Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
What do *you* think of my suggestions? Do you agree that a (substantially) bigger map would, by far, be the most helpful upgrade if and when TF3 comes out?
Aspect signalling really isn't needed, as the game internally does it already. That is - it manages train inertia as so aspecting signals is not needed.
Signalling a single-track is kinda/sorta possible, but with traffic densities this game operates on single track stretches are fairly useless. especially since the game uses flat maintenance rate for vehicles, thus if they idle, they lose money.
But admittedly - single track signalling could be made better.
Passenger logic is borked, but as far as I understand, people will use the first vehicle that goes to their destination they see, so what you describe already happens.
Containerized traffic would be interesting mechanic. True.
Build out a new city or something, and enjoy the fact the train behaves much more prototypically? :-)
Or, you know, PLAY A SMALLER MAP...
Being able to see signals display more than just green and red would be a huge quality of life improvement.
Trains currently behave poorly, accelerating at full pace only to break massively when running behind a slower train. Makes me wince to see the jerky unrealistic motion. If the yellow aspect was implemented (=the block after the next one is occupied) and trains reacted by going at half speed, this would greatly smooth out AI trains.
But more importantly, it breaks my heart that mod creators can't really design beautiful signals from all over the world - the game doesn't have to support absolutely every nuance of railroad signaling, but not even supporting three aspects...?
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/model-railroad-operations/what-railroad-signals-mean/
That's just your reflex to say no talking! If you think about my bigger maps suggestion, you would realize the point is for the game to not operate at current hysterical traffic densities!
In real life, a single-tracked line that sees one train every hour would be considered "fairly busy". Think about it: if you stand next to this track, 55 minutes out of every hour would be all peace and quiet (assuming it takes the train five minutes to pass by). And that's a busy line.
Thanks. It could be made possible at all. Try placing double-sided signals on a single tracked line in the current game and you'd end up with deadlocks where two trains stop facing each other. The game doesn't support the idea to use a single track for trains in both directions like at all.
I want to get away from this and the cheapness of rail-building basically means there's zero reason to not just double-track everything already from the start to save you all kinds of headaches down the line.
No, they will decide on their entire route already when leaving the house. Once they reach the station they're added to the number waiting for the next train ON A SPECIFIC LINE.
Maybe you're thinking of how the game (crudely) load balances between lines. This does happen, but works poorly. I think the game simply uses the same algorithm for distributing cargo between multiple consumer industries, and that's not good enough.
I find it hard to believe it isn't in already. The game does make a fairly big deal out of its support for modern eras. You can't really say you support gameplay in the 1980s and beyond if you don't offer stack trains.
If the game treated modern rail as an after-thought and was mostly centered around steam or even dieselization, I could accept the complete lack of container traffic. But asking us to ship all commoditized cargo in box cars?!
One thing I would like to see with maps is much better map generation, the grassy fields are too empty and boring, and its time consuming to detail them. Farmland and ranches should populate non-forested areas.
More industries and things to do with them nice, such as ports where you could export or import raw materials or goods, power plants requiring coal, etc.
Bigger maps would be cool, but I don't think I'd have the hardware to handle those. Not with the amount of assets I cram into my usual maps.
A better idea would be travel classes, within the same and different vehicles, and categories, with travel rules. That would help differentiate commuter cheap traffic and long distance lines with reserved seating.
An alternative idea, probably simpler to implement too, and not mutually exclusive, is keeping the existing travel mechanics, but if the passenger's favorite line cannot be used due to being full, passengers should start using the next available path instead of waiting on their favorite line.
While I would like bigger maps as well, I would find it very hard to implement it, especially something like 500 km. It is not just a matter of changing pathfinding mechanics, but also the fact that unless you like staring at a virtually empty map, or are ok with big compromises on the game's graphics, that that map's assets by themselves will place much bigger stresses on the hardware as they do now.
On a megalomaniac 1:5 map I am playing at the moment I can already hit 24 GB vRAM at 4k, and have to draw from shared memory. Even 1080 only reduces vRAM usage to about 18 GB. Not to mention RAM usage at 30+ GB and the size of such save files are already 1 GB, imagine a map that is a dozen times bigger than that.
The only way this would work is if a SC4 region layout with smaller playable maps was adopted, and this would result in limitations between interactions among the different smaller maps of the region.
On that note, just changing the game away from an agent based system is not enough. It will help, but only to a point. For example, A-Train All Aboard Tourism has issues tracking everything on densely packed maps, RE2 visibly stutters on the highest speeds on the larger maps, and even OpenTTD may suffer from lag spikes if you have lots of vehicles moving about.
I usually play on small or medium maps. I prefer to buildup stage, not the expansion. However. I did play a megalomaniac 1:5 map to completion ( EPEC nonetheless - every city connected and supplied ). It took _ages_ to fill. Literally - about 300-ish game years ( about 60-ish hours of game ) to get to the final stage, where every source industry was maximized and every city was supplied with at least some of its needs.
The issue is that with with 500km ( or 500x500 - let's go bonkers ) map it would either require to have distances to be 10 times larger to keep the number of destinations constant, or ~500 times more stuff on the map to keep the current destination density. In one case - the game would take 10 times more time to get going, in the other there isn't a computer today that can keep up with something like that.
