The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: To OpenTTD and back  (Read 1373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3322
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
To OpenTTD and back
« on: August 11, 2020, 07:20:22 PM »
Recently I installed (and then also uninstalled) OpenTTD.

Why? I had not external drive by myself in few days between withdrawing notebook from shop and going home. And also I wanted to see how much it was changed from time when I played it last time. And result (or this test)?

Simutrans is not perfect. There are some features from OpenTTD (or even Transport Giant) that would be good in case of appearance in Simutrans (but at least someones of them were already discussed - and deprecated). But generally, trains are solved the best of all (mentioned and played) ones. Setting of route plans separated from vehicles (not only trains, of course) perfectly prevents losing of route plan in case of vehicles exchanges. Also signals are better because they prevent trains from losing or stucking better (and they are better organised, named - but I played with czech translation, so there could be something lost in translation).

* compact diagonal tracks (recently discussed - and deprecated)
* compact airports (current solution is good, because it allows to extend airport if it is needed - but free spaces inside airports should stay empty; and also, loading stands could be built even with one tile space to build the same airport)
* subsidiaries (sometimes they would be good - but how it is done in OpenTTD, it is not good because there are too much subsidiaries and they are opened for all goods - that is really wrong way)
* currently built tourist attractions as place where to transport goods (until attraction is finished)
* superfactories (business relations between factories are good idea, but in case of small count of factories it may lead to problem to supply them; also, some factories could supply each other without limitations of business relations - banks are very good ones that could be used in this way).

Let's go on development of Simutrans to keep it as good as now and make it better.

Earning of money in Simutrans seems be hard, but it is caused by presence of city mass transit modelling (that I like very much) and also by generally lower incomes from factory supplying and also passengers and post transportation. But really, it is not hard. It is only different. And differences in games are somerthing why various games of the same genre are created.

And here as games of the same genre I call (Open)TTD, Transport Giant, Simutrans (from those I know/played).

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2020, 08:09:59 AM »
The only thing from ottd I really miss in simutrans is the way how tracks work, especially around diagonals and junctions.
ottd can handle each single "link" in between those four directions independantly, so junctions do not have these ugly all-to-all images and parallel diagonals take much less space. It is even possible to have those parallel diagonals on different height levels.
I am aware that this is absolutely not compatible to simutrans ribi system, so I would not expect it to ever change in simutrans.

Apart from that, the ui of ottd feels easier in many places.

About airports, I do rather prefer the way how these were implemented in simutrans (extended)
Imho, everything that an airport needs is enforced and within these limitations the player is free to build an airport that exactly matches the demand and topography.
A runway width of 30 m (+in extended, an additional 30m space on both sides of the runway) is perfectly realistic and extended enforces a tower as well.
The only thing about airports that I am sometimes missing are bridges or elevated ways.

subsidiaries would be nice to have, so the player can split out different infrastructure
to get a better overview of the different business fields or networks a company is involved in. In extended, it could even be used to offer parts of the company for takeover by another company.

The other points, well I don't know. I do not miss these in simutrans nor I'm against these.

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3322
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2020, 02:22:13 PM »
The only thing from ottd I really miss in simutrans is the way how tracks work, especially around diagonals and junctions.
May be I am wrong but I am worried about that to do it the same like in OpenTTD, it probably would lead to the same building - per directions. And it is something I hate on OpenTTD - because it is so bothering.

Quote
About airports, I do rather prefer the way how these were implemented in simutrans (extended)
I don't play extended, so I don't know.

I only would like if:
- airport had area determined that would be untouchable by non-player buildings
- new airport could not be built with any new loading stand; currently, in standard (I don't know how in extended) when you build new loading stand, you build new airport - if loading stand is not built side by side to else loading stand or extension building. I think that there could be one or two tiles between them - and still the same airport would be built.

Quote
The only thing about airports that I am sometimes missing are bridges or elevated ways.
I don't miss bridges and elevated ways. At least because here I am (imho) more realistic - because runways and taxiways need solid ground. May be that some very light planes (let's say within size of Cessna 172 Skyhawk) could land also on bridge, but try to land on bridge with A380 or B747.

