Transport Tycoon Forums

Jona L. wrote:

Creat wrote:Original Post no longer quoted due to length.
Mostly stuff about Cargodist and the problems I want to avoid with Mail.

Though I am neither a specialist on CargoDist, nor YACD, nor Tourists/ECS I can make three simple suggestions:

a) use cargo only planes (refit!) to fly the mail into another airport (maybe create a mail-hub where you only unlaod the mail)

b) plainly add one or two mail carts to your PAX trains (erase PAX carts to level the train length or extend stations)

c) use North American City Set. This set massively increases the rate of passenger production per building and in the same time massively reduces the produced mail per building. Having an intercontinental Airport in the MIDDLE of a 440.000 Citizen town (with bus stops as satelitization) makes me have a plenty rate of passengers but I also have plenty of cargo space in my aircraft that is free. Besides this capacity being unused I see nearly no disadvantages.



The city size named is only supposed to show the limitation of mail, towns will of course be smaller as well, dependent on growth-rate settings.

Sorry, but none of those are an option. Please accept my premise that I do not want to carry mail at all. Hence my request for a parameter to disable the standard added mail capacity, if that could be easily implemented. Your options A and B are obviously no option if I don't want to carry mail. Just believe me that it causes me lots of problems to have it in the game (with my play style at least). Option C would be total nightmare, as with both CargoDist and YACD you already have a massive problem with the amount of passengers, having even more would just crash the system and make it impossible.

One option would be to find a NewGRF which can effectively just disable mail generation, but I wasn't able to find that.

I've also discoved that the North American City Set causes my game to basically stop responding when viewing a city.

The second I turn buildings invisible, the game comes alive again. So I had to disable the grf, which was unfortunate because they had amazing buildings in it. And the render lag happened with a city of about 40,000. I couldn't imagine it being able to handle one 10 times larger.

Buggi wrote:I've also discoved that the North American City Set causes my game to basically stop responding when viewing a city.

The second I turn buildings invisible, the game comes alive again. So I had to disable the grf, which was unfortunate because they had amazing buildings in it. And the render lag happened with a city of about 40,000. I couldn't imagine it being able to handle one 10 times larger.

Indeed it gets a bit laggy, but I can view a cluster of 5 cities totaling about 600.000 people + ~100 planes in the 10 airports there and a good couple of trains I may only have 0.5 frames/second, but still it works and I use a laptop (thus having a lot less power than a tower-PC)

--------------------------------------------

Creat wrote: Sorry, but none of those are an option. Please accept my premise that I do not want to carry mail at all. Hence my request for a parameter to disable the standard added mail capacity, if that could be easily implemented. Your options A and B are obviously no option if I don't want to carry mail. Just believe me that it causes me lots of problems to have it in the game (with my play style at least). Option C would be total nightmare, as with both CargoDist and YACD you already have a massive problem with the amount of passengers, having even more would just crash the system and make it impossible.

One option would be to find a NewGRF which can effectively just disable mail generation, but I wasn't able to find that.

too bad...

As I said I am not a specialist on either of your addons (not knowing them at all) thus sorry if I couldn't help, I just tried to throw in some ideas. We all have of course our own ways of playing the game, and I know and accept that yours is different to mine, thus my ideas were probably a "bit" off your track.

Anyways, I wish you good luck finding something that will help you. If I should find something suitable I'll let you know

cheers!

I will include such a parameter in the next release.

PikkaBird wrote:I will include such a parameter in the next release.

That is awesome news, thank you! I'm sure there are other who'd appreciate such a switch as well

Hi PikkaBird,

First I would like to say that your “av8 Aviators Aircraft Set” is a huge improvement and a pleasure to use.
As I’m an airplane lover and spotter I know a few things about them and I’ve noticed a few things that I think (but I’m not a programmer) can be easily improved:
• Compared to previous version, several aircraft are missing.
• Also aircraft specifications are not accurate.
• Then there is the fact that some “futuristic” aircraft data is already available.
• The color scheme on the airplanes can be improved.



As I said I’m not a programmer, but know quite a bit about airplanes, I would like to work together with you to further improve the game fun.
We can discuss what’s possible and doable to make the updated set 3.0 even more realistic and more fun to use.

I’m looking forward to you contacting me.

Thanks in advance

Dunexx wrote:• Compared to previous version, several aircraft are missing.

What do you mean by this? 2.0 has the same aircraft as previous versions, plus extras.

Dunexx wrote:• Also aircraft specifications are not accurate.

From: http://users.tt-forums.net/pikka/wiki/i ... lism_Notes

"Introduction year, cruise speed and passenger capacity are the only statistics based on real-world data. All other statistics, particularly cost, running cost and freight capacity, are gameplay balanced."

Dunexx wrote:• Then there is the fact that some “futuristic” aircraft data is already available.

That data is for new planes that are going to be in the set, but are not yet. Be patient, they'll become available in the not-so-distant future.

