Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[RulerofRails]

A Cement Plant and Brick Kiln both making the same thing just seems like repetition to me. Maybe a Brick Kiln would be more profitable to run, but would use up some sand limiting the amount of glass that could be made. Whereas, if you build a Cement Plant you can make glass as well. On the upside, if a creator doesn't want glass or uses a port or warehouse to supply it, he could use a Brick Kiln so he would indeed have more options.

I said before I don't care about the names much, but Materials is really broad and when I think of building materials I also think of Lumber and Steel. If you look up building materials on Wiki even Glass, Plastic and Aluminum are included as well as Rock and Sand which you would use to make them. Overlapping like this makes me less keen about the name. Having a Construction Plant consuming Lumber and Steel as well as building materials would be strange.

Maybe I am thinking in circles, but you are definitely planning to change Ceramics to Glass? From what I can find Ceramics is a term for a range of materials that includes both Glass and Bricks. The first sentence on Wikipedia about Bricks is: "A brick is a block or a single unit of a ceramic material used in masonry construction." I have noticed that there is a late recipe for Machinery that is Plastic + Ceramics + Electronics = Machinery. The Ceramics used at the Brewery and Distillery have always represented glass for me. If only I could forget the stupid idea of grinding up Ceramics to make Cement I think I would be just fine with Ceramics being used in a Brewery as well.

Using Ceramics could still be a problem with two different conversion chains to make the same thing with a Furnace and Glassworks. I would forget having a Brick Kiln and keep the Furnace to make Ceramics. Stoker originally was planning a Glassworks that produced Goods. This might be out there and illustrate the problems with cargo names that refer to multiple things, but what do you think about a Glassworks that takes Ceramics (no extra fuel) and makes them into Goods?

If this idea seems good, the question would be whether to include Rock in the recipe as well as sand and work out how to efficiently use the output of a few quarries to supply both a Furnace and Cement Plant. Maybe just use sand with an 2 per year output at the quarry. What do you think?

I don't see it could hurt increasing the Warehouse prices in case they are used for this purpose. Some conversions don't make money. Making maple sugar/syrup in Novia Scotia was borderline. I wonder how 2 Logs = 3 Sugar would have worked. Is that even possible? I might try it some time.

Also, on the topic of the repainted Aluminum Plant as a Cement Plant. I am already used to the large footprint of the warehouse so I tend to build them outside cities. I can see the drawbacks with crowding in cities. It's ok how it is so that's fine.

[Blackhawk]

The impressions I was under with the way these industries were going to work:

-With the introduction of a glassworks and crystals being renamed sand, the glassworks would now produce the glass/ceramics (whichever it gets named)
-the cement plant would directly accept rock to make cement and the middle step of a furnace making rock into ceramics would be dropped.
-The role of the furnace is currently then in flux.

As more industries get added, they can't all produce the same thing which is why I was thinking I'd have the glass works use sand + coal/diesel to make glass/ceramics rather than goods, and drop the furnace and it's production of ceramics. Without the glassworks we're left with no use for crystals/sand, and if it produces goods then I think it might end up with a 1 sand + 1 coal = 1 goods or the price of sand would have to be increased to prevent that from becoming an overly profitable industry. I was planning on the printing press producing goods also. I wouldn't want to create so many industries producing goods that the market for goods becomes diluted.

-I suppose a better word than building materials in this instance would be something like masonry. Then it could incorporate bricks and cement (although it's more accurate to represent concrete).

---
Warehouse recipes:
If I remember correctly, you can change the amount of output, but not the input. Like Arop's maple syrup warehouse has 1 log in -> 4 sugar out.

-I did a little bit of testing on the textile mill with machinery with cotton with various recipes. On the map I was testing on the price of machinery was 300-330. Clothing was ~170, and Cotton was ~65. By using machinery instead of using only cotton the profit margin would go down when machinery was used. Without machinery the profits are around 100 per load, so when machinery is added in, the profits go down. So unless some amount smaller than 1 load of machinery gets used, or the price of machinery changes. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea to make a cargo chain with machinery. Since RoR is trying this out too I'll wait and see what else he comes up with.

