Questions on a review

Talk about all things related to Railroads! here
Post Reply
snoopy55
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Centralia, Ill, USA

Questions on a review

Post by snoopy55 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:26 am

Karsten, your review on Lamas' Northern Germany map was nice, but a bit confusing.
Quite a brain teaser, with 3rd class passengers morphing into 2nd into 1st a bit counterintuitive at first. But once you see it as simple good transformation, the concepts all fall into place as an extention of Lowell's "Mud workers".
The Mud Workers concept was simple, Workers turned into Goods and Tools turned into Passengers in a lot of the out-of-city industries. Workers are produced in all but the smallest citytype and Passengers in all but the 3 smallest citytypes In Northern Germany the 3rd class do the dirty work at the out-of-city industries and are available from all size citytypes. It's just that the smaller ones produce them slower. And then there is the Ticket Office producing them slowly too. The larger cities upgrade the 3rd class to 2nd class and the 2nd class to 1st class. This may be a distant style of Lowells' concept, but not an extension. Did Lama even play Mud Skippers?
The service building concept is a very neat innovation.
You lost me on that, I cannot find any mention of a 'service building'
A very polished scenario, everything works perfectly smoothly, no crashes, gleaming icons, pleasing landscape: overall certainly what I call an excellent CIC standard map!
What is this 'CIC standard' now? All of my maps have had those 'standards', for lack of a better term. Many maps before SAMs and CICs had them. In your 'CIC Guide' you gave requirements for CIC type maps. All the SAMs posted, at least on BR, no longer have FPKs and do have working Event XMLs. Does this make them CIC style now? A CIC is a SAM, a Stand Alone Map, it requires no other material or maps in order to run. To quote you from 2 years ago, "At the end of the day, CIC simply tries to achieve what most of us presumably want: maps which load and run without problems," But that has not been achived with all the 3 or 4 CICs yet, and only within the last year with 2 of them. Even your maps were written in the style of SAMs, not CICs, Lowells' style of double XMLs.

Warll, this is not an arguement. It is simply someone wanting to find out a few answers.

Karsten?

PS - from your CIC Guide
I am quite prepared to believe that Snoopy got his ideas independently, inadvertedly making SAM maps "self-contained" by reducing unnecessary/harmful elements being loaded into memory.
"Adv. 1 inadvertently - without knowledge or intention" Just for the record, there was nothing 'inadvertent' about the designing of the SAM concept. I'd point you to the thread I wrote where it was explained how we started working on them because it was what Tijer and I intended to create in the first place to solve the Global problem, but alas, because of the requests of certain members, the whole thread has been deleted. The Stand Alone Map concept was what was intended and what we spent 2 months working on. We did not stumble on it, nor did it slap us in the face screaming 'Hey, here I am!'.

All the work I did for this forum and 1/3 of my posts have been deleted. Sad, very sad.

I'd ask you to rewrite that statement, but I doubt it will happen.
Last edited by snoopy55 on Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....

User avatar
karsten
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Questions on a review

Post by karsten » Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:32 pm

I am on holiday in the Cape Town area the next few weeks (map research, anyone? :D ). When I am back I will be pleased to clear up any confusion that may exist.

User avatar
karsten
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Questions on a review

Post by karsten » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:41 pm

:D Back from holiday with a tan! 8) So here are the answers:

Q1: We should credit people who contribute new ideas. With Lama's innovative people conversion, it is useful to remind ourselves that Lowell introduced a similar idea some years ago. Whether you call passenger conversion an "extention" or a "style" is not important.

Q2: To quote Lama: "You can also increase supply by building service buildings in the communities." A neat new idea in my opinion.

Q3: We owe the CIC (Clean Install Compatible) standard to the excellent programming intuition of Universum. His innovative "Utah" map was published in May 2007. It introduced four fundamental innovations, which proved a watershed success in making virtually crash-free those user maps that otherwise follow standard Firaxis SMR map XMLs:

CIC standard
1 Isolation of critical UserMaps files
2 A properly specified "random event" file
3 No .fpk compressed assets in the UserMaps folder
4 Empty CustomAssets folder

Almost one year later, ie from March 2008 onwards, "SAM" maps started to circulate. I was delighted to see that they fulfilled condition 1, by requiring the UserMaps folder to contain only a single map. (Universum had achieved condition 1 by providing a batch file to switch "on and off" critical map files in the UserMaps folder.)

