IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2017-07-15
⏴ go to previous day
00:16:11 *** quiznilo has joined #openttd
02:53:49 *** HerzogDeXtEr1 has joined #openttd
04:33:12 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
04:59:53 *** grossing has joined #openttd
07:22:28 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
07:36:47 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
08:20:06 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
08:36:12 *** Biolunar has joined #openttd
09:07:56 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
09:21:16 <Flygon> Uurrf. Every time, I forget to copy over OpenTTD to new Windows install.
09:21:21 <Flygon> and I lose all settings along with.
09:21:45 <Flygon> Maybe I should start setting OpenTTD to save shit to my desktop, not to My Documents. :V
09:22:16 <Flygon> ...can't afford the SATA > USB enclosure atm :VVV
09:39:43 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
09:49:14 *** synchris has joined #openttd
09:59:13 <Eddi|zuHause> open the pc case, plug in sata directly?
10:04:37 *** wyldesyde has joined #openttd
10:20:59 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
11:33:19 <Eddi|zuHause> (does that look as weird to you as it does to me?)
11:34:20 <Flygon> Eddi: It's possible, but somewhat awkward.
11:34:33 <Flygon> Because you have two boot drives fighting to be the master Hard Drive.
11:34:53 <Flygon> And the one that's currently removed is actually failing.
11:34:59 <Flygon> Stalled read/writes for 30 seconds at a time ect
11:35:01 <Wolf01> Looks like a Sith fight
11:35:16 <Eddi|zuHause> Flygon: just boot linux, it should deal with that fine
11:38:29 <Flygon> It's deal withable either way. It's just... kinda problematic.
11:38:40 <Flygon> And I need to get a 3.5in SATA enclosure somepoint anyway.
11:44:10 <Eddi|zuHause> "in the last year, german police shot at 52 humans, wounding 28 and killing 11, which is a slight increase over the previous years"
11:48:33 <Wolf01> Those are rookie numbers compared to our democracy overlords
12:07:43 *** Progman has joined #openttd
12:19:27 <Eddi|zuHause> yeah, about a factor of 20 (scaled for population)
12:20:04 <Eddi|zuHause> (maybe scaled for amount of policemen might be an interesting statistics)
12:20:18 <Eddi|zuHause> (or policewomen)
12:25:47 <Rubidium> or amount of prisoners
12:31:20 *** mescalito has joined #openttd
12:32:59 <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: after that weird "straddle bus" thingie, it wouldn't surprise me if some chinese startup actually tried to build this
12:33:18 <Wolf01> The bus might have worked
12:34:01 <Eddi|zuHause> afaik they built a prototype in some "minor" chinese city (where "minor" means "less than 2 million inhabitants")
12:34:22 <Eddi|zuHause> and then the bosses left with all the investment money, leaving the prototype there clogging the road
12:36:02 <__ln__> that's modern day communism
12:36:34 <Eddi|zuHause> do they still call it communism?
12:38:04 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
12:38:14 *** Hiddenfunstuff has joined #openttd
12:56:46 <andythenorth> Wolf01: so how would combined catenary work?
12:56:49 <andythenorth> I can’t figure it out
13:02:53 <Wolf01> When different types of roadbits merge or when they are built together?
13:09:15 <andythenorth> I guess the question is, how is the vehicle powered?
13:11:05 <Wolf01> The main problem might happen only when you have just 2 catenaries as you can't tell visually which one is present, if you have a third rail you should be able to see it there or missing
13:12:09 <Wolf01> But is the same problem that we already have
13:12:16 <planetmaker> andythenorth, I can't imagine how two concurrent catenaries would work at all
13:12:29 <planetmaker> neither ingame nor in real-life
13:12:49 <andythenorth> wait for Eddi to post his photos :)
13:13:16 <andythenorth> I’m not proposing two catenaries :)
13:13:25 <andythenorth> I just don’t understand how one can function, at the spec level
13:13:37 <andythenorth> it means building tram changes the label of the road
13:13:50 <andythenorth> it’s at least deterministic I guess, but it’s fricking weird
13:15:22 <andythenorth> unless the approach changes more fundamentally
13:15:42 <Wolf01> If we move the electrification to a bitmask, then we should decide if the catenary powers both types at the same time or they must be set indipendently
13:15:46 * andythenorth thinks it’s all futile :D
13:15:59 <andythenorth> we’re boxed in by railtypes
13:16:40 <andythenorth> so once again, NRT goes back on the ‘not possible’ pile :)
13:16:54 <andythenorth> that’s what, the 4th failed attempt? o_O
13:17:15 <Wolf01> Just don't fall in the trap "keep the same behavior of.."
13:17:34 <andythenorth> as per railtypes?
13:17:47 <andythenorth> I can’t see it being acceptable for NRT to work differently to railtypes
13:18:16 <andythenorth> it’s already nearly impossible to understand railtypes
13:18:52 <Wolf01> That's because the whole powered thing is chinese, imho
13:19:04 <andythenorth> I don’t understand it
13:19:18 <andythenorth> but that’s a sign of it being clever no?
13:20:14 <Wolf01> It would be better if the powered thing is "I need a 1.5kv catenary to work" in a vehicle, and query the tile
13:21:05 <Wolf01> Instead of "hey, I have a catenary, vehicles of type x, y, and z can run on me"
13:22:35 <andythenorth> that’s not how railtypes do it afaik
13:22:43 <andythenorth> it’s via the label
13:23:05 <andythenorth> catenary is arbitrary eye candy, no? o_O
13:23:37 <Wolf01> You can have microwave powered vehicles, which is eletrification too, but invisible
13:23:51 <Wolf01> It's not the graphic which powers a vehicle
13:24:59 <andythenorth> Rubidium: why is it thermal cutting the rails at the front? o_O
13:25:21 <Eddi|zuHause> it's probably a construction/maintenance vehicle
13:25:26 <andythenorth> checking for mice
13:25:39 <Rubidium> it's light for a lightscan camera
13:25:51 <andythenorth> Wolf01: also your blue tow truck has now got reviews on EB
13:25:53 <Rubidium> that make 1 mm slices at 120+ km/h
13:25:54 <andythenorth> your name is on the door
13:26:00 <Eddi|zuHause> like measuring rail alignment
13:26:54 <Rubidium> so it has a very short shutter time which means you need loads of light
13:27:30 <andythenorth> how about “roads can’t have catenary” Wolf01 ?
13:27:36 <andythenorth> that solves the problem completely
13:27:42 <Rubidium> www.rene-rail.nl/images/Op pad met de Eurailscout UFM 120/album/medium/0003.jpg <- better angle for the catenary being eye candy
13:27:58 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: depends on your definition of "the problem" :p
13:28:27 <Wolf01> <andythenorth> how about “roads can’t have catenary” Wolf01 ? <- do you want to anger supermop?
13:30:00 <Wolf01> It isn't a problem, we could make it print all the electrifications on a tile, and just leave the hassle to grf designers
13:30:09 <Rubidium> andythenorth: interesting fact is that the first versions of that line scan system could not be stationary with the lights on for a long time or it would start igniting dried grass
13:30:24 <andythenorth> what does it do to the mice?
13:30:41 <Rubidium> but newer systems use more efficient lights
13:31:45 <Rubidium> mice probably have no problem, except when the train is stationary but then they start getting hot and arguably attempt to find a cooler place themselves
13:31:50 <andythenorth> Wolf01: that seems to mean abandoning labels?
