If you're investigating signals for decorative purposes and this system works then you could introduce signals before critical sections that reflect the decisions made by this system.
I just wanted to drop some praise. As a fellow software developer I can certainly say that the effort you guys put in this is remarkable and I am impressed. Captain of Industry is already one of the best games in the genre and it even gets better. I am hyped!
Yes, I also opt for adding signals, even if just for a decorative purpose (automatic layout), without signalling, railways lose a very important aspect and it looks strange... Neverthless, the work you've already done is astonishing.
Cool and interesting "behind the scenes" stream and looking forward to the train Update. @15:10 An idea for the train signals: In openTTD signals change their status when the train arrives in front of it. Thet it read if the train can leave or not. So if only the trains destination is still occupied show red. Default: red (without train in front of it). Or add a thirs status like in factorio: blue. it indicates if at least one exit is free. If all are free: green. I dont know if that is a good idea because your trains decide for themselves and the singlas only show. In the other games the signals decide and the trains only obey. I know train behaviour can be confusing if you don't know whats going on in the game engine and you have to give the player minimum confusing and maximum helpful visual indicators... I am sure you will find a good solution fall all :) So far, keep up the good work.
Great stream, thank you! I think the critical zone idea is a good innovation and actually seems quite ingenious. If it works as well as you suggest, I think people will stop complaining about signals after trying it. I do think if you renamed it to 'no stop zones' or something like that it would make it immediately clearer what their purpose is. I love that you are updating the gui and the new look is going in a good direction IMO. I left a comment on stream asking about the possibility of a texture on the grey gui background. I think this might work well if it's really (extremely) subtle to avoid the gui looking too busy. It would just take the edge off having a fully blank grey surface. I thought the new numbers in the gui were a little hard to read and clashed a bit with the font of the other numbers in the gui. I understand that this is a work in progress and that gui stuff is quite subjective, but anyway that's my opinion. I really love this game and am looking forward to making a new base once this comes out!
Great stream. Like the idea of trains. Signals can be simply created as props. So the rails system would look a bit more realistic. But using this system you have to make train priorities. As I noticed in 44 min. That some trains are waiting longer than others even new train was coming in and other 2 that came 1st,were still waiting. Where all trains are same and same route. Its seems more like RNG who will go 1st. And in chain industry some parts is very crucial for no delays on delivery. To make it similar to buildings 1 to 15. that would detrimen who will go 1st on critical road if they meet up at the same time.
You know with those new train track mechanic. Bridges for trucks would be possible. Interesting to get trains in the up coming patch. This would let CurIsland become a little easier. I wonder if your going to setup that one island that sells ships to sell trains locomotives or your going to let the player build them locally. In the future if not latter newer eclectically power solutions like off shore and on shore wind turbines and tidal turbines would be cool. Also maybe a water mechanic to make fresh water reservoirs. So the player could construct a cooling pool. I still like the fishing industry idea in maybe getting a cannery ship or subsurface mining to take advantage of those explored locations that are empty of islands or other. I like the up and coming update and look forwards to the trains. With all this talk of coal maybe synthetic coal might become a thing.
Train with old appearance but as modern as an ICE 3 from Germany, Although for you it is "difficult signals" is what we want regrettable, you push for the moders.
I like the signal-free system! I remember having a hard time managing the Factorio rail system. Looking forward to the update, I think this rail system is very well designed for this game.
Trains do move realistically. Locomotive have engines with kW rating, from this we compute tractive effort, and subtract air and rail drag. We then add force based on slope under each wagon, resulting in a final force, which gets converted to acceleration with consideration to train mass.
@@CaptainOfIndustryGame, wow. Didn't expect to get the answer at all, not to mention that fast response 👍👍That's a real pleasure to see someone dedicated like me. Then, please, explain to me, why acceleration and braking are happening so fast? Or do you apply scaling coefficients for the sake of gameplay? 🤔 We know that locomotive tractive effort is limited by its mass. Under normal conditions it's about 25% of its weight. If a bigger force is applied, wheelslip will occur. Therefore either sand or tractive effort reduction is required. The same can be applied for braking, however, in this case, we should consider train mass, not a locomotive mass. Thus, if we take an extreme case, when brakes are applied at their max, you can get 2,45 kN of braking force per ton (+grade +air +rolling (63 kN for 1595 t in your case)). To stop 1 t from 54 km/h we need not more than t = V / a = 54 [km/h] / 3,6 [km/h to m/s] / 2,45 [kN] = 6,12 s. With air drag and rolling resistance of course it will be faster, but not a second. That's why I'm asking about the explanation.
