X7123M3-256

It is uploaded now.

Go to https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/issues and click "New issue"

I've now finished my Intamin LSM launch coaster (sometimes referred to as blitzcoaster) trains, and uploaded them here. These are the type seen on rides like Maverick, iSpeed, Nefeskesen. They also appear to be used on Intamin's vertical lift coaster (of which the only example is Fahrenheit). These aren't accelerator or looping coaster trains, though they do look quite similar at this scale. There are lots of variants of this train - a lot of the newer ones have lap bars in place of the OTSRs, and many of those that had these OTSRs have been retrofitted with alternative softer versions, so no coaster actually runs this exact train anymore. In addition, many of the trains have additional theming, and Taron's is completely custom. This is the first train I've done for which you have to use a hack to have a realistic layout - it either needs a hacked launch, or a hacked vertical lift. Anything else probably wouldn't be running this train, at least as far as I can tell. I am hoping that OpenRCT2 will at some point in the future add proper launch and inversion pieces, but the former would require a new file format. Here are some screenshots (a subset of the ones I put on the download page):

Object selection and invention list, and scenario parameters are in the debug menu. Editing land ownership/building on unowned land is "Enable sandbox mode" in the cheat menu. These are dropdowns, so you have to click and hold to see all options - people have failed to notice that in the past.

This is already implemented. Why do people keep submitting feature requests for stuff that already exists? Like, at least half of feature requests on this forum are for stuff that's already been done. This is also already implemented, along with the ability to build on land you don't own. Everything you can do in the scenario editor you can do in the game - including changing the park objective, invention list, object selection, land ownership, peep intensity preference, and toggling money on/off. I hardly ever use the scenario editor now - I have a single blank map with nothing selected, and start everything from that. Yes, they got rid of the "Six Flags" restrictions. I never did understand why they disabled editing of these maps in the original game.

A rhythm dancer ride is technically possible - but most flat rides aren't, so I never really looked into them, and I did not implement support for them in my renderer (it would probably be very hard to do so, as every one is a special case). Also, the choice of rides to model is largely dictated by what I can find suitable reference images for - if I can't find at least one diagram, it's very hard to get anywhere with it.

Yeah, I'm just finishing my next one off now. All that remains is to build a layout so I can take some screenshots of it, and then mess around with the lighting some more to decide if this is really the best I can get it, and then it will be uploaded either later today or potentially tomorrow now as I'm running out of time.

Downloads and screenshots for my rides are on this page. I will be aiming to get the Intamin LSM uploaded there later today, after I've finished tweaking the lighting to stop it looking oversaturated. Unrealistic rides are placed on this page instead - I did not bother uploading screenshots of these.

If you've recently got a virus, it is highly unlikely it came from OpenRCT2, as others have said. If you're basing this entirely on the warning from your antivirus, be aware that false positives are a thing and can be quite common, you may not have a virus at all. However, if you are concerned, build the game from source - it is much harder to get malicious source code into the reposititory and have it go unnoticed than if the binaries had been compromised, and you can inspect the source yourself to verify its integrity.

The image I had was sent to me by @Gymnasiast, already loaded into RCT2's internal format, so I don't know exactly what was done to create it. It was used as a preview image for a ride, and displayed fine in the object selection, but upon opening the ride selection window, the game crashed with an assertion failure, saying G1_FLAG_BMP was not set. All images in object files normally have this flag set, so I'd consider the image invalid, yes. All it took to fix the issue was to set the flag. If this is indeed the same issue I had (might not be though - it sounds similar but it wasn't exactly the same error message), it is likely caused by a broken object file. I'd try running with only vanilla objects and see if that works.

I had an assertion failure today because I had an image that did not have the LSB set in the flags (I think the only "images" that don't have this bit set normally are the palette entries). Could that be related to this issue perhaps?

Seriously, it will not work, you will corrupt game data. Just because the game doesn't immediately crash doesn't mean it has worked. The behaviour is completely unpredictable because it doesn't show up until the corrupted memory is actually used. I have had all sorts of things happen as a result of exceeding these limits, from window icons drawing outside of the window to coaster cars turning into trees. There is only a fixed amount of space allocated for rides, if you try to write more than that you will be writing into memory used for something else, which will corrupt that, and then you have more problems when the code that originally used that memory writes over it again, and now whenever that ride is referenced it reads from corrupted memory. Further, only 1 byte is used to index into that array, so the extra ride would get index 0xFF, which is treated as unused (and any further rides would wrap around and start pointing at the beginning of the array instead). And even if it appears to work, it might cease to do so with a later update. I had a ride that (unknowingly) exceeded the cars per train limit, and it appeared to work for months before the problem was discovered when it stopped working. (I then increased the cars per train limit, as it was possible to refactor the code to eliminate it entirely. That is not the case for the rides limit, a new file format is needed). The compiler will assume this type of thing just doesn't happen and doesn't have to account for the possibility - if it can determine that a buffer overflow will occur, it can literally optimize out the entire code block and that's perfectly valid behaviour, because absolutely nothing is guaranteed if you invoke undefined behaviour.

