North American Renewal Set - Ver. 1.0 Released! - 04/04/06

[DanMacK]

OK, ore cars and steel cars for the NARS (There will also be a flatcar in the near future)

[George]

PikkaBird: Bits are 08 and 09 (Right where they belong) IDs are 0C (ore) and 0D (steel). Resource management and cargo classes are coded.
Note that this GRF files *only* adds the industries and the cargos; you may or may not actually be able to transport the cargos.
Personally, I'd suggest taking the meat of this GRF file and slapping it into the NARS GRF.

NO! Do not do IT. ECS already allows all the cargo chains in all landscapes (iron ore-steel-vehicles are defined as machinery vector on IDs 08,09,18 and the same BitVals)! CargoIDs and BitVals are DEFINED there. Do not add a mess, use ECS ones!

Attention! All the GRF coders
DO NOT define your own cargo IDs and BitVals. Use selected ones. If something is missing, write me or Michael Blunk!

[DaleStan]

PikkaBird: Bits are 08 and 09 (Right where they belong) IDs are 0C (ore) and 0D (steel). Resource management and cargo classes are coded.

ECS already allows all the cargo chains in all landscapes (iron ore-steel-vehicles are defined as machinery vector on IDs 08,09,18 and the same BitVals)!

Learn to trim your quotes. It's really not that hard. And you might want to link to the NCS[0], lest people end up over here instead. I'd link to it myself, but I've never seen the NCS GRF (So the cargo properties are always the same.)

PikkaBird can do whatever he wants with that GRF. If he wants to change the IDs, (which would also involve moving Paper off to a different slot) then I won't complain.

[0] Until someone can explain to me why it's so necessary to use the TLA of an already-existant set, I'm going to add myself to the group that believes that the first letter of New is an 'N' and not an 'E'. (What *DOES* "ECS" expand to, anyway?)

[michael blunck]

I'm going to add myself to the group that believes that the first letter of New is an 'N' and not an 'E'

Well, at least for me it reads like an ´E´:

Extended Cargo System (ECS)
for TTDPatch
Rev 0.2
mb 20.09.05

The aim of ECS is to ensure a maximum amount of compatibility and flexibility for the "newcargoes" and "newindustries" features of TTDPatch. This will be achieved by the design of a clear scheme of additional cargoes and industries for the different climates of TTD.

While ECS is dealing with the definition of cargoes, the implementation of appropriate industries for these cargoes will be a matter of individually created .grf files.

ECS is based loosely on common "Industrial Classification Lists" and thus reflects real situations of production and transportation. [...]

regards
Michael

[Villem]

Still, you can't force anyone to use the ECS if they do not want to.

[DaleStan]

Extended Cargo System (ECS)
for TTDPatch

The closest I can manage to get is "New Cargo Scheme for the temperate Climate"; this is for the *arctic* climate. (here) Am I completely missing something? and if so, care to link to it?

In any case, I'm still failing to find the GRF that defines all those cargos.

(It looks like ttdpatch.de thinks it's NCS, and has for almost three months.)

[michael blunck]

Still, you can't force anyone to use the ECS if they do not want to.

Of course not. But what would be the benefit of having many incompatible cargo schemes?

Anyway, that has been extensively discussed in various threads (mostly OT, o/c).

E.g., read this:

Obviously it is possible to code perfectly good sets without the ECS, it's been done many times. You are trying to establish the ECS as an interconnection standard. But for comprehensive sets that don't need to interconnect, or that interconnect only in very limited ways, it's just not relevant! I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

I think the point is, until the set is done entirely, it makes a lot of sense to have an interim release that uses something based on the ECS scheme. Otherwise, you have a set that either (a) won't get done for many years or (b) is compatible with nothing but TTD's original industries and cargos.

The latter, while playable, is going to be rather... weak when new cargos become more established. At the same time, I estimate the effort to support ECS is much less than 1% of the whole set development effort.

So, for the time that a set is only a vehicle set (at first), you should not deprive the players entirely from exciting new cargos or the set will be that much less popular. Once the vehicles are done, the remaining steps (industries, houses, cargos) will have to be done. If your cargo scheme is (however loosely) based on ECS, you can do those incrementally, one at a time or as many as you can get done. If your cargo scheme is incompatible with ECS, you have to get everything done at once, or the set will be essentially unplayable until you do so.

