US Set available [Trains v0.87.4d released 27 April 2008]

[Packer]

*head desk*

All the Geeps I did were in NARS format. At least the F-units weren't. (we needed them in the artic like mad)

But with out the NARS format, can we tell the difference between F-units and E-units? If not could we raise the speed of passenger F-units to around 100 mph? (i.e. f they are hauling only passenger and/or mail cars, they get around 100 mph?)

[krtaylor]

Personally, I use Fs for freight, Es for passenger. No exceptions. So that's how I tell them apart. I do realize that it wasn't entirely that way in real life. How do others use them, I'm curious to know?

I would guess that it would be possible for Es to have a higher speed limit on mail/passenger only, but I don't really know. GRF files have some odd and unexpected limitations sometimes. That would be an Oracle question, though somebody else could weigh in.

Is that the only distinguishable way to tell the Es from the Fs?

[Packer]

In NARS, the E is a little longer than the F.

E's were mostly used for passenger trains only, but Fs were used for both frieght and passenger. I use them for high-speed freights and some passenger service. (usually medium-distance between towns)

Real F7s could go 102 mph at max; but with a 56:21 gear ratio. The lowest is 65 mph with a 62:15 gear ratio. I'm guessing that the higher the speed the less power it has.

[PikkaBird]

Real F7s could go 102 mph at max; but with a 56:21 gear ratio. The lowest is 65 mph with a 62:15 gear ratio. I'm guessing that the higher the speed the less power it has.

There were 8 standard gear ratios available on the F Unit. The lowest was 65:12, which gave a nominal top speed of 55 mph.

Gearing is a tradeoff between tractive effort and top speed. It's a little like the gears in a car or on a bike; you accelerate faster and have more hill-climbing oomph in a lower gear, but can't get up to the same speed as in a higher gear.

[krtaylor]

Yes, I understand gear ratios. The GG1 had the same issue - in real life, it could be geared to be an insanely powerful freight locomotive, or a very fast (and still pretty strong) passenger hauler. But TTD doesn't support the level of complexity of choosing gear ratios, and I don't think we really want it to. So with the GG1, we compromised, and it works well.

As I see it, we sort of tried to accomplish this with the E and F. The E represents the passenger version, and the F the freight. I know that in real life it was not as simple as that. But that's where the quest for realism, collides with issues of playability and simplicity.

My vote would be to put all passenger liveries on the E, and all freight liveries on the F, even if that was not totally realistic. That makes the game simple and straightforward to play, as well as not completely far off from realistic operations regardless of what the name of the loco says it is.

I don't have a real problem with having the Es be a little longer than the Fs, if that's how it was in real life; I just don't think it's a good idea to have two different liveries of supposedly the same loco, have different lengths from each other. That would be a beast to code, if it's even possible, as well as confusing.

[PikkaBird]

I don't have a real problem with having the Es be a little longer than the Fs, if that's how it was in real life

An E Unit is 19 ft longer than an F - 70 ft vs 51 ft.

I just don't think it's a good idea to have two different liveries of supposedly the same loco, have different lengths from each other.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that. It's certainly possible though, and not that difficult.

[Ameecher]

Yes, I understand gear ratios. The GG1 had the same issue - in real life, it could be geared to be an insanely powerful freight locomotive, or a very fast (and still pretty strong) passenger hauler. But TTD doesn't support the level of complexity of choosing gear ratios, and I don't think we really want it to. So with the GG1, we compromised, and it works well.

TTDP certainly does allow that already via a refit option and I know that the new version of NARS will use this feature. So it can be done.

[krtaylor]

OK, so it is possible to change gear ratios via refit. The question is, do we want to do that? I am opposed to it, because it will excessively add complexity, for relatively little return.

Also, if we were to replicate real-life gear ratios in the F, there'd be very little need ever to use the E at all - as, I guess, it worked out in real life. The F is cheaper, and with the high-speed ratio, almost as fast as the E. Is that what we want? In theory, we could eliminate the E entirely, and add in some other loco - but I'd rather not do that. I think it makes sense to keep the "passenger" version as a separate loco from the "freight" version, it's worked well for some years now regarding playability.

The NARS is a different set. We can certainly learn from what DanMacK has done, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to duplicate it.

And it sounds like it is feasible to have different liveries of the same loco with different lengths - but is there a reason to do that? Es were longer than Fs, but were there different lengths of Fs that were associated with different liveries?

[Packer]

E9s also had more power. (2400 as opposed to 1500)

The E-unit could hit 112 at max, and the F-units could hit 102 at max. I'm alright with the way it is now, except that when I replace a Pacific (i'm wanting a Cresent Limited and streamlined ones bad) with a F-unit, it goes slower. I'd be fine with 90-100 mph for the F-unit.

[DanMacK]

I as actually the one that suggested NARS style compresion. Problem is it would take a helluva lot of redrawing, something which, honestly, 've got too many projects ATM to even comprehend. to have 40' boxcars at a 6/8 length, 60' at 7/8 and modern at 8/8 would make more proportional sense though. I say f somebody wants to redraw. more power to them.

[krtaylor]

Let's stick with the sizes we already have established. It is too much work to change them now, and honestly, anything that adds to the coding load for little gain is a bad idea. Coding is the overwhelming limitation all throughout the TTD world, there are fully-completed projects that have waiting literally for years to be coded. Let's not make that problem worse.

I think we should leave the specs of the F and the E as they are, even though it is not 100% realistic, because the F is already a game-killer (until better stuff comes out later). Making it even better would kill off other things even faster, including the E.

[MJS]

Is this intentional? It's a random livery that doesn't look very nice, but maybe it's just that. (If not, what information should I provide to help you fix it?)

FinnAir, 17th Jun 1989.png (63.83 KiB) Viewed 1556 times

[krtaylor]

That's Metra, which is a Chicago-area commuter livery. However, you seem to have several different eras of it all mixed up in there, and it sure does look weird - though very realistic I bet. If you don't like it, you can try replacing the engine; that usually resets the random livery to something else.

[MJS]

Yes, that's what I normally do to get rid of it... Is it something worth fixing, and if so, can I supply you with additional information regarding my set-up? (Short version: I'm using OTTD with the 30/10/07 ChrisIN.)

[krtaylor]

No, it's supposed to be that way. That's what they really look like.

[Packer]

Could we have the UP F7s pull UP passenger cars. (IDK if the UP actually had F-units in passenger service)

Also is it to much trouble to code cab units to be able to be arranged in AA and ABA sets? We have AA and ABBA, but none of the other sets. This has been done in NARS with the FP9s.

[krtaylor]

We have the UP Es pulling UP cars.

I don't think we want to tinker with the set code, it looks nice as it is, and is simple to use. Also I think it more accurately represents how they used them when they were new - of course, later they got all mixed up.

[Packer]

True. In the 70s it wasn't uncommon to see F-units, Geeps, SD units, and E-units all toghether in consists.

BTW, using this set with the industry adjust cheat in OTTD is a blast. Iron Ore trains become the most profitable. (which is how DMIR makes there money)

[krtaylor]

Well, my vision for the set is not so much from the model-railroader "everything has to be exactly realistic" point of view, as it is from a commercial game developer's view of "make it accurate enough not to offend purists, but primarily, make it playable." The trains were carefully researched and picked with both those aspects in mind, and adjusted in the various revisions. Every single loco in there is there for a reason. Some obscure ones were included to fill a niche that doesn't really exist in the real world, but is important to TTD (e.g. modern electric freight power, as in the E60C); some locos really represent a very wide range of uses in reality (the Geeps, and to a lesser extent, the Fs); and some were added because they're fun and were good ideas "if they'd only worked" - such as the TurboTrain and JetTrain. I think the set fits both bills quite well - the purists can come up with something really very similar to reality, while people that don't really know trains can still play the game perfectly well, it looks nice, and isn't too far off from reality either. In fact, if you play the game purely to maximize profit, your mix of equipment is not that far off from reality - which shows we got the running stats pretty much right.

So I am opposed to anything that adds an unnecessary layer of complexity with no significant playability game - such as offering all the various gearboxes for the F that existing in reality. It would both make the game more complex to play, and also kill off the variety by making the F clear out everything else even faster than happened in reality. Which is a shame, I love to keep my Js going as long as possible, and they can give the Fs a decent run for their money for quite a long while.

[glx]

About the reefer capacity "bug" in build window (OpenTTD), I've found where it is and how to fix it.
The bug is in this sprite :

Code: Select all

 3650 * 26	 02 00 55 81 0C 00 FF 04 35 00 15 15 45 00 19 19 50 00 23 23 52 00 36 36 53 00
                                                                          ^^

To fix it you just need to replace it with :

Code: Select all

 3650 * 26	 02 00 55 81 0C 00 FF 04 35 00 15 15 45 00 19 19 50 00 23 23 54 00 36 36 53 00
                                                                          ^^