US Set Development Thread

Discuss, get help with, or post new graphics for TTDPatch and OpenTTD, using the NewGRF system, here. Graphics for plain TTD also acceptable here.

Moderator: Graphics Moderators

EyeMWing
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 11:30

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by EyeMWing »

Okay. Here's a couple of ideas I'd like some input on:

1) Instead of random liveries, use the special cargo slot (the one NARS uses for regearing) to allow refitting to different liveries. The same goes for liveried wagons (except they still have real cargo, of course). This wouldn't even break NARS compatability (except that you'd have refits like "Gear Ratio - Amtrak" or "Livery 24:77 (100mph 291kN)" depending on which GRF was loaded first). This means that you can end up with patchwork trains of mismatched liveries.

2) Special trainset cars (Acela Express cars, for instance) are not just livery overrides of their regular counterparts. They're distinct vehicles with their own pricing, capacities, etc., and cannot be used in an incompatible trains. The Acela Express cars, for instance, would be fittable to the Acela Express and the JetTrain. Other trainset cars might be usable in normal trains - for a real world example see the LRC, the carriages of which were used later behind traditional locomotives.

3) In OTTD r22713 (so it'll be in 1.2.0), the ability to specify cargo aging rates on a per-vehicle basis was introduced. The practical upshot of this is that you can make cargo in a given railcar pay out a higher amount because it aged less during the trip. So class-differentiation between passenger cars is a possibility - and goods shipped via express might have to pay a premium rate. So going back to the Acela Express trainset, instead of just having one passenger coach, you could buy either a First Class or Business Class car. Or perhaps you could refit between them (but not if the explicit livery refits thing is going to happen)

4) For many dual-head locomotives, the two heads are actually distinct and usable separately if you uncouple them from their trainsets - they just don't do that in service because the desired performance requires the power of two locomotives. I propose that, on dual headed trains where this is the case, to only buy one locomotive at a time, and to give the player the choice between running with a cab car at the other end, or buying a second locomotive and attaching it backwards.

5) For trains like the F7 and E8 where B-units were a thing, the A and B locomotives get their own slot in the buy menu. B locomotives will not start (or perhaps move veeerrry slowly) if they're the only locomotive in a train, and can only be used as helpers. They are, however, cheaper and lighter because they lack head end power gear and a cab. These B-units can be paired to any locomotive that can run in a mixed multiengine consist.

In summary, you could build a consist that looks like this:

[AEM7]][F7B][coach amfleet][LRC coach car][Metra first class passenger car]
and it would have all the advantages and disadvantages you'd expect of such madness.
RUST: Revived US Trainset - DevZone - Discussion - Current release: preview1
User avatar
Nite Owl
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1889
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 19:32
Location: In The Dark

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by Nite Owl »

1) I may be wrong but I seem to remember that NARS will be doing away with regearing in its next version. Is it not possible to change liveries with a refit only without any sort of special cargo slot?

2) I like this.

3) The idea of various classes of passenger cars is appealing but could lead to problems. If first class passenger cars pay a higher amount than normal passenger cars why would anyone ever use normal passenger cars again? In the Dutch Train Set thread there has been some discussion of increasing the amount earned by an intercity train if a dining car was attached. That reads like a good possibility to me. As for freight I would prefer if the possibilities were kept as they are now. There are many freight car types within this set (especially for goods) and each has a specific capacity and speed. It is this capacity and speed that determines the amount each can earn.

4) I like this idea but only if it is "Historically" accurate. If a train was designed to have two heads it should have two heads. If it was designed (or ever adapted) to be used with a cab car then the option for a cab car is valid.

5) I like the idea of separately purchased (and cheaper) B units but they should not be compatible with anything other than their same (or extremely similar) type A units. I could see an E8 with a F7 B unit but I could not see an AEM7 with a B unit from either one.
Humor is the second most subjective thing on the planet
------------------------------------------------------------
Brevity is the soul of wit and obscenity is its downfall
--------------------------------------------------------
Good Night And Good Luck - Read You Soon
Eddi
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 8257
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 00:14

