Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10
1
Simutrans Help Center / Re: Optimizing cargo chaings
« Last post by Ters on Today at 04:03:41 PM »
I would expect wagons to add to fuel consumption, not multiply it. And empty wagons would use less fuel than the full ones. Although the formula probably isn't simple. When going down hill, they would not add to fuel consumption. With electric trails, fuel consumption could even be negative. After going down hill, heavier wagons may still reduce fuel consumption compared to lighter ones due to inertia.

And I rarely get both way utilization of freight vehicles, because the flow isn't balanced and very hard to predict. I don't want the vehicles to run empty, but I can't have them wait on either end either, because there might be goods waiting on the other end.
2
[FR]Français (French) / Re: Matériel Belge - SMBS
« Last post by Lieven on Today at 11:59:18 AM »
De mon côté, la 13 est sur le feu, la 18 alsthom est déjà dispo sur le site de la SNFOS, la 18 Siemens était dans les projets (Mais je te laisse volontiers ;) ) La 11, 12, la 21 et la 27 (livrée bleue et livrée Bordeaux pour la 11) étaient les prochaines de la liste...
Une coopération sur cette liste t'intéresserait ?
3
Simutrans Help Center / Re: Optimizing cargo chaings
« Last post by Leartin on Today at 08:49:35 AM »
The empty return trip would not generate any income, so unless the cost of shipping the cargo is greater than the income, having the vehicles loaded in both directions would still be beneficial. If it is, sending the vehicle empty both ways would be the best (except not having the vehicle at all).
Sure. But currently, the empty return trip costs just as much as the full trip. Hence if you could fill the vehicle on the way back, you can double the income with no extra costs. If an empty vehicle had only half the running cost (to keep things simple), the empty way back would still cost money. If you fill the vehicle on the way back, you still double your income, but you also add 1/3 in costs, which is beneficial, just not as much.
Usually, to double-fill a vehicle, you need to utilize hubs, which means taking a detour. In some settings, a detour does not get paid. So using hubs is a balance between the benefit of double-filling vehicles and the drawback of having a detour. If the benefits are reduced, the balance shifts, and hubs become a bit less profitable in comparison to direct connections, hence there will be less situations where they are the right choice.


Simulation of fuel cost probably would not affect train length. Nor do I think that is a major influence in real life, beyond the cost for the fuel used for moving the locomotive itself having to be covered by the profit from the following wagons, which is kind of already in Simutrans.
It does affect train length if you model it to affect train length. To make it simple, let's say a locomotive has a base fuel consumption value, and each wagon multiplies to that value. Let's use a rather high number for larger affect - we multiply by two.
If the locomotive alone costs X for fuel, the same locomotive with 5 wagons would cost 32X for fuel, about 6X per wagon. With 6 wagons, it would cost 64X fuel, about 10X per wagon. If a full wagon would generate 8X income, you could have a train with five wagons and make a profit, while a train with six wagons could never do that.
The difference is huge if you double the fuel cost. Naturally, the multiplier would be more like 1.4 - 5 wagons would cost 5,38X fuel, 1.08X per wagon; 6 wagons 7.53X, 1,26X per wagon; and 7 wagons 10.54X, 1.5X per wagon. So with each wagon you add, you have to pay more per wagon, earning less per wagon. But on the other end, you have the existing mechanic of paying the locomotive with income from the wagons which becomes less per wagon the more wagons you have.
So you don't want to have too many wagons and you don't want to have too little wagons, there is an optimum of wagons somewhere in the middle. And the more you diverge in either direction, the less profitable your convoi will be. This is different from the current concept, where you want to have as many wagons as possible until you hit the rather harsh limit of getting slower. Sometimes it might even be beneficial to have a convoi that can't even reach max speed anymore.

If the goal was to shorten trains, you might as well change the power of locomotives. But that would be a hard limit. With such a fuel concept, it would be a soft limit - which are arguably better, as they provide model railway players more leeway in doing something besides the intended (for a cost) and 'power players' more options to optimize.


Whether it has anything to do with how fuel works in reality I can't say (I know it would work somewhat like that for speed - the faster, the more fuel you need. Is it the same for weight?)
4
[FR]Français (French) / Re: Matériel Belge - SMBS
« Last post by MF67_G3059 on Today at 08:13:07 AM »
Pas mal la loco
5
Simutrans Help Center / Re: Optimizing cargo chaings
« Last post by Vladki on Today at 07:39:16 AM »
To the scripting suggestion. I think that scheduling already present in extended should be enough. Just divide the gas station consumption by truck capacity and set it to depart only x-times per month.



