New suggestions for the patch (no new suggestions here!)

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 May 2003 20:22

We know how to change the picture on the main menu, or at least someone does, if you play the Mars environment you will see there is a picture of Mars there.

It is not so easy to just learn to code, much less to alter the registers of TTD. We are lucky that we now have more than just Josef who knows how to do this. But when there is an improvement in what CAN be done, lots of others actually DO it. The Patch coding crew figured out how to add locos. MB did a bunch of them. Now there are lots more people adding locos, several complete sets under way, and so on - the thing has taken on a life of its own and added fun for all. Same here - The Patch coding crew at some point may be able to determine how to rematch industries and vectors. Then some enterprising team will release a complete new environment, to show it can be done. Then others will go for it, and soon there will be a whole slew of complete environments, and TTD will be refreshed for years to come.

tijnttd · Post by **tijnttd** » 09 May 2003 11:23

I don't know if this idea was posted ones, but it would be very usefull if instead of trains have orders to go to a certain station, we could send them to to a track of that station.

As this could be esteblished, the signs handling could be made more efficient to! ( for example 2 trains wo drive into the station at the same time (see pic).

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 09 May 2003 12:13

What a suggestion, really nice! I hope it will be possible, the game is aware of the amount of tracks anyhow (you get confronted with this when your trains wait at the presignal).

Saiyan · Post by **Saiyan** » 09 May 2003 12:30

Hyronymus wrote:What a suggestion, really nice! I hope it will be possible, the game is aware of the amount of tracks anyhow (you get confronted with this when your trains wait at the presignal).

Is it really aware of the track count? I mean, don't presignals just check if any exit signal immediately after them is 'green' and then the game engine directs the train to the appropriate track?

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 09 May 2003 13:29

tijnttd wrote: As this could be esteblished, the signs handling could be made more efficient to! ( for example 2 trains wo drive into the station at the same time (see pic).

Because Signals don't know where a train want to to go.
Mostly the train doesn't know it too. ( will be calculated while moving)

impossible.

Frightened Shadow · Post by **Frightened Shadow** » 09 May 2003 14:10

tijnttd wrote:
for example 2 trains wo drive into the station at the same time (see pic).

You can have two or more trains entering a station at the same time by separating the tracks leading into the platforms by (preferably) combo signals.

tijnttd · Post by **tijnttd** » 09 May 2003 15:17

Frightened Shadow wrote: You can have two or more trains entering a station at the same time by separating the tracks leading into the platforms by (preferably) combo signals.

Yes I know, but in much cases there isn't the room for it, and I just want to have the game as realistic as possible at these points. It would be great if it could be done, but I think it will be a hard job...

Even if only the trains could be directed to a certain track in the station would be very usefull, when using the same station for loading and unloading!

Frightened Shadow · Post by **Frightened Shadow** » 09 May 2003 15:53

tijnttd wrote:
Frightened Shadow wrote: You can have two or more trains entering a station at the same time by separating the tracks leading into the platforms by (preferably) combo signals.
Yes I know, but in much cases there isn't the room for it, and I just want to have the game as realistic as possible at these points.

I fail to see how it takes too much room, since all you really need is one square between the tracks.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 09 May 2003 17:32

OK, maybe a bit weird but with all the new graphics being developped I suddenly stumpled upon it. Why can't you buy landmarks from the local authortiy window? Those landmarks improve your companies rating but also supply extra passengers. Landmarks happen to attract tourists, don't they? Would be extremely neat if the landmarks are exhaustive: you cannot build them on the map twice. Just a thought...

cmd_srui · Post by **cmd_srui** » 09 May 2003 22:07

Is it possible to havea station with diferent sized platforms... say for example... two tracks with a 7 square long a other 2 with 4 squares long.

If one could really get the trains to stop at specific platforms... this would be very logical to make terminus stations for short regional trains while having other platforms for throught-trains. Even more logical if you want to minimize the impact on the local authority by destroying fewer houses.

And it would look just nice :)

spaceman-spiff · Post by **spaceman-spiff** » 10 May 2003 04:45

cmd_srui wrote:Is it possible to havea station with diferent sized platforms... say for example... two tracks with a 7 square long a other 2 with 4 squares long.

If one could really get the trains to stop at specific platforms... this would be very logical to make terminus stations for short regional trains while having other platforms for throught-trains. Even more logical if you want to minimize the impact on the local authority by destroying fewer houses.

And it would look just nice

Yes, I believe what you're asking is a combination of this:
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=67474#67474
and this:
http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=68170#68170
You may want to read the replies after those suggestions

Rob · Post by **Rob** » 10 May 2003 06:02

Is it possible and feasable that the cost of construction while managing a compettitor is subtracted from your own account?
Most of the time this feature is used to help your own company. So it would be reasonable that you had to pay for it.

Centennial_Tycoon · Post by **Centennial_Tycoon** » 10 May 2003 06:40

I agree, most of the time - i do manage competitors companies to help myself!

But sometimes i do manage them to remove loss making vehicles and sometimes to just buy vehicles to enhance their value (especially when they dont have any) -sometimes i also use them to develop cities i dont feel like developing - because low profits (-ve ones) look bad on my sheets

But in the end you dont want to read this entire passage - i dont know why i wrote it and to think of it - all these things hel me in the end - so i get back to my point - yup - i think it should be chraged to the player - and it shouldnt be too hard to do as manipulating with money shouldnt be so hard....

Also - landmarks would be very interresting to have in ther game (yeah, yeah, more graphics to be done) - but if it could be implementeed - id give it a thumbs up!

spaceman-spiff · Post by **spaceman-spiff** » 10 May 2003 06:56

Rob wrote:Is it possible and feasable that the cost of construction while managing a compettitor is subtracted from your own account?
Most of the time this feature is used to help your own company. So it would be reasonable that you had to pay for it.

Yes, that would make sense, I use it to smash down towns so my own rating stays good

Sokko · Post by **Sokko** » 10 May 2003 12:48

Whoops, posted my suggestion in the wrong thread. Here goes...

Is is possible to move the functions for raising/lowering larger areas of land from the scenario editor to the game? Nothing fancy, just something like if you hold down Ctrl and select the raise/lower land icons, then you will raise/lower a 3x3 area instead of 1x1. I think that would be fine for all our mountain-moving needs.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 10 May 2003 15:02

Sokko wrote:Whoops, posted my suggestion in the wrong thread. Here goes...

Is is possible to move the functions for raising/lowering larger areas of land from the scenario editor to the game? Nothing fancy, just something like if you hold down Ctrl and select the raise/lower land icons, then you will raise/lower a 3x3 area instead of 1x1. I think that would be fine for all our mountain-moving needs.

It wouldn't be good that you can make new random towns,
or lighthouses. (You could make a cage for the AI)

so we / I have to make a new Interface for it.

Dinges · Post by **Dinges** » 10 May 2003 16:17

eis_os wrote:
Sokko wrote:Whoops, posted my suggestion in the wrong thread. Here goes...

Is is possible to move the functions for raising/lowering larger areas of land from the scenario editor to the game? Nothing fancy, just something like if you hold down Ctrl and select the raise/lower land icons, then you will raise/lower a 3x3 area instead of 1x1. I think that would be fine for all our mountain-moving needs.
It wouldn't be good that you can make new random towns,
or lighthouses. (You could make a cage for the AI)
so we / I have to make a new Interface for it.

Huh

he's asking something about mountains and you start off with towns?

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 10 May 2003 16:30

Dinges wrote:
eis_os wrote:
Sokko wrote:Whoops, posted my suggestion in the wrong thread. Here goes...

Is is possible to move the functions for raising/lowering larger areas of land from the scenario editor to the game? Nothing fancy, just something like if you hold down Ctrl and select the raise/lower land icons, then you will raise/lower a 3x3 area instead of 1x1. I think that would be fine for all our mountain-moving needs.
It wouldn't be good that you can make new random towns,
or lighthouses. (You could make a cage for the AI)
so we / I have to make a new Interface for it.
Huh he's asking something about mountains and you start off with towns?

The window for lower and rising land has more features, like building lighthouses, what don't you understand?
Ohh I see, towns should be land

But you could remove all, if you click reset land... not very good....

Saiyan · Post by **Saiyan** » 10 May 2003 16:53

Don't know if this has already been posted here, but frankly I don't have the patience to browse through 20 pages. This is just a little philosophical rambling about fairness and challenge in TTD.

So here I go...

The general problem with TTDPatch is that it makes the game far too easy. The player has access to really advanced features that the AI can't handle, so it's an unfair advantage. Even if you set all costs to high and the AI construction rate and intelligence to the maximum you still don't have a real challenge. Just think about the multihead, the bigger stations or the subsidy control options to start with.

Weird thing is, that even Microprose didn't bother to implement AI support for some features in the original game (e.g. refitting, tree planting, stock purchase, funding new buildings, etc.), so we've already had a fairly easy program to start with.
Not to mention the idiotic track- and roadbuilding algorythms, the total incapability to build stations larger than 2 tracks of 3 squares each, the incompetence in properly determining the need for trains instead of trucks in some cases, or the utter indifference towards changes in cargo acceptance or factory output.

The biggest problem of all is that it would probably take a significant amount of time to implement the usage of all old and new features into the AI. I don't know if anyone has even begun to experiment with this, I'd do it myself if I knew how to program.

So this goes to all you TTD programmers out there. It's great to have these really advanced options, new graphics, new GUI and stuff, but IMHO someone should REALLY start working on the AI to give us veterans even the slightest glimmer of a challenge.

Cheers,
Saiyan
(TTDPatch Hungarian translator)

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 10 May 2003 17:13

How the AI works is a big question

It's very hard to change AI, because you don't get a true *visual* result.

I know the stupid AI, mostly I play without it, why ? It's too stupid

Transport Tycoon Forums

New suggestions for the patch (no new suggestions here!)

stations layout

Re: stations layout

new suggestion

Suggestions, what are they here for?

Re: new suggestion

Rambling about the unfair advantage over the TTD AI

Re: Rambling about the unfair advantage over the TTD AI

Who is online