Breakdowns

[richk67]

I want to play with breakdowns enabled, but reduced really means many, and normal really means totally excessive. I've only ever once been on board a train that broke down, and that was an HST which could continue with its remaining good powercar.

Lucky you!! Ive had about 1/2 a dozen in probably 100 rail journeys.

Worst was a trip from Fort William back to Glasgow, during a blizzard, when the heating car's brakes failed on. (The engine didnt have the same heating system as the carriages, so there was a special heating carriage in the rake.) In order to get the train moving again, meant disconnecting the heating unit from the train. So after a delay of 4 hours, we continued minus heating. All the passengers in the 4 carriage train were moved into one carriage to conserve body heat! Cozy

As for general reliability, the nickname of the Brush Type 4 (Class 47) was "Duff" as they broke down really frequently.

In OTTD, I think there should be a "3 strikes and you're out" approach - after 3 breakdowns, a train will go automatically to the nearest depot. Also, in practice, unreliable engines often get switched out at a terminal, so to simulate this, I would like to see a "auto-service on turnaround at station" in a similar way to the "auto-service helicopters" option.

[WWTBAM]

now that last idea is nice, ive been at a termini waiting for my train to be cleaned and serviced.

[Brianetta]

I have an idea. Breakdowns whilst running should be reduced to a bare minimum, and breakdowns whilst stationary should be increased. A train, plane, bus or boat is far more likely not to start than to suddenly stop. Breaking down at a platform can be worked around. Breaking down at a red light is less desirable, but still better than breaking down in the middle of a junction - something that's rare, except for realizations of Sod's law.

[WWTBAM]

these last two ideas are the best ever.

[richk67]

I have an idea. Breakdowns whilst running should be reduced to a bare minimum, and breakdowns whilst stationary should be increased. A train, plane, bus or boat is far more likely not to start than to suddenly stop. Breaking down at a platform can be worked around. Breaking down at a red light is less desirable, but still better than breaking down in the middle of a junction - something that's rare, except for realizations of Sod's law.

Im not sure if its a fantasy Im half remembering, but I seem to remember that breakdowns were more likely when the engine was under load - so it would break down more starting up, and going uphill, but rarely downhill. Whether this was an original TT feature, and was removed from OTTD I am unsure.

[Bjarni]

I have an idea. Breakdowns whilst running should be reduced to a bare minimum, and breakdowns whilst stationary should be increased. A train, plane, bus or boat is far more likely not to start than to suddenly stop. Breaking down at a platform can be worked around. Breaking down at a red light is less desirable, but still better than breaking down in the middle of a junction - something that's rare, except for realizations of Sod's law.

quick "breakdowns" often happens when leaving a station (like a jammed door or something). Mechanical failure (say a bearing goes bad) tends to happen when it's under a great deal of load, like high RPM. Based on this, we should have different breakdowns and each of them are more likely to happen at a different location and the effect and time to correct should be different (+ a random multiplier. Two jammed doors will not always take the same time to correct). What do you say about this idea?

Note: I will not promis to code this. I'm just brainstorming without really thinking about how to code this. There is always the risk that the result will demand way too much CPU power or something and that's something to look at once you got an idea of how you want it to act.

[Brianetta]

Bjarni: Breakdown classes is good. There are gameplay advantages, too. It might actually be fun to work around a train that broke down at a platform, rather than just frustrating, so it's my opinion that trains should more readily break down there. Another possibility is breaking down actually within the depot; that can apply to any vehicle class, and rather than obstructing the transport network it merely deprives the player of the use of that vehicle. Such a breakdown could be treated as "serious" and requiring overhaul to repair; say, one to three months out of action.

[SirkoZ]

None - until a TTDPatch-like engines_persist feature is implemented.
I usually play on "Hard", but UFOs and this one really bug me.

That means that older engines are still reliable (with possible slightly higher running costs) if they are serviced like the new ones.

Engines never expire is available now, but it's lacking finess.

[Ben_Robbins_]

I voted 'none'. The reason being it requires huge amounts of effert to only almost solve a problem and the second you take your eye off it, they start breaking down again. I like things to happen as a result of my error like train crashes, or jams. If breakdowns happened relative to harsh condisions or bad track/road layout, and were, with some effert, fully preventable for trains under x% of there lifespan then it would be far more fun.

[Bjarni]

None - until a TTDPatch-like engines_persist feature is implemented.
I usually play on "Hard", but UFOs and this one really bug me.

That means that older engines are still reliable (with possible slightly higher running costs) if they are serviced like the new ones.

