..,,;;:: Spain set ::;;,,.. 90% taster 1.24 available

[Sanchimaru]

why? this is intended to be a set on its own, not just a graphic replacement.
This set includes a climatic and industrial mod, so it has an industrial schema based on actual Spanish economy.

[krtaylor]

Disregard the so-called "general" schema, it's not applicable and I don't think it will be widely used.

I think the gravel should go to the cement factory, not the glass plant, but otherwise, I mostly like your schema, Sanchimaru.

[michael blunck]

> Disregard the so-called "general" schema, it's not applicable and I don't think it will be widely used.

That elitist attitude is unworthy of you.

Instead, you should cooperate in establishing a scheme which would be as compatible as possible to reduce future .grf hassle.

Although there has been much work by George and me, the new cargo and industry scheme is far from being finished.

Regarding the scheme Sanchimaru presents here, I´d second George. This is nearly a subset of the ECS ("Extended Cargo Scheme") as outlined in the General TTDPatch section.

regards
Michael

[George]

Disregard the so-called "general" schema, it's not applicable and I don't think it will be widely used.

Did you ever counted how much efforts were invested into USSet? Full new cargos schema requires even more.
Did you count how much time was required to make USSet? When would be a new alternative schema created?
I hope Sanchimaru will have a look and take part in designing ECS.

[Sanchimaru]

The idea from the beginning, suggested by Szappy, was to have the set working in 2 ways: 1 with thedefault temperate set, and 1 with it's own industry scheme. Actually Szappy wanted this set to work with the tropical climate, does that ECS include a plan for the tropic and arctic climate industries, or only for temperate?

I think we can work on making the set also compatible with the extended cargo scheme. But let's talk about that when that ECS is finished and working, there is no point in planning about something that is to be decided yet.

About it, I have to say, I don't like the "tourists" cargo. The tourists appear treated as livestock... when I travel somewhere, they don't carry me in a sepparate vessel. Off course lately tourist buses appeared, offering multilingual guidance and running historical and interesting routes. But it's not as for having "only tourist" train cars, planes and boats.
Tourists are passengers. And they carry baggage, which is much more accurate to reality than the original game's mail / valuables scheme.
Had you really thought of adding the mail=> baggage / valuables => mail idea for the ECS? I think that would be more accurate worldwide, not only Spain.
I like the idea of the monuments and hotels, but not the one of the "tourists" cargo type.

But I am happy about the ECS, I am looking forward it, and I hope to see it working. I'll gladly collaborate with it.

But as for this set, to have a clear idea of what buildings, and freight cars we must draw, we need to first develope a clear industry scheme.
A Spain scenery where you don't have olives or wine, but you have oil rigs would be illogical.
That's why I think we can cooperate: with an own industries / default industries switch; or having 2 GRFs, I don't know, what is easier to do from a coder's point of view.

krtaylor: in the scheme, gravel goes to cement factory, not to glass works... maybe it's not clear enough, it's a bit hard to see with all those lines and arrows.
And I like the ECS, I think we can cooperate with it; and at the same time have an own designed industry scheme. That way players can choose to play the default scheme; or the own-set scheme.

[Sanchimaru]

!

I stand corrected, the file version I had was more advanced than the one I posted, sorry about that. Here gravel goes to cement, not to glass

By the way I've been taking a look at the ECS and George's latest schema. Wow! there are a lot of cargos there! It makes me wonder if we should really have olive tree plantations and vineyards, instead of having all vegetal stuff come from one place. What do others think?
I shall have to wait until I play a game with those, but at first glance they looked like a hell thousand of cargos (@_@;) and I'm not sure I want the Spain set industries scheme to be that complicated.

