Gameplay FRD wrote:There's also a distinction in propulsion type. In the early years only steam locomotives are available but later on diesel and electric engines become available too. In the 21st century Maglev becomes available too. Naturally, electric trains cannot run on non-electrified track, they will slowly come to a stop.
How about diesel-electric engines? They will run purely on electrical power when possible (cheaper), but switch to internally generated power (by diesel generators, more expensive) when they leave electrified track. In short, running costs may depend on the kind of track.
Also, should engines have anything like fuel level? Ie. should a diesel locomotive have a limited supply of diesel, and break down or otherwise if it runs out? (Breaking down because of lack of fuel should resolve itself after some time, by letting it be "magically" refueled after some time. Possibly for a price. Time it takes for the vehicle to be refueled might depend on the distance to a depot or something else.)
I personally don't see why we shouldn't have hybrid trains as long as it's clear they're hybrid once you buy them. Fuel levels sound fun, 'refueling' can be added to the service protocol. Whenever a train stops at a station with a depot linked to it the train will be serviced and refueled. When a planned route takes too long to make it back on '1 tank' too might be a problem then though. But I do like the idea!
Ok, the idea about having several engine types in the same loco: I think its ok to include that idea. But I don't think it is an important feature. As you can have two locos, one electric, and one disel with not the same but simular effect.
The second idea: same as above. I can live with it, and I can live without it.
My OpenTTD contributions (AIs, Game Scripts, patches, OpenTTD Auto Updater, and some sprites) Junctioneer (a traffic intersection simulator)
I'm not sure about refueling, if we have it, it should be automatic at service stations. But what happens if a train takes a detour (if your replacing track and the route finder finds another route) and then runs out of fuel? It can't exactly just start moving again like after a breakdown.
zuu wrote:Ok, the idea about having several engine types in the same loco: I think its ok to include that idea. But I don't think it is an important feature. As you can have two locos, one electric, and one disel with not the same but simular effect.
I don't think that was why jfs pointed us to it but more the fact that hybrid trains exist.
Steve wrote:I'm not sure about refueling, if we have it, it should be automatic at service stations. But what happens if a train takes a detour (if your replacing track and the route finder finds another route) and then runs out of fuel? It can't exactly just start moving again like after a breakdown.
That's why I suggested the "magic refueling" when it runs out of fuel. It takes some time and it's not free, but the train will eventually get a full tank of fuel again. (And it should happen automagically.)
I don't see why refuelling would be any different than the normal servicing things. When servicing, they can refill the oil, sand, water levels. I don't think it would be a problem to include fuel too.
And why would "magic refuelling" be any different than "magic repair" after a breakdown? It's just a service on the tracks, where everything is restored as if the train would have been serviced, but it takes more time, more money and blocks all traffic on your track.
Note that "diesel-electric" units aren't dual power, "electro-diesels" are. "Diesel-electric" power involves a large diesel engine acting as a generator, powering electric traction motors. This is not the same has having a high-power electric engine and a low-power diesel backup, which is an "electro-diesel".
Major problem with fuel is that fuel has weight, and part of the point of fuel efficiency is not having to carry as much of it with you, so keeping track of fuel loads doesn't really work without being able to get that extra power that's available when you're running fuel-light. Since we probably won't have stock data with a close enough resolution for this to be of any use, a sensible trade-off is to kill the idea entirely, and assume that your vehicles are fueled at stations, etc.
I believe it was resolved at the meeting that we drop this feature, but I'm not locking the topic until someone else can confirm it.
ChrisCF wrote:I believe it was resolved at the meeting that we drop this feature, but I'm not locking the topic until someone else can confirm it.
From the logs:
23:59 <@Hyronymus> 12. [FRDF] Train propulsion
23:59 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:59 <@Hyronymus> we all agreed on the basics
23:59 <@Hyronymus> only discussion about refueling
The discussion started nicely on the fuel part, which was suggested do be dropped, but no vote was called.
Since the fuel discussion, which is beyond the scope of this topic, went way off-topic into reliability and service and since that discusion would get too long for the meeting, Hyronymus concluded:
00:30 <@Hyronymus> this takes too long~
00:30 <@Hyronymus> we decide on the forums~
And because service and reliability are not to be discussed in this topic, I invest in a nice lock for this topic.
Feel free to contact me over Email!My current timezone: Europe/Amsterdam (GMT+1 or GMT+2)
I really think this is overkill. I suggest to use petrol (road vehicles), kerosine (aircraft) and heavy oil (ships) as "liquid fuel" types. Electricity shoud just be electricity, if it's regenerative we should reflect that in the fuel costs/year.
Purno wrote:what would it matter if you have that many fuel types?
We can always confuse the user!
Oh, we can run ships and diesel trains both on red diesel (I don't know if this is true for both types IRL). This would cut the list down to:
- coal
- petrol
- kerosine
- red diesel
- electricity
- fuel cell (Do we want futuristic trains?)
dont forget that we need to have coal for ships and RVs as well...
I think we shouldnt make a "fuel class" that covers all the details.
for example:
>coal
>petrol/diesel
>hybrid
>fuel cells
>external <catenary
<3rd rail
<electromagnetic levitation (TTD's monorail, IRL maglev)
<superconductor magnetic levitaion (TTD's maglev, IRL cheap - REALLY cheap) maglev
<wind
<solar power (just in case)
specific fuels can be shown in vehicle details, and reflected in running costs...
above > are propulsion types
and < are propulsion details
i have only shown details for external power source because i wouldnt expect you to know exactly what i mean by it. external power must be attained from external sources... ie 3rd rail or cat, power generators powering maglev tracks (vehicles for maglev have no engines)
as for fuel levels: put fuel level micromanagement in as an option, if not as part of the first release, then available to add later.otherwise, whenever a train reaches a station that caters for its propulsion it is refilled automatically (with autofuel on*). (with autofuel off*, the train must have orders to refuel).
If a vehicle runs out of fuel, it must switch to an alternative source of power or await rescue.... RVs have tow trucks, ships have tugs, trains have maintenance vehicles, planes are f*cked...ok, no, planes have a distance to fly based on their altitude and gliding properties (ie, the learjet c20 gulfstream has the gliding properties of a brick...) If you have one, a plane can request aerial refuelling from a tanker, but the plane must also be equipped for it...might be a sound investment.
Of course, all of this has to relate to what levels R&D is at, whether following RL timeline or pure R&D (see my posts in research revote).
EDIT:dont forget that RVs can refuel at petrol stations if they pass one...(again depending on autofuel* setting)
also note that vehicles would not have to be towed if the rescue vehicle can refuel it, but vehicles breaking down might need to be rescued if the breakdown is too serious to be fixed by the driver there and then *note, autofuel is a suggestion like the rest of my post...
Toyland isn't a climate, it's a mistake.
Everyone has a photographic memory - Some just don't have film
No matter how hard life gets, remember there is always light at the end of the tunnel. Let's just hope it's not a train.
Do you know that windmills and solor panels actually generate electricity? And then maglev superconductors, unless you find some material simular to Naqahdah it isn't possible to get superconducting abilities from metals without bringing them to 120K-ish.
Fuel levels could become a PITA when you have loads of RVs, they would need to detour all the time to refuel, or be taken out of service for a while to refuel, something which is a bit too realistic for a transport simulator IMO. You could have random "disasters" though where trains would run out of fuel, say something like 3 or 4 times each year.
Towing broken vehicles is a really good idea, you could tow a broken RV to a depot, have it fixed there (maybe even upgraded with newer technologies) and let it continue its route.
all those propulsion sources were for ALL the vehicles...
1) if you do have loads of RVs running the same route, 1st: i hope that distances and times are realistic, 2nd: you can build a depo or depo complex (for trains you can do a depo or waypoint) where you need it if there are no petrol stations...
for ships under sail, thats external.... for ships on coal and such, stop at a port to be refueled...
planes equipped for aerial refuelling can have aerial refuel in their orders and a tanker standing by
planes without it have to land at an airport of some sort even if its just for refuelling.
and as for superconductor maglev...surely you dont intend to stop the game at yr 2006?
that would be one of the random breakthroughs you can have with heavy financing in R&D (again, check my posts in R&D)
Toyland isn't a climate, it's a mistake.
Everyone has a photographic memory - Some just don't have film
No matter how hard life gets, remember there is always light at the end of the tunnel. Let's just hope it's not a train.
.
