OTTD Hints and Tips.
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
HereComesPete
- Throbbing Cupcake
- Posts: 10249
- Joined: February 17th, 2007, 23:05
- Location: The maleboge
-
Mr. Johnson
- Mr Flibbles
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: August 10th, 2006, 10:58
- Location: belgium
-
Dr. kitteny berk
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
-
Joose
- Turret
- Posts: 8090
- Joined: October 13th, 2004, 14:13
- Location: The house of Un-Earthly horrors
spoodie wrote:I'm more of a Lego child than a train set child. Which is why Minecrack grabbed for a while and this hasn't. Also I've made a concerted effort not to learn too much about how to play.
If someone were ever to make a lego version of minecrack, with proper lego bits, it would signal the end times for me. I would be physically incapable of not playing.
-
Dr. kitteny berk
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
Just gone and dug up a few tips that about suit my current level of skill:
Trains
Try to keep a consistent signal distance, as this allows trains to flow smoothly. Inconsictency will cause trains to catch the block in front before the last train has left it, causing a concertina effect and stopping everything behind.
Try to have a run up to and from stations of a train length. This allows them to arrive and leave at good speed and prevents them blocking the station when waiting to arrive or leave, as they can sit on the line and wait.
On busy stations put in a pass-through line to circumvent it, preventing other trains who don't need to stop being blocked.
Feeder lines to holding stations can be used by using the unload option, shortening the round journey and allowing larger trains on main lines to service multiple supplies without a huge round trip.
Towns
Towns expand becaiuse of transported passengers and goods causing a rise in station value. This is not consistent though.
Towns cannot expand over diagonal tracks as they can't build roads over them. They expand by estending a road then building around them. In theory you could shape a town by building your own road extensions, but I've not seen this tried yet.
Cities grow twice as fast as towns. The exact definition of a city varies with the game options.
Building a station next to an airport will extend its influence by a lot (as airports cover more squares).
A bus going between two stops at opposite ends of town can increase growth for a low price. Useful for preparing a nearby town for a passenger line later in the game.
Industries
Growth depends on the percentage of products transported. Again, this isn't consistent as industries vary in how much product they will release for transport, and a recession will cause a decrease in production.
Station Ratings
Station ratings are calculated every 2.5 days on a number of factors, and wil only increase by 2% per calculation. The following factors will increase station ratings, which will in turn influence town and industry growth:
* Speed of the trains entering the station
* Trains less than 3 years old entering the station
* Days since last cargo pickup (includes trains capable of pickup that leave without picking up)
* Less than 600 units of cargo waiting (the fewer the better)
* Statue in connected town
* Proximity to town centre
The following factors decrease station rating:
* More than 1000 cargo waiting (penalty increases with cargo waiting)
* Crash within 30 tiles
I've still more questions about this game which I can't find answers to in the guides I've read. I might jump on the BerkSave I have and run some high-speed experiments.
I've still not worked out how to build effective but large stations near enough to resources without being constricted and congested
I've not figured out how best to use the full load option to minimise cargo waiting in stations.
I'm assuming the optimum amount of time for trains to be running into stations is every 2.5 days (as this is also the time it takes for a producer to refresh the station with cargo), but I need to work out how to optimise train numbers and lengths for varying distances of line so that they're regularly serviced.
I also noticed a problem I was having in our latest multiplayer map that some trains were taking a really long route to my farms despite a shorter one being available. It turned out to be because I had built the trains at a depot that was off their loop, and they were returning to it whenever they needed servicing, causing them to do a massive return journey that took up much of their time until their next service. I had always assumed trains would service at any depot on their route.
Trains
Try to keep a consistent signal distance, as this allows trains to flow smoothly. Inconsictency will cause trains to catch the block in front before the last train has left it, causing a concertina effect and stopping everything behind.
Try to have a run up to and from stations of a train length. This allows them to arrive and leave at good speed and prevents them blocking the station when waiting to arrive or leave, as they can sit on the line and wait.
On busy stations put in a pass-through line to circumvent it, preventing other trains who don't need to stop being blocked.
Feeder lines to holding stations can be used by using the unload option, shortening the round journey and allowing larger trains on main lines to service multiple supplies without a huge round trip.
Towns
Towns expand becaiuse of transported passengers and goods causing a rise in station value. This is not consistent though.
Towns cannot expand over diagonal tracks as they can't build roads over them. They expand by estending a road then building around them. In theory you could shape a town by building your own road extensions, but I've not seen this tried yet.
Cities grow twice as fast as towns. The exact definition of a city varies with the game options.
Building a station next to an airport will extend its influence by a lot (as airports cover more squares).
A bus going between two stops at opposite ends of town can increase growth for a low price. Useful for preparing a nearby town for a passenger line later in the game.
Industries
Growth depends on the percentage of products transported. Again, this isn't consistent as industries vary in how much product they will release for transport, and a recession will cause a decrease in production.
Station Ratings
Station ratings are calculated every 2.5 days on a number of factors, and wil only increase by 2% per calculation. The following factors will increase station ratings, which will in turn influence town and industry growth:
* Speed of the trains entering the station
* Trains less than 3 years old entering the station
* Days since last cargo pickup (includes trains capable of pickup that leave without picking up)
* Less than 600 units of cargo waiting (the fewer the better)
* Statue in connected town
* Proximity to town centre
The following factors decrease station rating:
* More than 1000 cargo waiting (penalty increases with cargo waiting)
* Crash within 30 tiles
I've still more questions about this game which I can't find answers to in the guides I've read. I might jump on the BerkSave I have and run some high-speed experiments.
I've still not worked out how to build effective but large stations near enough to resources without being constricted and congested
I've not figured out how best to use the full load option to minimise cargo waiting in stations.
I'm assuming the optimum amount of time for trains to be running into stations is every 2.5 days (as this is also the time it takes for a producer to refresh the station with cargo), but I need to work out how to optimise train numbers and lengths for varying distances of line so that they're regularly serviced.
I also noticed a problem I was having in our latest multiplayer map that some trains were taking a really long route to my farms despite a shorter one being available. It turned out to be because I had built the trains at a depot that was off their loop, and they were returning to it whenever they needed servicing, causing them to do a massive return journey that took up much of their time until their next service. I had always assumed trains would service at any depot on their route.
Experiment #1: Loading orders.
I set up a scenario with two coal mines and two power stations about 40 squares apart. One mine had a slightly higher output (180t and 120t), but not a lot I can do about that. In between I ran two lines each with a two-carriage train on both runs, which is four trains on independent tracks. By 1967 (17 years), when the trains were breaking down every run, the results were as follows:
Load and Go:
Coal Produced - 96t
% transported - 38
Annual Profit - 8685 + 4212 = 12897
Station Rating - Never became rated
Goods in station - Nil
Full Load:
Coal Produced - 99t
% transported - 41
Annual Profit - 9293 + 7279 = 16572
Station Rating - Mediocre (38%)
Goods in station - 35t
So there wasn't a great deal of difference in this configuration, presumably due to the identical distances and trains, but for some reason despite shifting a similar amount of coal the full load trains made more profit. I think ultimately it settled down to the fact that both trains were loading to 100% and leaving again, so the orders made no difference.
The limitations were caused by starting funds, hence each train only having two carriages, but in the long run the mones match their production output to the quantity shifted anyway.
I set up a scenario with two coal mines and two power stations about 40 squares apart. One mine had a slightly higher output (180t and 120t), but not a lot I can do about that. In between I ran two lines each with a two-carriage train on both runs, which is four trains on independent tracks. By 1967 (17 years), when the trains were breaking down every run, the results were as follows:
Load and Go:
Coal Produced - 96t
% transported - 38
Annual Profit - 8685 + 4212 = 12897
Station Rating - Never became rated
Goods in station - Nil
Full Load:
Coal Produced - 99t
% transported - 41
Annual Profit - 9293 + 7279 = 16572
Station Rating - Mediocre (38%)
Goods in station - 35t
So there wasn't a great deal of difference in this configuration, presumably due to the identical distances and trains, but for some reason despite shifting a similar amount of coal the full load trains made more profit. I think ultimately it settled down to the fact that both trains were loading to 100% and leaving again, so the orders made no difference.
The limitations were caused by starting funds, hence each train only having two carriages, but in the long run the mones match their production output to the quantity shifted anyway.
Experiment #2: Station configuration
With the same scenario I reduced the setup to two stations with parallel lines running into them. Again, one had a full load order, the other came and went as is pleased. I expected the effect of this to be a higher stations rating as the stations had more time with trains in, and som more time loading. Again, I ran until 1967 when the industries had stabilised.
Load and Go:
Coal Produced - 117t
% transported - 38
Annual Profit - 6790 + 8694 = 15484
Station Rating - Poor (35%)
Goods in station - 35t
Full Load:
Coal Produced - 99t
% transported - 47
Annual Profit - 6804 + 6842 = 13646
Station Rating - Mediocre (47%)
Goods in station - 35t
So in this case the load and go station shipped more coal, despite a worse station rating. I've noticed some problems with the tests though. Running so long means the results suffer a lot from breakdowns, and in retrospect I'd do it over 5-10 years, which is enough for the industry to stabilise. Also, station rating and goods in station are quite variable over a short time and might not be a great statistic for rating. Yearly profit, on the other hand, should be fairly stable.
EDIT: In both experiments it's worth noting I finished with roughly half a million in the bank.
With the same scenario I reduced the setup to two stations with parallel lines running into them. Again, one had a full load order, the other came and went as is pleased. I expected the effect of this to be a higher stations rating as the stations had more time with trains in, and som more time loading. Again, I ran until 1967 when the industries had stabilised.
Load and Go:
Coal Produced - 117t
% transported - 38
Annual Profit - 6790 + 8694 = 15484
Station Rating - Poor (35%)
Goods in station - 35t
Full Load:
Coal Produced - 99t
% transported - 47
Annual Profit - 6804 + 6842 = 13646
Station Rating - Mediocre (47%)
Goods in station - 35t
So in this case the load and go station shipped more coal, despite a worse station rating. I've noticed some problems with the tests though. Running so long means the results suffer a lot from breakdowns, and in retrospect I'd do it over 5-10 years, which is enough for the industry to stabilise. Also, station rating and goods in station are quite variable over a short time and might not be a great statistic for rating. Yearly profit, on the other hand, should be fairly stable.
EDIT: In both experiments it's worth noting I finished with roughly half a million in the bank.
Experiment #3: Train length
This time I reverted to a control of two two-car trains in parallel (as with experiment 1) in order to get a new control over 5-10 years, depending on when it stabilised, which turned out to be 6 years. At this stage the trains were still running well and so should give a more accurate gauge of what they should be doing. The other trains were also run in parallel, but were pulling four trucks. Both were on load and go orders. I've ditched the 'goods in station' stat as it's entirely dependent on when I click the pause button relative to where the trains are.
Two Cars:
Coal Produced - 144-162t
% transported - 39
Annual Profit - 8044 + 10243 = 18487
Station Rating - Poor (31%)
Four Cars:
Coal Produced - 108-114t
% transported - 41
Annual Profit - 6092 + 5411 = 9503
Station Rating - Poor (35%)
So very surprising results for me. Firstly, the production values have a range because it seemed to flick between the two, but was most stable on the higher value for 2 cars and the lower for 4 cars. I considered that the trains pulling 4 cars might be breaking down more, but the reliability ratings were pretty much the same (train 2 had 5% higher than the other three, which might account for it making the most profit). I can't explain the results, so I'm going to run until 1960 and see if it changes.
This time I reverted to a control of two two-car trains in parallel (as with experiment 1) in order to get a new control over 5-10 years, depending on when it stabilised, which turned out to be 6 years. At this stage the trains were still running well and so should give a more accurate gauge of what they should be doing. The other trains were also run in parallel, but were pulling four trucks. Both were on load and go orders. I've ditched the 'goods in station' stat as it's entirely dependent on when I click the pause button relative to where the trains are.
Two Cars:
Coal Produced - 144-162t
% transported - 39
Annual Profit - 8044 + 10243 = 18487
Station Rating - Poor (31%)
Four Cars:
Coal Produced - 108-114t
% transported - 41
Annual Profit - 6092 + 5411 = 9503
Station Rating - Poor (35%)
So very surprising results for me. Firstly, the production values have a range because it seemed to flick between the two, but was most stable on the higher value for 2 cars and the lower for 4 cars. I considered that the trains pulling 4 cars might be breaking down more, but the reliability ratings were pretty much the same (train 2 had 5% higher than the other three, which might account for it making the most profit). I can't explain the results, so I'm going to run until 1960 and see if it changes.
Experiment #3: Continued
So running the last experiment until 1960 produced little difference, so at least I know that 6 years is a good time period.
Two Cars:
Coal Produced - 162t
% transported - 36
Annual Profit - 9231 + 6484 = 12721
Station Rating - Mediocre (41%)
Train Reliability - 55%, 37%
Four Cars:
Coal Produced - 108t
% transported - 37
Annual Profit - 7125 + 3643 = 10768
Station Rating - Poor (29%)
Train Reliability - 38%, 38%
It's pretty clear that reliability has a big effect on profit, unsurprisingly. I've decided that the profits of both trains are limited by the time it takes to go between the stations, or rather the frequency at which the stations are visited. The amount of cars doesn't matter, as neither are filled over such a short distance anyway. This would hint that more trains might make for more profit...
So running the last experiment until 1960 produced little difference, so at least I know that 6 years is a good time period.
Two Cars:
Coal Produced - 162t
% transported - 36
Annual Profit - 9231 + 6484 = 12721
Station Rating - Mediocre (41%)
Train Reliability - 55%, 37%
Four Cars:
Coal Produced - 108t
% transported - 37
Annual Profit - 7125 + 3643 = 10768
Station Rating - Poor (29%)
Train Reliability - 38%, 38%
It's pretty clear that reliability has a big effect on profit, unsurprisingly. I've decided that the profits of both trains are limited by the time it takes to go between the stations, or rather the frequency at which the stations are visited. The amount of cars doesn't matter, as neither are filled over such a short distance anyway. This would hint that more trains might make for more profit...
Experiment #4: Train Quantities
The two train, two-car parallel line as control again, running for 6 years. The other is a four train, two-car parallel line. This took me to the limit of my starting cash, incidentally.
Two Trains:
Coal Produced - 126t
% transported - 35
Annual Profit - 4816 + 5637 = 10453
Station Rating - Poor (33%)
Train Reliability - 68%, 61%
Four Trains:
Coal Produced - 126t
% transported - 45%
Annual Profit - 3011 + 3456 + 5850 + 5006 = 17323
Station Rating - Mediocre (54%)
Train Reliability - 72%, 60%, 54%, 60%
So the amount of trains had little effect on the amount of goods produced, but ultimately it was worth the extra trains because they made 70% more profit. Interesting the variations between the control in this experiment and the last one, which were virtually identical bar a little station positioning. It makes me wonder if proximity to the resource has an effect on how much cargo is released to the station.
One thing I picked up on is that having twice as many trains didn't equate to twice the amount of trains in station in this scenario. With the parallel lines they came and went with no coordination, and the station spent little more time full than the one with two trains. So presumably cycling the trains through the station would produce better results.
The two train, two-car parallel line as control again, running for 6 years. The other is a four train, two-car parallel line. This took me to the limit of my starting cash, incidentally.
Two Trains:
Coal Produced - 126t
% transported - 35
Annual Profit - 4816 + 5637 = 10453
Station Rating - Poor (33%)
Train Reliability - 68%, 61%
Four Trains:
Coal Produced - 126t
% transported - 45%
Annual Profit - 3011 + 3456 + 5850 + 5006 = 17323
Station Rating - Mediocre (54%)
Train Reliability - 72%, 60%, 54%, 60%
So the amount of trains had little effect on the amount of goods produced, but ultimately it was worth the extra trains because they made 70% more profit. Interesting the variations between the control in this experiment and the last one, which were virtually identical bar a little station positioning. It makes me wonder if proximity to the resource has an effect on how much cargo is released to the station.
One thing I picked up on is that having twice as many trains didn't equate to twice the amount of trains in station in this scenario. With the parallel lines they came and went with no coordination, and the station spent little more time full than the one with two trains. So presumably cycling the trains through the station would produce better results.
Experiment #5: Train Rotation
Using the same control, since even that seems to vary, I've now set up the other line with two stations and four trains, linked by four lines split into a two-way system. This should leave enough room to hold trains waiting to get into stations, and keep the stations as busy as possible. I could probably have got away with two one-way lines though.
Two Trains:
Coal Produced - 153t
% transported - 50
Annual Profit - 10343 + 12231 = 22574
Station Rating - Mediocre (45%)
Four Trains:
Coal Produced - 135t
% transported - 67
Annual Profit - 8083 + 8073 + 5827 + 8021 = 30004
Station Rating - Very Good (66%)
Another wildly varying control line, and again it outperforms the test line. Which shouldn't be right. The test line did indeed fave a far better station rating, as expected, and made more money (although only 50% more this time). From this I can only assume that there's a random element at work with the industry outputs that's more influential than station rating.
Using the same control, since even that seems to vary, I've now set up the other line with two stations and four trains, linked by four lines split into a two-way system. This should leave enough room to hold trains waiting to get into stations, and keep the stations as busy as possible. I could probably have got away with two one-way lines though.
Two Trains:
Coal Produced - 153t
% transported - 50
Annual Profit - 10343 + 12231 = 22574
Station Rating - Mediocre (45%)
Four Trains:
Coal Produced - 135t
% transported - 67
Annual Profit - 8083 + 8073 + 5827 + 8021 = 30004
Station Rating - Very Good (66%)
Another wildly varying control line, and again it outperforms the test line. Which shouldn't be right. The test line did indeed fave a far better station rating, as expected, and made more money (although only 50% more this time). From this I can only assume that there's a random element at work with the industry outputs that's more influential than station rating.
-
Dr. kitteny berk
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
http://wiki.openttd.org/Game_mechanics# ... nomy_RulesDog Pants wrote: From this I can only assume that there's a random element at work with the industry outputs that's more influential than station rating.
Yeah, another experiment confirms it. It's a bit shit really, you can make the best line in the world and all it does is increase your chances of it making a decent profit. It just encourages sticking in the cheapest, easiest point to point line you can make, and if it's not going well just ditch it.