Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Forum for technical discussions regarding development. If you have a general suggestion, problem or comment, please use one of the other forums.

Moderator: OpenTTD Developers

Klaatu
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 43
Joined: 04 Aug 2003 14:58

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Klaatu »

I would have thought you would have covered this in your initial post, but for those of us who have no idea what you did before...

What is "Infrastructure Sharing"? Please describe what this patch does.

Thanks.

kul
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 21
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 19:22

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by kul »

From the original thread:
I've made some change to Vikthor's tracksharing patch from subsidiaries & contracts thread.

I really hope this is MP stable, it seems to be ok on my LAN, but I would like to see it tested on the net (Ammler ? )

what's in :

patch setting to enable sharing of :
railway tracks
railway stations
railway depots
airports (and air depots)
road stops
road depots
water depots
docks

and also :
depot owner provision (% of build cost)
cost of 1000 tons per tiles on shared tracks
landing fee (per tons of cargo capacity)
fee for harbours (new)
fee for road stops (new)
enable each activated patch settings to be selected by player (see screenshot)
set delay for individual settings validation (so you won't be surprised by brutal change of prices)

When activated, individual settings can be set via your company windows (button "sharing" under "build HQ")

Hirundo
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 298
Joined: 27 Jan 2008 13:02

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Hirundo »

Eddi wrote:i want to throw a question in here, why is selling competitors's trains on bankrupcy a favourable solution over making the tracks "owner none" instead (unifying this with the behaviour of roads)
Bankruptcy is a relatively rare phenomenon. Someone disabling sharing is much more common, and in such cases you need to 'remove' the trains anyway, one way or another.

Infrastructure sharing, in a nutshell, means that you can choose to open your infrastructure to other players. You can select which parts of your infrastructure (e.g. train tracks, airports) you open and ask a certain fee for it.
Create your own NewGRF? Check out this tutorial!

Neuralize
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 17
Joined: 20 Jan 2009 04:28

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Neuralize »

I played with the compiled win32 a little bit and I'm wondering if there could be an option to automatically grant sharing to a new company?

Aali
Traffic Manager
Traffic Manager
Posts: 144
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 00:04
Location: Sweden

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Aali »

There will probably be a user-configurable setting for new companies in the future, we just haven't implemented it yet.

deepblue2k8
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 44
Joined: 06 Sep 2008 12:41
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by deepblue2k8 »

feature suggestion, mentioned yesterday in the game:

some kind of world map overlay to see which tracks you are allowed to run your trains on.
But it still might be hard to figure out, if there is a single piece of track, which isn't shared... Any ideas?

Buhmann
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Dec 2007 18:20

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Buhmann »

Ok, here is my idea how to solve the problem. It might be not very realistic, but trains getting selled without being in a depot isn't very realistic, either.

So, I would add a freature wich allows a player to teleport one or all of his trains (who are on an opponents track) to his nearest own depot. In exchange, the train can't be used for a certain timespan .. maybe 2 month or something like that. (To prevent malpractice)
This feature can be used to save trains wich have been trapped by an opponent and should be automaticly used if the owner of the track a train is using doesn't share his infrastructure anymore.



(Btw.: I know, that my english isn't very good ... but what the hell is "Infratructure"? :D (Thread-title))

Conditional Zenith
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
Posts: 697
Joined: 10 Jun 2003 00:19
Location: Australia

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Conditional Zenith »

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infrastructure , definition 2 fits the best.

In a TT context: roads, rails, depots, stations, signals, etc.

Buhmann
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 20
Joined: 20 Dec 2007 18:20

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Buhmann »

I know, what Infrastructure is. But there's a typo in the thread title.

User avatar
FooBar
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 6559
Joined: 21 May 2007 11:47
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by FooBar »

Buhmann wrote:So, I would add a freature wich allows a player to teleport one or all of his trains (who are on an opponents track) to his nearest own depot.
I'm in favour of the teleporting idea.

Real life example: if I park my car in a place where I shouldn't put it, it will be towed to a depot. At the depot, I can collect my car after having to pay a fee.

Now back to the trains:
- If someone disables IS, a warning should be issued that you have x months to remove your trains from your opponents tracks.
- Trains already on opponents tracks should be able to use those tracks until they find your own tracks. Trains not on opponent track should not be allowed on those tracks.
- If you fail to get all your trains off in x months, the remaining trains will be teleported to the nearest own depot and stopped.
- For each teleported train you'll have to pay a 'towing fee'.
- If the fee is larger than the remaining value of the train, the whole train should be deleted, no fee charged and no refund for the train given.
- If the fee is smaller than the remaining value of the train, the fee should be paid immediately.

