IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2022-01-13
⏴ go to previous day
00:35:38 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
00:36:24 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
01:20:55 *** Wuzzy has quit IRC (Quit: Wuzzy)
01:28:28 <dale> Is "order backup" just used for preserving orders when replacing vehicles in depot?
02:53:08 *** Wormnest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
04:54:03 <Gustavo6046> brazil metro train
04:54:06 <Gustavo6046> just dropping this here
04:54:28 <Gustavo6046> it's in my city! :D
04:58:33 <Gustavo6046> what do you think?
05:46:10 *** supermop_Home has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
05:55:17 *** Gustavo6046 has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
05:58:08 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
06:31:52 *** Extrems has joined #openttd
07:21:01 *** Speedy` has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
08:17:57 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
08:41:24 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
09:18:17 *** Speedy` has joined #openttd
10:26:11 *** Gustavo6046 has quit IRC ()
11:14:31 *** NGC3982 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
11:38:52 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
12:18:33 *** jellyknight has joined #openttd
12:22:27 *** gelignite has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
12:22:49 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
12:24:57 *** geli has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
12:27:27 *** jellyknight has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
13:09:49 <Eddi|zuHause> looks like there's a fix for that already in the pipeline?
14:39:11 *** supermop_Home has joined #openttd
15:09:32 *** Mrtmol[m] has joined #openttd
15:40:21 <supermop_Home> probably need to tone down the bright spots on the parapet and add some roof greeble
16:17:56 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
16:23:17 *** andythenorth_ has joined #openttd
16:23:27 <supermop_Home> yet another andy
16:27:16 <frosch123> truck driver crisis must be harsh. now openttd.org gets special deals to hire some :p
16:29:36 *** andythenorth has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
16:51:15 *** Flygon has quit IRC (Quit: A toaster's basically a soldering iron designed to toast bread)
17:01:14 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
17:33:21 *** Afdal has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
17:44:38 <TrueBrain> at least some grace period would have been nice
17:45:50 <TrueBrain> guess we have to learn DorpsGek a new trick ..
17:46:17 <TrueBrain> bit annoying, as using a trusted domain was kinda nice .. using "any of the other services out there" is risky business :P
17:49:53 <frosch123> not sure how useful it is in case of dorpsgek
17:50:07 <frosch123> dorpsgek seems to link to the same type of urls anyway
17:50:27 <TrueBrain> it was just nice to have a very short URL at the end of everything
17:51:24 <TrueBrain> and I kinda refuse to use bitly :P
17:52:46 <LordAro> opent.td is only £242.52/year :p
17:52:47 <nielsm> revive bugs.openttd.org to be slightly smarter?
17:53:10 <LordAro> ot.td is unavailable :p
17:53:11 <nielsm> lige bugs.openttd.org/1234
17:53:22 <TrueBrain> nielsm: that is hardly shorter ;)
17:53:29 <TrueBrain> LordAro: ot.td! YES! :D
17:53:36 <frosch123> you need at least project + issue + comment number
17:54:43 <frosch123> oh, i did not notice that dorpsgek already switched silently to full urls
17:54:49 <frosch123> does it do that when the shortening fails?
17:54:57 <TrueBrain> LordAro did a good job
17:55:00 <frosch123> impressive code quality :)
17:56:32 <TrueBrain> who did a good job?
17:56:50 <TrueBrain> (imagine that in a voice you use while talking to a dog, ofc)
17:57:19 <TrueBrain> godaddy says ot.td is no (longer) available
17:57:43 <TrueBrain> no, seems to be not available, awh
17:57:50 <LordAro> that's what i said :p
17:57:53 <TrueBrain> misread the "un" part :D
17:59:21 <frosch123> is there a limit on how short a domain is allowed?
17:59:37 <frosch123> is ot.td unavilable because someone has it, or because it is too short?
17:59:46 <nielsm> depends on the registry
17:59:58 <TrueBrain> Domain Status: No Object Found
17:59:59 <nielsm> some don't sell any shorter than 3 or 4
18:00:11 <nielsm> for the second level name
18:01:33 <frosch123> looks like there are 2 letter com domains
18:01:36 <frosch123> did not expect that
18:26:29 <TrueBrain> people keep telling me the Hz of the powernet is always 50Hz on average ..
18:26:32 <TrueBrain> I kinda disagree :P
18:26:47 <TrueBrain> also, powernet goes BSSSSS
18:27:36 <TrueBrain> today the net also dropped 3V within 5 minutes twice :P
18:27:43 <TrueBrain> always amazes me how much in flux this all is
18:29:36 <_dp_> isn't power frequency quite a big deal because of clocks?
18:29:45 <_dp_> there was quite some fuss in eu when it suddenly changed
18:41:33 <frosch123> TrueBrain: it is 50Hz in europe, and it is very stable over long time
18:41:56 <frosch123> 3 years ago there was a big drama between serbia and neighbouring contry
18:42:00 <TrueBrain> but I only see days; so possibly they correct it in the night :P
18:42:07 <frosch123> which lead to a power imbalance over multiple month
18:42:16 <frosch123> which resulted in a drift of 15 minutes or something
18:42:20 <frosch123> it was later caught up
18:42:30 <TrueBrain> but my sensors give kinda an other image ;)
18:43:24 *** wiscii has quit IRC (Quit: Thanks)
18:46:43 <frosch123> 49.9 is still okay, starting with 49.8 some automatic may decide to depower you :)
18:47:06 <TrueBrain> these drops of today were, for a change, not something I caused :P
18:47:38 <glx> it's the cold, it increases demand and lowers frequency
18:47:53 <TrueBrain> glx: and how do you explain a similar issue in the summer? :D
18:48:10 <TrueBrain> frosch123: okay, so it indeed isn't me :P
18:48:16 <TrueBrain> glx: which I didn't own last year
18:48:21 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
18:48:27 <TrueBrain> if the argument is: it is always below 50Hz because NNN
18:48:37 <TrueBrain> then there is a serious flaw in "it should always be 50Hz" :P
18:49:13 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
18:50:43 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
18:50:51 <glx> production and consumption must be equal, but it's almost impossible to achieve
18:51:06 <TrueBrain> there is a huge difference between "not achieving" and "always below" ;)
18:52:37 <frosch123> i once wrote software that checks whether power plants deliver power with the contractionally agreed amount and precision
18:53:02 <frosch123> the announcement that such softwar existed immediately resulted in an improvement of the deliveries
18:53:26 <TrueBrain> initial I was thinking my Hz sensing was off, which kinda would have been a problem for various of reasons
18:53:29 <TrueBrain> but it is pretty accurate
18:53:43 <TrueBrain> but it, on average, always being below 50Hz surprised me
18:54:37 *** jottyfan has joined #openttd
18:56:45 <TrueBrain> to give you a bit of an idea how much below 50Hz it has been all year :P
18:59:04 <frosch123> then i blame your sensor :)
18:59:40 <TrueBrain> I am curious how that looks over time
19:02:01 <TrueBrain> I was looking at tennet, who shows a lot of data
19:02:06 <TrueBrain> (from what I can find)
19:03:04 <frosch123> you do not have to look at tennet, frequency is the same all over europe, with the exceptional days :)
19:03:27 <TrueBrain> I know ..... but as it happened to be my supplier and ahs a lot of data, I was looking there
19:03:56 <TrueBrain> sometimes a remark is just a remark .. it is funny they have tons of data
19:04:40 <frosch123> tennet is one of the largest, maybe edf is larger, but i cannot think of a third
19:05:02 <TrueBrain> mostly it surprises me that there is a lot of blabla that is is REALLY stable .. but it is hard to find a source for good data about it :)
19:07:06 <frosch123> hmm, most statistics stop in 2018, maybe some legislation changed
19:07:31 <frosch123> unfortunetely that's also about the time my insider info stopped, so maybe it's because i changed job :p
19:08:07 <TrueBrain> at least something more decent
19:09:30 <frosch123> haha, so they were aiming for 0 seconds on 2022-01-01 00:00
19:09:32 <TrueBrain> I still want to know how this goes over a 24h period .. :D
19:09:57 <TrueBrain> well, it is always 0 if you reset the clock at that moment ;)
19:11:09 <frosch123> so apparently thee is a predictable drop at 20:00
19:13:39 <TrueBrain> but either way .. seems I should be getting another sensor, to validate the other :D
19:15:13 <TrueBrain> if you start looking for this, it is amazing how many incidents there are with the grid
19:15:24 <TrueBrain> and how many failsafes kick in :P
19:34:13 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
19:34:59 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
19:43:03 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
19:43:08 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
20:39:51 *** frosch123 has quit IRC (Quit: be yourself, except: if you have the opportunity to be a unicorn, then be a unicorn)
21:01:54 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
21:02:09 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
21:05:33 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
21:05:47 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
21:24:22 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
21:35:40 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
21:35:56 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
21:44:21 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
21:44:36 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
21:49:13 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
21:49:58 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
21:59:01 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
21:59:17 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:00:33 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:03:28 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:05:41 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:07:24 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:14:32 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
22:14:48 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:35:09 *** m1cr0man has quit IRC (Quit: G'luck)
22:35:25 *** m1cr0man has joined #openttd
22:45:59 *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC ()
22:48:38 <Wormnest> I tried ai-library/51554248, 51554248, and Queue.BinaryHeap
22:49:12 <andythenorth_> oops I 402-ed bananas
22:49:38 <andythenorth_> yeah we crashed it :)
22:51:42 <wiscii> why do all my planes eventually crash ?
22:55:40 <_dp_> unless using cheats planes always have a small chance to crash
22:56:23 <wiscii> hmm .. this is the fear i had
22:56:40 <wiscii> basically, planes have a 100% failure rate
22:57:04 <wiscii> because you can't pull over in the sky ..
22:57:15 <Wormnest> I´ll try again later
22:57:22 <wiscii> i gave up with them, they pissed me off so much!
22:57:30 <wiscii> openttd, there is an FAA
22:59:21 <wiscii> in the early days of aviation then sure, planes will crash
23:00:08 <wiscii> but as the game progresses it becomes absolutely ludicrous for ALL PLANES to eventually crash and burn
23:00:18 <wiscii> as if any passengers are going to pay for that
23:00:26 <supermop_Home> andythenorth_ too many 60s buildings to choose from
23:00:38 <andythenorth_> choose the red one
23:00:45 <wiscii> every single plane has a 100% chance to crash and burn, just not this flight, maybe
23:02:17 <wiscii> i started routing all my flights directly over residential, just for the thrill
23:02:32 <nielsm> pretty sure regular crashes are disabled by a regular game setting, only big planes landing at small airports is unavoidable without the cheat
23:03:35 <wiscii> the last time i gave it a real test was version 10,x , maybe something has improved, haven't tested
23:04:47 <wiscii> or maybe i left plane crashes on for the realism and then found a 100% failure rate to be insanity :)
23:06:12 <wiscii> don't get me wrong, i understand the maths .. just would like to improve it
23:07:04 <wiscii> for example: each plane type could start with a 100% failure rate but that can drop to zero in time, so that planes become reliable
23:07:38 <wiscii> if you really want accidental crashes then at least make the chance really really small
23:10:59 <nielsm> yeah if plane crashes is set to the lowest setting, planes won't crash randomly as long as it isn't big plane on small airport
23:11:54 <wiscii> yeah, that looks like a new setting to me
23:13:09 <wiscii> i think i left it on on purpose but found the setting to be annoying
23:14:12 <wiscii> but instintively, I feel this will still result in 100% failure rate, eventually
23:14:26 <wiscii> and that's the bit i don't like
23:16:56 <nielsm> well yes, if you run the same vehicles forever they will eventually crash if the probability is non-zero
23:17:02 *** andythenorth_ has quit IRC (Quit: andythenorth_)
23:17:44 <wiscii> please, do not misunderstand. i completely understand the problem.
23:18:08 <nielsm> you can calculate the probability of a crash for each landing, how many landings one plane on average makes a year, and calculate a median time before failure
23:18:59 <wiscii> i just feel like there is a much smarter way to do plane crashes than the absolutely deterministic one in place, regardless of reduced settings.
23:19:30 <wiscii> from the point of view of a game, i guess
23:19:41 <FLHerne> This is also true of breakdowns
23:19:58 <FLHerne> and yet no-one has ever established a consensus for any specific alternative
23:20:04 <nielsm> you mean something you can influence by choices regarding vehicle model, servicing, frequency, airport type, etc.?
23:22:36 <supermop_Home> its about as non-deterministic as it gets I think, unless you have a radioisotope random number source of some kind connected to your computer?
23:22:57 <wiscii> i think the simplest idea i have had goes like this:
23:23:20 <wiscii> each plane type starts with a base line reliability, just like a train
23:23:30 <FLHerne> supermop_Home: I'm reading "deterministic" as "inevitable and impossible to influence"
23:23:57 <wiscii> each time a plane crashes, the rest of the fleet of those type of planes become 50% more reliable, for example
23:24:31 <supermop_Home> at least some amount of real world plane crashes definitely occur outside of anything the airline could have chosen to do,
23:24:37 <wiscii> oh, the deterministic is exactly that eventually every single plane will crash with normal settings
23:24:47 <wiscii> i find that hard to work with
23:24:53 <supermop_Home> although in this day and age its exceedingly rare
23:25:22 <supermop_Home> if you flew every real plan on earth forever, eventually all of them would crash?
