pax level and lux level for city buildings

[Fabio]

Presently city buildings have a level value which determines both the number of generated pax (and mail as well) and the economic value of the building (for purchase or demolition), and also let buildings with higher level replace those with lower one when the city grows.

I propose here to split level value in two: pax_level and lux_level.

Pax_level is used when generating pax and mail.
Lux_level is used when demolishing or buying the building.
The game will upgrade the building when the new one has both levels higher than the existing one.
Buildings with old level value will take its value for both pax and lux purpose.

Effects on city development:
Whereas many buildings can have both levels at the same value, this change would allow luxury mansions with few pax or public housing blocks with high pax but low level. player choices would be influenced because bulldozing a high lux neighbourhood could cost dearly, more than a poorer zone.
Realism in city upgrading would benefit the most (and it's the primary reason behind this request). Luxury mansions wouldn't be upgraded, if not with much more luxurious one, but also older buildings e.g. late XIX century could have top lux level, but lower pax level: they wouldn't be upgraded in later times. This was requested and denied on the grounds that this change with the culture. My new approach would make this pakset-customizable, as setting both levels to the same value would keep current behaviour, whereas using different levels might be used to protect older buildings or mansions also downtown, while keeping realistic pax level.
e.g. prior to 1950 top buildings could have max pax_level 40 but max lux_level 60, later both level max 60. A pax 40 lux 60 building would never be replaced. But also a pax 5 lux 60 mansion wouldn't be replaced.

[kierongreen]

As I've mentioned before I'm thinking of revamping city building code after I've finished on landscapes. I'd want to incorporate something like this so that urban decay and renewal could take place within the game. So while a luxury townhouse would not be replaced, over several decades it might deteriorate (in your model, lux would decrease, pax increase as it is subdivided), until it could reach a state such that it might be demolished, or be refurbished restoring it to it's former glory...

[Fabio]

Wow, awesome ideas! I'm looking forward to seeing them developed, as long as it might take... Thank for considering and developing the suggestion!

[kierongreen]

I'd intend for tiles to have a value (linked to distance from town hall, town size, neighbouring commercial activity, being covered by a station with good service, and if implememted as a separate type, nearby parks) and population (linked just to town size and being covered by a station with good service. This would translate into lux and pax levels as you put it buildings could have a maximum pax and lux value, which they would be built with, as well as minimum values for both. If the land value or population of a tile fell below the minimum value it would become derelict. It could then be replaced with a building more appropriate to the area. Upgrading of buildings would happen based on tile value exceeding building lux value by a certain amount (pax would not come into it). The idea would be for calculations for city upgrading to take place in another thread in the background (parallel to route calc for example). Ideas at an early stage at the moment obviously...

[colonyan]

This means there is a chance that player will be able to remove larger number of "less wealthy" population. Yes, they are virtual "simutransian". But this might end up in poorer section being exploited to open up new railroad lines. If it is already developped above certain level, going underground or monorail should be the way.

Alternative is to make it so that proportion of wealth and not is to be maintanied. For an example, 40 folks under 10 wealthy.
If not enough non wealthy residents exist, wealthy popoulation will have to leave map or they are turned into non wealthy.
There should be some sort of auto balancing.

[kierongreen]

Quite often in real life large numbers of poorer residents have been moved when transport links have been built.

[colonyan]

Quite often in real life large numbers of poorer residents have been moved when transport links have been built.

Yes. But aren't moved people get some kind of remedy in most of developped countries?

But wouldn't it be exploitable? There's also level of acceptance how much people can be forced to move. Well if there will be any.

[Fabio]

I believe moved people (inhabitants of bulldozed buildings) will add to the number of homeless, which will cause new building appear or old buildings be upgraded...

[kierongreen]

The law usually allows for compulsory purchase of property for transport infrastructure. Quite often those with more money shout loudest about getting projects moved away from their houses also. Of course in developed countries at least compensation of at least the market value of the buildings and land is expected - but you already pay this to demolish buildings in simutrans.

[colonyan]

I appologize for editing text constantly. I will be more careful.

