|
Does anyone have a way of effectively managing massive transferring cargo networks? I'm doing it in my noggin and applying a reasonable formula so I don't have to rememeber each route, but I think there must be a better way. To explain in more detail: Along the southwest edge of the map, there are a series of oil rigs, and a chosen oil refinery in the middle. I have a series of oil tankers loading up at an oil rig and then transfering and leaving empty at the next oil rig closer to the oil refinery. When repeated, this forms a daisy chain of transfers... However, I can see several bottle necks (oil rigs closer than one another for example) and am trying to work out a smarter way of doing this...
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Heners_UK posted:oil rigs closer than one another for example Not sure why this is a problem. If the last station in the line produces faster than one tanker can haul, put in another tanker. If the next one down the line builds up than a single tanker can do it, add another tanker. Repeat forever until you have a zillion tankers doing the needful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
Get back on the server, people! It's still winter break!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
There were about four people on the server last night after there seemingly never being anyone for nearly a week, so I'm guessing people aren't on their winter breaks anymore (I'm a grad student and I know I'm not on one), but it should be picking up a bit anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
I popped in to see what was going on, set up a small Passenger turn around - those vac-trains look loving awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Is there a guide somewhere for how to get this to work on OSX? I'm trying to get OpenTTD 1.1.4 to start now (currently trying to figure out where to put opengfx et al) and I want to come and play trains with goons. e: well I got vanilla working at least. Rude Dude With Tude fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Jan 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 14:35
|
|
|
What's the best way to signal a terminus station using pre-signals? I can't figure out how to stop deadlocks.  (As soon as I try and put three trains through a two-lane terminus station it all goes to hell.)e: Of course, after I post the world's dumbest question I figure it out. code:Thel fucked around with this message at 11:50 on Feb 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Another question - is there any way to do high-speed merges? With a simple merge, one train has to start from zero, which tends to put a limit of one (4-tile) train every 10-15 tiles or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
Not sure about a high speed merge. However, there's this: http://wiki.openttdcoop.org/Priority If a train is in the higher priority track, the lower priority track's train will be forced to yield. This allows the high priority track's train to keep its speed without having to accelerate again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Thel posted:Another question - is there any way to do high-speed merges? With a simple merge, one train has to start from zero, which tends to put a limit of one (4-tile) train every 10-15 tiles or so. I figured out a way on Less Than Three's server the last time it was up... here's what it looked like (the three lanes extend for a bit and then merge off the screen... also, ignore the return lane on the top right): http://i.imgur.com/6Tp6C.png Basically what you need is the two lanes to come in parallel but one square apart and then merge into the row between them at the same square. Then, off of the squares before those diagonals, have diagonals going outward to two other lanes which will then continue alongside the main lane and merge later. You want to set the signals up so that a train will enter the center lane unless a train on the other line entered this area first, in which case you want the train to take its outer lane. To achieve this, put entrance signals before the first diagonals, exit signals on the first diagonals, and programmable signals on the second diagonals. You want each of the programmable signals to turn red only if the entrance signal on the other side is red while the programmable signal on the other side is green (this prevents two trains arriving at the same time from both taking the outer lanes). But, since you cannot have a programmable signal's state depend on an entrance signal, it is necessary to put inaccessable exit signals aiming at the same sections of track that the entrance signals are. Then you need to place two speed signals at the beginning of the outer tracks, the first one with a speed limit such that trains accelerating from that speed will be a train-spacing behind where they would be were it not for the reduction in speed (this is necessary in case two trains enter the merger at the same time... for example, two eight-car trains on track with a signal every two tiles should have a space of about seven tiles between the front of one train and the front of the next so that when the one in front turns on to a diagonal it doesn't stretch backwards enough to stop the train behind it). Then all you need is to extend the three tracks so that trains on the outer tracks have enough time to accelerate back to full speed before merging again (this is about 40 squares in the worst case for eight-car trains, for example, but empty eight-car trains with engines that have high acceleration compared to their top speed only need about 20 squares). Edit: This code for the signals is as follows if you don't want to figure it out for yourself: code:where the first "specified signal" is the programmable signal on the other side and the second "specified signal" is the faux entrance signal on the other side. Willie Trombone fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Willie Trombone posted:I figured out a way on Less Than Three's server the last time it was up... here's what it looked like (the three lanes extend for a bit and then merge off the screen... also, ignore the return lane on the top right): Is there a way to do this without programmable signals