Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[AdmiralHalsey]

If you guys want i'd be willing to add the required industry's to make sure all 1.06 maps aren't broken. That way you can fix them.

[Gumboots]

Yeah I'd be willing to help out with that too, and we may be able to rope a couple of others in. It could require some testing though to make sure the scenario still plays well.

[Blackhawk]

Considering only 2 people downloaded the possible 1.06 replacement buildings, I'm not sure this patch really has much of an audience as it is.

The problem with going back and manually making 1.06 maps playable with any changes/updates is that there are ~130 scenarios. That's a lot to go through, and even if we get multiple people to help out just to make a couple changes in each, that's still ~130 scenarios Hawk then has to upload back onto the server.

I'm not sure how adding an industry as a replacement to say the furnace but leaving the furnace for the purpose of backwards compatibilty is that bad of an option. Yeah, in the editor there will be the 1 line of text for a checkbox next to the furnace, but turn it off and it won't ever be a problem again. On the other hand, it is ends up wasting an industry slot and potentially could end up in a 1.06.01 game if the creater doesn't remember to turn it off.

There really aren't any great options. Just a matter of the lesser evil. If the furnace is fixed so only 1 production recipe remains, and another industry is added. Then it is up to the player to go into the editor and fix that. There are many people that don't read the forums so they won't know to do that, and a couple that do read the forum but refuse to go into the editor. We also can't go back and fix all the scenarios ourselves unless Hawk wants to host 130 duplicate maps that are optimized for 1.06.01. If we fixed the map, and didn't have it as a duplicate then it wouldn't load for those with just the 1.06 patch.

[Blackhawk]

If the furnace was to be cleaned up and only 1 stream. Say Ore to Ingots, and then Rock to Concrete was put at the Concrete Plant. Then now creates the problem of what creates ceramics/glass? . In the patch we would add a glassworks, but that requires someone to go into the editor and turn it on. Also the rock directly to concrete by skipping ceramics will likely increase the profitability of the concrete plant, which might mean a higher price tag for the concrete plant is necessary, or changing the cargo price of the concrete/cement cargo.

Also by changing the stream from Rock -> cement and Sand -> Glass/Ceramics. There is less sand (crystals) mined than rock, so there may be fewer ceramics, unless there is a 1:2 production ratio at a glassworks. Which may very well be necessary as the cargo price on crystals seems to be fairly high.

[AdmiralHalsey]

Considering only 2 people downloaded the possible 1.06 replacement buildings, I'm not sure this patch really has much of an audience as it is..

I didn't download them as am I taking a little break from RRT3

[Hawk]

Considering only 2 people downloaded the possible 1.06 replacement buildings, I'm not sure this patch really has much of an audience as it is.

You have to remember, the majority of people that download from the site aren't forum members. There's at least 200 time more archive members than there are forum members.
I think 200 times is right. Over 8,000 archive members compared to over 400 forum members.

that's still ~130 scenarios Hawk then has to upload back onto the server.

As long as I'm not expected to do it all in one day, I can deal with that.

[Blackhawk]

that's still ~130 scenarios Hawk then has to upload back onto the server.

As long as I'm not expected to do it all in one day, I can deal with that.

Okay, you'll have 2 days!

[Gumboots]

Considering only 2 people downloaded the possible 1.06 replacement buildings, I'm not sure this patch really has much of an audience as it is.

I've been concentrating on locos so haven't downloaded it yet. I'll take a look at it.

There really aren't any great options. Just a matter of the lesser evil.

Yes, but I'm not sure that creating more broken stuff is the lesser of two evils.

If the furnace is fixed so only 1 production recipe remains, and another industry is added. Then it is up to the player to go into the editor and fix that. There are many people that don't read the forums so they won't know to do that, and a couple that do read the forum but refuse to go into the editor. We also can't go back and fix all the scenarios ourselves unless Hawk wants to host 130 duplicate maps that are optimized for 1.06.01. If we fixed the map, and didn't have it as a duplicate then it wouldn't load for those with just the 1.06 patch.

This patch is not going to be compulsory. Anyone who wants to use it will have to make a conscious decision to install it. It's not as if aliens are going to abduct your 1.06 one night without your knowledge and return it the next morning with all sorts of things done to it. If anyone does use this patch, they will have probably read the documentation that goes with it. If they haven't, that's their problem.

This is why I'm thinking we don't have to be terrified of changing some things and can do a good job of it.

Also by changing the stream from Rock -> cement and Sand -> Glass/Ceramics. There is less sand (crystals) mined than rock, so there may be fewer ceramics, unless there is a 1:2 production ratio at a glassworks. Which may very well be necessary as the cargo price on crystals seems to be fairly high.

Considering that crystals don't currently have a use, I see no problem in changing the price of them, if necessary. Ditto for production rates.

[Hawk]

As long as I'm not expected to do it all in one day, I can deal with that.

Okay, you'll have 2 days!

In that case - no problem.

If anyone does use this patch, they will have probably read the documentation that goes with it. If they haven't, that's their problem.

That's the one big problem. Most folks don't read any documentation. You wouldn't believe the amount of emails I get from folks that ask questions or have problems just because they don't read read me's or the documentation that comes with stuff.
I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other, just clarifying a fact.

[Gumboots]

I still reckon that's their problem. Sometimes "RTFM" is the best response.

[RulerofRails]

Considering only 2 people downloaded the possible 1.06 replacement buildings, I'm not sure this patch really has much of an audience as it is.

I believe I was the first one! There are 5 now. I took a quick look and the new buildings look good!

On the topic of the changes, maybe it is wise to scan the events/medal requirements of maps first to anticipate what might happen with these changes?

Your latest suggestion about the ceramic issue sounds good. I don't know any maps this will affect badly off the top of my head (still, I don't know that many of them). From the later arop maps I have seen/played I haven't seen win requirements involving ceramic haulage (some bonuses though). I believe he has made a fair few of the 1.06 maps in an empire building style. From those maps I have seen they should handle some small cargo changes quite well.

If I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion if it is thought to be a good idea to do at least a scan of events/medal requirements of current maps:
- Make a new topic with a clear outline of proposed changes to the current cargoes in the first post.
- Allocate any volunteers to categories of maps (for example Europe).
- Have them make a post and add/edit in maps as they do them in case somebody is called away and others can easily complete whatever is left. Could include notes detailing any expected consequences with a particular map.
- With 4 or 5 volunteers should be done in a few days!

[Gumboots]

Positive thinking ftw.

[Hawk]

I still reckon that's their problem. Sometimes "RTFM" is the best response.

That's generally my response to them.
I was just pointing it out in case you didn't realize it. It was the same way in the MSTS and the Railworks communities. It seems people just don't want to take the time to read.

I believe he (arop) has made a fair few of the 1.06 maps in an empire building style.

He has 127 maps in the archives. Not all of those are 1.06 maps, but I think most of them are - FWIW.

[Gumboots]

It's funny how some people will take the time to be confused, and take the time to send multiple emails, but wont read a readme that 20 lines long.

[Blackhawk]

These days you have those that are willing to figure things out on their own, and those that expect everything handed to them. Seems a lot of people want some personal hand-holding to figure things out rather than an informal, but useful, readme.



RoR I like that idea. It would be a useful way to try and gather some info on the maps and which use rock/ore/concrete/crystals and if any are vital for goals. Not only would that information be useful for deciding which option is the best way to go, but it would also be useful in knowing which makes would be good maps to test changes on.


One thing I saw Stoker complain of was that size of the quarry. I'm thinking of potentially using the coal strip mine from TM (based on the uranium mine) and substitute that in place of the current quarry. The footprint is a little smaller and should make it easier to place near mountains. It's not as small as an iron mine or a coal mine but it could potentially be a happy medium and it would be easier to distinguish that it's a quarry than the iron mine which has less that could be repainted. Alternatively, a repainted bauxite mine may be another option. Obviously not a pressing issue, but it was something that would be a quick fix and figured I'd give it a go.

[OilCan]

At the request of Blackhawk, I'll throw my 2 cents into this venture. Having made 25 game maps (not all are in the archive) and played countless games, I feel that I do have a sense of the elements which should go into a game.

I believe you should go forward with a 1.07V and not call it a patch to 1.06V.
The 1.06V game maps are what they are, just like the 1.05V maps are what they are. Attempting to edit all the 1.06V maps will become complicated and may even distort the original intent of some maps. Let the 1.06V games be as they are. Let this new 1.07V usher in new game conditions, new industries and new engines, just like 1.06V did.

I like the idea of transforming industries which are poor contributors into more meaningful contributors. I have some suggestions of particular industries if there is an interest. I would strongly recommend that any new industry does not require more than 2 ingredients. The triple ingredient requirements for electronics and machinery in 1.06V are too much trouble for most players.

It is not clear in this thread if it is possible to make serious changes in the game code (I know nothing about programming). Is it possible to transform the customs house to something more meaningful, for instance? Or to fix the issue of properly counting electric track?

Overall, I give a thumbs up to this venture and will assist where possible.

[nedfumpkin]

I concur with OC.

As for the Customs House. Changes can be made, and in TM a post office was made as a municipal building with some demands. The original post office was turned into the Railroad Office, that had demands, and functioned by holding onto mail longer. The Railyard Structures were all made Customs Houses.This allowed for the RY structures to be turned on or off.

The Railroad Office made better sense than the post office concept. There are file naming issues here though.

[Wolverine@MSU]

I too concur with Oilcan. Looking at all the things you propose doing (loco mods, industry mods, new cargo chains and cargoes), all of which I think will improve the game a lot, seems to beg for a "fresh start" rather than a patch to tie up some loose ends (which it appears will just create a whole bunch more with existing scenarios). Going to a new version (1.07), gives you the freedom to do EXACTLY what you want to do, without having to cut corners to make it fit into 1.06. I would even go as far as to suggest that any newly-created 1.07 map be INCOMATIBLE with 1.06, the way 1.06 maps don't open in 1.05, although it would be useful to have some stand-alone utility (or instructions for manual modification of the GMP file) that would allow one to make a 1.07 map openable in the 1.06 editor for conversion purposes.

[Blackhawk]

I like the idea of transforming industries which are poor contributors into more meaningful contributors. I have some suggestions of particular industries if there is an interest. I would strongly recommend that any new industry does not require more than 2 ingredients. The triple ingredient requirements for electronics and machinery in 1.06V are too much trouble for most players.

Feel free to suggest industries.
So far a cereal company, ethanol, and syrup/sugar refinery have received luke warm support.
A glass factory and a potential printing press have received more support.
Most of Stoker's ideas were mostly early game based and required a fuel source. (which meant a minimum of a 2 cargoes input recipe). And some become duplicative. (furniture craftsman vs furniture factory, puddling furnace vs steel mill).

It may be possible to add 1 more cargo as well. So suggestions for that are welcome. One suggestion for that was a cargo called "valuables" which could have a variety of uses.
I was looking through old 1.06 patch threads and saw wire was a possible cargo idea at one point. Theoretically, take an ingot or ingot + plastic/rubber = wire. Then have the wire demanded by construction firms, and a potential recipe for electronics or machinery that uses wire.

It is not clear in this thread if it is possible to make serious changes in the game code (I know nothing about programming). Is it possible to transform the customs house to something more meaningful, for instance? Or to fix the issue of properly counting electric track?

I lack the ability to make any changes to the game code so any changes would be in industry recipes and adding new industries (or municipal buildings for demand). So the electric track issue will likely remain. Any locomotive changes would be something Gumboots seems to be handling.

Sounds like the growing concensus is to make this 1.07 rather than a 1.06.01. Which when this started the feeling was to just make it a 1.06.01.

[Gumboots]

The thing about adding cargoes is you can't use them all at once anyway. The interface can really only handle 50 before they start overlapping so much that it becomes a debacle, and I'm not into borked interfaces. If adding more cargoes than 1.06, IMO some thought would have to be given to the fact that scenarios should be designed with 50 or less, rather than thinking "Hey we can use everything".

Also, I do remember Milo saying the last cargo slot didn't behave as it should, and if trying to fill all slots up some extensive testing would be necessary. IIRC he seemed to think leaving the last slot empty made more sense, in practical terms.

Re three input industries: I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to them, as long they can be supplied without going nuts on micro-management. If using a lot of three input industries would result in having to micro-manage all cargoes all the time, it'd be better to give them a miss. As has been said before here, if you make a game too realistic it stops being a game and starts being a job you don't get paid for. I'd be aiming to add some more depth and bug fixes without losing the fun aspect and easy flow of RT3.

.... it would be useful to have some stand-alone utility (or instructions for manual modification of the GMP file) that would allow one to make a 1.07 map openable in the 1.06 editor for conversion purposes.

Shouldn't be hard to arrange, since it should just be a matter of adding manually code for the new industries. I can't seriously see anyone (meaning anyone who is here now) writing a tool to do it automatically.