RCT Discussion / RCTModified isn't illegal!

Just a question about RCTM... since you're going in and editing crazy stuff, what's the possibility of getting rid of the cap on scenery/ride items in the sandbox mode?

I'm just theorizing here, but based on all the records Doctor J kept about where in the .Sv4/.Sv6 files everything is kept, I'd guess that these numbers are also hardcoded into the .Sv6 file. If you could somehow extend the alotted space for this save area, then you might be able to do it. I'm guessing you guys tried that already, though. Either that, or it's completely impossible.

It has been tried with no success. its just not possible to get by the hardcoded game limits

yeah, that damn map data limit for LL is a problem what with codex...

I'm neither here nor there with all this RCTM talk as I don't give two shits about playing rct2 haha...

I support ][22's idea of a public vote if it has to come to that... or just including an SV6 along with the SV7? I don't really see how this is that hard to sort out.... it's far too late to pull the "it's illegal" argument, about 6 or 7 years too late by my reckoning

jj, i think the rules go further than playability. what riven posted pretty clearly tells me that rctm is in fact illegal. drexler patch possibly too. i just don't think it goes anywhere near as far as rctm. and i said before, it's years in the past, so it cannot be changed.

Can I just ask...what's different about RCTM that people don't already do?


All it does is take a hack...and make it so everyone can use the hack. If that's illegal, and you're not accepting files for that reason, then my god, you better not accept anymore files at all, as I'm pretty much certain that every park ever hosted by NE will have used a trainer to do something. There are no "lines" with this. Something is either illegal, or it's not. You cannot have something that's just a bit illegal, and then something that is very illegal. It doesn't work that way.

I will say this though, Posix, it's obvious that you're up on your elitist high horse again. Your argument for not accepting RCTM files but accepting LL files is that the Drexler Patch has already been embedded in the site. If it's illegal though, and you're not going to accept .sv7 files, then you can't accept LL files anymore, because it's doing the exact same thing. You're new management, so you don't have to stick to the old rules, but you can't have one rule for one game, and then another rule for the other game.

there is one BIG difference in the 2. the drexler patch is just a patch that changes the game file so that you can view parks that trainers are used on.

RCTM is the game modified. it uses the game files.

you cant compare the 2.

^what riven said.
and to be perfectly honest with you, i admit i don't terribly care if it's illegal or not. my main concern is how it changes the way people can see the park. of course, it's as easy as possible to just get rctm, or vice versa, restore to original rct2, just so you can see a park the way it's supposed to be seen. to me, this just causes inconsistency. some people with rctm just loved a station in the park while others without hated it because the entrance hut stood out so much. others wonder why they cannot use the checkerboard texture anymore in one of their futuristic themes while others complain "why can't you just use black-making objects for your background instead of the rctm-checkers?? i don't have rctm and it looks ugly". there's possibly a lot more of these kind of accidents. needless to say, i'm pretty sure you could find workarounds for everything, but at the same time, i think to myself "why the heck do you need all this hassle?". can't you just sink your entrance hut? can't you just do everything the conventional way? can't we just stick to a common discipline that is the "regular" rct2 upon which everyone's parkmaking abilities are measured?? i find these problems to be very painful, while to you it's probably rather minor and less important.
what gets me the most about rctm however is the "change game files to create something new" aspect. it just goes too far for me. it's just not right. my gut hurts when i even think about it. call me stupid, ridiculous and whatnot, but i really consider rctm to be a major threat to the health of the parkmaking culture.

Isn't it so that we, regular rct2ers, can still open up rct modified parks. We just don't get to see the full potential? I totally agree with phil on this one (atleast, the rough sketch of it.. I must admit not reading more than half of the uninteresting bickering above). The problem with RCTM is that I, for one, would have to install it. Without feeling the need for it, [I]whatsoever[\I]. To everyone else to whom these differences mean little to nothing, they would have to install it. To please someone? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing phil is really saying is that he will not go through the hassle of rctm himself, nor will the rest of the 'management'. Or the accolade panel, which coincidentally I'm a part of.

Now that I read above a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that rct modified changes the saved game files? I don't know, I think I'm way under-educated about rct modified to even make up for a good argument. But in a sense, that is the basic premiss for which to dismiss RCTM. Unless I'm alone. Anyways, I fully applaud someone trying to take a game to a new level, and to them all the best, but to what kind of extra level do you want to take rct? It's a game with some limitations, but that's just what makes it fun. In these limitations actually lies the challenge to create a beautiful park. Why tamper with them, why even bother, and it doesn't even sound like you did much. I for one actually like the original stations, as well, purist as i must be after all these years.

So let me ask this question then.

If a park is built with RCTM in mind so that the stations are "hidden" yet still working (and yes I know you can do it without RCTM however I don't have the patience) and I submit both a SV6 and SV7 file, will there be a negative impact in the judging process as the SV6 version will not have the desired look and feel as the intended SV7 version.

