YACD - Yet Another CargoDestinations (v2.3 released)

[Alberth]

Cargo not rerouted.
2 years after the above plastic delivery problems, I have 950K plastic waiting.
Then suddenly, the cargo is not deliverable any more, see the pictures.

The 3000 plastic is probably new local plastic.

It seems inconsistent that cargo stays listed yet is not routed.

Note that it is not entirely disappeared, if you now start the train at the west (at 1, Grinnpool Valley), at the moment the train reaches the Duningwell South station, it gets added back to the routed cargo.

[Tafidis]

Hi, my compile environment (MinGW on win32) is back, so I am finally playing around with this awesome patch (v2.2)

I started a 256x256 map with "very low" industries, so there is only 1 of each at the start, making it easy to make a start with industry cargos on very hard settings (I always play like that, then as soon as I have enough money, I connect all towns on a unified rail network).

Comments so far (see screenshots from left to right)

1. Although only one steel mill exists atm, the mine keeps producing some cargo for some "other destinations"? (See first pic )

2. Me thinks that the mine is producing less than what it would in vanilla OpenTTD 32/56 tonnes is not 75% (more like 57% - see second pic)

3. Both problems simultaneously. Total 36 (out of which 2 going to the unknown) out of 63 tonnes is NOT "74% transported" (see third pick)

4. Problem persists when you connect more destinations (see fourth pic)

[rini17]

Hi, here is another example of loading problems. After few years working fine, suddenly some trains stopped picking up coal, one is seen after loading game, another one is waiting on Londington Transfer.

[andythenorth]

Hi, here is another example of loading problems. After few years working fine, suddenly some trains stopped picking up coal, one is seen after loading game, another one is waiting on Londington Transfer.

I have what looks to be same issue, may be recurring after loading savegame, but I haven't proved that definitively. Appears to only affect some trains, can't figure out why. Forcing them to run the route appears to resolve the issue.

[ChoHag]

I think I have identified why passengers want to route back to their original station, demonstrated with coal in the attached screenshot and savegame. Essentially they want to go from building A to building B and both are within the cachement area of the same station. It's never really noticed with industries as few if any want to route up the economy chain to somewhere so close, and any which do are probably ignored as not being profitable enough.

[Tafidis]

Ok first, I will say this. I am enjoying my "hard" game with YACD 2.2 so much that I want to start a story-telling thread about it. I haven't enjoyed <Open>TTD<Patch> this much in years! Just when I had connected 3 ore mines to 2 steel mills to 1 factory and everything was going great, TWO factories open up within three months and suddenly I am struggling to make any income. My pax network construction had to be put on halt! In retrospect, I should have chosen "minimal" industries instead of "very few". I am seeing the challenging side of it now. And just as I (sort of) recovered from that ... RECESSION!

Anyway, another comment/observation (see pic):

The grain production of this farm keeps dropping. After some thought and looking at the numbers (not sure of their validity, see my post before this one) this is what I think is happening: I have not connected grain to one of the three destinations because it is not profitable (I did it for livestock by transferring on a boat but grain production was too low for that). Now, if you see, most of the low grain production wants to go there, thus the overall % transported grain is very low (pic shows 22%). Now I am not sure of this, but does the change in production occur based on the station rating OR this number? If the first is true, then I am just unlucky, but if the second is true, then I think it is wrong: The % transported should only apply to cargo that could actually leave the station. In the example of the picture it should be 2/3 = ~ 66% and not 2/9 = ~22 % , because the 6 (9-3) are not connected.

[TERdON]

In the discussion between different distribution methods (i.e. clean yacd versus distyacd), maybe the solution would be a third alternative...

Currently, the station ratings are given over all the routes going out from a station. But that doesn't really make sense in a real-world comparison. If there is a station close to you, which has plenty of service, but not where you want to go, you probably would choose another.

My proposal is to replace the station ratings with route ratings - giving a separate station rating for different goals. The route ratings may be given both on the current station rating factors and also additional ones (complexity of route, number of transfers, etc). Hence, we can use the yacd approach of distributing cargo, but give a disadvantage to unconnected (or badly connected) targets, resulting in something in between the two other solutions.

As a side-effect, it would also stop you from filling your huge trains by having a small bus circle line (since, as a suggestion, the route rating would only be improved if a relevant vehicle appears, and not for other ones).

[damerell]

Didn't cargodist start with something modifying the rating based on the proportion of destinations connected which turned out to be disastrous on large maps?

[Eddi]

that problem was because there was no efficient way to get all "possible destinations", which this patch already solved.

[damerell]

that problem was because there was no efficient way to get all "possible destinations", which this patch already solved.

Pax and mail still regard all the towns on the map as possible destinations, so you'd have exactly the same problem for them, no?

[3iff]

How about tying subsidies to route demand (in a very loose way).

A coal mine and power station 'sign' a contract to buy coal. This boosts demand for coal to be carried from that mine to the power station and this is where your transport company comes in. Such a situation would likely dry up minor supply demands to other power stations

This is not a subsidy as such, just a supply/demand boost that you might wish to take advantage of.

Not worded very well perhaps but I can expand on this if required.

[Leanden]

I think what he means is, instead of limiting cargo just to destinations, each industry should provide its own minor subsidies which you can choose to fulfil for an income boost, but you arent obliged to do so at the detriment of your transport company.

[MagicBuzz]

Hello,

How can I apply your patch ?

I'm using Visual Studio 2010 and Tortoise SVN.

When I use the Tortoise SVN "apply patch" feature, then the Tortoise Merge window is empty.

It looks like the "-p1" option you mention is responsible of that (I didn't find how to make the Tortoise SVN to switch from -p0 to -p1).

I tried to alter the patch file and removed any "a/" and "b/" in order to be at level "0", but the Tortoise Merge still doesn't find how to apply your patch.
Any suggestion ?

[planetmaker]

The future-proof version is: use by default mercurial or git , TortoiseSVN fails to use the advanced patch format provided by git and mercurial.

See http://stefanhendriks.wordpress.com/201 ... epository/ for a workaround how it might work (I haven't tested it)

[Auge]

Hello

The future-proof version is: use by default mercurial or git , TortoiseSVN fails to use the advanced patch format provided by git and mercurial.

See http://stefanhendriks.wordpress.com/201 ... epository/ for a workaround how it might work (I haven't tested it)

... or use the provided binaries.

Tschö, Auge

[Eddi]

When I use the Tortoise SVN "apply patch" feature, then the Tortoise Merge window is empty.

Tortoise Merge cannot handle git patches. at all. don't try.

use command-line patch from MinGW or Cygwin instead (may have to convert line endings)

[3iff]

I think what he means is, instead of limiting cargo just to destinations, each industry should provide its own minor subsidies which you can choose to fulfil for an income boost, but you arent obliged to do so at the detriment of your transport company.

Not quite...

At the moment, a coalmine making 100 tons/month (for axample) will allocate say 30 to A, 30 to B and 40 to C. I envisage an event which might provide a demand to A of 80/month and would reduce supplies to B and C proportionally...changing the values to 80 to A, 9 to B and 11 to C. This event would be flagged in messages as "Coal Mine signs contract for 80 cola/month to A" or something similar.

This 'contract' could easily be affected by a future 'contract' but that is not our concern. Alternatively, that contract might be fixed for a year (as subsidies are now). There would be no bonus for taking it other than a guarantee of a supply for that route.

But now I can see problems that this might cause. However, this may be ok. Well, it's a point for thought and discussion? Whether it fits with the current ideas for where cargo wants/needs to go...

[Lupin III]

I really like cargo destinations, because it ends the "build the longest line" type of network layout.
Still I got a few "problems" with YACD.

1. local passengers:
I like the concept of local passengers, so inner city bus routes make sense. But the problem is most of the passengers want to go to the station where they are waiting at in the first place (even worse with stations with large catchment areas). This goes so far that they will take a plane to another city just to transfer there to another plain back to the original station. I couldn't find out how much I get paid for such roundtrips (two times the full distance?), but nevertheless nonone would take a plane to get from one house to the next. Same goes for mail (see screenshot where mail goes to Moscow just to come back by train to Bangkok again).
This needs a solution. E. g. if cargo wants to go somewhere in the catchment area of the same station, don't let it appear at the station at all (if the can get to the station in the first place, they should also be able to get their destination in the same catchment area as well without "external" transport) and you loose out on them.
This would also solve another problem: you can build stations (if spread stations is enabled in the game options) that have the same catchment area. See the second screenshot for an example; every double of bus stops is actually connected to both of the city's stations. You can make buckettloads of money with minimal investment.

2. some cities aren't "connected"
How are the destinations for passengers created? The are many cities, where noone wants to travel between. See the first screenshot below again: Bangkok and Moscow (both around 10.000) are connect by PA/MA-rail. You can see, noone wants to go to Moscow from Bangkok, but there is mail transported between these cities (the same holds true for Moscow; noone wants to go to Bangkok from there).

3. cargo wants to go across the whole map way to often
Most of the industries want me to ship cargo across the whole map (playing on 512x512 with FIRS), which almost makes using planes to ship coal a.o. the most efficient way of transport.

[andythenorth]

Most of the industries want me to ship cargo across the whole map (playing on 512x512 with FIRS)

Split the routes into shorter hops (making use of the way YACD handles transfers). It's quite easy and fun to get quite small amounts of cargo moving long distances profitably.

This is a 512x256 map. It might help to have a rectangular map, as most movement is along some spine routes in the long direction of the map. A square map will probably need more of a grid approach.

coal_network.png (63.5 KiB) Viewed 3343 times

stone_network.png (66.71 KiB) Viewed 1527 times

[ChoHag]

most of the passengers want to go to the station where they are waiting at in the first place (even worse with stations with large catchment areas). This goes so far that they will take a plane to another city just to transfer there to another plain back to the original station. I couldn't find out how much I get paid for such roundtrips (two times the full distance?)

Nothing, if you move them fast enough. If you don't, you pay them to get on your bus and you lose money.

This needs a solution. E. g. if cargo wants to go somewhere in the catchment area of the same station, don't let it appear at the station at all

I considered that when looking through the YACD code (not that I got as far yet as working out what does what) and rejected it because it can make sense for a person to start and finish a journey in the same cachement area. To take a real life example, there are a number of bus stops a short walk from my house, but to get the train into town, which would also be considered 'in my catchment area' as it's only 20 minutes walk away, I would walk to the closest bus stop (5 minutes away) and catch a bus for the 4 stops to the station.

The same situation occurs with industrial cargo (see my post above), so the best solution I could think of was first of all outright reject cargo starting and finishing at the same station, which only becomes an issue with YACD enabled, and secondly to take into account the proximity of a house/industry tile to the station it wishes to start and finish at. Currently cargo only chooses which station to begin its journey at based on station ratings.

In looking at this problem, I saw that passengers on a long journey will apparently get off and rejoin the bus or train at every intervening stop. I don't know if this problem or any fix is related to the above issue, but it seems to me like it would be.

This would also solve another problem: you can build stations (if spread stations is enabled in the game options) that have the same catchment area. See the second screenshot for an example; every double of bus stops is actually connected to both of the city's stations. You can make buckettloads of money with minimal investment.

It takes a particular sort of person to play with toy cars as an adult, so if somebody wants to make their situation worse and do this, then that's really their loss...

(Edit: Too much whitespace)