The fact of the matter is that cargos are very, very different from all the kinds of sets that have been done before. Cargos are related to everything, vehicles, industries, houses, even stations. Because of this, doing new cargos incrementally is not really feasible. You have to do everything at once, industries, houses and cargos. That's the point of ECS, to make this transition smoother by providing a baseline upon which other sets may build.

I admit, I do not understand why you're so hostile, really the intent of the ECS is to help other sets get started more easily, and still have access to a full array of new cargo types. Whether these cargo types eventually stay in the set as they are, or are replaced as artists and coders have time to work on them is an entirely separate issue, and I think you're too caught up in the "final" stage of a set to see the benefit of ECS for just about every single intermediate stage of set evolution.
_________________
Josef Drexler (http://www.ttdpatch.net/)

@dalestan

"New Cargo Scheme for the temperate Climate" [...]

Yes, that was the first pre-pre working paper. Due to the fact that ECS adds cargoes, it has been decided (informally, during discussions) to change "new" to "extended". IMO, this makes sense.

At the time of writing that, nobody seemed to remember that there once were plans to launch an "European Cargo Set" - but nevertheless, and especially because of the fact that there´s neither an existing .grf of that set nor any actual plans to continue on with that set, I don´t see any reason to change back to "NCS".

(It looks like ttdpatch.de thinks it's NCS, and has for almost three months.)

I´ll update my site.

regards
Michael

[George]

PikkaBird: Bits are 08 and 09 (Right where they belong) IDs are 0C (ore) and 0D (steel). Resource management and cargo classes are coded.

ECS already allows all the cargo chains in all landscapes (iron ore-steel-vehicles are defined as machinery vector on IDs 08,09,18 and the same BitVals)!

Learn to trim your quotes.

sorry, but what do you mean?

It's really not that hard.

What is not hard? Could you explain?

And you might want to link to the NCS[0], lest people end up over here instead. I'd link to it myself, but I've never seen the NCS GRF (So the cargo properties are always the same.)

Do you mean we should post the link to developments GRF storage for ECS?

PikkaBird can do whatever he wants with that GRF.

Yes, but it would be easier to have the same mechanism (not the same cargos) for all the sets.

If he wants to change the IDs, (which would also involve moving Paper off to a different slot) then I won't complain.

Yes, it is possible technically, but what would be the benefit?

[0] Until someone can explain to me why it's so necessary to use the TLA

Sorry, but what is TLA?

Still, you can't force anyone to use the ECS if they do not want to.

Yes, but using one customisable schema gives much more profit than many non-customisable schemas.

[Purno]

At the time of writing that, nobody seemed to remember that there once were plans to launch an "European Cargo Set" - but nevertheless, and especially because of the fact that there´s neither an existing .grf of that set nor any actual plans to continue on with that set, I don´t see any reason to change back to "NCS".

TBH, I do. All this ECS/NCS does confuse me a lot. And I don't see why the NCS should be called ECS... but I haven't followed its discussion.

[DaleStan]

Learn to trim your quotes. It's really not that hard.

What is not hard? Could you explain?

Trimming your quotes (taking out the irrelevant stuff, like I did) is not hard. You don't have to repeat every character of the post to which you're replying.

Do you mean we should post the link to developments GRF storage for ECS?

The release GRFs, if they exist. Failing that, the latest spec, which appears neither on the first nor last page of the NCS thread.

If he wants to change the IDs, (which would also involve moving Paper off to a different slot) then I won't complain.

Yes, it is possible technically, but what would be the benefit?

I don't follow. In order to put steel in slot 09, where you contend it belongs, paper has to be moved out of slot 09, or lost entirely. (Repeat: This is *arctic*, not temperate, hence the name "ArcticOre".) Doing that involves recoding every vehicle, every station, every industry tile, and every industry that deals with paper. I'm not entirely convinced that's a reasonable trade-off. If you code a GRF that properly moves paper to wherever-it-belongs-in-arctic, I'll quite happily cooperate with said GRF.

Sorry, but what is TLA?

TLA is a self-descriptive TLA.
A TLA, on the other hand, is a three letter acronym.

[George]

Learn to trim your quotes. It's really not that hard.

What is not hard? Could you explain?

Trimming your quotes (taking out the irrelevant stuff, like I did) is not hard. You don't have to repeat every character of the post to which you're replying.

Hm. I trimmed the part of your post. What did I do wrong?

Do you mean we should post the link to developments GRF storage for ECS?

The release GRFs, if they exist.

They do

Failing that, the latest spec, which appears neither on the first nor last page of the NCS thread.

http://ttd.cernun.net/download/developm ... %2010c.png

If he wants to change the IDs, (which would also involve moving Paper off to a different slot) then I won't complain.

Yes, it is possible technically, but what would be the benefit?

I don't follow. In order to put steel in slot 09, where you contend it belongs, paper has to be moved out of slot 09, or lost entirely. (Repeat: This is *arctic*, not temperate, hence the name "ArcticOre".)

The ECS is supposed to be used in any landscape. To make the game different, it suppose to have "mods", which can be applied in any landscape.

Doing that involves recoding every vehicle, every station, every industry tile, and every industry that deals with paper.

Yes, all the vehicles and stations sets have to be changed to support ECS. But that is required to be done only once.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a reasonable trade-off.

That will make it easier to develope all the sets in the future. Yes, it is not acceptable to existing games, but for all the new ones - why not.

If you code a GRF that properly moves paper to wherever-it-belongs-in-arctic, I'll quite happily cooperate with said GRF.

What is properly? You can not support in the existing games on the other IDs.

[DaleStan]

George: Discussion has been relocated to the NCS thread.

Pikkabird:
1) You'll probably want to add an action E to disable Csaboka's steel mill (ID 56 43 73 13) if it is going to be loaded after the NARS; it will cause several strange problems if not overridden.
2) Despite MB's claims that beer is not loaded in the Arctic climate, it is, and strange things can happen if his NewCargos (ID 6D 62 08 00) are also loaded. The best solution here is probably to move steel to a different slot.

[DanMacK]

After a long hiatus, the GE 'Evolution' series locomotive, as well as a mail refit for the 'LEO' Maglev cab car

[DanMacK]

Another steamer for the set... a 4-8-2.

A revised intro date scheme for the steam is below as well.

2-8-0 - 1920
4-6-2 - 1920
2-8-2 - 1920
2-10-2 - 1920
4-8-2 - 1925
4-6-4 - 1930
4-8-4 - 1937
4-4-4 - 1938
2-8-8-2 - 1940
==================

[BobDendry]

That's nice!

[Raichase]

I must say, I'm very impressed. I'm more favoring the darker steamers with the less player colour on them anyway, but this is sharp.

[krtaylor]

Yes, the mostly-black steamers are gorgeous. But why aren't they also in the US set? I though the ARS was to provide company-colored (i.e. unrealistic) North American trains; well and good. But a gorgeous train like that, with minimal company color, is perfectly reasonable to include in the main US set, and I think it's better-looking than the one currently there.

[DanMacK]

You're talking about the USSet Mountain?

That 4-8-2 is a PRR prototype, and frankly, it fits better than the CC one IMHO. I will, eventually... get to the rest of the USSet stuff. As far as "nonreaslistic" prototpes, that loco there is "remotely" based on CN looks/appearance.

[PikkaBird]

Okay, new version is uploaded - download link is in the first post of the thread!

- Added 4-8-2 'Mountain' and changed intro dates of other steamers as requested.

- Added Iron and Steel industries and wagons (iron and steel ended up with IDs 11h and 12h respectively, which according to the ECS are sand and glass. It was the best I could come up with). The AI will attempt to built routes to the new industries, and has information on which wagons it's supposed to use, but never builds the train - this needs work (and might currently be a limitation of newcargos?).

- Added new graphics for the ES44AC 'Evolution'.

- Added three new horn sounds for the diesels and electrics. Make sure to set newsounds on in your ttdpatch.cfg if you want to hear them (I admit this tripped me up and I spent 45 minutes trying to work out why my new sounds weren't playing ).

Please do post with any bug reports. On the to-do list is the rest of the maglevs, and upgrading the refit information on all the wagons to newcargos.

[Villem]

Finally a set that implements new sounds, excellent work!


Sadly however i found a bug, image attached below.