Started by fabio85, October 19, 2009, 08:53:50 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteI'm considering a mine relatively near to powerplant, if mine is too far from powerplant I know that I will have a negative budget because trucks will be empty in a too long return travel!
Quote from: fabio85 on October 19, 2009, 08:53:50 PMHi! I'm playing Simutrans with pak128 and I have noticed one important thing: prices list is changed than pak64 and values are 1/3 than pak96!
Quote from: fabio85 on October 19, 2009, 08:53:50 PMBefore passangers payed 0,15c per tiles, now 0,05c and it's impossible to be in profit with infrastructures maintenance costs!
QuoteBefore passangers payed 0,15c per tiles, now 0,05c and it's impossible to be in profit with infrastructures maintenance costs! Before? Pak128 has had 0.05 as passenger rate for years now (checked with my old 88.10.5 version and it was 0.05 already) - and it always worked. And I wouldn't say that it is "impossible" - so far you are the only one complaining... so my guess is that others actually manage to generate some profits.
QuoteIn which year are you playing? I usually play from 1980 on and I don't have the problems you have. Are you in an earlier period?
Quotewhat would you do with a powerplant and one or two coal mines
Quote from: fabio85 on October 20, 2009, 12:27:59 PMI'm comparing pak64 and pak128, so before is referred to pak64.
Quote from: fabio85 on October 20, 2009, 12:27:59 PMI have the latest version of pak128 and simutrans and I'm playing from 1960 with timeline activated! This evening I will try 1980...
QuoteI just did a little test with 102.2 (release) and pak128 r718 in 1960, with timeline on. And you are right, fabio: the train didn't earn enough for tracks and stations (all of the cheapest kind) - even without its own running costs. But the train wasn't actually moving very often, as the production rate of the coal mine was so low (and all other on that map had the same: 300t) that this single, 5-tile 1960's train had to wait very long until it was filled up again. There were simply not enough trips per month (or year) to earn the necessary money. However, when I used the map editor and replaced the coal mine with a new one, producing 800t instead of 300t, the train travelled more often and hence made net profit easily (not terribly much but at least 15k per year). So maybe it's not the prices but production rates that don't work properly any more...? Certainly something Zeno and VS should take a look at some day.
Quote from: fabio85 on October 20, 2009, 05:35:43 PMSimutrans version 102
Quote from: fabio85 on October 20, 2009, 05:35:43 PMI tried to connect coal mines to powerplant with a train: with one Rvg D22 (maintenance 2,08c and 2420KW), 11 Rvg Bulk wagons (0,18c), low quality track (0,8c) and three stations of six tiles I was in negative of 1406c in a year.
Quote from: fabio85 on October 20, 2009, 05:35:43 PMLow quality track has the problem that it can't resist to that heavy train, so max speed is set to 21km/h. With a concrete sleeper track train is faster, but I am in negative too! Adding a powerline things aren't better because powerline's maintenance is higher than increase of revenue!
QuoteI have the latest version of pak128 and simutrans and I'm playing from 1960 with timeline activated! This evening I will try 1980...
Quote from: Zeno on October 21, 2009, 09:16:56 PMAbout the timeline, it should be the same result no matter the year being played since raw materials have no bonus, so price is not speed depending...
Quote from: Zeno on October 21, 2009, 09:16:56 PMand it doesn't sound easy :/
Quote from: DirrrtyDirk on October 21, 2009, 09:43:38 PMEspecially when also production levels are not sufficient to have the train running often enough to generate more income by sheer transport volume, instead of speed (bonus)...
Quote from: Zeno on October 22, 2009, 06:49:30 AMOh yes, low production on non-bonused goods have a terrible impact on its profit because of high infrastructure mantainance (expensive stations/tracks + nothing to transport = bankrupcy). I may review how infrastructure affects vehicle cost calculations (at the moment I can't remember it); in a very generic/global meaning it should look like a "big" yearly fixed cost which should be substracted from the theoric vehicle yearly income.