The International Simutrans Forum

Community => Simutrans Help Center => Topic started by: xto on April 09, 2009, 10:29:54 AM

Title: transport on river
Post by: xto on April 09, 2009, 10:29:54 AM
I try to transport goods on one of the newly implemented rivers (v. 102 pak 64). Am I missing something? Are the rivers not for transport (like the "gracht" addon)? Is there some documentation about the river waytype somewhere (didn't find any).
thanks for help.
Title: Re: transport on river
Post by: jamespetts on April 09, 2009, 10:34:25 AM
Rivers should work like canals, although some smaller rivers are not navigable (having a speed limit of 0kph).
Title: Re: transport on river
Post by: xto on April 09, 2009, 10:44:09 AM
Yes, I see that. But there is only one typ of river and there are additional numbers given. I just don't get it... Is that a bug or a feature? All those rivers and I can't use them. Pitty.
Title: Re: transport on river
Post by: jamespetts on April 09, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
What do you mean "there is only one type of river"? Which pakset are you using?
Title: Re: transport on river
Post by: The Hood on April 09, 2009, 11:28:55 AM
Pak64, Pak128 and Pak128.Britain all have navigable rivers.  But it is worth bearing the following in mind:

-All rivers start out at the smallest size, which is un-navigable in all three of the above paksets.
-Rivers need to merge together to go up to the next size, which may (or may not) be navigable, depending on pakset.  E.g. in pakBritain, you need to merge 3 rivers to get a navigable river.
-If you have a low number of rivers compared to the land area of the map, then rivers are less likely to merge, and hence less likely to be navigable.  If you don't get any rivers merging, all rivers will be the smallest size along all of their length, and won't be navigable.  This sounds like what you are getting.

So I suggest starting a new map with more rivers and you will see more rivers that merge, and therefore more navigable rivers :)
Title: Re: transport on river
Post by: xto on April 09, 2009, 12:13:21 PM
Ah! Thanks for the explanation. This sounds good :)