[OTTD] 2cc TrainsInNML

[kamnet]

Good idea!

[Voyager One]

Aren't the Neterhlands and Switzerland already over-represented in the set?

Not that much and these mentioned here are all from very different time periods.

lso, I can't open .xls files

Sorry, I'll convert it to something more appropriate later today.

EDIT: Here you go, you can see all here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=0

[Voyager One]

Shameless multiposting coming up... mods please forgive me.

[Voyager One]

... continued...

[Voyager One]

... and some more...

[Eddi]

mind you that the RhB Ge 6/6 is a "Rhätisches Krokodil". there's also a regular (meaning standard gauge) swiss "Krokodil" and a german one as well.

[michael blunck]

mind you that the RhB Ge 6/6 is a "Rhätisches Krokodil". there's also a regular (meaning standard gauge) swiss "Krokodil" and a german one as well.

And o/c an Austrian one.

regards
Michael

[Purno]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=0

Thanks!

Btw, how about FMUs? IIRC I once drew the CargoSprinter, but I'm not sure if it ended up in the set eventually.

I think the 2ccSet is a nice set to include these unique, experimental and silly things, just like the aforementioned SMU (did we find one eventually?).

[Voyager One]

there's also a regular (meaning standard gauge) swiss "Krokodil" and a german one as well.

And o/c an Austrian one.

It's easy to change the flag...
I've had this one drawn and just recolored it without thinking of gauge. OTOH, we didn't bother about gauge so far, I know that I've drawn some narrow gauge ones that are already included, not to mention Russian things that are broad gauge... Should we start bothering ourselves with this too? IMO it's not really neccessary.

Btw, how about FMUs? IIRC I once drew the CargoSprinter, but I'm not sure if it ended up in the set eventually.

Why isn't the Cargosprinter included yet?!? What's wrong with it. Also, I have a futuristic F-EMU drawn for the Dutch set, we can include that one too if you want it (under some other name and flag of course).

SMU (did we find one eventually?)

Nope, personally I haven't. I've found some steam railbuses but not MUs. And once again, there's no point in drawing something with absolutely no stats available.

BTW, in case you people haven't noticed, I've opened a separate "issue" on devzone for this new rolling stock that I'm drawing: http://dev.openttdcoop.org/issues/6804
There is a WIP table included (in excel, sorry, I'll make a GoogleDoc table for that too) with all the engines I've found so far to fill some gaps.

[Purno]

OTOH, we didn't bother about gauge so far, I know that I've drawn some narrow gauge ones that are already included, not to mention Russian things that are broad gauge... Should we start bothering ourselves with this too? IMO it's not really neccessary.

IMO different gauges bring no real interesting gameplay mechanics. I think it's best ignored.

Why isn't the Cargosprinter included yet?!? What's wrong with it.

No clue. Perhaps it's just forgotten?

Also, I have a futuristic F-EMU drawn for the Dutch set, we can include that one too if you want it (under some other name and flag of course).

I'm not a fan of futuristic stuff, but I guess we could indeed. Not sure we should assign a flag for it. Perhaps we should use a unique flag for futuristic stuff.

Nope, personally I haven't. I've found some steam railbuses but not MUs. And once again, there's no point in drawing something with absolutely no stats available.

Oh well. No SMU then.

There is a WIP table included (in excel, sorry, I'll make a GoogleDoc table for that too) with all the engines I've found so far to fill some gaps.

Why not make it in Google Docs right from the start? Sounds easier than making it in Excel and converting it later

[Transportman]

Btw, how about FMUs? IIRC I once drew the CargoSprinter, but I'm not sure if it ended up in the set eventually.

I think the 2ccSet is a nice set to include these unique, experimental and silly things, just like the aforementioned SMU (did we find one eventually?).

It indeed is nice to include it. SMUs I haven't found, did they actually exist?

OTOH, we didn't bother about gauge so far, I know that I've drawn some narrow gauge ones that are already included, not to mention Russian things that are broad gauge... Should we start bothering ourselves with this too? IMO it's not really neccessary.

IMO different gauges bring no real interesting gameplay mechanics. I think it's best ignored.

I think it also should be ignored.

I'm not a fan of futuristic stuff, but I guess we could indeed. Not sure we should assign a flag for it. Perhaps we should use a unique flag for futuristic stuff.

I have no problem with futuristic/fictional stuff. The old set also had futuristic vehicles in it, so I see no problem in also adding them in this set. I don't know to what extent the futuristic vehicles in the old set were based on actual concepts. Regarding flags for those engines: the old topic had a poll running, suggesting a UN flag for futuristic engines, with No flag as second option.

Regarding Engines and MU consists I have a question. In the old set, there were a number of constraints on possible consists (MUs and Engines could not be in one train, railcars were single units, MUs could only consist of one type of MU). Currently I haven't coded any constraints, but should there be any constraints? And which ones should stay?

[Purno]

Regarding Engines and MU consists I have a question. In the old set, there were a number of constraints on possible consists (MUs and Engines could not be in one train, railcars were single units, MUs could only consist of one type of MU). Currently I haven't coded any constraints, but should there be any constraints? And which ones should stay?

• MUs and Engines could not be in one train: I see no point in this restriction, as long as traction type is taken into account (a train consisting of a diesel engine and an EMU should not use the horse power of the EMU on unelectrified railroads).
• railcars were single units: I see no point in this restriction, in fact, IRL multiple railcars of the same type can be coupled.
• MUs could only consist of one type of MU: I see no point in this restriction, but I don't think metro trains should be coupled with normal MUs/engines, and should always stick to their own track type.

Although there might be an issue if a player used a high-horsepowered engine to pull a MU which has low horsepower. (Because this MU is balanced around that low horsepower). It's a smart use of game mechanics, but it should also have a downside. (To prevent a dominant strategy).

[Eddi]

(a train consisting of a diesel engine and an EMU should not use the horse power of the EMU on unelectrified railroads)

the game handles this just fine

railcars were single units: I see no point in this restriction, in fact, IRL multiple railcars of the same type can be coupled.

indeed. typically a railcar (german: VT) came with a matching unpowered steering car (VS) and sometimes with unpowered trailers (VB)

e.g. with the german VT98 you could form units up to 6 cars, where one out of 3 cars had to be powered.
a 3-car unit could be operated as VT+VB+VS
a 4-car unit as VT+VB+VB+VT
a 6-car unit as VT+VB+VS+VT+VB+VS or VT+VB+VB+VB+VB+VT

but there is no real point in making the game mechanics that restrictive. railcars should just be treated like MUs without being natively dual-headed.

[Phreeze]

regarding this, some information can be found on the wikipedia pages of the trains (try different languages!) or at the contructors page.
For Alstom e.g they have some combinations in their PDF (considering the Coradia for example), where you can see how much powered units and steering-only units are used in 3,4,5,6..car-combinations.

[Voyager One]

Why not make it in Google Docs right from the start? Sounds easier than making it in Excel and converting it later

Sorry Purno, a bad habit of mine... Here you go...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=0

This document will be updated as I continue. In case someone is willing to assist with research, I will grant him access on request.
---

I'm not a fan of futuristic stuff, but I guess we could indeed. Not sure we should assign a flag for it. Perhaps we should use a unique flag for futuristic stuff.

Didn't we already discuss this in the old thread (the poll)? Anyway, I've already sent a futuristic MU to Transportman (that Sureot futuristic MU I've drawn for the Dutch set), but I've flagged it under EU. Feel free to disagree.
---

SMUs I haven't found, did they actually exist?

Honestly, I have no idea. I see steam locomotors or steam railbuses with coaches attached but those aren't MUs "per se"...
---

MUs and Engines could not be in one train: I see no point in this restriction, as long as traction type is taken into account (a train consisting of a diesel engine and an EMU should not use the horse power of the EMU on unelectrified railroads).
railcars were single units: I see no point in this restriction, in fact, IRL multiple railcars of the same type can be coupled.
MUs could only consist of one type of MU: I see no point in this restriction, but I don't think metro trains should be coupled with normal MUs/engines, and should always stick to their own track type.

#1 - agreed
#2 - agreed
#3 - agreed - but stressing out the point on metros - no coupling to other vehicles, not even other metros IMO.
---

A bit off topic... look at this new monster!!! This one goes in for sure!
(find pictures on Google)
---

EDIT: And a new one...

Victorian Railways Rowan Railmotor.PNG (10.18 KiB) Viewed 4947 times

EDIT2: Hahahahaha! It's really an interesting thing when you're getting ready to draw an engine and have this for reference...

NER EE1_03.jpg (91.21 KiB) Viewed 4946 times

[Transportman]

but I don't think metro trains should be coupled with normal MUs/engines, and should always stick to their own track type.

Metros are indeed restricted to their own track type and thus cannot be coupled to normal MUs/engines, just as Maglevs cannot be coupled to normal engines (unless stuff like the Universal rail is used).

#1 - agreed
#2 - agreed
#3 - agreed - but stressing out the point on metros - no coupling to other vehicles, not even other metros IMO.

Why not also allow coupling different metros together?
---

A bit off topic... look at this new monster!!! This one goes in for sure!
(find pictures on Google)[/quote]
That is a nice one.

Other news: I just pushed the change to include the steamers drawn by Voyager One for the old set. For a small number of steamers I have no permission (yet), so I did include the code, but it is commented out and thus these vehicles are not yet included. I haven't tested it thoroughly, so there can still be some errors.

[Purno]

Why not also allow coupling different metros together?

Indeed. Why? Why allow coupling of different MUs and railbuses, but make an exception for metros?

steamers

Talking about steamers, I know Voyager One can draw faster than anyone can code, so how about animated steamers? It'll look epic and it'll keep Voyager One busy a tad longer

[Voyager One]

Why not also allow coupling different metros together?

Indeed. Why? Why allow coupling of different MUs and railbuses, but make an exception for metros?

OK, forget it, bad idea. Honestly I don't know what was I thinking at that moment.

it'll keep Voyager One busy a tad longer

I'll kill you...

animated steamers

First of all, we have to see about a different template.
Second, I've done it for the Dutch set, I can do it the same here, no problem.
Third and most problematic - what do we (or I) do with other people's steamers? DanMack and Snail have done most of "not-Voyagers" steamers, can I modify theirs too?

[Purno]

I'll kill you...

Death threats? After years of teamwork this is what I get?

Third and most problematic - what do we (or I) do with other people's steamers? DanMack and Snail have done most of "not-Voyagers" steamers, can I modify theirs too?

Isn't the *whole* set released under GPL?

[Transportman]

Animated steamers: If there are sprites, I will code them.

Third and most problematic - what do we (or I) do with other people's steamers? DanMack and Snail have done most of "not-Voyagers" steamers, can I modify theirs too?

I just got consent from DanMacK for GPL v2, so you can modify those. From Snail I do not (yet) have consent, but I did sent a message, so I'll come back to that when I have an answer.

Isn't the *whole* set released under GPL?

Didn't we have the license discussion already in the old thread? From the current list of known artists, I only miss the consent from Snail. And I have a bunch of sprites with "artist unknown".