Making 1.06.1: any interest?

[Stoker]

Yes. Even though they are not being used, they will still be listed in any map that had a quarry made with the original out puts (Rock and Crystals). I am not 100% sure if a 1.06 map that did not include the quarry and thus Crystals would function, but my bet would be no, and this would still cause crashes with any map made that did have the original quarry in it, which is not acceptable. You can however change the in game name of Crystals (or any other cargo) along with the icon and avoid this problem. You could then make another quarry that produces only Rock (leaving the original intact) and then make another industry using the newly renamed Crystals for whatever purpose you had in mind.

[Gumboots]

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.

Yes. Even though they are not being used, they will still be listed in any map that had a quarry made with the original out puts (Rock and Crystals). I am not 100% sure if a 1.06 map that did not include the quarry and thus Crystals would function, but my bet would be no, and this would still cause crashes with any map made that did have the original quarry in it, which is not acceptable. You can however change the in game name of Crystals (or any other cargo) along with the icon and avoid this problem. You could then make another quarry that produces only Rock (leaving the original intact) and then make another industry using the newly renamed Crystals for whatever purpose you had in mind.

I'm not at all opposed to improving the functionality of the game either. It occurs to me that we could end up with both a mod and a patch, if we want to. From my perspective the work required would be much the same, with the only difference being that the results could be used in more than one installation. From your perspective the patch would be this last option, which I gather is pretty easy to implement (sounds like it).

That one could be called 1.06.1 or whatever. The full-on mod could be called 1.07 if you like. That way you'd get backwards compat where beneficial plus the option of playing a more advanced cargo chain. It sounds like all 1.05 maps would still be fully playable with "1.07" just as they are with 1.06, and could be easily updated to use the extra industries.

[Stoker]

OK, so I am getting my mod toolbox together again, and I got a new copy of Watto game extracter and installed it and it is not working. From what I can gather , this is due to me having the 64 bit version of Java. Currently getting the 32 bit version, I hope this does not mess up anything....

Wish me luck, here I go!

Update- Ran the 32 bit Java installer and it said I already had it. Trying the 64 bit now. I know I just installed a new Java about a week ago , but I did not pay attention to which one it was. Hoping I can sort this out. Any suggestions for extracting .Pk4's if I can not get Watto to run? (Win 7 64 bit OS)

No luck. It installed the 64 bit Java and Watto still goes into an endless error cycle... Also tried Dragon Unpacker and it will not recognize .PK4's.

[Gumboots]

Yeah skip Watto. I found it was a PITA. Just use the PK4Pack and PK4Unpack command line tools from the TM modding kit. I can zip them and attach them if you like. They're a piece of cake to use and totally reliable. You just need to set up a list when you want to repack, but that's a ten second job.

[Stoker]

I guess I can try the command line unpacker. How complicated is this? I don't currently have TM, so if you could post this I would appreciate it. I may need a walkthrough as well, I usually fail when I try command line things....

[Gumboots]

Yeah I used to loathe command line too, but since I figured out how to make it not burn my eyes out, and memorised the basics of usage, I'm not minding it for this stuff.

Zip is attached. For unpacking, see if this makes sense: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1107#p32745

For repacking, try this: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1107&start=15#p32780

[Stoker]

Great, thank you for that. I love your explanation, although I have not gone through it all the way yet, your experience is pretty much where I am at with command line programs too. As a matter of fact Ned tried to get me to use this a few years back and at that time on my old computer Watto was working fine so I never bothered. I suspect that Watto does not like 64 bit OS.

Before I commit to anything I guess I need to see if I can start with a baby step and gather the tools I need without getting too aggravated....

[Stoker]

OK. I think I am getting close to making the command line extractor work. I would never in a million years figure this out without your detailed instructions, Gumboots. I am running into trouble when I paste the directory of the .PK4 into the command line. I think the directory I am copying ends at the folder and does not include the actual "PK4Unpack" file name. From the screen below, can you tell what I am doing wrong? This is after pasting in the directory and hitting enter, step 15 in your tutorial. I succesfully renamed the batch file with the .PK4 file name, although you can not see that in this shot.



