Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
OpenTTD 1.10.0-beta1 is now published.
Several big features this time round, the biggest of which would be NRT, or NewGRF RoadTypes. This allows NewGRFs to add different types of roads similarly to what they can do for RailTypes already. Also featured are big improvements to vehicle pathfinding performance, more flexible docks (multiple per station!), the ability to highlight station and town coverage areas, and many more!
There’s still some stuff to fix yet, but we’re pretty confident this release won’t immediately crash on you
See the changelog for further details.
If you’re really good boys and girls and androids, you might get a 1.10.0 stable release for Christmas…
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration. --Edsger Dijkstra
Base Music Sets: OpenMSX | Scott Joplin Anthology | Traditional Winter Holiday Music | Modern Motion Music
Other Projects: 2CC Trams | Modern Waypoints | Sprite Sandbox & NewGRF Releases | Ideabox | Town Names | Isle of Sodor Scenario | Random Sprite Repository
Misc Topics: My Screenshots | Forgotten NewGRFs | Unfinished Graphics Sets | Stats Shack | RoadTypes?
- Feature/Change: Non-rectangular catchment area for sparse stations (#7235)
This can heavily affect the catchment area of stations! Stations will never have more tiles in catchment after this change, only same amount or fewer. This can sort-of also be categorised as a bug-fix, since the catchment area of stations wasn't the "obvious". It also means that the catchment area for receiving and delivering cargo is now the same, instead of different.
While this can be a breaking change for some existing games, it's not an option that can be turned off. It would have been a massive extra work to make this an option. Think of it as a bug-fix, you don't make settings to keep old bugs in.
- Feature: Show coverage area for stations and towns (#7446)
Don't forget to use this to show the effects of the above
- Change: Make the chance of an aeroplane crashing at an airport with a short runway independent of plane crash setting (#7302)
This means large aircraft landing at small airports always have a risk of crashing, regardless of the plane crash setting. You can no longer service those Yate Haugan from a dirt landing strip!
- Fix: Add setting for whether industries with neutral stations (e.g. Oil rigs) accept and supply cargo to/from surrounding stations to fix exploit as old as TTO (#7234)
This is a setting, defaults to original behaviour, but it allows you to prevent the age old "trick" of filling in the ocean and building railroads out to oil rigs. With the new setting switched, the only way to get cargo from and to an oil rig is by ship or plane.
Of course you can work around this by making an ultra short ship route between the oil rig and a train station built nearby in the ocean... until we figure out a way to protect the ocean tiles around oil rigs
- Feature: Experimental method of town cargo generation that scales linearly with population (#6965)
New games get the new behaviour, old games initially get the old behaviour.
This means passengers will no longer be this explosive growth money machine! The smallest towns will produce somewhat more passengers, but large towns will produce much fewer passengers. Mail is also affected. Part of the effect will also be that central bus stops will be easier to manage, not as easily get overcrowded.
- Feature: Improved performance for road vehicle pathfinding (#7261)
There is an open issue with this, basically road vehicles no longer properly balance between multiple loading bays in large stations. I don't think 1.10 will get released before that is fixed.
As for the errors, I've noticed only one at this moment:
-This is about sharp turns of ships (# 7289, # 7372) - ships do not want to turn back on single water fields, if they can do it further on a wider passage. The problem is that they want to keep going even when the wider fragment is more than 2,000 fields away. The border point is probably around 2500.
I would have some minor comments to:
- (# 7445) The way in which the range of the city is shown - the pulsating graphics are not very pleasing to the eye. It is better to have a constant or with a small amplitude of shades. I am not sure whether it would be better if the coverage of the city and local authorities were not displayed simultaneously.
- (# 6811) Icons for the reconstruction of roads and tram tracks - the style of the icons is different than that of the reconstruction of railway tracks; also the very icon of the construction of tram tracks is somewhat misleading and looks more like the construction of a narrow gauge railway.
- (# 7780) Share purchase dates - In general, shares currently do not add anything to the game, so adding this option is just like moving the air a little more to the left. As long as the sale of the shares by the issuer will not bring him profit, as well as their possession, the share element will be an ordinary blown egg in this game.