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by Eddi »

ad 1) regearing comes with too many problems. you have trouble with industry set compatibility, autoreplace and full load orders. e.g. you cannot retroactively add NARS to a scenario that uses ECS. changing liveries without a cargo slot is unfortunately not (yet) possible

ad 3) the original idea was that higher-paying passenger wagons come along with lower capacity, so there is a balancing factor which may influence the decision one way or the other
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by NekoMaster »

For number 5, the A and B units are coded to take up one slot to save on ID's, even if theres a tonne of ID's now it doesnt hurt to save a few for other vehicles. Also, with an already long vehicle purchase list, this would make the list even longer (which might be a pain for those playing OpenTTD on smaller res screens ie, smart phones)
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
EyeMWing
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 11:30

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by EyeMWing »

Nite Owl wrote:1) I may be wrong but I seem to remember that NARS will be doing away with regearing in its next version. Is it not possible to change liveries with a refit only without any sort of special cargo slot?
I remember seeing that, too. I assume it'll automatically choose a gear ratio based on the railcar-induced speed limit, since that's the only other way I can think of to code it. To my knowledge, you still can't refit vehicles without cargos at all.
Nite Owl wrote:3) The idea of various classes of passenger cars is appealing but could lead to problems. If first class passenger cars pay a higher amount than normal passenger cars why would anyone ever use normal passenger cars again? In the Dutch Train Set thread there has been some discussion of increasing the amount earned by an intercity train if a dining car was attached. That reads like a good possibility to me.
Different capacities, for one. Ideally it would involve balancing them against each other so capacity wins short haul and luxury wins long haul. This might involve overriding passengers and mucking around with the payment curve. Experiments are necessary.
Nite Owl wrote: As for freight I would prefer if the possibilities were kept as they are now. There are many freight car types within this set (especially for goods) and each has a specific capacity and speed. It is this capacity and speed that determines the amount each can earn.
Good point.

Nite Owl wrote:5) I like the idea of separately purchased (and cheaper) B units but they should not be compatible with anything other than their same (or extremely similar) type A units. I could see an E8 with a F7 B unit but I could not see an AEM7 with a B unit from either one.
I did a bit of poking around. Apparently the AAR has standardized multiple unit electrical connections in North America - the question is exactly when that happened. Before that date, interchange is between manufacturers at best. I can find all sorts of detailed information about the connections, including their electrical properties, but I can't find when it was originally published other than that the latest (first?) publication was in 1994 (AAR S-512-1994). Now that I know what I'm looking for, I can spot the connectors in photographs. They start showing up in small numbers with the GP7 and GP9, and by the mid 60's, they've apparently been retrofitted to everything.

This is more of a long range problem, anyway - the only B-units in the current set are the E8, F7, and PA1 - two of which are from the same manufacturer and the third wasn't even coded originally.



And as for saving some ID's for other vehicle types... If any useful combination of GRFs ever requires all 65000 ID's in the OTTD engine pool, I'll eat my hat. Maintaining a cut version for TTDP and small screens might be worth a thought, though.
RUST: Revived US Trainset - DevZone - Discussion - Current release: preview1
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by NekoMaster »

Well if we're going to have different capacities for passenger cars, why not have more realistic values for the passenger cars? I know this set has the Amfleet cars and they can carry up to 86 passengers (or something like that) while the Horizon cars carry up to 102. I think the bi levels could also benifit from this.

Also, what about including HEP into the set? Some locomotives with a dedicated gen set for HEP can produce power without loss of locomotive power but locomotives like the F40 and P40/42 have lower HP when providing HEP. Maybe we could code the locomtives so that they can only hual so many passenger cars on HEP before requiring more locomotives (Maybe give a message like "Too many passenger cars for HEP, add more engines for more HEP"). After all, I dont think people like being cold in the winder, hot in the summer, and not being able to see in the dark or use their laptops while on long trips

Edit : Also, if we're going to have differnet classes with different speeds and capacities, why not adjust the purchase and running costs to prevent players from using high speed 1st class cars for commuters services, or using slower high capacity passenger cars or bi levels for long distance trains
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
oberhümer
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1283
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 19:35
Location: Here and there, sometime or another

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by oberhümer »

Something I'd like is realistic multiheading, meaning every additional engine compatible to the first one has a lower (by 25%?) running cost since no additional engineers are needed. This would encourage long trains like those often seen in the US and also switching from single, powerful steam engines to multiple weaker diesel engines, again as seen in the US.
--- Licenses: GNU LGPL, version 2 or newer, code and graphics. CC-By-SA, graphics, alternatively. If you're using any, I'd like to hear about it --- Call them "track types" ---
--- Mostly inactive developer for: NuTracks - Central European Train Set --- Running/compiling for: Linux (x86) - Android - Windows (32/64 bit) ---

--- Need a file packer? 7-Zip --- BOINC - use your computing power to benefit science --- Block trackers, not ads --- Unix in dispersible pellets, the formula for the future. ---
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by NekoMaster »

oberhümer wrote:Something I'd like is realistic multiheading, meaning every additional engine compatible to the first one has a lower (by 25%?) running cost since no additional engineers are needed. This would encourage long trains like those often seen in the US and also switching from single, powerful steam engines to multiple weaker diesel engines, again as seen in the US.
this sounds likes a rather neat idea. I would love to see it implimented in this set or perhaps another like NARS or CanSet
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
User avatar
ostlandr
Chairman
Chairman
Posts: 882
Joined: 12 May 2007 01:09
Location: Northeastern USA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by ostlandr »

Just to make things more confusing, with wireless technology we now have "distributed power" where one can place (for example) two units on the front of a consist, one on the rear, and one mid-train- all controlled by a single crew.

Even some smaller US locomotives like the SW1500 switcher (shunter) have been equipped with MU controls. Saw a picture in a rail magazine showing a SW1500 "leading" a GP40 in consist. The locomotives belong to a small railroad, and the GP40's cab was damaged in a highway/rail accident. So until they could get the cab fixed, they used the cab of the SW1500.

MU connections were the death knell of huge single-unit diesels (or should have been.) The Union Pacific's DD series, with their two diesel engines and D-D wheel arrangement were less reliable and flexible than two GP40s having the same HP and TE.

Oh, and don't forget another recent innovation- the "slug." This is a retired diesel that has been stripped of its cab and prime mover, cut down, and weighted to the original weight. This is semi-permanently coupled to another locomotive. In the game, a slug would have 1 HP, the same weight and TE as the original, and very low running costs. The net result is doubling the TE of the single locomotive at a lower cost than adding a second powered unit.

In recent years, we have seen quite a few 6,000 horsepower six axle (C-C) units built; however in practice 4,000 horsepower for a C-C single unit is pushing the limits of adhesion of steel wheel to steel rail. For example, CSX ordered their 4,400 hp GE AC4400CW locomotives with 10 tons of extra weight to improve traction. A high-traction software upgrade for the switchgear driving the AC traction motors was added later.
oberhümer wrote:Something I'd like is realistic multiheading, meaning every additional engine compatible to the first one has a lower (by 25%?) running cost since no additional engineers are needed. This would encourage long trains like those often seen in the US and also switching from single, powerful steam engines to multiple weaker diesel engines, again as seen in the US.
Who is John Galt?
EyeMWing
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 11:30

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by EyeMWing »

I was looking at slugs and planning on testing some possible implementations.

There are two general possibilities - the first is to make it a locomotive in its own right, but give it only 1 horsepower, but I'm not too sure how the calculations on that will work out.

The other option is to code slugs as big'ol heavy wagons and have the locomotive check the rest of the consist for slugs. If it finds any, it cranks up its own TE. The problem there is that, as far as I can tell, I could only count slugs - not make sure they're adjacent to the power locomotive.

Things are progressing quite well in terms of the code generator program - I hope to get most of the basic callbacks implemented tonight so I can get started on implementing some actual trains.

On the naming front, I've decided I really like "RUST: Revised US Trainset" (or for the fans of recursive acronyms, "RUST: RUST US Trains").
RUST: Revived US Trainset - DevZone - Discussion - Current release: preview1
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by NekoMaster »

One problem with slugs is that in real life they where usually used for low speed duties to increase traction since the traction motors can't handle such high current at low speeds, so if the current will meet or excced the limits a locomotives traction motors they'll put a slug in to distribute the current and produce more uniform traction. Slugs are usually used with switchers or less powerful road switchers like a GP38
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
User avatar
Level Crossing
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1187
Joined: 07 Feb 2011 22:04
Location: East Coast, United States

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by Level Crossing »

Maybe give them a low max speed?
Like my avatar? See my screenshot thread
User avatar
NekoMaster
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 4001
Joined: 16 Aug 2008 22:26
Skype: neko-master
Location: Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by NekoMaster »

Seems good enough. Only thing i can think that slugs would be good for is short lines with small weak locos where having larger more powerful locomotives is over kill.

