Beiträge von Anachron13

Willkommen in der Transport Fever Community

Wir begrüßen euch in der Fan-Community zu den Spielen Transport Fever und Train Fever, den Wirtschaftssimulatoren von Urban Games. Die Community steht euch kostenlos zur Verfügung damit ihr euch über das Spiel austauschen und informieren könnt. Wir pflegen hier einen freundlichen und sachlichen Umgang untereinander und unser Team steht euch in allen Fragen gerne beiseite.

 

Die Registrierung und Nutzung ist selbstverständlich kostenlos.

 

Wir wünschen euch viel Spaß und hoffen auf rege Beteiligung.

Das Team der Transport-Fever Community


    Hello,


    Sorry for the double post but the last one is 13hours old so i prefer to make a new one,


    I don't know if they are actual mods with this kind of configuration (the orka maybe), but for your script to be as much universal as possible, you should take into account the case of a model with both freight capacity and an engine.

    Yes, in the first case i have distributed the power among the train, while in the second case the power is only on the two loc. The static value break the proportionality when there is more than one engine. It make some trains like the ETR1000 unusable ingame because of their configuration.

    Hello,


    I've been a bit busy lately so i didn't have the time for a thorough test of the last version of your script. It seems indeed a lot better on price range.


    They are still two things that i noticed :


    - you didn't take into account train with a max speed superior to 300km/h (like the ice 3 or the etr1000). As there is no gain for a max speed above 300km/h, they should cost the same as a 300km/h train. A simple check like the one used for year would solve this.


    - I didn't read your script in detail but depending on the configuration of multiple unit trains there is still big result discrepancies, which defeat the purpose of the script. See the attached screen for an exemple. Same weight, same stat for both, big price difference. From a quick scan of your script i guess this is because you add a static value to engine price.



    Edit : i forgot to say something important ... It's still a really nice work!

    Hello,


    The google translation of your posts is a total mess, but i would be happy to try to help you if the problems are within my capabilities.
    I don't understand the first sentence but the second one seems to be about the last engine of the multiple unit being displayed in the wrong direction in some people game. Have you check that they all have the last version of the game and in which condition the problem is present?


    I would be happy to give it a look if you give me acces to the beta.


    Good luck anyway :)

    The price per kW should be the same for each one. The difference is because of passengers, not power.


    1. Loc + Coach + Coach + Coach + Coach + Coach = The price overall is 2.1M for 1 x loc and 5 x coaches.
    let say 100 passengers, 20 for each coaches, so 1k by passengers.


    2. MU(Loc + 20passengers) + Coach + Coach + Coach + MU(Loc + 20p) = Let use what i say earlier, and treat MU as a loc + a coach. It means that the engine part cost 1M each + 20k each for the 20 passengers. add 3 coaches at 20k each and you got the exact same price as above.


    3. MU(Loc + 20p) + Coach + MU(Mid+20p) + Coach + MU(Loc+20p) = just as above, 667k for each engine + 20k each for passengers + 2*20k for coaches, again same price.


    4. MU(Loc+20p) + MU(Mid+20p) + MU(Mid+20p) + MU(Mid+20p) + MU(Loc+20p) = 400k for each engine + 20k * 5 for passengers = 2.1M


    In each case, you have 333cr/kw + 1k cr / passenger.


    It is really easy to do from a scripting perspective, you just have to treat MU as a loc AND a coach, like in my script example.


    Edit : to be honest i think the most important thing is the maintenance cost. The buying cost is mostly relevant at the start of the game where there is usually not so much multiple unit available. It tend to be less and less relevant as you have more and more available cash. The maintenance cost on the other hand have a big impact on line profit.

    If you can more or less achieve the first one, the second one should follow. MU with more engine will cost a bit more than MU with only one but it should be more reasonable. The only way to perfectly achieve it would be to have the maintenance price directly proportionnal to power given a certain speed (and same for passengers).


    It would be a perfect solution for balance, probably less from a realistic perspective.


    I will try to see if i can come up with something.


    From a game balancing point of view, i think so yes (not necessarily exactly the same price but not too far off at least). Otherwise the one that will cost less would always be the best if the stats are the same for each one. What would be the point of the three others?


    Zitat

    I´ve tried many, many formulas and with TopSpeed as a basic value i´ve got the best results. Please let me know what you think:


    A 1965 BR 103 (200km/h, 5940kW),
    a 1972s Re 6/6 (140km/h, 7237kW) and
    a 2010 Vectron (200km/h, 6400kW)


    What prices/costs would you expect, just about?


    Well, for buying price the result of your current formula seems quite right to me (respectively, 2.10M, 1.72M, 2.38M).
    Maintenance cost is another story. I think the BR 103 should cost more to maintain than the Re 6/6 (because it slow - the result is alreay good with your script) and than the Vectron (because of technology advance).
    There are two problem that i think need to be solved with your current script :
    a 2010 Vectron (200km/h, 6400 kW) : 2.38M, 1.11M / year
    a 2000 loc A (200km/h, 6400 kW) : 2.33M, 1.08M/year
    a 2010 loc B (200km/h, 4200 kW) : 2.22M, 1.03M/year
    From a balance perspective, nobody in is right mind will ever choose the Vectron or the loc B. The Vectron because it cost more than the older one so there is no point to upgrade whatsoever, the second because for half the power you get almost the same price. Even i you don't need all the power of loc A, you will be better of with it because the difference in maintenance will be overcome by the travel time gained anyway.
    Something like that would be more logical :
    a 2000 loc A (200km/h, 6400 kW) : 2.33M, 950k/year
    a 2010 Vectron (200km/h, 6400 kW) : 2.38M, 900k / year (you pay more for less maintenance than the 2000 version)
    a 2010 loc B (200km/h, 4200 kW) : 1.5M, 550k/year (if you have a line that don't need a loc with 6400kW because there is few passengers using it, it would probably be more interesting to reduce the maintenance cost by 400k/year, even if the maintenance by kW is higher, and it would still be more interesting to have one 6400kW loc than two 4200kW)
    If you can achieve this kind of result, you also probably mostly solved all you trouble with multiple units that have more than one engine.

    After a more thorough look at your script i noticed a few things :


    - You have made the price/kw increase through the years where it should be the other way around. A loc B with the same stat as loc A but available 10 years later will cost more. It seems to me that it make no sense for the reason i explained a few posts ago. As technology evolve, maintenance cost for the same power should decrease, or we are running backward.



    - If you want an "universal" script it seems to me that you will have to avoid using the multiple unit condition. Because there is some mods with multiple units available as single units and the price would be wrong.


    I think loc with capacity entry should not be treated differently than loc without. I mean, a loc with 4000kw, a vmax of 200 and 50 passengers should be treated as a loc with the same power + a coach with a capacity of 50.
    It can be easily be done from your script with something like that :


    You should exclude everything that is not vehicleType == "RAIL" from the start to avoid any error and accelerate script execution.



    - The problem with the TGV price is not related to the fact that this is an EMU, but because of the max speed. If my quick calculation are right, having the max speed go from 200 to 300km/h make the maintenance cost skyrocket. And the TGV being nothing more than two loc with a bunch of coaches in between you double an already really high price. This is related to the fact that the major part of your cost calculation is based on speed instead of power. This mean that a 4400kw/300km/h loc will cost almost the same price as a 8800kw/300km/h loc.
    An idea to solve this problem would be to use a ratio between power and max speed. A loc working alone would have high power / speed ratio while engine for EMU would have a low power / speed ratio. We would need a formula that tend toward 1 when the ratio is high and toward 0 when the ratio is low. The ideal would be that for the TGV example, the price of the two 4400kw / 300km/h loc cost a just a bit more than a single 8800kw/ 300km/h loc. In the case of my Z8100 the price of the 4x 700kw engine should also be a bit more than a single 2800kw loc.



    Zitat von Xanos

    At the end, a multiple unit is just a preconfigured "train"... So in fact it is like a normal train that you compose yourself. I don't see a problem in handling all parts of a multiple unit seperately. Especially, as some parts of multiple units can also be bought as a single parts.
    It should not matter if you buy a multiple unit which consists of models A,B,C or create a train manually out of A,B,C. The file defining the multiple unit has no information about costs, power, etc of the multiple unit. These information are just taken from each individual model file.


    I'm currently at work so I can't test it but isn't it possible to just loop through all models and calculate there prices regardless if there have a multipleUnitOnly tag or not?


    Sorry i didn't see your post before posting mine. I agree with you. The problem in the current formula, as i tried to explain above, is that the part of the formula not proportionnal to power is too important, making multiple low power units a lot less interesting than a single high power unit. Multiple Unit being often in the first case, it make their price skyrocket very quickly.

    Hello,


    I've tried the last version of your script. From a quick test, the price seems a lot better. Modern loc seems to cost more than in the original game but it is probably a good thing.


    I've notice one thing though, some model files are ignored by your script. Material with both "multiple unit only", an engine and passengers don't meet any of your conditions.

    Hello,


    After a bit of brainstorming and headaches, i came up with the following formula :


    running.costs = (buying.cost / 4 + (power ^2 / (60 + yearFactor ^(YearFrom - 1849)) * PowerFactor) * CostsFactor


    A yearFactor of 1 will eliminate influence of the year, slowly upping it will make the price decrease faster with years. A value around 1.022 seems to be a sweet spot. I also added a foolproof check of the year, in case someone made a vehicule with an availability date inferior to 1850.
    I have attached the modified version if you want to give it a try.


    While working on this i noticed a few things with your formula in the current state of the mod :
    The buying price tend to be higher than the buying price of the original material, and it can cause some trouble for the first years. For example, the D1/3 is now at 337k $ instead of 201k $. The General 4-4-0 go from 270k to 404k.
    On the other hand, the running costs seems too low for the first hundred years. For exemple the General 4-4.0 running cost get cut in half from 162k/year to ~80k/year or the EP2 goes down to 404k /year (453 with my modification) from 757k.


    I guess we will need to go through the first years of a game to find how it plays out.

    Hello,


    I have give a try to your mod, and i really like your idea. It can be hard to find a good spot on the map to properly place it but it add a really nice touch to the game.


    I noticed that the station have to be at ground level or above, or the terrain will go throught the docks. Not sure you can do anything about this but it something to be careful about when positionning the station.


    It would also be interesting to have a shorter version of the dock, as you can see in the attached screen i was able to attach the dock to the third railway, with the dock still on water and the crane almost in position for trains on the closer railway.


    Anyway keep up the really good work. :thumbsup:

    Hello,


    It seems that on the 0.8.120 Build 1724 version, the export modification list function doesn't work. Nothing happens when i click on export all or active only. It was working with previous version.
    I'm on Win 8.1 x64 (frFR local), i've tried while running TFMM as administrator just to be sure but same result.

    I'm not a specialist of formula but from a scripting PoW it seems to me that you can make your life easier by using conditionnal statement instead of a big one for all formula.


    I mean, the cost from year could decrease only after a fixed year (which should go with factors declaration for easy modification) from a small value each years. So lets say for example than before 1990 you use the formula above and after you can just modify it to something like (leistung²/(100+(year.from-1990)*factor). You could use the factor to have the price decrease more or less slowly. The cost will eventually tends towards a price of (Kaufpreis/4)*faktor.kosten if someone add a loc really far after 1990 but it should not really be a problem for the vast majority of players. What do you think?