Transport Tycoon Forums

andythenorth wrote:...Discussion on that - finished

And that would be?

Ogre wrote:And that would be?

Something that needs coding and testing before it's discussed further

Ogre wrote:

andythenorth wrote:...Discussion on that - finished

And that would be?

as far as i can see, it's something loosely based on my suggestion on one of the previous pages...

Yes, the scheme we'll try draws on the suggestions by Eddi, v45300 and planetmaker

Improved recycling plant

Now that's nice!

Bob_Mackenzie wrote:Now that's nice!

Liar! It's very nice .

Improved sugar refinery:

When do you get the time for all these drawings and HEQS and FISH and... Amazing!

Voyager One wrote:When do you get the time for all these drawings and HEQS and FISH and... Amazing!

Time machine.

One pixel a day keeps boredom away

planetmaker wrote:oberhumer's suggestion to "clarify" things does actually the reverse, makes chains and usage obscure and opaque.

I'll try explaining myself again. I saw these problems:
1. Two cargos overlapping in what they represent. This is the case with farm supplies and engineering supplies (heavy machinery) and engineering supplies and building materials (lumber).
2. Cargos that can be several things that are transported differently, these are farm supplies (machinery and fertilizer) and engineering supplies (machinery and lumber).
3. Ambiguous or nondescript names. "Engineering supplies" seems the worst to me - there are many types of engineering that could together require any kind of supplies. "Manufacturing supplies" narrows it down a bit, "farm supplies" is still alright in the sense that it's clear from the name what to do with them. Not only does this leave unclear what actually is being produced or transported, it also makes translating FIRS harder.

And back to what I originally said:

I wrote: - "Engineering Supplies" -> "Machinery". Any industries accepting them in the sense of lumber right now would additionally take "Building Materials", leaving the lumber yard to produce those only.
- "Farm Supplies" -> "Fertilizer". Tractors etc. would be covered by "Machinery".
- "Manufacturing Supplies" -> "Packaging [and Parts (?)]". No problems here.

planetmaker wrote:Playing FIRS I immediately know that supplies are the key to boost industry production

I know it says so in the industry window, that doesn't mean the same couldn't be done if they had a different name.

In my eyes the points 2 and 3 are clear advantages, not disadvantages.

"makes translating FIRS harder" is maybe true, but not a valid argument as solutions exist.

Point 1 can be debated, but current distinction of the three supply types makes for a clearer distinction of the industry sectors farming (primary, fmsp), mining (primary, ensp) and secondary (mnsp).

2 and 3 cause more work not only for translators, but also for vehicle set makers. Where's the advantage in that? There would also be also enough of a distinction left to not confuse things, and it would (inevitably...) seem more real.

I also noticed the sugar refinery and recycling plant - much better.

oberhümer wrote:2 and 3 cause more work not only for translators, but also for vehicle set makers. Where's the advantage in that? There would also be also enough of a distinction left to not confuse things, and it would (inevitably...) seem more real.

I also noticed the sugar refinery and recycling plant - much better.

How is "I don't know how to translate" the same as "more work"? If 'easy to translate' would be a guide, we should offer no strings at all (maybe no newgrf). Or not read poems in another language.

How is "I can now choose to display the carge one way or another" the same as "more work"? It actually makes it easier - you can always ship it in boxes.

How is "I need to memorize three names" easier than "I just have to remember 'supplies'" easier? The clarity of the concept of 'supplies' is exactly in the breadth of how it can be understood and the "signal power" of the word 'supplies' to the user that this cargo acts as boost cargo.

What is "more real", suppling a farm with its necessary goods, or supplying it with fertilizer, with animal food, with seed potatoes, seed grain, grass seeds, replacement parts fo the tractor, petrol, etc? What is more micromanagement and what is the conceptual look at things? Is one thing less real than the other?

andythenorth wrote:Improved recycling plant

Very nice, very clean for a recycling plant

One question. There should be some kind of conveyor/connection for moving the materials between the small building (that one, that has the conveyors already) and the main building, should it not? Or is it intended to be found underground?

Ogre wrote:There should be some kind of conveyor/connection for moving the materials between the small building

It's just one of those TTD-style things: industries are impressionistic, not realistic.

Also - there will be multiple layouts and fixing the conveyor in one place would limit the layout options.

planetmaker wrote:How is "I don't know how to translate" the same as "more work"? If 'easy to translate' would be a guide, we should offer no strings at all (maybe no newgrf). Or not read poems in another language.

These are things for which it's needlessly hard to find equivalents ("know how to translate"). As I said, it can be done differently but isn't.

planetmaker wrote:How is "I can now choose to display the carge one way or another" the same as "more work"? It actually makes it easier - you can always ship it in boxes.

I'll rephrase that: it causes more work for vehicle set makers who want to fully support FIRS with correct representations of each cargo.

planetmaker wrote:How is "I need to memorize three names" easier than "I just have to remember 'supplies'" easier? The clarity of the concept of 'supplies' is exactly in the breadth of how it can be understood and the "signal power" of the word 'supplies' to the user that this cargo acts as boost cargo.

The thing is that the user probably already knows those three names, what they represent and what those things are used for, whereas "supplies" is a quite meaningless word when used for goods and could be applied to anything ("milk"->"dairy supplies", "oil"->"refinery supplies", "sand"->"glass and brick work supplies"...).

Webster's Fourth Edition wrote: supply [...]
-n. [...]
3. [pl.] materials, provisions, etc. for supplying an army, expedition, a business, etc.; [...]

planetmaker wrote:What is "more real", suppling a farm with its necessary goods, or supplying it with fertilizer, with animal food, with seed potatoes, seed grain, grass seeds, replacement parts fo the tractor, petrol, etc? What is more micromanagement and what is the conceptual look at things? Is one thing less real than the other?

The main problem here is consistency: FIRS has separate cargos for food and alcohol, and it's planned to split sugar cane and sugar beet, but at the same time there are these two (or three) ambiguous "supplies". Half one way and half the other way doesn't really work out.

oberhümer wrote:whereas "supplies" is a quite meaningless word when used for goods and could be applied to anything ("milk"->"dairy supplies", "oil"->"refinery supplies", "sand"->"glass and brick work supplies"...)

Those would all be wrong. The correct versions would be:

"milk" -> "food market supplies"
"oil" -> "petrol station supplies"
"sand" -> "builders yard supplies"

oberhümer wrote: I'll try explaining myself again. I saw these problems:
1. Two cargos overlapping in what they represent. This is the case with farm supplies and engineering supplies (heavy machinery) and engineering supplies and building materials (lumber).
2. Cargos that can be several things that are transported differently, these are farm supplies (machinery and fertilizer) and engineering supplies (machinery and lumber).
3. Ambiguous or nondescript names. "Engineering supplies" seems the worst to me - there are many types of engineering that could together require any kind of supplies. "Manufacturing supplies" narrows it down a bit, "farm supplies" is still alright in the sense that it's clear from the name what to do with them. Not only does this leave unclear what actually is being produced or transported, it also makes translating FIRS harder.

Your thinking this from a realism standpoint; That's wrong. Think of the gameplay - Supplies make perfect sense.