The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Balancing notes from the online game  (Read 24578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2012, 01:19:05 PM »
- Freight should possibly pay out 2 to 3x what it currently does.
- Minimum maintenance for locomotives should probably be 100kW/$1 (300kW=$3) or some form of power/weight ratio. (300kW/40t)/2=$3.75. Obviously, for faster locomotives, there should be modifiers that make it cost more maintenance, but for the weaker and slower ones, I think this should be fairly good as the baseline.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2012, 03:17:09 PM »
AEO,

interestingly, I am in the process of planning something similar, although not quite the same thing. I am in the process of implementing and testing my "fare stages" module (on an eponymous Github branch) which allows a different per kilometre fare to be implemented depending on the distance (usually, reducing the per kilometre fare the longer that the goods/passengers have travelled). Using historical figures for passengers and freight, I have found that the freight costs are far too low compared to the passenger costs. My current testing goods128.pak file for the branch looks like this:

Code: [Select]
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
#                      Dat file for simutrans goods types
#                            created by: Hj. Malthaner
#                                  16-Nov-02
#                                   updated:
#                               22-Feb-2003 (T. Kubes)
#                     09-Sep-2003 Added food chain good (T. K.)
#                     17-Nov-2003 Added beer, milk, table of units
#                     19-Nov-2003 Adjusted prices and added bonuses
#
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# categories:
# 0 = type defined (unique)
# 1 = piece good (i.e. crates of XY)
# 2 = bulk good (i.e. ore, sand, coal)
# 3 = oil type fluid
# 4 = piece good refrigerated (i.e. cooled crates of XY)
# 5 = liquid food
# 6 = long goods (planks, steel (any flat-bed))
# 7 = fabric (or any lightweight packed goods - crates, sacks)
#
# units:
#          = none (no units displayed)
# sack     = bags
# tonnen   = t
# paletten = crates
# m3       = m^3
#
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# See W. M. Ackworth, "The Elements of Railway Economics" p. 107 for historical records
# of relative charges for passengers and different types of goods on the Liverpool &
# Manchester Railway and previous pages for similar rates for canals (freight only).
#
# Generally speaking, per ton per mile:
# Low value bulk: 1d
# Medium value bulk (incl. coal) 1 1/2d
# High value bulk (incl. clay) 2d
# Perishables and semi-manufactured (incl. flour, timber and finished metals) 2 1/2d
# Manufactured goods: 3d
# Passengers (per passenger): -
# 1.8d (first 10 miles)
# 1.5d (next 20 miles)
# 1.4d (thereafter)
#
# Cattle (per head)
# 2d (first 15 miles)
# 1.4d (thereafter)
# Note that the LMR was only 35 miles long.
#
# See ibid pp. 111 and onwards for the later RCH classification system, as follows:
# A: Coal, coke, irone ore, furnace slag
# B: Clay, sand, manure, limestone, chalk, salt, unfinished stone, zinc ore, copper ore, bricks, paving stones, pig iron
# C: Hay, straw, grain, flour, seeds, fertiliser, chemicals, lead ore, part-finished iron goods
# I: Iron/steel hoops, pipes, sheets, plates, common fruit and vegetables, paper, cotton, beer in casks, oil in caks, tin ore
# II: Beer in bottles, wine in casks, bacon, biscuits, brass, china in casks or crates, coconut matting, nickel ore
# III: Cotton and linen goods, cured bacon, blankets, books, boots in casks, cases or boxes, china in hampers, woollen cloth, tea, silver ore
# IV: Pineapples, fresh cured meats, china in boxes or cases, woollen cloth in boxes, cases parcels or hampers.
# V: Amber, dyes, peaches and apricots, bonnet boxes, basketwork, bismouth, clocks, hats, artificial flowers, silk
#
# 1844 Act - 1d/mile for "parliamentary" vehicles for passengers.
#
# Ackworth, p. 145 has a table of maximum charges for each class for the GER, which was similar to that for other railway companies.
# This dates from around the 1890s as far as can be ascertained. (See for example:
# http://digital.slv.vic.gov.au/view/action/nmets.do?DOCCHOICE=771636.xml&dvs=1327967822965~470&locale=en_GB&search_terms=&adjacency=&usePid1=true&usePid2=true )
#
# Figures are all per ton per mile
#
# Class First 20 miles Next 30 miles Next 50 miles Remainder
# A 1.15d 0.90d 0.45d 0.40d
# B 1.40d 1.05d 0.80d 0.55d
# C 1.80d 1.50d 1.20d 0.70d
# I 2.20d 1.85d 1.40d 1.00d
# II 2.65d 2.30d 1.80d 1.50d
# III 3.10d 2.65d 2.00d 1.80d
# IV 3.60d 3.15d 2.50d 2.20d
# V 4.30d 3.70d 3.25d 2.50d
#
# Note that, for the time being, the original values are retained for backwards compatibility. They are over-written by the new system
# on the fare-stages branch.

