Running cost in depot

[ISA]

Hey!

I know there have been some conversation about that, but...
Is this feasible to be able to set in difficulty menu - If train wait in depot the running cost will stop?
Reason? I love to play that way - use less platforms (specially in citys) and send train into depot while the train/s are waiting cargo and if the platform is free the next train from depot will go and start loading. In that way they wouldn't go negative so much and it would be more cost effective!
Is it possible via grf also? so no code have to change in OpenTTD game code?

Regards,
ISA

[FooBar]

Is it possible via grf also?

NewGRFs can do this. I believe Pikka has at least one or two sets that do this already. It's just that most NewGRF authors don't incorporate this feature.

[ISA]

Is it possible via grf also?

NewGRFs can do this. I believe Pikka has at least one or two sets that do this already. It's just that most NewGRF authors don't incorporate this feature.

Ok thanks, that clear things up! Also Im not familiar with Pikka sets!

[FooBar]

UKRS2 certainly has variable running costs, as does Pineapple Trains. I'm not sure if they have 0 running costs when in depot, but it's technically possible.

But your post at least made me consider adding variable running costs to the Dutch Trainset. I'm not sure if I'll go with 0 running costs, but certainly greatly reduced. I'm trying to make a somewhat realistic set. In real life you can't just ploink a train somewhere and expect it to run after 10 years. You need to do some maintenance during that time.

[ISA]

UKRS2 certainly has variable running costs, as does Pineapple Trains. I'm not sure if they have 0 running costs when in depot, but it's technically possible.

But your post at least made me consider adding variable running costs to the Dutch Trainset. I'm not sure if I'll go with 0 running costs, but certainly greatly reduced. I'm trying to make a somewhat realistic set. In real life you can't just ploink a train somewhere and expect it to run after 10 years. You need to do some maintenance during that time.

Yes, true! As You point that out, Id like that solution even more! My concerns was that if I have fairly high running cost I don't want to pay it when trains wait in depots as I'm already in minus with train income and that made me do this topic. I also try to play as real as possible but it isn't 100% want I am aiming for!

[PikkaBird]

UKRS2 certainly has variable running costs, as does Pineapple Trains. I'm not sure if they have 0 running costs when in depot, but it's technically possible.

Pineapple Trains reduces running costs by 75% when the train has 0 speed, which includes when it's loading in a station and when it's waiting in a depot or at a PBS signal (but not a block signal, for reasons). More complex variable costs (such as those in UKRS and NARS) aren't really worth the effort, IMO.

[Eddi]

In real life you can't just ploink a train somewhere and expect it to run after 10 years. You need to do some maintenance during that time.

i vaguely remember a patch that assings a "repair cost" to servicing, which depends on how much the difference between current reliability and max reliability is.

so if a train was waiting for 10 years in a depot, it likely has 0 reliability, and it will get serviced automatically upon leaving the depot, causing significant cost.

[Andrex]

Yet another solution based on NewGRFs, with a possibility of 0.00% of finding the required GRF present in most multiplayer servers. From time to time, good features (such as the discussed here) should be considered for inclusion in official releases to make them globally available.

[FooBar]

Consider this: if there are no multiplayer servers with required grf, why would there be multiplayer servers with the suggested setting enabled?

[Alberth]

Given the importance of NewGRFs for creating a unique user experience at a server, I think it's weird server owners don't do this.

Did you try finding out why this is the case? Are users or owners too busy to setup a game with newgrfs? Do they simply not know of the entire NewGRF world? Is the barrier of finding a good combination of NewGRFs a problem? Is there a lack of scenarios for servers?

For all these problems there are answers how to handle it, mostly by telling people about it, and preparing some things which are easier to apply, as far as I can see.


Note there are also servers with NewGRFs which are successful. openttdcoop of course, and I think Reddit too. It is thus feasible.

[Andrex]

Consider this: if there are no multiplayer servers with required grf, why would there be multiplayer servers with the suggested setting enabled?

In this particular case, because the feature is only available bundled with new train sets.

In general cases, for the reasons Alberth just pointed out: additional time to install files, lack of knowledge, laziness, etc.

[Alberth]

As you're slowly finding out, just complaining about things is not solving anything. It may feel good that you can tell your story and claim that everybody else is wrong, but at the end of the day nothing will have changed.

Just like you are too busy working on our suggestions, we are too busy to work on yours. That's how the world works. I don't like it, you may not like it, but it's a fact of life until you are a president of something.



if you want to make any attempt towards actually resolving the issue, you'll have to stop complaining about things, and do something else.
That "something else" can take a lot of different forms, where in my experience, finding out why things are as they are, is a good first step towards understanding what to do.

[Andrex]

As you're slowly finding out, just complaining about things is not solving anything. It may feel good that you can tell your story and claim that everybody else is wrong, but at the end of the day nothing will have changed.

Just like you are too busy working on our suggestions, we are too busy to work on yours. That's how the world works. I don't like it, you may not like it, but it's a fact of life until you are a president of something.

if you want to make any attempt towards actually resolving the issue, you'll have to stop complaining about things, and do something else.
That "something else" can take a lot of different forms, where in my experience, finding out why things are as they are, is a good first step towards understanding what to do.

Please note that every time I point out some unexpected, annoying or poor OTTD behavior I also mention what is the expected behavior. I don't know what else do you expect.

And in most cases, things "are as they are" because either:

(1) no developer noticed the issue, or don't care about it
(2) it's too much work to implement for all platforms
(3) There's a Patch for That, which is good as useless for multiplayer users.
(4) it's legacy TTD behavior (so it cannot be modified?)

With such replies, developers elegantly wash their hands of these topics, that doesn't mean that they actually solve anything either. And do not think that I actually blame them for exposing those reasons.

I do not complain at the game behavior itself, instead I complain with the policy of presenting excuses as a logical solution to an unexpected or undesired OTTD behavior. Yes they are perfectly valid reasons, which don't solve anything, but somehow it seems I take the blame for simply posting an issue from time to time.

[PikkaBird]

In this particular case, because the feature is only available bundled with new train sets.

One could quite easily create a "new train set" which merely added this feature to the default vehicles. However, since the default vehicles are dirt cheap to run anyway, I don't know why one would bother.