You are right, there seem to be something off with the braking, I will check it later. It could also be a balance issue, our braking power might be too high.
Update: I've investigated and our math was correct, however, we had too large max braking force configured. After updating the value, I am getting similar numbers to yours. Thanks for pointing this out! By any chance do you have any citation for the 25%? I'd be interested to see this value in context and know the possible range. For example, I would think that having more wheels (2 axles per bogie vs 1) would increase the friction thus the max braking forces.
@@CaptainOfIndustryGame 25% is actually the number for a typical two-piston steam locomotive; for a locomotive with all wheels driven and driven smoothly, it's between 35-50% in good conditions. But it can also drop as low as 5% in rain etc. And of course, it depends on speed - which is one of the reasons why it's _much_ harder to get a train moving than it is to keep it running. And yes, it doesn't depend on the number of tyres, or the surface area of the tyres or anything like that. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but it works the same way for car tyres too. The reason we use more axles is to distribute the load (to reduce rail/road damage), and the reason we use wider tyres is to reduce tyre damage. It's easier to imagine on car tyres - the surface area of all the tyres actually in contact with the road does not depend on the _number_ of tyres - if you add more, the surface area _per tyre_ drops, while the total stays roughly the same. Only the weight matters. And which tyres are actually _driven_ (or braked for braking), of course. If you have half the tyres driven, you get half the force of adhesion - the non-driven tyres get the same surface area as the driven tyres, but don't get any traction, so they're essentially wasted. Which is of course a big reason why modern locomotives tend to have all their tyres driven. If you plan on implementing piston steam engines too, you'll want to give them less effective traction due to not having all tyres driven and due to the non-smoothness of the driving (essentially, some of the force of adhesion on the tyres is "wasted" while the piston isn't providing power).
maybe a with a little more polish, I would feel like the visualization of block reservation would still be helpful as a player system debugging tool plus it can look cool as well. maybe another view layer?
Out of the stuff that was shown as "working" the only issue i saw was the priority of trains entering the block. There was more than once in this video where train was first in queue to enter the roundobout, and had to wait like 15+ other trains to go though until it was "randomly" selected to go through, and more often than it, it was the only train left so it was 100% next to go. needs to be some logic in to set the order..... or you could get in a case where if you have 3 trains, say sand, rock and gravel... the sand and rock could go through 1000x times before the the gravel train gets lucky....
A few thoughts: As a quick side note before the train stuff, the sorting plant can get stuck where it won't output any of another resource until it empties out the current resource it is dumping, but if that resources is continuously being loaded, it basically gets stuck there permanently. Could you change the sorting plant's output, to rotate between all of the sorted materials, so that it outputs 1 of each before cycling back to the beginning? This would prevent this very annoying & debilitating issue. Also, there are a few buildings which you can't use unity to instant-build. I haven't played for a while, so I can't remember all of them, but I think it was at least the oil & water pumps. Is this intentional? It doesn't seem like there would be a good reason, but IDK. Trains: I think it would be cool to have tier 1 coal steam trains earlier in the game. You could make them out of regular iron, but make them slower, smaller, and require both water & coal, and need a higher locomotive-to-cars ratio, so that diesel is a useful upgrade since it only requires 1 fuel resource, as well as being faster & hauling more/bigger cars, but requires steel. Maybe 1 steam locomotive can pull 3 small cars (each equal to tier 1 truck), while tier 1 diesel can pull 5 bigger cars (each equal to tier 2 truck), etc. Electric trains could be implemented using the third-rail approach rather than overhead wires, which would make the implementation easier, and have less to consider as far as overhead clearance/etc. You could also paint the third rail yellow, to make it obvious that the tracks are electric, if electrified & non-electrified tracks can exist at the same time. As for the signal discussion, maybe adding track-indicator signals which actually light up accurately like real-world train signals but in-game only work as decoration (ex: red when a train is ahead on the line, etc.; even though that's not how in-game