Making 1.06.1: any interest?

[Gumboots]

Should have just had a beer anyway. The beer would have been as good as anywhere else, and they would probably have been cool if you just told them what happened.

[Stoker]

You are probably right, but my fight or flight instincts kicked in and I tend to trust my instincts in these situations. I have lived an interesting life and been in a few situations where I am certain that this has saved my bacon.

Better safe than having your face on a milk carton.



"Bring out the Gimp!"

Interestingly enough I was in Denver some years back out barhopping around the Broadway and First area (nothing but bar after bar there) one night and I stumbled out of one bar and into the next, which was called "Mike's", that I had seen for years and never gone into. I sat down at the bar and got a beer and started scoping the place out and started thinking "Man, there are a heck of a lot of queers in here" "Then, a second later I realized that the crowd was ALL queers! In that instance I did in fact finish my beer before I made my escape.

[Stoker]

Back to the subject. My thoughts are this. I do have an interest in seeing 1.06 finished. To me personally, I have little interest in changing or adding locos for the most part, but I think this is something that could be added as I can see that there are those who do have the interest and skills required to make this happen. Constructing the function and testing to make sure the balance of new industries works right is within my skill set, along with creating new skins for the recycled buildings to differentiate them from original buildings. I could reconstruct the work I had completed for King Coal in a fairly small amount of time. If there is interest in making actual new/modified buildings for these new industries, that is something a bit beyond my capabilities but I would of course welcome that.

Now, That being said, here are my reservations and experience the last time I entered into a group RT3 mod project (TM). Those of you that have been around H&B since that time already know my take on this, but most of the folks around here these days were not here then, so I thought a recap of my take on that project was in order. When Ned got TM going the idea was to finish up 1.06 by tying up all of the loose ends and maybe add a few things. As things progressed, he kept expanding the scope of the project until it became a project to create an entirely different game, with the net result being that he ended up with a game that had more loose ends than what he started with , albeit different ones. When he began taking complete control of the direction of that project and rejecting all of the ideas from everyone else involved, that is where I decided to drop out, which at that point did not mean much because any ideas that I had were not being implemented anyway. Then of course the Monkey stuff came along, and TM is what it is and I had no interest in it at all. What TM isn't is a fully functioning game. It is a completely different game, and one that the industry and cargo chain is completely butchered and simply does not work. In my opinion this is not an improvement over what was started with, i.e. 1.06.

These views are of course my personal opinion. In light of this experience (along with working on community projects to mod other games) I would only be interested in participating in a project in which the scope, leadership, goals, and direction of said project was fully laid out and agreed upon before any work began.

[RulerofRails]

Stoker, I agree that the 1.06 cargo chains are only half-finished and could be greatly improved. I have been playing TM a little lately (haven't had much game time.) I don't really mind the industry model for the most part but it is quite complex and makes it not really a train game anymore. I still like it for what it is, but know that many more of the people here like running trains more than playing with industries all the time. I would be wary of adding more than 2 inputs to an industry. My concern is that many existing maps might need re-balancing in order to avoid using many custom consists. The absence of a haul-anything-but-this option makes custom consists especially on manufactured goods (cargoes) more of a head-ache than fun tool. (A real issue with TM.) In "King Coal" did you add more cargoes or just modify the existing ones?

I must confess I haven't tried out your band-aid yet. I have played a few 1.06 scenarios such as Crystal Cotton, but wanted to play under the original conditions that the maker made. Let's see if I can't give it a whirl here soon.

[Stoker]

@ RoR:

More than 2 inputs for an industry can work fine. The industries I made for King Coal with this were pretty thoroughly tested and the cargo flow and economics were all worked out. What does not work is having an industry that tries to have more than one completely different production cycles, like the "Furnace" in 1.06 that tries to make Ceramics from Rock and Ingots from Ore and is pretty unpredictable as to what will happen.

To address your concern about using older maps with a "Mod": The sad fact is that once you have introduced custom cargoes or industries (making it a true mod of the game) any scenarios made for other versions will not work.
King Coal did in fact change some cargoes and introduce many new industries, so was in fact a true "mod" that would not be compatible with previous maps- same as TM. There is a way to scrub away all of the data from older maps and then use them , but it might be easier to just make another map from scratch.

