X7123M3-256

Installing expansion packs will only fix the problem if it's expansion objects that are missing. I imagine most people asking this question will not know where the objects are from (you can search this on NE though).

There are no researchable track pieces in RCT2. The launched lift hill should be available from the special pieces menu whenever you build a twister coaster. You need to be building an upward slope to select it.

Yeah, this doesn't sound like a bug - it's just impossible to judge depth in this projection. The scenery object can look like it's in the right place and not be. Sometimes I actually place markers on the ground level to mark out where specific support pieces are located, so that others can be positioned next to them. Frequently rotating the viewport when building tricky scenery is pretty much the only solution. And if building lots of pieces at the same height, always use CTRL and not shift. Once you constrain your building to a single plane, this problem disappears (as long as you get your first piece in the right place, of course).

By "view to the left" do you mean rotating the view? As in, the object appears to be in the right place from one perspective? Since RCT2 is in an orthographic projection, it's impossible to judge depth from a single angle - so it's very easy to misplace scenery when you build from one viewpoint only, and only notice when you rotate the view. I find this happens a lot when building supports.

I extracted the RCT1 sprites and put them into an RCT2 object file. The process is fairly straightforward, if tedious. The sprites are in the same format, but the RCT1 sprites are in a different order and must be manually reordered to match what RCT2 expects (you could probably automate this process, but it's not really worth it). @Gymnasiast sent me video of the actual RCT1 trains so I could adjust the spacing and friction to match. The awkward thing is that RCT2 expects 32 angles of the train, whereas RCT1 only provides 16. I worked around this problem by simply doubling up on the RCT1 sprites, but it does result in some minor visual issues on turns. I am hoping that if a new object format is implemented, it will fix this because I think @Gymnasiast mentioned better support for RCT1 sprites as a possibility. I also did the RCT1 ladybird trains but they weren't used on this ride.

The launcher is a separate program - the main advantage to using it is that it will keep the game updated automatically. If you don't use the launcher, you can set the game path in the config file. Not sure what's going on with your track files.

If you don't want to pollute your object folder with those awful objects, but still want to view the park, you can use ParkDat to substitute the expansion object with something else. Since most coasters from the expansion packs are just shitty reskins of existing rides, there's usually a convenient substitute available. I'm not sure how well this works for scenery; it'll probably glitch but it should allow the park to open. In fact, since expansion objects won't export, it's entirely possible to edit the park without having the object. You'd need to swap the object to open it, but you can then swap it back afterward because the file doesn't have to contain the actual object (I don't think ParkDat will do this though, you'd have to do it manually).

RCTC uses different file extensions and different save formats in many cases, so it's possible that the file is called something else and/or is located in a different directory (I don't have RCTC so I don't know if that's the case here). As I understand it, OpenRCT2 should be able to load assets from RCTC but not scenarios. It's the other way around, RCTC is an RCT2 port with some of the maps from RCT1. It doesn't contain RCT1 assets nor any RCT1 features except for the boosters (which are also implemented in OpenRCT2).

I think those track designs are from RCT1. If you have RCT1 installed that might explain it.

The game considers the cars as one train so it sums up the forces on each car as if they were still connected. If you have half the train on a downward slope and half on an upward slope, the net acceleration is zero. It is of course stupidly unrealistic to use it in that way - normally, you only split off one car so that the effect on the physics is as small as possible, and you use that extra car to speed up and slow down the real one when you need to. It's useful if you want brakes/launches/station platforms on diagonal or sloped track, and you can get a triple launch this way as well (though I think you can do that much more easily with boosters now).

That, then, is why it works. Track pieces of different types cannot merge.

If you want the trains to actually sync at the top of lift, that's going to be a bit awkward. You can't do this with two seperate tracks, you can only do it if you have one continuous track set up as a Mobius loop. You then need to have one train wait in the block at the top of the lift, with another block just at the rear so that both blocks are occupied by the one train. As soon as the first train moves off the top of the lift, it will clear the previous block and that allows the other train to move. You can get trains to sync at any point in the layout this way - the prebuilt "Great White Wail" has trains synchronized in the loops. But, to put a block midway down a lift is awkward - the only piece that counts as a block is the top piece, so you would have a bump in your lift. You could alternatively have a flat section with brakes at the top, which you may get away with on some layouts but otherwise looks awkward. What I do is sync the trains with brakes at the bottom of the lift - if the lift hill speeds are set the same (which they have to be if it's only one track), then they will still be synced at the top - but only if they don't have to wait there. If you want them to wait at the top and yet remain synced after, and don't want to put up with an awkwardly shaped lift, I can't think of any solution (other than a shoestring which is massive overkill for something like this).