23:25:47 <supermop_Home> but I do think crashes should be 2-3 orders of magnitude less common in gam
23:25:50 <wiscii> the point i would try to make, is that for each type of plane, they become successively more "veteran" as a crash happens involving one of the same type
23:25:59 <wiscii> the FAA step in and fix the problem
23:26:30 <supermop_Home> wouldn't it be the other way around, as they accrue metal fatigue
23:26:31 <FLHerne> well, eventually they run out of fatigue life and start breaking up in flight
23:26:38 <wiscii> eventually, a well use plane type will have virtually zero chance of crashing
23:26:56 <FLHerne> see Aloha Airlines 243
23:26:58 <supermop_Home> wiscii I think that's the opposite of real life
23:27:19 <wiscii> i do not think of each plane unit as a single entity but more a representation of a flight path
23:27:27 <supermop_Home> 777 had no crashes across the type for nearly 20 years
23:28:20 <wiscii> ah .. well now, ottd has economy for that sort of corruption ;-)
23:28:48 <supermop_Home> although I guess act of war, act of sabotage, and pilot error aren't really well modelled in game
23:28:56 <wiscii> i am trying to change how random plane crashes are calculated
23:29:16 <FLHerne> I feel like for gameplay purposes, inevitable plane crashes are probably deliberate
23:29:44 <supermop_Home> although I guess the non-zero chance of crash even with perfect maintenance is essentially accounting for pilot error
23:29:51 <supermop_Home> FLHerne exactly
23:29:52 <FLHerne> Like UFOs blowing up rail and road infrastructure, it means you can't just build and forget
23:30:18 <wiscii> FLHerne: possibly, and i am not critisizing that decision outright. just discussing the option of another approach
23:30:21 <supermop_Home> planes are already so overpowered, if they literally ran on their own forever they'd be worse
23:30:28 <FLHerne> also, for normal players it's difficult to build a rail or road network that's guaranteed not to deadlock
23:30:33 <wiscii> but one that can be programmed not just pulled out my arse ;-)
23:30:40 <FLHerne> whereas it's almost impossible to screw up planes
23:31:26 <wiscii> but the choice then is crashes on or off ?
23:31:37 <wiscii> seems like room for improvement to me
23:31:40 <FLHerne> wiscii: tbh, we already have a second approach of "turn off plane crashes", so yours would be a third approach :p
23:31:49 <wiscii> after all, these are sprites lives !
23:31:51 <FLHerne> and is that really needed?
23:32:41 <FLHerne> As supermop_Home says, the real gameplay fix would be to make planes crash a lot more
23:32:49 <wiscii> personally, i believe it would add a new dimension to planes, that they be much more reliable and with a progression stage.
23:32:59 <supermop_Home> or make the player try to land the plane!
23:33:45 <wiscii> yeah right, halo style
23:34:02 <wiscii> hell, why not ASCII :-)
23:34:21 <supermop_Home> wiscii you'd need someway to handicap mismanaged planes at least, rather than just a bonus for plane over time
23:35:07 <supermop_Home> currently its: Planes are very easy and require almost no player attention
23:35:12 <wiscii> instead of taking off on their doomed voyage, the plane is auto-retired
23:35:56 <wiscii> sorry but i disagree with the over powered plane idea
23:36:09 <nielsm> if my calculation is right, at "reduced" plane crashes, a plane should have 95.1165% chance of surviving 10,000 landings
23:36:36 <supermop_Home> if they got more reliable as they went on, it would be: Planes are very easy and require almost no player attention, AND they get easier and require less attention with time
23:36:49 <wiscii> nielsm: i will check the reduced rate soon
23:37:01 <wiscii> thanks for the calculation :)
23:37:20 <nielsm> and 90,2560% chance at "normal" crashes
23:37:50 *** reldred has joined #openttd
23:37:53 <wiscii> but i still believe there is a sweeter spot for the setting
23:38:24 <supermop_Home> I accept that maybe some non-crash way to handicap planes would be nice
23:38:37 <supermop_Home> also plane breakdowns are pretty silly
23:39:36 <nielsm> and at a pretty generous 25 landings per year for a plane (probably none have that many, taxiing takes up so much time) it takes 400 years to get 10,000 landings
23:39:40 <supermop_Home> but you can't do too much with plane handling at airports etc, because there is almost nothing the player can do about that
23:40:10 <wiscii> the way i looked at it, at the time, when these planes were falling out of the sky on me !!! was, maybe if they could get more reliable that would add a layer to the game play .. but then i see that they fall away to nothing as well
23:40:18 <wiscii> without a penalty or something
23:40:57 <wiscii> the fun is in the tracks after all ;-)
23:41:37 <supermop_Home> if the plane gameplay was more about designing well functioning routes and airports, then it would make sense for crashes to be real rare black swan type events
23:42:22 <wiscii> you have all convinced me
23:59:15 <supermop_Home> do the temperate grass and rock sprites need to get replaced by replacenew?
continue to next day ⏵
