Extended Cargo Scheme (ECS) discussion

[michael blunck]

During the last couple of days I´ve put together a scheme for new "standard" cargoes. Some of these have already been implemented but most of them are not and possibly need some more discussion.

Please notice that this is a scheme for the temperate climate, cargoes for arctic or tropic will be different, although we should coordinate the different climates as best as possible.

The complete and revised text can be found here.

[edit]

Meanwhile, there are a couple of entries on the TTDPatch Wiki about ECS.

regards
Michael

[eis_os]

I will make it a sticky for some time...

[Aegir]

I agree with this scheme whole heartedly.

/me gives it his somwhat meaningless stamp of approval

[SHADOW-XIII]

I agree with the scheme ...

and what do you think about:
- (livestock) -> leather works/textile mill
- (steel) -> construction industry
- (wood) -> furniture factory -> (furniture) -> town ?
- remove "goods" cargo (eg. change to furniture then)
- machinery is not needed, general "cars" will be enough since they both go to towns
- maybe 2nd destination for petrol (not only towns)

edit: plus we could add other climates industry like diamond mines, fruits, rubber, etc etc

[Purno]

IMO, we shouldn't change the industry model too much, since I already have troubles knowing the other climates industry models, and the temperate model is the only one I know well. So I suggest mainly adding things, TBH.

[Sanchimaru]

Seems good to me. Quite interesting, indeed, this will enhance the game experience a lot; and also allow to add more freight cars.
I would suggest that the farms produce "agriculturals" or "vegetables" instead of grain; since grain is a more specific kind of product. Then, have each GRF to refit cars to "vegetables(olives)" as seen in the last release of DBsetXL "grain(straw)" ; "goods(beer)" etc.
The problem is that agriculturals seems a very long word to me; is there any better way to refer to it?

[SHADOW-XIII]

I think Plantations is better one but long to

[Csaboka]

I'd like to clarify some things before you start expecting too much from the new switches: the size of the map and the limit on the number of industries still limits the possible new cargo types.

TTDPatch is guaranteed to build at least one from each industry type. Still, only 25 industries are generated on the "low" setting, so you'll end up with only one instance of each type if there are more than 25 types. Having only two or three instances of an industry type would make starting the game difficult, at least.

I'm not telling you shouldn't expand the game - just don't expand it too much, so it becomes too hard to play...

[Oracle]

My thoughts are generally on the same lines as Csaboka's.
On the whole, I do like the scheme but I think it is a bit too large and it could make the game a bit unplayable with such a selection of industries and cargos. If it was trimmed down a bit, though, then I think it could be very enjoyable. For example, I don't think that the suggested wool/grapes cargo would add much to the game for the extra complication it would cause. I'm also unconvinced about the benefits of the building material cargo chain - it's a good idea for sure, but it seems a bit complicated for simple gameplay. I do like the fertiliser increasing farm production idea quite a bit but is that again too complicated?

Don't get me wrong, I like the general ideas and you've obviously worked hard on making a coherent and integrated scheme, Michael, but, for a 255x255 map with a limited number of industries, I just think your scheme is a bit too grand. I would certainly like lots more trains of different cargos running around but if I'm struggling to remember the cargo chains then it just won't be as much fun.

[George]

This is what we have now

[Axlrose]

Perhaps I am a different type of player, but if Michael's suggestions will make the game harder, then I will be the first to attempt to beat it besides outright enjoying it. When this game was just a DOS game in the middle 1990's, I played extensive amounts of games to "completion" (and saw many sunsets... oh, that's the sunrise!). With the introduction of the Patch, many of the monotonous aspects were removed. Personally, I did not find a challenge in reestablishing each and every vehicle once its expiration date arrived. Since the computer players were always idiots in my opinion, I played the games to see what can I create alone. In time, I created self-imposed restrictions on what I could and could not do in the game with land destruction being one of the biggest challenges. Buildings, roads, and trees were other obstacles I avoided removing (though trees fell in the path of progress with a forest worth of replacements nearby). Eventually, I got bored.

The recent posts (past two years) of new graphic enhancements brought me back into the game for a period of time. But after establishing every industry in a web of rails while each and every city or town is connected in an elaborate busing system, again I reached boredom. The graphics are a joy to watch - especially the slow building of the taller buildings. But the game play was still pretty basic to me: farm to factory to town. It did not matter if the food was grain or livestock or if the factory even had steel to make cans for the foodstock, the town accepted "goods" and that was end game.

So again, perhaps I am biased, but to produce a finished product requiring more steps in the process with potential loss along each step would be a challenge to run successfully - especially if some of the raw materials are of a limited amount. Also, I would have to reconsider my strategies of having trains waiting at the station for something when an inbound train is seeking a station to unload (I do not build superstations). To tweak a company to run efficiently without a cost burden would be a new challenge, at least to me.

And of course there will (probably) be new eye candy once again!

But just my thoughts,
>>>>>Axlrose - ...<<<<<

[wallyweb]

George ... your graphical chart is excellent. I'm saving and printing a copy for quick reference.

I have some thoughts on this and how to keep it simple. I just need a bit of time to work them out and then I will post them here.

[Oracle]

So again, perhaps I am biased, but to produce a finished product requiring more steps in the process with potential loss along each step would be a challenge to run successfully - especially if some of the raw materials are of a limited amount. Also, I would have to reconsider my strategies of having trains waiting at the station for something when an inbound train is seeking a station to unload (I do not build superstations). To tweak a company to run efficiently without a cost burden would be a new challenge, at least to me.

In the most part, I agree. It will be a new challenge to set up more complex industry chains, although I am sure it will be annoying at first (the steel mill test GRF still annoys me if I have it enabled because it doesn't produce steel when I expect it to). However, what I don't want is to have just one or two iron ore trains trundling around the map from maybe just one iron ore mine, producing minimal quantities of steel and so on - it just won't make me want to play the game. That's why I feel that Michael's chart is just a bit too overambitious, judging by the number of cargos and industries on it, especially if combined with other GRF-specific cargos and industry chains. I may, of course, be completely wrong, when and if it's all implemented, but the current constraints of the map size seem to me to be too restrictive.

[michael blunck]

Well, first of all there seems to be a general misunderstanding, possibly because I forgot to write the most obvious thing:

The table gives a list of all standard cargoes available (and its accompanying industries) but it doesn´t say that you´ll have to use all of them in one game. As Csaba already pointed out this would be a rather silly approach.

So, in general, you´d choose a couple of cargoes and industries from different .grfs or from one large .grf by setting a parameter in such a way that you´ll end up with a playable scenario.

What the scheme should be used for is that all those different .grfs would use the same cargo-IDs and bit flags to ensure compatibility.

Furthermore I tried to leave 8 slots free for special .grfs, but due to the large amount of original cargoes that didn´t work out in the end. We´ll have to see if the available free slots are sufficient or if we´d have to strip down the list a bit further.


Now for some details.

As for the farms: "industries" in TTD may only produce two different cargoes, so for having three agricultural products we´ll need two different farm types. The scheme as outlined above will enable this in two different ways. One is by using "parallel" cargoes, which have the same vector but different names. The other possibility is to implement additional products through "special .grfs", e.g. you could have a .grf which implements a "farm" with "grapes" or "olives" in addition to already available "grain" and "livestock" farming products (or you could skip grain and livestock at all).

In the same way, every other (possibly "exotic") cargo could be implemented. The scheme only tries to manage the needed cargo slot IDs and bit flags to enable a seamless integration of a whole bunch of new cargoes.

The point I´m most interested in ATM is if those "standard cargoes" given in the scheme would be regarded as "standard" by a majority. (I´m talking about tempereate climate)

regards
Michael

[Sanchimaru]

Yes, my point was not to have specifically "olives" or "wool" or "slate", but rather to have "agriculturals", "livestock" and "bulk cargo" or "mining" as generic, and then have each GRF to specify what are them through the vehicles.
Yet, the cargo is the same, and works the same.
Farms would produce "livestock"; then both Food plants and textile mills would accept "livestock". only that in your graph you have 2 specific cars: one for "livestock(cattle)" or "livestock(milk)" and one for "livestock(wool)"
But basically it's only 1 cargo: livestock.

And the same with the rest:
"bulk/ coal"
"bulk/ sand" } one cargo
"bulk/ slate"

Take a look at this table I did some months ago (before new cargos were ready)

the agriculturals are products from the farm, from the citrics plantation, from the olive plantation, and from the vineyard. 4 industries; 1 cargo. Then, the olive oil plant, food plant and brewery all produce food (3 industries, 1 cargo)

This way, the complicated thing is to correctly use the cars if you ever mind (you could transport olives from the citrics plantation, take them to the brewery and bring meat sauce to towns) But basically the scheme is simple

So, if M.Blunck's idea is more or less like that, I think it would be interesting

[wallyweb]

Ok! Time for my 2 cents worth:
Csaboka's work is excellent. It has given us ways to expand our games as never before. Unfortunately it has also added a level of variety that can quickly decend into chaos.
Michael's implementations has given us some direction and his and George's charts are good references. However, the variables remain and they have to be managed.
This calls for the KISS system.
The game is transportation and there are 4 product groupings to be transported:
1. Resources/Raw Materials
2. Manufacturing/Processing Materials
3. Finished Products/Goods
4. Miscellaneous/Non-Process Items.
These generic groupings are consistent accross all climates.
Because of the newly extended capabilities, perhaps we should now say that these generic groupings are consistent accross all sets.
The onus is now on the set designer(s) to select a group of products that is consistent with the character of their sets and that strikes a challenging and workable balance between the generic groupings.
The result will be an excellent choice of settings for a player to choose from.
The bottom line is don't try to be all things at once. As Oracle pointed out, we only have so much world to work with, so plan your sets carefully.
Michael's latest offering has given us a good example to follow.

[SHADOW-XIII]

I am for more cargos,if it will be harder then it's better, current gameplay isn't hard

anyway you could disable what you want with parameters

but if you ask me I am for more cargo transpoprted to more industries (1 cargo will be accepted at many industries)

[michael blunck]

@Sanchimaru

Well, that´s the well-known "pseudo goods" scheme which I introduced a long time ago for the CargoSet, enhanced by the use of "Cargo sub-texts" since alphaxy.

That system has its merits but now that we have real cargoes we don´t need it as much as we needed it in the past.

The new system has its advantages, primarily because the new cargoes are completely integrated into TTD/Patch. For instance, it´s very simple to add real cargoes to another (possibly foreign) .grf without the need to change that .grf itself. I´ve done that with NewCargo.grf which makes available vehicles for the new cargoes "fish" and "beer" e.g. in the DB Set without changing the DB Set itself. And the same thing is possible for George when introducing "petrol".

OTOH, changing the sub-texts of a foreign .grf wouldn´t be possible from outside in case we´d use "pseudo goods".

There are more advantages but, due to the limitation of 32 cargoes in total, there´d be still the need of using pseudo goods in addition.

It´ll depend on the application.

regards
Michael

[cornelius]

Seems okay to me. I've currently got slate as ID 1f in my Uk narrow gauge set but I'll change it around once the ID allocation is finally decided.

[krtaylor]

Several points.

First, George, that is an excellent chart of industry vectors. I'd like to print it out for reference (not for me, for my kids). But it is kind of small. It looks like you shrunk it down. Do you have an original, larger version that you can post?

Second, I have one very specific objection to MB's plan as stated. He says that he didn't intend to have all the industries in any one game; the idea was that there'd be a bunch of individual GRFs, that people would swap in and out. I view that sort of scheme as almost completely unworkable. My goal and desire has been to make TTD as accessible to as many people as possible, without having to be a total geek to understand all the knobs and switches. The TTDXC goes a long way to acheiving that - it's perfectly possible to install the game, install TTDXC, update the patch, and press the "Default Settings" button, and you'll get most of the Patchly goodness. The GRF system is not that smooth yet, although if you just download all the packages listed on the Patch website, you'll be pretty decent.

You can see this with the US set. We have a relatively few separate GRFs, each clearly labeled, that you can install without tweaking. Of course, if you want, there are various settings that you can use, but it's not necessary.

My feeling is that there is no need or use for an overarching general industry scheme - that an industry scheme should be linked with a regional set. For instance, our US set might someday have a US buildings module, which would include relevant US industries. Same thing with the Japanset. MB is working on new European buildings for, I think, the Alpine set; it makes perfect sense to include appropriate new industry vectors there. And it solves the problem of integrating sets, because naturally you would also use MB's trains in that environment, which would have been coded to detect industry settings and offer the appropriate vehicles / refits.

With aircraft and RVs it's a little harder, but I think we can do a dynamic-equivalency arrangement. For instance, when you load a GRF that creates a "chemicals" cargo, then any other GRF vehicle which can carry "goods" has "chemicals" also added to its refit list. If we match new cargoes with old cargoes in this way, then existing sets can be made compatible with new cargoes, without needing to specially re-design them.

For me, the ideal eventual way the TTD world would take shape, is with comprehensive new environments, including trains, buildings, industries, cargoes, and scenery, almost completely replacing the normal TTD stuff. Only the aircraft and (maybe) RVs would remain the same from game to game, because mostly they are IRL. That's what the Japanset will be, the direction the US set is heading, and I think also the direction MB's work is going.