Support #2750

Tracking Table

Added by JVassie over 8 years ago. Updated over 7 years ago.

Status:NewStart date:2011-06-17
Priority:LowDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:-
Target version:-

New_Text_Document.txt Magnifier (4.91 KB) oberhuemer, 2011-09-29 14:10

History

#2 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

Yeah, i actually wanted to add the V188, and wonder why i didn't.

I'm not sure if the V140 really makes a lot of sense though, even the extended set doesn't need every little prototype ever produced.

IMHO, the extended set should have more detailed development than the core set, e.g:
  • some "overpowered" pre-war engines (E19, 05, 61)
  • engines that had a notable niche usage (e.g. engines with builtin tender that have similar stats than additional-tender ones, BR 60 with double decker wagons - an early push-pull service train)
  • just more engines in case you play with daylength or such.

#3 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

The V 140 makes sense in that it's a cheap to run replacement for earlier passenger and freight engines, like P 8 and G 10.
Speaking of prototypes, somehow the V 320 found its way into "core".

Eddi said:
E19, 05, 61

I agree, the core set could then just have the 01.10 and 03.10.

#4 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

The V320 is kind of an edge case, because it's basically the only thing resembling a "heavy freight" diesel engine until the 232 (DR 132) comes along.

The DB didn't really have demand for them, because most main lines were electrified by then. But from gameplay point of view they might be useful.

#5 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

I realize that, but two V 160 should be able to do the same work for about the same price and are what was really used. The core set shouldn't have too many alternative development possibilities in my view, that can come with extended.
You're also forgetting the V 300: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krauss-Maffei_ML_2200_C%E2%80%99C%E2%80%99
And some more diesel, between V 160 and V 320: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel-BBC_DE2500 (Let's take the 003...)
A hybrid between speed of the P 8, power of the T 12 and adhesive weight of the T 11: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu%C3%9Fische_T_10

On a different note, there needs to be a "multiple use" category for engines that regularly pulled or were meant to pull different train types.

#6 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

There is, it's called "Universal"

#7 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

That's not quite it - engines that were truly used for everything are very rare and pretty much exclusively modern. A better name might be "passenger and freight", excluding express trains and heavy freight trains. That could then be used for things like the T 3, but would have to be an addition.

#8 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

Looking at the TT, there are some engines in multiple categories, so disregard that. I'm also making it more readable.

#9 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

what do you mean with "more readable"?

Don't make any changes to the file in the repository, they will be overwritten when exporting from the goolge spreadsheet.

Change the google spreadsheet, then go to download -> as text -> save as -> overwrite the existing file -> commit.

also don't change the table headings, the generate script depends on them.

#10 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

I suppose that was ten minutes wasted, my intention was to make the .tsv be arranged better. Like this:

#11 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

i suppose we could have scripts/generate.py throw out a better aligned version of the table, and the .tsv is code-relevant, so it should be moved out of docs/ into src/.

#13 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

the generate script does now generate a file "docs/CETS_engine_table.txt" which uses spaces to align the columns.

#14 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

I can't edit the spreadsheet on Google Docs using the link at the top.

#15 Updated by planetmaker about 8 years ago

Please tell me (or some other person who can edit that document) your preferred e-mail address or the / one google account so that we can authorize that for editing.

#16 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

Sent a PM; it would make sense to have the ET 85 as a three-part MU, matching its power better and making its capacity fall more in the middle between ET 87 and ET 65.

#17 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

the idea was to make the ET85 refittable to be 2,3 or 4 parts, and the ET65 refittable to 2,4 or 6 parts.

#18 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

I think it would be better to have them as double-ended "engines" so the user can choose the number of cars. That would mean having special liveries for some passenger cars when attached to MUs and disallowing others, and would still exclude using them on their own (although that wouldn't be too efficient anyway). Refitting means, of course, that the purchase price is always the same - I'll leave this to you, but you could still make the default 3 cars long.

#19 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

yes, problem with that is that you (currently) cannot make an engine that is both articulated and doubleheaded at the same time. which is going to be a real problem for the ICE.

anyway, the default will likely be the shortest version, and refitting would simulate the cost of adding more wagons (with limitations, e.g. i don't think you can get money back)

#20 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

How much control is there over refitting costs anyhow? I believe only one can be set per vehicle. There would only be a problem with the ICE-T, but its two variants have different class numbers anyway.

#21 Updated by planetmaker about 8 years ago

oberhuemer wrote:

How much control is there over refitting costs anyhow? I believe only one can be set per vehicle. There would only be a problem with the ICE-T, but its two variants have different class numbers anyway.

In principle you can do all kind of callback magic as usual. But you cannot do the only thing which I'd find interesting: differ the refit costs based on existing cargo AND target cargo as the target is not know at the time of refit - and it would require an incredibly big cost matrix :-)

#22 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

It seems sensible to me to remove the "Baureihe" before each class number and just put the company name(s) there instead (nothing or much less needs to be translated, and it's unnecessary anyway).

#23 Updated by planetmaker about 8 years ago

Personally I like the "Baureihe". It might be feasible to just translate that once. Or even for a translator it's not much work to translate "Baureihe" via search and replace to whatever is his equivalent to "Class".

#24 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

I'm not sure the vehicle names even need translating...

#25 Updated by Elukka about 8 years ago

The wagon types (and anything that has gameplay relevance) certainly will. For locomotive classes I don't think it matters any whether it's Baureihe, BR or Class.

#26 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

Why not have the E 75 in core instead of the E 91? Else there's actually a step back in speed from the E 71, as well as a significantly larger jump in power.
Actually, it's missing completely; would look better to have a one-part engine instead of a fake three-part one (E 77).

#27 Updated by Eddi about 8 years ago

we can switch the E77 with the E75, or add both, they're almost identical, except for the bendyness.

not entirely sure what you mean with the power, though, the E91 is stronger than the E77/E75, and has higher TE.

the speed i don't really see as a problem. the E71 can resonably be put in front of passenger trains, but by the time the E77/E75 comes along, there are probably better suited engines for that, so may as well put the E91 in front of these slow, heavy, freight trains.

finally, i find the aesthetics of a 3-part bendy locomotive quite interesting, so i'd keep at least one of them in core.

#28 Updated by oberhuemer about 8 years ago

In that case, I'll just switch up E 91 and E 77. E 91 speed still is significantly lower than that of all but switching engines of its time (and even below that of G 10 and G 12), which is decisive; other trains are either becoming faster or staying at the same speed.
The "power jump" doesn't really matter that much, but I meant that, using the E 77, the development from E 71 to E 94 is "smoother". I'm also missing the E 95, will add that (extended of course).

#29 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

I suggest either using the (weighted?) average of continuous and short-term power as the power value for diesels and electrics or boosting it to the short-term value when they're accelerating.

#30 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

Why? Acceleration is fast enough in the game already, i see no reason to artificially boost that aspect...

#31 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

Patch? ... I know.
It's just another one of these little things, I don't think anyone else has done it yet. I'll add the data to the tracking table, whether to use it can still be debated afterwards.

#32 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

Well, nothing speaks against putting this data in the tracking table, except for the possiblility to spend the time better elsewhere...

i haaven't looked into this, but conceptually, we could abuse the animation frame as a counter. increase the counter while the vehicle is standing, decrease the counter while the vehicle is running. CB36 returns short-term power if counter>0, long-term power if counter=0. potentially the counter should remain unchanged when the vehicle is not accelerating, but i think the UKRS/NARS method has problems deciding if a train is running below top speed because of rail speed limit or because it is still accelerating.

but still, i don't think i'll program this feature, unless you present me with a really compelling reason.

#33 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

To be completely consistent, it would even be necessary to use only the short-term value (all there usually is for MUs).
Maybe I'll check it out.

#34 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

i skimmed through the current core set for DB (mainly), and have a few thoughts:
  • in the DRG era, we have several EMUs and DMUs/railcars, usually a slower one and a faster one (e.g. ET85 vs. ET41, ET65 vs. ET31), i already added now the 423 (vs. 425) for the DBAG era, but inbetween, there's not much to build this distinction on. so maybe we should offer vehicles like VT12, 624 or 420 twice, in a slower and a faster variant?
  • the ET11 is somewhat of a specialist oddity, there's nothing before or after it of the same kind, i suggest therefore to keep it in the "extended" set, not in the "core" set.
  • why did you remove the V320? besides of it only existing in one prototype, it nicely fills a gap that the real DB left open.
  • during the 1980's, there is really a long gap in vehicle availability, so we extended some beyond their original buy period, in particular this affects the V60/V90/V100/V160 (218)... question is if we should really do that for all of them, or pick only one or two out.

#35 Updated by michi_cc almost 8 years ago

Eddi wrote:

during the 1980's, there is really a long gap in vehicle availability, so we extended some beyond their original buy period, in particular this affects the V60/V90/V100/V160 (218)... question is if we should really do that for all of them, or pick only one or two out.

I think is quite okay if there are some gaps, makes for a bit of a challenge. Some "strategically" placed gaps are good for gameplay.

#36 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

So: V 320 is in, ET 11 is out. I also put in the 422 (just to have something new, though it's practically identical to the 423) and the 627 (more suited to bridge the VT 98-RegioShuttle gap than the 628), and corrected MU weights with some guesswork.

#37 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

err, the 423 and 422 come out at the same time...

#38 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

You're thinking of the 424.

#39 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

i'm not thinking anything, i'm reading the tracking table, and it says both get introduced in 1998.

#40 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

For MUs with different part configurations: Several different vehicles, or refits? I say go for multiple IDs.