[krtaylor]

Look, if people want to make whatever cargo scheme they like, they have every right to do so. No problem there. But I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to impose some master scheme, on any particular regional set. It's illogical and I'm not sure why you're trying to do it. Sanchimaru and I think that the purpose of the Spanish set, is to model Spanish railroads, and hence Spanish cargos. It seems like Szappy feels the same way. Now, there may be interesting ideas in your ECS that we can learn from; but I see no reason to emulate it. I mean, MB likes to code his ICE to force you to make trains the right length; the US set, with the Acela, doesn't do that. Which way is wrong? Neither; some like one, some like the other.

Concerning tourists, I personally think the only way PTTD allows them to be implemented, is artificial and clunky. Sanchimaru's points agains them, are the same as mine. If others want to build tourists into a cargo scheme, more power to them; but I doubt I'd play a game like that, as I'd find it aggravating. Now, if it were possible for tourists and normal passengers to both ride in ordinary passenger vehicles, that would be fun and interesting. I'd probably use such a scheme to do first-class and third-class carriages. But the Patch doesn't support that at this time. I'll leave it in the list of ideas for the future along with additional Patching.

Oh, I should also mention, given the very limited size of the maps, I think your ECS has way way too many cargoes and unnecessary complexity. If you want to do such a thing, that's fine, and I'll probably give it a try just for kicks, but, in the abstract, it seems to me more likely frustrating to play. We won't know until it's done, of course.

Last, I have made suggestions to the ECS, which have been panned. That's fine, it's your set, not mine, and you have every right to do it however you want. But there's no technical reason why it has to be imposed on every other set, so why should it be?

[George]

Last, I have made suggestions to the ECS, which have been panned. That's fine, it's your set, not mine, and you have every right to do it however you want.

They were not panned but rejected. Do not be as childish as Shadow. If other people have the different opinion, as yours, that does not mean that they are wrong (If they agree with you it does not mean that they are right)

But there's no technical reason why it has to be imposed on every other set, so why should it be?

Because we spend efforts to prevent IDs conflicts. And every other grf maker should do it too. It is done because patch does not allow unlimited number of IDs.

Look, if people want to make whatever cargo scheme they like, they have every right to do so.

Of cause they can do anything when they design it. But when they code it they should code it the way that all the other set accept. Are you ready to redraw all the aircrafts, ships, RVs and trains to support new schema that is not compatible with the general schema? I hardly doubt.

No problem there. But I can't imagine what possible reason there would be to impose some master scheme, on any particular regional set.

The reason is clear - the amount of work to repeat it

It's illogical and I'm not sure why you're trying to do it.

Because I understand how hard is it. And I think you don't.

Sanchimaru and I think that the purpose of the Spanish set, is to model Spanish railroads, and hence Spanish cargos.

No problem here

It seems like Szappy feels the same way. Now, there may be interesting ideas in your ECS that we can learn from;

I think you should suggest your ideas to ECS then

I mean, MB likes to code his ICE to force you to make trains the right length; the US set, with the Acela, doesn't do that. Which way is wrong? Neither; some like one, some like the other.

I think MB is right here

Concerning tourists, I personally think the only way PTTD allows them to be implemented, is artificial and clunky. Sanchimaru's points against them, are the same as mine.

You can simply disable them or not use them.

If others want to build tourists into a cargo scheme, more power to them; but I doubt I'd play a game like that, as I'd find it aggravating. Now, if it were possible for tourists and normal passengers to both ride in ordinary passenger vehicles that would be fun and interesting. I'd probably use such a scheme to do first-class and third-class carriages.

It is possible. Unfortunately not for RVS, but for trains - yes.

Oh, I should also mention, given the very limited size of the maps, I think your ECS has way too many cargoes and unnecessary complexity.

You can disable any vector from the schema on your demand. It is intended.

If you want to do such a thing, that's fine, and I'll probably give it a try just for kicks, but, in the abstract, it seems to me more likely frustrating to play. We won't know until it's done, of course.

When it's done it would be much harder to change it. A better design would be more useful. And the design is made now

[George]

By the way I've been taking a look at the ECS and George's latest schema. Wow! there are a lot of cargos there! It makes me wonder if we should really have olive tree plantations and vineyards, instead of having all vegetal stuff come from one place. What do others think?

