Suggestions for future TT

[Steve]

Well, to sum this general topic up, you all want to make Railroad Tycoon 3, and
don't seem to want to keep the game as TRANSPORT Tycoon.

That's fine. Just don't insult the name 'Transport Tycoon'.
-----STEVE!-----

"I need a better sig." -Me

[Stephen Down]

Aaron Severn wrote:

That could cause problems, I think the reason why it got reduced
from 1930 start in TTO to 1950 in TTD is because of a bug that
caused the money to overflow and loop around to negative once
you made too much, thus ruining a great game. I believe that's
also why the interest/inflation rate doesn't go over 4% now, down
from 6% in TTD.

I thought TTDx started later because Chris only wanted the game to run
for a hundred years and wanted it to be more futuristic. BICBW.
The solution is either (a) reduce or turn off inflation altogether (as
can be done with Josef's Patch), or (b) give an extra memory slot to the
amount of dosh your company has.

Personally I think towns grow too slow, it seems to me they used
to grow faster in TTO, I wouldn't want to see another slow down.

I know at first it seems like they're growing really slowly when you
want them to grow enough to make your services profitable, but I'm sure
most towns don't have that much sustained growth in real life.

And I think industries do have some influence over growth of
towns, but only if you service them.

OK, maybe. I've never noticed that, but I tend not to mix passenger and
freight too much.

Absolutely, there could be more ways to lose money maybe. Large
scale disasters like earthquakes and floods, but god forbid they
ever affect a computer player's tracks.

I have an instinctive bad reaction to this type of massive but random
loss, and so I usually play with disasters 'off' ... I'd prefer to see
the game simply harder overall rather than occasional crises.

How about, airports catch all squares in the town they're built
in, that would be more realistic.

I thought about that one, but I quite like putting an airport between 2
towns so it can serve them both. I suppose if the airport covers tiles
from more than one local authority that could work.

I thought there already were speed limits in towns, vehicles do
seem to go faster out in the country.

Maybe, but I hadn't noticed it. I know they often go slower in towns
because there are usually lots of corners and they take a little while
to accelerate up to full speed again.

I like that feature, it's useful.

Useful maybe, but totally unrealistic. Again, it's something that makes
the game too easy.

And now for some more ideas.

- No more interest/inflation rate. That has got to be the stupidest
thing in the whole game. You set the interest rate high to make
the game harder and then you make more money because it doubles
as the inflation rate and the game isn't any harder at all. Plus
it would get rid of that bug I mentioned at the top of this message.

- Option for an inflation rate. With steady economy it would be
constant, with fluctuating economy it would go up and down during
the game.

I find it hard to measure how successful my company is, in terms of
profit, as the amount of money I make each year usually goes up ... but
is ti going up by more or less than the rate of inflation?! I agree, it
should be scrapped or optional.

- Interest rate that varies if you select fluctuating economy,
and that goes up if you don't pay your loans back fast enough,
ie bad credit.

OK, that sounds good.

- Good AI. Okay, I'm only dreaming.

It depends on what spec computer you want to play it on. If you have a
machine of a similar standard to the one the Met Centre have which takes
up half of Bracknell than you could have a good AI. But I don't think
there would be a very big market for the game.

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

Mike Wagstaff wrote:

* Larger maps + stations

Yes, larger maps, but ideally by option.

* More realistic passenger behavior:
I.e. passengers don't automatically just get off at the
next stop! Bigger towns should have a larger throughflow.

That sort of comes under the idea that a town won't accept more
passengers than it can produce.
Bigger towns usually have a much smaller throughput than smaller towns,
because more people will have their journeys starting/finishing in the
larger town, and more people will usually use it for interchange.

* Graphical options:

It would be really, really nice if a driver's/passenger's eye
view could be implemented.

Yes, but a real memory hog. That's why it isn't on SimCity 3000 as
promised.
I'd rather more time and effort went into the game itself rather than
this sort of "pointless prettifying".

Also, it would be nice to have an extra zoom level or two
whereby you could actually see the passengers waiting at
the stations. Clicking on an individual passenger could
perhaps reveal details such as their intended destination.

I think giving passengers intended destinations is very difficult. There
is no guarantee that a train (or whatever) calling at that station will
ever turn up. Even if a train often passes through this or the
destination station, there is no guarantee that any will continue to do
so unless both are mentioned in the orders list of at least one train.

