Transport Tycoon Forums

I mean, once it was said on openttd.org that NRT may be added : https://www.openttd.org/en/news/229
So it's not really a branch

acs121 wrote:I mean, once it was said on openttd.org that NRT may be added : https://www.openttd.org/en/news/229
So it's not really a branch

Yes it is until that happens and we see road types added to the NewGRF Specifications.

acs121 wrote:I mean, once it was said on openttd.org that NRT may be added : https://www.openttd.org/en/news/229
So it's not really a branch

may

Only if we get to remove canals and ships to make space.

Wolf01 wrote:may
Only if we get to remove canals and ships to make space.

Are you kidding? Ok! I'm awake now.
There are many of us who do use ships, especially in scenarios and having rivers we can live without canals, but the locks would still be needed.

Oh! Wait! "may"! That's the month after April and April 1 is April Fools Day. That's it, right? Right? Ok. I've been a bad boy. I'll accept the lump of coal, but please, please, please, do not sink the ships! What would Michael Blunck and Andythenorth say?

In case this is serious, is there no way to expand OpenTTD? If Bill Gates can do it to windows, surely we can do it to OpenTTD. How about we blockchain into Andy's favorite computer, or his iPad, or both?

Wolf01 wrote:Only if we get to remove canals and ships to make space.

In that case, I'd expect a fork to happen.

Hold your horses. At the moment NRT is not ready to become a part of OpenTTD proper. Andythenorth has said this many times, and because OpenTTD is a volunteer effort made by people who have school, work and/or a family to take care of, so it's not on the top of people's priority lists. Please respect that and be patient.

Good things come to those who wait.

Also, removing canals and ships was a joke, please forget that ever happened.

wallyweb wrote:

Wolf01 wrote:may
Only if we get to remove canals and ships to make space.

Are you kidding? Ok! I'm awake now.
There are many of us who do use ships, especially in scenarios and having rivers we can live without canals, but the locks would still be needed.

Oh! Wait! "may"! That's the month after April and April 1 is April Fools Day. That's it, right? Right? Ok. I've been a bad boy. I'll accept the lump of coal, but please, please, please, do not sink the ships! What would Michael Blunck and Andythenorth say?

In case this is serious, is there no way to expand OpenTTD? If Bill Gates can do it to windows, surely we can do it to OpenTTD. How about we blockchain into Andy's favorite computer, or his iPad, or both?

leifbk would also be very angry.
We can just put the waterway construction into landscaping, since it goes in the same way ?

Note : i have read Erato's post beforehand, don't worry

acs121 wrote:Actually, it's just that i don't like having stops from the 1970's in 1700 (i start my games very early). It would have been great to include stops for a specific generation. Also, i don't really like the lorry area graphics.

You can always write a NewGRF to modify those graphics. I did it once, took me about a day to sort out the NFO and draw the sprites.

The main problems with NRT are the following ones:
The problem of telling which *type has electrification on a mixed tile, I say you have heavy tramway (non electric) and trolleybus (electric), since you see "wires" you think an electric tram can run there, but no.
Another problem would be to have different pavements for the same roadtype, which might make the grf authors to duplicate the same roadtype for no actual benefit just to change the appearance and keeping the same properties.
Also we have just 15 roadtypes and 15 tramtypes, which might not be enough, or even too much of one and not enough for the other (how many tram rails do you need?)

Said that, I say also that waiting for the next reincarnation of NRT will be worth the waiting

I remember also that station graphics, multi threading, removing canals and ships are not part of this project, so please keep this thread as clean as possible and use it to discuss the NRT features only

Wolf01 wrote:The problem of telling which *type has electrification on a mixed tile, I say you have heavy tramway (non electric) and trolleybus (electric), since you see "wires" you think an electric tram can run there, but no.

I shouldn't worry about that. It's a graphics issue that belongs with the GRF author who has the responsibility to find a graphical way to differentiate between the two.

Another problem would be to have different pavements for the same roadtype, which might make the grf authors to duplicate the same roadtype for no actual benefit just to change the appearance and keeping the same properties.

This also is the responsibility of the GRF author. The good authors will differentiate.

Also we have just 15 roadtypes and 15 tramtypes, which might not be enough, or even too much of one and not enough for the other (how many tram rails do you need?)

Good question. For myself, I would need only one tram rail. Is it possible to have a total for both such that the number of road types plus the number of tramtypes can not exceed the total types? (e.g. 28 road + 2 tram =30) (A+B=30)

kamnet wrote:

acs121 wrote:Actually, it's just that i don't like having stops from the 1970's in 1700 (i start my games very early). It would have been great to include stops for a specific generation. Also, i don't really like the lorry area graphics.

You can always write a NewGRF to modify those graphics. I did it once, took me about a day to sort out the NFO and draw the sprites.

Oh, i remember that NewGRF. It's bus stops and lorry areas without fences. However...my hard disk crashed 3 months ago and i lost this NewGRF, and i didn't find the link. Could you bring it back to me, please ?

Wolf01 wrote:The problem of telling which *type has electrification on a mixed tile, I say you have heavy tramway (non electric) and trolleybus (electric), since you see "wires" you think an electric tram can run there, but no.

While I wholly agree with Wallyweb, why not implement catenary as kind of "rail-less" tramtype?

If the catenary would be a feature only available via tramtype, it would solve the problem of roads being owned by municipalities not being able to run trolleybuses. In other words, you could simply build a tramtype without rails to simulate a road with catenary. This is probably the overall easiest solution...?
(However, this trolleybus "tramtype" would then need to contain some road graphics if not build on any roadtype, and the trolleybus NewGRF must be configured to only allow the buses on this special tramtype OR any tramtype combined with a roadtype. The last, however, doesn't seem to be doable, does it? Anyway, this is "just" a problem of the graphics)

(Or, more complexly, electrification/catenary could be implemented as a third type, i.e. an "additions" type which could then be configured by NewGRFs to display special road-side decorations.)

Another problem would be to have different pavements for the same roadtype, which might make the grf authors to duplicate the same roadtype for no actual benefit just to change the appearance and keeping the same properties.

If a third, "additional", type for road-side decorations would be available to NewGRF authors, it would eliminate such problems. However, since it should be possible to assign custom road-side decorations (i.e. pavements) per town zone, good authors will use that feature to implement different decorations in a single roadtype. The last should be very sufficient in my eyes

Also we have just 15 roadtypes and 15 tramtypes, which might not be enough, or even too much of one and not enough for the other (how many tram rails do you need?)

It has already been shown by existing NewGRFs that 15 roadtypes might not be enough (since roads with catenary are their own roadtype in the existing implementation). If the catenary would be moved to a tramtype (or yet another type), 15 roadtypes might indeed be sufficient, if the NewGRFs are designed accordingly. However, I doubt there wouldn't be any complains that 15 aren't sufficient. So, why not "simply" go with 31 roadtypes (like railtypes did, or do I remember this wrongly?)?

We have only right to 15 roadtypes, 15 tramtypes, and 15 railtypes.
We could make a list of projected roadtypes in order to know if we go over the limits or no.
Also, one great thing would be to have a "convert road/tramtype" button. I have tested the GRF, and the huge problem is that when electric tramway comes, you have to remove all tracks and place again the tracks.

Kruemelchen wrote:<SNIP>
If the catenary would be a feature only available via tramtype, it would solve the problem of roads being owned by municipalities not being able to run trolleybuses. In other words, you could simply build a tramtype without rails to simulate a road with catenary. This is probably the overall easiest solution...?
(However, this trolleybus "tramtype" would then need to contain some road graphics if not build on any roadtype, and the trolleybus NewGRF must be configured to only allow the buses on this special tramtype OR any tramtype combined with a roadtype. The last, however, doesn't seem to be doable, does it? Anyway, this is "just" a problem of the graphics)

Can't NewGRF developers make their trolleybusses such that they are compatible with both electrified tram and trolleybus roads, like a bus that can drive on any road, and is powered on trolleybus roads and tramtracks. Or is that not possible?

Also, trolleybusses can't run on trolley-road from other players/municipalities? That must be a bug. Or do you mean that you can't upgrade it? Because if you mean that then it might be an idea to implement a convert road/tram-type button that could place trolleylines without any municipal penalty.

Kruemelchen wrote:(Or, more complexly, electrification/catenary could be implemented as a third type, i.e. an "additions" type which could then be configured by NewGRFs to display special road-side decorations.)
<SNIP>
If a third, "additional", type for road-side decorations would be available to NewGRF authors, it would eliminate such problems. However, since it should be possible to assign custom road-side decorations (i.e. pavements) per town zone, good authors will use that feature to implement different decorations in a single roadtype. The last should be very sufficient in my eyes

Any worthy author would indeed be able to do what the baseset does with the trees n stuff in the city. While people who like eyecandy might like to have this be an option, I'd reckon it'd be hell for NRT developers, especially since, according to them, they can't make NRT work with only 2 sets of 15 (I thought it was 16).
Perhaps it's possible to place objects over roads, but I'm really not sure about that and if you can't then that is really something that needs a patch of its own, for eyecandy's sake. You could cover up fake subways with fake buildings, add fancy road-side decorations or even custom bus stops, but that's beyond the scope of NRT.

Kruemelchen wrote:<SNIP>
It has already been shown by existing NewGRFs that 15 roadtypes might not be enough (since roads with catenary are their own roadtype in the existing implementation). If the catenary would be moved to a tramtype (or yet another type), 15 roadtypes might indeed be sufficient, if the NewGRFs are designed accordingly. However, I doubt there wouldn't be any complains that 15 aren't sufficient. So, why not "simply" go with 31 roadtypes (like railtypes did, or do I remember this wrongly?)?

I can think of a NewGRF with 30 tramtypes. And it wouldn't require me to go overboard at all, mainly because I'd do everything x3 so you can have ground level trams, fake subways and elevated subways (which would require that the NRT devs include an extra layer of graphics for the foundation of the elevated subway, please make it happen). I might even be able to make transitions between the 3 work. It won't be perfect but it should work.
Anyway I think 31 (as I said before, I think it was 32) railtypes is a patch, and not part of OpenTTD proper. Of course you could draw the logical conclusion that you could also patch road and tramtypes to allow for 31/32 different types, but I don't think the NRT devs will, although there seems to be a high demand for it.

Erato wrote:Can't NewGRF developers make their trolleybusses such that they are compatible with both electrified tram and trolleybus roads, like a bus that can drive on any road, and is powered on trolleybus roads and tramtracks. Or is that not possible?

Also, trolleybusses can't run on trolley-road from other players/municipalities? That must be a bug. Or do you mean that you can't upgrade it? Because if you mean that then it might be an idea to implement a convert road/tram-type button that could place trolleylines without any municipal penalty.

They surely can. You can define on which roadtypes/tramtypes a vehicle can run, just like with railtypes. In the current implementation, however, buses can only use roads and trams only use tramways.

My suggestion is to move the trolleybus feature (electrification) away from roadtypes to only be supported on tramtypes in order to have less complexity.
In that case, trolleybuses can then be configured to run also on tramtracks!
The only downside which I can think of is, that NewGRF authors AFAIR can't check whether there is a road underneath a tramway or not. If such a callback would be accessible, trolleybuses could easily be implemented as tramtype (as they obviously would need some kind of road surface to run)

Any worthy author would indeed be able to do what the baseset does with the trees n stuff in the city. While people who like eyecandy might like to have this be an option, I'd reckon it'd be hell for NRT developers, especially since, according to them, they can't make NRT work with only 2 sets of 15 (I thought it was 16).
Perhaps it's possible to place objects over roads, but I'm really not sure about that and if you can't then that is really something that needs a patch of its own, for eyecandy's sake. You could cover up fake subways with fake buildings, add fancy road-side decorations or even custom bus stops, but that's beyond the scope of NRT.
(...)
I can think of a NewGRF with 30 tramtypes. And it wouldn't require me to go overboard at all, mainly because I'd do everything x3 so you can have ground level trams, fake subways and elevated subways (which would require that the NRT devs include an extra layer of graphics for the foundation of the elevated subway, please make it happen). I might even be able to make transitions between the 3 work. It won't be perfect but it should work.
Anyway I think 31 (as I said before, I think it was 32) railtypes is a patch, and not part of OpenTTD proper. Of course you could draw the logical conclusion that you could also patch road and tramtypes to allow for 31/32 different types, but I don't think the NRT devs will, although there seems to be a high demand for it.

I guess you're right, eyecandy stuff should rely on a separate patch.
Still, elevated tramways would be a candidate for a separate patch as well, since it requires changes to vehicle behavior etc. However, if NRT is completed, it should be possible to build on that codebase to implement something like fake subways or elevated subways/tramways, I guess.

PS: I think it is 15 or 31 *types, since the first "*type" out of 16 or 32 means "no existing *type on this tile". So you only have space left for 15 or 31 *types.

Kruemelchen wrote:The only downside which I can think of is, that NewGRF authors AFAIR can't check whether there is a road underneath a tramway or not. If such a callback would be accessible, trolleybuses could easily be implemented as tramtype (as they obviously would need some kind of road surface to run)

This is exactly, to the word what I meant. Yes.

Kruemelchen wrote:I guess you're right, eyecandy stuff should rely on a separate patch.
Still, elevated tramways would be a candidate for a separate patch as well, since it requires changes to vehicle behavior etc. However, if NRT is completed, it should be possible to build on that codebase to implement something like fake subways or elevated subways/tramways, I guess.

https://wiki.openttd.org/Frosch/NotRoad ... _and_trams The author seems to agree with me tho.

Kruemelchen wrote:PS: I think it is 15 or 31 *types, since the first "*type" out of 16 or 32 means "no existing *type on this tile". So you only have space left for 15 or 31 *types.

Makes sense.

Why would buses be implemented as trams? It makes very little sense to me.

Although V453000 did implement ships as trains. And trains as slugs. So eh.

Seems to me from Wolf01's question that the bus/trolley bus/tram issue was settled with the remaining issue being how to know if the overhead wires were for trolley or for tram. If they are to exist independently then it's a simple graphical solution. Make them appear different.

For me, trolleybus catenary should be classic road only. Otherwise, we would quickly get over the limit.

As i said, why not enumerate all the roadtypes you have in mind ? People are talking about elevated subways and crazy stuff, we should list it.

acs121 wrote:As i said, why not enumerate all the roadtypes you have in mind ? People are talking about elevated subways and crazy stuff, we should list it.

Why?