You can code it as one industry producing one cargo, but to give it several graphics

I shall have to wait until I play a game with those, but at first glance they looked like a hell thousand of cargos (@_@;) and I'm not sure I want the Spain set industries scheme to be that complicated.

You can intend for Spanish that set some vectors would be disabled (like wood vector) and some changed (machinery vector).

[Sanchimaru]

OK, at this point I'd like to appeal to all the patch developers:

You have put an effort in making a patch that allows new industries to be introduced in the game.
So what do you think about people developing their own industry schemes? Do you think it's not acceptable?

As I see it, the new industries are a new feature, and as such, we have no experience on how to handle it. We are made to the old industrial scheme; the addition of paper mills and printing works was already amazing when it came.
As such, we are pioneers in this field, and I don't think it's a bad thing to experiment with it until we find the right way to make it work.
The schema I'm proposing is much simpler than the current ECS, it's sort of an intermediate between the classic and the ECS.
That's why I think that as ECS is currently, it's more viable to make a simple industry GRF with the spanish industries, than modding the ECS, where we should leave a lot of cargos and industries.
For example: you have whool as a cargo. I would rather transport livestock to the textile plant, since livestock can be interpreted as whool, but also as leather.

The Spain set is not meant to be compatible with any other vehicles set, for it shall have in time a replacement for at least train and road vehicles. Buildings shouldn't be a problem, since buildings are intended to be changed too. Too ambitious? Maybe. But I'm wanting to do it, that's it, and there is people who likes it.

We are not going AGAINST anything, we are just happy that the patch developers handed us a great option: to add customized industries. I've already said that I intend this set to have a compatibility with the temperate and tropical climates too (removing spanish industries and buildings from the set) and there's no problem to make it compatible with the ECS that is there when it gets released. Since we haven't yet the ECS done, there's no point to argue about it.

[michael blunck]

@Sanchimaru

Code: Select all

The aim of ECS is to ensure a maximum amount of compatibility and flexibility for the "newcargoes" and "newindustries" features of TTDPatch. This will be done by designing a scheme of additional cargoes and industries for the different climates of TTD.

The new cargoes and industries should be enhancing game style, they should be distinctive, visual attractive and it should be possible to link them into a hierarchical structure. In addition, its structure should allow for replacing single cargoes as well as groups of them  incl. their depending industries allowing for different scenarios supplied by appropriate .grf files.

This meaning that it should be pretty much possible to get your own "spanish theme" under the ECS umbrella thus being compatible for the sure fact that people would mix/add other sets to your "spanish set". We have these problems already w. building sets and train sets, even without the new and massive problems of new industries and new cargoes. ("I have a paper mill in tropic accepting food and generating oil ...")


Some remarks to your spanish cargo scheme:

In general, this should be fairly easy to be implemented under the ECS, however, there are some problems / misconceptions:

1. chemicals seems to be rather "undefined" and at the same time "omnipresent". It´s sent to:

- plantation (in the form of fertilizer or pesticides?),
- textile mill (in the form of dyes, detergents, etc.)
- glass works (??)
- materials factory (paints?)

Of course, in reality, chemical products are used everywhere but in game terms it´d be no good to have one product needed to be sent to everywhere. We had the same discussion with coal (as a synonym for energy). O/c energy (coal) would be needed for every kind of manufacturing process but it would be tedious to have it in the game in this way.

Conclusion: too much use of chemicals in your scheme. I´d skip chemicals from the building industry and use the output of the quarry as a second input to it. Or have a second taker for steel.

- steel production lacks coal. Instead it uses zinc and iron (ore). This is completely unrealistic and o/c it could be set up this way in the game, most people would find it extremely silly.

