SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Discuss, get help with, or post new graphics for TTDPatch and OpenTTD, using the NewGRF system, here. Graphics for plain TTD also acceptable here.

Moderator: Graphics Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

SHARK ate SQUID ate FISH

FISH has given us over a decade of service and I thought it’s time it was updated.

It’s been a staple in every single one of my games since it was introduced over a decade ago. Then Squid came along with more polish and new features, but with the unfortunate removal of things such as vehicle ferries and river barges. Then redFISH came along and tried to fix this but brought problems of its own. Now Squid/FISH remained abandoned and I decided to take a look at it, thus SHARK was born.

SHARK is based on the code of Squid, but thanks to its modular code it’s quite easy to expand it. And thanks to FISH’s turbulent history there were plenty of unused and unfinished graphics to reuse and improve upon. SHARK re-introduces the old FISH fleet as well as a variety of ships from unreleased development builds, including the Danube roster and early builds of Unsinkable Sam.

Hope you enjoy, and please post any bugs, suggestions, or contributions here. :)

The Fleet:
Image

Features:
  • 70 ships, with more to come in the future!
  • 1850-2008 year range
  • New and never-before-seen sprites
  • All the features of Squid including animated wakes, smoke puffs, loading stages and variable speeds
Known Issues:
  • Some graphics are temporary and will be improved
  • More ships planned (including ocean liners and tow barges)
  • Some misalignments in buy menu and smoke effects
  • Costs, intro dates and stats may need further tweaking
  • Translations might be slightly wrong (but I didn’t change much)
Credits:
Andythenorth, for making a great ship set with modular code that is easy to edit
Andythenorth, Coxx, DanMack, Emperor Jake, lead@inbox and Pikkabird for contributing sprites (let me know if I missed anyone!)
Emperor Jake, for compiling it all


The source code can be found on Github:
https://github.com/EmperorJake/SHARK

The GRF can be downloaded on Bananas right now!
https://bananas.openttd.org/package/newgrf/4a44bbb1
Attachments
fleet.png
The ships in SHARK
(109.12 KiB) Not downloaded yet
shark.tar
In case you don't want to use Bananas
(3.46 MiB) Downloaded 170 times
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7895
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by kamnet »

McZapkie wrote: 25 Sep 2021 16:20 What about merging Sailing ships and Squid-like derivatives? And of course adapt Sailing Ships parameters to make autoreplacing less troublesome (Sailing Ships have different functionalities than Squid/fish ships: no autorefit, more general cargo refit etc).
I think bringing in Sailing Ships would be absolutely awesome! It's in as much of a need of an update and some love as FISH did.
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

Once I finish the more important additions to SHARK, I'll definitely consider adding Sailing Ships. it would be nice to have them integrated stats and gameplay wise. Long ago, FISH artist Coxx posted some sailing ships that would match the style, but it would be quite challenging to do the other angles, so I'll probably just use the original sailing ship graphics with minor tweaks :)
Attachments
Mockfullrigged.png
Mockfullrigged.png (3.84 KiB) Viewed 6255 times
old_coaster_sail_s4.png
old_coaster_sail_s4.png (4.74 KiB) Viewed 6255 times
User avatar
odisseus
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 353
Joined: 01 Nov 2017 21:19

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by odisseus »

Here are some ideas for new ship types:
  • Futuristic sail ships (perhaps equipped with Flettner rotors). These should have low speed and high cost, moderate to high capacity, but low running costs.
  • Nuclear-powered freighters. Very high cost, high running costs, high speed, extremely high capacity.
  • Cruise ships. High cost and high running costs, but high capacity and zero cargo decay for Tourists.
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7895
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by kamnet »

Emperor Jake wrote: 26 Sep 2021 14:49 Once I finish the more important additions to SHARK...
Ekranoplans? :)
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

odisseus wrote: 27 Sep 2021 00:56 Here are some ideas for new ship types:
  • I've thought about Flettner rotors, they would be easy to draw and add to existing ships. Might happen someday but not a priority
  • Nuclear, maybe? I quite like the Russian style icebreakers, perhaps the set could use one of those. Otherwise it's very niche and only applicable to very large ships in the future which doesn't work with FISH scale
  • Cruise ships are something I definitely want and have planned, however not any time soon because it's a lot of drawing effort :)
kamnet wrote: 27 Sep 2021 05:21 Ekranoplans? :)
Not until OpenTTD fixes the 79mph ship speed limit :mrgreen:

