X7123M3-256

Well since these forums are going offline I thought I'd update this post one last time with some of the ride types I've worked on more recently. Hydraulic launch Arrow pipeline And some new track pieces

Then the multidimension coaster isn't the right track type to use anyway - you would want the twister coaster track since that's the track style it uses IRL. The twister track has all track pieces available, as of the recent update (but you'll need "enable all drawable track pieces" on to see all of them).

The cheat that causes this is "enable all drawable track pieces". It lets you build track pieces that the trains do not have sprites for, like verticals on the giga coaster. Normally the giga coaster does not get vertical slopes.

There's not really a master plan for new track pieces, as far as I'm aware. I had a plan of my own when I was working on them but that's moot now. Pretty much all the new track pieces have been third party contributions so, it's just whatever someone comes along and makes - the dev team themselves don't really work on this stuff. Things like the zero G rolls on the corkscrew coaster can just be hidden behind cheats, so there's no reason not to add sprites if they are good quality. This has already been implemented and there is an open PR for it. https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/pull/23051 If mix keeps going that's very possible, especially as they have already made the corkscrew track. This is probably the hardest new track piece I can think of to make. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I have never been able to figure out how it might work. I was working on this at one point, it was actually one of the first new track types I made. I was never happy with it though.

Are you looking to make a .DAT or .parkobj file? The tools you are using were made before OpenRCT2 existed and are designed to make .DAT files. If you are using those tools, you shouldn't need anything else. OpenRCT2 can still load DAT files made for vanilla RCT2. But, the OpenRCT2 .parkobj format is a lot easier to work with as you don't need to use any special tools at all, all you need is an image editor, a text editor and a program that can make ZIP files. I would not bother making a .DAT file and then trying to reference it in the .parkobj the way you are doing - that mechanism only exists so that OpenRCT2 can apply patches to vanilla objects without having to include those objects with the game.

It's my hydraulic launch coaster train you can find it here https://x123m3-256.github.io/RCT2/CustomRides/index.html

> But then we have the 'images.dat' file, which AFAIK contains the images and the position information (like the pos.txt in Buggy's Ridemaker) - but how the heck do I make one of these? You don't actually need to. You can just have an "images" folder with .png images inside of it. Take a look at this object for example. The reason some objects have images.dat instead is that it loads faster in game. That file is in the same format as the original .DAT image table. I can't tell you how to make one because I have yet to do so myself, all my objects still use PNG images. I believe there is a program called "gxc" that is used to make those tables - maybe ask about it on the OpenRCT2 discord if you want to know but you don't need it, it's just an optimization. It is most beneficial for rides as they have a lot of sprites.

Just because they're enthusiastic about the project doesn't mean they're enthusiastic about your specific request. If you think this isn't worth the time to create, there's a good chance nobody else does either. There are many things that have been requested countless times over the last few years, that would be very simple to do yet haven't been done because none of the people who want it done are interested in actually doing it. I did port the RCT1 junior trains way back before OpenRCT2 had support for them, and if I wanted to use them again I would still use a custom object rather than link to RCT1 and get all the other crap I don't want, so I do see where you're coming from. But I think I'm probably in the minority in not wanting to link RCT1 - I think most people just link it and won't go out of their way to avoid having to do so. In any case, if there is someone who might want to make this object for you, you're almost certainly not going to find them here. This forum is mostly dead and there's like 5 people left. I don't know if there's anyone (other than me) who makes custom objects and still checks this place.

