Road Vehicle ID Range Usage Proposal

[Wile E. Coyote]

That's reason why most non generic-type tram sets are compatible with LV4.

But in order to do that, those non-generic sets must give up compatibility with the default graphics. That's weird, and needs to be changed IMO.

But if someone likes default TTD vehicles, he don't likes non-generic trams aswell, so there is Generic tram set. If someone doesn't like default TTD vehicles, then it's no important are non-generic trams incompatible with generic vehicles.

And about trolleys: it was discussed long time ago, and I don't think it'll be possible, maybe even with bunch of work, and trolleys will be available only as trams alternative. (I'd like very much if Patch devs will demant me... )

[FooBar]

But if someone likes default TTD vehicles, he don't likes non-generic trams aswell

On what did you base that assumption?
Let's say I want to play a Netherlands-themed game. There are no Dutch trucks or busses, but there are Dutch trams. So I'm loading the Dutch Tram Set and stick with the rest of the default vehicles, because there's no replacement which fits my theme.
--> Tram only sets need to be compatible with the default vehicles.

Another example. American themed game. Let's assume there is an American bus set available, but no truck nor tram set. I still like to use trams. I load the American bus set, I load the generic tram set.
--> Bus only sets need to be compatible with default trucks and tram sets.

Figure out the rest yourself. Think outside the box, please.


Thanks for pointing out those trolleys.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Well, you're probably right, but if you play for example Netherlands theme, you'll probably rather use some non-generic bus set because you'd rather play with real names and liveries instead of Foster, Hereford etc. For example, Volvo, Mercedes, etc. buses and trucks are in use in Netherlands too?

Of course, it doesn't means I'm 100 % right.

[FooBar]

Personally, I wouldn't use such a set, but I can imagine others would.

This still means that those sets should be compatible with each other.


And yes, of course we have buses and trucks from the main manufacturers driving around here in the Netherlands.

[George]

That's reason why most non generic-type tram sets are compatible with LV4.

But in order to do that, those non-generic sets must give up compatibility with the default graphics. That's weird, and needs to be changed IMO.

IMHO it is impossible

---------------------------------------

1) we got 2 types of sets: compatible with default RV and not. Every type should has it own IDs usage schema. Why not. They are incompatible by default.
Other ideas for the second (incompatible) type only
2) we are not sure, how would things expand. May be would have no IDs limit, but may be we would have trolleys first. So - we NEED a reserve.
3) May be we would have no sprites limit, but maybe we would have 11K. This limits the number of trucks
4) If some set does not fit the limit, it can use reserves.

conclusion:
I do not see yet any good reason to change proposed ranges. At least no one has pointed them out.
Moving Tram IDs to the end of list and trucks IDs to the beginning of the list would break lots of savegames and will bring no profit.
As for FooBar's suggested ranges I think we have no reason to accept it now. The only reason to accept his proposal now is: Someone can represent complete graphics for at least 33 different trucks (or 37 trams) TODAY. If not - our discussion seems to be pointless. We have no set that does not fit into the current schema.

[DanMacK]

George, just because one doesn'd fit into the current scheme now doesn't mean one won't in the future. The scheme for the North American vehicles uses more than the existing truck ID's and less than the existing bus ID's. that said, it'll be an all encompassing set. if we release each portion (trucks, buses, trams) in separate grfs, there's where we run into problems.

If somebody wants to make a set that's compatible with the default vehicles, go ahead... A set of standards is nice, but it needs to be adaptable to the widest possible variable.

[FooBar]

IMHO it is impossible

Did you read this topic? There's more than one suggestion what makes this possible. That those suggestion doesn't fit your LV4 is another story.

Moving Tram IDs to the end of list and trucks IDs to the beginning of the list would break lots of savegames and will bring no profit.

Not nescesarily. Just bump the GRFID and advice users to switch as soon as they start a new game. You also don't need to change your LV4. If we get to a new scheme, you can apply that to LV5 and leave LV4 the way it is.
The profit it brings is that tram are allowed to be compatible with the default graphics. Trucks overwriting default trucks is no problem at all. Trams overwriting default trucks is impractical.

A reserve is also no problem. How about 32/20/20/16 for Trucks/Buses/Trams/reserve? Still fits the overall compatibility idea (the sole reason why I started this topic). If you need that reserve for your buses, go ahead and use it.

(or 37 trams)

Where'd you get that from? No one ever mentioned that ridiculously large amount for trams.

Maybe you should also start thinking outside that box called LV4.


Still hoping we can get some decent guidelines for future usage out of this discussion.


EDIT:
I figured out another possibility:
26/26/20/16 for Buses/Trucks/Trams/Reserve

[George]

George, just because one doesn'd fit into the current scheme now doesn't mean one won't in the future. The scheme for the North American vehicles uses more than the existing truck ID's and less than the existing bus ID's. that said, it'll be an all encompassing set. if we release each portion (trucks, buses, trams) in separate grfs, there's where we run into problems.

Could you post here your current vehicles list?
I want to see the plan for more than 32 trucks

IMHO it is impossible

Did you read this topic? There's more than one suggestion what makes this possible. That those suggestion doesn't fit your LV4 is another story.

You know what I mean. do not parody DaleStan I wrote it is impossible for LV4.

Moving Tram IDs to the end of list and trucks IDs to the beginning of the list would break lots of savegames and will bring no profit.

Not nescesarily. Just bump the GRFID and advice users to switch as soon as they start a new game. You also don't need to change your LV4. If we get to a new scheme, you can apply that to LV5 and leave LV4 the way it is.

Tha problem is that you'll need to update all the existing GRFs at once. I mean LV5, Serbian trams, German trams and all the other, which use the same allocation schema. It is theoretically possible, but would be a hard practical task

A reserve is also no problem. How about 32/20/20/16 for Trucks/Buses/Trams/reserve? Still fits the overall compatibility idea (the sole reason why I started this topic). If you need that reserve for your buses, go ahead and use it.

And what about german RVs?

(or 37 trams)

Where'd you get that from? No one ever mentioned that ridiculously large amount for trams.

it is 21 tram IDs + 16 in reserve

Maybe you should also start thinking outside that box called LV4.

I'm thinking in terms of LV5 over a year

Still hoping we can get some decent guidelines for future usage out of this discussion.
I figured out another possibility:
26/26/20/16 for Buses/Trucks/Trams/Reserve

I think i have a solution
we can have two reserves
20 buses
16 reserve 1 (for extra buses)
16 reserve 2 (for extra trucks)
16 trucks
20 trams

[DanMacK]

I'll get the proposed one up here shortly. Maybe it's time for a new "default" vehicles set. No articulated vehicles or anything, just a basic set that's compatible with the basic TTD industries. If we want support for new cargos, then it can be added as well, using a separate grf, but basing it on that default set.

George's idea has merit, with the 32 overlapping areas, it's possible to have up to 32 trucks, 36 buses and 20 trams. that, I think is a fair split.

[FooBar]

Tha problem is that you'll need to update all the existing GRFs at once. I mean LV5, Serbian trams, German trams and all the other, which use the same allocation schema. It is theoretically possible, but would be a hard practical task

That's true if those sets want to comply to some new kind of guideline.
I don't think very hard to do. Those sets are still actively developed and it should take about 20 minutes per set to redefine the GRFIDs. LV5 might take a bit longer, because of the large amount of vehicles.

Such things are unavoidable when changing some sort of scheme. Changing the scheme is unavoidable if we want to increase set intercompatibility.

And what about german RVs?

I don't know, honestly, I don't. How many vehicles of the different vehicle categories are (planned to be) in that set?
EDIT: did some research 33 buses and 21+ trucks.

it is 21 tram IDs + 16 in reserve

Alright. That figures.

do not parody DaleStan

That was not intended. I apologize for that (no offence, DaleStan ).

I think i have a solution
we can have two reserves
20 buses
16 reserve 1 (for extra buses)
16 reserve 2 (for extra trucks)
16 trucks
20 trams

Two reserves is just silly. Put half of reserve 1 in buses and half of reseve 2 in trucks and have the remaining 16 as general reserve. I don't think it's very useful to put 32 IDs on 'hold'.

Let me see if I can figure out something different (agian ). What are your actual requirements for LV5 actually?

with the 32 overlapping areas, it's possible to have up to 32 trucks, 36 buses and 20 trams. that, I think is a fair split.

If that are the numbers we should go for, I think it should be possible to fit that into the current IDs.
A new 'default' set is a very good idea, but I don't see it done within the next few months, who's going to develop such a thing?


EDIT:
This might be a breaktrough. I used excel to get some sensible ranges, and this is the result:

Code: Select all

              | Default vehicle compatibility*
Vehicle Type  |  True  |  False
--------------|--------|---------
Buses         |   20   |   31
Trucks        |   32   |   32
Trams         |   20   |   20
Reserve**     |   16   |    5



*)  Up to the GRF author to decide upon.

**) In case of 'true', eight of these IDs can be used by any vehicle
    type with dynamic ID assignment. Trucks can use the full range
    without dynamic assingment.
    In case of 'false', these IDs can be used by any vehicle type.

Both options are compatible with each other.
The 5-ID reserve in the 'false' column can easily be added to the 'bus' group if no reserve is required. I aimed for 32 bus IDs in the first place for the 'false' column, but that resulted in one bus ID sitting lonely between truck and reserve IDs. That was a bit silly, so I swapped it to the reserve.

If someone is interested in that Excel file, let me know.

[Uwe]

And what about german RVs?

I don't know, honestly, I don't. How many vehicles of the different vehicle categories are (planned to be) in that set?

I don't even know that myself yet... The bus part is finished, and I'm currently researching for the truck part. I think it's quite likely that both the GermanRV and the German trams sets will eventually be merged into a total replacement set, which will use all 88 IDs. It will be about 35 busses, the same amount of trucks and the rest for trams, to give a rough estimation.

[FooBar]

merged into a total replacement set

In that case, guidelines, like the ones we're trying to establish here, don't apply.

Still, a 31/32/20/5 ID division would fit the German set pretty nicely.

Would be nice if you'd develop the total replacement set with the guidelines-to-be in mind, just in case someone loads truck replacement set over the German set.

Thanks for the input.

[George]

George's idea has merit, with the 32 overlapping areas, it's possible to have up to 32 trucks, 36 buses and 20 trams. that, I think is a fair split.

Or up to 36 trams.
The two reserves would allow sets
1) have a basic range, where "small, but growing" sets have the default IDs area, allowing them to be compatible with big sets (unless they grow into the whole set)
2) have a reserve range, where they can expand, keeping compatibility with all the small sets and many of the big sets

Two reserves is just silly.

They have the suggested usage for each. That's wny they are different. They specify the way, where sets can grow.
Currently they allow 36 buses for me and 32 trucks for you. Looks like everyone gets what he wants.

Put half of reserve 1 in buses and half of reseve 2 in trucks and have the remaining 16 as general reserve. I don't think it's very useful to put 32 IDs on 'hold'.

They would be used as soon as there are graphics to fill them in. Having one general reserve reduces the possibilities of future collaboration of the sets. In suggested schema one GRF can expect, what another GRF would use reserved IDs for. In 16 general reserve it can not. The big set, that uses 1 reserve completely, starting to use the second one would be a hard point, but such a big set would be a real candidate to fill up all the IDs.

If that are the numbers we should go for, I think it should be possible to fit that into the current IDs.

I strongly recommend to have different schemes for sets, compatible with default RVs, and whose that are incompatible.

As for IDs allocation I find it a real problem for vehicles (because saves would most probably become untransportable between different game installations)

[wallyweb]

... for different sets to be 'as compatible as possible', there should be some kind of consensus amongst set developers on what range of IDs to use for what type of road vehicles. That way a bus replacement set, a truck replacement set or a tram addition set can be compatible with any other of those types AND the default graphics set.

I embolded those last few words to give context to this post.

From the preceding discussions, I get the impression that the goal is to preserve the default TTDX RV ID structure as much as possible such that a player wishing to use a set that covers only some of the vehicle types will still be able to use the untouched default RV's.

Unfortunately, TTDX's default ID structure is somewhat scattered with regard to contiguous RV type allocation. If part of the goal is to avoid redefining the entire default ID structure, then care must be taken when defining ID's for new sets that we wish to have in conjunction with other default RV's.

I believe this to be possible and I have described my reasoning below, developing it with a series of summary tables. Note that I have not listed each default ID. Rather I'm working with a summary count of the ID's.

First ... the default ID's as they currently exist:

Code: Select all

=====================================================
ID (hex)|count|RV type|Temp/Arct/Trop|Toyland       |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
00h-03h |4    |buses  |4             |n/a           |
04h-06h |3*   |buses  |n/a           |3             |
07h-0Ch |6    |trucks |3@ x 2 cargoes|n/a           |
0Dh-0Fh |3*   |trucks |n/a           |mail          |
10H-39h |42   |trucks |3@ x14 cargoes|n/a           |
3Ah-57H |30*  |trucks |n/a           |3@ x10 cargoes|
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
totals  |88   |all    |52            |36            |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
        |7    |buses  |4             |3             |
        |81   |trucks |48            |33            |
=====================================================

Note that starred items in the "count" column are taken from the Toyland climate.

Next, assuming that the Toyland RV's are available for reallocation, I have moved them under the column for the other climates while assigning them to buses.

Code: Select all

=====================================================
ID (hex)|count|RV type|Temp/Arct/Trop|Toyland       |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
00h-03h |4    |buses  |4             |n/a           |
04h-06h |3*   |buses  |3             |n/a           |
07h-0Ch |6    |trucks |3@ x 2 cargoes|n/a           |
0Dh-0Fh |3*   |buses  |3             |n/a           |
10H-39h |42   |trucks |3@ x14 cargoes|n/a           |
3Ah-57H |30*  |buses  |30            |n/a           |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
totals  |88   |all    |88            |n/a           |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
        |40   |buses  |40            |n/a           |
        |48   |trucks |3@ x16 cargoes|n/a           |
=====================================================

The next step is to provide for trams. I have made an assumption and provided for 20 trams. This is by no means set in stone. Because trams and buses are primarily passenger conveyances, I took the 20 out of the buses.

Code: Select all

=====================================================
ID (hex)|count|RV type|Temp/Arct/Trop|Toyland       |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
00h-03h |4    |buses  |4             |n/a           |
04h-06h |3*   |buses  |3             |n/a           |
07h-0Ch |6    |trucks |3@ x 2 cargoes|n/a           |
0Dh-0Fh |3*   |buses  |3             |n/a           |
10H-39h |42   |trucks |3@ x14 cargoes|n/a           |
3Ah-43H |10*  |buses  |10            |n/a           |
44h-57H |20*  |trams  |20            |n/a           |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
totals  |88   |all    |88            |n/a           |
--------|-----|-------|--------------|--------------|
        |20*  |trams  |20            |n/a           |
        |16*  |buses  |16            |n/a           |
        |4    |buses  |4             |n/a           |
        |48   |trucks |3@ x16 cargoes|n/a           |
=====================================================

Now we have an issue with the buses. We have the 4 default ones which we do not want to touch (unless someone is making a bus set), plus the 16 remaining from the Toyland transfer and the tram assignments ... 20 buses in all ... a count that many would agree may be very limiting. But, how can we get more bus slots without breaking the default structure? Obviously they will have to come from the trucks, but we want to preserve those for the players needing the defaults.

Herein lies the solution ... How many climates can you play at once? Last I heard, one is the limit. Now, there is a group of cargo types common to all climates, but there remain several cargoes that are unique to a specific climate. We can access the unique ID's from the unused climates and use them in any way we wish in the target climate. With a little creative coding, a coder can design a set that is supported in all three climates. See the next table to determine your opportunities. You will find 12 to 15 truck ID's per climate available for use as bus ID's in alternate climates ... totals 32 to 35 buses, 20 trams, 36 to 33 trucks.

Note that I have not provided for reserve ID's. Are they really needed with this system?

Code: Select all

===========================================================================
ID (hex)|count|RV type|All|Temp|Arct|Trop|Cargo                           |
--------|-----|-------|---|----|----|----|--------------------------------|
00h-03h |4    |buses  |4  |4   |4   |4   |pass                            |
04h-06h |3*   |buses  |3  |3   |3   |3   |pass                            |
07h-0Ah |3    |trucks |3  |3   |3   |----|coal [Available for Trop]       |
0Bh-0Ch |3    |trucks |3  |3   |3   |3   |mail                            |
0Dh-0Fh |3*   |buses  |3  |3   |3   |3   |pass                            |
10H-39h |28   |trucks |15 |15  |15  |15  |oil(10h-12h) goods(16h-18h)     |
                                         |[grain/wheat/maize](19h-1Bh)    |
                                         |wood(1Ch-1Eh)                   |
                                       |[valuables/gold/diamonds](25h-27h)|
--------|-----|-------|---|----|----|----|--------------------------------|
available for Trop        |3   |----|----|livestock(13h-15h)              |
available for Trop & Arct |6   |----|----|iron(1Fh-21H)steel(22h-24H)     |
--------|-----|-------|---|----|----|----|--------------------------------|
available for Trop        |----|3   |----|livestock(13h-15h)              |
available for Temp        |----|3   |----|food(28h-2Ah)                   |
available for Trop & Temp |----|3   |----|paper(2Bh-2DH)                  |
--------|-----|-------|---|----|----|----|--------------------------------|
available for Temp        |----|3   |----|food(28h-2Ah)                   |
available for Temp & Arct |----|----|12  |copper(2Eh-30h) water(31h-33h)  |
                                         |fruit(34h-36h) rubber(37h-39h)  |
--------|-----|-------|---|----|----|----|--------------------------------|
3Ah-43H |10*  |buses  |10 |10  |10  |10  |pass                            |
44h-57H |20*  |trams  |20 |20  |20  |20  |pass                            |
--------|-----|-------|------------------|--------------------------------|
totals  |88   |all    |61 |70  |70  |73  |n/a                             |
--------|-----|-------|------------------|--------------------------------|
        |20*  |trams  |20 |20  |20  |20  |pass                            |
        |16*  |buses  |16 |16  |16  |16  |pass                            |
        |4    |buses  |4  |4   |4   |4   |pass                            |
        |48   |trucks |3@ x 16 cargoes   |n/a                             |
===========================================================================

This is all fine for new sets.
As for existing sets, I feel they should remain untouched for those players who are accessing old games. If an author wishes to adjust an existing set to fit in with the above suggestion, then simply give it a revised name so that the old set still exists. Then it will be the responsibility of the player to keep the older versions on his system if he wishes to continue using them.

[George]

Herein lies the solution ...

That was used for LV versions prior 4. I do not want to play this game again. I should not support IDs relocations differently for different landscapes.

[wallyweb]

Herein lies the solution ...

That was used for LV versions prior 4. I do not want to play this game again. I should not support IDs relocations differently for different landscapes.

You don't have to. LV4 and prior versions would remain as is for those who want to use them. My proposal is only for new sets where the author is only creating a truck, bus or tram set and wants to give the player access to the original default TTDX RV's that the author is not replacing. An example would be the author creates a truck set and is not interested in replacing the buses. Then the player would still be able to use the original buses. Another example ... the author creates a bus set and is not interested in replacing the trucks ... the player would be able to use the original trucks. A third example ... the author creates a tram set but is not interested in replacing the buses or the trucks ... the player would be able to use the original buses and trucks.

[George]

Herein lies the solution ...

That was used for LV versions prior 4. I do not want to play this game again. I should not support IDs relocations differently for different landscapes.

You don't have to. LV4 and prior versions would remain as is for those who want to use them. My proposal is only for new sets where the author is only creating a truck, bus or tram set and wants to give the player access to the original default TTDX RV's that the author is not replacing.

I do not want to do it.
That's why I suggest to have 2 schemes for these 2 cases (support and not)

[wallyweb]

I do not want to do it.
That's why I suggest to have 2 schemes for these 2 cases (support and not)

I agree ... my proposal for those who want support for one or more of the TTDX original default vehicle types and another proposal for those who need more flexibility where support for the TTDX original default vehicle types is not guaranteed.

[FooBar]

I guess it's time for an image

I came up with two schemes which are compatible with each other. The left scheme is compatible with default vehicles. The right scheme is not. (see attachment below for schemes)

This allows for:
20 Buses in compatibility mode without dynamic ID allocation.
28 Buses in compatibility mode with dynamic ID allocation.
36 Buses in incompatible mode.
32 Trucks.
20 Trams.

I think this suits all our needs. No ranges overlap, so a bus ID should always be a bus ID etc. These two schemes are somewhat in line with Wallyweb's idea.

George, if you still want those two reserves... Shouldn't be too much of a problem. 20 buses + 16 bus reserve and 16 trucks + 16 truck reserve is possible with these two schemes.
But I still don't really see the need of that.

So we have 2 schemes, default set compatibility, scheme intercompatibility and the best all: set intercompatibility.
Can we all agree to this, or did I miss certain requirements?

And let's not forget: these schemes should only apply to new sets (provided they those sets need/want to be compatible with other compatible sets). There's absolutely no need for old sets to comply to such guidelines, as those sets will eventually be replaced by a new version. For this new version it should be fairly easy to comply to the guidelines.
And of course: guidelines are no requirements, so if someone wants to do something completely different, be my guest, but don't expect compatibility.

Full graphic replacement sets (including buses and trucks and trams) could use their own ID scheme, but it would be nice if the guidelines were to be followed as much as possible. If a user wants to load a tram set over your complete replacement set, you should allow him to do so. You might not like to see this happen, but clearly, your trams stink*.
*) This is a purely fictional example. Replace 'tram' with any other road vehicle type if you like.

[George]

I guess it's time for an image

Please post XLS file instead. I can't such a small image.