[UNIV] ISR - Industrial Stations Renewal

[alluke]

Could you please remove the date limit from the old style portal cranes?

[Voyager One]

*** drooooooooling sound ***

[mart3p]

Could you please remove the date limit from the old style portal cranes?

Hi alluke

Well yes I guess the retirement date is fairly pointless. The player can still choose not to build them. You should have asked earlier and it could have been done for v0.8.2.

Would you be able to do some Finnish translations? There are a few strings missing currently, see the attached file.

*** drooooooooling sound ***

[alluke]

Could you please remove the date limit from the old style portal cranes?

Would you be able to do some Finnish translations? There are a few strings missing currently, see the attached file.

Here is, I couldn't do the parameter strings since it's very hard to cook up reasonable-sounding ones.

[mart3p]

Thanks alluke.

Here is, I couldn't do the parameter strings since it's very hard to cook up reasonable-sounding ones.

That's ok, you've done the important ones.

[alluke]

Another thing that popped into my mind: Shouldn't the container platforms be low?

[mart3p]

Another thing that popped into my mind: Shouldn't the container platforms be low?

You are probably right, they would certainly fit better with the low non-track tiles used for containers.

Sanchimaru's original graphics for the container platforms had the containers already placed on the platforms. This is the case with many of the tiles in ISR. I am currently in the process of separating the cargo graphics from the platforms. This will make reuse of sprites much easier. When this is done for the containers it will be quite easy to change to the low platforms.

It also has another advantage. It means the ground overlays used can be changed. I am planning to offer alternative ground tile overlays for certain stations, selectable by parameters, as shown in the screenshot...

ISR_ground.png (32.84 KiB) Viewed 2340 times

[Kogut]

Delicious! And thanks for fixing AI bug.

[JacobD88]

It also has another advantage. It means the ground overlays used can be changed. I am planning to offer alternative ground tile overlays for certain stations, selectable by parameters, as shown in the screenshot...

ISR_ground.png

Instead of parameters, which limits you to one choice for each game, is it possible instead to implement a procedure by which you can over-build with the same tile and it cycles the ground overlays? Many NewObjects do this

This would mean you can have a multiple overlays in a single game as oppose to a choice you have to stick to for the duration of play...

[michael blunck]

[...] is it possible instead to implement a procedure by which you can over-build with the same tile and it cycles the ground overlays?

This would increase the number of IDs to be used and the size of the building menu.

regards
Michael

[mart3p]

Delicious! And thanks for fixing AI bug.

You're welcome, sorry it took so long. And thanks for reporting the bug.

[...] is it possible instead to implement a procedure by which you can over-build with the same tile and it cycles the ground overlays?

This would increase the number of IDs to be used and the size of the building menu.

I don't think what JacobD88 is suggesting requires more IDs and build menu entries. My understanding is that he is asking for multiple ground overlays for each ID/menu entry. Though I don't believe it is possible to cycle through these options by overbuilding. But it should be possible to select them randomly. By overbuilding enough times you could get the one you want. I will experiment with this.

[JacobD88]

I don't think what JacobD88 is suggesting requires more IDs and build menu entries. My understanding is that he is asking for multiple ground overlays for each ID/menu entry. Though I don't believe it is possible to cycle through these options by overbuilding. But it should be possible to select them randomly. By overbuilding enough times you could get the one you want. I will experiment with this.

Over-building and cycling (randomly or otherwise) is exactly what i meant
I'll look forward to seeing what your experiments reveal

I can see the only minor issue for some users being that you will have to pay each time the tile is changed, but TBH this is of little issue to me as i spend thousands adding extra non-track tiles to stations anyway

[alluke]

Cycle via tarmac--half-dirt--full-dirt would make the most sense.

[kamnet]

I quite dislike having to cycle between random sprites, but if that is preferable to creating new IDs, code-wise, then I could deal with my pet peeves.

[FLHerne]

To be honest, I'd much rather stick with a single base type than repeated random overbuilding - I spend far too much time doing it with the ISR-style objects, and those don't get obstructed by trains or need to be built in large areas to get the desired appearance.
Perhaps make the parameter [concrete|solid mud|patchy mud|random]?

[mart3p]

I quite dislike having to cycle between random sprites...

To be honest, I'd much rather stick with a single base type than repeated random overbuilding...

Having considered this further, I have to agree with kamnet and FLHerne here. Some of the ISR tiles (the farm facilities for example) already have 4 random variations. If I added 4 alternative ground overlays to be also chosen randomly, this would be 16 combinations. It might take an awful lot of overbuilding to get the one you want.

Perhaps make the parameter [concrete|solid mud|patchy mud|random]?

Yes, if I can make random selection just one of the parameter options that would probably be the best way to go.

dirt ground grain station.png (64.33 KiB) Viewed 1751 times

dirt ground logging station.png (48.49 KiB) Viewed 1751 times

[kamnet]

Perhaps make the parameter [concrete|solid mud|patchy mud|random]?

And I don't like this option either, unless I'm misunderstanding. In some parts of a map I may need an industry tile that is mud, while in another part of the map I may need it to be concrete. I'm not keen on being locked into one style, either, if I get to have choices.

[FLHerne]

Perhaps make the parameter [concrete|solid mud|patchy mud|random]?

And I don't like this option either, unless I'm misunderstanding. In some parts of a map I may need an industry tile that is mud, while in another part of the map I may need it to be concrete. I'm not keen on being locked into one style, either, if I get to have choices.

Well, that way you have the option of using [random] overbuilding until you get the surface you want at each station, as proposed by JacobD88. The most player-friendly way would of course be to have separate entries for each station on each basetile, but mart3p mb ruled that one out .

[michael blunck]

Well, that way you have the option of using [random] overbuilding until you get the surface you want at each station, as proposed by JacobD88. The most player-friendly way would of course be to have separate entries for each station on each basetile, but mart3p ruled that one out .

Hm, wasn´t that me?

This would increase the number of IDs to be used and the size of the building menu.

But it should be possible to select them randomly. By overbuilding enough times you could get the one you want.

regards
Michael

[Pyoro]

That's probably too annoying to maintain, but how about a separate GRF for the alternative surfaces? That way, if you have enough IDs left (are they that much of an issue anyways?) and don't mind clustering you're building menu you can use it, and if not, well, don't ^^

Other than that I'll be content with whatever I get, it's not like for example NewObjects are very comfortable to build and that's not killing me either