IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2017-02-28
⏴ go to previous day
00:01:43 <Samu> If I don't get 11 now, I cry
00:02:36 <Samu> wow, it was easier than I thought
00:03:00 <Samu> do { len += v->gcache.cached_veh_length; v = v->HasArticulatedPart() ? v->GetNextArticulatedPart() : NULL; } while (v != NULL);
00:03:11 <supermop_> Eddi|zuHause: what should i call that
00:04:23 <Eddi|zuHause> "torf" is apparently called "peat" in english
00:04:43 <Samu> v was nullptr --- what is this?
00:05:31 <supermop_> i drew creosote soaked wood poles for cheap crappy wire
00:05:46 <Wolf01> That you need to do "do while() {}" and not "do {} while()"
00:08:16 <Samu> ah it was something else, I can't use v
00:08:48 <Samu> but i need a copy of v when do while is running
00:11:32 <Samu> it's actually a do { do {} while() } while()
00:11:46 <Samu> articulated parts are getting in the way
00:14:58 <Samu> the first do while is for the vehicle, but a vehicle in itself can be articulated, so i need another do while to account for it
00:18:18 <Samu> a multi-headed vehicle apparently is 2 vehicles in this situation
00:39:00 <Samu> I got a train of lenght 48, in which 42 doesn't have a running cost assigned
00:39:48 <Samu> only the engine have the running cost
00:41:19 <Samu> what should be the running cost of the 5 wagons
00:42:54 <Samu> only 8/48 of the train got running cost, the other 42/48 must be based on the running cost of 8/48
00:43:19 <Samu> hmmm help me formulate a formula
00:46:46 *** UntouchedWagons has quit IRC
00:55:06 <Samu> 2013, it was 4 years ago
01:17:11 *** supermop has joined #openttd
01:40:33 <Samu> return cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length);
01:42:08 <Samu> unc_len is uncounted_length
01:42:33 <Samu> the length of the parts of a train that do not have a running cost associated
01:47:33 <Samu> the cost is modified based on the currently calculated running cost of the parts that have it
01:48:50 <Samu> if the train got 3 engines, Ginzu A4s for instance
01:49:48 <Samu> whatever, it's working as I intended
02:07:57 <Samu> compare the running costs between 1.6.1 and my testing
02:10:53 <Samu> hmm which servers do btpro host those? I'll just download missing newgrfs
02:25:37 <ST2> I only spoke of 2cc, because your changes... to be even considered, must work with all newgrf's
02:25:53 <ST2> already done or to be made
02:28:51 <ST2> but if want to make some tests with Road Hog, Iron Horse and FISH 2 - all under FIRS, server #97 is up
02:30:35 <Samu> hmm what i really wanted to test was a mixture of base cost changes for trains, engines or wagons, with or without running costs in them
02:32:32 <ST2> to the told server, all can be downloaded via Check missing content
02:45:13 *** markasoftware has joined #openttd
04:19:24 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai
05:16:26 *** Supercheese has joined #openttd
05:37:43 *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd
06:12:29 *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest151
06:12:30 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
06:42:30 *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest152
06:42:32 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
06:54:52 *** chomwitt has joined #openttd
07:17:51 *** Alberth has joined #openttd
07:17:51 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth
07:43:57 *** supermop__ has joined #openttd
08:47:45 *** mescalito has joined #openttd
08:58:35 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
09:38:35 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
09:39:56 *** andythenorth has left #openttd
10:09:33 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
10:12:27 *** maciozo has joined #openttd
10:25:37 *** skapazzo has joined #openttd
10:58:50 <Samu> but it lacks customization
11:08:00 <Samu> i always take so much time figuring out how to code something, and then it's just so small
11:16:00 <Samu> i'm following the formula
11:16:54 <Samu> Engine_Running_Cost - instead of engine running cost, this is now the running cost of parts of the trains that have a running cost
11:17:44 <Samu> Number_of_added_Wagons - instead of number of added wagons, this is now the length of parts of the train that do not have a running cost
11:19:20 <Samu> Constant_Variable - this part is, for now, based on _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length
11:19:45 <Samu> i'd like to have this to become a customizable user value
11:53:22 *** zwamkat has joined #openttd
12:53:21 <__ln__> Wolf01: ketchup on pizza -- heresy or not?
13:28:39 <Wolf01> Samu, please, don't do "return cost += cost * ..."
13:29:27 <__ln__> nothing, there's just ketchup on the pizza then
13:30:44 <crem> +1 for "return x += x * blah" being ugly
13:31:49 <Samu> return cost = cost + cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length);
13:32:02 <Wolf01> No matter what, you should split in 2 lines
13:32:16 <Wolf01> No assignments in return
13:33:03 <Wolf01> And try to forget the idea that fewer lines in a patch is better
13:33:24 <Wolf01> A good patch is good, no matter how many lines
13:34:32 <Wolf01> Also comment difficult to read code to understand what it should do
13:35:13 <__ln__> I agree, assignment in return statement is both ugly and harder to understand than doing it elsewhere.
13:35:19 <Samu> heh, for me it was hard to understand that an articulated vehicle is not the same as a dual-headed vehicle
13:37:00 <Wolf01> Also an assignment in return is useless as there is no other code which uses the variable
13:38:07 <Samu> cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 3 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length); return cost;
13:38:20 <__ln__> Oh, indeed, i didn't even look that closely to notice cost is a local variable.
13:40:01 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
13:41:56 <crem> I'd also use while{} rather than do{}while even though the first iteration is guaranteed to be non-NULL. But that's matter of taste I guess.
13:42:28 <crem> There are lots of do{}while though.
13:43:10 <Samu> uh, wait, explain me better, i'm noob
13:44:03 <Wolf01> There's a difference between while() {} and do {} while()
13:44:27 <Wolf01> The former tests the variable at the beginning, before executing the code
13:45:02 <Wolf01> The latter executes the code and then tests the variable to know if it should do another loop
13:46:01 <Samu> ah, the engine always has a cached_veh_length, doesn't it?
13:46:12 <Samu> be it articulated or not
13:47:26 <Samu> cached_veh_length is the length of the current part being iterated
13:47:44 *** tycoondemon has joined #openttd
13:48:37 <Samu> if it's not articulated, it still has a cached_veh_length
13:48:49 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
13:48:50 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
13:49:37 <Samu> if it is articulated, cached_veh_length is the value of only 1 of the parts
13:49:46 <Wolf01> Then, what's the problem?
13:49:48 <Samu> so it needs to sum all parts
13:54:14 <Wolf01> As crem says, it's only a matter of taste if it works the same way
14:15:58 <Wolf01> "But do not ever write, 'a = b +=1' or we will have to kill 10 kittens, 27 mice, a dog and a hamster." XDDDD
14:17:18 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai
14:18:45 <Alberth> I wonder what value a gets :)
14:19:25 <Wolf01> I think is the same of a = ++b, but not sure
14:19:53 <Alberth> ha, I never write pre-increment either :p
14:20:22 <Alberth> always post-increment, and always as separate statement
14:20:55 <Wolf01> Pre-increment is for code obfuscation
14:23:20 <Alberth> I can see pre-decrement being useful, but pre-increment, I wouldn't be able to give a useful example now
14:23:27 <Wolf01> Lol "for(int x=0; x<100; x++); cout<<x;" -> 100... fucking semicolons XD
14:23:44 <crem> nope, all postfix operators are for code obfuscation. It's natural for all unary operators to be prefix.
14:26:53 <Alberth> no compile error for unknown x? :)
14:27:28 <Alberth> crem: sure, as soon as we have 1 =+ a
14:27:57 <Wolf01> Might be, I just shortened the code
14:28:35 <Alberth> prefix form of a += a
14:29:02 <crem> += is a binary operation, it is infix.
14:30:03 <Alberth> crem: not really, left hand side and right hand side have different properties
14:30:10 <Wolf01> The accepted answer is really explanatory
14:30:13 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
14:30:29 <Alberth> Normal + is a binary operation imho
14:31:07 <crem> It's right-associative binary operator.
14:33:10 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
14:33:10 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
14:34:48 <Samu> "cost += cost * unc_len...;" is this bad?
14:34:59 <Alberth> "operator" has no side effects in my view, which is why "operator" doesn't seem the right word to me
14:35:24 <Alberth> Samu: quadratic costs?
14:35:38 <Alberth> ie cost = cost + cost * unc_len
14:35:58 <Samu> cost = whatever it is right now + extra
14:36:13 <Samu> that extra is based on the cost that whatever it is right now
14:36:21 <Alberth> where "extra" includes the cost you have to far
14:36:28 <Wolf01> Where unc_len is 0 <= x < 1 I hope
14:37:34 <Samu> unc_len is 1 to ... hmmm 64*8*2
14:37:36 <Alberth> but it may not do what you expect it to do
14:38:05 <Wolf01> I already have enough with transport fever where running cost of wagons are x10 than the purchase cost of an engine
14:38:28 <Alberth> good model for making money :p
14:38:57 <Alberth> free wagons, you just pay per km :p
14:39:13 <Wolf01> No, the problem is that even the wagon costs a lot
14:39:34 <Wolf01> You usually can't start with trains in that evil game
14:39:41 <Alberth> so they too have the problem of being too sand-boxish?
14:40:08 <Wolf01> Everything costs too much
14:40:27 <Wolf01> But you can enable the sandbox mod and have everything for free
14:40:32 *** Stimrol has joined #openttd
14:40:38 <Alberth> E_TOO_MUCH_REALISM :p
14:41:13 <Wolf01> Yup, like a 3 seats car (counting the driver) can carry 24 pax
14:41:15 <Alberth> I could see it as a way to drive you to simpler buses etc
14:42:08 <Samu> cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length)
14:42:20 <Samu> wanna help me work on a better formula?
14:42:40 <Wolf01> 1. what you want as a result; 2. what the variable mean
14:42:57 <Wolf01> Cost is the entire consist running cost iirc
14:43:17 <Wolf01> Which in vanilla is calculated for engines only
14:43:34 <Samu> let me copy paste, i got it explained earlier today
14:44:09 <Wolf01> I understood you want to make running cost based on consist length
14:44:17 <Samu> Cost = this is the running cost of parts of the train that have a running cost
14:44:19 <Wolf01> I think is better to have a grf feature instead
14:45:02 <Samu> unc_len - the sum of the length of parts that do not have a running cost
14:45:53 <Wolf01> What _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length has to do there then?
14:46:25 <Samu> i wanted some level of customization...
14:46:27 <Wolf01> I wouldn't mix a setting value in calculations
14:47:12 <Samu> I plant have a separate user-defined value
14:48:25 <Samu> ok, replace it with which value?
14:48:48 <Samu> default of max_train_length that is
14:49:17 <Wolf01> That is a multiplier, and max_train_length is not the right one to use, the weight multiplier could be a better one
14:51:15 <Wolf01> Also like that, the greatest is the length, the lower is the cost
14:51:49 <Wolf01> Just put your formulae in excel and throw at it some numbers, make a chart and see
14:52:19 *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd
14:53:56 <Samu> running cost based on train weigth isn't a good idea imo
14:54:22 <Samu> it would be constantly changing the running cost values
14:55:20 <Samu> but it's an idea that could go into a newgrf perhaps
14:57:22 <Samu> "I wanted to achieve something "simple""
14:57:36 <Samu> more wagons = more costs
14:57:39 <Samu> less wagons = less costs
14:57:47 <Wolf01> Just add running costs to wagons?
14:58:03 <Samu> no, because that would require newgrf
14:58:16 <Samu> default wagons have no costs
14:58:45 <Samu> i wanted to do it for the default wagons
14:58:50 <Samu> without the need of a newgrf
14:59:03 <Wolf01> Then why you want to add obscure costs? We already have the "other" category which is weird enough
14:59:48 <Samu> because it's unfair that train size can go up to 64 tiles, and yet the running cost of a train doesn't change
15:00:24 <Samu> i know 64 isn't exactly playable
15:00:40 <Samu> but most servers use the default of 7, maps also larger
15:00:43 <Wolf01> But you will need to add more engines or the train won't move, there your added running cost goes
15:01:41 <Samu> i have it explained in my old topic
15:02:15 <Wolf01> Also different wagons should have different costs, I could have a flat wagon 1 tile long which costs less than an armored wagon of 1/4 tile
15:08:50 <Wolf01> Btw, I'm not saying you are trying to do a bad thing, I would like it too (I like realism) but I would do it via grf
15:10:25 <Wolf01> As I don't like when something is changed in obscure ways, as if the running cost for engines says "2M/y" and the info window says "3.5M/y", where the 1.5M comes off?
15:11:25 <Samu> you won't know until you attach the wagon into a train
15:11:38 <Samu> and then look into the train details
15:11:48 <Wolf01> If you do it with a grf, each wagon can show its running cost, like engines do, and you can sum the numbers
15:12:16 <Wolf01> Why do the running cost of a wagon changes with train length?
15:12:55 <Wolf01> Can't you just sum 2M+200k+200+150k+150k+300k?
15:13:09 <Samu> that's not always the case, there are wagons with running costs specified, and some without
15:13:19 <Samu> if you mix it up with newgrfs' that is
15:13:19 <Wolf01> Instead of doing 2M+(black_magic)?
15:14:44 <Wolf01> 1. mixing up grfs is your fault, as most of miscalculations reported in the forum; 2. vanilla game should not change vanilla values using black magic
15:15:53 <Samu> i mean mix vanilla with a newgrf that contains wagons with running costs
15:17:04 <Wolf01> Also if you need to report the running cost for a wagon, you should do another function and apply the cost to that wagon with the wagon lenght, not the length of entire consist which means nothing
15:17:09 <Samu> yes, that's one issue, i intend to solve it by having a game setting that enables or disables these costs
15:17:27 <Wolf01> I won't pay less the fuel if I make my car bigger
15:18:47 *** enygmata has joined #openttd
15:20:51 <Wolf01> What I mean is that you should do cost += ... into the loop, not at the end
15:21:49 <Wolf01> The problem is that you might not know the cost of the engines because you didn't have already looped through all the consist
15:22:23 <Samu> the engine cost is added
15:22:26 <Wolf01> But you could use a constant for vanilla or when you don't have defined running cost
15:22:33 <Samu> cost += GetPrice(e->u.rail.running_cost_class, cost_factor, e->GetGRF());
15:22:41 <Samu> that's already in there, i didn't touch that
15:22:55 <Wolf01> Also I can't understand why you must derive wagon running cost from an engine
15:23:00 <Samu> this is the running cost of engines, but also of wagons that do specify running cost
15:23:41 <Wolf01> For vanilla engines you could add 1/8 of their price
15:24:42 <Samu> that would still make usage of the most powerful/fast train preferible, and i wanted to change that
15:24:46 <Wolf01> And just leave out all the lenght calculations which don't mean anything
15:24:50 <Samu> for the early part of the game, that is
15:26:08 <Samu> in the case of vanilla, running cost of wagons should be dependant on engine running cost
15:26:12 <Alberth> turn on breakdowns, and you get a much different choice in engines
15:26:31 <Samu> most of the time, a powerful engine got high running cost
15:26:41 <Samu> a less powerful engine got low running cost
15:26:51 <Samu> it's not always the case
15:27:15 <Alberth> use a different newgrf if you don't agree
15:27:49 <Wolf01> You are going to purchase a trailer: "it's 100$ says the dealer, to what vehicle do you want to attach it?" "a ferrari" "then its 500$"
15:28:05 <Alberth> giving parameters free for tuning by newgrf authors means some makes choices different from your ideas
15:28:31 <Samu> makes no sense to you, :(
15:28:45 <Wolf01> Make no sense to everyone else than you
15:28:54 <Alberth> it works for Apple :p
15:29:26 <Samu> running cost of dash is about £1400
15:29:47 <Samu> wagons attached into Dash were about ~£93 or so running cost
15:29:59 <Wolf01> Wagons which don't have running costs should be derived from other wagon details not from planets lining up and a total ecplipse"
15:30:04 <Samu> a manley-morel dmu running cost is about £1700
15:30:12 <Samu> wagon attached would be about ~£113
15:30:54 <peter1138> did inflation ever get fixed
15:30:56 <Samu> this cost isn't shown in the wagon, because by the time you're purchasing the wagon, you don't know into which train it's going to be attached
15:31:36 <Samu> but why? that's the intention :(
15:32:17 <Wolf01> Because I purchase wagons and engines based on running costs too, If I can't make 2M/y, I won't purchase an engine which costs me 3M/y
15:32:18 <peter1138> then you need a specific wagons for that use
15:32:28 <Wolf01> And with hidden costs I can't know that
15:32:52 <Samu> the only thing you will know is that the running cost is not displayed in the wagon
15:33:09 <Wolf01> The only thing I won't know is the running costs
15:33:11 <Samu> if the wagon does specify a running cost, it will say it, and it will use it
15:33:25 <Wolf01> If it's not displayed it's 0
15:34:03 <Samu> if it's.. £100 for the wagon and £1400 for the engine, it will be £1400 + £100
15:34:10 <Samu> if it doesn't display it
15:34:15 <Samu> it will be based on the engine
15:35:11 <Wolf01> But it isn't displayed, how do I know it's 100?
15:35:32 <Samu> you won't know, until it is attached into the train
15:35:36 <Wolf01> Also, it's based on the engine
15:36:10 <Samu> that length is the length that does not have a running cost
15:36:18 <Wolf01> E+w+w+w+w+w+w+w+ww+w+w+ They pay me to run it
15:36:20 <Samu> if all wagons don't have a running cost
15:37:01 <Samu> meh, let me take a screenshot
15:40:29 <Wolf01> You can even put a multiplier and use the same multiplier to show the actual running cost on the details
15:41:40 <Wolf01> I simply can't understand the relation of the wagon running cost with the engine
15:42:12 <Samu> let me try with another engine, brb
15:42:37 <Wolf01> Also it's just a nonsense to spread the running cost of the engine to the entire consist based on the length of the consist
15:42:43 <supermop__> If i have a pullman coach with fancy waiters and staff onboard, i assume they do not ask for more pay depending on what locomotive hauls them?
15:43:44 <Wolf01> 1400 + 1W -> 100, +2W -> 80, +3W -> 60
15:43:49 <supermop__> although in that case i guess you need at least 1 waiter when there is one coach, but maybe only 2 waiters for 3 coaches?
15:44:00 <Samu> refresh page, should display 2 images
15:44:47 <Wolf01> Samu I can't give a fuck of the screenshots, it's the wrong implementation behind it which is the problem
15:45:01 <Wolf01> The idea is good, but not the implementation
15:45:27 <Samu> let me look at your code
15:45:43 <Wolf01> You buy 3 apples: 3€, 3 apples and 1 pear -> 25€, how much costs the pear?
15:45:49 <Samu> ah, that would make the cost permanent
15:45:57 <Samu> independent of the egine
15:46:25 <Wolf01> Hint: the pear costs 0.75€, but you have a ferrari
15:47:54 <Samu> hmm so the ferrari effect is bad for realism
15:48:06 <Wolf01> Not just for realism, it's nonsense
15:48:37 *** orudge` has joined #openttd
15:48:37 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
15:48:54 <Wolf01> Because the next time you might want to apply a different cost if the depot where you purchase the wagon is near an airport
15:50:48 <Samu> okay, if i don't base it on the length of the engine, what do I base it on
15:51:01 <Samu> erm,... running cost of the engine
15:51:04 <Wolf01> The weight of the wagon
15:51:16 <Wolf01> Forgot about the engine
15:51:48 <Wolf01> You have a wagon and its details
15:52:30 <Wolf01> Use the length of the name of the wagon multiplied by the id of the default cargo, do what you want, just use the same wagon details
15:52:44 <Wolf01> It *must* be reproducible
15:52:54 <Samu> 19t (49t) for grain, i see
15:54:43 <Wolf01> Also, please don't make it strange for mixed grfs, it's already weird to have different purchase prices
15:55:14 <Samu> newgrfs are already a mess indeed
15:56:18 <Samu> running cost based on wagon weigth, independently of engine
15:57:13 <supermop__> maybe dirt should be something different than rough mining roads etc
15:57:23 <supermop__> and those can be gravel
15:57:24 <Samu> do you mean the current weigth of the wagon?
15:57:36 <Wolf01> We have a lot of gravel roads here
15:57:46 <Samu> or do i use the max value always?
15:58:13 <crem> Running cost should also depend on velocity! For realism. :) And age.
15:59:37 <Samu> i don't think it would achieve anything by just adding permanent costs to wagons, just for the sake of being the same
16:00:03 <Samu> we're at odds, you have a different issue than me
16:00:08 <supermop__> any gameplay need for shittier tramways?
16:00:11 <Wolf01> Btw, I would use purchase_cost / factor * breakdown_chance
16:00:25 <Samu> my goal was to achieve balance
16:00:40 <supermop__> seems like it will be easier to run out of road types than tram types
16:00:46 <Samu> incentive usage of lower running cost trains
16:01:09 <supermop__> as long as you don't use exotic tram power supplies
16:01:46 <Samu> but my proposal is nonsense, not realism
16:02:02 <Wolf01> supermop__, yes, I thought that too, 23 / 7 instead of 15 / 15 could have been a better choice
16:02:05 <supermop__> currently only want normal tram and modern faster light rail,
16:02:22 <Samu> i prefer balance over realism
16:02:47 <supermop__> but there is scope for drawing at least a shittier looking catenary with even lower speed than regular tram
16:03:03 <supermop__> but i dont think there is need for shittier tramway track
16:03:34 <Wolf01> But you could have lightrail, elrail, catenary, suspended, train on rubber
16:04:17 <supermop__> maybe this: light railway; LR with shitty wire; LR with decent wire; LR with nice modern catenary
16:05:23 <Wolf01> Also some industrial consists might be placed in tram section just to keep them separated from road
16:05:25 <supermop__> and not worry about quality of trackbed in such a basic grf
16:06:28 <supermop__> thing is, in that case, then you might want the modern light rail to not be buildable on road
16:07:05 <supermop__> anyway that gives variation and only uses 4 out of 15 slots
16:07:15 <Wolf01> The one with grassy paths and cement?
16:07:52 <supermop__> when tram is in the roadway, it all looks the same
16:08:07 <supermop__> not worth worrying about quality of track
16:08:43 <supermop__> when tram is out of the road, it either looks like crappy rails, nice rails, or is still set into concrete
16:10:23 <Wolf01> I know you could just let bare land under it, but with some decoration and forbidding to build it over road / build road under it, it is a cool thing
16:10:27 <Alberth> ever looked at how many train track types exist? :)
16:11:27 <Wolf01> The problem might be crossings
16:12:44 <Wolf01> I already have a patch to disable crossings on the same roadtype, I think making a patch which allows only to cross another roadtype and not build it in the same direction is not so difficult
16:12:51 <supermop__> is it worth 3+ tram types though for the different ways it can look when absent of roadway?
16:14:05 <supermop__> can maybe abuse town zone/sidewalks to get fancy grass or pavement in town, gravel ballast outside
16:14:10 <Wolf01> Btw, let's ask the cat when he arrives
16:14:22 <crem> The aspect in ttd that I always didn't like is that from the very beginning it's possible (and encouraged) to build large routes in random places of the map. In reaility companies usually start small and local. It would be nice to have a "distance from headquarters penalty", purchasing permits to extend area where you can build or something like that.
16:15:25 <supermop__> crem: in 1994 playing tto, my neighbor told me that reliability and running cost improve the closer a vehicle is to your HQ
16:15:44 <supermop__> i believed that for about 10 years and was so sad to find it was not true
16:16:24 <Wolf01> But, let's make it and don't tell others, for the glory of satan
16:16:39 <Wolf01> Commit message: changed stuff
16:16:57 <supermop__> Wolf01: is it possible for tramtype to block roads or vis versa yet?
16:17:37 <Wolf01> We need to make the core working flawlessly first
16:17:52 <Wolf01> Then flag-fest will happen
16:18:43 <crem> All that you discuss now, trams etc.. Will it be available in "pure" openttd with default gfx? Or one has to build from some fork, know what gfx to download, etc?
16:19:23 <supermop__> please DL and test
16:19:46 <supermop__> cannot go into regular Openttd until it is well tested
16:20:13 <crem> But eventually, will it?
16:20:39 <supermop__> only if enough people test it and work to make sure it works
16:21:09 <supermop__> there is no guarantee if users are apathetic towards it,it will die
16:23:42 <crem> Because even in last major versions updates, all "major" changes were like "more height levels" and "windows remember their size". It's sad to see actual gameplay enchancements which don't get into the game.
16:24:25 <supermop__> crem: the more complex a feature is, the more work it needs to make sure it can go into trunk
16:25:09 <supermop__> if you follow threads for the major patchpacks in the forums, you will see there are constantly bugs, problems, conflicts
16:25:21 <Wolf01> Like NRT, which might see trunk next xmas if I can't fix some of the shit I've done
16:25:22 <supermop__> and the maintainer has to work constantly to resolve them
16:26:14 <Wolf01> And andy already wants me at work on docks
16:27:18 <supermop__> a patch for trunk has to make sure that it absolutely does not cause problems first, and that the code follows standards, so if the author dies tomorrow, some other dev can easily follow it
16:28:21 <supermop__> notice that Cdist took like 4 years or more to get into trunk, and even now people complain about it not working the way they expect
16:28:45 <supermop__> also, more height levels was a huge patch that took years and years of work
16:28:59 <Alberth> wiki doesn't do a great job in explaining what you should expect from cdist :)
16:29:48 <supermop__> people clamored for MHL for years but it took Chillcore and others tons of work to get it to be suitable for trunk
16:30:47 <Wolf01> Btw, I would like a grf set (and baseset too) with that kind of graphics
16:31:14 <supermop__> i will make for 50,000.00 USD
16:31:17 <Wolf01> Simutrans has a sort of it
16:31:35 <Wolf01> I could make it with voxels
16:31:38 <supermop__> buy now and i'll only charge 45,000
16:32:47 <supermop__> can probably just hire that artist
16:33:21 <Wolf01> He does really cool things
16:33:58 <Wolf01> Too bad I'm shit at drawing (and at coding too, but a bit better there)
16:35:29 <Samu> testing ship vs train vs road vehicle
16:36:31 <supermop__> just make a few hundredthousand eur and pay the artist
16:36:40 <supermop__> or pay me and i will try to learn
16:37:07 <supermop__> Wolf01: that looks pretty cheap
16:38:48 <supermop__> label for shitty tramway? SHTR?
16:38:53 <Wolf01> Uhm, it would be possible to make bridge graphics which merge when 2 bridges are build close?
16:39:15 <supermop__> wolf: ive always wanted that
16:39:20 <Wolf01> Just SHIT is enough, it's already tramway :P
16:39:38 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
16:40:07 <supermop__> currently only idea i have is use 3+ bridge types: regular, left, right, and maybe center
16:40:11 <FLHerne> There's a grf somewhere for that, IIRC
16:40:22 <FLHerne> (with seperate bridge types for each side)
16:40:51 <supermop__> i don't care about having 3 types of suspension bridge anyway
16:41:11 <supermop__> but until nml does bridges, im not going to bother with it
16:45:04 *** Landscape has joined #openttd
16:49:51 <Landscape> hey you developers, what about this suggestion: Possibility to generate Landscapes with cliffs? So, hills are generate in one way - a cell can only be one level higher ore lower than the neighborcell. My idea is to change the hillgenerator to a mountaingenerator where a cell can be two level higher or lower than a neighborcell. what do you think about it?
16:52:58 <Landscape> it shouldn´t be able that trains, cars and ships can pass this cliffs.they only could drive the normal ways. I know, it would be difficult to generate landscapes and change it with the landscape-changetools... now i´ve to go
16:53:02 <FLHerne> Landscape: With extra-steep slope tiles, or actual vertical cliffs?
16:53:20 <FLHerne> Both have been suggested quite a few times :P
16:53:48 <FLHerne> (if you want to implement it, great...)
16:55:02 <Landscape> yes, with extra steep slope tiles while using the normal graphics for slopes but stretched
16:55:34 <Landscape> it would not be possible without new tiles... i tried to build them on a peace of paper
16:55:52 <FLHerne> 'stretching' pixel art tends to look awful
16:56:45 <FLHerne> Maybe for compatibility with old terrain grfs, but you'd need new sprites for the baseset and any updated grfs
16:57:00 <Landscape> you´re right, but i think it´s not the most difficult thing with the graphics, i don´t know
16:57:32 <FLHerne> Also, slopes are exposed to newgrfs, so you'd have to think about back-compatibility and how to extend the interface for that
16:58:08 <Alberth> trickiest bit is likely the slope, and tunneling/bridge building
16:58:43 <Alberth> the vertical foundations are not stored, only drawn
17:01:28 <Samu> i must be doing something terribly wrong
17:03:13 <Wolf01> Landscape, I was trying to do it, but current engine glitches too much
17:03:14 <Landscape> ok, i knowed there are quite a few of things to think about. Tunnel and bridges..., first i´ve to prepare my own developer- station on my pc
17:06:50 <Landscape> Wolf01, you tried? Probably another solution could be this: Not to hight up the hills extremly but generate some zones where no trains, vehicles and ships can pass. this zones should be scattered along the hightlevels of hills
17:07:50 <Wolf01> I just tried to make the terrain use foundations instead of slopes when raising a tile corner with CTRL
17:08:13 <Samu> at least i brought the running cost of those 2 trains to be on par with those of 3 ships and 18 trucks
17:08:47 <Wolf01> It's just 1 train, put there 10 and you see a big change
17:10:04 <Samu> 2 trains (1.6.1): -£6,890
17:10:28 <Samu> 2 trains (mine): -£11,025
17:11:25 <Alberth> how does 3 ships compare with 2 trains, other than in cost?
17:11:43 <Samu> the starting loan was £150k
17:11:53 <Samu> i wasted as much as i could for each
17:11:57 <Wolf01> I have 3 ships... I have 2 trains .... PA! Running costs are the same
17:12:02 <Alberth> ie 2 trains 1.6.1 looks the same like 9 trucks to me
17:12:38 <Alberth> maybe you need 10 trucks
17:13:17 <Landscape> ok, thanks for the short chat and the quick answeres about this theme with the slopes, i´ve to go now. have a nice day
17:13:31 <Alberth> but my point is, why is 2 trains 1.6.1 vs 9 trucks bad, and 3 trains yours vs 18 trucks good?
17:16:36 <Alberth> maybe trains were designed to have a high initial purchase cost and low running cost, while trucks are easier to buy initially, but cost more to run?
17:17:28 <Alberth> so depending on how long or often you intend to use them, what is best changes?
17:22:26 <Samu> it's just not possible to balance this, is it ? :(
17:22:35 <Samu> i'm losing my motivation
17:23:57 <FLHerne> In practice, I think Samu's right
17:24:49 *** supermop has joined #openttd
17:25:04 <FLHerne> No-one actually builds short-term links in OTTD, because towns and (non-oil) industries don't move once you've served them
17:27:00 <FLHerne> (but increasing the rail maintenance costs to prevent long empty straight lines is probably simpler)
17:27:41 <Samu> oh, infrastructure maintenance costs is turned off, perhaps i should turn it on, see if it makes a difference
17:33:58 <Samu> property maintenance for ships is nearly non-existant
17:34:59 <Samu> property maintenance for rails is nearly 3 times that of the road
17:35:29 <Samu> in the long run, it's still insufficient
17:35:39 <Samu> trains still dominate :( but i will wait till 1952
17:39:57 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
17:40:59 <FLHerne> Samu: Maintenance costs scale non-linearly with network size
17:41:42 <FLHerne> They do seem to prevent some of the sillier ways to use trains
17:49:26 <Alberth> calc should refuse to do such simple calculations :)
17:49:53 <Wolf01> Or just return wrong answers :D
17:51:33 <Rubidium> Alberth: just randomly choosing a radix for the input and output data would do enough
17:52:49 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
17:55:26 <Samu> :) gonna combine with weigth multiplier for freigth
17:55:37 <Samu> thought this discards passengers...
17:56:33 <Alberth> don't know if mail counts as freight
17:56:35 <Samu> this map is too flat too
18:03:17 <Samu> there's many ways to test this, all pointing out to train supremacy, i'm sad, losing motivation
18:12:21 <Alberth> use a newgrf for trains
18:12:35 <Alberth> one with bigger costs
18:13:02 <Samu> 4 kirby pauls vs 3 jubilees vs 2 ginzus
18:13:12 <Alberth> but yes, you cannot balance all, as different authors have different ideas about "good"
18:13:56 <Alberth> default trains are designed for original map, so that's where you should test
18:14:08 <Samu> even the kirby pauls beat the road vehicles
18:14:28 <Alberth> but transport tycoon is a train game
18:14:41 <Samu> something is amiss and I am yet to find out what
18:15:31 <Samu> kirby paul can't even reach max speed, it maxes out at 52 km/h
18:15:49 <Samu> still faster than road vehicles at 48 km/h
18:22:50 <Samu> 1080 cargo delivered once all 4 kirby pauls complete a journey
18:23:41 <Samu> only 360 cargo delivered for all 18 trucks
18:32:19 <supermop> i wonder when gravel roads were 'invented'
18:32:33 <supermop> most dirt roads in the US are now gravel
18:32:48 <supermop> but surely gravel was used for roads before that switch
18:39:44 <supermop> im sure people could have build gravel roads in 400bce, but it seems like it wasn't common until like 1800
18:40:24 <Wolf01> supermop, did you see the granite tramway?
18:41:12 <supermop> seems more like a rail type tho
18:43:37 <supermop> ok 9 roadtypes: DIRT, GRAV, EGRV, STON, ESTN, ROAD, ELRD, HWAY, EHWY
18:43:45 <supermop> not sure stone is needed
18:44:51 <supermop> maybe road becomes stone, and hway is the asphalt with stripes
18:45:38 <supermop> can add two more for BRT/EBRT
18:46:53 <Alberth> romans already built stone roads
18:47:40 <Alberth> need for gravel roads is likely connected with increasing weight of traffic
18:47:58 <Alberth> or with intensity/reliability or so
18:56:47 <supermop> Alberth: yes, there are stone roads in antiquity, but gravel is cheaper
18:57:18 <supermop> but it needs a society to be already producing lots of crushed stone
18:57:40 <Alberth> since we build stone houses that we tear down after 20 years :)
18:58:00 <supermop> so romans probaby didn't bother with gravel - if the road is minor build dirt, if major build stone
18:58:41 <Alberth> vehicles were likely not that heavy, as they had to drive on non-stone roads as well
18:58:54 <supermop> where 'build dirt' was probably less grading and more 'walk along this path enough and it becomes a dirt road'
18:59:32 <Alberth> we still have those today, in woods, and along rivers
19:00:07 <Alberth> regular traffic likes to drive in straight lines
19:00:32 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
19:00:39 <Alberth> so not in woods and alongside rivers
19:00:47 <supermop> today in the US, dirt roads only really exists on private land, and very remote areas of parks and protected land
19:01:02 <supermop> unpaved public roads are now gravel
19:01:53 <supermop> i still remember some public dirt roads in minnesota from when i was a kid
19:01:55 <Alberth> likely, given the budget of road maintenance in the USA, as I understood it
19:03:51 *** Ethereal_Whisper has joined #openttd
19:05:42 <supermop> not sure anyone will care about building a road more expensive than dirt but cheaper than asphalt
19:06:08 <supermop> unless roads can modify the TE of vehicles
19:06:15 <Ethereal_Whisper> I mean of the road technologies out there, asphalt is basically the cheapest unless you don't pave it at all
19:06:48 <supermop> most mining access roads are going to be dirt or gravel though
19:07:42 <supermop> so any player who wants a variety of roads probably wants a road that looks good leading to a mine, and doesn't look like a city street
19:07:46 *** Progman has joined #openttd
19:08:29 <Samu> alright, it's not possible to balance running costs without being too obtrusive
19:08:46 <Samu> i have just increased it by 10 and it's still not enough
19:11:09 <Samu> capacity matters way too much and trains are kings here
19:16:33 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
19:18:24 <Samu> something similar to what has been done with infrastructure maintenance costs for airports, has to be done with trains
19:18:50 <Samu> and i bet no one would like that
19:18:59 <Samu> heck, i don't even like what happened with airports
19:19:53 <Samu> they went from viable as first transport type, to impossible as first transport type
19:43:47 <supermop> airport newgrfs can reduce the infra costs
19:45:48 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: Commit by translators :: r27762 /trunk/src/lang (4 files) (2017-02-28 19:45:37 +0100 )
19:45:49 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: -Update from Eints:
19:45:50 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: catalan: 5 changes by juanjo
19:45:51 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: greek: 29 changes by kyrm
19:45:52 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: croatian: 2 changes by UnderwaterHesus
19:46:04 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
19:47:26 <supermop> eager to hear your opinions on gravel
19:48:48 <supermop> also your name for the crappiest trackbed you can imagine
19:49:56 *** HerzogDeXtEr has joined #openttd
19:50:05 <andythenorth> gravel is small stones
19:50:06 <supermop> wolf and i settled on "SHIT"
19:50:20 <andythenorth> we won’t let my kids play that then :P
19:50:41 <supermop> well i need the string def. from you
19:53:29 <andythenorth> goat trail is considered to be at the more technical end of 4x4 driving
19:54:36 <supermop> whats the name for the equivalently worthless tramway
19:55:19 <Samu> you know what? it might actually be a good idea
19:55:51 <supermop> trains are supreme because they are fun
19:55:54 <Samu> but it's definitely not what I had in mind initially
19:55:59 <supermop> airplanes are boring
19:57:03 <supermop> Go to airport 1, go to airport 2,
19:57:13 <supermop> clone until holding pattern full
19:59:00 <planetmaker> so we have now sensible accelerations as defaults? That's good :)
20:00:05 <Samu> there's BaseCostsMod 5.0 which could increase the running costs of trains, but it's not really the same feel as a game setting for vanilla
20:02:33 <Eddi|zuHause> with about 7 years delay
20:06:33 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: 7 years is almost no time, for mature software :D
20:08:03 <Wolf01> <supermop> CANE? <- dog? XD
20:10:56 <andythenorth> is refactoring FIRS?
20:20:21 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
20:25:00 <Samu> i can't open it, i wanted to post an image to show you
20:25:17 <Wolf01> Half of the web doesn't work well for me
20:25:59 <frosch123> do you at least have the better half?
20:26:13 <Samu> i get nothing, just a white page
20:26:13 <Wolf01> I have 1/4 good and 1/4 bad
20:26:39 <Wolf01> It works for me, just takes 3 minutes to load
20:28:05 <Samu> i didn't want to use onedrive, links are gigantic, but oh well
20:32:55 <Samu> hmm i forgot what i was going to say
20:33:07 <frosch123> they are installing a new web filter
20:33:34 <andythenorth> is that why my Zendesk is broken :P
20:34:00 <Samu> ah, about infrastructure maintenance costs
20:34:38 <Samu> i turned it on for trains, and also increased the running costs massively on them
20:35:45 <Samu> running cost went from -£1,101,367 to -£7,563,774
20:36:25 <Samu> property maintenance went from -£120,000 to -£6,790,668
20:36:49 <Samu> and there's the profit graph to have a look at the difference over 1 year
20:37:21 <Samu> the other openttd shows infrastructure costs for aircraft
20:37:59 <Samu> it's just for comparison
20:38:35 <Samu> damn imgur, do you know an alternative?
20:52:04 <supermop> andythenorth: guided busway?
20:52:21 <supermop> more interesting than hway?
20:52:48 *** andythenorth has left #openttd
20:59:53 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
21:06:21 <supermop> speed limits for dirt is tricky
21:06:44 <supermop> if i have a rally car, i should be able to drive 100mph on a private dirt road
21:07:41 <supermop> as dirt roads are outside of town, far from the cops, they should have higher speedlimit than ROAD
21:16:01 <Eddi|zuHause> only if you have general lee
21:20:39 <supermop> hmm can i make ROAD unbuildable by player?
21:24:17 <frosch123> introdate in far future?
21:26:26 <supermop> then towns cant grow
21:26:53 <supermop> so i have dirt 50kmh, gravel 70kmh, stone 80kmh
21:27:22 <supermop> asphalt 100kmh, hway no limit?
21:27:37 <frosch123> you can also increase the cost by factor 1000 :p
21:27:58 <frosch123> but it may make money when converting road
21:28:19 <frosch123> towns building gold roads
21:28:25 <frosch123> players harvesting them
21:28:54 <supermop> is gravel cheap to maintain because it's so simple, or expensive because you have to re-grade it every year?
21:29:38 <supermop> it seems like stone should be more expensive to build than asphalt, and slower, and more expensive to maintain
21:29:42 <frosch123> that depends on the usage :)
21:29:47 <supermop> so no reason to ever build it
21:30:02 <supermop> unless you start in 100BCE
21:30:26 <frosch123> gravel is cheap and lasts long if rarely used
21:30:43 <supermop> maintenance cost based of traffic?
21:31:24 <supermop> so the newer roads are more expensive, but their upkeep costs scale better with traffic
21:38:23 *** Wormnest_ has joined #openttd
21:47:56 *** orudge` has joined #openttd
21:47:56 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
21:55:53 <Alberth> make a gold road for towns :p
21:58:12 <supermop> the sprites already exists in the nrt wiki page
22:02:30 <supermop> should the crappiest tramway be cheaper than gravel road?
22:03:07 <frosch123> you mean andy's yellow road?
22:04:18 <__ln__> anyone going to go see the solar eclipse in august?
22:04:46 *** supermop has joined #openttd
22:12:10 *** ericnoan has joined #openttd
22:12:15 *** Wormnest__ has joined #openttd
22:26:35 *** supermop_ has joined #openttd
22:30:32 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
22:41:32 <Eddi|zuHause> why is firefox using 25% mem, and "Web Content" using another 20%?
22:42:37 <Eddi|zuHause> also, why did my sound break?
22:46:44 *** Eddi|zuHause has joined #openttd
22:51:16 <Samu> Wolf01: i found the engines.h file
22:51:52 <Samu> i can try now wagon running cost based on the wagon weigth
22:52:15 <Samu> if i give wagons a running cost class, that is
22:52:32 <Samu> there's steam, diesel and electric
22:53:26 <Samu> steam = expensive, diesel = medium, electric = cheap
22:54:21 <Wolf01> Wagons don't have a type
22:55:42 <Samu> let me see how broken this breaks openttd, brb
22:56:35 <Samu> i just gave a running cost to passenger carriage
22:57:04 <Samu> it's 25 tonnes, so the cost factor is also 25
22:57:29 <Samu> then some magic is done to get the price into a number and it became £615/yr
22:57:38 <Samu> openttd computing GetPrice
22:59:22 <Samu> there's 3 carriages for the same type
23:17:13 <Samu> okay, it makes no sense then, reverting changes
continue to next day ⏵