Would there really be that much use for an extra zoom level other than
pure aesthetics? I can see everything in as much detail as I need to
ATM. What I would like is to be able to turn the map around.

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

Dan Ros wrote:

I think this is a good idea. I also think that passengers should
have a specific destination in mind when starting a journey, and
they will only interchange (modes of transport, or different
vehicles) a certain number of times to get there, or else they
won't bother.

As I've just said in reply to Mike's post, I think that would lead to
lots of problems. Better to let lots of passengers get on whatever
vehicle arrives but not to all get off at poxy little village stations.

Stephen Down wrote:

* New towns to appear during the game (maybe).

How abut

Pardon?

How about pre-signals that work at through-stations?!

What sort of through stations? A simple through station has only two
platforms, one 'up' and one 'down' ... and so no need for presignalling.

A four-track through station can be arranged as...

/-X-=====->-\ < > directional (or pre-) signals
------>-/--X-=====->--\--- X bidirectional signal
--------\--<-=====-X--/--- = platform
\-<-=====-X-/

This gives two platforms in each direction with presignalling as it is
in Josef's Patch.

If you want to have bidirectional platforms, I think you're asking for
trouble.

But trains arent yet clever enough to use reversing sidings..

When do you need trains to turn 90 degrees? One alternative is to build
a loop; another is to lay your station out better. I can quite happily
accommodate some terminating trains and some through trains at a 3 or 4
track station.

I think roads and stations, etc should be able to be placed like
roads in Simcity3000 - diagonally, at rightangles, every which way.

One of the problems with diagonal roads is that amount of wasted land
you would have, particularly in towns and farmland.

Yeah, and you should be able to set in the budget how much
you will spend on maintenance. If you skimp on it, you get
broken rails and derailments.

I like that idea!

Would be worthwhile only if towns were much, much bigger.

Some great ideas. Again, towns would have to be much bigger.

Yes, as I said, with a bigger map, you could have towns covering a
larger area (but with the same population) ... although looking back,
that seems silly; towns are unrealistically small in terms of
population. A better plan would be to have larger towns but towns that
don't become all high-rise as they get larger, as often happens now, but
that keep the same sort of layout.

Though, you have to start thinking of how much one person can keep
track of. If you have intercity trains, ships, planes, buses,
coaches, and now subways, are you going to be able to keep track
of what is going where??

That's the challenge!

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the computer room!

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

Pete Humble wrote:

No, it should be the maximum of the above, but allowing for the
greater size of the resulting station.

What I meant was ...

... now, if you have a railway station and a bus station, you get a
catchment area of four squares around all parts of the station. This
means that by walking the bus station a little way, you can get a much
larger catchment area.

... in my plan, because the bus station would have a much smaller
catchment area than the railway station or airport, it would not give
such a beneficial effect to walk it out from the rest of the station.

(Although I do like walking a bus station from a larger out-of-town
interchange - I use it as a sort of metaphorical shuttle bus service, as
there is no way to run these effectively)

Huh? I travel 5 minutes walk for a bus from home - it takes me
nearly an hour to get to the nearest airport. I think you mean
the opposite of what you said.

Oops. You're right.
[Hides head in shame]

What is a pre-signal?

These are a very nifty idea from Josef Drexler's TTDX patch.

If, following a one-way signal, a train has a choice of two or more
bidirectional signals (and each one of those is followed either by
another one-way signal OR by the end of the line ... though these can be
up to 60-odd tiles away, so long as there isn't a bidirectional signal
in the meantime) then 'presignalling' comes into play.

What happens is that if all of the bidirectional signals are showing red
then the 'presignal' will also show red - even though the section of
track beyond it is clear. This has two advantages:

- without presignals, trains will simply block the crossover, meaning
that no train could leave the station

- without presignals, a train will choose one platform to head for if
they are all full. Even if it doesn't prevent trains from leaving the
station, it has an uncanny knack of picking the platform that is then
the last to clear, so no trains can enter the station until that
particular platform has cleared.

Both of these problems are avoided with presignalling.

No, I disagree. You can't necessarily know whether or not there
is a demand if cargo doesn't appear first. Maybe it should only
appear in small amounts and then disappear again if it is not
collected.

