The International Simutrans Forum

PakSets and Customization => Pak128.Britain => Topic started by: AP on July 25, 2009, 05:57:15 PM

Title: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 25, 2009, 05:57:15 PM
I've been keeping a notepad of random feedback whilst playing - just tidied my desk, so, in no particular order:

- The bridge length thing needs resolving (well in hand it seems)

- The lack of passenger barges, ferries and ships is a real irritant since that is a very good and realistic way to expand passenger networks early, especially since we now have navigable rivers. Suggest they be prioritised even if the rest of the canal vehicles aren't; I ended up importing the generic pak128 boats in the end.

- The absence of mail vehicles pre-combustion engine is a pain since mail-and-passenger work as one network; the dual income is part of what makes it so efficient.

- I can't quite find an advantage of horse-drawn trams over horse-drawn carriages. They are the same speed, practically same capacity, but can't pass each other on a single tram line (obviously), so actually seem worse. And if you're using horses, clearly congestion isn't a problem. So I can't quite work out why I should pay for them.

- Given the aforementioned trouble with trams (horses not being powerful enough to make them useful, I wonder if there is scope for a cable-street-railway of some kind. Thinking London & Blackwall (1840) evolving into something like the San Francisco system (1873), which could handle many more passengers at speed. Make it out like a special kind of electrification, say...

- Can horse-drawn carriages carry more than one type of freight  - passengers + mail? ditto ferries when they appear. It would seem more realisitic for some routes

- Is there any way to set up a "carries anything" ferry? Was thinking of something to substitute for a rail ferry, which is quite a common (historically) situation for extending a rail network along or across bodies of water. In some uk situations, key ferries were later replaced by tunnels (R. Severn) or bridges (Firth of Forth) once the technology allowed. But since simutrans can't "carry" one vehicle on another, a ferry that would move whatever it was given would be a close approximation. I believe the Severn Ferry, though authorised to be a train ferry, was actually just of the conventional kind, although I know of at least one other UK precedent for a ferry carrying rail carriages (Langstone-St Helens IOW), as well as continental ones.

- With the pak-britain factories, the 1x1 "shops", and possibly the farms too, could they be made like oil rigs, in that vehicles could call at them directly, rather than requiring freight yards at each one? Might be tidier...

That's it for the moment...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 25, 2009, 06:11:13 PM
AP,

thank you very much for the feedback: it is most useful :-) A number of responses:

  • This will be resolved in 1.03.
  • The trouble is that we only have one person drawing most of the graphics. These are planned, but they may take some time. If anyone would like to help (or recruit others to help), this would be very, very welcome!
  • As above - road goods vehicles are next on the list of priorities, I am told.
  • Hmm, this will need looking into. In real life, horse drawn trams could carry more passengers, since the horses could pull a heavier weight on the smoother tracks. That was the reason for having them. Can anyone with historical knowledge of tram and horse omnibus capacities assist here as to the figures?
  • An interesting idea, but that might be some way off given the lack of graphics producing capacity. I am not sure what the official maintainers would make of this idea.
  • No single vehicle in Simutrans can carry more than one type of load. That is a limitation with Simutrans, not the pakset.
  • See above.
  • Only oil rigs have this capability in Simutrans - it is built into the code.

Thank you very much for testing Pak128.Britain and posting your feedback. It is most useful. Do let us know if you would like to contribute to the project (anything from graphics to research to balancing to posting screenshots (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=2670.0) would be appreciated).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 26, 2009, 06:33:42 PM
Another thing I've discovered:

Bridge pricing and terrain-alteration pricing don't seem to tie in with one another:

Given that simutrans is mostly flat terrain, most bridges being just one level above what they are spanning, it is almost always cheaper to alter the terrain to make embankments and cuttings ($-1500/tile) than make a viaduct (($-1900/tile plus maintenance)). This somewhat links in with the bridge thread, but I have just built a railway through some rather hilly terrain, and found myself building precisely one viaduct, which was a bit of a suprise. Perhaps this is intended, however.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 26, 2009, 06:45:28 PM
I'm not sure exactly what The Hood's intention was with this - perhaps it has not been balanced fully. That would rather suggest that the cost of embankments/cuttings are far too low: in reality, certainly, they are very expensive. Any other thoughts on embankment height?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 26, 2009, 08:00:39 PM
Well now, there is a logic to low embankments being cheaper than bridges, but high embankments costing more (which they do if you build the sloping-sided ones rather than the brick-sided ones because of the larger base area - realistic).

I think the problem is twofold-

1 - Simutrans is rather flat, so it's quite rare to need tall embankments, so you don't often actually need bridges.

2 - The "lower single square tile" (LSST) tool is priced to allow it to "undercut" bridges - or at least it's too cheap  - it costs ($1500 +$1500) to raise a tile +2 with brick sides, which is essentially a bridge but without any maintenance - so well worth doing instead of the $1900 bridge tile. To do that in "sloping sided" embankments costs ($5000+$2500) - which is far more realistic. If a "cheap" style embankment cost $7500 per tile, the slimmer, urban-type brick sided embankment which the "LSST" tool creates ought to be more than that by a fair margin. I think the "raise single square tile" tool needs to be about $75000 a go, or better, for the +1 to be $1500 and the +2 move to be $15000.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: mjhn on July 26, 2009, 08:28:21 PM
I agree that the single square tool should increase in cost for higher embankments (I would want to take it further with partial square rais or low from or to a slope being $1500, and full square from a flat tile to a flat tile being $4500 for the first level and a higher amount for the second).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 26, 2009, 09:15:52 PM
The code limits what can be differentiated. There are only two settings available in simuconf.tab:

cost_alter_land=1250
cost_set_slope=1500

The first one is for the raise and lower land tools. The second one is for all artificial slope tools. Given those limitations, any suggestions on how they be priced?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on July 27, 2009, 10:38:57 AM
My original idea was for terrain altering to cost a fortune - at least 10 times what it is at the moment. Hence price of bridges and tunnels. I really want to force people to consider windy terraine following tracks and roads as an option due to cost rather than just building straight flat lines (which is what I end up doing in pak128).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 27, 2009, 07:58:27 PM
Quote
cost_alter_land=1250
cost_set_slope=1500
That's a pain! It can't distinguish between setting a "sloping" tile (ie flipping a gradient) and setting a "flat" tile (ie raising land)!

Still, I think in most situations you can do most everything with alter_land, with a couple of extra clicks, unless you're in tight urban situations (when you pay the premium...) So I suggest:


cost_alter_land=1250
cost_set_slope=10000

alter_land can acheive any height, the cost just goes up by the square because of the pyramid footprint involved. Which is roughly as it should be, and does indeed force circuitous routes to be taken to avoid levels changes.

It's set_slope that I think should be priced out of use for all but the most essential works (ie urban embankments - which only a rich railway builds anyway)

And then we need to remove the bridge length limits, of course, so they get more use (in hand I think).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 27, 2009, 09:27:16 PM
Kieron,

ahh, thank you for the insight. 10x may be slightly too much (earthworks to remove a small piece of errant terrain should not be too pricy), but I see AP's point that the set_slope price could be higher because it is a more flexible tool.

How about:

cost_alter_land=2500
cost_set_slope=5000


? In reality, many railways were built with substantial embankments, and this ought not be excessively expensive.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on July 28, 2009, 12:04:15 AM
See how those work in practice maybe...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on July 28, 2009, 07:57:45 AM
I think bridges / tunnels should be cheaper when spanning a height difference of 2, but not for 1, otherwise embankments/cuttings should be cheaper.  But it's really a case of try it and see.  Feedback welcome for inclusion in the main releases...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 29, 2009, 07:26:55 PM
Quote
I think bridges / tunnels should be cheaper when spanning a height difference of 2, but not for 1, otherwise embankments/cuttings should be cheaper.

I agree.

Quote
cost_alter_land=2500
cost_set_slope=5000
No, they're too close.

a +1 embankment requires 2 clicks with alter_land, so (alter_land< (brick bridge)/2) is the requirement.

Brick bridge is $1900/tile, so alter_land = $750 would work (embankment then being $1500/tile)

Quote
In reality, many railways were built with substantial embankments, and this ought not be excessively expensive.
Yes, but almost always they were triangular in section (large base, narrow top), ie done with the alter_land tool.

if
alter_land is $750     ....    then
cost_set_slope=$5000     ....     would perhaps be okay. (that's x6.6 rather than x10)

Thoughts?


Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 29, 2009, 08:01:46 PM
If the artificial slope was much, much more expensive than alter land, people would only ever use the artificial slope in the very limited circumstances in which the alter land tool could not be used. An excessive disparity between the two should be avoided: there is no grounding in reality for any such disparity.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 29, 2009, 08:30:49 PM
Quote
people would only ever use the artificial slope in the very limited circumstances in which the alter land tool could not be used
That was the effect I was going for. Not sure I understand why it is a problem.

Quote
there is no grounding in reality for any such disparity.
Sure there is. If you build a mound of earth, it has sloping sides. All you need is an army of labourers and some shovels.

To make a tower of earth with straight sides is far more involved. To do that takes complex engineering and requires retaining walls, careful design and structural work, foundations, etc. You would only do it where land were at a premium - or you would use an urban viaduct instead (with shops under the arches etc).

The key thing is that it must be cheaper to build a x2 high triangular embankment than a x2 high shear embankment.


A +2 high triangular embankment, once you have the starting point, costs $7500(=$5000+$2500) per tile at present (cost_alter_land=1250), so if cost_alter_land=750, becomes $4500/tile. So at a bare minumum cost_set_slope cannot be less than $2500 (giving $5000 per tile for 2+) and I would in fact argue that to preserve the "slimline" embankment for urban contexts rather than having it used everywhere, having it cost $10000 per 2+ sheer embankment tile (vs $4500 for 2+ triangular embankment tile) is a pretty fair balance.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 29, 2009, 08:40:14 PM
AP,

that is a very helpful and well-reasoned response: thank you. I hadn't thought of it like that. Would it perhaps be better to have cost_alter_land a little higher, though, to discourage overly excessive earthworks?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on July 29, 2009, 09:04:37 PM
$750 is in my opinion far too cheap a cost to alter land - though I see reasoning. Maybe bridge costs need to be put up more....
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on July 29, 2009, 09:08:50 PM
Quote
$750 is in my opinion far too cheap a cost to alter land - though I see reasoning. Maybe bridge costs need to be put up more
Certainly that is an option.

I think the key thing is that the three variables are in the correct relative balance. Change the price of one and the others must alter to keep the relationship similar, so that the correct ones are the "best value" in the intended circumstances.

If the 750-1900-5000 is about the right relative balance*, then you can clearly just multiply all of them by the same multiplier, it will still balance the same.

*To summarise:
cost_alter_land=750, cost_set_slope=5000, cost for one tile of brick viaduct=1900      ...means...
+1 slope embankment=$1500
+1 viaduct = $1900
+1 shear embankment=$5000
+2 viaduct = $1900
+2 slope embankment = $4500
+2 shear embankment = $10000
(all per tile)

Quote
Maybe bridge costs need to be put up more
On which logic $1500<bridge tile<$4500, and you also have to remember that bridges incur maintenance so you can't set it too close to the $4500/tile mark or it's not worthwhile building them.

[can of worms]Of course, this then links in with the earlier discussion about varying bridge cost with height[/can of worms]
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on July 29, 2009, 09:44:44 PM
Or maybe it's ok for bridges to be cheaper to build than embankments - keeping in mind that they'll be more expensive in the long term. In which case there's no problem keeping bridge at $1900 and putting embankments up further...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Maragil on July 30, 2009, 08:20:24 AM
As yet anyway, the 2 bridges we have aren't brilliant :D
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on July 30, 2009, 10:32:41 AM
As yet anyway, the 2 bridges we have aren't brilliant :D

The bridges themselves are good - we just need more of them :-)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on August 13, 2009, 11:47:46 PM
1. All the various passenger carriages are confusing for us Yankees who don't quite suss the terminology.  Perhaps a little overview of what all the acronyms mean -- I start my games in the the 1920's and presume these are for the various railroads?

2. In the 1920s there is a very limited number of houses and buildings available, so the cities look remarkably monotonic.

3. Am really waiting for mail trucks for a balanced transport system.

4. Overall the gameplay is good and I really love the "look" of the pak graphics.  And without the irritating foolishness of the regular pak128 descriptions.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on August 14, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
wlindley,

1. Sorry for the confusion - you are right though, they are the railway companies that built them.  If you want to go for historical realism, build LNER locos with LNER carriages (LNER = London and North Eastern Railway) for example.  It may be a good idea to produce a guide for the vehicles at some point though, as there are a lot of them.  Any offers? :)

2. Same problem in every era.  Unfortunately there are more pressing things...

3. ...Like this

4. Thanks!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: sojo on August 14, 2009, 09:51:19 AM
I have the pakset tested, yesterday with a simutrans-nightly. Not with simutrans-experim.

It looks very very nice. Vehilces and stations are very good.

But I have seen that some buildings (stations) have light-pixels.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on August 14, 2009, 12:04:01 PM
@sojo

When you say light-pixels do you mean lights that come on in night view? I know some of these need fixing, but thanks for the reminder...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: sojo on August 14, 2009, 12:25:27 PM
Yes, I mean walls with lightning pixels.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on August 23, 2009, 01:10:40 PM
The #1 issue making it difficult to lay roads and track is that the "grid" color hardly shows up against the transparent trees, and Underground mode is seemingly black-grid-lines-on-black-background... perhaps red and yellow grids more like standard pak64?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on August 23, 2009, 03:40:16 PM
Sounds like a good suggestion to me.  Does anyone know how to change it?  I will investigate and perhaps do a poll with some options once I've figured it out.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on August 23, 2009, 03:55:27 PM
Hmm, I quite like the subdued colour...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on August 24, 2009, 07:01:40 PM
In the 1920s there is a very limited number of houses and buildings available, so the cities look remarkably monotonic.

Started a game in 1830 and the cities look a lot nicer.  Maybe some of the "old" buildings could have their "built until" dates extended into the early 1900s? 

Similarly, Textile Mills are only built until 1840 -- so unless you start a game *very* early, you will never have one... even though surely there were already-extant mills operating much later.  Lowell, Massachusetts was founded in the mid-1800s and had textile mills until the 1980s.

Maybe there needs to be some way of having "old" buildings and industries built as part of a new game even if they will not appear as new during gameplay?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on August 24, 2009, 07:46:57 PM
Wlindley,

there was an extension request at one stage for older buildings to be built on map generation, to simulate the fact that the cities would have been around for a long time and would not just have recent buildings. I think that Prissi said that was on his to-do list somewhere.

As to industries, note that there are lots of different versions of the same industry, with different introduction and retirement dates, and different capacities. It is only the early type textile mill that is built until 1840 - after that, a new type comes along.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on August 24, 2009, 09:18:58 PM
There are several different textile mills, with increasing production over time.  A textile mill can be created right through the timeline...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on September 13, 2009, 03:21:20 AM
The Pharmaceutical Factory occurs starting in 1860 but requires Chemicals which are not available until the Oil Refinery appears in 1909...?

I see that only the latest (1972) Paper Mill requires Chemicals, with the older ones only requiring Woodchips... perhaps the Pharmaceutical Factory can do likewise?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on September 13, 2009, 09:52:23 AM
Ahh - the reason for that was that it was (and, I think, still is eventually) intended to have gasworks, which take an input of coal and produce an output of chemicals (albeit in a far lower proportion than coal, since most of it is turned to gas, which does not need transporting in the same way). I think that I had originally set the earlier pharmaceutical factories to accept coal, but this seemed a bit odd. You're not any good at using Blender by any chance, are you...?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 13, 2009, 01:19:28 PM
Thanks for spotting this.  I will include a fix in the next release that works around this problem until some more industries are drawn (contributions welcome, as always...)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on September 13, 2009, 07:04:51 PM
Just to see if there were any other "holes" in the goods flow, I wrote a little Perl program, to which you give it the argument *.dat (all the data files in the current directory) and it prints a report of, for each commodity, sorted by year, the sources and consumers.  It's not quite perfect as it ignores the months and just looks at years.  Still it's interesting to see how things change over the years.  You can also see how in the 1990s the industrial base dries up.  There may indeed be a few "holes" that need checking, as how the IronOreMine1950 ceases in January 1970 but the IronOreMine1970 only starts in March of 1972. 

The output sections look like this:

### beer ###
 1750: Brewery1750 --> Pub1750
 1840: Brewery1750,Brewery1840 --> Pub1840,Pub1750
 1841: Brewery1840 --> Pub1840
 1910: Brewery1840,Brewery1910 --> Pub1840,Pub1910
 1911: Brewery1910 --> Pub1910
 1945: Brewery1945,Brewery1910 --> Pub1945,Pub1910
 1946: Brewery1945 --> Pub1945
 1975: Brewery1975,Brewery1945 --> Pub1945,PetrolStation1975
 1976: Brewery1975 --> Pub1945,PetrolStation1975

... Enjoy!

http://blog.wlindley.com/wp-content/uploads/show_industries.pl
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on September 13, 2009, 07:42:59 PM
Very interesting! The drying up of the industrial base in the 1990s is intended as realistic...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 13, 2009, 08:28:15 PM
@wlindley - that's really helpful.  If you get chance could you let me have a list of any of the holes that you can spot so I can fix the unintended ones?  Or things like beer going to petrol stations...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on September 14, 2009, 03:40:59 AM
Perhaps beer to modern-day petrol stations is realistic (at least it is in the 'States!).  Pharmaceuticals also are shown as going to petrol stations starting 1975, the traditional Chemist presumably being "made redundant."

I updated the script to show months as well, and to produce an overview report (below).

The only missing bit I found was that Iron Ore Mines introduced in 1750 have no consumers until 1790's Steel Mill.

Here's the overview goods flow report, for the record.  (Anyone have an idea how we could process all the vehicle .dat's and compute "how close is this set of vehicles to being balanced" ...?)

Quote
autos: CarFactory -> CarDealership
beer: Brewery -> PetrolStation,Pub
bretter: ForestSawmill -> BuildersYard,FurnitureFactory,HardwareFactory
bricks: Brickworks -> BuildersYard
bucher: Printworks -> Bookshop,DepartmentStore
cement: CementWorks -> BuildersYard
chemicals: OilRefinery -> PaperMill,PharmaceuticalFactory
china: Pottery -> ChinaShop,DepartmentStore
cider: Orchard -> Pub
clay: ClayPit -> Brickworks,BuildersYard,Pottery
eisenerz: IronOreMine -> SteelMill
fish: FishingGround -> Fishmongers
flour: GrainMill -> Bakery
fruit: Orchard -> Greengrocers
fueloil: OilRefinery -> OilPowerStationkraftwerk
gasoline: OilRefinery -> PetrolStation
grain: GrainFarm -> Brewery,GrainMill
hardware: HardwareFactory -> HardwareShop
kohle: CoalMine -> CoalPowerStationkraftwerk,CoalYard,SteelMill
livestock: CattleFarm,SheepFarm -> Slaughterhouse
meat: Slaughterhouse -> Butchery
milk: CattleFarm -> Dairy
moebel: FurnitureFactory -> DepartmentStore,FurnitureShop
newspaper: Printworks -> Newsagent,PetrolStation
oel: OilRig,OilWell -> OilRefinery
papier: PaperMill -> Printworks
pharmaceuticals: PharmaceuticalFactory -> Chemist,PetrolStation
plastik: OilRefinery -> CarFactory,FurnitureFactory
stahl: SteelMill -> CarFactory,HardwareFactory
stone: Quarry -> BuildersYard,CementWorks
textile: TextileMill -> ClothesShop,DepartmentStore
vegetables: ArableFarm -> Greengrocers,PharmaceuticalFactory
woodchip: ForestSawmill -> PaperMill
wool: SheepFarm -> TextileMill
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 14, 2009, 07:33:33 AM
Thanks a lot - I think I get what jamespetts was doing sending beer, newspaper, etc to the petrol stations in later years, just at first it looked odd! 

As to vehicles, everything in the current pakset is "balanced", that is, I have created values for maintenance and cost using a spreadsheet I have set up which should ensure a reasonable level of profit at all reasonable game years for that vehicle, but as I don't have time for game testing, if anyone can show me any problems (too high or too low costs) then I will adjust it as necessary.  Is that what you meant?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on September 14, 2009, 12:40:30 PM
Yes.  I'd like to write some more little command-line tools that will assist in developing, and other, paks.

The latest additions in the svn here have really made PakBritain a pleasure to play. The new mail road vehicles have given my networks new life, although I still struggle to make a profit with trucks & lorries.

 I hope there will be some canal "narrowboats" for the starting in the 1830s -- it would be instructive to play two companies, one with canals and one with railroads, and see how long the canals can stay competitive!  And likewise when airplanes are added... how long can air service hold out against high-speed rail (Madrid-Barcelona air traffic is down over 30% in the wake of the new AVE there).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 14, 2009, 01:23:26 PM
Narrowboats and planes are both planned in the next few months hopefully, but I think simutrans standard doesn't worry about journey times so as long as there is any form of connection the goods will take the one with fewest changes (so a direct horse-drawn barge wins over a truck to a railhead and a fast train service...).  I think simutrans experimental might deal with that type of thing better though.

thanks for the offer of command line tools for developing, what did you have in mind?  I can't think of anything that's desperately missing, but then you never know what might make life easier!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on September 14, 2009, 03:04:49 PM
In considering the implications of simulating the cessation of heavy industry, I have made an extension request (http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=3315) to define factories that must be located on a short, river, or hill.

We could then define -- with location=shore -- a Port1830 that produces lumber and demands furniture, produces wool and demands textiles; and a Port1970 that produces autos and demands passengers.

We could add location=river to the early Textile Mills, forcing them to be built next to a river.  And location=hill to iron ore and coal mines.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on September 19, 2009, 10:44:21 PM
During installer trials I had also a look at pak128.britain. The style is nice, but the vehicles are all way to small for me, considering simutrans is all about transport ... They are even smaller than pak96 ones and nearly pak64 size? What is the reason for this?

Furthermore many steel structures are extremly thick. Imho the look could greatly improved by thinning those structures out a little.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on September 20, 2009, 07:34:08 AM
Vehicle size is to try and give a more consistent scale. Although it's still not perfect by any means. Also means boats and ships can be larger to some extent. There's a limit to how narrow rendered models can be before they end up disappearing... For these pixel painting may be best solution.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 20, 2009, 09:40:39 AM
Furthermore many steel structures are extremly thick. Imho the look could greatly improved by thinning those structures out a little.

Any particular structures you meant?  For example the gasometer is definitely badly drawn, and needs a lot of work, just I'm trying to draw vehicles at the moment.  Any particular screenshots to show the worst offenders as well would be helpful, if you find the time.

As Kieron says, vehicle size is to have a more consistent scale with buildings etc.  Also, if the vehicles were bigger, they would either mean very long convoys or very wide and fat vehicles which had been shortened along their length to fit into tiles better (they already have been squished a bit like this), and would look unusual IMO.  It's all a design choice of course, which some people will prefer and others won't.  Ideally of course I would love double tracks on one tile, which would make the graphics even more consistent in terms of scale, but I know the deal on that one so I won't push it (although I'm very interested in Timothy's trials).
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on September 21, 2009, 10:11:41 AM
As you said it boils down to personal preferance. The gasometer and the large station are really striking out. But also platform high and general the buildings are way too large for me. THe double decker bus could easily drive into one of the doorways of the houses ...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on September 21, 2009, 03:09:58 PM
Regards platform height - should be noted that platform height in the UK is significantly higher than the rest of Europe.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on September 21, 2009, 09:09:24 PM
But busses driving through doorways is surely not common ... However, this was just my impression.

And nother thing: Please do not make pak128.britain default download. That should be the executable!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Spike on September 21, 2009, 09:34:57 PM
As Kieron says, vehicle size is to have a more consistent scale with buildings etc.  Also, if the vehicles were bigger, they would either mean very long convoys or very wide and fat vehicles which had been shortened along their length to fit into tiles better (they already have been squished a bit like this), and would look unusual IMO.

I agree that it's quite difficult. I feel a bit like Prissi, though. When I looked at the latest private car additions, they appeared very lost on the big roads to me. But this is just a personal opinion.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on September 22, 2009, 08:17:10 PM
Essentially the problems in scale boil down to two restrictions:
Roads have to be wide enough to fit two lanes of traffic along with a tram in the centre.
Vehicle length has to be short enough that longest vehicles are less than a tile long.

Seeing as longest vehicles are 23m or so long (and infact pakBritain only uses length 13 maximum to try and reduce clipping problems), and typical road, even including pavements and centre land are probably only 15m wide this is where the mismatch arises.

If road vehicles (alone) are to scale with roads they will be larger than rail vehicles.
If rail vehicles are to scale with roads then they will be longer than tiles.
If houses are to scale with vehicles they will seem small compared to roads.

Never the less, a double decker road vehicle will not fit through a doorway (single decker will true).

The two scales are roughly speaking: static objects 16m/tile. moving objects 32m/tile

Platform height is also exaggerated on side facing away from tracks because as in pak128 the rails in pakBritain are offset from the base of the tile to give depth to the ballast. It is consistent with the trains running on the tracks however.

Permitting vehicles of lengths up to 32 and having roads occupy 2 tiles would solve scale problems, however is completely unfeasible in terms of the graphics system and changes necessary to simutrans.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on September 22, 2009, 09:12:13 PM
As long as no artificial slopes are allowed before a track, the clipping problems would only occur on bridges though ... maybe we really need are proper imagae sorter someday.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: kierongreen on September 23, 2009, 06:37:18 PM
I have tried tweaking image sorter before but without any success....
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Dwachs on September 24, 2009, 10:00:20 AM
I like the look of this pak. It is unique (dark colors, less details than pak128 imho) and has a consistent style. It's all a matter of taste ;)

O yes, the sprite sorting can create headaches. I did try myself also, but I have the impression the clipping problems cannot be solved by any sprite sorter.

I have another simple wish: please copy the citylist_en.txt to citylist_**.txt for all the languages. It looks really odd having a map with pseudo-German town names and Britain style ;)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 24, 2009, 10:24:08 AM
Thanks for the feedback.  I'll leave sprite clipping to the coders, but I can certainly do the citylists. 

Off-topic: It reminds me of a pseudo-german tube map I saw yesterday (I'm sure true German speakers would have a heart attack as even my basic German tells me it's not so great!), but it is quite funny - especially Mile End becoming 2.4km Ende (although whoever did it obviously has a maths problem as 1 mile =  1.6km!):

http://www.steveprentice.net/tube/TfLSillyMaps/german_map.jpg
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: colonyan on September 26, 2009, 04:20:34 PM
I had chance to give pak a try yesterday.

1. I was really comforted by the initial map which comes up when game starts.
   It looked cozy and warm. Good little showcase map it was.
   And nonetheless to say, buildings looked all conformed and felt at right place.
   Also, masion which appeared as tourist attraction looked very gorgeous.
   Flying scottman and its carriage looked gorgeous too. :)
2. I started from early era. While carriage speed was very realistic, some people might find them too slow.
   Thus limiting the player type. Also, two horse with grain(larger carriage), was not able to move at
   usable speed.
I found really hardcore player oriented.(at least from carriage type diversification)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on September 26, 2009, 04:28:34 PM
Colonyan,

thank you for the feedback. I am glad that you like the default.sve - that took quite some time to put together! (Although note that the locomotive is not the A1/A3 type of the "Flying Scotsman", although that is available in the set, but a GWR King class).

There are some issues that need to be resolved with the power of horses, which I hope will be fixed in the next version.

Thank you again :-)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on September 26, 2009, 05:04:49 PM
colonyan - thanks for the positive feedback :)

I'm not sure what you are saying about the horse and grain cart though.  I can get two horses and a fll 3t grain cart to move at 6km/h easily (which is the max speed of the convoy).

I know it's slow (transport was in those days...), so if you get bored, turn the speed up using the "." key.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Martinwh1 on October 16, 2009, 01:47:55 PM
I started Pak-Britain from 1880 and have found a few minor issues:
Trams - the first electric tram becomes available in 1885 but the track cannot be electrified until 1890
Trains
The 8ton food van is made obsolete in 1903 but is not replaced by the 10ton until 1908.
A 1907 metropolitan power unit & associated coaches is announced twice I think - once in 1903 and again in 1907 but does not appear in the engine shed - is this because it is an electric unit and track electrification is not available.
Being a simple soul I mus admit that the gear ratios quoted are lost on me but I think that the greater the loco power the more it should be able to pull before a speed penalty comes in. However this following comparison of 130kph locos coupled to 25ton coaches suggests this is not the case:
GWR 4-4-0 Bulldog 1250kw 16 coaches
GWR 4-6-0 Star 1600kw 14 coaches
GNR 4-4-2 Class C1 2764kw 12 coaches 
 
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: DirrrtyDirk on October 16, 2009, 02:07:44 PM
Being a simple soul I mus admit that the gear ratios quoted are lost on me but I think that the greater the loco power the more it should be able to pull before a speed penalty comes in. However this following comparison of 130kph locos coupled to 25ton coaches suggests this is not the case:
GWR 4-4-0 Bulldog 1250kw 16 coaches
GWR 4-6-0 Star 1600kw 14 coaches
GNR 4-4-2 Class C1 2764kw 12 coaches

This (probably) is where gear comes into play (I say "probably" because I' not familiar with this pakset at all and can't check right now). But generally the actual power is calculated by multiplying the nominal power by the gear factor. So even higher nominal values can result in less actual power when the gear factor is lower.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 16, 2009, 02:27:38 PM
@Martinwh1:  Thanks very much for the feedback.  The tram, food van and metropolitan power units sound like genuine bugs to me which I will investigate and fix for the next release.

As to gear/power values, I do agree that this is confusing and not ideal.  Simutrans uses power * gear in its internal acceleration calculations, so the power * gear is the only thing that counts.  The power values are supposed to be broadly historical (where I can obtain such data, and estimates where I cannot), and the gear value is an adjustment to give sensible behaviour in game.  Strictly speaking then, the only important number is power * gear, not what power.  This is confusing though, and I have toyed with the idea of getting rid of historical values of power and just sticking in a value which gives the intended behaviour in game with all gear factors set to 1.  I'd appreciate opinions on this though.

Either way, it shouldn't be the case that the Star class can pull less weight than the Bulldog, so that may well be a bug that needs fixing.  I think vehicles are generally over-powered at the minute anyway (e.g. I've seen saves where people are using cheap tank engines to pull long freight trains comfortably!).  Any more reports/views on this would be good - I'll incorporate it into my rebalancing exercise.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Dwachs on October 16, 2009, 06:36:58 PM
I did run some tests with the AI: while in 1930 road vehicles are not profitable at all, the situation is totally different in 1960. Here the AI manages to made big profit.

In both eras it did however consider the whole coal/steel a inprofitable and did not try them at all.

I also found on th 1960 map a fishmonger and furniture stops not in cities but in the greens.

The 20t open waggon with loaded with steel seems to be misaligned.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 17, 2009, 11:46:08 AM
Dwachs, thanks for the report.  Costs are being rebalanced anyway, so lets see what it makes of my next effort at balancing. 

Quote
I also found on th 1960 map a fishmonger and furniture stops not in cities but in the greens.
I've noticed this too.  It seems to happen when there are already industries in every city, and then it tries placing them on intercity roads instead.  Is there a way to convince the industry builder to just build industries closer together?  It seems at the minute there is some function which spreads industries out from one another, which I'd be happy to have lifted for pak128.Britain (unless there's a good reason for it the way it is).

Quote
The 20t open waggon with loaded with steel seems to be misaligned.
Rail or truck?  Which one in particular?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: DirrrtyDirk on October 17, 2009, 11:50:49 AM
It seems at the minute there is some function which spreads industries out from one another, which I'd be happy to have lifted for pak128.Britain (unless there's a good reason for it the way it is).

At least there's an entry in simuconf.tab:

Code: [Select]
# smallest distance between two adjacent factories
#factory_spacing = 6

I don't know what the default value is, though... or what value you have set for pak128.britain (if you have set it at all). But you might try to set it to a low number and see what happens.

EDIT: fixed typo and reformatted the simuconf.tab quote
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 17, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Never knew about that, and it wasn't in my simuconf.tab.  Adding that does the trick, thanks!

Is there a way of controlling the distance between consecutive industries in a chain though?  e.g. making sure that a coal mine is at least 20 squares from the power plant it supplies?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: DirrrtyDirk on October 17, 2009, 12:06:27 PM
and it wasn't in my simuconf.tab.  Adding that does the trick, thanks!

You're welcome. But that's a typical problem: we usually only download the small nightly package (with just the executable), but once in a while more than just that changes. Especially for pak-maintainers I can only recommend to check for newer configuration files more frequently (also menuconf.tab from pak64 to learn about new functions there, too).

