Log for #openttd on 15th July 2017:
Times are UTC Toggle Colours
00:20:39  *** smoke_fumus has quit IRC
00:53:49  *** HerzogDeXtEr1 has joined #openttd
00:59:03  *** HerzogDeXtEr has quit IRC
01:52:57  *** grossing has quit IRC
02:02:44  *** glx has quit IRC
02:30:36  *** Flygon has joined #openttd
02:33:12  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
02:59:53  *** grossing has joined #openttd
03:55:15  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
05:06:20  *** Cubey has quit IRC
05:22:28  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
05:31:07  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
05:36:47  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
06:20:06  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
06:36:12  *** Biolunar has joined #openttd
06:36:44  <andythenorth> o/
07:07:56  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
07:18:07  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
07:21:16  <Flygon> Uurrf. Every time, I forget to copy over OpenTTD to new Windows install.
07:21:21  <Flygon> and I lose all settings along with.
07:21:45  <Flygon> Maybe I should start setting OpenTTD to save shit to my desktop, not to My Documents. :V
07:22:16  <Flygon> ...can't afford the SATA > USB enclosure atm :VVV
07:26:06  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
07:39:43  *** gelignite has joined #openttd
07:49:14  *** synchris has joined #openttd
07:59:13  <Eddi|zuHause> open the pc case, plug in sata directly?
08:04:37  *** wyldesyde has joined #openttd
08:20:59  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
08:25:34  *** wyldesyde has quit IRC
08:54:00  *** gelignite has quit IRC
09:05:44  *** Wolf01 has joined #openttd
09:05:49  <Wolf01> Moin
09:20:28  *** debdog has quit IRC
09:21:23  *** debdog has joined #openttd
09:33:01  <Eddi|zuHause> GRÜẞE
09:33:19  <Eddi|zuHause> (does that look as weird to you as it does to me?)
09:34:20  <Flygon> Eddi: It's possible, but somewhat awkward.
09:34:33  <Flygon> Because you have two boot drives fighting to be the master Hard Drive.
09:34:53  <Flygon> And the one that's currently removed is actually failing.
09:34:59  <Flygon> Stalled read/writes for 30 seconds at a time ect
09:35:01  <Wolf01> Looks like a Sith fight
09:35:16  <Eddi|zuHause> Flygon: just boot linux, it should deal with that fine
09:38:14  <Flygon> Eddi: From a CD?
09:38:29  <Flygon> It's deal withable either way. It's just... kinda problematic.
09:38:40  <Flygon> And I need to get a 3.5in SATA enclosure somepoint anyway.
09:44:10  <Eddi|zuHause> "in the last year, german police shot at 52 humans, wounding 28 and killing 11, which is a slight increase over the previous years"
09:48:33  <Wolf01> Those are rookie numbers compared to our democracy overlords
10:00:42  *** Cubey has joined #openttd
10:07:43  *** Progman has joined #openttd
10:19:27  <Eddi|zuHause> yeah, about a factor of 20 (scaled for population)
10:20:04  <Eddi|zuHause> (maybe scaled for amount of policemen might be an interesting statistics)
10:20:18  <Eddi|zuHause> (or policewomen)
10:25:47  <Rubidium> or amount of prisoners
10:31:20  *** mescalito has joined #openttd
10:31:48  <Wolf01> >_>
10:32:59  <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: after that weird "straddle bus" thingie, it wouldn't surprise me if some chinese startup actually tried to build this
10:33:06  <Wolf01> :D
10:33:18  <Wolf01> The bus might have worked
10:34:01  <Eddi|zuHause> afaik they built a prototype in some "minor" chinese city (where "minor" means "less than 2 million inhabitants")
10:34:22  <Eddi|zuHause> and then the bosses left with all the investment money, leaving the prototype there clogging the road
10:36:02  <__ln__> that's modern day communism
10:36:34  <Eddi|zuHause> do they still call it communism?