In the meantime, I want to get working on those tow barges that Andy promised way back early in FISH's development. Which option is preferred?
A: Separate vehicles for each capacity/amount of barges. Easy to code, but clutters up the buy menu
barges.PNG
barges.PNG (2.97 KiB) Viewed 6103 times
B: A capacity parameter refit. A challenge to code due to Squid code not supporting it, but neater
Something like:
  • Coal, 1 Barge (200t)
  • Coal, 2 Barges (400t)
  • Coal, 4 Barges (800t)
Last edited by Emperor Jake on 27 Sep 2021 12:23, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

Oops, I meant a refit option, why did I write parameter?

Not enough sleep last night... :lol:
User avatar
odisseus
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 353
Joined: 01 Nov 2017 21:19

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by odisseus »

Emperor Jake wrote: 27 Sep 2021 11:49 Nuclear, maybe? I quite like the Russian style icebreakers, perhaps the set could use one of those. Otherwise it's very niche and only applicable to very large ships in the future which doesn't work with FISH scale
Icebreakers would be useless in the OpenTTD world, because the sea never freezes, and also because the ships can pass through each other. The concept of icebreaker convoys thus becomes totally meaningless.

On the other hand, very large ships could be very handy in advanced stages of the game, when the monthly production rate of a processing industry can grow upwards of 10 000 units. A nuclear super freighter could possibly carry all that output in one trip, at a speed comparable to passenger hydrofoils (60-80 km/h). Of course, this level of performance should come at a price, and the vessels of such size should move very slowly in canals (say, 10 km/h).
LaChupacabra
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 288
Joined: 08 Nov 2019 23:54

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by LaChupacabra »

Hey Jake!

Many, many thanks for your work and this set! Of course, a big thank you to everyone who also contributed to its components, especially to Andy. This is something that was sorely missed. You may have seen a whale ate squid in one of my draft. ;) I know that McZapkie was working on a similar project, unfortunately he lost all his job in not very pleasant circumstances. Any way, someone did! :) Really thanks! It feels like December is already. :D

So far, I've checked the set only briefly, but if you used cost converter like Andy for Squid, it seems like it should be well-balanced.

The only error I noticed concerns the Matsushima Hydrofoil - it has 0 capacity for all available loads except for the mail and passengers.

As for thoughts and suggestions...

