IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2025-08-08
⏴ go to previous day
01:48:41 *** Wormnest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
03:07:06 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
03:07:15 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
03:36:31 *** Zathras has joined #openttd
03:39:56 *** Zathras_11 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
04:47:54 <DorpsGek> - Update: Translations from eints (by translators)
06:20:14 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
06:37:31 <ahyangyi> Hi, is there any reason why we can build stations of any size, but only 1x1 waypoints?
06:37:37 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
06:37:37 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
06:44:25 *** tokai has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
06:46:41 <pickpacket> ahyangyi: I would assume it's because a waypoint is a *point* by definition. Stations need to fit vehicles, but a waypoint is just a geographical marker
07:42:02 <reldred> Could have sworn we could build other widths by drag dropping so long as they were still 1 long
08:19:38 <peter1138> You can drag & drop to build parallel rail waypoints, yes.
08:21:06 <peter1138> Also works for road waypoints.
08:37:08 <ahyangyi> pickpacket: Yeah, but that does not preclude longer waypoints for graphical purposes?
08:45:02 <LordAro> i would say use a station if you want that sort of thing
08:55:23 <ahyangyi> They have radically different behaviors (trains will stop at a station and be able to load/unload stuff)
08:56:08 <LordAro> they don't have to though
08:56:13 <LordAro> nor do stations have to be routable
08:58:07 <reldred> its what we did in ttdpatch before we got waypoints
09:00:18 <ahyangyi> Yeah but for some graphics, the ability to load/unload doesn't make sense
09:00:38 <ahyangyi> isn't it better if they are just a waypoint and not a "waypoint faked by a station"?
09:00:54 <LordAro> as opposed to all the station blocks that have no rails at all?
09:01:04 <peter1138> This is basically "waypoints as eye candy for rail tiles".
09:01:24 <ahyangyi> Obviously if you implement that people will use it for eyecandies
09:01:29 <ahyangyi> but that's not what I propose
09:01:39 <peter1138> It just wasn't envisaged when waypoints were created, which was before anything like NewGRF stations was implemented.
09:02:01 <peter1138> If your waypoint is longer than one tile, it's eye candy.
09:02:25 *** Flygon has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
09:03:28 <ahyangyi> Yeah, my question: is can we extend the functionality now?
09:03:39 <reldred> I could have sworn we had newstations before waypoints
09:03:41 <ahyangyi> One can already build waypoints that's larger than 1x1 right now
09:04:02 <ahyangyi> but they can't drag-and-drop to place a 4x4 waypoint for some reason
09:04:28 <ahyangyi> They have to manually assemble that waypoint from 16 pieces
09:05:17 <reldred> hmm, you can drag and drop width wise in jgrpp at least
09:06:08 <ahyangyi> yeah, hence I'm asking for the "length-wise" direction, as well as enabling the usual cb24 to decide tile type in the same way as the regular station
09:06:49 <reldred> I still don't understand why you can't just use stations.
09:07:15 <ahyangyi> I can, but that falls into "eyecandy" category
09:07:33 <ahyangyi> as in, calling something that's obviously not designed for loading/unloading a "station"
09:07:35 <LordAro> i'm getting the feeling you've never actually looked at existing newgrf stations
09:08:17 <ahyangyi> LordAro: that's a weird conclusion.
09:08:42 <LordAro> at best you're doing a very job of explaining yourself
09:09:27 <LordAro> stations a) do not have to be connected to the rail network b) do not have to have rails c) can be any graphic you like that fits into a tile
09:09:57 <ahyangyi> How does that relate to the question I asked?
09:09:58 <LordAro> i acknowledge that for some station designs the orders might be ever so slightly finicky to set up, but after that...
09:10:39 <ahyangyi> I'm asking the question because I feel the feature could make my NewGRF easier to use
09:11:21 <ahyangyi> And, it is a waypoint.
09:11:29 <LordAro> oh, are you after multi-tile objects that fit on a rail?