The law usually allows for compulsory purchase of property for transport infrastructure. Quite often those with more money shout loudest about getting projects moved away from their houses also. Of course in developed countries at least compensation of at least the market value of the buildings and land is expected - but you already pay this to demolish buildings in simutrans.

This is entirely correct.
I just wish game to reflect players action to demolish just non wealthy city building. Or enough non wealty city buildings to take some effect.

That is because if ever there are two types of wealth levels, this means there is some kind of economical function or balance behind it. Non wealthy people pays rents and morgages to banks with there salaries. If they are homeless and jobless, that means some source of income is lost for wealthy people who owns or runs real estate or companies. Obviously jobless people will spend less.

[Larger the cities gets, along side of industry spawn, user will wear out the care for less wealthy section. ADD: It is perfectly fine if money can move residents. I also wish game to have feed back to player action if ever game will have wealth distinction.  Infact, game should allow player demolish whichever citybuilding but I also think proper effect should reflect player's action on existing non player side of map residents. In real world yes. Dealing with real humans. But in Simutrans, we are dealing virtual entities. I'm afraid people would care as much as for virtual entities as they do for real people. This will eventually leading up in poor section to be compromised. Leads into non proportional balance between designed wealthy population and non wealthy population. I would like to see somekind of distiction of wealth level too. It will add tremendous level of realism into the game.]

[Fabio]

In my model, there are two values for each building: pax_level and lux_level, which in most paksets will both be from 1 to 60.

"Normal" buildings have  pax_level = lux_level
"Wealthy" (or "historical") buildings have lux_level < pax_level
"Poor" buildings have  pax_level > lux_level

Bulldozing a poor building already lowers the pax generation in the neighborhood, so the player would have less pax and hence less revenue.

There are two profiles of this change:

Urbanistic:
more realistic cities through more realistic growth and buildings upgrading (e.g. a historical building can be made "wealthy" and it will survive longer in time without upgrading)

Gameplay:
player's choice between bulldozing expensive buildings but with low pax level (immediate cost, but more prospective revenue) and bulldozing cheap buildings but with high pax level (lower cost, but prospectively less revenue, too).
Obviously there will still be many normal buildings (pax_level = lux_level): if both levels are low the building can be bulldozed without much thought; if both are high the building is better spared anyway.

[colonyan]

Bulldozing a poor building already lowers the pax generation in the neighborhood, so the player would have less pax and hence less revenue.

I will still hold that there better be additional negative effect. Mentioned effect already exist.
We could explore the benefit of having as much as wealthy city building and population present othere than them being expensive to remove and cities to look more realistic.

Urbanistic:
more realistic cities through more realistic growth and buildings upgrading (e.g. a historical building can be made "wealthy" and it will survive longer in time without upgrading)

Gameplay:
player's choice between bulldozing expensive buildings but with low pax level (immediate cost, but more prospective revenue) and bulldozing cheap buildings but with high pax level (lower cost, but prospectively less revenue, too).
Obviously there will still be many normal buildings (pax_level = lux_level): if both levels are low the building can be bulldozed without much thought; if both are high the building is better spared anyway.

This is pretty good starting point. 

For gameplay perspective, this will require good amount of prices calibration so those cost becomes thinking worthwhile. Otherwise, from mid to later stage of game, often player has enough funds to do most of large works. I suspect instead of selecting which section of city to scrap, they will mostly demolish so his/her network becomes most desired shape regardless of wealth type of building.  If it is that well developped city section, player should go underground. (and there's also public player mode)

As I mentioned, it would be more interesting if proportion of wealthy population present on map had impact on game as whole.
Also non wealthy population will have its role.

Such as when wealthy population exist fully of its potential, economy flows well (employs, invests and spends well) so traffic demand (freight and passenger generation) is full potential. If lesser of them is on them compared to potential, player will get smaller demand.

Non wealthy population will support existence of wealthy population. If enough of them are removed from map, it will start disturbing the wealthy population, thus whole transportation demand.

