Topic: pak128 release version 2.5.3 (half heights)

[gauthier]

Indeed. Sorry about that, I could not find any discussion related to that decision so I cannot even tell why it is so, but it was done before I arrived so ...

[tonu]

Maybe you have already fixed it, I founded a bug in the winter graphics of the passenger's dock (It appears in the next tile, but it doesn't affect the ships' operation).
Also, as a minor detail, the new catenaries protrude from behind of the tunnel entrances.

[gauthier]

Maybe you have already fixed it, I founded a bug in the winter graphics of the passenger's dock (It appears in the next tile, but it doesn't affect the ships' operation).

No, I did not, thanks for reporting. Will be fixed soon in nightlies (I will keep you informed).

the new catenaries protrude from behind of the tunnel entrances.

This is a code problem, I can't do anything, sorry :/

[tonu]

^^ Thanks!
P/D: What an awful mistake my "founded", meant "found". I don't know what was I thinking, sorry

[gauthier]

Don't worry, few people here have a perfect English.

[gauthier]

Glitch of winter views of passengers'dock fixed.

commited r1560 (wait for it to be compiled on nightlies, probably tonight).

[gauthier]

As nightlies are no longer available, I uploaded a new release of pak128 on SF (link updated on the first post). This release is alsmot the same as basic 2.5.2, it includes latest glitch fixes.

DOWNLOAD (90 MB)

[Argelle]

Gauthier, is this an update (merge with older pak128) or a "stand alone" (just place the folder in simutrans folder)?

[gauthier]

This is a stand alone update Replace completely your pak128 with this new one.

[DrSuperGood]

Bug report Pakset version 2.5.2

• Tigress (400 km/h) Electric train cannot have multiple units combined in a single convoy. Apparently all such high speed unit trains are meant to be able to be combined.
• Pioneer Zephyr Diesel Passenger Train (04/1934) is listed as having a maximum speed of "180 km/h" yet the smallest possible unit of it has a maximum top speed of 108 km/h. Since at the time this is the only convoy which could possibly use 200 km/h Express Track it leaves 200 km/h express track un-usable for over 30 years. Either its maximum speed is too high (and 200 km/h Express Track becomes available much too soon) or it is lacking power/gearing to reach its top speed.
• TMB Underground Class 200A/B have a top speed of 50 km/h yet the slowest rail tunnel available is 80 km/h (Freight Track (rustic) 60 km/h does not have a rail tunnel). Seeing how poor the speed bonus is and how expensive 80 km/h tunnels are it might be a good idea to introduce "Underground Tunnel" or "Tunnel for Underground Track" at 50 km/h and considerably lower maintenance than normal tunnels, at least from 1926 until 1962.
• Haru VT98 (Engine) diesel and its accompanying coaches are technically obsolete upon release. You can carry more passengers faster using the Haru F7 A/B for considerably less cost per passenger. The only thing the train wins on is higher density but even then an overloaded "RVg 2-4-0 "Express"" (introduced a year before) steam engine still beats it in density and per passenger cost. The Haru VT98 probably needs a much lower running costs to be viable. Alternatively if its gearing/power is boosted it could haul more cheap "un-powered" coaches which would bring the convoy per tile costs down.
• VT-105 diesel passenger engine has "Car" which cannot be used without reducing the maximum speed down to 100 km/h. They also are unit trains which cannot be stacked in a single convoy. Hence their only usable configuration is 3 coaches at 120 km/h or 4 coaches at 102 km/h (both 2 tiles long with tiny capacity). Giving their engine more power and/or allowing them multiple units to be used for a single convoy would fix this.
• SMC RT-120 "Mighty Duck" suffers from technically being obsolete on availability. Haru F7 A/B released years before is faster, more dense and has a lower per unit passenger cost when operating at a similar speed.

I am aware about the differences in purchasing cost, however the loss of value difference is often more than compensated by the cheaper running costs and higher speeds.

[gauthier]

Tigress (400 km/h) Electric train cannot have multiple units combined in a single convoy. Apparently all such high speed unit trains are meant to be able to be combined.

Will be fixed in next release.

