[OpenTTD] NuTracks - Dev Thread

[DJ Nekkid]

I still need to apply gfx, but the mentioned renum problems keeps me from doing it (the easy way). Altho, i've added something i called "track planning" as a tracktype. This is 0kmh tracks, and they cost virtually 0 cash. Nothing can run on them, and they are, as the name might suggest, only ment for planning. When you can afford you convert them useing the convert tool. Gfx will probably be something a'la the white drag-tool, only in a CC-variant, unless someone got any great idea

[Ameecher]

Why not just have the tracks as invisible just put fences around them?

[cmoiromain]

Or, have some kind of construction site (possibly using some of andthenorth's engines, placing the randomly for more variety...). I like the idea, though I do see one major problem: it allows buying land for free, which can be bad in multiplayer (or if an evil AI is made). So mabe make this a parameter that can be disabled for online game.

[planetmaker]

Why not just have the tracks as invisible just put fences around them?

Invisible tracks make bad planning grounds, especially if it comes to (detailed) network layout at junctions.

I do see one major problem: it allows buying land for free

It doesn't. Only the tracks are free, you still will need to buy the land. So the building is cheaper, but you still buy that land what you use (it basically is a drag-able purchase tool in that case).

[cmoiromain]

Oh, alright. I didn't know the rail cost and tile cost were seperate. All is good then

[FRDM]

FYI: I just tried using the latest nightly of NuTracks (r24 from the content downloader) with the newly released OTTD 1.0.0 RC2 and I'm getting a 'Unknown Action 0 Property' error (fatal). I tried the other revisions of NuTracks that I have (r8 and r22) and both fail for the same reason. All 3 of these revisions of NuTracks are still working properly with OTTD 1.0.0 RC1 though.

[planetmaker]

I wonder... please try today after both nightlies, of nutracks and OpenTTD have been generated (~20:30h CET). The size of the cost multiplicator property was changed. Todays nightly of nutracks will require todays nightly of OpenTTD (and nutracks will disable itself, if played with something earlier). If the problem then persists... something else is wrong

[DJ Nekkid]

TBH, i didnt think Railtypes were gonna be in openttd 1.0.x ... but then again, i might be wrong

[planetmaker]

It's simple:

4 weeks ago peter1138 (svn r18969) -Add: [NewGRF] NewGRF-settable rail type properties.

2 weeks ago rubidium (svn r19142) [1.0] -Branch: the 1.0 series 1.0

[DJ Nekkid]

OH

[DJ Nekkid]

Updated the version on Bananas, This to reflect the changes in r19306 to word size costs. This resulted in a lower basecosts and higher costfactors. The prices on the tracks are the same tho

Hope you continue to love this trackset

[audigex]

For the planning, a construction site sort of look could work quite well. i.e. a muddy section which would be the track bed.

[DJ Nekkid]

i've given the gfx some thought ... on the planning part! Its a plan! Its not under construction(yet). So i think some dark outline or something similar shoul be the best option. And perhaps the CC of the company...

[ostlandr]

Been testing out Nutracks, and I love it! Up-converting the rails works fine, but is a bit pricey (as it should be.)

Only thing I could ask for at this point would be to have the numbers auto-convert (translate) to imperial units, but I can do the math easily enough.

As to the really cool and useful "track planning" feature, how about graphics of just bare dirt with survey stakes?

If I may make a suggestion, rather than add another "older, slower" rail type, reduce the current 120 kph rail type to 100 kph (60 mph), keep the 160 kph (100 mph) where it is, and reduce the 230 kph to 200 kph (120 mph). That would make more sense to me.

For graphics, I offer the following suggestions:

120 kph: wooden sleepers with earth/cinder (dark) ballast and dull rails

160 kph: wooden sleepers with gray rock ballast and shiny rails

230 kph: concrete sleepers with gray rock ballast and shiny rails

high speed: steel sleepers on concrete roadbed and shiny rails

[Doorslammer]

Been testing out Nutracks, and I love it! Up-converting the rails works fine, but is a bit pricey (as it should be.)

Only thing I could ask for at this point would be to have the numbers auto-convert (translate) to imperial units, but I can do the math easily enough.

As to the really cool and useful "track planning" feature, how about graphics of just bare dirt with survey stakes?

If I may make a suggestion, rather than add another "older, slower" rail type, reduce the current 120 kph rail type to 100 kph (60 mph), keep the 160 kph (100 mph) where it is, and reduce the 230 kph to 200 kph (120 mph). That would make more sense to me.

For graphics, I offer the following suggestions:

120 kph: wooden sleepers with earth/cinder (dark) ballast and dull rails

160 kph: wooden sleepers with gray rock ballast and shiny rails

230 kph: concrete sleepers with gray rock ballast and shiny rails

high speed: steel sleepers on concrete roadbed and shiny rails

Another possibility if there was a slower track would be an unkempt grassy look. Handy for industrial lines and whatnot.

[ColdIce]

Another possibility if there was a slower track would be an unkempt grassy look. Handy for industrial lines and whatnot.

good ideea something like 80 kmph
there was a patch Grass growth on unused tracks

[DJ Nekkid]

Been testing out Nutracks, and I love it!

Good!

Up-converting the rails works fine, but is a bit pricey (as it should be.)

indeed!

Only thing I could ask for at this point would be to have the numbers auto-convert (translate) to imperial units, but I can do the math easily enough.

Im not sure on how to do this tbh, we are discussing it now, but the only way i can see to do this is a workaround, no good soluiton as is, as a newgrf cant see if you have this or that unit as speedunits

As to the really cool and useful "track planning" feature, how about graphics of just bare dirt with survey stakes?

I have to see how my idea turns out, after all, its just a plan. Look at it as as a big map in your office, with some markings on it. After all, as i've saied further up, its a plan. Nothing more. Its not under construction yet etc...

If I may make a suggestion, rather than add another "older, slower" rail type, reduce the current 120 kph rail type to 100 kph (60 mph), keep the 160 kph (100 mph) where it is, and reduce the 230 kph to 200 kph (120 mph). That would make more sense to me.

Well, now i actually can add "older slower cheaper" tracks, as Peter have made the costs word size
Plus; most trainsets out there have some low-200kmh (200-230) engines, and it would be ashame if they could only run on full speed on the most expensive tracktype.

For graphics, I offer the following suggestions:
..
..

I already have the gfx, i just heavent gotten around to code them yet...

[rsdworker]

hey there - i have problem - i got the message that appeared - a fatel newgrf error has occured: unknown action 0 property - my OpenTTD is either R19317 or the stable 1.0 RC2 - the Nutracks has not worked correctly in both versions reported above - its sounds like something broke in OTTD side or newgrf
so could you check if its confirm the bug because few days ago - its was working

[DJ Nekkid]

Nutracks r29 (from bananans) works just fine here... and im useing 19306

[ColdIce]

I had the same problem. Remove it from newgrf list, add it again and before you hit apply changes, put it up your list. see if that works. if it works, then you can move it down your list. worked for me