Code: Select all
Hrs: Level:
4 Instant
15 Virtually Instant
25 Ultra Fast
36 Very Fast
47 Fast
58 Above Average
69 Average
80 Below Average
90 Poor
101 Very Poor
112 Extremely Poor
Code: Select all
Hrs: Level:
4 Instant
15 Virtually Instant
25 Ultra Fast
36 Very Fast
47 Fast
58 Above Average
69 Average
80 Below Average
90 Poor
101 Very Poor
112 Extremely Poor
Code: Select all
9.8% Extremely Poor to Very Poor
10.9% Very Poor to Poor
12.2% Poor to Below Average
13.8% Below Average to Average
15.9% Average to Above Average
19.0% Above Average to Fast
23.4% Fast to Very Fast
30.6% Very Fast to Ultra Fast
44.0% Ultra Fast to Virtually Instant
73.3% Virtually Instant to Instant
You've lost me here, but I do remember that time and distance calculations involving some time spent accelerating, and some time spent at a constant speed, was the sort of example problem they used in school to teach us kids why calculus was invented. IOW, I haven't been through the logic but I have a feeling your arithmetic isn't right.RulerofRails wrote:I assumed linear acceleration so that where x is the time spent accelerating, the time the train will spend at top speed will be x/2 less than if it were running at full speed the entire distance. I calculated total trip time by adding time at full speed with 1.5x. Then I divided total trip time by 1.5x to give a percentage of the trip under acceleration.
This statement in the thread "Why people start with industries" confirms my testing that I would expect an average steamer to be stopped for 5 months of the year. This is somewhat dependent on speed, so will affect slower trains less.Alfed E Neumann wrote:My trains usually spend only about half of their time actually carrying goods. The rest is (un)loading and maintenance. The actual average speed of my trains is somewhere on the order of 10mph, going a bit faster on some part of the track does little to raise that figure.
Beats me why nobody noticed the obvious before. I had assumed that out of everyone pontificating about pulling power being only related to grade performance, at least one person would have actually checked it. Anyway at least we know now.RulerofRails wrote:You are dead right about pulling power. I noticed that too. There is no way to make a loco better on grades. All we can do is:
Increase the free weight to make it better on the flat ground with a tiny boost to graded performance.
Increase the engine or tender weight which will make the loco worse on grades with no effect on flat-ground performance.
Increase pulling power which increases all values with flat-ground performance obviously benefiting more from higher values.
Ok, first point: is this taking your "80 ton cars" from the in-game stats pop-up? Because if it is then I'd totally ignore it. If you mean "actual 80 ton .car file values" then yes, that fits the formula I posted before. AFAICT it works like this:My time is going to be limited for the next little bit. I didn't work out anything exact for speed. With 80 ton cars a "1" Pulling Power with 0 engine or free weight = one car maximum of 20% of top speed. "2" gives 45%. "4" gives 67%. "8" gives 83%, and "16": 90%. That progression left me clueless. I'm sure you'll have it any minute now. I even tried using the square root of inverse of pulling power but couldn't work out how to fit it perfectly.
Forget the visible specs compared to custom car weights. Too much drama, and far too limiting. Even if you try fudging the figures as per your idea, it will only work for the four default eras and it will only work if you double car weights at every era change. If we're going to do custom weights and era dates we should just bite the bullet and say the stats pop-up will not be anywhere near accurate if you are running non-default cars. It isn't anyway, so who cares? We can just give out accurate stats in a supplement instead, and people will quickly figure out which locos are good for which conditions.I decided to look into the effects of changing the values. After testing for verification, I worked out that we can create a loco that performs according to any given "visible" specs, as long as we take the ratio of "displayed" car weight to the desired custom car weight and apply it to combined engine and tender weight, free weight, and pulling power.
I thought we had already agreed on that and settled it.It's my opinion that a mixed class should have higher fuel costs per mile than heavy freight for two reasons.
Code: Select all
;@gumbootz: Hard-coded weights are used here!
711 "Cars @ %1 tons each"
Code: Select all
;@gumbootz: Hard-coded weights are used here!
711 "Do not trust these stats any more than you would trust a used car salesman with a serious cocaine habit"
Oh crap. I hope this isn't true as it would be really stupid.RulerofRails wrote:Yes, I was using "80 ton cars" from the in-game status. From my acceleration testing I am sure that the in-game stats using "80 ton cars" are true for real 80 ton (in the hex) .car file car values on flat ground (I didn't do much testing on hills). This is why I posted the shot of the Mallard. Basically the stats for the B-era (shown for 20 tons) apply to the C-era, and those of the C-era apply to the D-era.
The mixed class is meant to be more expensive, but for mixed or express the U1 should have its fuel rating changed. Its default fuel rating is more suitable for heavy freight. I was just comparing with default fuel ratings to get a better idea of the exact effect of the proposed weight multiplication scale itself, before fuel rating changes were thrown into the mix.Sorry to go over old stuff. I saw the U1 (is it mixed class?) and it's proposed fuel costs seemed really cheap. I failed to notice the mixed class being more expensive than the others, but I only had a quick glance at the new fuel sheet. I am away for a couple days now, but will look at it more closely later. Good luck on the testing in the meantime.
Yup, you're right. I need to get more data points to fully sort this. Setting the loco weight to 0 makes it go a lot faster up hills, and doubling its weight makes it go a lot slower up hills.RulerofRails wrote:When free weight is 0, try increasing engine or tender weight and see what happens. There is always the chance that I was mistaken, but I have observed this while testing multiple times.