Make tractors and trucks have more advantages over trains.

[Lost SEAF recruit]

Most of the game's tiers will improve something at the cost of a higher complexity and cost. Each step up the energy tiers means you need more production cycles to get the required fuel for example.

But trains are a straight upgrade in just about every single way you look at it.

- They don't require separate fuel to be created, electricity will do fine.
- As long as you have the electricity a train will never run out of fuel and stop somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
- They don't require you to set up a new route for each and every truck/tractor you place. Just one rails will do it.
- They won't accidentally get stuck, bump into each other or similar.
- Their carrying capacity is much higher, if necessary you can just add more traincars to carry more and locomotives to push it faster.
- Their maximum speed is much higher than that of trucks and tractors.
- Going up and down steep area's and cliffs is much easier with trains, a single piece of rail barely registers a small cliff or rock, trucks and tractors on the other hand need to go around or need a whole lot of foundations to get over it, slowing down significantly while doing so.

Now I'm assuming buggy things like trucks and tractors falling through the world or launching themselves sky-high because they bumped into something is fixed so I wont cover those.

It seems to me that trucks and tractors can use some more advantages. It takes so much more effort and time to set up a working truck-route. For example I build 3 truckstops with several trucks going back and forth, but they were outcompeted with ease by a train with 2 cargo bays going to the same area. There should be more advantages to trucks and tractors that the player would want to use.

I don't know exactly how to make this happen and keep it balanced, but here are some idea's to at least make the trucks and tractors a bit more viable:

- 2 Fuel tanks that cannot hold the same fuel. One problem I'm finding is that at one truckstop I have one fuel type, at the other truckstop I have another fuel type. Trucks cannot refuel a different fuel type and basically have to carry their own fuel and have that fed back to their fuel tank at the truckstop they arrive at, sacrificing a cargo slot just to fuel itself. If it has 2 fuel tanks that cannot hold the same fuel this problem is resolved.
- Give trucks and tractors the ability to climb steeper gradients than trains with much more ease.
- Give us an option to build a concrete stretch of road that functions like rails when placing it, allowing the player to add turns and go into the air where necessary. You can have several broadnesses for such a road so players can select it, possibly even with a fence inbetween if you have a road broad enough for trucks to pass one another. Since this is basically already in the game it shouldn't be too hard to add it right?
- Give us the option to create routes separately from the vehicles, then assign multiple vehicles to that route. This also prevents one route being slightly faster or slower and vehicles eventually ramming each other.
- It would be especially nice if you can access a type of drone that skims the ground to quickly set up a route. This drone also has the option for the player to force a waypoint to appear. The automatic placement of waypoints can also be turned off by the player so that the player gains control over the waypoints and where they are placed, and your entire route isn't wasted because you accidentally went backwards or hit something at some point.
- Embrace the insanity, add vehicular jump-pads and landing pads. Why not launch your truck through the air across a predetermined arc and have it land to cross some area's? To make it less physics intensive a vehicle launched in this manner will not have any physics and will simply follow the jump-pad trajectory until it hits something. This should also prevent issues with vehicles at different distances being simulated.
- Perhaps make trucks and tractors more fuel efficient? I didn't do the calculation but for their cargo capacity they seem to use far more fuel per kilometer than a train does, especially since trucks are slower and burn fuel for longer to get to their destination.

[Dark Phoenix]

1. Why are your factories using different fuel types. Generally, if you are running coal, you will just run the coal everywhere, as its automatic.
2. Trucks and tractors can climb the steepest slope foundation on offer...which is terrifyingly steep in a vehicle. Anything steeper, would be near sheer.
3. We have foundations, roads were a thing, and they are not coming back any time soon if at all.
4. I would advise having a road system like the real world, where vehicles have an up line and a down line. It avoids ramming issues.
5. No drones. Use concrete ramps as waypoints, then drive your roadway. I tend to use a tractor as a pathfinder, then double the width of any roads i place for trucks as they are wider.
6. Physics with complicated vehicles...that's not going to end well.
7. They are fine for fuel consumption.

Ultiamtly, what i would reccomend is trying to use trains for long distance and road vehicles for shorter, less complex routes.

[Morty Jhones]

I agree.
you are using trucks and trains wrong

Trains are for long range trips between mining area and your main factory areas, moving mass raw goods or primary goods.

trucks should be for short range bulk goods moving like from your Trains station to a work area and vise versa or from mine to processing area. if your moving everything by truck then some thing is wrong.

if your having bumps them you have to many trucks on the route

[Lost SEAF recruit]

Dark Phoenix, I did not ask for a list of things trucks can already do, especially whrn I quite literally mention some already. I also did not ask for how you handle your factories, I dont care that your specific setups dont have fuel problems for example, but my setups would be much more burdened if I have to bring the right fuel to my outposts. I specifically point out how to avoid the physics problems and still you say "oh no physics!". You need to be constructive and take into account that not everyone is you, and actually read what is proposed.

Originally posted by Morty Jhones:

I agree.
you are using trucks and trains wrong

Trains are for long range trips between mining area and your main factory areas, moving mass raw goods or primary goods.

trucks should be for short range bulk goods moving like from your Trains station to a work area and vise versa or from mine to processing area. if your moving everything by truck then some thing is wrong.

if your having bumps them you have to many trucks on the route

If I am using trucks AND trains wrong you should be constructive in how to improve it. You seem to be missing the part where I already am using trains. I already am using trucks for short distances, even distances where I might as well not bother and throw a conveyorbelt down because its cooler that way. The only thing I can do now is lift the route in the air using foundations to make it a trivial ride. Even so trains remain easier to build, easier to set up, easier to maintain and all that.

Also my trucks bump into each other because I dont like using skybridges and while I'll use foundations at times to make sure everything is broad enough there simply are area's where due to the current buggy physics the vehicles can sometimes act uncontrollably and hit each other, something that should be familiar to anyone actually using vehicles.

[Yffriium]

Originally posted by Demigan:

Dark Phoenix, I did not ask for a list of things trucks can already do, especially whrn I quite literally mention some already. I also did not ask for how you handle your factories, I dont care that your specific setups dont have fuel problems for example, but my setups would be much more burdened if I have to bring the right fuel to my outposts. I specifically point out how to avoid the physics problems and still you say "oh no physics!". You need to be constructive and take into account that not everyone is you, and actually read what is proposed.

His list addresses each of your points and why he thinks they're not valid concerns for buffing cars. That's pretty constructive.

[Dark Phoenix]

Originally posted by Demigan:

Dark Phoenix, I did not ask for a list of things trucks can already do, especially whrn I quite literally mention some already. I also did not ask for how you handle your factories, I dont care that your specific setups dont have fuel problems for example, but my setups would be much more burdened if I have to bring the right fuel to my outposts. I specifically point out how to avoid the physics problems and still you say "oh no physics!". You need to be constructive and take into account that not everyone is you, and actually read what is proposed.

Tough, you get a list of things trucks already do, and i suggested some ways to mitigate your issues. I suspect no matter how constructive i was, you would have responded in the same way unless i had told you what you wanted to hear.

Some of what i pointed out was from the devs last youtube video, re. roads.

Something i have never seen the point of anyway, as we have foundations and walls, and can make some nice integrated tunnels, with throughputs for hypertubes, and railways too.

[Lost SEAF recruit]

Originally posted by Yffriium:

Originally posted by Demigan:

Dark Phoenix, I did not ask for a list of things trucks can already do, especially whrn I quite literally mention some already. I also did not ask for how you handle your factories, I dont care that your specific setups dont have fuel problems for example, but my setups would be much more burdened if I have to bring the right fuel to my outposts. I specifically point out how to avoid the physics problems and still you say "oh no physics!". You need to be constructive and take into account that not everyone is you, and actually read what is proposed.

His list addresses each of your points and why he thinks they're not valid concerns for buffing cars. That's pretty constructive.

His list might as well have been "trucks drive" insofar as he "adresses" my points. The most obvious example is his response to the vehicle jumppad idea. I specifically mention that the vehicle while in flight would lose its normal physics so it can just do the parabolic flightpath until it lands, where it would receive it's normal physics again, circumventing any physics problems. His response is "physics with complicated vehicles... not going to end well".

The fact that you applaud this as "adressing my points" speaks volumes.

[Yffriium]

Originally posted by Demigan:

Originally posted by Yffriium:

His list addresses each of your points and why he thinks they're not valid concerns for buffing cars. That's pretty constructive.

The most obvious example is his response to the vehicle jumppad idea. I specifically mention that the vehicle while in flight would lose its normal physics so it can just do the parabolic flightpath until it lands, where it would receive it's normal physics again, circumventing any physics problems. His response is "physics with complicated vehicles... not going to end well".

