Maintenance per km at km/h

[ӔO]

Currently, vehicle maintenance is only determined by its dat setting and distance it has travelled. This means that a vehicle that can do 200km/h will cost the same as it running at 100km/h if it travels the same distance.

I think it would be more logical if it cost less to run the vehicle at slower speeds than it would if it was run at full speed.

example:
200km/h @ $20.00/km
100km/h @ $10.00/km
50km/h @ $5.00/km

I think a linear rate would be fine. This is so that current dats can be kept, without having to rebalance and because vehicles designed to work at X speed will not always run drastically cheaper if they are run slower.


Airplanes should be excluded from this behaviour, because the only time they run below their maximum speed is when they are on the taxiway, which is usually a very short distance.

[prissi]

The cost of vehicles is almost constant no matter what speed they run. For instance, ship engines give their consumption by hour, almost no matter what speed. (The super tanker had actually no throttle, if memory servers my right.) Same for many diesel engines. Instead rail cars and engines must be server after xxx kilometers runnning. Thus a maintanace per distance is most realistic. (Moreover, most of the running costs nowadays are the personal on the vehicles.)

[Fabio]

Probably running costs should vary with terrain: climbing slopes increases cost, going downhill could save cost, but adds to the wear of brake systems.
Hence I would just double running cost for climbing slopes, whereas flatland and downhill should stay unchanged.

[prissi]

In real life maintanace is set at distances, no matter what terrain. Although the swiss postal service might services their buses at shorter intervals than an american long haul trucking company. But that is usually up to the companies. Law requires a check every year or so, and every 100000 km for railway equipement. (And every x hours for planes)

[Ters]

Shouldn't it just as well be the other way around, that the running cost per kilometer gets lower as the speed increases? If most of the cost for running a vehicle goes to paying the driver, and people get paid by the hour, then a faster moving vehicle will spread the hourly salary over more kilometers than a slower moving vehicle. I've also understood it that cars are more fuel efficient on the open highways (fast) than in cities (slow), which might also be true for other vehicles.

Having vehicles run cheaper when running slower would help solve my current game's deficit problem, but that's because it would cancel out the effects of the speed bonus. I don't see how this would not affect the balancing.

[Sarlock]

One could also argue, and quite justifyably so, that the cost/km takes all of this in to account.  If I want to calculate the cost/km of a vehicle, I'd take it over 50,000 km over all types of terrain, speeds, etc, and average out a cost from that.  The cost/km is exactly that: an average cost per km.  The actual cost may vary but over a period of time the cost/km figure will approximate the same total expense.

If revenue is on a per km basis, it only makes sense that vehicle costs are as well.  If a straight uphill climb costs more then there would need to be a mechanism to generate more revenue for the same trip... and on it goes.

[Fabio]

If revenue is on a per km basis, it only makes sense that vehicle costs are as well.  If a straight uphill climb costs more then there would need to be a mechanism to generate more revenue for the same trip... and on it goes.

Nope. I think it could/should give the player an incentive to build ways as plain as technically possible, also using tunnels, bridges and elevated in order to limit the slopes as much as possible.

[Ters]

Is the difference between the extra power needed to go uphill that much bigger than the savings downhill? Tunnels and elevated ways are not cheap.

[ӔO]

Shouldn't it just as well be the other way around, that the running cost per kilometer gets lower as the speed increases? If most of the cost for running a vehicle goes to paying the driver, and people get paid by the hour, then a faster moving vehicle will spread the hourly salary over more kilometers than a slower moving vehicle. I've also understood it that cars are more fuel efficient on the open highways (fast) than in cities (slow), which might also be true for other vehicles.

Having vehicles run cheaper when running slower would help solve my current game's deficit problem, but that's because it would cancel out the effects of the speed bonus. I don't see how this would not affect the balancing.

This is because of the multiple stop and go nature of city traffic.

Accelerating costs fuel, as chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy.
Maintaining speed does not cost as much fuel, because only resistances need to be overcome.
Deceleration turns kinetic energy into heat, unless it has regenerative braking.

If the vehicle was designed for 100km/h, and it is used at 120km/h, it will be less efficient because more energy is needed to overcome resistances.
Using this same vehicle at 50km/h does not result in exactly 50% more efficiency or 25% less energy required, because the sweet spot for the engine/motor is not at 50km/h.

In result, in real life, it's more like a bell curve for land vehicles...
120km/h @ $12 - speeding
100km/h @ $10 - most efficient
80km/h @ $11
60km/h @ $12
40km/h @ $13

In game terms, I think it would be better to do it in inverse, because paksets may not always have a slower vehicle that the player needs. Players can just imagine that the vehicle has been modified to run at this slower speed, which costs less to run than it otherwise would. I do realize, half the speed at half the cost was excessive, so maybe half the speed at 75~80% of the cost is better?
200km/h @ $20.00
100km/h @ $15.00
50km/h @ $11.25

[An_dz]

From my view, all this is useless. The way it is now to me is an average cost per km taking account acceleration/deceleration and all.

If this gets implemented, the repetitive request for buses not stopping in stops without passengers wanting to embark and/or disembark should be done too.