Making 1.06.1: any interest?

[Gumboots]

Yeah quad core 64 bit and lotsa RAM totally rocks. I've been loving it.

[Gumboots]

Just had another thought. We could include some of the already-tested custom building types. Things like WP&P's storage units (stockyard, icing platform, etc) to make long distance shipping more workable, and the terrain flatteners to make building easier. This should be just a matter of pasting existing files into place as a first step to get things working, with possible tweaking to follow if it is thought necessary.

[Tomix]

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.

Looks like I'm out of business.

On a more serious note, what is the maximum amount of locomotives the game will load?

[Stoker]

I have been neglecting my rig lately, and my watercooler got clogged with dust and one the fans failed. It was still cooling ok, so I didn't replace it. Then the other one failed and I did not notice and I burned up my AMD FX-4170. I put in the 2 core 555 I had been using previous to that and have it OC'd to 4.1 Ghz and I have a hard time noticing any difference compared to the 4 core 4170 I was running @ 4.9 Ghz. I almost picked up a 6350 after thanksgiving, but I have not been gaming much so I passed. The main thing as far as the end user experience is concerned is SSD's. This along with having 16 GB of Samsung Wonder RAM makes game modding a snap- especially old games like RT3 where I can keep the whole game on a RAM disk and fire it up in about .1 seconds instead of the ~5 seconds it takes to pull it off of the SSD.

Yes, we could include some of those WP&P buildings, although I don't personally find much use for them.

Gumboots will know the answer to the maximum number of locos, but I think it was 100 and was upped to 129 with 1.06.

[RulerofRails]

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

I didn't mean like farms, I meant having a second conversion formula if fuel was present. With the absence of fuel conversion rate something like 3:2 so that you are losing out on money and finished product by not supplying it with fuel. Looking at the examples you gave using pulpwood, did you find that there was sufficient pulpwood available on normal maps to make it viable as a fuel? Did you think of increasing the amount that the lumber mill produces to 2 per year?

Sounds like you have some fast machines. Good for you.

The terrain levelers are a good idea. I have tried WP&P's storage units a couple of times, but didn't really find them that useful with my play-style. That said, seeing that I don't have to use them in every game and there are some situations where I probably would use them, why not. Only drawback is having to scroll past them every time I want to build an industry.

[Gumboots]

On a more serious note, what is the maximum amount of locomotives the game will load?

For 1.05 it's 100. For 1.06 it's 129. This is for actual locomotives. Extra skins for existing locomotives don't count towards that total, and AFAIK nobody has yet found a limit on skins.

[Stoker]

@RoR: Yes, I balanced out pulpwood (and coal) production with King Coal. This was of course all lost, but if I start experimenting again I will remember where I was at as far as prices and production levels were pretty quickly (I think). There are some issues with trying to find a no-fuel formula to include in the same building using a fuel+precurser formula. The production code is limited to whole numbers, so to get the right formula in some cases like this requires using fractions created in the production formula, like "5 x = 3 y" or such , and then the actual production of the industry is limited by the yearly production maximums.

[Stoker]

@ Gumboots: I just noticed something in the previous posts where you noted not wanting to exclude existing 1.06 maps. This would mean that you want a patch, not a mod. I will try to explain this again: If you want the add-on to be backwards compatible, you must not remove any of the existing cargoes, industries, OR locomotives. This is commonly called a patch. You can add new industries and locomotives and still be backwards compatible (old maps will work with the new add-on ), but any map made with these will not function in the original version , which in this case is 1.06. 1.06 itself is actually a patch (a complex one that reworks the .exe), and will run maps made in previous versions (it is backwards compatible) but maps made in 1.06 will not run in previous versions (not forward compatible with older versions). You can also modify the function of cargoes and change their in game name and icon, but the original .cty file name must be used, otherwise it will not be backwards compatible. To move beyond this and actually remove and redo cargoes, remove old buildings like the furnace, and introduce new buildings, you are then talking about an actual Mod(ification) of the game and in RT3 this means that maps made for previous versions will not work with the new add-on.

I think around 80% of what I would like to see is possible with making just a patch, rather than a mod. My true preference would be to have an actual mod and ignore all the old maps, but this is something I might be flexible on as long as the main things I am interested in could be implemented.

