Invisible Leading Engine/Power Booster GRF

[michael blunck]

It's like using a set that was built around some limitations (usually coz it tries to be "realistic"... as realistic as TTD can be, of course), only to break away from those limitations.

Something like this:

oil.png (11.51 KiB) Viewed 2802 times

regards
Michael

[V453000 :)]

Very true. But then, there's plenty of trainsets without such limitations to play with. The 2cc set is one, for instance, AFAIK.
If someone doesn't agree with a grf author's idea of a "proper" way a set should work, why should they play with that set at all? It's like using a set that was built around some limitations (usually coz it tries to be "realistic"... as realistic as TTD can be, of course), only to break away from those limitations.

For instance, in the set I'm building, such a "cheat"/"feature" would make more than half of my trains useless (namely, the cheap ones, those dedicated to freight, some MUs...) because I'm trying to balance everything around limitations, the idea being that you can't just go for the "fastest, most powerful" engine in all the cases. If you don't agree with this idea, well, chances are you won't like the experience of playing with my set, so such a "feature" won't help either.
...
...
...
Well, there are sets that try to at least go towards a representation of reality. Such a feature would make these efforts useless, and would detract from the experience of playing with those sets.

If you make a game with 2 not-so-well-compatible train sets, you can be sure that one of them (if not both) will suddenly have some "useless" engines. If the player wants to do it that way, and enjoys doing it that way, why not? Or you can of course play the train set as "intended by author" if you have more fun that way. For example if you play with wagon speed limits off, you play UKRS "wrongly"? Hell no.

[Emperor Jake]

I see this has caused quite a bit of an argument

By creating this set I am not saying NewGRFs should not have limitations, or that limitations are bad. When I make my Trains of Europe set, it will also have limitations to prevent freight cars from being attached to MUs and things like that. If anyone feels like they don't want to have those limitations, then they should by all means use this GRF.
Yes, I agree, this GRF is a cheat. Some players may want to put trains together however they want for eyecandy purposes, for screenshot purposes (e.g. "This MU had to push the freight cars that got detached from the freight train")

Then what would you call having 4000HP in 1800? And transporting freight at the speed of a TGV? And building trains the way they were not intended to be built?

Like with the default trains where you would haul livestock and grain with a T.I.M or an Asiastar? And later a Chimera?
What about transporting freight at 5000 km/h? It wouldn't be a cheat if there was a Freight Vactrain in my vactrain set, right?

Very true. But then, there's plenty of trainsets without such limitations to play with. The 2cc set is one, for instance, AFAIK.

The 2CC set has lots of limitations, especially the unrealistic ones regarding single unit metros and railbuses. Also I don't see a reason why different MUs can't be combined See the first post for several examples.

[Purno]

Very true. But then, there's plenty of trainsets without such limitations to play with. The 2cc set is one, for instance, AFAIK.

The 2CC set has lots of limitations, especially the unrealistic ones regarding single unit metros and railbuses. Also I don't see a reason why different MUs can't be combined See the first post for several examples.

Aye, which means the 2ccSet team doesn't need to code a way to combine different MUs together

Gotta say I wouldn't be too happy if people boosted the 2ccSet metros so it could go faster or could transport freight, as that'd kinda ruin the whole idea about a seperate metro system, but well... if people enjoy playing the 2ccSet that way, who am I to stop them?

[wallyweb]

Little did I suspect that my whimsical comment would provoke such intense discussion.

Cheating has been a part of Transport Tycoon from the day it was originally released and players would come up with some rather unique and interesting ways to foil those nefarious AI companies that had a rather disgusting habit of servicing a rather attractive industry just as you were about to build your station.

Then TTDPatch came along and provided a carload of cheats that actually added to the playability of the game. (Thank you Mr. Patchman ). The rest is history.

TTDPatch made it possible to substitute more realistic graphics and the artists responded by creating sets based on real life transportation systems such as DB (Thank you Mr Blunck ... You led the way. ). Note that TTDPatch also made it possible to apply more realistic properties.

