Log for #openttd on 28th February 2017:
Times are UTC Toggle Colours
00:01:31  *** gelignite has quit IRC
00:11:04  <Wolf01> 'night
00:11:06  *** Wolf01 has quit IRC
00:14:33  *** guru3 has joined #openttd
00:16:41  *** supermop has quit IRC
00:17:11  *** supermop has joined #openttd
00:18:49  *** maciozo has quit IRC
00:27:59  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
00:39:42  <Samu> I did it, partylu
00:39:46  <Samu> partly*
00:40:33  <Samu> return cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length);
00:42:08  <Samu> unc_len is uncounted_length
00:42:33  <Samu> the length of the parts of a train that do not have a running cost associated
00:42:55  <Samu> like wagons
00:47:33  <Samu> the cost is modified based on the currently calculated running cost of the parts that have it
00:48:50  <Samu> if the train got 3 engines,  Ginzu A4s for instance
00:49:37  <Samu> meh, my english
00:49:48  <Samu> whatever, it's working as I intended
01:06:21  <Samu>
01:07:24  <Samu> it works!
01:07:57  <Samu> compare the running costs between 1.6.1 and my testing
01:09:06  <ST2> try it with 2cc newgrf's
01:10:54  <Samu> hmm which servers do btpro host those? I'll just download missing newgrfs
01:11:16  <ST2> none
01:11:24  <ST2> but can find them here:
01:21:06  *** Snail has joined #openttd
01:24:18  <Samu> i dont understand 2cc
01:25:37  <ST2> I only spoke of 2cc, because your changes... to be even considered, must work with all newgrf's
01:25:53  <ST2> already done or to be made
01:26:56  *** iSoSyS has quit IRC
01:28:51  <ST2> but if want to make some tests with Road Hog, Iron Horse and FISH 2 - all under FIRS, server #97 is up
01:29:07  <ST2> FIRS 2*
01:30:35  <Samu> hmm what i really wanted to test was a mixture of base cost changes for trains, engines or wagons, with or without running costs in them
01:30:47  <Samu> ok let me check firs
01:32:32  <ST2> to the told server, all can be downloaded via Check missing content
01:44:47  <Samu> cyas
01:44:53  *** Samu has quit IRC
01:45:13  *** markasoftware has joined #openttd
02:54:52  *** glx has quit IRC
03:19:23  *** tokai has joined #openttd
03:19:24  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai
03:26:43  *** tokai|noir has quit IRC
03:30:58  *** KouDy has quit IRC
03:31:12  *** KouDy has joined #openttd
04:16:26  *** Supercheese has joined #openttd
04:37:40  *** fiatjaf has quit IRC
04:37:43  *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd
05:11:05  *** Snail has quit IRC
05:12:29  *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest151
05:12:30  *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
05:15:55  *** Guest151 has quit IRC
05:31:13  *** markasoftware has quit IRC
05:42:30  *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest152
05:42:32  *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
05:47:31  *** Guest152 has quit IRC
05:54:52  *** chomwitt has joined #openttd
06:17:51  *** Alberth has joined #openttd
06:17:51  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth
06:17:57  <Alberth> moin
06:43:57  *** supermop__ has joined #openttd
06:45:00  <Alberth> hi hi
06:48:20  *** supermop_ has quit IRC
07:47:45  *** mescalito has joined #openttd
07:58:35  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
08:03:17  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
08:13:37  *** Sova has joined #openttd
08:38:35  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
08:39:56  *** andythenorth has left #openttd
08:58:31  *** sim-al2 has quit IRC
09:00:50  *** Supercheese has quit IRC
09:03:40  *** supermop has quit IRC
09:09:33  *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
09:12:27  *** maciozo has joined #openttd
09:25:37  *** skapazzo has joined #openttd
09:40:56  *** Samu has joined #openttd
09:41:20  <Samu> hi
09:41:35  <crem> hi
09:53:54  *** Wolf01 has joined #openttd
09:53:57  <Wolf01> o/
09:54:25  <Arveen> \o
09:58:36  <Samu> I like this
09:58:50  <Samu> but it lacks customization
10:06:00  <__ln__> windows 10 :(
10:07:39  <Samu> my big coding skills:
10:08:01  <Samu> i always take so much time figuring out how to code something, and then it's just so small
10:15:03  <Samu>
10:16:00  <Samu> i'm following the formula
10:16:16  <Samu> very similar to it
10:16:54  <Samu> Engine_Running_Cost - instead of engine running cost, this is now the running cost of parts of the trains that have a running cost
10:17:44  <Samu> Number_of_added_Wagons - instead of number of added wagons, this is now the length of parts of the train that do not have a running cost
10:18:57  <Alberth> o/ all
10:19:20  <Samu> Constant_Variable - this part is, for now, based on _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length
10:19:45  <Samu> i'd like to have this to become a customizable user value
10:19:59  <Samu> hi Alberth
10:52:15  *** zwamkat has quit IRC
10:53:22  *** zwamkat has joined #openttd
11:11:56  *** iSoSyS has joined #openttd
11:21:31  *** Sova has quit IRC
11:46:20  *** Sova has joined #openttd
11:53:21  <__ln__> Wolf01: ketchup on pizza -- heresy or not?
12:26:17  <Wolf01> Heresy
12:28:39  <Wolf01> Samu, please, don't do "return cost += cost * ..."
12:29:14  <Samu> hmm why? what happens?
12:29:27  <__ln__> nothing, there's just ketchup on the pizza then
12:29:31  <Wolf01> It's ugly as fuck
12:29:53  <Samu> just ugly?
12:30:03  <Samu> no real issues?
12:30:44  <crem> +1 for "return x += x * blah" being ugly
12:31:49  <Samu> return cost = cost + cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length);
12:31:58  <Samu> is this preferible?
12:32:02  <Wolf01> No matter what, you should split in 2 lines
12:32:16  <Wolf01> No assignments in return
12:32:23  <Wolf01> It's error prone
12:33:03  <Wolf01> And try to forget the idea that fewer lines in a patch is better
12:33:24  <Wolf01> A good patch is good, no matter how many lines
12:34:32  <Wolf01> Also comment difficult to read code to understand what it should do
12:35:13  <__ln__> I agree, assignment in return statement is both ugly and harder to understand than doing it elsewhere.
12:35:19  <Samu> heh, for me it was hard to understand that an articulated vehicle is not the same as a dual-headed vehicle
12:36:10  <Samu> oki
12:37:00  <Wolf01> Also an assignment in return is useless as there is no other code which uses the variable
12:38:07  <Samu> 	cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 3 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length); 	return cost;
12:38:15  <Samu> is this it?
12:38:20  <__ln__> Oh, indeed, i didn't even look that closely to notice cost is a local variable.
12:38:43  <Samu> 2 lines
12:38:51  <Wolf01> Yes, that's better
12:40:01  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
12:41:56  <crem> I'd also use while{} rather than do{}while even though the first iteration is guaranteed to be non-NULL.  But that's matter of taste I guess.
12:42:28  <crem> There are lots of do{}while though.
12:43:10  <Samu> uh, wait, explain me better, i'm noob
12:44:03  <Wolf01> There's a difference between while() {} and do {} while()
12:44:27  <Wolf01> The former tests the variable at the beginning, before executing the code
12:45:02  <Wolf01> The latter executes the code and then tests the variable to know if it should do another loop
12:46:01  <Samu> ah, the engine always has a cached_veh_length, doesn't it?
12:46:12  <Samu> be it articulated or not
12:46:27  <Samu> engine or wagon
12:47:26  <Samu> cached_veh_length is the length of the current part being iterated
12:47:44  *** tycoondemon has joined #openttd
12:48:37  <Samu> if it's not articulated, it still has a cached_veh_length
12:48:49  *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
12:48:50  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
12:49:38  <Samu> if it is articulated, cached_veh_length is the value of only 1 of the parts
12:49:46  <Wolf01> Then, what's the problem?
12:49:48  <Samu> so it needs to sum all parts
12:50:03  <Samu> i think my code is fine
12:50:53  <Samu> my do {} while()
12:54:14  <Wolf01> As crem says, it's only a matter of taste if it works the same way
12:55:56  *** tokai has quit IRC
13:06:21  *** tycoondemon has quit IRC
13:12:00  *** JezK_ has quit IRC
13:15:58  <Wolf01> "But do not ever write, 'a = b +=1' or we will have to kill 10 kittens, 27 mice, a dog and a hamster." XDDDD
13:17:18  *** tokai has joined #openttd
13:17:18  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai
13:18:45  <Alberth> I wonder what value a gets :)
13:19:19  <Alberth> probably same as b
13:19:26  <Wolf01> I think is the same of a = ++b, but not sure
13:19:53  <Alberth> ha, I never write pre-increment either :p
13:20:22  <Alberth> always post-increment, and always as separate statement
13:20:26  <Wolf01> Me too
13:20:55  <Wolf01> Pre-increment is for code obfuscation
13:23:20  <Alberth> I can see pre-decrement being useful, but pre-increment, I wouldn't be able to give a useful example now
13:23:27  <Wolf01> Lol "for(int x=0; x<100; x++); cout<<x;" -> 100... fucking semicolons XD
13:23:44  <crem> nope, all postfix operators are for code obfuscation. It's natural for all unary operators to be prefix.
13:24:13  *** tokai|noir has quit IRC
13:26:43  *** Arveen has quit IRC
13:26:53  <Alberth> no compile error for unknown x?  :)
13:27:28  <Alberth> crem:   sure, as soon as we have   1 =+ a
13:27:57  <Wolf01> Might be, I just shortened the code
13:28:23  <crem> What is "1 =+ a"?
13:28:28  <Wolf01> Wtf is +=A?
13:28:30  <Wolf01> Lol
13:28:35  <Alberth> prefix form of  a += a
13:28:36  <Wolf01> *=+
13:28:40  <Alberth> a += 1
13:29:02  <crem> += is a binary operation, it is infix.
13:29:15  <Wolf01> I was reading this one
13:30:03  <Alberth> crem: not really, left hand side and right hand side have different properties
13:30:10  <Wolf01> The accepted answer is really explanatory
13:30:13  *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
13:30:29  <Alberth> Normal + is a binary operation imho
13:31:07  <crem> It's right-associative binary operator.
13:31:10  <crem> +=
13:31:12  <crem> i mean
13:32:29  *** alex_ has joined #openttd
13:33:10  *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
13:33:10  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
13:34:48  <Samu> "cost += cost * unc_len...;" is this bad?
13:34:59  <Alberth> "operator" has no side effects in my view, which is why "operator" doesn't seem the right word to me
13:35:24  <Alberth> Samu: quadratic costs?
13:35:38  <Alberth> ie cost = cost + cost * unc_len
13:35:45  <Samu> yes
13:35:58  <Samu> cost = whatever it is right now + extra
13:36:13  <Samu> that extra is based on the cost that whatever it is right now
13:36:21  <Alberth> where "extra" includes the cost you have to far
13:36:28  <Wolf01> Where unc_len is 0 <= x < 1 I hope
13:36:29  <Alberth> sure, will work
13:37:34  <Samu> unc_len is 1  to ... hmmm 64*8*2
13:37:36  <Alberth> but it may not do what you expect it to do
13:37:57  <Samu> oh, it can also be 0
13:38:03  <Samu> so 0 to 64*8*2
13:38:06  <Wolf01> I already have enough with transport fever where running cost of wagons are x10 than the purchase cost of an engine
13:38:28  <Alberth> good model for making money :p
13:38:57  <Alberth> free wagons, you just pay per km  :p
13:39:13  <Wolf01> No, the problem is that even the wagon costs a lot
13:39:34  <Wolf01> You usually can't start with trains in that evil game
13:39:41  <Alberth> so they too have the problem of being too sand-boxish?
13:39:55  *** alex_ has quit IRC
13:39:58  <Wolf01> No, it's the opposite
13:40:03  *** tokai has quit IRC
13:40:08  <Wolf01> Everything costs too much
13:40:27  <Wolf01> But you can enable the sandbox mod and have everything for free
13:40:32  *** Stimrol has joined #openttd
13:40:38  <Alberth> E_TOO_MUCH_REALISM  :p
13:41:13  <Wolf01> Yup, like a 3 seats car (counting the driver) can carry 24 pax
13:41:15  <Alberth> I could see it as a way to drive you to simpler buses etc
13:42:08  <Samu> cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length)
13:42:20  <Samu> wanna help me work on a better formula?
13:42:40  <Wolf01> 1. what you want as a result; 2. what the variable mean
13:42:57  <Wolf01> Cost is the entire consist running cost iirc
13:43:17  <Wolf01> Which in vanilla is calculated for engines only
13:43:34  <Samu> let me copy paste, i got it explained earlier today
13:44:09  <Wolf01> I understood you want to make running cost based on consist length
13:44:17  <Samu> Cost = this is the running cost of parts of the train that have a running cost
13:44:19  <Wolf01> I think is better to have a grf feature instead
13:45:02  <Samu> unc_len - the sum of the length of parts that do not have a running cost
13:45:53  <Wolf01> What _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length has to do there then?
13:46:25  <Samu> i wanted some level of customization...
13:46:27  <Wolf01> I wouldn't mix a setting value in calculations
13:46:30  <Samu> but that's probably bad
13:47:12  <Samu> I plant have a separate user-defined value
13:47:15  <Samu> plan*
13:47:21  <Samu> plan to*
13:47:33  <Wolf01> Leave it out for now
13:48:25  <Samu> ok, replace it with which value?
13:48:31  <Samu> default is 7
13:48:48  <Samu> default of max_train_length that is
13:49:17  <Wolf01> That is a multiplier, and max_train_length is not the right one to use, the weight multiplier could be a better one
13:51:15  <Wolf01> Also like that, the greatest is the length, the lower is the cost
13:51:49  <Wolf01> Just put your formulae in excel and throw at it some numbers, make a chart and see
13:52:02  *** fiatjaf has quit IRC
13:52:19  *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd
13:53:13  *** Stimrol has quit IRC
13:53:18  <Samu> hmm
13:53:56  <Samu> running cost based on train weigth isn't a good idea imo
13:54:03  <Samu> the weigth is varied
13:54:22  <Samu> it would be constantly changing the running cost values
13:55:20  <Samu> but it's an idea that could go into a newgrf perhaps
13:57:22  <Samu> "I wanted to achieve something "simple""
13:57:36  <Samu> more wagons = more costs
13:57:39  <Samu> less wagons = less costs
13:57:47  <Wolf01> Just add running costs to wagons?
13:58:03  <Samu> no, because that would require newgrf
13:58:16  <Samu> default wagons have no costs
13:58:45  <Samu> i wanted to do it for the default wagons
13:58:50  <Samu> without the need of a newgrf
13:59:03  <Wolf01> Then why you want to add obscure costs? We already have the "other" category which is weird enough
13:59:48  <Samu> because it's unfair that train size can go up to 64 tiles, and yet the running cost of a train doesn't change
14:00:23  *** Snail has joined #openttd
14:00:24  <Samu> i know 64 isn't exactly playable
14:00:40  <Samu> but most servers use the default of 7, maps also larger
14:00:43  <Wolf01> But you will need to add more engines or the train won't move, there your added running cost goes
14:01:41  <Samu> i have it explained in my old topic
14:01:56  <Samu>
14:02:05  <Samu> if you care to read
14:02:15  <Wolf01> Also different wagons should have different costs, I could have a flat wagon 1 tile long which costs less than an armored wagon of 1/4 tile
14:08:50  <Wolf01> Btw, I'm not saying you are trying to do a bad thing, I would like it too (I like realism) but I would do it via grf
14:10:25  *** Snail has quit IRC
14:10:25  <Wolf01> As I don't like when something is changed in obscure ways, as if the running cost for engines says "2M/y" and  the info window says "3.5M/y", where the 1.5M comes off?
14:11:25  <Samu> you won't know until you attach the wagon into a train
14:11:38  <Samu> and then look into the train details
14:11:46  <Samu> it's "obscure"
14:11:48  <Wolf01> If you do it with a grf, each wagon can show its running cost, like engines do, and you can sum the numbers
14:12:16  <Wolf01> Why do the running cost of a wagon changes with train length?
14:12:55  <Wolf01> Can't you just sum 2M+200k+200+150k+150k+300k?
14:13:09  <Samu> that's not always the case, there are wagons with running costs specified, and some without
14:13:19  <Samu> if you mix it up with newgrfs' that is
14:13:19  <Wolf01> Instead of doing 2M+(black_magic)?
14:14:44  <Wolf01> 1. mixing up grfs is your fault, as most of miscalculations reported in the forum; 2. vanilla game should not change vanilla values using black magic
14:15:53  <Samu> i mean mix vanilla with a newgrf that contains wagons with running costs
14:16:36  <Wolf01> That's bad enough
14:17:04  <Wolf01> Also if you need to report the running cost for a wagon, you should do another function and apply the cost to that wagon with the wagon lenght, not the length of entire consist which means nothing
14:17:09  <Samu> yes, that's one issue, i intend to solve it by having a game setting that enables or disables these costs
14:17:27  <Wolf01> I won't pay less the fuel if I make my car bigger
14:18:47  *** enygmata has joined #openttd
14:20:51  <Wolf01> What I mean is that you should do cost += ... into the loop, not at the end
14:21:29  <Samu> i got this
14:21:49  <Wolf01> The problem is that you might not know the cost of the engines because you didn't have already looped through all the consist
14:21:50  <Samu> same formula
14:22:23  <Samu> the engine cost is added
14:22:26  <Wolf01> But you could use a constant for vanilla or when you don't have defined running cost
14:22:33  <Samu> cost += GetPrice(e->u.rail.running_cost_class, cost_factor, e->GetGRF());
14:22:41  <Samu> that's already in there, i didn't touch that
14:22:55  <Wolf01> Also I can't understand why you must derive wagon running cost from an engine
14:23:00  <Samu> this is the running cost of engines, but also of wagons that do specify running cost
14:23:41  <Wolf01> For vanilla engines you could add 1/8 of their price
14:23:44  <Wolf01> *wagons
14:24:42  <Samu> that would still make usage of the most powerful/fast train preferible, and i wanted to change that
14:24:46  <Wolf01> And just leave out all the lenght calculations which don't mean anything
14:24:50  <Samu> for the early part of the game, that is
14:26:06  <Wolf01> I can't follow you
14:26:08  <Samu> in the case of vanilla, running cost of wagons should be dependant on engine running cost
14:26:12  <Wolf01> No
14:26:12  <Alberth> turn on breakdowns, and you get a much different choice in engines
14:26:31  <Samu> most of the time, a powerful engine got high running cost
14:26:41  <Samu> a less powerful engine got low running cost
14:26:51  <Samu> it's not always the case
14:27:15  <Alberth> use a different newgrf if you don't agree
14:27:36  <Samu> meh, my post
14:27:43  <Samu>
14:27:49  <Wolf01> You are going to purchase a trailer: "it's 100$ says the dealer, to what vehicle do you want to attach it?" "a ferrari" "then its 500$"
14:28:01  <Samu> exactly!
14:28:05  <Alberth> giving parameters free for tuning by newgrf authors means some makes choices different from your ideas
14:28:05  <Wolf01> NONSENSE
14:28:31  <Samu> makes no sense to you, :(
14:28:45  <Wolf01> Make no sense to everyone else than you
14:28:54  <Alberth> it works for Apple :p
14:29:13  <Samu> i had tested a Dash
14:29:26  <Samu> running cost of dash is about £1400
14:29:48  <Samu> wagons attached into Dash were about ~£93 or so running cost
14:30:00  <Wolf01> Wagons which don't have running costs should be derived from other wagon details not from planets lining up and a total ecplipse"
14:30:04  <Samu> a manley-morel dmu running cost is about £1700
14:30:05  <Wolf01> *eclipse
14:30:12  <Samu> wagon attached would be about ~£113
14:30:54  <peter1138> did inflation ever get fixed
14:30:56  <Samu> this cost isn't shown in the wagon, because by the time you're purchasing the wagon, you don't know into which train it's going to be attached
14:31:27  <Wolf01> ^ and that is wrong
14:31:36  <Samu> but why? that's the intention :(
14:32:17  <Wolf01> Because I purchase wagons and engines based on running costs too, If I can't make 2M/y, I won't purchase an engine which costs me 3M/y
14:32:18  <peter1138> then you need a specific wagons for that use
14:32:28  <Wolf01> And with hidden costs I can't know that
14:32:52  <Samu> the only thing you will know is that the running cost is not displayed in the wagon
14:33:09  <Wolf01> The only thing I won't know is the running costs
14:33:11  <Samu> if the wagon does specify a running cost, it will say it, and it will use it
14:33:25  <Wolf01> If it's not displayed it's 0
14:33:33  <Wolf01> And it should be 0
14:34:03  <Samu> if it's.. £100 for the wagon and £1400 for the engine, it will be £1400 + £100
14:34:10  <Samu> if it doesn't display it
14:34:15  <Samu> it will be based on the engine
14:34:22  <Samu> if it displays £0
14:34:30  <Samu> it will be £1400 + £0
14:35:11  <Wolf01> But it isn't displayed, how do I know it's 100?
14:35:32  <Samu> you won't know, until it is attached into the train
14:35:36  <Wolf01> Also, it's based on the engine
14:35:40  <Samu> yes
14:35:41  <Wolf01> But also on length
14:35:48  <Wolf01> So E+W = 1400+100
14:35:57  <Wolf01> E+W+W = 1400+80+80
14:36:10  <Samu> that length is the length that does not have a running cost
14:36:18  <Wolf01> E+w+w+w+w+w+w+w+ww+w+w+ They pay me to run it
14:36:21  <Samu> if all wagons don't have a running cost
14:37:01  <Samu> meh, let me take a screenshot
14:37:02  <Samu> brb
14:37:26  <supermop__> yo
14:39:49  <Wolf01> <- Is this too different than your idea?
14:40:29  <Wolf01> You can even put a multiplier and use the same multiplier to show the actual running cost on the details
14:41:40  <Wolf01> I simply can't understand the relation of the wagon running cost with the engine
14:42:02  <Samu>
14:42:12  <Samu> let me try with another engine, brb
14:42:37  <Wolf01> Also it's just a nonsense to spread the running cost of the engine to the entire consist based on the length of the consist
14:42:43  <supermop__> If i have a pullman coach with fancy waiters and staff onboard, i assume they do not ask for more pay depending on what locomotive hauls them?
14:43:44  <Wolf01> 1400 + 1W -> 100, +2W -> 80, +3W -> 60
14:43:49  <supermop__> although in that case i guess you need at least 1 waiter when there is one coach, but maybe only 2 waiters for 3 coaches?
14:43:54  <Samu>
14:44:00  <Samu> refresh page, should display 2 images
14:44:39  <Samu> the ferrari effect
14:44:47  <Wolf01> Samu I can't give a fuck of the screenshots, it's the wrong implementation behind it which is the problem
14:44:53  <Samu> :(
14:45:01  <Wolf01> The idea is good, but not the implementation
14:45:27  <Samu> let me look at your code
14:45:43  <Wolf01> You buy 3 apples: 3€, 3 apples and 1 pear -> 25€, how much costs the pear?
14:45:49  <Samu> ah, that would make the cost permanent
14:45:52  <Samu> for each wagon
14:45:57  <Samu> independent of the egine
14:46:25  <Wolf01> Hint: the pear costs 0.75€, but you have a ferrari
14:47:54  <Samu> hmm so the ferrari effect is bad for realism
14:48:06  <Wolf01> Not just for realism, it's nonsense
14:48:37  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
14:48:37  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
14:48:54  <Wolf01> Because the next time you might want to apply a different cost if the depot where you purchase the wagon is near an airport
14:50:48  <Samu> okay, if i don't base it on the length of the engine, what do I base it on
14:50:59  <Wolf01> The cost of the wagon
14:51:01  <Samu> erm,... running cost of the engine
14:51:04  <Wolf01> The weight of the wagon
14:51:07  <Samu> power?
14:51:12  <Samu> power of the train?
14:51:16  <Wolf01> Forgot about the engine
14:51:16  *** sim-al2 has quit IRC
14:51:19  <Wolf01> éForget
14:51:31  <Samu> weigth
14:51:48  <Wolf01> You have a wagon and its details
14:51:52  <Wolf01> Nothing else
14:52:21  <Samu> i see
14:52:30  <Wolf01> Use the length of the name of the wagon multiplied by the id of the default cargo, do what you want, just use the same wagon details
14:52:44  <Wolf01> It *must* be reproducible
14:52:54  <Samu> 19t (49t) for grain, i see
14:54:21  <Samu> not sure, hmm...
14:54:43  <Wolf01> Also, please don't make it strange for mixed grfs, it's already weird to have different purchase prices
14:55:14  <Samu> newgrfs are already a mess indeed
14:56:18  <Samu> running cost based on wagon weigth, independently of engine
14:57:13  <supermop__> maybe dirt should be something different than rough mining roads etc
14:57:23  <supermop__> and those can be gravel
14:57:24  <Samu> do you mean the current weigth of the wagon?
14:57:32  <Samu> if it's emtpy, it's 19t
14:57:36  <Wolf01> We have a lot of gravel roads here
14:57:36  <Samu> if it's full it's 49t
14:57:46  <Samu> or do i use the max value always?
14:58:10  <Wolf01> I would use min value
14:58:13  <crem> Running cost should also depend on velocity! For realism. :) And age.
14:59:37  <Samu> i don't think it would achieve anything by just adding permanent costs to wagons, just for the sake of being the same
15:00:03  <Samu> we're at odds, you have a different issue than me
15:00:08  <supermop__> any gameplay need for shittier tramways?
15:00:11  <Wolf01> Btw, I would use purchase_cost / factor * breakdown_chance
15:00:25  <Samu> my goal was to achieve balance
15:00:40  <supermop__> seems like it will be easier to run out of road types than tram types
15:00:46  <Samu> incentive usage of lower running cost trains
15:01:09  <supermop__> as long as you don't use exotic tram power supplies
15:01:46  <Samu> but my proposal is nonsense, not realism
15:02:02  <Samu> i dunno, i gotta test
15:02:02  <Wolf01> supermop__, yes, I thought that too, 23 / 7 instead of 15 / 15 could have been a better choice
15:02:05  <supermop__> currently only want normal tram and modern faster light rail,
15:02:22  <Samu> i prefer balance over realism
15:02:47  <supermop__> but there is scope for drawing at least a shittier looking catenary with even lower speed than regular tram
15:03:04  <supermop__> but i dont think there is need for shittier tramway track
15:03:34  <Wolf01> But you could have lightrail, elrail, catenary, suspended, train on rubber
15:04:04  <Wolf01> Small metro
15:04:18  <supermop__> maybe this: light railway; LR with shitty wire; LR with decent wire; LR with nice modern catenary
15:05:23  <Wolf01> Also some industrial consists might be placed in tram section just to keep them separated from road
15:05:26  <supermop__> and not worry about quality of trackbed in such a basic grf
15:06:28  <supermop__> thing is, in that case, then you might want the modern light rail to not be buildable on road
15:07:05  <supermop__> anyway that gives variation and only uses 4 out of 15 slots
15:07:15  <Wolf01> The one with grassy paths and cement?
15:07:52  <supermop__> when tram is in the roadway, it all looks the same
15:08:07  <supermop__> not worth worrying about quality of track
15:08:43  <supermop__> when tram is out of the road, it either looks like crappy rails, nice rails, or is still set into concrete
15:08:55  <Wolf01> <- this would be a nice addition to cities
15:09:24  <supermop__> wolf: yes
15:10:17  <supermop__> sometimes it looks like this though:
15:10:23  <Wolf01> I know you could just let bare land under it, but with some decoration and forbidding to build it over road / build road under it, it is a cool thing
15:10:27  <Alberth> ever looked at how many train track types exist? :)
15:11:27  <Wolf01> The problem might be crossings
15:11:57  <supermop__> and sometimes like this:
15:12:44  <Wolf01> I already have a patch to disable crossings on the same roadtype, I think making a patch which allows only to cross another roadtype and not build it in the same direction is not so difficult
15:12:51  <supermop__> is it worth 3+ tram types though for the different ways it can look when absent of roadway?
15:14:05  <supermop__> can maybe abuse town zone/sidewalks to get fancy grass or pavement in town, gravel ballast outside
15:14:10  <Wolf01> Btw, let's ask the cat when he arrives
15:14:16  <supermop__> yes
15:14:22  <crem> The aspect in ttd that I always didn't like is that from the very beginning it's possible (and encouraged) to build large routes in random places of the map. In reaility companies usually start small and local.  It would be nice to have a "distance from headquarters penalty", purchasing permits to extend area where you can build or something like that.
15:15:25  <supermop__> crem: in 1994 playing tto, my neighbor told me that reliability and running cost improve the closer a vehicle is to your HQ
15:15:44  <supermop__> i believed that for about 10 years and was so sad to find it was not true
15:16:24  <Wolf01> But, let's make it and don't tell others, for the glory of satan
15:16:39  <Wolf01> Commit message: changed stuff
15:16:50  <crem> "fix"
15:16:57  <supermop__> Wolf01: is it possible for tramtype to block roads or vis versa yet?
15:17:11  <Wolf01> Not yet, but soon
15:17:38  <Wolf01> We need to make the core working flawlessly first
15:17:52  <Wolf01> Then flag-fest will happen
15:18:43  <crem> All that you discuss now, trams etc.. Will it be available in "pure" openttd with default gfx? Or one has to build from some fork, know what gfx to download, etc?
15:19:16  <supermop__> crem:
15:19:23  <supermop__> please DL and test
15:19:46  <supermop__> cannot go into regular Openttd until it is well tested
15:20:13  <crem> But eventually, will it?
15:20:39  <supermop__> only if enough people test it and work to make sure it works
15:21:09  <supermop__> there is no guarantee if users are apathetic towards it,it will die
15:23:42  <crem> Because even in last major versions updates, all "major" changes were like "more height levels" and "windows remember their size".  It's sad to see actual gameplay enchancements which don't get into the game.
15:24:25  <supermop__> crem: the more complex a feature is, the more work it needs to make sure it can go into trunk
15:25:09  <supermop__> if you follow threads for the major patchpacks in the forums, you will see there are constantly bugs, problems, conflicts
15:25:21  <Wolf01> Like NRT, which might see trunk next xmas if I can't fix some of the shit I've done
15:25:22  <supermop__> and the maintainer has to work constantly to resolve them
15:26:14  <Wolf01> And andy already wants me at work on docks
15:26:15  <Wolf01> :P
15:27:18  <supermop__> a patch for trunk has to make sure that it absolutely does not cause problems first, and that the code follows standards, so if the author dies tomorrow, some other dev can easily follow it
15:28:21  <supermop__> notice that Cdist took like 4 years or more to get into trunk, and even now people complain about it not working the way they expect
15:28:45  <supermop__> also, more height levels was a huge patch that took years and years of work
15:28:59  <Alberth> wiki doesn't do a great job in explaining what you should expect from cdist :)
15:29:33  <Wolf01> supermop__
15:29:48  <supermop__> people clamored for MHL for years but it took Chillcore and others tons of work to get it to be suitable for trunk
15:30:29  <supermop__> Wolf01: nice
15:30:47  <Wolf01> Btw, I would like a grf set (and baseset too) with that kind of graphics
15:31:14  <supermop__> i will make for 50,000.00 USD
15:31:17  <Wolf01> Simutrans has a sort of it
15:31:35  <Wolf01> I could make it with voxels
15:31:38  <supermop__> buy now and i'll only charge 45,000
15:32:47  <supermop__> can probably just hire that artist
15:33:21  <Wolf01> He does really cool things
15:33:58  <Wolf01> Too bad I'm shit at drawing (and at coding too, but a bit better there)
15:34:56  <Wolf01> what?
15:35:29  <Samu> testing ship vs train vs road vehicle
15:35:41  <Samu> be back later
15:36:31  <supermop__> just make a few hundredthousand eur and pay the artist
15:36:40  <supermop__> or pay me and i will try to learn
15:37:07  <supermop__> Wolf01: that looks pretty cheap
15:38:48  <supermop__> label for shitty tramway? SHTR?
15:38:53  <Wolf01> Uhm, it would be possible to make bridge graphics which merge when 2 bridges are build close?
15:39:15  <supermop__> wolf: ive always wanted that
15:39:20  <Wolf01> Just SHIT is enough, it's already tramway :P
15:39:26  <Wolf01> <-
15:39:38  *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
15:40:07  <supermop__> currently only idea i have is use 3+ bridge types: regular, left, right, and maybe center
15:40:11  <FLHerne> There's a grf somewhere for that, IIRC
15:40:22  <FLHerne> (with seperate bridge types for each side)
15:40:51  <supermop__> i don't care about having 3 types of suspension bridge anyway
15:41:12  <supermop__> but until nml does bridges, im not going to bother with it
15:43:19  <supermop__> brb
15:45:04  *** Landscape has joined #openttd
15:49:04  <Wolf01> <- btw, granite tramway
15:49:51  <Landscape> hey you developers, what about this suggestion: Possibility to generate Landscapes with cliffs? So, hills are generate in one way - a cell can only be one level higher ore lower than the neighborcell. My idea is to change the hillgenerator to a mountaingenerator where a cell can be two level higher or lower than a neighborcell. what do you think about it?
15:51:01  *** Sova has quit IRC
15:52:58  <Landscape> it shouldn´t be able that trains, cars and ships can pass this cliffs.they only could drive the normal ways. I know, it would be difficult to generate landscapes and change it with the landscape-changetools... now i´ve to go
15:53:02  <FLHerne> Landscape: With extra-steep slope tiles, or actual vertical cliffs?
15:53:20  <FLHerne> Both have been suggested quite a few times :P
15:53:48  <FLHerne> (if you want to implement it, great...)
15:55:02  <Landscape> yes, with extra steep slope tiles while using the normal graphics for slopes but stretched
15:55:34  <Landscape> it would not be possible without new tiles... i tried to build them on a peace of paper
15:55:52  <FLHerne> 'stretching' pixel art tends to look awful
15:56:45  <FLHerne> Maybe for compatibility with old terrain grfs, but you'd need new sprites for the baseset and any updated grfs
15:56:47  <Alberth> nice Wolf01
15:57:00  <Landscape> you´re right, but i think it´s not the most difficult thing with the graphics, i don´t know
15:57:32  <FLHerne> Also, slopes are exposed to newgrfs, so you'd have to think about back-compatibility and how to extend the interface for that
15:58:08  <Alberth> trickiest bit is likely the slope, and tunneling/bridge building
15:58:43  <Alberth> the vertical foundations are not stored, only drawn
16:01:29  <Samu> i must be doing something terribly wrong
16:01:31  <Samu>
16:01:50  <Samu> almost no difference
16:02:22  <Samu> year 1951
16:03:13  <Wolf01> Landscape, I was trying to do it, but current engine glitches too much
16:03:14  <Landscape> ok, i knowed there are quite a few of things to think about. Tunnel and bridges..., first i´ve to prepare my own developer- station on my pc
16:06:50  <Landscape> Wolf01, you tried? Probably another solution could be this: Not to hight up the hills extremly but generate some zones where no trains, vehicles and ships can pass. this zones should be scattered along the hightlevels of hills
16:07:50  <Wolf01> I just tried to make the terrain use foundations instead of slopes when raising a tile corner with CTRL
16:08:13  <Samu> at least i brought the running cost of those 2 trains to be on par with those of 3 ships and 18 trucks
16:08:24  <Samu> it's something!
16:08:47  <Wolf01> It's just 1 train, put there 10 and you see a big change
16:08:49  <Samu> but i fear insufficient
16:09:24  *** matt11235 has quit IRC
16:09:44  <Samu> 3 ships: -£11,074
16:10:04  <Samu> 2 trains (1.6.1): -£6,890
16:10:28  <Samu> 2 trains (mine): -£11,025
16:10:54  <Samu> 18 trucks: -£11,369
16:11:01  <Alberth> so?
16:11:08  <Samu> so? it's something!
16:11:25  <Alberth> how does 3 ships compare with 2 trains, other than in cost?
16:11:44  <Samu> the starting loan was £150k
16:11:53  <Samu> i wasted as much as i could for each
16:11:57  <Wolf01> I have 3 ships... I have 2 trains .... PA! Running costs are the same
16:12:02  <Alberth> ie 2 trains 1.6.1 looks the same like 9 trucks to me
16:12:38  <Alberth> maybe you need 10 trucks
16:13:17  <Landscape> ok, thanks for the short chat and the quick answeres about this theme with the slopes, i´ve to go now. have a nice day
16:13:31  <Alberth> but my point is, why is 2 trains 1.6.1 vs 9 trucks bad, and 3 trains yours vs 18 trucks good?
16:15:03  *** Landscape has quit IRC
16:16:35  <Samu> good question
16:16:36  <Alberth> maybe trains were designed to have a high initial purchase cost and low running cost, while trucks are easier to buy initially, but cost more to run?
16:16:39  <Samu> you made me think
16:17:28  <Alberth> so depending on how long or often you intend to use them, what is best changes?
16:20:55  *** enygmata has quit IRC
16:22:26  <Samu> it's just not possible to balance this, is it ? :(
16:22:35  <Samu> i'm losing my motivation
16:23:57  <FLHerne> In practice, I think Samu's right
16:24:49  *** supermop has joined #openttd
16:25:04  <FLHerne> No-one actually builds short-term links in OTTD, because towns and (non-oil) industries don't move once you've served them
16:27:00  <FLHerne> (but increasing the rail maintenance costs to prevent long empty straight lines is probably simpler)
16:27:41  <Samu> oh, infrastructure maintenance costs is turned off, perhaps i should turn it on, see if it makes a difference
16:27:48  <Samu> brb
16:29:56  *** supermop__ has quit IRC
16:33:58  <Samu> property maintenance for ships is nearly non-existant
16:34:59  <Samu> property maintenance for rails is nearly 3 times that of the road
16:35:29  <Samu> in the long run, it's still insufficient
16:35:39  <Samu> trains still dominate :( but i will wait till 1952
16:39:57  *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
16:40:59  <FLHerne> Samu: Maintenance costs scale non-linearly with network size
16:41:42  <FLHerne> They do seem to prevent some of the sillier ways to use trains
16:43:24  <Samu> @calc 18 * 20
16:43:24  <DorpsGek> Samu: 360
16:43:38  <Samu> calc 9 * 30
16:43:43  <Samu> @calc 9 * 30
16:43:43  <DorpsGek> Samu: 270
16:43:56  <Samu> @calc 9 * 30 * 2
16:43:56  <DorpsGek> Samu: 540
16:43:58  <Samu> ah
16:44:23  <Samu> @calc 160 * 2
16:44:23  <DorpsGek> Samu: 320
16:47:05  *** Flygon has quit IRC
16:49:26  <Alberth> calc should refuse to do such simple calculations :)
16:49:53  <Wolf01> Or just return wrong answers :D
16:50:02  <Alberth> "yes"
16:50:22  <Alberth> "more than previous"
16:51:33  <Rubidium> Alberth: just randomly choosing a radix for the input and output data would do enough
16:51:41  <Alberth> haha :)
16:52:49  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
16:55:26  <Samu> :) gonna combine with weigth multiplier for freigth
16:55:37  <Samu> thought this discards passengers...
16:56:33  <Alberth> don't know if mail counts as freight
16:56:35  <Samu> this map is too flat too
16:56:40  <Samu> hmm
16:56:46  *** Flygon has joined #openttd
17:03:17  <Samu> there's many ways to test this, all pointing out to train supremacy, i'm sad, losing motivation
17:03:26  <Samu> dunno what to do
17:11:35  <supermop> ok
17:12:21  <Alberth> use a newgrf for trains
17:12:35  <Alberth> one with bigger costs
17:13:02  <Samu> 4 kirby pauls vs 3 jubilees vs 2 ginzus
17:13:09  <Samu> vs the rest
17:13:12  <Alberth> but yes, you cannot balance all, as different authors have different ideas about "good"
17:13:56  <Alberth> default trains are designed for original map, so that's where you should test
17:14:08  <Samu> even the kirby pauls beat the road vehicles
17:14:28  <Alberth> but transport tycoon is a train game
17:14:41  <Samu> something is amiss and I am yet to find out what
17:15:31  <Samu> kirby paul can't even reach max speed, it maxes out at 52 km/h
17:15:49  <Samu> still faster than road vehicles at 48 km/h
17:18:03  *** iSoSyS has quit IRC
17:22:15  <Samu> @calc 9 * 30 * 4
17:22:15  <DorpsGek> Samu: 1080
17:22:50  <Samu> 1080 cargo delivered once all 4 kirby pauls complete a journey
17:23:41  <Samu> only 360 cargo delivered for all 18 trucks
17:32:19  <supermop> i wonder when gravel roads were 'invented'
17:32:33  <supermop> most dirt roads in the US are now gravel
17:32:48  <supermop> but surely gravel was used for roads before that switch
17:39:45  <supermop> im sure people could have build gravel roads in 400bce, but it seems like it wasn't common until like 1800
17:39:48  <supermop> or even later
17:40:24  <Wolf01> supermop, did you see the granite tramway?
17:41:02  <supermop> i did !
17:41:12  <supermop> seems more like a rail type tho
17:43:37  <supermop> ok 9 roadtypes: DIRT, GRAV, EGRV, STON, ESTN, ROAD, ELRD, HWAY, EHWY
17:43:41  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
17:43:45  <supermop> not sure stone is needed
17:44:51  <supermop> maybe road becomes stone, and hway is the asphalt with stripes
17:45:38  <supermop> can add two more for BRT/EBRT
17:46:53  <Alberth> romans already built stone roads
17:47:40  <Alberth> need for gravel roads is likely connected with increasing weight of traffic
17:47:58  <Alberth> or with intensity/reliability or so
17:53:40  *** glx has joined #openttd
17:53:41  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v glx
17:56:47  <supermop> Alberth: yes, there are stone roads in antiquity, but gravel is cheaper
17:57:18  <supermop> but it needs a society to be already producing lots of crushed stone
17:57:40  <Alberth> since we build stone houses that we tear down after 20 years :)
17:58:00  <supermop> so romans probaby didn't bother with gravel - if the road is minor build dirt, if major build stone
17:58:41  <Alberth> vehicles were likely not that heavy, as they had to drive on non-stone roads as well
17:58:54  <supermop> where 'build dirt' was probably less grading and more 'walk along this path enough and it becomes a dirt road'
17:59:32  <Alberth> we still have those today, in woods, and along rivers
18:00:07  <Alberth> regular traffic likes to drive in straight lines
18:00:32  *** gelignite has joined #openttd
18:00:39  <Alberth> so not in woods and alongside rivers
18:00:47  <supermop> today in the US, dirt roads only really exists on private land, and very remote areas of parks and protected land
18:01:02  <supermop> unpaved public roads are now gravel
18:01:07  <supermop> where they remain
18:01:53  <supermop> i still remember some public dirt roads in minnesota from when i was a kid
18:01:55  <Alberth> likely, given the budget of road maintenance in the USA, as I understood it
18:03:51  *** Ethereal_Whisper has joined #openttd
18:05:42  <supermop> not sure anyone will care about building a road more expensive than dirt but cheaper than asphalt
18:06:08  <supermop> unless roads can modify the TE of vehicles
18:06:15  <Ethereal_Whisper> I mean of the road technologies out there, asphalt is basically the cheapest unless you don't pave it at all
18:06:48  <supermop> most mining access roads are going to be dirt or gravel though
18:07:42  <supermop> so any player who wants a variety of roads probably wants a road that looks good leading to a mine, and doesn't look like a city street
18:07:46  *** Progman has joined #openttd
18:08:29  <Samu> alright, it's not possible to balance running costs without being too obtrusive
18:08:46  <Samu> i have just increased it by 10 and it's still not enough
18:11:09  <Samu> capacity matters way too much and trains are kings here
18:16:33  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
18:18:24  <Samu> something similar to what has been done with infrastructure maintenance costs for airports, has to be done with trains
18:18:35  <Samu> very disruptive
18:18:50  <Samu> and i bet no one would like that
18:18:59  <Samu> heck, i don't even like what happened with airports
18:19:53  <Samu> they went from viable as first transport type, to impossible as first transport type
18:37:10  *** Gja has joined #openttd
18:43:48  <supermop> airport newgrfs can reduce the infra costs
18:45:15  <supermop> or increase it
18:45:48  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: Commit by translators :: r27762 /trunk/src/lang (4 files) (2017-02-28 19:45:37 +0100 )
18:45:49  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: -Update from Eints:
18:45:50  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: catalan: 5 changes by juanjo
18:45:51  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: greek: 29 changes by kyrm
18:45:52  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: croatian: 2 changes by UnderwaterHesus
18:45:53  <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: (...)
18:46:04  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
18:46:06  <andythenorth> o/
18:46:50  <supermop> heyooo
18:47:26  <supermop> eager to hear your opinions on gravel
18:48:48  <supermop> also your name for the crappiest trackbed you can imagine
18:49:56  *** HerzogDeXtEr has joined #openttd
18:50:05  <andythenorth> gravel is small stones
18:50:06  <supermop> wolf and i  settled on "SHIT"
18:50:20  <andythenorth> we won’t let my kids play that then :P
18:50:41  <supermop> well i need the string def. from you
18:52:28  <andythenorth> DIRT
18:52:29  <andythenorth> LAME
18:52:32  <andythenorth> SLOW
18:52:51  <supermop> dirt is road
18:53:09  <andythenorth> PATH
18:53:11  <andythenorth> GOAT
18:53:29  <andythenorth> goat trail is considered to be at the more technical end of 4x4 driving
18:53:52  <andythenorth>
18:54:00  <andythenorth>
18:54:36  <supermop> whats the name for the equivalently worthless tramway
18:54:46  <supermop> CANE?
18:54:49  <supermop> PEAT?
18:55:00  <andythenorth> dunno
18:55:19  <Samu> you know what? it might actually be a good idea
18:55:32  <Samu> disrupt train supremacy
18:55:51  <supermop> trains are supreme because they are fun
18:55:54  <Samu> but it's definitely not what I had in mind initially
18:55:59  <supermop> airplanes are boring
18:57:03  <supermop> Go to airport 1, go to airport 2,
18:57:13  <supermop> clone until holding pattern full
18:58:28  <planetmaker> \o
18:58:39  <andythenorth> hi planetmaker
18:59:00  <planetmaker> so we have now sensible accelerations as defaults? That's good :)
19:00:06  <Samu> there's BaseCostsMod 5.0 which could increase the running costs of trains, but it's not really the same feel as a game setting for vanilla
19:00:17  <Samu> vanilla engines
19:02:33  <Eddi|zuHause> with about 7 years delay
19:03:55  *** Progman has quit IRC
19:05:21  <Samu> what's wrong with
19:05:25  <Samu> i can't open it
19:06:33  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: 7 years is almost no time, for mature software :D
19:08:03  <Wolf01> <supermop> CANE? <- dog? XD
19:08:17  <Wolf01> Oh, is cat o/
19:10:49  <andythenorth> is
19:10:56  <andythenorth> is refactoring FIRS?
19:10:57  <andythenorth> is
19:11:22  <V453000> Cat massive
19:17:29  *** Samu has quit IRC
19:18:44  *** Samu has joined #openttd
19:20:21  *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
19:20:28  *** matt11235 has quit IRC
19:20:31  <Wolf01> Quak
19:22:25  <Wolf01> WHAT
19:23:50  <frosch123> hoi
19:24:36  <Samu> does imgur work?
19:24:42  *** Samu has quit IRC
19:24:50  *** Samu has joined #openttd
19:25:00  <Samu> i can't open it, i wanted to post an image to show you
19:25:17  <Wolf01> Half of the web doesn't work well for me
19:25:59  <frosch123> do you at least have the better half?
19:26:02  <Samu> any alternative?
19:26:13  <Samu> i get nothing, just a white page
19:26:13  <Wolf01> I have 1/4 good and 1/4 bad
19:26:39  <Wolf01> It works for me, just takes 3 minutes to load
19:28:05  <Samu> i didn't want to use onedrive, links are gigantic, but oh well
19:28:21  <Wolf01> It's not twitter here
19:31:11  <Samu>
19:31:43  <SpComb> us-east-1 S3 is down
19:32:55  <Samu> hmm i forgot what i was going to say
19:33:03  <Wolf01> Yes
19:33:07  <frosch123> they are installing a new web filter
19:33:31  *** Arveen has joined #openttd
19:33:34  <andythenorth> is that why my Zendesk is broken :P
19:34:00  <Samu> ah, about infrastructure maintenance costs
19:34:38  <Samu> i turned it on for trains, and also increased the running costs massively on them
19:34:58  <Samu> what do you think?