### UNIQUE GOODS TYPES ###
# Passengers
# Class: passengers
obj=good
name=Passagiere
mapcolor=79
metric=
catg=0
#
#value=42
value=50
#
value[0]=60
to_distance[0]=16
value[1]=50
to_distance[1]=32
value[2]=47
to_distance[2]=0
speed_bonus=18
weight_per_unit=70
-----------------------
# Mail
# Class: mail
obj=good
name=Post
metric= bags
catg=0
#
#value=48
value=57
#
value[0]=69
to_distance[0]=16
value[1]=57
to_distance[1]=32
value[2]=54
to_distance[2]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=50
-----------------------
# Livestock
# Class: Livestock trated as class of own.
obj=good
name=livestock
metric=head
catg=0
#
#value=35
value=56
#
value[0]=67
to_distance[0]=16
value[1]=56
to_distance[1]=32
value[2]=52
to_distance[2]=0
speed_bonus=18
speed_bonus=2
weight_per_unit=120
------------------------------------------
# None
obj=good
name=None
metric=
catg=0
value=0
weight_per_unit=1
-----------------------
# Cars
# Class: not given, but treat as IV
obj=good
name=Autos
metric=cars
catg=0
#
#value=225
value=284
#
value[0]=324
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=284
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=225
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=198
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=1800
-----------------------
# Fish
# Class: not given, but treat as III
obj=good
name=FreshFish
metric=paletten
catg=0
#
value=133
#
value[0]=155
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=133
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=100
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=90
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=1000
metric=tonnen
-----------------------
### BULK GOODS ###
# Coal
# Class: A
obj=good
name=Kohle
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=45
#
value[0]=58
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=45
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=23
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=20
to_distance[3]=240
value[4]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Iron Ore
# Class: A
obj=good
name=Eisenerz
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=45
#
value[0]=58
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=45
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=23
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=20
to_distance[3]=240
value[4]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Wood Chip
# Class: not given, but treat as B
obj=good
name=woodchip
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=53
#
value[0]=70
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=53
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=40
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=28
to_distance[3]=240
value[4]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Stone
# Class: B
obj=good
name=Stone
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=53
#
value[0]=70
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=53
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=40
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=28
to_distance[3]=240
value[4]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Clay
# Class: B
obj=good
name=clay
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=53
#
value[0]=70
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=53
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=40
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=28
to_distance[3]=240
value[4]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Cement
# Not given, but treat as C
obj=good
name=Cement
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=75
#
value[0]=90
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=75
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=60
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=35
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
obj=good
# Class: C
name=grain
metric=tonnen
catg=2
#
#value=35
value=75
#
value[0]=90
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=75
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=60
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=35
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=1
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
### PIECE GOODS ###
# Subcategory - High Speedbonus
# Books
# Class: III
obj=good
name=Bucher
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=51
value=133
#
value[0]=155
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=133
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=100
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=90
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=10
weight_per_unit=810
-----------------------
# Fruit
# Class: I
obj=good
name=fruit
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=51
value=68
#
value[0]=80
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=68
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=51
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=37
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=10
weight_per_unit=730
-----------------------
# Vegetables
# Class: I
obj=good
name=vegetables
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=51
value=65
#
value[0]=77
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=65
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=49
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=35
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=700
-----------------------
# Newspaper
# Class: not given, but treat as III
obj=good
name=newspaper
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=51
value=105
#
value[0]=122
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=105
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=79
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=71
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=10
weight_per_unit=790
------------------------------------------
# Subcategory - Low Speedbonus
# Hardware
# Class: I
obj=good
name=hardware
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=69
#
value[0]=83
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=69
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=53
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=38
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=750
-----------------------
# Furniture
# Class: not given, but treat as III
obj=good
name=Moebel
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=50
value=53
#
value[0]=62
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=53
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=40
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=36
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=400
-----------------------
# Textiles
# Class: III
obj=good
name=textile
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=57
#
value[0]=67
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=57
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=43
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=39
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=430
-----------------------
# Flour
# Class: C
obj=good
name=flour
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=63
#
value[0]=76
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=63
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=840
-----------------------
# Beer
# Class: I
obj=good
name=beer
metric=barrels
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=74
#
value[0]=88
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=74
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=56
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=40
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=800
-----------------------
# Cider
# Class: not given, but treat as I
obj=good
name=cider
metric=barrels
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=73
#
value[0]=86
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=73
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=55
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=39
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=780
-----------------------
# Pharmaceuticals
# Class: not given, but treat as IV
obj=good
name=pharmaceuticals
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=91
#
value[0]=104
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=91
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=73
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=64
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=580
-----------------------
# Plastic
# Class: not given, but treat as C
obj=good
name=Plastik
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=38
#
value[0]=45
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=38
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=30
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=18
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=500
-----------------------
# Paper
# Class: I
obj=good
name=Papier
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=74
#
value[0]=88
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=74
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=56
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=40
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=800
-----------------------
# Wool
# Class: not given, but treat as C
obj=good
name=wool
metric=sack
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=29
#
value[0]=34
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=29
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=23
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=13
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=380
-------------------------
# China
# Class: II
obj=good
name=china
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=52
#
value[0]=60
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=52
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=41
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=34
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=450
------------------------------------------
# Bricks
# Class: B
obj=good
name=bricks
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=43
#
value[0]=57
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=43
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=33
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=23
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=820
---------------------------------------
# Canned Food
Class: not given, but treat as IV
obj=good
name=canned_food
metric=paletten
catg=1
#
#value=35
value=129
#
value[0]=148
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=129
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=103
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=90
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=3
weight_per_unit=820
---------------------------------------
### LONG GOODS ###
# Steel
# Class C
obj=good
name=Stahl
metric=tonnen
catg=6
#
#value=35
value=75
#
value[0]=90
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=75
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=60
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=35
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=2
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Planks
# Class: not given, but treat as I
obj=good
name=Bretter
metric=tonnen
catg=6
#
#value=35
value=93
#
value[0]=110
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=93
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=70
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=50
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=2
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
### BULK LIQUIDS ###
#Crude Oil
# Class: I
obj=good
name=Oel
metric=m3
catg=3
#
#value=35
value=83
#
value[0]=99
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=83
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=63
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=45
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=900
-----------------------
# Petrol
# Class: I
obj=good
name=Gasoline
metric=m3
catg=3
#
#value=35
value=70
#
value[0]=83
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=70
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=53
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=38
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=750
-----------------------
# Fuel Oil
# Class: I
obj=good
name=FuelOil
metric=m3
catg=3
#
#value=35
value=93
#
value[0]=110
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=93
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=70
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=50
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=1000
-----------------------
# Chemicals
# Class: C
obj=good
name=Chemicals
metric=m3
catg=3
#
#value=35
value=66
#
value[0]=77
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=66
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=53
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=31
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=0
weight_per_unit=860
-----------------------
### COOLED GOODS ###
# Meat
# Class: II
obj=good
name=meat
metric=paletten
catg=4
#
#value=69
value=47
#
value[0]=54
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=47
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=37
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=31
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=410
-----------------------
# Fish
# Class: not given, but treat as II
obj=good
name=fish
metric=paletten
catg=4
#
#value=69
value=47
#
value[0]=54
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=47
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=37
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=31
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=410
-----------------------
# Milk
# Class: not given, but treat as I
obj=good
name=milk
metric=paletten
catg=4
#
#value=69
value=89
#
value[0]=106
to_distance[0]=32
value[1]=89
to_distance[1]=48
value[2]=67
to_distance[2]=80
value[3]=48
to_distance[3]=0
speed_bonus=15
weight_per_unit=960
-----------------------
#===============================================================================
#
#                              EOF - goods-128.dat
#
#===============================================================================

I have not got this to work quite yet, as there has been a bug in the makeobj that goes with this, but it will be interesting to see this in practice.

As to the running costs of steam locomotives, it seems that these should indeed be based on the power: see this, this and this.

Earlier locomotives will, of course, be less efficient, especially before the advent of superheating and the use of coal instead of coke. I shall at some point have to produce a spreadsheet or other similar means of creating a formula to give the ratios of power to cost (taking into account fuel and repair costs, and the proportion of each) to get a sensible amount of balancing; but that task might well take some time.

Offline wlindley us

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 979
    • Hacking for fun and profit since 1977
  • Languages: EN, DE
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2012, 03:40:03 PM »
The chief reason narrow gauge railways were built was their low cost; the inconveniences of having to transfer freight would otherwise have been too great a disincentive.  Here is just one quote:

"The Toledo, Delphos, and Indianapolis narrow gauge (three feet width) was estimated to cost $8,000 per mile, built and equipped, versus a standard gauge, (four feet, eight and one half inches width) at least three times that amount." (source)

I'm sure we could find some additional info...

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2012, 03:50:12 PM »
Aha, excellent! Thank you. I knew that narrow gauge was built for its low cost: the question is exactly how much lower that the cost should be. One complication is that the narrow gauge in Pak128.Britain-Ex is actually based on Welsh practice, where most of the narrow gauge is about 2ft width, rather than the 3ft width used in the railway that you quoted (and also in the Isle of Man), so perhaps the cost should be lower still (1/3.5 of standard gauge, at a guess?).

Offline sdog

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2012, 05:26:07 PM »
 the cost reduction of narrow gauge mostly come from reduced earthworks?

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #40 on: February 04, 2012, 05:40:31 PM »
Quote
the cost reduction of narrow gauge mostly come from reduced earthworks?

That's my understanding, so yes one would expect 2' NG to cost less than 3' NG. Tighter corners mean it can more easily follow difficult terrain, so fewer bridges, tunnels, and excavations, but since in Simutrans NG track takes up 1 tile, same as SG track, that advantage of space is lost, and can only be represented in terms of reduced capital expense.

I suspect operating costs must also be lower - look at how the early preservation movements had a much easier time with NG than SG lines. Possibly cost per ton of cargo moved at a given speed may be higher than SG(?), but clearly an NG freight train moves much less than a SG one.

  • Aside - is there any way to code a train which costs less to run downhill than uphill? Am thinking ffestiniog gravity slate trains - operation cost £0 in the downhill direction!

Offline wlindley us

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 979
    • Hacking for fun and profit since 1977
  • Languages: EN, DE
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #41 on: February 04, 2012, 05:53:12 PM »
Yes, reduced earthworks as well as needing sleepers ("ties" to us Yanks) that are only half as long.  Narrow gauge was often laid with rather lightweight rail as well. 

In terms of gameplay, I suggest two levels of n.g. in comparison to standard:
  • 1870s Standard Gauge WSSR(light) is 75km/h, 62tonnes, cost 160.00c, maint 14.40c.
  • 1870s Narrow Gauge (light): suggest 40km/h, 30tonnes, cost 65.00c, maint 10.00c.
  • 1870s Narrow Gauge (heavy): suggest 75km/h, 62tonnes, cost 100c, maint 12.00c.
The reasoning is to have a cheap light n.g. a little below the rated speed of the Fairlie loco and only just capable of its weight; the heavy n.g. at a comparable speed and capacity to standard but at a mildly lower price.  If someone would care to draw early n.g. goods carriages, or perhaps a late diesel loco, we can pick similar values for those periods. 

