Log for #openttd on 3rd April 2017:
Times are UTC Toggle Colours
00:00:00  *** chomwitt1 has quit IRC
00:00:21  *** chomwitt has joined #openttd
01:16:23  *** JezK_ has joined #openttd
01:49:00  *** Speedy has quit IRC
02:09:08  *** JezK_ has quit IRC
02:09:55  *** JezK has joined #openttd
02:22:19  *** chomwitt has quit IRC
02:24:10  *** glx has quit IRC
04:32:09  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
04:36:45  *** JezK has quit IRC
04:44:30  *** JezK has joined #openttd
04:48:49  *** orudge` has quit IRC
04:49:22  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
04:49:23  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
04:56:20  *** Hiddenfunstuff has joined #openttd
05:19:08  *** cHawk has joined #openttd
06:38:35  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
06:42:36  *** Montana has joined #openttd
06:53:02  *** andythenorth has left #openttd
07:02:48  <peter1138> hmm, so in yapf
07:03:11  <peter1138> max_penalty means max_penalty_unless_destination_found
07:07:41  *** Sova has joined #openttd
07:36:24  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
07:39:00  *** Samu has joined #openttd
07:39:04  <Samu> hi
07:41:54  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
07:51:00  *** JezK has quit IRC
08:09:28  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
08:11:33  <peter1138> hmm
08:11:50  <peter1138> so if i enforce the max_penalty, then... loads of trains never get serviced :p
08:35:23  *** Hiddenfunstuff has quit IRC
08:37:45  *** Supercheese has quit IRC
08:41:56  <Samu> hi peter1138 , i didn't change yaps rail depots
08:42:03  <Samu> are you testing my patch or?
08:42:16  *** Speedy` has joined #openttd
08:42:34  *** Speedy` is now known as Speedy
08:52:25  *** Arveen2 has joined #openttd
08:52:25  *** Flygon__ has joined #openttd
08:52:37  *** Lejving_ has joined #openttd
08:59:08  *** Arveen has quit IRC
08:59:08  *** Flygon_ has quit IRC
08:59:08  *** Lejving has quit IRC
09:00:40  <dihedral> greetings
09:03:41  <Samu> hi
09:11:13  <peter1138> no i'm testing trunk
09:11:33  <V453000> sooooooooooooooo how do I use grfstrip? :D
09:11:53  <V453000> apparently some guy with E3-1230v6 and an i7 7700K has problems with extra zoom
09:12:00  <V453000> not even mentioning problems with 32bpp
09:12:08  <peter1138> hmm?
09:12:32  <V453000> how do I strip the grf by grfstrip?
09:12:53  <peter1138> i guess... run it and check the parameters needed? i dunno, i've never seen it.
09:13:35  <V453000> yeah "run it" is what I need info about :D
09:15:01  <V453000> O-O maybe it worked
09:15:10  <peter1138> i imagine it has parameters
09:15:13  <peter1138> ./grfstrip -h?
09:15:43  <peter1138> random webpage search:
09:15:45  <planetmaker> V453000, instead of castrating your grf you might want to tell the guy to tune his settings ;)
09:16:07  <V453000> but which settings
09:17:46  <V453000> he has sprite_cache_size_px = 512 and is trying to run the game with both 8bpp optimized and 32bpp optimized blitters
09:17:51  <V453000> on 4K screen
09:18:04  <V453000> says making window smaller helps
09:18:11  <V453000> so 4K is clearly not helping, but yeah
09:26:31  <dihedral> tell him to buy a different screen
09:26:57  <planetmaker> :D
09:27:07  <planetmaker> 256 colour VGA screen ;)
09:27:22  <Samu> something interesting just happened, NPF vs Yapf
09:27:36  <Samu> NPF trains did actually find a way, while Yapf didn't
09:27:42  <Samu> it's a peculiar test
09:28:38  <Samu> i suppose that on very heavy networks, NPF will do better
09:29:02  <Samu> it's a worst case scenario testings
09:30:35  <Samu> either that, or NPF was lucky, must investigate this better
09:33:38  <Samu> some weird thing is happening on NPF, the train is not getting serviced
09:34:50  <peter1138> samu, probably related to this
09:34:55  <Samu> when the train needs to service, but has a PBS track to follow, the train won't find a way to a depot, it's forced to follow
09:34:57  <Samu> the pbs
09:34:59  <Samu> reserved
09:37:02  <Samu> looks like once the tracks are reserved, they can't be updated if the vehicle suddenly needs to service, using NPF, not sure about how Yapf handles this
09:38:20  <Samu> also not being updated if the train needs to go to any other destination, not just depots, just tested skipping orders
09:40:34  <Samu> gonna check yapf, on a more manageable situation
09:40:45  <Samu> not on a worst case scenario
09:42:32  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
09:43:48  *** andythenorth has left #openttd
09:44:14  <Samu> once the path is reserved, the train is forced to follow it, no matter what? is that how it's supposed to work?
09:46:51  <Samu> yapf handles this better
09:46:56  <Samu> than nf
09:46:58  <Samu> npf
09:50:07  <Samu> you're right peter1138 "Fixing this affects train depot finding adversely (as it relies on this bug). "
09:50:49  <Samu> or actually, not really, i'm confused with max_search_nodes
09:51:22  <Samu> one thing is max_search_nodes, other thing is max cost of a path
09:53:22  <Samu> had you limited the max_search_nodes, then yes, it would affect train depot finding adversely, but that's not what max_penalty does
09:54:30  <Samu> max_search_nodes is still the same, wether it's searching for a depot or searching for a route
09:56:23  <Samu> the bug I found, happens on a worst case scenario, will 64x64 rail tiles in every direction, max_search_nodes is quickly reached and Yapf doesn't find a good path, be it depot or station
09:56:38  <Samu> it bugs out
09:57:10  <Samu> with* 64x64
09:58:45  <Samu> with NPF, it did find a way, i dunno if it was by luck (found it before reaching the max_search_nodes limitation) or if it's really not bugged
10:02:39  <Samu> just limited it to 500, still found a way, very odd
10:03:07  <Samu> NPF is either extremely lucky, or ... i dunno, must investigate this better
10:03:18  *** Samu has quit IRC
10:12:34  *** Sova has quit IRC
10:34:12  *** JacobD88 has joined #openttd
10:54:16  *** Sova has joined #openttd
11:01:25  *** Adrian[m] has joined #openttd
11:08:58  *** chomwitt has joined #openttd
11:36:28  *** Wolf01 has joined #openttd
11:37:16  <Wolf01> o/
11:39:54  <crem> \o
11:43:02  <peter1138> /o\
11:58:45  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
11:58:53  <Wolf01> o/
12:03:43  <Arveen2>  /o/   \o\
12:06:06  <crem> s/o/o/g
12:13:49  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
12:14:54  <V453000> isn't north
12:18:32  <Wolf01> Isn't job
12:30:03  *** JacobD88 has quit IRC
12:30:56  *** JacobD88 has joined #openttd
12:35:09  *** Samu has joined #openttd
12:35:54  <Samu> hi
12:40:05  <crem> hi
13:05:07  <peter1138> Samu, reaching max_search_nodes and therefore not finding a path isn't "bugging out"
13:05:34  <Samu> hmm?
