Topic: Train vs platform length miscalculation

[moblet]

Hi,
Newbie here, just discovered Simutrans and really impressed with the Britain pakset, both the graphics and the gameplay. Fantastic work, chaps!

In my first game I started in 1930 and assembled the following consist:
1x NER Class EF1 Bo-Bo (electric loco)
4x GWR Autocoach
Theoretical capacity is 256 passengers.

According to the editor in the depot dialog this consist requires three station tiles. It actually requires four. At a three-tile station it will only load 192 pax (i.e. three carriages' worth). Ask the train to wait for a minimum load above 75% and it will sit there forever.

I'm guessing this might a Simutrans issue rather than a pakset one, but I wouldn't know...

[jamespetts]

Moblet,

welcome to the forums and to Simutrans! Glad that you enjoy Pak128.Britain. This is indeed a Simutrans problem rather than a pakset problem; I think that there has been some discussion of this issue recently. Have you tried to see whether you can reproduce this problem with the latest nightly build?

[moblet]

Wow, that was quick! And, as you suspected, the platform count is correct, at four, in the latest nightly. Seems to be a good vibe about this project 

I've noticed in a few posts that developers sometimes want help with research into vehicles/infrastructure/buildings. I enjoy trawling the internet for useless information during times of procrastination so feel free to try me.

[jamespetts]

Ahh! One aspect of research that is of particular interest to me is the relative costs and prices of things for the purpose of balancing the pakset: see this thread for further information. I am not sure whether any more information than I have already found on the subject is available on the internet, but, if you can find it, it'd be much appreciated!

I am glad that you are enjoying Simutrans and Pak128.Britain, and also glad that the latest nightly fixed your problem. Happy playing!

[moblet]

Thanks. That was the first I'd heard about Simutrans Experimental so I'll download it and have a play before trying to say anything detailed. My third impression about playing the Standard pak (the first two being its visual attractiveness and the good balance between industrial simplicity and complexity) is that the rail and road vehicle options are bewildering, and in stark contrast to the absence of basic maritime and aviation options. The sheer range of rail vehicles available is what's causing the balancing headache, forcing developers to worry about how to make the player decide between vehicles that are roughly equivalent; meanwhile there doesn't seem to be any way to move mail by water after 1920, or passengers after 1954, or anything by air anytime (unless there's some download or trick that I've missed somewhere!). As an outsider seeing this pak for the first time, the "balancing problem" that's most apparent - and the one I feel most inclined to address - is that I'm spoiled for choice for some modes while other modes are not even available.

Have worked in and consulted to some capital-intensive industries so will also post some thoughts on equipment purchasing in the other thread.

[jamespetts]

The lack of aviation and some maritime options is a result of the pakset still being a work in progress - The Hood is currently making his way through the boats slowly, but we all do this as a hobby, so have limited free time available. The intention is certainly eventually to have a full range of aircraft and boats. Of course, we'd be more than grateful if anyone could join us in making additional stuff for the set; it's all open source.

As to the large number of road and rail vehicles, their distinction of purpose is more readily apparent in Experimental, where there are weight limits, comfort, loading time and catering to consider. In Experimental, one needs different sorts of vehicles for outer suburban, inner suburban, long-distance and light rural work, which is why there need to be more distinctions. May I ask - in what eras were you playing?

[sdog]

Furthermore as described in another thread there is an aim to allow matching sets for the different railway companies. James writes:

For the time being, I am adopting a system of allowing people to put together consistent trains if possible, with the locomotives matching the rolling stock, although there are still some gaps - for example, turn of the century LBSCR locomotives are missing, and there are currently only two LSWR examples (also, there is no matching stock for the GER Claud Hamilton). I try to concentrate on a few companies and try to produce a consistent range from those companies, as it makes for a more coherent experience than to have bits from lots of different companies. It also makes it easier to re-use graphics, as the continuum between the MR and LMS carriages above demonstrates (they were made by shortening and re-windowing the same Blender files), and the Ironclad/Maunsell stock in the above post. At the moment, I am trying to make sure that there is enough choice of all different types of stock and locomotive in all the eras; filling in company duplicates is a later task (the GWR has, for example, been notably absent from my recent work, an omission which will need rectifying at some point, as the GWR was very important). There had been a distinct lack of suburban stock (which is needed more for Experimental than Standard because of the comfort/loading times feature that makes distinction between suburban/long distance more important), which I have been trying to remedy with the MR/LMS/LBSCR stock here, and likewise the intermediate "lavatory non-corridor" that was important in the first quarter of the 20th century but faded afterwards.

So i think quite a lot of vehicles can have quite similar parameters and differ only in appearance. Supposedly the rail companies acquired rolling stock with roughly the same technological advancement for often similar requirements. It doubt it would be possible to find out if one engine or the other was 20% more fuel efficient or maintenance friendly or more powerful.

As i understood was the spread in 19th century engines within one series quite large anyways, with sometimes large differences in their capabilities and a very high dependency of available pull and maximum achievable speed by the engineers and maintenance.

[moblet]

The lack of aviation and some maritime options is a result of the pakset still being a work in progress - The Hood is currently making his way through the boats slowly, but we all do this as a hobby, so have limited free time available. The intention is certainly eventually to have a full range of aircraft and boats. Of course, we'd be more than grateful if anyone could join us in making additional stuff for the set; it's all open source.

Understood, and as volunteers we all do what we're most passionate about. I can see going through the pakset what people are (or have been) passionate about, and that we have a rail historian among us  I don't have a favourite thing, just skills in some areas and not others, and am more motivated to work on the bits that are "behind" to help close the gaps. Will PM El Hood and see if I can help, unfortunately eyesight problems rule out any visual artistry  

Have only played the default 1930 so far, still getting the hang of the game. Looks like the 19th century has been the major focus of attention so might go try that.

[jamespetts]

Moblet,

more than one rail historian/enthusiast, I think! As to visual artistry - with the small scale of graphics, you don't really need much in the way of good eyesight, so I wouldn't worry about that part

[moblet]

I don't have permission to send private messages (must be too new, presumably I get trusted after some number of days/posts?) so maybe I won't PM The Hood after all. Well, not today, anyway.

[sdog]

Request PM's in that thread. PM were dissabled by default after a massive spam problem.

(edit removed an idiot's apostrophe)

[moblet]

Duly requested. Thanks!