AP: Hmm, Now you have me thinking about cable-drawn railways...

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #42 on: February 04, 2012, 06:12:26 PM »
AP: Hmm, Now you have me thinking about cable-drawn railways...
I would love an incline-plane in-game, both for freight (e.g. Portreath Harbour incline) or passengers (e.g. Lynton-Lynmouth cliff railway, which is powered by water), hilly maps are fun to play but the changes in levels are a real pain. Something like the San-Francisco cable-railway for passengers would be great too, being completely indifferent to gradients.
:-D

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #43 on: February 04, 2012, 06:54:34 PM »
Hmm - the balancing of way costs more generally needs to be considered before we can set specific prices for narrow gauge. And what about track from the 1850s?

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #44 on: February 04, 2012, 07:07:04 PM »
100km/h narrow gauge track would be quite the over-technology in 1850, IMO.

the 1067mm cape gauge has trouble getting over 130km/h for passenger trains without tilting and very high quality track..

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #45 on: February 04, 2012, 07:17:19 PM »
What were the speeds/timelines for foreign narrow gauge? UK terrain didn't always call for the most interesting solutions, but some mapsettings might. Obviously British engineers were involved in building railways around the globe, so if (say) they were building faster narrow gauge in India, Norway, or South America than in the UK, because of a quirk of history or geography, suggest we shouldn't unduly restrict the options our players have, since they may choose a different approach for their company.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #46 on: February 04, 2012, 07:17:24 PM »
There was narrow gauge in the UK in the 1850s, albeit perhaps rather more speed limited - 70km/h?

I have to add, however, that narrow gauge is not currently a priority.

Offline sdog

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #47 on: February 04, 2012, 08:36:46 PM »
the costs for leveling terrain on a slope (perpendiular to the gradient) does increase faster than linearly with the width of the leveled area. You have to dig deeper on the mountain side and embark higher on the valley side, the wider it gets.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #48 on: February 05, 2012, 02:08:03 PM »
Further notes:

  • Undersea tunnels need to cost much more than under-land tunnels - any suggestions as to by how much?
  • Tunnels generally are probably too cheap
  • Underground stations really do need to be restricted as planned
  • We need if possible to encourage the building of city buildings near stations: see here for discussion
  • Railway station platforms need to have a much lower passenger capacity (and probably concomitantly lower cost) to encourage the realistic use of extension buildings
  • To go with the above, there need to be some new, smaller extension buildings (wooden ones, perhaps)
  • Elevated ways need to cost the same as bridges of the equivalent type (which now makes sense, since both types can be built only over shallow water)

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #49 on: February 05, 2012, 02:19:20 PM »
Undersea tunnels need to cost much more than under-land tunnels - any suggestions as to by how much?
The original Severn tunnel might be the precedent to look at.

Canal wharfs/harbours need to handle mail - currently either freight-only or passenger only. In either case, leaving a mailsack for the boat to collect should not require extra facilities. Passenger Dock (ocean type) already handles mail.

Re elevated ways - I mentioned it elsewhere also, but to enable taller curved viaducts, a "pier only" stackable elevated way would be advantageous - and indeed already exists in pak.japan I understand.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2012, 02:20:50 PM »
Hmm - the latter suggestion seems to me equally apt for Standard - might I suggest that you post a note in the Standard board repeating the request? I shall look into the cost of the original Severn Tunnel - good thought on that.

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2012, 03:08:31 PM »
what you could do about tunnels, is divide the existing ones into light/hvy usage as well as give them differing costs, like what the bridges have currently.


- Need one way signal, as opposed to signals set to one direction only, because regular signals allow junctions to be blocked.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 03:38:38 PM by AEO »

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2012, 03:47:25 PM »
I'm not sure that I follow about tunnels - the actual cost of building the tunnel does not have much to do with the weight of vehicles that can traverse it - that is very different in principle to a bridge, in which the quality of the engineering is related to the weight that it can bear.

