[RFD] Vehicle breakdowns

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 28 Jan 2005 17:39

As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a discussion on how to deal with vehicle breakdowns. Nor did I find anything about it in the Wiki. Before we discuss how we implement them we should ask ourselves if we want vehicles to breakdown. If we want them our very next question should be what the result of a breakdown is.

Speaking for myself: I want breakdowns. I quickly thought up the following results:

Train breakdown
When a train breaks down it comes to a halt, causing no further mayhem. A breakdown for trains is simulated as a blown engine or overheated axles.

RV breakdown
When a RV breaks down it comes to a halt, causing no further mayhem. A breakdown for RV's is simulated as a flat battery or blown engine.

Ship breakdown
When a ship breaks down it comes to a halt, causing no further mayhem. A breakdown for ships is simulated as a blown engine.

Aircraft breakdown
When an aircraft breaks down it slowes down but doesn't come to a halt UNLESS it's a plane with 1 engine. The coming to a halt will then be called an aircrash. Multi-engine planes can only crash if 2 or more engines fail, the code for aircraft breakdowns should therefor differ from the others. A breakdown for aircraft is simulated as a blown engine.

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 28 Jan 2005 17:50

Yes I think there should be breakdowns. I'm not sure on the airplanes, off course when an engine of a one motor plane breaks, it'll crash. But the very old planes might be able to land on flat terrain, and larger ones on empty pieces of road... if it can reach either on time off course.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 28 Jan 2005 18:31

Arathorn wrote:if it can reach either on time off course.

That might be too difficult, to check whether it should crash because it's flying over mountains or land because there are plains below.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 28 Jan 2005 19:02

I don't like the idea of the plane crashing. Remember that planes can glide and they can run on a single engine. Would be nice if they could make emergency landings. Just check what kind if terrain the tile is that they land on. Tree = bad. Open plains = good.

I think breakdowns on multi-engine vehicles shouldn't completely incapacitate them. They should stumble to the next service point before stopping.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 28 Jan 2005 19:08

Steve wrote:I don't like the idea of the plane crashing. Remember that planes can glide and they can run on a single engine.

And single engine aircraft? They aren't exactly optimal gliders

.

Steve wrote:I think breakdowns on multi-engine vehicles shouldn't completely incapacitate them. They should stumble to the next service point before stopping.

I agree on that approach for multi-engine trains.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 28 Jan 2005 19:14

And when buses break down, we just call the AA (no, not anonymous alchoholics) and they can tow it to the next stop

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 28 Jan 2005 19:44

Brakedowns? I'm not aginst implementing brakedowns, but probably I will play without them if not all so at least 50% of my games. They make my networks stuck!

About brakedowns:
For how long will vehicles stop? Will they continue after X days? If not what happens?

I think that most brakedowns should result in redused speed. .. Hmm but thats what you get on multi-engine trains. So the idea is not that bad.

I don't think planes should crash becuse of a brake down, if disasters are disabled.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 28 Jan 2005 19:48

OK, planes don't crash when disasters are off - fair to me. I think breakdowns should appear very rare or quite common but then with a short time span.

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 28 Jan 2005 19:59

1. Brakedown
2. Vehicle slows down/stops depending on sort, (and for trains if it is multi-head)
3. After X time units vehicles speed/hp/etc. goes back to normal.
4. Vehicle gets repaired at next stop.

Shall vehicles recuire a repair at next stop?

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 28 Jan 2005 20:16

Perhaps but then in a fashion of extra expenses upon arriving at the very first stop after the breakdown? If you need a depot for repairs your train would drive around 'broken' unrealisticly long.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 28 Jan 2005 22:47

Hyronymus wrote:
Steve wrote:I don't like the idea of the plane crashing. Remember that planes can glide and they can run on a single engine.
And single engine aircraft? They aren't exactly optimal gliders

They can at least glide to a passable landing

I agree with what has been said earlier, each engine has to be treated independently. Something like a Class 47 has one big engine in the loco. If it fails, the train can't go anywhere. The Class 55 "Deltic" had two engines in the loco, and Class 43 HSTs are formed with a power car on each end. If one engine fails, then the train continues, but its power is reduced, in railway parlance it is running "with a loss of power". Such an approach opens two opportunities - MUs with several traction motors can still operate if one fails, and vehicles can have multiple engines with multiple energy sources, e.g. diesel-LPG buses, electro-diesel locomotives, etc. Only when all the engines have failed does the vehicle have to stop, and be considered "Broken down". *UNLIKE* Loco, when one engine has broken down, you should be able to either replace the unit or get it somewhere to be repaired.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 29 Jan 2005 08:49

By request: The reason why I want breakdowns is to mimic real situations as good as possible. When a train breaks down it will hold up the entire network when the breakdown occurs at a key point in the network. I'm sure everyone has seen or heard that before

. It's also a nice way to stress the importance of reliability when buying a train.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 29 Jan 2005 10:10

I agree that they should be realistic and hold up networks. But it depends on how the signalling will work. If Train A holds up the northbound track, it would be nice for the southbound to be reversed, so that Train B can get around Train A.

Although i'm not sure if that's done in real life. I'm sure someone here can tell me though...

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 29 Jan 2005 10:26

Steve wrote:Although i'm not sure if that's done in real life. I'm sure someone here can tell me though...

I think it is. When a train breaks down here in the Netherlands (that happens quite often

), then they let a limited number of trains pass in both directions on the other track. But ofcourse, only one train can pass at a time, which means a lot of delays.

Post by **uzurpator** » 29 Jan 2005 16:15

OK - Here is my propositions:

basicly - we have three tiers of breakedowns:

Failure - a mechanical/electrical part of a vehicle failed. The vehicle will continue to run at reduced speed until the next stop. This happens normally - as machinery tends to fail from time to time.

Brakedown - Great failure caused the vehicle to stop (airplanes excluded) for some time - then it continues at severly reduced speed to a nearest stop - where it will be repaired. This happens to undermaintained vehicles - and to really old ones.

Catastrophic brakedown - something BIG happens - vehicle comes crashing down - destruction ensues. If anything survived - it will "automagically" move to the nearest depot. This happens severly undermaintaned vehicles and to unrebuilt ooold ones.

I see it this way:

Each vehicle has a ‘reliability’ rating. It corresponds to the probability of a breakdown.

Reliability = 100 points when vehicle has been freshly serviced. It will drop slowly to 0.

It will drop:
1 per 10 days when vehicle is idling (stopped or loading)
1 per 5 days when vehicle is working in normal specs
1 per 1 day when vehicle was overstrained (for instance there was more TE required of a locomotive then the locomotive can handle)

Each service reduces max-reliability by 1, but no more then 4 points per year and minimum 1 per year.

At 100->66 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. Brakedown is flat 1/1000, catastrophy is flat 1/100000

At 66->33 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. Brakedown happens in 33% of failures. Catastrophy happens at 3% of brakedowns.

at 33 -> 0 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. brakedown happens at 33% of failures. Catastrophy happens at 33% of brakedowns.

Max reliability may be randomised – ranging from 75 to 125

New models may have reduced max reliability which will rise in the first 2-3 years

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 29 Jan 2005 17:27

I was going to suggest a similar thing, except less dramatic.

The vehicles would be given a state which would worsen over time and be reset when the vehicle is serviced. The age of the vehicle would speed up this process.

Damages could be:
None : Full speed ahead!
Cosmestic : Just need a new paint job. Vroooom!
Minimal : Slight damages (such as dodgy steering wheel) 1-5% drop in speed/power
Moderate : Damges worth investigated. Proceed with caution! 10% drop in speed/power
Dangerous : Very likely to blow up. Better not go too fast. 20% drop in speed/power

Breakdowns will randomly occur anywhere from Minimal and above. More likely when it's a higher level of course.

I don't agree with there being big breakdowns that destroy the vehicles, sounds like one of those really annoying things. Make sure they can be tirned off along with disasters.

Your point system is good, but when your considering age, effort, activity, a simply integer [0,100] isn't accurate enough. Better go a bit deeper then just show a rounded result on the screen.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 29 Jan 2005 19:34

Whatever you display isn't the matter, how you calculate what you display matters. I like uzurpator's idea (and hence what Steve added to it) and I too think age should matter. If a vehicle has a vehicle life of 25 years you can let reliabilty be effected by age through adding a factor 24/25 for the 1st year, going all the way to 1/25. In a formula:

Code: Select all

R(total) = R(service) * I(a)

R(service) is the R calculated according to uzurpator's idea, I(a) is the index (or factor) for Age. If a 4 year old engine got a R(service) = 0,66 due to being in service then it's reduces with a factor 21/25 for Age. R(total) results in 0,55.

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 30 Jan 2005 00:42

uzurpator wrote:At 100->66 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. Brakedown is flat 1/1000, catastrophy is flat 1/100000

At 66->33 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. Brakedown happens in 33% of failures. Catastrophy happens at 3% of brakedowns.

at 33 -> 0 chance for failure = (100-reliability)/1000. brakedown happens at 33% of failures. Catastrophy happens at 33% of brakedowns.

Nice scheme, as usual.

There is one thing missing though. How do you define "chance for failure"? How often should that value be compared against a random variable to cause a failure or not? Once per second? Per game cycle? Per day/week/month/year?

jfs · Post by **jfs** » 30 Jan 2005 01:31

How about letting each engine have a "failure progress" counter (can't think of a better word) which is reset at each service? This would be reset to a slightly random value around an engine-defined average value. (Or maybe between an engine-defined min and max.)

Then (for reliability=N) for each game tick (each time the engine is processed) there is an N percent risk of the counter getting lowered by one. If the counter reaches zero, a failure happens. Then when it's decided that a failure happens, urzupator's "kind of failure" calculation is used. (Probably slightly modified, though.)

Post by **uzurpator** » 30 Jan 2005 06:41

Hellfire: Frankly - I didn't give any though for this. I just assumed: "Once per x game days we chceck for brakedowns". It's due to be determined

Hyronymus: In my model each depot visit reduces maximum reliability - so the vehicle slowly wears itself out. There is no arbitiary "age" rating.

Transport Tycoon Forums

[RFD] Vehicle breakdowns

[RFD] Vehicle breakdowns

Who is online