Quote
subsidiaries would be nice to have, so the player can split out different infrastructure
to get a better overview of the different business fields or networks a company is involved in. In extended, it could even be used to offer parts of the company for takeover by another company.
I beg your pardon. I confused subsidies (grants) and subsidiaries. I meant subsidized transport - but only for passengers and post.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2020, 08:41:45 PM »
At least because here I am (imho) more realistic
It's unrealistic enough to exist at Frankfurt airport ;)
"Landebahn Nordwest" is connected to the other runways and terminals by two elevated taxiways over the motorway. See google maps if you don't believe me.

Oh, I nearly forgot to mention, in 1969, the main runway of Düsseldorf Airport was moved and expanded by 400m each.
Since that date, parts of the runway are elevated over the Düsseldorf-Duisburg mainline.
Later, platforms of the nearby Düsseldorf airport station were expanded and are now partly underneath that elevation.
Since 1st Juli 2015, the runway is regularly used by Airbus A380 machines to Dubai, operated by Emirates Airlines.

(landing)Runway Northwest in Frankfurt cannot be used by A380 airplanes due to its unsufficient length, but by most other large passenger jets. Not sure if the elevated taxiway could carry an A380 if the runway was long enough.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2020, 08:59:25 PM by Freahk »

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2020, 09:50:05 AM »
May be I am wrong but I am worried about that to do it the same like in OpenTTD, it probably would lead to the same building - per directions. And it is something I hate on OpenTTD - because it is so bothering.
It could work if the game initially made all connections like today, but then let the player tweak it afterwards, if the player wanted to. The game actually attempts to do it dynamically during play, basing the graphics on the last vehicles movement across the tile. Which means it has no effect on routing, and it is not saved. It looks fine for simple passing loops, but it can often switch back-and-forth all the time in more complex situations, as it the junction has no moving parts, but must be rebuilt every time.

Letting trains do u-turns is however useful sometimes, despite the junction for doing so looking utterly ridiculous (as well as the train when doing so), since trains can't reverse en route, only when the next waypoint changes.


I don't miss bridges and elevated ways. At least because here I am (imho) more realistic - because runways and taxiways need solid ground.
Both the main runway and the the taxiway next to it on Trondheim airport Værnes runs over E6. This is in a gray zone between bridge and tunnel, but I suspect it was constructed like a short bridge. Simutrans doesn't really support this, as bridges need to start from a ramp. According to Wikipedia, the military part of the airport is designed to house C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft, so we are not talking just light airplanes. (The other, shorter, runway is apparently closed.)

These bridges are short, although I guess you can get away with longer bridges if you just add enough pillars. Suspension bridge runways probably won't be a thing anytime soon, for many reasons.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2020, 10:35:57 AM »
Simutrans doesn't really support this, as bridges need to start from a ramp.
That's not true. You can build flat bridges that do not start on a slope. Just drag from one tile to another one on the same height level, where the land in between is on a lower level without any slopes involved. Such situations can be built using the "artificial slope tool"

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3322
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2020, 11:08:47 AM »
Well. Thanks. I could not realize that it is possible.

That's not true. You can build flat bridges that do not start on a slope. Just drag from one tile to another one on the same height level, where the land in between is on a lower level without any slopes involved. Such situations can be built using the "artificial slope tool"
May be that it was changed from time I built any bridge last time - because I did not play Simutrans some months.

But as I remember, one slope is still needed. Attempt to build bridge between two cliffs leads to building of bridge with two slopes.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2020, 11:41:31 AM »
Just validated with standard, but I am very sure that I've built such bridges years ago, when I was running a pak128 (standard) server for many years.
So in any case, runway and taxiway bridges should be fine, as long as we forbid slopes on the way. Starting at a slope should be fine.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2020, 12:38:50 PM »
That's not true. You can build flat bridges that do not start on a slope. Just drag from one tile to another one on the same height level, where the land in between is on a lower level without any slopes involved. Such situations can be built using the "artificial slope tool"
I think I remember this being mentioned, now. Perhaps two years ago, maybe. It might just be that I have never gotten around to using it. (I haven't been playing much Simutrans for a while.) I'm not sure if it will stick this time, but thanks for the reminder anyway.