There is only one important objection, but it is serious:
- (# 7302) Plane crashes no matter what setting you choose - I don't feel comfortable writing it, but I just have to say it, otherwise it will be the worst change I've ever seen.
Point by point. This change:
1. Imposes players one and only the "right" style of play - There was a choice, and now there is none. You can choose: Disasters / More disasters / Only disasters. If disasters are turned off on some server and therefore seems to someone that game have a disturbed balance, then if something could be changed, then definitely the settings of this server, but not the game code! This change is like some nightmare. Don't you see that in this way, without giving a choice, you impose your point of view on all players, on all servers, and even in any offline games?
2. Does not include the existence of many addons such as:
-av8, WAS and similar - In these sets there are large transport aircraft, which are adapted to operate at airports with ground surface and short runways. Such aircraft include, for example, one of the largest aircraft in general Antonov AN-124. To realize how big is this plane, look at this scene: Antonov An-124 swallowing an Airbus A380 and some bridge span... at once
-OpenGFX + Airports - In this set, the smallest airports may have concrete surfaces. In fact, there are many "small" airports with low capacity were even the largest aircraft can land! The first example that probably most know is the Dunsfold airport, where the Top Gear program is shot, were also occasionally lands, among others Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet. Why should a player build a huge airport when he uses it rarely or very rarely? Big airport in the desert, because every two months a large plane arrives with supplies for the mine? Complete nonsense! The balance of airport maintenance costs is already very bad. With this change it will be even worse and no cost modification will help. -Base Cost Mod and similar - If the author's intention was to improve the game balance, I remind you of these additions. By choosing the right parameters, you can significantly equalize the competitiveness of various transport industries, without introducing any breakneck changes to the base of the game.
3. Does not take into account the settings currently available in the game that can significantly impede the construction of larger airports by changing the noise tolerance level in the city. Such settings are, among others on the map server of Poland. On the one hand, they were designed to prevent players from spamming map by airports. On the other hand, there are only a few larger airports in Poland, so allowing them to be built anywhere it would spoil the picture of the game.
4. It destroys the balance of existing scenarios, whose settings without this change hindered the use of aircraft sufficiently.
5. It is not a step towards expanding the game (see point 1) or towards realism (see point 2) - it is a pointless ill-considered limitation
6. Breaks not one basic rules for developing this game
7. I fully support the need for change, but not such. A more appropriate step towards realism / balance improvement could be:
- adding an extension of the specification for NewGRF so that they can specify which aircraft at which airports they can land
-when this addon does not specify it, the game could do so based on known aircraft parameters
- adding the possibility of creating more diverse airports, where the length and type of runway would be a key parameter for allowing the aircraft to land.
8. Considering what I really think about this change, I write extremely gently
aircraft type: large | small
but more appropriately :
required runway length: long | short
That inaccuracy in naming / distinction of effect has been in the game from the TTD times though - and not all NewGRF authors might have not considered its consequence when designing their sets. I concur with jfs: No reason for a new property though. It does exactly what the specs say it should
Changing the terminology would be a step in the right direction. Apparently, however, none of the authors of the addons with airplanes took this into account. In all significant sets (av8, Planeset, Rusian Planeset, WAS) "large" and "small" refers to the dimensions of the aircraft and not to which airports it can land. As a result, in many cases the assigned attributes have nothing to do with the actual capabilities of planes. The issue of addon parameters, however, is not the essence of the problem of this change.
Well, someone made a "mistake", so now we have to emphasize it as much as possible. A great attitude.
The distinction is that there was a choice, and now there is none. If the change were to add a new option to choose, there would be no problem.
*Keep stars for loan sharks
The question is, do you care about making changes that will cause conflicts? The average, often one-time players from vanilla servers rather will not to protest, they won't care and even enjoy the "realism" added by this change. Just like Russian peasants when communism was introduced... However, you will discouraged enthusiasts of this game, who have a better idea about it and see how vile change you introduced, while breaking the "constitution" of this game. This change is fatal and I really ask you do not go this way.
1. In the original game you could turn off the disasterProject goals
The main goals of the official branch are:
Stay faithful to the original gameplay from Transport Tycoon Deluxe (1)
In contrast, extending or altering the gameplay of the base game is not encouraged. (2)
The rationale behind these goals is that people have different opinions about what OpenTTD is and what it should be ... (3)
2. This change has a significant impact on the gameplay, so it should not be a permanent element that cannot be turned off.
3. This change does not take into account different styles or settings of game.
Yes, that is better than the one I drew. In retrospect it's obvious that it should have two tram tracks Are you happy for your version to be used (OpenTTD GPL license)?
Squid Ate FISH (ships) (Released) | CHIPS Has Improved Players' Stations (Finished)
Iron Horse (trains, released) | Termite (tracks for Iron Horse, released) | Busy Bee (game script, released)
Road Hog (road vehicles, released)
You can without doubt use any graphics that I posted or I will post on the forum if it is useful to you. This graphic was just an example, made a bit on my knee. If you want to use it, I've improved a few details a bit - the tracks protruded too much. Three versions with different details to choose from. In the meantime, I noticed that they were drawn using colors from outside the palette. I don't know which colors should be used, so I didn't limit the palette. I know this game for several years and some time ago I decided to write down all the ideas of what could be changed or improved in the game and soon I wanted to post this list on the forum. All in all, over a hundred have gathered. Some of the ideas are about small things, others would be quite revolutionary. I prepared graphics for many of them. For the most part, these suggestions unfortunately boil down to changes in the code, which at the moment I can't do, so these are only visualizations of ideas, but in a few cases they will be ready to use sprites, as long as I can find the right templates (corrected graphics of diagonally rivers - without teeth, diagonally canals, ...).
Am I happy? If the disaster change will be introducing into the game in this form, you will destroy many of my saved games that will become unplayable in newer versions of the game, and you will greatly limit my ability to configure new games and scenarios, so how can I be happy? This is very daunting. Obviously, this change will not only affect me, but also hundreds, thousands of other non-vanilla players.
The rebuild roads retain the original maintenance costs. The same bug applies to roads created by GarryG and Ufiba.
In addition, after removing the rebuilt roads, the cost of maintaining nothing is negative, so you can earn on nothing
I can assure you that the authors of those sets all knew exactly what that vehicle property means.LaChupacabra wrote: ↑03 Dec 2019 19:57Changing the terminology would be a step in the right direction. Apparently, however, none of the authors of the addons with airplanes took this into account. In all significant sets (av8, Planeset, Rusian Planeset, WAS) "large" and "small" refers to the dimensions of the aircraft and not to which airports it can land.
You can still turn the large plane / small airport crashes off in the Ctrl-Alt-C cheat menu, athough there "large aircraft" are rather unfortunately misnamed "jetplanes"...
Hi Pikka,PikkaBird wrote: ↑20 Dec 2019 00:37I can assure you that the authors of those sets all knew exactly what that vehicle property means.
You can still turn the large plane / small airport crashes off in the Ctrl-Alt-C cheat menu, athough there "large aircraft" are rather unfortunately misnamed "jetplanes"...
Maybe "they" knew it. I am not saying that it was different at all, but it does not change the fact that how this setting was used relates to the size of the aircraft itself, and not at which airport it can land.
It is true that in your last av9.8 the largest typical cargo plane is described as small, but it is a set so abstract in terms of names and load capacity (400 tons of coal = 600 tons of food) that I can not directly determine what is large in it and what small. At least graphically, this Howard is the equivalent of Lockhead L-100 Hercules, which is not a large plane.
There are two larger cargo aircraft in av8, including Illyushin Il-76, which you described as large, although it is a short takeoff aircraft, adapted for landing in difficult Siberian conditions, including on unpaved runways, so it should be described as small , but it is not. Why it isn't? Because it is big in dimensions? Edit: here is the movie
In the case of Planeset, the situation is specific, because sometimes it is difficult to determine on what basis the size of the aircraft was determined. For example, the Boeing 737 is large there, and the 757, although larger, has twice the payload and a significantly longer take-off (2km vs. 3km), is defined as small. An-124, although it can land on bare ground and very short runways, is also referred to as a large one there, because it is a large plane, but it does not refer in any way to where it can actually land. Calling him small would be a mistake for most players, because how would they know what the author meant, without knowing the game's mechanics and errors?
While in Russian Planeset almost all planes are described as large, so small airports would practically be useless with this set and could only do as a expensive to maintain a "decoration", because it is impossible to maintain a small airport with planes that carry 36 passengers. av8 as the only one has the option of changing the cost of maintaining airports, all other sets do not have such option.
For your av9.8 as well as av8 small airports will also be useless, because the costs you have set for the planes mean that after raising them to an adequate level, smaller planes become completely unprofitable. This makes economic sense only large planes, which in many cases should not be called "large" at all, and these can no longer land at smaller airports. That is, everywhere, in every situation, even if the airports are served once several months, you need to build large airports.
What is the point of introducing such a reckless change that completely does not match any set of planes? Maybe only to your av9.8 and only if you exclude maintenance infrastructure costs and keep hopelessly low purchase and maintenance costs, at which almost every aircraft purchase cost returns after one landing. That was that reason? Only your last set counts? And only the default game settings and costs can be used?
Ctrl + Alt + C? Seriously? So this artificially created, forced problem is to be solved by players by fraud? This is ridiculous. What about playing online? Only games with trivial levels of difficulty and default, hopeless settings for planes or completely disabled planes are to be right?
If you want to make this change, please do it as an additional option, it may even be the default option, but do not replace it with the "none" option.
Ps. I have not added a remark here regarding the bug in road costs to uplift the topic of plane crashes. I don't know if this is a known bug or not. I reviewed the topics of Ratt Roads and partly NotRoadTypes and did not notice any attention there about this problem. Since this is already added to the game, I thought it was the right place to mention it.
In unpatched TTD, there is no setting to control plane crashes at all. They always crash randomly in about 1:1500 landings, but large aircraft (originally, jet planes i.e. planes with speed above 400 km/h) landing at small airports crash in about 1:20 landings.
TTDPatch has the planecrashcontrol setting, it allows the in-game difficulty setting Disasters to control whether planes crash randomly or not, i.e. turning disasters off removes the random 1:1500 chance. There is a separate flag in planecrashcontrol for whether jet planes landing at small airports have the 1:20 crash risk when disasters are off.
The argument here is that OpenTTD has been in the wrong for many years, with the Disasters setting allowing large planes to land safely on short runways, since that was not the case in unmodified TTD.
TTDPatch manual for planecrashcontrol:
I only played the original TTD out of curiosity on the browser several times and from what I remembered there was a disaster setting affecting the aircraft. Apparently, this wasn't the original version. If I really missed the truth and misled somebody, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.
Ok, one less argument. What about the other six? At this point, Your answer was factual. Can You address the other of my arguments and challenge them?
Replicating the original You wrote about is not the same as "staying faithful to the original gameplay from Transport Tycoon Deluxe". The replicate could have taken place at the very beginning of the OTTD project. Since the creation of the first version, it was still development consisting in adding and developing new functions, not subtracting them.
I am not saying that everything that has ever been added to the game should remain forever. But such changes should be thought out, and here I think that it lacked.
I fully understand this argument. The thing is, if You don't like it, You can turn it off. And that's ok. But extortion at everyone, what you can and can't do is not ok anymore. This is definitely not ok.
This is not a mistake, but a very useful function that allows you to adapt the game to different and not only one scenarios. Similarly useful functions that have been added are even a realistic acceleration model or various types of signaling. Would You really like to restore the original and remove all added functions?
Further following this reasoning, the option to disable vehicle failures should also be removed from the game. After all, vehicles crash, so turning it off is just a scam, so it should be banned and those who dare to avoid them should be scourged! Yes?
So I have to go to talk with all authors of all addons only because you or someone else insisted on necessarily highlighting the mistakes in these addons??? ??? ???
So according to this logic, the great An-124 should be marked as small. Is this logical and understandable to the average and especially new player in Your opinion? This parameter has clearly been misnamed in the past and if we are to talk about OTTD stuck in mistake for years, mistake is right here.
Each aircraft would have a defined runway length (the ones I gave are real). Some planes would have a certain ability to land on unpaved surfaces, others could only land on water (at airports that could only be built on water).
In the same way, airports would have a defined length and type of runway. 1 tile would correspond to 500 meters, i.e. airports would have from 2000 to 4000 meters - these values would be very well matched to the real ones that are required for aircraft.
Only waterplanes could land at water airports.
Any other airplane could land on the others airports, but ...