10:38:04  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
10:38:14  *** Hiddenfunstuff has joined #openttd
10:38:36  <Wolf01> o/
10:41:01  <andythenorth> hi
10:42:00  *** Cubey has quit IRC
10:45:00  *** Gja has joined #openttd
10:56:46  <andythenorth> Wolf01: so how would combined catenary work?
10:56:49  <andythenorth> I can’t figure it out
11:02:53  <Wolf01> When different types of roadbits merge or when they are built together?
11:09:00  <andythenorth> either
11:09:15  <andythenorth> I guess the question is, how is the vehicle powered?
11:11:05  <Wolf01> The main problem might happen only when you have just 2 catenaries as you can't tell visually which one is present, if you have a third rail you should be able to see it there or missing
11:12:09  <Wolf01> But is the same problem that we already have
11:12:16  <planetmaker> andythenorth, I can't imagine how two concurrent catenaries would work at all
11:12:29  <Wolf01> ^ that's a point too
11:12:29  <planetmaker> neither ingame nor in real-life
11:12:49  <andythenorth> wait for Eddi to post his photos :)
11:13:16  <andythenorth> I’m not proposing two catenaries :)
11:13:25  <andythenorth> I just don’t understand how one can function, at the spec level
11:13:37  <andythenorth> it means building tram changes the label of the road
11:13:50  <andythenorth> it’s at least deterministic I guess, but it’s fricking weird
11:15:12  <andythenorth> hmm
11:15:22  <andythenorth> unless the approach changes more fundamentally
11:15:37  <andythenorth> ach
11:15:42  <Wolf01> If we move the electrification to a bitmask, then we should decide if the catenary powers both types at the same time or they must be set indipendently
11:15:46  * andythenorth thinks it’s all futile :D
11:15:59  <andythenorth> we’re boxed in by railtypes
11:16:09  <Wolf01> Yeah
11:16:40  <andythenorth> so once again, NRT goes back on the ‘not possible’ pile :)
11:16:54  <andythenorth> that’s what, the 4th failed attempt? o_O
11:16:54  <Wolf01> Nah
11:17:15  <Wolf01> Just don't fall in the trap "keep the same behavior of.."
11:17:34  <andythenorth> as per railtypes?
11:17:39  <Wolf01> Yes
11:17:47  <andythenorth> I can’t see it being acceptable for NRT to work differently to railtypes
11:18:15  <andythenorth> it’s already nearly impossible to understand railtypes
11:18:52  <Wolf01> That's because the whole powered thing is chinese, imho
11:19:04  <andythenorth> I don’t understand it
11:19:18  <andythenorth> but that’s a sign of it being clever no?
11:20:14  <Wolf01> It would be better if the powered thing is "I need a 1.5kv catenary to work" in a vehicle, and query the tile
11:21:05  <Wolf01> Instead of "hey, I have a catenary, vehicles of type x, y, and z can run on me"
11:22:35  <andythenorth> that’s not how railtypes do it afaik
11:22:43  <andythenorth> it’s via the label
11:23:05  <andythenorth> catenary is arbitrary eye candy, no? o_O
11:23:37  <Wolf01> You can have microwave powered vehicles, which is eletrification too, but invisible
11:23:51  <Wolf01> It's not the graphic which powers a vehicle
11:24:30  <Rubidium> andythenorth: definitely, see this Diesel driven train:
11:24:59  <andythenorth> Rubidium: why is it thermal cutting the rails at the front? o_O
11:25:10  <Wolf01> Removing ice?
11:25:21  <Eddi|zuHause> it's probably a construction/maintenance vehicle
11:25:26  <andythenorth> checking for mice
11:25:39  <Rubidium> it's light for a lightscan camera
11:25:51  <andythenorth> Wolf01: also your blue tow truck has now got reviews on EB
11:25:53  <Rubidium> that make 1 mm slices at 120+ km/h
11:25:54  <andythenorth> your name is on the door
11:26:00  <Eddi|zuHause> like measuring rail alignment
11:26:03  <Wolf01> :D
11:26:54  <Rubidium> so it has a very short shutter time which means you need loads of light
11:27:30  <andythenorth> how about “roads can’t have catenary” Wolf01 ?