As to the signal issue, can you elaborate? I am not sure that I follow.

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2012, 04:28:20 PM »
I think there might be a case for Narrow Gauge tunnels to be significantly cheaper than Standard Gauge ones - less material to excavate. In many real-life cases, the associations with slate mines etc also meant the tunnelling expertise was on-hand. The speed limits and capacity limits on NG would prevent the cheap tunnels being abused.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2012, 04:36:07 PM »
I have split the section about one-way markers into this topic in order to focus here on balancing

AP - there may well be something to be said for that indeed. The capacity and speed limits inherent to narrow gauge (not to mention the incompatibility with standard gauge) would be as effective in Simutrans as in reality at disincentivising their use.

Do you have any idea as to how much cheaper that they should be?

Offline AP

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1202
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2012, 04:48:25 PM »
I suspect it crudely correlates with the amount of material needing excavation (ie how many navvies for how long). If we assume a rectangular tunnel:

Ffestiniog loading gauge
height: 1715mm width 2082mm = 3.57cubic metres of spoil per metre of tunnel

UK Standard loading gauge
height: 3911mm width 2743mm = 10.73 cubic metres of spoil per meter of tunnel

ie NG tunnels should cost 1/3 of SG ones. (dimensions from interweb, slight variation possible)

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2012, 04:53:34 PM »
Hmm - I suspect that it doesn't scale linearly, though, does it, as there are lots of costs (surveying, setting up systems for removing spoil, accommodating workers, bringing in materials, laying the tracks inside the tunnels, etc.) that will not vary in this way. It would be better to have real world examples if possible (even if not British). It rather reminds me of the old joke about how long it would take somebody to dig half a hole...

Offline sdog

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2012, 05:41:13 PM »
the most important factor for costs we can't include, geologic composition of the underground. There's quite a difference if you can build in granite or chalk or even sediments. Depth below daylight is also quite important. However here we can  have at most about 100 m on the map, that's not a range where it really should come to bear (due to plasticity of the mountain).

Transfering to the game, it should be much more expensive to build a tunnel in flat land, where soft materials sedimented than in mountains. the steeper the mountains the cheaper tunnels should be. The slate mentioned by AP is especially difficult, WP says a 0.4 m width tunnel would hold 2 minutes before caving in (only things like shale are worse) This makes it extremely tedious to build, the excavating goes fast, but you can go forward only a few cm, have to stabilize then excavate the enclosed by the stabilization. You also need shields to hold the tunnel front back from just bursting into the cavity. Modern tunnel drilling machines get allong with this, but are slow in soft rock. In hard rock only a layer of chotcrete is needed

The load gauge of a tunnel does not just increase the volume of material to be removed, but it also requires the internal stabilization of the tunnel to be more difficult to do. (the german word is Verbau, couldn't find a translation)

There should be two massive cost drops in tunnel building, introduction of dynamite (uk patent 7 may 1867) and more recent prefabricated tubbings (about 100 years ago) and automated drill machines (mid 1960s)

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #58 on: February 05, 2012, 10:35:00 PM »
I have split the continuation of the tunnel discussion to a separate thread (here) to allow this thread to continue to focus on general balancing notes.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #59 on: February 07, 2012, 12:32:35 AM »
I am getting the impression that time is passing too fast in the game, such that I might need to increase the bits_per_month settings for future games - we are now in 1894, which means that time is passing at the rate of something approaching a decade a day, which seems to me too fast for people who are not able to play for many hours each day to make full use of the technology of any one era.

As we know, increasing the "bits_per_month" setting by 1 doubles the amount of real time that it takes an in-game year to pass. I am thinking of increasing it by either 1 or 2 for the next release - any thoughts?

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #60 on: February 07, 2012, 01:34:23 AM »
- LBSCR bogie compartment and non-corridor lavatory are unattractive to use when they become available. They are slightly lighter, but pale when comparing maintenance and comfort to the clerestory sets. Generally, the clerestory sets have enough capacity for local lines too, so the higher capacity of the LBSCR sets are not as useful.

