Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Custom Tracks"

From Custom Mario Kart
Jump to: navigation, search
(Translations)
 
Line 123: Line 123:
  
 
: Done and signed -- [[User:Wiimm|Wiimm]] ([[User talk:Wiimm|talk]]) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 
: Done and signed -- [[User:Wiimm|Wiimm]] ([[User talk:Wiimm|talk]]) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Track Versions ==
 +
 +
Should each CT's version number (Beta, RC1, v1.0, etc.) be added as a new column to the list? I feel like it's a good way of indicating whether a track is complete or not. Thoughts? [[User:Jcharlesk|Jcharlesk]] ([[User talk:Jcharlesk|talk]]) 00:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:28, 7 March 2019


Misc

What about adding the rate into the table? IT'll show the best tracks of all rated by people.
kHacker35000vr 19:55, 29 September 2011 (CEST)


Here's a list of the track~s that don't have an actual page for then yet:

  • Desert Cross‎
  • DK's Jungle Beach
  • Ghostly Path‎
  • Green Hill Zone‎
  • Hidden Land‎
  • Icy Shroom Road
  • Jungle Safari‎
  • Koopa Canyon‎
  • Koopa's Platorm
  • Lame Course
  • Lizard Maze
  • Luigi Circuit 2
  • Luigi's Island
  • Lunar Speedway
  • Majora's Castle‎
  • Meep's Mansion‎
  • Monty Mole Lake‎
  • Moo Moo Island‎
  • Mushroom Desert‎
  • Mushroom Island
  • Mushroom Land
  • Mushroom Peaks
  • Mushroom Volcano
  • Nightmare
  • Northpole Slide‎
  • Rezway
  • Road by Road
  • Rocky Roadway‎
  • Ruin Labyrinth‎
  • SixKingLabyrinth
  • Sky Heaven‎
  • Skylane‎
  • Star Slope
  • Stunny City
  • Sunset Desert‎

Now I hope people take the names out of the list when they create the pages. Nobody will, wanna see?
Igorseabra4 03:10, 28 March 2011 (CEST)

Track generation order: I suggest not make parts from track generations but just make it one of it's specificaltion, so you can sort on it. This makes it easier to change the generation.
Vulcanus2 15:32, 19 May 2011 (CEST)

What exactly do you mean with that? I didn't get it. You mean adding a new column called "Generation" to each custom track? If that's what you meant it's a bad idea IMO.
Igorseabra4 17:40, 19 May 2011 (CEST)
It is good, but you don't accept the definition I suggested, so please change it back and put it as a column as it doesn't have any value now. 3G tracks and even some 2G can be better than the 4G you suggested, I'll work out the quality rate thingy. Vulcanus2 22:39, 20 May 2011 (CEST)
I thing sorting by generations isn't good. If a user (and me) search a track by name he will not search in 6 different tables. 'generation' is only a attribute with a separate column in 1 complete tables.
Wiimm 11:21, 21 May 2011 (CEST)

There's a section for courses that aren't from Mario Kart games, but the only course listed here is also in the list of courses from SM64. Does it really need to be on this list too?
Guilmon35249vr 04:49, 18 September 2011 (CEST)

Do you mean SM64 Whomp's Fortress? I think it is a "non ported track" because it was never a track and should be inserted here. And if we do this, page List of Super Mario 64 Custom Tracks is obsolete.
Wiimm 05:16, 18 September 2011 (CEST)


Sorting

I think we should serperate this page into more pages sorted by date or type. This page is really getting too long now.
kHacker35000vr 16:06, 3 June 2012 (CEST)

Yes. I agree with you since many new custom tracks are ignored. And I don't like the mixing up old custom tracks with new ones because of the enormity of the page. It could also help people that are looking for current custom tracks. So I have to say yes to this idea. --MitsySueG24 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
So... a page per year?
ZillaSpaz (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I think a page per year would be good. But what if an old track is updated, would it go on the 2010 list or 2013 list. I could help with making the lists. --FunkyDude15 (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
My idea is that tracks either released or updated in 2013 belong in the 2013 page. Anything released or last updated before 2013 belong on other pages, like 2012, 2011, etc.. This way, it's very easy for users to either get the most up-to-date CTs or look for classics.
ZillaSpaz (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. A page per year would be awesome. --MitsySueG24 (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep! Maybe before we actually make the pages we could make a list for each year in the Sandbox. So we don't miss anything. But what about retro tracks and tracks without dates? --FunkyDude15 (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfinished Tracks

I think it would be useful to have two sections here: Unfinished (Playable) for tracks that can be downloaded and played but are in the testing stage and Unfinished (Non-Playable) as there are quite a few unfinished maps in the list that are in the planning stage or modeling stage.--Jefe 17:29, 25 September 2011 (CEST)
Now that I've set up the table to indicate Status and Projected Release dates, I think the Unfinished Tracks section belongs on its own page. Here's my reasoning: This page is for custom, made from scratch tracks, but quite a few of the unfinished tracks are ports and remakes. They all go on their own pages when finished, but I think it would be awkward to have unfinished tracks on all those pages. In addition this is really supposed to be a listing of available tracks. I don't think any of those unfinished tracks have downloads. So the best solution would be a page for all unfinished tracks, and it would help enforce the rule of listing no more than 2 unfinished tracks per author. I can set up a redirect for List_of_Custom_Tracks#Unfinished_Tracks to ensure there are no broken links. Pros? Cons?
As long as a track has no public release it can be in Unfinished Tracks, else it should be in the normal list. This part is just a way for authors to announce projects. So playable/non-playable thing isn't right, if it's playable, and released, it shouldn't be in this list at all.
About a new page: Good idea.
Vulcanus2 23:18, 18 October 2011 (CEST)
Yeah that was my original idea (Playable/Non Playable), since then I changed it to Status (Planning, Modeling, Alpha, Beta.) Not every track should to go straight to the CT list though. If you're doing a beta, you'll want people to download it and give you feedback so you can make changes, even if its in a rough state and not considered 'released.' I think those tracks have a place on the unfinished list. --Jefe 23:28, 18 October 2011 (CEST)
I think like Vulcanus, it is great. And will come more changes?
LuigiM 00:04, 19 October 2011 (CEST)

Original Designs, Remakes, Texture Hack, Patches and Broken Links

I was browsing through some of the tracks on the main list and noticed names like Bowser Castle 1 and Luigi Circuit 2. I think the main list should be original designs only, and it seems that vast majority of them are. If these tracks are remakes, they should be on the page for the corresponding game (most likely SNES and GBA.)

Additionally Luigi Circuit 2 is SFP patch. I haven't used SFP patches yet (doesn't seem to be info on the wiki other than on SZS Modifier, and don't forget I'm still new to this scene) but I understand they're used for texture patches on the stock MKWHEE tracks. Are KMP patches part of their capability? In either case it shouldn't be on the main CT List. It should either be on the Texture Hacks page or the List_of_Custom_Tracks#Custom Tracks Without Model Edits section. If it can completely patch a level with a new model, then it should stay. In any case someone should do an article about SFP patching or expand the SZS Modifier entry about the format.

Lastly several tracks don't have pages with download info. On the texture hack page most of them are without pages, but I assume that's because they can be downloaded to from the SFP server. On this side they really need to have a page. Should these be deleted or should just need to track them down? --Jefe 03:42, 19 October 2011 (CEST)

Luigi Circuit 2 is a brand new track. Older CTs were indeed released via SFP patches. SFP patches can include ANYTHING changed in an SZS as long as the filesize doesn't change. Mushroom Peaks was originally released as an SFP, for example.
Guilmon35249vr 04:02, 19 October 2011 (CEST)
Another question then. I assume that SFPs require patching a particular track, right? Do you need a ripped iso (which I do not have) for this? I think it would good idea to upload SZS versions of these tracks, since the majority of CTs are SZSs. -Jefe 04:19, 19 October 2011 (CEST)
Yes, SFPs require the SZS that they originated from. Mushroom Peaks requires a kinoko_course.szs that has the original file structure (meaning if you have a texture hacked Mushroom Gorge, those textures WILL carry over into Mushroom Peaks unless a texture was changed in the SFP. In other words, the SFP only stores the things that were changed from the original SZS, and anything else isn't changed).
Guilmon35249vr 04:49, 19 October 2011 (CEST)

Testing Custom Tracks

for some reason, i can't test my tracks on ctgp revolution. My track replaces Kartwood Creak, but it won't let me play it. Please help. Pokemongeof 10:47 22 November 2011 (CEST)

Where are you putting your replacement file? --Jefe 19:55, 22 November 2011 (CET)

"Type" on track pages

Should the "Type" row on track pages themselves be standardized a little? I noticed a track recently had its type changed from "Bowser Castle" to "Bowser's Castle".
Maybe have a list of common course types (like Desert, Space, Rainbow Road, Circuit, etc, maybe also "Other" for ones that don't fit) and find a way to sort tracks based on this type.
It'd mean updating this page to include track type though... --ZephyrNidorino (Guilmon35249vr) (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Translations

I have added a new section "Translations". This section replaces the old and unmaintained sub page List of Custom Tracks/Translation. A moderator can delete the obolsote page.

@Wiimm: Can you verify my rules for bots?

-- Hanno (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Done and signed -- Wiimm (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Track Versions

Should each CT's version number (Beta, RC1, v1.0, etc.) be added as a new column to the list? I feel like it's a good way of indicating whether a track is complete or not. Thoughts? Jcharlesk (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)