’t play it for long. In the cityrules.tab, I changed a parameter (rennovation_percentage) to 75%. I think it was on 40% before I played with it.
It makes the cities look like they did from when I was playing Ex. 7.3, the way I prefer it.
Sorry my explanation is so vague; I don’t have Simutrans installed on my computer at work, so I’m going off memory.
Is it possible to change the station coverage for a saved game?
Reason… the “New York” game in the arena section of this forum looks really fun to play, regardless of the challenge set. But I prefer to play games with station coverage of 3, and that has been saved with 2.
It’s just a minor annoyance, but it would be nice to be able to change it.
Although I don’t think I agree with this suggestion, I believe there is a benefit many of you are overlooking.
Currently, if you think of the running costs for a vehicle to include the track maintenance, then there is no benefit in running it on lower quality track, that maintenance will always be the same. The additional maintenance per convoy/weight over a way can be set differently depending on the quality of way. So in game play, to save some running costs of your vehicles, put them on low quality track, at the expense of lower speed.
I’m not sure if this would be a benefit or a detriment to the game with everything considered, I’m just putting it out there.
Wow, models taking greater than three days to run, that’s insane. The only ones I have heard of taking that order of time is for structural design iterations, such as for the Water Cube in Beijing.
I hate to think of the number of mathematical equations undertaken in that time. I think it has often been said, no matter how good computers get, engineers will very quickly use them to full capacity.
If you don’t mind me asking, how long does it take to set up a model like that in the first place, before even thinking about running it?
I’m a civil engineer and so did a little bit of this at uni. Although I don’t specialise in traffic analysis as a part of my career, I do work in an office where people do. I have to agree with The Hood, it can all be very tedious, lost of numbers, fairly complex, yet somewhat inaccurate to varying degrees, computer modelling, all to justify something that the decision makers wanted in the first place.
The software used to model traffic, as with most engineering things, uses computers the way they were intended to be used, repetitive, complex, mathematical calculations. There is very little in the way of graphical representation. It’s a little like “The Matrix” in that there are just numbers on the screen, but it means so much more to someone who looks at them all day long than the average Joe. So, because there are no graphics running all over the screen the computer power required is fairly minimal. The most complex modelling I do (for flooding, hydraulics, water quality etc.) for a rather complex network will take a maximum of 30mins once I hit RUN, and that's because I have an aging computer at work. I usually use the time to make myself a coffee.
I’ve been playing a game in ST-Experimental now for a while, spanning about 30 ST years. First of all let me say it is great, I particularly like the fact p****engers chose their rout based on time of travel, not the amount of changes. It makes my network look far more realistic with plenty of interchanges.
However I do have one (easily solvable) concern to do with the speed bonus. The way I understand it is, it's currently set so that it updates every 10years, is that correct? I know this is the same in Simutrans Standard. However because of the combined effects of a reduced income (because people suddenly want to go faster) and less p****engers (because more take their car) it is really quite noticeable in Experimental. To the point where you can have a ridiculously profitable network one second, then the next you’re suddenly loosing money.
I believe the way around this is to mathematically interpolate between two values for the current year, or even month. This will make the progression of the demand for faster transport smoother and more realistic without having to have a bigger and more complex text file. I don’t know much about coding, but I would think it shouldn’t be too resource hungry. Let me know if you need me to explain in more detail.
I’ve noticed a few people saying that they are laying extra lines (train or bus) to make the transport network more realistic, i.e. shorter route for the commuter. Have these people tried Simutrans Experimental?
In Experimental the p****enger trips are not calculated based on the number of transfers, but rather total travel time, including the time spent waiting at stops. In addition to this, if the shortest rout is still a long amount of time, some (a percentage based on something??) will just drive their cars.
Speed bonus is also calculated on actual average speed, not theoretical maximum speed like in the standard version.
This means in more built up maps than this one, you can create a network that looks more like the subways of London or Paris, and it will actually be beneficial for your network. Also express routs between hubs don’t just ease congestion; they will increase your income because of higher average speeds.
The problem I have with it at the moment is that no pak sets are completely compatible yet. I like to play pak128 but many of the possible features are not included.
Also, I played Rogaland, and shortly after setting up a p****enger network, covering all the towns, I had money coming out my ears. I think it was about 90k a month operational profit. So it still needs some balancing. When I had plenty of money I set up the industrial network but my operational profit didn’t go up by much. So the industrial part of my business was only breaking even, even though I was using some of the p****enger rail network.
In all, I recommend trying it, it’s a lot more realistic, and will be even more so when the Pak developers put out compatible versions for it.
I believe, although I could be wrong, that when you build over a tree (or trees) you are charged more. That is, I guess, you need to pay for the tree felling. It’s a deterrent for building through a forest when you don’t need to.
I also believe that you can change how much a tree costs to remove in simuconf (or what ever it’s called).
I have an idea for the disincentive of creating a p****enger network with a large amount of changes from one vehicle to another.
In real life, not many people will catch 3 buses a tram and a train to get across a relatively small town, they will simply drive.
The way I understand it at the moment: 1. A p****enger is generated 2. They go to the local bus stop/train station (what ever) 3. If it is full they become an unhappy face, 4. If it is not full they check to see if there is a route to their desired destination, which is with fewer interchanges than specified in simuconfig 5. If there is a route, they wait for the next transport going their way and become a “happy face”. 6. If there is no route they become a “no route” and leave
My idea would take effect between point 4 and 5. If there is only 1 vehicle they need to catch to get to their destination, then there is 100% chance they will catch it. If they need to catch 2 (interchange 1 time), then there is a 90% (say) chance, If they need to catch 3, 80% chance, Catch 4, 65% And so on.
