Vehicles do not produce pollution as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Silent_Shadow:

Originally posted by Greybeard:

Speed limits do actually serve a purpose in this game. To make traffic flow smoother. [...] It can help at busy junctions too, to reduce the speed of cars a little bit beforehand and improve flow.

Did you place these signs within the round about? The road segment has to be long enough or overtaking will not occur on it, so you may have just split the segments into small enough parts to prevent overtaking.

No, I used 50 zone signs, not regular 50 signs, on all entries to the roundabout (will highlight and mark the whole thing as a zone in yellow when created correctly). And because all vehicles then go at the same pace from when they pass the zone sign until they exit, no overtaking occurs (unless you've got a slouch in there, like a tractor etc). As opposed to regular signs, you do not have to repeat the speed limit after every single junction either.

I found this to be the most effective way to make big roundabouts work without cars backing up or slowing down to a standstill due to the weird overtaking mechanic in the game.
Sure it's not perfect, because one lane is mostly unused inside the roundabout (which is why small roundabouts don't work well, but large ones do), but I have been able to shift a LOT of traffic through them that way, without significant backing up.

Also worth noting, on the topic of roundabouts, "round corners" help a lot because cars don't need to slow down as much. So i'll usually turn a two-lane road into separate single-lane entries and exits to keep it flowing. Only for very busy roads I use dual lanes in and out, but at a "round angle" too.

Originally posted by Silent_Shadow:

Originally posted by ling.speed:

Unfortunately its worse. Fuel consumption is constant, which means it scales inversly with speed - driving slower = less mpg, which is annoying.

Not quite.
Acceleration eats up a lot more fuel and sometimes driving uphill may as well.
Once at speed, fuel mileage just depends on the speed and the engine power rating.
Different classes of vehicles (road, train, airplane, helicopter, ship) also have a multiplier affecting their fuel consumption.

I know there is more to the system, or was, but running tests now i cant find them.
Acceleration, slopes, road type or speed limits have 0 effect on fuel consumption, its constant. (havent tested different weather).
I've looked only at trucks, but would expect it to extend to all road vehicles, bar trolleybuses maybe? No time to do proper testing, but just giving you heads up.

edit: i should be more clear, its fuel flow, so a per time metric thats constant.
So acceleration or uphill burns more fuel because vehicle is travelling slower, not because it uses more power.

Well, now you got me interested, so it is time for some tests.

Just checked with a Skd-706 RTTN truck, which I edited to have a weight of 10008.5 tons to slow down the acceleration period:
• Cruising: 33 Liters per day.
• Accelerating: 33 Liters per day.

Checked trains again; had a T3M2 hauling a 6330 ton train:
• Accelerating (0 to ~35 km/hr); 251 Liters per day.
• Cruising (95 km/hr): 39 Liters per day.

Checked aircraft again; they still have their fuel consumption visibly affected by the engine RPMs. Take off and landing uses the most fuel for airplanes, followed by cruising, followed by taxiing. Take off uses the least for helicopters, but rising in altitude rapidly starts using more fuel. Cruising uses a moderate amount.


Looks like acceleration indeed does not affect the fuel consumption rate for trucks, but it severely does for trains and aircraft. Acceleration is still bad for trucks because it lowers the time they spend at high speeds, and thus lowers their fuel mileage, though most road vehicles spend so little time accelerating that it probably doesn't make sense to simulate this period in greater detail.

Trains' fuel economy suffers from both greater fuel/energy usage during acceleration and slower speeds, so it may be worthwhile to use wooden tied tracks instead of concrete tied tracks in short sections with a lot of stopping to keep train fuel usage down.

Mechanically, it seems that all vehicles except for ICE (non-electric) road vehicles have higher fuel/energy consumption rates when accelerating, with a noticeable difference being that ICE road vehicles have gearing in their engine RPM gauges and the others do not.

As for slope, I tested a lone T3M2 locomotive on an 8% grade (about the max for trains):
• Cruising on mostly flat ground: 40.51 Liters per day.
• Cruising uphill: 103.92 Liters per day.
• Cruising downhill: 39.84 Liters per day.

Electric trains were also shown to be affected by hills but only if sufficiently weighed down. Lone electric locomotives with very high power to weight ratios like the VL80K seem to ignore slopes except for a minimal increase in energy (~100 kW), but giving them a few wagons forces them to expend much more power to climb. Steeper grades require more power, with ~14% requiring almost 3 times as much energy to climb.

So it seems that slope has a massive impact on train fuel/energy consumption, but only when going uphill; seems gravity cannot replace or even supplement engine power, so keeping mainlines mostly level is indeed important for keeping fuel/energy consumption of trains low, to the point that doubling the distance to go around steep (8%+) grades saves fuel/energy.


What about trucks?
For a normal Skd-706 RTTN, I got the following fuel usage:
• Level road: 33 Liters per day.
• Steep road: 33 Liters per day.

So it seems that trucks' fuel consumption also does not change for the slope either, but trolley buses exhibited a similar increase in power demand for the same hill, needing far more energy to climb a steep hill than driving on a level road.

Road vehicles that run on fuel seem to ignore slopes and acceleration when it comes to their fuel consumption rates, but all other vehicles seem to use more fuel when accelerating, and trains and electric road vehicles all use far more energy to go up hills than driving on flat ground. It is interesting that ICE buses can "outperform" trams and trolley buses in fuel/energy efficiency on slopes and acceleration, but this is still such a laughable advantage compared to using electricity instead of fuel that it hardly matters.

For trains, this implies that it is highly worthwhile to route mainlines along the flattest routes possible to reduce fuel/energy usage, unless the distance to detour around a hill is much farther (depends on the grade) or if travel time/range is considered to be more important (speed is held constant going uphill, so it is a question of whether the time or fuel/energy used to get there is more important). Acceleration seems to be unaffected going uphill, except for when electric trains reach the power limit of their electric supply.

Aircraft are subject to varying fuel consumption rates based on what they are currently doing, and there isn't much that can be done about that. To be clear, airplanes are far more fuel efficient than helicopters, but they both have varying rates of fuel consumption based on their current action.

I will read all of it soon, thanks for help, guys!

I doubt there is pollution from vehicles, but it would be nice to have such feature.
I noticed there is temporary pollution from demolition.

Originally posted by gwahazar:

I noticed there is temporary pollution from demolition.

Not sure if demolition has any pollution by default, but if there are hazardous things like fuel left during demolition they will produce pollution. During manual deconstruction fuel turns into hazardous waste and should be disposed of.

Originally posted by Kubog:

Originally posted by pawelkrzyzak:

Is this a fact? Do vehicles really choose gravel road over asphalt just because they will not be able to maximized allowed speed on the faster road? That would be interesting... I guess.

Yes it is. I have gravel and asphalt raods parralel to each other and vehicles with 60km/h max speed (I even saw vehicles with 62km/h max) choose the gravel road over asphalt, while faster vehicles are travelling on asphalt. In the winter all vehicles go on asphalt, because I don't snowplow these gravel roads.

That would have been nice touch, redirect heavy, slow 40km/h trucks with timber farther but side road, therefore lessen the traffic on main roads, where buses travel. I will try it out

Originally posted by Silent_Shadow:

Well, now you got me interested, so it is time for some tests.

Acceleration Effects

Just checked with a Skd-706 RTTN truck, which I edited to have a weight of 10008.5 tons to slow down the acceleration period:
• Cruising: 33 Liters per day.
• Accelerating: 33 Liters per day.

Checked trains again; had a T3M2 hauling a 6330 ton train:
• Accelerating (0 to ~35 km/hr); 251 Liters per day.
• Cruising (95 km/hr): 39 Liters per day.

Checked aircraft again; they still have their fuel consumption visibly affected by the engine RPMs. Take off and landing uses the most fuel for airplanes, followed by cruising, followed by taxiing. Take off uses the least for helicopters, but rising in altitude rapidly starts using more fuel. Cruising uses a moderate amount.


Looks like acceleration indeed does not affect the fuel consumption rate for trucks, but it severely does for trains and aircraft. Acceleration is still bad for trucks because it lowers the time they spend at high speeds, and thus lowers their fuel mileage, though most road vehicles spend so little time accelerating that it probably doesn't make sense to simulate this period in greater detail.

