Topic: Big planes

[Zeno]

If you want to use any plane of my pak just ask; you can see what is already done in this post of the old forum. There are only airbus models; boeings will come soon.

[VS]

(Sorry to split this from the other thread, but I would prefer to keep these two topics separate.)

Since there is no real beginning of thread, short recap - one of the further future projects for 128 are big planes, check the archive topic Zeno linked and attachment. We had a short PM-talk about this before summer holidays and the result was more or less that it might happen.


I am definitely interested. Could you, please, try and render another at size of 254? I would like to try and see how Simutrans handles its extreme. Not that I'd suspect program problems, but such size may overlap to neighbouring tiles too much.

Once the maximal usable size is known, it will become the biggest plane reference, and then the scale is known...

We may need some additional building, "fields" or something else that could be placed around stops at ends of taxiways, because normal stops placed next to normal buildings wouldn't work - such planes would stick their noses into the building. But let's concentrate on the planes first

[Zeno]

I remember, of course. Actually, there is a pak with the Z380 (airbus a380) and its *real* size is 176px. And seems to work fine. You can test it in the post linked above, pak "B" (pak "A" are "normal" 128px planes, "B" big ones at 176). I did a test with 254 px and it worked fine for me, but the sources probably are lost in time... I'll make a new one to ensure it works ok if needed. Err... yes, of course is needed, so I'll do it tomorrow  :

[VS]

I'll take a look. No need to hurry!

[DirrrtyDirk]

I had answered this in the original thread:

I'm quite sure we'd find good use for your planes. IMO it would be great to have a big collection of different models, all more or less to scale and in the same style... a fleet of Airbus, Boeing... and maybe a couple other widely spread models?

[Zeno]

Well, I have all blender sources for all planes, so no problem to rescale them when we decide to. But all other planes, I don't know whether they are drawn or rendered

[Zeno]

Here is the biggest I think we'll be able to make... It's 254px and seems to work well...
But we will need: at least 3x3 cell airports, longer runways... and extra public lighting budget; simutizens will think the final judgement day has arrived when one of those flies over them!!!
See attachments!

[DirrrtyDirk]

Wow that's kinda ... HUGE.

I think this might be just a bit too much - I mean as beautiful as it looks, but we are limited by the fact that many other things (e.g. runways) are only one tile wide. True, the current runway doesn't even really use all of that, but I'm about 98% done with a new set of runways/taxiways, etc. - still this "monster" wouldn't fit, I'm afraid.

[Zeno]

I agree it's too big. For comparison, you can take a look at this Z380, which is rendered at 176px. I think it's still big enough, but not as much as this monster  :

[DirrrtyDirk]

The link doesn't work

EDIT 1:
Never mind, got the file anyway.

EDIT 2:

Ok, better - but still quite big. IMHO still too big. Depot window is quite a mess with that size. The alignment is also quite off - is that a side effect of the size or did you just to not do that correctly yet?

As beautiful as these large sizes maybe, with all these possibilities for details... but as far as I can see, it's not working all too well...  :(

[prissi]

Well, alignment can be corrected by using offset. But the plane is too big, i think so too.

[sojo]

A little bit to big. Perhaps. Show this: http://www.martin-kay.de/kaylog/jumbo.jpg There you can see a plain next to a house looks strange.

[Zeno]

Well, alignment can be corrected by using offset. But the plane is too big, i think so too.

Yes, I didn't pay any attention to alignment... btw, is there any limit in offset usage? This one uses -126 in X and Y offsets...

but as far as I can see, it's not working all too well...  :(

As prissi says, with offset correction I could align it better. I'll probably try soon. Anyway, I don't think it's too big, but big enough, although it doesn't fit in the depot at all... :-\

[VS]

Omg, that is really too big

Maybe we could do something with depot window programatically...

And align is off, but that can be repaired easily.