11:27:36  <andythenorth> that solves the problem completely
11:27:42  <Rubidium> pad met de Eurailscout UFM 120/album/medium/0003.jpg <- better angle for the catenary being eye candy
11:27:58  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: depends on your definition of "the problem" :p
11:28:27  <Wolf01> <andythenorth> how about “roads can’t have catenary” Wolf01 ? <- do you want to anger supermop?
11:28:36  <andythenorth> all newgrfs die
11:30:00  <Wolf01> It isn't a problem, we could make it print all the electrifications on a tile, and just leave the hassle to grf designers
11:30:09  <Rubidium> andythenorth: interesting fact is that the first versions of that line scan system could not be stationary with the lights on for a long time or it would start igniting dried grass
11:30:17  <andythenorth> oops
11:30:24  <andythenorth> what does it do to the mice?
11:30:42  <Rubidium> but newer systems use more efficient lights
11:31:45  <Rubidium> mice probably have no problem, except when the train is stationary but then they start getting hot and arguably attempt to find a cooler place themselves
11:31:50  <andythenorth> Wolf01: that seems to mean abandoning labels?
11:31:58  *** grossing has quit IRC
11:32:14  *** grossing has joined #openttd
11:33:08  <Wolf01> Yes, but not entirely, we'll keep them for the pavement/track
11:33:20  <Wolf01> Just drop electrification and speed limit
11:34:04  <Wolf01> And that should be done for rail too, maybe with backward compatibility
11:34:29  * andythenorth can’t understand it :)
11:34:44  <andythenorth> how is compatibility determined except via the label?
11:34:51  * andythenorth misses something
11:34:56  <andythenorth> maybe we need a pastebin spec
11:35:49  <Wolf01> As I said before, I see it as the vehicle which should look for the features of the tile where it wants to travel
11:36:02  <andythenorth> so we’d have labels for catenary?
11:36:06  <andythenorth> separately?
11:36:11  <Wolf01> Sort of
11:36:23  <Wolf01> An extensible system would be cool
11:37:06  <Wolf01> Also should be easier to check if an electrification mean is present in the game and throw a warning if not
11:38:52  <andythenorth> how does it solve the confusion problem when two types of catenary are needed on the tile?
11:39:09  <andythenorth> if bus is 1500v DC and tram is 25kv AC for example?
11:39:20  <andythenorth> routing is still broken
11:39:37  <andythenorth> player sees catenary, but either bus or tram don’t drive
11:39:40  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
11:39:40  <Wolf01> 1. just allow one: "place trolleybus catenary | place tram catenary", not both; 2. print both graphics and place both.
11:39:42  <Eddi|zuHause> you mean extensible system like ?
11:40:22  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: that doesn’t contain upgrade rules, unless I missed them?
11:40:32  <Wolf01> No, I mean you can add electrification types as objects via newgrf
11:40:45  <andythenorth> if I build ‘tram with 25kv AC’, the tile has to know how to upgrade the road to that
11:40:56  <Wolf01> And use them indipendently from the base road
11:41:12  <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: well, you can have that, if you completely abandon the concept of "store this information within X bits of an array"
11:41:30  <Wolf01> The base road should only tell if you can build catenary, third rail or whatever on it
11:42:03  <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: which means both storage space and access time of a tile will skyrocket
11:42:28  <Wolf01> Like maglev doesn't allow to build catenary on it, for example, but a DIRT road might allow 15kv to power mining trucks
11:44:33  <Wolf01> It might be, it needs to be designed very well
11:48:51  <andythenorth> what’s the benefit of splitting off catenary?
11:49:12  <Wolf01> Removing half of road/railtypes
11:49:20  <Eddi|zuHause> exporting the combinatorial explosion to make it someone else's problem
11:49:24  <andythenorth> hmm
11:49:31  <Wolf01> Also like Eddi said
11:49:38  <andythenorth> it’s ‘moved’ rather than ‘removed’ no?
11:49:52  <andythenorth> the information is the same, the complexity is higher? o_O
11:50:04  <Wolf01> TBH, it's already a combinatorial explosion, just limited to 16 types
11:50:15  * andythenorth wishes OpenTTD was just a game
11:50:21  <andythenorth> and not some half-assed simulator
11:51:18  *** Gja has quit IRC
11:52:02  <Wolf01> You grf devlolopers started that :D
11:52:19  <Wolf01> (and we also asked for that)
11:52:49  <Rubidium> is 25kV actually safe in tram lines?
11:54:28  <Eddi|zuHause> probably not
11:54:35  <Eddi|zuHause> most trams run 600V-ish
11:55:14  <Eddi|zuHause> easier to keep a safe distance
11:55:20  <Rubidium> so, effectively all are 1kV DC (+- 0.5 kV)
11:55:57  <Eddi|zuHause> it's probably rare to see trams >1kV
11:56:41  <andythenorth> ach
11:56:55  * andythenorth wondered if vehicles could check for tram label to determine powered
11:57:00  <andythenorth> but that’s not how it works
11:57:21  <andythenorth> how about the roadtype checks the tramtype?
11:57:25  <Wolf01> Nope, they check on their own label and it's compatibility list
11:57:37  <andythenorth> yeah, the roadtype should check the tramtype
11:57:40  <andythenorth> that’s the solution
11:57:46  <Wolf01> Not entirely sure
11:58:16  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: so if you build unelectrified tram on a trolleybus road, electrified trams should go there?
11:58:27  <Wolf01> ^
11:59:01  <Eddi|zuHause> that does not sound like The Right Thing (tm)
11:59:19  <Wolf01> Also tram and road types are in separate lists
11:59:26  <Wolf01> And can have same labels
12:00:56  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: no the tram wouldn’t be electrified
12:01:09  <andythenorth> we should ban overlapping labels
12:01:10  <andythenorth> unless
12:01:12  <andythenorth> ha
12:01:17  <andythenorth> maybe the labels have to match? o_O
12:01:24  <andythenorth> for road and tram?
12:01:26  <Eddi|zuHause> ??
12:01:32  <andythenorth> you can only build tram over road with same label
12:01:35  <Eddi|zuHause> ???
12:02:03  <Eddi|zuHause> so to build tram on a cobblestone road, you need to have a cobblestone tram?
12:02:08  <Wolf01> XD
12:02:18  <Wolf01> Stonerail
12:04:55  <andythenorth> yes
12:05:10  <andythenorth> then the catenary will match
12:05:46  <andythenorth> ach, we should merge tram and road
12:05:56  <andythenorth> and just make them boolean toggles in the construction UI
12:06:04  <andythenorth> single bit
12:08:13  <Eddi|zuHause> i have an idea
12:08:46  <Eddi|zuHause> reduce the whole problem to one single bit. so bit=0 means "road" and bit=1 means "tram"
12:09:00  <Eddi|zuHause> remove all the crap about electrification, and types
12:10:02  <Wolf01> One bit for type, if electrification matches then it's set for both (and road graphics take precedence, like now), if there are catenary and third rail, you must set them indipendently
12:10:02  *** Gja has joined #openttd
12:10:23  *** smoke_fumus has joined #openttd
12:10:50  <Wolf01> The grf has the electrification as type: overhead, rail, whatever
12:10:57  <Wolf01> And you check that
12:10:58  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: does that simplify to 1 type per tile?
12:11:38  <Eddi|zuHause> sure. that's even simpler than the current implementation :p
12:11:46  <Wolf01> Just like rails
12:11:57  <Wolf01> But then I want diagonal roads too
12:12:12  <andythenorth> Wolf01: I still don’t understand in your proposal how the vehicle knows if it’s powered? :)
12:12:57  <Wolf01> By checking if the type's electrification bit is set?
12:13:12  <andythenorth> but that assumes ‘powered == electrified'
12:13:19  <andythenorth> but that doesn’t hold :(
12:14:06  <Wolf01> No, you can still run diesel trucks on road, but for trolleybuses you need to check if it's paved road AND the electrification bit
12:14:59  <planetmaker> probably OpenTTD's approach to 'powered' is a bit too complicated, trying to be maximum flexible
12:15:01  <Wolf01> Ok, maybe any kind of road !OFFR/DIRT
12:15:36  <andythenorth> it’s remarkably complex eh?
12:15:47  <andythenorth> planetmaker: in NRT, there is no concept of ‘powered’ currently ;)
12:16:11  <Wolf01> There's only the concept of powered
12:16:14  <planetmaker> can you frame me in how the current implementation handles it?
12:16:22  <Eddi|zuHause> you don't need "powered"/"compatible" distinction if you don't have wagons
12:16:29  <Wolf01> There isn't the concept of compatible which is for wagons
12:19:38  <andythenorth>
12:19:48  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
12:19:51  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: so what you actually mean there is no concept of "compatible", so you renamed "powered" to "compatible"
12:20:18  <Wolf01> Yes, because it was the coolest thing to do
12:21:03  <andythenorth> yes
12:21:04  <planetmaker> ty
12:21:34  <andythenorth> I had my properties switched :P
12:25:49  *** grossing has quit IRC
12:27:11  <Wolf01> After this long talk, I'm sure we have done the best work without breaking all the things, it should just need some more fixes
12:27:27  *** grossing has joined #openttd
12:31:34  <andythenorth> I wonder if the ‘my trolleybuses are stuck’ issue really matters
12:32:15  <andythenorth> given a clean sheet, I would have done this:
12:32:24  <andythenorth> - labels are not unique per roadtype
12:32:35  <andythenorth> - vehicles determine compatibility, not roadtypes
12:33:16  <andythenorth> - maintaining vehicle newgrfs to handle new roadtype labels is not treated as the Worst Thing Ever
12:34:26  <andythenorth> this means, e.g. a whole range of road surfaces could be provided, all with ‘ROAD’
12:35:19  <andythenorth> it also means that transitive roadtype compatibility is handled per vehicle, which is more interesting
12:35:48  <andythenorth> it also means that trolleybus could be upgraded over town roads without changing the label
12:36:39  <andythenorth> - catenary would be a bool, on the tile, available for both tram and road
12:37:00  <andythenorth> - vehicles would have a ‘requires catenary’ flag, and this would be separate from the road surface / tram rails
12:37:01  <Wolf01> And you can change the surface without changing the compatibility (power), just not change the ROAD to HWAY or HAUL
12:37:33  <andythenorth> - ‘electrified’ is treated as a single property at TTD scale, and no finer resolution of voltage etc is provided
12:37:49  <andythenorth> nor are any hacks for overhead monorail or any other crap supported via catenary
12:38:33  <andythenorth> - ‘types’ using, e.g. ROAD label, might provide catenary automatically on construction, XOR, we might make it a button on the construction toolbar
12:39:04  <andythenorth> - we diverge from railtypes spec, which is, imho, baffling anyway
12:39:20  <Wolf01> I must leave for a bit, I'll read it later
12:39:20  <andythenorth> but that’s all just theory and hot air :I
12:39:28  * andythenorth also
12:49:39  *** Gja has quit IRC
12:55:58  <andythenorth> hmm
12:56:11  <andythenorth> I should delete combinatorial processing in FIRS?
12:56:24  <andythenorth> it’s inconsistently used at secondary industries
12:56:26  <andythenorth> ‘illogical'
12:59:44  <planetmaker> andythenorth, but the handling sounds logical what you just sketched here
13:04:04  <andythenorth> it’s taking something frosch proposed and inverting it
13:04:36  <andythenorth>
13:13:48  *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
13:15:24  <andythenorth> quak
13:19:38  <frosch123> hoi
13:20:07  <frosch123> andythenorth: moving compatibility to road vehicles makes the convert-roadtype-type near impossible
13:20:14  <frosch123> *tool
13:20:32  <andythenorth> ok
13:21:03  <Eddi|zuHause> also, wouldn't that require the vehicle set author to know every possible roadtype out there?