[colonyan]

I'd intend for tiles to have a value (linked to distance from town hall, town size, neighbouring commercial activity, being covered by a station with good service, and if implememted as a separate type, nearby parks) and population (linked just to town size and being covered by a station with good service. This would translate into lux and pax levels as you put it buildings could have a maximum pax and lux value, which they would be built with, as well as minimum values for both. If the land value or population of a tile fell below the minimum value it would become derelict. It could then be replaced with a building more appropriate to the area. Upgrading of buildings would happen based on tile value exceeding building lux value by a certain amount (pax would not come into it). The idea would be for calculations for city upgrading to take place in another thread in the background (parallel to route calc for example). Ideas at an early stage at the moment obviously...

I almost drooled reading this more carefully. Simutrans can be truly great... even more.

[greenling]

I find that idea a good Part for Simutrans Exp it.

[Ters]

I remember that cities in Transport Tycoon become fed up with you if you went about destroying lots of things. You would then have to bribe them or provide good service for them for some time with what you already had before you could proceed. The downside was that I found it difficult to predict where the city's tolerance limit was, so I ended up one or two tiles away from realizing something great, and instead got nothing built.

[colonyan]

Continued from my reply #11.
In short.
If game is to have concept of wealthy and usual people, not only it serve to make cities more consistant looking and demolishon cost variation, it better influence game mechanism little further.

[dom700]

You do realize that you should also have buildings influence their neighborhood. I wouldn't want a city to look like this: Poor-Rich-Poor-Rich-Poor-Rich, but Poor-Poor-Poor-Rich-Rich-Rich (Normal buildings left out for the sake of clarity)

[Fabio]

Dom's concerns could be addressed with radius from Townhall. This radius could be widen by prevalence of commercial buildings and low number of unemployed. It would be shrank instead by high unemployment or prevalence of industrial buildings.

But all buildings would have a lux level, not only residential ones. I can envision industrial buildings be neutral (pax = lux), whereas commercial ones would be divided in poor (ramshackle pubs, diners and shops) and wealthy (banks, offices, luxury shops). But this would be up to pakset decisions, as well as the basic decision whether to exploit this new feature in its full potential or not.

[dom700]

In general your idea with the distance from townhall is perfectly fine, I am wondering which scheme would be applied: Either you have a healthy inner city with wealthy buildings there and poor suburbs, or the opposite. Both kinds of towns exist

[kierongreen]

In the same town often some suburbs are rich while others are poor. However land values still tend to decrease as you get further away from the centre of population. In some cases this will mean low density luxury housing, in others high density low cost housing.

While I am for improving city generation and evolution, we should keep in mind that this is a transport, not city simulation game. City building should be there to support the transport simulation. Improving the realism may support this, but it needs to still focus on the transport aspect. Hence the main control the player will have over urban areas will be in how they serve the area with transport links.

[colonyan]

So at some point, we will see a possibility of being able to add positive or negative effect for special city buildings, I assume. Their placement will influence the composition of city.

[isidoro]

I remember that cities in Transport Tycoon become fed up with you if you went about destroying lots of things. You would then have to bribe them or provide good service for them for some time with what you already had before you could proceed. The downside was that I found it difficult to predict where the city's tolerance limit was, so I ended up one or two tiles away from realizing something great, and instead got nothing built.

I don't like that part of TT at all.  First, the concept itself and, second, what you point out about predictability.  I like simulation games with most of the factors shown and predictable.

[jamespetts]

I'd intend for tiles to have a value (linked to distance from town hall, town size, neighbouring commercial activity, being covered by a station with good service, and if implememted as a separate type, nearby parks) and population (linked just to town size and being covered by a station with good service. This would translate into lux and pax levels as you put it buildings could have a maximum pax and lux value, which they would be built with, as well as minimum values for both. If the land value or population of a tile fell below the minimum value it would become derelict. It could then be replaced with a building more appropriate to the area. Upgrading of buildings would happen based on tile value exceeding building lux value by a certain amount (pax would not come into it). The idea would be for calculations for city upgrading to take place in another thread in the background (parallel to route calc for example). Ideas at an early stage at the moment obviously...