Engines never expire is available now, but it's lacking finess.

I already fixed the issue where old designs becomes really unreliable. Now they stay at their peak reliability when engines_persist is enabled.
Check the code before complaining about it

[Dave]

I have an idea. Breakdowns whilst running should be reduced to a bare minimum, and breakdowns whilst stationary should be increased. A train, plane, bus or boat is far more likely not to start than to suddenly stop. Breaking down at a platform can be worked around. Breaking down at a red light is less desirable, but still better than breaking down in the middle of a junction - something that's rare, except for realizations of Sod's law.

Happened at Wokington the other day when the 458 was directed off the juice. It came to rest still occupying the junction block. What a pisstake.

[Lordmwa]

I like brianetta's idea but i have found the breakdowns using the UK renewal set slightly exsessive but certianally less than the normal trains

[Frostregen]

I usually play with Breakdowns set to none.
OR
With a slight modification to the code, the breakdowns are at least avoidable by regular servicing.
(Currently a vehicle WILL breakdown at minimum once every 250 days,
regardless of reliability and servicing)

Code: Select all

void VehicleServiceInDepot(Vehicle *v)
{
	v->date_of_last_service = _date;
	v->breakdowns_since_last_service = 0;
	v->reliability = GetEngine(v->engine_type)->reliability;
	v->breakdown_chance = 0;
	InvalidateWindow(WC_VEHICLE_DETAILS, v->index); // ensure that last service date and reliability are updated
}

This is in vehicle.cpp line 102. Just one line was added:
"v->breakdown_chance = 0;"
In original code this counter was only reset when a vehicle breaks down, not when servicing, so a breakdown was unavoidable.

[DudeWheresMyTank]

I usually play with Breakdowns set to none.
OR
With a slight modification to the code, the breakdowns are at least avoidable by regular servicing.
(Currently a vehicle WILL breakdown at minimum once every 250 days,
regardless of reliability and servicing)

Code: Select all

void VehicleServiceInDepot(Vehicle *v)
{
	v->date_of_last_service = _date;
	v->breakdowns_since_last_service = 0;
	v->reliability = GetEngine(v->engine_type)->reliability;
	v->breakdown_chance = 0;
	InvalidateWindow(WC_VEHICLE_DETAILS, v->index); // ensure that last service date and reliability are updated
}

This is in vehicle.cpp line 102. Just one line was added:
"v->breakdown_chance = 0;"
In original code this counter was only reset when a vehicle breaks down, not when servicing, so a breakdown was unavoidable.

wow that sucks. every 250 days is quite excessive for a regularly serviced vehicle. I've driven my car for 8 years and it has not broken down once. Can we get this minor code change incorporated in 5.0, or as a minor patch?

[Frostregen]

Can we get this minor code change incorporated in 5.0, or as a minor patch?

I would say no,
because this is just a random (=far from perfect) change to the original behavior.
Some better breakdown simulation (like those discussed above)
should be implemented instead.

[CMircea]

I play with them at reduced. A vehicle wouldn't break so often if it's new. I even got 7 breakdowns in a single service (250 days) with a train that was brand new.

[MagicBuzz]

You have a bit of an obsession with the S key over others?

Anyway.

I play on Reduced. The number of breakdowns in TTD on normal is a bit excessive, but the fact is that transport vehicles do and will break down and since I'm a realist-junkie, my game reflects that. There is the fact that I mostly play TTDP, and when I do play OTTD it's in multiplayer where everyone wants everything to be as big as possible, so they're generally turned off.

But still.

May be it's realistic for England, but as far as I know, even with reduced breakdown it's far more than reallity for France.

If OTTD was running subways, may be it should be realistic. But for trucks and trains, it's really far from reallity. I take like 4 trains a day, and never experienced any break down. So I disable them.

[Born Acorn]

I don't know. I've been to England many times on a bus or train, and they definitely don't break down every 4 miles.

[DudeWheresMyTank]

Can we get this minor code change incorporated in 5.0, or as a minor patch?

I would say no,
because this is just a random (=far from perfect) change to the original behavior.
Some better breakdown simulation (like those discussed above)
should be implemented instead.

I agree a more robust system should be implemented but it's a good quick fix to what is pretty much unanimously agreed broken system. I sure would appreciate a quick fix in the next release candidate for 5.0

[Ailure]

I love Brianetta's solution.

Mostly becuse the current reliability system dosen't make sense. I mean, for example... what does the reliability percentage stand for? :/