Did I not pull enough hair out?

[Gumboots]

I think it's the hash tag in the folder name that is throwing it off. Try renaming the folder to just use normal letters and numbers, with no funny stuff.

[Stoker]

Success! Two things. First, I had neglected the "type cd followed by space" instruction. Second, having the folder you are operating in on a drive other than C seems to be an issue. After moving the entire folder to desktop and following your instructions it actually worked. I am truly amazed. Now , if I may ask, how did you solve the .3dp conversion issue? Did you spring for the full version of 3D Object Convertor? I saw something new when I was searching, there is an online convertor that is free, but I did not see .3DP listed . For my purposes I do not necessarily need to modify buildings, but I do have abit of 3D modelling experience and I would like to give it a whirl. The Hex coding of the building functions I can muddle my way around in, although I need a couple beers in me before I stare at that stuff....

[Gumboots]

You can get a trial version of 3D Object Converter that will work for 30 days. After that, it stops dead.

[Gumboots]

K, took a look at 1.06 default steam locos (meaning only the ones in PopTopExtraContent). IMO.....................

For a start, all of these need the alpha channel fixed, and all of them really should have a proper 1024 A skin made, since they are all spewed out of TrainSkin.exe as far as I can tell. IOW, preferably new skins for the lot. Going on from there.....

1/ DX Goods 0-6-0: Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

2/ Vittorio Emanuele II 4-6-0: Ditto. Also, should probably be renamed to FS650, which was the class designation.

3/ Mogul 2-6-0: Not too bad, but needs some work. Have not looked at the Consolidation base model yet, so do not currently know if it will be a PITA to work with or not.**

4/ Ten Wheeler: Much the same as the Mogul, except 8 wheeler base model. (Have checked Eight Wheeler model and it's clean enough to work with).

5/ G3 or G4 0-6-0 (Seems to have two different names in different places. Should be G4, not G3): Might be rebuild job, might be fixable. S3 base model is a mess to work with.

6/ G10: Not too bad at all. Should be able to sort this without too much hassle.

7/ (Class S) Sormovskij 2-6-2: Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

8/ Br 39 2-8-2: Generally quite good. Fortunately the Class 01 base model code is good to work with too.

9/ 2-6-4 "suburban tank": Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

10/ P-2 4-8-2: Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

11/ Stanier Black 5 4-6-0: Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

12/ LNER V2 2-6-2: Needs a complete rebuild and reskin. Keep the stats files (.lco, .car, etc). Throw the rest away.

13/ Daylight 4-8-4: Could get by in a pinch with just the alpha channel fixed, although would benefit from a proper A skin.

--------------------------------------------
** Turns out the Connie base model isn't too bad. Components aren't tied to each other, which is good, but they are often strewn around the file in no particular order, which is a nuisance. Plus there are the same old inconsistent values for points which should have the same values, just to make the code more confusing. That can be corrected, but is more work.

Also, I just noticed that the Connie's wheels are set up for a 66 1/2" gauge, so they're always off the rails. And the front "wheels" aren't wheels anyway. They just skid along the track.

[Gumboots]

Oh and here's something to consider: naming of files.

There is no need to use stupid little code names that are inconsistent from folder to folder, and from game to various folders.

As far as is humanly possible, file names should be clearly descriptive, should not require deciphering, and should be conistent across as many locations as can be arranged.

If inconsistencies in naming cannot be avoided for some reason, they should be documented at the time of file creation, and said documentation should be available to everyone.

This is basic good coding practice. Not doing it this way always makes things harder to track, harder to modify, and harder to support. We should use good practice. It'll be worth it.

[Stoker]

I agree about having a strict naming regiment. Another game I have been involved in modding for a long time is Blitzkrieg, and the amount of duplicate names and whatnot produced for modded items for the game is a huge issue.

[Gumboots]

I wasn't so much thinking of duplicates at the moment as just plain gobbledegook. Take the Eight Wheeler. It's called Eight Wheeler in the game but No999 in the file directories. The "Pacific" is called "Penn462" in the directories but "Pacific" in the game. Lirio decided the G4 should be a G3 so has called it that in the game and in her update lists, but the files in the directories say g4. Then there's the various sorts of "American 4-4-0" which, instead of being clearly labelled as to what they are, have cutesy litle code names that you have to decipher. Etc, etc, etc.

All of this is, quite frankly, rather dumb and counterproductive. It's also completely unnecessary. There's absolutely no need for it, and no benefit in it. It would be much better if all files in all directories were given clear names that told anyone, at a glance, exactly what they were even if said anyone had never seen them before. The game doesn't care if a file has a longer name. It will run just as fast. Humans do care, and we want humans to be able to work with this stuff.

[Stoker]

Yes, I agree that names should be clearly descriptive, and not just to avoid duplicates. In RT3, the duplicate issue is not as big as a game like BK that has many versions of the same thing, and if used in a mod they can cause a variety of issues, from having a unit that has extended firing ranges or weapons files up to having duplicate items or items that are assumed to be one thing because of the name when they are actually a modded item and require certain resources (weapons files for instance) that might not be included, and then you get a mystery crash that can be really hard to track down.

I am still gathering tools and resources right now. I think I now have a truly clean version of 1.06 that I can start working from. I also now have extracted all of the relevant files, kudos on the help on that ! I had lost all of my programs and resources for modding a while back, so this might take a while before I can actually produce anything. Along with that, winter is my busy/outdoor season here in Arizona and I am in the middle of completely renovating our house, so the amount of time I can actually spend on this will be limited for while. If you read my posts for the last couple of months you might think I am around the keyboard all the time, but I am really not. I am home most of the time, and take a peek at the forums every couple of hours or so. At any rate I am feeling motivated to get some of these patch related things done, and having a team makes me 100x as likely to complete something like this, as I feel obligated to produce and less likely to just lose interest and drift off into something else. By next weekend my goal is to have a fairly complete list of the industry fixes I think are necessary. Keep in mind that if I suggest and make an industry that you are not a big fan of that these are still of course still specified by the scenario creator, so they are by no means compulsory to use.

[Gumboots]

I'm not sure we have "a team" yet. Everyone seems to think this is a great idea but they aren't exactly breaking the doors down to start coding. Anyway we both have other things that need doing, so I reckon we just cruise and get it done at our own pace. If anyone actually does chip in to up the pace, that's even better.

I'm likely to be ok with most industry suggestions, as long as they're tested for playability. If they play well and add strategic depth (IOW, don't just result in insane levels of micromanaging to get them running and keep them running) then it's all good.

[Stoker]

I agree that we do not technically have a team yet, but I have at least reached the point of considering working on the industry fixes for 1.06. Just knowing that I am not the only one interested in this is highly motivational. I searched through my laptops and some dvds I burned a while back to transfer RT3 to a Win7 machine without the install hassles (do have a nice clean 1.06 install) and unfortunately there is no surviving copy of King Coal, so I will be starting from scratch with the coding. But, the coding of the industries is actually a small part of what needs to be done, the testing and balancing to ensure proper operation are what eats up gobs of time, and the formulas and whatnot I had arrived at I can pretty much remember (* I think ) Poking around in the 1.06 area here I am also reminded that the Machinery chain is borked- the Machine Shop can be built early, but Oil (required in the formula) is not available until later. One thing that I did find was a set of cargoes that I had modified so that some things which were not available until later are available from the start, including Oil. I will try to come up with a list of known cargo/production issues , and of course anyone reading this please let me know of any issues relating to cargo and production (not just 1.06) that you would like to see fixed so that they may be considered early on.

This goes out to everyone: If there is an industry that you always wanted to see in the game, toss out your ideas and I will consider if they can be done in the confines of a backwards compatible Patch, which I think is where this project is going to start off as.

[Gumboots]

Thinking about these locomotives, the low-hanging fruit here are probably the Mogul and Ten Wheeler. Taking the Mogul first, the current one is based on a slightly mutated Connie but there's no real need for it to stay that way.

What I'm thinking is that since a Mogul is supposedly representing a smaller engine than a Connie anyway there's a good case for using the American 4-4-0 model as a basis. The default American has 60" drivers and a Mogul should have smaller drivers, since they were basically freight haulers. That combined with the lack of trailing wheels on the front truck means the three pairs for a Mogul should fit nicely under the American 4-4-0 body, plus it can always be stretched slightly if it needs it. The American model also happens to be generally a better one than the default Connie model.

Also, taking a bit of a look around, the insane spider-on-stilts look of the current Ten Wheeler doesn't seem to match late 19th century US ten wheelers. They seem to look much like this:

[Gumboots]

Better think about if the loco list needs any changes too. I know Lirio has her ideas on rebalancing 1.06 locos, but her list of updates includes a lot of custom locos which aren't in a 1.06 base installation. So, I'm not sure how well it all balances out if those non-1.06 locos are removed, and quite honestly I don't have the energy and enthusiasm to look at working on all of them anyway.

So, what I reckon we need to do is look as the existing, basic, installed-straight-from-the-.exe, 1.06 loco list and see if there is anything obviously wrong with that. If that has any glaring inconsistencies or gaps we can think about fixing those for a start.

The basic list of 1.06 steamers goes like this (just giving names and availability):

Planet 2-2-0 1829-1840 NA E W
Adler 2-2-2 1835-1857 - E -
Norris 4-2-0 1837-1873 NA - W
Firefly 2-2-2 1840-1870 - E -
Baldwin 0-6-0 1845-1868 NA - W
Beuth 2-2-2 1845-1870 - E -
Crampton 4-2-0 1852-1889 - E W
American 4-4-0 1855-1895 NA - -
DX Goods 0-6-0 1855-1920 - E -
Fairlie 0-6-6-0 1862-1906 NA E W
Consolidation 1865-1912 NA - W
Stirling 4-2-2 1870-1905 - E W
Duke 4-4-0 1874-1902 NA E -
Shay (2-Truck) 1882-1930 NA - W
Vit. Emanuele 1884-1914 - E -
Mogul 2-6-0 1886-1920 NA - -
Ten Wheeler 1892-1921 NA - W
S3 4-4-0 1892-1925 - E -
Eight Wheeler 1893-1927 NA - -
Camelback 1896-1926 NA - -
Class P8 1900-1965 - E -
Class 500 4-6-0 1905-1945 - E -
G4 0-6-0 1907-1950 - E W
Atlantic 4-4-2 1910-1948 NA E W
Class G10 1910-1950 - E -
Class S 1911-1960 - E W
Pacific 4-6-2 1914-1950 NA - W
H10 2-8-2 1918-1950 NA - -
BR 39 2-8-2 1922-1965 - E -
Class A1 1922-1966 - E W
2-6-4T 1923-1960 - E -
P-2 1923-1960 NA E -
Northern 4-8-4 1926-1966 NA - -
Stanier Black 5 1934-1968 - E -
Class 01 4-6-2 1934-1982 - E W
Mallard 4-6-2 1935-1968 - E -
V2 Class 1936-1966 - E W
Challenger 1936-1983 NA - -
GS-3 4-8-4 SP 1937-1958 NA - -
Orca NX462 1941- - - -
Big Boy 4-8-8-4 1941-1971 NA - -
Kriegslok 1942-1967 - E -
U1 1944-1960 NA E -
242 A1 1946-1960 - E -
Class QJ 1956-2000 - - W
Red Devil 4-8-4 1981- NA E W

------------------------------------------------------

Out of that lot the problems I can see offhand are:

1/ The Connie comes in before the Mogul, which aint right.
2/ The Ten Wheeler comes in before the Eight Wheeler, which doesn't seem right either.
3/ The Camelback is well known to be so useless that nobody ever touches it, making it a waste of a good engine slot.
4/ The World category is seriously short of grunters for most of the 20th century.
5/ World category also looks like maybe it could do with an extra express here and there.
6/ Duke shouldn't have NA availability since it just doesn't fit.