[AdmiralHalsey]

Over 17 pages of discussing fixing the cargo chain in RRT3. You guys really do want this to work don't you?

[RulerofRails]

Ok, we'll get this figured out one day. Masonry definitely sounds better.

I had a close look and Arop's maple syrup warehouse has a 1 log = 1 sugar conversion. The number 4 represents the maximum output in a year. It is easy to make it a 1 log = 2 sugar conversion by changing the "annual output" value to 2. I found it necessary to then reduce the maximum output to 2 also as it was then overproducing. When I did this I was getting an output of 3 sugar per year at fair prices either side (light green) and I was seeing 90k profit per year producing 3 per year.

When I played this I never really paid attention to the Oilshale warehouse, just tried it now in its original state and at fair prices I was seeing 150k profit per year. It was slightly overproducing also. To make player build-able warehouses a better option in the future I say we should double the price of the warehouse.

Over 17 pages of discussing fixing the cargo chain in RRT3. You guys really do want this to work don't you?

Did you read them all? If so, well done. And yes we want it to work. Any ideas you have or problems you have seen in 1.06 industries?

[Blackhawk]

When I loaded the maple syrup plant for me it says maximum annual production is 8, and annual supply is 4. I'm not sure why Arop has 2 production chains of logs -> sugar, as only 1 is needed. With the its worded, I guess it does sound like 4 would be the max logs to sugar converted a year, and 8 would be the total for the entire warehouse but in reality annual supply is just how many of the output is created.

I never played the map, but when just testing to see how the maple syrup factory worked, it was making around 300k a year, without being upgrade. I think at a minimum warehouses should cost 1mil.

17 pages and growing. I go back probably about once a week and reread most of the thread to make sure I keep people's ideas in mind and try to incorporate them. Oilcan didn't finish his thoughts, nor did Lama share his I don't think. But the more information/ideas/thoughts the better things can become. I'd rather have a 35 page thread with ideas and progress than a 5 page thread with just 1 person's take on how it should be and that's it.

[AdmiralHalsey]

Over 17 pages of discussing fixing the cargo chain in RRT3. You guys really do want this to work don't you?

Did you read them all? If so, well done. And yes we want it to work. Any ideas you have or problems you have seen in 1.06 industries?

Read all 17 pages in one go.(Admittedly that's not much of a feat but still...) As for idea's i've always thought that the "Give cargo X to industry Y and get a 50% boost in in production" should be lowered to 25% or make it need two cars of cargo X instead of one.

[Blackhawk]

I'm thinking that since this is more likely now a 1.07 rather than a 1.06.01, a couple small fixes could be released to be 1.06.01. (if it would even be worth calling that)

These would include:
1-A municipal building, like a bank, with a demand of 1-2 ingots (possibly 2 because of the limited early use of ingots).
2-Changing the price of ceramics slightly higher, and changing the corresponding price of concrete.
3-Fixing the machine shop to not appear before 1860 since it does not have a production recipe.
4-Possibly changing the rot time of concrete and change concrete to use a covered hopper rather than tanker

The introduction of a bank and the price change should help the furnace work "better." It won't work perfect as the furnace would still be more inclined to convert the more profitable chain if supplied with both ore and rock, but it should make both production chains more likely to be profitable, and therefore, more likely to convert. As a bank would be a municipal building, it would appear in prior 1.06 scenarios and not need to be played by the scenario creator. BUT....

If a new industry is added (bank), all maps saved under version 1.06.01 will no longer be playable in 1.06. Consequently, what I thinking is that either the custom house could be turned into the bank, or the even easier solution is to just have your local church demand some tributes or a tithe and accept ingots. This is the easiest solution since it's already a municipal building, and it could finally get a use rather than being an empty building that sits there.

Since all the .bca/.bty files already exist in 1.06, this would just be a modification of the existing files and therefore backwards and forwards compatible. The small changes should help the furnace work a little better, but aren't so critical that any scenario with out them would fail and crash.

The more substantial changes like breaking the furnace into 2 industries and adding a jeweler to increase demand for ingots can be included in our 1.07 patch.

