CrownVic95

Thank you - good to know. I did not know of GOG.com, so looked at it, did some browsing there, and found a lots of nostalgia. Lots of the Microprose classics I remember so fondly and played for hours on end. I had forgotten that Sid Meier was one of the Microprose founders and that the original Railroad Tycoon was a Microprose game. They had RT3 and Sid Meiers' Railroads listed there, too, both at 9.99 compared to RRTII's 5.99. So the best of the three by far (IMO) for long-term interest is the cheapest. 😉

I hear ya, Jeffry, about hanging on to hardware from days gone by - much better days in many respects. I did the same for as long as I had room, but I've had to downsize to one room studio living in order to survive at a decent and safe living standard in this area. I'd more than fill a room with the hardware and software I've collected and used since 1977. Back in that fall, I was selling Heathkit H8s. I loved W98SE and ran it for several years into the XP era, on two or three different machines. Until something (I don't remember what, exactly) compelled me to move to W2K. My W10 laptop is still doing fine after 7 years, so it could be my RRTII staple if need be. But in the order of today's new world, I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to stealthily shut down and render all W10 machines past "end-of-life" unbootable. I don't really expect that to happen.....nor would it shock me if it did, either. Thanks for chiming in.

Lately, on W10 startup, I'm getting more and more frequent messages from Big Brother Microsoft reminding me of W10's looming end of life, end of support next year. I couldn't care less about MS's end of support. Rather, I view it as a refreshing relief.....as it always was when we lived in a free country and clung to a now-known-to-be-silly notion that Bill Gates and his ilk valued American freedom for all as we did. I ran W98SE, W2K, and XP for YEARS past their "end-of-life" with no problem or issue of any kind. 20+ years ago, there was no requirement to be a lemming, though most behaved like there was. It went without saying that the duration of your use of these classic OSs was an individual prerogative and decision. I wonder, though, if that will still be the case when Big Brother deems it time to herd ALL of the cattle W11-ward. Looking ahead to that possibility.....that of Windows 10 being user-banned and thrown on the great PROGRESSIVE trash heap with the fossil fuel transportation that enabled our escape from the stone age, a critically important question emerges....... Will RRTII run on W11? We've been lucky so far, as OSs come and go, but will we continue to be. Is anyone running RRTII on Windows11?

A final? note and update pertaining to my Thunderbird comments here. Over the last 20 or so years, I have observed an alarming steady decline in software quality as new updates are released. Some of them subtle and some of them disastrous. Most memorable for me was the Microsoft Windows 10 monthly patch in the fall of 2017, I believe it was, that rendered my brand new laptop unbootable. Fortunately, it was brand new and Best Buy took care of me with the HP machine that I'm still using. Anyway, I've been burned so many times with these disappointments that today I don't even consider applying new software updates without first doing extensive reading/research, including all the comments I can find on the experience of other users. Back to Thunderbird. I can't recall a new version of any other software that I have used that was hyped as much as version 115 was - for months and months prior to release.....and continued with user commentary for months afterward. The more I read, the more concerned I became. And one could not possibly do the research I was doing without being bombarded perpetually with its new name - Supernova. So I guess what I should have said was that everyone who has extensively researched the new Thunderbird version knows that they call it Supernova. But I'm reminded that not everyone researches like I do. I held off updating for many, many months due to the alarming amount of negative user feedback out there., including countless reports of not even being able to send/receive mail. Scary stuff. But the constant update nagging built into Thunderbird became so tiresome that I finally decided to bite the bullet and do it, with a plan to move to another of several options if I found myself agreeing with the Supernova is a disaster folks. I updated a few weeks ago and have seen no problem. In fact, hardly enough change to be worth much talking about. Have no idea what all the (Internet) fuss was about, but there was too much of it to ignore. So, as we all knew, some fuss is nonsense. But some is ignored at our peril. 😉

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.

Jeffry, thanks but I'm a fairly well educated 72 year old - not a second grader. I suggest you look at the map in question and re-think your suggestion. We're not talking about the real world here. On this map, there are more trees, more densely packed in the area just south and east of Perth than in any map area where logging camps abound. In both cases, the squares are labeled as lush grass. If the squares around logging camps were designated "forest" or some such thing, then you might be onto something. I've looked at all that and thought about all that. First thing I did. And yes, I'm well aware of other ways to bring logs into play. I've been doing that for years with port supply modification. But I shouldn't have to do that - I want some logging camps. And, in my mind, this strange and elusive phenomenon has become an intellectual challenge for which I intend to find the answer. I don't think there's a RRTII map God looking down and preventing logging camps in WA just because he feels they shouldn't be there. Thanks anyway. 🙂

Ok, it's time for me to share a frustration that has bugged me for years with no progress toward finding a solution or understanding the (so far) inexplicable observations that generate it. It may pertain to this map OR it may be something about using the editor generally that I don't understand. It may also be yet another glitch about which there's nothing we can do. Just wanted to throw it out there for comment. I love this Australia 1850 WA map, but I didn't play it very long before feeling the need to tweak it in the editor for the purpose of increasing start-up cargo resources. One strange thing I observed right away is that you never see a logging camp generated in the WA territory near Perth where you start. NEVER. EVER. Lots of logging camps pop up over in South Australia, but none EVER in WA. Having done lots and lots of other tweaking to this map and still unsatisfied, this morning I finally decided to investigate and do something about the logging camp problem. I looked at the percentages set in both the regional marker and each individual towns, finding no explanation there. The numbers were similar to that for iron ore mines and I've always seen lots of iron ore mines. Nonetheless, I tweaked them higher so that they were higher than every other industry except Bauxite, which doesn't appear until 1910. My map starts in 1855. What did that tweak accomplish? Absolutely nothing. But that only confirmed what I already intuitively knew. There's no way on earth random chance generation based on percentages in the same ballpark could explain NEVER EVER seeing a logging camp in hundreds, if not thousands, of restarts over the years. So I went for broke, still feeling though that the solution lied elsewhere. I reduced the percentage of all other industries to zero and raised logging camps to 100. Nothing. Didn't make a damn bit of difference except to eliminate ALL other industry generation outside the towns. I have a feeling that, if we can make sense of this and understand what's causing it, it will be a big future help generally to those of us carrying the perfectionist bug and refuse to settle for life without logs. 🙂

OK, my previous comment can be ignored as I have delved deeper and educated myself. I had seen those red Xs criss-crossing towns in the editor, but never knew they were called reserved cells or that they could be placed like buildings in the editor. I gathered they were there to keep space open for track through towns, but paid them little attention beyond that.

I'm afraid I must plead complete ignorance on the subject of "reserved tiles". Don't know what they are or how they're used.

I re-read your posts and it occurred to me that maybe you're talking only about initial map generation....and not long term growth. If that is the case, then there's no difference to reconcile. Because, yes, placing buildings does kill initial generation of others.

As you said, this has come up before, but I haven't done any testing on it for several years. But my recollection was that I did see growth whereas you said that you did not. But when I noticed this newer thread, I wanted to take a fresh look and see if my memories were valid, or going off the tracks in my old age. 🙂 So this morning I started a new game. RRTII version 1.57ddh, Australia 1850 - WA map. In the editor I had placed a Lumber Mill at Bunbury and a Paper Mill at Augusta. Started the game. As expected, no houses (or any other buildings than the ones I placed) at either Bunbury or Augusta - we've both seen that before. Each of the other similar sized small towns started with one house, as they always do. Played 8 years and saw no growth anywhere - no additional buildings in my towns, anyway. Then, at the start of the ninth year, both Bunbury and Augusta had a new house! And, interestingly, they were the only towns that added housing to that point. I expect to see more housing in the other towns in the next 4-5 years, the way it typically goes. I wonder what accounts for this observed difference. I assume you're waiting enough years? I've seen it take closer to 15 (at least with this small map). The 8 I experienced this morning was fast for this map. Anyway, just passing it along for what it's worth.