New ships need ports
Michael Blunck
again. Naturally, the small dock was designed for small ships only, e.g. the
passenger ferry, but the real cargo carriers need something bigger and better.
As an experiment I designed some harbour infrastructure like container cranes,
loading bridges, grain elevators etc. to be prepared for future enhancements for
the game.
Of course the problem remains to integrate such a new object into the game. One
solution would be to have two docks: the existing small one and a bigger new
one. For building them one can possibly use or modify the existing interface for
building airports.
Graphically this object would consist of a quay side, cranes, two railtracks and
some extra space for cargo storage and other buildings. Technically it would be
handled like a normal 2-track railstation with a dock already integrated.
I put a sketch on:
http://www.patagonia.de.vu/ttd/newships.html
Michael
Jan Willem
This is a reply to "Michael Blunck" <michael...@ewetel.net>, who
I think this is rather good. Only a couple remarks:
First, I doubt if this is programmable, but if it is, by all means.
Second, I think the dock is too big. There will be very little
opportunities to put such a big dock. A 4x2 dock (or 4x3 if you want
the extra cargo storage at the side) will be quite sufficient.
Third, will introducing this dock mean that larger ships cannot visit
the old, smaller dock anymore? Personally I think that would be a
pity. I'ld prefer something like: large ships can use small docks, but
will take longer to load and unload.
Fourth, as it is, several ships using a dock at the same time are
superimposed, which is ugly. Would the new dock have a few 'slots' and
only one ship be able to use each slot?
--
Jan Willem from Odijk in the Netherlands
And remember:
All generalizations are bad.
Are Nybakk
> After designing some new vessels I´ve been thinking about the
Nice, but it's a bit big...
Tor Inge Johannessen
>> http://www.patagonia.de.vu/ttd/newships.html
>
> Nice, but it's a bit big...
If you could make the dock as long as you want, in segments of 2-3 squares,
it would be great. If you look at the picture, the dock drawn, could have
been a dock of three segments.
I like the thought. The excisting dock for ferries and small vessels, and
the new one for the larger ships. (Introduced later in the game, like the
big airport).
But at this point, maybe rewrite the whole game, like simutrans? :)
Tor Inge
--
http://www.anaconda.tk | http://www.toringe.tk
GCS/IT/MU d- s+:+ a-- C$ UL++++ P-- L$ E---- W++ N++ o-- K- w$ O---
M- V? PS+ PE+ Y PGP t+ 5- X+ R tv- b+ DI+ D++ G e+ h r++ y++
Mario Schmidt
much work for a PATCH!
"Tor Inge Johannessen" <t...@skallebank.com.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns927C9A24A4A9C...@193.213.112.21...
Michael Blunck
[new ports]
> First, I doubt if this is programmable, but if it is, by all means.
Surely it should be programmable, the question being the effort required. :o)
> Second, I think the dock is too big. There will be very little
> opportunities to put such a big dock. A 4x2 dock
> (or 4x3 if you want the extra cargo storage at the side)
> will be quite sufficient.
I don愒 think so. Modern ports in reality are *huge*, and also, in TTD, a length
of 9 squares should not be too big compared with a 7x7 train station. Best
solution would be to make it flexible, at least in length (see Tor Inge愀
statement), but this is more challenging to program because of the needed more
complex interface, I think.
> Third, will introducing this dock mean that larger ships cannot visit
> the old, smaller dock anymore? Personally I think that would be a
> pity.
No. Such was not my intention. I think the "large port" should be the exception
in situations where masses of cargo have to be transported.
> I'ld prefer something like: large ships can use small docks, but
> will take longer to load and unload.
Yeah. We need to consider when it is useful to build a small resp. a big port.
Even though nobody builds small airports when the big ones get available, mmh.
Maybe one could make the new ports handle only cargo, and only for feeder
service, but never passengers. This would need small docks when transporting
passengers and when picking up from and supplying cargo to customers. Just an
idea.
> Fourth, as it is, several ships using a dock at the same time are
> superimposed, which is ugly. Would the new dock have a few 'slots' and
> only one ship be able to use each slot?
That愀 right. Very ugly indeed. From my knowledge this is because a dock
internally is only a x/y-coordinate and there is no sort of
"collision-detection" for other ships. But maybe this can be changed, at least
in part.
Michael
Michael Blunck
> If you could make the dock as long as you want, in segments
> of 2-3 squares, it would be great.
I agree, this would be optimal. But I think it would be harder to program the
user interface needed for that. A constant size will be much easier to program.
> If you look at the picture, the dock drawn, could have
> been a dock of three segments.
Yep. The picture is misleading a bit. I thought of a 9x3 size, 9x2 for the
tracks and a quayside length of 3 segments for each crane/ship.
> But at this point, maybe rewrite the whole game, like simutrans? :)
Difficult question. TTD, and especially TTD *with* "the patch" is far more
better as simutrans or any other transport simulation, despite its age. Many
things which are hard to develop are already there in TTD and can be used. It is
a constant problem when developing a new game from scratch that you must also
develop all these boring routines which are already part of any other game, and
not only your new ideas. And for the patching task it愀 far better that TTD is
written in assembler originally and not in a high-level language and compiled
then.
"Rewriting the whole game" is a far more challenging task, I think. Alone the
graphics ... have you ever taken a look into the graphics file (trg1.grf)?
Michael
The Guardian
Talking small airports, i have to say that i still use them.
They can be quite handy in tight places, such as in mountainous or
city areas where there is no place to put a large airport.
And what should a large airport do near a small/medium town?
Oh just rememberd something, many year ago i had a demo disk of TTO, on
the front of the disk you could see a small airport, but it looked very
different from the small airport we know now.
It had modern buildings and a concrete runway, anyone seen this??
(But it didn`t look like that on the demo.)
I would like to see the small airport like this, could this be done??
Bob
Michael Blunck wrote:
> "Jan Willem" wrote:
>
> [new ports]
>
>
>>First, I doubt if this is programmable, but if it is, by all means.
>>
>
> Surely it should be programmable, the question being the effort required. :o)
>
>
>>Second, I think the dock is too big. There will be very little
>>opportunities to put such a big dock. A 4x2 dock
>>(or 4x3 if you want the extra cargo storage at the side)
>>will be quite sufficient.
>>
>
> I don´t think so. Modern ports in reality are *huge*, and also, in TTD, a length
> of 9 squares should not be too big compared with a 7x7 train station. Best
> solution would be to make it flexible, at least in length (see Tor Inge´s
> statement), but this is more challenging to program because of the needed more
> complex interface, I think.
>
>
>>Third, will introducing this dock mean that larger ships cannot visit
>>the old, smaller dock anymore? Personally I think that would be a
>>pity.
>>
>
> No. Such was not my intention. I think the "large port" should be the exception
> in situations where masses of cargo have to be transported.
>
>
>>I'ld prefer something like: large ships can use small docks, but
>>will take longer to load and unload.
>>
>
> Yeah. We need to consider when it is useful to build a small resp. a big port.
> Even though nobody builds small airports when the big ones get available, mmh.
> Maybe one could make the new ports handle only cargo, and only for feeder
> service, but never passengers. This would need small docks when transporting
> passengers and when picking up from and supplying cargo to customers. Just an
> idea.
>
>
>>Fourth, as it is, several ships using a dock at the same time are
>>superimposed, which is ugly. Would the new dock have a few 'slots' and
>>only one ship be able to use each slot?
>>
>
> That´s right. Very ugly indeed. From my knowledge this is because a dock
Tor Inge Johannessen
>> But at this point, maybe rewrite the whole game, like simutrans? :)
>
> "Rewriting the whole game" is a far more challenging task, I think.
> Alone the graphics ... have you ever taken a look into the graphics
> file (trg1.grf)?
Maybe we could ask Chris Saywer and MPS/Infogrames to release the source
code? :)
We can't get anything worse than "no", allthough I doubt they will release
it.
Jan Willem
>Yeah. We need to consider when it is useful to build a small resp. a big port.
>Even though nobody builds small airports when the big ones get available, mmh.
I do, and quite often. Small airports fit in small spaces...
Especially later in the game, things can get crowded, and (unless you
REALLY have money to spare) it's often not feasible to create enough
space for a large airport. In very crowded or non-flat areas I often
have to resort to heliports to manage long-distance transport!
Same will go for ports: you won't be able to build a 9x3 port on a
very crooked coastline, or up a creek.
--
Jan Willem from Odijk in the Netherlands
And remember:
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Chris
<michael...@ewetel.net> wrote:
>Even though nobody builds small airports when the big ones get available, mmh.
I do.... they're great for large helicopter route terminuses - thus
the helicopters can be serviced, and fly to minor helepads...
Chris.
Innovan
chance of servicing multiple mines/farms/factories/etc from one port
if its big.
I think it gorgeous!
Tor Inge Johannessen
> I *like* big, because it also means big service area. Much better
> chance of servicing multiple mines/farms/factories/etc from one port
> if its big.
>
> I think it gorgeous!
Like I said, ports are big. If you haven't got a long coastline, then make
one. Make channels. It's expensive, but the running costs/cargomile should
make up for it. How many large ports in the world today are built on
natural terrain? Very few, I guess. Most of them are built on terrain that
is formed by people.
I surely hope it will be a part of ttdxpatch.
Marcin Grzegorczyk
> [snip]
> http://www.patagonia.de.vu/ttd/newships.html
Now, I agree that it looks nice (although a bit too big for TTD scale),
but this is something completely different and *vastly* more difficult
than just a simple sprite substitution based on two parameters of a
vehicle (that's what alternate ship graphics are, really).
In your picture, the train station is 11 squares long. Bad: station
sizes are limited to 7x7 and it'd be very hard to overcome this limit.
One of the track seems to be adjacent to water; I'd love to be able to
do it, but this is very, very hard. Trains seem to stop at various
points inside the station: not possible. And countless problems, such as
where to store the additional data, how to make ships find the dock (let
alone stop at the slots -- and mind that the routing code is hairy), etc.
Last but not least, larger docks are pointless if there's no ship
collision detection code. And this will probably never happen, because
there are way too many issues to solve, one being frequent deadlocks as
there's neither signal system nor left/right side distinction for ships.
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk
Michael Blunck
> Now, I agree that it looks nice [...] but this is [...] *vastly*
> more difficult than just a simple sprite substitution [...]
I know it (at least I hope so).
This picture is just an *impression* and (maybe) a suggestion how a more
realistic dock could be done *graphically*. But I know that realizing it will be
complicated, at least.
Basically I see two problems:
One problem is to map this new dock/station onto the existing station structure,
which has only one slot for a dock, and roofs and platforms for the train
station. In relation (just one dock) there is no sort of "collision detection"
mechanism for ships when berthing. But this mechasnism seems to be available for
buses/trucks and planes.
> In your picture, the train station is 11 squares long. Bad: station
> sizes are limited to 7x7 and it'd be very hard to overcome this limit.
Sorry for that. The image is misleading because it愀 outdated. Meanwhile I made
all the tiles needed to assemble such a dock/station in all four directions and
I悲 suggest the "station" to be 7x3, actually 7x2, but it would be nice to have
some extra space for additional buildings, etc. And because the "station" is
adjacent to water it needs two tiles at each side to enable for connection of
tracks.
> One of the track seems to be adjacent to water; I'd love to be able to
> do it, but this is very, very hard.
I suppose the basic problem being the construction of such a "station" in terms
of the existing structure. Regarding this, it would be interesting to check the
drawing routines which map stations (or airports) to the screen. How is this
done in detail? I think there are no specific details in the landscape arrays,
apart from labelling it as a "station tile". So this information is possibly
handled elsewhere.
The second problem would be to construct, maybe, three berths along the
quayside. I agree, this would imply to change the routing code for ships (but
only when berthing) in such a manner like it is done for truck/bus stations or
the terminals in airports.
Unfortunately, I have nearly no insight into the code, but there seem to be
routines in it which can handle very similar tasks, eg the assembling of the big
airport or the routines Josef uses for enlarging a normal rail station.
> Trains seem to stop at various points inside the station: not possible.
I admit this would be look great, but such was not my intention. Trains should
behave strictly "normal" in this station (just stop and load/unload).
> And countless problems, such as where to store the additional
> data, how to make ships find the dock (let alone stop at the slots
> -- and mind that the routing code is hairy), etc.
Planes do find a free terminal at an airport. The code is there, I suppose.
> Last but not least, larger docks are pointless if there's no ship
> collision detection code.
We do not need a collision detection code for ships *in general*, though this
would be great. We "only" need to incorporate part of the existing code
(checking for a free terminal or bay) into it.
> And this will probably never happen, because
> there are way too many issues to solve, one being frequent deadlocks as
> there's neither signal system nor left/right side distinction for ships.
But altogether you are right. It seems to be a lot of hard work.
Stevie D
> Sorry for that. The image is misleading because it愀 outdated. Meanwhile I made
> all the tiles needed to assemble such a dock/station in all four directions and
> I悲 suggest the "station" to be 7x3, actually 7x2, but it would be nice to have
> some extra space for additional buildings, etc. And because the "station" is
> adjacent to water it needs two tiles at each side to enable for connection of
> tracks.
Why does the dock have to have a railway attached? It could be served
by road vehicles, or just unload stuff straight to/from a city or
other industries.
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
SHADOW-XIII
It is not so big and we can use graphics exists in grf's
Jan Willem <no.unsolicite...@spam.no> wrote in message news:<5t36nugql2lvda9f1...@4ax.com>...
Innovan
> by road vehicles, or just unload stuff straight to/from a city or
> other industries.
I agree. The current system of trains stations, ship ports, airports
and truck loading platforms that can be laid out in multiple different
ways offers more layout flexibility, and probably should be continued
instead of having one "fixed" multi-transport port.
Here's some alternative ideas:
1) Replace the bland "Loading Dock" graphic with a container crane.
Replace the Large Airport graphics with a container shipping port
graphic. Ships still land at the little shipping port quay graphic
that now looks like a container crane, but we're attached an airport
with an alternative graphic of the rest of the infrastructure of a
shipping container port to increase the coverage area of the port and
to look more realistic. We can also attach the usual train station to
the "airport disguised as a container port" in the usual way and reuse
all the existing code.
Problem: Keeping airplanes and helicopters from landing on the
alternative container shipping port graphic for emergency
refueling/maintenance.
2) Create two new alternative "small airport" graphics that are the
left and right hand sides of a container port to be built next to
eachother. Now we can graphicly have a seemless large container
shipping, but each half has its own loading and shipping quay, so it
appears we've split the work between two container cranes at the same
port.
Problem: Limitations on how close airports can be built next to
eachother (can work around this by having an AI opponent usign the
cheats, then build the other half, then acquire that AI in an
acquisition.), problems with goods routing when there's more than one
choice in range.
3) Create "shipping container port" as a new alternative industry that
can be bought for $200,000 and placed by the player, but it creates
and produces nothing. It's just great window dressing that can be
placed next to a port to make it look more cool, but doesn't extend
coverage or anything the way the previous methods would.
4) Same as 3, but a "shipping container port" consumes shipped Goods
the way a Power Plant consumes Coal. More difficult to implement,
would lead to some interesting scenarios going nuts creating goods.
Michael Blunck
> [...] The current system [...] offers more layout flexibility,
> and probably should be continued instead of having one
> "fixed" multi-transport port.
As mentioned before to Chris, my proposal aims at the implementation of a "goods
railway station" as opposed to the "passenger railway station". If we want some
special harbour infrastructure in the form of a "new dock" or whatsever, we
should need the design of such a "goods station", otherwise it would be
sufficient to just combine a crane with the existing passenger station.
> Here's some alternative ideas:
> Replace the Large Airport graphics with a container
> shipping port graphic [...]
Again the problem is that we have to use the normal "passenger station" in this
scenario, also the large airport is 6x6 = 36 tiles, compared with my 7x3=21
tiles, nevertheless most people find this being "too big".
> Problem: Keeping airplanes and helicopters from landing on the
> alternative container shipping port graphic for emergency
> refueling/maintenance.
I惴 pretty shure that the needed modifications to the code will be much more
severe when using an "airport" than a "railstation" as a medium for the new
facility.
> 2) Create two new alternative "small airport" graphics that are the
> left and right hand sides of a container port to be built next to
> eachother [...]
> Problem: Limitations on how close airports can be built next to
> eachother (can work around this by having an AI opponent usign the
> cheats, then build the other half, then acquire that AI in an
> acquisition.), problems with goods routing when there's more than one
> choice in range.
Even more modifications needed.
> 3) Create "shipping container port" as a new alternative industry that
> can be bought for $200,000 and placed by the player, but it creates
> and produces nothing. It's just great window dressing that can be
> placed next to a port to make it look more cool, but doesn't extend
> coverage or anything the way the previous methods would.
An interesting idea, but the implementation of a "new industry" seems to be also
very complcated from a programmer愀 standpoint. Additionally, it doesn愒 solve
the problem with the existing docks (e.g. "stacking" of ships)
We are just at the beginning of a process to find a well-balanced compromise
between enhanced gameplay and *preferably little modifications* to the code.
E.g. realisation of my proposal already implicates lots of code changes, like
- building on slopes,
- modifying the view of a railway station,
- modifying the dock entry in the station愀 structure,
- changing the routing algorithm for ships,
- etc.
