Suggestion: Route building like Traffic Giant

[eis_os]

One thing I really would love for trams and busses, if the bus is full, and no passenger wants to exit (if they have destinations) it should not halt on the stop...

And I don't think you need Percent unloading ...

PS: For me as player a lua/script interface would be best, so I could tell my trains to go the industry that has currently some stuff waiting... or do other fancy stuff when it needs to decide what is the next halt to do. (That needs to be train specific) which means I hope there will be an option to have not a to line centric approach as Hyronymus already said. If you move to much logic into the orders, you can't make player happy who don't want strict lines

Disclamer: As usally tell my own opinion how stuff should work, this is in no way directly connected to TEmpire Development.

[Steve]

There some good idea's there eis_os but why the disclaimers?

[XeryusTC]

PS: For me as player a lua/script interface would be best, so I could tell my trains to go the industry that has currently some stuff waiting... or do other fancy stuff when it needs to decide what is the next halt to do. (That needs to be train specific) which means I hope there will be an option to have not a to line centric approach as Hyronymus already said. If you move to much logic into the orders, you can't make player happy who don't want strict lines

People shouldn't have to learn how to script to use TE properly, a better idea would be to implement logic orders, you could have things like: if a train passes point A then route through point B, which would be just another button on the orders window.

PS: maybe we want to have an advanced user switch so we can hide more complicated things from the normal GUI so new players don't get confused.

[eis_os]

Steve: As I told earlier, I don't want to confuse people that I am involved in TEmpire, I am not, so each post needs some indication (I don't want to scare possible helpers with my ideas)

XeryusTC: Thats why I said I as player ...

[XeryusTC]

Actually, you said "me" . It looked like you suggested that it should be default. Anyways, we could use some more advanced order stuff, but not scriptable as scripts can also access functions that have nothing to do with orders.

[Hyronymus]

I'm sorry but this is getting off topic. Can we please stick to the topic.

[Purno]

I must admit I didn't read the long posts completely, but don't forget orders aren't only at stations. Waypoints can be orders too.

[aarona]

I must admit I didn't read the long posts completely, but don't forget orders aren't only at stations. Waypoints can be orders too.

Apparanly we wont need waypoint because our pathfinding algorthims will render such things useless. (Whoever said that has yet to back up this claim...)

Having said that I don't see why we can't have them, either as physical structures, or something more abstract (like track labeling). So you could tell the vehicle to enter a particlar track, canal or road. The human element of control can sometimes be more effective than a "logical" soultion.

[Hyronymus]

If we do get to use waypoints they need to be a special case of stations if we stick to my suggestion on non-stop handling. As waypoints are in the route list a train wants to stop there if the rule is "all stations in list are stops". Waypoints then should always be 'stations' where a train can't stop.

[Steve]

Apparanly we wont need waypoint because our pathfinding algorthims will render such things useless. (Whoever said that has yet to back up this claim...)

I'm not sure if that was me, but even if the pathfinding is brilliant, waypoints could still be useful for those little things. Perhaps things that would be hard for the pathfinder to know, such as you setting up a cargo and a passenger line.

I'm not too sure what you mean Hyronymus, but I don't even think of waypoints as stations, just points on the track and then you wouldn't even consider stopping at them.

[Hyronymus]

That's why I wrote "stations" as it aren't stopping places at all indeed.

[aarona]

I know this is a bit OT but...

Wasn't one of the best parts of TT the fact that you could set-up complicated networks using the very limited rules of TT (i.e. goto a, goto b) and watch your masterpiece fall into place?? (Only for it to be ruined by trains getting lost!)

If the pathfinder did everything for you then there would be no interest in this aspect of the game.

On why BHP should not let its competitors use its rail systems in the Pilbra (very rich mining area to the north of Western Australia), Chip Goodyear the CEO of BHP billiton responded

"One of the critical things to understand is this isn't your grandfather's rail system, this is a very technologically complex system."

So I think building your own intricate network using basic or advanced concepts is something worthwhile, in fact, shouldn't it be a goal of ours to ensure that the final result gives us route building options which will lead to many websites in the future dedicated to peoples theories on route building in TE

[Hyronymus]

You lost me there, have you been drinking that awful Australian beer ?!

Anyhoo, I just remembered the DD mentions sharing competitors track/stations. Does that need implementation in the pathfinding/route listing too?

[XeryusTC]

I think that it's best to handle waypoints as stations internally, but trains shouldn't be allowed to stop at them.

Anyhoo, I just remembered the DD mentions sharing competitors track/stations. Does that need implementation in the pathfinding/route listing too?

That would be very usefull, if the PF would skip them you could never find a way through them. Maybe they should have a higher wait though as most people prefer that vehicles use their own tracks/roads.

[Steve]

aarona, you may be right, although I'd hope your not. I see A LOT of the things in TTD that you do when building routes as 'annoying' or they are workarounds for a problem in the game, such as bad path finding. By making this game better and removing the problems, are we giving the player less to do and therefore making the game less fun? Even if those taks and generically dull?

Perhaps we need to set limits. We make sure pathfinding doesn't send trains down the wrong route (and therefore getting lost), but we cut some other stuff which would make it too easy? (Such as trying to antipcate for other trains, competitior tracks, etc). Leaving that stuff for the player to deal with waypoints and other crazy inventions.
As for track building, I like the point to point 'splines' idea as it will be much more user friendly for the loosely-tiled based system I think we're going for but we can also cap that, making sure it isn't always building the perfect route for the player and removing half his workload.

A little off-topic, but this may be quite important.


And shared stuff is all very confusing still. I'd argue we remove it just so we can save some headaches. But that's for another topic.

[Hyronymus]

I once proposed a trick to circumvent servicing, it should still be somewhere on this forum. I haven't got time to look for it now but it was liked by the lot if I remember correctly.

And here it is: [FRDF] Depots. Maybe interesting too to read [RFD] Vehicle breakdowns as well.

On a sidenote we might want to have a peak at [RFD] Make shunting interesting.

Locked until the DD discussion arrives at this issue.