[FRDF] Depots

[uzurpator]

As soon as I know your opinions about these proposals I will write a new summary and will also deal with how vehicles are bought.

Determine the distance between depots - then move the vehicles "viritually" at "viritual" speed of
10 km/h ships
50 km/h trains and trucks
for aircraft - "move to depot" will simply dispatch the vehicle to a said depot.

As for depots themselves.

1. Divide them to two tiers:
Depots - big structures that vehicles get built in
Service Facilities - small structures that regularly service vehicles.

For instance:

For trains big depots (varying in capacity and size) are used for building trains. Once per - let us say - 5 years a train needs to visit a depot for a checkup and repairs. A visit eats a week of train's time.

Service Facilities - these may be appended to stations and - if schedule allows - train will use them (read - instead of "Loading" it will display "Servicing" in status bar). Ferinstance we can add RRT style Fuel/Sand/Water markers that are reset then. Servicing at SF increases reliability slightly and takes some time.

[Steve]

We know that having the depot/service area on a station will enable services (either forced in the timetable or when the vehicle needs one) but i'm not sure about having depots seperate. We're going back to the engine shed idea which i think is a bit over the top. Whilst the added depot making services possible isn't completely realistic, from Hyr diagrams, i quite liked the idea of the depot being an addition like that. A smaller service thing may be harder to spot unless it's a good size. In which case just join up the track and it's a depot again

[uzurpator]

OK - let me elaborate:



This is a station - (yes - I'm guilty of playing OTTD ), Three platforms are regular tracks. TWo depots make "service facility" (imagine sanding tower os somesuch). If a train is scheduled to stop at this station then it may be serviced (forced or scheduled). Heliport and Road depots stand for other station buildings.



This is a depot - in this structure trains are built and - periodically - checked up. Basicly - only big terminus stations should get a depot - and more important pass-through stations will run just fine with service facility.

[Zuu]

I dissagre that service should be forced in the schedule. If you really want that it should be an option, then service as default.

For your big depots how shall you prevent trains from going to wrong depot, and get lost. Quite an anoying problem in (O)TTD(P).

[PJayTycy]

I would vote against the big depots. Not because of your suggestion uzurpator, but more against the complete idea:

• If the repair intervals are too short (eg: 2 normal runs back-and-forth => a repair => 2 normal runs => a repair => ...), this will become a burden on the players. Such depots would become the bottle necks of the network. The difference in train speed between engines would be something you don't care about, because its effect is almost nothing compared to the time-loss incured by these big depots.
• If the repair intervals are longer (eg: 10 years), almost all your trains for a certain line will have to be repaired at the same period. So your line would be running smooth for 10 years, then all trains go the depot => not enough trains to sustain service. After 1 year, all trains have been serviced and everything is back to normal.

I don't like any of these options. If I build a transport service, I want to overview it for a year or 2, and when I see everything runs smooth, just leave it alone and it should continue to run smooth if the cities/industries don't change.

[uzurpator]

I dissagre that service should be forced in the schedule. If you really want that it should be an option, then service as default.

For your big depots how shall you prevent trains from going to wrong depot, and get lost. Quite an anoying problem in (O)TTD(P).

1. its optional imho.

2. The depot in which the train was built is considered it's "home" depot. So every "goto depot order" will result in a train finishing its order list and then move to this depot. Player may change "home" depot by either command or transfer.


PJay:

I'm for the long option. Note - that if trains are appended to a service then the service code will make sure that trains will not rush to a depot at once - but it will gradually send them there.

"depotless" model allows for train warping like in Loco or RRT.

[PJayTycy]

"depotless" model allows for train warping like in Loco or RRT.

hmm, what do you mean by warping ??? I checked the dictionary and didn't find anything to do with depots.

[Hyronymus]

Determine the distance between depots - then move the vehicles "viritually" at "viritual" speed of
10 km/h ships
50 km/h trains and trucks
for aircraft - "move to depot" will simply dispatch the vehicle to a said depot.

Sounds good to me.

As for depots themselves.

1. Divide them to two tiers:
Depots - big structures that vehicles get built in
Service Facilities - small structures that regularly service vehicles.

For instance:

For trains big depots (varying in capacity and size) are used for building trains. Once per - let us say - 5 years a train needs to visit a depot for a checkup and repairs. A visit eats a week of train's time.

