Re: NUTS!!! Let's go NUTS!!!
Posted: 28 Apr 2019 06:50
Which one would you prefer?
The place to talk about Transport Tycoon
https://www.tt-forums.net/
I'm glad!V453000 :) wrote:That's a great message, thank you for it, it made my day. I'll try to reply to all the things:
I shall have to try that!V453000 :) wrote:You could have always done, that. In fact I do. BRIX has parameter settings, you can disable everything except signals and you'll get that. The only problem comes when a railtype defines its own custom signals, just like NUTS does now. Anyway, both options are there now, however if you get used to BRIX signals and want to use them everywhere, consider setting BRIX as a static newGRF with only signals turned on. There's an example how to set up a static grf here, ask if you need help. https://dev.openttdcoop.org/projects/rawr/wikieekee wrote:Woot! I had been wishing I could have BRIX signals with original terrain. Now, I can!V453000 :) wrote:Also NUTS signals are now gone and replaced by BRIX signals as they are IMO superior in every way. The parameters controlling signals are now more interesting, too.
I mean, when I download an update from Bananas, existing saved games continue to use the old version. Only new games get the update.V453000 :) wrote:I'm not entirely sure what do you mean by that... honestly I did not check backwards compatibility and how it behaves with the parameters.eekee wrote: I'm sad existing games don't update, tho. It's clearly using the old GRF; old options and everything.
The sets I tried were more realistic.V453000 :) wrote:I guess that's true to some degree, but it really depends on the set. Some of them are quite simple from what remember, some of the more realism-based ones tend to get a bit crazier. Anyway, it's an annoying limitation and should be as simple as possible.eekee wrote:I've not found it worse than any other train GRF I've ever used, except original. (I haven't played a vast range of GRFs.) In fact, I find NUTS better because it has standard length wagons. This makes it possible to calculate train parameters ahead of time. With other sets, I just have to build a train as a test, and see how it is. TBH, it is easier to do this with NUTS too. (I'm grateful TTD lets you sell vehicles for the price you paid for them if they're new enough.)V453000 :) wrote:I believe one of the generally big problems of NUTS is its unintuitiveness and hacks that are used to achieve the gameplay balance it has. To a person who is new to NUTS (even if experienced with OpenTTD), a lot of things do not seem obvious.
The fact that wagons and engines can't be attached to anything, (mainly passenger) wagons change capacities and loading speeds, are difficult problems to fix at this point. I would even say impossible without sacrificing some important parts of the set.
The color-coded engine classes also help.
Wetrail is a whole other planet! Tugs pulling log rafts are natural enough, but long ships which bend around corners look stranger than the slugs!V453000 :) wrote:I did not do much changes, it's just a consistent rule:
An engine can attach the same engine again, or its dedicated wagons (all wagons of the railtype for freight locomotives, only express for express locomotives). The exception is Chameleon as it doesn't have its own railtype, yet it is its own class with dedicated wagons.
Originally Superstrong class could not attach express wagons. I guess I did this mainly to give them more feeling of freight only. I could keep this rule, for now I allow them to attach express wagons.
The other exception is wetrail ships, those currently can only attach wetrail wagons, but not another engine. The reason for it is that I didn't want to make another version of the wagons that look like powered, though I guess I could just make the extra engines draw as extra wagons, to allow autoreplace even if your trains have multiple engines.
I was thinking of them; specifically Banshee and Reality. I've been using Banshee a lot.V453000 :) wrote:Yes sir. The info in the purchase menu still isn't too detailed, I don't want to present it as if it is the only possible method to use the engine. It's just an efficiency hint.eekee wrote:Yay! I think I got an okay understanding in the end, as good as my understanding of any GRF, (so much lol,) but more help in this area is always welcome.V453000 :) wrote:However, even the most experienced NUTS players usually don't know which engine is efficient for which playstyle.
All engines are usable in any shape or form, but they are usually designed to be used in some specific manner and they excel there.
Today I have added more information to the purchase menu which is trying to point the player in the right direction if they need help.
Actually, vast majority of NUTS vehicles does have some upper limit, have a look at the purchase menu in 0.8.1 Basically only the top tier engines in the Fast class do require full-length curves.eekee wrote:Thanks! Although, with a lot of faster engines, one just has to accept that almost any curve will slow the train, because that's how TTD is.V453000 :) wrote:Another thing missing in the purchase menu was the minimum curve lengths required to let the train run at full speed. This is difficult to explain as the player needs to be aware of the convention according to which the curve lengths are defined, but it's better than nothing and people who play with NUTS are fairly likely to know them anyway I believe. https://wiki.openttdcoop.org/Max_Curve_Speed
purchasemenu-info.png
You've obviously put a lot more thought into it than me!V453000 :) wrote:That's awesome to read I still think there is massive amount of room for improvement on MANY vehicles, and some things are pretty much missing completely, that's never going to be perfect. If I can get a decent pixel editor in my iPad, I might do some improvements when in in the subway.eekee wrote:Thanks, this is good, but... I used to be bothered by it, but very recently I found you can go to the timetable window, and without actually setting a timetable you can set a maximum speed for each section. Maybe it's new in 1.9. Anyway, it's nicer to buy a train which already fits.V453000 :) wrote:As I added the support for YETI for passenger trains, it occured to me that it's not that convenient to build mixed networks with freight and express trains, because there are almost no such pairs which would match in max speed. I went over many trains and changed their max speeds so that now there are many combinations of trains for mixed freight + express networks.
NEVAR!V453000 :) wrote:Madness never ends...
I love the art of NUTS too; always have. (I don't think I said so before.) Seeing the pretty trains makes me happy! ^.^' It was interesting to read this thread and see where the lighting and color range was decided. Also to see the exact moment slugs got in!
I do very much see where you are coming from with this, for example adding two medium-class engines to the front of the train looks just ugly with the wagon in between. As you point out, it indeed is for lossless autoreplace - being able to experiment and autoreplace between vehicle classes to see which one works for you best is really important in my eyes.eekee wrote: On the other hand, the pre-attached wagons bug me a lot. This, much more than the actual restrictions, restricts what kinds of trains I put together. It's also no use in my games. I assume it's meant to facilitate auto-replace? Well, I don't use that because the GUI is cumbersome, it's much quicker to replace whole trains. With my experience and NUTS low costs, it takes very little time to reach the stage of the game where I can afford to do that; I can afford to long before I need to.
Thinking about possible solutions:
A. keep it as it is
B. make all engines have proper 1-tile graphics so they wouldn't need the extra wagon - I feel like this removes variety a bit too much. Doing it only for the top tier engines would be acceptable but I still don't like it too much.
C. do hacky flipping magic so if you add the second medium engine to the end of the train, the locomotive would be at the end and the wagon in the middle of the train
D. do ultra-hacky magic so if you add 3 engines to a single train, all of them show in the front. This is a possible solution but quite wtf.
E. just remove the extra wagons - lossy autoreplace when you switch to a full-tile engine, I don't like this
F. draw the first unit as invisible and only draw from the second unit of the train. This is not a horrible idea, but for early steamers which are already smaller than the bounding box this would be super weird.
G. add a parameter for removing extra wagons - should be possible, but switching that parameter in a running game would probably crash it... though I guess that's fine given enough warning. I'd like to avoid this option but at the same time it's not the end of the world to add it...
The problem is "only" in medium and strong rail classes so it's not completely disastrous, but I myself don't build dual-engine medium class either anymore. With C. I would.
I'll probably attempt to do C. The rest is a bit too crazy and adding special behaviour at the end of the train for some vehicles is not too dangerous - chameleons already do this actually.
