Regression: prices of stations etc. May 13, 2010, 05:12:09 pm For a while now the prices of stations, etc. in experimental have been proportioned to the scale in an appropriate way, so that the maintenance of a single tile of railway station was $4.50. This seems to have failed at some point recently and reverted to $18. When did this happen? It renders the game unplayable in the early years.Incidentally, the prices for bridges were never proportioned to the scale (they should have been) while the prices for elevated tracks were (making for a weird form of arbitrage).EDIT: It may be desirable to have station prices *not* proportional to the scale, but if you do this you have to cut down all the station prices substantially, or raise the profitability of everything by a large amount. Quote Selected Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 05:15:11 pm by neroden
Re: Regression: prices of stations etc. Reply #1 – May 13, 2010, 05:23:36 pm Neroden,the regression of station prices was not intended - thank you for spotting this. I am not sure what the difficulty is - they should normally be set by a set_scale() method, called from an initialisation routine in simworld.cc. Whether to have station prices proportional to scale was discussed a while ago, and it was decided that they should be proportional to scale. As to bridges, it is deliberate to have them not proportional to scale, as the width of rivers does not change with the scale. At, for example, 1km/tile, a three tile bridge is over a mile long, which is way off scale. It can only be ****umed that the scale of bridges matches the graphics scale rather than the distance scale, and adjustments made accordingly. Quote Selected
Re: Regression: prices of stations etc. Reply #2 – May 13, 2010, 05:43:22 pm Quote from: jamespetts – on May 13, 2010, 05:23:36 pmNeroden,the regression of station prices was not intended - thank you for spotting this. I am not sure what the difficulty is - they should normally be set by a set_scale() method, called from an initialisation routine in simworld.cc. Whether to have station prices proportional to scale was discussed a while ago, and it was decided that they should be proportional to scale. As to bridges, it is deliberate to have them not proportional to scale, as the width of rivers does not change with the scale. At, for example, 1km/tile, a three tile bridge is over a mile long, which is way off scale. It can only be ****umed that the scale of bridges matches the graphics scale rather than the distance scale, and adjustments made accordingly.It causes some bizarreness when using viaducts, unfortunately -- elevated ways are far cheaper than bridges, because they *are* adjusted to scale.Note that the result of this is that bridges are far more expensive per tile than elevated ways. This doesn't seem to match the intent of making bridge prices not proportional to scale -- in fact it seems to do the exact opposite of what is intended. Quote Selected
Re: Regression: prices of stations etc. Reply #3 – May 13, 2010, 06:49:15 pm Hmm, this is a conundrum. Any thoughts on a sensible way out...? Quote Selected
Topic: Regression: prices of stations etc. (Read 2280 times)
previous topic - next topic