What @Broxzier said is correct, you can't make an unpowered vehicle powered. But I believe that @Spacek found that the mini helicopter trains contain an invisible powered car. You could add that powered car to your coaster train, and it wouldn't look any different because the additional car is invisible (you might have to make sure the powered car is at the front of the train for this to work - I have not tried it yet so YMMV)

The RCT2 object database went offline sometime last year. Given the low traffic to the site and the large size of their collection I doubt anybody but the creator has a complete archive of the contents.

The pieces have definitely not been removed - I just updated to the latest develop and I can still load this park. You do now need the arbitrary ride type cheat to build with them, whereas you didn't when I built this, but they're still there. I assume this was changed because the default trains don't have appropriate sprites.

AE's Tilted Whirler, and most other flat rides, do not have individual vehicles. The ride is all one sprite. You can have up to three colorable regions per sprite, but no more than that. For rides that do have individual vehicles, you can already paint them seperately. Even if support for more remap colors was added (which would require a new file format), you couldn't add enough to support what you suggest, because there's not enough room in the palette. To paint 9 seats with 2 colors each you'd need 18 remap colors. One remap color requires 12 palette slots and there are 256 available (some of which are special and can't be used as remap colors). And even then it could only be used with new rides - you can't easily change the paint scheme of an existing object like AE's without remaking the whole thing, since we don't have the original models to render new sprites from (unless you want to go through every frame of animation and change the colors by hand, which is definitely possible but very tedious.). The only way around it would be to redesign the ride so that it does consist of seperate vehicles. But right now, flat ride behaviour is all hardcoded. You'd have to either add a new hardcoded ride type or implement a new object format to support it.

What do you mean "blueprints"?

Try copying the files from into your OpenRCT2 scenario folder manually (it should happen automatically, but if it isn't then manually copying them across could act as a workaround).

That's strange - I'm able to copy and paste the list just fine. But failing that, you can copy down the names manually. It's tedious if there's a lot of objects missing, but if you have a lot of missing objects then downloading them all is going to be tedious anyway. It's a good idea to make sure "export plug in objects with saved games" is selected, so you avoid this problem in future. It causes all custom objects to be included with the savegame, which inflates the filesize but it ensures you'll always be able to load it.

If you have the launcher, it will automatically update to the latest version every time you start the game. Are you sure it isn't the server that is behind?

Certain fence objects have these sloped sprites so that they can be built on sloped terrain. The easiest way to place sloped fence pieces not on sloped ground is to use the tile inspector, which allows you to directly adjust the slope of objects that support it. The old way of doing it was to raise the ground to the point you wanted to build the fence, place the fence on the sloped ground, and then lower the ground with zero clearance enabled.

I have no idea how you're charging $300+ for park entry because I've never seen a scenario where the guests spawn with that much. The park has a certain capacity, and once it is maxed out, the only way to get guests in is to have existing guests leave or to expand the park. Both strategies are viable, but you don't get as much income as you would in a pay-per-ride park. Pay per entry parks are challenging - the game is not "broken", these scenarios are just harder. Plenty of people have completed them nonetheless. You can use the cheat to switch to pay-per-ride if you want to make them easier. If you want to make changes that the devs don't want to merge, you're free to make your own fork of the game and implement whatever you want. I have one for experimenting with custom track styles.

Depends on the scenario and peep intensity preferences. Peeps never use transport rides for transport, but peeps preferring gentle rides will ride them anyway. Also, covered rides are popular in the rain. The steam trains and monorail can carry far more than 16 passengers (the monorail has the highest per-train capacity in the base game), and those don't run almost empty because of it. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by switching the car to the tram cars - IMO that would look worse than the elevator in this situation. But in answer to the question, if you switch the car type using the in-game cheat, then you also change the capacity. The cheat doesn't let you set them independently. If you modify the vehicle structures directly, you can specify whatever capacity you like (no idea what happens if you set a higher capacity than the train has sprites for, but the trams don't show sprites for peeps anyway so you should be OK).

This is the sort of thing where I would prefer to use a custom ride, but then I tend to use those quite heavily. I think the elevator car looks a bit big to be a chairlift car. You could try a middle monorail car, but I'm not sure that's much better. Change the track type to crooked house. This will make the entire track invisible.

This is a multiplayer server? What makes you think it's a bug - are you sure there's not another player renaming peeps to Emma Garrell?