IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2025-09-22
⏴ go to previous day
00:26:30 *** ufo-piloot has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
00:34:59 *** ufo-piloot has joined #openttd
01:39:55 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
02:03:24 *** Wormnest has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
02:25:25 *** dh1 has quit IRC (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
03:05:12 *** Smedles_ has joined #openttd
03:06:43 *** Smedles__ has joined #openttd
03:08:37 *** Smedles has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
03:14:02 *** Smedles_ has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
03:44:17 *** Zathras has joined #openttd
03:47:39 *** Zathras_11 has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
04:38:31 <DorpsGek> - Update: Translations from eints (by translators)
06:27:03 <peter1138> Okay, so it failed to install Rust.
06:27:10 <peter1138> I have no idea why it needs to install Rust, but...
06:42:31 *** michi_cc_ has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
07:06:12 <DorpsGek> - Add: summary for week 38 of 2025 (by OpenTTD Survey)
08:06:01 <peter1138> So they're going to move Gatwick's second runway 12 metres north so that it can be used.
08:09:01 <peter1138> About 1/4 of its width.
08:09:29 <LordAro> i feel like it being slightly too close could've been worked around in other ways
08:14:47 <peter1138> Just use narrower planes.
08:16:52 <peter1138> As we know from OpenTTD, the runways can be directly next to each other anyway.
08:35:04 <peter1138> Hmm, also I realised that "not used for Disaster or Effect vehicles" is redundant, because they don't have an Engine, nor EngineInfo either.
09:16:50 <peter1138> Forum moderation...
09:17:05 <peter1138> [Disapprove] [Approve]
09:36:54 <jfkuayue> Heathrow third runway when, or night trains replacing LCCs when
09:37:38 <jfkuayue> reading something and found there used to be Night Trains at Nottingham
10:55:31 <peter1138> (I approved it because it's not spam and isn't clearly AI slop.)
11:00:25 <LordAro> so after about a week, i figured out why our java was getting unexpected values from our C library - JNA assumes that a 'bool' parameter/return value to a native function is 4 bytes for legacy reasons. _Bool is 1 byte.
11:00:55 <peter1138> I'm not sure I've seen a 4-byte bool for a long time.
11:01:26 <LordAro> not natively, but obviously `typedef int bool` in various guises is (still) quite common
11:01:36 <peter1138> (Always been aware of the possibility...)
11:01:44 <peter1138> Yes, but that's actually an int, not a bool.
11:02:12 <peter1138> #define TRUE 0, #define FALSE 1, #define FILENOTFOUND 2
11:02:44 <LordAro> this has worked perfectly fine for basically ever, but i rewrote a mostly-unrelated function and apparently changed the stack usage such that the boolean return value was no longer suitably zero-padded
11:03:32 <LordAro> and 0x460DE500 is not falsy
11:05:48 <LordAro> it's easy when you know what to google
11:06:48 <peter1138> "Changing it might break things" ... "It's already broken..."
11:17:36 *** reldred has quit IRC (Quit: User went offline on Discord a while ago)
11:25:37 <LordAro> peter1138: oh, and this problem is only reproducible on Ubuntu 24. Ubuntu 22, Windows, all perfectly fine
11:25:53 <LordAro> libc doing something weird
11:35:43 <peter1138> Optimising differently.
11:35:57 <peter1138> Using stack differently, etc.
12:14:50 *** Artea has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
13:36:44 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
13:37:42 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
13:43:11 <xarick> my days on github are numbered 🙁
13:43:24 <xarick> I have nothing of that
13:43:49 <LordAro> your inability to read will block things, yes
13:47:24 <dwfreed> it is absolutely possible to enable 2fa on GitHub without a mobile phone or even a VM running Android (like BlueStacks or the android dev tools, etc)
13:47:28 <peter1138> I recommend not sharing the secret of an authenticator code :-)
13:48:24 <LordAro> there's a usability issue study in that, i expect
13:48:31 <dwfreed> One would hope GitHub doesn't save that secret until it's validated, and generates a new one every time, but I wouldn't count on it
13:49:01 <LordAro> "these things that people only ever associate with URLs (or "menus"), let's start using them for security features"
13:50:53 <dwfreed> pre-pandemic, the only time I really encountered a QR code or something like it was either TOTP or Snapchat
13:51:22 <dwfreed> *maybe* a link to a mobile app once in a while
14:14:36 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
14:15:20 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
15:15:06 <audigex> LordAro: I kinda get it though, in the smartphone age it’s a super easy way to transfer a bit of data to a phone
15:15:06 <audigex> But it should have a “reveal to scan” button and be hidden before that
15:18:50 <xarick> didn't think much of it
15:29:41 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
15:52:56 <xarick> gonna wait for 26th october, see what happens to my account
15:53:46 <LordAro> i imagine it'll force you
15:54:40 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
15:57:43 <ahyangyi> xarick: put the set up code into one of the many open source totp tools, and access the one-time password from that tool
15:57:55 <tabytac> xarick: Not all 2fa apps need to be ran on a phone btw. Its technically not as safe but itle be fine.
15:58:00 <ahyangyi> Works around the cellphone
16:01:43 <audigex> Does it? Regardless there are standalone options
16:01:43 <audigex> 2fauth as a Docker container
16:01:43 <audigex> 2FAS as a browser extension
16:02:32 <audigex> I think the Proton one too?
16:09:38 <_glx_> if you scroll down you'll see the sms option and probably the email option too
16:10:19 <_glx_> they put auth app first because it's easy
16:17:29 <audigex> SMS isn't considered particularly secure either due to SIM spoofing, phishing attacks against network operators etc
16:22:46 <_glx_> just checked on my github account, the options are auth app on phone or browser extension, sms and github mobile app
16:27:09 *** Wormnest has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
16:27:32 <peter1138> Or just delete your account and move to Codeberg.
16:29:32 <jessicathegunlady> Kinda hard to contribute to OTTD that way, no?
16:30:03 <_glx_> anyway I usually enable 2FA as soon as it's available
16:36:46 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
16:37:47 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
16:41:44 *** Flygon has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
16:44:53 <truebrain> (got released a few days ago :P)
16:46:27 <_glx_> oh can reduce duplication
16:50:21 <LordAro> or make it hard to maintain and difficult to read :p
16:52:25 <truebrain> Let us have our pretty stuff! 🙂
16:53:02 <peter1138> Decouple from Github did you say?
16:53:42 <truebrain> Did I say: "please give me a nightmare"? 😛
16:53:59 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
16:54:24 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
16:54:37 <_glx_> we reduced duplication in a single workflow when splitting into many workflows 🙂
17:08:06 *** michi_cc_ has joined #openttd
17:41:19 <michi_cc> So, Peter or TB, pick one? Can we keep both?
17:43:12 <LordAro> the update does appear to remove more than what was discussed
17:51:45 <talltyler> Without the carveout for "auto-completion tools", it seemed like a hard line that would exclude TB or Kuhnovic from ever participating again.
17:52:09 <talltyler> But I understand that "auto-completion tools" does not clarify things 🙂
17:53:17 <peter1138> You've changed it to "as long as you understand it, you can use AI"
17:53:28 <talltyler> Is that not what TB and Kuhnovic do?
17:53:59 <peter1138> I fucking hope not.
17:54:29 <truebrain> This conversation is very confusing 😄
17:54:41 <truebrain> "As long as you understand it" - "That is what TB does?" - "I hope not"
17:57:46 <michi_cc> I guess the TLDR is: Is GitHub Copilot evil AI or not?
17:58:04 <peter1138> I switched to VS Codium because Copilot wouldn't fuck off. Yes it is.
18:01:51 <peter1138> It was barely a conversation, but the bit of it you missed out was "use AI" - "I hope not"
18:06:07 <truebrain> So just to reiterate what I wrote in that thread: for the better part of the last .. 3? years I have been using AI to assist me in my coding.
18:06:07 <truebrain> As mentioned before, I am using an AI for what it is, a tool. Like many other tools I have available when coding. And I am loving it, as it removes the boring work. I actually have enjoyed coding a lot more the last few months because of it.
18:06:07 <truebrain> But ofc, I (kinda) know what I am doing, so I keep an eye on what it is producing, making sure I would have produced similar results. And that it is not hallucinating. But for that, the human is in control. Not the AI.
18:06:07 <truebrain> And this is not a given for other people's contribution
18:06:21 <truebrain> So if you "hope" I don't use AI: sorry, but I do. And I have been very vocal and upfront about that 😄
18:06:34 <truebrain> well, I am not even "sorry". Just being polite 😛
18:09:57 <peter1138> It's fine, it we have a policy that allows use of AI going forwards I can do my own thing.
18:12:24 <michi_cc> If any kind of neural-network powered software piece is included in your definition of AI, I would pessimistically assume any PR in the past few years could have been touched by that. And if the person has used the tools right, there's absolutely no chance to ever notice.
18:13:20 <michi_cc> And for self-disclosure: I am not using GitHub/MS Copilot, but I have not vetted VS2022 if the "normal" auto-complete uses any kind of neural network somewhere.
18:20:34 <truebrain> michi_cc: I have been very upfront that such decision is easy, as I haven't been active in this project for months. So that shouldn't be a hard call. I had a good run for the last 20 years, so that is fine. Not even hard feelings.
18:20:34 <truebrain> But I do wonder, is it the right question to ask? As to me this comes down to: are we actually going to gatekeep what tools people use to produce their PR? And isn't the only outcome that people that know how to use AI, are going to hide they are using AI instead? So people are not like me, just upfront and clear about it (from day one, mind you; spammed enough in this channel what CoPilot was
18:20:34 <truebrain> That is why I kinda like the current wording a lot more: it puts a policy on the result. And, (as an extra bonus to me) it also captures certain other individuals that produce results worse than an AI would (yes, that is possible, clearly). So we solve both problems at once 😄
18:20:34 <truebrain> But again, I fully respect I haven't been active here, so my voice should be soft. I am just surprised it become a "peter vs TB" conversation 😛 At least that is an easy call 🙂
18:23:56 <peter1138> The current wording ignores the copyright and attribution issues.
18:25:32 <jessicathegunlady> Don't know how much I should try to weigh in on this conversation since I've not really been here for the whole thing.
18:25:47 <jessicathegunlady> Copyright does seem to make sense as an issue, though.
18:26:48 <jessicathegunlady> I'm not sure I really quite... *Get* using an AI.
18:27:18 <talltyler> Only people may be the author of open-source code licensed to OpenTTD.
18:27:18 <talltyler> Pull Requests which are clearly written by AI tools, or which are submitted with a description written by an AI, will be closed.
18:27:18 <talltyler> It takes a lot of work to review contributions, so "if you don't fully understand your code, we can't be bothered to either."
18:27:19 <jessicathegunlady> If you're using code an AI gives you, surely in the time you've taken to parse it and make sure it all works, you could've written it yourself, no?
18:27:54 <talltyler> Does that address the issues you mean, Peter, or are you talking about LLMs in general?
18:28:00 <truebrain> peter1138: Would adding words to the effect: "the author of the PR is responsible to make sure he owns the copyright and gives attribution where needed" solve that issue for you? As I think adding something to that effect would be great. Especially as it captures some other .. problemetic contributions we had over the years 😄
18:28:41 <talltyler> Er, put my snippet under the original first line, `OpenTTD is a labour of love, created by people.`
18:32:54 *** rito12_51026 has quit IRC (Quit: User went offline on Discord a while ago)
18:33:04 <michi_cc> talltyler: I started typing something similar, but you were faster 🙂
18:34:00 <truebrain> talltyler: Just curious, why the addition of "PR description" here? (honest curiosity)
18:34:42 <talltyler> I’ve seen too many PRs with descriptions written by AI
18:34:43 <peter1138> I'm probably not going to respond on this subject for the evening because it needs a clear head which clearly I don't have right now.
18:36:14 <truebrain> peter1138: That is very fair; just know I respect the hell out of you for speaking up about this, and making a point about it. I truly do.
18:38:23 <truebrain> talltyler: Haha; I have to say, I noticed that those AI descriptions are often better than what the human did. But that is because I tend to deal with PR descriptions of humans that are .. euh .. empty? non-descriptive? 😛 😄 But that is neither here nor there in this conversation 🙂 Was curious 🙂
18:39:44 <talltyler> I’d much rather read a human-written PR description that tells me only what that human thinks is important (even if it misses things) than confidently-wrong LLM slop 😄
18:42:10 <michi_cc> Alternative formulation proposal (feel free to ignore):
18:42:10 <michi_cc> ```OpenTTD is a labour of love, created by people.
18:42:10 <michi_cc> The amount of available labour is unfortunately finite, and reviewing contributions takes a lot of work.
18:42:10 <michi_cc> As such, we do require that you understand the code you submit, and Pull Requests which are clearly written by AI tools for your or which are submitted with a description written by an AI will be rejected.
18:42:10 <michi_cc> Additionally, you are responsible to make sure you actually have the proper rights to license your code under GPL.```
18:42:53 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
18:42:59 <truebrain> Small addition: `and add attribution where required`
18:43:10 <truebrain> (so we can keep doing 3rdparty vendoring etc)
18:43:33 <michi_cc> For IRC: s/tools for your/tools for you/
18:44:20 <michi_cc> truebrain: Like this?
18:44:48 <truebrain> Yeah. Or is it `and/or`? Well, not-a-lawyer. I think the point is clear enough in that text 🙂
18:47:01 <michi_cc> truebrain: I think it is just `and`, attribution will not save you if something explicitly disallows any combination with GPL code.
18:47:52 <michi_cc> So you need to have the rights (which can be easy for e.g. MIT license) and provide attribution when required.
19:00:10 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
19:22:04 <orudge> Well, I've just got off that much-delayed call with Atari. Good news, they're not suing it, not yet at least. But they do have some requests.
19:24:47 <orudge> He's going to e-mail over some more details. He says he doesn't want to "shut down" OpenTTD, but he'd like to make it (on Steam at least) effectively a requirement to purchase TTD (for like $5) to be able to access OpenTTD. How that would work outside Steam or anywhere else I don't know. Apparently they've done something similar with OpenRCT2.
19:25:39 <orudge> Well, they want to make money from Transport Tycoon and they may find that somewhat difficult with OpenTTD offering a superior product for free, I guess :)
19:25:56 <truebrain> So they want to drain us for money because ....? 😛
19:26:03 <truebrain> Sorry, but it has been 20 years .... this is silly at best
19:26:23 <orudge> The impression I got is that the alternative is "or we can take legal action against you"
19:26:31 <truebrain> What legal action are they going to try? 😄
19:26:44 <orudge> but I personally would prefer not to be sued :)
19:26:48 <truebrain> Sorry for my blunt reaction; you were talking 🙂
19:26:59 <orudge> Once he sends over the details of what they have in mind, then I'll share it with the team
19:27:01 <truebrain> orudge: I get that. But personally, I rather pull the plug 😛
19:27:14 <orudge> I don't know how practical it's going to be, of course
19:27:23 <truebrain> We will wait and see what the details are 🙂
19:27:33 <orudge> but the way they would see it is that OpenTTD would be offered as a "mod" to TTD. (I did mention that we're available with a bunch of Linux distributions, on loads of other platforms, etc.)
19:27:41 <andythenorth[d]> I am cautious how much I say in a logged public channel, just out of basic due diligence
19:28:20 <orudge> Anyway, once I have some more details, I'll e-mail them to interested parties and we can discuss further
19:28:31 <truebrain> "We bought this 20 year old product, and now we want to make money with it by .... using a project that has, for free, been maintaining an Open Source variant" 😄 Sorry .. I will shut up 😛
19:30:26 <jessicathegunlady> It's funny.
19:31:28 <jessicathegunlady> They'd sooner spend a chunk of money on a lawsuit because they're worried about competition than putting that money towards making sure what they actually make is *good*.
19:31:33 <truebrain> "We are so happy what you guys did with a 20 year old game we bought! Shall we partner and make something cool out of it?!" - I kinda was assuming the conversation went like that.
19:31:33 <truebrain> Anyway, sorry again orudge, I was derailing what you wanted to say. It just .. surprised me.
19:31:58 <jessicathegunlady> Well... If they're releasing original TTD and that's it... Maybe things are a bit different, but still, like...
19:32:04 <orudge> truebrain: yes, somewhat like that. The guy seemed pleasant enough to be fair, it wasn't a corporate lawyer type shouting "copyright infringement"
19:32:17 <orudge> This might have been easier 15 years ago or so before we had OpenGFX etc, of course
19:32:19 <truebrain> That at least is good 🙂
19:32:35 <orudge> (or at least, easier to "sell", so to speak)
19:33:00 <truebrain> We will see what they like in the details; but I was hoping on a bit more "we can both be great" kinda situation 🙂
19:33:16 <orudge> but I think they'd like it so you could buy the 'bundle', then OpenTTD could automatically pick up the data files from TTD and use them
19:33:49 <orudge> I think that is somewhat what he was suggesting, but that they don't want people to ignore their TTD because OpenTTD exists
19:34:11 <orudge> but technically speaking, I don't know what they have in mind
19:34:29 <truebrain> If you want to bundle OpenTTD with their TTD version, that is fair. And we can promote that. But if they want to gate OpenTTD behind their TTD purchase .. it has to be very clear what the added value is to the player 🙂
19:36:03 <jessicathegunlady> I mean... It sounds like the main issue is with the Steam release.
19:37:34 <orudge> jessicathegunlady: I can't say for sure until we see the detail, but it sounds like Steam at this point is perhaps the main issue.
19:37:36 <jessicathegunlady> If that's it, delisting is always an option, though not a good look.
19:39:52 <locosage> I realize legal threats are kind scary but imo they aren't that important
19:40:05 <locosage> openttd has so much clout you can drown them in shit with the right pr
19:40:19 <locosage> and by that point noone is gonna bother with legalities
19:41:06 <jessicathegunlady> Aye... 'Long-standing open source community project murdered by greedy company' is not a good headline.
19:43:45 <jessicathegunlady> An easily accessible way to import the original graphics in to OpenTTD honestly sounds like it'd offset the damage of OTTD's existence.
19:44:33 <truebrain> Before OpenGFX, we have looked for ways to bundle TTD with the game. Even had chats with Atari about that 😄 (as they had the distribution rights, it was said)
19:44:48 <truebrain> At that point in time, it was impossible to buy TTD legally
19:44:55 <truebrain> there were only shady websites that asked for money
19:45:25 <truebrain> But we are talking 15 years ago 🙂
19:45:44 <jessicathegunlady> Yeeeaaah. Think at that point we're talking about a completely different iteration of Atari.
19:50:41 <jessicathegunlady> Worst-case scenario, dunno how much a rebrand would hurt OTTD. But it'd be nice if something mutually beneficial could be worked out.
19:55:33 <peter1138> I wouldn't like to over-estimate the size of our community.
19:56:27 <truebrain> Anyway, I wonder how much of the 5$ we would get in this scenario, for all our effort 😄 Would we finally get monetization out of the game? 😄
19:58:48 <andythenorth[d]> Steam would probably do ok? 😛
20:01:16 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
20:02:35 <dwfreed> truebrain: honestly, you'd probably get nothing
20:03:03 <truebrain> pfff, I need incentives!
20:03:06 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
20:03:33 <cu-kai> w/r/t selling openttd for $5 on the steam store, this looks to be exactly what mindustry does?
20:03:44 <locosage> don't underestimate it either :p also it's not just about immediate community, for the right cause many could join, look it stop killing games for example
20:03:52 <cu-kai> anyway what a mess, lol
20:07:17 <peter1138> Switch to Belugas' Delphi rewrite.
20:15:22 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
20:16:21 <andythenorth[d]> 2025, and TTDP **still** lives on
20:18:14 <truebrain> peter1138: Delphi! I miss that language 😄
20:18:18 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
20:18:23 <truebrain> Turbo Pascal was my first language 🙂
20:26:42 <dwfreed> truebrain: I did not realize you were that old
20:27:54 <dwfreed> 15 years ago I knew somebody who really liked Pascal; he was at least 50-60 years old at that time
20:28:36 <truebrain> I said my first language was Pascal. Not that I started learning Pascal when I was 50 years old 😛
20:29:16 <andythenorth[d]> my first language was English
20:29:22 <andythenorth[d]> approximately
20:32:46 <locosage> openttd 2.0 in rust when 🤭
20:33:07 <andythenorth[d]> needs a new name
20:33:11 <andythenorth[d]> someone write a name generator
20:33:31 <locosage> yeah, I didn't even bother with 2 < 15 xD
20:33:40 <andythenorth[d]> maybe "Train Whack!" 👀
20:34:47 <truebrain> So finally "newmap"? 😛
20:35:04 <andythenorth[d]> for my browser-based game? sure
20:41:48 <Wolf01> Oh noes train whack again! What was the highscore? :P
20:45:58 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
20:46:57 <andythenorth[d]> Wolf01: "yes"
21:05:51 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
21:05:51 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
21:12:45 *** tokai has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
21:38:54 *** keikoz has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 480 seconds)
21:49:27 *** Wolf01 has quit IRC (Quit: Once again the world is quick to bury me.)
22:46:57 <peter1138> So do we want engine preview penalties/rewards as a default gameplay feature?
22:51:44 <talltyler> That already exists, the reward is you get to buy engines early, the penalty is you don’t get offers for a while. I don’t really see the case of expanding it beyond allowing GS to see the event and do whatever the author wants.
22:51:51 <talltyler> My opinion only, of course.
22:52:56 <tabytac> I do like the idea of the current penalty for not using an exclusive engine being more prominent though
22:53:22 <tabytac> Alot of people don't know about the drawback of taking and not using exclusive engines and that could help
23:00:32 *** fairyflossy has joined #openttd
23:00:32 <fairyflossy> The perks and downsides of preview should be explained further as a default gameplay feature, but that's as far as I'd go with saying "as a default gameplay feature"
23:00:56 <fairyflossy> I like the ideas in the PR, but I'm not sure they should be default
23:01:04 <jessicathegunlady> talltyler: I think there's... Some degree of design sense, I wouldn't say that it exists because it applies different influencing factors to the way a player thinks versus what we currently have. But it seems like a fairly *difficult* change from a balancing perspective on top of being a *new* feature that strays from gameplay without anywhere near enough benefit to justify it doing that, to my
23:01:23 <fairyflossy> The game will benefit from explaining what previews currently do a bit better, at least
23:01:32 <_glx_> I think current company selection for preview doesn't work too well, especially for trains
23:02:10 <fairyflossy> Isn't it just "first player who uses this type" or something? I agree it could probably be reworked but that's a different thing I feel
23:02:15 <jessicathegunlady> fairyflossy: Aye, it's not communicated the best. I've never been quite familiar enough to learn that there's actually a reduction in offers.
23:02:46 <_glx_> when I was testing something I often saw it entering in company selection and simply said "no"
23:04:02 <_glx_> there are many requirements to get a previw
23:05:29 <_jgr_> Usually preview offers are an interruption to what you're doing, making the more choice about whether to accept more difficult because you might forget to use them after you've finished what you're actually doing seems doesn't seem very helpful to me
23:05:57 <fairyflossy> I do also have opinions on the matter of "Hey this should be GS". Yes, I do agree with it as a concept, but from the top of my head there's very few people who understand how to make them and you still can only use one, and unless that changes I don't think many people will use new feature GS functions if the choice is between "GS that does cool town stuff" or "perk/penalty for using preview
23:05:57 <fairyflossy> vehicles properly" so anything neat with GS would need to, currently, be packaged into a bigger script, which is probably a mess
23:06:29 <_glx_> GS can already lock/unlock vehicles
23:06:59 <jessicathegunlady> Aye, surprised me to see it in the API.
23:08:23 <fairyflossy> My concern with gamescript features is that unless we can use multiple scripts, there's little appetite for gamescripts to handle this kind of stuff, since it'd need to be packaged with other stuff, and then have food configuration options, and be kept up to date
23:09:49 <tabytac> fairyflossy: From what I remember looking at the code, it selects the company with the highest score, who is currently using that type of engine.
23:09:49 <tabytac> The issue imo is more the way that the company score is calculated could be better updated like the minimum profit requirement is almost impossible for Cargodist games
23:10:35 <jessicathegunlady> fairyflossy: It's definitely something I wanna try and work on when I've got less on my plate.
23:11:29 <_jgr_> tabytac: That is true for all the other companies as well though. The absolute value of the rating doesn't really matter.
continue to next day ⏵
