What we want do with thsi project??

[bombardiere]

Sorry about odd topic title, but I wanted to ask what are the overall goals?

Do we want to make a simple patch, a patch with updated loco pack, or a patch loco pack and some new scenarios to create an expansion pack? Or should things to be kept sepatately?

Just being curious, sorry.

[Wolverine@MSU]

I like milo's approach of doing the easy things first with a release as soon as possible. Harder things would come in a later patch. I prefer to keep different modules separate, or at least separately installable. Scenario providers would have to specify which updates (Logo pack, Loco pack, building pack, etc.) are needed to play their scenario.

[Lama]

I agree with you, Wolverine - the more of the changes are implemented as optional (choosable by player and/or scenario maker), the more universally applicable this patch will be.

What we would like to do, ideally, is to extend the life of RT3. We don't achieve that by creating a small in-group with patched games who can no longer play with, or exchange scenarios with, the unpatched.

Hence, definitely think modular.

[JSS]

My suggestion is to, at least to start out with, keep it as modular as possible. That is perhaps one patch for just fixing the true issues or problems with the existing RT3, another patch to add additional content, another patch to improve game functionality or game play. When all is done then perhaps it can be lumped together for just one patch if that is what players prefer.

So if the patch is, for instance, to fix existing issues, i.e. things that should work as advertised, I do not think it would be necessary to be optional and needs to have provisions to be switched on/off.

Content that is added however should be selectable by the player.

Other items like the ability to turn of the storm/rain events should default to the normal game status but be changed via a check box like used for other things.

[milo]

Bombardiere, you and CJNyfalt mentioned that there were a few bugfixes you wanted to apply to the engine pack. I was thinking about combining that with the 1.06 patch to cut down on the number of different files casual players have to download, but I'm not committed to the idea. If you'd prefer to keep the Loco Pack series separate from the Unofficial Patch series, then we should probably split that item out from the 1.06 patch plan into its own stickied project thread. What would you like?

As for the rest of the responses: I'd rather not make installation granularity finer than it is already. If we let people install one change and not another, the scenario designer is going to go nuts trying to determine what's available and what isn't. I also don't want scenarios coming out that list as requirements "Must have ship-at-a-loss patch installed but not buildings-hold-onto-stuff patch."

Lama, I think the majority of the people who even care about this patch are already reading this board, or Molse's, or RailroadTycoon.info. The small in-group you're talking about is everyone here.

My current expectation is an all-or-nothing 1.06 patch that's separately selectable from the New Improved(TM) Engine Pack but part of the same installer. If someone gets creative, perhaps there could also be a Building Pack or a Cargo Pack included. I don't want to try to support more combinations than that involves. If one of the features we're planning to add has a destructive effect on existing scenarios, we either find a way to turn the effect off by default or delay it to 1.07. Pre-set menu, not a-la-carte, makes it easiest on the cooks. :)

[Lama]

I'd rather not make installation granularity finer than it is already. If we let people install one change and not another, the scenario designer is going to go nuts trying to determine what's available and what isn't. I also don't want scenarios coming out that list as requirements "Must have ship-at-a-loss patch installed but not buildings-hold-onto-stuff patch."

Lama, I think the majority of the people who even care about this patch are already reading this board, or Molse's, or RailroadTycoon.info. The small in-group you're talking about is everyone here.

Hey Milo,

On your first point: Agreed, a unified patch is a must.
My point is to have certain things implemented, not by default (as in "replacing the current game mechanics"), but, after patching, by choice (by selecting certain option) or event (by forcing certain things, like split territories).

On your second point: Call me an optimist, but I believe RT3 has the capacity to revive. This forum is getting as many hits with newb questions as the "Hooked on RRs"-Forum. I remember that RT2 always attracted a consistent stream of newcomers, and, with RT3 being the best current RR sim, I expect the same here, until RT4. Or rather: With the patch, hopefully, this will be RT4.

[Wolverine@MSU]

By "separate modules" I didn't mean to imply that each incremental "bug" fix should be released separately. All of the changes to the basic game engine (if that's what you call it) should be released together as a single "upgrade". It may include the ability to invent new cargoes/cargo strems/industries etc., add new functionality to the game/editor and such. Separate items would include things like the Loco pack, Logo pack, building/cargo (stream) pack etc. Things that augment or expand the assets of the game should be separate add ons, but should be able to be added "seamlessly" to the game that has been "upgraded" with the patch.

I would like to see these "extras" packaged in such a way as to make installation automatic. While I am probably capable of unpacking ZIP files and getting the needed files in the right place, it would be nice if these packages came with automatic installers, that would place the files in the correct locations within the game. Of course it would need the capability to select the folder in which the game is installed since not everyone puts the game in their "C:\Program Files\...." folder. I have two installations of the game on two different hard drives, one that has the original installation (on the boot drive) and another on a different drive that I use for scenario creation and tinkering. Being able to upgrade one but not the other is a good idea. It was mentioned somewhere else as a way to be able to selectively upgrade and have the ability to use both versions.

[bombardiere]

My current expectation is an all-or-nothing 1.06 patch that's separately selectable from the New Improved(TM) Engine Pack but part of the same installer. If someone gets creative, perhaps there could also be a Building Pack or a Cargo Pack included. I don't want to try to support more combinations than that involves. If one of the features we're planning to add has a destructive effect on existing scenarios, we either find a way to turn the effect off by default or delay it to 1.07. Pre-set menu, not a-la-carte, makes it easiest on the cooks. :)

This is very much in line of my thinking. I wll focus on the engine pack, and keep the same dead line as the 1.06 patch (around end of feb) Thus these could come from same installer, but be installed indipendently. (buidling and Cargo is a nice dream but needs more person working than just me)

[JSS]

Now let me see if I understand you right.
If I would like to only get RT3 fixed so I get what I paid for in the first place, I will also be installing all “game enhancements”?
If I only want the Loco Pack “additional content” installed I will also end up with all the extra logos?
If I only want the additional new functionalities installed I will end up with a whole set of new engines?

Please use/interchange any of the above components. I am somewhat confused as to what the intent is.

Quote:
I also don't want scenarios coming out that list as requirements "Must have ship-at-a-loss patch installed but not buildings-hold-onto-stuff patch."

Milo, all changes made to improve RT3 should default to the way RT3 normally runs and if necessary be toggled on when writing a scenario. All that should be required is that the map maker states that it, as an example, “Requires Patch 1.06 -Additional Functionalities” installed.

[Lama]

all changes made to improve RT3 should default to the way RT3 normally runs and if necessary be toggled on when writing a scenario. All that should be required is that the map maker states that it, as an example, “Requires Patch 1.06 -Additional Functionalities” installed.

I agree with that formulation 100%.

[kriss]

The dev I'm currently working with incorporates all previous fixes in any subsequent patch, so the last patch contains all previous fixes, that's pretty standard procedure & basically means that all users can be unpatched or fully patched.

Logo packs & similar are user created & the game already caters for the optional inclusion of these.

As I see it modified buildings would be part of the patch process & incorporated into the game as a whole.

[Lama]

As I see it modified buildings would be part of the patch process & incorporated into the game as a whole.

What kind of 'modified buildings' are you referring to?
What do you mean by 'incorporated into the game as a whole'?

I cannot tell from your post whether you agree or diagree with JSS and I on the question we have been discussing here.
Could you please make that clearer, and include reasons for your opinion? Thank you!

[kriss]

As I see it modified buildings would be part of the patch process & incorporated into the game as a whole.

What kind of 'modified buildings' are you referring to?
What do you mean by 'incorporated into the game as a whole'?

I cannot tell from your post whether you agree or diagree with JSS and I on the question we have been discussing here.
Could you please make that clearer, and include reasons for your opinion? Thank you!

I mean, you have the possibilty of adding new buildings as user add ons but it's been suggested that existing buildings could be modifiable.
Very desireable for scenario builders, but imo this should be game integral rather than e.g. a separate application designed to mod buildings.
Hope that makes sense.

I use buildings as an example but if it proves possible I'd like the same to apply to any mods which aren't just user add ons.

I'm pretty sure that means I agree with you both :)

[Lama]

If you want the patch to introduce modifiability, that's uncontroversial.
If you want the patch to actually make modifications to exisiting buildings (say, make the dairy procesor require oil in addition to cheese, to make Velveeta), that might be a different story, since that would upset game balance.
If the Velveeta processor was a new, separate building, on the other hand - like a whole new industry besides the classic dairy processor - that would be great.

As I said, one application that includes all the abilities is great, as long as both the player and the scenario-maker get to choose from the new modifications.

[kriss]

If you want the patch to introduce modifiability, that's uncontroversial.
If you want the patch to actually make modifications to exisiting buildings (say, make the dairy procesor require oil in addition to cheese, to make Velveeta), that might be a different story, since that would upset game balance.
If the Velveeta processor was a new, separate building, on the other hand - like a whole new industry besides the classic dairy processor - that would be great.

As I said, one application that includes all the abilities is great, as long as both the player and the scenario-maker get to choose from the new modifications.

Thanks for expressing my thinking better than I could Llama, I've been away from RRT3 for 2 years so forgive me being a bit woolly, soon be up to speed though.