6
Simutrans Gaming Discussion / Re: pak64 vs. pak128
« Last post by Ters on Today at 07:23:30 AM »
I guess what makes a large selection of vehicles pointless from an economic point of view in Simutrans, is that there is no difference between production run and service life, as well as no drawbacks from having old vehicles beyond their possibly lower speed and/or power. Or even vehicles that turned out to be a design failure after a short while.
7
Simutrans Help Center / Re: Optimizing cargo chaings
« Last post by Ters on Today at 07:16:40 AM »
Scripting can help in many ways, since then scheduling can be controlled arbitrarily. For example, having trains haul the fuel to a station near the town, then trucks carry it to the gas station. With scripting, you could tell the trucks not to leave the station if the gas station's buffer is above a certain level. If station overloading ever becomes a problem, then some additional scripting can help make the trains not to get stuck on the station waiting to be unloaded.
I just never imagined giving schedules access to the industries, just the stops.

Having full wagons cost more than empty ones seem to be counterintuitive to me.
My basic idea was that a loaded vehicles needed to be manned. With empty vehicles, one could send the driver/conductor home or to do other work. It is more realistic for valuable cargo and passengers, which has to be guarded and served respectively, than for very plain cargo like gravel.

players might be less encouraged to have vehicles be loaded in both directions if the empty trip back was cheaper than it currently is.
The empty return trip would not generate any income, so unless the cost of shipping the cargo is greater than the income, having the vehicles loaded in both directions would still be beneficial. If it is, sending the vehicle empty both ways would be the best (except not having the vehicle at all).

A big problem is Simutrans has no real simulation of fuel economy. In real life a lighter convoy will use less energy/fuel to move between points than one fully loaded despite being the same length. This would mean a fully loaded coal train would use more fuel (cost more) getting to its destination to unload rather than returning from it. The difference is non trivial as well, especially with coal trains where the fully loaded weight can be several times more than the empty weight. In Simutrans it costs the same.
If you wanted fuel to affect convoi size, you'd need a non-linear scale. Instead of each wagon just having a fixed running cost, it would affect how much fuel you need, but with each wagon, it costs more. This means the optimal convoi size is not always the longest convoi that can still move on full speed, but a shorter one with much less fuel cost, and if you have an even shorter convoi, it would have less of a negative effect. Hence convoi size is more likely to be chosen by what you actually need. Though it seems to me that would be very hard to understand for players, and would fit better with extended.
I think vehicles in Simutrans usually go back and forth on the same stretch, so the running cost could be seen as the average of the fully loaded and empty running cost, including fuel consumption. (Vehicles for passengers and mail may go in a more circular fashion, but then they also stay somewhat loaded at all times.) It doesn't quite hold up, as it might be mostly up-hill one way, and the per wagon fuel cost is the same whether the locomotive is steam, diesel or electric. Simulation of fuel cost probably would not affect train length. Nor do I think that is a major influence in real life, beyond the cost for the fuel used for moving the locomotive itself having to be covered by the profit from the following wagons, which is kind of already in Simutrans.
8
[FR]Français (French) / Re: Matériel Belge - SMBS
« Last post by Lubak91 on Today at 06:01:26 AM »
Je vais envoyer, peut-être que je vais faire HLE 11, 18, 20, 21 et 27.
9
Pak64 Add-ons and Graphics / Re: Tenuki_Sharyo`s add-on
« Last post by TenukiSharyo on Today at 05:54:10 AM »
NewYorkCitySubwaySet vol.A (NewYorkCitySubwaySet_volA.zip)

This set include trainsets of "New York City Subway", running in the world's most cities.
I recommend it to your map's urban transportation.

*I recommend using it with this add-on.
ThirdRailSet(URL:https://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=17558.0)

10
Simutrans Help Center / Re: Optimizing cargo chaings
« Last post by Leartin on Today at 05:42:20 AM »
A big problem is Simutrans has no real simulation of fuel economy. (...)
How does that affect this particular issue? I can see how it would affect gameplay, as players might be less encouraged to have vehicles be loaded in both directions if the empty trip back was cheaper than it currently is. Though would that be a good thing? Seems to me it would make hubs and network planning less effective compared to point-to-point connections.

If you wanted fuel to affect convoi size, you'd need a non-linear scale. Instead of each wagon just having a fixed running cost, it would affect how much fuel you need, but with each wagon, it costs more. This means the optimal convoi size is not always the longest convoi that can still move on full speed, but a shorter one with much less fuel cost, and if you have an even shorter convoi, it would have less of a negative effect. Hence convoi size is more likely to be chosen by what you actually need. Though it seems to me that would be very hard to understand for players, and would fit better with extended.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10