In order to prevent abuse:
- At the time a train gets teleported, it should be checked if that train is able to find a route to your own tracks/depot/whatever.
- If so, you pay the whole fee.
- If not, both you and the opponent pay half of the fee.
This should stimulate the opponent not to remove access to your network so that you have the opportunity to get your trains off in time.

This is just my 2$. I don't know how hard it is to create such a feature or if it even works. Just an idea which is open for discussion.

Buhmann wrote:but what the hell is "Infratructure"?
Something with trucs I reckon :P

Eddi
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 7438
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 00:14

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Eddi »

Buhmann wrote:(Btw.: I know, that my english isn't very good ... but what the hell is "Infratructure"? :D (Thread-title))
that's a clear proof that people do not read long words in full anyway ;)
You might not exactly be interested in Ferion, but if you are, have fun :)

TheJosh
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 75
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 12:19
Contact:

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by TheJosh »

I like FooBar's suggestion.
Want to make a real difference? Australia HOPE International - Bringing hope to African orphans and widows.

Conditional Zenith
Chief Executive
Chief Executive
Posts: 697
Joined: 10 Jun 2003 00:19
Location: Australia

Re: Infratructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Conditional Zenith »

Buhmann wrote:I know, what Infrastructure is. But there's a typo in the thread title.
Ahh, it was close enough that I didn't notice. Throw in the stuff about not knowing English well and I assumed you really didn't know.

yoyo1505
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 32
Joined: 11 Aug 2007 16:21

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by yoyo1505 »

I like FooBar's suggestion too, and the thread has covered solutions to several potential exploits, but I would object to automatically deleting a train if the towing fee is larger than its value.

Although there are many valid reasons for doing this, I don't think everyone would be happy with the idea. For instance, they may be aesthetically minded and be using old trains that look different (e.g. with Pikka's renewal sets) or may simply not be available anymore if they've turned off persistent engines. And there's extra effort in that you have to then find the trains that have gone missing, remember what they look like and often have to remember their orders so you can replace them.

If people see it as a good enough feature then I guess it could be made optional?

User avatar
FooBar
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 6559
Joined: 21 May 2007 11:47
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by FooBar »

yoyo1505 wrote:but I would object to automatically deleting a train if the towing fee is larger than its value.
Well, I figured that if the value of a train is less than the towing fee, it's not worth keeping it. But keeping old vehicles is a good argument against that.

Maybe charging a years worth of running costs as towing fee could be a good solution for all cases, without automatically deleting trains.

User avatar
Ican'tthinkofaname.
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 13:40

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Ican'tthinkofaname. »

Just to say I have been playing this with a few others and think that it is brilliant, but just one thing though, is it not possible for one company to build a junction into another companies railway. As in the two pictures. The don't destroy anything just add a piece on to link the two railways. The blue is one company and the yellow another. Basically can the yellow build it or does the blue have to do it for them or am I just missing something?
Demo pic.png
(141.6 KiB) Downloaded 192 times
If quizzes are quizzical, what does that make tests?

Aali
Traffic Manager
Traffic Manager
Posts: 144
Joined: 01 Oct 2008 00:04
Location: Sweden

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Aali »

Blue company owns the whole tile, not much we can do about that.

Allowing this would also introduce another issue when a company can connect to your railway anywhere they want instead of just where you have left a "loose end" for connection.

User avatar
Ican'tthinkofaname.
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 13:40

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Ican'tthinkofaname. »

Thank you. So I take it that trains can pass between two companies tracks. See picture.
Demo pic.png
(109.19 KiB) Downloaded 183 times
As in trains pass from blue track to yellow and vice versa?
If quizzes are quizzical, what does that make tests?

User avatar
planetmaker
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 9408
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:44
Location: Sol d

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by planetmaker »

Provided that track sharing is allowed in general, both companies allow sharing tracks, mutually allow eachother access to the tracks, and the set time span from when on changes take effect is passed for both companies: yes.

User avatar
Ican'tthinkofaname.
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 11
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 13:40

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.0 beta 1

Post by Ican'tthinkofaname. »

Ok I get it more now :idea:

And thanks again to who ever made it, multiple companies with big networks made the maps look a mess, this neatens it up and even the track now pays for itself.
If quizzes are quizzical, what does that make tests?

Post Reply

Return to “OpenTTD Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests