Transport Tycoon Forums

To answer the original question, UKRS - however, at the moment I consider that all sets are flawed because they, like the original game(s) include 'fantasy' engines. Most do not allow play before 1920 without using the 'cheats', & then using hamstrung locos.

I have tried playing with the Serbian Set - very good, and you can start using narrow guage from 1873, so you have a good challenging game, setting up local links in preparation for when the standard guage locos become available.
However, I agree with RichK's point that I don't get the same feel about using a set of trains of which I have no 'experience', so I've returned to using the early UKRS, generating a game in 1942, turning back the clock to 1833, starting with the Saddle or Tram Engine, and allowing myself the use of a new engine every 7 years.
Reasoning: I'm not really interested in much which isn't steam, or much stuff after 1968, though I was blown away as a passenger on Corail when it was first introduced. Surprisingly, my most evocative memory is not of a hurtling heavy loco, all hissing, smoke and steam, with which I was familiar as a toddler, but sitting on my school trunk on the platform at Retford, as a Diesel rapidly advanced on the middle track. No steam billowing, just the sound of the track 'tinkling' as the train came closer; and then the awesome power of the Deltic shaking the ground as it thundered past, unexpected, frightening and exhilarating all at the same time. Unforgettable.
- & no diddley-dee, diddley-dah, diddley-dee, diddley-dah nowadays either...sigh

zhargon wrote:... at the moment I consider that all sets are flawed because they, like the original game(s) include 'fantasy' engines. Most do not allow play before 1920 without using the 'cheats', & then using hamstrung locos...

OpenTTD is a game, not a modelism tool. I like realism (sorry Belugas) but to use this as support that sets and game are flawed...

regards
athanasios

Oh Dear Oh Dear athanasios.

Firstly, I was attempting to answer the original poster's question, which called for people's opinions about sets - or at least, which is the best - which I did (plus a little distracted!).

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'a modelism tool', but if you mean that TT et al, were not meant to be used (but not solely) as a model of real life, then I think that you are factually wrong. For example, the original Transport Tycoon (mine from October '94), used the names of real vehicles.
If playing OTTD, I presume that you may have seen the TTDL scenario "West Country 90201", which includes Chipping Sodbury and a label for Microprose (MPS), who published the game. Look at a number of the other labels, for music venues, eateries etc etc
There are many other examples of maps modelling real areas, resources etc.

Look at the different sets which have been, and are being created - most look to the data of real vehicles, then model the behaviour of those vehicles for the game. Look at the ECS.

As to flaws - yes "at the moment I consider that all sets are flawed", for the reasons stated. I thought that Chris Sawyer wasted a lot of time creating "Toyland" or maglev/monorail - just not my cup-of-tea - when the time could have been spent on having the game starting earlier than 1930 & ending in 1990 say, and using the available vehicle slots for earlier locos and boats, and a horse drawn wagon. I would have liked canals rather than maglev or monorail. However, when Roller Coaster Tycoon came out, you could see why CS put in Toyland, and given the then limitations, starting later allowed the main game to have more forms of transport - far better in marketting terms - but flawed to me nonetheless.

(O)TTD is not and never has been a real-world model for one reason; scale. Both time and ground-scale. Anyone who tries to parade it as "element X is rubbish because it isnt real enough" should take a reality check themselves - its a game, and 99% of players want to play it as a game, not be pedantic about its real-life differences.

zhargon wrote:I consider that all sets are flawed because they, like the original game(s) include 'fantasy' engines.

The DB set doesn´t include any fictitious vehicles.

regards
Michael

Canadian Renewal Set for me

richk67 wrote:(O)TTD is not and never has been a real-world model for one reason; scale. Both time and ground-scale. Anyone who tries to parade it as "element X is rubbish because it isnt real enough" should take a reality check themselves - its a game, and 99% of players want to play it as a game, not be pedantic about its real-life differences.

True. But that doesn't mean that people wont make realistic NewGRFs (At least, as much as they can within the constraints of the programming, and its not as if the programming cant be changed). Let people dream of a realistic OTTD. Its certainly not a bad thing. I'm not sure whether or not most patches added to OTTD have improved on realism or not, but certainly most of the ones I use help on the realism, I think. So its not like realism doesn't have a correlation to realism, albeit a weak one maybe.

Of course, I get what you mean by people dismissing a GRF for realism being a bit harsh, but thats just opinion, right?

PouncingAnt wrote:Of course, I get what you mean by people dismissing a GRF for realism being a bit harsh, but thats just opinion, right?

Blinkered view, IMO. (O)TTD isnt realistic period. No .grf makes it more or less "realistic" - it has so many unrealistic aspects that to single out one is, IMO, to be conveniently blind to the others.

Ships that pass right through each other; international airports the size of a small UK village (2-3000 pop); all roads have right angle corners; big aircraft the size of buses; supertankers the length of a loco; more passengers waiting at one bus stop than live in the town; etc. etc. etc.

Personally I dislike the "realistic" sets that dont provide any future vehicles that havent already been built/prototyped. Who knows what will come along in a few years? I dont want to terminate my game in 2008, just because the future is "undefined", or play on in the future with what we have now.

Its a game, first and foremost - not a real life sim. Game to me, includes imagination, and the hope that the future is brighter than today. So I want the monorails, I want the maglevs, I want eco-friendly supersonic passenger jets. I enjoy UKRS for that; it provides quite a number of future technology locos - although I miss monorail.

richk67 wrote:Game to me, includes imagination, and the hope that the future is brighter than today. So I want the monorails, I want the maglevs, I want eco-friendly supersonic passenger jets.

I fail to see why "monorails", "maglevs" and "eco-friendly supersonic" jets should stir "imagination", let the future look "brighter than today", or will be "eco-friendly" at all.

Maybe a transportation game is the least appropriate tool to have a look into the future.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:I fail to see why "monorails", "maglevs" and "eco-friendly supersonic" jets should stir "imagination", let the future look "brighter than today", or will be "eco-friendly" at all.

Im not quite old enough to be of the Dan Dare generation, dreaming of spaceships and holidays on the moon, but railways that arent the sort of thing I saw as a kid do make me wish... "if only". As I said, its imagination in a game. Some have more or are willing to entertain more imagination I guess. Some want it real, real, real.

Each to his own. Just I dont accept any claim that set X is useless because it contains some imagination.

I suggest to MODs to lock this thread:
I suppose all of us expressed our thesis (no need to waste more time), and it seems to me that the title of the thread is a bit flaming...

regards
athanasios

athanasios wrote:I suggest to MODs to lock this thread:

Why that? The discussion just turns interesting (about how to design vehicle sets).

richk67 wrote:[...] Some want it real, real, real.

Each to his own. Just I dont accept any claim that set X is useless because it contains some imagination.

Well, I didn´t claim anything like that.

Yet from my opinion, "realism" and "fiction" don´t mix well in one and the same set. Any fictional elements would render my attempts (as a set designer) to be "realistic" (real names, real technical data, real liveries, ...) useless, just because all that "realism" introduced (since TTDPatch) into the game is mere "fiction" - and any too obvious fictional elements (like future engines) causing a collapse of this fragile "fiction of realism".

[edit: getting apostrophes right]

regards
Michael

richk67 wrote:Each to his own. Just I dont accept any claim that set X is useless because it contains some imagination.

Has anyone claimed that "set X is useless" or 'rubbish'? Previously:

richk67 wrote:Anyone who tries to parade it as "element X is rubbish because it isnt real enough" should take a reality check themselves

If you were referring to my comments, I did not, and I trust never would, say that sets are useless. I stated that I considered sets 'flawed', but flawed does not mean useless, indeed many a philatelist would say flawed is better(or more valuable).
I surmised that the original poster had used the basic game and obviously the American Set. The second poster seemed to be a newcomer, but other than that and the question, there was no context within which to comment. I attempted to describe what I prefer, and constraints I use (which I presume is not the norm), given the sets I have played with or mixed, which may or may not be helpful as an answer to the original poster's question, or be of interest to onlookers - pot luck - surely that is what a forum (or bulletin board in the older days) is all about? And apart from playability aspects, the look of the trainset is key - when playing, I find that much of the time the 'other' graphics are 'invisible'.
I am of the "Eagle" generation, (though I preferred Meccano Magazine -I was a precocious brat), but never dreamed of holidays on the moon. The real world was bad enough in the 50s & early 60s, and what one looked for was stability (did we have a future?), or one looked back to the 'happier' (but imaginary) times that novels afforded, when things weren't changing all the time. I look back and enjoy the romance of the steam engine, and prefer using 'steam' in OTTD, much as I used to enjoy playing with my train set - whilst putting to one side the reality of condensation in the compartment, choking in tunnels, the hard work required to fire up the boiler & maintain pressure, the pneumonoconiosis of the miners etc etc.

michael blunck wrote:Yet from my opinion, "realism" and "fiction" don´t mix well in one and the same set. Any fictional elements would render my attempts (as a set designer) to be "realistic" (real names, real technical data, real liveries, ...) useless, just because all that "realism" introduced (since TTDPatch) into the game is mere "fiction" - and any too obvious fictional elements (like future engines) causing a collapse of this fragile "fiction of realism".

But would you agree that that therefore limits your set to only historical->present day. So playing the game on beyond that becomes limiting, in my view, as nothing new happens.

@Zhargon: I suppose it is language to an extent. AFAIC, flawed means "with fundamental errors which render it not-fit-for-purpose". In this context flawed thus means useless, as they do not meet your playing requirements. And the brush was pretty sweeping... "all sets are flawed". But my point about it was principally that picking on the inclusion of future vehicles in a game as making it "flawed" was overlooking the massive lack-of-realism in the rest of the game. As I always reiterate when someone raises lack-of-realism - be it scale, speed, time, history, economics, etc... - OTTD is a game, played for fun.

richk67 wrote: But would you agree that that therefore limits your set to only historical->present day. So playing the game on beyond that becomes limiting, in my view, as nothing new happens.

Well, yes, of course.

As far as the DB Set is concerned, what should happen in the near future? The main German network is already electrified since years, so there´s no need for "futuristic" diesels (aka "fuel cells", like in some american sets). O/c there will be some new diesels coming along in the next decade but there´s no technological breakthrough to fear, neither by Voith nor by MaK.

And for the electrified stuff - from a technological background - I don´t see anything remarkable stuff appearing as well. There will be some important technological developments with regards to signalling and automated train driving, but nothing novel concerning drives or using electric power at all. No "anti-gravity" drives until 2050 ...

And if, improbably, it´d come to maglev, I´m already prepared, because the TransRapid is already in the DB set. Which is a good example for the slow pace of "progress", BTW: its technology dates back more than 30 years. So, if there´ll be anything breathtakingly new in transportations, we´d know of this already today. And because we don´t, there won´t be nothing new, say until 2040. And that´s sufficient for a TTD vehicle set, IMO.

Because railway stock has such a long lifetime, we already know how transportation will be handled in the next 20 years: by lightweight electric EMUs like those built by Stadler and others. And o/c, there´ll be a successor to the ICE-3 in time, probably called ICE-4 ...

Re: your [edit]

[...] the massive lack-of-realism in the rest of the game. As I always reiterate when someone raises lack-of-realism - be it scale, speed, time, history, economics, etc... - (O)TTD(P) is a game, played for fun.

Well, are you ignoring the massive push to (a certain variant of) "realism" under way since a couple of years? Just take a look on bare TTD vs. OTTD/TTDPatch:

- more realistic vehicles (shape, colour, technical data, realistic kinematics, change over time, livery override, ...),
- more realistic buildings (stations, town buildings, industries), both with regards to view and functionality,
- more realistic signalling (pre-signals, PBS, restricted signals, programmable signals, through signals)
- more realistic landscapes (terrain generation, rivers, seasons)
- etc., pp.

There are, however, still major unrealistic assumptions in the core game, scale and time being the major ones. OTOH, it´s yet not clear how to improve these. But the overall shift to more "realism" is quite noticeable. That´s where we´re all working on, included a certain "richk67" with his work on more "realistic" airports.

regards
Michael

Interesting stuff on German rails. It does confirm to me that post-2008 gameplay is not my cup of tea with the set - I like the future vehicles.

michael blunck wrote:- more realistic landscapes (terrain generation, rivers, seasons)

Yeah - as the originator of Terragenesis my aim there was to create more "realistic" terrains. I actually had to spend quite a bit of effort getting rid of the realism that Terragenesis provides. It can do height levels from about -250 to +600, and yet I had to squash that down to just 15 levels. Great thing of course, is if the map improves, the shackles can just be taken off TGP

There are, however, still major unrealistic assumptions in the core game, scale and time being the major ones. OTOH, it´s yet not clear how to improve these. But the overall shift to more "realism" is quite noticeable. That´s where we´re all working on, included a certain "richk67" with his work on more "realistic" airports.

Sorry, on the NewGRF_ports project realism has never been a motivator - because of scale. I quite happily accept that an aircraft fills one tile, and that runways are only 4-8 tiles long. I want to create more *capable* airports, seaports, bus stations, etc., not necessarily realistic ones.

Although I intend including some features drawn from real life (like aircrashes at locations other than the landing tile), this is for entertainment, variety, and fun, not realism per se.

The point is, if someone designs an airport using my system that is downright silly, then I might try to correct flaws in their logic (like clearing movement locks), but not say "this isnt realistic - airports dont work like that." Thats their choice.

richk67 wrote:Interesting stuff on German rails. It does confirm to me that post-2008 gameplay is not my cup of tea with the set - I like the future vehicles.

Well, I don´t see any specific difference to U.K. rails? The situation in both countries being quite similar. Nothing special with the U.K., demanding "future vehicles", don´t you think? It´s just a feature of that specific TTD vehicle set. I could have done the same (regardless whether for a German or for an U.K. set) but - as already mentioned a couple of times - I think it´s inappropriate.

regards
Michael

I think we're not connecting here Probably time to stop

I think I just said "The set is not my cup of tea" (ie. not a preference), and gave a reason. UKRS has a similar personal irritation, as it removes monorail, but has plenty of new technology vehicles post 2008 - new steamers, new fuel cell engines, etc. To me, those fantasy vehicles add that essence of imagination that I enjoy.

Both are personal choices; not better or worse "as already mentioned a couple of times"

We probably agree, but are both failing to fully communicate it

richk67 wrote:We probably agree, but are both failing to fully communicate it

If you think so, how could I dispute?

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:If you think so, how could I dispute?

With difficulty