Trains' fuel economy suffers from both greater fuel/energy usage during acceleration and slower speeds, so it may be worthwhile to use wooden tied tracks instead of concrete tied tracks in short sections with a lot of stopping to keep train fuel usage down.

Mechanically, it seems that all vehicles except for ICE (non-electric) road vehicles have higher fuel/energy consumption rates when accelerating, with a noticeable difference being that ICE road vehicles have gearing in their engine RPM gauges and the others do not.

Slope Effects

As for slope, I tested a lone T3M2 locomotive on an 8% grade (about the max for trains):
• Cruising on mostly flat ground: 40.51 Liters per day.
• Cruising uphill: 103.92 Liters per day.
• Cruising downhill: 39.84 Liters per day.

Electric trains were also shown to be affected by hills but only if sufficiently weighed down. Lone electric locomotives with very high power to weight ratios like the VL80K seem to ignore slopes except for a minimal increase in energy (~100 kW), but giving them a few wagons forces them to expend much more power to climb. Steeper grades require more power, with ~14% requiring almost 3 times as much energy to climb.

So it seems that slope has a massive impact on train fuel/energy consumption, but only when going uphill; seems gravity cannot replace or even supplement engine power, so keeping mainlines mostly level is indeed important for keeping fuel/energy consumption of trains low, to the point that doubling the distance to go around steep (8%+) grades saves fuel/energy.


What about trucks?
For a normal Skd-706 RTTN, I got the following fuel usage:
• Level road: 33 Liters per day.
• Steep road: 33 Liters per day.

So it seems that trucks' fuel consumption also does not change for the slope either, but trolley buses exhibited a similar increase in power demand for the same hill, needing far more energy to climb a steep hill than driving on a level road.

Conclusion

Road vehicles that run on fuel seem to ignore slopes and acceleration when it comes to their fuel consumption rates, but all other vehicles seem to use more fuel when accelerating, and trains and electric road vehicles all use far more energy to go up hills than driving on flat ground. It is interesting that ICE buses can "outperform" trams and trolley buses in fuel/energy efficiency on slopes and acceleration, but this is still such a laughable advantage compared to using electricity instead of fuel that it hardly matters.

For trains, this implies that it is highly worthwhile to route mainlines along the flattest routes possible to reduce fuel/energy usage, unless the distance to detour around a hill is much farther (depends on the grade) or if travel time/range is considered to be more important (speed is held constant going uphill, so it is a question of whether the time or fuel/energy used to get there is more important). Acceleration seems to be unaffected going uphill, except for when electric trains reach the power limit of their electric supply.

Aircraft are subject to varying fuel consumption rates based on what they are currently doing, and there isn't much that can be done about that. To be clear, airplanes are far more fuel efficient than helicopters, but they both have varying rates of fuel consumption based on their current action.

I recall reading a report from devs about fuel consumption. I believe your test results regarding slopes are spot on.
Just to add to it, truck fuel consumption per time should only depend on vehicle's max speed, its weight and engine power (not sure if there's an extra hidden factor that's different for each truck, something like aerodynamics?).

Originally posted by Lord Metzgermeister:

I recall reading a report from devs about fuel consumption. I believe your test results regarding slopes are spot on.
Just to add to it, truck fuel consumption per time should only depend on vehicle's max speed, its weight and engine power (not sure if there's an extra hidden factor that's different for each truck, something like aerodynamics?).

I've read somewhere yesterday, that in the Workers Resources Soviet Republic's sequel, guys who work on the game will polish, add and adjust all those "little things", that we all want to be "as realistic as f...k".
Limitations of the game we have all been enjoying today make it possible now, where proper "road plan"and technical leap forward might be the very gate to even better game (hard to believe it is even possible in some aspects) in the future.
I personally would have loved to see laws of physics being implemented to the extend, that every vehicle would have fuel usage based on the mass, speed, power AND TECHNOLOGICAL advancement, wear and tear.
Terrain, obviously, plays huge factor as well. Also weather - when wind blows in to the side of the van or big truck, especially lorries with trailers, fuel consumption may increase greatly, does not have to drive dead straight against the wind.
To force players to use more efficient means of transportation - pollution created by traffic should have been present as well.

Originally posted by Lord Metzgermeister:

Just to add to it, truck fuel consumption per time should only depend on vehicle's max speed, its weight and engine power (not sure if there's an extra hidden factor that's different for each truck, something like aerodynamics?).

That got cut from the game because it wasn't working well, so air resistance isn't modeled anymore. For now the fuel consumption rate is pretty much based on engine power and to a much lesser degree, speed and weight.

We also need to note the distinction between three terms when talking about fuel costs:

• Fuel consumption - how much fuel a vehicle consumes, typically in liters/sec.
  
• Fuel mileage - how far a given amount of fuel can take a vehicle, typically in meters/liter.
  
• Fuel economy - how far a given amount of fuel can take so much stuff or people.

Fuel (or energy) consumption only depends on engine power and, for some types of vehicles, performing certain actions like accelerating, going uphill, taking off, or taxiing. Since weight and speed determine the time spent accelerating, they technically affect the fuel consumption of trains and electric vehicles, but that's about it.

Fuel mileage is determined mostly by engine power and speed, while weight has a smaller influence. Since fuel consumption doesn't change with speed, a vehicle uses the same amount of fuel at high speeds as it does at slow speeds, which means more distance per unit of fuel. Weight only affects fuel mileage by increasing the time spent accelerating, which means more time spent at slower speeds and again, for some vehicles, times of higher fuel consumption.

Fuel economy (efficiency) is determined mostly by engine power, speed, and now capacity, with weight again having a small influence. Increasing capacity means more stuff or riders getting moved so far over time, but cargo and riders also have a weight that slows down acceleration; however, since acceleration usually is only a small part of the journey's time, and since weight stops having an effect once acceleration stops, more capacity results in more fuel economy.

To me, most convenient is knowledge, how much fuel vehicle uses to drive for 100 km, let's say, if I consider car, buses, trucks, etc.
Secondly I would like to know how much of a fuel machine uses per hour, working at the maximum performance, under maximum "strain". That if I consider all the "slow" machines, like bulldozers, excavators, tractors, job of which is just to get the job done, not to move.
That in real life. Now, I do not expect it is possible to be simulated in the game.

Well, road vehicles' fuel mileage can be estimated with the equation: M = S × 59 / E, where:
• M is Fuel mileage, in km per ton of fuel or meters per liter.
• S is speed, in km/hr
• E is engine power, in kW.
To get the fuel economy, just multiply by the number of tons or riders the vehicle can carry.

Their fuel consumption is about equal to their engine power ÷ 220 kW-sec per liter (assuming this old equation is still true; should be easy to check).

Supposedly, mechanisms do use fuel at different rates when working at a task (like sowing or constructing), but I haven't looked into it nor heard of anyone who has, so I cannot give you a way to estimate it.

A table of fuel economies for aircraft and ships can be found here, along with equations for fuel economy and consumption:
https://steamhost.cn/steamcommunity_com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3146397536

I don't have an up to date fuel consumption equation for trains, but this might still work:
Fuel consumption = Engine power × Engine rpms ÷ (21000 kW-RPM-sec per liter of fuel).

Calculating fuel economy for trains has to be done for each train because additional wagons increase the throughput without increasing fuel consumption at cruising speeds.

Originally posted by pawelkrzyzak:

To me, most convenient is knowledge, how much fuel vehicle uses to drive for 100 km, let's say, if I consider car, buses, trucks, etc.
Secondly I would like to know how much of a fuel machine uses per hour, working at the maximum performance, under maximum "strain".

Actually its kind of easy at least for road vehicles. Trucks go from full to dry tank in 18.5 game days, and their full tank size is engine power x 5.2 liters. (1000L = 1t here). Thats kind of it, all the complexity comes from practical speed difference vehicles can travel at (including acceleration).

ps: Or to put it differently: vehicle burns its power rating in tons of fuel after a decade :)