vipm23 wrote:OK, now show me how this works when you have multiple trains with the same schedule. (One might have to skip, but another might not!)
That depends on what you want to achieve. For example: If the train stop says "Come on trains, I have 10,000 of coal, please load here!", then it is correct, that the trains will halt as often as possible, until the train stop is emptied.
Or other trains, doing different jobs, that happen to list the coal mine as a stop.(Same as above)
Again: It depends on what you want to achieve. You cannot translate it 1:1, but I assert you will always find a solution, that is similar.
But this does not necessarily follow! Multiple trains can be assigned to a single stop-multiple entities can pass through the same node.
Controlling one entity by the state of one node would also, unavoidably, effect every other entity with a path through that node, including ones that would otherwise be completely unrelated, and might in fact need to go to that node right as it disappears(because the first entity needed to skip it.)
The game wants you to transport stuff and not bringing entities to nodes.
Bringing entities to nodes is a requirement to transport stuff.
And how you bring them to the nodes is the task, the game-part.
Among other things, this means that you cannot set up a refueling or rearming depot that services multiple trains without eschewing a train's ability to skip that depot because it still has fuel/supplies.(Unless you resort to the clunky solution of a refueling/rearming stop for every train that visits that depot-and they couldn't just be named the same, because the train that needs to skip would just go for the first open one-you would need a dedicated stop for each train.)
Well you seem to assume, that this is already implemented. But the truth is: trains need to implement some kind of sensor "How much fuel is inside me?" "How much repair packs are available?". And I doubt this will come, cause as said, currently not really needed, there is not much gameplay-change with or without this. This changes only, if you build really big networks. But the main stream of players doesn't do that. So it's currently good enough to have a "depot", where all of this can be done, cause the train stops here at every round of it's schedule.
Or having an outpost resupplied by multiple trains with different items.(Unless you resort to one stop per item-this is a bit better, you don't need one for each train, just one for each item-but it's still going to be clunky.)
I cannot follow, cause I do similar things quite differently and it is no problem, but it's too much off topic to explain it here.
, and when I look (on youtube) how others make similar stuff so much different than me and compared to each other it's clear, that everyone has his own method. The point I want to say is, there is not this one method
. And I think this is good as it is (that you currently have so much different possibilities). There is always more than one solution and what you need to understand is, that your way is just one of many and if you do things differently from beginning you come automatically to completely different solutions. Which are not more or less wrong that yours. It's hard to accept that all solutions have a right to exist but when you want to generalize it into the gameplay you need to concentrate into one direction and that means you have to decide what is the best and that is a conflict which needs to be solved first.
And the conflict is, that it's not clear now how to make this in a way that is always useful, simple AND fun.
Or having a train skip the above outpost because it ran out of supplies (if you have multiple trains for that item, visiting that outpost, shutting off the station to make that train skip would make all the trains skip that stop, including the ones that still have supplies to give out. There isn't a good answer to this-unless you consider the above solution of a dedicated stop for every train that visits that outpost "good".)
I didn't said, that you can coordinate single trains, you need to do stuff differently, with your example you need to fill all trains equally for example. Quite different thinking. But a valid solution.
Well, I can start now over with similar arguments "Would it be possible to do that, if ....?", but that is just a useless Diskussion.
Hm. When I see the things like so, it could be possible, that a mix of both methods is most useful. For example the refueling could be part of the train, while the decision of what to transport is part of the stops.
And I think to the most easy way to implement something. For example: As developer I would like to avoid to have code, that looks like: "What is the next train stop in my schedule? Is this train stop currently opened? Can it be reached yet? All yes? Then look up, what is requested there? Should I go to that stop now or not? If yes: Is this stop still open?" And so on.
But it would be simple to do this from the sight of the train: "Do I still have enough fuel? If no then add a refuel station at the end of the schedule." Simple and straight forward.
And vice versa: A train station can much easier decide: "Oh, I have now plenty of iron ore in my stoc, enough to fill one train. So I open the train stop now, that the trains can come and load it until I'm empty again."
But not: "The next train coming has fresh bread. I like fresh bread so I open the train stop now. Oh. There was another train faster. Cause there was a small accident with a biter. I couldn't see that. And now he unloads the bread from last week! Noooo!".