13:06:22  <Samu> did you try with pbs ?
13:06:31  <peter1138> i'm not trying anything
13:06:51  <peter1138> i'm responding to your comment that "the bug i found" ... "it bugs out"
13:07:02  <Samu> @logs
13:07:02  <DorpsGek> Samu:
13:08:54  <Samu> i tried to follow NPF counting and how it builds a path
13:08:59  <Samu> got lost
13:10:03  <Samu> there are 2 things happening that I think are bugs, 1 for yapf, 1 for npf
13:10:38  <Samu> with yapf, the "bug" is solveable by increasing the max_search_nodes
13:12:02  <Samu> with npf, a train that needs to service won't be able to pick a new route because it has been previously reserved for the last order
13:12:14  <Samu> complicated to explain~
13:12:32  <Samu> once the path is reserved, there's no other choice but to follow it 'till the end
13:13:01  <Samu> the bug happens when CheckIfTrainNeedsService is called
13:13:23  <Samu> the path is already reserved, and it can't compute a new path to a depot
13:13:33  <peter1138> as i said. reaching max_search_nodes is NOT a bug
13:13:39  *** TheMask96 has quit IRC
13:14:29  <peter1138> and i don't think anyone really cares about npf
13:14:31  <Samu> what is yapf search based on?
13:14:38  <Samu> npf is aystar
13:14:44  <peter1138> a* as well
13:15:20  <Samu> really? then I really don't understand the different behaviour
13:15:33  <Samu> let me post a savegame
13:15:38  <peter1138> different limits
13:15:41  <peter1138> different coding
13:16:50  <peter1138> i guess opf was dijkstra but then someone changed it to a* as well
13:16:56  *** TheMask96 has joined #openttd
13:17:16  <peter1138> or was that ntp. can't remember now
13:19:41  <peter1138>
13:19:45  <peter1138> ^ how it works
13:20:10  *** kais58 has quit IRC
13:20:47  <Samu> i sent you a pm on the forum with savegame
13:21:07  <Samu> that save shows yapf failing
13:21:21  <Samu> if you change the pathfinder to npf, you'll see it not failing
13:21:36  <peter1138> with the grid of 64x64 tiles?
13:21:40  <Samu> yes
13:21:46  <peter1138> then i'm not interested
13:21:50  <peter1138> it's not failing
13:21:50  <Samu> oh :(
13:21:54  <peter1138> it's by design
13:21:56  <peter1138> not a bug
13:22:06  <Samu> it's weird then that it doesn't fail on npf
13:22:30  <Samu> i wanted to understand why it fails in one but not the other if they're both a*
13:22:47  <peter1138> they have limits implemented differently
13:22:59  <peter1138> and a different set of penalties
13:24:07  <Samu> i set max_search_nodes to 500 and it still doesn't fail, which is... odd
13:24:35  <Samu> it would require about 43000 for yapf, and 500 is still sufficient for npf? doesn't sound right
13:27:22  *** kais58 has joined #openttd
13:28:26  <Samu> weird, the code still mentions 10000, i thought it had changed, something's wrong
13:32:53  <peter1138> heh, that js shows how bad dijkstra is
13:33:02  *** Mazur has quit IRC
13:33:58  <Samu> 		max_search_nodes	10000	unsigned int
13:34:03  <Samu> why u no change to 500?
13:34:06  <Samu> grr
13:34:45  <Samu> it initializes as 10000 for some reason
13:35:33  <Samu> gonna force a 500 in the code
13:35:34  <Samu> brb
13:36:03  *** FR^2 has left #openttd
13:36:07  *** Mazur has joined #openttd
13:39:26  <Samu> alright, you're right after all
13:39:59  <Samu> it not really "bugs out" with npf with 500
13:40:07  <Samu> can't find a way
13:40:36  *** JacobD88 has quit IRC
13:40:59  <Samu> i had to force 500 via code though, it wasn't reading the value i've set via console, even though it was already 500
13:42:43  *** JacobD88 has joined #openttd
13:47:00  <Samu> npf is only initialized once?
13:47:43  <Samu> i'm deeply confused
13:49:50  <Samu> void InitializeNPF()
13:50:08  <Samu> { bla; bla; _npf_aystar.max_search_nodes =; }
13:50:50  <Samu> i loaded a savegame with 500 in it, but it was still 10000 when pathfinding
13:57:21  <Samu> now it's working, really... I'm sorry
13:57:33  <Samu> i am really terrible
13:58:22  <Samu> set pf.npf.npf_max_searchnodes = 500 in the console does not change it
13:58:31  <Samu> set pf.npf.npf_max_searchnodes 500 in the console does
13:58:39  <Samu> my bad
13:58:41  <__ln__>
14:15:59  *** orudge` has quit IRC
14:16:23  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
14:16:23  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
14:24:45  *** Alberth has joined #openttd
14:24:45  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth
14:28:30  <peter1138> hi
14:32:37  <supermop> yo
14:37:56  <Alberth> hi hi
14:43:52  *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
14:48:02  <Samu> FS#6552 - i wonder if slope costs can affect max_penalty
14:49:59  <Samu> it likely does
14:52:36  <Alberth> what is max_penalty?
14:53:47  <Samu> it's the cost of a path
14:55:50  <Alberth> ok, what are slope costs then?
14:57:12  <Alberth> in general, I think the answer is yes, you can have any form of costs. The kind of path that you look for decides what is useful to see as cost
14:58:27  *** Sova has quit IRC
15:05:38  <Samu> hmm ships are complicated, can't compute water in segments
15:05:43  <Samu> interesting
15:06:27  <Samu> so this is how you save performance on yapf, you segmentate paths
15:10:39  <Samu> it follows the entire segment until it finds a junction
15:11:43  <Samu> the segment can be 50 tiles in a row
15:11:49  <Wolf01> Interesting, I've always wondered why a train didn't consider to take a shortcut on fields instead of following the track
15:12:07  <peter1138> :)
15:12:25  <Alberth> with not-fluid-types, it could take shortcuts across water
15:12:42  <Alberth> who need bridges? :)
15:13:19  <Samu> ships are complicated, every tile splits the path
15:13:46  <peter1138> well done
15:14:33  *** Belugas has quit IRC
15:15:11  *** Belugas has joined #openttd
15:15:11  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Belugas
15:17:28  <Samu> peter1138: i don't understand your bug report,
15:17:36  <Samu> it's implemented for trains
15:17:40  <Samu> not on the others
15:18:51  <Samu> for rail, at least
15:18:55  <Samu> yapf rail*
15:18:57  <peter1138> what
15:19:08  <Samu> sorry, i'm semi dumb today, bear with me
15:20:11  <Wolf01> I'm numb instead, too much boredom
15:20:14  <Samu> the penalty for depot searching is only applied when it's trying to locate the closest depot during automatic service
15:20:32  <peter1138> yes
15:20:39  <Samu> if it's ordered to go to a nearest depot, there is no penalty, it's unlimited
15:20:43  <peter1138> yes
15:20:56  <Samu> well i dont understand what you're reporting then :(
15:21:07  <peter1138> "Yapf will return paths whose penalty is greater than max_penalty in some cases"
15:21:10  <peter1138> what is unclear?
15:21:19  <Wolf01> It's english
15:22:09  <peter1138> i'm not normally accused of that :)
15:22:41  <Samu> yapf computes a cost of 2000, then it halves /2, becomes 1000 when going back to checkiftrainneedsservice
15:22:51  <Samu> is that it?
15:23:30  <peter1138> halves /2 ?
15:23:35  <peter1138> but no
15:23:42  <peter1138> "Yapf will return paths whose penalty is greater than max_penalty in some cases" < that is it
15:24:40  <Samu> i don't get it, give me an example
15:24:48  <peter1138> err
15:24:48  <Wolf01> "If fruit.size <= banana.size then return fruit", in your case it's returning watermelon
15:25:31  <peter1138> set max_penalty to ... 2000 (because you like that value i guess)... and it will sometimes return a path that has a penalty ... guess what...
15:25:35  <peter1138> higher than 2000
15:26:03  <Samu> are you sure it does that?
15:26:12  <peter1138> yes
15:26:23  <Wolf01> Prove it!
15:26:28  <Wolf01> (XD)
15:27:18  <Samu> I'm staring at yapf_costrail.hpp now, must see where that happens
15:28:02  <peter1138> :575
15:28:35  <Samu> i was looking to :479
15:28:45  <peter1138> yes that sets the flag
15:30:19  <Samu> ah, the flag isn't being handled
15:30:30  <Samu> is that it? so it never stops searching
15:30:31  <peter1138> not quite that simple!
15:31:09  *** roidal has joined #openttd
15:31:59  <Wolf01> peter1138, speaking about more important things, it seem that the music volume was fixed too O_o
15:32:27  <peter1138> it was never touched
15:32:32  <peter1138> you made it up
15:32:43  <Wolf01> Then 1.6.1 was haunted
15:33:44  <Samu> what would happen if you put a break; on there? or a return false?
15:34:05  <Wolf01> Yes
15:34:55  <peter1138> certainly, it's easy to fix that
15:35:01  <peter1138> but it "breaks" other things that rely in it
15:35:05  <peter1138> like depot finding
15:35:34  <Samu> only for automatic servicing
15:35:40  <Samu> which is fine, isn't it? :(
15:37:49  <Samu> CheckIfTrainNeedsService is the only one that sets a max_penalty different than 0
15:38:12  <V453000> automate_
15:38:13  <V453000> ?
15:38:21  <Wolf01> Automate!
15:40:09  <Samu> :( there are many ways to find a depot, it's in the orders, you tell the train to go to depot, or the interval servicing
15:40:37  <Samu> go to nearest depot = penalty is 0
15:40:47  <Samu> you tell train to go to depot = penalty is 0
15:41:12  <Samu> interval servicing = penalty is whatever it is on the config file, 2000 for default
15:53:05  <Samu> I see this on juanjo patch +		return FindDepotData(n->GetLastTile(), n->m_cost, pNode->m_cost != 0);
15:53:35  <Samu> n->m_cost should be n->m_cost / 2 if it is to be equal to the original code
15:56:44  <peter1138> no
15:56:54  <peter1138> it should be penalty / 2 if it is to be equal
15:57:39  <peter1138> max_penalty / 2 sorry
15:58:10  <peter1138> but if the patch keeps the fake value
15:58:15  <peter1138> then there is no reason for it
15:58:39  <Samu> n->m_cost is to be compared against the max_penalty
15:58:54  <peter1138> no it's not
15:59:48  <Samu> max_penalty is a bad name, it's in fact, a cost
16:01:25  <Samu> Yapf().SetMaxCost(max_penalty);
16:01:45  <Samu> line 261 yapf_rail.cpp
16:02:57  <Alberth> variable names are one of the hardest things in programming
16:03:30  <Wolf01> penalty_max_cost then
16:04:01  <Samu> max_penalty_distance_cost
16:04:05  <Samu> kek
16:05:46  <Samu> line 3967 train_cmd.cpp 	if (tfdd.best_length == UINT_MAX || tfdd.best_length > max_penalty) {
16:06:08  <Samu> this max_penalty is the max_cost of the pathfinder halved /2
16:07:56  *** Gja has joined #openttd
16:08:30  <Samu> sends the penalty as 2000, yapf computes it, and anything up to 4000 will still fail the check 4000 / 2 > 2000
16:10:31  *** juzza1 has joined #openttd
16:23:30  *** JacobD88 has quit IRC
16:25:59  <Samu> just checked about line 575
16:26:19  <Samu> it's working, the flag is dealt with there, i'm getting a return false
16:27:04  <Samu> cost was over 2000, and it stopped searching
16:29:16  *** Montana has quit IRC
16:31:02  <Samu> hmm, 2000 / 2 = 1000
16:31:13  <Samu> over 2000, the pf doesn't find
16:31:41  <Samu> 1000 > 2000 is always false
16:32:04  <Samu> the cost is UINT_MAX in that case
16:32:14  <Samu> if it goes over 2000 in the pf
16:32:41  <Samu> so, in essence, juanjo is right
16:33:15  <Samu> n.m->cost is fine
16:33:35  <Samu> n.m->cost / 2 or n.m->cost would make no difference
16:35:46  <peter1138> you're still wrong, though
16:37:32  <peter1138> because it doesn't return n.m->cost / 2
16:37:48  <peter1138> it returns max_penalty / 2
16:41:51  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
16:41:55  <andythenorth> o/
16:42:00  <peter1138> hi
16:42:10  <andythenorth> Alberth: IH makefile mostly transplanted to FIRS in copy-paste
16:42:42  <Samu> n.m_cost = parent_cost + segment_entry_cost + segment_cost + extra_cost;
16:43:03  <Samu> if (m_max_cost > 0 && (parent_cost + segment_entry_cost + segment_cost) > m_max_cost)
16:43:22  <Samu> okay, so it's not counting with the extra_cost
16:44:43  <peter1138> you are funny
16:46:31  <Samu> so this is the bug you're referring to
16:47:27  <Samu> extra_cost not being accounted for
16:47:29  *** glx has joined #openttd
16:47:30  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v glx
16:47:35  <peter1138> no
16:48:30  <andythenorth> ach I made FIRS slower again
16:49:14  <andythenorth> all these checks for incompatible industry, lot of advanced varact2
16:49:15  <andythenorth> can’t OpenTTD check that crap for me? :|
16:52:02  <peter1138> what's an incompatible industry?
