The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental  (Read 25751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18581
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
« on: July 13, 2009, 12:48:09 AM »
Last updated: 13th of March 2011, for Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.8

With the release of Pak128.Britain, now is the time to move towards making a Simutrans-Experimental compatible version to take advantage of all of the extra features that Simutrans-Experimental has to offer that are dependent on support in the pakset. Pak128.Britain is likely to be the first pakset to take advantage of all the extra features of Simutrans-Experimental, although some other paksets in development do take advantage of some Simutrans-Experimental features: see here for more information. See here for a detailed description of how to implement all of the specific features into a pakset.

All of the sources for Pak128.Britain-Experimental are available on Github here and are released under the same licence as Pak128.Britain-Standard, being the Artistic Licence 1.0. All contributors are reminded that any work submitted should be under the same or a compatible licence.

There is now a preview version of Pak128.Britain-Experimental available for download [http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=7028]here[/url]. This is a binary release, and does not need to be compiled: it can be installed simply by unzipping it into its own directory in the /simutrans folder. Although this set has now undergone some testing, it is still incomplete and not fully tested, and so may not be as well-balanced as a more mature pakset. Any feedback as to the balance would be most welcome.

Below is a list of all of the things that need to be done to make Pak128.Britain fully compatible with Simutrans-Experimental. I shall update this thread with progress towards that goal, and information about releases of Pak128.Britain-Experimental. They are grouped by Simutrans-Experimental feature. As of the release of 0.7, compatibility for the principal features are complete, save for the fixed maintenance costs (which need to await a full financial rebalancing), but work still needs to be done on adding additional vehicles and other graphics to take full advantage of the features, and also on balancing and calibrating. I should very much appreciate any assistance from any willing volunteers interested in Pak128.Britain and/or Simutrans-Experimental with the below works: assistance will greatly speed the release of interim and final versions of the modified pakset. Please PM me or reply to this thread in order to offer assistance, or for more information on how to help.

1. Tilting trains

Status: Complete.

There are only three types of tilting train ever to have run in service on the UK rail network: the ill-fated APT from the 1980s, and the more recent Super Voyager and Pendino sets. All of them have been marked as tilting.

2. Reversing

Status: Complete.

All the vehicles in the sources have the correct settings for reversing.

3. Comfort and catering

Status: Mostly complete

Each passenger carrying vehicle, both road and rail (and, when the main pakset includes them, water and air, too) needs to have a comfort rating assigned. This work has largely been completed, however, it would still be very helpful if anyone could check my work to make sure that the calibration is sane and accurate. I should be grateful in particular for feedback from anyone who is familiar enough with any of the vehicles to know how comfortable that they are (or, in the case of historical vehicles, has the ability to research them). The scale for comfort is between 0 (not designed for passengers at all) and 256, and is calibrated in the following way:

Journey time        Tolerable comfort level
2 minutes                  15
30 minutes                60
2 hours                     120
5 hours                     160
12 hours                   220

As to catering, James Hood has kindly provided graphics for catering (and TPO) vehicles for most eras, and I have now completed setting them up to work with Simutrans-Experimental and adding additional catering vehicles to fill in a number of gaps. There are still some gaps remaining, however, especially in respect of Pullman vehicles (level 5 catering); currently, the only Pullman vehicles are those of the Blue Pullman set, which are very limited in time. Earlier Pullman vehicles would be most useful (the higher comfort would be of particular value on long-distance, non-stop rail journeys, which are more likely to be viable given the increases in journey time tolerances in 0.7).

4. Upgrading

Status: Mostly complete

All existing vehicles now have the correct upgrade path set up, and a number of additional vehicles (such as the rebuilt "Merchant Navy" and "West Country" steam locomotives) have been added which are specific to upgrades. Further vehicles may in the future be added to take fuller advantage of the upgrading feature.

In the longer term, more subtle upgrades for rail vehicles (such as interior refurbishments and a change of livery) might well be added, along with, for example, upgrading locomotives to be able to couple to carriages that require an electricity supply for their air conditioning. I am not aware of any 'buses other than the Routemaster in London that have undergone major refurbishment of such an order as to make the end product very different from the original design, but, if anyone knows to the contrary, I shoudl be very interested; likewise with trams and lorries.

5. Loading time

Status: Complete

An initial set of loading times has now been completed. However, this has not been tested: I should be very grateful if anyone familiar with the vehicles in question (both rail and road) could let me know whether the relative loading times of the different vehicles make sense. Also, gameplay feedback from anyone play-testing the set would be most welcome.

Also, (linking with the requirements for comfort) there are some gaps in suburban rail vehicles which will need to be filled, particularly locomotive hauled suburban coaching stock from the 1930s-1960s, and steam locomotives from the 1910s-1950s suitable for suburban rail travel (as opposed to branch line or main line use). These vehicles would have a lower comfort rating and lower loading time than the express rail vehicles. Possible candidates at this stage are the BR Mk I suburban carriages and the LNER V1/V3 locomotives.

6. Overcrowding

Status: Complete.

All vehicles will need to have realistic overcrowded (standing) capacities set. This is usually easy to research for 'buses (which tend to have a specified number of people who are allowed to stand, which is usually quoted in official capacity figures), but must be guessed for trains. Anyone who is able to help with knowing the number of people who can stand in any given type of railway carriage would be greatly appreciated. This is complete as of release 0.7.

7. Way constraints

Status: Mostly complete

Way constraints are useful for differentiating between incompatible types of electrification, and setting up specialist types of track. The following way constraints are now defined (and set in the translation texts), those with an * next to them being those needed for the initial release, the others being required later as other items (such as London Underground trains) become available from the main pakset:

Permissive constraints
  • 3rd rail DC electrification *
  • 4th rail DC electrification
  • Overhead DC electrification (used for trains, trams and trolleybuses) *
  • Overhead AC electrification *
  • Waterway *

Prohibitive constraints
  • Tramway track *
  • Small waterway *
  • Tube tunnel

More may be added to the list as the need for them becomes apparent. The tramway track constraint has the effect of stopping main-line trains from using street tramways, but allowing trams to use main line railway tracks. As of version 0.6, there is also a heavyweight tramway track, which can be used by full sized rail vehicles, but only at very low speed. There are also combined electrification types to allow 3rd rail vehicles to operate on the same lines as overhead pickup vehicles.

Whilst the implementation of the feature is now complete, there remain a number of gaps in the timelines for electric trains, which are slowly being filled: see the post below about the plans for filling those gaps.

