The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: balancing the pakset  (Read 21860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2012, 10:27:36 AM »
My suggestion is to have the cap as something that can be set independently in simuconf.tab as a max_speedbonus_percent_of_base_fare value. It then becomes a matter for each pakset author to find an appropriate figure. (Incidentally, the Standard code already provides for a minimum amount, as the speed "bonus" also provides a penalty when the speed is below the bonus amount).

It is quite possible that the speed bonus code was not designed to be used in the way in which it is now being used by Experimental, as, in Standard, the bonus amount refers to the maximum, not the average speed of the convoy. Until recently, it referred simply to the lowest top speed of the vehicles in the convoy, but now the convoy's weight and maximum speed of the ways are taken into account, too.

As to the level of the cap, the proposal is for the max_speedbonus_percent_of_base_fare to apply to all goods equally, not just passengers, so setting it at 18% would make this figure of 18% apply to cargoes whose speed bonus is 15% or 6% as well as passengers whose speed bonus is 18%.

Do you have any historical research on the maximum differential for different speeds? It is also possible, I suppose, that we should look again at the minimum figure as being too low. This is currently 1/10th of the base fare for trips below the speed bonus speed. Perhaps this, too, ought be set in simuconf.tab? What would you recommend that this figure be?

As to research, I have some information from "Applied Transport Economics" by Stuart Cole (ISBN 978-0749439644). In 2004, a trip from London to Oxford by coach took about 100 minutes and cost £12.00 at peak time and £7.00 off peak. A trip by train took 60-90 minutes and cost £31.00 at peak time and £16.50 off peak. The distance is about 50-60 miles, but the train takes a somewhat indirect route via Reading, whereas the coach takes a more direct route up the M40.

Another price versus speed comparison arises with aircraft. Before the service was withdrawn, a ticket for a Concorde flight from London to New York cost £8,200. This contrasts with £4,000 for a Virgin Atlantic "Upper Class" fare of a few years later (2005), somewhere between £1,847 and £6,642 for British Airways first class (non-Concorde - depending on whether the ticket was refundable and the time of the flight) and £200-£500 British Airways Economy class.

Taking out of account the economy fares, this represents an increase of anything from 23% to 340% on the various first class ticket prices for a trip of about 2 hours compared with a trip of about 5 hours.

Offline greenling

  • Lounger
  • *
  • Posts: 1728
  • Simutransarchology it my hobby!
  • Languages: DE,EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2012, 11:33:35 PM »
asaphxiix
my help at your projekt must i a little bit gear down.
I must first my Simutrans data new sorting.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2012, 01:36:49 AM »
I am wondering whether the speed bonus needs to be reconsidered somewhat, following the above discussion. I have started a more general thread on this topic and invited discussion on it in the hope of reaching a useful conclusion. I should be interested in any input.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #38 on: January 02, 2013, 05:56:42 PM »
I wonder whether speedbonuses having a maximum of 400% and a minimum of 25% (4x bonus and /4 penalty) would be sufficient, when combined with altering the speed bonus rating...?

Offline asaphxiix

  • *
  • Posts: 723
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2013, 02:51:22 PM »
the numbers I'm using right now as basis for speed bonus and time tolerance:

speed bonus min/med/max distance: 10/420/868 km.
Speed bonus rating for pax: 6%, for other goods TBD. This seems to allow for up to 40% speed bonus for the maximum distance (a bit over 50% for median distance), I may increase this a bit.

local (0-100 km) journeys: 70% chance, Time Tolerance min 40, "waiting tolerance max. min" 80 (what does this field mean? I think it's just "Time Tolerance Max", but I don't see why it's named this way - isn't waiting included in the journey time calculation?).

mid-range (80-400km): 22%: 80-200 minutes

long dist. (360- km): 8% : 150-3200 minutes (this should allow a journey of say 1500km to happen within 53 hours, or 28 km/h).

I know that there's a problem with the time tolerance system, but I'm not sure about its nature - will my time tolerance values have the desired effect for extra long journeys? I do wish there were more than 3 levels for the time tolerance purpose. It just doesn't feel right giving the same tolerance range for journeys of 400 km and 1500 km (or more).

I still don't have a very clear understanding of how the speed bonus penalty works, trying to figure that out.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2013, 03:01:13 PM »
Thank you - that is useful! Do let me know when you have made more progress with the speed bonus for goods. Do you have any thoughts on the appropriate speed bonus for mail? 5%, perhaps?

As for the journey time tolerances - the essential nature of the problem is that the spread is too even. If we say, for example, that the journey time tolerance for long distance passengers is anything between half an hour and two weeks, the median value will be a week, which means that a very high proportion of "long distance" travellers will take excessively long journeys. What is needed is a system of biasing the range towards the lower end so that, for the same range as indicated, 95% of passengers (for example) will be generated with a tolerance of 3 hours or less, with the remainder having much longer tolerances. The exact figures I shall need to work out once I have finished calibrating the base level of passenger generation.

