[FRDF] Vehicle propulsion

[aarona]

i hope that distances and times are realistic

Why do you hope this? How long will it take a game to get through 50 years without all the graphics wizzing by or the game taking a year to play? Or do you want the game to only last 5 game years? In which case, technologies are irrelivent!

you can build a depo or depo complex (for trains you can do a depo or waypoint) where you need it if there are no petrol stations...

For RV's you can simply add an automatic speed penalty which simulates going to some random petrol station which may not be displayed, and the effect it will have on the total journey time.

for ships under sail, thats external.... for ships on coal and such, stop at a port to be refueled...

Yes that makes sense.

planes equipped for aerial refuelling can have aerial refuel in their orders...

This is just silly. Why not just make sure planes can't go further than a set distance. "Destination too far"

and as for superconductor maglev...surely you dont intend to stop the game at yr 2006?

It would be a pity not to include this.

[Purno]

Guys, what would all these fuel types matter? I can imagine it got influence on wether a train needs catenary or not, or what visual effects need to be shown. But what does it matter wether a train (or any other vehicle) runs on petrol or diesel?

[m4rek]

ok,

>Why do you hope this? How long will it take a game to get through 50 years without all the graphics wizzing by or the game taking a year to play? Or do you want the game to only last 5 game years? In which case, technologies are irrelivent!

no, i mean that times compared to distances are to scale, so if a vehicle goes at 10 miles an hour, i want that vehicle to cover 10 game miles per game hour. not like in ttd where a bus doing 30 takes a month to go across a city.

>For RV's you can simply add an automatic speed penalty which simulates going to some random petrol station which may not be displayed, and the effect it will have on the total journey time.

but whats the point in that? would it not just be better to have a petrol station? it would make good use of having a nice game engine.

>This is just silly. Why not just make sure planes can't go further than a set distance. "Destination too far"

well yeah, thats the idea, but if you have to go from point a to point be outside of the planes range, what do you do? you can build a refuel airport, but what if the local authority cant allow you to build a second airport and the first one is far too busy? you refit it for aerial refuel and buy a tanker!

>Guys, what would all these fuel types matter? I can imagine it got influence on wether a train needs catenary or not, or what visual effects need to be shown. But what does it matter wether a train (or any other vehicle) runs on petrol or diesel?


did you not notice that i put petrol and diesel in the same category, noting that it would only be displayed in the vehicles details?

i also hope that fuel costs will be fluctuating and considered in running costs...




you can disregard my remark about planes running out of fuel when midflight, but they should have the ability to run out of fuel when on a holding pattern at an airport, causing a disaster costing billions in wrongful death settlements.

i also truly hope that airport control AI has some intelligence

[Hyronymus]

Then I don't think you understand the difficulties of balancing a game properly and providing good game play, M4rek. If you really want road vehicles to reach the other end of a modest city within one game time then you'll end up with games that last forever. Construction will also take ages if we make time realistic, players will be bored before the construction is even half-finished. We have to make compromises.

You mention refueling of aircraft in the air too and as aarona said that's unrealistic. You preach realism on 1 idea and no realism in the other idea. But what I find more "annoying" is that this topic is aimed at discussing fuel types. How, when and where vehicles refuel is not the aim of this discussion.

Sorry if I sound rude but I'm not in the mood to rewrite my rant in a more friendly manner tonight.

[Arathorn]

Can we have coffee powered trains?

[Hyronymus]

Starbucks, Senseo or Illy? Enough OT though, please focus on the fuel types we really need.

[Arathorn]

I don't think yankee coffee will get any train anywhere.

[XeryusTC]

You mention refueling of aircraft in the air too and as aarona said that's unrealistic.

It would be unrealistic.... if you flew with fighters, which commercial companies don't, so it is unrealistic.

And back to the topic of the fuel types: we need a solid fuel (coal), liquid fuel (petrol, diesel) and energy (electricity). Note that maglevs are also run by electricity. And we could make a difference between petrol and diesel, the latter is cheaper to run in general.

[Hyronymus]

I can live with that. Any difference in what kind of electricity for trains can be defined by specifying a track type requirement like catenary or third rail.

[m4rek]

although maglevs are, when you get down to it, run on electricity, they dont actually use any power themselves. they run on magnetic waves. these are generated by electricity and run along the track. the track is ridiculously expensive to build and run but the trains can achive speeds above 400mph.

as for superconductor maglev, the opposite. while no-one has found a superconductor yet that will work at room temperature, the trains require no energy to levitate and very little energy therefore to move them. they are therefore very cheap. unless the superconductor they discover is one that is expensive by itself...


back on topic, i say these:

>petrol/diesel
>coal
>hybrid
>fuel cells
>external

if you wonder what external is, have a look at my other post in extreme detail and you'll find out

[Arathorn]

What does it matter? The only reason we need propulsion types for trains is so we have checks so electric trains don't run on rails without catenary support. Or is there some other reason?