You can very easily know if there is a demand for transport ... just see
how far away any associated industries are.

If I have a station right next to a factory to which I am delivering
some cargo or other, but from which I do not, at the present time, wish
to transport any goods, it is very useful for the station not to take
goods until I send my first goods train in there ~ this way you don't
get a load of cargo building up, a very low rating and a low local
authority rating on a service that you aren't even running.

Or perhaps by using the "go non-stop to" function.

Could do. That would involve having one, though.

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

"Peter J. Dobrovka" wrote:

<lots of very good suggestions that I have snipped, and...>

Hm. This is depending on what people use. Some are still using
486-ies. Very many still have no 3D card.

That's precisely why I wouldn't like to see any features that NEED a lot
of computer to be compulsory. Fine, put them there as an option if
people do have the capacity to run them, but don't make it so that
others can't run the game at all.

3DTT starts in 1820.

Cool!

This is already so in TT, isn't it?

It seems that when a town reaches a certain size, it won't expand any
more, but the population will continue to grow, which means that you get
a lot more high-rise in the suburbs.

This is a science of its own. I have some different opinion.

~ quality of transport provided

This seems to have not much influence in reality.

Maybe not. In which case, providing a single bus should hardly trigger
off a town's 'growth' function like it seems to now.

But you are right if you want to improve the existing system of
producing and accepting passengers and mail. 3DTT has a completely
different system where you can't carry passengers where YOU want.
They use your transportation only if it brings them nearer to their
destination.

I take it that 3DTT uses a very different way of giving vehicles orders,
then?

The other way: if there is a vehicle inside, it is full.

Yes, but in real life, a depot CAN accommodate more than one vehicle if
you build it big enough to do so.

* Option to run more than one company in the same game.

Interesting idea, but what for?

Fun! It can get boring playing against no opponents or the AI: I'd like
to compete with myself!

Will be. You will have to sign contracts with other companies
to use their structures.

I was actually talking in relation to running more than one company
yourself.

I had thought if it like you said, but I thought it would be too
complicated for the AI. But obviously I was wrong!

* Option to buy road from opponents or local authorities. Ditto
for bridges.

Will be.
The problem of local authorities that you cannot tear down bridges and
roads that are connected to other roads will persist in 3DTT. but you
can get permission if you promise to build a new bridge/new road not
too far away.

Again, I couldn't see how that system would work, although I do like the
sound of it if it does.

* New towns to appear during the game (maybe).

Good idea. Shouldn't some disappear, too?

I don't think so. Very few towns have died in the last two hundred
years.

* Towns should be larger, but less dense

I agree. But it requires a larger map.

Which you have done!

I agree within the old system. But I do not like this catchment area
concept in general, therefore 3DTT hasn't this at all. Airports are
made for far distances and commonly there are not many airports in a
city so people come from a farer area to use planes. Buses instead you
will use for short rides and for short rides you will not travel many
miles to the bus station. But the underlying algorithm has no catching
area. You select your route and including transport vehicles to reach
your destination quicker, more comfortable, safer. If there is a bus
that takes me to China and for some reason there is no plane or I am
afraid of flying I will use the bus and I will go to the bus station
even if it is in the next city, 100 miles from home.

Hmmm ... I'm not convinced. I'll just have to wait and see!

Why do this? Use half the amount of vehicles instead. The solution in
Josef's patch ist much more interesting: the mixed train starts when
one type of cargo is fulfilled.

Because if you only use half the number of carriages/trucks, you can
only transport half the amount of cargo.

What I would like is to set it to *at least* half full (or whatever), so
if there's lots of cargo, it will all go, but the train won't run if
it's almost empty.

What are lattice bridges?

They are the big ugly red and brown ones.

(I don't like them because they look horrible. There is no need to have
them on roads because you can always build a cheaper bridge that can
carry vehicles at at least their maximum speed up until well into the
21st century, by which time the much nicer looking tubular bridges were
in place. Of course, since you're working with totally different
graphics, this won't apply!)

* Track needs to be electrified for
electric trains to run along it.

Yes, but this process has to be automatized. F.e. a train that upgrades
the track by passing.

That's too easy!

* Special track should be needed for running at high speed

Hm... - it may be for realism, but this has to be automatized, too.

