French Trains Set - Narrow Gauge v1.1: Release Thread

[andythenorth]

For a set to be released on Bananas, doesn't it need to comply with GPL license? I'm not sure if I'd agree to that, at least now.

bananas-license-options.png (117.81 KiB) Viewed 11158 times

[Kaorvor]

Yes, I am realy understand that but one thing. Playing with this set have to be so real? I mean, if that's really the case, everyone who uses this set is committed to playing on the French map and rebuilding real lines, but that's not the point. Just have fun and using imagine. Do what You want but this would be very fun and exciting beacuse this set is one of the best abut narrow rail in My opinion... It's just a change of options I think...

[Brickblock1]

Would it be possible for the set to not dissable itself when it doesn't find a "compatible" trackset? I am working on my own right now but your trains won't show up even when I know I have the correct labels. Great set btw

[Lurkmore]

Any chance this would be updated to have a "fine-grained tracktypes" parameter where the N gauge can be substituted for R? Metre gauge has been proposed to use R instead of N for future-proofing because most tramtypes use the R label and early trams were meter gauge.

I understand Snail doesn't seem to be around anymore, but the "hex editing" side of modding this game literally makes my head hurt and this seems to be the only rack rail set in existence.

[AdmiralEllis]

I was very excited to try this but am bummed it isn't on Bananas. My group sometimes struggles when it comes to manually installing dependencies for our servers. Here's hoping for a future where it gets uploaded!

[desertbus95]

I was very excited to try this but am bummed it isn't on Bananas. My group sometimes struggles when it comes to manually installing dependencies for our servers. Here's hoping for a future where it gets uploaded!

Avoid it; I tried this set, it doesn't properly distinguish between "this locomotive is no-slip on rack rail slopes" and "this locomotive requires rack rail to move". Without the NML source code and with the author gone, no functional rolling stock mod exists for rack rails.

[Argus]

That's the least of the problems. Worse is the dysfunction in the tropes - the unnecessary clinging to realism in the game. And the non-existence of the file on Bananas, which for many means deleting the game in case of a change of PC and the loss of the file. The file location here is definitely not permanent.

[desertbus95]

That's the least of the problems. Worse is the dysfunction in the tropes - the unnecessary clinging to realism in the game. And the non-existence of the file on Bananas, which for many means deleting the game in case of a change of PC and the loss of the file. The file location here is definitely not permanent.

Perhaps you'd like to make a mod that provides rolling stock with rack compatibility? I understand realism isn't always a plus, but I never noticed an obligatory overabundance of it. The current railtype standard is, while more complex, not strictly realism-exclusive. It would be possible to define a train set's level of such with a parameter, or only comply to a looser regulation by excluding most electrification and gauges of track.

[Argus]

Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to do that. But maybe someone else can.

[ebla71]

Unfortunately, I don't have the skills to do that. But maybe someone else can.

The problem is as far as I can see, at least in this thread, there are only the *.grf files but not the *.nml "source code" available.

So even if you can generally, you can't modify this NewGRF anyway ...

... unless of course, there is a way to "go back" or "decompile" from *.grf to *.nml, but that's beyond my paygrade.

[Argus]

So in the .zip files on the first page there is only *.grf?

[ebla71]

So in the .zip files on the first page there is only *.grf?

Unfortunately, yes.

ng frenchset strings.zip contains:

ng frset text.txt
ng railset text.txt

And NGFRSet_1p2p04.zip contains:

fsetw_j.grf
ng_frails.grf

No source code whatsoever in any of the ZIP archives and I also checked the whole thread above, also nowhere else in there, unfortunately

However, user "snail" was last logged in about two weeks ago, so does not seem to have totally be gone.

[Snail]

I'm back after a rather long hiatus. Happy to see activity on this thread!

Ok, so. I'm currently working on the French standard gauge trains now, which is a much larger-scope project and will keep me busy for the next few years. That said, I guess I could do some updates here. To answer a few points that were raised:

That's the least of the problems. Worse is the dysfunction in the tropes - the unnecessary clinging to realism in the game.

Yes, this set is obsessed with realism. That's how I like it. There is a parameter to enable the "Toy" version of the set, which is less focused on realism and is closer to the spirit of the original TT style. Have you tried that?

Any chance this would be updated to have a "fine-grained tracktypes" parameter where the N gauge can be substituted for R? Metre gauge has been proposed to use R instead of N for future-proofing because most tramtypes use the R label and early trams were meter gauge.

This trainset doesn't only work with the French NG Rails set: it also works with NUTracks.
I wasn't aware of the fact that some people replaced the "N" with "R" in their narrow gauge track definition. Back in the day, "N" was the code for narrow gauge. Is there a definition of these new track types anywhere?
To be honest, the whole idea behind a standardized definition of railtypes (gauge/axle weight/speed/power) was to promote compatibility among past and future trainsets. A standard should be accepted and used by most developers, and changing it (like in this case, from N to R) only makes it hard for players to mix their favorite sets.

Avoid it; I tried this set, it doesn't properly distinguish between "this locomotive is no-slip on rack rail slopes" and "this locomotive requires rack rail to move".

The way I intended rackrail, was to allow some vehicles to have a greatly enhanced TE on tracks with a rack, at the expense of a very slow max speed (as it was in reality). Are you suggesting a different way of implementing it? If so, what would that be?

Also, the set was not written in NML at all, but in m4nfo. The SG French set will follow the same route, of course.

I'll think about including it in Bananas, since it really looks like the largest hurdle that prevents people from fully enjoying this set.

Thank you all for your feedback!

[Argus]

It's a bit misleading, I thought the toy parameter allowed running in toyland, my mistake.

[Brickblock1]

I'm back after a rather long hiatus. Happy to see activity on this thread!

Welcome back!

I have a few things to say about railtypes and your set.

Ok, so. I'm currently working on the French standard gauge trains now, which is a much larger-scope project and will keep me busy for the next few years. That said, I guess I could do some updates here. To answer a few points that were raised:

This trainset doesn't only work with the French NG Rails set: it also works with NUTracks.
I wasn't aware of the fact that some people replaced the "N" with "R" in their narrow gauge track definition. Back in the day, "N" was the code for narrow gauge. Is there a definition of these new track types anywhere?
To be honest, the whole idea behind a standardized definition of railtypes (gauge/axle weight/speed/power) was to promote compatibility among past and future trainsets. A standard should be accepted and used by most developers, and changing it (like in this case, from N to R) only makes it hard for players to mix their favorite sets.

There hasn't been any change here "R" was proposed as a more precise "N" but that seems superfluous as that is already the point of "n". With this in mind I'd like to know if the trains use "N" or "n", for metre gauge "n" would seem more accurate (I noticed you had talked about it earlier but I couldn't find an answer).

Avoid it; I tried this set, it doesn't properly distinguish between "this locomotive is no-slip on rack rail slopes" and "this locomotive requires rack rail to move".

The way I intended rackrail, was to allow some vehicles to have a greatly enhanced TE on tracks with a rack, at the expense of a very slow max speed (as it was in reality). Are you suggesting a different way of implementing it? If so, what would that be?

I believe this stems from a comment I made on the page about the standardised railtype scheme after someone proposed that "r" should be used for "pure-rack" rackrail tracks.

Rack rail needs a bit greater of a explanation, idealy it would be coded in a way where both Pure rack and Rack-and-adhesion systems are supported. This can be achieved by making regular tracks powered on rackrail without the opposite being true. This means vehicles defined for NRAN can't go on NAAN (like a pure rack system) but NAAN vehicles can go on NRAN (like a rack-and-adhesion system). Currently French Set Rails implements compatiblility both ways which makes pure rack systems impossible.

I suggested that "R" should be used for Rackrail like before but that vehicles like yours which only gain TE and don't require racks get defined for regular tracks instead. Such that a railtype set could prevent NRAN vehicles going on NAAN tracks, doing this would currently break the current behavior in your set. If I end up implementing rackrail in SETS I will probably do it this way as it is more flexible allowing for both.

Tangentally relevant is that you might want to use var 63 for testing for if a track has rackrail if you aren't already, as it doesn't care about the exact label.

I also find your choice of not allowing your set to be played with any railtype set quite disappointing. I understand the value of a warning or notice to suggest using the intended trackset but implementning the standardised railtype scheme and then not allowing your trainset to be used with any set seems rather counter productive, especially since you can't support future tracksets that way. The standard is quite clear that broad compatibility is the goal, the passage bellow is taken directly from the standard text.

Adopting this scheme gives the player freedom to use any track set in combination with any train set that follow the scheme.

It's somewhat saddening to load SETS with this set and then noticing that even with SETS doing everything right the trains still won't show up.

I'll think about including it in Bananas, since it really looks like the largest hurdle that prevents people from fully enjoying this set.

Please do, I'd love to use this in multiplayer but it not being on bananas makes that a lot harder.

Kind regards Brickblock1

[YellowMiner]

*Incoherent screaming*



Both 3rd rail level crossings i've seen have this offset. JGR 0.64.2, no other grf beyond both from this thread ; i was checking them out.
Also tropical for at least toy please.