ECS vectors v1.1.2 (by George) 19/06/2011

[akasoft]

Truck isn't covered with snow?

[George]

Truck isn't covered with snow?

Of cause, it should not. It moves and the snow falls away. There is snow only on vehicles that stand unused or long.

[SHADOW-XIII]

that's great, exactly what I had in mind

[George]

that's great, exactly what I had in mind

Please check the train animation http://george.zernebok.net/temp/ECS1.2/ (currently OTTD ONLY)

[V453000 :)]

Looks beyond awesome!

[Eddi]

i'm not really a big fan of these animations. as soon as you load a different newgrf, the vehicles don't fit.

[George]

i'm not really a big fan of these animations. as soon as you load a different newgrf, the vehicles don't fit.

There is a task for a parameter to hide vehicles in the TODO list

[JacobD88]

i'm not really a big fan of these animations. as soon as you load a different newgrf, the vehicles don't fit.

There is a task for a parameter to hide vehicles in the TODO list

I wander if ultimately a strategy around this, whilst still keeping the animated vehicles would be to add some capacity to detect the train-sets in use; for example...
If ECS detects UKRS, switch the default animation sprites with the EE Shunter and some 7-plank wagons (I forget their name in game)
This could be extended even further to take certain locos from other sets according to date/era

Technically possible at present? Not a clue, but i imagine there'll be some actions somewhere in the spec that will do it

[Eddi]

technically possible: certainly.

but i think that's a huge overkill...

[George]

Technically possible at present? Not a clue, but i imagine there'll be some actions somewhere in the spec that will do it

I do not know a way to get graphics from vehicles set.
But it is possible to detect vehicle set loaded and activate appropriate graphics inside the set (requires copy&paste from the supported set). But I think it is too much effort for too little benefit. Disabling graphics is enough, imho.

technically possible: certainly.

How???

[Eddi]

i meant the copy-paste graphics and detect grf-id approach.

[JacobD88]

But it is possible to detect vehicle set loaded and activate appropriate graphics inside the set (requires copy&paste from the supported set). But I think it is too much effort for too little benefit. Disabling graphics is enough, imho.

This is what i envisioned, though i am not sure of the requirements to copy&paste... Can you not simply switch sprites in a manner as follows...

ECS->Discovers UKRS2 in use->Don't Display ECS Animation sprite "X" -> Display UKRS2 Sprite "Y" instead

Your right though, a lot of work for little gain, which is a shame really

[Eddi]

ECS->Discovers UKRS2 in use->Don't Display ECS Animation sprite "X" -> Display UKRS2 Sprite "Y" instead

the flaw with this idea is that in the next release of UKRS, sprite "Y" may be in a completely different position. (besides the fact that NewGRFs don't have that kind of access to other NewGRFs)

[andythenorth]

Providing animations customised for different vehicle sets is •way• overkill. George codes ECS alone, I bet he already has enough to do

[George]

While discussing ECS 1.2 changes, it has arisen a question about duplication between iron ore and bauxite. Because of that, a suggestion to unite them has appeared.

Cargo-vectors-20.png (38 KiB) Viewed 3637 times

Please provide your opinion about this suggestion.

[planetmaker]

If you want to unite them there's no (gameplay) point to introduce the bauxite mine at all (nor by the looks for the aluminum plant). All what would remain is the eye candy aspect to have two differently looking mines - which could simply be achieved by means of layout or even random action2.

I like the two cargos being distinct - they can open up different chains each. I'd only unite it (or remove one of the two metal 'chains') if their presence block the introduction of something really different.

[Eddi]

FIRS united the output ("metal" instead of "aluminium"/"steel"), but not the input ("iron ore"/"bauxite")

[planetmaker]

FIRS united the output ("metal" instead of "aluminium"/"steel"), but not the input ("iron ore"/"bauxite")

Yes... The reason in that case - as far as my memory serves me - was the need or desire to reduce the amount of used cargos to get free slots for something really different (I don't know which that was anymore).

Still, cargos currently are quite specific here in ECS (as well as also in FIRS), especially the primary cargos. While one could certainly unify more primary cargos to a single one, I fail to see an advantage... vehicle sets would still show one or the other cargo (or yet another cargo label is introduced which might even be less favourable) and on the map a unified ore would give identical industries from the stats wrt cargo input and output but would show differently on the map and especially minimap - as would also probably the secondary industries they deliver to as those then can't distinguish anymore which mine the cargo originates from - thus there one gains redundancy, too. It would 'waste' industryID slots without gameplay influence.

If the argument should (only) be about the new, great mine graphics - it could just be an alternative version of the usual iron ore mine.

[michael blunck]

Cargoes only make sense when being handled differently w/r to other cargoes. A different name (or a different colour) is not sufficient.

Hehe, this time I totally agree with planetmaker´s post.

regards
Michael

[wallyweb]

... duplication between iron ore and bauxite.

Transport Tycoon's secret to success is the elegance of it's simplicity. It features samples of industry types for which the player is challenged to provide transportation services. That is why the wagons are specific in the cargo they accommodate. Refitting is never an issue. The introduction of TTDPatch led to the extension of the game's capabilities with more graphics, more industries and more cargoes. OpenTTD is a clone that blends most (but not all) of the features of Transport Tycoon and TTDPatch while adding some challenging new features. Taken all together, the result is a very realistic modeling of an industry based society/economy for the player to service.

If the goal is to retain the simplicity pf Transport Tycoon, then yes, duplication is a concern and one chain (vector) or the other should be chosen.

If the goal is realism, then the chains should be featured independently of one another.

There are some parallels between the iron ore and bauxite chains:
- The raw materials are mined
- The raw materials require smelting in order to produce workable materials (metals).
- The metals are then used in the manufacture of consumer products
There are also some significant differences:
- The iron chain has been around since man decided he needed a better sword with which to slay his enemy
- Aluminum is a newcomer having come into popularity in the twentieth century.
- Iron requires lots of coal to make coke for the smelters.
- Aluminum does not use coal (Sorry George, your vector is wrong), but it does require a lot of cheap electricity primarily obtained from hydro electric generators.

Please provide your opinion about this suggestion.

Keep both as independent chains/vectors and get rid of the coal input for the aluminum smelter.