Another thing that could be added to add to the realism of this set is Amtrak Ex-F40 NPCU's, which would allow for push-pull configurations and hold baggage\mail
Image Proud Canadian Image
Nekomasters Projects! (Downloads available on BaNaNaS!) \(>^w^<)/
# NARS ADD-ON SET 2CC | 2cc Rapid Transit For Me! (2ccRTFM) | 2cc Wagons In NML (2ccWIN)
# NML Category System (Organize your GRFS!) <- TT-Forums Exclusive Download!
oberhümer
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1283
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 19:35
Location: Here and there, sometime or another

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by oberhümer »

That would be the most useful with
I wrote:optional enforcement of realistic train building.
--- Licenses: GNU LGPL, version 2 or newer, code and graphics. CC-By-SA, graphics, alternatively. If you're using any, I'd like to hear about it --- Call them "track types" ---
--- Mostly inactive developer for: NuTracks - Central European Train Set --- Running/compiling for: Linux (x86) - Android - Windows (32/64 bit) ---

--- Need a file packer? 7-Zip --- BOINC - use your computing power to benefit science --- Block trackers, not ads --- Unix in dispersible pellets, the formula for the future. ---
oberhümer
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1283
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 19:35
Location: Here and there, sometime or another

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by oberhümer »

Another thing, I'd already suggested this for NARS:
A setting to allow all engines in all (real) climates would be useful for something like a USA scenario.
--- Licenses: GNU LGPL, version 2 or newer, code and graphics. CC-By-SA, graphics, alternatively. If you're using any, I'd like to hear about it --- Call them "track types" ---
--- Mostly inactive developer for: NuTracks - Central European Train Set --- Running/compiling for: Linux (x86) - Android - Windows (32/64 bit) ---

--- Need a file packer? 7-Zip --- BOINC - use your computing power to benefit science --- Block trackers, not ads --- Unix in dispersible pellets, the formula for the future. ---
EyeMWing
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 11:30

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by EyeMWing »

I was just going to do that by default. I just don't see the point in maintaining artificial barriers to gameplay in the name of "realism" when the realism isn't really terribly realistic.
RUST: Revived US Trainset - DevZone - Discussion - Current release: preview1
oberhümer
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1283
Joined: 23 Oct 2009 19:35
Location: Here and there, sometime or another

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by oberhümer »

Then you need some indication of where the engine was used even more.
--- Licenses: GNU LGPL, version 2 or newer, code and graphics. CC-By-SA, graphics, alternatively. If you're using any, I'd like to hear about it --- Call them "track types" ---
--- Mostly inactive developer for: NuTracks - Central European Train Set --- Running/compiling for: Linux (x86) - Android - Windows (32/64 bit) ---

--- Need a file packer? 7-Zip --- BOINC - use your computing power to benefit science --- Block trackers, not ads --- Unix in dispersible pellets, the formula for the future. ---
User avatar
PikkaBird
Graphics Moderator
Graphics Moderator
Posts: 5601
Joined: 13 Sep 2004 13:21
Location: The Moon

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by PikkaBird »

NekoMaster wrote:
oberhümer wrote:Something I'd like is realistic multiheading, meaning every additional engine compatible to the first one has a lower (by 25%?) running cost since no additional engineers are needed. This would encourage long trains like those often seen in the US and also switching from single, powerful steam engines to multiple weaker diesel engines, again as seen in the US.
this sounds likes a rather neat idea. I would love to see it implimented in this set or perhaps another like NARS or CanSet
Lower running costs for multiheading already well and truly is the case in NARS and UKRS2. :)
EyeMWing
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jan 2011 11:30

Re: US Set Development Thread

Post by EyeMWing »

oberhümer wrote:Then you need some indication of where the engine was used even more.
I'd think the available liveries would make it clear enough to the people who would care about the distinction.
RUST: Revived US Trainset - DevZone - Discussion - Current release: preview1
Post Reply

Return to “Graphics Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GarryG and 14 guests