I thought it was already cheap ... but, looking at the figures, maybe it isn't particularly so. Maintenance cost will be reduced.krtaylor wrote:1. The running costs of the GE44T must be reduced, it is not possible for it to make a profit. Pulling one car, continuous service, reasonable distance, should be profitable, and it's not.
I do know about that one, but it's not easily avoidable due to a certain other feature. I might make some changes to it, though.krtaylor wrote:2. Something very bizarre is happening with the wagon-speed-limits, the tank cars, and the F7. I have trains of tripe F7 lashups pulling old-style tankers refitted to carry rubber. These tankers have a nominal speed limit of 60mph, however, they don't appear to have any speed limit behind the F7, full or empty. When the F7s are replaced by PAs, the proper speed limit appears. The ordinary rubber transporter also has its proper speed limit.
Thrakki, nice livery! I don't know about your Metra with only bi-level suggestion though - my inclination is that's it's not really possible but I haven't thought about it much, so I'll try when the time comes around.
Dan is right about the F7s; the Santa Fe and UP liveries are the current ones and Dan's liveries haven't yet been coded.
Oz wrote:What I had tried to post was an update on the MCS. Mostly worked on the platforms, by adding some fencing, and introducing platform termini, with buffers. I extended the parking lot out a bit towards the concourse, and replaced the grass between the platforms and the lot with gravel. Also made the lot and sidewalks in the US roadset style, assuming that this will be the preferred set. After, of course, the RR crossings are redrawn for the US roads.
Impressive! A few comments:
The fencing on the platforms looks nice, and I assume that it should go on the edge platforms, which should be easy-ish to code.
Speaking of the buffers on the termini platforms, are those on a different tile to the end of the platforms, as they seem to be? If they are then great, because that's what I need. You will need to give me the track sprites for that tile too unless you draw the gravel to cover the right bits up (but I think the former is easier).
I like the car park and pavements (sorry, have to use the British terminology
) but is it expandable and contractable for different sized stations? Obviously that's a 9-square long station but you could have longer and (more likely) shorter so there needs to be a possibility for shorter stations, although we could lose the "drop-off point" or whatever it is at the other end first.Mentioning the drop-off point, it looks very nice! What I suggest (if you don't mind doing it) is drawing quite a few road tiles with different cars on in different positions (yes, I do want the cars and the road on the same sprite here) and then I could have them change as trains come and go. You could even put a bus or two on there but it might get a bit confusing as it's really "fake" road.
I think a few planters on the concrete would be a nice idea, to liven it up a bit, if it's not too much effort for you.
By the way, it's not going to be as modular as you might think - my current plan is for four parts - the station building itself (+ car park + drop off area), through platforms, terminal platforms (N) and terminal platforms (S). That should easily be enough to make it nice and configurable.
Also, the loading state mechanism is fairly complicated but you can do quite a lot, so cars and people are a definite possibility. I feel sorry for you if you're going to draw lots of people though - it was a lot of effort for Michael, or so I gather! Again, if you do draw people, I want sprites with people on the platform to make the coding easier.
Regarding the loco availability, if the locos cease to become available whilst you own one of them with enginespersist on then that's a bug in TTDPatch. They're not supposed to because that's the whole point of enginespersist. I know Josef was originally having some problems with this "early retirement" and enginespersist but I thought he'd fixed them.
It's unfortunately not very easy to enable/disable with a parameter because it relies on a property being set or not being set (as opposed to being set to zero). I could try but it would be a lot of effort better spent on station work. If you want me to try making a quick file setting all the early retirement properties to zero then I will, just for an experiment (effects not immediately obvious but the engines will be available for longer, becoming very unreliable before their lifetimes are over).
If you're just complaining that the availability periods are too short, then the minimum is 7 years, with the next 9 (I think) so it's not no time at all, but, again, if you want me to make a possible but unguaranteed solution then I will.
)
