CS questions: shadows, colors, etc.

[hiznik]

A few questions hopefully someone knows something about:

1. Path Covers - for CS covers, the ones I have tried do not show shadows cast by other objects that fall across the path. See pics below.

http://home.pipeline.com/%7Eastro/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shot0009b.jpg
^ The shadow falls across the path and into the street.

http://home.pipeline.com/%7Eastro/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shot0010.jpg
^ No shadows across the path with CS covers by two different CS makers.

Also, note there's no shadow on the pedestrian crosswalk CS stripes beyond (but it shows between them) or for our favorite attendee. ;) It just doesn't look right in an urban setting with lots of shadowless peeps and many long building shadows to use a lot of CS covers. They "glow."

I'll ask it one time here (as it applies to the rest of this message)--Can we confirm that it can't be done (show cast shadows from other objects) because that is "hard-coded" into the game and/or not accessible for tweaking?

2. Palette Colors - I've always wondered (and a bit annoyed by) why , in a game of this sophistication and with the hardware we have, there aren't more color choices in the color chooser. I'm sure most have noticed that there is no black or a good dark gray. The "gray" in the default palette has a definite greenish caste to it and is especially noticeable when, say a "gray" CS pathcover, is placed adjacent to the game's gray scenery like the default concrete terrain paint.

3. Colorable Items - I've noticed with CS that sets take on a given color differently. Use a color on one wall and it's pastel, use that same color on a wall from a different set and it's darker. I figure this is due to how the CS is made and how far the CS maker is willing or able to go with a set of CS. It's too bad that the end user can't have more control over color for this visually vibrant game.

4. Invisible Signs - I love this invisible stuff and using it adds a lot of realism to the parks. One of these is an invisible sign! I figured this would be useful for one-direction-only crowd flow. Too bad I can't easily (wait, I know I can copy over the visible version to \Themed and reload) tell which way a sign is facing at intersections. Any tricks out there? Alright, so this is more of a comment than a question.

5. Entrances and Exits - Another thing that I figure must be hard-coded is the direction of travel at these. I mean, only straight in or out is allowed so one must plan two grid squares for placing them--one for the Ent or Ex and the second for path access to them. Certainly with the way the default portals look that would have to be the case. Now, with the invisible portals to create more realistic facilities, being able to enter or exit "sideways" would really come in handy for tight spaces. Or maybe this notion strikes you as "not realistic at all." Fair enough, but we build in a more confined space than the RW and, in a sense, for designing it is compressed like the game time.

6. Terrain Paint - Again, I figure changing or adding custom textures is not possible. That would be pretty cool.

Cheers!

[Old-Spice]

1 set, Belgabors invisible doodads.

[The_Cook]

1. It's a limitation of the game engine that shadows only work on terrain.

2. The colour choice is hardcoded into the game engine, nothing that can be done about it.

3. The chosen colour is "blended" with the shades present in the models texture. Therefore the final shade is dependent upon the texture of the model.

5. This is another limitation imposed by the game engine, it always expects ride entrances and exits to be straight through from one side to the opposite side.

6. This has the potential to be possible if someone cracked the data structures. Unless you've got those skills, you'll just have to wait until someone has the time, effort and inclination to tackle it.

[Vodhin]

On point #2 I agree that the choice of colors available in the palette could have been more. I do think that Frontier did a "Once Over" of the previous version and someone said something along the lines of "we need to honor the greatness of RCT and be as faithfull to original as possible" and some engineer thought: "hmmm... a 256 color palette should make my job easy" (Of course, I'm only kidding- I have no idea what went on there).

In truth, I do wonder about the logic behind the 16 color choice palette. It might be that a 256 color palette was all they could use and be compatable with the majority of PC computers out there in 2003 2004 (after all, the name of any game is to sell as many as you can)


This ties in a little bit with the CS that seems "off" (pastelles you mentioned). If a custom texture (even a non-textured solid color) is not set up correctly, then the range of colors in that hue will be shifted one way or another. It's up to the CS maker to properly balance their texture (I use PNG format textures to start with, and a single "pure" color (red, greeen, blue) at about 127 will match exactly the color chosen in the palette in game. That is with standard texture types, though, some texture types, like specular and reflection types may appear "brighter" so if you plan on using that type in your CS, you might want to darken the texture a few points.


Hope that helps...

