Construction

[smallfly]

This it how it looks like, when visually coding a new road junction in P1SIM. This step is only needed when a new module has been created. The "normal user" does not have to define the potential paths of modules.

crossing.png (10.85 KiB) Viewed 29692 times

For curves the connection is much simpler:

45-curve.png (3.16 KiB) Viewed 29688 times

One path consists of two oriented nodes connected with a bezier curve.

[calm1]

Great! But what way do you plan roads added to the game? Locomotion's per-tile, TTD's drag-n-drop or like in Simutrans?
I really like your game concept lol, but this is really interesting.

Also, are the vehicles able to reverse on junctions?

[smallfly]

Great! But what way do you plan roads added to the game? Locomotion's per-tile, TTD's drag-n-drop or like in Simutrans?

I will implement multiple road/rail construction methods. You can place single modules as well as dragging roads like in OTTD.

It will also be possible to select a road (from junction to junction) and add further lanes with one simple click. But more on that later, when I have corresponding screenshots for you.

Also, are the vehicles able to reverse on junctions?

The screenshot shows the possible ways of 4x4 road junctions. This junction doesn't offer a possibility for reversing.

crossing.png (10.85 KiB) Viewed 29688 times

But there are other (bigger) junctions, where it is possible:

crossing_rev.png (5.5 KiB) Viewed 29687 times

[robo]

The "normal user" does not have to define the potential paths of modules.
One path consists of two oriented nodes connected with a bezier curve.

Theoretically it could be an interesting feature to make adjustments to a vehicles path through manipulation of points along the travel way especially for longer trucks in curves. Alternativly a player could drive a truck for one time and record the path, but this would probably be a different type of game.

[smallfly]

Theoretically it could be an interesting feature to make adjustments to a vehicles path through manipulation of points along the travel way especially for longer trucks in curves. Alternativly a player could drive a truck for one time and record the path, but this would probably be a different type of game.

Watch this video starting at minute 2:40 for 10 seconds. There are similiar ways in P1SIM to control which of the potential paths of a module can be actually used by cars. The potential paths are defined by the creator of a module (=a developer). The actual paths (see video) are defined by the user when playing.
http://youtu.be/AVzdUoBMd_4?t=2m40s

[robo]

What I had in mind was something like this: http://geoquake.jp/en/webgame/DrivingSimulator/
As you probably don't want to drive trucks or busses all the time, you could record or edit the path to automate the vehicles.
A game about traffic management alone as shown in the video sounds boring to me (I didn't play it), but it would certainly be good to see some features of this game in a game which is about transport, production/distribution of goods, because all these things belong together.

[smallfly]

What I had in mind was something like this: http://geoquake.jp/en/webgame/DrivingSimulator/

Could be an easteregg function in P1SIM.

As you probably don't want to drive trucks or busses all the time, you could record or edit the path to automate the vehicles.

Since the cars can only drive on the center of the lane, a recording function wouldn't make any sense. There are better ways to define routes than driving the route and recording it. Another problem would be the complexity: If you could drive around freely the collision detection algorithms would take much CPU power leading to a very small amount of maximum vehicles allowed. I think most people prefer having many vehicles.

A game about traffic management alone as shown in the video sounds boring to me (I didn't play it), but it would certainly be good to see some features of this game in a game which is about transport, production/distribution of goods, because all these things belong together.

That's how I see it, too

[robo]

There are better ways to define routes than driving the route and recording it. Another problem would be the complexity: If you could drive around freely the collision detection algorithms would take much CPU power leading to a very small amount of maximum vehicles allowed. I think most people prefer having many vehicles.

Yes, I read somewhere that a game like GTA2 could support 50 vehicles and 250 pedistrians at the same time, but it's a 3D-game.
The project might be to big for one programmer too.
I just liked this 2D-Driving-Simulator, even with small maps and without traffic or goals.
The best way to play it is using a gamepad and xpadder to emulate the keyboard in my opinion, but there may be more potential with full gamepad-support (by adding gas and braking on analog triggers)
For a "simple" game concept you could make a game about the automobile industry. The more automobiles you can produce, transport and sell (you may need export, too), the more traffic you get on the roads . You could still add trains for transport and some "creative" citybuilding, and I would be satisfied . I personally don't need large maps, a small "modelrailway" would be enough.

[cmoiromain]

I just saw the updates on the website. I mut say I'm very impressed with where this is going. The tool you are working on looks very powerful and flexible.