[m4rek]

these are for ALL the vehicles. maybe seeing as RVs sometimes require catenary.

this is also important if fuel levels and refuelling make it into the game. another thing is that different fuel costs different amount and i would like to have fluctuating fuel prices...but this bit is just a suggestion

[XeryusTC]

Not really, but it could be that coal trains need to visit a coal storage from time to time to replentish their coal. And that diesel trains need to visit some other place to refuel. But other than that, it would only be another statistic to show to the user.

[aarona]

although maglevs are, when you get down to it, run on electricity, they dont actually use any power themselves. they run on magnetic waves.

As a physics graduate I am appaled at this statement! The "fuel" is electricity, full stop. Same with superconducting maglev.

Okay. I can see how some fuel types can be of importance. Lets say for example that you are servicing a coal mine. Now you can't steal the coal, but you can come to an agreement with the company to use some of their product at a reduced rate. This can go with oil and electricity too.

With electricity are we going to have to set up a sub-station, or connection point into our rail network. Are we going to have to build more sub-stations if we have a more extensive network. Are running costs going to go up the longer and further the network goes?

I agree with XeryusTC's list of fuel types (coal, petrol, diesel, electricity).

For the future (as in 2010-) should we have biodiesel plants? So...farm product -> Biodiesel Plant (or ethanol) -> Diesel. (Note: I'm not suggesting its a new fuel type!!)

[m4rek]

well, i apologise, but unlike you, im only 14 and am not even out of school yet.

fuel should still come under external.

for superconductor maglev... levitation doesnt require ANY power whatsoever. but im not aware of any propulsion systems for it and therefore THAT would be your elctricity (i guess)

[XeryusTC]

Superconductors don't have electric resistance, but there is also something about their magnetic properties called the Meissner effect (which I don't understand, seems to be something about magnetic fields that cannot penetrate the superconductor). But it still requires some electricity to get the magnet running, and after that the electricity can keep running forever because there is no resistance.

Anyway, a normal maglev and a superconductor maglev are both maglevs, which both run on electricity. So we don't need anything else than a solid fuel, liquid fuel and energy (electricity in this case).

[Dave]

I think you're all getting a bit jumbled up with the whole MagLev thing.

If you DO include it, I really think it should be UBER expensive - not some "alternative" to railway as in TTD. Maglev is not, and never has been, a viable alternative to rail transport.

As it is, I think petrol and diesel individuality is good - consider that petrol and diesel prices differ.

I know it's almost petty, but this difference is 6 pence a litre in Britain (diesel being more expensive - somehow).

If you put 6550 litres of petrol into a train (that's the top capacity of a Class 66/Series 66), that difference adds up.

It's 85 pence a litre for unleaded fuel in Britain - it's 91 for diesel. It costs 6000 pounds at every refill for a class 66.

(Of course it doesn't, because companies can use red diesel, I think.)

Either way that's just an example. I also think that it would help for people creating rail sets for countries where different types of power existed.

As with other bits in the game, I think there should be customisable methods of fuel - like a number of slots for different types.

[Hyronymus]

Sofar I haven't seen anyone suggesting different power types then electric, liquid fuel and solid fuel for TTD so I seriously wonder if someday people will propose a different fuel type. I'm sure that if someone does that it can be realised by a set configuration.

[aarona]

You are 100% right Hyronymus!

Everything will be editable through scripts (and the like, etc), so to add a new fuel type you would just have to code it yourself.

Default settings should be those which are seen to be complete but not exhaustive.

This doesn't answer some questions, such as...

Do we want fluctuating fuel prices? (If so, what are the economic models, or factors which we will have to consider in deciding the price.)
How are we going to relate fuel usage to each engine. (Will we use just a simple power = petrol, or something more complicated which depends on some engine parameter, eg efficiency)

I know it's almost petty, but this difference is 6 pence a litre in Britain (diesel being more expensive - somehow).

(Off-topic) A diesel engine will (in general...) consume less fuel per mile than a petrol engine. (Which is why you see those shiny new Diesel BMW's). So perhaps the difference is zero, or maybe diesel is actually cheaper?

From Wikipedia: "The density of diesel is about 850 grams per liter whereas gasoline (British English: petrol) has a density of about 720 g/l, about 15% less. When burnt, diesel typically releases about 40.9 megajoules (MJ) per liter, whereas gasoline releases 34.8 MJ/L, also about 15% less."

[Dave]

aarona:

That's what I'm *really* confused about, but seriously, it costs more per litre for diesel than petrol. I'll get you a piccy later, if I go up the shop.