[hiznik]

^^^ yup, that's the one I'm using. It's great to install the toilets and shops into realistic spaces instead of having to stuff the over-sized default pieces into them. :up:

^^ 1. Well, the default paths show cast shadows, like the shadow on path at the foot of the stairs in my pictures, so I'm really not sure what you mean by terrain only.
3. Looks like a certain amount of trial and error is needed before the color looks right to the designer.
6. Nope, I haven't got those skills and if it has not been done by now it probably never will be, as the audience for this game shrinks by folks moving on to other pursuits.

^ Sure does. Actually, 256 colors is not such a bad thing really, if we had in-game access to all of them. I'd be happy with just 16 additional colors, like a yellow that doesn't look greenish on some pieces and a gray closer to the game's terrain and path grays, etc.


Here's another question about shadows, call it number 7:

7. Some CS pieces that should cast their own shadows don't, and some CS that shouldn't does. For instance, some path pieces have a shadow when it would look better without it (so it looks flat with the ground) and one of the CS support cleaners I use isn't visible when not editing (as expected), but its shadow is. Like CS coloring, I figure this is also a function of the way a particular CS was put together?

8. One more question here, and this is probably a function of the design again like the thing about color and shadows: when you zoom the view in or out, various pieces of CS scenery will appear and disappear at different zoom levels. Naturally, you can't see small detail as your viewpoint moves away, but some pieces that go underneath things will appear to completely cover anything above itwhen zoomed out and other pieces like path covers completely disappear so the base path underneath shows through. It's only remarkable because it happens at different zoom levels for different CS pieces. I note that the default scenery is the most persistent as the camera moves away.

Okay, I'm developing an appreciation for the difficulties and limitations of making CS (besides learning a 3D software program to produce it). Along with that, I will see the need for a certain CS piece that's not in a set or that requires the making of a new set. I occasionally toy with the idea of making some CS but....angels dare to tread.:p

cheers!

[Vodhin]

paths are as special object that is "terrain" as far as RCT3 is concerned. Belgabor is the only one I know of whop has been able to make new paths and that was with his vast knowledge from figuring out stuff.

My own observations: Peep shadows are a special 2D plane- a game generated mesh added by RCT3 (turn on dynamic shadows and ride a coaster with the peeps- turn the camera and watch them and their shadows float in the air). All other shadows are applied only to the "terrain" and I think it is done by reading the Clipping map of the object. what's is done with that to create the actual darker area is more than I know. but I do know that it would be a lot more memory/resourses/GPU power to include other objects in this process- lag city. remember, unlike any other video game, RCT3 renders it's environment on the fly- other games have a pre-made world that you cannot change and the shading has been pr-rendered.

Some pieces of scenery might have had their shadows disabled on purpose by the scenery creator. It is an option available when importing the scenery into RCT3- some objects that should have their shadows turned off haven't been either because the scenery was made before we knew that option was available and it was implimented in the importer, of the scenery maker didn't set it that way.

As for the 256 colors: you do use all 256 colors- though because the game alows you to choose up to three different colorable parts on any given object, the number is first divided by 3, leaving about 85 brightness variations for that color. Out of those 85 brightness steps there are about 30 steps on each end of the scale that generally look either black (0 to about 35) or white (220 to 255).

Some pieces of scenery might have had their shadows disabled on purpose by the scenery creator. It is an option available when importing the scenery into RCT3- some objects that should have their shadows turned off haven't been either because the scenery was made before we knew that option was available and it was implimented in the importer, of the scenery maker didn't set it that way.

Scenery will disappear if is was not made correctly. A number of variables apply, including and foremost: too many polygons for the size of the mesh inclusive. think of it like this- there is a finite number of pixels on your screen, and in the texture used on the object. At some point, the vertices of any given triangle in the object cannot be drawn because the space between the verticies is less than the space between the pixels on your screen (and textures apply too, it seems, since the texture is getting scaled on the fly, so at some point there just isnt' "room" for the texture to appear in). Other factors include the LOD settings and other data that the CS creator hasn't set correctly (or at all, in the case of SID data) for their object.

The apparent "there it is covering things it shouldn't/there it's behaving properly" effect of CS when zooming in or out is a Clipping issue as far as I understand the correct term to be. It is due to incorrect data in the model: either through impropper modeling (or glitch in the actual model's source file), or incorrect data when setting up SID settings, and perhaps a few other variables I can't think of...

[Belgabor]

As it has been pointed out, paths (as long as they are on ground) are special, and Vodin was pretty correct, they to the game are pretty much like ground. As soon as they go above ground, they pretty much are CS.
Something similar was asked recently on a German forum, which made me investigate in detail. Unfotinately as the_cook said, the choices are hardcoded.
This point was already explained in detail above =)
As said to be found in my Invisible Doodads set.
Unforutantely this is also like the_cook said, noting can be done about that.
The major problem here is not the structures, which are pretty simple. The "show-stopper" is that all ground textures are numbered, so this would be a major coordination issue between creators. I also don't know whether RCT3 automatically loads everything in the respective folder or not. If not, there would be an additional issue of actually getting custom ones into the game. Finally the palette is already pretty full, people playing at lower screen resolutions wouldn't even see the new ground textures. Maybe I'll do it, but for these reasons I'm not sure how feasible actual custom terrains are in practical use.
Was explained by Vodhin
The original pieces use (normally) at least three LODs, which means three different versions of the model for different zoom distances. Many CS creators don't bother with that and/or set wrong settings, which causes the pieces to disappear when zooming out. If CS creators did everything correctly, it wouldn't happen (or not differently than the original scenery). Of course there is a lot of scenery out there which was created while this either wasn't known or not yet possible in the Importer.

[hiznik]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies. They are really helpful to me. There may be some real CS angels around here. I might just have to rush in after all. ;) I started a reply hours ago, got called for other duty and now Belgabor has posted, so I've regrouped so to speak.

Actually, I toyed with the idea of calling this thread, " RCT3 CS: What's possible, what's not?" but that is too vague. Really, it's pretty amazing to me that after several years the fan base and appeal for this game is still so strong. For me, coupled with my building design training, it's more like an addiction (think endless remodeling). :bulb:

It's too bad about no CS shadows, the shadows really add to the 3D effect, I think all will agree. Perhaps when our current PCs will be like typewriters in a museum, the shading and shadowing of all the game's visual objects can take place. The tech is gaining on us and that is certainly a good thing game-wise, but, because this game has no future, it won't be there to make the most of it. It will be a different VR-like game that does. That game will also suffer from some other believability limitation that I will be here writing about. :haha:

The invisible path doodad gets a lot of use in my parks. Sometimes I have to play the Blue Arrow game to discover whether a piece of invisible path is present or not. But I love it. Instead of seeing the only places where the peeps can walk, it looks like they could go anywhere. I wondered though, if we can make actual game paths, that would almost eliminate the need for custom path covers if the default path styles are not the most suitable. Of course adding visible texture must be a whole other ball game requiring the modeling of the stairs, railings, supports and what not. *sigh*

Terrain paint, especially one that emulates a pathway, in combination with invisible doodads like the path would be a definite win, for me at least. The d**n shadows would work on them and the potential for use is large in my estimation. I mean it's already in the game with the bordered concrete, lined concrete and brick pattern paints that can serve as pathways, but a few new well chosen alternatives would be pretty cool.

I think most of us gamers had at least 256 color capability since about the year 2000-2001 when this game was maybe in the conceptual stages, in my estimation. If I had to speculate, I'd say the game's planners and decision makers underestimated the pace of PC hardware development such that, when the game was released, most gamers were on to
remember, unlike any other video game, RCT3 renders it's environment on the fly- other games have a pre-made world that you cannot change and the shading has been pr-rendered.

Yah, so it is the only one? SimCity (a fav of mine) is a bit like this game to me with its built environment manipulation and pause-build-run-pause-build-run... cycles, but that's where the similarity probably ends and shows what I know about game engines (nada). It hadn't occurred to me before, but maybe that's what makes this game so enduring (plus your rides and parks are never finished in the usual sense, are they?). Talk about your delicious "god" mode! A huge, if not the largest part of the game's appeal.

It is due to incorrect data in the model: either through impropper modeling (or glitch in the actual model's source file), or incorrect data when setting up SID settings, and perhaps a few other variables I can't think of...Is it possible to take a CS and edit it, or are source files required? Sometimes I will come across a set where I thonk this is great but the color is just too dark. No, of course I am not interested in taking credit for the work of others. On the contrary, I gladly celebrate the work done by others taken to any stage of development--in fact, the celebration is spilling over outdoors as I acquire a deeper appreciation for the stuff you folks have made available. [end disclaimer]

Finally the palette is already pretty full, people playing at lower screen resolutions wouldn't even see the new ground textures.

