Kruemelchen's Cookie Jar

[Quast65]

Awesome work dude!

AATV 0.1.3

What are the (standard) labels you are using for these vehicles?

I think I got all of the SUUV-vehicles and the horses working good with my roadset, but I am having some trouble with the AATV-vehicles.

EDIT:
The issue may be the custom/standard parameter....
It looks like it is the other way around than it should be (so setting to Custom, makes it Standard and the other way around).
Will doublecheck this in about an hour, have something else to do at the moment

EDIT2:
Hmm, I am not sure.... In Arctic climate the vehicles dont switch to "boat"-graphics on bodies of water in Custom-mode...
Well, something weird is going on
Would it help if I PM you my roadset, so you can do some tests?

[Kruemelchen]

The issue may be the custom/standard parameter....
It looks like it is the other way around than it should be (so setting to Custom, makes it Standard and the other way around).

I am sorry I forgot to explain this

"Custom" sets up 5 hidden roadtypes with standard labels.
"Standard" does not set up any hidden labels, because according to the standard, road sets should set up those hidden labels.

So, if there is a road set which sets up the labels, it's better to use the "standard" setting.

However, I think "custom" is more practical. However, it uses 5 hidden roadtypes...

I think, I will change the wording of the parameter, so it's easier to comprehend! Thanks for the report

edit: the labels are as following

Code: Select all

AAAN - off-road amphibious vehicles
AABN - off-road amphibious veh. that can speed on regular roads
AACN - amph. veh. that can only run on roads
aABN - amphibious snow-type vehicles, than cannot run on regular roads
aACN - hovercraft  8) 

in your GRF you use CAN0....., or not? These should be supported.

[Quast65]

road sets should set up those hidden labels.

Ahh, I see.
That's no problem at all, I had already taken in account to leave some room for those hidden roadtypes (either in your or mine GRF) and I indeed rather have them inside my Roadset GRF, so that I can decide what vehicles to allow on what roads
I did also put a parameter in to disable all 5 of them at once (in case they are not needed).
Will you only use these 5 roadtypes? (so the label "AATV" hidden roadtype is not needed anymore?)

I have implimented this and all is fine on my (watery) roads.
I am only not sure if I should allow hovercrafts on the motorways... What do you think?
EDIT
And with regards to the swamp-fairway: Should I only allow the propellor sledges and hovercrafts on that? (and not the "swimming" vehicles)

There is a major issue though with your waterway's in combination with my roadset....

Example827.png (82.86 KiB) Viewed 13264 times

On four of them, the vehicles dont "swim"
Any idea what could be causing this?

- AATV-set is in STANDARD-mode
- The 5 hidden roadtypes have labels: AAAN, AABN, AACN, aABN, aACN
- In their powered-lists I have put "FORD", "TWAY", "SWAY", "SABN", "SACN", "WABN", "WAAN", "WACN", "WBCN"
EDIT
And also offcourse the labels of the waterways and roads of my GRF. Also I have put the forementioned labels of your waterways further on in the code in the powered-lists of my waterways.

Any idea why on some of them they are ok and on others not?
Next to the swamp fairway, you can see my canal. In that (and my other 2 waterways) the vehicles swim happily...

[Brickblock1]

I think this would be because of how the vehicle set is only coded to detect some roads but not all of them, but it is hard to tell without the source code

[Kruemelchen]

That's no problem at all, I had already taken in account to leave some room for those hidden roadtypes (either in your or mine GRF) and I indeed rather have them inside my Roadset GRF, so that I can decide what vehicles to allow on what roads

That's why road sets should implement these

I might also experiment, if I can detect if other sets define those labels, and then skip my own compatibilities.

Will you only use these 5 roadtypes? (so the label "AATV" hidden roadtype is not needed anymore?)

Well, at the moment I simply don't have any vehicle of AATV-type in my set, so it would kinda be strange to define this roadtype
Plus, technically, AATVs would fit the AAAN type.

But maybe I'll add the type aAAN in the future. Those aAAN vehicles won't be allowed on streets, only on water swamp and snow. So just like aABN. Which kind of defeats its purpose, except they wouldn't run on SACN-type "roads" as they would be very, very slow. It's a bit marginal, I have to admit. But just for the fun of having it, I might code some of those.

I am only not sure if I should allow hovercrafts on the motorways... What do you think?

They are fast enough, so why not?
Honestly, because of their size they might be better suited on motorways than on town roads, but this is a rather artificial question anyway because they probably wouldn't run among normal traffic anyway

And with regards to the swamp-fairway: Should I only allow the propellor sledges and hovercrafts on that? (and not the "swimming" vehicles)

I thought, underwater screws would harm the sensitive ecosystem of swamps. (And they tend to be shallow) Which is why I only allowed air propelled vehicles on them (and the gondola I think...)

On four of them, the vehicles dont "swim"
Any idea what could be causing this?

Thank you for bringing this up
What labels are those roadtypes?

I think the issue is, I actually forgot to put in standard labels into the swimming-check*
I'll fix this!

*Like Blickblock1 suggested, the vehicles check, which roadtype they are on, and when on water-type roads, they change to swimming-graphics. But like I said, I forgot to check for standardised labels

[Brickblock1]

I haven' t been able to look at your code yet, I would suggest using tile_powers_roadtype instead of roadtype == xxxx || xxxx as the former is considerably better since it doesn't have to be changed to support different roadsets

[Quast65]

Hovercrafts & Vehicles on Swamp Fairway

Check, implimented as you suggested.

AATV/aAAN

Check, compatibility will be easy to add later on

Issue with some vehicles not swimming

Ok, fixable from your side, I will release my roadGRF then.
EDIT: The roadset is released...


On a side note:
A suggestion with regards to your Horse&Carriage set.
I think it would be nice to include/add a couple of (small) one-horse carriages that have label BAAN.
I dont think it is too uncommon to have small horse-drawn carriages in pedestrian areas (like for tourists or small cargo's).
A one-in-hand Kocsi Coach would be very suitable (as an addition) and maybe the one-in-hand Cove Wain could move from label RAAN to BAAN?

[Kruemelchen]

I haven' t been able to look at your code yet, I would suggest using tile_powers_roadtype instead of roadtype == xxxx || xxxx as the former is considerably better since it doesn't have to be changed to support different roadsets

Thank you for the suggestion!!
I haven't realised, these variables were added! Thank you for pointing it to me, these make life much easier!

On a side note:
A suggestion with regards to your Horse&Carriage set.
I think it would be nice to include/add a couple of (small) one-horse carriages that have label BAAN.
I dont think it is too uncommon to have small horse-drawn carriages in pedestrian areas (like for tourists or small cargo's).
A one-in-hand Kocsi Coach would be very suitable (as an addition) and maybe the one-in-hand Cove Wain could move from label RAAN to BAAN?

That's a good idea! Also, carriages for tourists* could be of PAAN label, if that would help?

*Actually, not done yet and I don't know, when I'll find time to work again on it, so be patient

[Brickblock1]

On a side note:
A suggestion with regards to your Horse&Carriage set.
I think it would be nice to include/add a couple of (small) one-horse carriages that have label BAAN.
I dont think it is too uncommon to have small horse-drawn carriages in pedestrian areas (like for tourists or small cargo's).
A one-in-hand Kocsi Coach would be very suitable (as an addition) and maybe the one-in-hand Cove Wain could move from label RAAN to BAAN?

The only problem with that is that you usually wouldn't see them on bike only roads, but I guess that could be overlooked as they never really existed att the same time.

[Quast65]

*Actually, not done yet and I don't know, when I'll find time to work again on it, so be patient

Its not too important, as they would be more eyecandy than functional, but good to keep in mind.

PAAN label

The tourist thing I mentioned was just as an example of how they could be used, like the carriages in Central Park, New York, USA:
https://www.google.nl/search?q=central+ ... 1007&dpr=1
But pax in general is fine, BAAN is good enough.
And for graphics, the Kocsi Coach and Cove Wain that you already have drawn, are suitable enough (just with one horse for the Kocsi then).
No need to draw anything special.