8. Weight limits

Status: In progress

Each type of way, bridge and tunnel will need to be given a weight limit. The weights of all vehicles will need to be checked to ensure that they match the real values as much as appropriate. To make this feature worthwhile, a larger number of ways and bridges will be required than is presently the case to give interesting tradeoffs between inexpensive ways/bridges that only allow lighter vehicles, or more expensive ways/bridges that allow heavier, more powerful, faster vehicles to use them.

As of Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.4, the weight limits and new way/bridge types are mostly implemented, but there are no unique graphics for them at present: they use the graphics of other types, which often appears incorrect. However, the graphics can be upgraded later without disrupting people's saved games.

9. Fixed maintenance costs

Status: Outstanding

This will need to be undertaken in conjunction with general re-balancing of the set to meet the needs of Simutrans-Experimental. I am hoping to get some information on the realistic relative costs of rail vehicles to simulate the economics more accurately. At the same time, the split between per unit of distance and per unit of time maintenance costs can be made.

10. Fine tuning of simuconf.tab and speedbonus.tab settings

Status: Mostly complete

The eventual plan for Pak128.Britain is to calibrate it to be optimal for larger maps than is conventionally the case with Simutrans-Standard: computing power has moved on since Simutrans-Standard was first developed, and computers can handle larger maps. Larger maps make intra-urban and suburban transport more interesting and important, and provide more interesting network challenges. The plan is to have larger maps, a larger stop coverage radius, larger towns and a lower passenger level to simulate a larger scale. Some of the simuconf.tab settings, such as the journey time multiplier and journey distance settings, will need to be fine tuned to work well with larger sized maps. Detailed testing should also help to optimise other simuconf.tab settings.

I have produced a preliminary speedbonus.tab file calibrated approximately for average, rather than maximum, speeds: see here for details. That should work a good deal better in Simutrans-Experimental than the Simutrans-Standard based speedbonus.tab files, but it may well need further fine-tuning. Any comments (especially based on testing) would be most helpful.

11. Factory retirement dates

Status: Mostly complete

Industry retirement dates are already included in the Simutrans-Standard version of Pak128.Britain, but do not have the same effect in Simutrans-Standard as they do in Simutrans-Experimental.

However, a number of additions would be very welcome to the industry chains that would highlight the changing pattern of industry over the years, particularly gasworks, markets, supermarkets and food processing plants.

12. Factory upgrading

Status: Complete

Industry upgrades are fully present in Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.4, for those industries that currently exist. Any further industry added to Standard will have to have further upgrade options specified.

13. Tractive effort

Status: Mostly complete

Tractive effort values have been specified manually from real figures for all railway locomotives for which the data can be found in Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.8, although there are a number of vehicles (principally road vehicles and railway multiple units) for which tractive effort values are not readily available, and which have either not been included or whose values have been guessed. It would be very much appreciated if anybody with knowledge of the tractive effort of such vehicles could get in touch to share the information.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 01:15:21 PM by jamespetts »

Offline kierongreen

  • Dev Team, Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2269
Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2009, 06:29:26 PM »
With regards calibrating map size - even at 2048 x 2048 size a map of Britain needs to have fairly small towns to avoid them running into each other. Not everyone can run maps that big either - let alone larger. Just a thought...

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2009, 07:17:01 PM »
6. Overcrowding
Status: Outstanding
Anyone who is able to help with knowing the number of people who can stand in any given type of railway carriage would be greatly appreciated.
Suggest dividing the number of seats by 4 across the board (where better data is lacking) - since the aisle is normally 1 person wide in UK carriages, with 2 seats either side (or a variant thereof)

7. Way constraints
Status: Outstanding
Prohibitive constraints
  • Tramway track *
The tramway track constraint will have the effect of stopping main-line trains from using street tramways, but allowing trams to use main line railway tracks.

I disagree with this. It removes the possibility of "diagonal" level crossings which are very useful in the urban context.

It also runs contrary to the well established principle of running "proper" trains along roads. This was often done in the victorian period, and well into the late 20th century in at least one location.
Weymouth Harbour Tramway (scheduled passenger services ended 1987 when connecting ferries withdrawn, the line is still extant)


AlsoPorthmadoc cross-town link
I refer you also to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_running

8. Weight limits
Status: Outstanding
Each type of way, bridge and tunnel will need to be given a weight limit.

Why do tunnels need weight limits at all?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2009, 08:22:34 PM by AP »

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18581
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2009, 11:41:38 PM »
Thank you both for your replies :-) Kieron - there will need to be some testing to calibrate the numbers. Towns running into each other is not necessarily a problem in some cases - in reality, in large urban areas, towns do run into each other (smaller towns being swallowed by larger ones).

AP,

thank you for the information about the seating - 1/4 seats  for railway carriages as a broad starting point is a very useful metric.

As to tramways, the railway lines that are built on the street such as the Waymouth line would have been built with main-line trains expressly in mind. The sharpness of the corners, the existence of a true signalling system, and points controlled by a signal box rather than by the rail vehicles themselves make it impossible for trains to run on ordinary tramways. To give the possibility of street trains, one might have a different type of tramway track that did not have the "tramway" way constraint, but was more expensive to build and maintain, and had a much lower speed limit.

As to the weight limits of tunnels, they are necessary because, in Simutrans, tunnels come with built-in track, and that track has to have a weight limit.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18581
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2009, 12:08:55 AM »
    Last updated: 13th of March 2011.

      Additional vehicles required

      In order to take full advantage of some of Simutrans-Experimental's new features, a number of new vehicles (mostly rail vehicles) are required. I have been working on producing some, but if anyone is handy with Blender and keen to help Simutrans-Experimental, I should be extremely grateful for any assistance.

      I list a number of vehicles below, including some already in Pak128.Britain (for reference), some on which I have been working, and a number on which work has not started. I should be extremely grateful for any assistance with the vehicles not currently started. If anyone else starts any of the vehicles not currently started, please post a reply to this thread and I shall update the list to ensure that no efforts are duplicated.

      Way constraints

      Way constraints require additional electric stock, since one of each basic type (outer suburban, inner suburban, express, etc.) is now needed for each type of electrification. Also, the electric stock in Pak128.Britain does not go back sufficiently far in time, mostly starting in the 1930s. See here and here for a very useful reference of British EMUs: all of the outstanding units can be found on one or other site.

      For the present, I exclude 4th rail DC/London Underground stock, as that is a future project.

