Started by Imperior, August 19, 2014, 04:59:26 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 20, 2014, 02:05:47 PMModern day engine names/looks might be subjected to copyright so I doubt it is fully legal to just add them without first at least asking the copyright holder if it is ok to do so. For this reason I imagine there is some deviation in looks and names from real engines. It can even be the manufactures name which is a problem (eg Alstom) since using that without their permission also has potential legality issues.
Quote from: prissi on August 20, 2014, 11:24:34 PMBut I get very rarely feedback apart from those late trains (which I tested a few years back extensively.)
QuoteThe maglevs made between 2,83 and 3,42 cr/tile fully loaded or 750 per 8 car train on a ~100 tile trip. But it may feel too low. Still, a maglev line for a single train will never be profitable (and it is not intended to be too). Maglev are internally balance like airplanes, which are also barely profitable. Anyway, I reduced the cost so a 8 car train running fully loaded twice a month gets its maintance back in 2040.
QuoteIn my tests the concept 2 reached near maximum speed in units of 8. But that can depend on the fast forward settings.
QuoteThe tram is much slower and much less capacity. Trams are for starting. If you need to move 50000 or more per month, then think maglev. If there are less than 1000: trams ... (Same in pak64 Shinkansen.)
QuoteI will check the gearing issue.
QuoteAlso the elevated lines in red should have the same 750 km/h speed limit.
QuoteThere won't be tunnels as for all existing lines crossing speed above 500 km/h creates sonic booms in tunnels. The japanese test for this just up to 500 km/h.
QuoteOk, Pathress and Tigress also fixxed (mostly be removing the last increase of speedbonus).
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 21, 2014, 11:51:45 PMIts the year >2040... Low pressure/vacuum tunnels anyone?
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 21, 2014, 11:51:45 PMIs this wise?! You will have just greatly increased the end game profit from freight as well as everything uses that speed bonus. Coal will give like 0.02 more per km. On a lesser note shipping cars and food by train should now be profitable again (exploding with joy)! Maybe this is for the better but you will probably need to nerf some older trains a tad.
Quotepaksets should be strongly balanced against building tunnels so to me the current values for pak64 seem ok (in fact, if the rail is expensive compared to road I'd say raise the price of the road rather than lowering that of railways). Tunnels should result in losses when trains use them unless you have very, very high utilisation. When deciding on a route you then have to only use tunnels when you really need to.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 22, 2014, 02:56:36 PM3. High speed rail tunnels are not very high speed. At 300 km/h they cannot support the 450 km/h that above ground rails can. This may cause them problems with high speed passenger traffic forcing purely above ground routes (which becomes too competitive against maglev which should dominate that area). Please make them 450 km/h like Steel Sleeper Track so that they are completely compatible with your high speed network.
QuoteTunnels are not compatible with high speed networks in real life. That's just how it is, and it's part of the challenge. With a speed limit of 300 km/h, the tunnel in pak64 is at the edge of what's realistic according to all information I can find.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 22, 2014, 05:53:42 PMSomeone above said a speed of 500 km/h in tunnels was the max for maglev tunnels and obtained in Japan.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 22, 2014, 05:53:42 PMHowever I thought the Tigress type engines (the high speed late game engines from the future) were all made up anyway. Just like the 2 tile (km?) wide double tracks, the 12 km long engines, more passengers being in transit in a stop than on the map and basically a lot of things. I personally would not mind sacrificing a tad of realism with regards to tunnels just to improve the gameplay in crowded situations.In real life the main reason tunnels are not used more often is the high construction cost, geographical restrictions, lower safety (accidents in a tunnel are a lot more dangerous than out of one) and that they take forever to build. Once they are built I would not image tunnels having that high a maintenance cost (5-6 times seems reasonable). My biggest complaint with them at the moment is they are too easy to build. In real life a city underground system takes the order of decades to construct and costs billions. In simutrans you can build the same system instantly (game paused) and it costs only a million or two.As such a 10-50 times increase to build costs with tunnels might be a good thing rather than making them unviable as a method of transport.
Quoteand on most server games also altering the landscape is very expensive (at least on the one I ran).
QuoteThey are an evil that might be a lesser evil at times.
QuoteThe original balance was 2.5x for bridges and 5x maintenance for tunnels. I restored these values.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 22, 2014, 09:48:07 PMI do not understand why people keep calling tunnels evil.
QuoteYou called them evil, although without using the word, because they slowed down trains you wanted to go as fast as without tunnels. I don't see them as evil, they are a trade-off of top speed versus several other things. Having to go over the mountain might be even slower. Cutting through a city would be too expensive and disruptive to the city.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 23, 2014, 04:22:37 PMIn Pak128 we have 400 km/h tunnels, why in pak64 are they limited to 300 km/h? Yes they are affordable in Pak128, probably more so than in Pak64.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 23, 2014, 04:22:37 PMI am not asking to make tunnels rigged. I am just asking that high speed rail tunnels are given the same speed cap as high speed steel sleeper rails (450 km/h instead of 300 km/h) and have their maintenance cost lowered in line to all other tunnels (5 times the cost of surface level way of the same speed). Alternatively an extra new high speed tunnel "very high speed" could be made and introduced towards 2000 but this would need new art assets so the easiest fix is to just promote existing high speed tunnels to be useful.
Quote from: Ters on August 23, 2014, 06:03:39 PMIf anything is putting an unrealistic dent in my speed bonus, it's the impact of having to make a slight deviation from a straight line. There is nothing inbetween a sharp 45 degree bend and no bend. That is however a consequence of the game being tile based that is very difficult to avoid.
Quote from: Philip on August 23, 2014, 06:18:01 PMExperimental keeps track of the last few tiles' travel direction so a 45 degree bend surrounded by straight tiles should have much less of an impact (or none at all?) than two 45 degree bends following each other.
Quote from: Ters on August 23, 2014, 08:46:42 PMStandard also treats two 45 degree bends harsher than one 45 degree bend, but in my example, there are two 45 degree bends following each other, one turning either way. In this particular case, the two 45 degree bends should have less impact than one 45 degree bend, but in other cases, which the game can't really tell apart, two 45 degree bends should have more impact than one 45 degree bend.
Quote from: Philip on August 23, 2014, 10:03:10 PMI don't understand why you think the game cannot tell those two situations apart, can you elaborate?
QuoteI wonder why pak128 has 400 km/h tunnels. Why pak64 stops at 300 km/h seems well founded in reality.
Quote from: Ters on August 23, 2014, 10:37:17 PMIt's all because of the minimum granularity of the Simutrans world. In the real world, a high speed line having to deviate from a straight line between two stations can do so with curves stretching over many kilometers if there are no other obstacles. In Simutrans however, any deviation must be at least one tile to the side, and the shift will happen over a distance of one tile. So what is supposed to be a minor deviation becomes just the same as a track navigating through hilly terrain. I try to illustrate with these to images, one of a high speed track that has to shift slightly from perfectly straight, the other is a track having to make two sharp turns to curve along the coast at the bottom of mountain (unfortunately hard to see, but I didn't have much time to prepare the images). However the track is exactly the same (ignore that neither actually uses the actual high speed track from pak64), just the terrain is different.