Started by DrSuperGood, February 21, 2018, 06:44:26 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: ACarlotti on February 22, 2018, 02:02:54 AMIs that the case also on roads? Because at present, I seem to see road vehicles affect by gradients only as they are actually on the sloped road tile, whereas I was suggesting spreading the effect of (single) gradients over a number of tiles.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on February 21, 2018, 06:44:26 AMNow I do not really know about rail physics but from a game play perspective this is kind of ludicrous. I understand that single slopes are meant to represent an incline of ~26.565 degrees which is kind of steep as far as transport goes. However that is the shallowest one can make an incline due to game limitations meaning more realistic inclines of 10 degrees or less over longer distances is mechanically not possible for the player.
Quote from: Ves on February 22, 2018, 03:20:37 PMCan't the logic from the rail cornering be used? I believe that calculates a radius based on multiple tiles. Or, perhaps that was what you where saying is happening on slopes too already, James?
Quote from: jamespetts on February 24, 2018, 12:39:02 PMKirill - what sort of calibration for the different Z-scale were you thinking of here, and how would this fit into all of the various sybsystems?
Quote from: Kirill Stepanoff on February 24, 2018, 10:43:31 PMI just was scared of 500 per mille gradients assumed by DrSuperGood However there are no traces of them in the code.Gradients that present in the code are rather steep - up to 40‰ for 1Z slope and 80‰ for 2Z slope for railways, and slow and weak vehicles (read "horses") are more prone to reach maximum gradient penalty :-(
Quote from: ACarlotti on February 25, 2018, 08:14:50 PM----ud---- = 2|5|5|5|6|-6|-5|-5|-5|-2 (this is slightly different to the literal specification in my previous post)
Quote from: ACarlotti on March 02, 2018, 08:08:38 PMSome of the main issues in the results of the current code:The force due to downhill slopes is less than the force due to uphill slopes. They should (from a physics perspective) be equal.The current code for smoothing gradients gives inconsistent results to the total force (averaged over distance) for some combinations of different slope values, due to varying use of min and max without accounting for what the previous slope was.The addition of curve_friction_factor looks problematic, but might be ok as long as it's never too large.I could fix these issues separately, but I think it would be more efficient to leave that code alone until we've decided whether or not implement gradient smoothing properly.
Quote from: Vladki on March 03, 2018, 01:49:25 PMI don't know where Acarlotti got his information about early railways having only 0.05% gradients, but as you can see horse railways were able to overcome some decent hills. Of course at the steepest part of this railway, trains had to be split and extra horses employed. More on that later.
Quote from: Vladki on March 03, 2018, 04:05:55 PMI think, that for now it would be best to make the gradient for both half and full slope configurable, and also to remove the code that makes consecutive gradients steeper. This would allow for more experimenting and balancing.
Quote from: ACarlotti on March 03, 2018, 09:12:50 PMUnder my proposed system, setting the smothing distance equal to (or less than) the tile distance would effectively disable it.James: In terms of actually implementing this, I would be hesitant to deal with the configuration settings, but could probably manage the rest of the changes fine. So if you were to make a branch and add a gradient smoothing distance and a height per level setting to the configuration (and tell me how to access that setting), then that would be helpful for me.
Quote from: Vladki on March 03, 2018, 09:06:12 PMNah, I can't come up with something tha would work equally well for both long distance (>10 km), and short distance - i.e. bridge over road/river.
QuoteDrSuperGood: I think there is an error in your calculation. You assume that one (half height) tile is 62.5m, but for the physics engine I believe that is incorrect. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the current code uses a gradient of 4% for a half-height (non-road) uphill slope, and 8% for a full height slope, which corresponds to an increase in height over 125m of 5m. This would suggest around 2.5 minutes for a horse to climb a hill, but this is less than is observed without the temporary reduction in resistance for road vehicles.