- the farm produces only one product (livestock) although it could produce two different products. Furthermore, livestock is sent to three different industries: textile mill (needs fleece), dairy (needs milk) and food plant (needs meat). It would be better to introduce a second farming product (e.g. wool) to sent it to the textile mill explicitly. Or have wool (the definite term in ECS has not be decided upon) overridden by leather if you want to.

- your plantation is a misconcept: a "plantation" generates fruit (e.g. olives) (or fibre crops or specialties like tea and/or coffee) but your plantation generates agriculturals which is firstly a completely wrong term (it includes livestock as well) and secondly it´s sent also to a brewery, hence it´s meant to be some sort of grain as well (which wouldn´t be grown on a plantation).

Better rename brewery to vineyard (where´s the Rioja? the Navarra? the Valdepenas? the Utiel-Requena?) and sent grapes or rename agriculturals to crops but IMO that´s not a good solution anyway. In your scheme you´d have to have either 3 different farming industries (animal farming, crop growing and plantation; all ECS terminology) or skip the plantation and introduce the standard ECS term crops for both olives and grain.

In any way, it would be advantageous to have a uniform cargo slot ID and cargo bit mask usage and to profit from the patch´s cargo classification scheme - and that´s what ECS tries to accomplish.

regards
Michael

[Purno]

I'm confused, do you mean the European Cargo Set with the "ECS" or do you mean something else?

[krtaylor]

Why does the ECS have anything whatsoever to do with the Spanish set?

You have not given any satisfactory explanation of this point.

GRF IDs make no difference! The Spanish set will be a complete, self-contained set!

If someone wants to create one single new industry, e.g. the fishing vector GRF, then the GRF IDs most certainly do matter. You can't play a game with just one cargo; it has to work in combination with others. (Which I think is a terrible strategy, but again, others feel otherwise, as they have a right to do.)

But the Spanish set is not like that. We are going to offer a complete set of all the industries you need to play a game. You don't need to combine with any other industry GRFs. You don't have to worry about "will this work with X", because it's not really supposed to, and you don't need it.

There will be certain other GRFs that you'll want. Obviously you need all the standard GRFs, like elrails, trkfound, canals, etc. But those don't care about cargos.

Probably people will also want certain other vehicle GRFs that are standard across countries; e.g. the Planeset, the Long Vehicles, and the new ships. These have already long since been coded to be compatible with an established standard: the original TTD industry set. So if we stay compatible with that, as naturally we intend to do, we'll be all set.

Other than gleaning useful ideas from the ECS, it has nothing to with this or any other proposed complete industry set. You cannot use them together anyway (not enough GRF IDs), so compatability is irrelevant.

[Sanchimaru]

Ah, what a coincidence... but no, the ECS menas Extended Cargo Scheme.

Michael: about the undefined cargos, I actually want them to be like that. There are some cargos that fit better as "concepts" rather than "defined"
For example: livestock as it is can become livestock(wool) or livestock(leather), and not to have to limitate to one of them. I do believe in player's immagination.
Livestock is the concept of things that can come from animals (milk, meat, fat, leather, wool, horses...) not just the animals themselves.
The same about chemicals. By the way, in the ECS, coal, oil and vehicles are transported to almost every industry... what's so wrong with transporting chemicals to 4 industries? (chemicals are the one of the most important industries in Spain)
However, I indeed seem to have mistaken the usage of chemicals in glass production, I really don't know where did it come from, since metals are used to give color to glass...
As you said, chemicals can be detergents, dyes, fertilizers, and a lot of things. And I don't like to have a ton of cargos that can be englobed into one cathegory, closing the door to immagination for the player. Let the player decide if what he's bringing to the Textiles is detergent or dyes.

Zinc is used to galvanize metals such as steel to prevent their corrosion, hence the use of it for the steel mill.
If that is too abstract, however, the cargo "steel" can be changed for "metal", but that's again undefined, as you don't like. And I think it's too confusing for the player to have sepparately steel and metal. I think that just metal should be fine.

About the rest of the problems, it's mainly because I can't find the exact word in english: with agriculturals I mean "cultivo" (any kind of collected vegetal, is that what "crop" means?) and with brewery "bodegas" (where wine is produced) that's why the products from the plantation (grape) were brought to the brewery. Also, "plantacion" in spanish refers to any "cultivo", this is vegetables and cereals too, not only fruit.
So my idea was to have different graphics for a vines plantation, a default farm much like the original game's one, a citrics trees plantation, and an olive trees plantation, all producing "cultivo".
I admit that this one is way too abstract, and I'd really like to have "olives", "fruits", and "vegetables" and have one graphic for citric fruits and other for grape vines. Olives are a kind of fruit too, so they could be arranged into the fruit cathegory...

I also think that it should be better to have a uniform cargo slot ID, but at the moment, the ECS seems too complex compared with what I'm looking for, that's why it seemed to me that it should be better to have an own designed scheme. After all the patch developers brought us the possibility, and it is not incredible to be wanting to play with it...
Imean: these are the industries I would drop from the current ECS:
coal mine
power plant
oil wells
oil rig
oil refinery (would work in another way, as a primary industry, as explained before)
forest
sawmill
paper mill
printing works
furniture fabric
brick works
tinned food (too similar to food for me)
bank (not exactly removed, but replaced by post offices transporting mail)
tourist (** If fit's possible that ONE single car carries at the same time tourists and regular passengers, I'm all for it. For example, a 50 capacity car carrying 37 passengers and 5 tourists. If this is not possible, I'd have the tourist centres, but transporting passengers, not tourists)
mail (changed into baggage)

(Remember that some, like coal, that do exist in Spain, are removed just because the scheme seems way too complex too me, I don't want to creatre a maze of industries for the players)
Even with that do you think it would be worth to be done under the ECS scheme? I can tell you that I'm favorable to a cooperative work, but I just don't want to have to give up some ideas I like, such as mail instead of valuables, or oil refinery as primary industry, just because they don't fit in the ECS.

Thanks for cooperating and for the advices!

[krtaylor]

"Crops" is probably what you mean by "agriculturals." However, I'm not sure that is a good cargo, because various crops must be transported in different ways.
- Fruit is usually carried in refrigerated boxcars.
- Bulk grains are carried in covered hoppers.
- Sometimes you'll get both of them carried in low open hoppers with tarp covers, as in the DBXL set.

For the same reason, I think "livestock" might better be split. Live animals would be carried in livestock cars; dead animals in refrigerated boxcars; hides/leather and wool in ordinary boxcars.

[George]

For example: you have wool as a cargo. I would rather transport livestock to the textile plant, since livestock can be interpreted as wool, but also as leather.

You can make a mod to ECS. I think it would be better to way to cooperate with vehicles set. I understand, that you plan to draw all the objects one day, but this day will happen in year, two or even later. Should everyone wait? No, they can use current vehicles on Spanish industries set it everything is coded to support one general schema (if you mod just removes wool and connects livestock to textile mill, any vehicles set can be used WITHOUT ANY change). IMHO it is a good reason to do it this way.

The Spain set is not meant to be compatible with any other vehicles set, for it shall have in time a replacement for at least train and road vehicles. Buildings shouldn't be a problem, since buildings are intended to be changed too. Too ambitious? Maybe. But I'm wanting to do it, that's it, and there is people who likes it.

Why don't you want to allow people to play with a part of the set unless all the parts are done?

[George]

Why does the ECS have anything whatsoever to do with the Spanish set?
You have not given any satisfactory explanation of this point.

We did: Time and compatibility
Tell, me, when would you draw ALL the parts? year? three years? ten years? Would it be hidden from public unless it is finished? In the answer is NO, than you have to understand, that for this time (I think several years at least) the set should be compatible with other sets. That means it has to use the same cargo IDs and bit vals as other sets suppose. ECS is that list. And you want Spanish set be compatible with other set on its development state, you should code it. Other sets should not know, what Spanish set stores and where. Spanish set should store thing at that places, where other set intend to. ECS is that way.