Permit me to theorize: the "typical" end users of RCT3 who comes seeking CS alternatives to the defaults have the kind of PC gear that permits them to easily see the default red brick herringbone pattern in glorious 256 colors. Any new texture need not be anymore detailed than that. Well, it's an opinion actually.

Cheers!

[Vodhin]

I think most of us gamers had at least 256 color capability since about the year 2000-2001 when this game was maybe in the conceptual stages...
It is 256 color- it's just that the 256 colors have been divcided up into groups of three. The next level would mean much more memory load for texture processing. Besides, there is yet another reason, which I will post a comment on at the end of this post.

Yah, so it is the only one? SimCity (a fav of mine) is a bit like this game to me with its built environment manipulation and pause-build-run-pause-build-run...
Does SimCity update the buildings on it's own or do you actually build them story by story, from several hundred piece that you can put together in hundreds- thousands of combinations? That's your clue there. I'm pretty sure that RCT3 is a one of a kind sim/builder when it comes to the level of control you have in game.

Is it possible to take a CS and edit it, or are source files required?...
You'll need the source models, plus all the settings used hen it was imported. Don't ask or suggest a new tool for editing pieces- 1)a lot of folks would try to use it to edit and redistribute Frontier's pieces illegally; 2) a lot of CS makers would not want someone changing their vision; 3) it is prety much certain that someone would take someone else's work, change it a little, then pass it off as their own, and; 4) you would loose all my respect that you've gained by asking all these very intilegent and useful questions ;) (it's a pleasure reading full sentences- heck- full words instead of "WU, M8" or or "l8r" - non-literal reactions (lol) are another story :D )


Permit me to theorize: the "typical" end users of RCT3 who comes seeking CS alternatives to the defaults have the kind of PC gear that permits them to easily see the default red brick herringbone pattern in glorious 256 colors. Any new texture need not be anymore detailed than that. Well, it's an opinion actually.

You can make CS in 256 color- lots of CS that isn't colorable is at that level (I'm not 100% certain on that note, Belgabor or The_Cook have the correct answer). My Chitty Chitty Bang Bang rides are non-colorable, so they have the full 256 color palette available (if that is what's stored in the OVL files).



Now... My 2 cents. You are seeking more realism. Lots of folks are looking for that. Lots of games come out every month that push that further and further into photo realistic. Kudos (or is that cudos? eh...) to them.

RCT3 appeals to me because it's like playing a cartoon. It's not real, it's also art in its own little way. As a species on this planet, we're changing from one way of life that stimulated our 5 senses to one that feeds just two (OK, maybe all five if your munching on a bag of Doritos). RCT3 is a good escape because it isn't realistic. If you want reality, go to a real theme park, with your family, and your friends, and make new friends while you're there. When you're looking for an hour or two to create something, to forget the real world, RCT3 is there. And the challenge is to try to make it as believeable as you can using "un-believeable" elements.

To me, it is that cartoony feel that I like the most about RCT3. That's why I try to give my own CS the same feel.

[Belgabor]

The 256 color limit only applies to model textures, it does not apply to other textures used in the game (UI, gound, cliff, path-on-ground). The limit is also by design, as it is used to reasonably imprement recolorability.
When I spoke about the ground texture platette, I was referring to the menu where you select them. If you add more, people running the game at 800x600 will not see the new entries.

[hiznik]

When I spoke about the ground texture platette, I was referring to the menu where you select them. If you add more, people running the game at 800x600 will not see the new entries. Ah! I get it now. That makes perfect sense. Sure, and then there are also other hardware limitations that prevent people with older PCs being able to run the newest games, but can still enjoy this one. Then again, it seems pretty unlikely (or at least a little foolish) to come looking for CS to use on an older, less powerful machine and expect good performance. Do you think all the game owners out there even know there is CS available?

@Vodhin

It’s kudos I think, like the snack.

Gee wizz, when I said RCT was a bit like SC I only meant it in the sense of being able to directly manipulate the virtual physical environment and influence the activities of the peeps, since I had previously made reference to “god mode.” Plus, there’s the fact that both games are past tense. :D I think I’m pretty straight about the differences.

My use of the word “editing” with respect to the work of otthers was completely whacked, and I apologize for that. I don’t know, it’s more about tuning the parts like you can to some extent within the game. I guess that would have to be a tool and the game itself certainly isn’t open source, so I’ll drop the subject.

I am a little confused by what your saying about your CCBB ride (please don’t make me type it all out). Are you actually saying that your uncolorable CS has “the full 256 color palette available?” On the surface (where I spend most of my time cruising for beer) it looks like a paradox.