19:35:45  <Samu> running cost went from -£1,101,367 to -£7,563,774
19:36:25  <Samu> property maintenance went from -£120,000 to -£6,790,668
19:36:49  <Samu> and there's the profit graph to have a look at the difference over 1 year
19:37:21  <Samu> the other openttd shows infrastructure costs for aircraft
19:37:48  <Samu> that part is untouched
19:37:59  <Samu> it's just for comparison
19:38:01  <Wolf01> Can't see the picture
19:38:03  <Samu> oh t.t
19:38:35  <Samu> damn imgur, do you know an alternative?
19:40:29  <Samu>
19:40:34  <Samu> does it open
19:46:35  *** Samu has quit IRC
19:46:45  *** Samu has joined #openttd
19:52:04  <supermop> andythenorth: guided busway?
19:52:21  <supermop> more interesting than hway?
19:52:47  <andythenorth> bbl
19:52:48  *** andythenorth has left #openttd
19:59:53  *** matt11235 has joined #openttd
20:06:21  <supermop> speed limits for dirt is tricky
20:06:44  <supermop> if i have a rally car, i should be able to drive 100mph on a private dirt road
20:07:41  <supermop> as dirt roads are outside of town, far from the cops, they should have higher speedlimit than ROAD
20:08:20  <Samu> dirt rally tycoon
20:16:01  <Eddi|zuHause> only if you have general lee
20:20:39  <supermop> hmm can i make ROAD unbuildable by player?
20:24:17  <frosch123> introdate in far future?
20:26:26  <supermop> then towns cant grow
20:26:53  <supermop> so i have dirt 50kmh, gravel 70kmh, stone 80kmh
20:27:22  <supermop> asphalt 100kmh, hway no limit?
20:27:37  <frosch123> you can also increase the cost by factor 1000 :p
20:27:42  <supermop> maybe lower gravel?
20:27:58  <frosch123> but it may make money when converting road
20:28:19  <frosch123> towns building gold roads
20:28:25  <frosch123> players harvesting them
20:28:54  <supermop> is gravel cheap to maintain because it's so simple, or expensive because you have to re-grade it every year?
20:29:38  <supermop> it seems like stone should be more expensive to build than asphalt, and slower, and more expensive to maintain
20:29:42  <frosch123> that depends on the usage :)
20:29:47  <supermop> so no reason to ever build it
20:30:03  <supermop> unless you start in 100BCE
20:30:26  <frosch123> gravel is cheap and lasts long if rarely used
20:30:43  <supermop> maintenance cost based of traffic?
20:31:24  <supermop> so the newer roads are more expensive, but their upkeep costs scale better with traffic
20:38:23  *** Wormnest_ has joined #openttd
20:45:25  *** Wormnest has quit IRC
20:47:35  *** orudge` has quit IRC
20:47:56  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
20:47:56  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
20:55:54  <Alberth> make a gold road for towns :p
20:58:12  <supermop> the sprites already exists in the nrt wiki page
21:02:30  <supermop> should the crappiest tramway be cheaper than gravel road?
21:03:07  <frosch123> you mean andy's yellow road?
21:04:18  <__ln__> anyone going to go see the solar eclipse in august?
21:04:30  *** supermop has quit IRC
21:04:46  *** supermop has joined #openttd
21:05:17  *** skapazzo has quit IRC
21:12:10  *** ericnoan has joined #openttd
21:12:15  *** Wormnest__ has joined #openttd
21:17:44  *** frosch123 has quit IRC
21:18:45  *** Wormnest_ has quit IRC
21:26:35  *** supermop_ has joined #openttd
21:30:32  *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd
21:31:46  *** supermop has quit IRC
21:36:36  *** Alberth has left #openttd
21:41:32  <Eddi|zuHause> why is firefox using 25% mem, and "Web Content" using another 20%?
21:42:37  <Eddi|zuHause> also, why did my sound break?
21:46:22  *** Eddi|zuHause has quit IRC
21:46:44  *** Eddi|zuHause has joined #openttd
21:51:07  <Samu> hey
21:51:16  <Samu> Wolf01: i found the engines.h file
21:51:52  <Samu> i can try now wagon running cost based on the wagon weigth
21:52:15  <Samu> if i give wagons a running cost class, that is
21:52:32  <Samu> there's steam, diesel and electric
21:53:26  <Samu> steam = expensive, diesel = medium, electric = cheap
21:54:21  <Wolf01> Wagons don't have a type
21:55:16  <Samu> but i can edit that in
21:55:33  <Wolf01> It makes no sense
21:55:42  <Samu> let me see how broken this breaks openttd, brb
21:56:35  <Samu> i just gave a running cost to passenger carriage
21:56:41  <Samu> £615/yr
21:56:44  <Samu> lel
21:57:04  <Samu> it's 25 tonnes, so the cost factor is also 25
21:57:29  <Samu> then some magic is done to get the price into a number and it became £615/yr
21:57:38  <Samu> openttd computing GetPrice
21:59:22  <Samu> there's 3 carriages for the same type
22:01:30  <Samu> maglev = steam
22:01:43  <Samu> monorail = diesel
22:01:58  <Samu> rail = electric
22:02:39  <Samu> brb
22:04:42  *** gelignite has quit IRC
22:05:48  <Samu>
22:05:49  <Samu> nice
22:17:13  <Samu> okay, it makes no sense then, reverting changes
22:25:10  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
22:46:51  *** matt11235 has quit IRC
23:18:51  <Samu> @calc ((1920) - 1) / 4 - ((1920) - 1) / 100 + ((1920) - 1) / 400 + 1)
23:18:51  <DorpsGek> Samu: Error: unexpected EOF while parsing (<string>, line 1)
23:20:16  *** Wormnest__ has quit IRC
23:21:07  <Samu> @calc 1919/4-1919/100+1919/401
23:21:07  <DorpsGek> Samu: 465.34553616
23:22:51  <Samu> @calc 365*20+465
23:22:51  <DorpsGek> Samu: 7765
23:23:41  *** HerzogDeXtEr1 has joined #openttd
23:24:05  <Samu> @calc 365*1920+465
23:24:05  <DorpsGek> Samu: 701265
23:24:45  <Samu> @calc 703092-701265
23:24:45  <DorpsGek> Samu: 1827
23:30:16  *** HerzogDeXtEr has quit IRC
23:30:17  *** JezK_ has joined #openttd
23:47:59  *** Gja has quit IRC
23:52:20  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
23:53:49  <Samu> Wolf01: did you see that?
23:53:59  <Samu>
23:54:17  <Samu> running cost based on wagon weight

Powered by YARRSTE version: svn-trunk