The cargo wagons are too small for DLC

[The Phoenixian]

Weird thought on this topic: Instead of more slots, how far would reducing vehicle weight/roll resistance with quality go towards solving the same problems?

Not that i think it's necessary , but more slots would be a very very strong options compared to reducing vehicle weight/roll resistance which would unfortunatly not have a strong impact is my conclusion after previous studies :

Updated this graph to make the weight of loco and wagon and roll resistance slider you can move that shows optimums
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/hqa9wpvv2w

this one was made to simulate train behaviors over time :
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kdrwrvrzk8

I have quite the confidence in my graphs because they match the one i can't explain from :

Updated throughput graph

From the looks of the provided graphs and the math in the sidebar... Rolling resistance is nearly irrelevant, but reducing cargo and locomotive weight to 40% of it's original value to 400 and 800 (IE: by the 2.5fold that's standard for legendary parts) would have a very significant impact on throughput. The acceleration formula is divided by mass, so a reduction in weight is an proportional boost to that. Time to reach top speed for the provided train parameters would jump from nearly ten seconds to less than four. (From ~590 ticks to ~235)

Alternatively, even with this just applying to cargo wagons, the same acceleration stat could be reached with double the total number of wagons (from 5 to 10) More than that for both, (about 2.5 fold total length) but it looks like more factors come into play there that make things weirder than just weight.

In the context of a player having issues with their train buffer being the limit as it cannot pull from the buffer to the station fast enough, either of those outcomes seem very significant. Especially given it's a situation where inertia and acceleration dominate, rather than top speed.

Even if it's not the same kind of change as extra inventory size, it does in fact look like it would be a significant change for both startup time and train length. (Plus I like the idea that a higher quality transport container might be one that was rationalized to remove excess components and pare it down to the bare essentials.)

[mmmPI]

From the looks of the provided graphs and the math in the sidebar... Rolling resistance is nearly irrelevant,

From the first graph i made yes, the rolling resistance is not relevant, but that's because those trains are considered at many different "constant speed", varying the weight impact mostly braking distance (in the graph), which impact the optimal speed for a particular train composition. Or in other words lighter trains could increase throughput "in general" even without considering acceleration because it would allow train to be closer to each other for the same speed.

Rolling resistance would have more impact in the way that you suggest if train were considered arriving and departing from station unlike in my graph. But it would reduce throughput of the whole network if it was decreased and train were allowed to reach their max speed.

This need interpretation of the graphs, if you consider its shape as an inverted U for the throughput, then the right most part, when trains are the fastest, is not the "optimal for throughput", because their "braking distance is too high", this goes with the square of the speed.

So lowering rolling resistance would have a positive effect on throughput at station, but detrimental at large speed where the braking distance for any given particular train at X speed would be longer, causing less train density overall.

but reducing cargo and locomotive weight to 40% of it's original value to 400 and 800 (IE: by the 2.5fold that's standard for legendary parts) would have a very significant impact on throughput. The acceleration formula is divided by mass, so a reduction in weight is an proportional boost to that. Time to reach top speed for the provided train parameters would jump from nearly ten seconds to less than four. (From ~590 ticks to ~235)

Reducing the weight of trains has no adverse effect on throughtput unlike rolling resistance, unless i haved missed something in the interpretation of the 2nd graph, they were not made exactly for this purpose but can be used somehow. I think you are correct stating the magnitude of the increase 2.5 fold if you reduce to 40% of its original value , the time to reach top speed would reduce by almost as much as the air-resist and friction force are quite low compared to the weight and proportionnal to speed and it's only that preventing the train from reaching infinite speed.

It would be difficult to explain to a player though that quality decrease the weight so train goes faster, but train weight the same when you try to put them into a rocket

Alternatively, even with this just applying to cargo wagons, the same acceleration stat could be reached with double the total number of wagons (from 5 to 10) More than that for both, (about 2.5 fold total length) but it looks like more factors come into play there that make things weirder than just weight.

If you increase the number of wagons, you also increase the distance between 2 trains, not their head-to-tail distance but their head-to-head distance. That increase the distance the 2nd train has to cover before replacing the "unloading train" in a station.

In the context of a player having issues with their train buffer being the limit as it cannot pull from the buffer to the station fast enough, either of those outcomes seem very significant. Especially given it's a situation where inertia and acceleration dominate, rather than top speed.
Even if it's not the same kind of change as extra inventory size, it does in fact look like it would be a significant change for both startup time and train length. (Plus I like the idea that a higher quality transport container might be one that was rationalized to remove excess components and pare it down to the bare essentials.)

"very significant" is not quantitative x), if you compare to the effect of adding more slot which would act with AT LEAST as much impact/magnitude. But then since increasing amount of slot doesn't rely on increased speed for throughput, it will in most cases some degree more effective because no air_resist will comes into play. And for the general network it cannot have any negative effect on throughput to have more slots on wagons whereas increased braking distance due to higher speed is a risk with faster trains depending on how it's achieved.


To conclude :

I don't know what people consider "significant", i think the weight reduction could work achieving stated goal to a certain extent but has other issues that increasing slots doesn't have, i don't think changing rolling resistance with quality would work to achieve stated goal.

I too like the ideas that higher quality transport are made in more efficient shape to rationalize weight or lighter alloy or something but that should then also be indicated in the weight of the item in silo and/or be weird :s .

In the end i don't think any of that is necesssary because there's already quality fuel in game for increased acceleration !!