Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Bugs that are actually features.
DeckerCHAN@gmail.com
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:31 pm
Contact:

Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by DeckerCHAN@gmail.com »

I remember there is an update regarding train routing. When train making decision between 2 routes have exact length, extra penalty will apply for route has more stations than others.

However, I suspect it does not take station status into consideration. Which means stations have wither enabled or disabled have same penalty value.

I have conducted an experiment. The train been set lopping between A to D. If I remove one of B or C form loop. The train will certainly go this route.

But this does not change if I disabled one of station by signal.
Attachments
TIM截图20180506021153.png
TIM截图20180506021153.png (1.34 MiB) Viewed 2523 times
Loewchen
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 10262
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by Loewchen »

Even if true, the penalty exist to prevent trains from using stations as a bypass, the status has no relevancy to prevent that behaviour.
DeckerCHAN@gmail.com
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by DeckerCHAN@gmail.com »

Loewchen wrote:Even if true, the penalty exist to prevent trains from using stations as a bypass, the status has no relevancy to prevent that behaviour.
But why not remove penalty for disabled station because it does nothing.
quyxkh
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by quyxkh »

With a bypass route through your station removing the pathing penalty to disabled stops looks as wrong as keeping the penalty without a bypass route, and if you're dealing with potential through traffic and conditionally-enabled stops you want a bypass route.
DeckerCHAN@gmail.com
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by DeckerCHAN@gmail.com »

quyxkh wrote:With a bypass route through your station removing the pathing penalty to disabled stops looks as wrong as keeping the penalty without a bypass route, and if you're dealing with potential through traffic and conditionally-enabled stops you want a bypass route.
I have some small stations for maintenance purpose, those stations are signal controlled and disabling for 99% of time. However, the regular traffic will refuse to step into those segments and end up with a route with 3x more longer distance.
Zavian
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by Zavian »

Well the cause of them taking a long detour is really how you have laid out your rail network. It can be easily fixed by adding an alternative route that bypasses the station.
quyxkh
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by quyxkh »

DeckerCHAN@gmail.com wrote:
quyxkh wrote:With a bypass route through your station removing the pathing penalty to disabled stops looks as wrong as keeping the penalty without a bypass route, and if you're dealing with potential through traffic and conditionally-enabled stops you want a bypass route.
I have some small stations for maintenance purpose, those stations are signal controlled and disabling for 99% of time. However, the regular traffic will refuse to step into those segments and end up with a route with 3x more longer distance.
It's the nature of judgement calls, there's downsides every direction.

You've hit a downside of the keep-the-penalties choice, disabled stops don't turn into bypass/through routes even if you want them to. The workaround for it, the cost of that choice, is in some cases you need to lay track for a short-bypass route -- here, for instance, just lay a straight track from A to D.

What's your workaround for the downside of the drop-the-penalties choice where disabled stops look like through routes even when you don't want that?
Aeternus
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:10 am
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by Aeternus »

DeckerCHAN@gmail.com wrote:
Loewchen wrote:Even if true, the penalty exist to prevent trains from using stations as a bypass, the status has no relevancy to prevent that behaviour.
But why not remove penalty for disabled station because it does nothing.
Because players will sometimes disable a station to force trains to go to a second station with the same name - and you still do not want other trains to use the disabled station as a bypass rail. At most I'd get behind the pathing penalty to be slightly lower for a disabled station, but trains should still be discouraged from pathing through a disabled station. Especially if that same station has a bypass rail for that very purpose.
DeckerCHAN@gmail.com wrote:I have some small stations for maintenance purpose, those stations are signal controlled and disabling for 99% of time. However, the regular traffic will refuse to step into those segments and end up with a route with 3x more longer distance.
Unusual setup, but just add a permanently disabled station on the "longer" route and you solve that problem.
DeckerCHAN@gmail.com
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by DeckerCHAN@gmail.com »

I hope there is any way we can control this "penalty" instead left it as default forever.
Zavian
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Re: Wrong penalty for path has a disabled station.

Post by Zavian »

It is moddable, (see https://mods.factorio.com/mod/trainpath-tweaker) and I think you can probably access it with commands.
Post Reply

Return to “Not a bug”