How GRF sets could work better together

[glx]

- how to deny cross set coupling of non engine/wagon combinations This is the major problem at the moment. As far as I'm concerned, all that is needed is a new action 2 variable; the grfid of the set the vehicle was defined by. Anything beyond that is the concern of the individual grf author.

This can be variable 0x50, if everybody agrees.

[LordAzamath]

Some thoughts about the base costs - multiplayer thing..
What about not changing base costs at all and modifying Cost factor (17) to a word (extended byte perhaps?) value rather than a byte..? Currently the maximum price without changing the base costs is $ 796.874.. with extended byte it would be..... A LOT more.. And perhaps good enough for not changing the base costs?

[peter1138]

It can't be an extended byte because 0xFF will already have been used, I bet.

[Eddi]

It can't be an extended byte because 0xFF will already have been used, I bet.

i don't think that will be an issue, because the NFO version is explicitly stated in the NFO header, so when a grf author wants to update his GRF to the newer NFO version, he can change this.

[DaleStan]

because the NFO version is explicitly stated in the NFO header

That version number specifies the format of the textual representation of the NFO code, as distinct from the format of the code being represented.

[LordAzamath]

But there is some version thing in action8 too..

[OzTrans]

... all that is needed is a new action 2 variable; the grfid of the set the vehicle was defined by. ...

This can be variable 0x50, if everybody agrees.

Anything, that allows to distinguish between various sets is good.

I would, too, consider to put the GrfIDs into a registration table and have the var act-2s reference slots in that table. That would make changes to GfrIDs much easier to maintain and why checking 4 bytes if 1 will do.

I know, we can have the action-7/9 variable 9D (OpenTTD/TTDPatch) via a parameter hack available in var act-2 chains. But having this variable as 1D available in var act-2 chains would make life easier.

[krtaylor]

Personally, I am totally opposed to wasting any time on attempting to make completely separate train sets work together. It's totally unrealistic, and would consume an absurd amount of development time better spent on more useful stuff. Balancing a set for playability is the art of making a set fun. Why don't we just make a special GRF offering just the ICE, able to pull everything including freight, and let those who want to play that way do so. Then we can all go off and do something else.

[michael blunck]

[...] Why don't we just make a special GRF offering just the ICE, able to pull everything including freight, and let those who want to play that way do so.

Because that wouldn´t help. Those who want to play with that particular .grf would like to use all the other (incompatible) .grfs too. See http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=37435

regards
Michael

[drewb99]

Personally, I am totally opposed to wasting any time on attempting to make completely separate train sets work together. It's totally unrealistic, and would consume an absurd amount of development time better spent on more useful stuff.

I've been following the discussion on and off but this is where I disagree, it's not at all unrealistic to expect an actual railroad to shop abroad when it's facing a problem it doesn't have the engine or wagon to address it the way it sees proper. I understand the attention given to making a grf that's prototypically accurate and fun to play at the same time, but from the player's perspective it's confusing to see foreign-built rolling stock up for sale in a regional grf because a company in the region ordered it, actual firms don't play by the rules of regional availability if they have the money not to have to, so it doesn't make sense to force the player to run his business on the terms of another for the sake of accuracy if he's making the same kind of money. I'm not saying pulling coal with Shinkansens is the way to go, but your game shouldn't be sabotaged if you have a money-making electric rail network but your American engine grf leaves you without the engine you need, _some_ method should exist where you can pay a big premium and tap into another region's trainset.

[Draakon]

I once knew the name of that game where almost exact situation was. Meaning the game didn't support multiple overhaul, some addons types, etc that were incompatible. Meaning mod x took all the stuff to himself and mod y didn't modify or add nothing. There was also a discussion about if extending the capabilities of modding that allows mod y work too when mod x is activated. Well some genius pull it off by allowing that and some other by making some overhaul mods in one mod. The players went off course crazy by cheering and thanking. Mod developers too by thanking that they extended modding capabilities. They even didn't care about so called incompatibility between other mods (like some say we have here). Only things that were problems were the price which was fixed. After that everyone enjoyed the work and modders only help players if only their mod is active. If i for example would have another mod active, they would say that they can't help you with that. But that wasn't a problem either at the end. A team was created that fixed those errors and bugs entirely themselves when multiple same mods were active.

So what conclusion we can bring here between this forum/game/community between that? In here players are same, they want to use all sets together when they want. But NewGRF developers here only want their set be active only.

I for one don't see the big problem here with the Multiengine feature. What i do suggest is that NewGRF authors should continue the work they are doing, extend the vehicles by using the multiengine feature if they feel so (i don't know how it is possibile, by creating another GRF perhaps?) and let the OpenTTD developers or patch makers fix the prices.

Why do you even guys make a so big thing out of it when the feature made into the trunk?

[krtaylor]

I've been following the discussion on and off but this is where I disagree, it's not at all unrealistic to expect an actual railroad to shop abroad when it's facing a problem it doesn't have the engine or wagon to address it the way it sees proper.

Well. It's true that railroad companies shop abroad for equipment and always have. Except in the very early years of railroading, though, it wasn't feasible to simply buy something off-the-shelf from overseas. The loading gauge, rolling gauge, operating characteristics, and legal regulations of the various places differ too much. For instance, in the U.S. we have the Acela train, which looks very much like a TGV. But it isn't. Yes, it does share some of the technology, but it is a fundamentally new design for American conditions, many of which make it work not nearly so well as the TGV. I can only think of a handful of occasions where "stock" overseas equipment was purchased, and even then it generally had to be heavily modified, making it basically a new model. So the realism argument is quite invalid I think.

[michael blunck]

[...]

Well, that has already been discussed over here: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=695136#p695136

O/c, "railroad companies shop abroad" but that´s already included in the appropriate sets, e.g. the "Acela" in the US Set or those originally East-German engines in the DB set.

The primary question was if, and how, to allow unlimited mixing of sets.

regards
Michael

[LordAzamath]

Then dont allow mixing, but allow using simultanously.. So one chain of vehicles would only consist of one gre.. so a train can't have engines and wagons from different sets.

[michael blunck]

Then dont allow mixing, but allow using simultanously.. So one chain of vehicles would only consist of one gre.. so a train can't have engines and wagons from different sets.

Nah, you didn´t clicked the link, did you?

regards
Michael

[drewb99]

I've been following the discussion on and off but this is where I disagree, it's not at all unrealistic to expect an actual railroad to shop abroad when it's facing a problem it doesn't have the engine or wagon to address it the way it sees proper.

Well. It's true that railroad companies shop abroad for equipment and always have. Except in the very early years of railroading, though, it wasn't feasible to simply buy something off-the-shelf from overseas. The loading gauge, rolling gauge, operating characteristics, and legal regulations of the various places differ too much. For instance, in the U.S. we have the Acela train, which looks very much like a TGV. But it isn't. Yes, it does share some of the technology, but it is a fundamentally new design for American conditions, many of which make it work not nearly so well as the TGV. I can only think of a handful of occasions where "stock" overseas equipment was purchased, and even then it generally had to be heavily modified, making it basically a new model. So the realism argument is quite invalid I think.

Aye the 'big premium' I was talking about would be kind of an abstract way to cover the cost of refitting a train to a new network, the point of it being that it would be too expensive to be practical in all but very special circumstances, but still leaving the option open if you can afford it ( Amtrak borrowed an ICE train and ran it for a year in 1993 as kind of a proof-of-concept for what would become the Acela Express, so even with larger railroads it's not _totally_ unheard of to be using something that foreign ). More than upsetting the balance of a regional railroad though, I think a good challenge could come from running a railroad outside of an established region with _only_ imported trains bought on availability. Maybe institute separate domestic and 'export' prices for engines, so that higher-performing game-changing engines can be more or less kept off limits while export models and more common engines might be expensive but affordable to someone using a different regional grf.