JGR's Patch Pack

[mak]

You don't need to use extended_feature_test at all if you're doing multi aspect signals with per-railtypes signals (FEAT_RAILTYPES) for instance.

BTW, how to enable these multiaspect signals? I tried with realistic brake on, and with speed adaptation on/off, traditional/new settings checked, but always green/red only displayed.

Go back to my post 12 September

[Wahazar]

Go back to my post 12 September

Indeed, save/load helped

[ino]

With realistic breaking on, are there any different between one-way path signal and regular block signal? It seems to behave exactly same to me, and the block signal just look better so I wonder if there are any consequence I didn't know.

[JGR]

With realistic breaking on, are there any different between one-way path signal and regular block signal? It seems to behave exactly same to me, and the block signal just look better so I wonder if there are any consequence I didn't know.

The behaviour for reserving up to the back side of the signal is different. Reservations are not made up to the back of a regular block signal (with or without realistic braking).
The red/green and aspect behaviour for non-reserved routes is also slightly different. Block signals on plain track behave like automatic signals. This is mainly a cosmetic thing but I think it looks better and is closer to typical real-life signalling (in the UK at least).

[Wahazar]

I'm not familiar with BR signalling. Are these 02 and 03 aspect meaning "full speed, but red at one/two signals ahead", so they are just eyecandy for realistic brake, or do they provide any speed limit by itself?

Pity, that there is no green on/off animation in openttd

[Taschi]

Yes, IRL it's as you describe, the yellow and double-yellow aspects do not have a speed limit associated with them.

[Quast65]

Hiya!

First of all, thank you for all the great work you are doing to develop this patch pack!

I have a request that I also did a couple of years ago:

Could it be possible to remove the loading-time penalty for trains that are longer than the platform of a station? (For example as an extra cheat option)

This is what I did to remove the penalty from a pre-compiled game:
viewtopic.php?p=1208248#p1208248

And HackaLittleBit has also already made a patch:
viewtopic.php?p=854926#p854926

Kind regards
Quast65

[wallyweb]

Could it be possible to remove the loading-time penalty for trains that are longer than the platform of a station? (For example as an extra cheat option)

Have you tried through loading? It works for both loading and unloading.

[Quast65]

Could it be possible to remove the loading-time penalty for trains that are longer than the platform of a station? (For example as an extra cheat option)

Have you tried through loading? It works for both loading and unloading.

Through loading is for freight only IIRC, but I would like no overhang-penalty for passengertrains that are longer than the platform.
This could be very usefull for example for underground stations and/or stations that have a "fake" elongation, like for example a bridge that looks like it has a platform.

[wallyweb]

Could it be possible to remove the loading-time penalty for trains that are longer than the platform of a station? (For example as an extra cheat option)

Have you tried through loading? It works for both loading and unloading.

Through loading is for freight only IIRC, but I would like no overhang-penalty for passengertrains that are longer than the platform.
This could be very usefull for example for underground stations and/or stations that have a "fake" elongation, like for example a bridge that looks like it has a platform.

I haven't tried it for passengers. I must give it a go to see what happens. Maybe next week after the SOTM shifts to October.
How long are your trains? I think the maximum length is about 128 wagons (64 tiles).

[Quast65]

I haven't tried it for passengers. I must give it a go to see what happens.

Just checked, through-load option is only available for cargo.
Also, it wouldnt give the desired visual effect (so with a short actual platform, combined for example with eyecandy stuff like a bridge with platform graphics) as the train would not just stand still when (un)loading, but would move slightly.
A cheat function that would disable the (un)load-time-penalty would work the best I think (as I believe mostly the eyecandy players would use this function).

[Taschi]

I think an option to adjust the penalty gradually would be nice, because while I can see the gameplay challenge presented by this feature, the penalty is just far too steep - even having a train that is 7.1 tiles long on a 7-tile platform is a major PITA.

Slightly over-length trains are not all that uncommon in real life and even high-capacity systems like the London Underground have them.

[SparkyMarkyR33]

Hi JGR

Just noticed you had updated the Multi-Aspect Signals to include my request
Cannot thank you enough!!

You are doing a fantastic job with this game

[WalkedBy]

Looks like plane crash frequency is not scaled with day length and may even be that reduced option is same as normal (i.e. has no effect).
Test route was 512 long with ~20 small planes. Tried both small and large airports with small planes. (disasters off)
Tried 2050-2110 on day 1 and 2050-2053 on day 20.

day len 1, reduced
2000-2170: -10 planes of 20

day len 20, reduced
2000-2010: -15 planes of 20

With this frequency, the option cannot be used, while it's an important part of game.
What feels better for reduced (on any day length) is:
of 100 planes routed on proper airports 1 must crash each 20 years
of 100 planes routed on too small airports 1 must crash each 1 year (it will be only good if this is option too when airports maintain is big)

And for the disasters, their frequency looks like working correct, about 50 rail pieces are stolen by UFO's each 50 years on any day length.

Also, seems there is strange behaviour - as soon as someone logins on server, which was empty for some time, planes start to fall down one by one quite fast.

[WalkedBy]

We've tried to balance costs with high day length, and the way it just raises running costs now is quite wrong - it creates running costs much higher than purchase. Instead of this, all payment costs better be dropped with length increase.
It's sometimes not possible with grf's because they may not cover all the cargo's.

Running costs do not change with day length.
However as the effective length of an in-game year is changed, the cost per in-game year also changes proportionally.

Still, is it possible to reduce running costs so they fit player's common sense (buy cost vs maintain cost/year same ratio as grf dev's put into set)?
And another side of costs - payment curve limits gameplay now on huge maps way too much, it's not supposed that payment for 30 days was 10x lower than for 5 days. Being able to adjust payment curve start point and steepness - sort of fixes both problems (first if combined with much lower running costs applied with basecosts ).

Also will only be good if payment graph displayed scaled with day length values.

[ino]

Still, is it possible to reduce running costs so they fit player's common sense (buy cost vs maintain cost/year same ratio as grf dev's put into set)?

And this is exactly reason why day-length hasn't been included in the vanilla OpenTTD --- no one can agrees how it should work.

[Wahazar]

I don' t get what is a problem with running cost? Who cares about yearly running costs? It doesn't matter if days are longer or shorter, train is going with same speed, earning same amount of money at the given distance.

[Nickel_Plate]

Trying to run 0.43.0 with the two grf's below and getting errors.

opengrx+trains 0.3.0

opengfx_trains_0.3.0\opengfx.grf is designed to be used with Enable_multiple_newgrf_engine_sets = on

and

heqs_heavy_equipment_set_1.5.2\heqs.grf is designed to be used with adv.setting 'vehicle->enable multiple newgrf vehicle sets = on'

How do i get these to work.

One other thing, trying to update an older version scenario in the editer is there any way to rise the map edges.

[kamnet]

These are old NewGRFs, but they will run fine. The error messages are outdated due to a change in OpenTTD's core coding, multiple engines are now enabled by default. You can ignore them.

[wallyweb]

One other thing, trying to update an older version scenario in the editer is there any way to rise the map edges.

Just the edges of the map? ... Or do you mean the entire map?