To my disappointment, Conditions 2, 3 and 4 were not fulfilled, however. The SAM makers insisted on a) omitting a map-specific random event file, b) continued use of .fpk files and c) placing .fpk files into CustomAssets. This resulted in years of "mysteriously" crashing SAM maps, even though a better solution was available.

I am much encouraged to read Snoopy's statement above that "All the SAMs posted, at least on BR, no longer have FPKs and do have working Event XMLs." If this means that after four years, SAM map makers are belatedly supporting CIC conditions 2-4, that is excellent news for all SMR users!

snoopy55
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Centralia, Ill, USA

Re: Questions on a review

Post by snoopy55 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:58 pm

Welcome back. I hope the tan was not the only enjoyment you got during your vacation ;)

Q1: Yes, we should credit people who contribute new ideas. I could go thru all the maps ever made and see if someone ever did a passenger type for a different passenger type, but time is not something I have a lot of these days. I'll give Lowell that credit for a 'style'.

Q2: 'Hotels, ticket offices, restaurants, post offices, and railway express agencies' Hotels have been around for quite a while. So have Banks, Casinos, City Halls, Depositories, Distirbution Centers, Gold Vaults, Ports, Warehouses, Saloons, Ski Resorts and Stock Exchanges. Some exchange Goods for Goods, some Passenger types for Goods, some Goods for Passenger types and some Passenger types for Passenger types. The title 'service buildings' may be new, but the concept is not. How he used them may be different, but how mappers use Industries changes all the time.

Q3: Universum did not build a CIC as it was defined by Lowell. CIC required no other custom maps to be loaded into the game. Universums' Utah simply had two .bat files to set it up to be run and then undo the effects of the first .bat. The idea was never used by any other Mappers.

Now, about your CIC Standard. I take it this is different from your 'CIC Guide' requirments. But even as a 'standard', the definition seems to change each time it is refered to.

CIC Standard

1 Isolation of critical UserMaps files. By your remark later refering to SAMs, 'requiring the UserMaps folder to contain only a single map' Universums Utah does not meet this requirment. This is why he added the .bat files. You could have a non-SAM version of every map created and Utah would still run. He never required UserMaps to be empty. Tijer and I were the first to use this requirement. In Lowells original first post in the thread that SAMs were announced in he felt that this was a complete waste of a persons time and that he did not accept the idea. I'd direct you to this thread, but it was deleted along with about 1000 of my other posts.

2 A properly specified "random event" file. Tijer and I discovered this a while after SAMs were posted and started to correct them. The ones in the original maps thrad could not be corrected because I was no longer Moderator. If we had not been attacked by Lowell claiming he discovered the concept first, we would have better tested or SAMs and found the problem before posting them. We sent 5 or 6 SAMs to 5 members, you being one of them, and no mention of a problem was told to us. And a note on your last paragraph: The SAMs posted on BR have met the 'CIC Standards' 2 and 3 for a couple of years. The repair of them started as they were being posted on BR. Not having to answer to the accusations on this forum gave Bobby and I the time to accomplish this. And as to CIC Standard 4, that was a requirement from the beginning of SAMs ( viewtopic.php?p=23280#p23280 )

3 No .fpk compressed assets in the UserMaps folder. This was not done because using FPKs caused CTDs, it was done to stop the arguments. The Original game uses ONLY FPKs, and my crew of testers and I never had any problem with them. The reason they were pulled from the BBs was duplicate files when they were used.

4 Empty CustomAssets folder. As stated above, SAMs never placed anything in CustomAssets. Read this post: viewtopic.php?p=32143#p32143

Now, to this 'CIC Standard' Don't you think you should find a different name for this? One thing you do not cover in your 'CIC Standards' is that the map run without problems. That should be the first thing. And none of the original CICs completely run without problems. While the 'Holidays In Ohio ToyTrains' can be run,(i think) it cannot be run with AIs. And this is not because it was designed that way as claimed by the author, it is because of an oddity with the game that I found while messing with the map. If an Industry has more than 8 Resource exchanges in it, the map will not allow AIs to be used. The version of that map on BR has had the 'overloaded' Industries edited to allow AIs to be used. Even Lowell's current version of Mud Skippers cannot be played which is why you had to upload a version of your own. The CIC style of map is one in which a fully listed Global style XML is used and a map named XML is used. Leave Lowell to claim the name CIC map and come up with a name of your own for the standard. Right now all SAMs are your CIC Standard, whether they work or not. CIC was just a name given to a SAM based map that had unneedded XMLs added to it. You do the reviews of the maps, call it Karstens' Standard or something like that.

Onward.
To my disappointment, Conditions 2, 3 and 4 were not fulfilled, however. The SAM makers insisted on a) omitting a map-specific random event file, b) continued use of .fpk files and c) placing .fpk files into CustomAssets. This resulted in years of "mysteriously" crashing SAM maps, even though a better solution was available.
Here you accuse STEP Inc of omitting the map-specific random event file on purpose. The early SAMs were created by creating a fully listed RRT_Goods.xml file from the one contained in the map, fully listing any Mod used by the map and gathering any Mod assets used by the map and placing them in a single folder. FPKs were used because at that time most map makers were using them and they caused no problem that we could see. And again, Nothing was placed in the CustomAssets Folder! SAMs were a one or two folders, depending on how they were built, placed in an EMPTY UserMaps. It was also stated that CustomAssets HAD to be empty. At first there were a few who insisted that assets HAD to be placed in the CustomAssets folder, tho they later admitted that the maps ran fine the way they were originally designed. I do believe Dwax was the only one claiming that certain SAMs would not even start up for him. No one else reported this problem.
I am much encouraged to read Snoopy's statement above that "All the SAMs posted, at least on BR, no longer have FPKs and do have working Event XMLs." If this means that after four years, SAM map makers are belatedly supporting CIC conditions 2-4, that is excellent news for all SMR users!
As I said, the Event XMLs were fixed as the maps were posted on BR. The FPKs were removed not because of crashes, but because of a need for an example of how to better post a map. When I build a map I always use FPKs for my Mod assets. This way if I choose not to use a Mod later, it is a simple deleting of a single FPK file, not searching for every file connected to the Mod. When the map runs and has been tested by others, I open the FPKs and put the files into a single 'Warehouse' folder. This is my way of doing it. Each to his own.

The 'slapping in the face' of your post was very uncalled for. But I'm used to that from quite a few people on this forum.

If this thread is not deleted we now have a partial list of what the CIC Standard consists of.

And you did not reply to my PS in the first post. The origin of SAMs was given here: viewtopic.php?p=23280#p23280
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....

User avatar
karsten
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Questions on a review

Post by karsten » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:11 am

I rest my case, m'lud. :lol:

snoopy55
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Centralia, Ill, USA

Re: Questions on a review

Post by snoopy55 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:05 am

Well I have to thank you, I'm now $20 richer! I was betting with 4 others that all that I'd get back was a short 1 liner.

This just simply proves my point that what I had to say was correct. Seems to happen all the time on this forum. At the least you could have admitted you were wrong. I know, fat chance.

And for those of you not from Britain, M'lud
used to address a judge in a British court of law (=short for 'my lord')

BTW, the Passenger for Goods exchange with Industries was done in August 21st of 2007, in the Amerigonia map of Dr. Fragg, so it was not an original idea of Lowells. You need to read your own post: viewtopic.php?p=42059#p42059
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....

User avatar
karsten
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Questions on a review

Post by karsten » Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:29 am

You are quite right. :shock:
Kudos to Dr Frag! :P

snoopy55
Posts: 1961
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:13 am
Location: Centralia, Ill, USA

Re: Questions on a review

Post by snoopy55 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:22 pm

Drats! Lost my $20. :cry: I bet you'd never reply.

All that proof given to you and you only admit to being wrong about one thing. Of course it didn't involve me or my crew. Few of your gang will admit to the truths about us and our accomplishments.
I'm correct 97% of the time..... who cares about the other 4%....

Post Reply