The ones who don’t catch the transport because of too many connections, become another tally along side “happy”, “unhappy” and “no route” – say “too many connections”.
The percentage chance of catching the transport for each amount of interchanges can be experimented with, and possibly a function of the max connections in simuconfig.
Ideally the percentage chance would also be dependent on distance. Someone would be more willing to catch a bus to the train station then another bus to their destination if it was across the other side of the map but not if it was within the same town. But this may be a little hard to program, I don’t know.
I believe this will provide more incentive to have more lines crisscrossing the map rather than a central interchange station. It would make it more representative of the rail network in Europe or the metros in London or Paris.
Also, I think this should only apply to p****engers, not to goods or mail.
Sorry for the long post, but I worry that I won’t explain it properly if it is too short. What do people think? Is it worth the effort of programming? (I think so, but I know nothing of programming) Will it make the building of a p****enger network too difficult? Will it take too much computer power? Will it make it less fun? (I think it will make it more fun) Will it make p****enger networks unprofitable? (But this would be able to be balanced?) Will there be too much incentive for really long routes, in order to have direct connections for almost all stops to all other stops? Will it be too confusing for new players?
Wow, I’m quite humbled by the response this is getting.
I’ll just expand on my thoughts briefly and throw it back to open discussion.
Pipes can be above or below ground in real life, but just like train tracks, they are cheaper if they are above. However in urban areas we usually put them under ground because they get in the way and it’s easier to put them underground than all the roads.
Someone mentioned that the flow in pipes can be ****umed to be instant, and in real life this is in fact the case (at least with liquids, not so much g****es) because you can turn on and off the tap at the downstream outlet, 1m^3 in – 1m^3 out. Just think of when you turn your tap on in the kitchen sink, you don’t need to wait for the water to arrive from the dam, it’s already there. Of course in the first instance you need to fill the pipes, but in the long term this is negligible.
I had in mind that various pipe sizes and pump size/number combinations would influence the maximum flow capacity through the pipes. For example, in the long term running of the pipe, if the capacity is greater than the supply from the producing factory or demand from the consuming factory there won’t be a bottle neck. If the capacity is less than both factories, then it only supplies what it is capable of.
Also, I had in mind that they would be used for reasonable distances but would only be cost effective if there was a huge flow rate. Where normally you would need a two way train line, running at capacity with just the one commodity, you could then embark on the construction of a pipe line.
I like the idea of water being used in the same way (for some factories, not all) as electricity is, i.e. it simply increases production rather than being required for production. In this instance I think you should need plenty of water that would warrant a pipe line. How often do you see a “water train” in real life dropping off its load at a power station or farm? However I would still like to see a receiving storage at these factories like any other commodity. To start with, this could be the only thing to be transported in a pipe line, rather than oil, just to see how it goes and how well it is received.
Also, it would be nice to have branch connections coming in and out of the main line but I understand this may be quite hard to code. Although I could be wrong, I know very little about coding.
Fluid flow through pipes is quite a complex science with a lot of variables that need to be considered, but I won’t go into them here. My point is, the calculation of capacity can be made to follow some fairly simple rules for the purposes of game play.
I’m sorry if this topic is in the wrong section of the forum, but I simply don’t know if it’s a part of the engine or the pak sets, but I’m sure someone will let me know.
My day job is a civil engineer, so I love this game. Although, I don’t specialise in rail or roads/transport, I’m a hydraulics engineer, that is, dams, flood control, water quality and also… pipe lines.
My idea is for a whole new way type, as well as the possibility of industry chains to go with it. I would like to see pipe lines be able to transport large quantities of liquids and g****es. I mainly had in mind water, oil and natural gas and “gas”/petroleum.
In real life, water is needed for thermal power stations as well as agriculture, steel production and others. It seems reasonable that they should also need it in simutrans. Also main oil routes are often conveyed by pipelines across entire countries. (I play pak 128)
I had in mind that they would be more expensive compared to trains unless there is quite a large quantity flowing through. However, water for example would always be needed in large quantities.
The pipe lines should have pumps on them to make the liquid flow faster, more pumps for the further distance or if you are going up hill, and less if you are going downhill, or even none if it steep enough to be “gravity feed”.
I have no idea about programming (or at least not what ever language simutrans is written in) but I’m more than happy to give advice on the realism of the maths and believable values. But it could be as simple as…
And variations there of, a drop in the Z axis could be the equivalent to having a pump (gravity fed), a rise could need a pump but add nothing to the flow rate. Of course the numbers could be played around with to fit nicely with the rest of the game.
In my ideal world you would also be able to chose the pipe and pump size with a more realistic variation in the flows than shown above. You should be able to have branches off it, but that may be getting too complicated to program. Also you shouldn’t be able to mix the liquids in the same network, that’s just silly.
What do people think, is this possible, or is it just a “pipe dream”?
P.s. I ****ume very simular program would be required for “conveyor belts”. These could be used for bulk goods as they are in real life, sometimes for a hundred kilometres (Fosbucraa conveyor belt, Sahara Desert). But it would be good for two coal mines for example, servicing the same factory, reasonably close together but too far for the one station. One of the mines simply has a conveyor belt transferring the coal to the waiting train.
