FIRS Supply Transportation Set (FIRS STS)

[aantono]

This is my first attempt to create (mostly code) something for OTTD and I am very excited... however, I wanted to discuss the idea first with the community and also see if anyone would like to help out with the graphics, as my skills in that department are lacking, I'm mostly a coder.

The idea I had, after playing OTTD + FIRS for a while is to create a set specifically tailored towards supplying FIRS industry with Farm and Engineering Supplies. (The Manufacturing Supplies don't seem to be required on a quota on a timely basis, they are just added to the production output). Since FIRS has strict requirements with no stockpile option for ENSP & FMSP at 21/84 crates of ENSP for mines/wells & 14/56 crates of FMSP for farms/plantations every 3 months for production boost, I've been trying to play with the "Warehouse Delivery" model, where a train comes in delivering a large batch of supplies transferred to a station and then use a small vehicle (truck or tram) to delivery the supplies to the farm/mine/etc every 3 months. The problem is the capacity of the vehicles in the various sets that are either very small or very large, thus producing lots of "delivery waste". For example, in HEQS the trams are AWESOME for this role, except for their size, they come in 20-45-75 size capacities, so I either need 3 small trams (20*3=60) for FMSP or 2 medium trams (45*2=90) for ENSP to keep the supply chain running. While having 2 trams is decent, but not ideal, having 3 is causing too much cluttering on the line, especially if the same line needs to be used as a feeder to the same station for cargo from the mines/farms/etc. The supply trams are on a timetable which makes them only run once every 3 months, so they cause blockage on the line when waiting...

To keep things simpler, I was thinking of making a dedicated Supply Transportation Set for FIRS (FIRS STS) containing road vehicles and trams with appropriate sizing capacities starting from 1900-> to fulfill this role.
* Each generation of units will contain one road vehicle and one tram vehicle.
* Each unit will have 4 refittable sizes (14, 21, 56, 84) and support either ENSP or FMSP.
* As time goes, upgraded units will appear allowing for faster speeds, but keeping cargo capacity at a constant:
--> Gen 1. - 1900-1920 : Speed-24km/h
--> Gen 2. - 1920-1950 : Speed-36km/h
--> Gen 3. - 1950-1990 : Speed-48km/h
--> Gen 4. - 1990-2020 : Speed-60km/h
--> Gen 5. - 2020-... : Speed-72km/h

Would like to hear thoughts on the matter, as well as other proposals on the mechanics and the behavior.

[Alberth]

What's the use of more speed?
If the 1st generation is sufficient to deliver the cargo to the station, why would you want it any faster?


I have never tried it, but I guess you can play with time tables to setup the timing?

[aantono]

What's the use of more speed?
If the 1st generation is sufficient to deliver the cargo to the station, why would you want it any faster?


I have never tried it, but I guess you can play with time tables to setup the timing?

I guess if you setup the timetable, which is what I try to do now with HEQS, there isn't really a need for faster vehicle, unless with the lower speed it takes longer then 3 months to get from A->B, in which case you will benefit from a faster one. Another differentiation could be the reliability factor, the newer generations could be more reliable... don't know... any ides/suggestions on what could be used as a differentiation factor besides the pure eye candy look and feel?

[Eddi]

faster speed has two immediate uses:

• do not block other vehicles on the road, especially when they cannot overtake
• deliver to more destinations with the same vehicle.

[leifbk]

I've been trying to play with the "Warehouse Delivery" model, where a train comes in delivering a large batch of supplies transferred to a station and then use a small vehicle (truck or tram) to delivery the supplies to the farm/mine/etc every 3 months.

That model gives a horrible station rating. It's much better to use small and fast vehicles to deliver the stuff directly from source to destination, and then live with some overhead in the deliveries.

[Sylf]

That model gives a horrible station rating.

Is this a bad thing? Sure, it is a waste of precious supply as they disappear into thin air over time, but otherwise it's harmless to have stations with bad ratings. Also, FIRS has a parameter to compensate for this.

[leifbk]

That model gives a horrible station rating.

Is this a bad thing? Sure, it is a waste of precious supply as they disappear into thin air over time, but otherwise it's harmless to have stations with bad ratings.

Yes it's a waste of supply, and you'll probably end up losing more supplies than if you set up a clean, balanced RV route. It may be a little more work, but it keeps the game interesting.

Also, FIRS has a parameter to compensate for this.

I prefer the original "grim and mean" algorithm because it's a major part of the game to keep a station well served.

I don't believe that there's any "correct" opinion of this, but I suspect that a lot of other people share my point of view. Else, for instance andythenorth would certainly have created vehicles exactly matching the farm supplies and engineering supplies quotas needed for going gung-ho. Rather, he seems to make a point of not doing it.

[aantono]

That model gives a horrible station rating. It's much better to use small and fast vehicles to deliver the stuff directly from source to destination, and then live with some overhead in the deliveries.

That is not always possible, if you are playing a spread-out map, the production of ENSP might be not in the vicinity of your oil fields, for example. And running a train with 2 cars is completely crazy, not economical, and if nothing else, just plain not realistic. As for the station rating, it actually does not have any impact on the ratings because we are doing a transfer at the "warehouse" station, so transfers don't impact the station rating, at least not that I have observed from the game.

[leifbk]

And running a train with 2 cars is completely crazy, not economical, and if nothing else, just plain not realistic.

I didn't mention trains at all. You know, these thingies that run around on rubber wheels in the streets? They're called road vehicles.

Some people think that OTTD is all about trains. Boring

[aantono]

The reason I was saying "trains" is because when you transport something 300-400 tiles away, bulk load via train is the way to do it. A vehicle would be way too slow, plus, I don't know of any set that would have the appropriately sized capacities for road delivery in the first place, thus the proposal for building this set in the first place.

Which road set would you suggest to use?

[leifbk]

The reason I was saying "trains" is because when you transport something 300-400 tiles away, bulk load via train is the way to do it. A vehicle would be way too slow, plus, I don't know of any set that would have the appropriately sized capacities for road delivery in the first place, thus the proposal for building this set in the first place.

The speed doesn't really matter much in this context, the profit of the supplies in itself is too small to make a difference. It's what it does to the output at the receiving end that makes the profit.

Besides, I'm running most of my games without trains and planes at all, and I'm always making more money than I'm able to spend. It's probably a matter of personal taste; I think trains requires far too much micro-management (or baby-sitting). Ships and RVs don't collide, and are quite autonomous in finding their routes.

Which road set would you suggest to use?

I'm perfectly satisfied with the eGRVTS2 and the HEQS, I've tried others, but those two fit my needs and taste well.

And note that you only need to deliver 56 or 84 crates of supplies within a three-month period; that gives you quite some slack. You can split it up any way you want. Regular, time-tabled delivery of exact quantities just doesn't work in practice.

[ISA]

It's probably a matter of personal taste; I think trains requires far too much micro-management (or baby-sitting).

The trains don't need anything... the tracks do! To add trains is easy, but run them on the available tracks efficiently isn't

[andythenorth]

Regular, time-tabled delivery of exact quantities just doesn't work in practice.

+1. FIRS does seem to prompt some people to agonise over timetabling deliveries. I didn't intend that, and it's totally not necessary, but eh. Law of unintended consequences when designing stuff

@aantano - Road Hog will have vehicles suitable for FIRS supplies, but they won't be matched exactly to the amounts for farm supplies or engineering supplies

[aantono]

@aantano - Road Hog will have vehicles suitable for FIRS supplies, but they won't be matched exactly to the amounts for farm supplies or engineering supplies

That is great news!!! I don't mind if they are not exact, but as long as they are close, it is good enough. In HEQS, for example, you have a tram that can do either 45 or 135, or 225, so while the first one is way too small (you need double, which causes lots of waste), the second size is way too large, causing the same waste... So if the size is somewhere around 60-65 for FMSP and around 90 for ENSP, that would DEFINITELY do the trick!!!

I really LOVE playing with FIRS, so awesome job on making such an amazing set, but also like a good challenge of creating a distribution network where I only have a few industries producing supplies in large quantities and then delivering them to distro stations around the map for local deliveries... While I don't mind a slight waste (as it usually happens in the real world), the case where I over-deliver by 30-40 units is not that great, as I only have so much of the supplies to go around.