You're welcome!V453000 :) wrote:Thank you again for your post
Since I started using universal rails, I haven't ever had to replace all the trains on my network! To be fair, I mostly start my games in the year 3000 so I don't have to think about upgrades. I admit it was a tough and tedious job the few times I have done it.V453000 :) wrote:BTW: I don't really think the autoreplace GUI is that much of a problem compared to manually replacing all trains on your network there's a reason the universal rails were added to NUTS, manually replacing between track types is just so tedious and feels like a stupid job (to me at least).
Umm... it will certainly look nicer, especially when trains reverse. What do you mean by "The capacities and loading speeds are matching as well"? If I attach 3rd gen wagons to an engine with a built-in 2nd gen wagon, will the engine's wagon change to match?V453000 :) wrote:Update: would this make you happy? Of course the engine can refit to anything so it looks seamless once you do. The capacities and loading speeds are matching as well.
Yay! Trains in the depot look right with this change.V453000 :) wrote:Eddi pointed out that in my last screenshot it looks like I didn't have train_width_32_px = 1 set.
I did that and I guess it looks nicer and you can tell better where do wagons end and you can count them better, not to mention that you get the vertical lines which show the full tile lengths.
It basically makes trains in the depot GUI appear exactly as on horizontal diagonals in the world.
Coming in NUTS 0.8.2, thanks Eddi
The second train looks much nicer.V453000 :) wrote:Which one would you prefer?
Well, that's how OpenTTD works The new version will break backwards compatibility anyway so that can't be done in this case.eekee wrote: I mean, when I download an update from Bananas, existing saved games continue to use the old version. Only new games get the update.
You could also call it upgrade, really. All of the train classes are meant to have their uses. In your specific network there is probably a single one that is the best by some margin, but overall different situations should demand different trains if you want to be efficient. But then, most of the time you just want to have fun and pick the engine you feel like using as they have significant impact on what your network shouldeekee wrote: I've downgraded fast to medium to take advantage of that
do and look like.eekee wrote:My idea is for NUTS have duplicates of all the engines with wagons, and the parameter selects whether to hide the wagon-equipped or wagon-free engines
This means that the engine behaves as if it was a single wagon of its respective tier. (1-3 = 1st gen, 4-6 = 2nd gen, 7-9 = 3rd gen).eekee wrote:What do you mean by "The capacities and loading speeds are matching as well"?
I'm blind, apparently. There's a huge upgrade button in NewGRF settings. It is risky to change to 0.8.2, OpenTTD complained of a capacity change. It didn't crash until I cloned a train with a Fast engine. I'm living dangerously here; trying everything. It did not crash on refitting. Yay!V453000 :) wrote:Well, that's how OpenTTD works The new version will break backwards compatibility anyway so that can't be done in this case.eekee wrote: I mean, when I download an update from Bananas, existing saved games continue to use the old version. Only new games get the update.
Yeah, that's sensible. If you ever do it, maybe a Python (or whatever) script could handle the duplication work.V453000 :) wrote:do and look like.eekee wrote:My idea is for NUTS have duplicates of all the engines with wagons, and the parameter selects whether to hide the wagon-equipped or wagon-free engines
This would actually work I guess, though it's a lot of bloat and split functionality. Lets see how people react to the new way how it's going to work in the next version first.
Oh just that. Thanks.V453000 :) wrote:This means that the engine behaves as if it was a single wagon of its respective tier. (1-3 = 1st gen, 4-6 = 2nd gen, 7-9 = 3rd gen).eekee wrote:What do you mean by "The capacities and loading speeds are matching as well"?
Yay!V453000 :) wrote:Yay! It's one of those days again.
NUTS Unrealistic Train Set 0.8.2 has been released to the wilderness of bananas,
Should work nicely.V453000 :) wrote:->> Visualization added for those cases (only when the trian is stopped in a depot). Yellow means it's the unit you can drag from, gray is just showing it's still the engine/wagon.
I didn't realize it had such high capacity in the first place. I might have to actually use it.V453000 :) wrote:- Large ship capacity increased from 45 to 54.
