Idea: Add train configuration setting to LTN stops

[mrvn]

I recently made a suggestion to extend the train stops to allow limiting it to specific trains in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=99949

train-stop-limiting.png (70.48 KiB) Viewed 1685 times

I would really like this feature for LTN stops because other than low throughput stations with LC / LF trains whenever I have items and fluids at a station I need trains of different sizes, mostly longer fluid trains than item trains. And that then means 2 stations or longer item trains can arrive at the station than the station can handle. Even for pure item or pure fluid stations it would be good to avoid confusing e.g. LCL trains with LCC trains.

I wonder if you would be open for a patch to add this for LTN stops as an alternative to setting the min/max train length. This wouldn't be circuit controllable as that would limit the configurations to 1. But have you ever seen a station with the min/max train length changing via combinator logic?

One thing I would add to the UI, above what I described in the suggestion, would be a button to pick a train configuration from a list created from all the trains waiting a Depots (or their train configuration limits). So if you build your LFFFL train and depot first you could just pick it from the list for new stations instead of having to enter the configuration everywhere. The train configuration limits would open as extra window whenever you open the train stop UI.

If any train configuration is set for the stop then the min/max train size signals will be ignored.

[Optera]

Sorry, not going to happen in LTN.

1. LTN was rendered mostly obsolete with train limits becoming a base feature
   I'm going to keep maintaining it, but no new features will be added.
2. Too much overhead for something only marginally more configurable than a min/max length + Network-ID
   It doesn't even allow to discern between <LCCL> and <LCC<L

[mrvn]

Sorry, not going to happen in LTN.

1. LTN was rendered mostly obsolete with train limits becoming a base feature
   I'm going to keep maintaining it, but no new features will be added.
2. Too much overhead for something only marginally more configurable than a min/max length + Network-ID
   It doesn't even allow to discern between <LCCL> and <LCC<L

That is sad to hear. I think priorities and circuit controlled network IDs still add a lot to the game. And being able to request small amounts of things for low throughput stations.

As for <LCCL> vs. <LCC<L that just needs an icon for the train in reverse.

[ssilk]

Mrvn, I think you underestimate how long it takes in LUA to check such things. You need to get the train, then all vehicles of the train and that’s a more or less expensive operation. Even without that, it takes some time to compare this, because it needs to be done every time we look for a train for that route.

[mrvn]

You already need to get the train and all the vehicles for the min/max length check and to see if it is an item or fluid train. If it's expensive then this should be cached for each depot stop if it isn't already.

A train configuration can be encoded in a string. So it could be as cheap as looking up the string in a table. Not zero cost but not expensive either.