If that's the case, the scenarios you have are likely ported versions made for vanilla RCT2, rather than the actual RCT1 scenario files (RCT1 saves can't contain embedded assets). There are quite a few RCT1 objects that were ported to RCT2 and those don't require RCT1 installed to work because they include all the sprites - only the "official" RCT1 objects that ship with OpenRCT2 require RCT1 to work. Those don't contain any sprites, they just index into csg1.dat which you have to have to supply yourself. This is done deliberately, they went out of their way to make it work like that (except for the RCT1 toilet, for some reason that does contain sprites and IIRC you can use that object without RCT1 linked in OpenRCT2). If you want to make a version of the path objects which includes the sprites and does not depend on having RCT1 linked this is straightforward to do - just take the official version of the object and add the images. I'd be very surprised if these file can't be found somewhere on the internet. Trickiest part is extracting the sprites from csg1.dat into PNGs but you can leverage OpenRCT2 to do that. If it isn't worth your time why would it be worth anyone else's? Most people who play RCT1 scenarios just have RCT1 linked, wanting just the paths and not anything else is a niche use case.

It's not a bug, it's a limitation. The TD6 file format used for track design saves cannot accommodate the new pieces. A new track design format has been planned for some time but I have no idea when it will be implemented.

I mean, yes, it's possible, someone would just have to make the sprites, but those are strange elements to want to add. Inversions are rare on wood coasters, there's one with a zero G stall and one with a corkscrew, there used to be one with a loop, and I think that's about it. Don't think there are any with a heartline roll. The wooden coaster would benefit more from diagonal sloped turns and the large steep to flat, if you ask me, but adding any new track piece does make it a lot easier to then add more. Note, though, the vanilla wooden coaster trains do not have sprites for corkscrews, heartline rolls or zero G rolls.

As a skin for the pirate ship? Well, sort of, technically, yes, but it's going to look stupid because the pirate ship is already unrealistically small, if you scale a screamin' swing down to that size it's going to look really silly. As a completely new ride type with a larger footprint it could certainly be done.

No, nobody has, but it could be done. Would be a lot of work for what it is.

I think the difficulty is going to be that there is almost no free space left in the path element. I don't think there's any space to store a color and if there was there are those who would prefer recolorable paths to recolorable path items. However, someone was working on a PR that would give path objects their own tile element, which would create space for this. I don't know what progress there has been on this.

I don't think it makes sense to do that because it requires additional setup, if you have difficulty sideloading an app you're probably not going to be able to get it working - and it's really still in more of an experimental state. Maybe in the future if OpenGraphics is completed and the touch support improves a bit they could put it on the play store.

This issue means the creator didn't include the objects when saving the park - there's a checkbox in the options "export plug in objects with saved games" that has to be selected. In order to open this park you would need to find and install the two missing objects. The second one is here https://www.nedesigns.com/rct2-object/11724/tiledpat/ but I can't help with the first.

If you're making objects for OpenGraphics you could probably make sprites for vertical boosters yourself. I was experimenting with those a while ago, although I can't show what it looked like because I've lost all the footage. But, I still have the code somewhere. It's a pretty simple thing to add.