16:53:15  <andythenorth> I give an ID, and min. distance
16:53:29  <andythenorth> there’s a shit version built-in as a static property
16:53:35  <andythenorth> limited to 3 industries
16:53:53  <andythenorth> stops iron ore mine building right next to steel mill (for example)
16:57:04  <peter1138> so 2000 is... short
16:58:22  <andythenorth> o_O
16:58:36  <Samu> 2000 is about 20 tiles without slopes and other funny stuff like cuves, train speed and so
16:59:42  <Samu> oh wait, extra_cost isn't being accounted, ignore train speed
16:59:50  <Alberth> andythenorth:  nice :)
17:00:33  *** WegeClausen has joined #openttd
17:00:58  <WegeClausen> Hi Question is there a feather list where i can see the town needs
17:01:02  <WegeClausen> as a list
17:01:30  <WegeClausen> at selection gifts
17:02:04  <Samu> lol, the rail crossing penalty is aplied on trains instead of road vehicles...
17:02:10  <WegeClausen> so select food  gives the list of townes that take food
17:02:11  <Samu> why so mean
17:02:30  <Samu> level crossing penalty
17:03:35  <Alberth> WegeClausen: no
17:03:41  <peter1138> so i'm seeing a penalty of 5300
17:03:46  <peter1138> on the tile just outside a depot
17:04:24  <Alberth> "town" doesn't need food, it's "enough houses" near each other
17:05:10  <peter1138> ok
17:05:21  <peter1138> pf.yapf.rail_depot_reverse_penalty is applied
17:05:26  <peter1138> even though it's not reversing
17:05:34  <peter1138> so there'a 5000 penalty just for going into a depot
17:05:38  <peter1138> no wonder 2000 doesn't work
17:05:45  <Alberth> :)
17:06:03  <Alberth> start digging and find more bugs? :)
17:06:12  <peter1138> :)
17:06:23  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
17:06:31  <peter1138> it is applying that penalty even though the depot is the target :)
17:07:05  <Samu> if that is true, how do trains still service?
17:07:14  <Samu> weird
17:07:31  <peter1138> Samu, as i said, it's due to this bug where max_penalty/2 is always used
17:08:02  <Samu> 5000/2 = 2500
17:10:07  <peter1138> Samu, max_penalty
17:10:08  <peter1138> not 5000
17:10:11  <peter1138> max_penalty
17:10:27  <peter1138> max_penalty/2 is always < max_penalty
17:11:24  <WegeClausen> Thanks
17:11:35  *** WegeClausen has left #openttd
17:12:09  <Samu> tfdd.best_length > max_penalty
17:12:27  <peter1138> Samu, best_length is max_penalty / 2 at that point
17:12:41  <Samu> ah right
17:13:21  <peter1138> well, i guess the simple solution is to just include the reverse cost into the max_penalty
17:14:09  <Samu> case VPF_YAPF: max_penalty = + something?
17:17:21  <peter1138> in fact i think it's probably the best way
17:17:45  <peter1138> else i fear that caching will get broken
17:18:03  *** orudge` has quit IRC
17:18:21  <peter1138> 238                 if (max_penalty != 0) pf1.DisableCache(true);
17:18:27  <peter1138> already disabled ahhg
17:18:28  <peter1138> hah
17:18:57  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
17:18:57  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
17:22:42  <Samu> rail_depot_reverse_penalty = 5000
17:23:49  <Samu> if (m_max_cost != 0) segment_cost += Yapf().PfGetSettings().rail_depot_reverse_penalty;
17:24:02  <Samu> erm, no
17:24:04  <Samu> == 0
17:27:33  *** Maraxus has joined #openttd
17:31:52  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
17:32:34  <Samu> 	inline bool PfDetectDestination(TileIndex tile, Trackdir td)
17:33:40  <Wolf01>
17:34:13  <peter1138> hahah
17:35:15  <Samu> how am i getting a Trackdir now lol
17:36:13  <Samu> ah,, lol
17:37:01  <Samu> if (!Yapf().PfDetectDestination(cur.tile, segment_cost += Yapf().PfGetSettings().rail_depot_reverse_penalty;
17:37:06  <Samu> let's see what happens
17:37:18  <peter1138>
17:40:06  <Samu> 		segment_cost	300	int
17:40:08  <Samu> success!
