MP2 Map File Information

[djf01]

Here is a bit of incomplete, basic information about the binary layout of MP2 and (I presume) MAP files used by RRT2:

Offset:    Item:

$00002 Filename/Map Title

...           

$0023B Filename/Map Title

$0025A Map Descripition

...

Lots of stuff I can't/haven't identified, but there is a swad of what looks like raster data which I presume is the initial overview image

...

$0C57E Map Data.  (This location is only roughly right)

Occupies 10bytes for each cell.  Easily recognisable by the 10 byte pattern.  Most adjacent map cells have the same properties.  One day I'll work out what each byte means.

...

Elevation Data.  (Width+1) x (Height+1) * 2 bytes.

Each entry is a 32 bit integer repesenting the height of the top left hand corner of each cell.  Each row has an extra entry being the top right hand corner of the right most cell.  There is also an extra row for the heights of the bottom corners of the bottom row.

...

Some other unidentified data

...

Player data

...

Town data

...

Territory data

...

Events

[Brejlovec]

Good work man! Still, [move]I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE AT ALL  :O[/move]

[Gwizz]

Interesting.  I wonder if it would be possible to slip extra content into the code.

Some of the people at the old PopTop site said the RT2 code was about maxed out

and that was the reason they wrote a new code for RT3. 

I believe it was really the 3D they were after. 

I'm still happy with the the 2D code.

I prefer RT2 over RT3 at this point.

[djf01]

Interesting.  I wonder if it would be possible to slip extra content into the code.

Almost certainly not.  And certainly not by me!

From reading some of Milo's work on RT3 it seems RT3 is a lot "softer" than RT2.  Building types and their effect on cargo chains, locos etc are all in tables, and many of these in replaceable files not bound to the main EXE.

I prefer RT2 over RT3 at this point.

Do you think you could give us all some insight into why?

[Gwizz]

Quote from: Gwizz on Yesterday at 07:04:38 PM

I prefer RT2 over RT3 at this point.

Do you think you could give us all some insight into why?

Hi djfo1

My biggest disappoint came when RT3 shutdown development early without completing what was planned for RT3.

The looks of RT3 track needed to be fixed and wasn't.

Drop shipping was dropped.  Managers were dropped. 

Even testing was cut short.  It seemed near the end

suggestions by beta tester received few responces or much interest.

I'm sure the developers was told to get the game done by the

owners, so the onwers could get the game out the door sooner.

I believe the developers wanted to give the game higher quality,

but I doubt they were given a choice in this.

Now RT2 is not 3D but that is not a biggy for me.

I really like the use of managers & Drop shipping.

Track laying is about on a par with RT3.  I like RT2 track building a bit better.  The RT2 editor although not as easy to learn is more powerful.

I have built maybe 10 or 12 maps for RT3 but I didn't enjoy

playing them with the RT3 economy and interface.  There are some benefits over and above what RT2 has.  Ability to buy industries is one.  Automatic loading of trains is another.  I even liked cargo movement by wagon and barge.  It did lack needed player controls.

I have build 80 or 90 RT2 maps.  Many of these are just for my own enjoyment.  Some are basicly the same map or a re-make with different win goals, AI companies, towns, industries, managers, economics, etc.  Each of these maps play differently from the others.

Over all I would say I like RT2 60%, RT3 30%, Trainz 05% 

MSrail 04% and Sids Railroads 01%.

My question about inserting content, related to my being able to build my own maps, to add another cargo. cargo type, buildings or some affect to a map.  The ability by a player to adjust a game can only add life to a game for the player, the developers and owners.

 

Short sited people seldom have long term success and those that pass by the suggestion box get off track even sooner.  Rarely will success not include a team effort.

RT2 seems to have resulted from a good team effort.  While RT3

leaned only lightly on team effort without really a good understanding

of it's true importances.

I guess I got a bit long winded.  Sorry

[djf01]

My biggest disappoint came when RT3 shutdown development early without completing what was planned for RT3.

Well, RRT3 was certainly not the first project in the world where that happened!

It seemed near the end

suggestions by beta tester received few responces or much interest.

Project managers for software project *hate* feature creep.  I can see why many aspects of the game might be disappointing, especially from the perspective a Beta tester who's suggestions are ignored.  From the project's point of view, Beta testing is one of the last things thats done, but it often uncovers things done wrong in the design phase: the first thing that is done.  The PM is then forced to decide if the whole project should be restarted, or do they just live with the know bug/limitation.

This is not intended to justify it.  It just explains why so much software has so many seemingly obvious problems!

I have built maybe 10 or 12 maps for RT3 but I didn't enjoy

playing them with the RT3 economy and interface.  There are some benefits over and above what RT2 has.  Ability to buy industries is one.  Automatic loading of trains is another.  I even liked cargo movement by wagon and barge.  It did lack needed player controls.

I was a big fan of RRT1.  I played it to death many years ago.  Tactics and strategies are similar in RRT2, but RRT2 is a much better game.  I came to RRT2 discussing strategies with a friend who is addicted to - of all things - the demo version for his Mac (I've been trying to a full blown MAC version of RRT2 I can send him for Christmas without joy). 

I've never played RRT3, so please treat what I've about to say with the suspicion it deserves.  (My copy is still sitting unused in my top draw.  Partly from the many unfavourable comments on this forum, but also because my ancient games machine needs a replacement graphics card and probably a new hd as well).

But it seems to me that the RRT3 economic model (which I only partly understand) and the ability for the player to add industrial buildings probably detract from the game.  RRT is a train based problem solving/strategy game.  Players solve transport problems by moving things about by train.  But if you can just build any industry wherever you want, you can solve the transport problem by moving the start and end points.  The game becomes less about running trains and more about building buildings, in which case we might as well just play Sim City.

You could add industries in RRT1 btw.  Personally, I think RRT2 is better for not having this capability.

I have build 80 or 90 RT2 maps.

Wow!  When is the CD comming out!

RT2 seems to have resulted from a good team effort.

From what I've read here, and knowing 0.5% of the history of the products, I think the difference is in the passion and objectives of the two projects.  The goal of the RT2 project was to produce a good RRT type rail simulator/strategy game.  The goal of RT3 was to produce an updated RT2.

I guess I got a bit long winded.  Sorry

No worries.  I don't think I'm alone here in respecting and listening to your views on this.