1. Sailing ships - Yes, they are missing the most now. The ones from the Sailing Ships set look very good, but as you also write yourself, they don't match the balance to other sets. The ones you showed above are also nice, but if you were to use the artwork from the mentioned set it would be just as well (surely some other preview graphics would be needed, maybe like this?).
Sailing ships & WSF Ferry Set.png
Sailing ships & WSF Ferry Set.png (15.05 KiB) Viewed 6029 times
2. WSF Ferry Set (second half of pictured above) - Andrew350 created this set a few years ago. The last update was over 2 years ago (here). Honestly, if it weren't for a coincidence (I rarely pay attention to the links in the signature), I wouldn't know about its existence at all - I don't know why Andrew didn't publish it on bananas (it's a bit annoying ;) ). Anyway, I don't know what Andrew would say, but it would be nice if you could include his work to the set... including the submarine. :D
3. Caspian Sea Monster - When it comes to submarines... If it were possible to break that 79 mph barrier, these ekranoplans would be an amazing complement to the set. As expensive add-on, something like the Concorde among airplanes, and perhaps optional, like a submarine in WSF, but that would really be something cool. There are also other very interesting wingship designs such as Boeing Pelican, Aerocon Dash or Beriev BE-2500. This isn't exactly a serious suggestion, I just wanted to mention it, though you might think otherwise.
4. Variable ship capacities - Generally the idea is very cool and useful. I know Andy used it in the Unsinkable Sam set. The current form, however, is a bit strange, because you buy a small ship and you can increase its capacity for free up to x4. Meanwhile, if you look at the load capacity of a ship as a value determined by a user who deliberately wants to use only a part of the maximum load capacity, then the ship should be purchased with the maximum load that can be reduced for free as needed. It also makes more sense if the cost of maintenance and the price of the vessel are to remain the same regardless of the selected payload.
On the other hand, if you look at the payload as a version of the ship, the conversion should be costly (also reducing the ship should cost something). Then such larger versions should also generate correspondingly higher maintenance costs. An alternative option may also be variable costs depending on the degree of loading. It's nice if in this case different versions will use different graphics.
5. Sorting by load capacity - There is currently a problem with that. I don't know if it can be solved on the newGRF side at all, because it is rather on the game side, as it also applies to other more complex sets. I reported this as a bug on Github.
6. Cargo aging - I didn't compare the set with Squid ate Fish, you may have used the same values, but I think they may be a bit too high. I did a little comparison and considering the profit from transporting one unit of cargo it turns out that the ships are just as profitable... as the maglev. This is not bad, but I think that while building a sea link requires almost no infrastructure, this advantage of ships is a bit too great. There could also be a bigger difference between refrigerated and other ships, because it's really small. At the distance of 500 tiles, the difference in profit per cargo unit between Winterhold and Newport was £380 vs. £363 (Lev4 also earned £380, standard gauge high speed (160km/h) just £285) (I always use faster ship speeds). Perhaps the solution might be to add a setting ("map size"?), Because what's good for large maps may not be good for small ones. And vice versa.
7. Really large payloads - To be honest, with so many ships I counted that the payload span would also be much larger. In Squid, I've always missed the larger redFISH ships. In redFISH ships and faster speeds from Squid was missed for me. There is also a Very large ship set, with payloads reaching 22,000. It may be a bit too much, but ships with a capacity of ten or even dozen would certainly be useful. It would also be nice to see the counterparts of such ships as the Emma Maersk container ship, the Knock Nevis oil tanker or the Allure of the Seas cruise ship.
8. Other existing ships - Barracuda and Caspian Sea Monster are used in Wasteland and both unfinished versions of Mount Blaze are still in redFISH - nice bigger version of Mako catamaran. The Titanic is a separate set by Mayer, but I think that in this form it would not be very suitable for the set - first of all, its size is legendary, but in fact with modern ships it is not so great at all.
Other missing ships.png
Other missing ships.png (36.55 KiB) Viewed 6029 times
9. Car ferries... :) Probably would require a new type of port. It would be a checkpoint for vehicles. The ferries would have the function of a depot that changes position (an order "go to depot" after the "checkpoint" would be hidden). The cost of transporting the vehicle (its maintenance cost) would be allocated as the ship's profit.
Vehicle ferry 1.0.png
Vehicle ferry 1.0.png (243.54 KiB) Viewed 6029 times
I am sorry for may English. I know is bed.
Wahazar
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1442
Joined: 18 Jan 2014 18:10

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Wahazar »

LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 9. Car ferries... :) Probably would require a new type of port. It would be a checkpoint for vehicles.
Seems to be over-complicated if compared to whole openttd philosophy. And these ferries are not river ferries, they are regular sea vessels like these between far Greece islands.
Another thing deserve to be fixed as openttd patch: articulated ships.
Not only for tugs (these rigid rafts and barges looks ugly) but also to enable parallel cargo slots.
Formerly known as: McZapkie
Projects: Reproducible Map Generation patch, NewGRFs: Manpower industries, PolTrams, Polroad, 600mm narrow gauge, wired, ECS industry extension, V4 CEE train set, HotHut.
Another favorite games: freeciv longturn, OHOL/2HOL.
Taschi
Route Supervisor
Route Supervisor
Posts: 425
Joined: 11 Oct 2014 22:58

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Taschi »

TBH I'd just have car ferries as pax vehicles, maybe with less capacity but higher income than regular passenger ships, or something along those lines.
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

Hey LaChupachabra, thanks for the comprehensive reply! Let me chop it up :P
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 The only error I noticed concerns the Matsushima Hydrofoil - it has 0 capacity for all available loads except for the mail and passengers.
This was partially intentional but I forgot to fix it. I was going to create a passenger-only class of ship which I'll implement soon.
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 1. Sailing ships - Yes, they are missing the most now. The ones from the Sailing Ships set look very good, but as you also write yourself, they don't match the balance to other sets. The ones you showed above are also nice, but if you were to use the artwork from the mentioned set it would be just as well (surely some other preview graphics would be needed, maybe like this?).
I've started planning to include sailing ships using the Sailing Ship GRF's graphics, however the stats and names will be completely changed. I won't resize the preview sprites because it doesn't fit in with the way FISH is designed.
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 2. WSF Ferry Set (second half of pictured above) - Andrew350 created this set a few years ago. The last update was over 2 years ago (here). Honestly, if it weren't for a coincidence (I rarely pay attention to the links in the signature), I wouldn't know about its existence at all - I don't know why Andrew didn't publish it on bananas (it's a bit annoying ;) ). Anyway, I don't know what Andrew would say, but it would be nice if you could include his work to the set... including the submarine.
There's already a couple of WSF sprites that were included in FISH at one point that made it to SHARK, and I thought about including more. I'll likely include some more eventually, however with names and stats changed to fit in. Also not sure what the submarine would be classed as, maybe a uitlity ship?
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 4. Variable ship capacities
I just copied the way it was done in Squid with the Grindavik reefer and expanded it to a few other ships. Perhaps the addition of smaller reefers would make this feature redundant?
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 6. Cargo aging
This is a big can of worms which has been discussed about at length before. It's known to be a broken feature. I should just pull an Andy and remove all code relating to cargo aging :twisted:
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 7. Really large payloads
I won't include very large ships because they don't fit in with the scale of FISH/SHARK. As for capacities, I might eventually include a capacity parameter that you can increase to match redFISH capacities. I don't personally see a need for anything bigger than that
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 8. Other existing ships
The Mako is a completed version of the Mount Blaze, it would be silly to include the unfinished version as well :P That smaller catamaran would be a nice addition though, where did you find that? It looks like it's based on my old Enoshima catamaran. As for the Titanic, IIRC that sprite was ripped from some other game and therefore isn't licensed.
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 9. Car ferries...
This is way out of scope for GRF, would be nice though.
odisseus wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:32 Icebreakers would be useless in the OpenTTD world, because the sea never freezes, and also because the ships can pass through each other. The concept of icebreaker convoys thus becomes totally meaningless.
Functionally it would just be an upgrade for the Island Trader. But either way it would need to be drawn from scratch so it's a low priority for now
Taschi wrote: 27 Sep 2021 19:07 TBH I'd just have car ferries as pax vehicles, maybe with less capacity but higher income than regular passenger ships, or something along those lines.
I often use car ferries to transport mail, operating alongside fast ferries for passengers. In fact the Connor Freight Ferry was created to fill the need for a high capacity mail ship.
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5944
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by michael blunck »

Emperor Jake wrote: [cargo aging] It's known to be a broken feature.
I don't think so.
Eddi wrote: andy is exaggerating (as usual). what he means is that it didn't quite do what he wanted it to do.

• increasing the aging period (cargo ages slower) only has a meaningful effect on large and very large maps
• reducing the aging period (cargo ages faster) has side effects, because the age gets capped out.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=26&p=1248098

Eddi's first point would also hold for slow vehicles (aka ships), and, if at all, the second one boils down to a questionable implementation in OTTD.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
Emperor Jake
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3281
Joined: 24 Apr 2007 09:37
Location: NSW Australia

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Emperor Jake »

So I should increase the aging period? That's the opposite of what LaChupracabra wanted. :lol:

I think I'll just leave things as they are for now, it seems to work well enough for me (the values are unchanged from Squid)
Wahazar
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1442
Joined: 18 Jan 2014 18:10

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Wahazar »

Best option is to add settings for increased cargo ageing, thus user can decide if he want such feature or not.
This archaic income algorithm is really weird in case of large (and sparse) maps, thus such settings would be welcome.
Formerly known as: McZapkie
Projects: Reproducible Map Generation patch, NewGRFs: Manpower industries, PolTrams, Polroad, 600mm narrow gauge, wired, ECS industry extension, V4 CEE train set, HotHut.
Another favorite games: freeciv longturn, OHOL/2HOL.
LaChupacabra
Transport Coordinator
Transport Coordinator
Posts: 288
Joined: 08 Nov 2019 23:54

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by LaChupacabra »

Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59 Hey LaChupachabra, thanks for the comprehensive reply!
I think I wrote too little lately... I'll write more :twisted: :wink:
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 1. Sailing ships
I've started planning to include sailing ships using the Sailing Ship GRF's graphics, however the stats and names will be completely changed.
Their overall balance is not bad. A bit more payloads could be used, but looking at other vehicles from this period, that might favor them too much. And so ships are planes of the 19th century. Increasing their advantage wouldn't be good.
I think it would be good to do something to prevent the production of enterprises and cities in the early years from being so large, but this is a topic for other newGRFs and maybe the game itself.
The main drawback of sailing ships is now a much worse cargo aging parameter compared to ships from FISH sets, and the fact that the speed multiplier didn't affect them. What may be worth changing is somehow differentiating Barque from Merchantman.
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59 I won't resize the preview sprites because it doesn't fit in with the way FISH is designed.
Hmm... somehow I used different scales and didn't notice it. :lol: In addition, wrong order and duplicated graphics... Ok, one more approach. :) This time, all ships on the same scale, properly assigned.
Sailing ships preview.png
Sailing ships preview.png (23.53 KiB) Viewed 5264 times
I think it's worth using graphics with sails. One that they show the nature of ships, and two that the graphics of some ships without sails are the same. Anyway, with or without sails, I think the Steamship art is better if show whole ship like other - it's only slightly longer than the rest, but it looks a lot better this way.
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 2. WSF Ferry Set (...) submarine.
... not sure what the submarine would be classed as, maybe a uitlity ship?
I have no idea, maybe something like the "Atlantis Submarine"? Btw. There is a ship with that name and it is a passenger ship with a capacity of 64 passengers. Regarding the naming, these names of sailing ships refer to their types - in the past there were no divisions into ferries, bulk carriers, etc., there was a division in terms of construction, mainly the type of mast.
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 4. Variable ship capacities
I just copied the way it was done in Squid with the Grindavik reefer and expanded it to a few other ships. Perhaps the addition of smaller reefers would make this feature redundant?
Interesting question. I think this is a very nice feature and for me it could also be used in other ships. Playing recently, I have looked at each ship's available payloads every time, but this option is only available for three. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to extend it while reducing the number of ships on the list? For example, Maspalomas and Munkegrund would be one ship in different versions. The same for the pair of Santorini and Oran, as well as other similar ships.
New, smaller reefers? But I would ask one important question first: how do you perceive this change in capacity? Is it a choice of a different version of the vessel, or is it just a utility limitation by the user?
In the first case, it would be good if each other versions of the ships had different graphics. Then other, smaller ships would really be useful, because maintaining similar graphics with a four-fold change in payload will be quite strange. Then also these payload changes shouldn't be that big. Here, the prices of the different versions should not be the same. In order for the player to be able to buy a smaller version, the conversion should remain as it is, i.e. you buy a smaller one and change it for a larger one.
In the latter case, no other graphics are needed. However, here the basic version of the ship should be the most capacious one, because the player pays for it and the price of this ship should be proportional to the highest payload. For me, both solutions are interesting. In both cases, the change in payload should have an impact on the maintenance costs. Otherwise, changing the level of these costs (x2, x4, x8) will make the lower payload versions unprofitable. And if you adjust the costs to the smaller available capacity, the larger ones will be OP. As I write this, I know that I am repeating myself, but I like slightly more difficult games and then the right balance of costs is important and I just care about it. :) (certainly not only me).

Summarizing this point, I would see two ways.

First
- Limiting the number of ships available directly in the list
- Ships similar in appearance and data would be the different rebuild versions available
- The ship's default version would be the smallest available
- Rebuilding to larger versions would have a specific cost
- Larger versions would have a correspondingly higher cost of maintenance

Here, the disadvantage of this solution is the problem with the automatic replacement of ships with a different model - currently it is not possible to choose the version, which is a big limitation.

Second
- Any ship with different appearance, capacity or other details would be available separately
- Some ships, and even most or all of them, could have the option of utility payload reduction (e.g. -10/-20/-30%) - sometimes the player may need less load capacity, but maybe this shouldn't be 50 or 75% lower (then he will choose another ship)
- A reduction in payload would also partially reduce maintenance costs - they would be lower, but this reduction would not be proportional to the reduction in payload
- Instead of change of the payload, there could be an option to change the speed - higher speed would mean higher maintenance costs

Here, if you will add other ships, the version option could be completely redundant and possibly useful only in a few ships.
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 6. Cargo aging
This is a big can of worms which has been discussed about at length before. It's known to be a broken feature. I should just pull an Andy and remove all code relating to cargo aging :twisted:
I also don't think that cargo aging is a broken function. This is not a perfect solution, but removing these multipliers will not fix anything, it will just spoil the set. Ships are slow and the drop in freight rates is very rapid here. Without these multipliers, transport over longer and even average distances will become devoid of economic sense. Large ships that take a long time to load will also become pointless. Cargo aging is a simplification of the economy that was supposed to make buying newer, faster vehicles make sense. It also makes sense that it limits the purposefulness of transporting to the farthest place on the map. Removing this feature and replacing it with another would require not only simple changes to one add-on, but major changes to the game itself that would significantly change its nature and possibly all add-ons to keep them balanced.

My suggestion was and is that these multipliers for cargo aging should be slightly reduced, because curently ships earn too easily compared to other modes of transport. Below I have posted a save where you can see what it looks like. Additionally, I would suggest increase the difference of the multipliers between universal ships and specialized ones (reefers, tankers). I haven't seen the code, but comparing income with other vehicles, I suppose this multiplier is now around x4, or around 700-800, and is probably general for all ships, except for reefers and tankers, which have an additional, albeit not much higher, multiplier.
These general multipliers are a bit too high in my opinion. When you play ships against a maglev, they are ok because the income from transporting the same cargo is similar. But in the case of a conventional, slower railway, the advantage of ships is too pronounced. I think lowering this multiplier by 20-30% would give a better proportion.
Regarding adding a setting for this parameter, I think that the right place for such a function would be add-ons specifying the rates for transport, because this multiplier should change equally for all types of vehicles and possibly sets.
SHARK 1.0 Cargo ageing TEST.sav
(896.75 KiB) Downloaded 43 times
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 7. Really large payloads
I won't include very large ships because they don't fit in with the scale of FISH/SHARK. As for capacities, I might eventually include a capacity parameter that you can increase to match redFISH capacities. I don't personally see a need for anything bigger than that
The general capacity parameter in the form of a multiplier would not be good, because small ships are also needed. But sometimes bigger ones could really be used... ;)
[+] Spoiler
Image
We need something bigger, Captain Jake.png
We need something bigger, Captain Jake.png (228.1 KiB) Viewed 1798 times
It may not be something common, but I have seen even better achievements on the servers more than once and I am certainly not the only player for whom larger ships would be very useful. Here, on a fairly short route of about 250 tiles, I needed as many as 110 of the largest ships, and it was only one line. In online games, a large number of ships is important due to the game performance and server limits. In offline games, limits don't count, but still fewer ships on the trail just look better than their unbroken string. I think other graphics could be used for these larger ships. They don't have to be longer. Their load capacity can be seen in the form of a dipping difference, which can be huge. :D
Image
Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59
LaChupacabra wrote: 27 Sep 2021 15:38 8. Other existing ships
The Mako is a completed version of the Mount Blaze, it would be silly to include the unfinished version as well :P That smaller catamaran would be a nice addition though, where did you find that? It looks like it's based on my old Enoshima catamaran. As for the Titanic, IIRC that sprite was ripped from some other game and therefore isn't licensed.
This unfinished version of Mount Blaze, completed in a different way, could be a larger version of the Mako. :D
This little catamaran is Barracuda and it is located in Wasteland set.