[Gumboots]

Ok, taking this in parts:

Back to the subject. My thoughts are this. I do have an interest in seeing 1.06 finished. To me personally, I have little interest in changing or adding locos for the most part, but I think this is something that could be added as I can see that there are those who do have the interest and skills required to make this happen.

Quite honestly, this is my primary motivation at this stage. I play this game largely because I like steam locomotives. The current models we have for those, particularly the third party ones, can and should be improved IMO, just to make using them more enjoyable. I have no personal interest in the diesel and electric locomotives since I never even look at them. Anyone who wants to see those improved would have to be prepared to do the work themselves, although I would be happy to give some assistance if it was asked for.

Improving the models does not necessarily include changing stats/performance of existing locos, nor does it necessarily include adding new ones. I realise the current selection was made for reasons and is probably largely adequate, although there seems to be some agreement that a bit of rebalancing might be in order. However adding some new ones, if there is agreement that they would be a good idea, is certainly possible.

Constructing the function and testing to make sure the balance of new industries works right is within my skill set, along with creating new skins for the recycled buildings to differentiate them from original buildings. I could reconstruct the work I had completed for King Coal in a fairly small amount of time. If there is interest in making actual new/modified buildings for these new industries, that is something a bit beyond my capabilities but I would of course welcome that.

At the moment I have limited experience actually playing 1.06. This is because until recently I hadn't figured out how to get it running on my box, and since then I have been largely focused on learning locomotive modelling. I think I can say that I've got that sorted now. In principle I know how to do literally anything that can be done with loco models. In fact I was thinking it might be a good idea to go through all my notes and whip some good documentation into shape.

Anyway, this means I'm not going to suggest changes to the 1.06 industry chain at this stage. As far as I can tell it all basically works, but people who have played it more extensively may well have ideas for realistically achievable improvements. If those work, and can be incorporated into the game, it sounds good to me.

As for recycled buildings, I haven't really looked at them yet but assume the modelling for those willl be largely the same as the modelling for locomotives. I do remember seeing some comments about the footprint size of the warehouse model being a bit of a problem in some situations. It may be worth looking at changing some of the buildings to use a smaller model. Minor alterations to any models used, if necessary, shouldn't present too much of a problem. How much will be largely dependent on how cleanly they are coded.

The hex for some of the locomotive models is very cleanly laid out. The model breaks down logically into modular components (ie: you can move something without dragging everything else with it) and the code for all components is logically laid out. These are always going to be the easiest models to work with.

Other models are a complete mess. IMO these should be avoided as far as possible. I can completely map and bookmark a clean model in a hour or so. Messy ones take much longer, and are still far more of a PITA to work with even once they are mapped.

People should stop thinking of the models as "a 4-6-2" or whatever, and think of them purely in terms of geometry and code. What components do they contain? How useful are those components? What else can be done with them? Etc. Viewed that way, virtually anything is possible if you choose the right model and if you understand how it is put together.

These views are of course my personal opinion. In light of this experience (along with working on community projects to mod other games) I would only be interested in participating in a project in which the scope, leadership, goals, and direction of said project was fully laid out and agreed upon before any work began.

I can't comment on TM's industry chain since I've never really played it. I have looked at TM, but at the time couldn't see anything that would hook me into learning its intricacies. I may not be doing TM justice, but anyway that's the reason for my lack of experience wth TM.

I agree that we should try to nut out a plan of attack and scope of work for any putative 1.06.1. Scope creep and actually getting things finished are the bane of open source projects. Well, two of the banes. Personality conflicts are another one.

[Stoker]

@ Gumboots:

1.06 does leave a bunch of the cargo chain pretty much hanging in the breeze. "Crystals", for instance, do not have an industry for their use at all. The other most notable wonkiness is the "Furnace" with two different production systems. I made a patch for 1.06 some years ago that replaces the warehouse "placemarkers" used by the 1.06 crew to stand in until new buildings could be made for the new industries (that then never happened). It uses existing buildings in lieu of introducing new ones and is therefore 100% forward and backwards compatible with all scenarios. You can find that over at "Stoker's Corner".

