The Forum Rules and Guidelines
Our forum has Rules and Guidelines. Please, be kind and read them ;).

Does anybody look over wikipedia article?

Started by prissi, April 07, 2011, 08:17:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


I added some refrences to the wikipedia article. However, it would be good, if somebody elso could from time to time improve the article there too.


Do you have specific articles in mind, which should be checked?
Parsley, sage, rosemary, and maggikraut.


Actually only "the" simutrans article in its different languages. For instance, reviews would be very helpful; but those are highly language specific. Also some articles are rather describing the state of 2008 or earlier.


For those who still don't know where Simutrans wikipedia articles are:



Hello, newbie here.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer:

  I have been a long time Simutrans player for a whole week. And since I am old and crusty, with some time on my hands, I have been trying to at least locate, if not fully digest, every web source available to find 'accurate' documentation. This game absolutely requires serious docs for serious players.
  To the wiki momentarily...

  First, a request; the main reason I registered on the forum. As I understand it, you are the current maintainer for Simutrans, Hajo having written the original code? Please correct me if I err in any way. If so, I suspect you have some influence with the various pak developers. I am neither a programmer, nor an artist, though I am a little knowledgeable in both areas, and familiar with the dread both species feel about documentation.

  Do you suppose you could push the pak developers (at least the official ones, not the addon makers, though, that would be nice, too) to compile some form of documentation on the pak contents, perhaps something as simple as a text file in the downloaded zip, with a list of intro dates and costs for ways, player buildings, industries, and vehicle? Wouldn't require much work as it's already in all the source dat files. A little cut and paste with word processor macro....

  From a new player's viewpoint, this would allow me to decide when I would like a game to begin, and help me clarify my long term strategy. Sure, in real life, I don't know in 1800 that locomotives will be invented decades hence, but after all, a lot about this simulation doesn't reflect real life.

  Currently, I have used 5 approaches on pak 64:
    1) start a timeline=off game in 1800 and systematically go through each info screen (very tedious),
    2) use a hex editor to check (and potentially hack) individual pak file contents,
        Note: Figured out a lot before I found the source code, (helpful, although the German caused a lot of head-scratching, Google Translate says "besch" = "dam". ???).
    3) find the CSV files online, import to Excel, and sort on intro dates (slightly out-of-date),
    4) find the wiki (not quite complete) link in the forums ,
    5) locate the SVN tarball (also tedious, checking each dat file).

  For me, that is sometimes as interesting as the game itself, but not something I would expect the average player to do.

  Additionally, some information (either in the pak download, or CENTRALIZED online) on that pak's economic/balance differences from the standard pak64 would probably eliminate 'some' (not all) of the forum queries like "Why can't I turn a profit in pak128?". As an example, due to aging eyes, I decided to try pak128. Graphically, it is gorgeous, but I was disappointed to find a significant lack of 19th century anything, and in reading the forums, a distinctly different economic balance. I know the developers have this info, I see the discussions in the forums, but they need to find their best wordsmith to summarize that for players. The seeker of the answer to the aforementioned query shouldn't have had to ask, and get an answer like "Its different fom pak64, and supposed to be harder!." Alternatively, perhaps the forum admins might consider a new forum comparing the packs, with a sticky or two with such info.

  For me, these are not deal breakers. I will play both versions, look for addons, possibly create my own, or modify existing, and develop my own personal database, but this is a lot to ask of any new players you may hope to draw into the community. Before I offend anyone reading this, I am well aware most forum members are extremely helpful in answering questions. Nevertheless, you could probably save a lot of time and bandwith if this kind of info was more easily accessible.

  Anything you might accomplish on this would be an improvement on the current situation, and vastly helpful to those of use out here on the other side of the fence.

Now, on to the wiki...

EDIT: On rescanning the topic, I note IgorEliezer references the wikipedia article. All my wiki-related comments below are about the Tikiwiki. If you are asking about the wikipedia, in the words of Emily Letilla, "Never mind!"

  It has its good and bad points.

  As to the first section, on the game itself (I know its a simulation, not a game. I prefer simulations to games, but 'game' is shorter), much of the info is redundant to the Guide & Manual, though lacking the pics contained in the pdfs (which are excellent, in so far as they go). Probably 30-40 wiki pages could be eliminated by simply listing all topics covered in the Guide or Manual, with a link to same, and a link to a page containing corrections or addendums to same.

  Obviously, some of the topics on the Index page lack articles, but again, these are (mostly) covered in the Guide & Manual

  The 'Road vehicles in pak64' (specs) area need some attention. The section exists, but has nothing in it.

  The 'Player's Guide' desperately needs either a really knowlegeable player to seriously contribute, or be a collection of links submitted by wiki readers who have found select forum topics (strategy, signals, etc.) helpful. A side note, the only pic in that section is in 'Road Network Planning' and has a broken link to ''. I am not knowledgeable about wiki structures, but pics should probably be maintained within the wiki base.

  The Developer's section is absolutely essential (and excellent!), at least for someone like me, and anyone looking to develop addons. I did note that in attempting to makeobj a canal quay, makeobj threw a fatal error on the building type 'wharf'. Finally figured out what to do by looking at the hex of the original, but either the wiki needs to be updated, or a text file with corrections should go into the makobj download. It wouldn't hurt to consolidate this info into the makeobj download package, either, (unless it exists somewhere else I haven't found?).

On related topics:

  The in-game help is awesome! It could be tweaked a hair to cover some of the newer game features, (I just discovered the 'right-click in title bar" feature in a forum post), and you should probably stress in the game readme.txt how useful "?" and "space" can be.

   Finally, just a short note on the file. The comments are invaluable! However, ask a non-programmer to give you his or her understanding of your explanation of what some of the more obtuse variables do. Then try to clarify ("dumb-down", just a little) for us less code-oriented types some of the explanations. Also, it would be nice if the definitions were included in the in-game help for extended settings for a new game. (I know, I know, that is a change request, but while I'm here...) 

  Please understand, all of this is meant in the spirit of constructive criticism. My understanding of the meaning of your post at the top of this topic was "Is it worth my time to maintain the wiki?". I get the hint from the forums that you are seriously time-stretched. Perhaps the better question is "Who can I recruit to take this over?" (Please, please don't suggest me. I have neither the time, nor the knowledge, nor the expertise. Its a younger man's game.)

  Anyway, if you've stuck with me to this point, excellent game, and my gratitude to you and Hajo, and everyone else who has contributed.


I notice that the Wikipedia article has a link to Simutrans-Experimental, which simply links back to the Wikipedia page for Simutrans (there was a separate Wikipedia page for Experimental at one point, I think, but it was removed for not being noteworthy enough). Might I suggest that the links are replaces with links to the Simutrans-Experimental subforum?
Download Simutrans-Extended.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

Follow Simutrans-Extended on Facebook.