Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #175 – January 26, 2009, 08:08:23 am O.K ...could we give us a "Milestone"?A full Version in 1 week? Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #176 – January 26, 2009, 09:46:33 am Yes. On Wednesday (Mittwoch, úterý, ...) I sit an exam, and then I have all time in the world, because there will be no way to improve anything. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #177 – February 02, 2009, 12:48:14 pm I have just tested pak128-379, and it is quite good possible to make profit with p****enger network in the 1930´s and early 1940´s, so balancing seems to be fine. For now I just use busses and trains, as soon as possible I will try to integrate some Airplanes and see how the goods transport is.GreetsRohal Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #178 – February 02, 2009, 12:57:53 pm Thank you very much, Rohal. I'm glad you find the game so playable! I guess it's similar with goods, but planes or ships are still in experimental mode, so I would thank a lot any feedback reported. Thank you! Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #179 – February 02, 2009, 06:23:45 pm I'm no hardcore Simutrans player (yet) so maybe I can't give expert feedback, but I agree with Rohal that the balancing seems to be fine. You can make money early on even though it's not too easy - just the right degree of difficulty for me (having played lots of other transport sims before). Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #180 – February 06, 2009, 07:33:54 pm My personal indicator of balancing are the Czech subforum people, who complain violently all the time about prices. Now that ceased, so I can only ****ume this project was a success!Thank you, Zeno! Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #181 – February 06, 2009, 07:39:09 pm Well, I'm not Czech, but promise I also complained a lot about it!! Btw, I'll take a look to trolleys and trams. And I'll write down some documentation about the process so all work don't get lost. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #182 – February 07, 2009, 10:28:48 am Balancing for P****angerferries (in the 1940s and 50s) on medium range routes is also good. Ships repaid buildingprice after 2 years. Airplanes like Junkers 52 and Dakota DC-3 don't work profitable, but it might be that the route still was to short. So from my point of view you did a real good job.GreetsRohal Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #183 – February 08, 2009, 10:07:19 pm I also tried planes in around year 1936 and they are not profitable (RVg Ju-52 and MHz McDonnell Douglas DC-3 Dakota).In 99.xx version i usually started with coal trains, from coal mine to coal power station, but now i can't get that to profitable. Busses and p****enger trains seems to be in good balance.(Simutrans 101 and pak128-1.4.4) Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #184 – February 08, 2009, 10:43:07 pm Mmm... from your comments (thanks!) and my own experience, I'm feeling like oldest planes are less profitable, and newer ones (707 and above) are too profitable.I think it's because 2 things: 1) I apply same calculation to planes than other vehicles types, but planes are much more critical and unaccurate profit calculation ends into huge disadjustments.2) The bonus table for planes has a terrible jump near 1958 when first jet fast planes appear. That makes profit a bit crazy for some years until it stabilizes a little bit; anyway planes are an amazing profit source after those dates, if enough p****engers available to transport.Well, I'm gona write down my reflexions at same time I think:After reading tomilepp comments, I have to say I don't find any difficulty on making profit with coal/petrol/garbage transport. But sure he will agree with me: I have the feeling (but can't mathematically demonstrate it) that it's more difficult now to make money with freighter trains in gerenal; before the balancing I had the impression it was really simple to start making some good money just with a coal train; now I can't get to make really big money until jet-planes arrive around 1960 or so.That gives me to a point: if p****enger services are (quite) profitable, even in early games, and freight convois aren't such a profitable bussiness, may I be wrong if I get to the conclusion that goods prices should also need a little balancing? Maybe I will have to rewrite profit formulas: maybe they're wrong, I can't promise they are not; maybe p****enger transport is more accurate; maybe high-bonus-goods (p****engers included) are the trick...I'd like you guys to help me by writing here your impressions too. I really like the model we have right now; low-bonus goods make some money (but not enough to become millionaire), but high-bonus goods are quite profitable (specially p****engers). Do you think this should be the right model? Do you think it's ok but not such a big difference between them? I'm looking forward listening your opinion. Thank you all for your feedback & comments!! Quote Selected Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 10:47:26 pm by Zeno