17:40:14  <Samu> 5000 was not added
17:41:46  <peter1138> alternatively just flag a depot as a depot when you reach the depot
17:41:51  <peter1138> instead of turning around
17:42:06  <peter1138> but i have not determined what other impact that would have yet
17:43:34  <Wolf01> What if you have to turn around at a depot to reach the nearest depot?
17:43:48  <peter1138> yeaaaaaaa
17:44:02  <Samu> it just re-enters it
17:44:05  <Samu> without exiting
17:44:15  <peter1138> Wolf01, where did we get this guy from
17:44:27  <Wolf01> Dunno :)
17:45:44  <DorpsGek> Commit by translators :: r27842 trunk/src/lang/spanish.txt (2017-04-03 19:45:36 +0200 )
17:45:45  <DorpsGek> -Update from Eints:
17:45:46  <DorpsGek> spanish: 9 changes by SilverSurferZzZ
17:45:56  <Wolf01> BTW, does it select the depot it wants to reach and then keeps it for the entire path or it's so smart to check for the nearest depot at every junction?
17:46:31  <peter1138> there's no memory as such
17:46:38  <peter1138> it just says "i need a depot pls"
17:46:46  <peter1138> and it's either too far, or there
17:49:10  <Wolf01> __ln__, is that you?
17:56:19  <peter1138> hmm i guess i need to test this in MP with desync debugging on
17:57:12  *** roidal has quit IRC
18:00:33  *** Stimrol has joined #openttd
18:04:10  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
18:04:19  <Samu> it works so far, i tried with an order to a depot, an order to search for closest depot, an order to a station
18:05:56  <Samu> when it's ordered to enter X depot, and it's not the one it's looking for, the cost is added
18:06:01  <Samu> 5000
18:06:30  <Samu> you have a Set Destination in this case
18:06:52  <Samu> tileindex doesn't match
18:07:15  *** HerzogDeXtEr has joined #openttd
18:07:50  <Samu> with an order to search for closest depot, it finds it and does not add 5000
18:08:17  *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
18:09:03  <Samu> with an order to a station, it adds 5000 if goes through some depot
18:09:17  <Samu> tileindex doesn't match with the destination
18:19:25  <frosch123> moin
18:19:58  <Samu> just tested one more case
18:20:59  <Samu> if it's ordered to go to a depot, but it must pass through another depot, the cost is added when going through the first depot, and not added when it reaches destination depot
18:21:06  <Samu> it works, everything werks!!
18:22:54  <Samu> i actually see ppl build stuff like this
18:23:21  <Samu> they remove the parallel track in front of depot, forcing train to enter the depot
18:25:53  *** Progman has joined #openttd
18:40:33  *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
18:40:33  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
18:47:25  *** tokai has quit IRC
19:04:54  *** Arveen2 is now known as Arveen453000
19:17:42  <peter1138> Hmm
19:18:11  <V453000> gg
19:18:16  <peter1138> ?
19:18:55  <peter1138> damn this bread roll is a bit stale
19:21:33  *** Stimrol has quit IRC
19:22:52  *** FR^2 has joined #openttd
19:25:09  <peter1138> Ship 20 is lost
19:25:10  <peter1138> thanks :p
19:26:26  <peter1138> I might just commit this and hope it's correct ;)
19:26:47  <peter1138> It works for me
19:27:49  <peter1138> Everything is getting serviced
19:27:59  <peter1138> Possibly even better than before.
19:28:59  *** orudge` has quit IRC
19:29:03  *** orudge` has joined #openttd
19:29:03  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge`
19:29:15  <peter1138> orudge why is your connection so shit these days :S
19:29:23  <peter1138> and also why are you never here :S
19:29:29  <peter1138> i always am :D
19:43:44  *** Alberth has left #openttd
20:01:03  <peter1138> aqueduct pillars are silly
20:01:24  *** Maraxus has quit IRC
20:01:28  *** HerzogDeXtEr has quit IRC
20:05:05  <Wolf01> Bridge pillars are silly
20:05:23  <Wolf01> I want true suspension bridges
20:23:07  <frosch123> there used to be a setting to disable drawing of pillars
20:23:12  <frosch123> not sure whether we removed it
20:23:58  <frosch123> was removed in 0.6
20:24:57  <peter1138> heh
20:25:51  *** mikegrb has quit IRC
20:26:52  <frosch123> did someone just test their own autokill?
20:29:11  <frosch123> oh, wait, it's a troll
20:29:24  <frosch123> i did not ready it precisely
20:29:28  <peter1138> ?
20:29:37  <frosch123> -y
20:29:40  <peter1138> ok
20:30:17  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
20:30:36  *** mikegrb has joined #openttd
20:31:14  <planetmaker> g'evening
20:31:28  <peter1138> the spambot's back!
20:31:39  <andythenorth> is it?
20:31:48  <frosch123> better do not mail support
20:32:57  <peter1138> Dare I commit potential pathfinder (yapf even) fixes... I mean, it "works" right?
20:33:29  <frosch123> the juanjo stuff?
20:33:35  <peter1138> No.
20:33:43  <SpComb> the unit tests pass, so it must work
20:33:49  <peter1138> Although I discovered issues after looking at those.
20:33:53  <peter1138> unit tests. lol
20:34:14  <peter1138> (actually there seems to have been unit tests for yapf at some point
20:34:15  <peter1138> )
20:34:19  <frosch123> we have some automated tests
20:34:44  <peter1138> ai tests
20:43:03  <peter1138> any for pathfinding? if so, where? Hhe
20:46:39  <frosch123> fs#5926 is a good one
20:47:42  <peter1138> errrr
20:49:25  <peter1138> that's not exactly a unit test...
20:49:32  <peter1138> and anyway they need grfs that aren't on bananas
20:49:49  <frosch123> wasn't it a coop game?
20:50:04  *** Pet0r has joined #openttd
20:50:10  <peter1138> ottdc_grfpack_town_buildings or something
20:50:42  <frosch123> <- so, that one
20:50:49  <Pet0r> hi - was hoping someone could help me understand why a certain signal layout doesn't work
20:51:41  *** gelignite has joined #openttd
20:51:47  <Pet0r> I have a split where one route is "direct" route to the station and another is a "queuing area" which goes to the same station but snakes a bit for trains to wait in, I have a path signal before the split, and exit signals after, this does split the trains to some extent, but even when the exit signal in the shorter area is green, trains don't always take it
20:51:54  <Pet0r> instead they will go into the longer area
20:52:18  <Pet0r> but it doesn't always happen, I am not sure what the criteria is for why they pick the route they do
20:52:37  <frosch123> path signals and exit signals do not belong together
20:52:41  <peter1138> ^
20:52:45  <Pet0r> even with entry it's the same problem
20:52:58  <Pet0r> (entry placed where path is)
20:53:45  <frosch123> if you ar eusing path signals only, then enable the "show reserved paths" option in the settings
20:55:19  <Pet0r> I could use a single path, how does it do its decision making?