First I would like to say that your “av8 Aviators Aircraft Set” is a huge improvement and a pleasure to use.
As I’m an airplane lover and spotter I know a few things about them and I’ve noticed a few things that I think (but I’m not a programmer) can be easily improved:
• Compared to previous version, several aircraft are missing.
• Also aircraft specifications are not accurate.
• Then there is the fact that some “futuristic” aircraft data is already available.
• The color scheme on the airplanes can be improved.



As I said I’m not a programmer, but know quite a bit about airplanes, I would like to work together with you to further improve the game fun.
We can discuss what’s possible and doable to make the updated set 3.0 even more realistic and more fun to use.

I’m looking forward to you contacting me.

Earlier there were other airplanes like the Antonov AN 124 and AN225 huge cargo planes capable of transporting any cargo but passengers.
Then there are airplanes like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350, one just entered service the other is due in two years.
The Boeing 747 exist in the set but could be expanded to:
747-100 with 440 passengers (1969) B 747-400 470 passengers (2002), lower running costs, 747-800 581 passenger (2012) Freighter version also has increased capacity.
The airbust A380 has been introduced: the 900 version is due in a few years from now with and increase of 100 passengers to 900 if you apply the rule of max passengers in a 1 class configuration like done on the Boeing 747, but not on the Airbus.
Using the actual numbers used in the market makes it more interesting to have the different aircraft in the set that have different specifications (Passenger capacity, cargo capacity and Running costs)

I can create an excel sheet for PikkaBird that will make it easy to apply. In addition I can deliver some graphics (2D) and images of the new aircrafts.

Who will manage to constantly fill up a 900 passenger aircraft in the game?

I have multiple Airbus A380's on several intercontinental airports. Jus put sush an airport near a large city or between two. Then have trams or busses running through those cities with their stops on the outside of the city and preferably into the direction of the airport. the city will start to grow around the bus/tram stops and in a few years expland from 900 to 3000 inhabitants or more. in 20 years you'll have 30.000 people living there and airports with 3000 + passengers and as many mail.
Oh and dion't forget to supply a city with goods and as from a village with food. That helps also.

buckethead wrote:Who will manage to constantly fill up a 900 passenger aircraft in the game?

With Cargodist, my airports are always so overcrowded that such an aircraft would not even be enough. I generally avoid aircraft altogether in cargodist games, otherwise I replace the airlines with vactrains or those 1000 passenger airships from WAS.

Dunexx wrote:
Earlier there were other airplanes like the Antonov AN 124 and AN225 huge cargo planes capable of transporting any cargo but passengers.

Those planes were never in AV8, and are not likely to ever be added. They are, however, found in the Russian Planeset and the regular Planeset. Those are completely unrelated projects, but they can be loaded together with av8.

What is Cargodist?

http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=41992

Cargodist, or Cargo Distribution, is a patch where the passengers and cargo wants to go to a specific place, rather than wherever it is accepted. Use the search (or above link) to find more info on it and where to get it. Personally I reccomend Chill's Patchpack, it has that and many more features and patches not found in standard OpenTTD.

Thanks.

I would first say that I love your set, lots of planes from past, present and future. What I miss though, is the rest of the DeHavilland lineup: Twin Otter and Dash 7.

As a Norwegian, we have a long history with these planes, and playing my Norwegian map is never complete untill I can utilize these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Widerøe

jimmydanny wrote:I would first say that I love your set, lots of planes from past, present and future. What I miss though, is the rest of the DeHavilland lineup: Twin Otter and Dash 7.

Twin Otter is going in the next version. Dash 7, well... I can't include every aircraft ever, I'm afraid, and the Dash 7 is one of those aircraft which in TTD-terms would only have drawbacks.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been largely internetless for a few weeks.

Dunexx wrote:Earlier there were other airplanes like the Antonov AN 124 and AN225 huge cargo planes capable of transporting any cargo but passengers.

As already pointed out, these aircraft were never in this GRF. There are currently two cargo-only aircraft - the Il-76 and Lockheed Hercules - with the Airbus A400M to be added in the future.

Then there are airplanes like the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350, one just entered service the other is due in two years.

The 787 is a possibility for future versions.

The Boeing 747 exist in the set but could be expanded to:
747-100 with 440 passengers (1969) B 747-400 470 passengers (2002), lower running costs, 747-800 581 passenger (2012) Freighter version also has increased capacity [...] if you apply the rule of max passengers in a 1 class configuration like done on the Boeing 747

The GRF currently has 3 generations of the Boeing 747 (-200 (1970), -400 (1989) and -8 (2012)) with capacities of 366, 416 and 467 passengers respectively, so clearly there's some confusion here.

Using the actual numbers used in the market makes it more interesting to have the different aircraft in the set that have different specifications (Passenger capacity, cargo capacity and Running costs)

The problem with using "actual numbers" is manifold; firstly, the numbers available are inconsistent. Secondly, the economy of OpenTTD doesn't map to the real world in any way. Thirdly, many of the factors which make or made certain aircraft attractive or unattractive in the real world simply don't apply in OpenTTD.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Thank you for clarifying.

May I ask for an approximation on the next release? My Norway map is still unfinished business for me you see