Cargo & Industry fixes for 1.06

[Cash on Wheels]

What version are you using m 1.0#?

[Just Crazy Jim]

Ok, nick my ships idea and make a model of whales for the oil wells and one for a station. Put them out at sea. Then you can skin a loco as a whaling ship and a station as a dock, and have your whaling ships going whaling and bringing back oil.

GENIUS!

This MUST be done :D

What version are you using m 1.0#?

I am using 1.05 as my test bed. Once I have the wrinkles smoothed out, I will apply the same idea to 1.06 and see how it wrecks that.

[Cash on Wheels]

Ok, nick my ships idea and make a model of whales for the oil wells and one for a station. Put them out at sea. Then you can skin a loco as a whaling ship and a station as a dock, and have your whaling ships going whaling and bringing back oil.

GENIUS!

This MUST be done :D

What version are you using m 1.0#?

I am using 1.05 as my test bed. Once I have the wrinkles smoothed out, I will apply the same idea to 1.06 and see how it wrecks that.

Can't you catch the Ocra locos already in the game instead?

Serious: Are corn & rice still in your .cty files? Remember switching cargo will throw everything out of order!

[Just Crazy Jim]

Can't you catch the Ocra locos already in the game instead?

Not quite as satisfying. But you make a good point.

I am using 1.05 as my test bed. Once I have the wrinkles smoothed out, I will apply the same idea to 1.06 and see how it wrecks that.

Serious: Are corn & rice still in your .cty files? Remember switching cargo will throw everything out of order!

I've seen no problem so far. My plan is to retain the Corn.cty file and rename it internally Fish, similarly to retain the Rice.cty and name it internally Salt. Then (end goal) replace the icons and create two new building types, a Fishmonger's Shop and a Salt Mine (although if I go strictly period, it would be an evaporator/furnace sort of facility based on the Kanawha Salines funded by the U. S. Congress in the 1810s).

[Cash on Wheels]

I'm assumig this is just for this senerio? If it is not refer page 4 in my "30 new unused cargos" thread inthe 1.06 fourm. I switched out about 20 cargos there.

Remember don't bash the computer screen if things go wrong.

[Just Crazy Jim]

I'm assumig this is just for this senerio? If it is not refer page 4 in my "30 new unused cargos" thread inthe 1.06 fourm. I switched out about 20 cargos there.

Remember don't bash the computer screen if things go wrong.

I hope to make a set of scenarios (scenarii, if you happen to be Italian) set in the developmental era of steam locomotives.

And, yes. I have to remind myself to not punch the monitor at times >_<

[Cash on Wheels]

I never actually tried to see if a simple replacement of cargo names in the GMP file would do anything. I did try right now, with no luck. It seems that reference to a cargo type is only made one time (assuming there are no pre-placed buildings/ports supplying/producing that cargo). Which seems a dead-end, unless further discoveries are made.

But, there is a different way.

Fish Port.jpg

This is just the 1.06 Ingot cargo. I renamed the cargo to "Fish" by renaming "Ingots" in the Data\Language RT3.lng file. I changed the icon by unpacking the 106cargo pk4 from Data\PopTopExtraContent, picking out the files associated with Fish (fish_A.dds and ~4478Fish.imb) and simply renamed them as if they were Ingots (the files the game is calling): ingots_A.dds and ~4488Ingots.imb. Then I placed those two files loose into Data\PopTopExtraContent. (I'm not sure if the loose file over-write will work for all names).

I only tested this briefly, but seems to work except the Fish Icon didn't appear on the side of the boxcar. That may be a limitation.

PS.
If you want a Fish demand automatically at houses, Medicine might be a better cargo to hack (no particular reason I used Ingots). (IIRC, 1.06 with all cargoes enabled uses up all the slots available in the house that will display correctly, more will work just not display right.) If the price ends up being too high, reducing with an event is safe. It ships in a reefer too, which is probably the most sensible. Would need to hack the cty file to get it available in 1800.

RoR this quote is from a different thread.

Have you played a game with this yet?

Plus JcJ said he was doing these cargo skins for 1.05 right?

Remember. 1.06fixed >>>>1.05

Its late....good night.

[RulerofRails]

No. This was just a test.

If using this idea as part of a patch as I mentioned in a post above, I would clean the concept up. For example, I would include a special building (model doesn't matter) with a far-future introduction date that produces a small amount (0.01 or whatever) of each cargo that would allow cargoes to be renamed in this way without their original "production sources" present on the map. So, in the example you quoted (I posted it elsewhere) there's no need to have the Furnace buildable. Otherwise, it would be outputting "Fish" which is nonsensical.

PS.
When I play 1.06 scenarios I'm using your price-islands fix. Weaker AI doesn't bother me. They were never strong enough to be good competition to begin with.

[RulerofRails]

Just realized that the 1.06 Electronics cargo has a start year of 1900, but the Electronics Plant has a start year of 1910. This was likely an over-sight, but there is an advantage: the demand for Electronics is already strong by the time that the Electronics Plant is seeded/buildable by the player.

This leads to a question: what if any production chain producing a new cargo was set to start 3 years after the cargo start date?

3 years is the time of pre-scenario simulation every time a new scenario is started. Demand functions need to start at the cargo start date to build demand.

Probably the simplest implementation would be to take current introduction dates as the time for production chains to start, but backdate cargo introduction and demand functions. Any opinions on this idea?

[Just Crazy Jim]

Just realized that the 1.06 Electronics cargo has a start year of 1900, but the Electronics Plant has a start year of 1910. This was likely an over-sight, but there is an advantage: the demand for Electronics is already strong by the time that the Electronics Plant is seeded/buildable by the player.

I suppose that it depends on what you want to call "electronics". If you get a little mincing on the term, the electronics age really didn't start until 1906 with the invention of the triode by Lee De Forest (so saith Wikipedia). If you consider the telephone "electronics", telephones were beginning to be faddish by the mid 1880s as a result of the mechanical telephone exchange. And the crystal radio was a quantifiable fad by about 1904, long before a corporation was formed solely to build radios for civilian use. And then there was a sort of popular morbid fascination with listening in on radio telegraphy following the sinking of RMS Titanic. (I imagine this is what people did for thrills before NASCAR)

AFAICT, after perusing a few dozen Scientific American magazines published between 1880 and 1930, the "real world electronics age" begins well before the "real world electronics industry", due to an upsurge in casual inventors and tinkerers (hobbyists) by merit of the residual effect of the success (and myth) of Thomas Edison (and others. e.g., Tesla had (has) a cultic following that eclipsed Edison's). Where you drop your flag and proclaim "it has begun!" is a matter of of personal preference. Granted, it wasn't until after the Great War/First World War that the development of voice-over-radio caused the electronics age and subsequent industries to become undeniable.

So, my 2-cents, leave it as it is, it roughly represents the real world. Stress "roughly".

This leads to a question: what if any production chain producing a new cargo was set to start 3 years after the cargo start date?

3 years is the time of pre-scenario simulation every time a new scenario is started. Demand functions need to start at the cargo start date to build demand.

Probably the simplest implementation would be to take current introduction dates as the time for production chains to start, but backdate cargo introduction and demand functions. Any opinions on this idea?

Now, that is a brilliant scheme if ever i heard one. Although, to be honest, I'd go with a 10-year gap on early game commodities, then switch to 3 on late game commodities. Why? Because old school thinking was "wait for demand, make investment" - whereas the late 20th century model for that is "make investment, create demand through advertising". I'm sure we call all think of recent products *cough*cough*iphone*sneeze*ipad* that follow that model.