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #185 – February 09, 2009, 08:27:14 am I like to build Pasanger Networks, so this is good for me. But for an new simutrans player, it is hard to leran. Normaly he/she build a Transport Network and with this system he have big problems .....Only my thinking Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #186 – February 09, 2009, 10:13:53 am I agree with wernieman's opinion, new players normaly will start building goods network, so maybe the goods prices should be raised a bit.As wernieman I am a player who likes to start with p****anger network, because it is more chalanging. In so far I still haven't tested the goods transport, but I will try to start soon.GreetsRohal Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #187 – February 09, 2009, 10:59:28 am Well, I could correct that behaviour by raising a little p****enger revenue calculation (which would also raise related RCs) and lower general all RCs. That would make easier to make money using freighter convois, while not modifying very much p****enger service revenues.Maybe I'll give a try; I can make some quick tests in a couple of days. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #188 – February 09, 2009, 03:04:22 pm To be more precise, i could make coal trains profitable, but it is not profitable enough to pay maintenance of tracks, stations and depot.I tried to make small network of 3 stations, 2 in coal mines and one in coal power plant. One small train hauling coal from both stations. Income is about 1000/month and maintenance about 2000/month. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #189 – February 09, 2009, 04:04:49 pm Quote from: tomilepp – on February 09, 2009, 03:04:22 pmTo be more precise, i could make coal trains profitable, but it is not profitable enough to pay maintenance of tracks, stations and depot.Yes, I ****umed that. The trick is the game dificulty resulting after all (profit+maintenance). It's nonsense it my current game I've built between 15 and 20 freight lines, plus two airports in two big cities, and 5-6 p****enger services to nearest towns; also bus services in all towns. I've built it in about 30 game years, just by spending any money I get into building new lines. I'm earning about 1200K/1300K credits per year. I think it's a bit too slow.Moreover it's also nonsense again that when boeing 707 appears (after waiting a couple of years to get enough money) I buy one (1 700 000 00 cr, maybe more) and only that plane begins earning more than 1000K per year). It breaks down all efforts I've previously done. I must find a workaround for this Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #190 – February 10, 2009, 11:33:25 am Hi, do you take into account the maintanance of airports (runways, taxiways,...)? They are very expensive in terms of maintanance and two airports can turn nicely profitable game into losing or slowly earning one - unless there is a lot of air traffic that would cover those costs. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #191 – February 10, 2009, 11:47:08 am Yes, maintenances are taked into account. The trick is in early games airport maintenance is very high, and the profit you get from planes is rather low; in later games, maintenance is even higher, but since profits are up to a million credits per plane and year manteinance becomes insignificant... if you have enough planes and p****engers to transport, of course Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #192 – February 16, 2009, 09:14:57 pm Because of nobody else, who writes something about his experience I will continue.The p****enger service is good balanced, my game contiued to 1969 (Exec 102r2325, PAK128-458), small map 256x256 16 cities, yearly profit 7300K, proceeds 10700K.I´ve tested several Industries in new games. I started every game with the standard starting money of 500K.With establishing a coal service 3 mines (each had an seperate train) and one Powerplant and suppling mines with power I made an yearly op of 15K. I spent nearly 400K to establish this service.With establishing Oil service, 2 Oilfields, one Refinery and 2 Gas stations (2 trains for Oil and 2 for Gasoline), I made a n yearly op of 20K. I invested 400kAnd last but not least I tried a grain service, 2 Grain farms (connected with 3 Trains), 1 Grain Mill and 1 bakery (connected with 2 trains) I made a yearly operating profit of 33K. To get this established I spent 500K.Finaly I would say that you need to build complete industry chains to be able to grow. But I think it is very hard for newbies to achieve fast success when starting indutry