Offline TheRoadmaster1996

  • *
  • Posts: 270
  • Languages: EN, some ES, learning JP
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2020, 02:48:02 PM »
I find that it is easier to make stuff for Simutrans then OTTD. However, in OTTD I like how you can change the currency and the unit of measurements. But in my opinion, I like Simutrans better then OTTD.

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3322
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2020, 10:06:43 PM »
Letting trains do u-turns is however useful sometimes, despite the junction for doing so looking utterly ridiculous (as well as the train when doing so), since trains can't reverse en route, only when the next waypoint changes.
Trains' U-turns may be good in some cases. But they should be forced by players, not automatic option (as currently, mostly in case of unaccessible platform. And also, thery should not be done between two tiles laying side by side.

With road cars or planes it is possible - to turn them even on one tile. They are capable to do it. Small ships are capable to do it too. But in case of trains? I am not sure. And at least, it does not look good. So I would prefer if trains should demand larger area for U-turns.

Offline TheRoadmaster1996

  • *
  • Posts: 270
  • Languages: EN, some ES, learning JP
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2020, 10:36:29 PM »
What about a balloon loop? According to https://enacademic.com:

"A Balloon loop is a track arrangement that allows a train to reverse direction, and return to where it came from, without having to shunt or even to stop. Balloon loops can be useful for passenger trains, and "unit" freight trains, such as coal trains.

Balloon loops do not include track layouts where combinations of junctions allow a train reversal, where this reversal is not regularly used."

Here's an example:

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2020, 11:12:54 PM »
But in case of trains? I am not sure.
That depends on the train.
Many light rails are fine with a radius of 25m.
Some "real" trains are fine with 60m, but most will require much wider curves.
The German EBO clearly states, that mainlines should have a curve radius of at least 300m, on branch lines it should be at least 180m.

A U-turn in Simutrans has a radius of 62.5m

Offline Václav

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 3322
  • formerly VaclavMacurek
  • Languages: CZ, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2020, 03:29:23 AM »
I don't know what is exact recalculation, but in m\ thought minimum turn area would be 2*3 tiles, but better at least 4*5 tiles.

2*3 tiles = arrival tile, 1 diagonal tile, middle tile, 1 diagonal tiles, departure tile
4*5 tiles = arrival tile, 3* diagonal tiles, middle tile, 3 diagonal tiles, departure tile

* = because only 2 diagonal tiles would not lead to turn of 90 degrees; but 90 degree turn needs area at least of 2*2 tiles or greater (3*3, 4*4 and so on) for better look.

Offline Freahk

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1435
  • Languages: DE, EN
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2020, 08:00:32 AM »
Oh Wait, this is standard?
One tile is 1km, so a full 2x2 circle got a radius of 500m, which is more than enough.
In extended, one tile is usually 125m, which leads to 62.5m, but that depends on meters_per_tile.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 5689
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: To OpenTTD and back
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2020, 05:51:48 PM »
Trains' U-turns may be good in some cases. But they should be forced by players, not automatic option (as currently, mostly in case of unaccessible platform. And also, thery should not be done between two tiles laying side by side.
It is very rare for my trains to do U-turns without me somehow ordering them to. If I order them to, it is almost always two tiles side by side. I need that since the routing system doesn't know the difference between normal operations and special cases. Real life railroads have a system for letting trains move the wrong way on a normally one-way track, or to let both tracks run in both directions without getting into deadlocks. Even if Simutrans routed trains so that they drove past a junction connecting to the opposite track, and then switch direction, it would possible have already reached the next one-way signal. Until these limitations are overcome, u-turns are a necessary workaround.