Service Facilities - these may be appended to stations and - if schedule allows - train will use them (read - instead of "Loading" it will display "Servicing" in status bar). Ferinstance we can add RRT style Fuel/Sand/Water markers that are reset then. Servicing at SF increases reliability slightly and takes some time.

I object to a division in dept functionaility. I thought of this as a solution myself but I realized it isn't really a solution for trains. It only creates confusion IMO because if trains are build in big depots ('engine sheds') you would essentially need engine sheds for all seperate lines you have and next to them you need service depots on each seperate line too. If you choose to build 1 engine shed for all your trains however then you need to either connect all your lines to that engine shed (impossible) or transfer them to the 'more local' service depots after you bought them (too much fuzz).

If you stick to one train depot type that allows construction of vehicles directly near the line they will service and also services these trains on that line you will be done with building 1 depot.

I dissagre that service should be forced in the schedule. If you really want that it should be an option, then service as default.

Whether the trains are serviced every time they stop at the station with the depot linked to it or after ### days since there last service is an option.

[Steve]

The service in schedule isn't forced.. as you don't need to set the schedule for it. But if you have a train going long distances, you may want to make sure it gets serviced on every trip to avoid crashes in the desert.

Trains won't be going out of their way with the service points on stations, they can just wait till they next get to a servicable station. We'd only need to check after unloading to see if it needed a service. Otherwise let it go on. No bottlenecks, no lost trains, no problems.



Can we get a quick vote for each setup.

(1) The engine shed seperately model with a service area on stations.

OR

(2) The join depot/service area attached to a station. The depot being also attached to the tracks so trains can get out of course.


I'm for Number 2. (Please let me know if i've interpretted the first idea wrongly)

[Zuu]

I'm for the second.

[Hyronymus]

No surprise, I'm for the second too.

[PJayTycy]

In that second option, what do you mean with "The depot being also attached to the tracks so trains can get out of course" ? If that's only for buying new trains, the second option gets my vote. If this is for the "repairs" too, then no option gets my vote.

[uzurpator]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

no 2 means that:

IF a station has a depot attached -> the train may be servicen on pass-trhough

IF we want to rebuild the train (add/remove coaches/locomotives) then we need to send the train TO the depot.

Right?

[Steve]

Pjay, only go buying vehicles.. and editing them as well i guess. Repairs take place in the actual station platforms.

[Hyronymus]

Correct me if I'm wrong.

no 2 means that:

IF a station has a depot attached -> the train may be servicen on pass-trhough

IF we want to rebuild the train (add/remove coaches/locomotives) then we need to send the train TO the depot.

Right?

That's what I intended yes.

[PJayTycy]

No. 2 is fine with me then.

[Hellfire]

"2" It will be then.

[Hyronymus]

Determine the distance between depots - then move the vehicles "viritually" at "viritual" speed of
10 km/h ships
50 km/h trains and trucks
for aircraft - "move to depot" will simply dispatch the vehicle to a said depot.

Sounds good to me.

I'm having second thoughts on using speed as a measurement. While reading the old DD and related stuff on the forum I discovered that game time is quite often used to express time lapses. I now think we should choose game time as an indicator for how fast a vehicle can be moved between two workshops. Let's summarise what needs to be decided:

• Each type of workshop (depot, garage, dry-dock or hangar) has a 'Transfer to ... button' to transfer the vehicle(s) inside to another depot of the same type somewhere else on the map. These virtual transfers are limited in their use to prevent cheating. The limits are:
  • - route in the routing table are cleared
    - transfer takes time
    - transfered vehicle is unavailable for 1 day after being transfered
    - vehicles can only be transfered once per 3 months
    - transfers cost money

I suggest we measure time as the time it takes a vehicle to be transfered over a certain amount of tiles. I.e:

• Ship C is transfered over a distance of 457 tiles. Ships have a preset transfer speed of 100 tiles per day. Ship C will take 457/100 ≈ 5 days to be transfered

I also think aircraft should be unable to be transfered by the way. They are the fastest moving vehicle type in TE and should be able to "help themselves".

[Purno]

I guess the costs of transferring are based upon the vehicle's weight?

[Hyronymus]

No, I didn't take that into consideration. It's a very valid point though and I think we should consider it. But what about the time a transfer takes? Can you live with the proposal I made?