George wrote:
2DaleStan: Do not prompt to krtaylor. I want him to understand.
Because he speaks about those things that he does not understand
By "understand" you mean "agree." Which I don't, and won't.
It is true that I do not understand GRF coding, in the sense of being able to actually encode GRFs. However, I do have a fairly decent (not perfect) understanding of what's involved - what you can and cannot do, what you have to watch out for, and some degree of the interrelations issue.
You are wondering how we will handle the release of the Spanish set. It's very simple:
When the trains are ready, we will release them, coded to work with the traditional TTD industries that everyone is used to.
Then we'll start working on the proper Spanish industries. When they're ready, we'll release the Spanish industry set, along with an updated version of the trains to work with them. Using cargo classes, your LVs, and the aircraft, will be able also to work with them. We aren't going to do partial releases of the industry set; it will be released all at once when it's working, because it's interrelated and doesn't make sense to release partially.
And then, we'll work on Spanish scenery - houses, buildings, etc. Or maybe that will come before the industries, dunno.
The ECS would be relevant ONLY if we were planning to do a half-baked release of the Spanish industries, which we aren't.
I will say, though, that some of this is up to the coder. If you are volunteering to code the set, you can code it internally however you like, as long as, when all the proper GRFs are done, it works as we intend - that is, without tourists or any of the other industries that we don't want. But other than that, I don't see any reason to make more work for a coder, when it's for something we don't want anyway.
And to Michael, you are trying to make something more complicated than it has to be. I don't say you don't know what you are talking about, because you have more knowledge than most anyone else here. But you are trying to impose an artificial standard, onto something to which it does not apply.
If we were intending to replace
some of the cargoes with special Spanish ones, and leave the rest alone, then compatability with the ECS might be relevant. But we aren't. We do not
like your industry design. That's fine, you have the right to make it however you want. But we don't want the Spanish set to work that way.
Cargo classes will solve the worst of the problems. As you say, it will make sure beer isn't hauled in coal wagons. If we wanted to have Spanish-looking beer trucks, we'd have to draw them specially, and code them specially. But currently, we don't plan to do that. Assuming that the intention is to use the LVs as they already exist, then the cargoes are necessarily going to be somewhat of an approximation anyway, just as Josef defined them. We would set the Spanish cargoes as being bulk cargo, liquid, container goods, etc., and the LVs would be refitted appropriately to a vehicle which is, while not 100% Spanish accurate, at least is reasonably suitable.
Let me ask the big question another way:
What exactly needs to be accomplished, that can't be accomplished in the way I describe? Given, that the Spanish industry set will be designed to be comprehensive, and is not
supposed to work at the same time as any other industry scheme; and, that the Spanish trains will be designed to work both with generic TTD industries and with the Spanish industries; and, that the cargo-classes model is close enough to be practical for the use of vehicles not specifically designed for the Spanish set (e.g. planes, LVs.) I can't see any relevance of the ECS, except, that you would like the Spanish trains to be able to also work with the ECS rather than the Spanish industries or standard TTD industries, which to us is beside the point.