A few more comments and ideas

10. Olimpic Log Tug (very interesting) - in the "vertical" view the logs look definitely too wide. Here, the load level in my opinion should have an influence on the top speed. Currently, no matter how much wood he pulls, the speed is always 13 mph and 21 mph when empty. Maybe something like: 21 > 17 > 15 >13 ?
11. Tigershark - sorry, but this hydrofoil is of Soviet construction and was used mainly in the countries of the Eastern Bloc, so this new name does not fit here at all. The previous name was much much more accurate. Feodosiya refers to a city in Ukraine where very similar hydrofoils were produced called Kometa, and later also Voskhod. Btw. The most interesting of the Soviet hydrofoils, in my opinion, was the Burevestnik - it was powered by two external gas turbines that looked like a jet propulsion. It took 150 passengers on board and could theoretically accelerate to 150 km/h (94 mph)
Image
12. Pusher - could be an interesting variation of the barge
Image
13. Connor Freight Ferry - you can transport livestock with it... Do passengers also travel in cages? Or is it a version for immigrants? I do not know. I like such a lack of literality, but nonetheless, this passenger ship looks at least a little strange, if not suspicious. :mrgreen:
14. Ship release periods - they have not been specified, so all ships are always available regardless of the setting in the game.
I am sorry for may English. I know is bed.
Wahazar
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1442
Joined: 18 Jan 2014 18:10

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Wahazar »

LaChupacabra wrote: 06 Oct 2021 21:42 The main drawback of sailing ships is now a much worse cargo aging parameter compared to ships from FISH sets, and the fact that the speed multiplier didn't affect them.
This, but also lack of autorefit.

Another issue was refit range - some sail ships are universal - can carry any cargo, while there is no such ships in fish&co (some version have universal utility tugs, some, like redfish, not at all). Therefore problems with autoreplace.
Formerly known as: McZapkie
Projects: Reproducible Map Generation patch, NewGRFs: Manpower industries, PolTrams, Polroad, 600mm narrow gauge, wired, ECS industry extension, V4 CEE train set, HotHut.
Another favorite games: freeciv longturn, OHOL/2HOL.
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7895
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by kamnet »

Emperor Jake wrote: 29 Sep 2021 13:59 Also not sure what the submarine would be classed as, maybe a uitlity ship?
1916: German Deutschland & Brement merchant submarine
1919-1926: United States V-Class converted to cargo transport during WWII
1939: German Type X submarine, with a little more detail here
1942: Italian R-class
1942-1973: Various Soviet design projects
1942-1944: Japanese I-52 cargo, I-351 tanker, I-361 transport, Type 3 transport submarines
1937-1984: US Sargo-class, Balaro-class, Gato-class, USS Grayback converted to amphibious cargo and transport ships at various points of their careers
1976: Soviet Union Submarine Cargo Vessel
1981: General Dynamics tanker submarine proposal
1997: Submarine Freight Transport System
2019: Malachite Pilgrim tanker submarine proposal
2021: Future lithium battery-powered drone subs
2021: UK proposal for hydrogen-powered drone subs

Also possible for consideration, smaller submersible boats, such as:
2000: Narco subs
2014: MSub's manned submersibles and US Navy Dry Combat Submersible
2020: Ghost Glider narco boat
User avatar
Cryolaser
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 17
Joined: 18 Jan 2019 04:48

Re: SHARK (Another FISH Fork)

Post by Cryolaser »

What an awesome ship set! To help make it even more ultimate, here are speed discrepancies I've noticed:
  • The Ohshima Freight Hovercraft has max speed listed as 46 mph but actually goes 60 mph in ocean, and has no restrictions in canals/rivers unlike the passenger hovercrafts. I assume the intended oceanic speed is 60, with 46 meant to be the canal/river restriction? (Edit: seems its speed is instead reduced in increments to 49 and then 46 depending on how loaded it is. Interesting but kinda random to have one specific vehicle work that way; is that intended?)
  • The Lorraine Edibles Tanker is a large ship with no speed restriction in canals/rivers. Other ships of the same size/era/speed are restricted to 20.
  • Grindavik and Helsinki reefers have a lower ratio of ocean/canal speed than ships of other types. They go 26/15 and 30/17 while the regular freighters and tankers go 26/18 and 30/20.
  • Winterhold Container Reefer goes 17 mph in canals/rivers while the Newport Container Feeder only goes 13. I assume 13 is the intended speed for container ships? That would differentiate the Winterhold more from the Helsinki.
And a graphical issue:
  • The Volgoneft 630 Tanker Barge is offset upward from where it should be. If you run it down some canals you'll see.
[Edit] And a loading issue:
  • The Dieze Container Barge has a capcity of 0 when refitted for mail.
Post Reply

Return to “Graphics Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests