News:

Simutrans.com Portal
Our Simutrans site. You can find everything about Simutrans from here.

Way toll?

Started by jamespetts, September 22, 2011, 09:00:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jamespetts

I have noticed that the latest change to the Standard code is what is described as a "way toll", a price which a player pays to another player to run the first's convoys on the second's ways. This charge is based on a configurable proportion of the convoy's running costs. Might I ask why this is, and why the cost is not instead based on a proportion of revenue, as was the case in real life[/i]? Was there a gameplay reason for this, or was it simply easier to code? One reason that I ask was that I was thinking of implementing an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Clearing_House]RCH-like system in Experimental for this purpose, and wonder why a different method was chosen here. Might this not produce distortions and perverse incentives? For example, why should a more powerful or less fuel efficient vehicle give more profit to the second player's way, irrespective of whether it earns more money for the first player?

Also, has any thought been given to the question of allowing players to permit other players to connect to their ways directly without any intervening public ways?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

prissi

In many places the way toll is usually either given by government (like for trucks on highways in many european countries, and japan) or is set by a complex system by a rating agency (like your clearing house or the german railroad net agency) or depends on the actual structure (like for bridges, tunnels, toll roads).

Since it is very difficult to negociate with an AI in simutrans, there are only two options: toll based on the cost of way maintainance or based on the actual convoi. Since the running costs of a convoi are balanced in a way to make a reasonable profit, I chose the latter as a base.

However, this is of course open to discussion. (Unowned ways, like city roads, are toll free; thus the way toll applies only for intercity roads and other shared resources like channels, airports and soon shared tracks).

For the latter the make public tool will be extended so that it will also make existing way tiles public without a station on them.

jamespetts

#2
There is a third option: charging by apportioning revenue from the journey, as the RCH did. This system was also used for canals. However, I can see that the more modern fashion for charging is more similar to your model: see here for example, for a tariff for Network Rail's track access charges: pricing on that basis has been in existence since about 1994.

However, looking at the Network Rail track access charges has highlighted a weakness in the current implementation, which relates to the cost of electric vehicles: these tend to have a much lower running cost than self-powered vehicles, yet the infrastructure costs are higher. Using a simple % of running costs model would be unfair on the receiving player when electric vehicles are used. A simple remedy to this, however, in your system would be to make it possible to set a different percentage of the running cost (which one would normally expect would be considerably higher) for electrically powered vehicles when compared to self-powered or unpowered vehicles.

As to the connexion of ways, I am interested to note your plan: however, there is a potential pitfall in this approach, in that, once a way tile is made public, the player making it public loses control of it, and only the public player can delete/upgrade it. This may well lead to there being lots of immovable network tiles dotted around the map in large multiplayer games, which might make things very difficult for players unless the public player was able and willing to intervene in these things often, which is frequently not the case.

May I suggest two possible alternatives? One is similar to what you propose, but, instead of the tool making a way tile public, it would make it connectable. This would be a new bool flag in a way tile: when selected, it would have the property of public ways that any other player's way could connect to them, but would otherwise behave in the same way as ways owned by whichever player placed them.

The second suggestion, and the one which I prefer, although requiring more work on the GUI, would be to allow players to choose which other players might connect without restriction to their networks. This would allow players to be selective as to which players are allowed to connect in a way which the public tiles (or connectable tiles) system would not. One might also go further and allow players to choose whether other players' vehicles can run over their ways or not, which would allow finer control.

Edit: One very small matter: a comment in the new code says,


// running on non-public way costs toll


but this is not quite right, as "public ways" (i.e., those owned by player 1 rather than those owned by no player at all) also charge under this model. Perhaps "running on public or players' ways, but not unowned/city ways, incurs tolls" would be clearer?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

isidoro

Just my two cents:

I support Prissi's implementation: in fact, another player's vehicle is occupying the resource, no matter its benefit, and preventing other vehicles, even the owner's, to use that position.