[RulerofRails]

I agree that a patch that we can play the current 1.06 scenarios with would be good. Would you include the re-skinned industries? An Ignot demand at the church is a good idea. What is possible with a fully compatible patch? Could "concrete" even be changed to Masonry and the Concrete Plant renamed to a Brickworks?

As you know, I have been trying to fool around with the Textile Mill and Machinery in the production chain. I have looked at the farm bca files and am at a loss to understand what this means: CD CC 4C 3E. I believe it is floating point? Wouldn't convert for me though. Must be something I am doing wrong. Also, in WP&Ps BCA spreadsheet he is always saying "(rel or loads/year)" for the output value. Anyone know what "rel" means?

I would like to make the Textile Mill produce maybe 5 or 6 loads per year when supplied with Machinery. In my testing I have seen a small increase in production. When the Mill is upgraded I have seen 9.7 versus a previous max of 8.8. Maybe a very slight increase in profit at full production, but I have also seen a small rise of the minimum Clothing price for it to be profitable. In my experience the Textile Mill has a pretty solid top end maximum production. Other industries like the Lumber Mill may be more responsive to changes. I am going to try it out next, I think. I am not really confident that I am going to be able to get it working nicely and cleanly, but that doesn't stop me from trying. Having a few more loads of Clothing able to be produced in a second mill is another upside. Please note, I haven't removed the Demand only for Machinery in my tests. That could make a difference.

[Blackhawk]

I agree that a patch that we can play the current 1.06 scenarios with would be good. Would you include the re-skinned industries? An Ignot demand at the church is a good idea. What is possible with a fully compatible patch? Could "concrete" even be changed to Masonry and the Concrete Plant renamed to a Brickworks?

The name changes would be changes to the .lng file so those shouldn't affect compatibility. What can be done to be fully compatible is limited. Adding new industries affects compatibility, but changing existing files won't affect a scenario's ability to load. However, if a change to a recipe is made, that will affect how the scenario plays, if someone doesn't have the update patch.

As you know, I have been trying to fool around with the Textile Mill and Machinery in the production chain. I have looked at the farm bca files and am at a loss to understand what this means: CD CC 4C 3E. I believe it is floating point? Wouldn't convert for me though. Must be something I am doing wrong. Also, in WP&Ps BCA spreadsheet he is always saying "(rel or loads/year)" for the output value. Anyone know what "rel" means?

http://babbage.cs.qc.cuny.edu/IEEE-754/ Is useful for converting floating point. One thing to remember is that it's entered backwards. So it's really 3E 4C CC CD. Although I'm not sure it works correctly, I think that's supposed to represent the 20% fertilizer boost. Tiny Hexer has a built in conversion method to it as well so you can highlight the numbers and see if they mean something.

rel I think refers to a few lines further up (at least in the rt3notes with PJay's notes) where it mentions relative output. So I think it likely refers back to that.

As for the machinery testing:
From reviewing the notes on the forums, it looks like the current industries demand .2 machinery. Because of the potentially high costs of machinery, I'm not sure a cargo chain that accepts machinery + cotton or something like that would be profitable enough to justify using machinery. But it may be possible to potentially copy the production boost idea from the farm and see if maybe another load or 2 of clothing etc can be created. I know the production boost idea has been mentioned before, but after seeing how it behaves more like a normal input-output recipe, I think it may actually be doable.

[AdmiralHalsey]

So no thoughts on my idea?

[Gumboots]

http://babbage.cs.qc.cuny.edu/IEEE-754/ Is useful for converting floating point. One thing to remember is that it's entered backwards. So it's really 3E 4C CC CD.

HexEdit should have a built-in base converter. Any decent hex editor has that.

Come on, let's not complicate things more than we have to. He has to use a hex editor to edit the file anyway. Use a decent one that already has a base converter built in, and will accept Little Endian hex without dramas. Telling people to use online converters that wont handle Little Endian is just making things harder for them. RT3 modding is enough of a PITA as it is.

[Blackhawk]

The converter does handle both little and big endian in its ability to convert, but it only gives conversions in big endian.

I gave him 2 possible methods of doing it (the website or tiny hexer's value editor). Rather than get snarky about my answer, feel free to explain how to use Hex Edit to do it since that's your recommendation.

For more random information on .bca files (and a picture of Tiny Hexer's value conversion) viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1400&p=23839&hilit=hexer#p23839

So no thoughts on my idea?

The 50% output isn't really that big of a concern to me as I haven't heard of farms really over producing because of it. If others have an issue with it, I'm willing to change it, but see this post: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3641&start=225#p37004 At least in my tests the 20% production boost was actually more than the actual 20% it should have been.

[Gumboots]

To view the decimal value of any bytes in HexEdit:

1/ Highlight the relevant bytes (like 4 for a normal coordinate on a body file) or just put the cursor in front of the relevant group of bytes (will pick up the following four by default).
2/ Select View > Properties from the toolbar.
3/ Select the Real tab.
4/ Make sure IEEE 32 bit is selected and Big Endian is not selected.
5/ Decimal value will be shown in the Value window. Ignore the Mant and Exponent windows.

To change an existing byte value to a new (decimal) value:

1/ Make sure you have the "Read Only/Allow Changes" button in the Edit bar (third from right) selected, so file is not read only.
2/ Go to the Real tab as above.
3/ Type in the new decimal value you want in the Value window.
4/ Hit Enter to make that change to the file.
5/ Save, or not, as it suits you.

Course I hadn't actually done that before. I just took a quick look at the HexEdit help pages. They're not bad.

[AdmiralHalsey]

The converter does handle both little and big endian in its ability to convert, but it only gives conversions in big endian.

I gave him 2 possible methods of doing it (the website or tiny hexer's value editor). Rather than get snarky about my answer, feel free to explain how to use Hex Edit to do it since that's your recommendation.

For more random information on .bca files (and a picture of Tiny Hexer's value conversion) viewtopic.php?f=68&t=1400&p=23839&hilit=hexer#p23839

So no thoughts on my idea?

The 50% output isn't really that big of a concern to me as I haven't heard of farms really over producing because of it. If others have an issue with it, I'm willing to change it, but see this post: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3641&start=225#p37004 At least in my tests the 20% production boost was actually more than the actual 20% it should have been.

I've just always thought that a 50% or 1-1 ratio was a bit much. I figured needing two cars of X to make one of Y would be the better option.(Plus it would drive up demand slightly for those input cargoes.)

[Blackhawk]

Nice step by step Gumboots. I actually discovered how to do it in Hex Edit while the website was down and lo and behold, I come back and see you've got a tutorial on it too. I had noticed the ability to hit properties and view the values for awhile now, but I was often using a read only file so it wouldn't let me use that window to throw in a new value. So making sure the file isn't read only is definitely important.

I've just always thought that a 50% or 1-1 ratio was a bit much. I figured needing two cars of X to make one of Y would be the better option.(Plus it would drive up demand slightly for those input cargoes.)

If you think the 50% is too much, try using some of the 20% boosts and you will see for .2 loads of fertilizer you get 1 load of rice/grain so by comparison the 50% boost isn't too bad.

[Blackhawk]

I looked into it some and discovered that the for some reason the rice/grain/dye farms list 2 in blocks 42-45 which determine its load transformation per year, while coffee and produce list 1. If fertilizer is really only supposed to give a 20% boost, then this number should be lower than 2. It should be more like .4 for grain, and .6 for rice.

I suppose it comes down to, is this something worth fixing? If the numbers are reduced, the effectiveness of fertilizer is then decreased. The cargo recipe will also have to be changed to accommodate that as right now it uses .2 loads of fertilizer to make 1 rice/grain/etc but since it can produce an extra 2 loads a year the farm can use up .4 loads of fertilizer a year. If only .5 loads are allowed to be produced, only .1 loads of fertilizer will be used up.

Would you include the re-skinned industries?

I forgot to address this. This one is a tough call. If they are included and someone manually places one of the 6 re-skinned industries, the scenario won't work on the previous version of 1.06. However, if the industries are randomly generated or placed by event at the start of a scenario then the scenarios would be compatible. That said, once the final re-skinned buildings are available I can't see playing without them as it makes things much easier to decipher what each industry is rather than having to click on every warehouse building to determine what kind of industry it is.

