how to get the number ob max trains (and others) higer??
Posted: 12 Jan 2008 15:53
with the patch settings i can't get the maximum higher than 5000. can somone tell me how i can make this higher? is there a file i should edit?
The place to talk about Transport Tycoon
https://www.tt-forums.net/
Code: Select all
SDT_VAR(Patches, max_trains, SLE_UINT16, 0, 0, 500, 0, 5000, 0, STR_CONFIG_PATCHES_MAX_TRAINS, RedrawScreen),
SDT_VAR(Patches, max_roadveh, SLE_UINT16, 0, 0, 500, 0, 5000, 0, STR_CONFIG_PATCHES_MAX_ROADVEH, RedrawScreen),
SDT_VAR(Patches, max_aircraft, SLE_UINT16, 0, 0, 200, 0, 5000, 0, STR_CONFIG_PATCHES_MAX_AIRCRAFT, RedrawScreen),
SDT_VAR(Patches, max_ships, SLE_UINT16, 0, 0, 300, 0, 5000, 0, STR_CONFIG_PATCHES_MAX_SHIPS, RedrawScreen),
So .. if the server raises limits on trains to 700 and you build 655 trains, 100 wagons(parts) each (plus one with 35 parts), nobody in game can build any vehicle anymore?Rubidium wrote:There can be a maximum of 65535 vehicle in game. A vehicle means *any* wagon, articulated part,...
well then if this is true, how can i build 9 train engines and 1 one train with 12 wagons on it if train limit is 10?Rubidium wrote:There can be a maximum of 65535 vehicle in game. A vehicle means *any* wagon, articulated part, engine smoke, sparks, aircrafts + shadows, rotors, road vehicles, ships, etc. With 5000 trains, and nothing else (except smoke and sparks), that would mean trains with an average length of about 10.
Because a wagon is not a train.Draakon wrote:well then if this is true, how can i build 9 train engines and 1 one train with 12 wagons on it if train limit is 10?
65535 means an `unsigned int'. I don't know the OTTD internals, but I think changing it to a `long int' would make the limit impossible to reach, but it may not be that simple at all and I don't want to say anything about resource usage.Bilbo wrote:These are separate limits. The 500/5000/10 train limits that can be set in settings is for entire trains. That 65535 limit Rubidium mentioned is total number of objects in game. Engine is an object. Wagon is an object. Spark, plane, shadow, ship or road vehicle is an object. Articulated part is also object.
Nope, that's an uint16 in openttd code. On most modern compilers for x86, that would be an unsigned short int. But it's not quite as simple as changing that to uint32, and the limit is pretty unreachable anyway.Desolator wrote:65535 means an `unsigned int'. I don't know the OTTD internals, but I think changing it to a `long int' would make the limit impossible to reach, but it may not be that simple at all and I don't want to say anything about resource usage.Bilbo wrote:These are separate limits. The 500/5000/10 train limits that can be set in settings is for entire trains. That 65535 limit Rubidium mentioned is total number of objects in game. Engine is an object. Wagon is an object. Spark, plane, shadow, ship or road vehicle is an object. Articulated part is also object.
Well, I don't think it is unreachable but it is large enough to be very little issue for most peopleYexo wrote:...pretty unreachable anyway.
Ooops, yeah, I forgot, it was very late when I postedYexo wrote:Desolator wrote:Nope, that's an uint16 in openttd code.
Actually, 3 x 5000 planes = 30,000 objects, since the shadow is a separate vehicle.CARST wrote:3x 5000 planes = 15000 objects
Well then could we have it an uint32, please?Maedhros wrote:Actually, 3 x 5000 planes = 30,000 objects, since the shadow is a separate vehicle.CARST wrote:3x 5000 planes = 15000 objects
Not easily, no. VehicleIDs are used frequently in Commands, and I suspect that many of them don't have 16 more bits in p1 and p2 spare in order to increase the size of a VehicleID.Desolator wrote:Well then could we have it an uint32, please?
Well, it is possible for these commands to have some p3 or p4 if needed or is the size of the command fixed?Maedhros wrote:Not easily, no. VehicleIDs are used frequently in Commands, and I suspect that many of them don't have 16 more bits in p1 and p2 spare in order to increase the size of a VehicleID.Desolator wrote:Well then could we have it an uint32, please?