Pioneer Zephyr Diesel Passenger Train (04/1934) is listed as having a maximum speed of "180 km/h" yet the smallest possible unit of it has a maximum top speed of 108 km/h. Since at the time this is the only convoy which could possibly use 200 km/h Express Track it leaves 200 km/h express track un-usable for over 30 years. Either its maximum speed is too high (and 200 km/h Express Track becomes available much too soon) or it is lacking power/gearing to reach its top speed.

Will have its max speed decreased (110 kmph ?) and be rebalanced.

TMB Underground Class 200A/B have a top speed of 50 km/h yet the slowest rail tunnel available is 80 km/h (Freight Track (rustic) 60 km/h does not have a rail tunnel). Seeing how poor the speed bonus is and how expensive 80 km/h tunnels are it might be a good idea to introduce "Underground Tunnel" or "Tunnel for Underground Track" at 50 km/h and considerably lower maintenance than normal tunnels, at least from 1926 until 1962.

Adding missing tunnels/bridges/elevated ways is planned too. A 60 kmph tunnel will be added.

Haru VT98 (Engine) diesel and its accompanying coaches are technically obsolete upon release. You can carry more passengers faster using the Haru F7 A/B for considerably less cost per passenger. The only thing the train wins on is higher density but even then an overloaded "RVg 2-4-0 "Express"" (introduced a year before) steam engine still beats it in density and per passenger cost. The Haru VT98 probably needs a much lower running costs to be viable. Alternatively if its gearing/power is boosted it could haul more cheap "un-powered" coaches which would bring the convoy per tile costs down.

As you said, the key problem here is the per passenger cost. Economical balancing needs improvements, but this needs time ... so it won't be fixed quickly.

VT-105 diesel passenger engine has "Car" which cannot be used without reducing the maximum speed down to 100 km/h. They also are unit trains which cannot be stacked in a single convoy. Hence their only usable configuration is 3 coaches at 120 km/h or 4 coaches at 102 km/h (both 2 tiles long with tiny capacity). Giving their engine more power and/or allowing them multiple units to be used for a single convoy would fix this.

This train is made after a real train, so allowing multiple units for it is out of question. Its power is quite decent compare to other trainsets (I don't compare it with trains pulled by locomotives, these would be a non sense) of the same era. The only problem is its capacity which is, indeed, very low. It will be increased.

SMC RT-120 "Mighty Duck" suffers from technically being obsolete on availability. Haru F7 A/B released years before is faster, more dense and has a lower per unit passenger cost when operating at a similar speed.

About per passenger cost: same remark as above. About remarks like "this other train is better": yes there are vehicles which are better than others with higher passenger density, and/or higher power, etc... If all vehicles were designed so that they are all equivalent to each other, this would be boring, wouldn't it ? The only problem is that balancing is sometimes inconsistent, but it will take time to be fixed.

Anyway, my opinion on this particular inconsistency (mighty duck VS F7A) is that the low speed limit of mighty duck would make it fit to regional/suburb lines. The problem here is that the outstanding exageration of speed bonus for passengers in pak128 make it nearly unprofitable compared to F7A.


About "when will the next update come ?": probably in August. It will feature fixes mentionned in this post (except economical balancing improvement, which will take much longer to come), and maybe the missing tunnels/bridges/elevated ways (will depend on my free time and motivation).

Anyway, thanks for reporting ! 

[DrSuperGood]

Will have its max speed decreased (110 kmph ?) and be rebalanced.

You need to push back the 200 km/h express track, elevation, tunnel and bridge to a later availability date then. Even at 1954 there are still are no convoys which need that track to reach maximum speed (exception being Zephyr Diesel which might be getting changed). My high speed passenger network in 1954 is still using 160 km/h express track as the fastest convoys only do 152 km/h. It looks like the only reason such track is available so early is for the "Zephyr Diesel" since 180 km/h is above the 160 km/h express track. If that has its speed reduced below the need for 200 km/h express track then the 200 km/h express track should not be available so early on (it should become available when the first trains that do more than 160 km/h appear, or shortly before then.

If all vehicles were designed so that they are all equivalent to each other, this would be boring, wouldn't it ? The only problem is that balancing is sometimes inconsistent, but it will take time to be fixed.

The problem is not that all convoys are different, it is that some convoys lack a use case. Technical obsolescence is when a convoy has no use case because other convoys available at the same time as it are better than it in fulfilling any possible use case.

