Distance restricted airplanes ...

[CARST]

Hello everyone!

I like to see a feature that makes airplanes "distance-restricted".

As base could be used the ...
- http://www.pikkarail.com/ttdp/av8/ (Aviators Aircraft Set)
or the ...
- http://www.as-st.com/ttd/planes/ (Planeset 1.5.3)

I would use Planeset, but if the other set would be chosen thats fine, too.


Me and my friends always play large multiplayer maps on extra large maps, 2000x2000 right now, up to 8000x8000 (http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=33137) in the not so far distance.

If we play scenarios like a realistic europe- or world-map it would be nice if planes are really distance restricted.

Because every map (that is based on a realistic scenario) has another scale there could be no hardcoded distance limits like "1000 tiles". So there should be a factor-limit. Like 8000nm (787) is factor 10, other should have similiar distance factors, e.g. 767 factor 5,7 for 5700nm, 747-100 factor 5, 747EUD (300/400) factor 7,5 and so on...

Well a plane should NOT crash if the distance is too far between two airports in its shedule, it shouldn't start then. That means the each plane should check the distance before start if it could do the distance otherwise it goes back into the depot.

Then there should be an option in the patch settings (in the vehicles category) where you define which distance (read how many tiles) factor 10 is.

Examples:
- I want to give you an example, i'm creating a 8000x4000 worldmap, based on a heightmap. 8000nm would actually be about 3500 tiles. So i would set that for the factor 10 in the patch settings. A 787 or a 747EUD could fly ORD-CPT (Chicago-Capetown, 7400nm), a 767 could not do that.
- Another example, I created a europe-map once, 2000x2000 tiles. Well Europe isn't that large and my map reaches from Lisbon to Minsk (west to east, 1762nm, 1800/1900 tiles). I would set for factor 10 in the patch settings about 8300 tiles. So 747, 787, A340, 767 all could do all europe, an old 737 or a prop plane could not, newer 737 and A320 could do the greater parts, perhaps not Helsinki-Casablanca (depends on what version).
- If someone dislikes the feature he sets 200000 tiles for factor10 and the feature is "disabled" because no map is that large.


Because i have no idea how to code and i'm also bad in learning such things, i have no idea how easy or difficult it is so make such an feature, but for people like my friends and me and all other players out there who like large realistic maps and gameplay it would be a great enhancement.

If no one makes such an patch everyone will only use mach2-planes or 747s/a380s on all routes, no matter if 200tiles, 2000tiles or 8000 tiles and no matter which distance that would mean in "real life".


Regards,
CARST



Useful information:
http://www.airliners.net/info/ (Airliner website, useful info on all planes, e.g. maximum distance)
http://gc.kls2.com/ (Great Circle Mapper, good for calculating distances through airways between worldwide airports, possible in km, mi and nm)

[Bilbo]

You can have even larger distances, maximum you can get with the patch is 1048576 x 64.
But the version that is likely to get to trunk have lower maximal limits and will allow "only" 8192x512 maps, but still it is almost 4 times maximal distance than possible with current trunk.

[CARST]

Yeah, okay, but that all doesn't affect my idea.

If you play a 1048576x64-map you set the factor10 to 1500000 if you want the maximum distance disabled.

But in a more real scenario you will have maps like 8000x8000, 8000x2000, 2000x2000, 2000x1000 and so on. And no matter what, just type in a number of tiles greater than tiles available to fly (also think about from corner of a map to another corner) and the feature would be disabled.

But for all who would love "realistic" aircraft behavior, such a feature would be an enhancement.

[Nappe1]

cool idea...
this well could be added to all transportation.

Steam Engines needs refill wood or coal and water during their long trips. (off course having extra tenders could extend the operating distance, but again make more weight to train.) Diesel engines have a lot longer operating range, but again they should lose part of their max power when running in cold air. (Temperate climate, where's snow.) Electric Engines have unlimited operating range, as long as there's electricity.

