Attached screenshots show a train unable to path to a station directly in front of it.
The cause was discovered to be a second station which was incomplete, but trains were refusing to path to the available station because the incomplete station was higher on the priority list.
Once the other station completed, trains began properly pathing to the station that they could have gone to the whole time.
It's already fixed at this point but it's easily replicable.
Set up a train network with 3 stations.
Fully assemble two stations, assemble the 'flag' of the last station and leave the rest of it as a ghost.
Set up a train line from one of the fully assembled stations to a group containing the other fully assembled station, and the incomplete station. Set the incomplete station as a higher priority.
Trains will never go to either station, because they're constantly trying to go to the higher priority, even if the lower priority station has a valid path.
Here's a sandbox save with it set up.
If you look at the schedule, Station B and C are both part of the same group. Station C has a higher priority, but the path is broken. Station B has a fully valid path, but because Station C has a higher priority, the train refuses to even consider Station B
Screenshot of the pathfinding. B is fully accessible.
(I don't know if it's acceptable to ping @Captain Jeremy so if it's not I'm sorry)
Thanks. This is working as intended, I think. The trouble is the alternative (silently skipping high priority stations because there's an issue with the path) is probably worse.
Maybe have it as a notification of some sort then? "A train couldn't path to priority station"
Alert the player to the problem instead of stopping the train entirely?
(Side note, I DO mean that the train should still go to the lower priority station, but alert the player that the higher priority station wasn't available)
Captain Jeremy wrote:
Thanks. This is working as intended, I think. The trouble is the alternative (silently skipping high priority stations because there's an issue with...
could you explain the reasoning behind this
I am not sure I fully understand the implications. from a "innocent" perspective, I'd rather have the train ship cargo at all than not. if this means the train is making a detour to a station I gave the train to be an (for the player) acceptable alternative, why can't it be a valid alternative to not move at all?
Ok, but if it does hit this, it's giving you a big red notification to tell you something is wrong. The debate between "fail loudly" and "fail silently" is tricky. Some people prefer an obvious failure to show them what they wanted is not happening. Other people want it to just work, even if something is wrong.
So I think "warning but work" is the best solution
There's a few other instances in the game where a warning is given (instead of silently not work). so it could be logical to follow that trend?
from my game play perspective I'd rather take the warning I can silence if I choose to, than being frustrated about an issue I have no power over at all.
Agree - Give us an orange warning, but still have the train continue to move cargo. I set the higher priority to the station that was being built so trains would immediately start going there when it was finished, but what I got instead was a complete halt to all movement of that good when there was a valid path that was also on the schedule