Because of it's reliance upon Transport Tycoon, TTDPatch does have limitations. Credit must be given to all those developers who were able to assemble the code required to extend TTDPatch's capabilities.

OpenTTD was then developed primarily to provide/extend features that were too difficult/complicated/restrictive to be implemented by the Patch, all the while using original code and graphics unencumbered by Transport Tycoon's copyrights.

Note that all of the above could be classified as cheats in that they were workarounds to an established set of parameters, but they were not cheats in the classic sense of the word in that they were not intended to allow the player to defeat the philosophy of the game.

Now, children being children, humans being humans and people with warped senses of humour being people with warped senses of humour (I freely plead guilty to being a charter member of that third group , my daughter has recently accused me of a relapse into the first group , and nobody has as yet attributed me with membership in that second group ), if it is possible to cheat for whatever reason, then cheat they will.

As much as I lean towards the intent of the sets as created by their authors, I do not think that the cheaters should be restricted unless they are participating in a competition with known rules. Just because it is possible to cheat, I do not necessarily avail myself of the privilege. I am primarily a scenario player and to cheat in such is merely to cheat my personal sense of satisfaction.

Emperor Jake, your little invisible engine is indeed a valid contribution. Perhaps it does make it easier for the cheaters to cheat ... So what? As long as they know that their efforts may have some undesirable effects upon their games and that they should not approach the set authors for a fix, they should be free to do as they please. For my purposes, the cheat consists of assembling a realistic rail yard with several strings of wagons awaiting the services of an engine to drag them off into slavery to the wills and transportation needs of mankind. Well done.

EDIT: I just thought of a good name for your engine : The Little Cheat That Could

[Digitalfox]

Well I like this GRF and use it, so thank you Emperor Jake

[FooBar]

OpenTTD was ... developed ... using original code ...

That is not true, as TTD was written in Assembly and OpenTTD has been written in C from the beginning. The original code was used to be able to make OpenTTD in the first place, but none of the actual original code has ever been in OpenTTD. Currently almost (if not all) of the first OpenTTD code has been rewritten from scratch.

Let us please not dive into the legal aspects, there's plenty of topics about that subject and it's of no interest here.

---

As for this NewGRF, I think everybody is free to decide for him or herself to (a) consider it a cheat or not and (b) use it or not. Nobody is forcing anyone anywhere. Those who want to play as realistic as possible just don't use it and use the train set of their choice in the way its creator intended. For those who just want to play with trains and are not hindered by any sense of realism whatsoever I think this is a great and welcome "tool".

[michael blunck]

OpenTTD was ... developed ... using original code ...

That is not true, as TTD was written in Assembly and OpenTTD has been written in C from the beginning. The original code was used to be able to make OpenTTD in the first place, but none of the actual original code has ever been in OpenTTD. Currently almost (if not all) of the first OpenTTD code has been rewritten from scratch.

Let us please not dive into the legal aspects, there's plenty of topics about that subject and it's of no interest here.

So, why do you mention it then? Just to get some responses, even if it´s of "no interest here"?

regards
Michael

[FooBar]

Appears I misunderstood wallyweb's post. By "original code" the orgininal code of OpenTTD was meant and not the original code of TTD itself, so I was informed by PM. I then tried to hide my misunderstanding by editing my post, but you managed to quote it quick enough to make that plan not come together either.

I posted what I posted as I felt the need to set that straight (as in OpenTTD doesn't contain original code of TTD). Only to discover that it was already straight and no setting was needed due to me misunderstanding things.

Let's leave it at that

[Emperor Jake]

@wallyweb: How about "The little engine that couldn't have done it without the help of the Invisible Power Booster"

I think a disclaimer that states loss of all warranty with train NewGRFs when used with this would be a good idea

[Ovenbaked]

I recently started using this and i love it. Being able to stick some wagons into sidings is awesome. Haven't and don't plan to use it as a booster though, that would be cheating .

[michael blunck]

I recently started using this and i love it. Being able to stick some wagons into sidings is awesome. Haven't and don't plan to use it as a booster though, that would be cheating .

There have been a couple of "invisible engines" around before, simply to "stick some wagons into sidings". The point of that recent discussion is somewhat different though.

regards
Michael

[Dave]

I will be using this as previous invisible engines have had very little HP and low top speed and so creating eyecandy sidings takes an age. No doubt with power booster on I'll be crashing wagons into each other from the very start, mind.

Also useful, I feel, for maybe just boosting the stats of the smallest engines in a couple of sets. Sometimes they just need that turn of power. This will, of course, ruin it.

But I'm using it. So whatever haha.

[Ovenbaked]

I recently started using this and i love it. Being able to stick some wagons into sidings is awesome. Haven't and don't plan to use it as a booster though, that would be cheating .

There have been a couple of "invisible engines" around before, simply to "stick some wagons into sidings". The point of that recent discussion is somewhat different though.

regards
Michael

It's useful as it's so short, and powerful. I've also used the un-powered version to stick at the front of a train when i want the locomotive at the back. the difference to most eye-candy locomotive is the flexibility. and occasionally being cheap and moving ex-mainline carriages to a branch line when your too poor to buy fast departmental locomotives.

[Emperor Jake]

Thanks Ovenbaked, some more things for the list

[ColdIce]

why do you people argue about something that you are not obligated to get? its very simple; if you want to play with this, you get it! if you want to simulate reality and dont want to use this, then dont! i just dont understand why do you have to make lots and lost of useless comments.

[Purno]

why do you people argue about something that you are not obligated to get? its very simple; if you want to play with this, you get it! if you want to simulate reality and dont want to use this, then dont! i just dont understand why do you have to make lots and lost of useless comments.

You do realize you just added one too?



I can imagine that as a NewGRF developer people have mixed feelings about this GRF. Even I have a bit of mixed feelings. For the 2ccSet we specifically designed metro for urban passenger transport by upping it's capacity, but downing it's speed. If you can cheat on this, then what's the purpose of metro? A lot of sets have built-in limitations to offer gameplay choices. This GRF totally unbalances this. Though I think this GRF is quite nice, and I agree people should play the game they want, I do have mixed feelings and I can imagine other developers having those as well.

[Emperor Jake]

Even I have a bit of mixed feelings. For the 2ccSet we specifically designed metro for urban passenger transport by upping it's capacity, but downing it's speed. If you can cheat on this, then what's the purpose of metro? A lot of sets have built-in limitations to offer gameplay choices. This GRF totally unbalances this. Though I think this GRF is quite nice, and I agree people should play the game they want, I do have mixed feelings and I can imagine other developers having those as well.

What exactly do you mean? There is no way you can use this GRF to speed up metros or use them on regular tracks or anything like that. The metro version of the invisible engine is primarily for joining single unit metros and different models of metro trains. It still remains fully incompatible with regular tracks as intended
(The best way to get around the metros would be via a railtype that is compatible with metro and regular tracks )

[Purno]

Even I have a bit of mixed feelings. For the 2ccSet we specifically designed metro for urban passenger transport by upping it's capacity, but downing it's speed. If you can cheat on this, then what's the purpose of metro? A lot of sets have built-in limitations to offer gameplay choices. This GRF totally unbalances this. Though I think this GRF is quite nice, and I agree people should play the game they want, I do have mixed feelings and I can imagine other developers having those as well.

What exactly do you mean? There is no way you can use this GRF to speed up metros or use them on regular tracks or anything like that. The metro version of the invisible engine is primarily for joining single unit metros and different models of metro trains. It still remains fully incompatible with regular tracks as intended

Meh, just an example.

(The best way to get around the metros would be via a railtype that is compatible with metro and regular tracks )

(Don't give them ideas! )

[planetmaker]

(The best way to get around the metros would be via a railtype that is compatible with metro and regular tracks )

(Don't give them ideas! )

Except that it exists