What needs to happen is someone goes through all convoys and assigns every convoy a purpose for it to fulfil. When another convoy comes along that fulfils the purpose better then the previous one should obsolete (or obsolete soon around that time). If two convoys are released near each other for the same purpose they need to be given similar stats (so choice does not matter).

Giving users "fake" convoy choice is not helpful and so something that needs to be avoided.

[gauthier]

You need to push back the 200 km/h express track, elevation, tunnel and bridge to a later availability date then. Even at 1954 there are still are no convoys which need that track to reach maximum speed (exception being Zephyr Diesel which might be getting changed). My high speed passenger network in 1954 is still using 160 km/h express track as the fastest convoys only do 152 km/h. It looks like the only reason such track is available so early is for the "Zephyr Diesel" since 180 km/h is above the 160 km/h express track. If that has its speed reduced below the need for 200 km/h express track then the 200 km/h express track should not be available so early on (it should become available when the first trains that do more than 160 km/h appear, or shortly before then.

All tracks are available before there is a train able to reach the speed, this sounds quite normal (on the contrary: having a train that has no tracks to run on would be lame). This does not alter the gameplay, so I don't see any reason to push it back. Maybe the point of this request is decreasing this track's cost and maintenance as later means more technological availability ?

The problem is not that all convoys are different, it is that some convoys lack a use case. Technical obsolescence is when a convoy has no use case because other convoys available at the same time as it are better than it in fulfilling any possible use case.

What needs to happen is someone goes through all convoys and assigns every convoy a purpose for it to fulfil. When another convoy comes along that fulfils the purpose better then the previous one should obsolete (or obsolete soon around that time). If two convoys are released near each other for the same purpose they need to be given similar stats (so choice does not matter).

Giving users "fake" convoy choice is not helpful and so something that needs to be avoided.

I agree with you but I don't see such cases in what you reproted.

Regarding RT-120, I already gave it a case of use: its lower speed should make it fit to small suburb lines, its power is still decent for DMU of the same era. Its capacity could be increased a little but it's already decent too. The problem is the economical balancing ruining it.

Same goes for VT98. Perhaps the real problem is RT-120 vs VT98 ? Increasing RT-120 capacity would definitely solve those two problems ... What do you think about it ?

[DrSuperGood]

All tracks are available before there is a train able to reach the speed, this sounds quite normal (on the contrary: having a train that has no tracks to run on would be lame). This does not alter the gameplay, so I don't see any reason to push it back. Maybe the point of this request is decreasing this track's cost and maintenance as later means more technological availability ?

Although I agree that it should be available before the trains that need it (to allow people to upgrade ahead of time), the problem is it is available decades before. For over 30 years it provides the user with nothing more than pointless choice that clutters up the UI because there are no convoys that need its 200 km/h speed limit that cannot use the 140 km/h or 160 km/h track. Having a lot of build options available is good, but not when they have no purpose.

Currently you might as well make the High-Speed 400 km/h track available from the start since it is as useful at the time and wastes even more money if used. By it not being available from the start means that way speeds are meant to rise with convoy speeds. To me it would seem the 200 km/h track being available so early was either a mistake or there were intended to be faster convoys earlier on.

At 1940, the intro year of 200 km/h track the fastest non-broken engine is the RVg "Flying Berliner" (1936) at 142 km/h which can still use the 160 km/h track introduced in 1930 (6 years from available to usable).
At 1950 the fastest engine is the RVg Hiawatha Express (1943) comes in at 151 km/h. Still uses the 160 km/h track.
At 1960 the fastest engine is the RVg 2-4-0 "Express" (1951) comes in at 152 km/h. Still uses the 160 km/h track.
At 1970 the fastest engine is the MJHN Deltic (1966) comes in at 160 km/h. Still uses the 160 km/h track.
At 1980 the fastest engine is the Haru Spike PSE (1978) comes in at 270 km/h. This uses High-Speed 280 km/h track introduced in 1970 (8 years from available to usable).
At 1980 there are also the Haru BR-103 (1971) and Haru HST (1976) coming in at 200 km/h. This uses the 200 km/h Express track introduced in 1940 (31 years from available to usable).

For 31 years it will clutter your UI as a track choice before it is actually usable by any trains. To put it in perspective the track retires at 2000 which is ~29 years after the first trains that can take advantage of it. This means that the track spends more time on the UI not being usable than being usable.

I would recommend moving its intro year to 1970 (1 year from intro to usable) since that would give people some time to deploy and upgrade their networks in preparation for the new engines that can use it. If you feel that it does not give enough time then 1965 (6 years from intro to usable) as that is a similar to other rail types.

Same goes for VT98. Perhaps the real problem is RT-120 vs VT98 ? Increasing RT-120 capacity would definitely solve those two problems ... What do you think about it ?

Currently I find myself at 1955 using 2 types of passenger/mail trains. High-speed for main routes (such as to an exchange), and combinations of lower speed ~100-120 km/h engines for gathering passengers. I do only operate point-to-point lines however so maybe the higher capacity is useful for multi-stop lines. In any case the slower convoys probably need lower running cost and/or higher capacity since currently they are just not worth using (nothing stops you using faster convoys which cost about the same to run and earn a lot more).

When changing capacity remember to raise power since the extra weight slows the convoys down.


Another bug. The "Haru Plan V." Electric engine cannot ever reach its top speed of 130 km/h. It only manages 129 km/h unloaded and 115 km/h loaded.

[gauthier]

I would recommend moving its intro year to 1970 (1 year from intro to usable) since that would give people some time to deploy and upgrade their networks in preparation for the new engines that can use it. If you feel that it does not give enough time then 1965 (6 years from intro to usable) as that is a similar to other rail types.

Okay. All tracks appear more or less early compared to the right trains to go on them; 6 years before usability is too short, there could be addons, now or later, that need this track. Since 160 track appears in 1930 and 280 track appears in 1970, 200 track could appear in 1950 (half way between 140 and 280 tracks).

In any case the slower convoys probably need lower running cost and/or higher capacity since currently they are just not worth using (nothing stops you using faster convoys which cost about the same to run and earn a lot more).

Indeed, once again the main problem is cost and balancing. Currently all vehicles are balanced using Zeno's program, the point is precisely to avoid having to adjust prices by hand. So changing running cost is not an option, otherwise we would have to adjust many vehicles by hand.

[gwalch]

Some trains were able to go faster than 160 km/h before 1971, so we need a faster track like 200 km/h. Those trains are not (yet) reproduced in Simutrans, but maybe later ?
For exemple, only with commercial speed (not records) :
- In Germany the BR05 designed for commercial speed at 175 km/h in ... 1937 !
- In Japan the first shinkansen at 210 km/h in 1964
- In France the "capitole" at 200 km/h in 1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Capitole_%28train%29)

[gauthier]

- In Germany the BR05 designed for commercial speed at 175 km/h in ... 1937 !

So, 200 kmph track's intro date should even be earlier :p

[DrSuperGood]

There is a difference between what one ideally wants and what one has. Until there are convoys that need it so early there is no reason to have it available so early. Commits that add such convoys can also change the release date of the track appropriately (and likely the retirement date of other tracks). Frankly trying to balance such early high speed convoys will likely be difficult if not impossible currently.

One could argue that extension mods could bring in such convoys. However if that is the case they should also extend in the appropriate way types for them. Pak128 should be designed around what is in pak128 and not in case someone eventually adds a potentially poorly balanced convoy for some realistic time period.

From the user perspective playing on something like 50's pak128 server there are no convoys needing that rail for over 30 years. As such it is clogging up player's UI with a way type, an elevated type, a bridge and a tunnel for over 30 years before anything comes that can use it.

[gwalch]

Pak128 should be designed around what is in pak128 and not in case someone eventually adds a potentially poorly balanced convoy for some realistic time period.

If i undestand well, we have to delete all the wagons before 1901, because there is'nt any locomotive in the official pak to pull them ?
Nobody will create a new pak into the existant pak (locomotive + wagon + rail + bridge + tunnel + électrification...) because official pak is too restrictive !

In that case (introduction of the 200 km/h rail), maybe 1940 is a little early, but please, don't put it later than 1950 !

[gauthier]

So, 200 kmph track's intro date should even be earlier :p

Don't worry, I was joking ...