In my oppinion, it would be even more fair to charge as a function of the time the resource (road, station, ...) is used, but that would be unrealistic, perhaps.

prissi

If you run of other peoples track, you are now still only allowed to stop at your and public stops.

wlindley

Could we revive the previous suggestion that each player could set, for all the other players, a status of "Friend, Neutral, or Foe" -- with this toll system, the effect could be:

FoeNeutralFriend
Road:High tollMedium tollLow toll
Track:Cannot operateMedium tollLow toll
Stations:Cannot stopCan stopCan stop

So if I set you as a "foe" you cannot operate on my track, and will be charged high tolls on my roads.

greenling

Three Chosse botton with Foe,Neutral and Friend it not enough.
I gives Times and Places there it be usefull too close road then be overloaded with convios.
And the same it with the tracks.
Opening hours 20:00 - 23:00
(In Night from friday on saturday and saturday on sunday it possibly that i be keep longer in Forum.)
I am The Assistant from Pakfilearcheologist!
Working on a big Problem!

prissi

The friend could just play as the same company. That is already possible now.

And you can only connect to other ways, when there are public ways. It is very easy to allow only one player connection, i.e. by building a fence on the other side.

More control is very difficult, and the categories can be easily exploited. What happens when a player who is friend connects its network with somebody who is foe for you but friend for him? And what happens if you allow building a route as friend and after he starts 50 truck he becomes my foe, so I suddenly make tons of money and forcing him banrupsy, since he suddently cannot use my stops? That can be stopped by disallowed to change my rating towards other; but then they could exploit the system.

Stops on other players halt will cause lot of troubles; thus for now they will stay forbidden.

jamespetts

#8
But the problem with public player assets remains: once they become public, they cannot be changed or removed, so a map will become filled with immovable stations and way tiles if public player assets are necessary for players to connect.

Edit: A better means of dealing with the issues outlined above would be to have an option to grant running powers to any given other player: without running powers, players would not be able (1) to connect to other players' ways; (2) to stop at other players' stops; or (3) to run vehicles over other players' ways; with running powers, players would be able to do all three. Players would be able to grant and revoke running powers in relation to any other player at will, but, if a player's vehicle is on another player's way when a running power is revoked, it could either be (1) sent to a depot, or (2) be allowed to continue its journey but, once it leaves the other player's way, not return, and have all of the revoked player's stops deleted from its timetable.
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

isidoro

What about a signal allowing/preventing certain players' vehicles to pass, like a selective "no way" signal?

jamespetts

Hmm - it strikes me that a signal would be fiddly compared to a running powers selection: one would have to implement it at every boundary between one and another player's ways, which, for roads, might be in a very large number of places indeed, especially where city roads grow and take over player roads (and what then would happen to the signal)?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

isidoro

But it has two advantages:

  • Very easy to implement
  • It's more selective: you can allow a player in only certain roads/tracks

jamespetts

How would it work in towns when the city takes over a player's road, and that road contains such a signal?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

sdog

#13
public roads should always demolish player signs. Too much abuse possible with one-way, trafic lights etc.

isidoro's suggestion would work for rail much better than for roads. I don't thing restrictions are required for road at all.

Quote
As to the connexion of ways, I am interested to note your plan: however, there is a potential pitfall in this approach, in that, once a way tile is made public, the player making it public loses control of it, and only the public player can delete/upgrade it. This may well lead to there being lots of immovable network tiles dotted around the map in large multiplayer games, which might make things very difficult for players unless the public player was able and willing to intervene in these things often, which is frequently not the case.
It is, i think, a very valid point James made. The suggested solution is not a bad one either. An alternative would be allowing players some control over public infrastructure in limited conditions. Eg it has to be connected by two sides. Downgrading is not allowed.

With regard to unfair pricing for electric vehicles (catenary): If vehicle requires catenary and catenary is detected way toll is doubled.