      3rd rail DC electrification - locomotives
      • Southern CC-1/BR Class 70 - Complete
      • BR Class 71 - Already present
      • BR Class 73 - Already present

      Overhead DC electrification - locomotives
      • NER Class ES1 - Already present
      • NER Class EF1 - Already present
      • NER Class EE1 - Already present
      • LNER Class EM1/BR Class 73 - Already present
      • LNER Class EM2/BR Class 74 - Already present

      Overhead AC electrification - locomotives
      • BR Class 81 - Complete
      • BR Class 86 - Already present
      • BR Class 90 - Already present
      • BR Class 91 - Already present
      • BR Class 92 - Already present

      3rd rail DC electrification - multiple units
      • NER Tyneside units (inner suburban, 1903) - Outstanding
      • LSWR units (outer suburban, 1913) - Complete
      • SR 3-Sub (inner suburban, 1925; can upgrade from LSWR hauled stock) - Complete
      • SR 2-Bil (outer suburban, 1935) - Already present
      • SR 4-Cor (express, 1937) - Already present
      • LMS Class 502 (outer suburban, 1938) - Already present
      • SR 4-Sub (inner suburban, 1941) - Complete
      • BR Class 416 (4-Epb) (inner suburban, 1951) - Complete
      • BR Class 414 (4-Hap) (outer suburban, 1956) - Already present
      • BR Class 410 (4-Cep) (express, 1957) - Already present
      • BR Class 423 (4-Vep) (outer suburban, 1967) - Complete
      • BR Class 455 (inner suburban, 1982) - Complete
      • BR Class 442 "Wessex Electric" (express, 1988) - Already present
      • BR Class 456 (inner suburban, 1990) - Complete
      • BR Class 465 "Networker" (outer suburban, 1991) - Already present
      • BR Class 375/1 "Electrostar" (express, 2001) - Already present
      • BR Class 450 "Desiro" (outer suburban, 2003) - Complete
      • BR Class 444 "Desiro" (express, 2003) - Complete

      Overhead DC electrification - multiple units
      • LYR Bury to Holcombe Brook unit (outer suburban, 1913) -  Complete
      • Manchester South Junction & Altrincham units / BR Class 505 (outer suburban, 1931) - Complete
      • BR Class 506 (outer suburban, 1954) -  Complete
      • Tyne & Wear metro units (urban light rail, 1980) - Outstanding

      Overhead AC electrification - multiple units
      • BR Class 303 (outer suburban, 1959) - Already present
      • BR Class 304 (inner suburban, 1959) -  Complete
      • BR Class 309 (express, 1962) - Already present
      • BR Class 315 (inner suburban, 1979) - Complete
      • BR Class 317 (outer suburban, 1981) - Complete
      • BR Class 321 (outer suburban, 1988) - Complete
      • BR Class 370 "APT" (express, 1980) - Already present
      • BR Class 323 (inner suburban, 1992) - Outstanding
      • BR Class 376 (inner suburban, 2004) - Outstanding
      • BR Class 390 "Pendelino" (express, 2003) - Already present
      • BR Class 395 "Javelin" (express, 2009) - Already present

      Dual voltage - multiple units
      • BR Class 313 (inner suburban, 1976) - Already present
      • BR Class 319 (outer suburban, 1987) - Already present
      • BR Class 365 "Networker" (outer suburban, 1994) - Already present
      • Eurostar (express, 1994) - Already present
      • BR Class 325 "Networker" (mail, 1996) - Already present
      • BR Class 375/6 "Electrostar" (express, 1999) - Complete
      • BR Class 378 (inner suburban, 2009) - Already present

      Catering

      The latest release of Pak128.Britain included a good number of new catering vehicles specifically drawn with Simutrans-Experimental in mind. However, there are one or two gaps that need to be filled to have a complete range. Passenger catering in Simutrans-Experimental comes at three levels:

      Level 1: Trolley service
      Level 2: Miniature buffet (cold food only)
      Level 3: Buffet selling hot food
      Level 4: Full cooked meals (possibly including at-seat service)
      Level 5: Pullman-style luxury dining.

      A number of catering vehicles came in different varieties that looked similar to each other but had different functions: for example, the British Rail Mark I had a mini-buffet and a restaurant buffet, and it is planned in those cases to adapt one to the other. Catering vehicles present and required are listed below:

      Rail vehicles
      • GWR Clerestory dining car (level 4, 1899) - Already present
      • GNR Teak Clerestory dining car (level 4, 1900) - Already present
      • MR Clerestory dining car (level 4, 1905) - Already present
      • GWR Droplight buffet car (level 2, 1908) - Already present
      • SR Maunsell dining car (level 3, 1926) - Already present
      • Pullman dining car (level 5, 1923) - Outstanding
      • GWR Express dining car (level 4, 1923) - Already present
      • LNER dining car (teak) (level 4, 1923) - Already present
      • SR Maunsell dining car (level 3, 1926) - Already present
      • LMS dining car (level 4, 1933) - Already present
      • LNER Coronation restaurant car (level 5, 1935) - Already present
      • LMS Coronation Scot dining carriage (level 5, 1937) - Complete
      • SR 4-Cor restaurant car (level 4, 1937) - Complete
      • SR 4-Cor buffet car (level 3, 1938) - Complete
      • GWR Swindon Twinset rail car (level 2, 1941) - Already present
      • SR Bulleid dining car (level 4, 1941) - Already present
      • BR Mk. I Restaurant Mini Buffet (level 3, 1951) - Already present in three liveries
      • BR Mk. I Restaurant Buffet (level 4, 1951) - Complete in three liveries
      • BR Class 410 4-Cep buffet car (level 3, 1957) - Complete
      • BR Class 251 "Blue Pullman" kitchen car (level 5, 1960) - Complete
      • BR Class 309 Griddle car (level 3, 1962) - Complete
      • BR Mk. IIa mini-buffet (level 2, 1964) - Complete
      • BR Mk. IId mini-buffet (level 2, 1973) - Already present
      • BR Mk. III restaurant-buffet (level 4, 1975) - Already present
      • BR Mk. III buffet (level 3, 1975) - Complete
      • BR Class 370 APT buffet (level 3, 1980) - Already present
      • BR Mk. IV buffet (level 4, 1989) - Already present
      • BR Class 156 "Super Sprinter" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1987) - Complete*
      • BR Class 442 "Wessex Electric" buffet car) (level 3, 1988) - Already present
      • BR Class 158 "Express Sprinter" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1990) - Complete*
      • BR Class 153 "Super Sprinter" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1991) - Complete*
      • BR Class 166 "Turbo Express" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1992) - Complete*
      • BR Class 373 "Eurostar" bar buffet (level 3, 1994) - Outstanding*
      • BR Class 170 "Turbostar" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1998) - Complete*
      • BR Class 375 "Electrostar" (with trolley service) (level 1, 1999) - Outstanding*
      • BR Class 180 "Adelante" shop (level 2, 2000) - Complete*
      • BR Class 220/221 "(Super) Voyager" shop (level 2, 2001) - Already present
      • BR Class 390 "Pendelino" shop (level 3, 2003) - Already present

      * - no changes to the graphics required to produce this item.
      ** - only minor modifications to existing graphics are required to produce this item.