service. I would say that goods payment should get an workaround.If you need some more testing ****istence I would like to help.GreetsRohal Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #193 – February 20, 2009, 10:41:47 pm Quote from: Zeno – on February 09, 2009, 04:04:49 pmYes, I ****umed that. The trick is the game dificulty resulting after all (profit+maintenance). It's nonsense it my current game I've built between 15 and 20 freight lines, plus two airports in two big cities, and 5-6 p****enger services to nearest towns; also bus services in all towns. I've built it in about 30 game years, just by spending any money I get into building new lines. I'm earning about 1200K/1300K credits per year. I think it's a bit too slow.Moreover it's also nonsense again that when boeing 707 appears (after waiting a couple of years to get enough money) I buy one (1 700 000 00 cr, maybe more) and only that plane begins earning more than 1000K per year). It breaks down all efforts I've previously done. I must find a workaround for this It's in pak64 too. The solution is not to just increase the maintenance costs or decrease the capacity but I think to decrease the profit curve for speed. (if you can do that, and if speed is a factor (?)... I forgot) Example: something that goes twice as fast should only get 50% more profit, not 100%. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #194 – March 02, 2009, 12:22:36 am I've found small problem with city bus routes.I started in 1990 and I am using seperate companies to run city network and intercity network. Inter city companies generating nice income but city companies making constant lose. Number of vehicles is balanced carefully with at least 60% capacity used all time very often around 90-100%. Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #195 – March 02, 2009, 08:23:35 am Quote from: agamemnus – on February 20, 2009, 10:41:47 pmThe solution is (...) decrease the profit curve for speed (...) something that goes twice as fast should only get 50% more profit, not 100%.Yeah, that can be a nice approach, but still difficult because it's not trivial which are min and max speed; But I'll make some try-error approach I think, that will be enough for a test. Thanks a lot for the idea.Quote from: Izzy – on March 02, 2009, 12:22:36 am(...) city companies making constant lose (...)It's quite strange. Btw, try to avoid circular lines, as simutrans engine has recently experienced variations on this kind of lines handling. I use to make linear lines and they give me excellent results (not allways lots of profit, but most of them). And most people say it's much better now... Give it a try and let me know! Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #196 – March 04, 2009, 11:26:02 am Quote from: Zeno – on February 09, 2009, 04:04:49 pmMoreover it's also nonsense again that when boeing 707 appears (after waiting a couple of years to get enough money) I buy one (1 700 000 00 cr, maybe more) and only that plane begins earning more than 1000K per year). It breaks down all efforts I've previously done. I must find a workaround for this Hi,I had a look at Boeing 747-200 (and DC-10 etc.) around year 1985 (simply where my play was at the moment). It costs around 2.2 million. If it runs 100% full all the time on a very long route (not much slow down on airport), it was able to earn around 500 000 (after running and maintenance cost). This gives me about 4.5 year payback (although one would normally expect a longer one for such a big plane) - but this looks as a reasonable number as this was achieved under optimal circumstances (other planes looked reasonable as well). The problem for 707 could be caused:1) by speed bonus in the time when the "speed_bonus" speed is very slow (compared to that of 707) such as 400 in 1966 [my test takes place in 1980s, when speed_bonus speed is above 600 already]or2) by some specifics of that modelIn the first case, the high profit in your experiment would simply be cause of the speed bonus because its baseline speed grows more or less linearly, whereas the speed of planes develops in big jumps (e.g., there is an era of planes with max. around 400 km/h and then the next ones appearing can fly at around 800 km/h already).On the other hand, I agree that maintanance cost are relatively small once these big fast planes enter the service.--------------------------------------EDIT: 10 years later, I tried 747-400 (Jumbo), which has a higher capacity and relatively low running cost. This one can earn more than 800 000 per year, while it does not cost much more than 747-200 (just 2.4 million). Anyway, this will descrease later on as speed bonus changes. The main "problem" is that the speed_bonus reference speed should reach 800 km/h only in 2020, but there are no p****anger planes slower than 800 km/h in 1980s already. Of course, some cargo planes are slower, which is probably the reason for the speed_bonus speed... Quote Selected Last Edit: March 04, 2009, 12:45:51 pm by jatypc
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #197 – March 12, 2009, 05:17:49 pm Quote from: jatypc – on March 04, 2009, 11:26:02 amThe main "problem" is that the speed_bonus reference speed should reach 800 km/h only in 2020, but there are no p****anger planes slower than 800 km/h in 1980s already. Of course, some cargo planes are slower, which is probably the reason for the speed_bonus speed...Sorry for being so late. The main problem is I've got the following speeds for the plane bonus:Code: [Select] 80km/h in 1912300km/h in 1950930km/h in 1975 (and same value till 2039)Maybe you should use these values in the speedbonus.tab file and see what happens (backup yours first!!!). I don't know at all wether your file is old or it is mine. When I've got some time (maybe saturday or sunday) I'll take a look on cvs to see what values I can find there, and what I can do with them (if they're newer than mine).Thanks again for your ideas Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #198 – March 12, 2009, 05:32:50 pm Would it be possible to have supersonic speed bonuses? Or is it limited to 999? Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #199 – March 12, 2009, 05:53:35 pm Quote from: the almighty snark – on March 12, 2009, 05:32:50 pmWould it be possible to have supersonic speed bonuses? Or is it limited to 999?This has nothing to do with vehicles speed; it only indicates the speed at which vehicles will get paid by their cargo a normal price. Over the bonus speed it will get better paid, and worse if it runs below. So it's which speed should travel the vehicle to have a decent profit. If the bonus speed is doubled, all vehicles will automatically earn half the money they used to (aprox). Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #200 – March 13, 2009, 09:17:04 am Hi,I have checked my speedbonus file (from nightly pak128-535), which saysair=1925,150,1942,220,1966,400,1978,600,2020,670,2021,790 Your proposal is of course a big difference compared to this one, becase 747-200 flying max. 810 km/h introduced in 1970 and gets huge bonuses, whereas with 1912,80,1950,300,1975,930it will not get any. I just wonder, whether it is OK that that speed in 1975 is higher than speed on any airplane - I am never sure whether slow vehicles get no bonus or actually a negative bonus... Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #201 – March 13, 2009, 09:42:19 am Quote from: jatypc – on March 13, 2009, 09:17:04 amI am never sure whether slow vehicles get no bonus or actually a negative bonus... Neither I, at least in the game (but I always think it does). In the balancing sheet I DO use a negative bonus if slower!!I'll check last speedbonus.tab and update the excel. It will be quite easy and quick, and maybe I'll have new prices for next week nightlies. Then we'll be able to proceed with further testing Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #202 – March 13, 2009, 09:53:34 am By the way, what is the intended minimum load for airplanes to turn profit or no loss? 75% as for busses etc? Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #203 – March 13, 2009, 10:19:13 am It's set for 85% both ways in p****enger transport, 95% 1 way (52.5% for both ways) for goods (but it's used a 110% penalty for goods transport by air, which makes all unnecessarily complicated). But I can advance the results aren't what is expected, just a fair aproximation Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #204 – March 13, 2009, 11:21:10 am btw.wich the airplaine in the beginning there is a problem to make mony .... could it be that the running cost and/or the speedbonus are to high?Beginning: 1930-1950 Quote Selected
Re: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion Reply #205 – April 06, 2009, 09:54:17 am I've been making some tests on planes and I also detected it's quite difficult to make any profit with earlier planes, so I'm wondering if making an alternative calculation for them. Then I get to two options: 1) Applying a speed-differential multiplier: e.g. calculated factor which halves RC for planes running at 0 km/h, multiplies by 0.75 planes running at 300 km/h, and by 1 (keep as it is) for planes above 600 km/h. This is more like an ugly patch to benefit elder planes, and I don't like it very much, despite the results are quite acceptable.2) Splitting engine types for planes in 2 types: Piston and Turbine engines (both with same properties, as actual diesel). So they can be calculated separately. The thing is I don't know the difficulty it means to change engine types, but it would be a much cleaner solution. Any other suggestions/alternatives? Quote Selected
Topic: PAK128 Pricing & Balancing - Discussion (Read 87000 times)
previous topic - next topic