All your arguments are relevant. We have to keep a compromise between making pak128 a super-closed environment and something overloaded with possibilities. On the first hand, it would be sad that addon makers have to make their own way if one of their vehicle is a couple years too early for pak128 first vehicle to reach the same speed. And what if one addon maker makes such a train, and the associated track, but another addon make makes another train and also has to make an appropriate track for this train, things will get even worse regarding GUI ... So we will keep a sort of tolerance between track appearance and train appearance. Then, do we agree on 1950 as 200 kmph track's introduction date ?

I'm aware of GUI overloading problem. This is specific to paksets with many graphics, especially pak128. Of course it would be too extreme to remove contents from the pakset, the only solution, a good and long-term solution, would be some code extensions. For example, grouping way and associated elevated way, bridge and tunnel into one icon (I know this is not as simple as that, though it could be an interesting extension request, but I won't go into details here as this is not the point of this thread).

[DrSuperGood]

What is up with some of the strange appearance end dates on some of the attractions?

For example...

Russian Orthodox Church
Appears from 1700 until 2100

Clock Tower
Appears from 1950 until 2140

I understand it is meant to be a distant future but it stands out in that most attractions such as "Elementary School" or "Marketplace" have no retire date.

[gauthier]

Will be fixed sooner or later, right now I don't find this so important and fixing all the buildings in this case would take long time.

[gauthier]

DOWNLOAD pak128 2.5.3 (95 MB) for Simutrans 120 and higher

This release is a bunch of minor changes, taking into account last comments and personnal observations. Regarding comments, intro dates of tracks and curiosities have not been changed. Both will need a deeper reworking later. Any feedback is welcome.

Now I'm working on pak128 2.6 which will include missing tunnels/bridges/elevated ways and probably one or two new suspended monorail ways. I don't like to talk about release dates as I often miss them but ... maybe end of august, or beginning of september.

Detailed changelog in the quote box below:

_ Changes on trains:
    _ Rvg tender (blue one): length 8 -> 7 (to match graphics)
    _ BR-135: graphics were left in a pityful condition (grey thing with inconsistent patches of player color) for a long time, I tried to restore them in player color as well as I could.
    _ BR-238: added missing smoke
    _ EMD FT: added missing smoke
    _ Renfe 310, 319, 333, 340, 301, 311, 314, 316, 318, 319, 334, 10200: added missing smoke
    _ Silver city comet: added missing smoke
    _ VT 105: added missing smoke, capacity increased (+10 passengers on car and rear)
    _ RT 100, 350, 600, 900: adedd missing smoke
    _ RT 120: added missing smoke, capacity increased (+10 passengers per vehicle)
    _ CPH Motorcar: added missing smoke
    _ Class 620, 2000: added missing smoke
    _ Pioneer zephyr: added missing smoke, max speed 180 (unreachable) -> 110
    _ Rvg Tigress: multiple units enabled
    _ Rvg Tigress and Thunder: images moved up of two pixels
_ Suspended monorail topspeeds increased to 150, to match the fastest monorail. This is a temporary fix, new monorail ways will appear in later releases.
_ 60 metal rail bridge: error in player color fixed
_ Changes on some curiosities (wrong levels, far too high in some cases)
    _ ski resort: 600 -> 140
    _ maya temple: 288 -> 216
    _ big French garden: 240 -> 100
    _ radiant house: 243 -> 180
    _ round about: 2 -> 30
_ Changes on some curiosities (too high chances, used to spawn everywhere)
    _ small and big French gardens: 100 -> 40
    _ saint Geneviève library: 60 -> 30
    _ central park: 100 -> 30
_ Increased speed of some early citycars which used to ruin up bus networks
_ Removed wrong pillar graphics under north-south and east-west views of 80b track bridge
_ All station extensions moved to special construction toolbar, less confusing for beginners, lighter toolbar for tracks
_ Change in third rails: 80b third rail became 120 third rail, 80 third rail retire date removed
_ Fixed graphical error between green and red positions of early train choose signal
_ Added an end-of-choose-sign for road (quick work-around of existing sign), changed the road block's icon to avoid confusion
_ Added early big bus station
_ Fixed wrong cost of early highway entry sign
_ Canonball Btx car: overpowered compared to other cars of the pak of the same era: increased weight (31 -> 34) and decreased topspeed (160 -> 140)

[michelv]

Hey,

I am using the latest 128 2.5.3 with 120.0.1 r7373, and am encountering some strange behaviour. Not sure where the error is:

1. Airplanes will not go back to depot. They go towards it, but then restart (not entering).
2. In 1958, there are new airplanes announced, but not all are shown
3. In the same period: there are no new mail airplanes generated, and the Junkers Ju-52 is out of date.