This is a very good idea. How would you measure quality of service from a station?

[kierongreen]

Use same method as when it shows as green in station info? I wouldn't want to have a terribly complicated calculation for it.

[jamespetts]

Use same method as when it shows as green in station info? I wouldn't want to have a terribly complicated calculation for it.

Hmm - in Experimental, one would have to take account of journey times, too: it would probably have to be done in terms of average journey times to the ultimate destinations of passengers actually using the station in the last month to avoid creating anomalies (although how to deal with a station that has not had passengers is not entirely straightforward).

However, using this system would be a rather splendid way of encouraging "Metroland" type development along the paths of good transport routes. Actually, even the model that you suggest for Standard would do that to a substantial extent, if, at least, the question of whether any development takes place on a tile at all, as well as the level of that development, depends on the land value, although taking into account journey times would be more effective at measuring the true quality of service.

Might I suggest that land value is partly influenced also by the land value of surrounding tiles? All other things being equal, people prefer to live/work next to other high value buildings/areas.

[kierongreen]

Might I suggest that land value is partly influenced also by the land value of surrounding tiles? All other things being equal, people prefer to live/work next to other high value buildings/areas.

Sure, you can suggest anything at this point! It's certainly feasible, at the moment this is in the stage of trying to accumulate ideas, from all these will eventually come a sensible way forward for coding

Hmm - in Experimental, one would have to take account of journey times, too

That is a matter for you (or one of the other experimental coders) to work out   Any patch I create will be aimed at standard (though obviously you're free to modify it for experimental).

[jamespetts]

That is a matter for you (or one of the other experimental coders) to work out   Any patch I create will be aimed at standard (though obviously you're free to modify it for experimental).

Yes, indeed - just musing on how it might work in Experimental, really. I still have to merge everything from 111.2 to 111.3, though, so this is a while off yet! However, this land value idea is a most valuable addition in principle, especially if it allows town development to follow transport infrastructure quality.

In Experimental, there might be something to be said for having a mobility map, based on average passenger journey times to ultimate destinations originating on any given building tile. This would also take into account road networks.

[Roads]

Well guys, what you are talking about doing is basically what I'm already doing in my games, just using Public Player and buying houses as a work around.

This is the thing I love about Simutrans.  There are ways of doing things.

Anyway it would be nice to keep Gelion's buildings and others that I love without having to buy them.  I doubt many people would want this but would you even consider a drop down list somewhere of all the buildings where we could specify pax or lux?  Of course you would have a default where the player would have to change nothing.

[greenling]

I Try to cam out without Change to Public Player.The often useing a Public Player it´s a Cheat.
I Like to view the growing of a Town or Village.

[Roads]

@greenling

IMHO, cheating is when you deceive someone.  If I use the Public Player and then post a game never mentioning that fact or implying I had not, then it would be cheating.  Otherwise, it is merely using the tools the coders and developers have provided and playing a non-standard game.

Doubtless there would be a question as to whether the non-standard game was as challenging as the standard game and I would think it is not but it is the game I want to play.  If need to play for the sake of ego building, then I'll play on the net versus the "pro" players.  "How good I am" does not interest me.

[Spartanis]

Gelion's buildings

I TOO love those buildings, such beautiful graphic designs

[Iluvalar]

In my view, you will also need a desirability level to achieve a better city look. While it would have no real impact in the game, the city builder would try to group the buildings together. So you would end with high polluting, low grade housing on one side of the city, and another luxury part of the city where there is plenty of park and high value buildings.

Also, instead of making hard coded high lux_level building for historical purpose like fabio said, I'd humbly suggest there would be a new event for the buildings where they randomly gain one lux_level instead of upgrading. Those building that would be lucky enough to stack many of those upgrades would become very hard to replace, and slowly enter the historical part of the city. whatever it's a beautiful manor, a prosperous industry or a old shack...

[prissi]

There is already a clustering code, which keeps industrial away from residental. The fact that you new realized it, may indicate that another parameter might be even less noticeable ...