I am aware of your motivations behind a patch for 1.06, and I think that meshes fine with my desire to fix the cargo chain issues that are my personal interest. My era of choice is also the steam era, so that meshes well , too. Modifying the building models should be a breeze for you gauging by your skill at modifying loco models , as it is the same process, but obviously a lot simpler.

[Gumboots]

Yeah TBH I was wondering what "crystals" did as they never seemed to be useful in the games I've tried so far. Can also see your point about the "furnace". Having only one production chain for each industry building (even with alternative inputs) may work better. Then again, warehouses often have multiple production chains, and it isn't necessarily a problem as long as you know what they are doing.

ETA: I think the main thing is that any product has to be useful. Tying up an industry in automatically producing cargo that has no use is no good at all.

[Stoker]

The furnace is completely screwed up. Whether it will decide that it is going to produce Ceramics from Rock or Ingots from Ore is based on the profit , and this will vary and jump around as it consumes one or the other, which then throws off the price graidient of the one that is not being used and often causes bizarre fluctuations in the demand/cost/production cycle. It will generally do the opposite of whichever one you want it to. The warehouses will actually do the same thing. If they have more than one Input>Output function, they will produce only the one that makes the most profit.

[Gumboots]

Ok, I'll start laying out what I think is a reasonable scope of work from my perspective (ie: mostly steam locos, and possibly any cargo cars).

1/ Personally, I would consider my first bash at a Berkshire to be an acceptable minimum standard for future skinning/modifying of locos.

2/ Standardise all locos to use a 1024 x 1024 A skin. 512 x 512 A skins are not acceptable for locomotives. A skins smaller than 1024 x 1024 may well be useful for tenders, etc.

3/ Standardise all locos to use either TGA or DDS for skins. Either are workable in Photoshop or GIMP, so using only one image format makes sense to me. DDS is better for game performance. TGA may (will have to test) be better for gfx quality.

4/ Make said skins of good quality.

5/ Fix alpha channels on all locos that need it.

6/ Fix broken components on all locos that need it (ie: connecting rods ending in mid air, etc).

7/ Re "broken components", would also consider looking at fixing things like tenders and cargo cars that have reversed text on one side.

8/ Make the things look like what they're supposed to be. The current "Stanier Black 5" bears little or no resemblance to a Black 5, for instance.

9/ Possibly add some extra locos, if they are filling noticeable gaps in the current lineup, and can be done in a reasonable timeframe and to a good standard.

10/ Possibly add some alternative skins for some locos, if they can be done in a reasonable timeframe and to a standard as good as the primary skin.

Subject to change wthout notice, but that's what I can think of at the moment.

[Stoker]

I will toss out a few things I would insist upon if I were to participate in a 1.06 revision.

A. Fix all of the loose ends in the cargo/industry chain of 1.06
B. Remove the British Stirling from the North American loco list.
C. The early 4-4-0 American be given an upgraded passenger rating.
D. The overall scope of the work be limited to ensure that the project can actually be completed.
E. Anybody who suggests anything even remotely close to Monkey Engineers or Thomas the Train be hogtied and put on the rails in front of an oncoming train.



This list is incomplete and will be added to.

[Blackhawk]

E. Anybody who suggests anything even remotely close to Monkey Engineers or Thomas the Train be hogtied and put on the rails in front of an oncoming train.

Well since monkeys and Thomas are off limits... can we get that train from Back to the Future 3 that can do time travel?

As for the monkeys in TM. I managed to lobby Ned a bit about it and ultimately he did put out an optional monkey removal "patch." In the grand scheme of things monkey portraits didn't matter much to me as the amount of time looking at the portrait is limited, but I overall prefer my managers look human rather than as an animal.

My suggestion for if the industries do end up being reworked; while having industry recipes of 3+ cargoes can be workable, for the majority of the RT3 crowd that seems to prefer simpler industry recipes I would keep the number of industries requiring 3+ cargoes to a limited number. If the game code could ever be rewritten to haul anything but X cargo it might be a little easier but the chances of that ever happening is quite unlikely.

[Stoker]

Something that would need to be decided on right up front is whether this would be a patch or a mod. This does not have anything to do with whether the exe is modified (I would vote against trying to do an exe change) . A patch would have to retain all of the existing buildings and cargoes, whereas a mod would replace some of the flawed industries and cargoes(Rename crystals and use that cargo as something else and replace quarry producing rock+crystals and the Furnace are some things I can think of off the top of my head). I would vote for a full mod and not worry about backwards compatibility.

[Gumboots]

I'm quite happy with Stoker's current list, particularly D and E. Blackhawk can have his time travelling loco if he can code it.

I also think required inputs for any industry should not exceed 3. I'm inclined to think they should not exceed 2. IOW, allowing them to have any number of possible inputs is fine, providing that they will produce their product with 3 or less of those possible inputs, and preferably only 2. As Blackhawk says, if there are more than 2 required inputs just getting the materials into the industry building becomes a real rigmarole with the ways consists are coded at the moment.

ETA: Would also vote for a mod. However, I think we also need input from map makers on this. If a mod will break a lot of existing 1.06 scenarios that could be problematic in terms of ending up with a playable result, because it may mean a lot of extra work on scenarios that nobody will want to do.

[Stoker]

Production requiring 3 cargoes are less of a problem than people might think. I even experimented with using 4 or more and decided against it, not because they don't work, but because when you exceed three they do not show up in the industry's graphic production tab. Even though using 3 or more cargoes functions fine, I do agree that the number of industries requiring this will be limited. I suspect that some of the apprehension about using 3 cargoes for production of a product is experience with TM, and I know that a lot of the issues in that regard are not actually due to the 3 cargo issue, but rather that the whole cargo flow and production chain of TM is bonkered up and simply does not function.

[Gumboots]

Ok, here's another point. The cargo display for 1.06 is already crammed with exisiting cargoes. In purely visual/presentation terms, I don't think there is room for any more. It's already very close to the point of being too much information.

[RulerofRails]

The proposals are good. A bit torn over the mod versus patch. The inability to play the current maps means new ones would need to be made. I see Arop likes to still make 1.06 maps. Maybe should wait for him to give his ideas too as without enough new maps, chances are many will not bother installing it. Also presentation does a lot to how many will actually use it, number of files, simplicity of instructions to install, etc. I hope to get time to make my first map one day, but that is not on the horizon right now.

The thing about the 3+ cargoes. I do like the idea of needing fuel to produce cargoes. Maybe this could be simplified by having the presence of fuel give a better conversion. Given the scale of maps, surely early industries in most situations can be powered by local wood or water power to give a nominal output. But with the presence of plentiful fuel the industry will make more goods faster with more profit. What do you think?

[Stoker]

I can't recall exactly at the moment, but I think 1.06 uses all but one of the available cargo slots. I am going from memory here, but I think 1.06 uses 52 of the 53 slots. I would need to re-familiarize myself with these things if I commit to anything, as I have forgotten more about the function of RT3 than most players will ever know.

@ RoR: If I remember right, only industries designated as farms have the option of increased production with the addition of something, but as I said, I need to brush up on this. As far as the installation goes, I would not try to make an installer, as these almost always fail and people end up having to extract the files from the installer and manually installing them anyways. I have been modding games for quite a while, and the best way I know of is to include the entire folder structure (the folders only contain the new items) and then to install you only need to copy a clean instal (1.06 in this case) and then you place the single folder into the existing game folder and you are done., rather than issuing all of the individual folders and having the installer put each one in the correct place.

[Gumboots]

...the best way I know of is to include the entire folder structure (the folders only contain the new items) and then to install you only need to copy a clean install (1.06 in this case) and then you place the single folder into the existing game folder and you are done, rather than issuing all of the individual folders and having the installer put each one in the correct place.

Yup, way to go. It's going to be the easiest to code and the easiest for most people to get running.

[Stoker]

Sucks that I lost my King Coal work, as this had not only the in progress work, but all of the little things I had like copies of a complete RT3 folder tree that had all of the folders emptied out. Oh well, these things are a lot easier since I have gotten a modern computer, particularly nice for this sort of work is the fact that I now have all SSD's in my main rig and firing up games to do tests and that sort of thing happens in a flash-literally- whereas on my old boat anchor it would take a couple minutes to fire up RT3.