Re: Discussion: optimum starting settings Reply #35 – September 23, 2010, 09:44:56 am James,I have found an old map showing in 1820 traveling-times via road and water.After some math the conclusions:- Average travel-speed ~ 4 km/h by road- Average travel-speed ~ 4 km/h by waterway.So the travel-time via waterway and road should not differ to much.Also is visible on that map that lots of roads in these days were simple sand-roads. (In Simutrans-terms less than dirt-roads)To simulate this in a proper way I would suggest to use for city-connection-roads the type dirt-road (when starting in 1820.Sailing vessels.In my 1750 scenario I used for the first time sailing vessels; the Norfolk Wherry, the brig and the dogger.I notice some behaviours:-The Norfolk Wherry is always at 4 km/h-The Brig is doing 15 km/h when empty and 4 km/h loaded.-The Dogger is allways running at max speed of 12 km/hMy first question is: What kind of speed-behavior is meant ?Tweaking the proportion of power versus weight makes it possible to get the situation that every ship runs when empty at max speed and ALL 4 km/h when loaded.But again: What do we want?AvG Quote Selected
Re: Discussion: optimum starting settings Reply #36 – September 23, 2010, 10:32:43 am Quote from: AvG – on September 23, 2010, 09:08:39 amThat means that a POSSIBLE p****enger can decide NOT to travel because the yourney will be to long.I think in current implementation 'wait 7 days (at home) for fast train' will be counted as journey time. => p****enger will decide not to travel.QuoteYour example, changing from 38 to 80. Is that a realistic proposal? What is the effect?The density will be higher. Don't know how realistic it is. I don't think that simutrans city model is enough to simulate real-life cities.But there is no hight level buildings in 1750. So effect can be small. Quote Selected
Re: Discussion: optimum starting settings Reply #37 – October 05, 2010, 12:14:54 am I'm back....James, I think you have too many cities. There's no "wilderness" on your maps, is there?I've been running maps of similar size (1024x2048) with 64 cities; admittedly I often have around 50% water, but adjusting, 100 cities would be appropriate for your level of water. 300 cities? Well, my cities are *also* probably twice as large as yours, but still.Quote from: jamespetts – on September 18, 2010, 09:30:46 pmAs to the p****enger numbers, I am in the process of investigating that in detail myself. The system for generating p****engers has changed considerably in Experimental compared to Standard, and is now more subtle and sophisticated. I am currently experimenting with greatly reducing the proportion of "factory_pax" (from 33 to 15) and of "tourist_pax" (from 16 to , boosting the "p****enger_factor" to 20 (from 14 in Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.6) and reducing the "p****enger_routing_local_chance" from 40 to 37 and setting the "p****enger_routing_midrange_chance" to 36. I shall report back with my findings as to what constitute optimum settings. If anyone else has anything to contribute in that regard, I should be most grateful :-)This seems like the correct direction to adjust things in. You might have cut factory and tourist pax down too much, but it's the correct direction to adjust them in. It's also clear that we needed fewer short-range trips and more medium-to-long-range ones.The more important problem in the early game is factory *goods*, where the entire balancing is broken, but this is a pak question mostly. Quote Selected
Re: Discussion: optimum starting settings Reply #38 – October 05, 2010, 09:28:50 am Quote from: neroden – on October 05, 2010, 12:14:54 am It's also clear that we needed fewer short-range trips and more medium-to-long-range ones.I don't think so. P****enger traffic must not be too profitable. But industry input/output should depends on it. Can we calculate shop consumption from traffic to it? Quote Selected Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 09:40:28 am by inkelyad
Re: Discussion: optimum starting settings Reply #39 – October 05, 2010, 10:17:13 pm Welcome back! As to the number of cities (more accurately, conurbations), I am trying to simulate England, where, in certain parts, towns and villages can be very dense - have you ever been to South-East England and the home counties, for instance? If you have a look at a Google map of the area, you'll know what I mean. There need to be large areas as dense as that, and other areas rather sp****r. As to local versus mid-range and longer distance p****engers: in the early game, it is the mid-range p****engers that provide most of the profit, since local p****engers generate only low levels of revenue, and the networks are insufficiently developed to transport long-distance p****engers. Whilst I have been very busy over the last few weeks and have not had a chance to run the tests that I hope to run, I suspect that the issue is, in part, that fewer local p****engers exceed the journey time tolerance, thus exaggerating the bias in favour of local p****engers created deliberately (as this is realistic) to excessive levels.What is the problem with the goods in Pak128.Britain-Ex, incidentally? Quote Selected
Topic: Discussion: optimum starting settings (Read 16993 times)
previous topic - next topic