I have a couple of questions regarding the lanes you define on the tiles.
First, will there be a way to place signals, and chose how they alternate on the junction ? Or different kinds of priorities (stop, give way, give way to you right/left...) ?
Also, maybe there should be a way to decide when two lanes belong to the same road. This would be useful to decide whether a vehicle can overtake or not.
Here is quick and dirty example :

road.png (16.29 KiB) Viewed 13056 times

Top left is the junction, top right is how it would look in the current game (dark red dots represent the nodes), bottom is what I have in mind : link together lanes that are equivalent, where vehicles can chose anyone they like. That way, we don't have to specify on each straight piece of road that vehicles can change lanes, and where they have to change if they want to do so. I don't know how this will complicate pathfinding though.

Great work so far, I'm really looking forward to the first releases of this (although I know that won't be anytime soon). Good luck on continuing with this !

[smallfly]

First, will there be a way to place signals, and chose how they alternate on the junction ? Or different kinds of priorities (stop, give way, give way to you right/left...) ?

Yes. But this has nothing to do with the module editor I am currently developing. That is why you don't see corresponding options on the screenshots.

Also, maybe there should be a way to decide when two lanes belong to the same road. This would be useful to decide whether a vehicle can overtake or not.

Two parallel lanes on the same road module (configured with the same direction - which can be done outside the module editor, when the road is placed on the map) are automatically recognized as overtaking option for vehicles if the parallel lanes have a minimum length of 4 tiles. Thus there is no need to configure the zones like in your image. But you could use the style to indicate the automatically recognized zones.

[smallfly]

In the last days the module editor got even more powerful: (see here)

2012-09-12T22-15-43-300x200.png (35.32 KiB) Viewed 29110 times

[smallfly]

2012-09-29T15-14-33_preview.jpg (14.42 KiB) Viewed 28905 times

[oberhümer]

That would be "road vehicles", "aircraft" and "water craft". "Fork lifts" seems very specific - how about "industrial vehicles"? And why not just call the "portainer" a container crane?

One less serious request: couldn't some of the people ride bicycles? Glad as always to see things coming along.

[ClaudeS]

Wow, I see the trolley option
Thanks for accept the suggestion \o/

[smallfly]

Currently Im thinking about the problems associated with a maps of unlimited sizes. I dont want the users to spread in a way that there is no interaction anymore. Thus I could imagine the following to get players closer to each other:

Lets assume there is a map center, and the usage of one tile (for a building/road/track...) costs 100 dollars. If you leave this center the tile costs raise by one dollar per tile. Thus you CAN use the whole map, but it gets more and more expensive when you leave the other players. What do you think?

tilecosts.jpg (8.53 KiB) Viewed 28079 times

[APDAF]

If you reverse that for big cites and then have that kick-in out side of cites/towns.

This would make it more realistic as space is at a premium in cites and you have higher transport and living costs the farther from populated places and/or factories.

[Pyoro]

I'm with APDAF. This seems really counter-intuitive.
Maybe there could be other incentives - like a working implementation of infrastructure sharing? ^^

[smallfly]

I'm with APDAF. This seems really counter-intuitive.
Maybe there could be other incentives - like a working implementation of infrastructure sharing? ^^

Yeah, probably you are right. I should not punish players which leave the map center. I better provide incentives (sharing infrastructure, easy trading through short distances etc.).

[damerell]

Lets assume there is a map center, and the usage of one tile (for a building/road/track...) costs 100 dollars. If you leave this center the tile costs raise by one dollar per tile. Thus you CAN use the whole map, but it gets more and more expensive when you leave the other players. What do you think?

Just at the start, when players have the least money and cannot afford to build outside the map centre, a hideous cage match results.

Perhaps a better approach would be to have the initial distribution of cities and industries biased towards the map centre, so that short profitable routes could be built there - nothing to stop you going and building in the boondocks, but you're probably better off in the middle. Imagine a map of the UK with the map "centre" in London. As time passed, more industries would open in the hinterlands.

[LocoMH]

Doesn't building things far away from the place you get the construction workers and vehicles from make everything more expensive anyways? Maybe what you should do is something like implementing rights to build at places, which you need to buy first, kind of like RCT? And those prices could still get higher the further you're away from your headquarters. So one thing could be to only allow the hq to be build in or around certain cities.