A simple suggestion of Ground Vehicle Acceleration

[chickenbc]

I have a simple suggestion of ground vehicle acceleration.(with Realistic Acceleration)

In GetAcceleration() in the ground_vehicle.cpp, the force and resistance is most imortant factor.

Code: Select all

	if (mode == AS_ACCEL) {
		return (force - resistance) / (mass * 2);
	} else {
		return min(-force - resistance, -10000) / mass;
	}

The problem is, although force is grater than resistance, it may returns 0. (if force-resistance/(mass*2) < 1, then decimical part are throw away)

But I think it doesn`t make sence, since "Force is grater than resistance" so acceleration must be grater than 0. It is more like the "Natural Behavior".

So my suggestion is

Code: Select all

	if (mode == AS_ACCEL) {
		return (force>resistance) ? max((force - resistance) / (mass * 2),1) : (force - resistance) / (mass * 2);
	} else {
		return min(-force - resistance, -10000) / mass;
	}

which means if force is grater than resistance, then acceleration returns at least 1. Thanks for reading!

[Terkhen]

I don't see the point of this modification. What would we achieve with it?

[chickenbc]

I don't see the point of this modification. What would we achieve with it?

Example.

SH125 + 14 (empty) passenger coaches.
Length : 16
Weight : 490t
Power : 4500hp

Speed : 195km-ish/h (194km/h)
=> force : 61975, resistance : 61189, so force > resistance

but, (force-resistance) / (mass*2) = (61975-61189) / (490 * 2) = 0.802 ...

so it returns 0. which means, maximum speed is 195km-ish/h.

In my opinion, in this case, acceleration should be grater than 0, since force> resistance. In my code, it returs 1, which means this train can accelerate further

[michael blunck]

In my code, it returs 1, which means this train can accelerate further

Should it?

regards
Michael

[Terkhen]

See r21189 and r19345.

[chickenbc]

See r21189 and r19345.

Nono.. I don`t deal with the minimum speed, but the maximum speed.

[chickenbc]

In my code, it returs 1, which means this train can accelerate further

Should it?

Yes, since it will make more "realistic" behavior. Or, maybe we'd better take rounding function instead of just cutting off 0.8 to 0.

[Terkhen]

"More realism" is not a valid gameplay reason. I still don't understand why do you think that this change needed. I recommend that you check this thread.

[michael blunck]

[SH125]

In my code, it returs 1, which means this train can accelerate further

Should it?

Yes, since it will make more "realistic" behavior. Or, maybe we'd better take rounding function instead of just cutting off 0.8 to 0.

I don´t think that any original trains would work well together with "realistic acceleration" (or whatever it is called) because of technical constraints (no proper TE, no air drag coefficient, ...).

Simply confine original trains to original kinematics.

regards
Michael

[ZxBiohazardZx]

the suggested code isnt that bad, just define another IF-case for no-data-present?

plain physics agree that if force > resistance then accelleration > 0

also ingame i think this is still valid, only if resistance =< force you get 0 or negative accelleration

[SirkoZ]

I agree with chickenbc on this one. If force > resistance and the setting is called "realistic" acceleration then let the train accelerate when appropriate, not only when it's convenient.

And Michael - default trains,industries, etc. seem to be a thorn in side, eh? I'll confine you to quarters.