GP7 A+B unit (Final for real this time)

[Just Crazy Jim]

For whatever reason, my head has resisted wrapping around that one part. I keep reading your posts when you tell me that and I say, OK, this time I'll make it stick, then I keep falling back on the "bad habit". Probably has something to do with doing this stuff at 4 AM after being up all night. Probably.

[Gumboots]

Double-headers are problematic in RT3. In real life they are used when the benefits outweigh the costs. If you want them to work in RT3 this still has to apply, but you're restricted to a consist that can be handled by the game's single locomotives. So you can either just make them for the eye candy* and not worry about the stats, or you can try to get the stats to make sense.

If you want the stats to make sense in game terms, they cannot be realistic. It's an either/or situation. In game terms all that matters is running cost vs cargo delivered. Your first set of stats was hopeless, because the twins had less grunt than the default single. Nobody in their right mind would use them. The second set of stats is more useful in a particular niche (travelling up heavy grades).

For the unit to be worth using with the second set of stats you would have to be spending all your time hauling up grades of 4% or more, because on lesser grades 4% the percentage increase in running cost is going to be more than the percentage reduction in delivery time, which is probably going to be the minimum standard to meet before using the unit starts to work in terms of dollars. And if you're going back down that same grade the single GP7 would be a better bet. So even with the second set of stats the twins are still a very specialised unit.

But it gets worse than that. Let's say you get two of the default single units and run them with 5 cars each. You can see the effect of this if you set car weight to 25 tons for the single unit (8x25 = 5x40). That gives the single an annual running cost of 54k for 200 tons delivered per trip, so two of them will cost 108k/year for 400 tons delivered per trip. They will do this while hitting 45 mph up a 4% grade.

In comparison, your new twins unit is costing 101k/year for 320 tons delivered per trip, and it will only do 33 mph up a 4% grade. So its running costs are 17% higher purely in terms of haulable tonnage, and it's 27% slower even in the very limited niche where it should excel.

*There's a good argument for making them just for the eye candy, since people like double-headers and like longer trains. So since it's just a game you could say stuff the stats and just use them for fun.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Ye gawds...

*sigh* Okay, I place the towel gingerly on the floor of the arena. Saad's rugs to trying to get this right.

I've added an eyecandy version to the first post and never no more shall I open the hex editor to change a operating stat.

[Gumboots]

It's not quite that bad. Your second set of stats had two things working against it: fuel economy rating and locomotive weight. If you set the fuel rating back to the same as the single version, and leave the weight at 175 tons, without changing any other stats, you get a running cost about 20% higher than the single version but you're 50% faster up a 4% grade while hauling the same consist. This will work in terms of turnaround.

Not only that, but you'll match a single with 5 cars up that same grade while you're hauling 8 cars. The single will cost 54k/year and the twins will cost 84k. So the twins will be hauling 60% more stuff at the same speed, while costing 60% more to run. This works as a break even, at least up hills. With those stats a player could use the twins in quite a lot of situations, without being penalised.

But the single version would still be a more economical choice on flat terrain or downhill. OTOH this was just a quick suggestion without thinking about it much, so it's probably possible to do better without making the stats ridiculous.

[Just Crazy Jim]

Fuel economy set back to 4.

Honestly, there is nothing about this that is intuitive. I would say even the devs at PopTop struggled with this. With this physics and cost model, I am beginning to see how it came about that the Big Boy (and others) came to be the unusable heap it is in the game.

[Hawk]

So, does the version you sent me still go in the archives?

[Just Crazy Jim]

So, does the version you sent me still go in the archives?

When I sent it to you, Hawk, I was happy with it. Then there was a burst of feed back. That happiness did not long endure.

The two zip files in the first post now represent what passes for my "please oh please can I get off this merry-go-round my head hurts and I think I'm going to be sick" final version. They only differ from one another in the game performance settings of the LCO file.

I was going to send you a message earlier this morning, then family members showed up at the front door and insisted that I be merry in a different room than is my wont.

[Gumboots]

Fuel economy set back to 4.

Honestly, there is nothing about this that is intuitive. I would say even the devs at PopTop struggled with this. With this physics and cost model, I am beginning to see how it came about that the Big Boy (and others) came to be the unusable heap it is in the game.

The Big Boy's problem isn't complicated. It weighs too much. Big Bubba has been fed on too many Twinkies, and needs a serious diet.

Weight costs fuel in RT3. Double the weight and you double the amount of fuel burned. It's a straight linear relationship. So if you double total train weight, say by changing a loco that weighs 100 tons to make it weigh 520 tons, then this will exactly double its fuel bill when hauling D era freight (320 ton consist) because (100+320) = 420 and (520+320) = 840 = 2x420.

The relationship between fuel economy rating and fuel burned is also linear. Changing your fuel rating from 4 to 8 will exactly double your fuel bill if nothing else is changed.

Since they set the BB to be double the weight of the heaviest consists, and gave it a fuel rating of 5, a BB hauling D era freight burns 270% the fuel of a Kriegslok hauling the same freight, which is usually crippling even though it will nominally haul at around twice the speed of the Kriegslok.

[Just Crazy Jim]

But that's precisely what I mean. I honestly believe that you and RoR have a closer understanding of the maths than certain designers at PopTop. It's such a blinding no-brainer problem that you could fix it in 10 seconds. This gives me to believe that, be it found or stolen or bought, they used some handy bit of code from outside, then built things on top of it.

But, honestly, iconic or not, the Big Boy and its cousins are eye-hurtfully ugly beasts, so I hardly ever use them. Not as bad as, say, the Southern Pacific forward-cab oil-burners or the PopTop camelback (the camelback is more a victim of poor fashion sense), but all told, none of them would place in a beauty pageant.

[Hawk]

I was going to send you a message earlier this morning, then family members showed up at the front door and insisted that I be merry in a different room than is my wont.

I understand. I remember stuff like that happening to me many moons ago.

I'll grab what's in the first post and replace what you sent.

---

Edit 1: Both the zips in the first post have the same readme and same screenshot. Isn't the second one a different skin?
I figured I'd zip them both up into one zip and point folks to this thread for information on the two zips included.

[RulerofRails]

The latest stats will give them a role to play in most maps. You brought it down to 25% increase in Average Yearly Cost over the single. Usable now.

The extra mileage covered from better performance (esp. acceleration) balances against the higher maintenance bill/engine purchase cost. Better reliability means being able to run long-term without caboose meaning extra potential revenue on any particular trip. I haven't nailed down an approximation method to determine how much weight these things have, but at this point in my estimation it has a chance on the smaller hills too. For mountains it's a no-brainer.

Suggestion: For the eye-candy version, perhaps just include the LCO file, since that is the only difference.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I was going to send you a message earlier this morning, then family members showed up at the front door and insisted that I be merry in a different room than is my wont.

I understand. I remember stuff like that happening to me many moons ago.

I'll grab what's in the first post and replace what you sent.

---

Edit 1: Both the zips in the first post have the same readme and same screenshot. Isn't the second one a different skin?
I figured I'd zip them both up into one zip and point folks to this thread for information on the two zips included.

Sorry about that. I knew what I meant, but as usual, I forgot to do something in the doing of it. Both versions use the same skin, the difference is in the files for the EngineTypes folder. I'll make an all-in-one archive to deborkify the two file setup.

All done now. ... I hope

[Just Crazy Jim]

The latest stats will give them a role to play in most maps. You brought it down to 25% increase in Average Yearly Cost over the single. Usable now.

The extra mileage covered from better performance (esp. acceleration) balances against the higher maintenance bill/engine purchase cost. Better reliability means being able to run long-term without caboose meaning extra potential revenue on any particular trip. I haven't nailed down an approximation method to determine how much weight these things have, but at this point in my estimation it has a chance on the smaller hills too. For mountains it's a no-brainer.

Suggestion: For the eye-candy version, perhaps just include the LCO file, since that is the only difference.

Thank you for all the help, RoR. Being a lazy (and moderately thick) man, I may grumble and fuss and grouse and whine. But I do truly appreciate your input. It would be ever so much easier if you and Gumboots would give me a few of your spare brain cells, most of mine are in a very sorry state.

[Hawk]

OK! I got it.

I got rid of the rar file you have in the first post. It was read only and wouldn't let me rename files properly so I re-did it in zip format using 7-Zip.
Now all the files are named properly. The images extracted and resized to the right sizes, etc.
I got it ready to go so I'll get it added in the morning.

BTW! For future reference, see this post on naming conventions and images sizes for file uploads for the archives.

[Just Crazy Jim]

OK! I got it.

I got rid of the rar file you have in the first post. It was read only and wouldn't let me rename files properly so I re-did it in zip format using 7-Zip.
Now all the files are named properly. The images extracted and resized to the right sizes, etc.
I got it ready to go so I'll get it added in the morning.

BTW! For future reference, see this post on naming conventions and images sizes for file uploads for the archives.

Thanks Hawk! Things went a bit haphazard at the end of this one, I'll be a better clerk from now on.

[Hawk]

Things went a bit haphazard at the end of this one,

Yea, I noticed.
No problem.

[Hawk]

Jim - I certainly owe you an apology. I got a bit side tracked and forgot to get this file added to the archives.

It's there now.

http://hawkdawg.com/rrt/rrt3/Xtras/NewE ... stCrazyJim

[Just Crazy Jim]

Much thanks, Hawk! No need to apologize, sir. I am sure that I didn't make it "easier" for you