New game or fixed game?

[Canadian Viking]

My apologies, aasta, for being so terribly slow to respond. Somehow I missed seeing your question for me until just now.

By "economic model" I mean RRT3's economic system where the price of a cargo varies with the demand at different locations on the map. And at each location the price of a commodity changes as the amount provided changes. It's been a long time since I played RRT2, but as I recall, in that game you could just keep repeating profitable hauls (such as grain to a bakery) and make the same amount of money year after year. At first I did not like the way a commodity price would drop in RRT3 when I hauled a generous supply to a place where it was needed, but I do see it as more realistic and have adjusted my play style to accommodate that fact.

The "car-loading capabilities" I refer to are the options to select only freight or only express traffic, or let the computer load your train with the most profitable items. Again, when I first played RRT3 I preferred the RRT2 system of choosing each specific car type. I sitll do that at times, but mostly I have adjusted my play to the different capabilities of RRT3. And once I have more than 30 or 40 trains going, I'm glad I don't have to micro-manage the consist of every train.

The RRT3 system fits the game's economic model better than the old method. For example, if you have a train dedicated to hauling cotton to a textile factory, after a while the cotton piles up at the factory, and the price you receive for hauling more loads becomes very low. If you use the auto consist setting, your train begins to haul other commodities which are now more profitable, and the value of a cotton cargo gradually rebounds. If your train consist allows only cotton to be hauled (as it would in RRT2), the over-supply of cotton will eventually result in your train making little or no profit.

I do wish the game allowed us to build cold storage facilities, grain elevators and warehouses so that the appropriate commodities could be dropped off there and picked up by a later train. You can drop off commodities in RRT3 by having your train drop all it's cars at a station, but your train HAS to leave the station with different cars to do it. (For example, train arrives carrying logs, and leaves the station with only express cars.) And then the cargo begins drifting away unless the next train is there immediately, with a consist solely of cars to haul those logs. So the kind of freight transfer that worked so well in RRT2 is possible in RRT3, but so difficult as to be practically unuseable.

[BikerTim]

I guess I voted to just fix this one because I am so hooked on it that I really do not need to move on to something else. But I can see why a new version would be desirable just because it could capitalize on the newest technology.

[Grandma Ruth]

I do wish the game allowed us to build cold storage facilities, grain elevators and warehouses so that the appropriate commodities could be dropped off there and picked up by a later train. You can drop off commodities in RRT3 by having your train drop all it's cars at a station, but your train HAS to leave the station with different cars to do it. (For example, train arrives carrying logs, and leaves the station with only express cars.) And then the cargo begins drifting away unless the next train is there immediately, with a consist solely of cars to haul those logs. So the kind of freight transfer that worked so well in RRT2 is possible in RRT3, but so difficult as to be practically unuseable.

I think if you build a warehouse with 1 demand = 1 supply the cargo will stay there and I know there are people working on storage buildings and rail yards and so on.
But back to the poll - I vote to fix RT3, though to be honest I don't have the technical knowledge to know how hard it is to do either option.

[nedfumpkin]

The station buildings are done and they have been uploaded. But I only made files for 1.05, though they will work in 1.06, they don't account for the new cargo. http://hawkdawg.com/cgi-bin/counter/dow ... l?file=023

If someone tells me what they want in 1.06 I can try to make BCA files for 1.06

[Sugus]

I voted for fixing RT3 too. But with "fixing" I also mean "slightly expanding", e.g. in a way that we get additional variants of conditions and effects, which would give us the tools to create more interesting scenarios.

I think that such extensions shouldn't be really hard to do, if only we had the program sources ...

(I can't see any chance to improve graphics and/or economy - that's the business of a complete remake, i.e. new game - and I also think, that's not the goal of most poeple here, because we love RT3 as it is!)

[RayofSunshine]

Fellas,

I don't know the first thing about "editing", but do like to play, although I do know what requires a scenario to be created.

My son "has" programmed playable slot machines. Hence I know the time involved to format creations. In his case, unlike the RRT Editor, he also has to take into account the electronics of the system. I know the complexities of this by just looking at a "mother board etc". However, I know the extent of a programmer, as I have seen a stack of print outs 3 inches thick, designating all the different electronic components and directives showing their purpose. But other than for me to turn on my computor?? That is my capacity.

Now, with that said, I have voted to """fix the RRT3""" game. In my opinion, it would be much more simple to ""extend"" something which works, than to start from scratch. C-O-N-S-I-D-E-R-A-B-L-Y less time consuming. There are so many ""suggestions"" which were given for the intented RRT4 game. These could be incorporated into a revised RRT3. And definitely there are enough player created scenarios, that they could be incorporated as those which were installed in the C to C addition.

There are pros and cons to every option or decision, but I still believe the "fix" is best.

Ray of Sunshine