Wuzzy

Excellent explanation by Gymnasiast: https://github.com/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/issues/12328#issuecomment-661121011

This sounds like a bug then.

Oh, I didn't know that libre data files are even planned. This would be a huge milestone indeed! :D

I'm running a self-compiled version of OpenRCT2 and with the latest update the graphics are a little bit glitchy (for example, the multiplayer icon became a track tile, and the "disable audio" button, too). I also get these warnings in my console: WARNING[~/src/openrct2/src/openrct2/drawing/Drawing.Sprite.cpp:686 (gfx_get_g1_element)]: Invalid entry in g2.dat requested, idx = 398. You may have to update your g2.dat. WARNING[~/src/openrct2/src/openrct2/drawing/Drawing.Sprite.cpp:686 (gfx_get_g1_element)]: Invalid entry in g2.dat requested, idx = 398. You may have to update your g2.dat. How do I update my g2.dat?

There is a rollercoaster called “Classic mini coaster”. Does this actually exist in RCT2 or is this a special OpenRCT2 thing? Does this exist to copy the mini coaster from RCT1? I notice the “Classic mini coaster” is like the kid's coaster, but it supports steeper drops like the mini coaster from RCT1. Why does it only have a rocket vehicle, but not the ladybug and log vehicles?

Can you beat any scenario without rollercoaster? Definitely yes. Forest Frontiers from RCT is very easy. Can you beat all scenarios without rollercoasters? Definitely no, because of the goal “Complete 5 coasters” and “Build 10 coasters with rating X”. These are literally impossible to win without rollercoasters. ;-)

The original RCT2 pretends that each new vehicle is also a new ride, even if the vehicle runs on the exact same track type as some other known vehicle. The OpenRCT2 devs rightfully dumped this nonsensical distinction, at least for the GUI, so that the build window distinguishes between actual roller coasters and not between every single vehicle type. But the research window remains more or less unchanged. Here, this original RCT2 behavior can still be seen. E.g. researching a water ride might actually just unlock a new vehicle. What I don't know whether guests consider a new track+vehicle to be of a different ride type for their “ride rating”. This is important for park rating and earnings. If they do consider a different vehicle to be a different ride, then using different vehicles makes your ride “unique” again, which is good for bonuses. So new vehicle types are more than just decoration (if my assumption is correct). The algorithm that decides how much guests pay for coasters is quite complex and too much to explain here. I doubt this will change anytime soon, because changing that would be a massive gameplay change which might mess up the research order intended by the scenarios. But you never know …

OK, I agree it is dumb to assume the opinion of others. But that's not exactly what I did. Doubt is not belief. Anyway, you convinced me the sentence is useless. No all-caps ever: This is perhaps a bit over the top. Writing an entire post in ALL-CAPS: OK, I agree. But only a single word? Come on! Still I think it was an overreaction overall … I agree with the reasoning for closing tho. No problem. Just not for locking. But whatever. This thread is more about myself. Especially the claim about me being aggressive in all issues is complete nonsense. This “triggered” me. :P

It's still advertised on the homepage tho. I'm sad that FOSS is being dropped in favor of proprietary solution. This sounds like a step backwards to me. :-(

But these sound like bonus features to me, not strictly required for a functional game (which we already have). This stuff sounds like post-1.0.0 if you ask me.

Do you know the default interest rate of the official RCT1 scenarios?

I see there's a link on openrct.org to https://gitter.im/OpenRCT2/OpenRCT2/non-dev. This looks like some kind of chat. But it says “We moved to Discord.” everywhere. I'm sad to see the community embrace a proprietary software to replace a FOSS. :-( What happened?

WARNING: OPINION! Currently, RCT1 and RCT2 scenarios have to be unlocked by winning scenarios. This reflects RCT1 behavior. (There's also a checkbox to unlock all scenarios for free, which oddly is not considered a cheat.) This is fine with me. No problem here. But there is a limitation to this. This only works when scenarios are sorted by game. But if you sort scenarios by difficulty, all scenarios are automatically unlocked. The aforementioned checkbox is grayed out. But I think this is a strange limitation. Sorting scenarios is purely a GUI thing, not a gameplay thing, so IMHO should not affect the locking state of scenarios. Why? Because sorting has nothing to do with gameplay progress. My suggestion is to support locked scenarios regardless of sorting. In both modes, the same unlocking order shall be applied. I mean with this, the same scenarios are being unlocked in both sorting modes, as the scenario sorting is only a different way to display scenarios, not a gameplay change. For example, winning your first RCT1 scenario will shall unlock Bumbly Beach, no matter where it actually appears in the list. Because this might be slightly irritating, I also add to my suggestion to add a hover text. When you hover a locked scenario, write in the right of the window what is required to unlock the scenario. In “sort by game”, write “Complete X more scenario(s) in this series to unlock”. In “sort by difficulty”, write “Complete X more scenario(s) in [game name] to unlock”. (This has been brought up on GitHub before, but was unsuccessful so far.)

Dumb question, but what are the requirements for a 1.0.0 release? I feel OpenRCT2 is basically “finished” since years now, and it's also highly stable. You can play OpenRCT2 very very well, I had no real problems. In fact, I have completed the whole RCT2 campaign + both addons and it worked like a breeze. Which features or bugfixes are required for OpenRCT2 to be considered 1.0.0-worthy?

OK, I feel like things are getting a little out of hand on GitHub, and I am being accused, so I have to write this here … Gymnasiast, you keep telling me in GitHub I'm being “aggressive” and “hostile” but I don't understand. No, really. Even worse, you said that I'm being “aggressive” in every single issue. Wait, what? It seems all do is just disagreeing. And I feel that my words are being interpreted in the worst possible light. People read bad intentions into my words, things that I have never said … Look, I'm not your enemy. If I would be hostile towards OpenRCT2, I wouldn't have given you translations and other PRs, for starters. I am a big fan of the OpenRCT2 project, after all, and I really like that the old RCT games are being “resurrected”. I want to make OpenRCT2 better. And this includes talking about things that I think are currently bad. Sometimes there will be disagreements, about how to proceed that's true. So what? I just want to say that OpenRCT2 is the only community so far in which I was told I'm being “hostile” and “aggressive”, and I have participated in quite some communities over the years … Also please notice I never attacked anyone personally, I only “attacked” (criticized) OpenRCT2. Huge difference! I don't like how the discussion about one particular feature (scenario unlocking checkbox) has been essentially shut down (twice!). Admittedly it's only a small feature (one of many), but it's something that always bugs me. But I already explained all of that in great detail. I think closing and locking that issue was too early. Especially since even the author of the feature agreed the feature is not ideal and could be improved. Sounds like my criticisms did have some validity after all. The only reason I called for removal was because my earlier suggestion (4 years ago) to change this feature has been rejected. I think it's a mistake to close and lock an issue when people actually agree that the criticism is at least partially correct (including from the very author of the feature in question, mind you!). Yes, I know that removal is kind of the nuclear option. I'm actually OK if you don't want to remove it, no bad feelings. Yes, this step really was extreme. But I wasn't able to say this anymore since … the issue is locked. xD Anyway, my opinion (!) stands that I don't like how the feature currently works. Yes, it's "only" an opinion, but one that I have justified before. Saying this opinion is not an act of aggression, it's just saying my opinion. What was I supposed to do? Nothing? Anyway, the better solution might IMO be to actually improve the usability of this, rather than removal, but sadly, discussion on this aspect was shut down as well. First, I think it's a great exaggeration to say that ALL my issues are aggressive. This is completely false. Many issues just state bugs without even the slightest hint of an opinion, let alone aggression … Look: When I say that something is “wrong” I always say *why* I think that way. I don't say things like that in a vacuum. If merely saying that I think that feature XYZ is “wrong” (with reasons) is already interpreted as an act of aggression, then sorry, I don't know if I or anybody else can actually criticize anything. It makes a huge difference if someone just trolls around or give honest criticism. I'm not a troll. I never intended to start a fight. I don't even know how I was supposed to post this issue differently, tbh. Saying that I think (!) that feature XYZ is bad (and why!) is kind of the core of the whole thing, after all. I hope we can sort these things out without escalating further.