Offline asaphxiix

  • *
  • Posts: 723
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2013, 03:26:59 PM »
Thanks James!

Yeah I think 5% should work for mail, or maybe 4%. I don't really have any research to base this on, but when trying to order a book from Amazon, I can choose between standard post (18-32 days) for 10$, or express (8-16 days) for 15$. So 5% should work, I guess, yeah.

I'm afraid I couldn't quite understand your explanation... If the range for long distance is say, 400-1500km (assuming 1500km is the longest journey allowed by the map), wouldn't the proportions of the journeys themselves be the same as the proportions of the time tolerance values?
meaning, the median/average value of the journeys themselves will be 950km, which supposedly matches the median value of one week tolerance?

assuming a normal distribution of journeys between 400-1500km, why would we want 95% of them to have the lowest tolerance value?

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2013, 03:38:14 PM »
For mail, don't forget that we are simulating the roles of the transport companies, not the Post Office, so what end users are charged for conveyance may have little relationship to what transport providers will be paid.

The answer to your question is that very few people actually make journeys that take that long. Only a tiny proportion of people should be prepared to travel for more than a few hours. If people can go thousands of kilometers in a few hours, far, far more people will travel thousands of kilometres than if doing so takes weeks. Likewise, if going from the City of London to High Barnet (formerly Chipping Barnet) takes a whole day (as it did in the 18th century), only a fraction of even "long distance" travellers should be prepared to travel that far, whereas, if it takes an hour or so, a high proportion of "long distance" travellers, and a good proportion of "medium distance" travellers should be prepared to do it.

Offline asaphxiix

  • *
  • Posts: 723
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2013, 03:54:02 PM »
right... so in our current state detailed above....

for a 1500km journey - say it takes 1750 minutes, and the time tolerance is 500-3000 minutes, then half of the people wanting to do it will do it, right? but if the range is 500-2000 minutes, then only 16% of the people (the people who drew 1750-2000 tolerance) wanting to do it will do it? This sounds right to me. But I see the problem, there's no way of reducing the proportional amount of people willing to go at 1750 minutes, without lowering the uppermost limit of the time tolerance (which will disable the said journey altogether at a certain duration, e.g 2050 min).

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2013, 04:15:25 PM »
Yes, indeed - so I need to introduce a non-linear system; but I can't calibrate that until I've calibrated the raw passenger numbers, hence the passenger calibration thread's investigations into these things.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #45 on: January 09, 2013, 03:36:48 PM »
Incidentally, with your figure of 6%, is it still necessary to have the 400% / 25% caps, do you think?

Offline asaphxiix

  • *
  • Posts: 723
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #46 on: January 09, 2013, 04:01:57 PM »
It would appear not, I suppose, though I don't really have the best understanding of the mechanism, I work "empirically"... :)

Offline River

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Languages: NL, EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2015, 03:01:49 PM »
Hello,

I see there are big plans for balancing the pak set, but at the moment i can't seem to get any profit from moving passengers.  I tried to change the config files but i didn't manage to increase my income with passengers. If anyone got an idea about good settings i would like them.

River

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18722
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2015, 08:33:01 PM »
The easiest thing would be using beginner mode, which multiplies all revenues by 1.5, but also cross-connects all the industries (that is, all industries accept freight from all other industries supplying the right type of freight).

Offline Isaac.Eiland-Hall us

  • Benevolent Dictator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3651
  • PanamaCityPC.com/support/
    • Facebook Profile
  • Languages: EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2015, 02:44:25 AM »
but also cross-connects all the industries

Huh. Today I learned....

Offline Spenk009

  • *
  • Posts: 251
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #50 on: June 20, 2015, 03:49:35 PM »
Circular bus routes and stations in the hearts of cities (not towns) help, using the "alternate directions" option. I am surprised, but I got a pax-only game going in 1925 with no help from the public hand just by this strategy.

Offline River

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Languages: NL, EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2015, 09:05:46 AM »
How big are the cities you start in? because i now tried starting in 1930 on a small map, I had one city that would run a "profit" for the others i just had one bus covering multiple towns. I finaly made more money than the exploitation cost but still needed double that to also cover the monthly cost.

Offline Spenk009

  • *
  • Posts: 251
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2015, 03:40:28 PM »
I did this in PakBritain. Only saw Experimental.. But there doesn't seem to be a minimum size, as long as the bus route is sufficiently long.

Offline River

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • Languages: NL, EN
Re: balancing the pakset
« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2015, 08:39:09 PM »
I tryed that, and the busses are running a profit, but i need to few busses on a long line to make a profit with so many bus stops. atm i got 3 busses covering 10 cities/towns. At some point the waiting time is gone be to high for people to even take the bus. This will drop income even more.  At this point my income is around half of what i need to turn a profit, this is what i get with most of the games.

This of course is with the pak64.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:20:57 PM by River »