20:55:24  <Pet0r> is it up to the next block signal or what?
20:55:31  <Pet0r> or is it to the next instruction?
20:56:50  <frosch123> <- check that
20:57:39  <Pet0r> I did enable show reserved paths and I can see it reserving the less efficient path but not why
20:58:03  <frosch123> <- maybe that one is better
20:59:09  <Pet0r> ok so maybe path + block might work, I will try
20:59:22  <peter1138> Just path, generally, works well.
20:59:48  <peter1138> Block is only needed if you doing strange things with entry/combo/exit signals.
21:01:33  <Pet0r> ok I am sure this looks horrible to you guys but here it is
21:01:40  <Pet0r> there's a one way back signal at the start beofre the split
21:01:41  <Pet0r>
21:01:52  <Pet0r> you can see there the train coming from the left has chosen and reserved the long route
21:01:55  <Pet0r> but I just don't understand why
21:03:02  <Pet0r> all trains are heading to that station on the right
21:03:11  *** mikegrb has quit IRC
21:03:52  <Pet0r> but sometimes they do pick that lower route, I don't understand it
21:05:17  <peter1138> jeez zbase is ... er... unpleasant.
21:05:28  <Pet0r> it's abase :D
21:08:17  *** gnu_jj has quit IRC
21:08:21  *** frosch123 has quit IRC
21:08:25  *** Biolunar has joined #openttd
21:08:31  <Wolf01> look, andythenorth's kids for sure
21:08:43  *** gnu_jj has joined #openttd
21:09:26  <andythenorth> :P
21:09:28  <andythenorth> also bedtime
21:09:33  *** andythenorth has left #openttd
21:09:38  <Pet0r> the only thing I can think of is the train prefers the route it took last time or something? and only changes if forced to?
21:09:39  <Pet0r> I don't know
21:11:32  *** gnu_jj has quit IRC
21:12:18  <Wolf01> <Pet0r> <- it doesn't work :(
21:14:14  <Pet0r> oh really? it's just a PNG
21:14:20  <Pet0r> I'll put it on imgur
21:14:28  <Wolf01> "There was an error. Please try again later. That’s all we know."
21:14:33  <peter1138> worked for me
21:14:41  <peter1138> but the graphics are nasty
21:14:44  <Pet0r>
21:14:50  <peter1138> misaligned sprites :(
21:15:42  <Wolf01> Ok, so trains always go via "big snek"?
21:16:17  <Pet0r> not my naming, it's a multiplayer game :) but yes
21:16:19  <Pet0r> sometimes they do
21:16:22  <Pet0r> sometimes they don't
21:16:35  <Pet0r> my confusion is that they go that way sometimes when there's absolutely nothing at the bottom
21:16:47  <Wolf01> What I've learnt so far is that if you have a split you shouldn't use PBS, it's really useless
21:17:22  <Pet0r> thing is it didn't work for entry/exit either I think, it had the same problem
21:17:38  <Wolf01> PBS is when you have multiple inputs and multiple outputs in the same block which need to work at the same time
21:17:47  <Pet0r> I'll put exit right after the split at the bottom, and an exit a bit further into snek
21:17:55  <Pet0r> and entry before split, and see what happens
21:19:24  <Wolf01> I bet the depot there causes confusion
21:20:03  <Wolf01> Put it where is the one way pbs signal
21:20:06  <Pet0r> why would they choose to go away from it though?
21:20:48  <Wolf01> Maybe a train needs to go to the depot then goes straight
21:21:04  *** Guest198 has quit IRC
21:21:12  <Pet0r> hmm what do you mean? the depot is in the short route
21:21:18  <Pet0r> so surely the preference would always make it go there
21:21:36  <Pet0r>
21:21:39  <Pet0r> here it is with entry and exit
21:21:49  <Pet0r> the train near the "ITS ALIVE" sign went top
21:21:56  <Pet0r> when the direct bottom route is free
21:21:59  <Pet0r> I will delete the depot though
21:22:58  *** btfo has joined #openttd
21:23:12  <Wolf01> I don't remember if there is a penalty set for red signals after a green signal
21:23:46  <Pet0r>
21:23:49  <Pet0r> 2 trains in a row did it there
21:23:54  <Pet0r> the one coming in from the left also went top route
21:23:55  <Wolf01> It might cause the "big snek" route to be preferred as it have more green signals
21:24:02  <Pet0r> hmm
21:24:03  <Pet0r> ah
21:24:26  *** gnu_jj has joined #openttd
21:24:45  <Pet0r> but still some go the bottom route anyway (even when nothing is in the top route)
21:25:05  <peter1138> Wolf01, path signals are totally the opposite of useless for splits.
21:25:17  *** nekomaster has joined #openttd
21:25:34  <nekomaster> Hmm
21:25:57  <Pet0r> and here's a train doing just that -
21:26:03  <Pet0r> taking the better route with nothing in the top one
21:26:06  <peter1138> vs
21:26:14  <peter1138> ^ small difference, but certainly not useless
21:26:14  <Pet0r> it literally seems like they just flip a coin when they get to the entry signal
21:26:19  <Pet0r> rather than calculating the best route
21:26:46  <Pet0r> (and maybe that's true but it's not what I thought)
21:26:50  <peter1138> no, it's calculated the longer route as the best route
21:26:57  <peter1138> (it may be cheaper, penalty-wise)
21:27:00  *** nekomaster has left #openttd
21:27:08  <Pet0r> ok, let me remove all but 1 block signal from the longer route then
21:27:17  <Pet0r> so there will be just 1 exit signal and 1 block signal in each route
21:27:23  <Wolf01> peter1138, that's micromanaging milliseconds and pixels, you don't even notice if the next train can enter the block when the first one just left the main track or passed the block signal 5 pixel away
21:27:41  <peter1138> Wolf01, it's not micromanaging if, like me, you always use path signals everywhere
21:27:41  <Wolf01> Unless you don't play with logic trains
21:28:13  <Pet0r> same problem even with those changes
21:28:14  <Pet0r> hmm
21:28:59  <Pet0r> oh wait, missed a block signal behind a tree, checking again
21:30:09  <Pet0r> that might have actually been it
21:30:11  <Pet0r> number of green signals
21:30:18  <Pet0r> still watching but none have taken the longer route
21:30:25  <Wolf01> If it was for me I would have used 6 parallel waiting tracks there with 2 entry points where I would have put the only 2 PBS :P
21:32:00  <peter1138> Yeah, by default there's a _negative_ penalty for some signals.
