Transport Tycoon Forums

Posted: **03 Mar 2006 20:03**

I like these ideas. Once I was thinging about martian landscape, where sea would be ice, oil rigs would be water supplies, and ships would be ice speeders.
I just didn't liked TTO mars climate industries, water graphics and vehicles.

However, I really like the idea of land being asteroids and water being void.

Posted: **03 Mar 2006 21:40**

Flamelord wrote:So, we have:

-Hover Trains (1)
-Tubed Monorail Trains (2)
-Tubed Maglev (3)

I thought we decided that the tubed trains were impractical. As redstar said above, they don't look so good because they are mostly obscured by the tube. I'd rather have us use an open advanced monorail (which would actually be a monorail - maglev (see TransRapid). I think that for type three, we should deviate more from the standard and go with the transmission tubes for the ultralight-and-fast type. It would add interest, and wouldn't require a tube.

I'd love to see someone come up with a sensible tube junction.

I didn't say that tubes dont' look good. If you design them properly and using lots of transparency I think they would look nice.
I said that I don't know if it is /possible/ for normal track types to have two layers: One in front the train sprite (the glass between the observer and the train) and one behind it (the glass that is on the "other" side of the train, if you look from the observers position) ...damn is it difficult to describe such a simple thing... did you get what I mean?

About the junctions:
A simple crossing is no problem. A crossing like

Code: Select all

/|\
-+-
\|/

would just be a bigger tube complex, but completely hollow, I think. And the trains have their own drive, so can "decide" which way to go on such a junction by using small manoeuvring engines directing on the right... erm... track. Well, the track is a tube, of course

Apart from that: Just did some brainstorming. Here are the results.

Idea A - land modifications:

cpt_jack wrote:I don't think there is anyway to stop people from raising land out of space, unless we just make it cost a huge amount.

1) Well, "raising" land /could/ of course be interpreted as carrying huge blocks of interstellar rock material to the designated position (where this position is the point where someone clicks with the mouse).

2) "Lowering" land could then be interpreted as blasting the corresponding part of the asteroid away with a superduperwhooperlaserblaster or transporting big areas of the asteroid away into space. (To make it more logical: these areas could then be interpreted as material without essential minerals/ores which don't interest our space mining corporations

.)

Both actions then would of course cost much money because of the large expenditure to let BIG and heavy spaceships transport huge amounts of asteroid blocks.

For action 1) then we just still have to figure out why it would be logical to bring such huge amounts of space rocks to our asteroid field (in which we play in), instead of do mining on these rocks at their initial positions.

Idea B - environment:

1) It would be nice to have decoration objects, not just craters, but also... well, maybe some spaceship wrecks lying around, small ice or open mineral fields (as in StarCraft), craters, pirate bases (?) and similar little things making the grey-in-grey background a little more interesting. Cool would be an UFO wreck in a secluded area

.

2) What about replacing the trees by transmitter antennas? Please don't ask how antennas should grow - they /dont't/, of course: But instead they get extended. So always when an antenna "grows" we can say that in "reality" it has been modified and extended to get more transfer capacities. Of course if we make it like this we need LESS trees... eeeehm antennas in the game that we have now.
I think it also makes sense with the local authorities: They would be grateful if you "plant"

antennas in their area because so they get more communication possibilities.

...I know, it's still a little bit silly, but better than craters, if you ask me. (Craters can then be placed as decoration objects, as said above.)

3) Current lighthouses and antennas can become two different sorts of navigational beacons (so it is still logic that you are not able to remove them because they are /needed/ - needed for navigation).

PS: Oh it would be sooo cool to design the heavy freight cruisers which replace the ships *dreaming*

Posted: **03 Mar 2006 22:18**

Ok i give up, i can't draw monorails/tubes/hover trains they all end up looking just silly

im going to work on the landscape, i like the idea of crashed ships and stuff

p.s. i just desided it would be really cool to have a star wars, star destroyer as a huge cargo carrier. i'm sure it breaks some copywright stuff but just don't tell anybody ok?

Posted: **03 Mar 2006 23:27**

What I meant by the junction comment was they would be harder to figure out than maglev junctions currently are, by a long shot. It would make more sense to me to go with the particle transmission setup as the third type, and a fast monorail as the second.

And I guess I didn't read your comment with the tube picture carefully enough, sorry.

Posted: **03 Mar 2006 23:56**

Flamelord wrote:What I meant by the junction comment was they would be harder to figure out than maglev junctions currently are, by a long shot.

Uuhm... that depends. Generally, I would agree, but as I said: You can have it easy or not. Easy: make one ellipsoid (resp. something like "ovaloid" or "degenerated torus") and leave the whole center free. Hard: Try to draw the tracks inside the glass, figure some more interieur of the torus out, etc..

But I really don't care if we now use tube or monorail or whatever for the different rail systems.

Flamelord wrote:And I guess I didn't read your comment with the tube picture carefully enough, sorry.

No problem. Sometimes I also read too fast/read wrong.

cpt_jack wrote:p.s. i just desided it would be really cool to have a star wars, star destroyer as a huge cargo carrier. i'm sure it breaks some copywright stuff but just don't tell anybody ok?

Only if we also include the Star Trek Enterprise

Btw: We need spacy currences. How about spacebucks or credits or spacedollars or something like that?

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 09:03**

/me shamelessly steals from OGame

Deuterium Mine!
Deuterium is used to make spaceships, in the Spaceship Factory!

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 10:38**

DaleStan wrote:
VIPStephan wrote: spaceships
[*] can only travel in space between asteroids (="sea")
[*] travel at comparably low speed (slightly slower than mag lev(?))
So, 127 mph (the (current?) maximum speed for a ship) is "slightly slower" than maglev?

No, I meant they should travel at a slightly lower speed than the mag lev would do in this world - since they're still spacheships a speed of 127km/h (or mph - doesn't matter

) is a little too slow. And this would be comparably slow to the space shuttles that have light cargo and high speed (like the Concorde has now maybe?)

cpt_jack wrote: VIPStephan do you mean that rail tracks can't cross space/sea? i think this is a good idea, but how would it work?

I havn't tried yet but i'm sure there is a way to turn off bridges, or should we just limit the length of them?

I'm not a programmer (except for websites

) but I think there will be some way to make building on slopes (going into space) or "water" impossible at all. I wouldn't switch off bridges completely since they still could be used on the asteroids to cross valleys and stuff.

cpt_jack wrote:In earlier pictures you will see i made dirt tracks for the roads to show that moon buggies had been driving on them, do we like that idea or would hover vehicles on roads look better?

You mean those "tram track copies"? I like that idea very much.

We could have moon buggies in the beginning and later on hover vehicles would be developed or something like this. And then we could still have those dirt tracks to see the proposed way for the vehicles.

[edit]Oh and the dirt tracks should only look like this on bare land (outside of towns). In towns they should be a little more like real (yet futuristic) streets.[/edit]

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 14:21**

Red*Star wrote: Btw: We need spacy currences. How about spacebucks or credits or spacedollars or something like that?

Remeber that Republican credits are no good on Tatooine!

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 15:19**

jonty-comp wrote:/me shamelessly steals from OGame

Deuterium Mine!
Deuterium is used to make spaceships, in the Spaceship Factory!

Unfortunately Deuterium is mostly found in gaseous form. And mostly IN SPACE. You can also find Deuterium when cracking water and divide the lightweight hydrogen atoms from the heavy hydrogen atoms (deuterium) and from the very heavy hydrogen atoms (tritium).

So you don't have to mine it. And spaceships also aren't built out of it. Maybe they use deuterium as fuel in our AsteroidsScenario, but not as construction material.

You probably meant dilithium from in ST:Armada? /Uuunfortunately/ that is /also/ no construction material - but this time you are not responsible for the mistake, the creators of the game are.
I don't know if it is correct in the english version of tha game, but in the /german/ one it seemed that the creators of ST:Armada 1 and 2 have thought that Star Trek ships are made of dilithium, although they are made of duranium... *rolleyes*. Dilithium is just a part of the warp propulsion drive of the star ship - although it is a very /important/ part.

But sorry for being so pedantic

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 16:46**

Heh, I meant as fuel!

How about:
Non-warp ships = current boats
- Use Deuterium Feul

Warp Ships = Current Planes
- Use Dilithium Crystals

Also, the spaceships could be actually made out of Trinium (From Stargate) and Duranium respectively

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 17:26**

jonty-comp wrote: How about:
Non-warp ships = current boats
- Use Deuterium Feul

Warp Ships = Current Planes
- Use Dilithium Crystals

Noooow it gets interesting.

Erm... as far as I have understood the posts so far, the distances between the asteroids won't be bigger than a solar system, even very smaller. I just say that because... warp-ships are only needed for interstellar travels ...

Another question: In which century do we want to place the asteroid world? Or will it be a completely another universe than ours

Posted: **04 Mar 2006 17:59**

2206AD will suit us just fine.

Posted: **05 Mar 2006 22:01**

Red*Star wrote:Dilithium is just a part of the warp propulsion drive of the star ship - although it is a very /important/ part.

[BEEEP] Wrong (AFAIK)! Dilithium is the fuel of the warp propulsion system...

but if we say that the fuel is the part of an engine....

Red*Star wrote:warp-ships are only needed for interstellar travels ...

But they can travel by pulse drives... about 1/4 lightspeed

... using warp-engines they can travel about 1600 lightspeed.. erm... just use them

BTW someone had missed: USS. Enterprise-D has the registry number NCC-1701D

Posted: **05 Mar 2006 22:26**

chipetke wrote:
Red*Star wrote:Dilithium is just a part of the warp propulsion drive of the star ship - although it is a very /important/ part.
[BEEEP] Wrong (AFAIK)! Dilithium is the fuel of the warp propulsion system...
but if we say that the fuel is the part of an engine....

Matter and antimatter is the fuel of the warp drive. Normally deuterium and anti-deuterium is taken in Star Trek.
Dilithium is used to get a controlled MAM-reaction in the MARA (matter-antimatter-reaction-assembly), because it's the only material known in the ST universe that doesn't react (... in a catastrophic way ...) with anti-deuterium.

chipetke wrote:
Red*Star wrote:warp-ships are only needed for interstellar travels ...
But they can travel by pulse drives... about 1/4 lightspeed ... using warp-engines they can travel about 1600 lightspeed.. erm... just use them

Oh, yes, of course...

I would like to see you manoeuvring a colossolal capital space ship through an asteroid field at 75 000 000 m/s...

Posted: **06 Mar 2006 11:26**

Red*Star wrote:
chipetke wrote:
Red*Star wrote:Dilithium is just a part of the warp propulsion drive of the star ship - although it is a very /important/ part.
[BEEEP] Wrong (AFAIK)! Dilithium is the fuel of the warp propulsion system...
but if we say that the fuel is the part of an engine....
Matter and antimatter is the fuel of the warp drive. Normally deuterium and anti-deuterium is taken in Star Trek.
Dilithium is used to get a controlled MAM-reaction in the MARA (matter-antimatter-reaction-assembly), because it's the only material known in the ST universe that doesn't react (... in a catastrophic way ...) with anti-deuterium.

In this way, you must be right

Well, I thought about ST Voyager, where they was always chasing after dilithium

But I just forget about that they can collect fuel by bussard ramscoops...

Red*Star wrote:
chipetke wrote:
Red*Star wrote:warp-ships are only needed for interstellar travels ...
But they can travel by pulse drives... about 1/4 lightspeed ... using warp-engines they can travel about 1600 lightspeed.. erm... just use them
Oh, yes, of course... I would like to see you manoeuvring a colossolal capital space ship through an asteroid field at 75 000 000 m/s...

Well, if we want them with a pinch of reality, the Galaxy class ships (Enterprise-D, with Cpt. Picard) should have the length of a normal (7-8 cars long) train at minimum.. IMHO if they are drawn in the size of a plane, their speed can be reduced too...
Would be just beautiful to see the Voyager ingame

Posted: **06 Mar 2006 13:58**

cpt_jack wrote:p.s. i just desided it would be really cool to have a star wars, star destroyer as a huge cargo carrier. i'm sure it breaks some copywright stuff but just don't tell anybody ok?

we already have something like that it's called a Terran Battlecruiser!!

here's a link to dl it:
windows - https://www.tt-forums.net/download.php?id=22689
dos - https://www.tt-forums.net/download.php?id=22690
BTW it is rescaled in game if you want to use it in full scale you will have to set a parameter of 0

Posted: **06 Mar 2006 14:51**

Deuterium is the fuel of the Matter anti matter drive. The dilithium crystal (yes thats where it comes from) is the catalyst to produce the output.

As for impule engines, Deuterium is also used as in cold fusion.

My suggestion would be to have te barges at impulse and the quicker starships at M/AM drive although they dont need to go on warpspeed. Actually technically this is impossible since that would also mean that we cannot see the ships while they travel faster then light... lol

Posted: **06 Mar 2006 16:11**

So this project turns now out into a Star Trek and other Sci-Fi-series mod of TTDPatch?

I don't know if that's what cpt_jack initially intended to do...

Maybe we can do two versions of the lunar project: one with ST ships and one with other ships that look less "modern", while the trains and vehicles are still the same in both versions.

chipetke wrote: Well, if we want them with a pinch of reality, the Galaxy class ships (Enterprise-D, with Cpt. Picard) should have the length of a normal (7-8 cars long) train at minimum.. IMHO if they are drawn in the size of a plane, their speed can be reduced too...
Would be just beautiful to see the Voyager ingame

Yes, I do fully agree... *dreaminOfTheEnterpriseE*

Problem will be to get the different spaceships in-scale to each other. And of course, to let the Voy/Ent/Defiant/Whatever look good in 64 * 32 pixels of size...

added:

Caelan wrote:As for impule engines, Deuterium is also used as in cold fusion.

Cold fusion? AFAIK in the ST-fiction they use "warm"

fusion. Just consider that cold fusion (if you mean myon-catalyzed fusion) is neither capable to produce electro-plasma for the EPS onboard, nor for the propulsion.

Posted: **07 Mar 2006 12:10**

In ST: Armada 2 they have almost all the ships, with correct sizes. IIRC the light is coming from the same direction and the isomety is correct in the default view.. so all we need is some screenshots from the game, a good graphics converter, which forces the ships' graphics to have the correct palette, and a coder...

Posted: **07 Mar 2006 12:21**

And permissions...

Transport Tycoon Forums

Changing Toyland to futuristic space colony

hi

Re: hi