Thanks for the nice words about my writing style. That other stuff tires me quickly. This gives me the opportunity to tell everyone how pleased I am to see good replies too. However, complete sentences have not communicated very well what I mean about “realism” :( Of course you’re right--RCT3 is a (sophisticated) toy whose only purpose is to entertain and, maybe as a side benefit, hopefully spark your imagination from time to time. The game’s context is cartoony; hard to miss the fact that it’s actually impossible to “float” RW things the game pieces represent in mid air (and leave it there). Let me switch out the word “realism” for “detail,” as it’s better suited to our discussion. I enjoy the visual details and having the tools available to visualize an idea or certain look insofar as possible is what I seek. That is what brings me here, and in the background is me questioning myself whether or not to task myself with a 3D software learning curve to get more of what I want.

With the possibility for endless tinkering and re-invention, the toy becomes more like a hobby than a game. Besides, I’ve always been interested in what makes things tick. Limits testing too, I suppose.

Cheers!

[Vodhin]

A quick reply before I head out for work:

I am a little confused by what your saying about your CCBB ride (please don’t make me type it all out). Are you actually saying that your uncolorable CS has “the full 256 color palette available?” On the surface (where I spend most of my time cruising for beer) it looks like a paradox.

colorable CS uses one third of the 256 colors in the palette for each choice of colors you can alter in game - even if it is just a single color choice, you only have 85 shades of that chosen color. That's a limitation of RCT3 itself. Non-colorable CS can use the full 256 color palette, you could have 256 shades of red in the texture, or, of course, a near photo realistic image.

[Belgabor]

I don't know why you didn't get what Vodhin said, so there seems to be some basic misunderstanding and/or slight talking at cross-purposes here. Therefore please forgive me when I elaborate too much now :)
Modern computers can display about 16 million colors. Normally they are represented as three channels (red, green blue), with each 256 nuances (-> 256*256*256 ~= 16 millon). This is what usually is called "true color".
"256-color" images usually use a color-palette of 256 (doh) colors, each of which is one true color color, so basically it is just limited in the number of different colors it can use in one image, but not limited in which of the 16 millon color "tones" it can use.
As I've said above, RCT3 models use 256-color images as textures. Each model can use at most 31 diffierent textures, so at best it can make use of 32*256 different colors as the color palettes of the textures are pretty much completely creator-configurable. Usually though, creators supply true-color images and let the importer autmatically handle the conversion to 256-color mode.
Now if you want to make a tetxure recolorable, things get tricky. Creators can individually activate three color choices, as you probably know from different objects in the game. Each choice "annexes" one third of the palette of the texture, the colors stored there do not matter at all, they are replaced by the user-selected color in 85 shades. In theory, the color palette entries not used for one of the activated choices can be used freely for "normal" true color colors, practically no one does that. Most creators already have problems getting recolorability to work correctly whithout trying to "salvage" the rest of the palette. The reason is that it's not easy to get a pixel to have a certain index into the palette instead of a certain color, at least if you are not putting a lot of time into understanding what really happens on these images and have the right software to do it.
This is why unrecolorable textures have the full 256-color palette available to them and recolorabre textures do not.

[hiznik]

But wait, I think I do understand, at least conceptually. Even more now, thanks to your elaboration. Here's what a total newbie like me is getting out of our color palette discussion:

The game can custom color three different parts of an object, so it designates 1/3 of the 256 color palette slots for each part, regardless of how many of the three are going to be used by a scenery/object piece. So, when you pick a color in-game for colorable pieces, the game stuffs 1/3 of the game's available color palette slots with 85 shades of it from 0 to 255 or something, but, for uncolorable CS, it only shows you the one selected by the CS author and the other 84 shades just go along for the ride unseen while taking up resources. For CS that is not colorable, the pre-selected on-screen color of the CS may or may not be represented in the default 16 color choices. For non-colorable CS, you (CS maker) can go into the game having selected any of 256 colors, but in-game for colorable CS you only get to choose from the 16 shown in the palette which, in turn, will be affected by the texture you used for the CS. Isn't that about right?