If the runway length required by the plane is greater than the airport offers, there would be a risk of accident - a path 100m too short causes 1% risk of disaster and 10% risk of failure (maximum 50%)
If the plane lands on unpaved surfaces and it is not adapted to this, the risk of disaster would increase by 20% and failure by 30%.
In this way, the risk of accident for Concord landing at a small ground airport would be 36%. With such a calculation of the length of the runways and taking into account the parameters of real requirements, Concorde would be completely safe only at intercontinental airports, which also very well reflects how it was in reality. At the international airport (7 fields = 3500m) the risk of accident would be 1%.
In the case of older sets with planes, their required runway would be determined by the game using a simple algorithm, taking into account speed, load capacity and type of cargo - typically cargo airplanes (cannot carry passengers) would have lower requirements.
Initial proposal for the algorithm: 1000 + speed + load capacity (tonnes / passengers x2) = runway required in meters.
Having a more granular runway length has been part of every NewGRF airport spec - something we've been talking about but no-one's made serious progress on for over a decade now. But having runway lengths of 4, 5, 6 tiles rather than just "large" and "small" in no way solves your issue of disagreeing with NewGRF authors about what runway length a particular aircraft should require.
You're not going to get this change reverted in 1.10.0 and I think you should accept that. Your options as I see them are:
- Use the cheat menu to disable large aircraft crashing at small airports. By far the easiest option and 100% does what you're asking for.
- Disable or modify (using BaseCosts or some other NewGRF) the maintenance costs of airports to make using large airports more economical.
- Create or modify an aircraft NewGRF which defines the vehicles you want to use on small airports as small aircraft. Av8 sprites are free for anyone to modify or use for OpenTTD NewGRFs.
- Accept that the aircraft, airports, and game mechanics are functioning as designed and modify your play style to avoid landing large aircraft at small airports.
- Do not update to 1.10.0, but continue playing OpenTTD 1.9.3.
- Refuse to do any of the above and sit in a bubble of self-induced anger.
Pikka, Your options 1,2,4,5,6 are not any solutions. I have already written about it several times and I do not intend to go through more arguments. I will only write that this approach is really daunting. Point 3 makes some sense, but it's a topic for another conversation. I don't know, however, whether it is worth getting involved in anything at all, because after some time it may turn out that another change ignoring some players or creators will be introduced. This change could have been made without compromising anyone's freedom of play. Apparently you think that ignoring some players is ok. I will not go back to this topic.
I didn't notice that. Maybe I used the wrong word.
"but it is a set so abstract in terms of names and load capacity (400 tons of coal = 600 tons of food) that I can not directly determine what is large in it and what small"
It was a note about the whole set. Simply because they are not models of real planes and have loosely assigned payloads, it is impossible to assess directly which aircraft is "large" and which "small".
The fact that planes can carry such loads is not a drawback or a bug. If something could be a mistake, it's that one ton does not equal another.
The disadvantage of the set, at least for me, are badly selected costs, which cannot be adapted to the more demanding game. The point of reference for me is always the time at which machines depreciate the purchase cost. Of all sets, currently only WAS has well-calculated prices and costs (except for one plane).
This proposal is one of over a hundred I've prepared and I'm still partially preparing it. For now, I will finish them and put them all in one summary topic. If any of the suggestions arouses interest, maybe I will develop the thread and write something more about it in a separate topic. Here I added it because it referred to the topic.
It good to know.
So, I have a further notes about roads:
1. Pathfinder slows down the game significantly when it can't see the route to the stop, e.g. when a fragment of the road is missing - all vehicles are standing with 45 km/h After adding the access to the bus stop everything is normalized.
2. Rather known, but just in case I write: Pathfinder does not distinguish between road speed limits and sees them all the same.
Either way, pathfinding penalty for roads rather should not be determined only by the speed parameter. The speed can be turned off, or it can be the same for many roads. I think that there should be an additional parameter that the creators could emphasize the importance of the road.
On the occasion, in the case of tracks, I noticed that the set speed limit in orders is not taken into account when calculating the route.
I would have a few more remarks about the feature of showing the station and city ranges. Since this has accumulated a bit, I will write about them in a separate thread.
Edit: My suggestions and remarks regarding ranges
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest