Cargo Distribution

[fabca2]

Hello fonso,

... around 3 additional settings...
... By setting them to 100%/0%/1 you get the current behaviour...

By reading http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1113795
I was interested by your idea to create two new modes, the 2nd mode looked nice.
But now, you propose to add 3 additional settings, on top of existing ones which are already not obvious for everyone.
With 3 new settings you will be able to tune very precisely, ok, you will have an infinity of settings which is great for people that understand it... almost only you, because you build it.

But it will just add more misunderstanding. Even if adding a new mode does not provide as much freedom as adding new settings, it's much easier for users : as a user you will try a game with each 4 or 5 modes and you take the one which looks better. But very few user will try many games with differents settings... even if at the end you can reach maybe a better tuning than with a new mode.

so I hope you didn't drop your idea to add new mode ?

Thank you.

[fonso]

After playing and watching some more games and collecting some more feedback I just came to the conclusion that the second, "YACD-like", mode is not a good idea. Recucing cargo supply while the link graph is small doesn't help. It only slows down the early game as it creates additional challenge in an already challenging phase. Increasing supply when the link graph is large is equally useless. Most people are struggling with getting all the cargo delivered when their link graphs grow, and would rather have less cargo then. Considering that, increasing cargo supply for larger link graphs would probably not be an incentive to connect your link graphs, at least after you pass a certain critical point. It's pretty hard to come up with a useful incentive to connect your link graphs. Any ideas are welcome.

I'm not saying that the base/bonus thing is necessarily a better idea. I just couldn't come up with anything better, yet. With the base/bonus thing you can reduce cargo supply when the link graph grows. If everyone says now "I play with 25% base, 25% bonus and 300 size and that's great" I might make that the default and hide the settings in the config file. I don't believe we'll merge that patch without further modification, though, and certainly such defaults shouldn't be determined without any feedback from players.

Implementing it as an additional mode would be stupid as the problem is prevalent in the existing modes already and the new mode wouldn't do anything to solve it. It also seems that people like the distinction between symmetric and asymmetric, so I'd actually have to add two new modes. That's almost as messy as 3 new settings.

[RBC]

I am pretty happy with the way CargoDist is in 1.4.0 now. It is quiet "realistic" to have tons of freight to transport on the main routes in your network, esp. for passengers. But this differs very much from the behavior without CargoDist, where such huge numbers did not occur. This in mind, you have to plan your passenger network completely different to handle all the passengers. We should give this adapting process a little bit time.
One thing, which could help though, is to set the distance effect parameter to something like 25-50% on default (or even less).
I see a somehow satisfying solution when combining this with your new proposed mode for more cargo delivered for larger link graphs. This may prevent cargo from stockpiling in few knotes in the network, instead one needs more capacity in the whole network when expanding.

[Eddi]

it doesn't actually generate more passengers, but
1) passengers use multiple vehicles, thus increasing the need for capacity
2) you can't ignore excess passengers anymore

[fonso]

[...] this differs very much from the behavior without CargoDist, where such huge numbers did not occur. [...] One thing, which could help though, is to set the distance effect parameter to something like 25-50% on default (or even less).

Reducing the distance effect makes passengers prefer places further away. In general they'll transfer more often then and flood the network even more.

I see a somehow satisfying solution when combining this with your new proposed mode for more cargo delivered for larger link graphs. This may prevent cargo from stockpiling in few knotes in the network, instead one needs more capacity in the whole network when expanding.

That depends entirely on the layout of your network. If it's more star-shaped cargo will stockpile in the central nodes. Otherwise it will be distributed more evenly. Obviously, increasing the amount of cargo when the network grows makes the problem worse.

[Wahazar]

In my opinion, a passenger and mail quantity modifier (setting percent of passengers and mail productivity) would be very useful.
In classic TTD, passengers are "discharging" at any station, cargodist appears to make "multiplication"
- it is not a real multiplication, but effective load (and income) is much higher due to transfers.
As an result, man can abandon freight and use just passengers and mail to gain huge revenue.
On the other side, for early games, amount of passenger and mail streams is to high for early vehicles
(I know about EarlyHouses.grf, but it is not compatible with other town sets).

[Zuu]

Random ideas:

- make cargo pay more if there are many destinations to choose from
- expose data about how "good" the network is to GS authors and wait for them to come up with ideas on goals etc related to well connected networks. Eg a city builder where many sources give a bonus.

[Eddi]

i think i said this before, the main thing lacking "incentive" is asymmetric cargo with lots of destinations. especially "goods".

symmetric cargo is already fine, because more destinations equals more sources and thus more cargo.
asymmetric cargo with few destinations is also fine, as it doesn't make much of a difference either way.

but asymmetric cargo with lots of destinations is weird, because if you go through the extra step of actually distributing it, you get less income, because the last leg is often the slowest.

so "goods" should be the main focus to improve.

[fonso]

I've also implemented the waybill mode. It seems to make the cargo handling easier as it doesn't try to force a distribution scheme on you. It will rather go with the capacities you provide. Use this patch to test it.

[ic111]

In my opinion, a passenger and mail quantity modifier (setting percent of passengers and mail productivity) would be very useful.
In classic TTD, passengers are "discharging" at any station, cargodist appears to make "multiplication"
- it is not a real multiplication, but effective load (and income) is much higher due to transfers.
.

I agree. For my last game, I wrote a small, private, patch to reduce any cargo production by factor four (while at the same time making all acceptance ratings behave like the ones of habours, i.e. I can service stations with low traffic rate more seldom without an acceptance rating dropping into the nirwana), and now for the first time since I played a game with CargoDist, I have the feeling that cargo load is balanced properly.

[fonso]

I agree. For my last game, I wrote a small, private, patch to reduce any cargo production by factor four (while at the same time making all acceptance ratings behave like the ones of habours, i.e. I can service stations with low traffic rate more seldom without an acceptance rating dropping into the nirwana), and now for the first time since I played a game with CargoDist, I have the feeling that cargo load is balanced properly.

You should test the waybill mode and the base/bonus patch (separately, as they're currently incompatible) and tell me if they work for you. I'm trying to fix those things with them.

[ic111]

If I get you right in http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php? ... 0#p1118368 (this describes what you call Base/Bonus, doesn´t it?), then a setting of 25%/0%/1 should be equivalent to what I did, i.e. reducing any cargo production by factor four.

However, I currently don´t feel like needing a bonus feature, actually I´m quite content with the way CargoDist behaves for bigger networks, the only problem I had was the amount of cargo produced.

But of course, 25% probably only works properly, if the second thing I did is done, i.e. making the acceptance rates stay higher even when serviced seldom. If servicing a small village every four months is enough, then your railway lines suddendly can look much more like real ones, in that you can do much more with one-track-lines, e.g. mixing a local train every four months with a far-distance train every two or four months.

Also, since I play with a connected network in single-player-mode for my own fun anyway, I don´t feel like needing any incentive from game-side for building a connected network...

Could you point me to a post where you describe waybill, maybe I overlooked it but I didn´t see one.

Regarding testing it myself, I don´t want to promise too much, this is simply a question of time, I do play (and improve my own patch) from time to time, but it´s not like I´m playing every day or so...

[Eddi]

OT: you can change the rating calculation via NewGRF, e.g. FIRS has the option to set ratings to always 100% (this is on a per-cargo basis, so it probably excludes passengers)

[Wahazar]

Not sure if it is bug or just my fault, but I noticed strange behaviour of passengers.
Thousands of passengers are waiting, but refuse to board ship.
Ship is going from Fish Market dock to Lakeside fishing grounds trough Sandbank fishing grounds:
let say A -> B -> C.
Only passengers from A-B are boarding, passengers from A-C don't want to board ship, which is almost empty:
http://149.156.194.203/~mczapkie/Train/ ... roblem.jpg
Why? and how avoid such problems?
Deleting B from schedule immediately causes full board of A-C.
But I don't want to use separate ships A-B and A-C.

[fonso]

You've recently changed the links. You need to wait for the old link to time out before the passengers get rerouted. Actually there's still a direct passenger link to lakeside via the refitting fish ships. The existing passengers will never be rerouted, only new ones might take the other route if the direct one is overloaded.

[Wahazar]

The existing passengers will never be rerouted, only new ones might take the other route if the direct one is overloaded.

I checked previous saves and you are right, this huge amount of passengers was produced many years before.
Strange, that this stockpile doesn't perish. It is somewhat ambiguous.
Waiting cargo should perish with rate proportional to cargo pile size and cargo late delivery penalty.

[Eddi]

waiting cargo disappears when the station rating drops below 50%. also, cargo does not age while at a station.

[Wahazar]

waiting cargo disappears when the station rating drops below 50%. also, cargo does not age while at a station.

I know, that cargo aging appear only in transit. But keeping cargo in case of cargodist causes a trap, described above.
You see a lot of cargo, but vehicles are not picking it, because it have slightly different route to the same destination.
It is tedious and counter-intuitive to check exact routes.
If cargo is waiting to long, should be rerouted automatically.

[romazoon]

i have a small suggestion regarding the graphlinks on the minimap.
Would it be doable to implement a selection of graph to be showed on the minimap depending on the distance of the graphlinks ? let s say something like : show only graphlink wich are shorter than x (i don t know what the graph link use for unity of measure), or longer than y.
This way it would be maybe a bit easier to spot the graphlinks when there is many, and especially for when the links are kind of on top of each other, like you can see on the screenie attached. (some short graph are hard to see cause covered by longer ones).

[Robbedem]

Not really a problem with cargodist itself, but in combination with ECS vectors.
Cargodist assigns an amount of cargo for a destination without taking into account the max stockpile set by ECS. This obviously causes big logistical problems.

Would it be doable for cargodist to take the maximum accepted cargo by industries into account when determing the capacity of a route?