13:21:17  <frosch123> road type classes :p
13:21:48  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: isn’t that the same for railtype authors currently?
13:22:13  <andythenorth> it requires letting go of the idea that vehicle newgrfs aren’t maintainable
13:22:44  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: uhm, some portion of that was intended to be solved with the universal railtype scheme
13:23:05  <andythenorth> how’s it going? :)
13:23:15  <Eddi|zuHause> i'd say it was a success
13:23:32  <Eddi|zuHause> but i haven't really checked development in the past ~4 years
13:24:25  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: it allowed for some interchangability between vehicle and track sets
13:29:14  <andythenorth> ‘PACK’ for packaging cargo? o_O
13:30:15  <Eddi|zuHause> why not keep the old label?
13:30:27  <Eddi|zuHause> you're not changing functionality
13:30:38  <Eddi|zuHause> why risk breaking stuff?
13:31:27  <andythenorth> I might keep the label
13:31:33  <andythenorth> it’s an abuse of it mind
13:32:08  <andythenorth> but it’s probably not significant
13:32:13  <andythenorth> and it doesn’t break vehicle sets
13:32:28  <Eddi|zuHause> you could make a poll
13:32:50  <Eddi|zuHause> but beware that the result might be "boaty mcboatface"
13:36:26  <andythenorth> that’s ok
13:37:33  <Eddi|zuHause> also, the target audience of the poll should be vehicle set authors, because the label is your interface with them
13:38:21  <andythenorth> hopefully I can just delete the cargo in FIRS v4
13:38:27  <andythenorth> solving the problem :P
13:39:01  <Eddi|zuHause> 4? are you using exponential versions? or have i missed 3?
13:40:09  <andythenorth> I am working on 3
13:40:18  <andythenorth> although ^2 is not a bad version number system
13:40:21  <andythenorth> like 2048 :P
13:40:59  <Eddi|zuHause> i was trying to forget that...
13:45:43  <andythenorth> frosch123:
13:45:51  <andythenorth> charts for basic economies are pretty good
13:46:03  <andythenorth> wondering whether to exclude passengers from charts
13:46:30  <andythenorth> there is a banned_cargos list, which includes pax, but can’t figure out what I intended with it
14:04:09  *** Lejving_ has joined #openttd
14:10:43  *** Lejving has quit IRC
14:29:30  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
14:34:06  <Eddi|zuHause> so... peacock, flamingo or phoenix?
14:34:58  *** Gja has joined #openttd
14:36:11  <andythenorth> flamingo
14:36:54  <Eddi|zuHause> i was leaning towards peacock, actually
14:37:18  <Flygon> Guys.
14:37:19  <Flygon> Emu.
14:37:22  <Flygon> Go for Emu.
14:37:26  <Flygon> We once had a war against the Emus.
14:37:32  <Flygon> They totally deserve shit named after them.
14:38:14  <Eddi|zuHause> you people are weird...
14:38:27  <Flygon> No we're not.
14:38:27  <Flygon> :V
14:38:40  <Flygon> We just, somehow, lost a war to flightless birds.
14:39:20  <Eddi|zuHause> was that before or after the war against the rabbits that you brought in for "fun", and then they multiplied?
14:39:25  <andythenorth> maybe FIRS 3 is ‘the difficult third album’
14:39:30  <andythenorth> somehow it’s a bit of a turkey
14:39:51  <Flygon> We're still officially at war with the Rabbits.
14:39:55  <Flygon> And Foxes, incidentally.
14:40:02  <Flygon> And Cane Toads.
14:40:16  <Flygon> There's a reason it's legal to play "Cane Toad Golf".
14:40:22  <Flygon> It's exactly what it sounds like.
14:42:11  * andythenorth considers a QLD economy
14:42:37  <Flygon> I want a VIC economy.
14:42:45  <Flygon> Where you transport Vegemite and Victorian Bitter.
