Started by jamespetts, April 11, 2017, 01:25:39 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
# Private car ownership over different years. The numbers other than years are# percentages, and should be integers (i.e., no decimal point). ## Source of data (1951 onwards): http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091009084502/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/tsgb/2008edition/sectionninevehicles.pdf# See also http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/low_income_motoring-bayliss-280909.pdf# This website has good modern data, but only two data points: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport-institute/pdfs/transport-poverty## Figures before 1951 and after 2012 are educated guesses. Data are for the UK:# other countries might vary.## This is indexed by passenger class (as of July 2017). 0 is the lowest and 4 the highest. Much of the quintile data are extrapolated as accurate data are hard to find,# especially for the higher income qunitiles. Note that the classes are not intended to represent actual income qunitiles, especially the highest classes.## Author: James E. Petts (jamespetts)car_ownership=1750,0,1945,0,1955,2,1960,5,1965,7,1973,10,1980,18,1983,20,1992,30,1995,34,2002,40,2005,43,2012,52car_ownership=1750,0,1945,0,1955,5,1960,10,1970,18,1976,23,1980,30,1985,41,1989,48,1995,53,2003,60,2012,65car_ownership=1750,0,1906,0,1935,3,1945,5,1951,21,1955,25,1960,36,1966,45,1995,80,2012,80car_ownership=1750,1,1800,2,1850,3,1880,4,1890,5,1898,6,1906,10,1920,20,1935,33,1945,40,1950,60,1958,70,1980,85,1995,90,2012,88car_ownership=1750,95,2000,99,2050,98# These are the original general figures, not distinguished by income quintile# 1750,1,1906,3,1935,6,1945,7,1951,14,1955,20,1958,26,1960,29,1963,36,1966,45,1968,49,1971,52,1974,55,1977,57,1980,59,1983,61,1986,62,1989,66,1993,69,1996,70,1999,72,2003,74,2006,76,2015,82
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 10:32:25 AMI should note that the coding for this feature is already largely complete, save for some bug fixing and GUI matters.
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 10:32:25 AMThe reason that it is necessary to allow players to change classes is that it would be absurd (and frustrating) if players were ever stuck with a vehicle with a high class that could not attract enough passengers to its route of the right class, but could be profitable if only it would allow lower classes of passenger to travel for a lower price.
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 10:32:25 AMComfort, however, will remain: one of its most important functions will be to give higher class passengers an incentive to pay higher prices to travel in the more expensive classes of accommodation; if they are not more comfortable than (or not enough more comfortable than given the length of the journey) cheaper classes of accommodation, the wealthier passengers will just save their money and travel in the lower classes of accommodation, just as in reality.
Quote from: Kuk on October 08, 2017, 01:29:33 PMI am not sure about the feature to of adjusting the price. It might make sense to e.g. raise the price- if you have lots to direct connections which cannot make a profit because their usage on part of the route is low- if a long line is overcrowded on a small section where a good alternative exists- if the network is overcrowded and you need money to extend it- in multiplayer games depending on lines which have no competitionOn the other side if you constantly need to make significant adjustments there is probably something wrong with the pak. I do not think it will be hard to balance tough. A default price that make a vehicle profitable if it is e.g. ~33% full should do it.
QuoteBut most importantly it is not clear to me how assigning passenger classes to vehicles will help. The granularity sounds very low. I could allow all passengers to use high comfort vehicles, but then I make a loss even if the vehicles are full? Or if I have a network with lots of direct connections I assign the lowest vehicle class to medium class passengers and either leave the lowest class passengers without a route or build a second network?
QuoteThis is why I mentioned "desireability". The main difference would be that wealthier passengers would not only pay more but actually prefer to travel with high comfort+speed. And poor passengers will also use expensive means of travel, but will prefer other routes and hit the "travel time limit" sooner if the vehicles are too expensive.
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 02:29:57 PMI am not entirely sure that I follow this. What is it that you are not sure about? The system adjusts the class: it is not a direct adjustment of the price (unlike the system in, e.g., Cities in Motion 2).
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 02:29:57 PMThe low granularity is deliberate in order to overcome limitations with passenger pathfinding. Paths between points are found in the abstract for all passengers or goods of a given type travelling between those two points on the network. For a very large map, finding a new path for each passenger would be too taxing on the CPU/memory bandwidth. Thus, having a set of classes (five is the number implemented for passengers in the passengers-and-mail-classes branch of Pak128.Britain-Ex on Github) will mean that only five sets of passenger routes between points will need to be generated.[...]Taking into account comfort in routing decisions is not workable for two reasons: firstly, because it would require too much computational effort when computing the routes, and secondly because it would produce essentially arbitrary and unpredictable results: because routes are calculated for all passengers rather than individually (or, in the passenger-and-mail-classes branch, all passengers of each of five classes), there would always be a point where a minute change in comfort would make all passengers (or all of one class) travel on one route rather than another, which is never how it works in reality.
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 02:29:57 PMAs to how it will help, take the example of early aircraft. In the system that currently exists on the master branch (and the downloadable binaries), al passengers take the fastest route and pay according to speed. Thus, if one were to run an air service using DC-3s between, say, London and Manchester, all the passengers going from London to Manchester would take the aircraft instead of the train. With the classes system, the aircraft might well take only the highest class of passengers (and might only make a profit when taking higher classes of passengers), leaving all the lower classes of passengers still to use the train, just as in real life.
Quote from: jamespetts on October 08, 2017, 02:29:57 PM"Desirability" is also rather too nebulous a concept to be able to be calibrated for vehicles spanning nearly 300 years using historical data: comfort is already implemented (and scores of hours have been spent calibrating it).