The only problem with that is that you usually wouldn't see them on bike only roads, but I guess that could be overlooked as they never really existed att the same time.

It indeed all depends on the date of the game
Right now in The Netherlands horseriders (and horse&carriages) are officially not allowed on pedestrian and bike-only roads.
But I think 150 years ago that was a bit different

However, there may be local exceptions (see the above mentioned New York example)...
As long as they stay off Highway's I am fine with it

[Argus]

I could understand it with horse riders, they usually don't put bags under their tails and the bike can slide badly on the horse's "doughnut".
But why would a slow-moving carriage bother?

[Quast65]

I could understand it with horse riders, they usually don't put bags under their tails and the bike can slide badly on the horse's "doughnut".
But why would a slow-moving carriage bother?

The carriage doesnt catch the horse's "doughnut" either...

[Argus]

I don't know about you, but here we put a bag under the horse's tail. It's like they're in diapers
Why does google ignore words? What is the English for the profession, carriage driver? They put bags under the horses' tails, not us
However, it is a fact that it may not be completely effective and probably cannot be used all the time.

[Kruemelchen]

I don't know about you, but here we put a bag under the horse's tail. It's like they're in diapers
Why does google ignore words? What is the English for the profession, carriage driver? They put bags under the horses' tails, not us
However, it is a fact that it may not be completely effective and probably cannot be used all the time.

We do that, too, for the tourist carriages Helps to keep the roads clean

Concerning horse riders, here in Germany they usually also use bike-roads. But it's not an everyday sight.

What's interesting is also, what a BAAN road would look like? A single-lane dirt track maybe? Like a footpath?

As long as BAAN would fall back on RAAN in road sets, I think I would be fine with changing the cove-wain to BAAN. But maybe I can also add a donkey-drawn cove-wain, just like the one usually used in Roman Empire to AFAIR transport weaponry.

[Quast65]

What's interesting is also, what a BAAN road would look like? A single-lane dirt track maybe? Like a footpath?

Welcome to Holland:

[Argus]

Our cycle paths often lead along forest roads, which are definitely not as beautifully maintained.
By the way, the JGR Patchpack will now support ships capable of carrying multiple types of cargo.
So I mentioned the problem with automatic transmissions, which is a problem with SUVs carrying both people and mail JGR will look into it.

[Kruemelchen]

Welcome to Holland:

That picture makes me want to visit Holland now

So I mentioned the problem with automatic transmissions, which is a problem with SUVs carrying both people and mail JGR will look into it.

Thank you so much!
Let's see, if he comes up with a solution!

[Paulica Windrunner]

ok i have this downloaded but still no viecheal sets appear in game have i done something wrong
i have put them in my new grf settings

[Brickblock1]

You have to start a new game in order for it to take affect

[cnww]

Update to WaterWayRoad (0.4.3)
Main feature: introduction of standardised roadtype scheme

I wrote a ~2000 word reply that the forum software just ate, so here's a slightly-frustrated short version:

I love the concept of the Water Way Roads grf, it seems like a nice solution to the lack of support for small inland canals in the game, but I've encountered a few problems:

1. The option to enable Tow Ways and the Ship Cargo Capacity option are both coded as parameter 10 in the nml file. The result is that switching Cargo Capacity to anything other than "Overloaded" disables Tow Ways without warning, and turning Tow Ways on can set Cargo Capacity to the invalid value "5".
2. The only useful-sized Tow Way vehicle capable of transporting coal from year 1650 right up to 2000 is the Wooden Barge. With Cargo Capacity set to "5" (where it ended-up after I switched Tow Ways on when starting my second game) they carry a somewhat-useful 150 tonnes, but with the most powerful towing option (circa 1850) of two horses, the maximum speed on flat of a loaded barge is an unusable 2km/h. It takes around 150 barges to serve the single shortest coal-mine-to-coke-oven route in my current game, and they're losing money. I estimate I'd need 500,000 to 1,000,000 barges to transport all the raw materials on this map (and at least three times as many if I start providing engineering & farm supplies). Sadly, game-engine and hardware limitations prevent me from finding out.
   
   Setting the Cargo Capacity down to "Overloaded" reduces the barge to 90 tonnes, and (as a result I think) raises the speed on flat to an almost-respectable 15km/h, but it still climbs slopes at 2km/h. This inability to climb makes it effectively unusable on almost any route where I couldn't already plonk down a normal canal and use something from Sailing Ships (the other must-have grf for 18'th century watercraft). Even on flat ground the barge is too small and far too slow to compete with a 1st-generation steam cargo tram (40km/h, 72t load).
   
   Historically, inland canals were the primary way of shifting cargo until they were overtaken by the railways. I'd love to see this set with a useful bulk carrier of some sort to reproduce that effect up until powerful locomotives are available in the mid-to-late 19'th century. I think that a barge able to carry 200+ tonnes and move at 20km/h or more (on max settings) would be a good start.
   
   EDIT to add: The main issue seems to be that tractive effort is calculated as 10 x TE-coefficient x vehicle-weight, apparently not including the weight of the cargo. As a 1-ton vehicle, the Wooden Barge could never have more than 10KN of tractive effort, so couldn't climb slopes while carrying much cargo. Increasing the weight to 20 tons and adjusting the pulling power slightly fixes the problem nicely. I'm not going to upload a grf, because the posted source package is missing loads of sprite files (some are totally absent, others are symbolic links pointing outside the source tree to images that presumably exist on the author's system, but not on mine). I copied blank or similar-named images over for the missing sprites, and the results aren't pretty. As the only useful contribution I can make here is a one-line change to weight (I'm sure the author and I have different ideas about the appropriate power level), I don't see any point in posting a patch either.
3. The Ketches are confusing, and I suspect the current selection stems from a copy & paste error:
   
   As of 1849 there are four "Sailing Ketch" vehicles available in the Tow Way depot. Towable and non-towable models introduced in 1600 and 1800. Weirdly the 19'th century version is significantly worse than the 17'th century one: They have identical costs, but the newer one carries less cargo, is slower, and is less reliable. They also have slightly-different cargo restrictions, which make no sense in my game (probably because I'm using AXIS industries and the restrictions were chosen for some other industry set).
   
   Personally I'd make all watercraft either universally refitable or anything-but-passengers unless they're specialized (ferries, tankers, fishing boats etc.).
   
   Finally, and I know this is nit-picking and I apologize for that: A Ketch is a small two-masted sailing vessel with the mainmast in the front, which is what distinguishes it from a yawl (mainmast in back) or sloop (single mast) in the same general size. All ketches and yawls are sailing vessels by definition, so unless you plan to add a motorized version, there's no need to include "Sailing" in the name, especially for the towed version that doesn't rely on sails for power.

p.s. As you were kind enough to post the source code, I will probably try to build a modified WWR grf for personal use, at least to allow myself some more-effective coal barges. Ideally I'll address the other things I mentioned as well (by renumbering a parameter and deleting a Sailing Ketch) as well.

If I do, would you like me to post or PM a patch or modified NML file? I don't know how much time or interest you have for further development of this set, but I would love to see it continue and I'd be happy to think I contributed something to that.

p.p.s. Why a road type and not a rail type? That would allow diagonal movement, and there are numerous historical and modern examples of "trains" of several barges towed by a single leading tug. For realism you could prevent most watercraft from being connected to anything, and use callbacks to restrict tug/barge combos to a single water or tow-path engine plus a fairly low maximum number of barges (maybe 5 or 6 barges or a single other towable watercraft). Implementing towing vehicles like locomotives would also avoid the current non-obvious selection method of using refit options, and thus make autoreplace work properly.... Just a thought.

Edit: Apparently that's been done already, see next post. I would use it, but I find the other NUTS rail types and trains annoyingly immersion-breaking.