Started by AndrewTraviss, June 13, 2016, 04:48:59 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Rollmaterial on June 13, 2016, 05:10:35 PMAs to when a convoy should perform its depot visit, it should be done in a way that it goes to the depot after reaching a stop specified for that and resumes from that same stop. That would minimise the impact on service quality.
Quote from: jamespetts on June 13, 2016, 11:30:24 PMI am not convinced by the need to prevent overhauls of obsolete vehicles. I am not convinced that this is entirely realistic (overhauls of thoroughly obsolete vehicles are regularly performed by teams of amateurs on preserved railways, for example), and it might make things unnecessarily awkward for players who might find it hard to predict whether their setting for automatic overhauling of a vehicle would be carried out because it would be hard to predict whether the overhaul would fall before or after the obsolescence point.
Quote from: jamespetts on June 18, 2016, 10:30:29 AMThis is somewhat economically complex: the older equipment (generally, things that needed little or no precision engineering) can readily be built and maintained by people with more modest skills and requiring only basic equipment, but is generally more labour intensive. More modern equipment tends during its economic lifetime to be less labour intensive, but requires specialist skills and equipment that may be lost over time. Does anyone have any idea where one can find real life data by which such chronological obsolescence based increases in overhaul costs can be calibrated with a reasonable degree of accuracy?
Quote from: jamespetts on June 18, 2016, 10:30:29 AMOn the subject of aircraft, incidentally, I am reminded that a furhter refinement of overhauls for aircraft in particular was recently discussed: the interval between overhauls for aircraft should be based, not just on the distance flown, but on the number of takeoffs (either as well as or instead of the total distance flown), as, in reality, aircraft fuselages experience a great deal of stress on pressurising/depressurising (although I wonder whether that should therefore apply only to pressurised aircraft and not the older, unpressurised type, which would, of course, require a further parameter in the .dat files).
Quote from: AndrewTraviss on June 18, 2016, 02:12:21 PMOk, but this is a problem that falls to pakset authors, correcft? The system can already reflect this dynamic by allowing the maximum overhaul cost to be defined per vehicle.
QuoteWe could add one more parameter for "wear km per takeoff" that only aircraft use.
QuoteSpeaking of special cases per vehicle type; horses should probably be exempt from the entire maintenance system, although their trailers would not be.
Quote from: jamespetts on June 18, 2016, 04:24:11 PMOne of the principal aims of the various changes being made to Experimental currently (and of the design of Experimental overall) is to be able to use real world data for calibration and balancing purposes.
Quote from: AndrewTraviss on June 18, 2016, 09:01:58 PMOk,you make a good point, there. I will remove the current obsolescence multiplier for running costs and leave obsolescence handling out entirely for the time being. It is probably best to see how the new maintenance system performs without it before considering a design, anyway.
Quote from: jamespetts on June 18, 2016, 09:19:05 PMThat seems sensible. We should try to be parsimonious with these things: all the features that make enough of a difference to matter, and none that do not. (Of course, there is plenty of scope for debate about what is enough of a difference to matter, but that is another thing).In any event, once again, thank you very much for your contribution, which is much appreciated.