[Zeno]

I'm now back drawing planes. Airbus series is finished (A300,310,320,340 & 380 are enough), maybe I do some small fixing. All are in passenger versions, some in cargo/mail. I'm now drawing Boeing planes (727, 737 & 777 are almost finished). I may draw a couple more, then render all and make a pak. I also plan drawing two or three douglas and maybe a couple of really old planes, from SWW or before :
I'll try to keep all the sources together and safe; so if you think in the future they could be useful we will be able to use them.

[Zeno]

It's really a pity, because with some more pixels these would look much better... the A320, 727 & 737 are tiny  :'(

[VS]

There is something fishy about alignment of these. Try viewing them on background of 128-sized tiles. With Shades you can open background settings (B), add the attached picture, switch to picture and you'll see...

[Zeno]

There is something fishy about alignment of these.

Yes, I know, as they're not finished yet. Still missing pixel corrections, windows and alignment
Thanks for the template... I'll find it useful, sure; I already have one, but it's kinda primitive!

PS: Calculating gear/acceleration with that excel didn't work as I expected...  :'(  I'll have to take a deeper look at it!

[VS]

I think the constants and some calculations reference the old acceleration models, and during evolution of Simutrans engine these changed.

[Zeno]

Well, then I might try to make some formula by myself (with this excel's help, of course!), but I'll need a lot of free time for that 
Btw, as great as simple to align vehicles with tiles as background... I guess you had to deal with it before, just I was now... 

[Zeno]

Try viewing them on background of 128-sized tiles.

OMG! How easy things can be if you know how to do them...
PNG above replaced. After remaking the pak I've tested, and all planes fit almost perfect

[Ashley]

I agree it's too big. For comparison, you can take a look at this Z380, which is rendered at 176px. I think it's still big enough, but not as much as this monster  :

Directly linking to files on the archive generally doesn't work, please link to the thread or post they are attached to

[Zeno]

Directly linking to files on the archive generally doesn't work, please link to the thread or post they are attached to

Yes, I know. Sorry if breaks any rule or something. Btw, it seem to be working when posted, and it was only a reference... 

[fuzion_051]

how about airbridges/jetways for pak128..I've missed them from 64 so badly  :(

[Zeno]

I think the constants and some calculations reference the old acceleration models, and during evolution of Simutrans engine these changed.

I'd like to get those new engine calculations and constants... who could give me that information (if it isn't a hard job)?

[DirrrtyDirk]

What exactly do you need?

IIRC the only thing you can calculate is the minimum power you need for a vehicle to be able to reach its max speed - but that doesn't say anything about acceleration yet. And a plane should not only be able to reach its max speed along the route, it should also accelerate to a decent takeoff speed on a suitable runway. So even after calculating, you'll probably need to sort it out by trial & error.

Anyway here is something I copied from the old forum a while ago - and I haven't heard of that having changed - or did anyone?

The maximum weigth a train can pull with full speed is a quite simple formula:
(2500*power*gear)/max_speed^2

So if it has 100kW and can go 100 km/h, then this will give
(2500*100*1.0)/(100*100)=25t

This is valid for any vehicle in simutrans. Curves will make one car 4x heavier, slopes 16x.

Oh and by the way, I'd encourage you to use somewhat realistic settings for "power" (use the numbers from the real ones while using some conversion for kN to kW and then adjust it for the game via the "gear" multiplier.)

[Zeno]

What exactly do you need?

I'll try to use this formulas and its values... maybe combining these with the excel... :

...using some conversion for kN to kW ...

I would use *real* power units if they could be converted... but kN have nothing to do with kW... actually W = N*m/s, so there is no conversion, specially because you cannot convert force to power. I'm still thinking about it since long ago, because I would like to normalize these values but don't find a convincing way  :-\
Anyway, if you have any idea for that it will be welcome!! 

[DirrrtyDirk]

That conversion doesn't have to be physically correct for ST use, does it? Just the proportions should remain the same. The easiest way might be to just use kW=kN (or kW=kN*c - where c is a constant value for all planes) and adjust the rest with the gear multilplier...?

[Zeno]

(2500*power*gear)/max_speed^2

That won't work for planes. At least, this formula doesn't apply to the concept of "cruiser speed". It might be useful to determine the maximum weight a vehicle can move (tractive power), but not to get the max speed that a vehicle can reach depending on its weight and power (that's what I want to reach!).

That conversion doesn't have to be physically correct for ST use, does it? Just the proportions should remain the same. The easiest way might be to just use kW=kN (or kW=kN*c - where c is a constant value for all planes) and adjust the rest with the gear multilplier...?

Yes, I've been thinking for some conversion like this for long and I haven't been able to agree with myself
Anyway, I think that's the only way to normalize powers... assume an initial value and put the others together.
Edit: I'd like to write down some values before taking any decision... when I can see a progression or comparation or something...

[DirrrtyDirk]

actually W = N*m/s, so there is no conversion

Well... P=F*v

We have F from the original planes and we have v(speed from .dat)

So you could (at least according to math) do the conversion - if you just take the max speed of the vehicle (converted from km/h to m/s). Then you'd have some mathematically (but maybe not physically?) correct value.

Taking max speed for that equation would also kinda take care of the effect, that jet engines are least "effective" when v=0 and becoming more "efficient" with increasig speed, IIRC. So assuming that max power is reached with max speed might be easiest.

Just did that with approximate numbers for a B777 and came to ~105000kW - quite a lot. 

---------

About the formula - I don't see a problem, you'd just have to re-arrange the formula, don't you?

so for v-max with a given weight it should be something like:

sqrt[(2500*power*gear) / maxweight] = max-speed

[Zeno]

Yes, m/s is v, but speed from dat is max.v... I'm not sure both are talking about the same speed... Anyway, I think I'll do it more simply (a constant or so, like you suggested).
About the formula, i had re-arranged the formula, but it gave me some strange values... maybe I missed some unit without conversion or something... I'll try again later when have more time. Now I get back to work! Thanks a lot!

[DirrrtyDirk]

As far as I understand the physics of it, the power (P[kW]) that is generated by a jet-engine of a certain thrust/force (F[kN]) is variable with speed. Since simutrans doesn't give us the opportunity to calculate it that way (and at v=0 we'd have P=0 -> no movement after a stop) we'll have to settle for a fixed value instead.

If we take v-max for the equation, we'd get the correct power (P[kW]) output at max speed. But too much power for the lesser speeds.

We can't take v=0.

And if we assume some intermediate value 0 < x < v-max, we'd get the correct power for that speed, but not enough for max speed.

The overall behaviour can still be adjusted by gear...

[VS]

While this is for now on halt, here comes some history!

I had this crazy idea of finding when Shades appeared and there isn't any solid info... Thunderbird archaeology revealed it's sometime now turning 3 years. Exact date is unknown, but there is a sudden increase in my questions about special colors roughly at that time

Anyway, I took the archaeology activity to old forum archive and found this gem:
http://archive.forum.simutrans.com/topic/00686.0/index.html
Dejá-vu?

[apdaf]

Why not make the next generation of super jumbos?

[DirrrtyDirk]

Because the current models aren't even finished yet? 

And what airplanes exactly do you mean?

[apdaf]

Like the cancelled Md-12 a double decker.

[Zeno]

Actually, in Simutrans there is a general lack of planes in several parts of the cronology; for instance, when I first started my pak I thought of creating some planes for the game; now I try to fill empty gaps in the cronology.
IMHO, the superjumbo class (high capacity double-decked) is by now enough covered with the 747-800 and A380-800 models; I really think it exists a lack of medium and short range planes, specially in later dates, which in the other hand, have nothing to do with this topic because they're rather small

[apdaf]

Is the Md-88 good?