There are also so many ways for abuse, unintended usage, things gone wrong (just imagine you change your track layout a bit, testing all your trains, but don't realize it causes some other players lines running on your rail to break.) that it's practically impossible to create a fool-proof system. Since fools and grievers can already break online games completely and utterly without such a usage system, i suggest not to waste effort on trying to make this system fool proof or with a finely tuneable set of rules.*

Keep it as simple as possible and rely on the community to use it appropriately.

*if we ever have massive problems with arseholes, rather go to a moderator system in game, having them police the servers.

prissi

I could add a second parameter, percentage of way maintainece cost/percentage of runnung cost. That way the found of a map can choose.

About interconnecting tile scattered over the map. I highly doubt that there will be so many tiles. Moreover, such trains still can only stop at public stops. Thus there will be as much public stops as there will be public way tiles. The later have the same troubles with updates.

And a final remark. The system is in place for roads since ages and works fine there.

jamespetts

Quote from: prissi on September 25, 2011, 07:35:21 PM
I could add a second parameter, percentage of way maintainece cost/percentage of runnung cost. That way the found of a map can choose.

Might it not work better if the second parameter was instead a different selectable percentage for electric vehicles? (And did you intend your second parameter to refer only to the cost of ways, or also of way objects?)

QuoteAbout interconnecting tile scattered over the map. I highly doubt that there will be so many tiles. Moreover, such trains still can only stop at public stops. Thus there will be as much public stops as there will be public way tiles. The later have the same troubles with updates.

Ahh, this is more a reason to revise the way in which public stops work than to spread the system to way tiles, is it not? Even a few non-upgradable, non-deletable tiles in key places might be a very great encumbrance in games. If players were permitted to allow/disallow other players to stop at non-public stations/stops on their network at will, this problem would be extinguished.

QuoteAnd a final remark. The system is in place for roads since ages and works fine there.

In Experimental, I have already had to adapt the road system to allow players to stop at other players' stops when placed on public roads, as experience playing some Standard multiplayer games showed this to be necessary. Of course, the city road situation is different to what the situation would be with, say, canals or railways: the city roads do upgrade automatically with time, and can be deleted: neither of these would be true of canals or railways. If players decided, in 1850, to make public a pair of tiles of railway connexion to allow other players to connect to a crucial bit of network, and other players did so, those two tiles of rail would still be there, in their 1850 specification, for the rest of the game unless whoever was playing the public player was willing and able to micromanage those tiles. The position with public stops is a problem, as public stops end up being undeletable and non-upgradable throughout the game, which is a real issue if they are made public in the early part of the game, and things change substantially after that.
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

prissi

The same is partly true for public stops. However, I feel this is needed to allow a player to decide at which point he allows to interconnect to other networks. Otherwise "stealing" goods from a factory or passenger from a stop or so would be even more easy. For instance any airport would allow all players vehicle to load, easily locking out the players own planes.

jamespetts

Hmm - but if a player who had been granted running powers abused those powers, the player granting them could just withdraw them, could he/she not?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

prissi

Then the player withdrawing could abuse those powers. Although the owner could always just cut the way in front of a foreign convoi and build a bridge over it ...

But I see another Problem: We need fences or some other Indicator of way ownership I tried once milestones, but the are SO small.

jamespetts

Hmm - is it really an abuse for one player to prevent another using her/his ways, even on a whim? It is, after all, the first player's own property to do with what he/she pleases. A player using another player's ways should be prepared, should he/she not, for the possibility of the withdrawal of that privilege? If a player withdraws running powers capriciously, that player will soon gain an adverse reputation, and other players will be reluctant to connect, and thus provide that player of the profits of others' access charges.

I see what you mean about way differentiation - fences might work with railways, but not roads or canals, and the difficulty with fences even with railways is that they would not work well with a multi-track layout. Perhaps instead of adapting the way graphics, it might be worthwhile to develop a new overlay view for way ownership?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

isidoro

More ideas, just to help:

  • To the problem of public made-for-connecting tiles/stations: instead of current behaviour, make tiles with the signals I proposed above connectable but still owned by the player.  Those tiles will be just like "ports", marked in some way, and other players could see them and connect to them.
  • To the problem of abusing giving/forbidding permissions: like in real life, use "contracts".  A player is allowed to pass or stop in this or that for, let's say one year.  If he/she is not well behaved, contract is not renewed.
  • To the problem of knowing the owner of a tile: a special key that mark them with an overlay with the players colors, in a similar fashion as reservations for railway

sdog

more of a brainstorming post:
I think there is a need in some network games in cities, where players quickly cluster all possible spots with stops. Could stops as an area reaches a certain population density or the city reaches a certain size made public automatically? (Perhaps this would also require to consolidated several stops too. The latter might be quite complicated to do. Thus should be left to server admins creating maps.)

Allowing other players to call at player stops, as James suggests, opens the door for quite a lot of possible conflicts in games i think. I think quite a couple of players will greatly get aggravated when someone else uses their stops.

Could the largest cities at map generation also build a set of public stops in the centre, AND exclude players to build stops. If players want to access city population they need to accept to interface with others? (What happens with players trying to build a tram or tube system, they wouldn't be able to do so without building stops.)

There is i think a need to prevent excluding players from competing. Mandatory interface points would be one option. (As a real live pax i could just leave the airport when i'm stuck there go to the train-station and take a train.) Experimental's pax walking to a nearby station might perhaps help there, i haven't tried it yet however. (i don't even know if they do it at transfer stops.)

jamespetts

#22
All of Isidoro's suggestions are good.

Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

sdog

QuoteTo the problem of abusing giving/forbidding permissions: like in real life, use "contracts".  A player is allowed to pass or stop in this or that for, let's say one year.  If he/she is not well behaved, contract is not renewed.
This is a bit problematic, as is James suggestion to withdraw access rights:
- Convoys could become trapped in "foreign" territory. They would thus also interfere with the right-withdrawing-players network, wihtout much the player could do.
- If the connexion is suddenly cut, the network of the player that connected to the first would get stuck.

Something along the lines of sending all convoys to depots when their line runs over another players infrastructure and the permission is revoked would be required. (For the first case something more is required. Teleporting stuck convoys to a depot?)


ps.: couldn't we allow stuck convoys to be teleported to a depot after a few months of waiting as an option for network games? This would help with the annoying blockages in online games.

jamespetts

As to Sdog's thoughts - the way that I deal with the city stops issue in Experimental is allowing all players to call at stops placed on public roads: the underlying policy for which is, if a private stop is built on a public way, the public is entitled to impose conditions on the use of that stop, in this case, that the player building it must allow others to use it (which is likely to be for the benefit of the travelling public in that city, and for local businesses, in the case of goods stops). In the Experimental multiplayer games that I have played so far, this arrangement has worked well enough, and has avoided the proliferation of stops and the possibility of being locked out of areas of a city that arises in Standard.

As Sdog also pointed out, the ability for passengers to walk between stops as implemented in Experimental might also assist with this issue, although this is as yet untested.
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

jamespetts

Quote from: sdog on September 25, 2011, 11:55:18 PM
This is a bit problematic, as is James suggestion to withdraw access rights:
- Convoys could become trapped in "foreign" territory. They would thus also interfere with the right-withdrawing-players network, wihtout much the player could do.
- If the connexion is suddenly cut, the network of the player that connected to the first would get stuck.

I had thought of this: the solution is relatively simple: the system for checking whether the convoy is allowed to go over a given way tile would allow the convoy to travel over the way of any player on which that convoy is already situated; but, at the moment that running powers are withdrawn, all stops belonging to the player who withdrew rights would be deleted from the schedule of the player from whom the rights were withdrawn, and, if less than two stops are left in the schedule, the convoy is sent to the nearest depot. That way, the convoy could continue to run over the other player's ways, but only as necessary to return to its own territory.
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

sdog

-X--PA------AB-------

X is a train,
P, A, B are the interfaces between tracks owned by public, player A and B respectively. If A removes the AB rights, the train at the public section would still get trapped.

jamespetts

Possible solution: if a convoy has been "no route" for a given period of time, it automatically goes to the nearest depot. (This might have uses outside this immediate context).
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

prissi

OpenTTD face the same problem for a long time. One solution is to forbid to build strops on public way and have a city council that forbid building new stops if you do not server your stops well.

The other one is moderation, ii.e. there are anything goes server and server with rules, like companies only serving some areas.

Both exist in simutrans and both worked out more or less.

ojii

My two cents on this:

Warning: This is the 'ideal' way as in realism etc as I'd love to see it, as a programmer I know that these ideas are not likely to be easy to implement.

Use contracts for right of way/station usage. Players can negotiate contracts with each other where they select what stops and what tracks/roads the other can use. They select how long those contracts last (x years, forever, ...), the costs (fixed cost, cost per vehicle, cost per km used, whatever) if any (mutually granting access might lead to 'free' contracts), what penalty (money) will have to be payed when the contract is cancelled by one player. The negotiating process should have some sort of messaging system to debate the terms.

Once a contract is in place and cancelled, any vehicle can still use the right of way of the other player to return to their own network. Negotiating high cancelling penalties should be used to prevent this though. Maybe all vehicles of lines using other players networks should just return to the nearest depot when the contract is cancelled to prevent vehicles all warning 'route not found'.

Václav

I have downloaded last nightly and noticed this (road toll - as it is written ...) in financial dialogue - but I don't like its colour - that dark violet makes black text horribly readable. It needs choosing else colour - or changing colour of text for this.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

rsdworker

the road toll is good idea so what about rail connection - for example a way border or crossing border box for rail
and put list of bus or trains or trucks for example route 1 goes through toll and doesn't get charged but route 2 gets charged cause i have not added route 2 to exemptions list
and also ban list - example route 1 is banned going through toll area so route 2 goes through toll area
and buttons - close toll (stops all vehicles going through) and one way/partial open - prevents other way going through for example only westbound trains go through while eastbound is not allowed to go through
open toll - (fully opens in both directions)
if its has two or more tolls (next to each other or tiled more than 1x1) there extra button - make this one way - you have to look for arrow appearing on ground to confirm the correct direction
and vehicles can reroute around closed tolls if there other road out with either - open toll or no toll or one way toll

prissi

If more control is needed about other players rights of way, I thin a confugirable sign sound like the most "simutransish" solution. However, I am not sure how to indicate easily which player are allowed to pass such a gate-sign.

rsdworker

Quote from: prissi on September 30, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
If more control is needed about other players rights of way, I thin a confugirable sign sound like the most "simutransish" solution. However, I am not sure how to indicate easily which player are allowed to pass such a gate-sign.

using coloured signs would solve the problem - for player A is red - while player B is green - the player B uses query tool on way toll  the screen would be look like this

Way toll owned by player A

allowed: Player A

Toll is Open

when player B wants to gain access to Player A cities via this toll
he would click request access on way toll once player A completes request and grants them - the colour will show up on query window - next to his player name

example

Way toll owned by Player A

Allowed Player A
access granted to Player B (colour)

when access denied - the player will get message - like this

Sorry (player B) your train has been denied by player A and your train has been sent back to depot - due the player A denied this route

or loss of access in player's area

Sorry (player B) your trains in (players A) has returned to your (Player B depot) due Player A withdrawing your access

then the way toll query screen will display

Way toll owned by Player A

Allowed: Player A
Denied: Player B (colour)

the colour icon shows status of access

Green - this player is granted access
orange - this player is granted partial access
red - this player is denied from accessing
circle with slash on player's icon - this player is banned from requesting or gaining access
grey or red cross - this player is bankrupt and no longer active - if owner of way tolls - all way tolls will be go in open mode and free to all
Blue - Admin of server or Public player on single player - which never denied or banned - all way tolls will be in charge mode on single player but on server
on servers - Gold colour is for VIP or donaters for example Vip area which only denies Normal players or extra grant access using secure tolls

on secure way tolls - eg high secuirty area - the screen will display like this

Secure way toll - owned by Player C

Allowed: Player C

routes denied: Route 1 (Bus)
routes granted: Airport 1 (Bus)

Toll is on secure mode

the way tolls could have type of way tolls

Border gate: this a separation from other players areas eg player A has borders around with gates has different query screen example:
Border gate owned by Player A
area name: Player A's county
Border is open

allowed: Player A


types of gates listed below
border rail gates for trains (above ground) with shed next to gate
the underground one will have gates only - the shed will be located on ground level
small Border gate (single gate)
Medium Border gate (two gates - next to each other)
Large Border gate (toll type plazza but with large gates)
combined rail and road border gate - large gate toll with type plazza and rail track next to it (also useable for underground)

Toll gates - those for internal use or could used as border but without large gates to separate both sides
small Toll gate - a small barriers with shed in middle
Medium toll gate - two lane both ways with toll booths
large toll gate - four lanes both ways with toll booths
combined rail and toll gate - simllar to 4 lane one but larger with rail gate on one side

no booth/gate type - like automated toll collection system

a overhead toll - with sign on it - can be placed over top of exisiting road which collects the money from tags on bus or trucks - which can be used as border toll gate

a rail type for toll gate - a small shed with simple barrier to collect money from trains passing through

secure gates - a high gates and thick walls and use same as toll gates but different is the gates only stays closed to all others only player approved routes or players able to gain access

on config panel on way tolls - where you set prices of entry

Way toll prices:
Truck: £50
Bus: £100

for rail one as shown
Train: £200
Tram: £200

so also a allowing and dening and closing or banning can be found in Access tab in way toll screen

VS

prissi - In the main view, you don't have to indicate which players can pass, but if the player with current viewport can. So, two players see two different things.

My projects... Tools for messing with Simutrans graphics. Graphic archive - templates and some other stuff for painters. Development logs for most recent information on what is going on. And of course pak128!

Václav

VS, prissi: your discussion about way toll, itself, is surely very interesting ... but it needs better colour for financial dialogue. That dark violet makes black text horribly readable.

May it be you noticed my previous post in topic and only did not give me any answer ... and then, of course, I beg your pardon - but it seems to be that you did not notice my previous post.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

rsdworker

Quote from: VS on September 30, 2011, 06:18:06 PM
prissi - In the main view, you don't have to indicate which players can pass, but if the player with current viewport can. So, two players see two different things.
correct - like my idea which explained very clearly in above post

prissi

Ok, about seeing if the current player can pass - that make a lot of sense.

About the color: I am open to suggestions. Please provide a more unique better visible color form the simutrans cooler range.

rsdworker

Quote from: prissi on September 30, 2011, 09:05:46 PM
Ok, about seeing if the current player can pass - that make a lot of sense.

About the color: I am open to suggestions. Please provide a more unique better visible color form the simutrans cooler range.
the colours should be default as menu and displays are same as player colours

An_dz

A good color? Different from all of them? Try hex: #b4672f

ӔO

wouldn't it be better to group related items the same or similar color?

The way I see it these are similar:

  • new vehicles, construction costs and assets, because they're all built by the player and are investments into their network.
  • operation costs and maintenance, because they both cost money, but give no return for their cost.
  • road toll and power lines, because they both rely on something else to generate or cost money
  • cash flow, net wealth and account balance, because they all indicate your total spending power or wealth
  • operational profit and margin, because they are both calculated from the other values

proceeds is just the opposite color of maintenance and operation costs.
trips is not related to anything, so it gets its own color.
My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

Václav

#41
Quote from: An_dz on October 01, 2011, 01:17:32 AM
A good color? Different from all of them? Try hex: #b4672f
That (brown) colour is good.