In any event, my confusion about Vodhin's reference about colorability of his ride stems from what I thought he was suggesting to me as a possibility; with 256 color available for the CS, the player (versus the CS author) might set a different color outside of the game by swapping the OVL file for one that has a different color specified and side-step the one-third palette limitation of in-game choices for the colorable stuff. However, pursuing that idea amounts to creating CS sets of the same pieces for each of the colors desired. Please remember that I have no idea how hard that is to do (to have similar sets of CS, differing only in having a unique coloring by changing the color specified in the (?) OVL file). At this point I have to admit that I'm demonstrating how a little knowledge may be a dangerous thing. Nevertheless, it seems a theoretically possible notion, but it's sort of "bulky" and requires a certain dedication on the part of the CS maker to provide however many of (up to 256?!? colored versions are wanted. File swapping would be a nuisance and having the same piece used in a park with two different colors would probably be impossible. That's where my confusion was. *sigh*

Since some default items are colorable, not showing the other color shade choices must have been a fundemental programming decision while developing the game with an eye towards keeping the UI simple and uncluttered. After all, most folks probably aren't keen on picking the right color shade among 85 to match pieces placed earlier. I sometimes have tiny trouble matching up colors with the small game palette we already have! Perhaps unfortunately, that doesn't stop me from trying to acquire as many tweaking tools and as much freedom of choice as possible. :bored:

Coming back to the observation that those with low resolution screens won't be able to see all the added choices of custom terrain paints, it occurs to me that eventuality would not take anything away from whatever enjoyment the game is already providing the user, with the possible exception of how it may illuminate the fact that the screen is becoming outmoded. I come up against that sort of thing all the time in one form or another and I can live with it.

I certainly know a lot more about the subject of CS than when I started this topic, with a (very) basic understanding of how it works and what can be done with it. I'm pretty impressed with the help I've been given. :cool:

[Belgabor]

No, you still got it wrong =)

A full true-color image works like this:
For each pixel of the image, three values are stored, one for the red, green and blue part of the "full" color each. As I've explained above, that makes about 16 million colors. And for a true color image, that means each pixel can have his own shade out of the 16 million. Each channel (optimally) needs one byte, so a 1024x1024 tetxure wuld need 3x1024x1024 = 3Mb.

An indexed image, of which a 256-color image is a special case, works like this:
The image has a palette, which is basically a table of R/G/B-values (for 256-color images, this palette has, you guessed it, 256 entries). Now the image data doesn't store the R/G/B values for each pixel, each pixel only holds an index into this table.
This has two advantages:
- For a 256-color image, each pixel is only 1 byte big, so the mentioned 1024x1024 texture is only 1Mb (plus a couple of bytes for the palette of course)
- If you want to change the colors of certain pixels (to support player color choices for example), you do not need to go through every pixel of the image data, check whether it's a color to be replaced and overwrite that, you just have to change the palette, which is easier and faster. Finally lets assume (going to RCT3) you want to place a certain recolorable object more than once, each with a different color. If you do not have a indexed texture, each of the objects will need it's own full copy of it. If you have an indexed texture, a copy of the palette for each will do.

Back onto the color choices:
The game can custom color three different parts of an object, so it designates 1/3 of the 256 color palette slots for each part, regardless of how many of the three are going to be used by a scenery/object piece. So, when you pick a color in-game for colorable pieces, the game stuffs 1/3 of the game's available color palette slots with 85 shades of it from 0 to 255 or something, but, for uncolorable CS, it only shows you the one selected by the CS author and the other 84 shades just go along for the ride unseen while taking up resources.
No. Imagine the palette has three (or four) parts:

00 Usually black
01
. First block
85
86
. Second block
170
171
. Third block
255
If no user-choices are activated, the creator can use each and every of these colors for his own shade, so he can use full 256 different colors.
If a player color choice is activated, RCT3 replaces the colors found in the respective (palette) block with shades of the player choice, from almost black over the selected color to almost white (everything tinted in the chosen color).

Im still unsure what you misunderstand to come to your conclusions, but each texture has only one palette, not every pixel. There is no resource waste for non-recolorable objects.

[Viscosity086]

Fascinating, I've been reading this (understood mostly before) thanks to some tutorials, but the in-depth look is really good, I must say that you're a book of knowledge on RCT3 Belgabor- now their is logic behind reason..

[hiznik]

^^ Belgabor, thanks for your patience. Best thing now for me is to go study and reflect on what I've learned here and have a look at the Blender software I downloaded.

^ Indeed, Belgabor is one of the good ones. Witness!

[Old-Spice]

Belgabor, I skimmed through everything said, and didn't see this.

Would it be possible to replace the existing ones for more realistic, or higher resolution ones? Do the samething we did with the paths?

[Belgabor]

Spice, are you talking about model or the ground textures?