Any ideas, or are these bugs?

Michel

[gauthier]

1 and 2 are code-related problems, try using latest nightly build, maybe they have been fixed. Otherwise, please report these bugs in the appropriate subforum.
About 3, indeed there is a huge gap between 1932 and 1960. If an artist can make some mail planes for this period, I would gladly add them. Anyway, planes are not supposed to be heavily relied on during this period, it's too early. You should consider transporting mail and passengers by road, rail and water for this period.

Thanks for reporting !

[michelv]

I am now using nightly built, which fixes the first issue, but the others are still there.

[gauthier]

Well, sorry but, as I explained, I can't do much about these issues.
_______________________________

Some news about next release:
_ 60 kmph rail tunnel has been uploaded to svn repository for more than a week now, it should be in the nightly builds.
_ I'm currently working on elevated ways for 60, 80a, 80b, 100 and 120b kmph tracks. However there is more work than expected, and studies are back to suck my free time out. So, the next release is not likely to come out this month. Sorry :(

[darkBlue]

Hi, thanks for your time supporting the pak.

I've noticed a few graphics issues with the bridges. First is with trams - the tram rails are always drawn half-height, but they can be constructed onto full-height road bridge ramps. The other issue is with rail bridge 120 for freight track - the freight station tiles are drawn over the bridge construction.

[Sarlock]

Interesting.  Thank you for pointing these out.

The first seems to be a consequence of not being able to build full-height tram track but being able to raise the road to full height.  We should probably draw some full height tram tracks to address this potential issue.

The second, I wonder if it's a pakset or game issue.  Will have to experiment to determine.

[DrSuperGood]

First issue looks like a bug in the tramtrack construction logic. It should not allow you to build tram track that does not support double height inclines on double height inclines. Similar to if you try to build a rail on double height inclines, it just does not work.

Second issue is likely due to how the graphics overlay and probably not fixable. Similar to how bridges can cut buildings in half.

Some issues I have noticed...
110 km/h road does not support double height inclines. In 1945 all other roadways do support double height inclines.
120 km/h rails obsolete when they are still useful for 115 km/h deliverable trains (eg for Fabrics which need good speed bonus). You are forced to use 140 km/h rails which are more expensive.

[darkBlue]

About the tram issue my post was a bit misleading. I've said 'always' but it's not always. Sorry about that. It happens only on full height bridge ramps with tram tracks 90 and 110. The slower tram tracks do have full height inclines and are drawn correctly.
On the normal full height terrain slopes the 90 and 110 tracks can't be constructed (as intended I suppose).

[gauthier]

As already said, the tram track problem is a bug in the game, not in the pakset. Please report it in "bug reports" section

About the station, it's not easily fixable. To fix this, we should modify both the code and the graphics in the pakset to separate graphics of the bridge's base from those of the upper structure, and then not draw the upper structure if there's station. Finally, the first thing to change is the code, so, if you want, you can start an extension requestion in the appropriate section of the forum.

Some issues I have noticed...
110 km/h road does not support double height inclines. In 1945 all other roadways do support double height inclines.
120 km/h rails obsolete when they are still useful for 115 km/h deliverable trains (eg for Fabrics which need good speed bonus). You are forced to use 140 km/h rails which are more expensive.

Both are intended. First one cause player is supposed to terraform a bit when building highways. Second one is because of the tracks timeline schedule decided by Fabio (may change in the future ... but not likely to change soon).

[Vladki]

Do I see the bridge correctly? Is the station built also over the bridge ramp? Is that a new feature or a bug? Otherwise there are some bridges which are wide enough to accomodate a platform nicely. I remember that there was a discussion about having a dat-file option forbiding stations on bridges.

[darkBlue]

The terrain drops so the rails are flat.

[Dwachs]

the problem with tram tracks is fixed in 7711.

The bug with the station on the bridge is almost impossible to fix. The station is too wide to fit on the bridge, this will never look good.