The one thing this minor patch also wouldn't really fix would be the lack of use for crystals.

RoR could you also PM me your Dairy farm .bca and .bty files? I'm curious to see if they are any different than the ones I have or what the reasoning is for the difference. What do your farms that use fertilizer look like? Do they list 20% increase with fertilizer or do they show the production recipe like your dairy farm?

[Blackhawk]

I looked into it some and discovered that the for some reason the rice/grain/dye farms list 2 in blocks 42-45 which determine its load transformation per year, while coffee and produce list 1. If fertilizer is really only supposed to give a 20% boost, then this number should be lower than 2. It should be more like .4 for grain, and .6 for rice.

I suppose it comes down to, is this something worth fixing? If the numbers are reduced, the effectiveness of fertilizer is then decreased. The cargo recipe will also have to be changed to accommodate that as right now it uses .2 loads of fertilizer to make 1 rice/grain/etc but since it can produce an extra 2 loads a year the farm can use up .4 loads of fertilizer a year. If only .5 loads are allowed to be produced, only .1 loads of fertilizer will be used up.

Would you include the re-skinned industries?

I forgot to address this. This one is a tough call. If they are included and someone manually places one of the 6 re-skinned industries, the scenario won't work on the previous version of 1.06. However, if the industries are randomly generated or placed by event at the start of a scenario then the scenarios would be compatible. That said, once the final re-skinned buildings are available I can't see playing without them as it makes things much easier to decipher what each industry is rather than having to click on every warehouse building to determine what kind of industry it is.

The one thing this minor patch also wouldn't really fix would be the lack of use for crystals.

RoR could you also PM me your Dairy farm .bca and .bty files? I'm curious to see if they are any different than the ones I have or what the reasoning is for the difference. What do your farms that use fertilizer look like? Do they list 20% increase with fertilizer or do they show the production recipe like your dairy farm?

[AdmiralHalsey]

Nice step by step Gumboots. I actually discovered how to do it in Hex Edit while the website was down and lo and behold, I come back and see you've got a tutorial on it too. I had noticed the ability to hit properties and view the values for awhile now, but I was often using a read only file so it wouldn't let me use that window to throw in a new value. So making sure the file isn't read only is definitely important.

I've just always thought that a 50% or 1-1 ratio was a bit much. I figured needing two cars of X to make one of Y would be the better option.(Plus it would drive up demand slightly for those input cargoes.)

If you think the 50% is too much, try using some of the 20% boosts and you will see for .2 loads of fertilizer you get 1 load of rice/grain so by comparison the 50% boost isn't too bad.

Ok that does make the 50% boost seem less ridiculous. Also I remember reading that you were thinking of changing the name of the Toys cargo. Why not change it to model trains instead of something general?

[RulerofRails]

I have been busy today and have gotten called away for other things before finishing a post. Thanks guys for the tips! Just what I needed. I did try the Hex Edit help but looked for base converter and that led me to fool with the calculator and that didn't work for decimal values. The simplest things for an expert are hard to a novice! I know it is probably possible in both, but in Tiny Hexer I was able to enter any decimal value I wanted in the Value Editor and the program would automatically change the Hex values.

The over-production of Farms has never bothered me personally. I don't remember too many scenarios with a big supply of Fertilizer. And when I have had plenty, the low prices of Corn and Grain at least mean that they don't make excessive profits when I am playing. I think I have seen a Grain Farm make 160k in a year with Fertilizer, that seems a lot, but given the relative difficulty of making Fertilizer and distributing it evenly to farms out in the country away from your tracks I don't feel like it is a problem. If we were to make new ways to get more Chemicals, it may be more desirable. On the other hand, I think we should be very careful with maximums of full-on production industries. 20-25% should be max. I don't really know if we should even be trying for increased profits. Industry is already a wide open door to riches in the game.

And, no, I didn't get to do any testing with the lumber mill today. Maybe tomorrow.

[Hawk]

while the website was down

I had the server guy move everything to a new IP address because the one we were on was on a couple blacklists.
It just took a bit for the change to propagate.