Started by jonbridg, July 13, 2020, 07:28:13 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 30, 2020, 02:42:31 PMI'd like to increase the power of the Desiro UK units as I believe the figure used in the dat file is for power-at-rail and thus already accounts for losses that would otherwise be applied using 'gear'; but it's not high priority.
Quote from: jonbridg on July 30, 2020, 02:42:31 PMVladki, what were your ideas on 800/801 constraints? If you like I could add them at the same time as the liveries.
Quote from: Vladki on July 30, 2020, 03:19:10 PMIf you have sources for power-at-rail then you could set gear=100%, but add a comment with the source in the dat file. So that it is clear to anyone who looks at it later, that it is not a bug but a feature.
Quote from: Freahk on July 30, 2020, 03:30:22 PMI'd rather set the known engine power and adjust gear accordingly to result in the, in this case, also known power at rail. Feels more consistent to me, especially as the long-term objective should be to set the gear of all vehicles individually according to their actual loss factor.
Quote from: jamespetts on July 30, 2020, 03:03:29 PMInteresting - may I ask what the source is for this?
Quote from: jonbridg on August 03, 2020, 10:53:18 AMand deleting liveries on vehicles that don't carry them in reality
Quote from: Freahk on August 03, 2020, 04:57:35 PMTo my interpretation, adding more liveries to train that didn't carry these might not be a priority, but existing ones are totally fine and shouldn't be deleted.
Quote from: jamespetts on August 03, 2020, 11:21:52 AMCan I check whether there is anything waiting to be merged at present of your work? It would be helpful if this could be indicated on this thread in future so that I can keep a track of what is awaiting merger.
ERROR: image_writer_t: cannot open trains/./carriages/br-mk5a-fo-tpe_S.png
Quote from: jonbridg on August 07, 2020, 10:45:36 PMBother. I'm sorry, I copied the images to the 'railcar' folder instead of 'carriages'. I'll see if I can move them tomorrow.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 15, 2020, 10:52:44 PMHi Scotrail, I won't make any guarantees, but I'll keep those ideas in mind. I've a pretty long list of objects I'd like to do and it could be months before I get around to anything else.That said, the shorter and cheaper Class 320 would make a useful addition alongside its faster cousins, and the great similarity of 320/321/322 would make it easier to create than some.
Quote from: jamespetts on August 09, 2020, 11:31:58 AMBon voyage!
Quote from: ScotRail170434 on August 16, 2020, 03:04:15 PMThere's already an SPT 318, so it's just a relivery and the 321 is already in game, so the base units are there. I had a go at the 320 a while back, it worked functionally but looked odd graphically, I also done a 303, 101 and 156 which I might add to the repository if you wish.
Quote from: jonbridg on August 16, 2020, 11:32:59 PMThanks, it was. Suitably refreshed from my break, I'm pleased to announce I've pushed the updated Class 801 featuring LNER livery, increased power and revised constraints. I've also RGBA-rendered the existing Virgin-proposed livery. Sounds good, are the 303/101/156 in SPT livery? What was odd graphically about the 320?
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMAlso - I cannot find any electric engine suitable for pulling the Mk5 coaches? (200 km/h)
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMBut I have a question. Why there is a distinction between 801MiddlePower and 801FrontMS ? Looking at the constraints I do not see any reason for FrontMS.
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMAlso we could do without RearMS, unless the difference in capacity 72 vs 88 is significant.---Maybe the rearMS is the car with the auxiliary diesel engine? and thus it has reduced capacity and increased weight?
Quote from: Vladki on August 19, 2020, 07:51:40 PMThen the First and Composite power cars should have the same running and maintenance costs as MiddlePower.MiddleTrailer and Rear should have the maintenance also like other Middle cars. Extra maintenenace makes sense only for the front car (driver, catering).EDIT: and about 397 - the only car that has some per/km costs is front pantograph (unpowered). Usually it is the powered vehicles that have non-zero per/km costs, usually proportional to their power in kW. Now the 397 is extremely cheap compared to 801 or 395
Quote from: jonbridg on August 20, 2020, 11:48:57 AMI haven't paid much attention to the running costs, knowing that they would probably be changed as and when the pakset is properly balanced. Is there a standard formula for calculating running/maintenance costs? I believe I read somewhere that electricity costs 0.1c/kw in pak128.Britain?
Quote from: jonbridg on August 20, 2020, 11:48:57 AM
Quote from: thegamer7893 on August 20, 2020, 05:05:13 PMWill there be a mini-buffet coach added as currently, there isn't one available with the trains pretty much running as at-seat catering only sets
Quote from: Matthew on August 20, 2020, 02:33:42 PMThe current pakset values are based on the formulae in this spreadsheet.
Quote from: DrSuperGood on August 23, 2020, 07:42:45 PMApparently people need permission/licence to use my spreadsheet? Honestly do whatever you want with it.
QuotePersonally for new additions I would recommend gut feeling and just throwing out some reasonably sensible numbers. As mentioned above everything will eventually be rebalanced once/if all the required features get added.
Quote from: Vladki on August 25, 2020, 09:39:38 PMI can't find any formulae in that spreadsheet.
QuoteHowever in my recent modifications of trams and EMU's I kept the ratio of runnigcost to power (without applying gear) to stay the same. E.g. for electrostars and azuma (801) it is 0.15 c/km per kW. Some other modern trains and trams have even 0.10 c/km per kW. Unpowered vehicles have 0 running costs.For monthly maintenance I just used my gut feeling and kept the original values where they were sensible. Reasoning was: manned vehicles should be most expensive (driver, guard, catering). Powered vehicles also need more maintenance (engine checks and repairs) than unpowered. But I have no exact method, so I made fixes only when it was obvious copy/paste error or typo, etc...
Quote from: jamespetts on August 25, 2020, 11:39:20 PMI have now integrated Dr. Supergood's spreadsheet - thanks to Dr. Supergood and Matthew for that.
(If you are contributing vehicles to pak128.Britain-Ex, you can find formulae for calculating runningcost and fixed_maintenance data in [url=https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/blob/master/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx]a spreadsheet in the Git repository[/url]. For other paksets, consult existing .dat files.).
If you add new vehicles, then it is helpful to use use data values that are consistent with the rest of the pakset. You can find useful formulae for calculating runningcost and fixed_maintenance data, and many examples of other values, in your Git repository's [url=https://github.com/jamespetts/simutrans-pak128.britain/blob/master/Pak128%20Britain.xlsx]Pak128 Britain.xlsx spreadsheet.[/url]