13:32:14 *** grossing has joined #openttd
13:33:08 <Wolf01> Yes, but not entirely, we'll keep them for the pavement/track
13:33:20 <Wolf01> Just drop electrification and speed limit
13:34:04 <Wolf01> And that should be done for rail too, maybe with backward compatibility
13:34:29 * andythenorth can’t understand it :)
13:34:44 <andythenorth> how is compatibility determined except via the label?
13:34:51 * andythenorth misses something
13:34:56 <andythenorth> maybe we need a pastebin spec
13:35:49 <Wolf01> As I said before, I see it as the vehicle which should look for the features of the tile where it wants to travel
13:36:02 <andythenorth> so we’d have labels for catenary?
13:36:23 <Wolf01> An extensible system would be cool
13:37:06 <Wolf01> Also should be easier to check if an electrification mean is present in the game and throw a warning if not
13:38:52 <andythenorth> how does it solve the confusion problem when two types of catenary are needed on the tile?
13:39:09 <andythenorth> if bus is 1500v DC and tram is 25kv AC for example?
13:39:20 <andythenorth> routing is still broken
13:39:37 <andythenorth> player sees catenary, but either bus or tram don’t drive
13:39:40 <Wolf01> 1. just allow one: "place trolleybus catenary | place tram catenary", not both; 2. print both graphics and place both.
13:40:22 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: that doesn’t contain upgrade rules, unless I missed them?
13:40:32 <Wolf01> No, I mean you can add electrification types as objects via newgrf
13:40:45 <andythenorth> if I build ‘tram with 25kv AC’, the tile has to know how to upgrade the road to that
13:40:56 <Wolf01> And use them indipendently from the base road
13:41:12 <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: well, you can have that, if you completely abandon the concept of "store this information within X bits of an array"
13:41:30 <Wolf01> The base road should only tell if you can build catenary, third rail or whatever on it
13:42:03 <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: which means both storage space and access time of a tile will skyrocket
13:42:28 <Wolf01> Like maglev doesn't allow to build catenary on it, for example, but a DIRT road might allow 15kv to power mining trucks
13:44:33 <Wolf01> It might be, it needs to be designed very well
13:48:51 <andythenorth> what’s the benefit of splitting off catenary?
13:49:12 <Wolf01> Removing half of road/railtypes
13:49:20 <Eddi|zuHause> exporting the combinatorial explosion to make it someone else's problem
13:49:38 <andythenorth> it’s ‘moved’ rather than ‘removed’ no?
13:49:52 <andythenorth> the information is the same, the complexity is higher? o_O
13:50:04 <Wolf01> TBH, it's already a combinatorial explosion, just limited to 16 types
13:50:15 * andythenorth wishes OpenTTD was just a game
13:50:21 <andythenorth> and not some half-assed simulator
13:52:02 <Wolf01> You grf devlolopers started that :D
13:52:19 <Wolf01> (and we also asked for that)
13:52:48 <Rubidium> is 25kV actually safe in tram lines?
13:54:35 <Eddi|zuHause> most trams run 600V-ish
13:55:14 <Eddi|zuHause> easier to keep a safe distance
13:55:20 <Rubidium> so, effectively all are 1kV DC (+- 0.5 kV)
13:55:57 <Eddi|zuHause> it's probably rare to see trams >1kV
13:56:55 * andythenorth wondered if vehicles could check for tram label to determine powered
13:57:00 <andythenorth> but that’s not how it works
13:57:21 <andythenorth> how about the roadtype checks the tramtype?
13:57:25 <Wolf01> Nope, they check on their own label and it's compatibility list
13:57:37 <andythenorth> yeah, the roadtype should check the tramtype
13:57:40 <andythenorth> that’s the solution
13:58:16 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: so if you build unelectrified tram on a trolleybus road, electrified trams should go there?
13:59:01 <Eddi|zuHause> that does not sound like The Right Thing (tm)
13:59:19 <Wolf01> Also tram and road types are in separate lists
13:59:26 <Wolf01> And can have same labels
14:00:56 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: no the tram wouldn’t be electrified
14:01:09 <andythenorth> we should ban overlapping labels
14:01:17 <andythenorth> maybe the labels have to match? o_O
14:01:24 <andythenorth> for road and tram?
14:01:32 <andythenorth> you can only build tram over road with same label
14:02:03 <Eddi|zuHause> so to build tram on a cobblestone road, you need to have a cobblestone tram?
14:05:10 <andythenorth> then the catenary will match
14:05:46 <andythenorth> ach, we should merge tram and road
14:05:56 <andythenorth> and just make them boolean toggles in the construction UI
14:08:46 <Eddi|zuHause> reduce the whole problem to one single bit. so bit=0 means "road" and bit=1 means "tram"
14:09:00 <Eddi|zuHause> remove all the crap about electrification, and types
14:10:02 <Wolf01> One bit for type, if electrification matches then it's set for both (and road graphics take precedence, like now), if there are catenary and third rail, you must set them indipendently
14:10:23 *** smoke_fumus has joined #openttd
14:10:50 <Wolf01> The grf has the electrification as type: overhead, rail, whatever
14:10:58 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: does that simplify to 1 type per tile?
14:11:38 <Eddi|zuHause> sure. that's even simpler than the current implementation :p
14:11:57 <Wolf01> But then I want diagonal roads too
14:12:12 <andythenorth> Wolf01: I still don’t understand in your proposal how the vehicle knows if it’s powered? :)
14:12:57 <Wolf01> By checking if the type's electrification bit is set?
14:13:12 <andythenorth> but that assumes ‘powered == electrified'
14:13:19 <andythenorth> but that doesn’t hold :(
14:14:06 <Wolf01> No, you can still run diesel trucks on road, but for trolleybuses you need to check if it's paved road AND the electrification bit
14:14:59 <planetmaker> probably OpenTTD's approach to 'powered' is a bit too complicated, trying to be maximum flexible
14:15:01 <Wolf01> Ok, maybe any kind of road !OFFR/DIRT
14:15:36 <andythenorth> it’s remarkably complex eh?
14:15:47 <andythenorth> planetmaker: in NRT, there is no concept of ‘powered’ currently ;)
14:16:11 <Wolf01> There's only the concept of powered
14:16:14 <planetmaker> can you frame me in how the current implementation handles it?
14:16:21 <Eddi|zuHause> you don't need "powered"/"compatible" distinction if you don't have wagons
14:16:29 <Wolf01> There isn't the concept of compatible which is for wagons
14:19:51 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: so what you actually mean there is no concept of "compatible", so you renamed "powered" to "compatible"
14:20:18 <Wolf01> Yes, because it was the coolest thing to do
14:21:34 <andythenorth> I had my properties switched :P
14:27:11 <Wolf01> After this long talk, I'm sure we have done the best work without breaking all the things, it should just need some more fixes
14:27:27 *** grossing has joined #openttd
14:31:34 <andythenorth> I wonder if the ‘my trolleybuses are stuck’ issue really matters
14:32:15 <andythenorth> given a clean sheet, I would have done this:
14:32:24 <andythenorth> - labels are not unique per roadtype
14:32:35 <andythenorth> - vehicles determine compatibility, not roadtypes
14:33:16 <andythenorth> - maintaining vehicle newgrfs to handle new roadtype labels is not treated as the Worst Thing Ever
14:34:26 <andythenorth> this means, e.g. a whole range of road surfaces could be provided, all with ‘ROAD’
14:35:19 <andythenorth> it also means that transitive roadtype compatibility is handled per vehicle, which is more interesting
14:35:48 <andythenorth> it also means that trolleybus could be upgraded over town roads without changing the label
14:36:39 <andythenorth> - catenary would be a bool, on the tile, available for both tram and road
14:37:00 <andythenorth> - vehicles would have a ‘requires catenary’ flag, and this would be separate from the road surface / tram rails
14:37:01 <Wolf01> And you can change the surface without changing the compatibility (power), just not change the ROAD to HWAY or HAUL
14:37:33 <andythenorth> - ‘electrified’ is treated as a single property at TTD scale, and no finer resolution of voltage etc is provided
14:37:49 <andythenorth> nor are any hacks for overhead monorail or any other crap supported via catenary
14:38:33 <andythenorth> - ‘types’ using, e.g. ROAD label, might provide catenary automatically on construction, XOR, we might make it a button on the construction toolbar
14:39:04 <andythenorth> - we diverge from railtypes spec, which is, imho, baffling anyway
14:39:20 <Wolf01> I must leave for a bit, I'll read it later
14:39:20 <andythenorth> but that’s all just theory and hot air :I
14:56:11 <andythenorth> I should delete combinatorial processing in FIRS?
14:56:24 <andythenorth> it’s inconsistently used at secondary industries
14:59:43 <planetmaker> andythenorth, but the handling sounds logical what you just sketched here
15:04:04 <andythenorth> it’s taking something frosch proposed and inverting it
15:13:48 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
15:20:07 <frosch123> andythenorth: moving compatibility to road vehicles makes the convert-roadtype-type near impossible
15:21:03 <Eddi|zuHause> also, wouldn't that require the vehicle set author to know every possible roadtype out there?
15:21:17 <frosch123> road type classes :p
15:21:48 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: isn’t that the same for railtype authors currently?
15:22:13 <andythenorth> it requires letting go of the idea that vehicle newgrfs aren’t maintainable
15:22:44 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: uhm, some portion of that was intended to be solved with the universal railtype scheme
15:23:05 <andythenorth> how’s it going? :)
15:23:15 <Eddi|zuHause> i'd say it was a success
15:23:32 <Eddi|zuHause> but i haven't really checked development in the past ~4 years
15:24:25 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: it allowed for some interchangability between vehicle and track sets
15:29:14 <andythenorth> ‘PACK’ for packaging cargo? o_O
15:30:15 <Eddi|zuHause> why not keep the old label?
15:30:27 <Eddi|zuHause> you're not changing functionality
15:30:38 <Eddi|zuHause> why risk breaking stuff?
15:31:27 <andythenorth> I might keep the label
15:31:34 <andythenorth> it’s an abuse of it mind
15:32:08 <andythenorth> but it’s probably not significant
15:32:13 <andythenorth> and it doesn’t break vehicle sets
15:32:28 <Eddi|zuHause> you could make a poll
15:32:50 <Eddi|zuHause> but beware that the result might be "boaty mcboatface"
15:37:33 <Eddi|zuHause> also, the target audience of the poll should be vehicle set authors, because the label is your interface with them
15:38:21 <andythenorth> hopefully I can just delete the cargo in FIRS v4
15:38:27 <andythenorth> solving the problem :P
15:39:01 <Eddi|zuHause> 4? are you using exponential versions? or have i missed 3?
15:40:09 <andythenorth> I am working on 3
15:40:18 <andythenorth> although ^2 is not a bad version number system
15:40:59 <Eddi|zuHause> i was trying to forget that...
15:45:51 <andythenorth> charts for basic economies are pretty good
15:46:03 <andythenorth> wondering whether to exclude passengers from charts
15:46:30 <andythenorth> there is a banned_cargos list, which includes pax, but can’t figure out what I intended with it
16:04:09 *** Lejving_ has joined #openttd
16:29:30 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
16:34:06 <Eddi|zuHause> so... peacock, flamingo or phoenix?
16:36:54 <Eddi|zuHause> i was leaning towards peacock, actually
16:37:26 <Flygon> We once had a war against the Emus.
16:37:32 <Flygon> They totally deserve shit named after them.
16:38:14 <Eddi|zuHause> you people are weird...
16:38:40 <Flygon> We just, somehow, lost a war to flightless birds.
16:39:20 <Eddi|zuHause> was that before or after the war against the rabbits that you brought in for "fun", and then they multiplied?
16:39:25 <andythenorth> maybe FIRS 3 is ‘the difficult third album’
16:39:30 <andythenorth> somehow it’s a bit of a turkey
16:39:51 <Flygon> We're still officially at war with the Rabbits.
16:39:55 <Flygon> And Foxes, incidentally.
16:40:16 <Flygon> There's a reason it's legal to play "Cane Toad Golf".
16:40:22 <Flygon> It's exactly what it sounds like.
16:42:11 * andythenorth considers a QLD economy
16:42:45 <Flygon> Where you transport Vegemite and Victorian Bitter.
16:43:39 <andythenorth> how was that ever a good idea?
16:43:41 <frosch123> don't look at it :p
16:43:57 <frosch123> andythenorth: it's for a different kind of player
16:44:12 <frosch123> i don't think extreme players look at the whole picture
16:45:04 <frosch123> i think they explore localy what stuff is avaialble for transport and are happy to find something different every time
16:45:32 <andythenorth> maybe I should censor the cargoflow chart
16:45:41 <andythenorth> remember ‘fog of war’ in Warcraft 1? o_O
16:45:53 <frosch123> no, it clearly tells people who care about graphs to not play that economy :)
16:45:54 <Flygon> So, basically. The busy bee players just naturally evolve an economy that becomes interlinked without outright planning it?
16:46:00 <Flygon> (Kinda like a real economy)
16:46:37 <frosch123> yes, i think some players look at the chart and plan what to produce/transport when
16:46:50 <frosch123> others just take stuff as they come
16:47:47 <frosch123> i used to play in a way, where i would first serve all forests on the whole map, before starting with the next cargo :)
16:48:14 <frosch123> like, one graph link at a time, until 100% complete, then the next link
16:48:57 <frosch123> but with firs supplies i have to play differently
16:49:13 <frosch123> first set up a supply chain, to make things stable
16:49:36 <Flygon> I tend to just go for what makes money.
16:49:39 <Flygon> Then makes more money.
16:49:48 <Flygon> Then I try to make sure the freight trunklines work well.
16:49:51 <Flygon> Then I make more connections.
16:49:56 <Flygon> And suddenly there's chains going on.
16:50:50 <frosch123> andythenorth: you should exclude the industries without graphics from the top panel :p
16:51:02 <andythenorth> or draw the graphics :P
16:51:34 <andythenorth> anyway, after some shenanigans
16:51:44 <andythenorth> I can now describe Supplies as a unique FIRS feature
16:52:07 <andythenorth> without introducing confusion about Manufacturing Supplies, which are gone L:P
16:52:21 <andythenorth> so maybe I can write the Get Started page better
16:52:42 <andythenorth> so in plain words, what do Supplies do? o_O
16:55:57 <supermop_> everything else goes on trains
16:56:00 <andythenorth> ‘Deliver supplies to boost production at mines and farms’
16:56:05 <andythenorth> “Control production'
16:57:11 <frosch123> production directly responds to players supplying industries
16:57:24 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
16:57:27 <frosch123> production stays constants over time when constantly supplied
16:57:44 <frosch123> production depends on cargo delivered, not on cargo taken
16:57:56 <andythenorth> “Better production”
16:58:07 <andythenorth> “Production is more fun"
16:58:10 <frosch123> that's trademarked by sirkoz
16:58:24 <andythenorth> what would V453000 say?
16:58:28 <andythenorth> probably swearing
16:59:26 <andythenorth> “FIRS: 100% Slug Free"
16:59:48 <frosch123> challenge: find the slug
17:00:46 <andythenorth> maybe NRT will be out of the ditch by then :P
17:02:40 <supermop_> I would have left it down there
17:03:28 <supermop_> particularly ominous is the front end loader apparently trying to hold up the scree slope at left
17:05:08 * andythenorth will see what Wolf01 comes up with
17:05:30 <supermop_> first anniversary is 'paper'
17:05:47 <supermop_> does that mean I can get like a ream of printer paper?
17:06:23 <supermop_> do people outside of the us have 'ream' as a unit of bulk paper sheet?
17:07:42 *** Alberth has joined #openttd
17:07:42 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth
17:08:28 <frosch123> 1 ream of A4 paper at weigt 80g/m² are 500 sheets
17:08:40 <frosch123> which is the usual unit you buy them packaged
17:09:24 <frosch123> supermop_: i never heard the term before though :)
17:09:48 <supermop_> a ream is generally roughly always the same mass, if you buy nicer paper you get fewer sheets
17:10:52 <supermop_> frosch123: we use it for the paper wrapped up package of paper that is a maybe 6cm or so tall
17:11:15 <supermop_> and the a standard box you'd have in the office has I think 10 of those in it
17:11:44 <frosch123> yeah, but i would just call it pack of paper :)
17:12:11 <frosch123> maybe i will now annoy my coworkers by searching for an opportunity to use the scientific term :p
17:12:21 <supermop_> I think among most people younger than baby boomers or gen x, ream is less common these days
17:12:41 <Alberth> never heard that term either
17:12:45 <supermop_> unless it's by someone who does a lot of work with paper
17:13:28 <supermop_> us younger people never had to print so much, or reorder lots of paper for offices
17:15:41 <supermop_> interesting that the 'short' ream of 480 sheets comes from hand made paper being made from big sheets and folding it into 8
17:16:57 <LordAro> ream of paper is a thing in the UK, generally for rolls
17:17:27 <supermop_> that is a small roll of paper
17:21:01 <planetmaker> Ries... there's no end to learning. And there are units... which are plain weired :)
17:28:58 <Alberth> some people would argue that "light year" is weird :p
17:37:42 <planetmaker> let them argue ;)
17:37:51 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
17:50:17 <Wolf01> <frosch123> andythenorth: moving compatibility to road vehicles makes the convert-roadtype-type near impossible <- I would like to figure out how they do it in R-world.. maybe they just don't give a shit :P
18:12:46 <Alberth> simple, they close down the entire block, take out the whole street, put down a new street, remove all blockades, and leave again
18:16:24 <Alberth> preferably that happens at several nearby streets at the same time
18:19:17 <Wolf01> I mean the compatibility
18:21:24 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
18:21:24 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
18:25:29 *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
18:50:49 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
19:14:16 <Alberth> transport companies write out an order for new trains that has to run on their type of tracks, obviously
19:14:42 <Alberth> in particular, they don't buy from $random supplier just because it exists at the same time
19:15:53 <Alberth> $manufacturer supplies trains to any track that the customer wants
19:16:56 <Alberth> as such, just because in history a company bought $xyz train at $pqr tracks, that doesn't mean it's impossible to by a $xyz' from the same supplier that runs at $abc tracks, it's just that in history nobody did that
19:21:01 <Alberth> unfortunately, that gets interpreted as $xyz train cannot run at $abc tracks
19:35:14 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
19:48:17 *** Hiddenfunstuff has quit IRC
20:04:30 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
20:12:30 <supermop_> Alberth I don't think there is a good way unless you make 'can run' more nuanced
20:30:34 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
20:31:48 <Alberth> I'd say make it less nuanced
20:32:15 <Alberth> eg 3rd rail may be relevant in RL, but in the end it's just electric powered track
20:34:12 <Alberth> people try to push RL into the OpenTTD model, but that is never going to work, since it doesn't aim to be a realistic simulator
20:34:28 <Alberth> it's a game, you buy trains, you transport stuff
20:38:02 <Alberth> 45 degrees angles is no problem, but not having 2 pixels 3rd rail, oh no, that's bad!
20:41:01 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
20:41:22 <andythenorth> Wolf01: did you solve it? o_O
20:43:45 <supermop_> Alberth: what i meant, is that unless you give rail vehicles a property like 'gauge' and then also apply that to rails, it will be impossible to have a model of compatibility that makes sense
20:44:17 <Eddi|zuHause> Alberth: i don't think telling people "you should not want <X>" is the solution to any problems
20:45:31 <supermop_> but sometimes people are not going to want to care if a tram is 600, 1000, or 1435 mm gauge
20:45:49 <supermop_> they just want 'trams go on tram tracks'
20:46:27 <andythenorth> if we’re playing relative weighting
20:46:35 <Wolf01> I've come to some conclusions, but they aren't TT at all
20:46:47 <andythenorth> I concluded we need to make a different game :P
20:46:50 <andythenorth> like an actual _gam_
20:56:57 <supermop_> damn the house we rented in melb is now worth over a 1Maud
20:59:49 <frosch123> houses increase in worth after you lived there?
21:00:33 <Wolf01> I could rent you one :P
21:08:54 <Eddi|zuHause> <supermop_> but sometimes people are not going to want to care if a tram is 600, 1000, or 1435 mm gauge <-- sure, then they just don't use a track set that distinguishes those, but one that unifies them
21:09:33 <Eddi|zuHause> there's no reason for roadtypes to actively prevent distinguishing the gauges, though
21:09:57 <andythenorth> that’s a straw man anyway
21:10:06 <frosch123> why are there no road gauges?
21:10:12 <andythenorth> there are axle weights
21:10:40 <frosch123> why are american cars not 4m wide?
21:11:06 <andythenorth> they wouldn’t fit the drive through
21:11:44 <frosch123> so car size is limited by garage size?
21:12:39 <frosch123> i guess cars are generally two horses wide
21:13:13 <frosch123> never heard of a car with 3 or 4 horses in parallel
21:16:46 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: even back in ancient rome, horsecarts had standardized sizes
21:19:56 <frosch123> that's only europe though
21:20:06 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: it would have been very impractical for any one place to start making them bigger than usual, because they were meant to go to different cities
21:20:14 <frosch123> what roadsize did ancient india use?
21:20:50 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: also, american cars are generally a bit larger than european cars (mostly longer rather than wider, though)
21:21:24 <frosch123> is that a car or a tram? :)
21:21:31 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: not ancient enough :p
21:21:53 <andythenorth> is a guided busway a car or tram? o_O
21:22:01 <andythenorth> no overtaking, probably a tram
21:23:16 <Eddi|zuHause> i seem to recall a similar system being operated in lissabon
21:23:27 <Eddi|zuHause> where it was called "tram"
21:29:00 <__ln__> known as lisbon in english
21:35:40 <andythenorth> what was the problem again?
21:35:59 <andythenorth> people can’t distinguish tram catenary from trolleybus catenary?
21:37:08 <frosch123> i wondere whether there exist roadtypes at all :p
21:37:56 <frosch123> is there narrow gauge and broad gauge cobblestone road?
21:38:39 <andythenorth> there were different gauges for cobble roads, yes
21:39:51 <frosch123> narrow gauge cars can run on broad gauge road?
21:40:45 <frosch123> narrow gauge road vehicles allow a tram to overtake in the middle?
21:42:07 <andythenorth> all types are compatible, but they can look different?
21:42:43 <planetmaker> doesn't sound like a bad idea actually
21:42:59 <planetmaker> keep the tram type and the road type
21:43:18 <planetmaker> but have all roads compatible to current road and all trams to current trams. Just allow co-existing different looks
21:43:26 <frosch123> there could just be a ground type
21:43:29 <Wolf01> Still the problem about telling which one has the catenary
21:43:45 <planetmaker> make that a 3rd road type :)
21:43:54 <planetmaker> which can co-exist with the former two
21:43:55 <frosch123> 64 ground types, 3 flags for road, tram, catenary
21:44:11 <frosch123> the ground type provides graphics for road, tram and road+tram
21:44:25 <frosch123> i.e. no independent road/tram track graphics
21:44:34 <planetmaker> we have that now, though
21:44:54 <planetmaker> I like the idea to compose ground + road + tram (in that order) on top of an arbitrary ground tile
21:44:54 <Wolf01> Not really, road+tram graphics might be a problem
21:45:20 <planetmaker> though currently we only compose (ground+road) + tram
21:45:34 <planetmaker> (ground with road) + tram
21:45:44 <planetmaker> and (ground w/o road) + tram
21:45:47 <andythenorth> how do we determine poweredness?
21:45:57 <frosch123> planetmaker: my point is, judging by current grfs, we have tons of ground types, 2 road types (andy's haul, well and normal road), and tramtypes have too little pixels to make a real difference
21:45:59 <planetmaker> road vehicle / tram vehicle. Like now
21:46:21 <andythenorth> planetmaker: so tram always gets catenary? o_O
21:46:24 <frosch123> i do not see how 16 tramtypes would make sense
21:46:25 <andythenorth> and no trolleybuses?
21:46:56 <planetmaker> agreed, frosch. I don't see the need for many different tram types. Though people will argue they want different-looking tram tracks for different towns
21:47:10 <andythenorth> it’s not the look
21:47:11 <planetmaker> but I don't get your argument about ground types
21:47:15 <frosch123> but the graphics are mostly defined by the road, not by the tram
21:47:15 <andythenorth> trams have different gauges
21:47:24 <andythenorth> and trams have multiple voltages
21:47:25 <Wolf01> Different ground, tram tracks are the same 2 grey lines every time
21:47:31 <andythenorth> THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT
21:48:08 <planetmaker> andythenorth, I'd make 'catenary' a separate flag (additional to road or tram). And just have the vehicle give a flag 'needs catenary'. That solves the power problem
21:48:34 <andythenorth> eh, but what about the voltages?
21:48:39 <planetmaker> so a vehicle is powered if it has the proper road type (road/tram) and catenary (if it requires it)
21:48:47 * andythenorth isn’t making a case that andythenorth believes in
21:49:20 <planetmaker> voltage... in German I can make a word game with that: Spannungen zu unterscheiden oder nicht führt nur zu Spannungen ;)
21:49:44 <Wolf01> Also, what if you have trolleybus + a tramway which supports 3rd rail on the same tile? Both will become electrified? With a single bit, that is
21:49:54 <planetmaker> ~: to differe between voltages/tensions you will create tension
21:50:48 <supermop_> andythenorth I dont think there is enough variety in tram power to make a difference
21:51:02 <supermop_> seems nearly all systems are 600-750 VDC
21:51:13 <Wolf01> Then 2 bits, one for type like the original idea by andy
21:51:45 <Wolf01> But there is still the problem about telling if there's trolleybus or tram
21:52:18 <supermop_> Wolf01 currently trolleybus wires overrule tramway wires
21:52:35 <andythenorth> can’t people just draw them red and blue or something?
21:52:49 <supermop_> it doesn't bother me
21:52:51 <Wolf01> And when bot are present is yellow?
21:53:12 <Wolf01> Or an overlay which tells what is missing?
21:53:38 <supermop_> because two trolley bus wires with one tram wire in the middle looks basically the same as just two trolleybus wires
21:53:59 <frosch123> i think allowinging combining road and tramtrack graphics from different grfs was a mistake
21:54:14 <andythenorth> how else do I build trams in towns?
21:54:22 <andythenorth> oh, from different grfs?
21:54:25 <supermop_> anything more and you can't see through the wires
21:54:33 <andythenorth> different grfs are always a mistake :P
21:54:40 <frosch123> currently i prefer a single newgrf type per tile, which provides all road, tram and electrifcation graphics
21:54:40 <Wolf01> frosch123: nah, we should only find a better way to tell what there is on a tile
21:55:11 <supermop_> I am happy to add sprites for tram+trolley wires superposition if supported
21:55:20 <frosch123> electrification type could be catenary or some other method within the road, but it makes no sense to have independent electrifcation for road and tram
21:55:22 <supermop_> but I am not bothered by lack of it
21:55:46 <planetmaker> yes... But does it need to be from different NewGRF?
21:55:53 <Wolf01> frosch123: from the gameplay pov you are completely right
21:56:00 <supermop_> frosch123 trolley buses cannot run on tram wires
21:56:07 <planetmaker> if road is separate from tram is separate from catenary... it's the players fault if it looks weired
21:56:13 <andythenorth> frosch123 I can’t find a compelling argument that electrification isn’t just a tile property
21:56:27 <andythenorth> but that makes vehicle compatibility a mess?
21:56:34 <frosch123> andythenorth: you want to distinguish catenary from different electrifcation like 3rd rail
21:56:40 <supermop_> i feel like that distinction is much more important than track gauge
21:56:46 <andythenorth> I think other people want to
21:56:48 <frosch123> one has pantographs, the other has a third slot in the track
21:57:06 <frosch123> it makes a visual difference
21:57:14 <frosch123> gauge is invisible for trams
21:57:15 <Wolf01> I'm fine with the electrification as tile property, but for sure somebody will say "I don't want ELRL and trolleybuses"
21:57:27 <frosch123> it's barely visible for trains, and tram has even fewer pixels
21:57:34 <andythenorth> Wolf01 are they volunteering to write the spec?
21:57:41 <supermop_> gameplay wise 3rd rail is not in anyway meaningfully distinct from overhead wire
21:58:04 <Wolf01> He wants to write a lot
21:58:28 <supermop_> but there is is definitely a gameplay effect from saying trolleybus can drive wherever electric tramway is
21:59:28 <Wolf01> Also allowing trams travelling on tiles without catenary but 3rd rail
21:59:58 <Wolf01> It's electrified, but is uncanny
22:00:00 <supermop_> I for one certainly would prefer road electrification to somehow be independent of tram power
22:00:21 <supermop_> who wants 3rd rail trams anyway
22:00:33 <andythenorth> what about rope tramways?
22:00:44 <andythenorth> why are we fixating on electrification?
22:00:54 <andythenorth> we already know it just resolves to the label
22:00:55 <supermop_> cable cars are simple
22:01:08 <Eddi|zuHause> it makes more gameplay sense if trolleybus only goes where trolleybus catenary was installed, not simply where tram catenary is installed
22:01:12 <Wolf01> And don't forget people will ask for wetroads, metro, and pipelines
22:01:27 <supermop_> Eddi|zuHause exactly
22:01:41 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: we’ve convinced ourselves the opposite
22:01:43 <Wolf01> Eddi|zuHause: like it's now
22:01:45 <andythenorth> what’s the evidence base?
22:01:51 <supermop_> trolleybus needs two wires
22:01:52 <Eddi|zuHause> even if that means it may be tricky to find the spot where you forgot to place the catenary
22:02:01 <andythenorth> has anyone actually encountered the problem?
22:02:15 <Wolf01> That's easily solvable with an information layer
22:02:20 <supermop_> idk I think i am the only player who plays with trolleybuses
22:02:31 <Wolf01> And it would be useful for rails too
22:02:46 <Eddi|zuHause> i think you will find enough people who want to play with trolleybus
22:03:05 <supermop_> Eddi|zuHause they do not seem to have yet found the buses
22:03:17 <Wolf01> I usually convert big parts of the rail infrastructure to electric when it becomes available, and I always miss a spot
22:03:37 <Wolf01> With NRT this will apply to roads too
22:03:57 <supermop_> with nrt, making cable cars is trivially easy though,
22:04:06 <supermop_> make tramway type Rope
22:04:16 <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: once upon a time there was a tile highlighting patch, where you could have two layers of information displayed by coloured frames around a tile
22:04:28 <supermop_> cable car has max hp and TE when on rope
22:04:34 <Wolf01> I'm older than that :D
22:04:39 <Eddi|zuHause> i never quite understood why that wasn't included
22:04:54 <supermop_> and ROPE has high infrastructure cost
22:05:13 <Wolf01> Because it tried to tell up to 4 things at the same time, adding complexity
22:05:59 <Eddi|zuHause> anyway, that could easily display unelectrified rail in one colour and electrified in another colour
22:06:31 <Wolf01> We should just add 2 transparent tiles, one green and one red, then with a new tool ask "where in the map is this *type present?"
22:06:54 <Eddi|zuHause> or you select a railtype, it will draw "same", "powered", "compatible" and "incompatible" in different colours
22:08:41 <Eddi|zuHause> (where by "colour" i always mean the regular highlighting frame sprite, with a recolour map applied)
22:10:09 * andythenorth was going to re-implement HEQS trams as industrial tramtype
22:10:48 <supermop_> well at least the steam ones shouldn't change
22:11:08 <frosch123> andythenorth: what makes industrial tram look different to other trams?
22:11:10 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: what distinguishes industrial tram rails from regular tram rails?
22:12:08 <Alberth> size, power, carried cargo, and probably place of tracks
22:12:49 <Alberth> difference between trams
22:13:06 <frosch123> Alberth: tramtracks, not trams :)
22:13:57 <Alberth> simpler design, most likely
22:14:57 <Alberth> but at pixel level, not much, except perhaps the amount of rust :p
22:17:23 <Eddi|zuHause> Alberth: nothing of that justifies introducing a (incompatible) tram type specific for industrial trams to go
22:19:03 <frosch123> he, i was just wondering about the graphics?
22:19:30 <frosch123> i can only imagine ground types, hardly any tramtypes
22:20:50 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but if you only introduce industrial tram as visual tram type, then there's no reason to recode HEQS for that, you can simply introduce the type as compatible to regular tram
22:21:16 <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: i hoped andy had some graphics in mind
22:22:23 <Eddi|zuHause> some HEQS trams are inspired by "Feldbahn"
22:23:00 <Alberth> Wolf01: nah, PEAT doesn't use trams, they would sink, gorund is too wet
22:23:51 <Alberth> could just be stone guiding the wheels
22:24:20 <Alberth> andy once also had pictures of stone rails :)
22:24:35 <Alberth> oh, maybe it was you :)
22:24:41 <andythenorth> difference of trams
22:25:14 <andythenorth> in my view, a key part of the game is contention for tile space between different route types
22:25:32 <andythenorth> it’s a core mechanic (and it’s also why ships suck)
22:25:51 <Wolf01> Nice that you look for "stone rails" on google and you get chalk/cement fences, actual rails and a factorio picture
22:26:31 <andythenorth> newgrf vehicle authors tend to think the choice is between many kinds of wonderful locomotive
22:26:43 <andythenorth> but the choice is already made when you choose the type of route
22:28:04 <andythenorth> so the purpose of another tram type is to add range to the available routes
22:28:23 <Wolf01> Difference of trams: no signals to bother of, consists already available (just select the length you need)
22:28:46 <andythenorth> industrial trams would be slow, high capacity, and relatively long
22:29:04 <andythenorth> they would actually have crap throughput, measured per tile
22:29:10 <andythenorth> but they would look impressive
22:29:37 <andythenorth> mining trucks on HAUL would have *much* more capacity
22:30:38 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: i think the advantage of industrial trams would be that they're available much earlier than useful trucks
22:30:54 <Eddi|zuHause> even if they then don't reach the truck peak
22:31:02 <frosch123> you mean you have to decide in advance whether you want vehicle A or B, because you cannot just switch or mix them on the same track?
22:31:21 <andythenorth> this has worked so far in Iron Horse
22:31:33 <frosch123> incompatibility as feature :)
22:31:39 <andythenorth> as long as there are consistent characteristics to the vehicles of that type
22:31:44 <andythenorth> the mistake is ‘balancing’
22:31:53 <andythenorth> trying to provide a range of vehicles in the type is BS
22:32:07 <andythenorth> or at least, a wide range
22:32:53 * andythenorth counts on fingers
22:32:56 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: i don't see why "city bus" (high capacity, slow) and "long range bus" (low capacity, fast) would require incompatible road types
22:33:10 <andythenorth> they don’t, they’re a totally valid edge case
22:33:20 <andythenorth> took me a while to figure that case out
22:33:45 <andythenorth> although a case could be made for ‘highway’ roadtype, for express buses only
22:34:12 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: but similarily, "passenger tram" and "industrial tram" are already significantly distinguished by what areas they go to, they don't need separation by track type
22:34:40 <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: long range busses have same capacity, but slower loading
22:34:52 <frosch123> long range busses usually have two decks
22:35:00 <frosch123> while short distance ones are articulated
22:35:00 <andythenorth> RH provides pax and freight trams, but all of roughly same speed, and moderate capacity
22:35:11 <andythenorth> industrial rail would be different
22:35:12 <frosch123> except the brittish did it weird
22:35:12 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think the general idea was that with local busses, you allow standing places, but long range does not
22:35:23 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
22:36:13 <Eddi|zuHause> i think there's a law where if you allow standing places, you can't go faster than 60km/h
22:36:16 <andythenorth> I can justify 3 or 4 tram types (2 types, with and without catenary)
22:36:25 <andythenorth> but I can’t find any rationale for more than 2 roadtypes
22:36:34 <andythenorth> unless, again, with and without catenary
22:37:34 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: if we're still discussing NRT design choices, then you're probably too focused on a single use-case
22:37:42 <andythenorth> I am yes, I am biased
22:37:53 <andythenorth> I am not the right person to get this out of the ditch
22:38:10 <andythenorth> at least we have evidence now, in the form of playable grfs
22:38:14 <andythenorth> not just hot air
22:38:40 <frosch123> andythenorth: i guess you get more roadtypes when adding speed bs
22:39:07 <andythenorth> unrelated: removing MNSP from FIRS Basic economies => win
22:39:08 <frosch123> but maybe speed is a property of the groundtype
22:39:14 <andythenorth> Basic is now more relaxing
22:39:18 <frosch123> it's obviously shared by road and trams
22:39:33 <frosch123> and it depends on the surroundings, i.e. walkway vs. planks
22:39:56 <andythenorth> I am the wrong person to comment
22:40:10 <andythenorth> I find the idea of restricting speed redundant :P
22:40:17 <andythenorth> vehicles already have speed limits
22:40:41 <frosch123> it's a passenger thing :)
22:41:00 <frosch123> if you connnect towns with busses, they may drive at different speeds throughout the route
22:41:41 <andythenorth> for realistic towns?
22:41:58 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: speed limits are so there's no benefit to running a fast bus for inner-city travels
22:42:20 <andythenorth> no counter argument here
22:42:28 <andythenorth> they’re the least of the current problems eh?
22:42:32 <Eddi|zuHause> and to have a reason to have separated tram routes
22:43:13 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think the "ground type" argument can easily be solved if you always take the minimum of the two speeds
22:43:17 <frosch123> i guess fast roads would not supply houses
22:43:26 <frosch123> so you can build fast routes inside a town, but houses die along them
22:43:29 <andythenorth> can I do HAUL as a ground type? :P
22:43:53 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think i did originally suggest something like that, not sure if it was considered for implementing
22:44:20 <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: i do not try to solve the groundtype issue :p i think ground types are the solution :p
22:44:20 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: a flag "this type will be considered by the town growth algorithm"
22:44:25 <FLHerne> andythenorth: My bet is that the high-ish limit will be reached fairly easily with misc. not-actually-road types
22:44:37 <FLHerne> e.g. pipes would make vastly more sense as a road
22:44:43 <FLHerne> Than the current rail ones
22:45:50 <frosch123> sounds again like a ground type, you cannot combine it with other road or tram
22:47:28 <Eddi|zuHause> pipes should be a separate transportation type
22:47:37 <Eddi|zuHause> but that's a different issue
22:48:00 <FLHerne> Yes, "continuous" systems would be nice
22:48:11 <Eddi|zuHause> pipe/conveyor/ski lift/...
22:48:12 <frosch123> pipes are already pretty meh in factorio
22:48:23 <FLHerne> But until that glorious day, they'll all be roadtypes
22:48:23 <frosch123> i guess they are like ships in ottd
22:48:31 <frosch123> stuff just flows independently
22:48:38 <FLHerne> For cosmetic-only purposes, can NRT roads be animated?
22:48:48 <Eddi|zuHause> you have one "station" that continuously emits new vehicles, and another station which consumes them
22:48:57 <frosch123> FLHerne: what do you want to animate?
22:49:02 * FLHerne doubts that many people actually care if their ski-lifts move passengers around
22:49:05 <Eddi|zuHause> and a path inbetween without switches/crossings
22:49:24 <FLHerne> So if the road tiles can be animated, you could do ski-lifts without any real vehicles
22:49:35 <frosch123> you can do that with objects
22:49:54 <Eddi|zuHause> i'm pretty sure that GRF already exists
22:49:55 <FLHerne> It's been done with objects, even?
22:50:13 <frosch123> i have seen ski lifts as objects
22:50:14 <FLHerne> Yeah, I remember it now
22:50:18 <Wolf01> Yes, better use objects if there isn't the need to use stuff along with vehicles
22:50:22 <frosch123> but it were only screenshots, so no idea whether animated
22:51:06 <frosch123> the road funiture object grfs would work better as groundtypes though
22:51:23 <Eddi|zuHause> but i think working ski lifts would be nice for some tourist industries
22:52:04 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: so you need an additional "road decoration type"?
22:52:46 <frosch123> hah, i was talking about that all day :p
22:52:52 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: or alternatively, an Object that allows to place a road on top of it
22:53:29 <Eddi|zuHause> or an object that behaves like a road (with state machine)
22:54:00 <Eddi|zuHause> (as a byproduct of newgrf road stations)
22:58:37 <Eddi|zuHause> (with these road-objects you can then do "fun stuff" like onramps, roundabouts, ...)
22:59:05 <Eddi|zuHause> (i possibly talked about these before)
22:59:12 <Wolf01> Too bad they are just eyecandy
22:59:44 <Eddi|zuHause> (also in the context of ship-locks, drawbridges, ...)
23:02:17 <andythenorth> frosch123: so do ground types have any labels, or how does it work? o_O
23:03:07 <frosch123> ground types may have multiple labels
23:04:46 <frosch123> this ground can act as road, rail, elrl, road+rail, road+elrl
23:05:25 <frosch123> that ground can act as hway
23:06:01 <frosch123> some ground can act as hway, rail, elrl, but not combined (inner city high speed)
23:06:39 <frosch123> ground would define how it transforms when you add/remove road or tram, or convert road or tram
23:09:23 <andythenorth> so each tile can only have content from a single grf?
23:09:38 <frosch123> yes, that's the main difference
23:10:18 <frosch123> it assumes that combining road from grf 1 and tram from grf 2 will never look right, unless tram pixels are insignificant
23:11:14 <frosch123> it can provide trolley and tram catenary, can allow both or make them exclusive
23:11:34 <andythenorth> I can’t see any argument against it
23:11:35 <frosch123> but it puts all the blame on a single grf to make them visually distinct
23:11:47 <andythenorth> whilst allowing flexibility
23:12:01 <andythenorth> removes any need for social contract
23:12:31 <andythenorth> how do I construct it? :P
23:13:24 <andythenorth> unified icon on main toolbar?
23:13:32 <andythenorth> then object/station style UI chooser?
23:13:56 <frosch123> from a bit point of view: current nrt allows choosing 16 road and 16 tram independently where the majority of combinations are useless. ground types allow choosing 256 combinations of road+tram pre-filtered by the grf author for stuff that makes sense
23:14:32 <frosch123> andythenorth: i think toolbar would still be separate
23:14:41 <frosch123> you build road and tram independently
23:14:54 <frosch123> just the groundtype tells whether it is possible to combine them, and what happens if you do
23:15:26 <andythenorth> is there a lot ‘this type cannot be built here’? o_O
23:15:41 <frosch123> otoh, maybe main toolbar has only one icon, but the construction toolbar itself has buttons to build road and tram?
23:16:04 <frosch123> though that would be weird for bridges/tunnels/depots
23:16:26 <andythenorth> I wonder if they’re on/off flags like one-way road
23:16:42 <andythenorth> or if they’re actually like stations, you choose a type, then sub-menu
23:17:03 <andythenorth> and you literally get a preview of ‘road’, ‘tram’, ‘road+tram’, ‘electrified road+tram’ etc
23:17:14 <frosch123> yeah, maybe like that
23:17:34 <andythenorth> could it not fill the screen on 2x zoom? o_O
23:17:35 <frosch123> you pick a ground type, then have some suboptions to select
23:17:41 * andythenorth complicates the issue :P
23:17:43 <frosch123> andythenorth: would need some toggle button
23:18:01 <andythenorth> I patched that for stations :P
23:18:32 <andythenorth> I guess it needs a spec
23:18:52 <andythenorth> if the spec works, and a patch works, and we test it, and it makes trunk...
23:19:00 <andythenorth> …can we throw away railtypes?
23:19:13 <frosch123> then you can have your mining ground type, which allows to select haul road, or feldbahn
23:19:35 <andythenorth> they overlap the same concern
23:19:46 *** Offlithium has joined #openttd
23:20:21 <andythenorth> so if I choose auto-road button, is that when a chooser UI appears, with one type already selected?
23:21:07 <frosch123> andythenorth: i think you select the road toolbar, and there is a select ground button at the end, which opens a bigger window, where you select stuff, close it again, and then build with the selected stuff
23:21:40 <frosch123> maybe you can select favorites, which are then selectable from the main toolbar
23:22:05 <frosch123> so, only one main toolbar button, and user-filtered choices in the dropdown
23:22:21 <andythenorth> ok, so that’s potato/potato compared to choosing from main toolbar, except you get a visual preview
23:22:31 <frosch123> while the complete selection is multi-dimensional instead of a 1-dimensional list
23:22:37 <andythenorth> it basically moves a dropdown menu
23:25:21 <andythenorth> so do all of supermop’s roads collapse to ‘road’?
23:25:39 <andythenorth> and then it’s literally like a station set to choose the road surface?
23:25:56 <frosch123> something like that
23:26:39 <frosch123> maybe road/tram types are filters
23:26:54 <frosch123> you select what road/tram you want, and you get a filtered list of available groundtypes for that combination
23:27:32 <andythenorth> a picture would avoid ambiguity, but that reads like what I am imagining
23:27:57 <andythenorth> select HAUL -> see stuff
23:28:27 <andythenorth> I dunno, ‘concrete HAUL’, ‘mud HAUL’, ‘concrete + tram HAUL’ etc
23:28:59 <andythenorth> still not convinced that tram / road / catenary aren’t boolean toggles
23:29:36 <andythenorth> so like a station set, all tiles for a roadtype label could just be grouped in one menu?
23:29:52 <frosch123> supermob wanted one-wire tram catenary, two-wire trolley catenary, three-wire combined catenary or something
23:29:57 <Eddi|zuHause> no, because there may still be functionally different tram types
23:30:09 <Eddi|zuHause> instead of just visually different
23:30:33 <andythenorth> eh, but then aren’t they different labels?
23:30:37 <andythenorth> or do I miss something again?
23:30:44 <frosch123> concreate ground would also allow selecting third rail tram, while mud-ground would not
23:30:52 <andythenorth> how do we provide for functional difference, except by label? o_O
23:31:08 <frosch123> andythenorth: i think road and tram would keep their current labels
23:31:16 <frosch123> but multipe grounds supply the same labels
23:31:28 <frosch123> you do not need to change the label to provide a different ground
23:31:41 <andythenorth> so then we can just filter on sets of labels, no?
23:31:46 <andythenorth> that was my naive assumption
23:32:13 <Eddi|zuHause> so tram type "has" a label, ground type "supports" a label, and a vehicle is "powered" on a label
23:32:24 <frosch123> yes, you select "trolley road" and "electrified tram", and the ground type says: impossible combination :p
23:32:37 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: that’s roughly how I’m understanding it
23:33:01 <andythenorth> ‘no ground tiles are available for this combination'
23:33:44 <andythenorth> bit like the new filter in auto-replace, but with 2 dimensions?
23:34:05 <frosch123> you convert existing tram to electrified tram, and the groundtype either allows it, or if not either it is rejected or the groundtype is replaced
23:34:43 <frosch123> i guess 3 conversion tools: convert road, convert tram, convert ground
23:34:58 <andythenorth> interestingly complex:P
23:35:04 <frosch123> each fail if the resulting combination is not allowed
23:35:29 <frosch123> maybe complex, but handcrafted complexity
23:35:45 <frosch123> it's no combinatio of any 16 types with any 16 types, but a human selection
23:39:03 <frosch123> i am not sure how depots would work
23:39:39 <frosch123> currently depots have a single explicit road/tramtype, which defines which vehicles you can build
23:39:40 <andythenorth> interesting case
23:39:52 <andythenorth> multi-type depots? o_O
23:40:00 <frosch123> would ground types result in depots being able to have both road/tram?
23:40:07 <andythenorth> is there any reason not to?
23:40:27 <andythenorth> the current arrangement has no particular upsides or downsides
23:40:47 <frosch123> you can already build compatible roadtypes in the same roaddepot
23:40:58 <frosch123> so i guess separating road and tram is kind of arbitrary
23:41:06 <frosch123> so, let's say it's a good thing
23:43:33 <frosch123> hmm, ground types would also be able to supply new station graphics
23:44:51 <Eddi|zuHause> i think you should leave station graphics out of the patch
23:45:08 <andythenorth> I have never been convinced of the benefits of complete NewStations spec for roads
23:45:15 <andythenorth> not that anyone has tried it :)
23:45:43 <Eddi|zuHause> tram turning loops...
23:45:52 <frosch123> the problem with newstations are the nontrack tiles :)
23:46:31 <andythenorth> solved problem :)
23:46:36 <andythenorth> it’s total hax, but it works
23:46:47 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: yes, but that's because they were put in as an easy hack, before a proper general solution could be discussed
23:46:49 <andythenorth> ideally they’d just be ‘station tiles’ and available in all route construction menus :P
23:47:15 <andythenorth> the only negative is having to switch building tool
23:47:26 <andythenorth> autorail -> 9 -> build :P
23:47:50 <Eddi|zuHause> "a,9" is a terrible key combination
23:47:52 <frosch123> which should be objects or something
23:48:13 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but objects don't extend catchment area
23:48:37 <frosch123> station walking is a terrible thing
23:48:47 <andythenorth> frosch123: for roadstop graphics, if we need one grf controlling the tile for appearance of road/tram stuf, then it’s odd to let an arbitrary grf decide the station in sprites future
23:48:58 <frosch123> i have always dreamed of reducing airport area to zero, and only allow transfers
23:49:03 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: no, it's not :p
23:50:04 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: well, that would require station catchment radius being only applied to the tile that induces it, not to the whole station
23:50:18 <andythenorth> so I’ll have to patch nml again? o_O
23:50:27 <frosch123> that's also something on my todo list, i don't know why it is not done yet
23:50:31 <Eddi|zuHause> so a bus station at an airport would not cause a catchment area around the airport
23:50:40 <frosch123> so many people talked about catchment preview, but noone fixed it
23:50:56 <andythenorth> talking doesn’t need QA :P
23:51:07 <frosch123> i do not even consider the catchment fix particulary hard
23:51:43 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but that again works against your non-track argument, because obviously a representative train station building should have a catchment area much larger than a simple platform
23:53:59 <frosch123> maybe a representative train station would accept/consume tourists
23:54:04 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: also, you'll clash with the kind of people that would just encircle an airport with train station tiles so it goes back to having a catchment area
23:54:16 <frosch123> but it certainly does not affect cargo transport
23:55:09 <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i've seen people walk quite long distances to train stations, even though tram/bus systems were available
23:55:15 <andythenorth> frosch123: ground types does nothing for the compatibility issue eh?
23:55:25 <andythenorth> e.g. ROAD can’t go on HAUL
23:55:37 <frosch123> andythenorth: it massively reduced the amount of labels you have to consider
23:55:51 * andythenorth is not sure that transitiveness really matter
23:56:02 <andythenorth> although players discovered it straight away
23:56:42 <andythenorth> anybody made a mixed gauge railtype yet? :P
23:56:51 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: the non-transitive cases are exactly what makes upgrading hard
23:58:41 <Eddi|zuHause> for example if railtype A is present on a tile, and is used by a train of railtype B, then you build a railtype C over that tile, which is compatible with A but not B
23:59:02 <Eddi|zuHause> the upgrade algorithm determines that C can overbuild A because it's compatible
23:59:20 <Eddi|zuHause> but that breaks the route for B
continue to next day ⏵