A hex editor can be used to edit any type of binary data, SV6 files included. It's just a matter of how difficult it is. SV6 files are stored in compressed format, and this makes them hard to edit manually. That was true in vanilla as well. I have a script that will decompress the SV6 for editing and then recompress it when done which I've used in the past for hacks not supported by OpenRCT2. However, I prefer to do this sort of thing on the in-memory version of the data (which is not compressed). You can do this with a debugger, or simply by inserting some extra code after the SV6 is loaded. This approach has the advantage that you can take advantage of the existing symbols - you don't have to manually calculate the correct offset for the value you want to change, and you can easily loop over the map data if you need to do something to every tile. A hex editor will absolutely NOT allow you to override these limits. The SV6 file allocates a fixed amount of space for the table of selected rides, and a fixed amount of space for the ride structures themselves. If you want more of them, there's nowhere to put them. These limits cannot be removed without a new file format - if you just patch out the limit, all you'll be doing is clobbering memory reserved for other things. This will corrupt your game.

There's no reason why creating custom content for RCT2 has to be more difficult than for RCT3, though I will agree with you that it is far too limited when it comes to flat rides and track pieces. Nonetheless, there's a lot of rides that are really good candidates for a custom train, such as this one, and it surprises me that there are so few in existence after people have been playing the game for over a decade. It's true that RCT2 requires an extra step, but rendering the sprites doesn't take long - if you can create a 3D model you're most of the way there. Once the model is done, making the ride only takes a couple hours or so, and it can be quicker if you just leave some values as default. Making a good model takes a while, at least for me, but it doesn't have to be as detailed as it would for RCT3. I started working on my current project on Thursday, and expect to finish modelling tomorrow. I usually spend longer taking screenshots and uploading the finished file than actually generating the .DAT.

I've not seen an X-car train around either. Considering that RCT3 has just about every train in existence, and then several completely made up ones, I wonder why custom content for RCT2 seems scarce by comparison. It seems RCT2 players prefer to hack in the closest vanilla train, even if that train doesn't look anything like the one they're trying to make and it doesn't even have the right sprites for the track layout.

Would it be possible to recreate the trains? Yes - most train types can be done in RCT2 (the ones that can't are things like that ZacSpin, which would need new physics code to make work properly. If the train doesn't spin or flip, it can probably be done). In fact, I found a nice diagram of the train (with dimensions!): Also, the Giovanola hyper trains make a better substitute for this than 6 seater wooden - they have the vertical twists, but still lack heartline rolls.

Yeah, I've seen those, they look OK in screenshots but awful in game because the roto-drop car doesn't have sprites to follow the slopes. It has to be hacked any way you do it. I've been thinking about trying to do one of these, but I wouldn't use the roto-drop car for that reason. The biggest challenge is making the spinning work on a ride with no turns (for spinning rides, the turns are what trigger the spinning. For animated rides, you have very limited frames to work with). It might just be one of those rides that's impossible to make work well.

"Show vehicles from other track types", in the cheat window. I don't know that you'd want to do this, though - the roto-drop isn't meant to be used as a tracked ride and doesn't even have the basic 32 frame flat rotation - there is only one sprite.

The alternative to using invisible track is to just put it underground.

Merging a track back to it's original track is exactly the same process - you overlap the two tracks by one tile and ensure the track the train is to leave the tile by comes first. Easiest way to do that is to build the two tracks so they touch, then select the track before the merge and build forward with the same piece. Inversions work like any other track piece, but I prefer to avoid merging on an inversion - I try to put the merge on a single tile piece, as that makes it easier to keep track of (only one tile has duplicate tracks). I had a go at a tutorial on track merging here, which shows the basic process, but it is outdated as the method shown will disable the block system (I didn't know there was any alternative when I made the video).

You'd have to temporarily delete pieces not used on the lay-down track (station, and sloped banked turns) if you wanted to modify it the same way. Making it so all rides can have their chain lift speed edited when operating limits are unlocked doesn't sound difficult - I might try to do that so this workaround isn't needed.

Because they do not share pieces. Lay down coaster has no inverted station piece of banked turn piece, so to be able to switch the type to lay down and back you have to make sure you've only built pieces that both rides share. The easiest way to be sure of that is to do it before you've built anything. Use the "unlock operating limits" cheat to set the chain lift speed to whatever you want. Then build chain lift where you want the launch. Ignore powered launch mode, it's not much good even if you do want to launch straight from the station because of the unrealistically high acceleration.

Still can't reproduce - I built a splash boats with the merge immediately after the station, no change in the available number of trains. I do get the behaviour you describe if the splash boat track isn't a complete circuit, but I'm assuming yours is because otherwise you'd have had to change the operating mode.

Build a single, level piece of flying coaster track (not station). Change the type to lay-down coaster, then set the chain lift speed, then change the track back to the flying coaster, then proceed to build the rest of the layout. I've tested this, so it definitely works, but I had difficulty with the console command - I had to use the cheat instead which is a bit awkward but functional. The lay down coaster and flying coaster do not have all the same track pieces, so it is unlikely you can successfully switch a finished layout to lay-down track.

I would do this first, before building the complete track - I can't remember if the lay-down and flying coaster have exactly the same pieces.