Wants list

[krtaylor]

And another one: backward-driving trains with steering cars [Steuerwagen, I've read the correct English word around here] or cabin tenders for backward-driving locos. Some sort of the German BR 50 freight engine had such tenders. Maybe an option like "No train reversing anywhere, It's your fault if the train has no reversable engine or steering car at a terminus station"

No, you wouldn't want a setting like that, because freight trains never have a reversing mechanism like that. And in a terminus station, what would happen in the real world is another set of engines (or a switcher) would attach to the rear of the train and fish it back out, then the original engines would back out alone and go off for service.

What you would want I think would be a flag on the engine, saying "don't turn around, just back up." That would be interesting and graphically useful for certain passenger operations, as you say.

By the way, something like this is in the Patch to-do list.

[Bjarni]

And another one: backward-driving trains with steering cars [Steuerwagen, I've read the correct English word around here] or cabin tenders for backward-driving locos. Some sort of the German BR 50 freight engine had such tenders. Maybe an option like "No train reversing anywhere, It's your fault if the train has no reversable engine or steering car at a terminus station"

No, you wouldn't want a setting like that, because freight trains never have a reversing mechanism like that. And in a terminus station, what would happen in the real world is another set of engines (or a switcher) would attach to the rear of the train and fish it back out, then the original engines would back out alone and go off for service.

What you would want I think would be a flag on the engine, saying "don't turn around, just back up." That would be interesting and graphically useful for certain passenger operations, as you say.

By the way, something like this is in the Patch to-do list.

Cabin tenders Do you mean tank engines, where the engine and tender is build together?
If a steam engine ends up somewhere without a turntable (maybe another idea for a feature) they can drive "tender forward", which means that the tender is on the front of the train. Because the tender is not build for driving at high speed like this, they go at reduced speed, like 60 km/h.

About reversing a whole train, it have been done many times, and was a daily activity in the age of steam. They didn't miss steering cars, since they was not invented at that time
Still happens, but not daily anymore. The usual way to do this is to reverse into the nearby switching yard and then either drive forward (this is like turning a car. I needs tracks in T shape), or the more common way, disconnect the engine to move it to the other end of the train.
You can also reverse the train to the next station, if it is not too long. This has happened in real life, but it is not something, that is allowed to be planned that way, it's just a solution to unexpected problems.
I don't know how to make this in OTTD, though. maybe it takes longer, if the engine have to go to the other end

[Saskia]

@krtaylor: Ok ok, then a flag which prevents trains with steering cars from reversing

@Bjarni: I really mean cabin tenders:
http://www.spur-1-freunde-berlin.de/Pro ... -Kopie.jpg
(this is a BR 50, very similar to the 45 from DBset)
http://www.spur-1-freunde-berlin.de/Pro ... -Kopie.jpg
(a closeup of the tender)
http://www.ttbahner.claranet.de/lauda.jpg
(the back of a real cabin tender)

[Bjarni]

@krtaylor: Ok ok, then a flag which prevents trains with steering cars from reversing

@Bjarni: I really mean cabin tenders:
http://www.spur-1-freunde-berlin.de/Pro ... -Kopie.jpg
(this is a BR 50, very similar to the 45 from DBset)
http://www.spur-1-freunde-berlin.de/Pro ... -Kopie.jpg
(a closeup of the tender)
http://www.ttbahner.claranet.de/lauda.jpg
(the back of a real cabin tender)

How does the engineer control the engine from the tender ???
Brakes aren't a problem, but traction control on steam engines are very mechnanical. The "gas pedal" is a valve placed on the boiler and the "gear" is in mechnanic transmission with the driving wheels. I can't see how that is possible without great reduction to safety, and even then, it's still hard

[krtaylor]

Certain steam locos were designed to be operated in either direction, generally tank engines. Sometimes I would think this would be handled by running the loco round the train, without reversing it; but I know that at other times, the loco would pull the train in one direction and push it the other way. This was on some of the London commuter lines. I'm not absolutely sure how it worked, because it was before the days of modern remote control cabs, but I think the engineer stayed in the loco at the rear of the train, and the guard stayed in his cabin at the front. The engineer could look out his window and see where he was relative to the stations, since he was familiar with the route, so as to stop on the right place; if there was an unpredicted problem like an obstacle on the line, the guard would ring the communication bell and the engineer would stop the train without knowing exactly why.

Now, of course, many passenger trains are set up to be operated from a control-cab in the end passenger car, which is remotely controlling the loco at the other end.

So, what you'd do is, there would be a flag with certain locos so as to NOT reverse them at the end of the line or stations, IF they were doing a passenger train.

[Saskia]

... IF they were doing a passenger train.

But BR 45 was a freight loco, so BR 50 was it probably too

[dJP]

....
- Passengers should want to go from a point A to a point B (and not use the first vehicule in the station). If possible, same for goods.

I think this is a great Idea. Rather than passengers simply getting off at the first station that wasn't where they came from. I dunno how easy that would be to code though - for every passenger waiting at a station a search would have to be done for any and all available destinations that the passenger could be delivered to. It wouldn't be too hard for train networks but imagine writing that code for Bus depots!

[krtaylor]

....
- Passengers should want to go from a point A to a point B (and not use the first vehicule in the station). If possible, same for goods.

I think this is a great Idea. Rather than passengers simply getting off at the first station that wasn't where they came from. I dunno how easy that would be to code though - for every passenger waiting at a station a search would have to be done for any and all available destinations that the passenger could be delivered to. It wouldn't be too hard for train networks but imagine writing that code for Bus depots!

No, you don't do it that way. The passengers choose a destination regardless of the existing network, and they don't choose a station they want to go to: they simply choose a CITY they want to go to (or their own, in which case they want to go to another local station in the same city.) They get a free transfer inside any CITY LIMITS (they take an invisble cab), and they can change between different companies if necessary. Among other things, this would be an incentive to share a city with an opponent - you might get major connecting traffic, of people transferring from one network to another. But the passengers wouldn't pick an exact STATION they wanted, just a city - and they wouldn't worry about the network when picking their destination, just when deciding whether or not to board an arriving vehicle.

[Rob]

Passengers with a destination is of course impossible to add to TTD.
But maybe it would be an idea, and maybe even not to difficult to add, that only a (random) part of the vehicle passengers get off at a station.
This would mean you need at least three stations in your vehicles orders list to transport passengers (and earn some money from it).
It would also add a bit of realism to the passenger transport.

[krtaylor]

Passengers with a destination is of course impossible to add to TTD.

Well, duh. That's why we're adding it to the list for OpenTTD. Since it's open, anything is possible; hard maybe, but possible.

[Roman]

I don't want the passengers to choose a destination. That's exactly what makes TT distinguish from other transport/city simulation games. You get paid for transporting anything to anywhere, which allows you to create huge train networks. With specific destinations, this would be impossible.

[Bart]

That means you would alter the fundamental gameplay... I'd say, sure, do what you guys like, but keep it optional...

[Inch]

I don't want the passengers to choose a destination. That's exactly what makes TT distinguish from other transport/city simulation games. You get paid for transporting anything to anywhere, which allows you to create huge train networks. With specific destinations, this would be impossible.

One way to do this is to make Passengers entering a city generate more passengers in that Area. To simulate people switching Planes, Buses and Trains.

My wishlist:

Loading, don't load all vehicles at once, but one vehicle at a time.
Better pathing of trains. Perhaps with the use of a mainline signal or something. I hate that trains get lost

[DanMacK]

Personally, I'd like to see an earlier start date, preferably around 1820/1830. Initial vehicles would be old style steam locomotives, horsecarts and sailing ships. Be a real challenge to make money on that version That's what I've personally wanted in a Transport game =>And that's what TG looks like it's going to be, but I prefer TTD. Esp. since I can draw graphics myself

I'd also like to see a changeable start date, so you can start earlier/later as you chose.

[Villem]

Higher Bridges
Signals under Bridge
Bridges Under Bridges
Tunnels Can Cross
a support for cfg file where ya can put names of new grf files ya want the game use.
Canals

[Born Acorn]

higher bridges are being done for the actual game

[tmesisbob]

Ah well, Somone might know

Hi,

My name is Bob and I'm new to this forum. I, like you guys, have a interest in TT and the developement of a sequal.

I have been reading this discussion of voxel based graphics with some interest, as I am a programmer who indeed knows how to implement a point based rendering system. Heck, I have been working on one for my dissertation, and can render some 50,000 points on a decent machine in 0.02 seconds.

I do not believe the overheads for small objects (20X10X8 for a trian is a max of 1600 points) would be too high, and the benefits would be high.

If you guys are interested in using voxels for vehicles then let me know, and I may be able to give you some help.

Bob.

[Bjarni]

Ah well, Somone might know

Hi,

My name is Bob and I'm new to this forum. I, like you guys, have a interest in TT and the developement of a sequal.

I have been reading this discussion of voxel based graphics with some interest, as I am a programmer who indeed knows how to implement a point based rendering system. Heck, I have been working on one for my dissertation, and can render some 50,000 points on a decent machine in 0.02 seconds.

I do not believe the overheads for small objects (20X10X8 for a trian is a max of 1600 points) would be too high, and the benefits would be high.

If you guys are interested in using voxels for vehicles then let me know, and I may be able to give you some help.

Bob.

If you want to do some coding, please go to #openttd on irc.freenode.net
That is where the programmers are and communicate with each other

[Born Acorn]

I think voxels are great. They worked great on Red Alert 2 and that game ran on my oldest computer.

[Villem]

i would prefer not port over to voxels..