really dont like transmitters

[accipiter2000]

is that possible to remove it?
or make a switch to allow player to remove it?

[kamnet]

You can use a NewGRF to replace it with a rock.

This same rock replacement is also available in OpenGFX+ Landscapes.

You can also go into the cheat menu <ctrl-c>, enable the "Magic Bulldozer", and then use the dynamite tool to blow them up individually.

[accipiter2000]

You can use a NewGRF to replace it with a rock.

This same rock replacement is also available in OpenGFX+ Landscapes.

You can also go into the cheat menu <ctrl-c>, enable the "Magic Bulldozer", and then use the dynamite tool to blow them up individually.

but i have to remove it by cheat, right?
i can remove a mountain but can not remove a transmitter. sadly...

[Baldy's Boss]

The transmitters are there to keep the whole map from getting flattened,I gather...but how about just giving them a really,really high cost-to-clear that goes up for each one you clear?

[Alberth]

i can remove a mountain but can not remove a transmitter. sadly...

There is a much simpler solution if you want a flat map. Make a heightmap with a single colour, close to black, and play that heightmap.

[accipiter2000]

The transmitters are there to keep the whole map from getting flattened,I gather...but how about just giving them a really,really high cost-to-clear that goes up for each one you clear?

sounds very good!
I hope it can be implement in some version in future.

[andythenorth]

Immovables are immovable. The magic bulldozer is there to remove them. Or patch the game, it's probably changing 1 line of code to make them disappear

[Pyoro]

Frankly, the standard transmitters feel like an artifact from times before NewObjects. Whether they're still there "on purpose, for some gameplay reasons" (to provide an obstacle, I suppose) or just left-overs, no idea ... I always have the magic bulldozer(tm) on.

[supermop]

I believe the original game purpose was to make at least some mountains immovable, rather than for decoration. It would be neat of newgrf could set other new objects to behave the same way, and then a game or map generation setting could dictate how many and what type of obstacles to place. Changing the transmitter to some pre-marconi appropriate sprite unfortunately means you end up with that thing at the airports too.

[Baldy's Boss]

It would be nice to see an actual range of immovability for mountains,rather than a yes or no.
(I never ever use a cheat,but a difficult standard to meet for getting rid of an otherwise immovable object is good.And how about differing degrees of cost/ability to tunnel through rocks?)

Here's 2 saves of my Tradingbury Mountain game,so you can see what I've done to the mountain by Tradingbury...but the transmitter limits just what I CAN do.

[adf88]

but the transmitter limits just what I CAN do

That part of the sentence is illogical.

Everything is already there. Perhaps you people didn't discover it yet or nobody made a GRF that fits your wishes.

- a GRF can define other objects, their immovability, removal cost, the way they are generated, their introduction date and lifetime, ...
- cost of removing a mountain can be increased by increasing the cost of land leveling
- also land leveling limit will make harder to remove a mountain, it works very well on many on-line games

Frankly, the standard transmitters feel like an artifact from times before NewObjects...

You are allowed to do both - play original TTD style game or modify it via GRF's. Obviously you can't do both at a time...

[Pyoro]

I know you can have NewObjects generated at map generation, and make them irremovable, but I'm not sure about anything else. Does anyone know whether it would it be possible to use the nearby_tile_height variable flexibly with heightlevels? I mean, if I wanted objects to appear at, say, 50% of the maximum picked heightlevel, not starting with "10" or something regardless of what heightlevel I play at?

[adf88]

You're right and I was wrong!
There is no "object construction check" callback, like in case of houses/industries.

[Pyoro]

In a fit of boredom I made this super-small GRF that generates a bunch of irremovable (mostly invisible) tiles, entirely randomly across the map. After careful balancing considerations I set it to 250 per 256x256 map which I think is still too low to really make it fun, but it doesn't allow for bigger values than 255 so ... obviously I'd be possible to use multiple GRFs (€: or multiple objects, err, that's kinda more sensible...) that basically all generate the same obstacles. But that's already too much work. ^^

Of course they don't only stop landscaping, they also stop building roads and such. Well. Think of them as nature preserves

[Chrill]

In a fit of boredom I made this super-small GRF that generates a bunch of irremovable (mostly invisible) tiles, entirely randomly across the map. After careful balancing considerations I set it to 250 per 256x256 map which I think is still too low to really make it fun, but it doesn't allow for bigger values than 255 so ... obviously I'd be possible to use multiple GRFs (€: or multiple objects, err, that's kinda more sensible...) that basically all generate the same obstacles. But that's already too much work. ^^

Of course they don't only stop landscaping, they also stop building roads and such. Well. Think of them as nature preserves

The other way around landscape modification is by fixing the costs for landscaping! There are grfs for that too.

[Baldy's Boss]

In a fit of boredom I made this super-small GRF that generates a bunch of irremovable (mostly invisible) tiles, entirely randomly across the map. After careful balancing considerations I set it to 250 per 256x256 map which I think is still too low to really make it fun, but it doesn't allow for bigger values than 255 so ... obviously I'd be possible to use multiple GRFs (€: or multiple objects, err, that's kinda more sensible...) that basically all generate the same obstacles. But that's already too much work. ^^

Of course they don't only stop landscaping, they also stop building roads and such. Well. Think of them as nature preserves

With transmitters,what I'd like fixed is changing the "absolutely impossible" to "really really difficult" to remove.Making more impossibles isn't the answer.

[Alberth]

"infinitely difficult" is a close enough approximation for "absolutely"

[Pyoro]

Transmitters can't (yet) be changed that way via NewGRF anyway; I think. Well, NewGRF specs say so, anyway.

Overriding the default objects (e.g. transmitter, lighthouse) is not (yet) possible.

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/N ... ct_classes

€: does anyone know whether "OBJ_FLAG_ONLY_SE" means it'll still generate at game start, just not be available for player-use, or does it disable the object completely outside of the scenario editor?

[accipiter2000]

"infinitely difficult" is a close enough approximation for "absolutely"

The difference is possible.
Not everyone like impossible. Make a switch to let player to decide whether or not to use it.
The game setting is pretty good to satisfy the needs of different people. You guys has did great work on this.
if you guys can make a switch to lead to another possible, i believe it will be better.

for example, my pleasure is start the game with enough difficulty, and finish the game by flatten world and elaborate railway network.

[Baldy's Boss]

"infinitely difficult" is a close enough approximation for "absolutely"

Neither is an acceptable approximation of "really really"!