Author Topic: New industries (Read 15173 times)

wlindley · « **on:** February 27, 2011, 07:45:27 PM »

By defining multi-tile buildings as building-blocks instead of using Tile Cutter, it is possible to make a great many mix-and-match buildings from a single set. Here is a progression of grain mills 1750, 1860, 1909, 1945, 1975 --

and, from the same elements in the same .png, a Paper mill for 1750-1860

They are all built from this:

As you can see, I have already added just a couple extra tiles to build various early date pharmaceutical factories, furniture factories, and brickworks... more to follow.

jamespetts · « **Reply #1 on:** February 27, 2011, 08:26:50 PM »

Is this done using the field system?

wlindley · « **Reply #2 on:** February 28, 2011, 04:56:54 AM »

James -- Cheers on the church! Hoping that makes it into the next release.

No on the field system, although that is an interesting idea. Here's most of the paper mills, pharmaceutical factories, brickworks, and grain mills that I have assembled so far. Note, the drug factories are 3x1 and 4x1 which are uncommon sizes. I hope these will come in handy for Early versions of some of the factories. I do have some registration errors to compensate, yet.

Question: I very much like the gasworks in the other thread, and noted the comment about coal. Should some of these industries in the Age of Steam (about 1840-1910) require coal for their powerplants?

ӔO · « **Reply #3 on:** February 28, 2011, 06:04:08 AM »

I would say yes for the coal requirement.

You need heavy machinery to increase production rates and those would have required engines.
Before electric engines, there was steam, and steam engines required coal.
I would even guess that most buildings would have consumed coal or firewood for space heating purposes.

and the first power plant, in game, comes around in 1911, I think.

sdog · « **Reply #4 on:** February 28, 2011, 07:31:09 AM »

brickworks certainly should need coal. Paper production requires also a lot of heat. But are the grain mill, pharmaceutical manufacture and furniture factories closer to consumptions where buying from a coal merchant is feasible?

It might or might not be desirable if another raw material is needed for those industries, to make the industry chain more complex.

ӔO · « **Reply #5 on:** February 28, 2011, 07:52:10 AM »

There is also the possibility of water and wind power along side steam, but to what extent, I'm not sure.

The Hood · « **Reply #6 on:** February 28, 2011, 08:57:35 AM »

These industries look really good - the only thing is how best to use them in game. It would be worth experimenting with the fields idea, as that would allow more variety of buildings without many additional game objects.

I'll just add a reminder that snow images would be great - I know they don't exist for industries yet but I'm doing them at the minute, so if you've made these from reprocessing existing images in the GIMP you may need to wait.

wlindley · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:38:41 PM »

James, Hood -- cheers...

Yes, I will create Snow images. With Gimp's layering and use of repeated elements this shouldn't be too tough.
Ideas for use in game -- see below.
Field system -- The absolute perfect match here will be the Car Factory... surrounded by fields of parked cars!

Here's my plan so far -- thoughts?

Code: [Select]

 Replacement Mills and Factories by wlindley.  Graphics are derived
# from existing graphics sets by James.
#
#                   Approximate Periods. 
#                     Existing: OK; REPL=replace; NEW=new; --=n/a
# Object in Game    1750-1860  1860-1900  1900-1945  1945-1975  1975-
#
# Brickworks          MISS[1]    REPL?[1]   REPL?     REPL?     REPL?
# Car Factory          --         --    1920-,REPL   1950-,OK    OK
# Furniture Factory   REPL        OK         OK         OK       OK
# Grain Mill          REPL       REPL       REPL       REPL     REPL
# Hardware Factory    REPL       REPL        OK         OK       OK
# Paper Mill          NEW[1]     REPL[1]    REPL       REPL     REPL
# Pharmaceutical F.    --        REPL       REPL        OK       OK
# Printworks           NEW        OK         OK         OK       OK
# (Spinning Mill)      [2]        --         --         --       --
# Textile Mill         NEW        OK         OK         OK       OK
# Weavers Cottage      [2]        --         --         --       --
#
# [1] Possibly add Coal as an input. Hmm... at what level?
# [2] Weavers Cottage 1750-1790: before advent of mills: Wool -> Clothes.
#     Between 1790-1820, could add Spinning Mill, Wool->Thread to
#     reflect industrial timeline, but that might be overcomplicating.
#
# TODO: Automobile lot 1920-1950.  Possibly with:
#     1908-1922  Ford Model T    (1908-1920 currently no car factory)
#     1922-1935  Austin Seven
#     1935-1948  Morris Eight
#     1948-1962  Land Rover
#     1962-1970  Ford Cortina
#     ...those to use Field system, and all in separate file.
#     ...possibly redo 1950- car factory to continue the Field idea.

The Hood · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2011, 01:23:27 PM »

The idea behind the fields is that you can have more than one field graphic now. In theory, we could have only a small "core" building and lots of possible field graphics, which could include warehouses, buildings, machinery, storage silos, actual fields etc etc. The process would then be quite procedural. It would also have the benefit of reducing the size of the industry pak, which is quite gargantuan at present (and set to rise substantially when I add snow graphics!). The main problem I can see with this approach is the lack of rotations for fields in the code at present. I wonder how hard that would be to add? If that were to be added, I would probably suggest very strongly we re-did most of the industries in this fashion.

wlindley · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:11:19 PM »

Ohhh! Yes, one "key" building (single or multi-tile) per industry and a selection of appropriate "fields" (piles of materials, outbuildings) would relieve the too-much-the-same look you can see in the screenshot in reply #193.

Question: Should each industry's key building have a flag or sign-board of the same color as its representation in the mini-map? The current pharmaceutical factory, for example, has a light-blue sign-board but is shown in orange on the mini-map:

The Hood · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2011, 02:19:52 PM »

Sounds like a good idea. The other way of distinguishing them is by having the right products and raw materials lying around in the fields.

The Hood · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2011, 09:45:08 PM »

OK, I've done a bit of testing. These are all built using fields. The only problem is the "field" images do not rotate with the rest of the map...

jamespetts · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:05:25 PM »

Hmm. This is interesting, but has potential drawbacks. For a start, fields are designed to grow with greater use of the factory. Secondly, it is possible to demolish fields (as long as the number is not reduced below the minimum) to build ways, etc., leaving discontiguous fields. Thirdly, in Experimental, at least, it is possible to build power lines over fields without destroying them. Fourthly, and likely very confusingly for players, the centre building must be in a station's catchment area in order for the station to be connected: fields are ignored.

sdog · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:28:01 PM »

Can the central building be larger than one field?

James, not sure if the things you mentioned are bad, for me they seem very desirable, except the last one:

Quote

Fourthly, and likely very confusingly for players, the centre building must be in a station's catchment area in order for the station to be connected: fields are ignored.

This is quite often difficult, and perhaps calls for an extension request.

Possible sollutions:
- no fields on one side of the factory/farm.
- let the farm/factory also build a way towards it's centre.
- for farms it is obvious that they need to be connected. For factories a very obvious loading aread could be created.
- just allow industries to be connected by their fields, or more complicated and much more elegantly, connect if the station is directly adjacent to a field or the central building is in the catchment area.

Do you also think fields cause enough difficulties to players already, to justify an extension request?

jamespetts · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:30:00 PM »

I think that simply allowing farms, etc. to be connected by their fields would be the best solution, and that it does indeed warrant an extension request in Standard.

Dwachs · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2011, 06:14:32 AM »

what about a parameter for fields 'can_be_electrified' ?

jamespetts · « **Reply #16 on:** March 01, 2011, 09:29:48 AM »

That's a good idea in principle, although I'd change the name, since passing a powerline over the field is not "electrifying" it, as the field is not supplied with electricity. "allow_powerlines" would be better.

The Hood · « **Reply #17 on:** March 01, 2011, 10:59:04 AM »

I might suggest instead, especially given prissi's comments that fields are fundamentally different than buildings, that a new "field-like" object could be added to industries. Let's call them "warehouses" for the sake of argument. They are like fields in the sense they add onto industries like fields and can enhance production, but are different in that they have rotations/animations from building code but not seasons from field code. Also they cannot be destroyed like fields, as they are buildings, and they cannot have electricity pylons above either.

wlindley · « **Reply #18 on:** March 01, 2011, 12:23:01 PM »

Would building a transformer next to a "warehouse" properly electrify the industry? I also assume the warehouses would be built at a much lower rate than fields -- in TheHood's screenshot in reply 202 the factories all look a little overgrown. Could a car factory have both warehouses (add-on builings) and fields (of parked cars)?

The Hood · « **Reply #19 on:** March 01, 2011, 01:19:25 PM »

Currently each field can spawn at different rates, and have different productivities etc. The factories I made above were just a quick test with no attempt to optimise appearances. If "warehouses" were to be added as different to fields, then I would suggest they too could act as points of electrification, but not "fields".

wlindley · « **Reply #20 on:** March 10, 2011, 04:21:37 PM »

In progress: Remixed 1910 car factory, with two different fields of cars and a field of boxes. Uses the revised Mills images (I divided those into mills1, mills2, mills3 for the number of stories) and a single key factory image (at left) with a sign in the minimap color.

The 1925 car factory, then, simply replaces the fields and one of the factory squares:

Finally, 1948 the old shipping dock gets replaced with a modern one.

The current modern car factory would be used from 1970 on.

Brickworks with a similar Field system... I can see that graphics need tweaking.

The Hood · « **Reply #21 on:** March 10, 2011, 06:39:04 PM »

Looking good. One question though - which images are fields and which are the "core"? Unless the present implementation changes along the lines I suggested (which seems to have generated zero interest amongst coders) I would only favour "fields" which are actual fields or yards rather than buildings (because of the power line wierdness and rotations issue).

wlindley · « **Reply #22 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:27:39 PM »

Point taken, TheHood. I will eliminate any "buildings" from the fields. Here is a somewhat revised and completed progression of the Car Factory from 1910, 1922, 1948, 1962, 1970 using entirely the new graphics. This should help condense the size of BritIndustry.pak significantly once more of the factories are on this scheme.

Since it now would not much increase pak size, I am tempted to add a second, rival, car factory... using some of the "other" models, or perhaps a factory for vans and lorries, maybe a motorcycle factory -- any thoughts on what that would do to industry balancing?

Milko · « **Reply #23 on:** March 10, 2011, 10:30:05 PM »

Hello

Beautiful buildings

I really like

Giuseppe

sdog · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2011, 05:22:32 AM »

You could replace the boxes with standard containers in the 1970 factory.

It's a pretty good concept.

The Hood · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:39:37 AM »

Really good - the other thing I thought to check is that there are 4 rotations for all non-field buildings (or 2 rotations if the tile is symmetric). Makes me think I'm wasting my time making snow images for all the existing industries.

I'm not sure it will reduce pak size though (unless my idea of separate building blocks is implemented) because there are still a similar number of images to define, and with 4 rotations for the overall building (I don't think simutrans notices that some images are the same!) and several different industries over time, you have a large pak...

Dwachs · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2011, 09:24:00 AM »

Very nice graphics!

Quote from: wlindley on March 10, 2011, 10:27:39 PM

This should help condense the size of BritIndustry.pak significantly once more of the factories are on this scheme.

Makeobj does not know about identical graphics in one pak file. The simutrans program itself however recognizes identical images and save memory.

alexbaettig · « **Reply #27 on:** March 11, 2011, 12:19:48 PM »

These new factories look superb!
I'm already all exited to see these in the game soon!

wlindley · « **Reply #28 on:** March 11, 2011, 01:53:47 PM »

alexbaettig: I will upload a BritIndustries.pak once I finish more of the rotations.

sdog: Ah, containers for the 1970s, good idea. Dwachs: Hm, I will have to investigate, and see what the format of a .pak really is inside.

TheHood: Yes, so far I have drawn everything in two or four rotations; only a few remain to be finished. Many of the tiles are deliberately symmetric so only two are needed, although the combined buildings are naturally non-symmetric.

As for snow -- these are the industries for the 'new' buildings, I am not working on anything else: Brickworks, Car Factory, Furniture Factory, Grain Mill, Hardware Factory, Paper Mill, Pharmaceutical Factory, Printworks, Textile Mill.

(Maybe this should be split into a "More industries" thread?)

The Hood · « **Reply #29 on:** March 11, 2011, 08:24:02 PM »

Topic split.

Just a small comment - I'd be a bit more wary about things such as the textile mill as in Britain these were characteristically very large "single-unit" buildings - I tried to capture that in the one I drew for the pak.

e.g.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21913923@N03/3315577147/in/set-72157607106178003/#/photos/21913923@N03/3315577147/in/set-72157607106178003/lightbox/
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/80561

The Hood · « **Reply #30 on:** March 31, 2011, 08:18:24 PM »

Any progress to report on this?

greenling · « **Reply #31 on:** April 02, 2011, 06:19:17 PM »

The Pictures looks good out!
Super!

greenling

AlanwaiLun · « **Reply #32 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:00:30 AM »

May I let know where can I download it? Thank you!

jamespetts · « **Reply #33 on:** October 18, 2013, 09:16:19 PM »

The whole pakset or just the new industries?

The Hood · « **Reply #34 on:** November 01, 2013, 01:58:32 PM »

A quick update - no further progress as I am in the process of moving house so have been rather busy for the last month or so and I wouldn't expect any significant time for this before Christmas. I will aim to upload the existing stuff to SVN for nightlies soon but there won't be an official release of pak128.Britain again until there's a new release of the executable supporting half heights.