CrownVic95

The link to the patch is still there and available on the author's original post at the top of this thread.

Everyone who uses Thunderbird knows that they call their newest release (in July '23) Supernova. Clearly, you don't want to answer my question or even have a discussion. (More than) enough time wasted. Good day.

So I take it that you have Supernova and are using it? Do you like it or do you wish you had 102 back?

Speaking of Thunderbird, do you use it? If so, have you succumbed to their "latest and greatest"....Supernova? I've used TB for 5 years now, since my XP machine bit the dust and I had to move to Windows 10. But I read too many harsh and skeptical reviews of 115 early on to warm at all to the idea of "upgrading". I have stayed with 102 and, given all I've read for the last 7 months or so, there is no way in the world I will "upgrade". Especially since it has become a nightmare to try to "downgrade" to a previous TB version. And it got that way even before 115's release. But now, from most reports, it's worse than ever. I'm happy with 102, except for it's daily nagging to "upgrade"....which can't be turned off any way that I have been able to find. I've looked at some alternatives, but found none that didn't have issues that gave me pause.

Well, so much for that theory, or supposition, observation. It's (apparent) validity lasted only a matter of days. Firefox is now right back to opening minimally at default 100% scaling. There was an update to version 122.01 that I installed on Feb 7th, I believe, just 3 days ago. It would seem logical to blame the change on that update, but would be just a guess. Mozilla has a long history of breaking Firefox with "upgrades" and updates, but I've yet to find any alternative that is preferable overall. Firefox is the worst browser out there.......except for all the others. 😉

Glad to hear you found and fixed it. Your post reminded me of a similar issue I had with Firefox for....years, I'd say....until I stumbled on the cause by accident. Most detail and text is too small for my old eyes on my 21" monitor that I run at 1920X1080. So I set the scaling in Windows 10 to 150% - have done it for years. But there is one exception to that, one program that runs off the screen at that scale and can't be adapted to run compatibly with it - Railroad Tycoon II 😉. So back to Firefox. When I started Firefox, it would (almost) always open to a mini-rectangle at the top of the screen (along with the standard taskbar icon) and I would have to single click it twice to expand to normal. I gave up trying to figure out why and just lived with it for a long time. Then one day recently I opened it immediately after running RRTII at its required 100% scale. There it was - full screen (with little tiny text), no extra clicking required. That was it! It opened with its modified version of "minimized" because of my scaling setting. Opens normally when set at 100% for younger eyes. 🙂 I had experienced that from time to time before (which is why I said "almost" above), but never made the connection 'til just the other day.

So have you resolved your issue?

I know the feeling (of frustration) though I haven't experienced that specific problem. I ran RRT II for many years on W98SE, then XP for many more. But my HD finally bit the dust and I bought a new laptop running Windows 10. So I skipped W7 altogether and have never had a RRT II problem with W10. I didn't know they were still updating Win 7. My first hunch would be to look at video drivers. Did that update mess with any of your drivers?

Final comment on this subtopic....... I qualified my "isn't true" comment in the same sentence. I don't doubt or discount your observation. My issue is that your wording implies an expectation rather than a possible, but rare exception under unique circumstances. Especially when you term it "a bug in the game". Who knows why you observed what you did. But it was the exception and not the rule. It is probably next to impossible to design a map editor that will accommodate and respond in desired fashion to every possible mod conceived in the human mind. Plant your townhouses, Mike. In all likelihood, the only effect you'll see is accelerated revenue and growth. 👍

You’ve posted this before and I scratched my head in puzzlement wondering where/how you got such an impression. It simply isn’t true….generally….which is not to say there aren’t isolated cases with unique circumstances where it could rear its head. RRT II has aspects of game behavior that none of us fully understand, so you might well have experienced such isolated case(s). But that said, I have never seen the growth prevention based on planted buildings to which you refer. This post prompted me to run another test, which I ran using my favorite Australia - 1850 WA map. I put a port and a townhouse in Bunbury, a lumber mill in Bridgetown, a steel mill in Katanning, and a tool and die factory in Narrogin. They are all “towns” that generate just one house at startup. I found a good while back – years ago – that when you add buildings in one-house towns, game generation omits that one house. Leaves it barren but for the added building. In this test I just began, I planted a replacement house in Katanning, but left Bridgetown, Narrogin, and Bunbury bare of houses, except for Bunbury’s planted townhouse. Bottom line is this. I began yesterday in 1870. Now it is 1882 and Bridgetown and Narrogin have both added houses where they had none. Katanning has added a house to its 1 planted, so now has 2. Bunbury is busier business-wise and has added 2 houses to its planted townhouse and thus now has metropolis level demand. The game begins with Perth as the only metropolis and it’s a major milestone – a big leap forward – to grow another town to demand beyond passengers and mail. Always a celebration. This is the first example I’ve observed of a town growing to metropolis level beginning with just a townhouse. It takes 4 houses to reach that level normally, but it only takes 2 added to a townhouse. Interesting and very logical. Phil’s attention to fine detail throughout the game never ceases to impress me. Anyway, I’ve done lots of planting and it has never stifled growth.

No question about it. In fact, without hesitation I declare it THE BEST railroad game and one of the best games of any type of all time. I fire it up nearly every day. I had a stroke in September which limits me a bit physically these days, no doubt contributing to even more RRT II time. After my stroke, I spent a month in rehab without my computer, without RRT II, and I've never been so bored. But even before the stroke, I rarely missed a RRT II day. For years I have been solidly addicted to the Australia 1850 WA map and my fascination with its endless creative opportunities/possibilities will keep me captured for life. Another opportunity for a big THANKS to Phil and to the sadly small, but very special group here who truly understand and appreciate this great game's appeal.

Those of you who read my comments awhile back about the lack of logging camp generation on most of the Australia - 1850 WA map know of my frustration in trying to understand that phenomenon and to somehow overcome it in the editor. I fiddled with it for a good while, but finally gave up after making zero (apparent) progress in achieving an understanding. Seems clear that there is more going on behind the scenes in the program than the editor gives us access to. Continuing to fiddle now and then in the editor, I stumbled upon another interesting head-scratcher this morning. I was revamping the Australia - 1850 WA map and one of the things I wanted to try was game-play without mountains, in that mountainous terrain is/was a real headache in those early years of locomotives. So I bulldozed all terrain in operational areas to sea-level. Started a new scenario with my flattened map and what popped out at me immediately was that there was no coal generation. None whatsoever in the flattened areas, where it had always appeared before. Restarted several times with the same result, proving that it wasn't just random probability on the first map. Where hills began again, there was a line of coal mines that "knew" not to dare step over the line bordering the flats. Why? How? Where/what in the programming tells coal mines that they must have altitude? And clearly, from game experience , it doesn't take much altitude at all. And why does it affect coal mines and not iron mines? Iron mines were plentiful on the flats. My gut feeling tells me that this phenomenon is related somehow to the aforementioned lack of logging camps, with no tangible reason for it in the editor. If we ever unravel one mystery, I think we'll understand the other.

Sad, since this is the best game ever written IMHO. Best for maintaining perpetual interest of an analytical mind. I see playing it to the day I die, though my hope is that day will never come. 🙂 Then again, it is 25 years old now and, for most, there's not a whole lot left to say about it. But I'll take this opportunity to say once again Thank You, Phil.

I'd be unaware of that limit if it were 15, especially for goods and steel. They are always hauled immediately upon production.

Frustrating that there are so few of us who remain interested in this great game. I still consider it the very best ever designed, understanding that it is geared for analytical minds. And perhaps analytical minds are all but extinct in the world of 2022. I continue to be at a loss to understand why there seems to be nothing I can tweak in the map editor to get logging camps to appear in Western Australia. It just makes no sense. Logging camps always appear in easternmost South Australia, covered by a different map point setup. Logging camps there are set at 60%, but setting them at 60% in WA nets you nothing, despite there being more trees (visually) on the map there than where logging camps do appear. There has to be another factor here that does not appear in the editor, at least not anywhere one would expect to find it. But it has to be something simple that is software controlled, like everything else in the game. At this point, it is purely an intellectual challenge. Drives me crazy that it will not allow me logging camps for reasons it will not divulge. 🙂 I need Phil Steinmeyer to chime in here. And having mentioned Phil, what better time to thank him once again for arguably the greatest game of all time.