[RulerofRails]

@RoR: Yes, I balanced out pulpwood (and coal) production with King Coal. This was of course all lost, but if I start experimenting again I will remember where I was at as far as prices and production levels were pretty quickly (I think). There are some issues with trying to find a no-fuel formula to include in the same building using a fuel+precurser formula. The production code is limited to whole numbers, so to get the right formula in some cases like this requires using fractions created in the production formula, like "5 x = 3 y" or such , and then the actual production of the industry is limited by the yearly production maximums.

Sounds good. The fractions, yes, that's what I meant. I think it may help poorer players out giving the patch/mod more appeal. At least the industries will still work for them even if there are no nearby fuel sources and they aren't able to reach some until later in the game.

[Gumboots]

Had another thought. This would require a bit of testing, but in principle seems easy enough to implement.

I was just looking at the .3dp modelling for track sections, with a view to improving a few details there. Note that without hacking the .exe there is nothing that can be done about ramps for bridges and overpasses, so they're out of bounds at the moment. However, the track and bridge sections themselves can be modified, in terms of both structure/mesh and gfx.

Here's a screenshot of the three components that go into making up each section of track. There is a seperate .3dp file for the stone ballast gfx, and for the timber sleepers, and for the steel rails. At least, I think that's what these do since there are other files which do the job of making the sections for stone, steel and timber bridges. The files shown in the shot would have to be for normal track, AFAICT, but I'll have to test this. It makes sense, because the DDS image for the track shows rails, sleepers and ballast in seperate locations.

Ballast_sleepers_rails_3dp.png (12.52 KiB) Viewed 4840 times

So, what occurred to me is that we may be able to reduce the length of track sections by modifying the .3dp files, which would have the advantage of allowing smoother tracklaying. The downside is increased track cost because of the additional number of units, but that could be dealt with via scenario coding if necessary.

Another thing is that the models for ballast, sleepers and track seem to have more vertices and faces than is necessary. The ballast, for example, always joins end to end with another bit of ballast, or with a ballast cap at the end of the line. That means it doesn't need ends, it just needs sides and top. So, there may be the option of actually simplifying the modelling of track sections to improve game perfomance with very little work and with no downsides. That would be rather nifty.

[Gumboots]

@ Gumboots: I just noticed something in the previous posts where you noted not wanting to exclude existing 1.06 maps. This would mean that you want a patch, not a mod. I will try to explain this again:

You don't need to. I'm well aware of the difference. I said that my vote would be for a mod, but OTOH we should also get input from the people who will (we hope) be making playable scenarios for this thing. If they're not keen on no backwards compat with existing 1.06 maps, we may be better off settling for a patch.

Or, we could do what we like without worrying about backwards compat, and then if anyone wants to use some of the new stuff (ie: pretty much anything except cargo changes) in 1.06.0 they can just paste in the relevant files and be happy.

[Stoker]

@ RoR: I have no interest in dumbing down the game so that people with no skill can play it. The things I had worked out for King Coal all worked just fine. This is different than TM. If you read Ned's descriptions of TM he refer's to it as "the expert version of RT3", which is simply not the case. The reality is that the cargo flow and production chain in TM simply does not work and requires manually forcing industries to function, and in many cases even doing this will not make the industries in TM function- just browse through the threads in the TM section here and you will see thread after thread where people are asking why industries will not function, even when force fed the correct raw supplies. Again: In TM this is not simply due to having complex recipes for production, it is due to the fact that the cargo pricing and flow is all bonkered up and does not work. As long as the cargo price gradient is correct the industries will function just fine, even when requiring complex recipes for production.

@ Gumboots: Good. I am glad you understand the difference. Your previous post made me think you wanted the new add-on to be backwards compatible, which will not be the case if you remove any of the original game resources. I see that your primary interest is in improving the looks of various parts of the game, and to me this does not mean a whole lot ( I could care less about loco details and such)- but it does not take away from anything I am actually interested in, i.e. fixing the cargo issues.