A better proposal than this would be one which needs less modification and gives
more enhancement both in gameplay and in graphical impression. Conclusion: we
have to remain in a state of discussion.
Michael
Michael Blunck
> Why does the dock have to have a railway attached?
> It could be served by road vehicles, or just unload stuff
> straight to/from a city or other industries.
I悲 like to have several things in one solution:
- a real industrial harbour with cranes, trains and some special buildings,
- a better behaviour of ships at the dock,
For the first part it would be nice if trains could be loaded under the loading
bridges / cranes, this alone excludes a solution where the port is a different
entity from the station. For getting this feature to work, both must be
integrated.
Furthermore, the TTD railway station is a *passenger* railstation (with roofs,
platforms) not a *goods* station. If we add stuff like cranes and special
buildings for an industrial harbour (piles of containers, an elevator, cold
storage, ...) we should on the other hand remove the criterions of a passenger
station. That愀 why I came up with this special solution.
The root of the matter is the proposal of a "goods station" which is simply "a
lot of tracks" in reality, but for lack of space I restricted the number of
tracks to two. That should be sufficient for a ro-ro operation.
It愀 just a new type of station, with only two distinguishing marks from the
current one:
- missing of passenger-related objects, like platforms, instead provision of
goods-related objects like cranes etc.,
- pre-integration of three berths, graphically symbolized by the quayside and
the three loading bridges.
Nevertheless, you wouldn愒 need to use trains for this station, instead you can
build a truck station and use it in this way.
Michael
Michael Blunck
> As mentioned before to Chris [...]
Sorry for that, indeed it was "Stevie D".
BTW, I just came across the old tycoon pages of Paul van Eijden. In "future
additions and improvements" he wrote (in April 2000):
"Ships
- You should be able to buy much more ships.
- Docks should be multi-track.
- Docks should have a loading area.
- Docks and trains should be integrated to a harbour.
..."
http://www.tycoongames.net/additions.html
Seems these are old ideas. :o)
Michael
Innovan
Pressing "Shift" when placing a passenger station/passenger dock
instead results in the graphics for a goods station/goods dock.
Passengers and goods can still be moved in and out from a goods
station, the game logic doesn't change, just the graphic element on
the display map is different from having pressed the shift key.
This way the modular element of air/strain/truck/ship stations being
connected together isn't lost, but you get the different graphics.
"Michael Blunck" <michael...@ewetel.net> wrote in message news:<al75r9$1nn9de$1...@ID-134360.news.dfncis.de>...
Marcin Grzegorczyk
> "Marcin Grzegorczyk" wrote:
>[...]
>>One of the track seems to be adjacent to water; I'd love to be able to
>>do it, but this is very, very hard.
>
> I suppose the basic problem being the construction of such a "station" in terms
> of the existing structure. Regarding this, it would be interesting to check the
> drawing routines which map stations (or airports) to the screen. How is this
> done in detail? I think there are no specific details in the landscape arrays,
> apart from labelling it as a "station tile". So this information is possibly
> handled elsewhere.
Roughly, the landscape drawing routines work this way, for each tile:
* TTD gets the basic tile information from the L4 array (incl. height
and sloping), and calls a sprite handler specific for the class of the
square (the class is stored in the upper nibble in L4). Therefore, e.g.
stations are handled by a different subroutine than houses or trees.
* The handler collects the information from the other arrays as needed,
figures out sprite numbers and coordinates, and writes those to some
special array.
Then the screen refresh routine reads the array and places sprites on
screen.
The point is, there exists a function that maps the contents of the
landscape arrays to a set of sprites and their coordinates.
[snip]
>>And countless problems, such as where to store the additional
>>data, how to make ships find the dock (let alone stop at the slots
>>-- and mind that the routing code is hairy), etc.
>
> Planes do find a free terminal at an airport. The code is there, I suppose.
Ship routing and movement is very different from aircraft. Ships have no
natural places to wait.
>>Last but not least, larger docks are pointless if there's no ship
>>collision detection code.
>
> We do not need a collision detection code for ships *in general*, though this
> would be great. We "only" need to incorporate part of the existing code
> (checking for a free terminal or bay) into it.
That's right, but it's not possible to incorporate the existing code to
do the task -- this must be written from scratch. The problem is not
checking for a free slot, it's making the ship go there or wait.
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk