Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[Gumboots]

Yeah that'd be ok for simple files. For more complex stuff a more comprehensive bookmarking system helps a lot. The ability to colour code them individually and toggle them on and off individually can be really helpful when manipulating specific points in a large component. Plus you can have the entire component marked and then throw in temporary ones in a different colour over the top, and be able to see the whole lot at once. It just helps to stop you going cross-eyed and having your brain dribble out your ears.

[nedfumpkin]

Something to think about...the Trainmaster Rollingstock kit has all the tools necessary for developing rolling stock and buildings. It could probably use an update if better tools have been developed.

I use The program that comes with it, I think it is XVI32. For trains and buildings it works great. I'm going to assume you have this already, but the guide to the hex files... http://hawkdawg.com/Archives/download.php?id=693 that PJay and Milo made. Please don't take it the wrong way. It got to the point for mewhere I just looked at any of those files and not only did I know where everything wass, but I also knew the hex numbers for everything.

Stoker, you may not think you are making a competitor to TM, but if you knew the history of RT3 development here, it might make better sense. New locomotives and other things were being made wthin a couple of years of Rt3 being released. By 2005, new cargos, and other things were being experimented with. 1.06 was a bunch of people working together to make a mod to Rt3. I'ts not a patch, it is a mod. 1.06 would not run on Win 98 or Millenium, only XP so a lot of people couldn't play it. The 1.06 people moved on.

Development of RT3 did not end though and buildings, industry, rail cars continued to be developed. 1.06 would not play on Vista at the time. There was a lot of talk about developing a whole new game, Rail Mogul, but that died on the planning table. From those discussions, which included alot about 1.06, Trainmaster was developed which basically adressed a lot of the flaws in 1.06 that you are discussing now.

But it was devided that rather than just patch up 1.06, the ideas that were expressed in the Rail Mogul group would be adopted as much as possible. Trainmaster is the closest thing that you will get to RRT4.

The thing to remember is that a fix was discovered mid-development which allowed the 1.06 exe to be used as the TM engine but with some fixes in it. TM is 1.06 as far as functionality goes. The biggest difference between TM and 1.06, is that we looked at the cargo that was added and said that it was good, but came to some of the same conclusions you are here.

The two major differences between 1.06 and TM are the cargo supply chain, and the way agriculture is treated. RRT3 is very unrealistic, and hence so is 1.06. The agricultural communities are more representational of real life since they were made to represent the towns and surrounding farms. The supply chain was based on the international system of coding commodities, i.e Customs Tariff, where the structure goes from a base to a highly refined product. again, this is closer to real life.

The idea behind TM was to allow map makers the greatest amount of freedom to create whatever their imagination came up with, including a geo-specific map. In Trainmaster you can accurately represent a specific place on a map. An example is a map I started, but needs a do-over called Balck Diamonds, where the entire Lackawana Valley is accurately depicted as it was in the 1800s at the time of the map. TM has become augmented the economic simulation aspect of RT3 quite alot. The downside to TM is that maps are a lot more work.

So while I don't see your project as competition to TM, a lot of what you are doing was done in TM. I made a lot of the stuff from TM available to 1.06, not all, so a lot of stuff has already been made.

[nedfumpkin]

Addendum

A lot of the skins i created were done when I couldn't see them clearly in the game. so if you want to improve them, by all means go ahead, just send me copies for TM.

[Gumboots]

Something to think about...the Trainmaster Rollingstock kit has all the tools necessary for developing rolling stock and buildings. It could probably use an update if better tools have been developed.

I use The program that comes with it, I think it is XVI32. For trains and buildings it works great.

No, it doesn't. Not compared to some other editors that are available now. XVI works, but that's the best thing that can be said about it. Talking beginner modders into using XVI is just torturing them for no benefit, and will likely put them off hex editing altogether very quickly.

If by "trains and buildings" you mean only the simpler files like .lco and such then yes, XVI is probably adequate, if not exactly brilliant. If you mean body files then XVI is a waste of time, because there's no obvious and graphical way for an average mug to just walk into a huge file and easily map the whole thing. Veteran code junkies might insist they can get by without this, and feel proud that they can. Ordinary people don't care. They just want something to make hex editing easier.

[Stoker]

Yes Ned, TM does do a lot of the things you said, but in the end it just isn't fun. It isn't an improved version of RT3 with fewer flaws and loose ends, it is just a different version with it's own flaws (cargo flow for one) and different loose ends. This is my opinion of course, but the dearth of maps made for TM (especially when compared to the download count) during the 4-5 years it has been around means that most people who have tried it think something similar. TM is what it is, but to me it just does not have the same fun factor that RT3 does, which 1.06 added to, but then was left ~95% done. This patch is meant to add to the overall functionality of 1.06 and tie up some loose ends, not completely change it. Along these lines every effort is being made to make sure that most, if not all, existing maps will still play as intended when this fix is installed. Both Gumboots and myself have a particular affinity for the Steam Era, and I for one would love to continue on where this fix leaves off and resurrect my King Coal Mod, which was aimed at maximizing this period. Time will tell if that happens, but for now I think I have enough steam and dry sand to get up the hill to complete this little patch for 1.06. Your generous offer of use of some TM buildings will go a long ways towards the timely completion and overall quality of this project, and I do sincerely thank you for this.

[nedfumpkin]

Gumboots, you are right that the hex program is crap, and only good for the small files, hence my recomendation to updating the developer's kit with better tools. I am looking at the work you are doing on locos and I am quite impressed.

Stoker, you are entitled to your opinion, however, I would point out that TM and 1.06 are like chess and checkers. The use the same board, have similar moves, but are two different games. The dearht of maps has more to do with the complexity of TM maps. It takes a long time to make them. I have a few in progress, but it takes a long time, and it's not for beginner mapmakers.

I have no idea what you mean by steam period, but I too have an affinit for the steam engines, and TM is where the Cowboy engines come from. There is still minor tweaking on them, but someday they will be finished.

[Gumboots]

The work I'm doing is heavily dependent on using apps that make it easier. I went for a paid version of HexEditorNeo (Standard version, $20 at the time, and the exchange rate was in my favour). This is very good and I would recommend it to anyone, but realise some people wouldn't (or couldn't) spend the $20 (or whatever it is now).

Of the free ones I've found so far, this one seems to have the most user/beginner-friendly interface and bookmarking system: http://www.hexedit.com/index.html

It's not as "light" as XVI, but frankly nobody in their right mind cares about "light" these days since we all have hard drives of 200 gig and up plus masses of RAM. As long as it runs smoothly and offers good functionality, that's all that matters.

[Gumboots]

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of extra time for the next couple of months so I can't contribute to the gruntwork, but I would be willing to proofread/edit any documents associated with the project.

Stuff like this is all good. I've got a plan for documenting the loco/modelling side of things. Generally it's not a good idea to have too many stickies in a board. "Sticky creep" is a notorious problem with forums, and it's better to avoid it. So, I reckon the go would be to have one "modding docs" sticky that has links to all the other docs threads (which wouldn't be sticky). Then I'd set up the OP of the loco thread (for instance) with links to seperate posts for different aspects of loco modelling (body, lights, drivetrain, gfx mapping, whatever). AFAICT this should be the clearest way of doing it all.

One thing that could be be handy, apart from proofreading, is for people who haven't tried any of this stuff before to try some basic examples and see if the given explanations make sense to them. If you try an example and can't get a working result fairly quickly and easily, that probably means the explanation should be rewritten.

[Blackhawk]

One thing not including in this list of possibly things to add would be WP&P's cereal company. If the cargo cheese now becomes food, rather than the cereal company producing goods, it could produce food.

Although, I think I'd change up the required cargoes:

Originally: Rice + Grain = goods
Then, Corn + Sugar = goods,
Followed by Grain + Sugar = goods.

I think I would change it to:
Rice + Grain = food,
Corn + grain = food

Then
Corn + Sugar = food
Grain + Sugar = food.

Considering some cereals are still made with corn, I would hate to change up the building recipe and completely disregard corn. I feel the same way about dropping rice, but then it comes to a point of how many inputs do you want/allow?


So far my ability to figure out how to work with bca/bty files and getting new industry buildings to work has been less than successful. I have been able to replace the existing industries that use the warehouse model with buildings from TM that Ned graciously offered. However, I haven't been able to figure out how to add a new industry/building successfully yet, as I keep running into errors. Since, my skills with photoshop/gimp are non-existent, the chances of me making any new building models is slim, but if I can figure out how to get some of the models from TM into the game and adjust their cargo demands, I may be able to contribute with that.

Concrete Plant : ?
Construction Firm : Hardware store or Shopping Mall
Electronics Plant : potentially the TM electronics plant
Hospital : Replace with TM Hospital Version 1 as I prefer version 1 over the look of version 2.
Machine Shop : Maybe publishing house
Pharmaceutical Plant : Pharm. Plant from TM (a variation in color/style of a plastics factory)

[Gumboots]

I wouldn't bother with the cereal company myself. Breakfast cereals are irrelevant to a lot of people, especially the ones that are just basic grain and sugar. I never eat them.

Also, quite a lot of existing maps don't have any sugar on them anyway, even when they have grain and corn, which would make the cereal company non-functional.

[RulerofRails]

As I have said before I like the idea of having an industry that demands corn. As far as I can tell, the changes BH suggested mean that no sugar is required to make food with it. I realize that this will affect existing scenarios, but think it will give more depth and meaning to corn on a map. I like to think that this could be a representation of a mill too when doing the grain mixes (grain+corn=packed food). Maybe make it a little below average profit-wise and maybe it should have a different name to broaden its appeal. Can't think of a good name right now though.

[nedfumpkin]

Alot really depends on what you are looking for. TM has both the Cereal Company and a Sugar Refinery where corn is turned into sugar. Considering the world today, sugar should be in every map from 1970 on. :)

While the consumption of cereal has waned in the last 20 years, from about 1890 to 1980 it's what a lot of people ate for breakfast. It also includes pablum in there for babies.

[Blackhawk]

I wouldn't consider personal use as a reason for relevance or not to scenario building in RT3. Many people eat it do whether it's a sugary unhealthy cereal, or a variation of oatmeal, or baby cereal. I'd look for more use of cargoes in additional industries rather than personal use. And this gives grain & corn another use.

I realize that this will affect existing scenarios, but think it will give more depth and meaning to corn on a map. I like to think that this could be a representation of a mill too when doing the grain mixes (grain+corn=packed food). Maybe make it a little below average profit-wise and maybe it should have a different name to broaden its appeal. Can't think of a good name right now though.

As long as the building is classified as an industry, and not a municipal building (hospital, construction firm, houses, etc) it should not have an effect on existing scenarios because it would have to be turned on by the scenario creator in the editor. It is the municipal buildings that could have an effect on a prior scenario, like a dreaded construction firm popping up in the middle of a town eating important resources (if someone were to play a 1.05 scenario in 1.06).

If you think of a better name let me know.

As Ned said, (and WP&P's notes suggested) the introduction of a sugar/syrup refinery would likely be necessary as well to aid with a cereal company (if it required sugar) which would give another use to produce and corn as well.

Another possibility for using corn/sugar would be as a bio-diesel plant as another method of creating fuel.

At this point though I need to figure out how to get passed the "Building Category **** not found for building type ****" Error message.

[nedfumpkin]

That's cause by the file names being wrong, best bet is to keep them all the same, i.e. w/o spaces in two name industries.

[Gumboots]

I wouldn't consider personal use as a reason for relevance or not to scenario building in RT3. Many people eat it do whether it's a sugary unhealthy cereal, or a variation of oatmeal, or baby cereal. I'd look for more use of cargoes in additional industries rather than personal use. And this gives grain & corn another use.

As Ned said, (and WP&P's notes suggested) the introduction of a sugar/syrup refinery would likely be necessary as well to aid with a cereal company (if it required sugar) which would give another use to produce and corn as well.

Very US-centric. I think the US is probably the only place where there is a significant industry devoted to making sugar out of corn. I'm not sure that grain needs another use if we are aiming for backwards compatability with existing scenarios. Most maps seem to chew through grain pretty well already. Corn is often under-utilised, so another use for that is possible.

Really though, a cereal company shouldn't have to require sugar, IMO. That's usually in short supply anyway, and my suspicion is that if you make a new industry that chews sugar and corn the economics of corn will change dramatically. It'll be just like the real US: the corn lobby will have the economy by the nuts.

Another possibility for using corn/sugar would be as a bio-diesel plant as another method of creating fuel.

Or you could just send corn to the existing refinery and save an industry slot for something else.

[Hawk]

Very US-centric. I think the US is probably the only place where there is a significant industry devoted to making sugar out of corn.

They call it high fructose corn syrup and it's in everything, literally. They use it so much it's been deemed a health risk.
Between that and the corn they use to mix with gasoline (ethanol), any corn food stuff price is skyrocketing. Supply and demand.

[Blackhawk]

The new industries will not appear in old scenarios unless specifically turned on so it won't have an effect on old scenarios. So while a cereal/bread company/grain mill or syrup refinery may increase the price of grain/corn in a new scenario, they should have no effect on pre-existing scenarios as these industries would not appear in them.

As for being very US-centric, I disagree with the subsidies given to corn farmers and the artificial low price of corn which is one of the reasons for the use of corn syrup instead of sugar, but in any event there is still a large market for syrups in the US and elsewhere; whether it's HFCS, glucose syrup, agrave, etc. The US may produce the most HFCS, but other countries produce syrups as well. (Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, etc and It is a growing market in China).

I am open to ideas/suggestions though. It's why I threw out the idea of the cereal factory and a syrup refinery. Sounds like you think it's too US-centric, but I'd be curious what others opinions on it are.

Another possibility for using corn/sugar would be as a bio-diesel plant as another method of creating fuel.

Or you could just send corn to the existing refinery and save an industry slot for something else.

That is a possibility, except then that now influences backwards compatibility as it would alter the pricing/demands in 1.06 scenarios + potentially the ease of getting diesel/fuel if a scenario requires it. A new industry wouldn't create backwards compatibility problems. And if there were a syrup refinery, it could potentially be another destination for sugar as a cargo. If it was included I'd try to find a way to make sugar ethanol more lucrative/efficient than corn based ethanol.

As for progress on other matters, I managed to get the Glassworks/Glass Factory using the TM model loaded into RT3. The question now is what is the best recipe. Stoker wanted Coal + Sand (formerly Crystals) = goods. Anyone have any opinions on this? Or any other suggested combinations? Changes over time?

[Blackhawk]

Thanks Ned for the heads up with that. I had a couple different buildings I was trying with and kept having issues. I started over and tried again and it worked this time.

[nedfumpkin]

Thanks Ned for the heads up with that. I had a couple different buildings I was trying with and kept having issues. I started over and tried again and it worked this time.

Experience was my teacher. That's how knew what it was right away. :)

Being the resident commodity specialist (IRL) I will throw my two cents in with the understanding that I don't care either way as it pertains to 1.06, however, this was all looked at in TM.

Sugar comes from a few main sources. Sugar cane and sugar beet, and corn. From corn it comes in two forms: corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The stuff you buy in the store and put on your waffles or make butter tarts with is plain corn syrup. HFCS is used in processed foods as a sweetener, you can't buy it at your local store.

In TM the cereal company requires rice, grain, or corn, and paper to make food. It also allows for the inclusion of sugar to make food. The paper is for the boxes and bags. The reasoning, which was expanded on the intial concept from WP&P, was that while very true in North America that millions of people grew up eating breakfast ceral, but so did millions of people in other countries in the form of pablum. African countries getting bags of aid were actually getting cereal.

Perhaps other places didn't consume as much cereal, for example Aussies with their Vegemite, Frenchies with their croisants, but the Swedes supposedly gave us Muesli aka granola, and the Scots apparently believe that oatmea/porridge is eaten with salt.

So really, the thing that changes is the variety of packaged cereals acording to region, but for the most part they are unversal. They are now for sure.

Corn, believe it or not, is actually in almost everything you eat in way way or another. The meat you eat is feed corn, the sweeteners in processed food comes from corn, starch from corn, flower from corn, fuel from corn. The only plant more versatile is hemp.

Glass is made from heat and sand, but....heat can come from logs, or coal or fuel, and chemicals change glass, and then you can make glass out of aluminum....so you have any number of combinations.

[Blackhawk]

Thanks for your input into how you found things to work and suggestions.

Realistically, I don't intend on making this anything near the extent of TM. Nor do I plan on adding as many industries as Stoker envisioned. I figured I'd just help tie up what some people thought were loose ends in 1.06 so if anyone has suggestions which they think are areas of 1.06 that need help that's mainly what I'm looking for. So I don't want to add so many industries it feels like it's another competing mod of the game, and I don't want to just copy lots industries from TM either, cause then people might as well just play TM if the supply chains become too similar.

So this leads to the question for those that play 1.06, what do you see as loose ends?
1. The industries that all use the warehouse skin.
2. Crystals seem to lack a use. (renamed sand)
3. Concrete should be renamed cement.

- RulerofRails suggests corn have more usefulness.
- Reading WP&P's site, he thought maybe a synthetic rubber plant would be useful to help in the production of autos, and give chemicals another use. And a cannery to give aluminum another use.

What else?