#41 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

different IDs is definitely easier to handle.

if only speed is different, you can reuse the articulated parts by giving the same ID in the artic_ident column, if also capacity is different (commuter vs. passenger) then you have to duplicate the articulated parts as well.

#42 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

oberhuemer wrote:

and corrected MU weights with some guesswork.

what do you mean with that? in what way were they incorrect?

and whatever you did to the price calculation is horribly wrong. i reverted that, whatever you tried to achieve...

#43 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

They weren't really, time to revert...

#44 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

Articulated vehicles' power isn't added up, and when I tried to do so, it was always interpreted as a string (e.g. the result for the ET 85 was 671141 hp in the NML)

#45 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

that should be an easy fix... :)

#46 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

How do you get the ET31, with a total weight of 49t and 4 axles to be 20.7 axle weight?

#47 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

I don't: http://www.lokodex.de/or/o_tdaus.php?tdnr=472
I'll replace it with the ET 25 if it doesn't fit in.

#48 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

i'm just saying i find the value implausible.

that page you link there lists the axle scheme as Bo'2'+2'2'+2'Bo', but that's not the original arrangement. that's what the DB made of it when it needed more trains, it took leftover steering wagons from ET25 and stretched the 4 ET31 into 6 this way.

anyway, the ET25 isn't really a proper replacement. the "scheme" would be something like: ET65: commuter, ET25: passenger, ET31: accelerated, ET11: express

#49 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

for example http://www.elektrische-bahnen.de/modell/ talks about ET31 regularly going over a 18t track.

#50 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

Dunno really. Keeping the value is probably best, that matches up with the ET 41 and all the heavy electrics.

#51 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

personally, i could live with "faking" both down to 18.9, which would make them available to the lower railtype.

anyway, different issue: wth happened to the 481 middle wagons?

#52 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

What's wrong with them?
So, on the DR wagons: The "S-Bahn" double-deckers are a real misfit. For one, I doubt there were such specially constructed cars, and besides, there are no other commuter cars far and wide (and not much worth adding either).

#53 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

"S-Bahn" in east germany had a very different usage than in west germany, while in west germany, the main purpose was to reduce the stopping time by allowing fast entry/exit, the main purpose in east germany was to handle the very large spike in the "rush hour" (usually the shift change in practically all large factories was synchronized). because the self-motorization was very low, speed wasn't really that much of an issue.

when the DR introduced S-Bahn service outside of Berlin in the 1970s, the double decker wagons were meant as a temporary measure, but like all good temporary measures, they stayed in place. (the second (late 70s/early 80s) generation of wagons still run on those lines. In Halle/Leipzig they're meant to be replaced by Talent 2 by 2013, we'll see if that actually happens :p). An EMU for S-Bahn service was developed, but never was ordered in larger quantities.

#54 Updated by oberhuemer almost 8 years ago

If they're just "regular trains" named S-Bahn, I'll raise the maximum wagon speeds and classify them as passenger (sort of like the 420).

#55 Updated by Eddi almost 8 years ago

the relevant paragraph from wikipedia:

Ab 1970 begann der Bau 31 fünfteiliger Doppelstockgliederzüge (DGBgq[e] mit Wendezugsteuerabteil, DGBgu[e] nur mit Steuerleitung) für den Einsatz im Ballungsraum-Nahverkehr, wobei sich der Wagenübergang auf der normalen Fußbodenhöhe am Nicht-Führerstandsende befand. Um Achslastüberschreitungen zu vermeiden und die Fahrzeuge freizügig einsetzbar zu machen, wurden die End- und Mittelwagen um je ein Abteil verkürzt. Erstmals lagen die Fenster im Oberstock vollständig in der Dachschräge, sie konnten nach oben geöffnet werden. Die Endwagen waren für den Einbau der automatischen Mittelpufferkupplung vorbereitet. Diese Einheiten wurden im Chemiearbeiterverkehr im Großraum Halle/Saale, im Schnellverkehr Leipzig–Halle, im Sputnik-Verkehr auf dem Berliner Außenring und bei den S-Bahnen von Dresden, Leipzig, Halle und Magdeburg eingesetzt. Sie liefen auf Drehgestellen der Bauart Görlitz VI-Do-K. Die Einstiegstüren wurden mit Kiekert-Schlössern verriegelt, wodurch die Türgriffe asymmetrisch ausfielen. Eine Türschließeinrichtung war ebenso eingebaut, wurde jedoch in der Regel nicht benutzt.

#56 Updated by oberhuemer over 7 years ago

There was confusion between the 214 (now 714) used for the tunnel rescue trains from 1997, which were regular 212, and the 214 (or 262) rebuilt from 2006, with the latter introduced when the former was. I've fixed that and swapped core and extended for 211 and 212 to compensate.

Also available in: Atom PDF