09:14:21 <LordAro> ok, so nothing that's specific to waypoints at all
09:14:38 <LordAro> multi-tile newgrf stations "blocks" would achieve the same thing
09:14:49 <LordAro> or indeed allowing objects to overlay rails
09:15:30 <ahyangyi> LordAro: But that's a very eyecandy usage of stations
09:15:35 <peter1138> Or relaxing waypoints to allow serial construction.
09:15:51 <LordAro> ahyangyi: as opposed to newgrf stations in general?
09:15:52 <ahyangyi> Using stations to make something that you only ever want trains to go through, and not stop nor load nor unload
09:16:05 <ahyangyi> i.e. really a waypoint
09:16:48 <peter1138> Unless you're ordering trains to go via the waypoint, it's not really a waypoint.
09:17:11 <ahyangyi> peter1138: That was what I was trying to say
09:17:19 <peter1138> Which is similar to using a station and using go via orders.
09:17:19 <ahyangyi> but "go through" wasn't precise
09:23:29 <ahyangyi> But the very point of a waypoint is that it is not a station
09:23:41 <ahyangyi> Otherwise we can say that all waypoints can be "simulated" by stations and self-constraint
09:28:24 *** ialokin has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
09:32:24 <ahyangyi> LordAro: BTW, my usage for "eyecandy" goes to peter's comment "waypoints as eye candy for rail tiles"
09:32:24 <ahyangyi> So, building `foo` but intentionally avoid using its main features to mimic `bar`.
09:32:24 <ahyangyi> Build a waypoint and pretend the functionality of ordering trains to go via it, and it becomes an eye candy for rail tile
09:32:24 <ahyangyi> Build a station and pretend all orders except "go via" do not exist, and it becomes an eye candy for a waypoint
09:44:37 <peter1138> Of course, people who don't chat here will be reading this and deciding that what I wrote means I hate eye-candy.
09:45:18 <peter1138> Whereas I use it only to distinguish between gameplay reasons and eye-candy reasons.
10:01:16 <peter1138> I'm not saying you did.
10:01:27 <peter1138> (You're chatting here...)
10:08:45 <peter1138> Is there any particular reason why a static layout instead of CB24 wouldn't work for a waypoint?
10:09:26 <peter1138> Or is it that you're just used to doing it the hard way instead.
10:16:18 <peter1138> Hmm, CB14 might be a problem for bridges-over-stations :/
10:37:16 <ahyangyi> peter1138: It's available in various sizes
10:40:13 <peter1138> Yeah, static layouts can be provided in different sizes. I suppose there are cases when calculating it can be simpler.
10:40:34 <peter1138> (At least in NML, probably not in NFO)
10:50:03 <ahyangyi> I'll give them a try -- cb24 also has other problems for even stations, for example var4x only really works for stations smaller than 16x16
10:50:42 <ahyangyi> but on the other hand providing 4096 or so layouts doesn't feel very efficient
10:52:28 <ahyangyi> even if generating them with python doesn't bug me either
10:55:57 <_glx_> Yeah nfo really likes bitstuffing
11:08:34 <ahyangyi> LordAro: Some are just unpleasant surprises but some (such as the "50 extra npm packs") are truly shocking
11:16:37 <peter1138> I mean, stations larger than 16x16 are a bit crazy anyway...
11:18:47 <peter1138> I wouldn't be building that in one piece, for sure.
11:30:55 <ahyangyi> peter1138: That's definitely larger than what I build in my games as well, but that's not I worry about when I make NewGRFs.
11:30:55 <ahyangyi> ( and, "large" stations tend to be something like 20x8, people rarely build very long stations, but "a lot of tracks" is somewhat more common )
11:50:22 <_glx_> But it's rarely built in one block
12:44:50 <emperorjake> That looks like a very sus URL, I had to verify if it wasn't some scam site
13:21:47 <peter1138> (Not having to create fixed layouts very every size is basically why the platforms/lengths selectors can be masked.)