though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Thel posted:Is there a way to do this without programmable signals though? In theory anything that's possible with programmable signals is possible without, but is usually slower to update and takes more space, resulting in the trains being more spaced out here (you basically make the equivalent of the signal's programming with just the normal signals, which in this case probably requires the use of either tunnels or bridges because of the way the two important signals both need to refer to signals further back on the opposite tracks). I'm guessing that's not quite the answer you were looking for, so basically no as far as I can tell. There are ways to design it so that it works most of the time except for the rare case when two trains enter the merging part with less than one tile between their fronts, but in such cases what happens is that the front train takes the fork toward the center lane and then stops before being able to enter the center lane because the signal aiming at the center lane turns red -- in response to the other train entering the merging section -- after the first train chooses the center fork. This results in a train accelerating from stopped almost entirely in your merged lane which is supposed to be top speed only. If you're willing to accept such rare failures in exchange for not using programmable signals, then the following should work or at least something similar to it should, I can't remember if it was exactly this but this is the idea: http://i.imgur.com/DrUI9.png (edit: Thinking about it, I'm not sure if that will work and I can't really test it right now, but maybe this will if that doesn't: http://i.imgur.com/mCmA2.png) Also, if you'll accept trains being spread out a little more, then the following works with the same flaw but only half as often and with less track by making one side never have to slow down (the other side, though, may have to slow down such that it loses twice the distance as in the other merger because -- using the eight-car train example -- if the train isn't seven squares ahead, then it needs to be seven squares behind, for a total distance lost of fourteen): http://i.imgur.com/ZCvoV.png Ignore the waypoints and stations in that last image, only the two tracks coming in from the right are relevant, and the two going out the top left merge after trains in the slow lane regain top speed. Willie Trombone fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Feb 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
So OTTD is gearing up for 1.2.0 to be released, four betas and one release candidate are out and some of the changes are pretty cool:
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
quote:'you now can assign speed limits to your surface vehicles.' Why would you want to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:Why would you want to? Having all your trains on a section of rail going the same speed leads to a smoother flow because you don't have a bunch of faster trains catching up to the back of some slower trains and constantly starting and stopping and bunching up. I talked to the devs in irc and they say it can be done for segmented sections fo rail so it's not just for the whole trip a faster train is going slower than it can but only for certain sections when it will interact with slower trains.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:Having all your trains on a section of rail going the same speed leads to a smoother flow because you don't have a bunch of faster trains catching up to the back of some slower trains and constantly starting and stopping and bunching up. I talked to the devs in irc and they say it can be done for segmented sections fo rail so it's not just for the whole trip a faster train is going slower than it can but only for certain sections when it will interact with slower trains. We had special speed limit signs in one of the patchpacks we used and as far as I know nobody ever used them but yeah, that's the only use we could come up with. I guess it'd be fun to try on realistic and cheap networks, though I can't imagine it'd be that useful. Generally I feel that either you'd be annoyed at fast trains going needlessly slowly on empty track, or you've got so many trains on there that you may as well build another track.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:We had special speed limit signs in one of the patchpacks we used and as far as I know nobody ever used them but yeah, that's the only use we could come up with. I guess it'd be fun to try on realistic and cheap networks, though I can't imagine it'd be that useful. Generally I feel that either you'd be annoyed at fast trains going needlessly slowly on empty track, or you've got so many trains on there that you may as well build another track. I personally use speed limit signs to construct no-stop mergers for rails (as described above, including on lessthanthree's server), and given that the top speeds that are often given to road vehicles in NewGRFs are getting higher and higher, they could come in handy there as well. Also, when trying to manage tightly-scheduled bus routes, it's sometimes preferable to have the busses take a slower trip than to have them idle at stations for extra time because then they can knock other busses using the same station off of their schedules, especially when using pass-through stations. There're also times when it can help manage traffic in situations similar to but not specifically either of these examples. It's all rare-use sorts of stuff, but in those rare instances it actually is worthwhile to have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
You can also use it to slow down absurdly fast trains if you have a road crossing. Some trains are so fast that cars can't cross the track fast enough to avoid a crash. Was there any word of one of the cargo dist/dest sets going in here? I really liked having cargodist (especially for passenger cargo) in the build we were using.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