      I should be particularly grateful for any information about pre-war catering cars, especially the lower level vehicles (levels 2/3 - the early buffet cars), as my knowledge of those is limited.: there appear to be some gaps in the timeline, although I am not sure when the more basic catering vehicles were first introduced. Also, any information about the relative (1) purchase; and (2) running costs of catering vehicles compared to non-catering vehicles would be much appreciated. I have not specified any road vehicles, but I should also like to know whether any long-distance coaches operated in the UK also provide some form of catering facility. Finally, I should be grateful for any suggestions if anything criticial is missing from the above list.

      Upgrading

      To make full use of the upgrading facility, a number of upgrade paths need to be designed. In many instances, this will involve using an existing vehicle as either the pre- or post-upgrade vehicle, and producing its counterpart. In some cases, both the pre- and post-upgrade vehicles are already available, and just need linking and the upgrade prices setting. In other cases, the pre- and post-upgrade vehicles are currently represented as a single vehicle which would need to be split, without the necessity for any change in graphics (the LNER A1/A3 locomotive, for example, needs to be split into a separate A1 and A3 - the visual differences between the two are too minor to be noticeable at 128x128 scale resolutions).

      As far as I am aware, with a few exceptions, such as the refurbished Routemasters in London from 1998-2005 and the possibility of re-fitting the Leyland National with coach-style seats for longer distance travel, major refurbishments of 'buses were not generally undertaken - at least, not in such a way as the refurbished article was substantially different from the original.

      The upgrading feature can in due course be used to recreate a variety of different liveries used by vehicles over time, with a very small upgrade cost to an identical vehicle with a different livery (and presumably different interior fittings, perhaps with slightly adjusted maintenance costs, comfort levels and capacities), although that is not currently the priority, and can be undertaken later.

      Below is a list of required upgrade paths, including their state of completion. X > Y indicates that X can upgrade to Y, but Y cannot downgrade to X. X <> Y indicates that X can upgrade to Y, and Y up/downgrade to X. X >> Y indicates that Y can only be purchased as an upgrade of X, and not new.

      Trams
      • Blackpool Balloon (1934) > Blackpool Jubilee (1979) - Complete*
      • Blackpool Balloon (1934) > Blackpool Millennium (2002) - Complete*

      Railway locomotives - steam
      • GWR Star class (1907) > GWR Castle class (1923) - Complete
      • GWR Saint class (1902) > GWR Hall class (1928) - Complete
      • GWR Hall class (1928) > GWR Modified Hall class (1941) - Complete
      • LNER A1 class (1922) > LNER A3 class (1928) - Complete
      • SR Merchant Navy Class (1941) >> SR Rebuilt Merchant Navy class (1956) - Complete
      • SR West Country Class (1945) >> SR Rebuilt West Country class (1957) - Complete

      Railway locomotives - diesel
      • BR Class 30 (1957) >> BR Class 31/1 (1964) - Already present
      • BR Class 37/0 (1960) > BR Class 37/4 (1980) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 37/0 (1960) > BR Class 37/5 (1980) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 31/1 (1964) > BR Class 31/4 (1974) - Outstanding*
      • BR Class 37/5 (1980) <> BR Class 37/4 (1980) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 55 (as built) (1960) >> BR Class 55 (with ETH) (1973) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 47/0 (1962) > BR Class 47/3 (1971) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 47/0 (1962) > BR Class 47/4 (1973) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 47/3 (1971) <> BR Class 47/4 (1973) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 47(any) (1971) >> BR Class 57 (1997) - Complete

      Railway carriages
      • BR Mk. I (BR1 bogie - carmimne/cream livery) (1951) > BR Mk. I (Commonwealth bogie - maroon livery) (1956) -  Complete*
      • BR Mk. I (BR1 bogie - carmimne/cream livery) (1951)  >> BR Mk. I (B4 bogie - blue/grey livery) (1965) - Complete*
      • BR Mk. I (Commonwealth bogie - maroon livery) (1956) >> BR Mk. I (B4 bogie - blue/grey livery) (1965) - Complete*
      • BR Mk. IIa Standard Open (1964) >> BR Mk. IIa mini-buffet (1967) - Complete
      • BR Mk. IId Standard Open (1973) >> BR Mk. IId mini-buffet (1973) - Outstanding*

      Railway multiple units - diesel
      • BR Class 121 (1960) >> BR Class 131 (mail) (19??) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 156 "Super Sprinter" (1987) <> BR Class 156 "Super Sprinter" (with trolley service) (1987) - Complete*
      • BR Class 158 "Sprinter Express" (1990) <> BR Class 158 "Sprinter Express" (with trolley service) (1990) - Complete*
      • BR Class 153 "Super Sprinter" (1991) <> BR Class 153 "Super Sprinter" (with trolley service) (1991) - Complete*

      Railway multiple units - electric
      • LSWR hauled stock (1913) > SR 3-Sub or LSWR EMU (1925) -  Complete
      • SR 2-Bil (1935) > BR Class 416 (4-Epb) (1956) -  Outstanding
      • BR Class 455 (1982) >> BR Class 455 (refurbished) (2007) -  Outstanding
      • BR Class 375/1 "Electrostar" (DC only) (1999) > BR Class 375/6 "Electrostar" (dual voltage) (2001) -  Complete

      * - no changes to the graphics required to produce this item.
      ** - only minor modifications to existing graphics are required to produce this item.
      *** - also required under the loading time/comfort/crowding division, below.

      I should be extremely grateful for any suggestions of any other upgrade paths within existing stock, or any suggested upgrade paths for non-railway vehicles.


      Loading time/comfort/overcrowding

      With the new parameters for loading time, comfort and overcrowding, there are economic/gameplay incentives to use appropriate vehicles for appropriate routes. In particular, it is important to use different vehicles for short distance suburban transport (with a low loading time and possibly a good overcrowded capacity, and also lower levels of comfort) than for long distance transport (which requires higher levels of comfort, as well as catering, which leads to lower capacities, but need not have such a quick loading time).

