Started by jamespetts, January 26, 2014, 01:35:08 AM
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jamespetts on February 27, 2014, 10:49:01 AMTurfIt had some interesting ideas about this earlier in the thread, but nothing seems to have come of that, unfortunately.
Quote from: ӔO on February 28, 2014, 02:50:20 AMoh yeah, I just wanted to make sure I didn't need to make an awkward climb to get to Monkington from the north.
Quote from: Sarlock on February 28, 2014, 03:39:36 AMInteresting how blind chance made Monkington the largest city on the map and was also placed in a very strategic location at the centre of a large area of cities.
Quote from: AP on February 28, 2014, 08:00:45 AM Safeguarding the route; the same reason I figured I had to start building my route soon - several of the islands are really hilly with just one viable short route along the edge. Hills are such a pain (roll on twin-slope simutrans!)There are a couple of spots where I'd appreciate it if roads could slightly be realigned, have put up signs. (2200,1060)(1984,1017)(3996,478), but no immediate hurry to do so.Am hoping I can run it as a single track main line, but I've allowed enough space to double it, because my experience with single track and intensive service has been mixed thus far. Bit it would keep the maintenance down, since I'll need 7 short(!) tunnels too. I now need to figure out the passing loop spacing and where I aim for at each end. Was it chance or did the city cluster setting have an effect? I was thinking I'd for Monkington there and if you are making it the key node of your network, that makes even more sense. Anyone drawn up plans for the east island yet?
Quote from: ӔO on February 28, 2014, 10:14:07 PM@AP1984 to 2200, wouldn't it be easier if you go through the south side of the Barnbridge?Then you wouldn't need to cross the roads there or go through the mountain.
Quote from: AP on February 28, 2014, 11:47:13 PMI mocked up the entire route offline, about a week ago, but since then that road had appeared It was that in fact that persuaded me I had to build the route now, 4 decades earlier than ideal, but whilst it was still mostly unobstructed.
Quote from: Sarlock on February 27, 2014, 08:00:55 AMThe clock is rather "jerky" in that it freezes up for a few seconds, then bursts ahead again. It does this in offline play as well though not quite as pronounced (fast forward jumps between 7x and 13x, back and forth). It may be related to there being over 3,000 convoys in motion and the amount of calculation required. I suspect that it is this that is causing the frequent desynchs. It was fine earlier but that was because over 1,000 of the 3,000 convoys were in depot. After we sent them all back out the game because quite lagged again and the desynchs returned.
Quote from: James PettsIt is difficult to know exactly what is causing the difficulties, but it does seem that they are at least correlated with the increase in computational load caused by the existence of a large number of convoys, particularly ships, which are more demanding on route-finding.
Quote from: jamespetts on March 02, 2014, 01:17:07 AMI have not changed anything on the server. It is odd that Carl and Sarlock report a different point at which the performance issue arose. Is it still present in 11.21? I thought that this had been eliminated when the wayfinding bug was fixed.
Quote from: Sarlock on March 02, 2014, 06:21:40 PMIs there a mechanism for the client to speed up or slow down to keep in time with the server?
Quote from: Sarlock on March 02, 2014, 06:21:40 PMWithout knowing the details, I imagine that a desynch occurs when the clocks reach a certain spread apart... or are there other factors involved?
Quote from: Sarlock on March 02, 2014, 06:21:40 PMIf there's a way to significantly speed up the map destruction process, it would help a lot... the worst part of desynchs is that you have to wait 5 minutes to reconnect