UKRSI and ECS compatability

[Raichase]

ECS.

I agree with the concept of it, and I agree that all the industry sets should at least conform to it is a standard, if only because major train sets like the DBXL will transport cargo according to the ECS labels. That way, it ensures that the ordinary Joe-Bloggs of the day can use any trainset he likes with any industry set, and it reduces false "bug reports". (Eg my train can't transport fuel oil, therefore it's a bug).

I agree with Dave in that sometimes it can seem that George is making demands, however, sometimes I feel that is a language barrier, and not how the post is meant to be conveyed. Mostly due to the lack of tone, an innocent message can sound demanding, and in our rush to defend the developers who spend their hard time making toys for us to play with, we react defensivly. I do not believe George was making any kind of demand or attack that was unreasonably (well, no unreasonable demands, and no attacks at all ).

So, im my personal opinion, unless UKRSI is planned to be a compltete industry set, rather than one that supplements the base industries, it should probably conform to ECS. I know, I love it, and it would be good to use alongside Michaels New Cargo. Ditto, it would also be nice to use the trucks from the original Cargo Set, to transport some of the different types of "goods" replacements.

However, all of these things we can only get by working together, and if we infight, none of that will happen. So please, take the advice of Snail and wait for Pikka to reply first .

Thanks!

[DanMacK]

I agree with George on this. While A LOT of people won't use these industry sets side by side, there's the possibility that they will. If that possibility exists, then I say that the ECS vectors should be a guideline for all industry sets.

The NAIS is designed more or less based on the ECS vectors and will (I hope), support them fully. That way if somebosy wants to use MB's Newcargos, the North American Industry set and UKRSI, all sets will be compatible and you won't have a conflict.

That makes perfect sense to me, but as Raichase said, let's see Pikka's take on the matter.

[George]

So you're saying because Pikka used some tags of ECS he wanted to be ECS compatible?

Yes, I suppose so

So you're claiming you have some sort of ownership over the use of such tags

I'm one of the ECS specification developers, but I'm not the only one. Michael Blunck, AgRiG, Wile E. Coyte worked hard on it too.

in TTDP and anyone that uses these tags MUST conform to ECS?

And you don't think that's right?
If someone uses any specification while developing something, he usualy does it for compatibility with something else (that's what for specifiactions are usualy written).

How very devious.

Dave, don't you think that you act like Quixote?

If I don't have something useful to contribute? I think it was useful to contribute - I'm not sure where it became unuseful. You might see your work from the eyes of the developer.
I see it from the eyes of the player, and will let you know as such. I don't let reputation get in the way of telling people what I think. Respect for people like you and George, I have quivering climbdowns just because I might have said something that's bordering on opinionated, I don't.

Conclusion from you opinion "It works now, so do not change it, because you may break it", right? Do not worry, we have enough knowledge to do our best to keep it working

[BobDendry]

in TTDP and anyone that uses these tags MUST conform to ECS?

And you don't think that's right?

I, for one, don't think that's right, hence why I'm *not* conforming to the ECS standards.

[DanMacK]

There's nobody forcing you to accept ECS in your new industry grf, it just means that A LOT less people will enjoy them if they're not compatible with the sets you currently have loaded.

That said, currently there are 32 cargoes, surely if soebody wanted to create a new cargo chain that could be done as well?

[George]

in TTDP and anyone that uses these tags MUST conform to ECS?

And you don't think that's right?

I, for one, don't think that's right, hence why I'm *not* conforming to the ECS standards.

and how do you see to do it then? use any slot but ECS labels? use any slot and labels? use ECS slot but any label?

There's nobody forcing you to accept ECS in your new industry grf, it just means that A LOT less people will enjoy them if they're not compatible with the sets you currently have loaded.
That said, currently there are 32 cargoes, surely if somebody wanted to create a new cargo chain that could be done as well?

Yes, and the main question is how to do it. It is possible to follow ECS as much as possible, or go the own way.
In the curent situation I think the best way may be to code current new chains of UKRSI as ECS construction vector. I'm ready to help Pikka to do it.

[Raichase]

Eventually, it will get to the point that anyone NOT coding with the ECS vectors in mind, will render their industry set unusuable with the majority of vehicle sets, and thus the set won't be used.

Michaels DBXL currently only transports cargoes using the ECS scheme, and rightly so - it would no doubt be a mammoth task to constantly update it for every random industry GRF that pops out of the woodwork.

Why not use a system that exists, and is well documented, and has been worked on by some of the "big names" of the graphics world?

Honestly, the discussion threads about the scheme still exist, and rather than just flat out "not using it", why not actually open the threads back up for discussion and discuss the problems, and get it fixed. In the long term, it will be far better for the community if we all have a set standard, rather than just fudging around the place...

Again, we shall wait for Pikka to comment.

in TTDP and anyone that uses these tags MUST conform to ECS?

And you don't think that's right?

I, for one, don't think that's right, hence why I'm *not* conforming to the ECS standards.

Thats fine. This is a thread about the UKRSI and the ECS scheme. Unless you have something to contribute to the discussion about the UKRSI and ECS, don't post negative rubbish in here.

EDIT: George posted before me... George, just ignore Whitehand and any other users that come here specifically to pooh pooh ECS. Unless they are discussing ECS+UKRSI, their comments have no bearing here, and will be removed

[michael blunck]

> [...] I'm *not* conforming to the ECS standards.

There's nobody forcing you to accept ECS in your new industry grf, it just means that A LOT less people will enjoy them if they're not compatible with the sets you currently have loaded.

Most people just throw as much .grfs into their newgrf[w].cfg file as they´re able to find. So yes, besides incompatibilities with the DBXL in OTTD, incompatibilities between George´s ECS files and other industry sets are indeed a major issue for me especially when visiting the german tt-forums.

regards
Michael

[Raichase]

> [...] I'm *not* conforming to the ECS standards.

There's nobody forcing you to accept ECS in your new industry grf, it just means that A LOT less people will enjoy them if they're not compatible with the sets you currently have loaded.

Most people just throw as much .grfs into their newgrf[w].cfg file as they´re able to find.

*puts hand up*

Yeah, that would sum myself up to a tee. As an "average" TTD user, I like to use the graphics I like without worrying too much about the intricacies. While I know enough about NFO to code the odd train or two, and to understand Michaels occasional DBXL dilemma, as well as know enough to make the odd suggestion or two to aforementioned DBXL, I just like to play with trainset X and industry sets Y and Z, perhaps with landscape A, and... etc

Really, random industry sets that mish-mash are pointless, because it will force the user to choose. Sorry to say it, but I'd pick Michaels ECS implementation over anything else, simply because I hold Michaels graphics in the highest regard. However, I'm torn, because I also consider Pikkas UKRSI a supplement of the base industries, rather than an "addition".

Hence you see the dilemma the "normal" user is in.

indeed a major issue for me especially when visiting the german tt-forums.

...and, as I imagine, if we don't work together, a major problem for TT-community as a whole in the future.

I remember the problems the original Cargo Set had with the original Long Vehicles, with limited ID's for RV's, and users wanting to use both at once... George and Michael managed to work together, rather than going off on their own and forcing the users to choose one over the other.

Now, can we only see sense and do it again .

Again, if someone wants to discuss ECS and "fix" any problems they have with it, take it up in a discussion thread, rather than meandering around badmouthing it in other ECS related threads. I have already removed one OT post from this thread, and if it re-appears, a warning shall be issued.

[jonty-comp]

But why would you WANT to?

Alright, but why wouldn't you want to? I know I won't be playing ECS and UKRSI at the same time, but there's always someone who will, and you're supposed to cater for every eventuality, not just the needs of the bulk. Microsoft just listened to the needs of the bulk of PC users, and look how Vista turned out!

That said, if Pikka does change that tiny little bit of his GRF, assuming it doesn't change anything ingame, I doubt anyone will bother upgrading until a new version appears.

[Raichase]

But why would you WANT to?

Alright, but why wouldn't you want to? I know I won't be playing ECS and UKRSI at the same time, but there's always someone who will

I, and I imagine a lot more people WILL, when more ECS GRF's come onto the community proper. Michaels GRF's are coming (I've seen a couple of pictures of graphics), and there are no doubt other artists out there working on ECS implementations of their own...

Just because we don't want to combine Georges ECS implementation with Pikkas UKRSI doesn't mean we won't want to combine someone elses ECS implementation with the UKRSI down the line...

[Csaboka]

Eventually, it will get to the point that anyone NOT coding with the ECS vectors in mind, will render their industry set unusuable with the majority of vehicle sets, and thus the set won't be used.

That's not true. If you don't use the cargo slots compatible with ECS, you may break compatibility with other industry sets, but not with vehicle sets, if the vehicle set is coded correctly. Cargoes have flags like "bulk", "express cargo", "liquid" etc, so a GRF can say "this wagon can carry any liquid cargo" without knowing exactly what liquid cargoes are defined. The worst that can happen is that the wagon will show wrong cargo graphics. For example, UKRS has no problem carrying salt, although it does not know what salt is. The salt looks like gravel in the wagons, but otherwise it works just fine. And, if a graphic artist wants to be perfectionist, he can draw a "generic" version of open wagons that somehow hide the actual cargo so you can imagine anything inside.

[George]

Eventually, it will get to the point that anyone NOT coding with the ECS vectors in mind, will render their industry set unusuable with the majority of vehicle sets, and thus the set won't be used.

That's not true. If you don't use the cargo slots compatible with ECS, you may break compatibility with other industry sets, but not with vehicle sets, if the vehicle set is coded correctly. Cargoes have flags like "bulk", "express cargo", "liquid" etc, so a GRF can say "this wagon can carry any liquid cargo" without knowing exactly what liquid cargoes are defined. The worst that can happen is that the wagon will show wrong cargo graphics. For example, UKRS has no problem carrying salt, although it does not know what salt is. The salt looks like gravel in the wagons, but otherwise it works just fine. And, if a graphic artist wants to be perfectionist, he can draw a "generic" version of open wagons that somehow hide the actual cargo so you can imagine anything inside.

That is correct for hidden cargoes (coded with classes), but visible cargoes does not fit very well here. For example, LV4 transports all unknown cargoes in box vans, but it looks ugly. If gravel would be a type of sand (for example), than it would be transported in dump-trucks as a dark dirty yellow cargo. Not absolutely correct, but less ugly.

[Raichase]

The worst that can happen is that the wagon will show wrong cargo graphics. For example, UKRS has no problem carrying salt, although it does not know what salt is.

Yeah, I was vaugely aware some sort of system like this existed, but in this day and age of people wanting eye-candy everywhere, I seriously doubt anyone would play with an industry set that their trainset didn't support properly.

Still, good to know there is a backup, thanks

[BobDendry]

For example, LV4 transports all unknown cargoes in box vans, but it looks ugly.

However, it is plausible for essentially any cargo to be transported in a boxcar, yes?

[Raichase]

For example, LV4 transports all unknown cargoes in box vans, but it looks ugly.

However, it is plausible for essentially any cargo to be transported in a boxcar, yes?

Depends on the cargo. I imagine it is "plausible" for cany cargo to be transported in such a way, just like we can transport anything by containers these days. How efficiant and realistic it is though, leaves a lot of be debated.

And, as I said, with all the drive on eye-candy to supplement our games, people would probably not use such a thing.

[BobDendry]

For example, LV4 transports all unknown cargoes in box vans, but it looks ugly.

However, it is plausible for essentially any cargo to be transported in a boxcar, yes?

Depends on the cargo. I imagine it is "plausible" for cany cargo to be transported in such a way, just like we can transport anything by containers these days. How efficiant and realistic it is though, leaves a lot of be debated.

And, as I said, with all the drive on eye-candy to supplement our games, people would probably not use such a thing.

Aye, that is one of the reasons I have been holding back a release on the NSW Set. In the early days, everything was set to be transported in boxcars, due to lack of graphics

[Dave]

Hmm, okay. Some definite fair comments made. Raichase once again to the rescue with rational thought!

I guess my major gripe with ECS is that it seems you're defining cargos for me?

Say I wanted to build an industry set with an outlandish cargo such as "illegal immigrants" or something.

Would I be able to fit that into ECS somehow?

Considering what's been said - from what I see, I assume you can make a "type" of sand known as gravel - perhaps have cargo classes that are more generic.

Rather than having gravel as a type of sand... Have gravel as "Land Resource 01" or something. That way, any restrictions - even if they're not actually a restriction - will be gone.

And also - I agree with the ECS' idea, and all, and I know exactly why vectors need to be split, but I'm assuming an industry set can disregard these vectors, and just use the correct IDs and cargos etc.?

Just my - rather more rational, admittedly - couple of ideas. I think an apology is in order for derailment of this thread yesterday evening.

I'm sorry.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think that here started flamewar without any reason, because this is coders discussion, not players discussion. Point of Geoge's question to Pikka is unification of cargos which use same cargo labels IMO. In that case you can have vehicle sets which could be compatible with several new cargos/industries sets. If you create such set, you'll be able to have graphics for every new cargo (not only boxcar). Those questions we allready discussed here, here and here. IMO main sense of cargo labels is exactly unifying cargos for new sets, so some vehicle sets could be compatible with more industries/cargos sets. If some cargos are in different classes, then they must have different labels. If you don't unify all characteristics, you can simply set additional bits for new cargos without label, aren't you?

[Raichase]

I think that here started flamewar without any reason, because this is coders discussion, not players discussion.

Don't worry, I saw to it. I'm keeping a close eye on this discussion...