Transport Tycoon Forums

Time.

Extend it backwards. Make OpenTTD a combination of transport simulation and quasi-historical simulation by allowing a start time deeper into history. Start before 1700 and incorporate the common transportation methods of the time, which is basically animals, animal/vehicle hybrids, and ships. Allow the industry graphics to evolve as well, maybe changing their physical appearance with major advancements in the technology that controls them. Even if the graphics only change once or twice, it adds variety. For sure, the housing and commercial buildings could evolve as well, with suitable population controls to mimic how populations didn't grow as robustly until the industrial revolution.

A long caravan of camels crossing the map, bringing goods from faraway lands that by 2000 would be an overnight train trip. Is this too far off course for the game?

AntoninKyrene wrote:Time.

Extend it backwards. Make OpenTTD a combination of transport simulation and quasi-historical simulation by allowing a start time deeper into history. Start before 1700 and incorporate the common transportation methods of the time, which is basically animals, animal/vehicle hybrids, and ships. Allow the industry graphics to evolve as well, maybe changing their physical appearance with major advancements in the technology that controls them. Even if the graphics only change once or twice, it adds variety. For sure, the housing and commercial buildings could evolve as well, with suitable population controls to mimic how populations didn't grow as robustly until the industrial revolution.

A long caravan of camels crossing the map, bringing goods from faraway lands that by 2000 would be an overnight train trip. Is this too far off course for the game?

NewGRFs can already accomplish this. All it takes is for somebody to decide to make pre-1700s industries and economies.

Well, to some extend. But existing industries can't change appearance, if I recall that correctly. Even changing street graphics by era is a bit wonky. I'm not sure for example cargo prizes can be made date-dependent. Or station ratings (in 1700 I'd suspect people would have expectations than nowadays ^^).

So I'd say: possible, but OpenTTD isn't specifically made for it ^^

Newgrfs can (and do) change industry appearance by date.

Industrial revolutions can't be simulated in OpenTTD because there's no reliable way to open and close whole groups of industries by date.

andythenorth wrote: Industrial revolutions can't be simulated in OpenTTD because there's no reliable way to open and close whole groups of industries by date.

Can´t game scripts handle this?

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:Can´t game scripts handle this?

With sufficient effort yes. The challenge for GS is identifying which industry newgrf(s) are in use, with which configuration, and then behaving appropriately. This is possible by analysing the accepted/produced cargos against a list of known newgrfs.

So technically possible, but a PITA to actually do

EDIT - and GS can't control industry closure also

michael blunck wrote:

andythenorth wrote: Industrial revolutions can't be simulated in OpenTTD because there's no reliable way to open and close whole groups of industries by date.

Can´t game scripts handle this?

NewGRFs have the last word in when they should close, there is no way to indicate to a newgrf industry it would be useful to close.

Alberth wrote:

michael blunck wrote:Can´t game scripts handle this?

NewGRFs have the last word in when they should close, there is no way to indicate to a newgrf industry it would be useful to close.

In that case, that feature should be added as an item to the wish list

The original industries however appear to have that feature already, as the oil wells dry up around 1970. I'd love to see eg. the FIRS iron works die during the 1860s, as they did in real life when they were obsoleted by the blast furnace.

leifbk wrote:The original industries however appear to have that feature already, as the oil wells dry up around 1970. I'd love to see eg. the FIRS iron works die during the 1860s, as they did in real life when they were obsoleted by the blast furnace.

There are currently two problems with that.

1. they all close at once, which is odd, and various strategies with random offsets didn't help much
2. they don't get reliably replaced by anything, which leaves broken chains

It's an appealing sounding behaviour, but when implemented it kind of sucks. I removed various incarnations of it from FIRS.

leifbk wrote: The original industries however appear to have that feature already, as the oil wells dry up around 1970. I'd love to see eg. the FIRS iron works die during the 1860s, as they did in real life when they were obsoleted by the blast furnace.

In my opinion it is not a good idea, to force closure of obsolete industries.
Instead of this, old fashioned industries should have much worse productivity than a modern one, so it is up to you, to decide to feed and preserve such vintage facility or shift resources to the better one. Lower productivity is also more comfortable for early game stage.
However implementation of such features depend on grf maker, not openttd code.

leifbk wrote:The original industries however appear to have that feature already, as the oil wells dry up around 1970.

