FIRS Industry Replacement Set - Development

[andythenorth]

Hm, IIRC only changing the tileIDs (or industryIDs and industry tile layout) breaks savegames

There are tile IDs in layouts which need to change - some are using a generic tile and need to use a specific tile. This will break savegames possibly.


The slicing of the graphics needs to change in multiple cases, with also then a change in varaction 2 to decide real sprites for tile.

That doesn't technically break savegames, but it means existing industries in a savegame will have garbled graphics, which to many players is same as 'broken', i.e. either not-meaningful bug reports, or they just get annoyed with FIRS and think it's low quality.

[Leanden]

Andy, how long until you implement the feature to stop industries being found randomly during gameplay? I'd quite like to play a sandbox game using these industries, but annoyingly extra ones keep popping up all over the place with relatively high frequency.

It's an OpenTTD feature. Choose 'no industries' and only those which you placed in the SE or found yourself will ever show up. Thus you must not play with 'high industry density' setting.

Actually I'm already running my scenario, and what to stop any more industries being produced, which obviously would work with the NewGRF Parameter, but the difficulty option can't be changed during play.

[planetmaker]

Actually I'm already running my scenario, and what to stop any more industries being produced, which obviously would work with the NewGRF Parameter, but the difficulty option can't be changed during play.

Interesting what you consider 'obvious' given that I can change half of the difficulty settings without problems after map creation and without resorting to devlopement tools - something which is required for changing NewGRFs which is also something not guaranteed to work.

[Leanden]

Well i'm currently running a scenario with FIRS, but I now want to change to Industry placement only, however you cant change the number of industries difficulty option during play. The reason I say its "obvious" is because andy has already placed a parameter for this change, but just hasn't implemented it yet, thus it currently does nothing.

[silver_777]

Leanden I'm having exactly the same problem from couple of weeks (http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=53978). Too bad it's not possible yet We just have to wait for andy's sandbox mode to be implemented. Hope it will be soon

[andythenorth]

How should the 'no industry opening' parameter work?

Which of these:
- no random industry construction during gameplay
- no player industry construction during gameplay
- both
- choice of any of above

Coding any of them is roughly the same amount of work. Explaining it well in parameter text is more work than the code

[lawton27]

I'd be tempted to go for choice then it keeps more people happy.

[Leanden]

I would say the "no random industry one". Having the no player choice would be pointless, because if you didnt want to build industries, then you just wouldnt build any, it doesnt need a parameter.

[Alberth]

I would say the "no random industry one". Having the no player choice would be pointless, because if you didnt want to build industries, then you just wouldnt build any, it doesnt need a parameter.

What if you want to forbid it, eg in MP?

[silver_777]

I would say the "no random industry one". Having the no player choice would be pointless, because if you didnt want to build industries, then you just wouldnt build any, it doesnt need a parameter.

What if you want to forbid it, eg in MP?

Good point Alberth. Personally I would prefer "choice of any of above" for the same reasons like lawton27

[FooBar]

How should the 'no industry opening' parameter work?

I'd have both options for secondary industries and "disable random" for primary industries only. While this might be confusing, it will avoid confusion with the "manual primary industry construction method" advanced setting (which can be set to none).
If you rather avoid this confusion, just have both options for all industries. So maybe just have both options for all industries and have a note in the parameter description: "This setting does not affect the \"manual primary industry construction method\" advanced setting."

The way the parameter could work can be something like this:
Industry construction during gameplay: [ enabled | player only | random only | disabled ]

[NekoMaster]

How about combining both ideas into one parameter.

Industry Spawning\Construction : Enabled, Disable Random Spawning, Disable Player Construction, Disable all

[FooBar]

Isn't that exactly the same as I just suggested?

Industry construction during gameplay: [ enabled | player only | random only | disabled ]

[Leanden]

Im not sure if this has already been reported. But take a look at this screenshot and tell me that isn't a bug.

[Alberth]

It is not a bug (as requested ).


Somewhat longer explanation: You seem to have a farm with a weird name.

[Emperor Jake]

Maybe someone's been changing NewGRFs in game?

[Eddi]

in all likelyhood this is because you changed the GRFs during the game...

[andythenorth]

Improved Textile Mill...

New

textile_mill_rework_2.png (142.4 KiB) Viewed 1868 times

Old

textile_mill_old_2.png (150.29 KiB) Viewed 1868 times

[Leanden]

Nope, im fairly sure i started that scenario with FIRS running. I did update FIRS part way through that scenario tho, think that could of done it too?

[andythenorth]

Nope, im fairly sure i started that scenario with FIRS running. I did update FIRS part way through that scenario tho, think that could of done it too?

It's probably not a FIRS bug. There's no easy mistake to make with nfo code that would leave the foundry with the correct string but the wrong cargos. They're all values set by one simple action 0 (which is setting them correctly).

As the foundry has ID 09 and the default farm has ID 09, my guess is you removed FIRS at some point, then added it back to your game. That is a very likely cause for the error you show.