[2.0.12] Train does not move between stops with same name (MR)

[Gergely]

I do not think the behavior that the train always stays at the stop with the same name is any useful. I also tried to get it to leave by giving higher priority to the other stops, but that did not work either.

Expected behavior is as following:
When a train wants to depart for a stop with a given name it should always look at all possible candidate stops, to make sure priorities and limits are respected. If it's current stop is above the limit it should try to move to a different stop. Finally, it should still only free it's reservation for the current stop if it can actually leave.

When not to leave?
I think the current stop should still be a valid candidate, but only if the train would otherwise go to it. The train should stay at the stop if it has the highest priority and is not above the train limit.

In summary: The train shouldn't give special treatment to the stop it are currently at. When pathing to a stop with the same name, it should behave as if it is not already at that stop.

[Rseding91]

Thanks for the report. For the next release trains will move between stops of the same name provided the one they're sitting at becomes disabled in the meantime.

There is some risk with this change, so I will be monitoring to see if this causes issues with train interrupts and address those to the best of our abilities if they show up.

[robot256]

Thanks for the report. For the next release trains will move between stops of the same name provided the one they're sitting at becomes disabled in the meantime.

Does this represent a new difference between setting Disabled=True versus setting Limit=0?

[Hares]

Does this represent a new difference between setting Disabled=True versus setting Limit=0?

According to this post, the difference will be removed:

The crucial thing is to set train limit to 1 or 0 to signal a station is requesting a train or not. It doesn't work if you enable/disable the station, although the devs said disabling a station is the same as setting the train limit to 0.

[robot256]

Does this represent a new difference between setting Disabled=True versus setting Limit=0?

According to this post, the difference will be removed:

The crucial thing is to set train limit to 1 or 0 to signal a station is requesting a train or not. It doesn't work if you enable/disable the station, although the devs said disabling a station is the same as setting the train limit to 0.

I am aware that the intent for user-facing behavior at 2.0 release was to make disabled and limit=0 the same. Internally, I don't know how distinct the two states are, and thus how likely it is for the new code in this bugfix to intentionally or accidentally handle one condition but not the other. Regardless, I really appreciate that this issue is being addressed!

[boskid]

Internally, I don't know how distinct the two states are, and thus how likely it is for the new code in this bugfix to intentionally or accidentally handle one condition but not the other.

Condition was checking for limit to be 0, just to make sure it remains consistent i made it also apply when train stop is disabled.

[robot256]

Internally, I don't know how distinct the two states are, and thus how likely it is for the new code in this bugfix to intentionally or accidentally handle one condition but not the other.

Condition was checking for limit to be 0, just to make sure it remains consistent i made it also apply when train stop is disabled.

Thank you for confirming! That's what I was hoping for.

[nivlark]

Thanks for fixing this! I think this is the correct behaviour if the intention is to make disabled and limit=0 behave the same.

However there is a small inconsistency in the ingame tooltip in the station GUI (emphasis mine):

• Enable/disable: "the train stop will be considered full and no new trains will be dispatched to it"
• Train limit: "Set the maximum number of trains (includes the stopped train)"

which could be read as meaning there was intended to be a difference between the two. If there were to be a difference I think it would be better to be the other way around i.e. outright disabling the stop should be more restrictive/impactful (as it was in 1.0).

[robot256]

Thanks for fixing this! I think this is the correct behaviour if the intention is to make disabled and limit=0 behave the same.

However there is a small inconsistency in the ingame tooltip in the station GUI (emphasis mine):

• Enable/disable: "the train stop will be considered full and no new trains will be dispatched to it"
• Train limit: "Set the maximum number of trains (includes the stopped train)"

which could be read as meaning there was intended to be a difference between the two. If there were to be a difference I think it would be better to be the other way around i.e. outright disabling the stop should be more restrictive/impactful (as it was in 1.0).

True. This might belong in the suggestion forum, but here's the most technically correct wording I can suggest:

• Enable/disable: "When disabled, the Train limit is treated as 0 and the stop is considered full."
• Train limit: "New trains will only be dispatched to this stop when the total number of trains pathing towards, stopped at, and departing this stop is less than the Train Limit. The stop is considered full when the total is number of trains is equal to or greater than the Train Limit."

[Niedzwiedzislaw]

And I thought that solution to this was just to set limit equal to zero when enable/disable checkbox is selected. Is there any chance to get some insight on why this is more complicated than that?

But anyway, thanks for fixing this. I was really anticipating this change. Early game becomes so much nicer to me now.

[robot256]

And I thought that solution to this was just to set limit equal to zero when enable/disable checkbox is selected. Is there any chance to get some insight on why this is more complicated than that?

(I assume) The logic in the game that prevents a new train from pathing toward a station until the previous train clears the station's rail block also made it so the previous train was "grandfathered in" using its old reservation even though it was supposed to be departing a limit-0 station for a new station that actually requested a train.