GRF IDs make no difference!

Cargo slots IDs.

The Spanish set will be a complete, self-contained set!

Will, but when? What do you plan to do until then? As I wrote to akalamania (if I'm not mistaken) "it will take three years to draw RV set if you will draw 8 sprites a day".

If someone wants to create one single new industry, e.g. the fishing vector GRF, then the GRF IDs most certainly do matter.

But cargo ID does. How would RV, Aircraft, wagon, ship know, that it is refrigerated cargo? Cargo class will give you only a box van (and not more)

You can't play a game with just one cargo; it has to work in combination with others. (Which I think is a terrible strategy, but again, others feel otherwise, as they have a right to do.)
But the Spanish set is not like that. We are going to offer a complete set of all the industries you need to play a game. You don't need to combine with any other industry GRFs. You don't have to worry about "will this work with X", because it's not really supposed to, and you don't need it.

Will you engage a group of ten artist 5000$/month to draw this set for you in three months? I doubt. So, it will be made step by step. And on these steps it would be not too far from your example of fish set.

There will be certain other GRFs that you'll want. Obviously you need all the standard GRFs, like elrails, trkfound, canals, etc. But those don't care about cargos.

Did you count the amount of work?

Probably people will also want certain other vehicle GRFs that are standard across countries; e.g. the Planeset, the Long Vehicles, and the new ships. These have already long since been coded to be compatible with an established standard: the original TTD industry set. So if we stay compatible with that, as naturally we intend to do, we'll be all set.

Yes, finally you got the point! HOW will you code the compatibility with new ships and LVs? When you'll find the answer you'll use ECS

Other than gleaning useful ideas from the ECS, it has nothing to with this or any other proposed complete industry set. You cannot use them together anyway (not enough GRF IDs), so compatibility is irrelevant.

Well, you a fast near the answer yourself. Just one question to help you to give the right answer:
How would you say to LVs truck (it has only one ID for all cargos) what refitting is used for what cargo? How do you plan to say it, that fish is for refs and zinc is for dump trucks? When you'll give the answer it would be the ECS

I hope it is enough simple to understand even for person who never coded a vehicles himself

[DaleStan]

How would you say to LVs truck (it has only one ID for all cargos) what refitting is used for what cargo? How do you plan to say it, that fish is for refs and zinc is for dump trucks?

/me points George in the general direction of the cargo classes concept.

[krtaylor]

Yes, finally you got the point! HOW will you code the compatibility with new ships and LVs? When you'll find the answer you'll use ECS

Easy. The LVs and new ships are already compatible with a standard cargo scheme - the original one that came with TTD. That, and the cargo-classes concept, is all we need - the ECS is irrelevant.

[George]

How would you say to LVs truck (it has only one ID for all cargos) what refitting is used for what cargo? How do you plan to say it, that fish is for refs and zinc is for dump trucks?

/me points George in the general direction of the cargo classes concept.

When you will describe all the cargo types there you'll get ECS number two. Now you can not divide box from refs and so on. Classes solves the problem only partially

Yes, finally you got the point! HOW will you code the compatibility with new ships and LVs? When you'll find the answer you'll use ECS

Easy. The LVs and new ships are already compatible with a standard cargo scheme

But Spanish set does not. When it would have exactly the same cargos at the exactly the same slots it would be Ok, but would be default cargo set , not the Spanish set. When you define at least one new slot you need to give the other sets the info, what is it. Classes solves this problem only partly.

- the original one that came with TTD.

It did not have zinc, chemicals or glass

That, and the cargo-classes concept, is all we need - the ECS is irrelevant.

You don't. Or tell me, how would you make LV set truck know what to do with agricultures? Should it use box van for goods, food ref, livestock carrier, grain hopper or anything else.

2DaleStan: Do not prompt to krtaylor. I want him to understand.
Because he speaks about those things that he does not understand