Why are the NARS (2.03) running costs so high?

[Leopold]

I live in the USA and naturally I like playing games that involve the trains from the USA (Just as I expect Europeans enjoy vehicle sets from their continent). What I am discouraged about is why are the running costs that have been coded set so high for the 'NARS 2.03'. It's not very easy to start lines that make money in fact quite easy to have lines runing that are losing money. Is there some option I'm missing or that I have set wrong that might be effecting my earnings?

The reason I say this is that I have also been playing online on many servers that involve the European sets and it's relatively easy to make money with Euro' train sets with almost any reasonable well designed line. The vehicle running costs are much lower on almost all of these vehicle sets (at least the ones I have experienced). I don't rem' the exact amounts but seems to me I was seeing numbers like 5,000, 6,000 ..8,000 annually , and with the NARS set I'm seeing costs like 12,500* for a Mogul to upwards of 31,500* annually for a Santa Fe (*at 1920 year, and which rise rapidly after that). Am I to believe that American trains, (designs , engineers, maintenance teams) were that much worse at keeping costs low, or that Europeans were that much better? I'm not trying to inflame anyone here and I'd happily accept the facts if someone knowledgeable replies and convinces me it's true. I'd just like to add that the profittablity (on average) of American Railroads in the 19th century and early 20th was legendary. Yet when I'm trying to simulate this same era (offline) with the best vehicle set for NA I can find (If somebody knows of a more accurate one please advise) I can barely make profits and must build only in the most conservative ways to avoid going into the red.

Thank you for any answers, and again this is not an attack on European train history and it's efficiency but more a question about the accuracy of 'NARVS r225' and it's set running costs.

[kamnet]

Have you read the development forum or asked the developer?

[Leopold]

No , I guess because I feel my question is very broad and doesn't necessarily need to be only answered by the developer of the NARS 2.03 set. I have multiple questions involved in my last post so I'll try to clarify:

1) Is my low profit possibly or probably a result of some diffculty setting? (I currently have that set to 'medium' . Must I go to 'easy' just to stay in business?

2) Is there another North American (NA) vehicle set that I could use that might not have such severe running costs?

3) Is it accurate to have such high running costs for NA vehicles relative to Euro' vehicles? Or am I having a misperception on this issue possibly due to the myriad of possible other sets ('newGRF's') that might be in play on many of these other servers I've been on? (and/or other related variables in play?)

4) Is there a way that I can adjust down the running costs in my own games?

If my question(s) can only be answered by the developer(s) then I'll go into that forum.

Thanks Kamnet for replying

[planetmaker]

Any set developer, and he alone, can decide how expensive or cheap the vehicles within that set shall be, both on an absolute level as well as relative among vehicles within that set. Some NewGRFs allow to change the general level of costs via a parameter of their newgrf. Sets are rarely designed to match price levels of other sets, and doing so is virtually impossible. Be lucky, if you have a parameter to adjust general cost levels (most also don't have that, dunno about NARVS).

So your question is indeed very specific to this one set (as also your thread title suggests) and the developers of this one set are the one you should complain to, if the default costs seem too high to you. It definitely is nothing general and is no judgement on relative profits at any given time in the real world or any preference on vehicles people might have anywhere.

You can always change the general level of costs for different transportation types via a base cost newgrf; but that would affect also vehicles from another set of the same transportation type, should you use them concurrently. Maybe the newest development version of NARVS also has other cost levels: http://bundles.openttdcoop.org/narvs/nightlies/LATEST/

[Leopold]

Thx Planet (again) for your patient replies to me. I understand what you're saying -that my question is only appropriate to the developer of NARS 2.03. I must admit some reluctance to pose the question directly at a dev'(s) as I wouldn't want to appear to be unappreciative of their work and generosity of time by coding and providing these game enhancement files. That's why I thought I would run the question(s) by here first hoping if there was some other explanation (like my ignorance) then I could avoid unnecessarily questioning a developer's design. I still want to believe that there's something I'm not taking into account, like maybe my starting date, or some intended economy/industry/city files, or some other variable. I was also given the impression that NA vehicle set coders may not be very active in the community anymore (sad if it's true).

BTW -that other file you suggested (which I do appreciate), was unfortunately only just road vehicles, although the author did say in the readme that it's intention (someday) is to be a full NA veh set.

Thanks again

[planetmaker]

BTW -that other file you suggested (which I do appreciate), was unfortunately only just road vehicles

What do you think the NARVS set should contain other than road vehicles (NARVS = north american road vehicle set - just FYI) - and a quick test shows that NARVS r225 doesn't contain anything else than road vehicles either.

[Leopold]

ok , my bad . I beg forgiveness .. I have been trying to refer to 'NARS 2.03' , 'not NARVS r225' ... It's the 'NARS 2.03' set that all my questions have been about , not the NARVS.
My only excuse is the similarity in the short naming. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm going to edit the title of the OP to correct this. Not that it matters much I guess.

[planetmaker]

omg...

Simple answer still: All sets of that author (Pikka) have running costs approx 4x the normal. Irrespective whether the set caters NA trains, UK trains, planes, tropical trains,... IIRC they don't have a parameters, so you either suck it or use something else, or use a base cost newgrf which modifies the costs for all vehicles of that type (i.e. all trains).

EDIT: I once made an effort to capture approx. the relative costs of (some) sets: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=920717#p920717 - OpenGFX+ Trains will then automatically try to adopt to other sets, so that costs remain comparable.

[kamnet]

Any time there is a question about a particular NewGRF, the first place you should look is either in the Graphics Release or Graphics Development section. Most developer are (or, at least, should be) open to discuss how and why they implemented a feature. In the case of NARS, the developers are still around, albeit maybe not as active as they once were.

[DanMacK]

My $0.02 The NARS is designed with high running costs for gameplay reasons. Lower costa make things too easy, and with NARS, high capacity trains are the norm, which make A LOT of profit generally.

Personally, high running costs make the game more challenging. Set your difficulty to "low" for running costs and they'll be a bit more manageable.

[Elukka]

High running costs for trains also provides a valid niche for road vehicles, especially with a set like Long Vehicles.

[AnthonyB]

Also remember that the running costs fluctuate based on if the train is actually running under power. The costs drop down when the trains will sit idle in the station loading cargo. You may likely be better off using full load orders or a timetable to keep a train at a station if it doesn't have a full load of cargo waiting when it usually arrives.

[PikkaBird]

Inflation. Turn it off and start a new game. The multiplayer games you saw almost certainly have inflation turned off.

The [Open]TTD inflation system increases running costs by 1% more per year than income, as a method of making the game "harder" in later years. 50 years worth of inflation will easily make the difference between interesting gameplay (which is what NARS aims for with its running costs) and impossible expenses.

[Leopold]

Awesome replies from all of you! .. Thank you ... Those were exactly the kind of answers I was looking for. Explanations and solutions. Excellent

Planetmaker -thank you for the interesting info' about Pikka

Kamnet -, yes I'll try to work up the courage to talk at the developers section.

Elukka -I agree - in fact in recent games I've gotten better at dealing with the NARS 2.03, and partly in the way you suggest (more road vehicles

AnthonyB -Yes , I discovered that (or suspected at least). Lately I have been using more 'wait for full load' orders.

and PikkaBird - great info' - I hadn't considered that inflation was a difficulty setting to adjust (or disable).

Thanks all