What if you don't want to spend lots of money on a particular line, and
are quite happy to have super-duper trains running along this particular
stretch at half their maximum speed?

In 3DTT you will have to select the pathfinding priority for your
trains: cheapest, fastest or shortest way.

I take it that assumes track and obstacles are going to remain totally
static?

Hm - don't know. It was discussed in 3DTT, too. No decision yet. But
they will slow down in curves.

They do that anyway!

TT-like map? I (ab)used this Manley Morel DMU sometimes in big cities
as tram, hehe.

Yes, I like doing that too! But you can't get much variety like that:
Pretty much one station to another with one train is about the best you
can do.

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

In article <19991210154957.23925.00000...@ngol01.aol.com>,
enschec...@aol.com (Steve) wrote:

Well, to sum this general topic up,
you all want to make Railroad Tycoon 3, and
don't seem to want to keep the game as TRANSPORT Tycoon.

Hehe, I just wanted to reply some similar.
But even when we consider that very many little things that annoy us in
TT are much better solved in RRT2, there are some very important
features simply MISSING in RRT2. I wrote it in my review a year ago:
- no land bridges
- no tunnels
- no signals
(And of course no streets, lorries, airplanes and boats, hehe.)
Therefore I love TT more than RRT2.

Peter
_________________________________________
Wanna see a 3D Tranport Tycoon in development?
Check out the WAY-X Homepage:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

In article <q%a44.298$Uf6.1375...@nnrp2.proxad.net>,
"Rémi Denis" <rden...@pop3.multi1mania2.com> wrote:

Peter J. Dobrovka <peter_dobro...@my-deja.com> a écrit

Stephen Down <sjd...@york.ac.uk> wrote:
...
~ different companies can share
construction costs, and could (but
don't have to) share any stations
and railway track.

Will be. You will have to sign contracts
with other companies to use
their structures.

Will the opposite be true too?

Contract needed for using your structures by the others? Of course!

* Can set vehicles to "Half Load" or
any other %age load, so that
they will wait until there is at
least that much of the train
full before departing.

Why do this? Use half the amount of
vehicles instead. The solution in
Josef's patch ist much more interesting:
the mixed train starts when
one type of cargo is fulfilled.

I suppose you will include it, won't you?

Because our economy system is very different it has to be thought over.
Im most cases the industries will provide cars that are loaded. You
have to haul them and bring back the empty ones. That's the way it is
in reality.
There are some goods that can wait (coal) and some that can't wait
(fish). Be warned to mix your trains unluckily.
You will manage the train's schedule in a scheduler. A train is an
object class that can have more than one instance. You make a schedule
for transporting goods from A to B and you decide how many engines
running on this route. The engines will automatically arrange their way
to serve the stations in equal time intervals.
Example: You have set up a schedule from A to B using 3 engines. Now
the program calculates: The average time for your engines from A to B
and back is 60 seconds. So engine 2 starts 20 seconds (60/3) after
engine 1 and engine 3 40 seconds after engine 1. After 60 seconds
engine 1 has returned can can start again from A. And so on.
So where would you use a full load instruction?
For coal you need probably only one engine with 6 cars, but for fresh
fish from the harbour you should use 3 engines with 2 cars or so even 6
engines with 1 car. Only before invention of refrigerators, of course.

* Choice of road types;

Will be in 3DTT.

Even motorways? whose using could be sold to people traveling by car?
(typically French motorway in fact)

S.A.P.R.R.?

The motorways will be extremely expensive and built after 1940 by the
government to improve car traffic in concurrency to your trains.

Of course you can build motorways yourself and take toll but it will
nearly never bring back your investition within 50 years.
Of course there will be scenarios that restrict you to one transport
form only because of antitrust-laws, hehehe.

Peter
_________________________________________
Wanna see a 3D Tranport Tycoon in development?
Check out the WAY-X Homepage:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Bill Hayles]

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 17:45:59 GMT, "Rémi Denis"
<rden...@pop3.multi1mania2.com> wrote:

Bill Hayles <bill...@ctv.es> a écrit dans le message :
3851f247.10621...@news.ctv.es...
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:26:37 +0000, Stephen Down <sjd...@york.ac.uk
wrote:

Apart from new industries, what else does everybody want to see included
in the new version of Transport Tycoon?

Speaking very selfishly and personally, I'd like more complex handling
of rail traffic, with more intelligent signalling. Uneven passenger
flows (i.e. "rush hours"), more emphasis on rail and get rid of the
aircraft (I never use them).

No way!! It make me think of the over complex train-sim,
I mean: A4 Networks (known as A-Train sequel).

I don't think much of that game, which is why I would like to see TT as
the starting point.

Horses for courses, though.


El inglés loco
The mad Englishman of Benitachell
Bill Hayles
bill...@ctv.es

[Kmarcks]

Bill Hayles <bill...@ctv.es> a écrit dans le message :
3851f247.10621...@news.ctv.es...
On Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:26:37 +0000, Stephen Down <sjd...@york.ac.uk
wrote:

Apart from new industries, what else does everybody want to see
included
in the new version of Transport Tycoon?

hi, I would like to see double decker buses for greater capacities, and
perhaps coaches for faster long distance travel, and what about a motoway
route.Or am I getting too silly.

K.Marcks

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

In article <38504924.1F191...@york.ac.oook>,
Stephen Down <sjd...@york.ac.oook> wrote:

Mike Wagstaff wrote:

* Larger maps + stations

Yes, larger maps, but ideally by option.

* More realistic passenger behavior:
I.e. passengers don't automatically just get off at the
next stop! Bigger towns should have a larger throughflow.

That sort of comes under the idea that
a town won't accept more
passengers than it can produce.
Bigger towns usually have a much
smaller throughput than smaller towns,
because more people will have their
journeys starting/finishing in the
larger town, and more people will
usually use it for interchange.

This is not related to the city's size but to its location. Citys on
the map's edge will have almost no throughput, the ones in center the
most throughput.

...

Also, it would be nice to have an extra zoom level or two
whereby you could actually see the passengers waiting at
the stations. Clicking on an individual passenger could
perhaps reveal details such as their intended destination.

I think giving passengers intended
destinations is very difficult. There
is no guarantee that a train (or whatever)
calling at that station will
ever turn up. Even if a train often
passes through this or the
destination station, there is no
guarantee that any will continue to do
so unless both are mentioned in the
orders list of at least one train.

I don't understand this exactly. If a station is in the train's
schedule this is a kind of guarantee that it will show up there someday.
In 3DTT the passengers have destinations and they enter only trains
that drive towards their goal. The WAY the train takes is irrelevant,
only the list of stations does matter.
I know in TT trains do stop and load/unload at stations by the way even
if they are not mentioned in the train's station list. This is somewhat
unfortunate, I can disable this behaviour by the "direct" command but
it is default. In 3DTT this will not happen.

Peter
_________________________________________
Wanna see a 3D Transport Tycoon in development?
Check out the WAY-X Homepage:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Stephen Down]

Aaron Severn wrote:

Better micromanagement! Have an option like "automatically replace
old vehicles" so you wouldn't have to waste most of your time on
boring crap like that towards the end of the game, it would only
warn you if you can't afford to replace a vehicle (which never
happens anyway).

You would trust the AI to do that for you?

What happens when a vehicle is obsolete or a better one becomes
available?

What happens if you want to let the vehicle expire and then replace its
service with something different?

No thanks.

--
?Press to test? <Click> ?Release to detonate?

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

Dan Ros wrote:

Before trains were invented? Feh!

But not before stagecoaches and boats were!

--
?Press to test? <Click> ?Release to detonate?

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Stephen Down]

Trikky wrote:

Stephen Down wrote:

* Rail, road and sea depots should be large enough to accommodate
all the vehicles in them.

How would you do that?
One depot would have to be as big as the largest train.......And
would only fit one.

Or you build larger depots (eg, a train depot could be 4x5 to take 4
10-carriage trains (or maybe 8 4-carriage trains?). A road depot would
take 4 vehicles (or 2 artic lorries if they appear) per tile.

This would mean they would need to be serviced less frequently, as
obviously you wouldn't be able to have as many depots if they were that
large. It would give more incentive to get people away from the train
obsession!

And industries.......And if you BUILD one you should have FULL
abilities...In otherwords the ability to close it down or reduce
it or increase production...(At a price of course!)

