Re: Better train control
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:24 pm
Children, behave. Bad ideas don't make bad people. Bad responses do.
We can play this game, but there will be no winner. The only effect you gain with this behavior is that you look angry about others and stop talking about the interesting stuff. Please come back to the topic. Thx.rampelstinskin wrote:Not as rude as people who answer before they read. This behavior leads to pointless flood and flame. Like it happening here.rldml wrote: Hey guy, there is no need to be rude. I'm just a human after all...
This is why this behavior must be terminated ASAP.
Please don't forget, that we are talking about very advanced ways to give the trains the last missing 10% of effectiness they are lacking right now (in vanilla).I am tired to repeat this:rldml wrote: I've read your suggestion, but you want far more than i want for the base game. I strongly believe, that we only need a way to send schedules via circuit networks to trains, because everything else you want to have can already be done with the help of curcuit network logic.
It is true. In theory.
But it ridiculously hard.
It like writing programs for Turing machine. In theory it can do everything but in practice it very hard to make it to do anything useful.
[/quote]Every single one of my suggestions is completely optional and do not affect base game if you don't use them.rldml wrote: I just wanted to say "thank you", because everyone else in this forum seems only to advise for LTN, which i don't want for some reason (it does simply to much, i want to regulate that stuff by myself with curcuit network).
Moreover they allow gradual and easy progression from basic schedule to much more sophisticated train control than LTN.
I don't know your station design, but in the moment i turn off a train stop, all waiting trains in the stacker bay would recalculate its path and drive to other train stops or just target the next train stop in its schedule, but without the load they should get in the turned down train stop.Does a station have X trains waiting (count the red signals in the stacker bays) and you only want a maximum of Y to wait and divert any others to the another active outpost? Turn the station off, no departing trains from your depots target it any more, trains leave one by one until X <= Y, station comes back on, the rest of the trains don't leave.
The trains can only leave one at a time. As soon as one starts to leave, the exit block is reserved (just by the leaving train being in it, nothing special) so the others in the stack have to wait their turn to leave. So they are forced to leave one by one until the desired limit of trains is there, at which point the station turns back on and the remaining trains in the stack lock back on to it. I've been using that design all day, despite the OP's claims that it's "impossible". It's rare that more than one train has to leave, anyway - my outpost design has 8 bays in its stacker, but I don't know why I did that now, there's hardly ever even 2 trains waiting behind the one currently loading, even with 54 trains flying about. I suppose it's more useful in the early stages of your rail network where you have a very limited number of outposts, but then, you shouldn't be sending out too many trains in the first place. If you've got a ton of trains waiting at one station, there's something else wrong - it must mean you get large numbers of factory blocks all emptying their trains simultaneously and so they all send their trains to the exact same place, which sounds like some deeper kind of problem to be honest, their output should be balanced or cycled better - much easier now with priority splitters.rldml wrote:I don't know your station design, but in the moment i turn off a train stop, all waiting trains in the stacker bay would recalculate its path and drive to other train stops or just target the next train stop in its schedule, but without the load they should get in the turned down train stop.Does a station have X trains waiting (count the red signals in the stacker bays) and you only want a maximum of Y to wait and divert any others to the another active outpost? Turn the station off, no departing trains from your depots target it any more, trains leave one by one until X <= Y, station comes back on, the rest of the trains don't leave.
Yeah, I would mind, bit more exposure than I want, and you'd have a hassle getting the mod settings right.rldml wrote:Would you mind to post a demo save where i can inspect your station design?
It is very hard to talk when you answering to what I never said.rldml wrote: We can play this game, but there will be no winner. The only effect you gain with this behavior is that you look angry about others and stop talking about the interesting stuff. Please come back to the topic. Thx.
Problem with your solution is: less than 1% of players have skill to use it. And less than 1% of this players will find it fun enough to actually build this system.rldml wrote: With the one exception (that i mentioned earlier) they are only quality-of-life-features you don't need to realize what you want to do.
Please, come back to topic now.rampelstinskin wrote:It is very hard to talk when you answering to what I never said.rldml wrote: We can play this game, but there will be no winner. The only effect you gain with this behavior is that you look angry about others and stop talking about the interesting stuff. Please come back to the topic. Thx.
We talk about something you don't need to win the game (send a rocket into space) and start to be relevant only in larger scale games like building megabases. We talk about the last few percent to make a optimal transportation network.Problem with your solution is: less than 1% of players have skill to use it. And less than 1% of this players will find it fun enough to actually build this system.rldml wrote: With the one exception (that i mentioned earlier) they are only quality-of-life-features you don't need to realize what you want to do.
