Suggestions commonly asked for

[ever]

Yes.

[belugas]

Realistic acceleration for Road Vehicles, Planes and Ships.

I wonder how fast can a boat accelerates... And planes? They do not accelerate while lift off? They do not decelerate while landing?

Road Vehicles, Planes and Ships can't pass through eachother.

What would that give to gameplay?

cuz you prolly get that a lot and it'd be nice

cuz? prolly? Sorry, my dictionary failed to translate. So your last sentence is absolutely not making sens at all. Sorry.

[ever]

I wonder how fast can a boat accelerates... And planes? They do not accelerate while lift off? They do not decelerate while landing?

Planes and boats not so much, this applies mostly to road vehicles - In order to simulate the effects of heavy cargoes like what is currently done with trains.

What does it add to the game? Vehicle variety, differences between vehicles more space for grf authors to customize some vehicles might be fast but bad for hills, some might be best suited for passengers etc.

The way planes turn and stuff could also be made nicer. AND YES THIS WOULD ADD A LOT, AND I MEAN A LOT, TO THE GAMEPLAY. DON'T BE DAFT

Realism might not be so important in games but suspension of disbelief is. Any good author, director, and artist in general knows this. If you suffer from a lack of such knowledge do some reading! Its good for the soul!

What would that give to gameplay?

What do you mean what would it give to gameplay, isn't it really really obvious?

For one breakdowns will clog up roads far more. Having many planes fly the same route will further decrease the marginal revenue of each plane far more than before, same applies for ships and RVs.

RV intersections will actually be intersections. Additionally RVs could crash into eachother when touching making players care about not spamming trucks and actually focusing on making a good convoy system. Road networks would actually become slightly more interesting.

Yup it would add more subtelty, complexity (but not fake complexity such as clicking a lot of buttons to get something simple done) and challenge. Apart from that yeah maybe it wouldn't add too much.

Oh wait there's the whole suspension of disbelief thing and the fact that not having solid objects pass through each other makes sense to most people. Not to mention the consistency argument, trains can't pass through each other, how come trucks can?

However, I completely understand that someone with mastery of the English language so great, SO TERRIBLY great, could not stop and use that brain of his with its awe-inspiring magnificent language skills to stop and think of this if only for one second. Such things are beneath the epic existence of such a unique being.

cuz? prolly? Sorry, my dictionary failed to translate. So your last sentence is absolutely not making sens at all. Sorry.

Forgive me o great master of the language. May the consequences of my playful b****** forever be a reminder that all who harm the language will not be audible to the enlightened one.

I shall attempt to repent with a translation.

"I have seen the suggestions pop quite a bit, even by more prolific members of the community. George wants realistic acceleration for RVs for his new Long Vehicle 5 set"

[dihedral]

cuz? prolly? Sorry, my dictionary failed to translate. So your last sentence is absolutely not making sens at all. Sorry.

Forgive me o great master of the language. May the consequences of my playful b****** forever be a reminder that all who harm the language will not be audible to the enlightened one.

I shall attempt to repent with a translation.

that has nothing to do with belugas. we just don't abbreviate what is not abbreviated! get used to either using the language or getting flamed for such abbreviations!

[belugas]

Planes and boats not so much, this applies mostly to road vehicles - In order to simulate the effects of heavy cargoes like what is currently done with trains.

Yes, you are right. So basically, your suggestion only applies to road vehicles, if I read you well.

The way planes turn and stuff could also be made nicer.

Agreed, some of their dances are a bit stupid. But let me remind you this is not about acceleration, it's about finite state machine of airports. It's the airports (code wise mean) who drives the plane's movements. The same can be said with how road vehicles are been addressed while entering the bus/truck stops.

AND YES THIS WOULD ADD A LOT, AND I MEAN A LOT, TO THE GAMEPLAY. DON'T BE DAFT

I'm sorry, but apart the argument of diversity you mentioned earlier, I frankly do not see A LOT. In fact, I'm still waiting for a list.

Realism might not be so important in games but suspension of disbelief is. Any good author, director, and artist in general knows this. If you suffer from a lack of such knowledge do some reading! Its good for the soul!

I do plenty of reading, thanks. I do not need to add up. The thing with realism in the game is that the more you put in, the less the game becomes interesting. The beauty of it is actually that there are plenty of digressions from reality to make it an evasion, a dream-land where you are actually experiencing something else. It's like a science-fiction movie. No matter how hard you can try, you know that you cannot fly as superman. But the fact that it's unrealistic does not stop the movie to be a good entertainment. As I said a lot of times, I am not against realism in the game, as long as it's coherent and adds up to the gameplay.

What do you mean what would it give to gameplay, isn't it really really obvious?

No, Not to me. Knowing that a truck will accelerate in two real seconds rather that almost instantly is really not exciting. Knowing that it might accelerate going downhill does not raise my blood pressure either.
It's not what makes the game great.
I'd rather have features with far more impact, like signals in tunnels/bridges. I worked for more than two months on those, simply because I felt it would add a whole new dimension to the game. Not because it would add realism. Just new possibilities for the players.

RV intersections will actually be intersections. Additionally RVs could crash into eachother when touching making players care about not spamming trucks and actually focusing on making a good convoy system. Road networks would actually become slightly more interesting.

It is actually quite impossible to do what you suggest, simply because for trains, we do have signals that are blocking one train to enter the space of another. In the case of ALL the other vehicles, it simply is not applicable.
Granted, road lights can be implemented, but that would not stop a faster truck to crash into a simple one once the red light turns to green, since, like in real life, there are more than one vehicle that will pass the said green light and thus enter the next road segment.
So you are heading simply with a road-rage-carnage if ever you wanted to try implement that.
As for planes, one could simply argue they do not fly at the same altitude.
Yes, boats are a problem. I kinda remember someone is working on it, and yes, it does seems interesting.

Apart from that yeah maybe it wouldn't add too much.

I'm happy to see you came to the same conclusions as mine

Forgive me o great master of the language. May the consequences of my playful b****** forever be a reminder that all who harm the language will not be audible to the enlightened one.

Let me remind you one thing, this is an international forum. Which means that quite a large group of its users are not native English speakers (as myself). So when you are using anything that could be interpreted as street language, you are in fact alienate them from the conversation. This is why I wanted to emphasize on it. So if one allow a digression here and there, it will become a de-facto standard. Sorry you took it that way. You probably wanted to sound cool, but it's not how i saw it.

"I have seen the suggestions pop quite a bit, even by more prolific members of the community. George wants realistic acceleration for RVs for his new Long Vehicle 5 set"

I know do completely understand the magnificent thinking you have been hiding from most of us. Thank you very much. So as I can see it: some people requested it, and you just added yourself to that list of people. Good. Noted, thanks.

[ever]

Yes, you are right. So basically, your suggestion only applies to road vehicles, if I read you well.

Yes although originally I meant my suggestion to apply to the path ships and planes take when turning as well. To add more variety and challenge planes and ships should need far more space to make their turns and need to slow down a lot more. Currently they turn like trains do but then again trains can turn 90 degrees in this game and I don't care so when I think of it a bit better its of little importance.

But on the other hand trains need to slow down to turn even in ottd same should apply for planes ships and RVs.

Agreed, some of their dances are a bit stupid. But let me remind you this is not about acceleration, it's about finite state machine of airports. It's the airports (code wise mean) who drives the plane's movements. The same can be said with how road vehicles are been addressed while entering the bus/truck stops.

Interesting. I didn't know it was the airports who determine how planes move.

Well I'm glad you agree that sometimes having things radically unrealistic detracts from the game.

I'm sorry, but apart the argument of diversity you mentioned earlier, I frankly do not see A LOT. In fact, I'm still waiting for a list.

Assume planes can't pass through eachother

Well firstly airports would have to be configured far more strategically to make the most money they can as landing patterns will change based on the airstrip positioning. Secondly the combination of planes used for a certain route would now need more attention from the player as now breakdowns actually clog air space (even if only a little) as opposed to only affecting one plane. Thirdly timing becomes even more important, just like with trains.

All this adds a whole new layer of complexity to the game but it doesn't add more buttons to click. Just more room for the brain to be creative with the tools already in place.

That's the beauty of it.

I am not against realism in the game, as long as it's coherent and adds up to the gameplay.

And I am not against a lack of realism as long as it's coherent and adds to the game.

One type of solid object (train) not being able to move through another solid object (building, hill, other train) and then a third solid object (bus, truck, plane, ship) being able to move through itself is NOT coherent and DETRACTS from the game.

That is what suspension of disbelief is; its the process of avoiding frustration with the fiction in a fictional world. If the fiction is incoherent, inconsistent and just plain ridiculous, then a person does not want to be part of it. People will not believe it and this disbelief needs to be suspended. Hence suspension of disbelief.

No, Not to me. Knowing that a truck will accelerate in two real seconds rather that almost instantly is really not exciting. Knowing that it might accelerate going downhill does not raise my blood pressure either.

It's not what makes the game great.

Well lets just hold on for one second here.

When an RV has realistic acceleration it adds these new dimensions to the game: Hills now play a part. Where as before you would just road over a hill now it might be better to build a tunnel, or a bridge. This means the player has to think more about his placement of roads, there are more things to consider but not more buttons to press. Maybe it pays off to invest in high horse power trucks to conquer an icy mountain road, or maybe it pays more to flatten nature and build the speed vehicles to get from A to B in a flash. Linking a primary industry at the bottom of a hill to a secondary one at the top of a hill is now far more costly than vice versa, and even sometimes impossible. Having a full load going down a hill and not going up is a huge advantage. What about those tight corners? you don't want those around anymore.

I'm not sure about you but these possibilities DO excite me. I like being able to get an advantage over my competitor using better placement and better strategy than him. I get a thrill out of it. I like to see my transport network working like clockwork because of the effort I put in, not because the game lets me do it easily and stupidly.

I'd rather have features with far more impact, like signals in tunnels/bridges. I worked for more than two months on those, simply because I felt it would add a whole new dimension to the game. Not because it would add realism. Just new possibilities for the player

That does have a big impact for the train game. It removes an aspect of fake challenge which I respect.

And I also respect that you developers have priorities, that's a good thing.

Granted, road lights can be implemented, but that would not stop a faster truck to crash into a simple one once the red light turns to green, since, like in real life, there are more than one vehicle that will pass the said green light and thus enter the next road segment.

You could just make RVs keep a minimum distance from eachother. It'd work a bit differently from signals cause unliek trains RVs wouldn't need to run full speed and then slow down as they get close to another RV. They'd just slow down to the same speed as that vehicle and keep a minimum distance. Faster vehicles would have to overtake or simply slow down, like on real roads.

With intersections yellow lights would do the trick to keeping those mostly carnage free (i.e green turns on for NW SE two or three seconds after SW NE has turned red).

Of course sudden break downs, or poorly designed roads that require heavy breaking could and should lead to crashes, just like poorly designed rail does.

This would once again require more player care when building their network, it will allow the player to have more fun getting his network running nicely and allow for more variety and subtlety in vehicle choice and road placement. It adds new challenges and most of all it would be very very fun. It is perfectly coherent and adds to the spirit of the game, and does not detract. Furthermore it doesn't add more buttons to press, it just adds more tactics and possibilities with the tools already given.

As for planes, one could simply argue they do not fly at the same altitude.

The game is in isometric perspective, this allows for a visual representation of three dimensional phenomenon such as different altitudes. If the argument that planes are flying under and over each other is to be made as an excuse for planes not flying around each other, then there is no excuse for not having this fact reflected in the visuals.

Which means that quite a large group of its users are not native English speakers (as myself)

I live in Australia but English is my second language.

It was not the request that I not use alternative spelling that might be a too complex and daunting manipulation of the language for those struggling with the basics, rather, it was the attitude of your comment that upset me.

You were basically saying "Even though I understand what you're saying, I'm going to ignore the actual idea and instead focus on something else which I deem unsatisfactory in order to ridicule you"

You dismissed what I was saying not because what was said or because you had a good argument against it but just because of the way it was said. That is a very poor, elitist and snobby attitude to have and I don't much like it.

You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, and I can understand the frustration developers have with noobs saying GIMME GIMME GIMME when you are the ones doing all the work, and by all rights the game should be exactly the way you want it and not the way anyone else does. I understand that perfectly. But is that an excuse to be discourteous, rude and behave terribly to others?

You guys do great work and keep at it. I love the work you do, but that doesn't mean I like your attitude on the forums.

Anyway its no big deal lets just forget about it.

I now completely understand the magnificent thinking you have been hiding from most of us. Thank you very much. So as I can see it: some people requested it, and you just added yourself to that list of people. Good. Noted, thanks.

Well sorta. Let me explain it to you a bit better.

This is a thread of commonly suggested suggestions and appropriately in the OP there is a list of suggestions.

I see the list, and I notice some commonly suggested suggestions are not on it. I make a post with those suggestions, endorse them myself and say I've seen them requested before.

In other words I was asking for the suggestions to be added to the list, as that's where they belong.

[ever]

that has nothing to do with belugas. we just don't abbreviate what is not abbreviated! get used to either using the language or getting flamed for such abbreviations!

"We" also capitalize our letters at the beginning of sentences.

[dihedral]

the word has the same meaning and is understood the same way with or without a capital first letter. others (e.g. non-native english speakers) can follow the text with no issue.
beside that, the shift key is an extra key to press, when it makes no difference to the meaning of what i am writing i tend to avoid that key - any extra action is bloat ^^

oh - and by the way: if you wanna quote someone, please make sure it mentions the correct name (see last quote in above post)

[Iuliux]

I would like to have segnals in tunnels and multi level railway stations (like in Berlin and Zurich).

Also, I would like to be able to build one way signal without pressing 2 or 3 time the mouse button.

[dihedral]

i would like it if people could use the search function before simply posting their ideas!

[Rubidium]

i would like it if people could use the search function before simply posting their ideas!

This suggestion has been made much more often; I guess you should use the search too. On that note, this suggestion has been suggested before so I probably should've used the search too to see that it isn't going to ever happen/help.

[thingil]

OK, I've used "Search" option and browsed through all of this sticky. No mention of what concerns me.

The problem is: when I play, especially on bigger maps, I have to constantly switch between 2 minimap modes: "Landscape" to see heightmap and "Industries" to see, well, what and where should I deliver.

Is it possible for some later releases of OTTD to merge these two modes? Or make an option to be able to turn multiple modes at the same time?

[Leanden]

The problem you have here is that in order to do that, the option would have to be available to merge all the overlays in any combination, which simply wont work, they arent really compatible with each other, and the amount of work that would go into such an update is astronomical for very little gain in gameplay. I think a better suggestion would be a new overlay which gives a wider range of detail.

[Eddi]

actually, there is a patch for this in the development forum.

[thingil]

OK, I've found the patch, but...
I don't want to mess up with my installation.
I'm new to OTTD and not yet familiar with all those patches, grfs and the like management.

[Leanden]

Eddi... Always Proving me wrong.

[Xander]

If I see one more request for "Distant towns" I swear I'm going to scream.

[Whos]

My suggestions.

• Max value of the loan depends on the position the player!
• Possibility of putting (gray) and remove signs by observers!

[DaleStan]

I will point out that the title of this topic includes a inflection of the word "common". What evidence do you have that those are common suggestions, and are you quite certain that they haven't been posted in this thread already?

[bugfinder]

Near the end of the thread it becomes quite amusing to read that some people will rather waste breath on an argument rather than just stating what it actually says to do on the very first thread. I'm not starting an argument either (at least I'm hoping not and that no-one will bite my head off for saying this) but I find it funny that despite the popularity of it, some people still haven't seen that picture about arguing on the internet.

Anyway, heres my addition. I have an idea for a 4th (and 5th) generation transportation medium (not fuel types) (also rail and elec. rail are classified as one type as its, well RAIL). We have:
1. Rail
2. Monorail
3. Maglev
4. My proposed idea is a type of transport medium that uses a tube. Imagine if you will, an almost 95% transparent version of the silicon tubular bridge but on the ground and the "engines" pneumatically push or pull the carriages through like those little tubes for paper transport you see at the supermarket checkouts. (for those Aussies out there, I have the Safeway checkouts in mind). The carriages are magnetically kept in the center of the tube but the actual name could be called Tube (sore topic for UK, sorry guys. ), As for power production, we COULD use fuel cell, as the idea for a line for electric power that connects the engine to the wall of the tube seems a bit weird.
As for power and speeds, I'm thinking of 50,000 hp and 800km and only one second upgrade (much like the monorail) to one with 70,000 hp and 950km speeds. We are talking about trains the speed of a jet plane as these tubes are made up of a vacuum and there is no air resistance. Going up hill can be treated the same as gravity still can play a part. Year wise when it comes out, I'm thinking late 2200-2500.

5. Year 3000 (should players be bothered playing from 1940 to 3000), People have finally invented almost instantaneos transportation. Another idea that follows the Tube idea is the laser/portal transport system. Trains are held in a digitized space that runs a thin red line/tube along the ground. As the the digitized train runs along, a white shine (depending on how long it is) takes up space along that line. This train would be incredibly fast, faster than any planes (unless someone has an idea for a rocket plane!!!) travelling at speeds of almost 2000km and two more upgrades to 3000km and 4000km respectively. As you may have guessed, being a digitized transportation system, weight and power will play no part as going uphill is now an easy task. The only problem is that in my earlier days of fiddling around TTDAlter (thankyou DaleStan!!) my Asiastars were not able to be kept track of as they were moving too fast for the human eye to see.

As for costs, I am talking in the millions if not billions of dollars for each engine and about 500k to 1M per carriage, since we are getting very advanced here so would the costs. However should a player be of the expected caliber, they could easily earn that amount.

Yawn, time to sleep. Hope this was at least entertaining. Currently 00:41 here, gotta go.