That sounds good. Or how about exclusive transport TO a/o FROM the
industry?

* New towns to appear during the game (maybe).

Or maybe you could start one?

Could do.

* No cargo of any type will appear in your station until you have
sent a vehicle there to collect that cargo.

Or you set flags?

¿Qué? What are "flags" in this context?

You are going to use coal in a month or so .....So you start
stockpileing it...
Oh...And the ability to stockpile.....

Simple. Don't transport any of it away.
The occasional advert campaign to keep your ratings high. (Although this
totally OT if we're talking about Peter's 3DTT)

* Taxis.

It should be an AI run thing....It would be too hard to do the
micromanagment...

I was not intending on micromanagement. What I envisaged was this ...

... when a train or aeroplane or whatever arrives, a certain percentage
of passengers could choose to catch a taxi if there is a taxi rank
associated with the station. They will choose random destinations
throughout the city. All you have to do is to install the taxi rank and
buy the taxis: they will then wait at the rank until passengers arrive,
then take them home and go back to the rank.

* Road vehicles should *occasionally* crash for no apparent reason.

Option to turn this off.

Yes. Possibly have various 'Disaster On/Off' options for all the
different types of disasters, crises and minor annoyances that could
happen.

Electrified railway lines

Or the ability to pay £? to get it done..Rather than ripping it
up and relaying it.

What I was thinking was that you could add an overhead catenary to any
bit of track without ripping it up. AFAIK, the majority of electric
railways in the world use overhead power rather than a live rail.

* Special track should be needed for running at high speed.

Or just upgrading old tracks at a price....They DO wear out you know!

Yes; I did say a bit later that tracks would wear out.

* First class travel for passengers.

Only at larger towns later in game......R&D again?

No, from the start.
First class travel has been around for as long as trains, and a lot
longer than aeroplanes. If anything, it was a more important part of
early railways than it is now.
I would like it to be possible to run services including first-class
from anywhere ~ but as I said, only a small percentage of the passengers
would travel f-c, so it would not be worthwhile to include f-c on
low-volume routes, ie, from small villages.

* Greater choice of DMU and EMU trains.

Sorry what ane DMU and EMU?

Diesel and Electric Multiple Units.
They are passenger trains, and used on just about all short to
medium-long distance services in Britain and in much of Europe.
Each carriage is powered, so there is no need for a locomotive. As many
carriages (usually in pairs, threes or occasionally fours) can be
coupled together as needed or as will fit in the platforms, whichever is
lower!
Advantages over traditional trains:
~ Cheaper to run, and more efficient.
~ No loss-of-power problems on long trains.
~ More flexible than loco-hauled trains.

* At all times trams should be faster and have greater
capacity than buses, to make them worthwhile.

Cheaper?

No. If trams were all that, AND cheaper than buses, what would be the
point in buses?!

IRL, trams are a LOT more expensive than buses, particularly if you are
including the costs of infrastructure.

* <stuff about underground tunnels

Nope...If YOU paid for it its yours. BUT you may sell it off.

OK, so long as you can offer to buy one from another company.

Ok....But only cos its you!

You're too kind

Ok.....Now my tuppenceworth.

No, it's worth a lot more than tuppence.

The ability to turn off certain aspects.....Like the damn money
pop up.......AARGH...I swear I've borrowed more money by mistake
than to buy things.

Yes, it is annoying. But it does help me keep track of time.

It takes longer to build things.....It can take a while for the grass to
grow but a damn long train track is laid in seconds...

You mean have a 'build queue' à la Civ? (But with items 'building'
concurrently?). I agree it is unrealistic that entire roads and lines
can be laid within a month no matter how much landscaping they involve,
and vehicles are there on demand

--
?Press to test? <Click> ?Release to detonate?

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Rémi Denis]

Peter J. Dobrovka <peter_dobro...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message :
82tg7u$io...@nnrp1.deja.com...

* Choice of road types;

Will be in 3DTT.

Even motorways? whose using could be sold to people traveling by car?
(typically French motorway in fact)

S.A.P.R.R.?

This is an example between some others. Yes.
--
Rémi

Peter
_________________________________________
Wanna see a 3D Tranport Tycoon in development?
Check out the WAY-X Homepage:
http://www.digitalprojects.com/way-x


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[Mike Wagstaff]

* Larger maps + stations

Yes, larger maps, but ideally by option.