The original industries are not nrewgrf-based, and OpenTTD has a special function for it. NewGRF industries can use that same feature if they want, but it is not configurable, eg the year is hard-coded, and speed of deceleration cannot be changed either. It does do some random number things so not everything closes at exactly the same time, but that's about it.

I agree it would be really nice to be able to communicate with industries. OpenTTD itself could improve on the changed probabilities of industries appearing, for instance (assuming users actually allow industries to close, some users seem to hate it). If the control is also exposed to a game script, it could make nice scenarios, with large changes in industries that exist.

Alberth wrote: I agree it would be really nice to be able to communicate with industries. OpenTTD itself could improve on the changed probabilities of industries appearing, for instance (assuming users actually allow industries to close, some users seem to hate it). If the control is also exposed to a game script, it could make nice scenarios, with large changes in industries that exist.

That'd certainly make for some interesting scenarios, not sure if it'd be worth doing just for that though...

McZapkie wrote:Instead of this, old fashioned industries should have much worse productivity than a modern one, so it is up to you, to decide to feed and preserve such vintage facility or shift resources to the better one. Lower productivity is also more comfortable for early game stage.

That's somewhat part of my thought process. When I found and figured out how to utilize JGR's Patch Pack, the possibility of having multiple "countries" opened up in a way that makes the challenge more realistic. I could have a central continent where technology just moves along but a far-reaching part of the world lags, for whatever reason. This idea actually came from a real-world example I studied in college (Albania) that I've tried to simulate within the limits of OpenTTD. Just for fun, but at the same time, what McZapkie says clicks with me.

If NewGRFs could do this, OpenTTD industries could simply be ignored. Not the most elegant scenario, but we work within the boundaries we are given. For me, it's certainly created enough interest to start reading about how the whole thing works at a more technical level, and I've discovered it's not as intimidating as I thought. Could lead to something down the road.


P.S.: This idea really gained steam in my thoughts when I read leifbk's thread about ships and RVs carrying a game from 1700 through 2050. I very much enjoy the fictional historical stories of growth. Dave's Albion sparked that interest some time ago.

McZapkie wrote:In my opinion it is not a good idea, to force closure of obsolete industries.
Instead of this, old fashioned industries should have much worse productivity than a modern one, so it is up to you, to decide to feed and preserve such vintage facility or shift resources to the better one. Lower productivity is also more comfortable for early game stage.
However implementation of such features depend on grf maker, not openttd code.

That's a very nice idea, but a detailed discussion on that theme doesn't belong in this thread. But I think that I maybe should try to hack a bit on the FIRS source again. Several primary industries, like mines and farms, may require two different versions pre/post ca. 1850. The start year of most industries should probably be postponed until that time.

mrjack2 wrote:

andythenorth wrote:Probably the wrong place, but variable daylength is one of the most requested features. I have never understood why the length of a day matters to gameplay. Can anyone explain it to me?

It massively eases capacity constraints allowing saner PAX transport especially, and it gives time to play "the whole map' rather than just bits of it.

Mostly for pax. Us passengers don't take 2 days to go 3 towns further.

I'd like to have airports like in simutrans. You can build the runways and taxiways like you want...

There is a GRF for OpenTTD, which adds runways, but the planes don't use them...

More available types of windows and buttons for gamescripts.

Maybe more a few new disasters and make them more eye catching or problematic?

What i'd like is less stupid passengers, instead of getting out of the vehicle at the next station, they would stay until another point if there's multiple orders. To explain, there's a bus that goes between stops A, B and C. Passengers at stop A may get out at stop B like they would at stop C - just like those from stop B will go at stop C or A.

acs121 wrote:What i'd like is less stupid passengers, instead of getting out of the vehicle at the next station, they would stay until another point if there's multiple orders. To explain, there's a bus that goes between stops A, B and C. Passengers at stop A may get out at stop B like they would at stop C - just like those from stop B will go at stop C or A.

I think there is a setting you can change where the passengers do that. I think you need to change it to "Symmetric" instead of manual.

So change your settings to expert.


Now search "pass"


Now change Passenger Distribution from "Manual" too "Symmetric"