Release of pak128.Britain 1.10

[The Hood]

Merry Christmas!  A new version of pak128.Britain has just been released and is available for download here:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/simutrans/files/pak128.britain/pak128.Britain%20for%20111-0/pak128.Britain.1.10-111-0.zip/download

The main additions since last release are the new bridges, wlindley's medieval attractions (cathedrals, castles, colleges, etc) and snow images for stations and HQs.

Please report any bugs or issues in the forum.

[ӔO]

well, I am more than impressed
and merry christmas

[Arkadiusz]

Hello!


Thanks for the release I instantly tested it on my 1890 game and I have two comments:
- New bridges are great, but I'm not sure if all of them should be available at such an early time as my mentioned game save... Some of them look quite odd in that period. Maybe one of them should be put as a replacement for the wooden bridge on a selected year? Same could be done for other bridges. Also, the maintenance costs seem to be random low numbers comparing to the bridges that were already included in the set before this update.
- Thanks for the churches The only odd thing with them is that when they appear, the message mentions "monuments". I know it is like this, because you chose to code it that way, but still this appears strange when you play.


Cheers and thanks to everyone who contributed for this release.

[The Hood]

Thanks for the feedback.  If you have any particular suggestions for costs and intro/retire dates, please make them - I'm mainly concentrating on drawing stuff and not too much on what values I give things in the dat file.

[Arkadiusz]

I'd love to help as much as I can During last months I spent much of my free time for a game ranging from 1830 to 1880... And I enjoyed it


Since some bridges have even same names and I don't dig into data files yet, I made a screenshot for reference. My suggestions / fixes are as follows:




-In my opinion, bridge types 1, 2, 3 should be considered as old/primitive types and be available as soon as railroad tracks of respective speeds are.


- No. 1, the wooden type, should retire circa 1890, everything else about is ok.
- No. 2, currently differs not much in costs from the "160 km/h brick railway viaduct" (No. 4) and ingame leaves the player later on with only a pure esthetic choice. I suggest lowering its max speed to 60km/h, costs to 1,500 (42.00). Intro date - 1830, retire - 1910.
- No. 3, the tubular type, should be the early high speed/high maintenance bridge with speed 100km/h. Current costs are absurdly low. I suggest fixing them to 1,700 (56.00), retire 1930.


- No. 4, I suggest lowering max speed to 145 km/h to level in with the accompanying elevated railway. Introduction should be pushed back to 1860, as there is no need for this bridge earlier without railroad tracks fast as this...


Sidenote: Currently the elevated railway costs as much as tracks of the same speed, which is unrealistic. I think they rather should have the same as the related bridge, that is 1,900 (72.00).  Also here, intro date 1860 would be reasonable.


- No 5, 6. - missing snow graphics., also suggested to level intro date with accompanying tracks.


Bridges of type 7, 8, 9 should be considered as economical savings focused alternatives to brick types.


- No 7. Currently absurdly low costs, yet it is still without a doubt a cheap solution for short jumps. Suggested intro 1910, costs: 900 (32.00).


- No 8. Now offers 160 km/h speed with maintenance lower than the 145 km/h track... Yet, it was innovated to save costs with less bricks and plates inserted instead. Suggested intro 1930, costs 1,500 (48.00)


- No 9. Same issue as 8, Now offers 145 km/h with maintenance lower than the 145 km/h track... I'm not sure what to do with this. Truss bridges were already built in 19th century, yet for example in other packs they represent the high speed bridges and in my 1887 game they looked quite odd... To offer diversity comparing to 7 and 8, I suggest raising max speed to 190 km/h and costs to 1,900  (76.00), intro 1950.


- No 10. Maintenance costs should be at least higher than the track of this speed, yet cheaper than brick types of the same speed. Suggested costs: 5,000 (80.00)


- No 11. Same as 10. Suggested costs 7,000 (106.00)




My opinion on this matter is based on lots of simutrans hours and some limited railroad knowledge, so this is only a suggestion open to criticism from everyone

[The Hood]

That's a very helpful breakdown and analysis.  Feedback like this is just what we need to help balance the game better. 

One thing to bear in mind which you haven't considered is the issue of length and height restrictions.  The idea is that the viaducts (brick/concrete) are unlimited, but that other bridges, e.g. plate girders, beams and trusses have limits.  I'm even considering reducing the height limit from 2 to 1 for some of these.  In my opinion having these as cheaper but on available for shorter/less high spans is a good enough reason to make them cheaper than viaducts, and they can then still have early intro dates.

Happy for more comments on this though.

[Arkadiusz]

One thing to bear in mind which you haven't considered is the issue of length and height restrictions.  The idea is that the viaducts (brick/concrete) are unlimited, but that other bridges, e.g. plate girders, beams and trusses have limits.  I'm even considering reducing the height limit from 2 to 1 for some of these.  In my opinion having these as cheaper but on available for shorter/less high spans is a good enough reason to make them cheaper than viaducts, and they can then still have early intro dates.

Yes, obviously, the lenght and height factors are important as well Actually, I did consider them, yet I wasn't paying much attention specifically, as I feel that the current build & maintenance costs are a bigger issue for optimized gameplay.
I agree that trusses, girders and plates should have strict lenght & height limits while offering lower costs. Perhaps 7, 8 and 9 can have earlier intro dates than I originally suggested. My main worry was about the truss type, as it really looks out of place in my 1880 game with player colors sprayed all over it. With some "natural" grey/silver tones (as on the screenshot from above post) it is fine.

[The Hood]

Thanks again.  I think player colours are fine - clearly pak128.Britain works best if you chose subdued colours and the dark greens and maroons fit quite well with company colours of the big 4 railway companies.  I'm still drawing new bridge types as well - I'd be interested in your views on the new ones as I draw them - see this thread: http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=8755.msg82724#msg82724