Cargo Distribution

[Logital82]

Suggestion for passenger reduction.

If in a city lives 1000 inhabitans, if the 1000 are on train around the world the staion can't produce any new passengers. So at all there could be no mire passengers all over the world than the world population is.

[Creat]

Actually I think that's a great idea, don't know if it has anything (directly) to do with Cargodist though. It is certainly more needed here compared to plain OTTD though...

I love it! Working from that basic idea:
A town can only produce the amount of passengers equal to the inhabitants, the 'passenger supply' is obviously replenished by people arriving there. Further a town shouldn't be able to accommodate more than twice it's actual inhabitants. So if you have a town with 1000 inhabitants and a train with 1500 arrives (well, HUGE train actually, but just for arguments sake...) 500 of those would have to change destination (or return home). One pitfall of this would be that passengers couldn't be allowed to disappear from stations and the like (or as a means to enforce the town capacity limit just mentioned). Otherwise you could end up with a situation where no town could generate passengers any more...

[fonso]

That suggestion sounds funny but is fairly independent from cargodist. For the passengers that cannot be accepted in a town: If they are still delivered you can just "teleport" them back to their home town and not pay for the delivery. That will teach the company shipping them to some place in the desert ...

[Logital82]

Its a absolutely cargodist idea, because with cargodist there will be no train with 1000 passengers descending in a 500 city. The link graph would not allow this.

[Eddi]

why would that be wrong? there are plenty of example cities in the world whose population more than triples during tourist season...

[ostlandr]

Hey, how about an "Olympic Village" industry that pops up on the map every four years? Accepts tourists, food and goods, produces trash.

[Kogut]

It have nothing to do with cargo distribution. It is better to create new thread than pollute existing.

[Donoteat]

Ah... kinda embarrassing asking this question; I'm sure it's been answered before but I can't think of the search terms to put in for it.

In this screenshot, there is a station.

No, really? I never would have guessed.

You can see that there are 214 crates of goods heading to Dunstock Penn Station.
Both trains in the station are set to "full load" at the factory station, then head to Dunstock Penn Station.

These 214 crates of goods (actually now something like 326) do not get on the trains to leave. They just sit there. Some crates do end up on trains, but only something like half.
(also all the other destinations in that list can only be reached through a transfer at Dunstock Penn Station, except I do have one train headed to Malbridge.)

Why is this happening?
Did I do something to anger the cargodist gods? My transport company can certainly afford virgins to sacrifice to said gods if that is the case, but I'd rather solve the cargo issue in a bloodless fashion first before I have to resort to occultist rituals.

[Arie-]

The goods all have a specific destination. Is there still a known route from the source station to the destination? By source station I mean, if you look at the link graph, is there still a known route? Those lines should receive regular service. So maybe if you work with smaller trains it would work.

[Zuu]

Try to disable 'full load' so that you get a more regular service. You could check the map-window if there is a link or not. If not, then you don't have regular enough service between the two stations.

[Arie-]

That's right, but i prefer to use "full load" because the disappearing cargo has a big impact on the station rating. Therefore I prefer to use two smaller trains than one big train.

[fonso]

A savegame would be helpful. But as I'm in a good mood today I'll speculate some:

first guess: There is a route to Dunnstock Penn via Malbridge and all those goods are waiting for the train via Malbridge. If you look at further details in the station window you'll see that (open the '+').

second guess: you have recently removed a route or put another station in between two stops or something like this. The link graph needs some time to get that.

I'm certain you can see what's up if you have a look at the link graph view in the smallmap.

[corps]

Hello guys

Firstly id like to thank everybody for all that u made to OTTD, its just great, turned it to a best game ever!

And ask a favor

Could someone compile this patch to the lastest version (1.0.2) please?


Id be very thankful

[Arie-]

Ok an issue with Cargo Dist I think.
The setting: Four trains (11; 23; 24; 25) departing from Lontston East (Junk Yard) towards Keningpool North (Steel Mill (trains 11 and 24)) and Lontston Woods (Aluin (trains 22 and 23)). The Lontston station is in the east corner of the map, the steel mill is located west and the aluin processing plant is located in the middle of the map.
The problem: Trains 22 and 23 do not load up on scrap metal, although the links are active. Though it might be a FIRS issue, my first thoughts are it's a CargoDist issue. Using openttd-cargodist-g17340e3e-windows-win32 from a few pages back.
Another issue: though that one is FIRS related, is that I find it extremely difficult to increase production levels of the primary industries on this map.

My error, am I missing something or a problem with cargo dist?

edit: added some more info.

[Arie-]

And a second post with grfs, although I now see the existence of possible newgrfs issues. I had not seen that earlier.

[fonso]

Basically you've cheated yourself with the now removed supply scaling feature. Lontston Woods covers only one tile accepting scrap metal so it gets only a very small share of the overall demand for scrap metal. Keningpool North covers four scrap metal accepting tiles and therefore gets a four times higher share of the demand (not counting distance here). Additionally you have the problem of finite accuracy of the link graph calculation which works against you in this case. If you increase the accuracy to 64 you get equal "planned" numbers for both stations. This doesn't help though, as the moving average length was too low in this version. The sent number always falls to 0 before the next cargo packet arrives. This is why you always get cargo to the same station - the one with the smaller ID.

Supply scaling is also the reason why you have such a hard time getting your production numbers to rise. You're only covering very few tiles of all the secondary industries. This means your component ratings are low and you get a big penalty for your station ratings.

[Arie-]

Ah, that's something I did not know, it all depends on the number of tiles covered, not whether an industry is serviced or not. Strange I've never noticed this before. And yes, I occasionally "cheat" a bit by moving the stations as far from the industries as possible to increase distance between the two stations and with that income, not something I'll continue doing now .

edit: removed a line

[Eddi]

I occasionally "cheat" a bit by moving the stations as far from the industries as possible

the position of the station sign is what counts for income calculation. you can extend the coverage area of the station later.

[Arie-]

Yep, I knew that, with the remark that the station sign moves only after certain tiles are removed. That just is not within "my set of game rules "

[corps]

Hello guys

Firstly id like to thank everybody for all that u made to OTTD, its just great, turned it to a best game ever!

And ask a favor

Could someone compile this patch to the lastest version (1.0.2) please?


Id be very thankful

Anyone?

Please