Makes sense and provides a lot more caboose options. I've seen little steamers run reversed IRL; they look Wrong! I'm not sure that's a rational feeling, but I have it, lol! I've still no idea what to make of the way Victorians ran urban passenger trains with a little steamer in the *middle* of the train. OTTD doesn't exactly support it, anyway.V453000 :) wrote:Because steamers look awkward when flipped, they draw as a brake van/caboose kind of thing when put at the back of the train.
Yeah I guess when you have scenario developer tools on only though? Anyway, the grf has minimum compatible version set to 82 for exactly these reasons, changing articulated vehicles is not safe.eekee wrote: There's a huge upgrade button in NewGRF settings.
It's not the work I'm afraid of, in fact these engines are already in a separate file and duplicating them is really easy. I would just prefer to have one version that works properly instead of two which both have problems but I let you choose which one you like less through parameter.eekee wrote:Yeah, that's sensible. If you ever do it, maybe a Python (or whatever) script could handle the duplication work.
45 was already more than anything else, but with the slow loading and slow speed I don't see why would you use large ships instead of small ones pretty much ever. I think the increase in capacity makes it better balanced.eekee wrote: I didn't realize it had such high capacity in the first place. I might have to actually use it.
All of the universal wagons do use weird graphics for passengers, the original reason to this was that you could always recognize that it's an universal wagon not an express one. I'll think about it, I don't consider it a huge priority though, as there are express wagons available at any point.eekee wrote:gen 1 wagons use the goods graphics for passengers. It's a little creepy.
Yeah. I just finished replacing all my banshees, only to find OTTD complains about the masterminds too, even though nothing visible has changed there. I'm thinking it won't be worth upgrading if I have to replace nearly all my trains. I'm wishing I'd saved the upgrade to version 81 now, I had a chance to upgrade to that before I downloaded 82, but now... Ah, I can do it by moving files around. Or, maybe I'll try regular autoreplace! ... meaning I'll need to change to a different engine and back. *ponders*V453000 :) wrote:Yeah I guess when you have scenario developer tools on only though? Anyway, the grf has minimum compatible version set to 82 for exactly these reasons, changing articulated vehicles is not safe.eekee wrote: There's a huge upgrade button in NewGRF settings.
I've come to the conclusion that there is no perfect solution. Just have fun.V453000 :) wrote:It's not the work I'm afraid of, in fact these engines are already in a separate file and duplicating them is really easy. I would just prefer to have one version that works properly instead of two which both have problems but I let you choose which one you like less through parameter.eekee wrote:Yeah, that's sensible. If you ever do it, maybe a Python (or whatever) script could handle the duplication work.
Maybe in the end I will make all engines 0.5 tiles instead, who knows. I have some problems with doing that so far but never say never.
Ah, I hadn't noticed it's a slow loader, either. Still, slow loading is just another challenge to tackle.V453000 :) wrote:45 was already more than anything else, but with the slow loading and slow speed I don't see why would you use large ships instead of small ones pretty much ever. I think the increase in capacity makes it better balanced.eekee wrote: I didn't realize it had such high capacity in the first place. I might have to actually use it.
Thanks!V453000 :) wrote:All of the universal wagons do use weird graphics for passengers, the original reason to this was that you could always recognize that it's an universal wagon not an express one. I'll think about it, I don't consider it a huge priority though, as there are express wagons available at any point.eekee wrote:gen 1 wagons use the goods graphics for passengers. It's a little creepy.
OH, now it hit me, you have a visual problem when you can't use intercity trains yet so you always get a few flatbed wagons as well. Well, priority increased!
Indeed, so far I only see solutions where each has some problems, but trying to find a good solution is the fun part.eekee wrote: I've come to the conclusion that there is no perfect solution. Just have fun.
When there is a MEOW for a Monorail, I don't see a reason why it doesn't exist for Maglev, or other types of tracks.V453000 :) wrote:Interesting thought. I actually did think about that recently, but didn't find a good enough "excuse" for it... how would they be specific?