14:24:56 <bigyihsuan> emperorjake: it's a quiz on how well you know js's Date object
15:28:12 <squirejames> Tad confused. I always use multi-tile waypoints. Maybe its a JGRPP thing
15:31:12 <squirejames> *shrug* so the whole "why can't we build multi-tile waypoint" question was a bit moot?
15:31:54 <squirejames> Because, well, you can, so...yeah
15:32:02 <peter1138> He means along the track rather than across the track.
15:32:46 <peter1138> And also in build operation, instead of building it several rows one at a time.
15:33:16 <squirejames> I can't imagine a situation where you'd need to drag and drop a waypoint
15:33:43 <squirejames> (just wanted to show its doable, lengthways or widthways, but yes 1 tile at a time. It's hardly a game breaking limitation)
15:34:15 <peter1138> They want waypoint graphics that are longer than one tile.
15:34:41 <squirejames> Overlap ones would seem to be the thing then. I am sure it's doable
15:35:34 <peter1138> Nothing to do with overlap, that's not a supported thing.
15:36:25 <peter1138> The argument is that rail stations support building both across and along, so why can't waypoints.
15:37:24 <peter1138> Of course for station platforms there is a gameplay purpose to them being long along the track.
15:37:36 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
15:53:20 <yiffgirl> i like the idea of an icon for cities. not sure how those are implemented though
15:58:20 <talltyler> Look at station names and how they draw vehicle icons, perhaps?
15:58:49 <talltyler> (Screenshot also shows multi-tile station graphics, the arched roof. This is what's being discussed for waypoints. 🙂 )
15:59:18 <talltyler> Two birds with one screenshot 😛 )
16:42:05 <squirejames> I suppose in the short term, one could make "half arches", so you could place two waypoints alongside each other and tada
16:52:11 <peter1138> Why would you want an arch along a track though?
16:53:24 <peter1138> (An aside, half-arches that require manual placement of each side are annoying pain, Just include both sides on a 2-wide layout :o
16:58:45 <squirejames> Oh I concur on both points. Merely saying how it could be done
16:59:32 <squirejames> (half arches do have some utility though. Sometimes I want a four track station with the two central platforms covered by a squarish roof or building, and then a half arch on each side)
17:18:14 <peter1138> That's just handled as a 4-tile-wide layout :)
17:32:18 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
17:44:08 *** lobster has joined #openttd
17:57:30 *** Wolf01 has quit IRC (Quit: Once again the world is quick to bury me.)
17:59:57 <_glx_> ubuntu runners also have an arm64 version
18:00:10 <truebrain> Yeah, but we have been using those for a while now 🙂
18:00:19 <truebrain> I just didn't know they were also doing a windows variant 😄
18:31:01 <truebrain> damn, with icons looks sweet 😄
18:36:09 <peter1138> Is it recognisable?
18:44:05 <talltyler> I recognise it, do you?
18:44:43 <talltyler> If you click on the name to open the town window, it also says (City) in the window title 🙂
18:46:25 <_zephyris> More recognisable than nothing...
18:47:42 <truebrain> I also like it fits with other things, like station-type icon
18:47:48 <truebrain> so it nicely follows the pattern already in OpenTTD 😄
18:48:21 <peter1138> I mean, is a town and city icon necessary, or just a city icon?
18:48:58 <peter1138> Would we replace (City) in the Town Directory window?
18:49:18 <_zephyris> Probably just a city icon needed, but I thought I'd mockup both
18:49:31 <peter1138> (And the Town View window caption?)
18:49:51 <truebrain> I do like having both; feels more consistent 😄
18:50:12 <_zephyris> I'd say replace (City) everywhere, and add a note/description to the Town View window.
18:58:54 <peter1138> Which brings us back to my original question. If it needs an extra note/description, is it recognisable? :)
19:05:31 <_zephyris> Oh, I think it's totally recognisable. I think it'd be more useful to have a note/description which says what it does, ie. grows faster, than just being labelled (City).
19:12:52 <peter1138> Ah right, so something that explains what (City) doesn't.
19:54:04 <Rubidium> maybe a slightly bigger variant in the town window with a tooltip can explain them?
20:03:03 <_glx_> IIRC there's some info about cities in the setting help (but it's not highly visible)
20:03:34 <_zephyris> Yeah, and as it's default state is on, many players won't have looked there
20:19:01 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
20:19:46 <ahyangyi> peter1138: Somehow a few hours later I can suddenly understand your point
20:20:17 <ahyangyi> i.e., long waypoints are functionally the same as short ones, but wide waypoints are not.
20:22:08 <ahyangyi> Well, technically one can argue "but long waypoint and remove one tile in the middle and build a crossing there", but that's a contrived example that I'm not interested in.
20:22:13 <ahyangyi> So, eye candy it is.
20:22:39 <ahyangyi> (but not now, it's 4 AM)
20:23:08 <peter1138> I wasn't actually arguing against adding construction of longer waypoints, just providing a rationale for the way it currently is (especially given its age)
20:24:04 <ahyangyi> Yeah, I thought I understood your terminology but I probably didn't
20:26:11 <peter1138> Ah, scripting again.
20:26:45 <peter1138> So I accidentally refactored stations-over-bridges again :o
20:31:45 <peter1138> locosage, sort him out :p
20:53:15 <kuhnovic> Trying to create (somewhat) self-organizing shipping lanes. How did I end up in this rabbit hole...
20:56:08 <kuhnovic> I'm trying to make ships avoid each other to a certain extent, but only in high traffic scenario's. And without additional pathfinder burden if possible. The results are... solid meh so far.
20:56:37 <_glx_> looks messy in the screenshot
20:57:39 <kuhnovic> Essentially I want #14493 but adaptive
20:57:47 <_glx_> I can see 2 lanes, and some boat living their own lifes
20:58:00 <kuhnovic> Hehe yeah there's a lot going on, the debug doesn't help (it does help me)
20:59:00 <yiffgirl> _zephyris: those city/town icons are gorgeous.
20:59:00 <_glx_> debug helps to see what they're doing
21:04:51 <kuhnovic> A video makes it a bit more clear. Ships try to avoid going in opposite direction of the black lines (they are directional but that's not visible). They also want to avoid going along the black lines, but to a lesser degree. The tile loop makes the lines slowly fade to allow for changing situations. This leads to self-organized avoidance when traffic is high, and regular optimal(-ish) paths in
21:04:51 <kuhnovic> low-traffic scenarios. That's the theory at least.
21:24:14 <peter1138> Rubidium, what was the method you use to find a vacant string control code last time...
21:25:13 <peter1138> Sorry, it wasn't you. It was frosch :)
21:33:25 <Rubidium> though 9D hasn't been documented yet
21:57:38 <peter1138[d]> I'm not entirely convinced, tbh.
21:59:24 <talltyler> What if it was on two lines? (Radical, I know)
22:00:23 <peter1138> I don't really fancy "mocking up" the viewport string system to support multi-line strings as well.
22:02:22 <talltyler> I think the population is less important to me than the name, and maybe even if it’s a city. I can just look at how many houses there are to gauge if there will be enough passenger traffic. (Not that population should necessarily be removed)
22:04:20 <peter1138> That's the change to add both the town and city icons to the game. It doesn't do anything else to the viewport strings, so yiffgirl can grab this change if she wants to use the icons.
22:12:09 *** Extrems` has joined #openttd
22:15:56 *** Extrems has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
22:15:56 *** Extrems` is now known as Extrems
23:07:39 <_zephyris> peter1138[d]: I dunno, I quite like it! But I'm biased 😉
23:08:26 <_zephyris> That's the 1x version of/c, more detail and anti-aliasing could follow...
23:09:05 <_zephyris> And having the information in the town name is certainly useful, that's something I so often check in the town info window
23:11:50 <locosage> peter1138: I'm definitely grabbing it for cmclient 😂
23:47:56 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
continue to next day ⏵