21:32:06  <peter1138> Which could certainly cause it.
21:32:30  <Pet0r> so trains seem to pretty consistently take the lower route when there's just a single block signal and the exit signal on each route
21:32:44  <Pet0r> it's still confusing though because some trains still took the lower route even with the previous setup
21:33:09  <peter1138> Well if the loop was full of trains when it had to chose, there'd be less green signals.
21:33:14  <peter1138> *choose
21:33:46  <Pet0r> when both routes were entirely free of trains up to the right side, it seemed it was a 50/50 chance which route they would take
21:33:59  <Pet0r> it wasn't a case of taking the shorter route when a train was in the longer one
21:35:01  <Wolf01> I bet if you put a block signal for each tile of the short router, all the trains would use only that one
21:35:12  <Wolf01> *route
21:35:14  <Pet0r> I kind of just did that, I put like 6 block signals on that
21:35:21  <Pet0r> and only 4 in total on the big snek route
21:35:26  <Pet0r> and now they are only using that bottom one
21:35:56  <Pet0r> so the "green signal weighting" makes sense to me - but what still doesn't fit with that is the fact that trains would seemingly randomly take the top or bottom route before
21:36:09  <Pet0r> if it was the same thing I'd expect them to be consistently taking the top route when it was empty
21:36:12  <Pet0r> but that was not the case
21:36:18  <Wolf01> You want to look at these penalties:
21:36:19  <Wolf01> yapf.rail_look_ahead_max_signals = 10
21:36:19  <Wolf01> yapf.rail_look_ahead_signal_p0 = 500
21:36:19  <Wolf01> yapf.rail_look_ahead_signal_p1 = -100
21:36:19  <Wolf01> yapf.rail_look_ahead_signal_p2 = 5
21:37:08  <DorpsGek> Commit by peter1138 :: r27843 trunk/src/pathfinder/yapf/yapf_costrail.hpp (2017-04-03 23:37:01 +0200 )
21:37:09  <DorpsGek> -Change: (Yapf) Consider depot as destination before reversing path and applying penalty.
21:37:15  <Pet0r> sorry what are p0/p1/p2?
21:37:25  <peter1138> magic :(
21:38:11  <Pet0r> peter1138: did you just commit something based on this discussion? :P
21:38:15  <peter1138> no
21:40:24  <Pet0r> well thanks guys, at least that has shed *some* light on it even if I still don't fully understand it
21:40:42  <peter1138> i think some of these penalties were guessed at the time it was made
21:40:47  <peter1138> and sort of work right most of the time
21:40:51  <peter1138> but sometimes... do odd things
21:41:05  <Pet0r> I can understand that, they can't account for every eventuality with a system like that
21:41:15  <peter1138> it's too flexible
21:41:17  <Pet0r> because there's always edge cases where it doesn't work
21:41:27  <Samu> nice fix :)
21:41:28  <peter1138> if even we changed them, they are stored in the savegame so it wouldn't affect anything old
21:41:41  <peter1138> Samu, we'll see
21:42:49  <Samu> oh, there's nothing about ship depots
21:43:16  <peter1138> Trains. Yeah.
21:43:35  <Samu> what about the max_penalty / 2?
21:44:32  <peter1138> " I don't know why everyone prefers separate patches "
21:44:39  <peter1138> Well, we do.
21:47:08  <Samu> what do you prefer?
21:47:21  <peter1138> separate obviously
21:47:38  *** gelignite has quit IRC
21:47:39  <peter1138> that's why 1 line commits instead of 1 commit with tons of unrelated changes
21:48:45  <Wolf01> BTW, p0/p1/p2 -> pen[i] = p0 + i * (p1 + i * p2); and I can't even find where pen is used...
21:49:11  <Samu> isn't that about signal costs?
21:49:26  <Wolf01> Oh it's a pointer to m_sig_look_ahead_costs
21:49:41  <peter1138> Yeah, it's a weird point construct
21:50:08  <peter1138> Samu, try reading more than just one or two lines at a time, it'll give you context.
21:51:17  <Samu> i'm unsure how am i gonna split my stuff
21:51:25  <Wolf01> Yapf code seem what I would write after a lesson on variables scope
21:52:05  <Samu> i made a bit of many things for opf that it's hard to separate
21:53:43  <Samu> it confuses me, my brains...
21:53:57  <DorpsGek> Commit by peter1138 :: r27844 /trunk/src/pathfinder/yapf (yapf_costrail.hpp yapf_type.hpp) (2017-04-03 23:53:51 +0200 )
21:53:58  <DorpsGek> -Change: (Yapf) Treat max cost exceeded separately from path too long condition, as destination should not be considered in the former case.
21:55:25  <Samu> further it if exceeded
21:55:31  <Samu> if it, typo there
21:56:08  <peter1138> haha
21:57:06  <Wolf01> Samu, why don't you just split changes for each pathfinder?
21:57:16  <Wolf01> One pathfinder, one patch
21:58:03  <Samu> but how would I link everything on ship_cmd.cpp?
21:58:23  <peter1138> what does that mean?
21:58:42  <Pet0r> alright thanks again
21:58:43  <Pet0r> goodnight
21:59:26  <Wolf01> Wow, yapf is really black magic
21:59:40  <Samu> +	case VPF_OPF: return OPFShipFindNearestDepot(v, max_penalty); +	case VPF_NPF: return NPFShipFindNearestDepot(v, max_penalty); +	case VPF_YAPF: return YapfShipFindNearestDepot(v, max_penalty);
21:59:52  <Wolf01> Let me try with excel
21:59:54  <Samu> this function wants all 3
22:00:00  *** Pet0r has quit IRC
22:00:07  <Samu> +static FindDepotData FindClosestReachableShipDepot(const Ship *v, int max_penalty)
22:01:28  <Samu> if I separate one pathfinder, one patch, i dunno what to write there
22:02:34  <DorpsGek> Commit by peter1138 :: r27845 trunk/src/pathfinder/yapf/yapf_rail.cpp (2017-04-04 00:02:28 +0200 )
22:02:35  <DorpsGek> -Change: (Yapf) Use FindDepotData struct to simplify depot finding code and remove need to return fake path distance. (juanjo)
22:02:39  *** Lejving_ is now known as Lejving
22:03:15  <peter1138> (Although actually the fake distance doesn't matter since the previous two commits)
22:04:49  <peter1138> Damn, forgot a FS reference for r27844. Oh well.
22:05:17  <peter1138> And the last one. Heh.
22:05:21  <peter1138> Maybe it's sleepy time.
22:06:50  *** Wormnest has quit IRC
22:07:28  *** gnu_jj has quit IRC
22:10:21  *** gnu_jj has joined #openttd
22:12:25  *** Progman has quit IRC
22:16:08  <Wolf01> I wish a way to set switches as double slip only when I want them to be :(
22:16:52  <peter1138> heh
22:16:59  <Wolf01> Yes, heh
22:17:21  <peter1138> Just use X & Y tracks only :D
22:17:28  <Wolf01> It would help *a lot* on some tracks configurations I use
22:23:33  *** Gja has quit IRC
22:28:34  <peter1138> stuff.diff
22:28:36  <peter1138> i wonder what that is
22:42:45  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
22:44:06  <Samu> uhmm peter1138, it already is a depot tile
22:44:09  *** Biolunar has quit IRC
22:44:45  <Samu> you fixed it different than me :(
22:46:06  <peter1138> ytes
22:46:08  <peter1138> -t
22:46:12  <Samu> if (cur.tile == prev.tile), this is always a depot
22:47:09  <peter1138> ytes
22:47:12  <peter1138> ...
22:47:13  <peter1138> -t
22:47:53  <Samu> i tested it like this: if (!Yapf().PfDetectDestination(cur.tile, segment_cost += Yapf().PfGetSettings().rail_depot_reverse_penalty;
22:48:00  <Samu> seemed to be doing fine
22:52:32  <Samu> what if the path routes through a depot?
22:55:02  <peter1138> what if, eh
22:55:22  <Wolf01> [D]<
22:55:34  <Samu> what if the destination is actually the depot?
22:55:42  <peter1138> what if, eh!
22:55:43  * Wolf01 ducks
22:55:48  <Samu> what :(
23:10:09  <peter1138> just when samu thinks he has cracked it
23:10:19  <peter1138> i do something different
23:10:30  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
23:11:27  <Samu> im trying to see if it differs
23:15:57  <Samu> mine -
23:18:30  * Wolf01 falls asleep
23:18:33  <Wolf01> 'night
23:18:35  <peter1138> night wolf
23:18:36  *** Wolf01 has quit IRC
23:20:49  <Samu> there is a difference
23:20:57  <Samu>
23:21:57  <Samu> mine picks C 8424 D 0 - c0(sc0, ts0, o0), yours doesn't
23:22:02  <Samu> why :(
23:23:04  <Samu> yours picks 8224, where do these 200 cost come from
23:23:52  <peter1138> segment_cost += Yapf().OneTileCost(cur.tile,;
23:23:55  <peter1138> ^
23:24:41  <peter1138> my change makes it pick the depot when it gets to it
23:25:02  <peter1138> before, it picked the depot only after it had reversed inside it and added penalties
23:37:33  *** bwn has quit IRC
23:38:45  *** bwn has joined #openttd
23:40:06  <Samu> @calc 200+471+5000
23:40:06  <DorpsGek> Samu: 5671
23:41:20  <Samu> i'm getting 5872
23:41:35  <Samu> erm,, you''re getting 5872
23:41:50  <Samu> seems that yours is adding an extra 200 wrongly
23:44:36  <Samu> wow, now mine is getting 5872 too, why u do this to me, openttd :(
23:44:52  <Samu> anyway, we're both wrong?
23:46:01  <Samu> wait, yours would be right, if it was 5671
23:46:23  <Samu> the 200 extra was on mine after all, not on yours
23:46:44  <Samu> but now you got 5872, i got 5872, hmm.... confusing
23:47:01  <peter1138> if that is a path *through* a depot, then they will be the same
23:47:57  <Samu> go to station 1, go to depot, go to station 2
23:48:12  <Samu> then from 2 go to 1, but it's forced to enter depot
23:48:27  <Samu> 1 to depot = 200
23:48:36  <Samu> depot to 2 = 471
23:48:43  <Samu> 2 to 1 = 5872
23:48:52  <Samu> shouldn't it be 5671?
23:50:13  <Samu> retesting yours again, brb
23:51:57  <Samu> 5872 :(
23:52:12  <peter1138> why would it be different?
23:52:29  <Samu> i think we're both wrong, unless I'm missing something obvious
23:52:49  <peter1138> what are you trying to prove?
23:53:15  <Samu> going from 1 to 2 costs 201, not 200, my bad
23:53:18  <Samu> oops
23:53:21  <Samu> 1 to depot costs 201
23:53:42  <Samu> the cost for reversing at the station is 1, then it walks 2 straigth tiles, 100 each
23:54:04  <Samu> the 2nd straigth tile is also the depot tile
23:54:09  <Samu> 5000 is not added
23:54:50  <Samu> from depot to 2, it gets 471
23:55:14  <Samu> is that 1 the cost for reversing in depot?
23:55:49  *** smoke_fumus has joined #openttd
23:56:26  <peter1138> implicit signal maybe?
23:56:29  <Samu> 1 reverse + 100 straigth + (70 horizontal + 100 curve) + 100 straigth
23:56:40  <peter1138> reversing in depot is 5000
23:57:11  <Samu> the order is from depot to 2, 5000 is supposed not to be added
23:57:21  <Samu> for that part it's doing fine
23:57:26  <peter1138> k
23:57:34  <Samu> now, from 2 to 1, it has to go through that depot
23:57:45  <Samu> it's doing the way back, and the depot is in the middle of it
23:59:03  <Samu> nevermind, I'm stoopid

Powered by YARRSTE version: svn-trunk