train navigation works). Then add functioning railroad crossings. Maybe that would give people a satisfactory middle-ground? So, just like how trucks can't drive over pipes & belts, make it so they can't drive over railroad tracks either, and you have to build a railroad crossing, which allows passage over them. Then, the railroad crossing could have lights, and the arms that go up & down, and feel very interactive. Then, you could implement train right of way, so that trains never stop at crossings, and trucks never stop in the crossing (even if they run out of gas). Trucks are only allowed passed the location of the crossing arms, if they have enough time to get to the other side (and there's enough space on the other end for them to get off the track). Maybe make the necessary offloading area part of the crossing, so you're guaranteed to be able to drive off the track because the crossing itself reserves the space. And as soon as a train crosses the point at which a new truck (or excavator, since they're slower) would not have enough time to get across, then the entrance arms come down, blocking any new vehicles from entering, and then once any vehicles that are already on the tracks get out, then the secondary exit arms come down. The vehicles wait until the train passes, and the arms come up as soon as it passes allowing traffic to continue. Also, you mentioned possibly capping trains to 10 cars. I think that longer trains is an important part of the whole purpose of trains. Allowing longer trains would make them much more efficient & usefull for transporting lots of resources. The benefit of a train in real life is that they can be quite long, and transport huge amounts of resources in a single trip. If 1 train car only contains the same amount of stuff as 1 truck, and trains can only be a few cars long, it's not as beneficial. How many train cars would be necessary to equal the giant dump truck? Also, having the ability to have trains that are longer than the train station. For example, you could have a train station with 4 loose modules loading coal, and a train that is 12 cars long. Then, the train would roll up to fill the first 4 cars, then when those are full, roll forward to load the next 4 cars, and so on. This could also work with mixed loads. So, if the train station has 2 coal modules, 1 diesel module, and 1 wood module, the train could then have any combination of cars in any order, and it would just roll forward until the next empty car lines up with the front most matching module which is non-empty. Then, if multiple modules line up correctly, then they can all fill at the same time, and the train doesn't move again, until the last active module finishes loading. This could become inefficient if your car order doesn't match the order of train station modules, and the train is only able to load one car at a time, but that's a user error, not a problem with the game. It's the user's responsibility to group common station modules & cars together in series, and not do something stupid. Especially because there may be some situation in which you actually want a weird configuration. You could also load an entire train with a single loader module, if you needed to. The same goes for unloading. The train rolls forward to line up front most car with its matching receiving module, and if more than one lines up, then they unload in parallel.
I think playing with signals is actually the fun bit of trains in factory games, find it sad that this is not included in this implementation of trains, I hope they will become available as a difficulty setting like ore sorting for instance
1:16:20 Yeah. I don't like placing signals as well 😒I feel this gameplay to be just tedious, not fun. It takes a lot of time, which I could spend on actual gameplay.
Add a waypoint In almost all games with signals i make weird stations where a train comes in (to a waypoint) backs out into the station to fill up and leaves with the locomotive in front.
Nope, not gonna work for me. Factorio has the best and most complete train / signal system of all train games i own with full manual path and block signals and accidents.
![ILLSLICK X YOUNGOHM - We're The same [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yUJNkobYR0E/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
If you're investigating signals for decorative purposes and this system works then you could introduce signals before critical sections that reflect the decisions made by this system.
I just wanted to drop some praise. As a fellow software developer I can certainly say that the effort you guys put in this is remarkable and I am impressed. Captain of Industry is already one of the best games in the genre and it even gets better. I am hyped!
Yes, I also opt for adding signals, even if just for a decorative purpose (automatic layout), without signalling, railways lose a very important aspect and it looks strange... Neverthless, the work you've already done is astonishing.
Cool and interesting "behind the scenes" stream and looking forward to the train Update. @15:10 An idea for the train signals: In openTTD signals change their status when the train arrives in front of it. Thet it read if the train can leave or not. So if only the trains destination is still occupied show red. Default: red (without train in front of it). Or add a thirs status like in factorio: blue. it indicates if at least one exit is free. If all are free: green. I dont know if that is a good idea because your trains decide for themselves and the singlas only show. In the other games the signals decide and the trains only obey.
I know train behaviour can be confusing if you don't know whats going on in the game engine and you have to give the player minimum confusing and maximum helpful visual indicators...
I am sure you will find a good solution fall all :)
So far, keep up the good work.
Great stream, thank you! I think the critical zone idea is a good innovation and actually seems quite ingenious. If it works as well as you suggest, I think people will stop complaining about signals after trying it. I do think if you renamed it to 'no stop zones' or something like that it would make it immediately clearer what their purpose is. I love that you are updating the gui and the new look is going in a good direction IMO. I left a comment on stream asking about the possibility of a texture on the grey gui background. I think this might work well if it's really (extremely) subtle to avoid the gui looking too busy. It would just take the edge off having a fully blank grey surface. I thought the new numbers in the gui were a little hard to read and clashed a bit with the font of the other numbers in the gui. I understand that this is a work in progress and that gui stuff is quite subjective, but anyway that's my opinion. I really love this game and am looking forward to making a new base once this comes out!
Great stream. Like the idea of trains. Signals can be simply created as props. So the rails system would look a bit more realistic. But using this system you have to make train priorities. As I noticed in 44 min. That some trains are waiting longer than others even new train was coming in and other 2 that came 1st,were still waiting. Where all trains are same and same route. Its seems more like RNG who will go 1st. And in chain industry some parts is very crucial for no delays on delivery. To make it similar to buildings 1 to 15. that would detrimen who will go 1st on critical road if they meet up at the same time.
i actually like doing the signals
Good job... it looks amazing
i like your work!
You know with those new train track mechanic. Bridges for trucks would be possible. Interesting to get trains in the up coming patch. This would let CurIsland become a little easier. I wonder if your going to setup that one island that sells ships to sell trains locomotives or your going to let the player build them locally. In the future if not latter newer eclectically power solutions like off shore and on shore wind turbines and tidal turbines would be cool. Also maybe a water mechanic to make fresh water reservoirs. So the player could construct a cooling pool. I still like the fishing industry idea in maybe getting a cannery ship or subsurface mining to take advantage of those explored locations that are empty of islands or other. I like the up and coming update and look forwards to the trains. With all this talk of coal maybe synthetic coal might become a thing.
i cant wait for it ❤
Train with old appearance but as modern as an ICE 3 from Germany, Although for you it is "difficult signals" is what we want regrettable, you push for the moders.
I like the signal-free system! I remember having a hard time managing the Factorio rail system. Looking forward to the update, I think this rail system is very well designed for this game.
this is amazing
39:40 What is the purpose of air, roll and grade drags if trains don't move realistically? They start and stop very fast. Fuel consumption? 🤔
Trains do move realistically. Locomotive have engines with kW rating, from this we compute tractive effort, and subtract air and rail drag. We then add force based on slope under each wagon, resulting in a final force, which gets converted to acceleration with consideration to train mass.
@@CaptainOfIndustryGame, wow. Didn't expect to get the answer at all, not to mention that fast response 👍👍That's a real pleasure to see someone dedicated like me.
Then, please, explain to me, why acceleration and braking are happening so fast? Or do you apply scaling coefficients for the sake of gameplay? 🤔
We know that locomotive tractive effort is limited by its mass. Under normal conditions it's about 25% of its weight. If a bigger force is applied, wheelslip will occur. Therefore either sand or tractive effort reduction is required. The same can be applied for braking, however, in this case, we should consider train mass, not a locomotive mass.
Thus, if we take an extreme case, when brakes are applied at their max, you can get 2,45 kN of braking force per ton (+grade +air +rolling (63 kN for 1595 t in your case)). To stop 1 t from 54 km/h we need not more than t = V / a = 54 [km/h] / 3,6 [km/h to m/s] / 2,45 [kN] = 6,12 s. With air drag and rolling resistance of course it will be faster, but not a second. That's why I'm asking about the explanation.
You are right, there seem to be something off with the braking, I will check it later. It could also be a balance issue, our braking power might be too high.
Update: I've investigated and our math was correct, however, we had too large max braking force configured. After updating the value, I am getting similar numbers to yours. Thanks for pointing this out!
By any chance do you have any citation for the 25%? I'd be interested to see this value in context and know the possible range. For example, I would think that having more wheels (2 axles per bogie vs 1) would increase the friction thus the max braking forces.
@@CaptainOfIndustryGame 25% is actually the number for a typical two-piston steam locomotive; for a locomotive with all wheels driven and driven smoothly, it's between 35-50% in good conditions. But it can also drop as low as 5% in rain etc. And of course, it depends on speed - which is one of the reasons why it's _much_ harder to get a train moving than it is to keep it running.
And yes, it doesn't depend on the number of tyres, or the surface area of the tyres or anything like that. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but it works the same way for car tyres too. The reason we use more axles is to distribute the load (to reduce rail/road damage), and the reason we use wider tyres is to reduce tyre damage. It's easier to imagine on car tyres - the surface area of all the tyres actually in contact with the road does not depend on the _number_ of tyres - if you add more, the surface area _per tyre_ drops, while the total stays roughly the same. Only the weight matters.
And which tyres are actually _driven_ (or braked for braking), of course. If you have half the tyres driven, you get half the force of adhesion - the non-driven tyres get the same surface area as the driven tyres, but don't get any traction, so they're essentially wasted. Which is of course a big reason why modern locomotives tend to have all their tyres driven. If you plan on implementing piston steam engines too, you'll want to give them less effective traction due to not having all tyres driven and due to the non-smoothness of the driving (essentially, some of the force of adhesion on the tyres is "wasted" while the piston isn't providing power).
Thank you.
I love these intelligent trains! ☺️
I find Factorio train signals a big time sink and often frustrating.
maybe a with a little more polish, I would feel like the visualization of block reservation would still be helpful as a player system debugging tool plus it can look cool as well. maybe another view layer?
Out of the stuff that was shown as "working" the only issue i saw was the priority of trains entering the block. There was more than once in this video where train was first in queue to enter the roundobout, and had to wait like 15+ other trains to go though until it was "randomly" selected to go through, and more often than it, it was the only train left so it was 100% next to go.
needs to be some logic in to set the order..... or you could get in a case where if you have 3 trains, say sand, rock and gravel... the sand and rock could go through 1000x times before the the gravel train gets lucky....
I want to know why Bilibili hasn't updated this video
🔥🔥🔥
A few thoughts:
As a quick side note before the train stuff, the sorting plant can get stuck where it won't output any of another resource until it empties out the current resource it is dumping, but if that resources is continuously being loaded, it basically gets stuck there permanently. Could you change the sorting plant's output, to rotate between all of the sorted materials, so that it outputs 1 of each before cycling back to the beginning? This would prevent this very annoying & debilitating issue.
Also, there are a few buildings which you can't use unity to instant-build. I haven't played for a while, so I can't remember all of them, but I think it was at least the oil & water pumps. Is this intentional? It doesn't seem like there would be a good reason, but IDK.
Trains:
I think it would be cool to have tier 1 coal steam trains earlier in the game. You could make them out of regular iron, but make them slower, smaller, and require both water & coal, and need a higher locomotive-to-cars ratio, so that diesel is a useful upgrade since it only requires 1 fuel resource, as well as being faster & hauling more/bigger cars, but requires steel. Maybe 1 steam locomotive can pull 3 small cars (each equal to tier 1 truck), while tier 1 diesel can pull 5 bigger cars (each equal to tier 2 truck), etc.
Electric trains could be implemented using the third-rail approach rather than overhead wires, which would make the implementation easier, and have less to consider as far as overhead clearance/etc. You could also paint the third rail yellow, to make it obvious that the tracks are electric, if electrified & non-electrified tracks can exist at the same time.
As for the signal discussion, maybe adding track-indicator signals which actually light up accurately like real-world train signals but in-game only work as decoration (ex: red when a train is ahead on the line, etc.; even though that's not how in-game train navigation works). Then add functioning railroad crossings. Maybe that would give people a satisfactory middle-ground? So, just like how trucks can't drive over pipes & belts, make it so they can't drive over railroad tracks either, and you have to build a railroad crossing, which allows passage over them. Then, the railroad crossing could have lights, and the arms that go up & down, and feel very interactive. Then, you could implement train right of way, so that trains never stop at crossings, and trucks never stop in the crossing (even if they run out of gas). Trucks are only allowed passed the location of the crossing arms, if they have enough time to get to the other side (and there's enough space on the other end for them to get off the track). Maybe make the necessary offloading area part of the crossing, so you're guaranteed to be able to drive off the track because the crossing itself reserves the space. And as soon as a train crosses the point at which a new truck (or excavator, since they're slower) would not have enough time to get across, then the entrance arms come down, blocking any new vehicles from entering, and then once any vehicles that are already on the tracks get out, then the secondary exit arms come down. The vehicles wait until the train passes, and the arms come up as soon as it passes allowing traffic to continue.
Also, you mentioned possibly capping trains to 10 cars. I think that longer trains is an important part of the whole purpose of trains. Allowing longer trains would make them much more efficient & usefull for transporting lots of resources. The benefit of a train in real life is that they can be quite long, and transport huge amounts of resources in a single trip. If 1 train car only contains the same amount of stuff as 1 truck, and trains can only be a few cars long, it's not as beneficial. How many train cars would be necessary to equal the giant dump truck?
Also, having the ability to have trains that are longer than the train station. For example, you could have a train station with 4 loose modules loading coal, and a train that is 12 cars long. Then, the train would roll up to fill the first 4 cars, then when those are full, roll forward to load the next 4 cars, and so on. This could also work with mixed loads. So, if the train station has 2 coal modules, 1 diesel module, and 1 wood module, the train could then have any combination of cars in any order, and it would just roll forward until the next empty car lines up with the front most matching module which is non-empty. Then, if multiple modules line up correctly, then they can all fill at the same time, and the train doesn't move again, until the last active module finishes loading. This could become inefficient if your car order doesn't match the order of train station modules, and the train is only able to load one car at a time, but that's a user error, not a problem with the game. It's the user's responsibility to group common station modules & cars together in series, and not do something stupid. Especially because there may be some situation in which you actually want a weird configuration. You could also load an entire train with a single loader module, if you needed to. The same goes for unloading. The train rolls forward to line up front most car with its matching receiving module, and if more than one lines up, then they unload in parallel.
the oil & water pump thing is intentional. its a balance thing for you to not tap into oil or water sources that would normally be out of your reach
What a bout a concreet slab you can lay over train tracks, and fill dirt over that? Insted of a tunnel?
Is there going to be a train limit similar to how there is a vehicle limit for trucks? Or will trains perhaps contribute to the vehicle count?
There will be likely no limit for trains count.
Hi Marek, aren't you Czech? Anyway, thanks for interesting and insightful video!
I think playing with signals is actually the fun bit of trains in factory games, find it sad that this is not included in this implementation of trains, I hope they will become available as a difficulty setting like ore sorting for instance
1:16:20 Yeah. I don't like placing signals as well 😒I feel this gameplay to be just tedious, not fun. It takes a lot of time, which I could spend on actual gameplay.
Coal TRAINS!
Die Karten sind viel zu klein für Züge
UPDATA ???
Sell it as DLC! No more free updates! Sell it as DLC and expand your opperations!
😀
Add a waypoint
In almost all games with signals i make weird stations where a train comes in (to a waypoint) backs out into the station to fill up and leaves with the locomotive in front.
I do not understand why we need trains in this game. I hope they make the islands ~15 times bigger.
BC trains go CHOOO!!!!!!
Wow city skylines 2 looks completely different now. Lol
this is so bad, if i want to play trains, i go to transport tycoon, definitely ruined great game with this
Aw man. Rails without signals is not rails. I hope other people wont follow suit and make rails boring. Just like boring AUTO cars...
Nope, not gonna work for me. Factorio has the best and most complete train / signal system of all train games i own with full manual path and block signals and accidents.