14:43:29  <andythenorth> this is a disgrace
14:43:39  <andythenorth> how was that ever a good idea?
14:43:41  <frosch123> don't look at it :p
14:43:57  <frosch123> andythenorth: it's for a different kind of player
14:44:12  <frosch123> i don't think extreme players look at the whole picture
14:45:04  <frosch123> i think they explore localy what stuff is avaialble for transport and are happy to find something different every time
14:45:09  <frosch123> like busy bee
14:45:18  <andythenorth> ah ok
14:45:32  <andythenorth> maybe I should censor the cargoflow chart
14:45:41  <andythenorth> remember ‘fog of war’ in Warcraft 1? o_O
14:45:53  <frosch123> no, it clearly tells people who care about graphs to not play that economy :)
14:45:54  <Flygon> So, basically. The busy bee players just naturally evolve an economy that becomes interlinked without outright planning it?
14:46:00  <Flygon> (Kinda like a real economy)
14:46:28  <andythenorth> pretty much
14:46:37  <frosch123> yes, i think some players look at the chart and plan what to produce/transport when
14:46:50  <frosch123> others just take stuff as they come
14:47:47  <frosch123> i used to play in a way, where i would first serve all forests on the whole map, before starting with the next cargo :)
14:48:14  <frosch123> like, one graph link at a time, until 100% complete, then the next link
14:48:57  <frosch123> but with firs supplies i have to play differently
14:49:13  <frosch123> first set up a supply chain, to make things stable
14:49:36  <Flygon> I tend to just go for what makes money.
14:49:39  <Flygon> Then makes more money.
14:49:48  <Flygon> Then I try to make sure the freight trunklines work well.
14:49:51  <Flygon> Then I make more connections.
14:49:56  <Flygon> And suddenly there's chains going on.
14:50:50  <frosch123> andythenorth: you should exclude the industries without graphics from the top panel :p
14:51:02  <andythenorth> or draw the graphics :P
14:51:34  <andythenorth> anyway, after some shenanigans
14:51:44  <andythenorth> I can now describe Supplies as a unique FIRS feature
14:52:07  <andythenorth> without introducing confusion about Manufacturing Supplies, which are gone L:P
14:52:21  <andythenorth> so maybe I can write the Get Started page better
14:52:42  <andythenorth> so in plain words, what do Supplies do? o_O
14:55:45  <supermop_> go on trucks
14:55:57  <supermop_> everything else goes on trains
14:56:00  <andythenorth> ‘Deliver supplies to boost production at mines and farms’
14:56:05  <andythenorth> “Control production'
14:56:06  <andythenorth> bah
14:56:08  <andythenorth> dunno
14:57:11  <frosch123> production directly responds to players supplying industries
14:57:24  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
14:57:27  <frosch123> production stays constants over time when constantly supplied
14:57:44  <frosch123> production depends on cargo delivered, not on cargo taken
14:57:56  <andythenorth> “Better production”
14:58:07  <andythenorth> “Production is more fun"
14:58:10  <frosch123> that's trademarked by sirkoz
14:58:18  <andythenorth> :)
14:58:24  <andythenorth> what would V453000 say?
14:58:28  <andythenorth> probably swearing
14:58:29  <frosch123> more slugs
14:59:26  <andythenorth> “FIRS: 100% Slug Free"
14:59:48  <frosch123> challenge: find the slug
15:00:16  <andythenorth> easter slug
15:00:37  * andythenorth bbl
15:00:46  <andythenorth> maybe NRT will be out of the ditch by then :P
15:02:09  <andythenorth>
15:02:40  <supermop_> I would have left it down there
15:03:28  <supermop_> particularly ominous is the front end loader apparently trying to hold up the scree slope at left
15:05:08  * andythenorth will see what Wolf01 comes up with
15:05:12  <andythenorth> bbl
15:05:13  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
15:05:30  <supermop_> first anniversary is 'paper'
15:05:47  <supermop_> does that mean I can get like a ream of printer paper?
15:06:23  <supermop_> do people outside of the us have 'ream' as a unit of bulk paper sheet?