I don't know why these coasters weren't given banked sloped turns in the original game - my guess is just to save time making sprites - but this is a very common complaint that OpenRCT2 will probably eventually fix. We have added new track sprites to the looping coaster, LIM launched coaster, giga coaster and log flume, and someone is working on new sprites for the B&M. Some prototype banked curves for the Arrow track were already created as well, and they look pretty good already: Like I said, unless Sawyer himself comes out and says this, there isn't any evidence that points towards this being the case. All the rides in game that have lap bars have lap bars in real life. There is only one ride that has a different type of restraint system in game, and that is the air powered vertical coaster. It has OTSRs, because it was modelled on the prototype which had them. I would point out that it does not get an airtime bonus - despite the fact that it probably ought to - which again suggests to me that it comes down to the restraints and nothing else. And again, not giving the RMC the airtime bonus would be silly. Even the RMC train did have OTSRs, I would have seriously considered breaking from the established pattern and giving it the airtime bonus anyway because such an airtime focused ride not getting any excitement from airtime wouldn't make sense, once more, there is really nothing like this ride in the base game. Removing the airtime bonus doesn't just mean less excitement from airtime, it means none - in fact, airtime is effectively penalized. You would be penalizing the player for building the ride the way it's meant to be built. Yes, I understand the exploit you found. I do not think this is a good reason to remove the airtime bonus at all. This game is riddled with exploits - the original game had a similar exploit with the heartline twister that could give over 600 excitement. You've got people beating scenarios without building any rides at all or even using only one tile of land. This exploit doesn't break the game because the game is already broken - in fact I doubt your exploit layout would be more profitable in a scenario than a standard microcoaster design because it has low capacity for its size. Removing the airtime bonus from the hybrid would penalize the player for using the ride the way it's meant to be used and therefore reduce the incentive to do so even further. It wouldn't affect most exploit designs, just that one specific one. Moreover, there are other ways this issue could be addressed. For example, it would be possible to make the game distinguish between hangtime and airtime and not count the former towards the airtime stat. That change might be controversial as it could affect the stats of existing rides, but designs that aren't intentionally exploiting this would probably be minimally affected. Yes, I'm a bigger asshole than Kim Jong Un and Putin, because I didn't make the hybrid coaster in exactly the way you wanted it. Maybe you would be happier if I didn't make it at all. You know, you don't have to use it, you don't have to include it in your scenarios, and it would take literally 5 minutes for you to download the train and make your own version without the airtime bonus - and if you really wanted it changed upstream then you have the same ability to submit a PR that I do, but you're not interested in any of that, you're just here to be a dick. It's clear you don't think you're going to convince me of anything since you're just posting insults in lieu of actually responding to anything I said and it's clear to me that I'm not going to convince you of anything either, and I'm not sure you're even reading my posts, so I don't see any point in replying to this thread anymore.

Those objects are from the expansions, if they appear invisible it usually means you don't have the expansions installed. If you think you do, maybe try reinstalling the base game?

What shouldn't? The hybrid coaster trains? They do have lap bars: I've already explained that that doesn't contradict my hypothesis because the hyper twister coaster has lap bars and the twister doesn't. The hyper twister coaster doesn't contradict your theory that it has to do with whether the ride can do inversions, but there are two other rides that do. There are no rides in the game that get lapbars but do not get an airtime bonus, there are no rides in the game that have OTSRs but do have an airtime bonus. And, as I explained, the fact that the airtime bonus is tied to the vehicle and not the ride type, I think also points towards it having to do with the restraint system. You clearly aren't even reading what I said and don't have anything else constructive to add, you either lack reading comprehension or you're just here to troll. You're the one being an asshole. You're the one whose posts consist mostly of insults. LMAO what are you going to do to me?

This is true, but you're asking for a very specific, simple change ... it's not like it's less likely to cause problems if someone else makes the same change, and any PR you submit would be subject to review by the dev team anyway. I think it's unlikely that anyone on the dev team will see a comment here as I don't think any of them check this forum anymore - submitting a PR if you know how to do that at least guarantees they will look at it. Otherwise maybe post here https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/discussions/ One possible consequence would be that if you extend the timeout, lost guests take longer to give up and might become unhappy as a result. But, having the timeout be tied to the park size doesn't seem like a bad idea because it's also a problem if you have a park so large that guests are likely to timeout even when they aren't actually lost - and it's a fairly simple thing to test if this change helps or not if you've got a park that's having problems.

For scenarios and track designs I think most people use https://rctgo.com/. This thread is 4 years old, so not too surprising the links are broken.

This place used to be a lot more active but I think most of the people who used to be here have moved to Discord. There's an official OpenRCT2 discord but it's mostly focused on development - maybe try Deurklink or RC&F. This video lists some other sites:

