Balance and realism issues with RT3 v1.06 locomotives

[arop]

I like the inproved Berkshire, BUT I wish it wasn't as "black" as it is . It's difficault to recognize the wheels from the boiler, even when you take a closer look, it's all black. Some brighter nuances of black and grey are desireable if possible. I'm looking forward to download the "new" engines you are working on

[Gumboots]

Personally I wouldn't bother trying to fit all the locos to different little niches. I'd just make them as close as playable to what they really were. Take the default camelback as an example. They probably messed with it to try and fit it to some vacant niche, and they ended up making it totally useless for actual gameplay. Everyone just ignores it and picks better options. Having locos that nobody will bother using is pointless. Better to have some more good ones. So if the Mallets really were awesome for just about everything, don't feel you have to nobble them artificially. Awesome trains are fine. Everyone will love them.

[Lirio]

Yes but if one loco is awesome at everything, everyone will just use that one and ignore the other. So those others serve no purpose, they're useless. Instead i need to be making one loco awesome at hauling express, another awesome at hauling freight, and yet another awesome at hauling stuff through the mountains. In that situation, people would be using three locomotives, and then those three locomotives would have reason for exist.

In other news, trying to figure out how Pop Top derived the free weight value is driving me positively and completely insane. All avenues of inquiry turn up dead ends. It seems to me that the answer to this question is that related to the answer to, "What is the maximum load that a locomotive can haul at a given speed?" Problem is, the answer to that question isn't anywhere that i can find.

[Lirio]

Free weight is related to horsepower, apparently. This should be obvious because what determines how much of a load you can haul at speed is... horsepower. Indeed every approach taken to the problem came back to that. The issue is, horsepower is the product of speed and tractive effort. If that's all it was the game would do the math itself, since it has those two figures, and there would be no need to input the figure separately. So it isn't really horsepower, though it is related to it. A friend of mine thinks it's an artificial upper limit on the locomotive's hauling capacity in order to make it possible to allow more variation of locomotive hauling capabilities under varying conditions. In other words, if all it was was the product of speed and pulling power divided by a constant, then the best locomotives would always be the ones with the highest product. By adding the free weight into the mix as it is, it's possible to make it such that a locomotive with a lower product stands out as better in some applications.

Knowing that it's correlated to horsepower, though, makes me feel better at some design decisions i've made, such as decreasing the various Northern's pulling power and increasing their free weights. It makes me feel less good about increasing the Fairlie, Shay, G10, and Decapod free weights, but there wasn't really much else that could be done to make them at least somewhat useful. Though given that the speeds of the first three were also slightly increased for game balance rather than realism, it just has to be accepted that due to the limitations of the game engine these locomotives will have no use whatsoever if they behave like their real counterparts.

[Gumboots]

Yes but if one loco is awesome at everything, everyone will just use that one and ignore the other. So those others serve no purpose, they're useless. Instead i need to be making one loco awesome at hauling express, another awesome at hauling freight, and yet another awesome at hauling stuff through the mountains. In that situation, people would be using three locomotives, and then those three locomotives would have reason for exist.

Well sometimes I just use locos because I like them, even though something else would be just as economical, or even more economical, or whatever. It's a game. I want to like it.

My point is that if there happen to be three locos that (IRL) were awesome at everything in their time frame, I wouldn't mess with them. I'd just have three awesome locos and let people take their pick.

Instead i need to......

No, you don't NEED to. You can do whatever you like.

[Lirio]

No, you don't NEED to. You can do whatever you like.

Ah, but you see, having the the engines balance so they each have their own use is doing what i like. ^_^ The map looks better when there's lots of different locos running around, and it's nice to feel they all serve a purpose in it. Though, granted, often times that purpose is merely that replacing it doesn't offer enough return on investment to bother. Personal policy is to only replace locomotives less than 10 years old if there is a large improvement in performance. Sometimes they run 15-20 years if the engine's particularly reliable, and sometimes you get more bang for your buck by adding a new train to a line rather than upgrading the existing one.

[Gumboots]

I'm more likely to choose trains that I like the look of. For instance, I'll avoid that weird cab-forward Italian thing that comes in the early 1900's, just because it's uggerly and doesn't look like a real train.

If nothing equally powerful and reliable is available, I'll reluctantly use Northern 484's because they're good, but I don't like looking at them because of the paint job.

[EPH]

I tend to use the current newest and best unless I am running express-only trains, there I use the ones with most passenger appeal. And I do like to electrify my system, so I use lots of electric locos. Generally I replace locos after 10 years with a new type unless it is something inexpensive and durable. I run lots and lots of trains, so I agree that adding new trains is usually more cost-effective than replacing locos before the 10-year limit. One exception is on a map like North-South Corridor where margins are extremely tight and loco maintenance and fuel cost are exaggerated. Bringing in new locos usually produces a significant drop in fuel and maintenance cost, and I will select a loco that is cheaper to run. In a game like Farewell to Steam, where wartime increases the cost of purchasing new locos, I will use a very cheap temporary replacement if one of mine crashes. The fact that they are one-offs makes them easy to replace when the price goes down.

It is sad that so many of the locos provided are never used unless in very specific cases (Shay, Big Boy, DD40x, etc and etc). Instead I use only about 25% of the locos provided.

That Italian cab-forward job is a great engine compared to other European locos of its time. I use it in Express D'Orient a lot, especially for express traffic and the vital guns-and-coffee trade. I don't find it ugly at all - it looks just like high profits to me! :)

[Gumboots]

I tend to disregard passenger appeal, or rate it fairly low. I'll usually pick locos on performance and reliability frst, then go for passenger appeal if it doesn't conflict with the other two.

Also, because I play on Expert level, adding lots of trains is not usually cost effective. The extra fuel and maintenance costs on Expert level mean that the most important thing is that any trains you do run are generating large profits. Adding more to the point where profits are lower does not help the bottom line (IMHO). It's better to put the same money into industry. This also has the benefit of keeping the lines clearer, meaning less congestion and fewer delays.

Delays are also why I have no qualms about replacing locos early. I'd rather pay for another loco than put up with a less reliable service. Depending on the scenario and the available locos, I'm quite prepared to throw them away and replace them as early as three years (in the case of Fireflies and the like). I rarely run any loco much over ten years, simply because the maintenance costs get so high even if the thing is still reliable. If there's another decade left to run in the game, it's better to replace the thing since the savings on maintencance will cover the replacement cost, plus you have lower chance of breakdowns.

Personally, I don't think the Italian cab-forward loco is all that great. It has a good top speed on flat terrain, but poor grade performance and poor reliability compared to other locos that are available at the same time. I'll sometimes use a couple of them in Express D'Orient just to run coffee back to Vienna, but only if said coffee is already in Bucharest. If it's coming straight from Istanbul, I'll use a loco with better grade performance.

[EPH]

Ah, but my Vienna to Istanbul route is pretty flat, with the exception of the drop to the Danube valley. Everything else can be kept to 2% or less. Never noticed any issues with reliability from the Italian cab-forwards, probably because they are new for the four or five years I use them.

[Gumboots]

I suppose it depends on how you like to get from Vienna to Istanbul. I usually go inland and over the hill through Bulgaria, just to pick up some lucrative extra towns on the way. That introduces some moderate grades.

[arop]

I seldom use the Italian engine when making my maps, but I often use the user made tank engine version of it, called the 2-6-4 Suburban tank (Regretably it's the only tank engine in RRT3) for shortline hauls. I have been told that the use of tank engines was not very common in US and Canada. Besides: To my opinion passenger appeal is nonsence. Does any non railway enthusiast bother how the locomotive looks? I think they just board the train and judge it by how the timetable is kept and how comfortable the ride will be.

[Hawk]

I rarely, if ever, pay attention to the passenger appeal listing for engines.

[Gumboots]

Just grabbed the alt Berkshire zip yesterday, now that I can see all skins on my box, and it's still a bit funny.

The tender is really good (even has the name on it in clear lettering) but the loco itself is a bit blurry and indistinct in outlines. It lacks the sharpness and clarity of the tender.

Also, the loco vanishes at some view angles and distances. You can be looking at the thing up close, then zoom out a bit and the loco will disappear.

The profile shot is still the old "ran into a big can of black paint" look too.

[Gumboots]

Meh. I had just typed up a rather detailed and intelligent (IMO ) addition to this thread. The forum ate it. It is now lost, and I'm too lazy to reconstruct it at the moment. Hey ho.

[Gumboots]

Right, will have another go, and this time will copy/paste it to Notepad++ before clicking any forum buttons.

Story was that yesterday, being too lazy to actually do anything productive as such, I started doing bit of research (ok, time wasting then) by reading up on various locos, etc. Got on a bit of a roll with the British stuff, just for a change, and found out some things that I thought were both interesting and relevant to this general topic.

First up, the Stirling 4-2-2. In RRT3 the Stirling is, in my opinion, almost useless due to its lack of reliability, and its almost total gutlessness when confronted with anything that isn't totally flat. Turns out the real one wasn't that bad. In fact, for its time it was pretty good. It lacked the adhesion necessary to pull a decent load once carriage sizes started increasing, but that was really its only flaw. Its reliability was first rate. The first one ever built lasted well over thirty years in service, and covered well over a million miles. A hundred years after retiring from serivce, it is still operational and still pulls trains on special occasions. That is not "Below Average" reliability. I think the poor old Stirling deserves a bit of a boost there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgDM3IlhC1w


Then there's the A4, another one that (IMO) is near to useless in RRT3. So as we all know, one of them went downhill at 126 mph before blowing up. What I didn't know is that several years later, the very same A4 went back up that same hill the other way, pulling a load that was 150 tons heavier than on the record run, and topped the hill doing 80 mph. It didn't blow up that time either. This is pretty impressive performance.

From what I can gather, their reliability wasn't that bad on the whole, particularly in later years when they fixed the valve gear so it didn't play up. Seems they usually operated with a top speed of around 100 mph on the flat. Occasionally one would go a bit faster downhill, but it wasn't common. Still 100 on the flat and 80 up a mild grade, while pulling a useful load, is good going. So, that's another one that could do with having its stats revised a bit. Drop the top speed to something sensible (ie: 100) and up the pulling power a bit so it's not totally gutless. Would have to do some in-game testing to be sure of where to set things, but offhand it seems as if it should have enough pulling power to haul 5 pre-war express cars up a longish 1% grade at a sustained 80 mph, if that can be balanced with it still being almost useless with seven freight cars up a 3% grade.

[Gumboots]

Hey question about Lirio's alternative Berkshire: does anyone actually have a copy of it?

The reason I ask is because the file here just seems to contain the old version, but with a couple of minor tweaks to its stats. It doesn't have the new profile shot that Lirio said she put in, or the new wheels, or any texture editing, and it still has the "Lima Locomotive Works" lettering the tender, which Hoborailcat said was missing from the updated version he downloaded.

Wow, that bit of texture editing really makes the Berk look nice. Glad to know that everyone's enjoying it. For my own purposes, I might add the "Lima Locomotive Works" back onto the tender, cause I just like the way it looks. Other than that, I think it looks great.

In other words, I think what happened is that after the first zip she attached got lost due to the server glitch that Hawk mentioned, she accidentally replaced it with an unfinished, work-in-progress version.

So, did anyone (Hoborailcat, maybe?) manage to actually get their hands on the final version of her update? If so, could they please attach it here so other people can try it?

[hoborailcat]

I was never able to get any other versions besides my own and the one with no "Lima Locomotive Works" on the tender. Since then, I've got a new computer that doesn't have RRT3 yet, and my old computer crashed shortly after.

[Gumboots]

Bother, we might have to wait until Lirio returns (assuming she does).

[Lirio]

Lirio has returned! Those who wish to know the reasons for my absence can go here.

I have decided to, if not necessarily continue the project, act least prepare what has already been completed for public release. I'll see about giving the Stirling better reliability; I already made the A4 brawnier but slower. Beyond that I'm going to try to familiarize myself with the changes already made and package everything for release. Fortunately I was fastidious about keeping documentation in two formats, so that should ease the burden. I might take a couple of weeks to get everything sorted out.

As for my reskinned Berkshire, like I said earlier I'm not actually a big fan of it because it's not a real Berkshire, so I don't use it in my game. Also the game is already up to its eyeballs in American locomotives and doesn't particularly need more. I'll look through my files and see if I still have it. If that's the case, I will upload it.

EDIT - Okay I found the file and tested it. It runs fine and looks like it should look. Engine's a little too dark at night, but it doesn't glow and looks pretty enough during the daylight. The wheels are good, and it has a proper icon. I tried to make the altBerkshire not conflict with hoborailcat's original but I cant' guarantee problems won't arise if you have both on at once. I altered the readme to reflect that. Oh, also, the loco's icon had a 7 pixel gap between it and the first car icon in the train. It was near unnoticeable, but it was also like five minutes to fix it, so I did so.