[Dwachs]

This clustering only applies to 'normal' city buildings. Factories do not have any influence their afaik. Let me quote a post of mine on this regard

For a start, one could try to add information about residential/commercial/industrial type to special buildings:

Factories can be industrial (steel mill) or commercial (markets). Same for attractions. Some paksets include special skyscrapers, which could
be classified as commercial or residential.

This would help to cluster industrial buildings around factories. Afaict, this would require to change makeobj related files only.

[prissi]

Most factories converting goods (i.e. produces) are usually industrial, so one could use this for backwar compatibility. But such an extension to makeobj sound very useful, even if the function is not there yet.

[Ters]

What about factories site parameter? How would it work after this, and what role could it play in compatibility? In pak64, city sited factories seem commercial, while land sited factories seem industrial.

[prissi]

If specified, it could cause clustering of industry around them (or in case of markets, rather commercial districts).

[Iluvalar]

Prissi, I understand, but with my system there could also be building in between. Like low-class residential buildings being found in polluted or high criminal area of the city.

Now I'm thinking on something even more flexible :
Alpha_emitting (quantity emitted)
Alpha_radius (area of effect)
Alpha_attraction (could be negative. Simple coefficient of reaction)
Beta_emitting
Beta_radius
Beta_attaction
Delta_...

And let's just make the pak maker decide what is "alpha" and what is "beta" and how it work. Or just leave it blank. Stop me if it's too complex to implement, but I don't think it would be that hard... At the same time, that solution could allow very complex city behavior in the future without any further coding.

Just brainstorming here...

[Roads]

Sometimes it will be awhile since I've looked at a particular city and if it is looking unusually or unexpectedly good, it's a nice feeling.  With that in mind, as much as I hated seeing pollution, poor areas and that sort of thing in other games, I think those things or something that makes a city ugly needs to be in the game.  The "why" is you need a reason for your cities looking good, something you have done to achieve that.  If they all look great simply because of the engine, then eventually, no matter how great they look, the game will get boring in this respect.

I have no idea how to achieve this within the confines of the game as it currently exists because the player cannot, for example, decide whether to build a coal powered plant or a waste incenerator.  I'm just posting this as something for y'all to consider.  Also, if you are going to have ugly cities, there needs to be a way of fixing this, perhaps having to choose between keeping the ugly or setting up a route that loses money.

[Roads]

Having thought about this overnight and the problem of where to place pax and lux level buildings, this idea occurred to me.  What about having two types of vehicles for some or all trips.  One would generate considerable pollution but be cheap to buy and operate.  The other would cost more and be more expensive to operate, although either could simply be more expensive to buy or vice versa.

The game engine would then lower the lux level of every building the polluting vehicle passed.  I don't think this would have to be done every trip, I don't know what impact that would have but probably once a month would be enough.  Of course the lux level of the buildings adjacent to those buildings directly impacted would have a reduced lux level as well but at a lower rate.

This would add an individual characteristic to the game as well as a strategic element because such things could be done as routing vehicles away from nicer areas of the city using way points, etc.

[Ters]

I think simulating polution is too much for the game. It's beyond the scope. Apart from that, I also believe that every trip would have to update the polution for the game to know how many times which vehicles have passed a tile. Vehicles passing a tile is already being registered anyway, so doing it then is probably not as costly, and easier to implement, than some trying to figure it out afterwards. But prissi probably knows a lot more about the performance bottlenecks of the game.

[kierongreen]

Having a pollution counter only for tiles a vehicle passed over wouldn't be too difficult. Having an area effects would be more time consuming and you'd have to be careful how you used this information - commercial buildings might not like being in the middle of industrial pollution but you'd still want them around major transport hubs... As has been pointed out - the more factors that are taken into account the less you'll notice individual ones.

[Iluvalar]

Sorry. It's me and my weird ideas again. It stroke me that with 3-4 of the parameters I talked about yesterday well designed in the pakset. The city placement for new buildings could be difficult enough so even a human could see it as a challenge. By simply calculating the city income by how well each buildings follow their own rules there could be some sort of mayor game possible.

I know it's not a priority of any sort but... I'm starting to really like my idea . The hard part would be to instruct each buildings about their own parameters in the pak...

[VS]

Being able to distinguish the various building types also helps... Similar graphics = effect wasted.

[Roads]

@Iluvalar

Your idea appears quite robust and somewhat complex to me and while I normally like that sort of thing, I fail to see how it would change how the player plays the game.  Even if buildings have different lux and pax levels because of pollution, the player can't do anything to change it.  It certainly would change the look of the game but not the play that I can see.  Maybe I'm missing something?

@Ters

You are right.  The introduction of pollution that affects game play would change the scope of the game.  This could very well be something the majority of players do not want.  I would like it but that's just me and I realize that majority rules.

@Kieron

I had not thought about how the adjacent buildings would be handled.  I can easily see your point about difficulty.

@VS

Not sure I understand what you are saying...

[Fabio]

IMHO a pollution factor might be gameplay useful introducing a bias diesel/steam vs electric.
This must be thought deeper, though.
All ways might have a pollution level (and as stated it wouldn't be hard to code) given by the total number of diesel/steam vehicles, both belonging to a player or city cars.
Pollution level could be aggregated at city level (i.e. Sum of pollution of all ways within city limits). Cities polluted over a certain limit (possibly time dependent) would grow less. Number of tiles with trees and parks would raise the limit (i.e. More pollution tolerated), whereas industries and ind building would add pollution on their own.
This would give the player an incentive to build hubs and airports outside city limits and to switch to electric vehicles when possible.

[Ters]

Sounds like a lot of logic. But do cities stop growing because of polution? What I've heard happening is that the cities impose a toll on unecessary traffic that isn't green, or even ban vehicles with odd/even licence plates every alternate day. The latter won't work on Simutrans' timescale. The former is simply just a raise on the running cost of the vehicles, which means even more logic, but can perhaps be simplified to a global rise in running costs over time. In that case Simutrans would need non-static running costs, maybe just something as simple as a linear interpolation based on the date, just like speed bonus.

[Iluvalar]

@Roads. No, you are absolutely right. At least for the first time. The city would look much more nice with downtown, industry zone, luxury house in a corner, farm outside the city etc... but it would not change the game play. Except maybe the direction of city growth. For now...


However, I thought that since the pak makers will want to review all the buildings. it would be a good time to ask them about some more things about each buildings.


But as I said, on top of that, it could be a robust base for more city simulation. Probably fun and challenging enough for a player to become a mayor instead of a transporting compagny. And simple enough to make a weighted AI system look intelligent in city placement...

[Roads]

Trees, Fabio?  Really?  Trees?  I've got trees:















Obviously the idea of trees affecting my game would make me very happy!


@Iluvalar


I was missing something.  Of course looks matter and yes I can see where your idea does place a systematic approach to the idea of pollution.


@Ters


Since I know next to nothing about how the game is programmed, I really can't address what you said other than say a change should not be just additional costs for the player.  The goal of the player is to do two things.  First, avoid city pollution by choosing green vehicles when he can afford them and routing polluting vehicles away from high lux levels when he can't.

[Ters]

Since I know next to nothing about how the game is programmed, I really can't address what you said other than say a change should not be just additional costs for the player.  The goal of the player is to do two things.  First, avoid city pollution by choosing green vehicles when he can afford them and routing polluting vehicles away from high lux levels when he can't.

But the way governments force transport companies to use greener vehicles is to make the non-green more costly. And the most expensive places to live are near transportation hubs, where the polution is highest. Except luxury villas, but those who live there don't use buses anyway. At least that's how it is where I'm from.

[Fabio]

Simutrans is a transport simulator. Since pollution is a big issue in transports, it's not out of scope in the simulation.

This said, we can argue
1) which effects should it have on gameplay
2) if technically feasible, without (much) impact on performance.

Ters is right, polluting vehicles should be more costly. But also the player should route the most polluting vehicles (trucks, diesel busses, diesel or steam trains) out of cities, whereas city hubs are mostly for green vehicles.

Here's another proposition:

- ways (especially roads and tracks) record a pollution level over (non-green vehicles passed in the last 12 months).
- cities apply a carbon tax to all non-green vehicles driving on a tile in their territory which exceeds pollution limit.
- the carbon tax works as road tolls; the fee might go to public service road tolls, whoever the owner of the way is.
- citycars add to pollution level but don't pay the carbon tax (as they don't pay road toll).
- pollution limit of a tile is given by year (interpolated, the way speed bona work) and by city (city might have a higher/lower limit according to size, buildings, trees and so on, if this can be easily coded; otherwise all cities might have the same limit in the same year).
- non-green vehicles outside cities don't pay any carbon tax.

This algorithm shouldn't be hard to code nor should it impact on performance as it takes advantage of mechanisms already within the simulation (i.e. road tolls, statistics of transits per month and so on).

I specifically ask for no carbon tax outside city limits as this would make diesel trains (and trucks) good for countryside areas (and diesel busses good for intercity trips too) while penalizing them in heavily urbanized areas.

[ӔO]

If I may add.
There is more than one type of pollution.

- Noise pollution is one of the main reasons why residential areas remain cheap nearby railroads and airports. Some factories also do this, even if they are clean, due to the machinery they use. Highways that run nearby residential areas often have sound barriers installed at additional cost. Some railways also have sound barriers installed.
- Light pollution may not desirable to some attractions, like an observatory, natural preserve or camping sight.
- Visual pollution, like overhead powerlines, tend to lower property value.

For the sake of simplicity, all the pollution types can be rolled into one.

Other types of pollution that don't quite work in simutrans are: water pollution, thermal pollution and soil pollution.

[Roads]

Europe must be much different from the U.S. in respect to cost of green vehicles.  I haven't priced anything lately but last time I checked, anything green cost anywhere from considerably more to a lot more than traditional vehicles.  Of course this is also a game and it doesn't have to reflect reality as long as it is not so removed from reality that you get the feeling you are just inputing data.  None of the ideas presented here would even approach that level of unreality.

That said, I don't understand why the player would ever buy a polluting vehicle if the green ones cost less to either buy or operate.

[Fabio]

Green vehicles cost much more but are cheaper to operate (here in Europe e.g. natural gas cost half of diesel) and can be spared carbon tax or equivalent. It makes strengthen the trade of between high purchase cost and high operating cost.
Also newer vehicles are greener than older ones, so it pushes renewal of the fleet.

I wanted to add to my proposition also a statistic of pollution in a given city and at map level. These wouldn't affect normal gaming but could be used by scenario engine, e.g. setting the goal to restructure a network in order to half the pollution level in a target city or at global level and so on...

[ӔO]

Green vehicles for consumers don't make much sense, because they are not used to such an extent that the true cost of ownership will pay for itself. I think you need around 10 to 12 years of use, before the costs finally start to equalize.

'Greener' commercial grade road vehicles, on the other hand, do pay for themselves, because they cover great distances yearly and are used for around 15 to 20 years.

For trains, the newer, vehicles are naturally greener, due to improvements in technology, but the costs can be quite astronomical for the company. Typically, trains can get anywhere from 10 to 60 years of usage, but the ones being used for over 20 years are due to the owner not having any money to replace them.


As to what pollution may do to cities, I would say stunted growth and adversity to luxurious structures. People do not want to live in filthy cities if they can help it.

[Roads]

Yes Fabio, I should have said that here in the U.S., only the initial cost of green vehicles is more.  Operating expense is lower but as AEO pointed out it is often at least questionable whether those operating savings would ever cover the initial cost.

The thing is, I suspect the Simutrans engine already forces the player to upgrade vehicles as soon as new ones are available.  At least I've found that I begin slowly losing money if I don't do that.  If green vehicles are introduced into the game and they simply cost more but the operating expense is less, how would that be any different to the way the game already works?




MODIFY:  doh!  Nevermind, I was being dumb.  Of course it would affect game play.  It would affect routing...thing I've been pounding the table about for a few days...sorry!

[Ters]

I think it's generally the speed bonus that forces upgrades in Simutrans today. As the expected speed increases (explicitly given in speedbonus.tab, or calculated from average among available vehicles), you no longer get paid as much for using the older and slower vehicles.

I've attached a graph for the 707 in pak64, where planes quickly become unprofitable. (I think there is a small error in it. The blue line should be labeled "Income", not "Profit".)

[greenling]

Good day.
There is a new problem!
Missing From because year 1995 new 'environment-friendly vehicles' in all Paksets.
We should first this missing vehicle manufacture.
And only then on the protection of the environment speeches!

[Roads]

@Ters

You have confirmed or at least said what I have surmised to be true.  IMHO, too much emphasis is placed on speed bonus.  I see no why why a perfectly good vehicle carrying coal should be penalized just because it is old.  And that is what the speed bonus effectively does.  Really I think it is penalty enough that the slower vehicles cause the faster vehicles to slow down especially since all the vehicles of a line tend to cluster thus forming a long slow line behind the slowest vehicle on the road. :(

@greenling

From Mark Antony to Martin Luther King, speeches have moved people to action.

[Fabio]

But actually coal has/should have no speed bonus or almost. It matters instead for pax, mail, cooled goods and the like.
On the other hand, greener vehicles might have same speed or even be slightly slower.

I don't like too much the way obsolescence is dealt with in Simutrans. Obsolete vehicles are those no longer manufactured, although I might have bought them just one month before.
IMHO lines and vehicles list should mark as obsolete (and hence suggest for replacement) those convoys with negative speed bonus or something alike, regardless of their retire date.

[Ters]

This thread is jumping from topic to topic, but as for the obsolescence is Simutrans, the dates in pak64 is for when vehicles become obsolete, not when they stop being made (not sure how other pak sets see it, but that seems to fit how the game handles them). If you buy a vehicle just before the obsolescence date, it would realistically speaking be a second hand vehicle (though it costs as much as a new one). On the other hand, Boeing 737 is still in production, though the oldest are pretty much obsolete. And to veer back towards the former, though not original, topic: a 737 of today is probably greener than a 737 from the 70's.

[Iluvalar]

I opened my own topic for the various effect of buildings in their city neighborhood.

it's here : http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=10318

Because I don't want to flood that excellent pax/lux idea with off topics.

[ӔO]

But actually coal has/should have no speed bonus or almost. It matters instead for pax, mail, cooled goods and the like.
On the other hand, greener vehicles might have same speed or even be slightly slower.

I don't like too much the way obsolescence is dealt with in Simutrans. Obsolete vehicles are those no longer manufactured, although I might have bought them just one month before.
IMHO lines and vehicles list should mark as obsolete (and hence suggest for replacement) those convoys with negative speed bonus or something alike, regardless of their retire date.

Although it would depend on the pakset, I think coal should be given some speed bonus. It is an energy source, be it for power plants or steam engines, so it is very important that the coal be available constantly and on time. If the supply were to run out, the costs of the downtime could be astronomical.

For a power plant, shutting down and starting up again would not only be very tedious, it would also mean less power on the grid. For a steam engines, both ship and train, it means they have no fuel to move goods. Around the world, coal is still an important resource and it shows, because some railways are only kept alive by the coal they move.

[jamespetts]

Didn't industries used to stockpile the stuff in bulk?

[ӔO]

Didn't industries used to stockpile the stuff in bulk?

that's the contingency measure, just in case there are delays with delivery.
It's really not so different from backup generators and battery banks in some buildings we have today.

[Roads]

AEO, perhaps you are confusing on time delivery with urgent delivery.  Remember the story of the disease out break in Alaska many years ago and they had to get the medicine there by dog sled?  That was urgent.  It deserved a speed bonus.

On time delivery is how most of the industrial world operates.  It has nothing to do with how important the product is, most products are important, doubtless some more than others but the vast majority only require just in time delivery.  IMHO, if I were going give or penalize rates for delivery, then I would set a delivery date each time a vehicle left the destination for most goods.  If the vehicle made it to the delivery point on time, then good, if not he would be penalized.