- GWR clerestory brake missing overcrowded capacity.
- DC overhead centenary available before electric depot or any electric trains (not trams) in general.


In general, I think we are lacking some good competitive main lines for the better LBSCR carriages to be used to their full effect.

The express lines are having quite a nice speed match.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 01:39:58 AM by AEO »

Offline sdog

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 2039
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #61 on: February 07, 2012, 02:32:01 AM »
LBSCR non-corridor lavatory
min_loading_time=20
max_loading_time=50

choc-cream-clerestory
min_loading_time=20
max_loading_time=50

perhaps having distinctively different load times for both sets? those clerestory have doors for each set of opposing benches? Thus loading works in parallel. However the (well paying) long distance pax will likely not be rushed as much when alighting as urban commuters would.

first class with more comfort but more importantly without overcrowd capacity would also be interesting for the clerestory carriages

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #62 on: February 07, 2012, 04:47:31 AM »
a bit early, but GER S46 Claud Hamilton tender is only 4t

GWR bulldog, LNWR Precursor, GER S46, GNR C1, Midland 1000 and GWR 2900 saint should be better balanced against each other. Currently, GER S46 is outstandingly good, while the midland 1000 and GNR C1 are fairly close and the GWRs don't even come close.

- midland 1632 and 2441, are presumably the same engine, different batch, but they are both available at the same time, starting from 1908.

as for the game speed, I don't think it is too bad right now, but I wouldn't mind trying longer.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 04:54:54 AM by AEO »

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2012, 01:06:35 AM »
AEO,

thank you for those notes - very helpful. The 1632/2441 thing is intended - the 2441 is the push/pull version. I shall make this clearer in the next release.

I have also noticed that the Metropolitan E-class, LBSCR E4 and LNWR M7 do not appear to be well balanced against each other, with the M7 being obviously best for nearly everything of the three, despite all being closely contemporaneous.

As to the carriages, they are under general review in any event.

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2012, 02:24:18 AM »
I see the GWR 517 has an upgrade for the autocoach in 1905, but the 517 itself is not available for purchase in 1905. It is a bit hard to have some foresight to store or keep using the GWR 517 for this purpose when it was available between 1865-1885.

perhaps some sort of marker, like (upgradeable) could be added?

on a related note, it doesn't seem possible to upgrade the LBSCR A1 to A1X.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 02:44:13 AM by AEO »

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2012, 10:40:14 AM »
AEO,

thank you for the notes. The dates are based on the actual lives of these locomotives; the idea is that players really would have older locomotives like that in use for economic reasons. The priority there is making the economy such as would incentivise such behaviour.

There should, however, be contemporaneous push-pull vehicles that can be built from new - the next pakset should involve an LBSCR push-pull carriage. As to the GWR - there are later locomotives that can operate the auto trailers that can be built new.

Thank you for the A1 A1X bug report - that should be fixed for the next version.

Offline Junna

  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2012, 11:23:26 AM »
Midland 1000 tender goes out of production before the locomotive (and therefore you cannot use the replacer with it after this has happened).

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2012, 07:31:02 PM »
I think it might be worth looking at axle load again.

LBSCR I3, hard to use. Overall, it's decent, but you have to pay for track upgrades, because it's just over the 69t limit. If one were to upgrade to heavy track, it would just be better to use GWR 3150, because it's better in every way.

same problem with LNWR Precursor Tank.

Offline jamespetts gb

  • Simutrans-Extended project coordinator
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 18753
  • Cake baker
    • Bridgewater-Brunel
  • Languages: EN
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2012, 08:48:34 PM »
The Claud Hamilton seems too favourable compared to other locomotives of the time.

Offline ӔO

  • Devotees (Inactive)
  • *
  • Posts: 2345
  • Hopefully helpful
  • Languages: en, jp
Re: Balancing notes from the online game
« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2012, 09:58:47 PM »
for the Claud Hamilton, GNR C69 and midland 1000, I think they can all be around $20.00/km in maintenance and still be profitable.
If the GNR stirling single is any indication of profitability.