Is there a way of controlling the distance between consecutive industries in a chain though?  e.g. making sure that a coal mine is at least 20 squares from the power plant it supplies?

Sorry, not as far as I know...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on October 17, 2009, 12:06:48 PM
Only this parameter but nothing else.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Dwachs on October 17, 2009, 12:28:01 PM
Rail or truck?  Which one in particular?
The 20t open rail car appearing 1937 but only the loaded images are misaligned, the wagon was loaded by steel.

Also there are several vehicles with maintenance=0, this causes the passenger AI to crash.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 17, 2009, 12:30:38 PM
OK I'll investigate.  Didn't realise maintenance=0 caused the passenger AI to crash.  I've done this for tender locos (so all the cost of the loco is visible on the first vehicle you buy).  Presumably if I increase this to 1, this will solve the problem?  As I'm doing rebalancing now, that should pick up any maintenance=0 vehicles and I'll fix them as I go along.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 17, 2009, 12:53:45 PM
Dwachs,

if that is so, should vehicle_reader.cc not check for maintenance=0 and correct it to maintenance=1?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on October 17, 2009, 07:26:20 PM
Tender should not cause crashes, as the AI ignores them. ANd you are right, the AI should not crash at all ...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 18, 2009, 02:08:28 PM
Dwachs, I can't reproduce what you describe.  Can you sned a screesnhot?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: TheMacpau on October 18, 2009, 02:43:33 PM
I'd like to start my first post on the forums by expressing thanks to all those who have contributed to the awesomeness that is simutrans, and my appreciation for the subdued more mature stylings and consistency of 128.Britain.

I'm still in the playing about with the buildings and trainsets stage and am not playing economically so to speak, learning the ropes as I move over from 128. I've noticed I have a problem with the forest/sawmill, it renders properly in the demo save and gives me no issue when it's is generated with the map at the start of a new game. However if I use the public player to try to add a new factory of this type although it places the construction site, brown squares with cranes... as soon as the construction period is over and it's due to be replaced with the forest graphic the game crashes. I'm running the most recent pakset and today's stable release. Any help would be appreciated. :-D
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 18, 2009, 09:09:28 PM
Thanks for the feedback TheMacpau.  I had noticed that bug with the forest and was reminded of it about half an hour before your post again when it did it to me.  I haven't tracked down the cause yet though :(

On a separate note, bugs reported by Martinwh1 are now fixed in r224 on sourceforge, so they will be in the next release.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on October 18, 2009, 10:46:11 PM
Most likely dims is defined like 2,3,3, but has only 2 or less than announced.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: TheMacpau on October 19, 2009, 12:10:07 AM
I assumed from the look of memory dump that it was somekind of overflow, but my programming experience is seriously limited, is there anything I can do to help with the enquiry's?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: z9999+ on October 19, 2009, 12:55:00 AM
Productivity=0 is the problem. It causes Divide By Zero.

Quote
sim.exe caused an Integer Divide By Zero at location 0055ab1f in module sim.exe.

Registers:
eax=00000000 ebx=051782a8 ecx=06afe9c8 edx=00000000 esi=01ca5055 edi=c4c54dac
eip=0055ab1f esp=0023c6e0 ebp=0023eac8 iopl=0         nv up ei pl zr ac po nc
cs=001b  ss=0023  ds=0023  es=0023  fs=003b  gs=0000             efl=00000256

Call stack:
0055AB1F  sim.exe:0055AB1F  fabrik_t::step(long)  simfab.cc:801
   ...
   if(!besch->is_electricity_producer()) {
   // one may be thinking of linking this to actual production only
>   prodfaktor = 16 + (16*power)/(n_intervall*prodbase*PRODUCTION_DELTA_T);
   }
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 19, 2009, 08:11:54 AM
Gotcha!  z9999+ was right.  I'd defined productivity as 0 because all the productivity was supposed to come from the fields.  Obviously that's not very friendly to the program, so I've changed that now.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: Dwachs on October 19, 2009, 06:40:45 PM
Dwachs, I can't reproduce what you describe.  Can you sned a screesnhot?
It happens with the loaded image of the '20t open car' (rail) with all directons. the empty wagon is fine.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on October 20, 2009, 10:22:07 PM
Just found another 'issue' - rail is available at 1800 (uncertain of the precise start date) - as horse drawn wagonways - but there are no signals available until some later date. Very difficult to run trains (especially at 5km/hr!) when you can't divide the line into block sections. The earliest signals (flagmen / whatever) ought to be available from the beginning, surely? Otherwise I have to create stations-serving-nothing every few tiles on passing loops, which rather clutters the map!

Also, early rail seems to be limited to 5km/hr, where the canals are limited to 10km/hr. Wondered why this difference exists?

The above two facts in combination meant that, when I tried to build a nice rail route to feed into my very profitable canal network, it just wasn't worthwhile, couldn't move the material fast enough. May as well build canals over the mountains! Resolves itself in 1813 when the first steam loco becomes available, plus signals!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on October 21, 2009, 08:31:02 AM
Any way point will act as a signal too ...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on October 22, 2009, 08:33:49 AM
It will? Now that I did not know. Cheers Prissi!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on October 22, 2009, 04:29:23 PM
Another thing. Pre-rail-passenger transport, the game seems to generate an inordinately large number of passengers.

I mean, if I in 1800 start up a stagecoach network between 15-20 small towns, 8 passengers per stagecoach, doing 10km/h.

In real life, the "flying coach" between Oxford and London took an entire day to do that journey from about the 1680s until the coming of the railways, and there was ONE coach each way daily. So 8 passengers in each direction, or thereabouts.

In simutrans, I'm having to depart stagecoaches as though they were minicabs, back to back, I have congestion on my roads!

I presume the game uses the same mechanism to calculate passenger numbers across the whole time period. In reality, the availability of transport at a given area drives demand, along with the wealth/social group who want/need to travel. Until the coming of the railways made the country 'smaller' the demand was fairly limited.

I don't know whether the passenger generating mechanism can just be tweaked to be minimised until the opening of the Liverpool & Manchester railway, say, or if there's a smarter way to do it (based on whether a town has a rail station in it's vicinity say).

Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 22, 2009, 07:15:44 PM
AP,

Simutrans-Standard, unfortunately, does not have a variable demand model. The only things that affect passenger numbers are: (1) the size of towns; (2) the number of connected towns to the network; and (3) the "passenger level", that is a single fixed number specified in the simuconf.tab file. This problem is insoluble by pakset authors.

In Simutrans-Experimental, however, there is a feature whereby the demand for passenger travel to any given destination is directly proportionate to the time that it takes to reach that destination: just as in real life. The faster that passengers can be transported somewhere, the more that will want to go there. Thus, as the age of railways dawns, and travel is much faster than by stagecoach, far more passengers will travel overall than did before.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: AP on October 22, 2009, 08:06:43 PM
More and more, experimental seems the way to go...  :D
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 22, 2009, 08:10:12 PM
Thank you :-)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: prissi on October 22, 2009, 10:37:05 PM
Well, in simutrans standard this mechanism relies on the pak set. The lower the house levels are (maximum levels before 1871 are 13 in pak64) the less passengers can be generated at one stop.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 27, 2009, 02:19:15 PM
It happens with the loaded image of the '20t open car' (rail) with all directons. the empty wagon is fine.
The bug was only with steel images.  Now fixed for next release.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 27, 2009, 08:27:27 PM
Well, in simutrans standard this mechanism relies on the pak set. The lower the house levels are (maximum levels before 1871 are 13 in pak64) the less passengers can be generated at one stop.

But that is not a complete answer, since if all the buildings have low levels, the cities simply sprawl, which means that, for the normal arrangement of having intra-city transport feeding hubs for inter-city links, the level of usage of the inter-city links is not affected by the levels set in the buildings' .dat files.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 27, 2009, 08:46:40 PM
On the issue of passenger generation - is there a way that the passenger generation per housing level can be varied over time?  This way could prevent crazy city sprawl from limiting the levels of citybuildings, and also prevent crazy amounts of people wanting to travel early on.  Alternatively, could city growth be factored differently over time, e.g. slower growth in early years, but progressively more and more growth over time? 

Anyway, back on topic, I have fixed signal intro years :)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 27, 2009, 09:53:45 PM
The Hood,

in Simutrans-Experimental, the system of journey time tolerances will indirectly vary city growth over time. Because fewer of those people who want to travel feel able to do so because of the journey time in early years (owing to the poorer technology available at the time), the proportion of passengers travelling will be lower, and thus city growth will also be lower.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on October 27, 2009, 10:00:58 PM
Yes, I was aware of that in experimental.  I was thinking of simple ideas that could be applied to standard without too much fuss.  Either that or support for the journey time tolerance to be part of standard :)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on October 27, 2009, 10:10:30 PM
Or just use Experimental ;-)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on February 28, 2010, 01:39:54 AM
The #1 issue making it difficult to lay roads and track is that the "grid" color hardly shows up against the transparent trees, and Underground mode is seemingly black-grid-lines-on-black-background... perhaps red grids more like standard pak64?
Sounds like a good suggestion to me.  Does anyone know how to change it?  I will investigate and perhaps do a poll with some options once I've figured it out.

Sorted!  It's quite easy (once you find the answer). Change the color of the dashed lines (currently #040500 which is indistinguishable from black) to perhaps #400000 like in pak64.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on February 28, 2010, 01:40:56 AM
I quite like the subtle colouring in Pak128.Britain. Perhaps a light grey?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on February 28, 2010, 03:31:04 AM
Hm, yes, perhaps something reddish-grey like #503030.  You really need some color tint to it; pure grey blends too much with the green grass, as does yellow; bluish gets lost on water.  #703070 is a purplish possibility, too.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on February 28, 2010, 10:30:30 AM
I vote for purplish...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: ӔO on February 28, 2010, 11:59:23 AM
how about orangeish or brownish? any caveats in those?
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on February 28, 2010, 12:25:25 PM
Wlindley/others - could you put some screenshots up of various options and we will put it to a vote in a new topic...
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on May 13, 2010, 01:01:29 PM
Only six months for me to get back to this! Eeep.  But the purple looks very good:

(http://blog.wlindley.com/images/o1.jpg)

(http://blog.wlindley.com/images/u1.jpg)

and the border file
(http://blog.wlindley.com/images/borders.png)
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on May 13, 2010, 01:38:58 PM
Wow, some serious post-digging there!  And you're still the first to respond to my request for various colour options!
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: ӔO on May 14, 2010, 02:06:52 AM
the purple looks pretty good.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: wlindley on December 18, 2010, 04:14:05 PM
Absent any objection, for the next revision, can we please replace grounds/borders.png with this one as above:  http://blog.wlindley.com/images/borders.png  ... black-on-black borders for underground is unusable; we can always change the purple later on.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: jamespetts on December 18, 2010, 04:41:26 PM
Thank you for that - that will be in the next Experimental version.
Title: Re: General pak-britain v1 feedback
Post by: The Hood on December 20, 2010, 12:06:28 AM
My bad - now in standard nightlies.