I'd like to know so I know where to continue to submit parks for consideration (if at all). I'm very content in building with RCTM as it makes it, for me, much more enjoyable to build and that's what is important to me. Yes I would like to see my parks earn accolades here at NE just like everyone else that submits a park however, I'm also fine with just releasing it on it's own, I just would like to know the final answer on this.

All that said, if the NE management is not going to allow SV7 files, then it should also be included in the rules for submitting parks and in the rules for any contest here. If I'm not mistaken, NE doesn't allow WW or TT parks either and those a perfectly legal. Personally I think you may lose some interest (not much mind you) but you will lose some.

Anyhow, just my two cents

James

It's really getting to me to be quite honest... I have two new things underway, both with RCTM as it makes it 1000x easier for me to do (or in this case, not have to do) and saves a lot of time. I never really got into hacking using RCT2 nearly as much as I did with LL... So like James is saying, I'd like a decision on this sometime soon so I either stop wasting time and start trying to learn hex editing (which sounds like a total bitch) or just stop building altogether.

Could you please get all the people who judge together for a vote... or just throw up one big topic to settle this now with the community as a whole (on NE at least) voting to allow the SV7s to be sent in and be able to be nominated for awards and what not or to just go on as if the whole rctm never existed (which I hope wouldn't be the case).

Now that I read above a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that rct modified changes the saved game files?

All it is, is a change of the extension to make it clearer which something is, Kind of like identifying what it is built with, you just simply rename the park in order for it to be viewed the other way.

I think RCTM is a great idea and support it fully.Id personally like to see more development in this area however im not looking at this from a legality point of view what so ever

i can perfectly understand those of you who enjoy using rctm. it's easier, so why shouldn't you use it? if it was just the easier part, then i'd have less a problem. but rctm doesn't appear to be a "hack-shortcut-custom-addon" but instead it tries to add new things to the game that, like wme mentioned, will break the ruleset under which all parks are reviewed. jj, i'll try to talk to you on msn when i get time.

rctnw, yes, ne accepts both ww and tt files but not rctm. therefore, at this point in time, geewhzz and i will not allow any panelists to view sv7s. in the panel, everyone has to see the very same thing. else the voting is unfair.

something that just ran through my mind the other day; can't you just make rctm a trainer?? this might sound a little silly but as i'm so against rctm i've obviously never laid a finger on it. the way i understand this is that what you're basically doing is to create new in-game tools that allow to perform common and actually useful hacks in a convenient and quicker way, correct? can't you just create an external tool for that? why do you have to do it internally and touch game files? if it were a trainer i'm positive i would totally support rctm. (and without sv7, of course)

Well then, that makes it easy for me.

I dont think it would be possible for rctm to be turned into a trainer as it edits the games graphics not the games code.It doesn't actually add anything to the game so far (well anything thats really useful) but it gets rid of entrances and stations which have never been useful.

Okay, I honestly don't even know where to start. So much garbage in here I'll try and make some sense of it.

The whole idea of arguing about SV6 and SV7 is retarded. You don't "build something with RCTM" it just changes the way the end user sees it. It edits the graphics. There is nothing different between an SV6 and SV7 besides the file extension. One tells your computer to load rct2.exe the other tells it to load rctmodified.exe. I think by creating the SV7, it actually made it more confusing to people because they really just don't understand how it works. I mean just look at this thread, there are people in here that use RCTM, yet have no idea how it works. You're just creating even more ignorance about the game and not allowing people to learn how the real one works. Yes, it identifies that a park is "intended" to be viewed with RCTM, but that's it. The thing that really bugs me is that you expect everyone to host the SV7 and SV6 file, yet, they are identical....nothing is different but the file extension. It just creates total redundancy, wasted file space, added download time and makes it even more confusing for people who are new to the game and probably don't know what RCTM is. The file extension is just trying to promote the RCTM agenda.

You guys are fighting an uphill battle. You're over here, taking the easy way out on building your park, and bitching that people won't see it the way it is "intended" to be seen. Well guess what, it never will be. 100% of all people will never use RCTM. So if you really want your park to be seen the way you intended it to be seen, then do it the right way so that everyone on planet earth with RCT will see it that way.

It's like cheating on a test, and then claiming you didn't have to cheat to pass.

Even if we were to host SV7 files, it wouldn't matter about the legality of it as it doesn't do anything to the saved game. I doubt changing a file extension is illegal activity. As for JJ, I'd watch out, I think it's pretty clear Chris Sawyer doesn't like people ripping off his game. Contacting Chris Sawyer? Good luck with that one, sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

What annoys me most, is you're trying to push an agenda and a standard on this community and you're entire argument is that "it makes it easier for me" but then claim it's about everybody else and that people won't be able to view the parks the way you view them. If a park is intended to be viewed with RCTM, then the people with RCTM installed can just rename their archived copy to .SV7. Why should we have to waste our filespace and user's download time to support your agenda? And threatening us that people will leave because of it? Please.

If a park is built with RCTM in mind so that the stations are "hidden" yet still working (and yes I know you can do it without RCTM however I don't have the patience) and I submit both a SV6 and SV7 file, will there be a negative impact in the judging process as the SV6 version will not have the desired look and feel as the intended SV7 version.

I doubt it, due to the simple fact that RCTM hardly adds anything useful to the game. Like I said above, you should know this going in that 100% of the community will never have RCTM, so you cannot complain about it.

It's really getting to me to be quite honest... I have two new things underway, both with RCTM as it makes it 1000x easier for me to do (or in this case, not have to do) and saves a lot of time.

It doesn't make anything easier to do because RCTM doesn't do anything, it just changes the way YOU see it.

The problem with RCTM is that I, for one, would have to install it. Without feeling the need for it, whatsoever.

Even though it seems as if you don't understand how RCTM works, this quote about sums it up for me. I have no need for it at all, so no, I honestly do not care about viewing a park with it even if the parkmaker intended it to be used.

of course, it's as easy as possible to just get rctm, or vice versa, restore to original rct2, just so you can see a park the way it's supposed to be seen. to me, this just causes inconsistency.

I totally agree here about the inconsistency, but personally, I can't see it effecting the score I give it as a panelist. If anything it might take away from the score regardless of if I view it with RCTM or RCT2 as I know the person is incapable of spending the time to get the look he wants 'everyone' to see.

Nevermind

As for JJ, I'd watch out, I think it's pretty clear Chris Sawyer doesn't like people ripping off his game. Contacting Chris Sawyer? Good luck with that one, sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

What annoys me most, is you're trying to push an agenda and a standard on this community and you're entire argument is that "it makes it easier for me" but then claim it's about everybody else and that people won't be able to view the parks the way you view them.

I think you mean Levis on the first part...
And you're saying I'm doing something which I am not... All I'm doing is having fun creating something then sharing it that's all. What's the harm in that? In RCT2 you have fun doing what you do while this is me having fun in my own way(granted outside the game). My username being mentioned isn't even relevant
I've not pushed anything on other people, it's others who have done that not me... I understand everyones points but just because some people don't like something or even if noone does, I'll still continue cos I am having a good time doing what I am doing. And as Levis said... We seem to be getting close to things that can't be done in the regular rct2 but as he said we just plan for it to be an updater so it's small download sizes. I personally see it as a different game, and it's just the same as not accepting RCT3 parks so I see no harm in that at all(although I think you do, or am i wrong there), it's your choice, noone elses and you are right in doing so if you don't like it. It's not a debate that needs to be had. I personally play rctll, rct2 and rctm. I see them as seperate games while everyone else still seems to see rctm as the same as rct2, granted it is but cos of the graphical change nature of it is slightly not, but that's just my opinion anyways.

I understand where you're coming from, JJ. I actually applaud you for having fun trying to advance the game. It has been a passion of mine for a long time aswell and I have thought many times how neat it would be to de-compile and take all the graphics but reprogram the game to be open source so we could get around the hardcoded limitations of the game to add new track models.

I did mean Levis. I figured it was the RCTM team as a whole but I didn't mean to address you personally. But it's evident Chris doesn't like it due to the things he implemented in the first game.

I know it seems as if all this lies on your shoulders, when it doesn't. You have been noble in not trying to force this as a standard and I appreciate that. It just gets very annoying when other people claim there is some war going on whether NE accepts this as a standard or not, when the simple truth is, nothing about the files they submit is different except for the extensions which wasn't even an issue until the newer version was released. So in a sense, trying to get us to pack SV7 and have the panel view these in RCTM, is trying to force us onto a standard where there is obvious conflict.

I wouldn't go as far as seeing it as a new game but I respect your opinion on it. I don't see much in RCTM that makes it a different game at all.

I agree with much of what Geewizz says. The problem with RCTM at the moment is that it changes things rather than extends things.
as has been pointed out before I don't really agree with swapping the textures over as it can ruin how a park was meant to be viewed.

if these changes could be implemented along side the old ones then we would have a whole kettle of fish as old parks could be viewed as intended and you would have added more functionality. Other Enhancements like better resolution support and a mute function will also help. I know this is much harder to do but the rewards would be much better.

You face a different challenge to those over at OpenTTD as it didnt matter so much if you couldn't open older maps. (although i think all versions are still backwards compatible just not forwards compatible). This is not the case with RCT as its imperative that old maps look the way they were intended.

Now if you are able to implement the changes alongside the current version rather than replacing them. You Would also validate the use of the .sv7 extension as RCT2 would then not be able to open RCTM parks. Now this may be against what you were aiming for initially but i think its really the only way this is going to work.

I hope that made sense