      London Underground stock aside (that is the subject of a future project), there are a number of items missing that are needed to replicate the full range of uses in different eras. A list follows.

      Road vehicles
      • Leyland National long (inner suburban, 1972) - Complete

      Railway locomotives
      • LNER N2 0-6-0T (inner suburban, 1920) - Outstanding
      • LMS Fowler 3P 2-6-2T (suburban, 1930) - Complete
      • BR Standard 4MT 2-6-2-T (medium freight, cross country 1952) - Already present
      • BR Standard 4MT 2-6-2 (medium frieght, outer suburban 1951) -  Complete
      • BR Standard 2MT 2-6-2-T (major branch lines, inner suburban, 1953) -  Complete

      Railway carriages
      • LMS suburban compartment carriages (inner suburban; little information available - 1920s?) -  Complete
      • BR Mk. I non-corridor stock (inner suburban;1951) -   Complete

      Railway multiple units - diesel
      • BR Class 117 (inner suburban, outer suburban 1961) - Outstanding**
      • BR Class 150 "Sprinter" (inner suburban, branch line 1984) - Complete

      Railway multiple units - electric

      Sufficient electric multiple units are listed above for construction to cover way constraints, and do not need to be re-listed for this feature.

      ** - only minor modifications to existing graphics are required to produce this item.

      Any information relating to the relative comfort and/or dwell time of these passenger carrying vehicles would be very much appreciated. As stated above, anyone who would like to offer help by producing graphics for any of these would be extremely welcome to do so - see here for information on how to do so.

      Any further suggestions more generally would be very welcome.[/list][/list][/list]
      « Last Edit: March 13, 2011, 02:16:12 AM by jamespetts »

      Offline kierongreen

      • Dev Team, Coder/patcher
      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 2269
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #5 on: July 19, 2009, 04:41:41 PM »
      Given that Intercity EC/GNER/NXEC have offered restaurant facilities on the East Coast Mark 4 stock shouldn't this rate as higher than 3 - or at least be the option for that? I've not had meals there but given the price you'd hope it was decent!

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #6 on: July 19, 2009, 05:05:56 PM »
      Kieron,

      thank you for the feedback :-) Amended accordingly.

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      New speedbonus.tab
      « Reply #7 on: August 02, 2009, 06:14:26 PM »
      I  have completed my first attempt at a Simutrans-Experimental balanced speedbonus.tab for Pak128.Britain. It is available on Github, but I also reproduce it below:

      Code: [Select]
      # This file contains the information on the "speed bonus" values for each
      # type of transport in each era. It is specific to a pakset.
      #
      # Note that, for Simutrans-Ex, the values of all land-based transport should
      # be the same, except for water transport.
      #
      # Pak128.Britain-Ex
      # August 2009
      # James E. Petts

      track=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      road=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      monorail_track=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      tram_track=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      narrowgauge_track=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130
       
      maglev_track=1750,4,1820,8,1830,18,1835,28,1850,42,1855,55,1870,57,1890,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      water=1750,8,1933,13,1955,16,1972,18,2010,20,2025,25

      air=1905,62,1930,70,1955,85,1965,90,1975,95,1990,105,2000,110,2050,130

      It is rather different to other speed bonuses used for Simutrans-Standard, as there is little variation between types of transport (except for water), and the values are far lower. This should work a great deal better for Simutrans-Experimental's system of the speed bonus being based on the average speed. It is designed to be used without any modification of the speed_bonus_multiplier_percent setting. Comments and testing would be most welcome.
      « Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 06:20:25 PM by jamespetts »

      Offline AP

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 1202
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #8 on: August 02, 2009, 08:52:40 PM »
      Evening James: how do I go about using it / getting it into my copy of simutrans?

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #9 on: August 02, 2009, 09:00:19 PM »
      Just copy and paste the text above into your /simutrans/pak128.Britain/config/simuconf.tab file, replacing the existing text :-)

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #10 on: August 09, 2009, 07:19:07 PM »
      A revised version of the speedbonus.tab file after more thorough testing than the first one, and optimised to work with the revised physics of 6.3:

      Code: [Select]
      # This file contains the information on the "speed bonus" values for each
      # type of transport in each era. It is specific to a pakset.
      #
      # Note that, for Simutrans-Ex, the values of all land-based transport should
      # be the same, except for water transport.
      #
      # Pak128.Britain-Ex
      # August 2009
      # James E. Petts

      track=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      road=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      monorail_track=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      tram_track=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      narrowgauge_track=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175
       
      maglev_track=1750,8,1825,10,1830,15,1835,17,1840,33,1850,40,1865,52,1880,60,1895,65,1910,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      water=1750,8,1933,13,1955,16,1972,18,2010,20,2025,25

      air=1906,67,1920,72,1930,78,1940,82,1950,84,1960,87,1970,100,1985,120,2000,150,2030,175

      Offline sdog

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 2039
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #11 on: August 21, 2009, 10:50:57 PM »
      will this speedbonus.tab also work with other pak sets?

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #12 on: August 22, 2009, 08:42:40 AM »
      Sdog,

      welcome to the forums! It may more or less work with other paksets and Simutrans-Experimental, but it is particularly optimised for Pak128.Britain-Experimental. It will probably work better with any pakset than a speedbonus.tab file designed for Simutrans-Standard (but don't forget in that case to reset the speed_bonus_multiplier_percent in simuconf.tab back to 100).

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #13 on: August 23, 2009, 05:54:17 PM »
      Update: Updated the above information to take account of progress as at the 23rd of August 2009.

      Offline sdog

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 2039
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #14 on: August 23, 2009, 11:56:51 PM »
      thanks for releasing a precompiled set, i will test it from tomorrow onward!

      i briefly tried it before with the sources from last week and had after a bit of work to compile it properly no crashes or noticeable bugs.
      however i had quite some trouble to get any profitable setup in game. (ver. 6.3) (55 cities, 2000 pop med, 1500ish map)

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #15 on: August 24, 2009, 07:41:55 PM »
      Sdog,

      thank you very much for your feedback! I do need to work on balancing: a number of people have commented on having trouble making profit. Can you tell me a little more about what you have been doing and in what era that you have started? Perhaps you could upload a saved game?

      Thank you!

      Offline sdog

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 2039
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #16 on: August 24, 2009, 08:14:22 PM »
      i started 1880, 1890, and 1900 and tried several setups. 3 times passengers only.
      once i tried coal, ore, steel, wood, tools with 3 trains. however i dont have a savegame anymore.

      i'll send you some as soon as i can try 6.5 with pak.brit.exp

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #17 on: August 24, 2009, 09:17:25 PM »
      Please do - I need to know what you're doing to see whether you're making a mistake, or whether there needs to be some re-balancing :-)

      Offline sdog

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 2039
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #18 on: August 25, 2009, 11:48:40 PM »
      just found out that my long post from yesterday dissapeared somehow...  :-(

      anyway, i'll continue this in the other feedback thread.

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #19 on: November 17, 2009, 10:30:59 PM »
      Hello, I'm new here, but have been lurking and playing with br128ex0.3.

      I really love how everything is put together and hope you all keep up the good work.
      I especially love how the garratt can be put to good use with 64 car convoys

      there are a few inconsistencies I have noticed between the ex and standard.
      I won't touch the costs/maintenance much as I have a few issues with the power, acceleration and top speed of the steam locomotives in the experimental version.

      In the standard version, a LNER A1/A3, A4, B17, B17/5 and V2 can all pull 20 LNER teak coaches which is around 620t of dry weight and around 900 passenger capacity. Now I don't know at what speed they will go at that payload in real life or if the 600t pull load claimed is for total or dry weight, but they all go at around 150km/h in the standard 1.05 game.

      In the Ex they do not. power multipliers go out the window and they are all based on. They accelerate and get to their top speed appropriately. Now here in lies the issue. Some of the engines become useless for their intended roles. Take the B17 for instance. It is supposedly, according to the LNER encyclopedia, "high power, express service replacement for small GER locomotives" and quite frankly, with the 31t coaches, it doesn't really do too well in the express service.


      I did a small drag test. 6 tile car lengths (loco+tender+7~8 cars), which seemed to be the ideal station length for future DMU and EMU BR double units. Proper livery for each company, roughly the same weight, ranging from 324t to 370t. Medium distance, 105 tile length station to station. no load.

      I didn't test all of them, but did 3. One for 1930, 1935, and one for 1940.
      best for 1930, 105 tile distance:
      1 SR V class with 7x SR Maunsell 33t cars (341t)
      2 LMS 5XP with 8x MR Celestory 25t cars (324t)
      3 GWR 6600 King with 7x GWR Express 34t cars (370t)
      4 LNER A1/A3 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars (366t)
      5 SR King Arthur with 7x SR Maunsell 33t cars (341t)
      6 GWR Star 7x GWR Express 34t cars (370t)
      7 LNER B17 7x  LNER Teak express (366t)


      Best for 1935, 105 tile distance
      1 LNER A4 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars
      2 SR V class with 7x SR Maunsell 33t cars
      3 LNER A4 with triple-triple-observation Coronation 9x 31t cars
      4 GWR 6600 King with 7x GWR Express 34t cars
      5 LMS 5XP with 7x LMS standard carriages 30t + 1x brake carriage 27t (361t)
      6 LNER A1/A3 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars (366t)
      7 LMS 7P with 7x LMS standard carriages 30t + 1x brake carriage 27t (361t)

      observations: LMS 7P can't hit it's top speed with 361t and 105 tiles. 5XP is faster than 7P for this distance. 8x LMS standard cars only add 25t over 8x MR Celestory cars, but really slows down the 5XP.
      If the distance was longer, the faster 7P would have been able to out do the 5XP

      Best for 1940
      1 LNER A4 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars
      2 LMS 8P with 8x Coronation Scot 30t (404t)
      3 SR V class with 7x SR Maunsell 33t cars
      4 GWR 6600 King with 7x GWR Express 34t cars
      5 LMS 5XP with 7x LMS standard carriages 30t + 1x brake carriage 27t (361t)
      6 LMS 7P with 7x LMS standard carriages 30t + 1x brake carriage 27t (361t)
      7 LNER V2 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars
      8 LNER B17/5 with 7x LNER Teak express 31t cars

      special mentions:
      GWR 3100 2-6-2T is the best mixed traffic engine, it will easily beat a LNER B17, GWR 6600 King, SR King Arthur with its 1900kW power over shorter hops than 70 tile distances with the same 7x GWR Express 34t cars. It also easily trumps the GWR 2800 2-8-0 for any job.
      LNER P2 with 10 carriages comes in just behind the A4 with 7 carriages for 105 tiles.

      power and top speed for 0.3ex is as so:
      LNER A1/A3 2000kW 160km/h
      LNER A4 2550kW 175km/h
      LNER B17 1260kW 150km/h
      LNER B17/5 1417kW 150km/h
      LNER V2 1674kW 150km/h
      LNER P2 3000kW 150km/h
      LMS 5XP Patriot 1900kW 145km/h
      LMS 5MT Black Five 1500kW 130km/h
      LMS 7P Princess Royal 2100kW 155km/h
      LMS 8P Princess Coronation 2450kW 170km/h
      GWR 3100 2-6-2T 1903kW 105km/h
      GWR Star 4-6-0 1600kW 130km/h
      GWR 6600 4-6-0 King 2000kW 150km/h
      SR N15 King Arthur 1800kW 140km/h (maint.$17.82)
      SR V class "schools" 2000kW 140km/h (maint.$12.54)


      some other small bits I noticed while playing:

      -Reversing
      -LMS Garratt, with no brake van, when reversing, has improper layout.
      forwards: Garratt front, Garratt middle, garratt rear, payload
      reversing: Garratt front, Garrat middle, payload, Garratt rear (but pointing the correct way)

      -Double header Tank engine, with brake van, when reversing has one engine reversing and one engine pointing forward.
      forwards: tank engine forwards, tank engine forwards, payload
      reversing: tank engine backwards, tank engine forwards, payload (face to face layout)
      -Tender engine, when engine goes to the rear of the train, tender overlaps rear most carriage.

      -A4 triple-triple Coronation Carriage, when pulling carriage in reverse causes a big gap between the car following the restaurant car and has no observation deck or double carriage sets like in the standard.

      -BR Standard 8P with 170km/h, uses a standard BR tender, which is limited to 160km/h.
      built to replace 8P Princess Coronation with in game 2450kW power, but the BR 8P was improperly built and underpowered, yet still produces 2393kW. As I understand it now, once rebuilt to proper specifications, is the best steam locomotive in Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BR_Standard_Class_8

      -GWR, LNER, LMS and SR passenger/mail/brake carriages are not introduced as a complete set when they become available.
      -GWR express set
      dining: Jan 1923
      carriage, TPO, Mail, Parcel brake, brake: Feb 1923
      -SR Maunsell set
      TPO: Jan 1926
      carriage, dining, brake, Mail, Parcel brake: Sept 1926
      -LNER Teak express
      dining, TPO: Jan 1923
      carriage, brake, mail, parcel brake: May 1923
      -LMS standard set
      parcel brake: Sept 1932
      TPO, mail: Jan 1933
      carriage, dining: Jun 1933

      -inconsistencies in train sets, some offered in full sets like how it is in real life, some offered in single units or odd mixed units.
      -BR Class 370/APT-P offered as single units, Bo'Bo' power units can be used as singles in game and placed anywhere in the train as long as the game allows it.
      actual configuration is 2'2'2'2'2'2'2'+Bo'Bo'+Bo'Bo'+2'2'2'2'2'2'2, so I would suggest having the two engine units joined together, the carriage configuration should be up to the user.
      -BR Class 465 EMU, actual configuration is 4 cars per set, but you can build any configuration you want, unlike the most other BR EMU and DMU units which are only available as sets.
      -BR Class 156 DMU, actual configuration is 2 cars per set, but 156 head unit can be joined with a 153 single unit enabling users to have 156+153 instead of 156+156 rear+153
      -BR Class 205 DEMU has single unit builds of any length, actual is 2 or 3 per set
      as an example, the BR Class 158 DMU has a perfect implementation of 2/3 car sets

      175km/h tunnel and 350km/h TGV tunnels become unavailable after 2000. leaving you with no way to dig tunnels unless you add a tunnel pak.

      Offline The Hood

      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 2889
      • pak128.Britain developer
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #20 on: November 17, 2009, 10:56:26 PM »
      Not a bad length for a first post there :) - welcome to the forums!  Seeing as most of those issues seem to relate to standard as much as experimental, I'll answer them (I don't actually do anything for experimental, except of course for the fact that it is derived from standard which I maintain and develop).

      Basically you've hit on the major issue of balancing - i.e. it isn't right.  It's a big job to get it right though, hence I haven't done it already.  Current power balancing in standard is way too generous on the whole, and needs tweaking.  Power balancing isn't too hard to sort out, just it's related to the evil price-balancing, which I just haven't quite got the time or willpower to nail right now.  As part of the re-balancing of standard, gear multipliers will go, and I'll just use fictitious power values that work.  Then at least it's consistent.  Incidentally, if you're interested in doing some more tests, you'd be very welcome to attempt to sort out the power balance in standard.

      Multiple units - the reason for the inconsistencies basically comes down to a dilemma on how to balance the desire for realistic sets against player choice.  As you can see, this leads to mixed results.  I will probably force the 465 and 205 into correct sets, but I don't think I'll alter the APT.  The idea is that if people want, they can implement a shorter version of the APT with just a single power car, which will still be economical.  Same goes for the pendolino (5 car with single power car, 9+ car with two should be economical).  

      The 156/153 issue, coach intro dates, and 8P tender speed appear to be bugs though.  However I'm planning a downgrade of the speed of top link steam locos, as I don't think any of them really ever did 100mph regularly, for significant portions of timetabled routes (correct me if I'm wrong).  The tunnels thing also looks like a bug.


      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #21 on: November 17, 2009, 11:13:34 PM »
      sure, I do not mind doing more tests for the game.
      The only thing is I'm not super familiar with british road and rail history.

      Offline The Hood

      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 2889
      • pak128.Britain developer
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #22 on: November 18, 2009, 11:17:40 AM »
      Looking into things a bit more, I think some of these problems are more directly related with experimental (e.g. why a LMS 5XP beats a LMS 7P, which is rather given their top speeds and power ratings).  But I know I still need to do a comprehensive review of the power and gear ratings in standard.  If you (or anyone else) want to help with that, you can get the sources from here:

      http://simutrans.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/simutrans/pak128.Britain/trains/

      If you're happy messing with dat files and recompiling paks using makeobj on the command line, then feel free to mess around with power and gear values to get the desired behaviour.  The ideal number and type of rolling stock is shown in this spreadsheet (this should take care of most historical aspects, but for some shorter distance multiple units, quick acceleration is desirable too):

      http://simutrans.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/simutrans/pak128.Britain/balancing.xls?view=log

      look at the "rail cost" tab (not the rail power tab, as this is out of date).  Trains should be able to reach top speed with these coaches/wagons when empty, and probably with a 20% longer train too, but not really long trains.

      If that's too much though, don't worry, and I'll get round to it sometime.

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #23 on: November 18, 2009, 07:32:49 PM »
      sure thing, I will take a look into the locomotive power/acceleration balance.

      I think I have figured out the method for this, at least for the steam locomotive age.
      pulling things off of wiki, lner encyclopedia and a few other spots the LMS/BR power rating can be worked out roughly.

      from BR/LMS power ratings we get a rough estimate of rolling tractive effort (top speed @ load)
      from the specs we can get static tractive effort (accelleration)
      from some recorded express services we can get average speed and rough estimate of load
      from known specs and locomotives still in service, like the BR class 8P and A1 Tornado, we can get set a base to work on.

      and then from these we can scale it down to desired in game haulage/cost.

      partial list of info I've pulled up in my research
      A1 Tornado with 11 coaches should hit 140km/h (possibly Br Mk.I or Mk.II coaches)
      LNER A1 would pull 550t/15 coaches @ 110km/h avg. (lner coaches work out to 35~36t)
      LNER V2 can haul 700t/20 coaches or 910t/26 coaches (but no claimed speed)
      LNER V2 can do 150km/h, but only for test runs, so likely little load, like the TGV record breaker.
      GWR Chaltenham express regularly averaged 100~130km/h with the Castle class, and the GWR 6000 was used for heavier trains, at presumably the same speeds. (but no info on how long or heavy loads were)

      I'll try and get more info as I go along.
      but do tell me if this sorting order works out for you.

      Offline The Hood

      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 2889
      • pak128.Britain developer
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #24 on: November 18, 2009, 07:53:21 PM »
      Thanks for the info.  Before you go racing ahead further though, just remember to keep it simple.  So don't worry about fitting every last detail you find into the game.  It's a game, so fun and playable are the order of the day (there's enough simplifications in the game anyway to mean not everything in real life should be the same in the game).  Just a nice combination of looking semi-realistic, and playing well.  So for starters, 26-coach expresses are probably too long, but 10 is a sensible upper limit.

      What is useful is info like this:
      A1 Tornado with 11 coaches should hit 140km/h

      So top link 1930s-50s steam express trains should probably have a top speed of around 140-150kmh, and should be able to attain this with 10 coaches, but not for most of the journey (speeds of 100-110kmh sound more normal).  Keep things relative for the smaller/earlier locos.

      Finally, I'd steer clear of changing any of the power, weight, speed values for diesels and electrics - these are mostly correct.  The gear values are the only thing that should be changed (unless there's a really good reason).

      Anyway, thanks for looking into this, and I'm looking forward to what you find out/propose!

      PS it would be interesting to see how different things are once you start modding them in experimental too - but use the experimental sources for them - I'm sure jamespetts will point you in the right direction.  They have a few more parameters and tweaks added in.

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #25 on: November 18, 2009, 09:03:03 PM »
      great! thanks for steering me in the proper direction.
      right now I just want to make a list of the ingame locomotives and give them their proper place in the hierarchy.
      I'll work out the scaling from there :)

      Offline The Hood

      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 2889
      • pak128.Britain developer
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #26 on: November 18, 2009, 10:46:38 PM »
      Hint: use the list I gave you in the balancing spreadsheet.  There should be enough clues in there as to their place in the heirarchy too :)

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #27 on: November 20, 2009, 09:51:43 PM »
      well, I've done the spread sheet, well most of the locomotives anyway.
      still haven't done anything for the EMU and DMU trains or early steam locomotives.

      I know it's not perfect, but this should transition better between the end of steam and BR diesel modernization era with the coach/freight weight increase than what is currently implemented and correct the power balance between a heavy freight express vs. a branch line locomotive.

      I hope it's okay to give a direct link to the file.
      http://www.filefactory.com/file/a1c7h1b/n/SL.ods

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #28 on: November 20, 2009, 10:09:26 PM »
      I should point out, the BR locomotives, hi lighted in red still need to be put in their proper place.
      but the class 40 is where it should be.

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #29 on: December 10, 2009, 02:41:10 PM »
      I'm just catching up with this discussion, so apologies, AEO, for the delay in response. I shan't touch on the points already covered by The Hood, but I'll deal with the Simutrans-Experimental specific comments. I am very grateful, incidentally, for your feedback.

      Power/acceleration

      The next version of Simutrans-Experimental (7.1) will have a completely revised physics engine written by Bernd Gabriel, so I shan't comment on this in detail at this stage. I recommend that, when that version comes out, you test it again then, and any further problems can be discussed with a view to refining the new physics engine.

      Reversing

      The problem with the Garrett is a bug with the Simutrans-Experimental code, which will be fixed in the next version. Thank you for your report! As to the tank engines, I shall have to look into that further and see if I can fix that, too. The overlapping is a harder problem to fix, as it appears to be a problem inherent to the Simutrans graphics engine.

      BR Standard 8P

      Thank you for pointing out the tender anomaly - in the next release of Pak128.Britain-Ex, the tender's maximum speed will be increased accordingly. As I suspect that you have guessed, the 8P in Pak128.Britain is intended to represent the 8P as it should have been built (and would have been built if BR had continued to invest in improving it, rather than buying diesels), rather than the flawed Duke of Gloucester prototype that was subsequently (and fairly easily) fixed only in preservation.

      January introduction dates

      I need to look into this. My guess is that the problem occurs because "intro_month=xx" is not properly defined in the .dat files, meaning that the default introduction month of January is used. Thank you for finding this issue!

      Steam locomotive top speeds

      I think that Pak128.Britain-Ex may have to part ways with Pak128.Britain (standard) on this issue, as, hopefully, the new physics engine, when perfected, will give realistic performance for steam locomotives with realistic top speeds (i.e., speeds which are rarely - but occasionally - reached in practice), rather than artificially capped top speeds which are easily met.

      Offline ӔO

      • Devotees (Inactive)
      • *
      • Posts: 2345
      • Hopefully helpful
      • Languages: en, jp
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #30 on: December 10, 2009, 11:48:37 PM »
      thanks for the response james.
      I'll be sure to try out the 7.1 when it becomes available as well as read up on any new documentation it may have.

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #31 on: December 19, 2009, 11:55:19 PM »
      Update: Updated the list to show progress as of the 19th of December 2009, in Pak128.Britain-Ex 0.4.

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #32 on: January 02, 2010, 11:55:42 PM »
      Update: I have amended the list showing some progress that I have made in producing some new vehicle graphics over the Christmas holiday. I have also made some changes to the steam locomotives that I have set out, replacing the LNER V1/V3 with the LMS Fowler 3P - the V1/V3 were too similar in power classification to the GWR large prairie tank, which is already included; the 3P is a smaller locomotive more suited to inner suburban duties. I am also considering adding to the list some push/pull stock for the 3P and BR 2MT 2-6-2T, to enable push-pull working on inner suburban type trains as well as branch line type trains with the current GWR autocoach. I have yet to determine whether that should be instead of or as well as the currently listed GNR/LNER suburban compartment stock.

      Finally, I have removed the tender version of the BR Standard 2MT, which would not serve much of a useful purpose in Simutrans (the tender version of the 4MT being useful only because, as a result of being a tender and separate locomotive, it has a lighter axle loading than the tank version).

      Edit: I have also added Tyne & Wear Metro light rail units, to give a modern application to DC overhead electrification.
      « Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 12:04:44 AM by jamespetts »

      Offline AP

      • Devotee
      • *
      • Posts: 1202
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #33 on: March 02, 2010, 05:25:31 PM »
      James, was just wondering, what state is pak-gb-experimental in, in terms of balancing and playability? Because pak-gb1.07 standard has clearly not been balanced yet - was just about to start making a new game, wondering if it's in a reasonable condition to use yet?

      Offline jamespetts gb

      • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
      • Moderator
      • *
      • Posts: 18581
      • Cake baker
        • Bridgewater-Brunel
      • Languages: EN
      Re: Towards Pak128.Britain-Experimental
      « Reply #34 on: March 02, 2010, 11:15:04 PM »
      The Experimental version has not been balanced more than the Standard version. I have spoken to somebody who knows a great deal of information about the realistic relative costs of things, and am hoping to balance the set using those data, but have not heard from him yet. In the meantime, I am focussing on fixing bugs in Experimental and balancing issues in the code. Any assistance in testing would, however, be much appreciated!