Plane maximum range

[doghousedean]

Spotted this on flyspray,

feature request for planes to have a maximum range.

http://bugs.openttd.org/task/773

i think thats a cracking idea

[chrissicom]

I think this would primarily require a change of the GRF files though as I don't think it's possible to store the max range in the game code somewhere. I really like this idea as well tho

[MagicBuzz]

I don't like it

OTTD, even with new big map sizes, remains a "local" transport game. I mean the map size is at most the size of a european country.
As a result, any plane, even in ealier ages, would be able to cross the whole map.

But, I'm thinking about a small patch for any vehicle.
When you activate the breakdowns, then there is a counter for "number of breakdowns since last service".

May be we could add a patch that give a chance to the vehicle to be destroyed when this counter become to hight.

May be something like this :
(count - 1) / 10 chances to be destroyed.

As a result, for the second breakdown before servicing, the vehicle have 1/10 chance to be destroyed. The third time, 1/5, the fourth 3/10, etc.

This may just be much more realistic, as this will avoid seeing vehicle on longer courses when they are slow and with a poor reliability (then their max range is low).

I don't know how it works for planes, as a breakdown plane remains broke until it services. May be this patch would need a small change in the way the planes handle breakdowns.

Even if I don't really like the feature (and I never usebreakdowns), I thing this should be quite easy to create, and it gets rid of the GRF change requiered by an actual max range in the vehicle info.

The only problem is to find a way to crash planes elsewhere than on airports. May it should use the UFO system (doing circles then crashing down), but not on a vehicle, but somewhere arround on the map.

[FooBar]

As a result, for the second breakdown before servicing, the vehicle have 1/10 chance to be destroyed. The third time, 1/5, the fourth 3/10, etc.

And the tenth time a 10/10 = 1 chance, i.e. the vehicle always gets destroyed.
You need some kind of exponentional or parabolic function with a maximum at, e.g., 0.5.

[NukeBuster]

This should be moved to suggestions.

[KrevRenko]

Indeed.

However, while it is here. Yes, it sounds nice, until you queue a few planes above an airport. Some may fly around in circles just as long as they travel between airports because of game's scale issues. This idea would make them fall off the sky. So, in a way, this is a solution for network bottleneck airports. It solves the problem by thinning the traffic

A solution that would simply restrict ordering is possible, but is not a valid limited range solution IMO, simply because a plane could still fly without running out of fuel forever like before.

[Youri219]

In reality planes have to take additional fuel with them just to be able to carry their own fuel. This could be represented by an exponential running cost for longer flights.

[richk67]

Except it isnt exponential at all. In essence, it is only during ascent that the extra fuel weight applies any significant penalty. In level flight, you rely more on the aerodynamics - yes it uses more fuel when heavier, but that is less of a factor than say running into a 200mph jetstream headwind.

[MagicBuzz]

Thus the take-off consume a lot more fuel that cruising flight.
So even when you bring extra fuel for longer range, the high cost part of the flight becomes negligible, so I'm not sure the impact on the consumed fuel / distance is so high.

[Aydan]

I don't know how it works for planes, as a breakdown plane remains broke until it services. May be this patch would need a small change in the way the planes handle breakdowns.

I'd like to see a broke down plane go to the nearest available airport. This would be way more realistic.

[MagicBuzz]

It should be actually quite easy to do, as I think you just have to automatically send it for service when it's broke down.

I'll take a look on it

[doghousedean]

After reading the posts i thought its wasnt a good idea, but in the long run it makes sense.
Sure the world map can represent an entire continent but its a virtual continent not based on real world layouts so who says a planes range can only be so many units.

[chrissicom]

I didn't mean to say that I don't like the idea. When playing without "cheats" like very long vehicles (super trains) then planes are an utterly strong passenger transporter. They just make waaaaaay too much money especially the faster ones like the Concorde. I don't believe that in real life passenger flights are so much more profitable than passenger transport services by train. So limiting the range at least for the early planes is a very good idea indeed. But as I said, this is more of a GRF issue than a game code issue. The game code would be very small I believe but there would have to be an extra property (range) in the GRF for every plane or at least for those planes that should have a limited range.

[athanasios]

The problem is that we do not have a fixed map size. On huge maps a max range would make planes useless which I do not like. On average ones it is OK. So it should be adjustable and not a fixed value.

[MagicBuzz]

The problem is that we do not have a fixed map size. On huge maps a max range would make planes useless which I do not like. On average ones it is OK. So it should be adjustable and not a fixed value.

I was just thinking about something last night...

Most of the time, the more a plane can bring cargo, the more it can bring fuel.

As a result, why not thinking about a solution like : a plane can flight for "total_capacity days".
I mean a plane that can bring only 30 passengers won't be able to flight more than 1 month because it won't bring much fuel.

Next, to simplify the problem, we won't count the take off/landing time.
So, we can easily compute how much tiles an plane can cross during one day.

As a result, we can compute a "quite realistic" range.

The only lack of this solution is that some planes bring 20 passengers at 100 km/h, and others bring 800 at 900 km/h... As a result, the range for older planes might be too small, while the range for newer planes will remain quite infinite. But... Well... I don't know any plane now that isn't able to do some transcontinental cruises, so I still don't see the use of a limitation for newer planes.

[Vikthor]

But... Well... I don't know any plane now that isn't able to do some transcontinental cruises, so I still don't see the use of a limitation for newer planes.

But such planes do exist and are in commercial use, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAe_146 range just over 2000km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_F100 range 4300 - 4750km (depending on version)

It`s all about how much reality you want in the game. If you say that map size is so that these small airplanes have sufficient range for it, then it`s probable that Concorde and Jumbo will be hardly profitable on the same route.

[chrissicom]

Well I think a nice measure would be something like 1 tile equals 2 or 3 kms plane range. There are lots of planes which can't travel long distances. Even the 747, 737, and A320/321 have short range version for inner European traffic for example or Shanghai routes has some short range 747.

[doghousedean]

just a quick note, i've been on a fokker 100, was going to new york via amsterdam.
We jumped on the fokker at manchester then changed at skipol to the Airbus monster!

[DJ Nekkid]

well ...

this is also a matter of the scenario... a 1024x1024 scenario may represent a somewhat small area, as well as it may represent europe. but the day we start talking about 16k*16k maps it IS another question ... tho: what prevents you from useing a A380 on a "local" route if the need are there, and any city with a intercontinental airport, and 8k ppl will prolly fill it every month, and you need 5 of them to empty the city on a regular basis

[chrissicom]

Well that's not the discussion though, of course an A380 or 747 can be used on short distances due to high passenger demand. Although I personally prefer travelling by ICE instead which is faster and a lot more comfortable and no stupid security controls. Of course the flight from Berlin to Frankfurt for example is faster but due to checking in/out, waiting for my luggage, security checks the train ride is a lot faster. Anyway I am a little off topic here... I think as long as there is no differentiation between short range and long range A380 in GRFs these planes just shouldn't be limited. But limiting the range of a Fokker or Zeppelin (as in the AV GRF) does make sense imho. Also limiting the Concorde would be nice as this thing is just too OP, that's why I don't like to play with planes in multiplayer.