IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2025-08-14
⏴ go to previous day
01:18:48 *** toktik has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
01:43:18 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
01:58:32 *** Wormnest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
02:10:49 <squirejames> fairyflossy: I concur, its simply that "bad feature" has been said many times before in reference to other concepts. This is pretty close to that for most people i'd imagine
02:11:42 <squirejames> (but worth a discussion of course)
02:13:15 *** toktik has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
03:29:28 *** Zathras has joined #openttd
03:33:00 *** Zathras_11 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
04:03:11 *** wensimehrp has joined #openttd
04:03:46 <wensimehrp> It is hard to communicate this idea to the player. All they can see is a train can't pass a tight curve while trains can
04:04:10 <wensimehrp> So the behaviour is inconsistent, and rather confusing
04:07:17 *** emperorjake has joined #openttd
04:07:17 <emperorjake> Curve speeds are already often misunderstood in their current form
04:44:17 <DorpsGek> - Update: Translations from eints (by translators)
07:00:43 *** SigHunter has joined #openttd
07:51:30 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
07:51:32 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
08:13:28 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
08:28:19 <peter1138> It's cooled down a bit here.
08:35:28 <peter1138> I feel like bridges-over-stations might be gaining a bit of scope-creep which could be split into a separate PR.
08:46:01 *** kuhnovic has joined #openttd
08:46:01 <kuhnovic> It's slowling turning into bridges-over-everything
08:49:43 <peter1138> Right. I could split out the pillar/edge exclusions system into a separate PR, as it can be used for existing bridgeable tiles.
09:14:22 <peter1138> (Should objects gain pillar exclusions...)
09:17:53 <kuhnovic> I think so, why do they need to be treated differently?
09:19:27 <peter1138> Well, it means adding something to NewGRF to support it :)
09:19:42 <peter1138> Which is doable, but also completely out of scope for bridges-over-stations.
09:20:36 <peter1138> I think default objects are either not bridgeable, or won't exclude pillars, so that's simple enough.
09:21:46 <peter1138> For NewGRF objects they tend to change the tile layout dynamically, so I guess it would need a callback rather than a static property.
09:25:25 <FLHerne> peter1138: there's a CHIPS-style docks grf that (via parameter) has some quite tall options
09:26:43 <peter1138> Hmm. not too worried about custom docks, they are breaking the tile layout anyway as the bounding boxes are fixed to something very low.
09:26:59 <peter1138> When I do NewGRF docks it'll have its own properties to do it.
09:28:13 <FLHerne> 'CHIPS Custom Docks v1.0', I think this is the worst-case option
09:28:42 <peter1138> Yeah, press Ctrl-B (assuming you have the developer options enabled)
09:28:54 <FLHerne> personally I think pillar exclusions is more trouble than it's worth
09:29:31 <peter1138> For docks it's not really about pillars anyway, it's height.
09:29:57 <FLHerne> yeah, that was a more general comment :p
09:30:29 <peter1138> I don't understand. What's troublesome about it?
09:31:37 <FLHerne> they make what combinations can be built very unpredictable and unstable to small changes (build bridge type A over station B, fine, extend the bridge one tile to allow another track, pillars move, fails)
09:32:00 <peter1138> Nope, they do not do that.
09:32:16 <peter1138> In JGRPP it prevents building.
09:32:22 * FLHerne goes to read the PR again
09:32:36 <peter1138> In my PR, it allows the bridge and simply hides the pillars
09:33:07 <peter1138> Which is quite a fundamental change that I decided to make based on feedback in the PR.
09:34:13 <peter1138> Bridge minimum height does of course still block things, but that is static and only depends on what is below the bridge rather than also depending on the type and position of the bridge.
09:34:57 <FLHerne> seems a much better idea
09:35:05 *** talltyler has joined #openttd
09:35:43 <FLHerne> in principle someone™ could try and make it smarter
09:36:12 <FLHerne> by altering span lengths to place pillars only on tiles that allow them
09:36:28 <FLHerne> s/only/preferentially/
09:36:49 <peter1138> That seems like something that proper NewGRF Bridges could allow.
09:37:02 <FLHerne> which would also be nice on, e.g., bridges over railway junctions where currently you get pillars in the middle of a track sometimes
09:37:21 <peter1138> For default bridges the bridge piece information is fixed.
09:37:33 <peter1138> However that's an interesting point.
09:37:57 <peter1138> The NewGRF property is hardcoded to 6 bridge pieces.
09:38:11 <peter1138> I should change this to allow any number, and for now ignore anything over 6.
09:41:55 <FLHerne> I was going to ask if you did but you commented on it :D
09:43:20 <peter1138> Well, I know existing, but of course I don't remember all thathttps://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/discussions/9162#discussioncomment-685641
09:44:19 <peter1138> If we design the spec to allow more than 6, then we don't need to change it later.
09:45:41 <peter1138> It'll be incompatible with JGRPP, but that uses its own extended NewGRF format anyway, so it will be whatever.
09:45:59 <peter1138> (Any existing stuff in JGRPP I mean.)
09:49:42 <FLHerne> that sounds like a good idea to me
10:13:20 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
10:44:57 *** aperezdc has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
10:46:03 *** aperezdc has joined #openttd
12:45:02 <peter1138> I appear to have lost author attribution.
13:48:28 <peter1138> Yeah, I had one but it's the wrong way around now :-)
(this day is still ongoing; reload to check for any updates)
