Re: Michael Blunck's new graphics [http://www.ttdpatch.de/]
Posted: 12 May 2008 17:21
Enough lads, let's stay on topic and give way for whatever evil Michael is up too
.

The place to talk about Transport Tycoon
https://www.tt-forums.net/
Ooh! That'll do nicelyAegir wrote:Town buildings can be coded to stay put and not move, coding it as an industry shouldn't be necessary.
NewCargo.grf is quite old, meanwhile. Indeed it was put together to demonstrate Csabas newcargo feature in the first place. Since then, George and me had revised the ECS scheme and "beer" turned into "food(beer)", i.e. the chance for acception should be higher now.Raichase wrote:I an pondering the ever present problem of beer transport.
Jever.michael blunck wrote:P.S.: Seems to be derived from a "guess the brewery" game ...
I trade it for an early car transportermichael blunck wrote:You´ve won a bottle. I´ve put it for you in my fridge.![]()
Wouldn't a "WR 360 C 14" or V 36 be more appropriate? The V80 (1952) series had only 10 locomotives and the V36 (1938) had over 160 locomotives. Furthermore there are no locomotives built in WW2 except the funny V188 (1941) and filling up this gap is difficult... But wasn't that the case in all countries who suffered from this war? In game you should suffer as wellDonRazzi wrote:But something I really miss is something, which fits into the gap between the V 140 and the V 100. For nearly thirty years there isn't a loco suitable for branch lines. So what do you think about adding the V 80?
Yes, at least to some degree and that early date showing up only in OTTD, see list below.lobster wrote: i was wondering if you're going to implement pre-1920 material in the upcoming 0.9 release?
Well, yes. Introducing the E 18 had been in question for a long time, simply because it´s such a powerful engine (same with the 103 in DB times). And these ones are always hard to balance, gameplay-wise. OTOH, in RL, there was room for all these engines. The type program of the DRG for 1931 envisaged:DonRazzi wrote: I think at the moment there's no need for another early E-loco in the set. The E 16 is quite nice to have, and when you introduce the E 18 in 0.9,
E 16: 1926, 120 km/h, 2340 kW, 142 kN, 342,000 RMthere'll be no need for a loco quite similiar to the E 16 (not talking about the croco-style).
DonRazzi wrote: But something I really miss is something, which fits into the gap between the V 140 and the V 100. For nearly thirty years there isn't a loco suitable for branch lines. So what do you think about adding the V 80?
That´s right. Both in WWI and in WWII, there wasn´t much new development of locomotives. In addition, WWI was too early for diesels (development of electrics was delayed), and in WWII, diesel fuel was such a scarce resource that even existing diesels were retired (the fast diesel train sets). Generally speaking, only the "war locomotives" were built (though in large quantities), i.e. the KDLs, KMLs and KELs. And after the war, development of new engines was delayed until the late 1950s.Toni Babelony wrote: Wouldn't a "WR 360 C 14" or V 36 be more appropriate? The V80 (1952) series had only 10 locomotives and the V36 (1938) had over 160 locomotives. Furthermore there are no locomotives built in WW2 except the funny V188 (1941) and filling up this gap is difficult...