Agreed.

Also, it would be nice to have an extra zoom level or two
whereby you could actually see the passengers waiting at
the stations. Clicking on an individual passenger could
perhaps reveal details such as their intended destination.

I think giving passengers intended destinations is very difficult. There
is no guarantee that a train (or whatever) calling at that station will
ever turn up. Even if a train often passes through this or the
destination station, there is no guarantee that any will continue to do
so unless both are mentioned in the orders list of at least one train.

I don't think it would be difficult at all. The method for
deciding which station a passenger is going to might look
something like this:

(1) A list of all possible stations is found by looking at
all possible destinations from that particular station.

(2) From this list, a station is chosen at random. The chance
that a particular station is chosen could be influenced by
the following factors:
- Station's catchment area
- Town size
- Number of connecting services (e.g. Crewe, Clapham Jn)

In other words, stations which have a high population
catchment area or are located in a large town or offer a lot
of connections would have a greater chance of attracting
passengers - just like in real life.

Obviously, the above has got to be turned into proper code,
but that should be very simple.

Would there really be that much use for an extra zoom level other than
pure aesthetics? I can see everything in as much detail as I need to
ATM. What I would like is to be able to turn the map around.

But I want to zoom in and see the passengers waiting
impatiently on the platform for my heavily delayed trains!

-Mike [http://games.hplx.net]

[Stephen Down]

Help! I'm sure some of these lines have lost some attribution marks.
I think I've got them all in the right place now, though.

Stephen Down (that's me) wrote:

* Track needs to be electrified for
electric trains to run along it.

to which Peter Dobrovka replied:

Yes, but this process has to be automatized. F.e. a train that
upgrades the track by passing.

To which I replied:

That's too easy!

To which I would like to add:

Keeping some track non-electrified could also be a useful way of
preventing electric trains from using it if it was not a good route for
them. (The number of times a train ends up totally lost on my networks
is quite horrendous; this could certainly be used as a solution. I know
the 'waypoints' could also do the trick, but I don't like that idea.

--
To an engineer, the glass is twice the size it needs to be

email address spam-trapped
see if yooo can spot it

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Stephen Down schrieb in Nachricht <3852FABC.C611...@york.ac.oook>...

Help! I'm sure some of these lines have lost some attribution marks.
I think I've got them all in the right place now, though.

Stephen Down (that's me) wrote:

* Track needs to be electrified for
electric trains to run along it.

to which Peter Dobrovka replied:

Yes, but this process has to be automatized. F.e. a train that
upgrades the track by passing.

To which I replied:

That's too easy!

To which I would like to add:

Keeping some track non-electrified could also be a useful way of
preventing electric trains from using it if it was not a good route for
them. (The number of times a train ends up totally lost on my networks
is quite horrendous; this could certainly be used as a solution. I know
the 'waypoints' could also do the trick, but I don't like that idea.

5 years of TT's terrible pathfinding have twisted your mind so you can't get
rid of thinking about tricks to neutralize it.
Of course a new TT will have a new PF, too.

Peter

[Peter J. Dobrovka]

Stephen Down schrieb in Nachricht <3852BAD7.637D8...@york.ac.oook>...

Aaron Severn wrote:

Better micromanagement! Have an option like "automatically replace
old vehicles" so you wouldn't have to waste most of your time on
boring crap like that towards the end of the game, it would only
warn you if you can't afford to replace a vehicle (which never
happens anyway).

You would trust the AI to do that for you?

Not the AI of TT, hehe.

What happens when a vehicle is obsolete or a better one becomes
available?

What happens if you want to let the vehicle expire and then replace its
service with something different?

Yes, this should not be decided by AI. But the way RRT and RRT2 did it was
very comfortable, wasn't it?

Peter

[Steve]

In article <38545d37.5185...@news.ctv.es>, bill...@ctv.es (Bill Hayles) writes:

I won't. I'll just point out that train handling is much more refined
in TT than in RT, despite their names.

IMHO, Railroad Tycoon II should be called "Stock Market Tycoon With a
Bit of a Railway Sim Thrown In"

No, train handling in TT is just easier than it is in RT.
-----STEVE!-----

"I need a better sig." -Me