What do you mean "plural vs singular". Do you think I should have said "one of the established premises"? I'm not interested in a pointless grammatical debate. You're not "tearing me apart", you're just insulting me for no reason, which is not winning the argument. If you don't communicate clearly it's not everyone else's fault if you're misunderstood. Your posts repeatedly use the term "zero G element" - which you made up - and you're mad because I thought you were talking about "elements that can produce zero G". The word you were looking for is "inversion". I created all the code and sprites for the hybrid coaster; I know exactly how it works and I was the one who decided to give it the airtime bonus in the first place so I do know what I'm talking about here. No, your argument is not indisputable, in fact, I don't think there's any evidence to support it. Yes, the hyper twister coaster gets an airtime bonus and the twister coaster doesn't, but also, the hyper twister coaster has lap bars and the twister coaster doesn't, and hyper twister coaster layouts IRL consist almost entirely of airtime hills while twister coaster layouts rarely have any. That's not evidence that the reason it gets the airtime bonus is because it doesn't have inversions. My belief is that the airtime bonus is applied to rides which have lapbars. Evidence against this would be, for example, if there was a ride which has lapbars but does not get the airtime bonus, a ride that has OTSRs but still gets the airtime bonus, or perhaps a ride with the airtime bonus that has inversions IRL but is missing those pieces in game. That might suggest that Sawyer deliberately avoided creating rides that have both. But there are no such examples, and in fact, there are two examples in the vanilla game of rides that get the airtime bonus but also get inversions - and those are the looping coaster, and the wooden coaster. The looping coaster, in particular, isn't particularly airtime focused IRL. It would have made sense not to give that an airtime bonus. I believe the reason the looping coaster gets an airtime bonus and the corkscrew coaster doesn't is because the looping coaster has lap bars. Another point is that the airtime bonus is a property of the vehicle, not the ride type - it's possible (though there are no examples in the base game) to have a ride with different train types available, one of which gets the airtime bonus and one not. This suggests that this bonus was meant to reflect characteristics of the train (such as the restraint system used) rather than those of the ride type (like the track pieces it has available). Specifically, I think this is meant to reflect the fact that airtime tends to be more fun with lap bars than more restrictive restraints, and rides with airtime focused layouts pretty much never have OTSRs for that reason. Remember that at the time the game came out, it was very unusual for coasters with lap bars to have inversions - so, almost all the coasters in game which have lapbars also don't have inversions, and rides which did have inversions rarely had much in the way of airtime. It would have made sense at that time, to give the airtime bonus only to rides without inversions - it would make sense for the looping coaster not to get an airtime bonus, it would have made sense for the wooden coaster not to have a loop piece - but that's not what was done. In recent years, however, it's become a lot more common for looping coasters to have lapbars and for rides to feature a mix of airtime and inversions, and the RMC is a prime example. RMC layouts feature a lot of airtime - but usually do feature inversions as well (not always though). Nothing like this existed at the time the game came out. So even if it was true that the vanilla game never gave an airtime bonus to rides that were capable of inversions, I think there would still be a very strong case that the hybrid coaster should get an airtime bonus. Not having the airtime bonus means the ride gets no excitement from airtime - in fact, it actively penalizes having airtime on the ride because you still get nausea - which would be completely wrong for the hybrid. Building a hybrid that has no inversions is more realistic than one which has no airtime - it's more like a souped up wooden coaster than a wooden version of the twister coaster.

The established premise of the game is that trains that have lap bars get an airtime bonus, and RMC hybrid layouts tend to be very airtime focused so of course this ride gets an airtime bonus. That it can be exploited is not surprising, but nor is it really an issue, because everything else is just as exploitable - the way the game calculates stats (and most other things besides) is very naive and it can't really tell the difference between good and bad designs as long as a few basic requirements are met. Just take a look at this corkscrew design that Marcel Vos shared recently: Trying to "fix" this exploit by removing the airtime bonus would hurt normal gameplay because the ride is intended to be airtime focused, that would penalize players for building the ride the way it's meant to be built. Implementing an entirely new stat calculation that doesn't suck would be a separate project entirely (and if such a thing was added it would almost certainly have to be optional, because it would be a major deviation from vanilla behaviour). I'm not being deliberately obtuse, your previous comments made little sense and not once did you make clear what the hell you were talking about. I see now that by "zero G pieces" you actually just meant inversion pieces ... why didn't you just say that ... you could have just posted a screenshot of the exploit you were referring to. Also, you don't have to use the hybrid coaster if you don't like the way I implemented it, and you don't have to build exploit designs if you don't like them. I don't like them either.