Transport Tycoon Forums

Nice screenies, but how do you activate this grf?

I've read the readme and added the values 1 2 after the grf, but I first get an error about sprite #134 and ingame "Parameters:see readme for usage, but-first:disabled classes bitmask"

I've tried various valus but all fail.
Can someone help me to activate this grf?
Screenie

You're maybe the first person to try this in TTDPatch and therefore the first to find out that it doesn't work in it?
So I think it's not you but the grf itself why you can't get it to work...

FooBar wrote:You're maybe the first person to try this in TTDPatch and therefore the first to find out that it doesn't work in it?
So I think it's not you but the grf itself why you can't get it to work...

That explains a lot
Tied it in OTTD but same result in message, but the grf works none the less

Thanks for clearing that up

If you get an 'invalid sprite' message in OpenTTD, I'm quite sure that the grf doesn't work. The message about the parameters is not an error, just a hint that there are parameter options.

There are parameters for VAST?
I guess I should actually read any readmes that come with stuff from the content download next time.

habell wrote:Nice screenies, but how do you activate this grf?

I've read the readme and added the values 1 2 after the grf, but I first get an error about sprite #134 and ingame "Parameters:see readme for usage, but-first:disabled classes bitmask"

I've tried various valus but all fail.
Can someone help me to activate this grf?

Does it work without any parameters in TTDPatch? They do not need to be set (to non-zero values) in order to use the GRF. Currently they can be used to remove features if players are reaching the maximum number of allowed station classes and do not want to use some of them.

As FooBar said, the yellow text is just a reminder of what the parameters do, not an error message.

I need to dig out my DOS copy of TTD some day so I can test with TTDP


Some progress:

• Desaturated the red tiles. Should look better.
• Trees on grass

Definitely a lot better! It's looking really good now.

A further suggestion that you can take or leave - as always. The lamp post positions should be the same across all of the tiles. In some of the tiles they are in the middle of the path while in others they are on the edges of the path. This makes it a bit difficult to mix and match between the two in a consistent manner. Personally I would opt for the lamp posts to be on the edges of the paths. Having them in the middle of the paths always leaves me with the fear of them being bumped into by some unsuspecting member of the public. I realize your rationale for having them in the middle of the path is to have them not interfere with the foliage and other niceties on the edges of the tiles but I do believe there would be room for both. Just my usual somewhat verbose two cents.

Nite Owl wrote:A further suggestion that you can take or leave - as always. The lamp post positions should be the same across all of the tiles. In some of the tiles they are in the middle of the path while in others they are on the edges of the path. This makes it a bit difficult to mix and match between the two in a consistent manner. Personally I would opt for the lamp posts to be on the edges of the paths. Having them in the middle of the paths always leaves me with the fear of them being bumped into by some unsuspecting member of the public. I realize your rationale for having them in the middle of the path is to have them not interfere with the foliage and other niceties on the edges of the tiles but I do believe there would be room for both. Just my usual somewhat verbose two cents.

I moved the lamps around to keep them away from other details (shrubs, flowerbeds) and to add more variety to the tiles. Maybe there is enough room on the edges - I will have a look.

Meanwhile, questions:


1) I would like to draw the plazas so that they can be placed at all four rotated positions (NE/SE/SW/NW). However, players will probably want to build stations on slopes, which means that the two orientations shown in the build menu will need to be identical (see image).
This creates a number of options:

a) Create four entries in the build menu, one for each rotated position.

b) Create two entries in the build menu and, for each entry, randomly build one of two possible opposite positions e.g. the first entry would build the station in either the NW or SE position, and the second entry would build the station in either the NE or SW position.

c) Create one entry in the build menu and randomly build one of all four possible positions.

d) Create one entry in the build menu and only build one rotation.

(a) uses more station IDs and thereby makes the build menu harder to navigate since there are 4x the number of entries for one station.
(c) doesn't make the build menu harder to navigate but it makes placing a specific rotation less probable (probability of getting the rotation you want is 1/4).
(b) is a balance of (a) and (c): it uses two station IDs instead of one and the probability of a player getting a specific rotation is 1/2.
(d) gives the player less variety.

I'd like to know which option you would prefer to see ingame. I prefer option (b) because it allows players to place all four rotations with an acceptable amount of "annoyance" Of course, for those who want complete control over what they are building, (a) or (d) are acceptable.

2) Where am I?

Proposal: Code all those nice parks as NewObjects

But I like the idea of underground stations a lot; those of course shall not be New Objects

v0.2.25 [2010-09-29]

planetmaker wrote:Proposal: Code all those nice parks as NewObjects

Another development release. Lots of nice changes here. The big change is a move to the Object specification, which is how I envisaged the set to be originally. Objects are supported in OpenTTD trunk >r20670, so grab a recent nightly to give them a test.

I have split VAST into two GRFs; VAST (Station Tiles), which replaces the original VAST GRF, and VAST (Objects). This keeps the two implementations happily separated. All of the tiles that were previously implemented as Stations have been recoded as Objects and removed from the original GRF. In future, VASTstations will only include station buildings and objects with station buildings on them, such as underground entrances. Everything else will be in VASTobjects. I won't release VASTstations yet because it is effectively empty. Instead, you can use VASTobjects and run it alongside the older Stations implementation to compare the functionality. You can do more with Objects compared to Stations, such as build bridges over them or build on corner slopes.

Other major changes:
Paths recoloured and details rescaled. Added underpasses and ramps "into" the tile.
Added a few new large parks to play with. More trees on grass.
Prettier, self-explanatory parameters GUI.

Known Issues:
English Oak needs to have animation colours removed. But there are plenty of other trees to build
Flowerbeds still look crap.
Plazas and flowerbeds have odd sized build menu graphics. These were made for the station GUI and have not been updated yet.
Park 2 doesn't have a proper build menu graphic.
A few alignment issues with trees and stuff on the paths. Shouldn't be too noticeable.
Some object heights may be too generous. Objects may clip through bridges.
There is no readme even though the description tells you to look there for parameters. Just use the new GUI instead; it is much nicer anyway

Not thoroughly tested, but any game-crashing problems should have been eliminated. IDs may change in the future, or at least for the release of 0.3.0.

Enjoy

I like the idea of having the multiple tile stuff as new objects. I like the idea of having the single tile stuff as station tiles so that they can be used in conjunction with station buildings to extend the coverage area of a station. I also understand the desire to make all of the non station building tiles as new objects so as to not further clutter up the limited space on the station drop down menu. I am sure there is a compromise between these two possibilities. Perhaps a small amount of single tile stuff could be included in the VAST station grf? As always it is your grf and your call as to what you want to do - these are just my two cents worth.

I agree with nite owl - I use VAST tiles to nicely extend station coverage and would like to see the capability remain. please?

Maybe there could be a couple of generic sprites in the station GRF. Say, a statue, a fountain, or a sign, to extend the station coverage. Inbetween, you can fill up with plain objects.

Flowerbeds still look crap.

It is not true.

Thank you very much for this preview-release!
I tested it the last days with the current nightlys and it works very well!
The parks are fitting better in the newobjects part than to the stations!
Now I have more overview on my real stationgrf's!

Ok, since the demand is there, the best thing to do would be to keep the current tiles in both branches and also put any future generic tiles into both. I have ideas for supplementary tiles that would be better as objects given the number of tiles and time spent coding as stations ( less coding = more drawing ). That should give players a good set of tiles to play with, wherein a generic selection has station functionality. Next 0.2.x release will be both branches using the updated tiles, that is everything in the current objects branch, colours fixed, animations fixed, converted to stations, plus any station buildings.
Minor point: Is it right to call them tiles?

An idea:
It will need some work and a lot of sprites.

Station hall^3 ?

zero.eight wrote:An idea.

YES.

That would be great, a station like that would be extremely good, especially if you keep it quite generic so it can be re used all over a map.