[Gumboots]

The only problem I can see with complex inputs for industry is when you have different industries requiring the same input, with the obvious result that neither gets enough to function well. From what I've read of the TM threads (not a lot) I get the impression this was part of the problem with TM. This isn't a pricing isssue so much as a basic supply issue.

[RulerofRails]

Stoker, do what you want with the difficulty. I like hard things. Just saying that from what I can see most players (at least who comment) are more in the average-good category. Don't mean to offend people here.

The main industries I have encountered in TM haven't given me real production issues. Things that demand only half a load of a low-priced input are a bit touchy though. I thought it was the production of passengers/troops that was one of the hang ups with the less necessary buildings like the Sea World and Fort.

[Stoker]

@ RoR: You have already mentioned that somehow industries work different for you than they do for everyone else, so you saying TM industries work fine is no surprise at all. That is what it is , but the opinions of people who have unexplainable abnormal results are not of much value when trying to figure out production values and such.

[Hawk]

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.

That came up in a post back in 2008 and was never answered.

viewtopic.php?p=13116#p13116

I am going from memory here, but I think 1.06 uses 52 of the 53 slots.

@ Gumboots: I just noticed something in the previous posts where you noted not wanting to exclude existing 1.06 maps. This would mean that you want a patch, not a mod. I will try to explain this again: If you want the add-on to be backwards compatible, you must not remove any of the existing cargoes, industries, OR locomotives.

Since crystals don't seem to be required by anything, couldn't you remove them from the quarry and have 2 available industry slots and not make pre-1.06.1 maps non-playable?

There's a bunch of people that download the 1.06 patch. As a matter of fact, it's the number 1 download with 776 downloads just since I started with the new archives login script. Prior to that there were 31,229 downloads.
Maybe making anything new backwards compatible would be a good idea, if possible.

Here's the top 26 downloaded files since adding the login script.

Downloads.jpg (168.1 KiB) Viewed 4508 times

Here's the top 10 prior to adding the login script.

Downloads2.jpg (35.78 KiB) Viewed 4507 times

Note that the Railyard Structures is also a very popular download.

[Stoker]

@ Hawk: The limited slots available I was referring to is the total number of cargoes, not industries. There must be some limit to the total number of industries, but I have not run into it. I took a look at the cargoes and counted 51 in 1.06, and (going from memory here) I think the maximum is 53. To answer the separation of crystals from the quarry, unfortunately I think the answer is no, not if you want the fix to be fully backwards compatible. In order for an add-on to be backwards compatible you must leave all of the existing industries intact. You can add them, but not take them away. Once you remove one the game will crash when it looks for that item which has been removed. You can add a new quarry that makes only rock, and then change the in-game name of Crystals and .CTY attributes to something else as long as you leave the .CTY file name the same. I do not know every aspect of RT3, but as far as the functionality of industries and cargoes go, I have investigated that pretty thorougly. There is a pretty thick layer of dust on my knowledge of this, but I think I can brush it aside fairly quickly if I got back into modding the industries.

I agree about the utility of making any add-on or fix to 1.06 backwards compatible. But, since we are just washing around ideas of our wish list, I tossed out the idea of a complete mod instead of just a patch. It is what I personally would like to see. When it comes down to brass tacks, people spend time modding games like this for their own reasons for the most part. It is the only way a relatively sane person would engage in spending the amount of time and effort required to accomplish something of this nature. As I noted earlier, I think around 80% of what I would like to see in a 1.06 fix could actually be done as a patch, and I am not opposed to that idea. My desires center around perfecting the functionality of the game, whereas Gumboots is concerned with the looks. I am not opposed to improving the looks or adding locos and such, but to me those things do not add anything of importance to the game, and as such, are not something that I personally would spend time on.

[Hawk]

@ Hawk: The limited slots available I was referring to is the total number of cargoes, not industries.

Isn't crystal a cargo and not an industry?

[Stoker]

Yes, Crystals is a cargo. The issue is that it will be specified as such in any 1.06 scenario, and if you remove it from the quarry there is not longer a source for it and this will cause a crash. There is a possibility that scenarios that did not have this cargo activated might function with it removed from the quarry. To be fully backwards compatible a patch must leave all of the original industries intact.

[Hawk]

Ah! I see. Even though crystals aren't demanded by any other industry?