You want more than that, you don't only want some information stuff, you want a way to configurate your trains to respect the information autmatically, without any more implementation of circuit networks.My job is creating new algorithms.
When you do it main questions is "what if" and "how much". Both of them must be answered for every possible event. Including highly unlikely events.
And I did exactly this for this problem before I submit my suggestions.
You're simply wrong.If you use only ability to send train to specific station all variants of this system end up very fragile, not scalable or poorly scalable and require a lot of work to setup an maintain.
I strongly believe this is the wrong view to your problem. In an optimal system you would exactly send one train to your train stop for every request it makes. You try to control how much trains drive to that train stop in a tangentially way instead of making the correct solution.For example one of problems you need to solve is limit how many trains sent to train station.
Only thing you can do is add counter to train station. But what will happen if train destroyed? If counter destroyed? This means you need ability to ask game how many trains is actually going to train station. Without it will be extremely hard to maintain.
There is already a train side logic implemented for this scenario. Everyone can try it. Just make a train with a schedule and then remove one of the train stops of the schedule.What happen if train station destroyed? How train will know where to go? You need some kind of train side logic to solve this problem.
My position hasn't changed - you only need a way to send schedules over your CN. Everything else you can realize already with the help of CN.Next problem you need to solve is get information from train stations.
Using circuit network you can talk to fixed number of stations at same time.
And only scalable way to do it is send train station id to CN and train station will communicate only if this signal match it id.
Now you need a way to enumerate stations. Only way to do it is manually maintain list of stations. Good luck with this.
Or we need a way to ask game for this information.
Now you need enumerate all providers. Then for each provider which is ready to send train enumerate all consumers for this resource. This is quadratic algorithm which is very bad for scalability.
And on top of this to select best station you need a way to calculate distance between train stations.
Long story short, you need a lot more features to do train routing with combinators.
My proposal allows hard way. You can ignore ability to limit train stop like I ignore logistic bots.rldml wrote: We talk about something you don't need to win the game (send a rocket into space) and start to be relevant only in larger scale games like building megabases. We talk about the last few percent to make a optimal transportation network.
Something like this should be complicated and shoud need a lot of skill to realize it.
Oh... talking with you is hard. How my quote connected to yours I can't understand.rldml wrote:You want more than that, you don't only want some information stuff, you want a way to configurate your trains to respect the information autmatically, without any more implementation of circuit networks.My job is creating new algorithms.
When you do it main questions is "what if" and "how much". Both of them must be answered for every possible event. Including highly unlikely events.
And I did exactly this for this problem before I submit my suggestions.
Very good argument. I completely defeated.rldml wrote:You're simply wrong.
Oh.rldml wrote:I strongly believe this is the wrong view to your problem. In an optimal system you would exactly send one train to your train stop for every request it makes. You try to control how much trains drive to that train stop in a tangentially way instead of making the correct solution.
Shit happens.rldml wrote: And to say it clearly, It's one of your tasks to prevent your station from being destroyed. You can build your structures to capture this incidents, but initially they should'nt happen.
Copying Blueprints is something the game designers supports and many people do right now (e.g. balancers). I cannot see your problem here, because it is an accepted way to surpass complex problems in the game and you could easily ignore it, if you don't want it.rampelstinskin wrote:My proposal allows hard way. You can ignore ability to limit train stop like I ignore logistic bots.rldml wrote: We talk about something you don't need to win the game (send a rocket into space) and start to be relevant only in larger scale games like building megabases. We talk about the last few percent to make a optimal transportation network.
Something like this should be complicated and shoud need a lot of skill to realize it.
But for vast majority of player without this feature making this this system will be impossible. And they will mindlessly copy/paste blueprints. It not what I call fun.
Dito. Can we just come back to topic?Oh... talking with you is hard. [...]rldml wrote: You want more than that, you don't only want some information stuff, you want a way to configurate your trains to respect the information autmatically, without any more implementation of circuit networks.
Yeah, we have different point of views to this thematic. Deadlock989 posted some shreenshots and talks about his base. Your suggestions are simply not needed to make a big scaled base. There exist a tons of savegames with mega- and gigabases they shoudn't exist in your reality. I just don't have the motivation to show in detail, that you're simply wrong.Very good argument. I completely defeated.rldml wrote:You're simply wrong.
I wrote it earlier, please try to understand: If you want to drink a glass of milk, you'll just fill some milk into a drinking glass and drink it. You'll surely not empty a complete bottle of milk above your head until you drank enough and you won't especially expect the bottle of milk to stop dumping its content by itself just because you finished!Oh.rldml wrote:I strongly believe this is the wrong view to your problem. In an optimal system you would exactly send one train to your train stop for every request it makes. You try to control how much trains drive to that train stop in a tangentially way instead of making the correct solution.
