Suggestion: Route building like Traffic Giant

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 15 Jun 2006 10:30

Ok, AFAIR this hasn't been suggested before. Anyways, I stole the idea of Traffic Giant for those of you who know it. It lets you build mainly buses (also trams and trains) within a city.

It allows you to build lines. You can detailly plan the line through the city; it's exact route.

It allows you to build vehicles (buses) and select one which line they have to drive. Therefore you can see several stats of the line with all its buses, and not only all buses seperately.

It allows you to build busstops at lines. Passengers will arrive there for 1 specific line (so they won't just randomly take the first bus arriving, but the first bus of the line they need to have).

They automatically transfer from one line to another if the bus stops are close enough to each other.

This uses a passengers-have-destinations system. For each house it's implemented to which commercial buildings, or other buildings like churches, schools and shopping malls, the inhabitens of that house need to go. This also gives the information about how many of those inhabitans are using the public transport system (buslines) (and which ones) or use the car because there's no line available to the destination.

This is cool IMO. Dunno if it's possible to use in TE, but perhaps we can steal some ideas of it.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 15 Jun 2006 11:25

One remind, TEmpire should have a dynamic map, what happens with a route, say you remove a road, change it, or do other stuff ...

Transport Gigant has A LOT problems (with reseting route) when someone changes a bit of the track layout...

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 15 Jun 2006 12:18

eis_os wrote:One remind, TEmpire should have a dynamic map, what happens with a route, say you remove a road, change it, or do other stuff ...

Hmm, true. Good point. Perhaps do it a bit TT-alike, so a route is built up from waypoints, and TE plans the route between the waypoints itselves. Whenever a road with waypoint gets deleted, the waypoint also gets deleted.

But you'd still have lines where several vehicles would drive on, like in Traffic Giant.

(btw, don't confuse Traffic Giant with Transport Giant)

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 15 Jun 2006 12:21

I don't confuse them, however it's aswell an Jowood Ebensee Project!

prissi · Post by **prissi** » 16 Jun 2006 13:03

Would this not be just the Simutrans way of doing things? I mean there is a line, but the vehicles still calculate each time their route, when they arrive at a station or a waypoint. Maybe I just missed the difference?

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 16 Jun 2006 16:28

Well, it's the idea of several vehicles sharing lines, in stead of every vehicle having it's own line (which could be identical to another vehicle's line).

EDIT: Dunno how simutrans works.

XeryusTC · Post by **XeryusTC** » 16 Jun 2006 23:09

So, what you're actually want to say is this: you will assign vehicles to a route (list of orders) in stead of giving the vehicle a list of orders?

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 17 Jun 2006 09:45

XeryusTC wrote:So, what you're actually want to say is this: you will assign vehicles to a route (list of orders) in stead of giving the vehicle a list of orders?

Kinda, yes. That way if you wanna change a line, all 'orders' for the vehicles running it will change automatically too. Now, I don't know if this is really needed for TE, as Traffic Giant sometimes has 10+ busses driving on 1 line.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 17 Jun 2006 20:15

I think we should seperate routes from an individual vehicles, but we can do it in such a way that the user doesn't need to know when dealing with a single vehicle. For instance, when I build a bus, I have the route setting window as part of that particular vehicles options, just as you'd expect in TTD or Loco, but it is automatically (and behind the scenes) added to a list of routes for that vehicle.
If you only had that one bus, you'd never need to worry about it, but when adding another to the same route, you can access this route from the route list. You can do a similar thing with TTDPatch, but rather than copying/linking a route from an existing vehicle, there is a dedicated area for storing them.

Include options to name routes for ultimate coolness. Bus lines could default to numbered routes, as it is in the UK and possibly elsewhere, with cargo routes could just be something randomly meaningful.

As for setting exact routes, I don't think this is neccessary. You could always set waypoints if you need to use a particular road (although theoretically the route finder should use nice big roads rather than windy tight back roads). Either way some kind of status manager that will highlight routes that have been broken from road changes and old vehicles and such would be nice. One off messages are easily forgotten.

XeryusTC · Post by **XeryusTC** » 17 Jun 2006 20:43

So TE should assign vehicles to a route when the user gives the vehicle a order and create a new one when a route isn't build before? Maybe we could allow the user to assign a vehicle to a set of orders and create a route from it and add other vehicles to that route if they receive the same set of orders. We could combine it with assigning a vehicle directly to a route so you don't have to copy orders.
And what to do if we had the following situation:

Code: Select all

A - B - C
|   |   |
D - E - F

We would have vehicle A going to station A, then B, then E, then D. Vehicle B would go to station B, E, F and C, in that exact order. We could have route 1 that is A-B-E-D and route 2 that is B-E-F-C, or we could have route A-CR-D and route CR-F-C where CR is a combination route that stands for B-E. This way routes will "cross" each other, we could have vehicles go to A-CR-F-C-B. We would have 4 actual routes here: A-CR-D, A-CR-F-C-B, CR and CR-F-C.
We could also give the routes colors, these should only be shown when you open a vehicle window or the routes window. In my example route A-CR-D would be red, A-CR-F-C-B would be green, CR-F-C would be blue and CR would be white (that is when you combine red, green and blue in the light color schematics).
If we won't go for the combination route idea we could just show the three colors next to each other for example, like in this London underground map where lines that have the same station set are also drawn next to each other.
I personally won't go for the CR system as it can confuse users by blending the colors.

PS: I hope you've understand everything I just said here

.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 17 Jun 2006 20:45

I suddenly have this idea: the route creator.

The route creator allows players to choose stations, from the station list or by clicking them on the map, and save the combination to a 'route configuration'. Each route configuration can be saved with a sensible name and each route configuration will automatically be classified as a route for ships/aircraft/trains or trucks. Whenever a player buys a vehicle the player doesn't have to select the stations on the map but simply choose the route from the saved route configurations.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 18 Jun 2006 14:44

XeryusTC wrote:PS: I hope you've understand everything I just said here .

Not really. It seems your just talking about how we will draw the routes on the screen to the user, which in my opinion isn't too important right now.

Hyronymus, that's kind what I said, although you have the route creation seperate from a vehicle if you wish.

Purno · Post by **Purno** » 18 Jun 2006 16:55

Hyronymus wrote: The route creator allows players to choose stations, from the station list or by clicking them on the map, and save the combination to a 'route configuration'. Each route configuration can be saved with a sensible name and each route configuration will automatically be classified as a route for ships/aircraft/trains or trucks. Whenever a player buys a vehicle the player doesn't have to select the stations on the map but simply choose the route from the saved route configurations.

Kinda like I said. Only that routes aren't really saved with a usertyped name, but simply with a linenumber.

Each vehicle will need to be assigned to a line/route tho. Or otherwise, it won't be used. (Traffic Giant kinda has the idea of all unused vehicles to be in one big depot, and you can transfer a vehicle to one line to another without really transporting it. That's different than TTD's way of having different Depots).

aarona · Post by **aarona** » 18 Jun 2006 18:05

I think here we are talking about the GUI representation moreso than the internals. It's always been my intention to have a vehicle manager and a route manager. (Along with many other "managers")

Purno wrote:Kinda like I said. Only that routes aren't really saved with a usertyped name, but simply with a linenumber.

Linenumber, usertype name. Whats the diff...They are just labels, I dont think the internals are actually going to care about a universal number. (The route list is located in a certain memory location and this is the thing the game will care about. One of the things in this memory location will be this name or number) It should default to number and be user-changeable to a name if desired. (Like vehicles are in TT now)

What I'm more interested in is...
Whats in the route list?
What are the orders we can give?

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 18 Jun 2006 18:32

We're all repeating each other it seems.

The route list is just a list of all the routes.
A route consists of a number of orders.
An order could be:
Stop at a station. (Extra options include unloading/loading)
Pass across this track. (For waypoints)

That list is shorter than I realised. TTDPatch invented things like stop at depots but whilst I don't even want depots myself, our pathfinding can be decent enough to avoid trains being lost looking for depots and the need for an order removed.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 19 Jun 2006 15:42

aarona wrote:What I'm more interested in is...
Whats in the route list?
What are the orders we can give?

As Steve said, the route list is just with all the routes the player has defined. A route consists of a gathering of at least 2 load orders or 1 load + 1 unload order:

Load at Den Haag Centraal
Unload at Gouda Goverwelle

or

Load at Den Haag Centraal
Load at Gouda Goverwelle

Both orders mean the train maintains a shuttle service between Den Haag Centraal and Gouda Goverwelle. A double load order automaticly means unloading the carried cargo first (possibly even if the cargo isn't accepted at Gouda Goverwelle i.e.).

Larger routes are possible too of course:

Load at Den Haag Centraal
Load at Voorburg
Load at Utrecht Centraal
Load at Amersfoort
Load at Zwolle
Load at Meppel
Load at Hoogeveen
Load at Beilen
Load at Assen
Load at Haren
Load at Groningen

With the TTD approach this list would mean the train will take the same route back too as a train stops at every station it meets in TTD (don't confuse this with the TTDPatch/OTTD non-stop handling switch). The inconsistency in TTD is that this does work for trains but not for any other vehicle class. To make it identical for all vehicle classes I suggest a different approach.

TE handles each station it passes that is not in the route list as a station it should pass without stopping. To prevent making long list for the same ride back there should be a radiobutton to indicate if the train should use the same station list in reverse for heading back.

Unloading at a station that doesn't accept the cargo you're unloading should be payed if it is a feeder service. A feeder service would look like this:

Train A
Load coal at Heerlen Mines
Unload at Geleen Mines (doesn't accept but produces coal)

Train B
Load Coal at Geleen Mines
Unload at Europoort Coal Plant

As Train B 'takes over' from Train A the coal will eventually be delivered at an accepting industry, causing Train B to make a profit too. The calculation of the profit for Train B is something like (Total profit Train B - Total profit Train A). To differentiate between intended cargo drop off on stations that don't accept the carried cargo and accidental cargo drop off on stations that don't accept the carried cargo you should be able to specify Feeder Service with a radiobutton.

aarona · Post by **aarona** » 19 Jun 2006 16:16

Hrm...your not gonna like this...

Instead of using the word "Load at ..." what about one of,
Stopping at ...
Terminating at ...
Non-stopping through ...
Express to ...

I guess I was wondering if you guys were looking for things like...
Goto ... and Load 100%
Goto ... and Load 50% or more
Goto ... and Load only up to 50%

Goto ... and Unload 50%
Goto ... and Unload all

Theres no reason we cant split the list, one for passengers and another for cargo.

Station platforms? Goto ... platform B.

What about priority? Can we give a loco/car/aeroplane priority should there be a rush. e.g. a slow coal loco can "give way" at an appropriate siding when a higher speed passenger needs the line. (or two planes are lining up to land, we can give priority for one over another)

What about orders for shunters (if we are having them) or trains which act as pushers up hills (if we are having them), or any other esoteric vehicle which may not be designed to carry cargo/passengers?

Can we include servicing in the list? Can a loco (non multiple-unit) spilt at a station to get serviced, etc? How might this be handled.

Naturally this is beginning to look more complex, but remember, the GUI will allow beginners to get the hang of it fairly easily, with extra options for the advanced user.

As you can see, there are many concepts here (which may or may not be used) and they are all dependant on the order list, which I believe can be much more than load here, unload there.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 19 Jun 2006 16:56

Hyronymus: You use words like "should" a few too many times in your post that I don't agree with. You mention A LOT of concepts and work arounds from TTD and I think we can do better.

Both orders mean the train maintains a shuttle service between Den Haag Centraal and Gouda Goverwelle. A double load order automaticly means unloading the carried cargo first (possibly even if the cargo isn't accepted at Gouda Goverwelle i.e.).

I think it's best not to assume that. We may want a system that allows you to load at one station, load at another and then unload everything at the end. Think of a coal train servicing two coal mines. I imagine an interface which splits a route into stations and then lists what will be happening at each of those stations, so you might have:
Manchester Piccadilly
- Unload (Passengers)
- Load available (Passengers)
- Load 25% + (Mail)
Manchester Oxford Street
- Unload (Passengers, Mail)
- Full load (Passengers)
- Load 50% only (Mail)
Manchester Victoria
- Unload all (Passengers, Mail)
Terminates

The brackets would be mostly automatic given what the station accepts, what kind of train it is, but of course all customisable. I've demonstrated a few possible options for the orders, perhaps a few too many.

With the TTD approach this list would mean the train will take the same route back too as a train stops at every station it meets in TTD (don't confuse this with the TTDPatch/OTTD non-stop handling switch). The inconsistency in TTD is that this does work for trains but not for any other vehicle class. To make it identical for all vehicle classes I suggest a different approach.

We could make the reverse route a different route entirely and then in our route creator a "Make reverse route" on the route we want reversed. And then on our vehicle a "combined" route of them both. This is all getting rather complicated, but I think it should keep things a little tidier and open up more options, as combined routes can be used for many other purposes.

Unloading at a station that doesn't accept the cargo you're unloading should be payed if it is a feeder service.

That's a very TTD way of doing things. I thought a bit about it and perhaps we shouldn't be dealing with this in the route at all, but instead, in the station. You'll have your train with it's unload order as before and then in your station options, there is a page that deals with what the station does with unloaded items. For each item of cargo, you could either store it (and wait for another service to pick it up) or sell it to whoever wants it in the area. Selling would be default if there is anyone around to buy, or store otherwise. This can be linked up with a system whereby different industries could pay different amounts for your cargo. So, your options for coal may be:
Store at station
Sell at £15 a tonne to Powerplus Power Station
Sell at £18 a tonne to Steve's Coal Wholesaler
Discard

Station platforms? Goto ... platform B.

Given we won't have properly timed trains (having them would be a little too complicated), specifying platforms may have limited use. Groups of platforms may be a little better, if you split your station into loading/unloading for some reason. However, I imagine we could build our path finder so that a train only takes a platform which is can get to it's next order from. So at a station with some terminating platforms and some through-fares, if it needs to go through the station for it's next stop, it'll wait until one of those becomes available.

Not sure priority can be placed in orders, for the same reason all trains won't have properly timed schedules.
Are we having shunters? I remember voting or thinking no a while back. Not sure of the result.
Not sure how servicing is handled, I'm sure we had a vote for that though...

I *might* prototype some of this stuff quickly and see how stuff flows.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 19 Jun 2006 17:17

aarona wrote:Hrm...your not gonna like this...

Instead of using the word "Load at ..." what about one of,
Stopping at ...
Terminating at ...
Non-stopping through ...
Express to ...

Then you still need to select if it's loading or unloading so in the end it's just a matter of naming it.

aarona wrote: I guess I was wondering if you guys were looking for things like...
Goto ... and Load 100%
Goto ... and Load 50% or more
Goto ... and Load only up to 50%

Goto ... and Unload 50%
Goto ... and Unload all

Theres no reason we cant split the list, one for passengers and another for cargo.

Actually there is: simplicity. And why can't passenger trains unload 50% or such? If the player has a purpose for it, who are we to deny it as a possibility?

aarona wrote: Station platforms? Goto ... platform B.

Yes, this is something we all like to see

.

aarona wrote: What about priority? Can we give a loco/car/aeroplane priority should there be a rush. e.g. a slow coal loco can "give way" at an appropriate siding when a higher speed passenger needs the line. (or two planes are lining up to land, we can give priority for one over another)

I don't think priority belongs in route lists. Route lists should just be lists and the player should set a priority on a per vehicle basis in my opinion.

aarona wrote: What about orders for shunters (if we are having them) or trains which act as pushers up hills (if we are having them), or any other esoteric vehicle which may not be designed to carry cargo/passengers?

Doesn't that belong somewhere else too?

aarona wrote: Can we include servicing in the list? Can a loco (non multiple-unit) spilt at a station to get serviced, etc? How might this be handled.

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.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 19 Jun 2006 17:37

Hyronymus wrote:Actually there is: simplicity. And why can't passenger trains unload 50% or such? If the player has a purpose for it, who are we to deny it as a possibility?

Actually we do need to decide some other things about routes. If passengers have destinations, then you can't really keep them on the train. Even if you could, it'd lose you A LOT of dosh. In TTD passengers are treated like cattle but maybe not for us.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Suggestion: Route building like Traffic Giant

Suggestion: Route building like Traffic Giant

Who is online