In cars, 30's cars should be gas and maybe 50's and 60's as well, but after that they would be Diesel which again extends a lot operating range and drops running costs greatly. cold weather effect is still the same as in diesel trains.

ships, should have huge operating ranges. much longer than planes on same decade.

refilling could happen in stations or then there could be refilling stops. (that would be small forest / coal reserve and water tower for steam trains, oil/diesel reserve for diesel trains, etc. Or then they could be refilled at the service. (not so feasible and sophisticated sollution though.)



All this would make a lot more challenging to make very long distance deliveries and using transfers would be more feasible. (I already disable extra long bridges, because in reality you can't build 7-12 km bridge on the price that it costs in OpenTTD. Not even if the prices would be scaled.)

[CARST]

That is a brilliant idea Nappe, i really like it.


I think it shouldn't be too difficult, otherwise we'll find noone who would sit down and make a patch.

But if there have to be depots for trucks and trains each x tiles, enhance that gameplay and make it even more deeper.

I think ships aren't that important here, because they don't need to refill gas/diesel/kerosine anywhere beside in there departure or arrival harbour, cause big ships like in OTTD can go around the world without fuelstops.


But like mentioned in my first post every of these things has to configurable over the "Patch-menu" because on every map you want to show another region, sometimes some 100km², sometimes some 1000km² or even the whole world.
So every player / server admin has to set before the game which is max tiles to travel for "factor 10"-plane (that is a 8000nm airplane / 787), a truck and a diesel/steam-train.

[Dave]

Disagree on the steam trains front, because steam trains can pick up coal and water "en route" at stations.

I certainly don't agree with the ideas put forward about limitation depending on position - diesel trains can operate in any weather and I think we'd be going a bit far by restricting them due to cold air in OTTD.

Your best idea is - by far - the ships idea. By restricting planes but giving ships a lot longer to run, you are making ships far more viable for use as a transport.

[CARST]

Hi Dave!

You didn't unstand what i meant. Sure steam and diesel trains can pick up coal/water/diesel at every station, but if the distance between one station and the next is longer than x tiles (the maximum distance set in the patch menu) there have to be a depot on the track between these stations where the train will stop. If you build a train track between two stations, like 500 tiles long, and you define the maximum distance 300 tiles, there have to be a depot at one point in the middle between the station, give or take 50 tiles.


But more important by all means is the restriction of airplanes. Getting very important in the 1990s when there are jets like the 777, 787 which can fly longer distance than the 747. In that way not everyone will choose the 747 (or a380 at year x) for all missions.

[richk67]

I always felt that the number one weakness in aircraft in TTD was that there was little point in the differences between aircraft. Why bother with upgrades when the speeds are virtually identical (in original TTD they were), the capacities were fractionally different - but not enough to bother upgrading for, and there was basically no differentiation on purchase cost or running cost.

The whole aircraft model is flawed. But if you add range, (and better running cost calculations), then suddenly cheap long distance aircraft become very interesting.

Perhaps factor in a landing costs and cost per tile (more like in real life) - then you can have an aircraft with a high landing cost, but low cost per tile which would suit long-haul, but on short-haul you would want an aircraft with low landing cost and the cost per tile would be less of a factor.

The landing costs could be based on the size of airport - so a short runway airport could have a low landing cost (but only short runway aircraft would of course be capable of landing there), and a long runway intercontinental could have really high landing charges (think Heathrow) which makes it unsuitable for a short haul airline.

[Nappe1]

Disagree on the steam trains front, because steam trains can pick up coal and water "en route" at stations.

yes, but There's players who builds hundreds or thousands kilometers of track, without stations. This is one of the flawed things in OpenTTD, which causes trains to be so good.

To take this to full scale, we would need real economy where instead of every transport service having static, inflation scaled running costs, each company would buy coal, wood, water and gas/diesel (for now on in this post called as fuel) for running the vehicles. Of course, services and break downs would affect to running costs as well, but this model would really put you watching that there's enough fuel in your reserves.

Fuel prices again would be depending amount of wood/coal/diesel total production in map area compared to how much of that production is actually used. For example, every coal mine would be delivering 80% of their production to power stations, that would mean availability of coal is bad and prices would go up. And same to other energy/fuel sources. (so player might re-consider, if would be good idea buy some logs for the steam engines. of course, as wood does not have as much energy as coal (when burned), the trains would have lower power output, but in some cases the lines would be still more profittable.)


but sigh, I am not even secretly hoping that ppl here would like to make this game really challenging, instead of kids-in-the-sandbox-with-mini-railways game that it is now. (Heck you only need to make single good train service and you will stay profittable even if you would not do anything else during the rest of the game. ) I would love to do it myself but unfortunately, it's almost 7:30pm here and I am just about to leave from work after doing 9 hours of C# and VB.NET, so I rather leave it to others for now.

I certainly don't agree with the ideas put forward about limitation depending on position - diesel trains can operate in any weather and I think we'd be going a bit far by restricting them due to cold air in OTTD.

umm... when was the last time when british diesel train engine needed to operate in -25 celsius degrees and 45 centimeters of snow? I don't think I need to mention where I am coming from. So, yes, you are right they do operate in every temperature. BUT, the power output is greatly reduced in cold air, and Diesel needed to operate in -20 Celsius is really different and more expensive than what you are using down south there. I could go on and on about troubles Norway, Sweden and Finland go thru with train networks every single winter. Not only Diesel locos have troubles but even Electric units too, the switches get stuck by snow and ice, flying snow gets everywhere like door seams. (last winter 3 times train had to go backwards to previous switch because they could not get the switch changed at the other of passing place. And that was just on the trips I was in with.)

[CARST]

...

The landing costs could be based on the size of airport - so a short runway airport could have a low landing cost (but only short runway aircraft would of course be capable of landing there), and a long runway intercontinental could have really high landing charges (think Heathrow) which makes it unsuitable for a short haul airline.

That is a good idea, too. But landing fees should be based on the number of seats on the aircraft (like RL), not on runway length or size of airport. An option could be to let the landing fees rise if more and more aircraft are flying to an airport; but that only seems logical if you share the airport with other companies (there are already patches out there to do that).


But before that all gets too difficult, perhaps one with knowledge about ottd code and a little bit of free time could start with a patch for the max aircraft distance. Other ideas can be implemented in further patch revisions...

[Bilbo]

One problem is also for relatively low price of the planes

747 costs 123450 euro in game
Asiastar costs 101110 euro in game

In reality: 747-400 $228-260 million (2007) (according to english wiki)
I was unable to find cost of the train engine in reality, but I think it would be much lower than 82% of the plane cost.

[richk67]

As Ive said before when people start quoting prices.... buying land and laying train track is VASTLY expensive. ISTR that the cost of the TGV line from Paris to Calais was ~30bn Euro. Add that to the train price - planes start looking good value.

[CARST]

I think this threads is going in the wrong direction, because we are talking about two different things here.


The one thing is a total change in the OpenTTD economy. Higher running costs, planes shouldn't be so mighty on large maps, more useful trucks and trams and so on...
But the prices aren't a problem. Okay, planes are cheap, but trains, too. When the DB (Deutsche Bahn) ordered their first ICE trains in 1989 they paid about 40 million DM (20 million Euro) for one train (including waggons). Now add the price for laying the high speed tracks like richk67 mentioned ... you get it, a traintrack including stations, tracks and the train itself is much more expensive then buying an airplane. Only in the long term a train could be cheaper, if we talk about running costs.
And by the way, the list price is of a 747 is perhaps at 250 million dollar, but most blue chip airlines won't pay more then 200 to 220 million. Price of five trains, but no tracks, no stations, as in reality you don't pay for the airport, just for using it (running costs / landing fees again)...