Limit how many trains can go to station.
Send exactly one train to your train stop for every request it makes.
It exactly same task. If you start thinking how exactly you will do it it will become obvious.
Do you understand it now? Or more explanations needed?
Yeah, building a roboport, fill with construction bots and have some yellow boxes with replacing stuff is that hard, nobody can do this, so we need extra intelligent trains that can handle every possible situation.Shit happens.rldml wrote: And to say it clearly, It's one of your tasks to prevent your station from being destroyed. You can build your structures to capture this incidents, but initially they should'nt happen.
And I think about every shit that can possible happen.
And you can ignore one checkbox in train stop options.rldml wrote: Copying Blueprints is something the game designers supports and many people do right now (e.g. balancers). I cannot see your problem here, because it is an accepted way to surpass complex problems in the game and you could easily ignore it, if you don't want it.
Not until you stop talking with you imagination and start talking with me.rldml wrote: Dito. Can we just come back to topic?
The problem is both of you twist my words. You have some twisted image of what I saying and you arguing with it. Not with what I actually saying.rldml wrote: Yeah, we have different point of views to this thematic. Deadlock989 posted some shreenshots and talks about his base. Your suggestions are simply not needed to make a big scaled base. There exist a tons of savegames with mega- and gigabases they shoudn't exist in your reality. I just don't have the motivation to show in detail, that you're simply wrong.
But you don't understand what I talking about.rldml wrote: Your suggestion isn't the same as mine. You want that a train looks by itself, i want a way to give a train specific schedule depending of circuit network conditions - which is obviously already possible with the help of a mod you thankfully mentioned.
In your solution you need to find a way to send exact number of trains to a station.rldml wrote:n an optimal system you would exactly send one train to your train stop for every request it makes.
They will not restore value in train counting combinator.rldml wrote: Yeah, building a roboport, fill with construction bots and have some yellow boxes with replacing stuff is that hard, nobody can do this, so we need extra intelligent trains that can handle every possible situation.
This my line.rldml wrote:*sigh*
I could ignore using bots to, but why should i? It makes a huge difference in gameplay, if you try to ignore an implemented feature or if you have to visit an external website to get help for something you could build for your own.rampelstinskin wrote:And you can ignore one checkbox in train stop options.rldml wrote: Copying Blueprints is something the game designers supports and many people do right now (e.g. balancers). I cannot see your problem here, because it is an accepted way to surpass complex problems in the game and you could easily ignore it, if you don't want it.
It is a fact that many people build giant bases (inclusive train as a part of the system) and have no scaling problems. Stop whining about something that isn't real.The problem is both of you twist my words. You have some twisted image of what I saying and you arguing with it. Not with what I actually saying.rldml wrote: Yeah, we have different point of views to this thematic. Deadlock989 posted some shreenshots and talks about his base. Your suggestions are simply not needed to make a big scaled base. There exist a tons of savegames with mega- and gigabases they shoudn't exist in your reality. I just don't have the motivation to show in detail, that you're simply wrong.
I never said big bases is impossible.
I said there is no good solution.
In case of Deadlock989 trains randomly going to stations where they not needed. It good way to create congestion if you start scale base. Worst case scenario if he have less mining outpost than he needs.
Outposts will be overloaded with trains and because of this empty trains will go to smelters and create congestion.
I told you before: You just need the option to reschedule your trains via CN: In my savegame i've made a dynamic train stacker: Outposts send a request signal and the stacker sends (exactly) one train. That works since 0.15 vanilla withoud any mods and don't need further improvements.But you don't understand what I talking about.rldml wrote: Your suggestion isn't the same as mine. You want that a train looks by itself, i want a way to give a train specific schedule depending of circuit network conditions - which is obviously already possible with the help of a mod you thankfully mentioned.
I talk about YOUR solution.
This is you quote:In your solution you need to find a way to send exact number of trains to a station.rldml wrote:n an optimal system you would exactly send one train to your train stop for every request it makes.
Now tell me how exactly you planing to do it.
Perhaps you should accept, that we've understood very good what you want and just have another point of view as you.You will not understand what I talking about until you do.
You don't need a train counting combinator, so there is nothing special to fix. And even shit is going to become real, it's your task as player to build bases secure for that. If you have some values you have to make as secure as possible, extend your base in a way you can defend them even better (more towers, mor ammunition, more walls, more everything)They will not restore value in train counting combinator.rldml wrote: Yeah, building a roboport, fill with construction bots and have some yellow boxes with replacing stuff is that hard, nobody can do this, so we need extra intelligent trains that can handle every possible situation.
How you going to fix it state?