Come to think of it - if the game allowed for longer map formats, it would satisfy your need to have long routes:
The current megalomaniac 1:5 map is 52.5x10.5 and has 551 square km.
if we want to keep the same area, to keep the resource consumption down:
1:10 ratio would give us, roughly, 75x7.5km
1:20 ratio is 105x5.25km
1:40 ratio is 148x3.7km
1:80 ratio is 210x2.7km
Roughly. I guess 1:40 or 1:80 would allow us to create a realistic railroad trunk line with a load of spurs and feeders. So yeah, it would be nice. Let's bully UG to give us that.
BTW - there is a game called Train-World which, supposedly, is more in the line of what you describe, distance wise.
Aesthetics is something I don't care about. At least, to a degree.
My question is - what precisely do you aim for, gameplay-wise. If you want aspect signalling - my guess is that you also want to control train speed. We can't set a line-x to go above certain speed threshold. There are mods our there that allow to build track with differing speed limits ( Extended Gameplay is one ) but vanilla game does not allow for it. Moreover - aspect signalling exists in the real world to manage train inertia - to give the driver a forethought as what happens next.
The game already does this internally - if you place two signals one after another and the _next_ one is at danger than the train will begin to slow down before the second one even if the first one is at green. Try it out. This is more efficient than aspect signalling.
Don't get me wrong - as an eye candy it might be nice to see aspects, but they would not change a bit how the game works.
besides - I would prefer to also see superelevation at curves, transitional curves, prefabbed and precisely placed turnouts, aspect signals and absolutely no handhold railroad simulator kind of a deal, but this game is not that and it does not seem that UG is willing to get it in that direction.
I think you misunderstood what I said. Traffic densities in this game are absurdly high for a real railroad. In my games I get 30 second headways on some routes. Realistically, the way the game is structured, once there are more than three trains on a route, it is more efficient to double track it.
Believe me, I tried.
Once again - unless you aim for aesthetics, not gameplay.
That being said - while it is not possible to make two-way signalled single track section, it is plenty of possible to make a single track with passing loops and priority in one direction.
Basic passing loop setup uses no signals on the single track section. It works just fine, albeit does not allow two trains to enter a single track one after another. You can add a priority in one direction by a strategic placement of two way signal at the end of a single track - like this:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3105758542
One way signal terminates the passing loop, two way signal terminates the single track. So far this works for me.
That is an intrinsic problem with the game's ... many things. Yes, it is a shame that single tracking for cheapness is not a thing. But adding signals for single tracking will not make it a thing - a fundamental change to running costs of trains is necessary for that.
I'll take your word for it. I never set up passenger traffic as anything more than an afterthought. In my humble opinion however - I'd much rather have multi-stop routes work first. It is a travesty that A-B-C-D-C-B-A routes don't work reliably.
Yes. Full agreement.
In all honesty - the game insists on using unit trains and boxcars from the inception to the finish which has not been the case ever.
Thing is, long-distance isn't what the game is doing. What you see in the overwhelming majority of cases is short-distance commuter services, simply because of the constraints of the game (passengers prefer close-by cities; even megalomaniac-sized maps are rather small).
So the game needs to model commuter rail. And a commuter doesn't have to choose between lines - you just take the next Overground or S-Bahn or Metro train that gets you to where you need to be.
The game needs to have commuters board the next train regardless of line. Long-distance services can remain working as-is.
You imply the argument "we shouldn't be able to wish for things that are already functional". But this would mean there's no point in pretty houses or superb engine sound FX.
So maybe it's just that you don't care about aesthetics.
Me, I would love the combination in functionality and looks that 3-aspect signalling would bring.
Obviously 4-aspect signalling would be even better, but supporting the yellow light would go a very long way all by itself.
Once you only need 30 second intervals when you're trying to model a hectic subway line, or perhaps the Shinkansen routes out of Tokyo Station...
...and the economic model is changed so that a single freight train can easily supply an entire city's demand for goods...
you would gain the freedom to single-track all the lines except your busy trunk lines :)
And for this to work, the game can't force you to build sidings everywhere. It must be possible for LONG stretches of single line... and then it must be possible for trains to run Caravan style (multiple trains in one direction, one after the other, all on the same stretch of single track... and then, when the last of these trains clear the stretch, a number of trains can travel in the other direction; again one after each other without each train having to clear the entire stretch before the next train is let onto that track)
I know how signals work, thanks. I am specifically asking for two trains to be able to enter a single track one after another.
As I bring up in a separate point.
Us waiting for a more realistic economy doesn't mean they can't give us better signalling in the meanwhile.
In all honesty, that's a poor argument against not fixing it. It's never too late to improve something!
You misunderstood. The game _already_ functions the way you want it to. What you want is just an explicit presentation of this fact to the player. It's not something I am against, obviously, but it is, as I said before, an eye candy.
For example - what would the signal aspect actually mean? Currently - green is "go as fast as you can" and red is "full stop". For the sake of this discussion let's assume that 'caution'\ is yellow.
What would yellow mean?
This does not resolve the underlying problem. Even the most elaborate signaling system would not fix this. The issue is that the amount of traffic the game generates will overwhelm any single track line without dense enough passing sidings.
That and the fact that the game penalizes you for having trains not move and for cargo rotting on the station and stations not being visited frequently enough. Having 30 minute line frequencies simply does not work.
I agree it would be a nice feature. For all the people who play TpF2 as a virtual model railroad.
I didn't suggest anything to the contrary, did I? I suggest, from my experience as a software dev, that time is always limited and number of 'nice' features is infinite.
I didn't suggest anything to the contrary, did I ( part 2 )? I would welcome some, even the most rudimentary, switching. Moreover, the game already supports multipurpose container cars, except that feature is not really used. I think that even randomized cargo states ( read: random looks of containers ) is also possible.