Programming in vehicles to switch between normal physics and special physics with a pre-calculated path is not only difficult but introduces new issues, such as if the path is interrupted by a new object. I don't agree with either of you regarding this issue, since simply using normal physics with an applied velocity doesn't seem like it would create problems. However, I recall that the devs don't want all vehicles to be incredibly mobile. I think that the Explorer was intended to be used with ramps to preform cool jumps, while the others were meant to follow flatter roads.

[Dark Phoenix]

Originally posted by Demigan:

Originally posted by Yffriium:

His list addresses each of your points and why he thinks they're not valid concerns for buffing cars. That's pretty constructive.

His list might as well have been "trucks drive" insofar as he "adresses" my points. The most obvious example is his response to the vehicle jumppad idea. I specifically mention that the vehicle while in flight would lose its normal physics so it can just do the parabolic flightpath until it lands, where it would receive it's normal physics again, circumventing any physics problems. His response is "physics with complicated vehicles... not going to end well".

The fact that you applaud this as "adressing my points" speaks volumes.

So, what happens when the vehicles land, considering they have suspension. Physics with the vehicles can be a bit ropey at best, and thats jsut in normal play. The best way to deal with it normally is to mitigate it as much as possible, ensuring trucks have a bit more width than they need on bridges, when automating them...as they can bounce, lose control, and end up in the drink.

Soooo...throwing them through the air...either you lock them phsyically, and isolate them to only the arc until landing...considering that all suspension during normal jumps will animate...it will look odd. The sudden reactivation of physics on landing, could also cause some rather nasty effects. The little carts work, as they have a lot less going on.

[Lost SEAF recruit]

Originally posted by Yffriium:

Originally posted by Demigan:

The most obvious example is his response to the vehicle jumppad idea. I specifically mention that the vehicle while in flight would lose its normal physics so it can just do the parabolic flightpath until it lands, where it would receive it's normal physics again, circumventing any physics problems. His response is "physics with complicated vehicles... not going to end well".

Programming in vehicles to switch between normal physics and special physics with a pre-calculated path is not only difficult but introduces new issues, such as if the path is interrupted by a new object. I don't agree with either of you regarding this issue, since simply using normal physics with an applied velocity doesn't seem like it would create problems. However, I recall that the devs don't want all vehicles to be incredibly mobile. I think that the Explorer was intended to be used with ramps to preform cool jumps, while the others were meant to follow flatter roads.

"I don't agree with either of you but let's just keep being negative about this idea". Good one.

- If you take your distance from vehicles you can see that they'll have less and less physics simulated as a performance saving measure. This exact same system can have my idea added, which gives the vehicle less physics while it travels through the air as a performance saving measure. It's practically the same thing with the only difference of when it is applied.
- A train would still be more mobile as you aren't stuck on set arcs for the vehicle to complete.

Originally posted by Dark Phoenix:

So, what happens when the vehicles land, considering they have suspension. Physics with the vehicles can be a bit ropey at best, and thats jsut in normal play. The best way to deal with it normally is to mitigate it as much as possible, ensuring trucks have a bit more width than they need on bridges, when automating them...as they can bounce, lose control, and end up in the drink.

Soooo...throwing them through the air...either you lock them phsyically, and isolate them to only the arc until landing...considering that all suspension during normal jumps will animate...it will look odd. The sudden reactivation of physics on landing, could also cause some rather nasty effects. The little carts work, as they have a lot less going on.

You are definitely grasping at straws here, switching from "oh noes physics!" to "but what happens if it lands?!?". It can all be read right there in the original post, which clearly you haven't.

- If the vehicle hits something during it's flight, it's physics return. It's a quite simple idea since the parabolic arc has to stop somewhere, regardless of it being the ground, a cliffside or a freshly build piece of foundation.
- The physics upon landing can be preset to prevent large problems with it launching or similar. And again what can be read right in the main post: I'm assuming that bugs are resolved, no sense in making suggestions that assume vehicles will remain buggy at 1.0 launch.
- If you have a problem with the idea of vehicles landing, perhaps you should have read the first post where I propose not just a vehicle launching pad but also a vehicle LANDING pad. You know, that thing that already exists for the player?

Stop trying to find flaws, start being constructive.

[Yffriium]

Originally posted by Demigan:

Stop trying to find flaws, start being constructive.

Finding flaws in an idea is constructive.

[Dark Phoenix]

Originally posted by Demigan:

You are definitely grasping at straws here, switching from "oh noes physics!" to "but what happens if it lands?!?". It can all be read right there in the original post, which clearly you haven't.

- If the vehicle hits something during it's flight, it's physics return. It's a quite simple idea since the parabolic arc has to stop somewhere, regardless of it being the ground, a cliffside or a freshly build piece of foundation.
- The physics upon landing can be preset to prevent large problems with it launching or similar. And again what can be read right in the main post: I'm assuming that bugs are resolved, no sense in making suggestions that assume vehicles will remain buggy at 1.0 launch.
- If you have a problem with the idea of vehicles landing, perhaps you should have read the first post where I propose not just a vehicle launching pad but also a vehicle LANDING pad. You know, that thing that already exists for the player?

Stop trying to find flaws, start being constructive.

You wanted constructive...i am challenging you to think about your idea and the issues with it. For example, have you considered that if you turn off physics, you also turn off collision, and thus the truck has no idea if it has made contact with a surface or not.

I think what you are going for is to lock the wheels so that it follows a predictable path through the air, as if you turn off the collision on the wheels as well, when it reactivates and its inside the terrain, it'll either ping off...somewhere, or it will sink through the ground....or be stuck there forever.

The landing pads aren't needed for vehicles...they don't take falling damage, unlike players, unless you want to use them as destination pads...at which point, why are we not just using a teleporter. Far fewer issues with dodgy physics, you can spawn it just above the pad so it drops into place...no need to turn physics on and off to avoid the issues it will cause.

I mean technically, you don't even need a new object, just record the vehicle plunging off a cliff and it will do it in the autopilot.

See, you don't want someone to be constructive. You want people to tell you that's a great idea and not point out the holes. That isn't constructive either. I always saw comments on youtube as one of three things. Positive, negative, and useful. While positive and negative comments can contain useful information, just saying "this video was really good", or "this video was terrible" does not help me make something better.

If QA were all yesmen, games would be buggy, broken messes. Sometimes, you need someone to tell you things you don't want to hear.

[Princess Luna]

Locomotive - Tier 6
Tractor - Tier 3

Locomotives - need railway
Tractors, Trucks - drives by land

"They don't require you to set up a new route for each and every truck/tractor"
Execuse me? You need a route for a tractor?

Why exactly "trains are a straight upgrade in just about every single way you look at it"?

[DivineEvil]

- Trains ARE the direct upgrade from Tractors and Trucks because they're substantially higher in terms of technology and required components.

- Trains are unfeasible for any short-range transportation routes.

- Tractors and Trucks also use the same set of applicable fuel. Electricity is instead produced by burning that fuel in a generating facility, which doesn't make that much of a difference.

- Tractors and Trucks also will never run out of fuel if they're being fueled by the Truck Stations with stable supply, much like with stable supply of power.

- Trains do not need to set routes, sure. Instead you need to literally lay down every meter of rails across that route and build train stations at both points. How is that an advantage?

- If you lay rails that interfere with one-another, you easily can cause train to bump into each-other, much like with Trucks.

- The speed is higher, but the acceleration is lower, and it is largely irrelevant considering all the various advatages for using Trucks for short-range logistics.

- The Trucks do have some issue with obstacles, however they can pass through more dense vegetation and other objects.

- Trucks and Tractors can be used for exploration - Trains cannot be. You have to explore first before you lay the rails and stations. The player on a Tractor or Truck can carry all the materials on its own, find a spot, setup a mining facility and then record the route to the base and back, and that consitutes a working logistic line.

- Finally, simply compare the expense of running a Tractor or the Truck between two points and doing the same with the train.

Tractors an Trucks do not need any more advantages over the Trains, because they already have plenty, and everything that is good about Trains is plentifully compensated by their higher tech-level and the vast difference in expense of application. In the end, Trucks and Trains are better for different applications and one does not exlude the utility of using another.

[Yffriium]

Originally posted by DivineEvil:

- If you lay rails that interfere with one-another, you easily can cause train to bump into each-other, much like with Trucks.

Would like to point out that I'm pretty sure trains phase right through each other in the current state of the game.

[Edmund Greyfox]

The question (or issue) here isn't actually about trucks vs trains. Its really about the fact that trucks don't have any advantages over belts for short range movement of goods, so there really isn't any reason to use them.