🚀 go-pugleaf

A full-hearted "Mwa-ha-ha!!!" would be a suitable answer for both your
questions :)

"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote in message
news:ql1gn0pnsfapavbq9au6vitldm8m6eutod@4ax.com...
> I'm sorry to start yet another thread about Locomotion.  I have
> two questions.  Two things that bug me about Transport Tycoon
> are:
> 1. the dire track-laying algorithm that the computer controlled
> companies use.
> 2. the over simplistic routing algorithm which causes trains to
> easily get lost on complex networks.
>
> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
> possibility of them getting lost en route?
>
> TIA
>
> Mike
> -- 
> Mike Humberston
> WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not
oblivion.
> NOTE: E-mail currently inoperative.  All replies to the news group,
please.

>"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote in message
>news:ql1gn0pnsfapavbq9au6vitldm8m6eutod@4ax.com...
>> I'm sorry to start yet another thread about Locomotion.  I have
>> two questions.  Two things that bug me about Transport Tycoon
>> are:
>> 1. the dire track-laying algorithm that the computer controlled
>> companies use.
>> 2. the over simplistic routing algorithm which causes trains to
>> easily get lost on complex networks.
>>
>> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
>> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
>> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
>> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
>> possibility of them getting lost en route?

"Ark" <batis2ta@ineonet.net> wrote:

>A full-hearted "Mwa-ha-ha!!!" would be a suitable answer for both your
>questions :)

Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
doing both those things is not particularly difficult.

-- 
Mike Humberston
WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion.
NOTE: E-mail currently inoperative.  All replies to the news group, please.

"Mike Humberston" <obli...@philomel.net> wrote in message 
news:38jgn0ts7cdp44aba42lkc4kpmala0iou4@4ax.com...
>
>>"Mike Humberston" <obli...@philomel.net> wrote in message
>>news:ql1gn0pnsfapavbq9au6vitldm8m6eutod@4ax.com...
>>> I'm sorry to start yet another thread about Locomotion.  I have
>>> two questions.  Two things that bug me about Transport Tycoon
>>> are:
>>> 1. the dire track-laying algorithm that the computer controlled
>>> companies use.
>>> 2. the over simplistic routing algorithm which causes trains to
>>> easily get lost on complex networks.
>>>
>>> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
>>> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
>>> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
>>> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
>>> possibility of them getting lost en route?
>
> "Ark" <bati...@ineonet.net> wrote:
>
>>A full-hearted "Mwa-ha-ha!!!" would be a suitable answer for both your
>>questions :)
>
> Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
> doing both those things is not particularly difficult.
>
> -- 
> Mike Humberston
> WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not 
> oblivion.
> NOTE: E-mail currently inoperative.  All replies to the news group, 
> please.

I cant answer the question about the companies, but the competition in TTDLX 
were stupid as well.  When setting a rail route, you can add waypoints at 
junctions to make the train or tram turn the correct way at points.  This 
works OK here.

Bob 

"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote in message
news:38jgn0ts7cdp44aba42lkc4kpmala0iou4@4ax.com...
>
> >"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote in message
> >news:ql1gn0pnsfapavbq9au6vitldm8m6eutod@4ax.com...
> >> I'm sorry to start yet another thread about Locomotion.  I have
> >> two questions.  Two things that bug me about Transport Tycoon
> >> are:
> >> 1. the dire track-laying algorithm that the computer controlled
> >> companies use.
> >> 2. the over simplistic routing algorithm which causes trains to
> >> easily get lost on complex networks.
> >>
> >> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
> >> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
> >> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
> >> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
> >> possibility of them getting lost en route?
>
> "Ark" <batis2ta@ineonet.net> wrote:
>
> >A full-hearted "Mwa-ha-ha!!!" would be a suitable answer for both your
> >questions :)
>
> Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
> doing both those things is not particularly difficult.
>
> -- 
> Mike Humberston
> WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not
oblivion.
> NOTE: E-mail currently inoperative.  All replies to the news group,
please.

Yes, you can take that as a resounding "NO" on both points.

Take a peek at this screenshot:
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=10621 to answer your first
question. (Warning:  large image)

On point 2, although the ability to route trains through waypoints has been
added, the path finding has not been improved at all.

Other complaints:

1. Still no easy way to upgrade trains.
2. Vehicle reliability is worse and there is no way to regulate it. (i.e.
increasing maintenance)
3. No monorails or maglevs.

Just my $.02.

Ken

<Ken> wrote:

>"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mike Humberston" <oblivion@philomel.net> wrote:


>> >> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
>> >> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
>> >> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
>> >> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
>> >> possibility of them getting lost en route?
>>
>> "Ark" <batis2ta@ineonet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >A full-hearted "Mwa-ha-ha!!!" would be a suitable answer for both your
>> >questions :)
>>
>> Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
>> doing both those things is not particularly difficult.

>Yes, you can take that as a resounding "NO" on both points.
>
>Take a peek at this screenshot:
>http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=10621 to answer your first
>question. (Warning:  large image)

OMG! That really is dire.

>On point 2, although the ability to route trains through waypoints has been
>added, the path finding has not been improved at all.
>
>Other complaints:
>
>1. Still no easy way to upgrade trains.
>2. Vehicle reliability is worse and there is no way to regulate it. (i.e.
>increasing maintenance)
>3. No monorails or maglevs.

Thanks to you and Compfix for your replies. I just wish that
Chris Sawyer was a rather (much) better programmer and took more
trouble with the titles that he codes.  I really don't know how
he gets away with it.

Mike
-- 
Mike Humberston
WARNING: Spam trap in operation. Send any e-mail reply to mike, not oblivion.
NOTE: E-mail currently inoperative.  All replies to the news group, please.

Mike Humberston wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
>>>take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
>>>1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
>>>2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
>>>possibility of them getting lost en route?
> [...]
> Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
> doing both those things is not particularly difficult.

I'm curious what routing algorithm you would choose.  Granted, TTD's 
routing is not particularly smart, but the requirements are pretty 
specific: the algorithm must work in real time (it's called every time a 
train arrives at a junction, so that trains don't get stuck if the 
network is modified by the player) and require very little permanent 
storage (as opposed to temporary, which isn't a problem).  And don't 
forget that the game was designed to run on a 386.

(This doesn't mean I have no idea how to improve the existing algorithm, 
I'd probably have this already done if I weren't so busy on my PhD 
stuff.  I've no idea how to design better routing from scratch, though.)

-- 
Marcin Grzegorczyk

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote in message <2uc722F28fo8bU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>I'm curious what routing algorithm you would choose.  Granted, TTD's
>routing is not particularly smart, but the requirements are pretty
>specific: the algorithm must work in real time (it's called every time a
>train arrives at a junction, so that trains don't get stuck if the
>network is modified by the player) and require very little permanent
>storage (as opposed to temporary, which isn't a problem).  And don't
>forget that the game was designed to run on a 386.

Indeed, the fact that the game continues to run on my lowly 75MHz machine
even with the latest Patch is a testament to the resource efficiency of the
programming.

Ronnie
--
Volunteer guard on the Great Central Railway, Loughborough, Leicestershire
Visit the world's only double track preserved steam railway!
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:
> Mike Humberston wrote:
> 
>>>> [...]
>>>> So my questions are, for Locomotion, has Chris Sawyer bothered to
>>>> take some time to research and implement algorithms which:
>>>> 1. result in sensible computer controlled company track layouts?
>>>> 2. get trains from starting point to destination without any
>>>> possibility of them getting lost en route?
>>
>> [...]
>> Should I take that to mean no?  If so then that is a pity as
>> doing both those things is not particularly difficult.
> 
> 
> I'm curious what routing algorithm you would choose.  Granted, TTD's 
> routing is not particularly smart, but the requirements are pretty 
> specific: the algorithm must work in real time (it's called every time a 
> train arrives at a junction, so that trains don't get stuck if the 
> network is modified by the player) and require very little permanent 
> storage (as opposed to temporary, which isn't a problem).  And don't 
> forget that the game was designed to run on a 386.

I'm not sure that Locomotion does this. I think it calculates the 
routing in advance and runs that route for a while. For instance add in 
a shortcut and trains will not start taking it straight away, but later 
will always take it - so I guess it already knows where it is going. I'm 
so sure it does this that I've wondered if there is a way round it (e.g. 
cause rerouting NOW).

However I do agree that routing in general sucks in this game. I was 
wondering what the point of establishing a transport network was. 
Optimal use of money involves transporting pretty much all of a good 
away from a production factory as that minimises costs for the 
tracks/roads whatever. However this, or perhaps two source factories 
will "fill" a track up so that attempting to push more traffic along it 
(especially asynchronous traffic) is likely to cause it to stall and run 
slower. Therefore there is very little sharing of transport routes. 
Maybe this changes in later eras - I've mostly played the 1900-1930 era 
scenarios - and I have a thing for freight (esp oil) rather than 
passengers. This seems to defeat the purpose of building nice transport 
networks for everything to flow over.

In fact I won all of the easy scenarios with either oil/trains or 
passengers/local bus routes.

I'll stop waffling now!

Alan

Alan Clucas wrote:
> Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:
>> [...]  Granted, TTD's 
>> routing is not particularly smart, but the requirements are pretty 
>> specific: the algorithm must work in real time (it's called every time 
>> a train arrives at a junction, so that trains don't get stuck if the 
>> network is modified by the player) and require very little permanent 
>> storage (as opposed to temporary, which isn't a problem).  And don't 
>> forget that the game was designed to run on a 386.
> 
> I'm not sure that Locomotion does this. I think it calculates the 
> routing in advance and runs that route for a while. For instance add in 
> a shortcut and trains will not start taking it straight away, but later 
> will always take it - so I guess it already knows where it is going.

Hah.  Then I'm not surprised if routing in Locomotion is even worse than 
in TTD, since it probably has to be fast enough to compute the entire 
route at once (as opposed to TTD's approach of looking only a couple of 
junctions ahead).

(Mind that I haven't even seen Locomotion running, yet.)

-- 
Marcin Grzegorczyk