Transport Tycoon Forums

At the moment we have four industry sets to chose from - Chris Sawyer's, Michael Blunck's, PikkaBird's and George's. The last three are subject to change at their authors' whims. If a player is not happy with one set, they can always try another. If a player is using one of the sets and is considering trying out a new revision of the same set, then the onus is with that player to save the set he is currently using before installing the new revision, just in case the player wants to go back to the previous set. I do that and I have never, ever, had to ask the author for the previous copy. Its a simple matter of common sense. George has enough to do without having to maintain an archive of everything he does. And before anybody asks, the answer is no ... except for some very extenuating circumstances, I will not send copies of the old sets from my archives. I have neither the time nor the bandwidth.

Sorry for being absent, Let me enter this discussion, i see some strainge things going wrong here.
The Powerplants i have drawn are coal and in later era coal and oil fired. They produce Electricety no more and no less.
If there would be a waist product it would be ash (could be used in cement industry) but certainly not sulpher.

The Cokes plant is part of the steel production chain, it requires coal to produce Cokes. Cokesplants are not part of Blastfurnaces but more part of a coalmine. However they can be standing alone, this is the way i have ment it.
Cokes, Limestone and Ironore are transported to the Blastfurnace to make Iron. This Iron is transported in blocks or in liquid form to the Steelmill. A Steelmill is mostly part of a blastfurnace but can be a standalone, not far from the blastfurnace. The Steelmill produces steel in variouse forms.

This is the way it has to be if you want to stay close to reality, all other proposals i have readed here are not acceptable as being real.

Draakon wrote:

George wrote:

Draakon wrote:24 November will be enough too. Can you send me them?
PS: it would be good if you start archiving but you decide

Why should I create archives more often?

well for me i want the old versions more because i personally dont like new coal mines and other stuff and maybe other members feel that too

As Pikka wrote

You are free to modify my GRFs for your own taste.

If you do not like new graphics - provide a better one

Zimmlock wrote: ...

I must agree with Zimmlock

Zimmlock wrote: They [power plants, mb] produce Electricety no more and no less.
If there would be a waist product it would be ash (could be used in cement industry) but certainly not sulpher.

wallyweb wrote: I must agree with Zimmlock

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization

BTW, it´s called "sulphur" or "sulfur" rather than "sulpher", not to mention "electricety" or "waist", but possibly you´re talking about quite different things than we´re doing here. In this case, you may be right.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote: Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue_gas_desulfurization

It should be noted, that that description only mentions gypsum as byproduct, but not sulphur. So it still leaves power plants producing sulphur a bit questionable.

bulb wrote:that description only mentions gypsum as byproduct, but not sulphur. So it still leaves power plants producing sulphur a bit questionable.

Yes, for some reason it does, unlike the german Wiki entry which also mentions the "Wellmann-Lord" process which (via sulphuric acid) produces pure sulphur in FGD.

regards
Michael

my english might not be so good as i would like it to be, but that is off-topic, as long as is understand what i mean.
My powerplants do not produce Sulphur. What ever a German wiki says.

Best regards
Zimmlock

Zimmlock wrote:my english might not be so good as i would like it to be, but that is off-topic, as long as is understand what i mean.
My powerplants do not produce Sulphur. What ever a German wiki says.

Zimmlock, IMHO it is not correct to associate the graphics and the behaviour of the industry. They are independent. I think we should build the chain and then apply the graphics to the chain. It does not matter that the chain are are not 100% realistic. We have 32 cargo slots only and we have to unite or ignore some cargoes (for example there are many coals in reality but we are satisfied with only one in our model, don't we?)
So, please, let us split the question of graphics and a question of a chain.
Let us come to conclusion about the chain.

Let me also point some questions about cargoes, I have.
1) amount of coal, processed by power plant in TTD is relative small, so we can't have much sulphur from power plant
2) sulphur is also produced in sulphur mines, but they should close in the later ages (like TTDs oil wells).
This makes production of sulphur extremely low in terms of TTD and disallows the important role of sulphur in cargo transportation, that Michael was reffering to.
3) Cokes is the cargo, that is transported from one source to one destination, and they are located in different vectors. Imho, that is a bad idea. A cargo should have the main line inside the vector (like wood from forest to sawmill, coal from coal mine to power plant) or should have many destinations (like dyes and glass). So, I'd suggest to unite cokes plant with coal mine and use cokes cargo instead coal cargo everywhere, or move cokes plant to machinery vector, where it can be united with steel mill or stay separated. But then you add one more level of transportation to get steel, that is also not very good.

I'm in doubts

Zimmlock wrote: My powerplants do not produce Sulphur. What ever a German wiki says.

AFAIR, you´re designing part of the graphics for George´s ECS vectors but you´re neither coding those industries nor are you outlining the general vector´s scheme, so I don´t really understand your problem.

George wrote: 1) amount of coal, processed by power plant in TTD is relative small, so we can't have much sulphur from power plant
2) sulphur is also produced in sulphur mines, but they should close in the later ages (like TTDs oil wells).

Either increase the amount of coal to be transported to power plants (it wouln´´t be that unrealistic) or - under the assumption that TTD´s coal is of a very bad quality - increase the amount of sulphur regained in power plants. In addition, chemical plants could be fine-tuned in such a way that they don´t need that much sulphur for their products.

With regards to "coke", I still hold up my old proposal.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:

George wrote:1) amount of coal, processed by power plant in TTD is relative small, so we can't have much sulphur from power plant
2) sulphur is also produced in sulphur mines, but they should close in the later ages (like TTDs oil wells).

Either increase the amount of coal to be transported to power plants (it wouln´´t be that unrealistic)

Power plant can at most process 2k tonnes of coal a months at the beginning of a game (1920) and 17k at the end (2050), that means 69 and 518 tonnes of sulphur a month. That means in the early years sulphur would be transported by trucks or in intermediate train car.

michael blunck wrote:or - under the assumption that TTD´s coal is of a very bad quality - increase the amount of sulphur regained in power plants. In addition, chemical plants could be fine-tuned in such a way that they don´t need that much sulphur for their products.

That sounds fine, but than sulphur would be mostly a truck cargo, not train cargo.

Hi Michael,

michael blunck wrote: Either increase the amount of coal to be transported to power plants

At the moment in OTTD there is not enough coal on a normal map. I started about 10 single player games with ECS vectors, and in every game I came to collecting all available Coal (and even funding more coal mines) to produce steel to produce vehicles to boost my production of iron ore and in the agricultural vector.

cu
Rainer

Rainer wrote:At the moment in OTTD there is not enough coal on a normal map.

I´ve heard about that but it seems to happen even w/o using George´s ECS vectors. Seems to be a specific problem of OTTD and should be reported to OTTD developers.

regards
Michael

Hi Michael,

michael blunck wrote:

Rainer wrote:At the moment in OTTD there is not enough coal on a normal map.

I´ve heard about that but it seems to happen even w/o using George´s ECS vectors. Seems to be a specific problem of OTTD and should be reported to OTTD developers.

I think, it's the other way round: In a non-ECS-game you don't need coal. It's just a tool of getting money in the first phase of a game.
With ECS coal is essential to get steel, vehicles and then the agri-vector coming up.

Wiki ECSMVSteelMill wrote:coal=1.4*steel

@George: What about programming coal mine exactly the same way as iron ore? Then a few working coal mines would be enough and some more could feed the power plants.

cu
Rainer

Rainer wrote:@George: What about programming coal mine exactly the same way as iron ore? Then a few working coal mines would be enough and some more could feed the power plants.

They are coded the same way, but have about 20% higher capacity and 60% higher production. So 2 coal mines should be enough to make steel mill process ore from 3 ore mines.

Hi George,

George wrote:

Rainer wrote:@George: What about programming coal mine exactly the same way as iron ore? Then a few working coal mines would be enough and some more could feed the power plants.

They are coded the same way, but have about 20% higher capacity and 60% higher production. So 2 coal mines should be enough to make steel mill process ore from 3 ore mines.

Sorry, it was my fault, I put the new grfs into the wrong directory. But do I have to start a new game now? The Coal mines don't accept vehicles any more!?!
cu
Rainer

Rainer wrote:Sorry, it was my fault, I put the new grfs into the wrong directory. But do I have to start a new game now? The Coal mines don't accept vehicles any more!?!

use cheats reload industries / purge industries, if they do not help (in this case they may not help) - rebuild all the problematic industries manually

Hello everybody,

I have a suggestion for the sulphur-potash complex:

Why not unify them into a cargo “minerals”? This cargo could be an abstract term for sulphur, potash, salt and other important minerals (comparable to goods and food).
Who cares, whether a “mineral mine” is a salt mine, a potash mine or a sulphur mine?
Additional a refinery in the real life produces (amongst others) sulphur, in ECS you “only” get “refined products”, which seems to include this sulphur, so the power plants should produce minor amounts of “refined products” (if somebody want use salt for food production. To my knowledge, Michael Blunck drew a salt plant with this idea behind).

I hope my English was not too bad.

RWS

Found a small typo.. The waiting window for the station shows 'fiber crops', where as the local rating section shows 'fibre crops'.



Also, after a small test run (aka just letting the game run and see what happens), I noticed that after a few years pretty much all industries start closing down at the same time (well this is obvious since only a few are being serviced). It seems the cement works, oil wells and brick works survived it though, as the map is littered with them and virtually nothing to bring to them So the closing down check might be broken on them, or is it intended behaviour?

Haiya-Dragon wrote:Found a small typo.. The waiting window for the station shows 'fiber crops', where as the local rating section shows 'fibre crops'.

Will be fixed in the next version

Haiya-Dragon wrote:Also, after a small test run (aka just letting the game run and see what happens), I noticed that after a few years pretty much all industries start closing down at the same time (well this is obvious since only a few are being serviced). It seems the cement works, oil wells and brick works survived it though, as the map is littered with them and virtually nothing to bring to them So the closing down check might be broken on them, or is it intended behaviour?

All the industries will close if no one services them.