But before i get carried away about a topic no one really reads, i want to say that the above is too much. We already have a topic http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=29683 about the a new OpenTTD economy and i hope the people there still continue their work on that project, so there is no need to discuss or start something similar.


We should think step by step.

And it would be a excellent first step if someone would write a patch to make airplanes (and if you others want it, trains etc, too) distance restricted.


Regards,
CARST

[Zutty]

Hey I think this is a great idea. It would add a much needed extra dimension to aircraft.

I disagree though that aircaft should not crash if they run out of fuel though. That seems to be un-TTD like. If a player can be free to send a super-sonic jet to a small airstrip, or to cannon high-speed directly trains into each other, they should also be free to send aircraft to their doom on impossibly long journeys! Of course the player will need warnings. They should get a warning when they set a destination that is too far away (as you suggest), and they should get warnings when a plane is low on fuel. Perhaps there could also be an optional range overlay on the map (or something to that effect) to allow the player to select the correct aircraft.

Modelling range and fuel for aircraft could have other neat effects too. Aircraft that have used more fuel (or have larger capacity) would take longer to load at a terminal, and planes would no longer be able to circle endlessly when waiting to land. Plus it could also allow the introduction of the concept of efficiency (e.g. a super-sonic turbojet craft could be less efficient than a turbofan craft for the same fuel capacity). Having two new attributes for range and efficiency would make for better choices between aircraft (as has already been said, the current options are all very samey), and allow for more diverse options for GRF artists.

I haven't done much C in my time, but I am a Java (don't laugh!) programmer by trade. I've had a look at the source in SVN and it doesn't look too difficult. I'd like to have a go at making a patch for this myself. I'll see what I can come up with!

[CARST]

Good look!

Hope to see something coming out of this...



As for the circleing, i wouldn't be so count that into the fuel consumption. As real aircraft always (most of the time / by law) have a reserve for that situations that wouldn't be fair. Like in London Heathrow it is normal to circle 30 to 45 minutes at peak times.

I would count fuel consumption from end of start sequence to beginning of landing sequence (circling not counted). If i read correct there are such "sequences", e.g. airplanes always fly a specific pattern when arriving at a airport before landing, this pattern should end fuel consumption.

[Thalass]

This is a great idea! It would make those regional jets and turboprops useful


Though I should note that landing fees are usually charged by aircraft weight (which in OTTD is more or less equivilent to the number of seats) rather than by airport size - different airports charge different fees depending on who owns them, but in OTTD you would be using your own airports so the fees would be the same for all airports.



With the trains... perhaps the waypoints could be used to rewater/fuel the train? That would work better than a depot, imho.

[Zutty]

Well I tried to compile the source in Eclipse, but after a few hours I gave up and just downloaded Visual Studio Express! Hopefully today I can actually make a start!!

As for the idea, I think you're right CARST now that I think about it. People would just get pissed off if their planes started falling out of the sky just before they got to land... there would be no advantage in that level of "realism". I still think planes should be able to run out of fuel in mid-air though, but only in exceptional circumstances, and only to enforce the absolute maximum range of an aircraft if the player chooses to do nothing about it.

I know its early days yet, but if this is going to be implemented then it needs some kind of specification, just to make sure were all on the same page. Here's how I would break it down...

Purpose
Aircraft to be given range and efficiency in order to make overuse of large or high-speed aircraft a less effective strategy against balanced use of large and small aircraft for longer and shorter flights respectively. This is based on the impression that it is too easy to transport large volumes of passengers by always choosing the largest/fastest aircraft available. The new feature is intended to make airline gameplay richer, more challenging, and hopefully more fun.

The purpose is NOT to give fuel to aircraft just for gratuitous "realism" or to nerf aircraft in general. Fuel or range will not be applied to any other type of vehicle.

Proposed Gameplay
When Giving an Order
The craft would check the distance between adjacent airports in its order queue and if any flights are beyond the crafts maximum range an error message is displayed.

The distance should be calculated from first hangar to first hangar to reduce complexity (from my quick glance at the actual code!) and avoid ambiguity over where the "entry point" to an airport is.

To help the player choose, there should be a mechanism to show the distances between airports. This must be made as easy as possible to use, or it will put people off. I think a good start would be a page in the airport station window that shows a sortable list of other airports, and their distance. There could perhaps be a filter based on the available aircraft types, that would mark out-of-range airports in red (or something).

When Taking Off
Take-off should expend fuel (dependent of efficiency) in order to make sure that some fuel is always used. This will allow for more balancing in the later stages of the patch. Calculations for range should take this into account (easily done).

Aircraft should always head towards a destination airport regardless of whether it is beyond maximum range, or if a better alternative has already been found (see below). The player will have the option of routing out-of-range flights properly, so they should be penalised for not doing so!

When Flying
Aircraft should consume fuel by decrementing a counter by a rate determined by the "efficiency" of the craft. When the counter hits zero the fuel has been expended and the maximum range has been reached.

If fuel does run out in mid-air and before an airport has been reached (see below for what counts as "been reached"), the aircraft should crash. I don't know if there already is a decent crash state or animation for aircraft (I've read that they just blow up in mid air if all a players airports are destroyed, though I've not tried this myself yet). If not, this could perhaps be a mini-disaster that destroys the tile underneath it and generates a news story.

When Fuel is Low
Depending on what is simplest to implement (or at least, a good trade-off between simplicity and functionality) an aircraft should attempt to rescue itself by heading to the nearest airport to refuel. This could be done in a large number of ways from a naive last ditch attempt once fuel levels drop below a certain threshold, to a complex system where the aircraft calculates how far it can go before it is beyond the range of a refuelling stop, perhaps based on path-finding (YAPF).

There should NOT be a "reserve" of fuel, as this would skew range calculations and complicate measures for dealing with planes that are running on empty!

When Approaching an Airport
If an aircraft is "near" to an airport when it runs out of fuel it ought to continue anyway. The player should not be penalised for a few tiles difference, and this would help smooth out the very minor differences made by factors like the position of runways in the airport or minor miscalculations due to thread synchronisation (etc...).

Once the aircraft has entered the holding airspace at an airport it is "safe" and can no longer crash through lack of fuel, until taking off again. The aircraft should still expend fuel when in the air however, down to a minimum of zero. This is to ensure that players must "pay" for long queues at an inefficient airport.

Aircraft should always fully refuel either at a terminal or hangar. I'm pretty sure they do this in real life anyway, but to have some kind of "just-in-time" method of refuelling would be overcomplicated both in terms of implementation and for the player.

Refuelling takes an amount of time (and maybe money too) dependent on how much fuel has been expended. Delays should not be so long as to break airports altogether, but be long enough to make smaller aircraft and short haul flights more desirable where appropriate. Fuel cost could perhaps be tied to the economy, as has been suggested.

Balancing

Should fuel cost be in additional to the existing running costs?
This is something I haven't really thought about. Are aircraft too cheap at the moment? I think they probably are, but I'm no expert.

Should the maximum range be configurable?
I presume that some people will prefer to play on smaller maps, or that they are only able to play smaller maps due to limitation on this machine. In which case if the range of the smallest aircraft covers ALL of a small map this feature would be Some people might be a little pissed off if they have to change their gameplay style too much.

If there could be a configurable multiplier its would mean that players on small maps would still be able to take advantage of the feature, players on large maps could make it more "realistic", and that players who don't like it it at all could more or less turn it off.

Should the numbers be tweaked to ensure that small planes are more effective, even if that means massively reducing the effectiveness of larger aircraft?
At this stage I have no idea what will be possible or what the outcome will be, but should the ultimate goal override all other concerns if it comes down to that?

I hope that with the right amount of tweaking we can get the desired outcome without rocking the boat too much, but I worry that if this patch DOES have a large negative impact on large planes then it might not be accepted.

Impact on overall playing style
Very long flights will no longer be possible without refuelling stops. I believe a go-to depot order already exists so it should be relatively straightforward for players to adapt to this.

Players should re-consider their choice of aircraft depending on the distance of the flights.
- It may be faster and cheaper to choose one efficient craft that can go all the way in one leg, than a larger craft that has to stop mid-way to refuel.
- Small aircraft should have a faster turn-around inside the airport than larger ones, meaning that for short-haul flights a smaller aircraft would be able to make more trips in the same amount of time. In order for this to work, the difference in fuel consumption must be quite pronounced, hence the reason for consuming fuel on take-off.

All airports will have an overall reduction in throughput, due to the time required for refuelling. This is entirely NECESSARY and the whole point of this new feature. Players will have to put more effort into designing their airlines to make airports more efficient. This could perhaps be offset by reducing the amount of time it takes to load passengers and mail.

No micro-management will be required. Even if planes can't make the flight in one leg, they should automatically attempt to re-route themselves (assuming that this can be implemented!).


Phew! What do you think? This is by no means set in stone, so please tell me if you think anything needs changing. Thanks.

[richk67]

Very nice!

Only minor point is that since you have the "when near an airport complete anyway", then the simplest distance calculation is from the airport_tile of A to airport_tile of B. No need to get into specifics of where the hangars are, since we have some wiggle-room anyway.

Im currently working on the NewGRF_ports airports, and this may be a feature worth building in from the start. Im going to have to recommend some extra aircraft properties for the Newgrf Spec anyway, so we might as well add range and/or fuel tank capacity. Im adding Minimum Runway Required, and Profit Multiplier.

(Profit Multiplier will let you define how much more (or less) is paid per passenger - allowing a Lear personal jet to pay 25x rates, or a 747 to be paid only x0.5 per passenger, etc. So you can differentiate how exclusive the service is, and be paid accordingly. This is desperately needed (IMO) for helicopters, which are either a luxury service, or (for oilrigs) an expensive taxi.)

[Bilbo]

(Profit Multiplier will let you define how much more (or less) is paid per passenger - allowing a Lear personal jet to pay 25x rates, or a 747 to be paid only x0.5 per passenger, etc. So you can differentiate how exclusive the service is, and be paid accordingly. This is desperately needed (IMO) for helicopters, which are either a luxury service, or (for oilrigs) an expensive taxi.)

I think that should be rather property of the route than that of aircraft. If you use "expensive taxi choppers" for flights like "London - Moscow" I guess people won't be willing to pay more for that than for ordinary airplane ticket. Generaly, the smaller city or place of takeoff and landing, the more are people willing to pay for a direct plane route. London-Moscow flights are "cheap" in reality, but if you want chopper transport from some small village in england to small village in say, Finland, that would be expensive.

While people may pay more for better aircraft (like the concorde - they were much faster, which was advantage some people wanted and were willing to pay for it), I think major difference should be by route. But that would need probably reworking most of the economics.

[richk67]

Well, London - Moscow in a helicopter will be mighty slow, and the days-in-transit will reduce the route value, probably as much or more than the multiplier.

I can see a good reason for the helicopter & bulk a/c multipliers being global features, but there would need to be a way to indicate in the newgrf which multiplier an aircraft type should use. For instance, the Lear Jet - its a fast jet, but with very low capacity, but very high luxury rate of payment. (eg. Luton-Nice about £18,000 per passenger according to an article I read).

Also, if the multiplier were in the .grf it makes the set designer decide how the economics of the game works, not the user. So maybe it should just be an indicator saying "use the XYZ mulitplier", and pull the actual value from the config. Multipliers could be: Airfreight, Mass Passenger, Luxury, etc.

How this fits with aircraft range... well, it doesnt really, so I'll desist since Im wandering off topic

(PS. Funny little story about Concorde pricing. Originally prices were only about £1200 each way... but in a survey of passengers, the executives thought it cost £7-8000 each way. So they just raised the prices to match what the executives thought it was costing!!)