Else good colours are #abcdef (greyish blue) and #fedcba (light brown).

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

Fabio

I like AEO's color scheme

rsdworker


An_dz

AEO's color scheme is a good idea, but some colors are too similar. The yellows, blues, reds and the greens won't be easy to see if both are selected in the char. I suggest this color scheme:
It uses the same colors already in the dialog, just some are changed.

jamespetts

Isn't there a possibility that changing the colours will be confusing to seasoned users?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

rsdworker

Quote from: jamespetts on October 01, 2011, 04:11:28 PM
Isn't there a possibility that changing the colours will be confusing to seasoned users?
- its will be not confusing cause they only look at name and company but colours are for livery and touch

An_dz

New Suggestion for the Finance Dialog:
Green -> Income
Red -> Outcome
Cian -> Profit
Orange -> New things / Investments / "Things a company have" (Sorry I can't remember the technical term in English)
Pink -> The 'real' money.
White -> Trips

I also sent the right buttons, one 'button' down and added the This Month for all income and outcome. Specially because it was a dead space and nobody is gonna die if more info for the month is added.
Another option I had was: send Build HQ button above the right column and also add Last Month for those buttons. But it gets too messy. Check pic 2.

rsdworker

Quote from: An_dz on October 03, 2011, 03:41:18 AM
New Suggestion for the Finance Dialog:
Green -> Income
Red -> Outcome
Cian -> Profit
Orange -> New things / Investments / "Things a company have" (Sorry I can't remember the technical term in English)
Pink -> The 'real' money.
White -> Trips

I also sent the right buttons, one 'button' down and added the This Month for all income and outcome. Specially because it was a dead space and nobody is gonna die if more info for the month is added.
Another option I had was: send Build HQ button above the right column and also add Last Month for those buttons. But it gets too messy. Check pic 2.
looks nice - what about toll space?

An_dz

It's there.
2nd button.
It's Green to be grouped with Income.

ӔO

Are road tolls always positive income or do they generate negative income?
My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

Václav

I don't know - I would guess that it is based on many things ... like following: if you will use enemies' roads more than enemies will use your roads, then it will generate negative income.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

rsdworker

Quote from: VaclavMacurek on October 03, 2011, 05:35:30 PM
I don't know - I would guess that it is based on many things ... like following: if you will use enemies' roads more than enemies will use your roads, then it will generate negative income.
yep - its like one in OTTD - which player money has to pay other players for use of road

An_dz

Then I suggest just changing the order between Powerlines and Road Tool. The Road tool green is not so green, so it don't look so bad.

prissi

Please check todays colors.

An_dz

I liked the new colors. For those that can't compile Simutrans I've attached a pic showing the new colors with my idea of the new dialog. I haven't compiled Simutrans, I just looked the files in trunk and edited the pic.

But I still think Cian will look better for the profits. 2nd Image shows how it looks.
Here's my new choice:
COL_MAINTENANCE (133) //More Red
COL_OPS_PROFIT (56) //Cian
COL_PROFIT (53) //Cian
COL_CASH (104) //Blue to keep the Cian style
COL_MARGIN (51) //Cian
COL_WEALTH (192) //More brown

arnoud

I think the 2nd is the best.

Václav

... one more comment ... it is also needed to choose such colours which, if they are used on lines of graphs ... are visible - on that a little darker background of graph area.

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

Fabio

I don't know if possible, but it would be nice if lines with different scale would be displayed in the graph with different scale-- e.g. margin have -100% at bottom and +100% regardless if shown together with operational profit (as it is now, -100 <> +100 variation become a straight line together with several K credits...)

Václav

Fabio, I think that this your request would be used on all graphs - but would you like to read numbers that are tied to side of graphs? - If all lines would end in the same height - or not?

