RCT Discussion / OpenRCT: advantages and disadvantages

What would this switch do exactly? Disable RCT2-only features?

I was about to ask that as well: can you detail how different rct:ll is from rct2?

Providing a detailed list of behaviours would be the best thing you can do to speed up coming of such features.

I have to go soon, but in short: more land textures, smaller height units (allowing for more precise stacking!), anddifferent path mechanics. From the top of my head those are the three big differences.

But for the few people who still use LL, I don't think its worth it.

I don't understand why it needs to be a seperate "LL mode". If those features were implemented wouldn't we want to have them all the time?

I kinda agree with nicman, for the 3parks that get built in 3years... that's a tall order to ask for...

I don't understand why it needs to be a seperate "LL mode". If those features were implemented wouldn't we want to have them all the time?

 

That's more the way I view it. Personally, ever since RCT2 was released I've wished to have an "improved" RCT2 with all its benefits but these missing LL features reinstated. To me that's exactly what OpenRCT2 seems to be aiming at, or at least to be capable of. A sort of fusion of the two games. If it requires a new save format, so be it. However, one thing that could be handy to have is the option to be able to save to both sv6 and sv4 besides the new format. That would of course require one to not use any RCT2 features if intending to save to sv4, and vice versa. Would something like that be possible? Seems to be a better idea than either a separate "LL-mode" or "OpenLL" game...

We plan to turn landscape tiles into objects, similar to rides, path and water types.

 

I'm afraid saving to SV6 and SV4 is too difficult - the game would have to enforce the old limits many people would want to get rid of - or rather, three sets of limits: OpenRCT2, SV6 and SV4, with numerous differences between them. Or it would have to get rid of ride entries, objects, map tiles and things like that that don't fit in the file format. And that would open another can of worms, because it would then have to decide which are dispensable and which are not.

 

Rather, we aim at very good one-way compatibility: you should be able to load any SC4, SV4, SC6 or SV6 into OpenRCT2 and continue where you left off.

Why turn these into objects? The landscape tool is much faster and more rapid than placing out individual objects.

Why turn these into objects?

 

Because it would be nice to be able to make custom terrain textures. Putting them in object files means they can export with the park. The alternative would be to put them in g2.dat, but that would mean submitting a PR everytime you want to add a new terrain texture.

 

 

Why turn these into objects? The landscape tool is much faster and more rapid than placing out individual objects.

 

Why would the landscape tool be removed just because there was a new object format?

Haha there sounds like a little miscommunication here. I think what is implied is that land textures will somehow move to objects as far as code and inner working is concerned, but still have the landscape tool. So, it sounds like the landscape tool will draw from a set of objects instead of the g2 dat, and that will allow for custom additions in the future. Is that accurate folks? Or am I way out in left field?

If so, that would be sweet indeed! Sorry for misunderstanding.

I've tried the hack explained for the entertainer costume, how do I find the staff id?

`staff list`, they are really all listed if you execute `help`.

Thanks, that helped a lot

Haha there sounds like a little miscommunication here. I think what is implied is that land textures will somehow move to objects as far as code and inner working is concerned, but still have the landscape tool. So, it sounds like the landscape tool will draw from a set of objects instead of the g2 dat, and that will allow for custom additions in the future. Is that accurate folks? Or am I way out in left field?

 
That's exactly what I meant, yes.
 
--------------------------
 
Another thing we're currently working on, which is still in development:
 


We could already import rides and peeps, and now we're working on importing the vehicles, litter and other sprites (like ducks, jumping fountain water, steam particles).
The vehicle stuff is not yet in the develop branch (you can see from the junior rc it's still glitchy), but the litter and other sprites are.

Just what all of you have been waiting for: importing parks with all the puke intact.

Good work.

 

I was about to ask that as well: can you detail how different rct:ll is from rct2?

Providing a detailed list of behaviours would be the best thing you can do to speed up coming of such features.

 

I was a little shocked by your question, but figured you never played LL much. So I set out to collect differences, and create side-by-side screens to illustrate to people who can't tell themselves. The list grew rather long in very little time that I gave up.

 

At least, here are some results of things I noticed after 5 minutes of comparison.

 

1 Staff window (low priority)

 

ORCT: 

 

RCTLL: 

 

 

2 Wall, ground and path textures and sprites textures + path support sprites

This is what mostly causes the different look.

 

ORCT: 

 

RCTLL: 

 

As stated many times before, the missing land textures won't be available until we switch to a new different file format. The .SV6 file structure can't differentiate between any more than the ones in the G1.DAT file.

I was a little shocked by your question, but figured you never played LL much.

 

I never really played a lot of any of those games, not even OpenRCT2. I'm here only to code.

 

And to repeat what was said over and over again, last time by YoloSweggLord in the post just above mine:

We want to maintain SV6 compatibility which imposes certain technical restrictions. SV4 import is something we were able to hack together, but since we internally use what SV6, we can only do so much until the format changes.

Well you asked for the differences and I told you some. If it really has to be a new file format, okay.