Built-In Station Waypoints

[ZJFishy]

One of the best things about Simutrans is the ability to send trains to a certain platform, not just station. I am aware that this is feasible with a waypoint, but having a waypoint and signal at the end of each platform takes up lots of space. I would love to have waypoint versions of each station type to be placed at the end of each platform, allowing for more precise and realistic scheduling. If I am missing something already in the game, please let me know.

[michael blunck]

You could also use programmable signals, instead of waypoints. See example: See example (scroll down).

For simpler applications you might also use restricted signals.

regards
Michael

[planetmaker]

One of the best things about Simutrans is the ability to send trains to a certain platform, not just station. I am aware that this is feasible with a waypoint, but having a waypoint and signal at the end of each platform takes up lots of space. I would love to have waypoint versions of each station type to be placed at the end of each platform, allowing for more precise and realistic scheduling. If I am missing something already in the game, please let me know.

You can (mis)use stations as waypoints: give your trains a "go via" orders and place one-tile stations at the entrance of your real stations. The place requirement is identical to waypoint usage, though.

Solutions with conditional signaling are misleading as there exist only some half-finished implementation of those concepts for OpenTTD.

[michael blunck]

Solutions with conditional signaling are misleading as there exist only some half-finished implementation of those concepts for OpenTTD.

Not in today's de-facto standard (JGRPP).

regards
Michael

[kamnet]

Instead of using waypoints in front of stations to control traffic, you could just build separate stations side-by-side. The downside is that it will create a problem of moving passengers between stations to catch different trains.

[Eddi]

Solutions with conditional signaling are misleading as there exist only some half-finished implementation of those concepts for OpenTTD.

Not in today's de-facto standard (JGRPP).

regards
Michael

i think you're mixing up "standard" with "very vocal minority, amplified by filter bubble". it's kind of a common problem these days.

[BattlePeasant]

I would formulate a suggestion a little differently. Platforms are sequentially numbered. In the order, you can specify a preferred platform number. If the platform is free, the train moves towards it. If the platform is busy, then the train moves to any other. Y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶a̶d̶d̶ ̶a̶ ̶"̶h̶a̶r̶d̶"̶ ̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶w̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶w̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶i̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶t̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶d̶ (surely they will say that it is impossible). This is a simpler and clearer way than setting waypoints.

[Pyoro]

Eh, there's always complications. For example in OTTD you can build stations that have platforms going in different directions and not just next to each other but also "behind" each other. Do you just number them in the order of building, possible leading to dissatisfying chaos? What happens if the preferred platform requires a huge detour, should it always be preferred or would it work like a pathfinding "bonus" that makes it preferable but only up to a certain point? How would it interact with schedules and delays (if it should)?

Probably some other stuff.

Waypoints are incredibly easy to use so they really should satisfy just about anyone.

For those that aren't satisfied get the signal patch (or play with a patch pack obviously); that'll allow all the fancy stuff that admittedly is often nice to have.

I don't think there needs to be yet another option.

[acs121]

Instead of using waypoints in front of stations to control traffic, you could just build separate stations side-by-side. The downside is that it will create a problem of moving passengers between stations to catch different trains.

An easy way to go around the problem would be to have your passenger distribution set on "symmetric" and have a bus service going through bus stops which are joined to the stations.

[BattlePeasant]

Eh, there's always complications. For example in OTTD you can build stations that have platforms going in different directions and not just next to each other but also "behind" each other. Do you just number them in the order of building, possible leading to dissatisfying chaos? What happens if the preferred platform requires a huge detour, should it always be preferred or would it work like a pathfinding "bonus" that makes it preferable but only up to a certain point? How would it interact with schedules and delays (if it should)?

Destination can be set at a station that cannot be reached or it will require a huge detour. This is problem? The player is responsible for correctly plotting the route.

Waypoints are incredibly easy to use so they really should satisfy just about anyone.

For those that aren't satisfied get the signal patch (or play with a patch pack obviously); that'll allow all the fancy stuff that admittedly is often nice to have.

I don't think there needs to be yet another option.

Waypoints can not be "recommended", they are always traversed. Waypoints require a straight, flat section of track.
Waypoint can not be placed behind the block entry pre-signal - this will lead to a collapse.

[TopTechDreamer]

One of the best things about Simutrans is the ability to send trains to a certain platform, not just station. I am aware that this is feasible with a waypoint, but having a waypoint and signal at the end of each platform takes up lots of space. I would love to have waypoint versions of each station type to be placed at the end of each platform, allowing for more precise and realistic scheduling. If I am missing something already in the game, please let me know.

You can (mis)use stations as waypoints: give your trains a "go via" orders and place one-tile stations at the entrance of your real stations. The place requirement is identical to waypoint usage, though.

Solutions with conditional signaling are misleading as there exist only some half-finished implementation of those concepts for OpenTTD.

Dear Friends, as the 0-stage approximation of this possibility, please, try this:
viewtopic.php?p=1222322#p1222322
There are included testing prototype (.exe) and 2 test-examples (.sav).
"openttd test NO PLATFORM PENALTY OK++.exe" from "openttd test NO PLATFORM PENALTY OK++.exe.zip" is simply "openttd.exe" renamed because it is some "patch" (just place it nearby your "openttd.exe" and run instead of it).
Because of NO PLATFORM LENGTH PENALTY FOR LOADING/UNLOADING SPEED we are able to place additional waypoint-1-tile-stations INSIDE the main station (between the main station platform tiles). It works good - look at this in the examples from "test NO PLATFORM PENALTY OK++ sav.zip" - look there at the test-stations: "Tulcán South" and "San Luis Water Supply 1", there are WP-stations (1-tile-WayPoint-stations) inside them.
Let's be happy together!

Boldly building what others only dare to dream... // ( C ) #openttdcoop and planetmaker

[BattlePeasant]

Can I see a screenshot? I have a native version for Linux.

[TopTechDreamer]

Can I see a screenshot? I have a native version for Linux.

Here in attachments.

You can open examples (2 .sav-es from test NO PLATFORM PENALTY OK++ sav.zip (some NewGRF-s needed) from viewtopic.php?p=1222322#p1222322) with "OpenTTD-1.9.1 stable" and look at these stations in game. But in stable (trunc) loading/unloading speed will be extra slow, and these trains will stay and not run because of platform length penalty to loading/unloading speed.