Chybami se člověk učí - ale někteří lidé jsou nepoučitelní

prissi

Back to way toll: A private gate sign came now also into the paks. Unfourtunately it breaks the (few) private road signs that were around. This is the price to pay for much more freedom ...

pak64 has now a railroad gate as example for such signs.

rsdworker

Quote from: prissi on October 05, 2011, 10:45:01 PM
Back to way toll: A private gate sign came now also into the paks. Unfourtunately it breaks the (few) private road signs that were around. This is the price to pay for much more freedom ...

pak64 has now a railroad gate as example for such signs.
- so show example of new tolls

sdog

May i ask what the sign does?

Dwachs

The files ../gui/privatesign_info.* are still missing in svn repository.

@sdog: I think it implements this suggestion earlier in the thread:
http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=8089.msg76880#msg76880
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.

prissi

 :-[ sorry, wil submit them in the evening.

The sign can open a dialogue, where you can select player who could pass and who could not. THe disallowed ones see a closed gate and the other ones an open gate.

Fabio

Can it also enable/disable private citycars to pass/not to pass?

prissi

Those are enabled by allowing/disallowing publich service, as it cannot run vehicles.

Fabio


isidoro

Very nice!  Thanks.

rsdworker

sounds exellcent idea so any screenshots?

prissi

Use pak64 nightly and simutrans nightly should give you the experience.

rsdworker

Quote from: prissi on October 09, 2011, 06:49:56 PM
Use pak64 nightly and simutrans nightly should give you the experience.

ok i will look

rsdworker

i had look in latest simtrans - its seems very good way tolls but the costs collected from waytolls are set on main menu
i suggest moving the prices controls to gates screen and also the control of who in and out looks well worked
only problem is connecting the rails which requires public player to put connector between two players

jamespetts

I am currently working in Experimental on a system that allows connecting of ways without using public player, and which also allows players to use other players' stops (with the first player's permission).
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

prissi

Why, you should be able to use the make public tool to make your way public. Anybody can then connect to a public way.

jamespetts

Ahh, but, as pointed out before, once a way or stop is public, only the public player can upgrade/delete it. Imagine if players were to connect their rail networks in 1840 in a game in which the public player does not have time to intervene very much: there would be a little chunk of rail with a maximum speed (and, in Experimental, weight) appropriate to the era (perhaps about 70km/h and 40t), which would be completely unsuited to the modern era, and which nobody would be able to upgrade. Likewise, a station made public is frozen in time and can never be upgraded without the active involvement (and expenditure) of the public player.
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.

rsdworker

Quote from: jamespetts on November 04, 2011, 11:17:02 AM
Ahh, but, as pointed out before, once a way or stop is public, only the public player can upgrade/delete it. Imagine if players were to connect their rail networks in 1840 in a game in which the public player does not have time to intervene very much: there would be a little chunk of rail with a maximum speed (and, in Experimental, weight) appropriate to the era (perhaps about 70km/h and 40t), which would be completely unsuited to the modern era, and which nobody would be able to upgrade. Likewise, a station made public is frozen in time and can never be upgraded without the active involvement (and expenditure) of the public player.

yeah i think its good idea cause i tested that its was hard to setup player lines over each other on single player - the station has be public means hard to upgrade

Dwachs

Quote from: jamespetts on November 04, 2011, 11:17:02 AM
Ahh, but, as pointed out before, once a way or stop is public, only the public player can upgrade/delete it.
This is not true! Try it out! You can upgrade public ways& stations even for password-protected public player.
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.

rsdworker

#78
Quote from: Dwachs on November 04, 2011, 11:33:30 AM
This is not true! Try it out! You can upgrade public ways& stations even for password-protected public player.

yeah but problem - when i try to upgrade some parts eg wooden platform to brick platform its doesn't upgrade its says requires higher level

so for example if player puts own station but does not want go public but still wants share stations so its needs a permission

so list will look like this in secdule

1 derby
2 birmgham (player 2)
3 london (player 3)
4 birmgham (player 2)

if public stations means no player names next to but (P)

1 derby
2 birmgham (P)
3 london (P)