The last time I played OpenTTD I realised that the weird city-growing algorithms meant that your cities grew incredibly strangely around whatever stations you put down, making it very irritating to plan things. Putting a big station on one side meant it grew on all 3 sides around it, but not behind the station you put down. Also, as an experiment, I put nothing but 5 bus stations and 1 bus running around them on a circular route in a starting city and left it to itself over many hours. Come back to it, and it's grown all by itself without me having to touch it, making it very hard to give a drat about designing a perfect city. Knowing that whatever you do, it will be no better than just letting it grow outward like that in a big circle was soul-crushing! Is the game still this broken?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
thehustler posted:The last time I played OpenTTD I realised that the weird city-growing algorithms meant that your cities grew incredibly strangely around whatever stations you put down, making it very irritating to plan things. Putting a big station on one side meant it grew on all 3 sides around it, but not behind the station you put down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
thehustler posted:The last time I played OpenTTD I realised that the weird city-growing algorithms meant that your cities grew incredibly strangely around whatever stations you put down, making it very irritating to plan things. Putting a big station on one side meant it grew on all 3 sides around it, but not behind the station you put down. This is annoying, but is usually helped by bridging over the tracks by the station and maybe building a bit of a 3x3 grid. The trouble usually is that there's nowhere for the city to build a bridge if you don't do a bit of fiddling, or that it's easier for the city to expand elsewhere without the need to build a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
That sounds useful, but what about my second complaint, namely that any city will just grow on it's own if you let a bus tootle around 5 stations without you having to do anything?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
SupSuper posted:A transport simulator is probably not the right outlet for city design urges. It's not really city design as such, just efficiency and something approaching realism in planning the layout of stations etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
thehustler posted:That sounds useful, but what about my second complaint, namely that any city will just grow on it's own if you let a bus tootle around 5 stations without you having to do anything? There are patches that only allow towns to grow when supplied with goods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:There are patches that only allow towns to grow when supplied with goods. FIRS does this, I think? It also makes industries collapse if you don't supply them with certain goods.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Now that I could get behind, do those addons also stunt city growth if your transport network is not "proper" - I'm trying to find some way to play OpenTTD without my network being less useful than my hypothetical 5 bus station layout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Is the SA OpenTTD community still active at all? The server appears to be offline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Backfiah posted:Is the SA OpenTTD community still active at all? The server appears to be offline. The community for the game tends to come and go. I haven't had the urge to play in a while though. Uni work and my job have been keeping me busy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
I can bring up the server again if people want it. After it sitting for like months 0/14 in 1940 I don't bother to start it when I restart the server.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 08:42
|
|
|
less than three posted:I can bring up the server again if people want it. After it sitting for like months 0/14 in 1940 I don't bother to start it when I restart the server. Can't wait to have the SA OpenTTD reunion in the summer when people will actually play!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
The goon playerbase for this game is consistently inconsistent. Typically what happens is someone new bumps the thread and then everyone is totally up for a few games over the coming weeks and then interest dies down for a month or two again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
I'd be down for a goon server revival.
Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Mar 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
After last nights mini WookWook revival and cocaine dumpster Holocaust orgy I would be down for reals. Cities in Motion was decent but it lacks swag. And Multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2012 15:23
|
|
|
We may want to discuss rebasing the patchpack we're using. Have you seen NoGo (NoGoal) in the most recent up-to-date version? It lets you run things like "City Domination" mode, where you earn points by claiming cities, claiming done by being the highest rated company for that city over a period of a month or more. Other scripts let you make it harder to grow a city by making city growth require a certain number of transported things per month (first just passengers, then mail, then goods, etc), and so on and so forth. Could be fun to try out. Maybe some different GRFs too? (Also saying this because the current goon server version always seems to crash on me, so I'm hoping a new start could get me in...)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
When depots strike back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Is it about time for a OTTD revival? The new version is out (with goal scripts) and exams should be close to over so there might be people playing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 23:35
|
|
|
I'd also be down for a revival.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
So... any leads on a good patchpack up to the new version? GRFs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
I'm up for a game. The copy and paste patch hasn't been updated to 1.20 though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 20:55 |
|
|
Tomorrow I'll look into Chilli's patchpack with 1.2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2012 08:56
|
|