15:07:42  *** Alberth has joined #openttd
15:07:42  *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth
15:07:58  <frosch123> <- supermop_
15:08:14  <Alberth> o/
15:08:28  <frosch123> 1 ream of A4 paper at weigt 80g/m² are 500 sheets
15:08:40  <frosch123> which is the usual unit you buy them packaged
15:08:48  <frosch123> Alberth: hoi :)
15:09:03  <supermop_> similar to here
15:09:24  <frosch123> supermop_: i never heard the term before though :)
15:09:48  <supermop_> a ream is generally roughly always the same mass, if you buy nicer paper you get fewer sheets
15:10:52  <supermop_> frosch123: we use it for the paper wrapped up package of paper that is a maybe 6cm or so tall
15:11:15  <supermop_> and the a standard box you'd have in the office has I think 10 of those in it
15:11:44  <frosch123> yeah, but i would just call it pack of paper :)
15:12:00  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
15:12:11  <frosch123> maybe i will now annoy my coworkers by searching for an opportunity to use the scientific term :p
15:12:21  <supermop_> I think among most people younger than baby boomers or gen x, ream is less common these days
15:12:21  <Alberth> :)
15:12:41  <Alberth> never heard that term either
15:12:45  <supermop_> unless it's by someone who does a lot of work with paper
15:13:00  <Alberth> of course
15:13:28  <supermop_> us younger people never had to print so much, or reorder lots of paper for offices
15:15:41  <supermop_> interesting that the 'short' ream of 480 sheets comes from hand made paper being made from big sheets and folding it into 8
15:16:57  <LordAro> ream of paper is a thing in the UK, generally for rolls
15:17:27  <supermop_> that is a small roll of paper
15:19:04  <planetmaker> \o
15:19:44  <frosch123> moi
15:21:01  <planetmaker> Ries... there's no end to learning. And there are units... which are plain weired :)
15:26:40  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
15:28:58  <Alberth> some people would argue that "light year" is weird :p
15:37:42  <planetmaker> let them argue ;)
15:37:51  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
15:46:22  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
15:50:17  <Wolf01> <frosch123> andythenorth: moving compatibility to road vehicles makes the convert-roadtype-type near impossible <- I would like to figure out how they do it in R-world.. maybe they just don't give a shit :P
16:04:58  *** Biolunar has quit IRC
16:12:46  <Alberth> simple, they close down the entire block, take out the whole street, put down a new street, remove all blockades, and leave again
16:16:24  <Alberth> preferably that happens at several nearby streets at the same time
16:19:17  <Wolf01> I mean the compatibility
16:21:23  *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd
16:21:24  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir
16:25:29  *** cosmobird has joined #openttd
16:28:08  *** tokai has quit IRC
16:38:13  *** Flygon has quit IRC
16:50:49  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
17:14:16  <Alberth> transport companies write out an order for new trains that has to run on their type of tracks, obviously
17:14:42  <Alberth> in particular, they don't buy from $random supplier just because it exists at the same time
17:15:53  <Alberth> $manufacturer supplies trains to any track that the customer wants
17:16:56  <Alberth> as such, just because in history a company bought $xyz train at $pqr tracks, that doesn't mean it's impossible to by a $xyz' from the same supplier that runs at $abc tracks, it's just that in history nobody did that
17:21:01  <Alberth> unfortunately, that gets interpreted as $xyz train cannot run at $abc tracks
17:35:14  *** gelignite has joined #openttd
17:38:21  *** Progman has quit IRC
17:48:17  *** Hiddenfunstuff has quit IRC
17:59:43  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
18:04:30  *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
18:12:30  <supermop_> Alberth I don't think there is a good way unless you make 'can run' more nuanced
18:21:27  *** cosmobird has quit IRC
18:30:34  *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
18:31:48  <Alberth> I'd say make it less nuanced
18:32:15  <Alberth> eg 3rd rail may be relevant in RL, but in the end it's just electric powered track
18:32:39  <Wolf01> Point
18:32:48  <Wolf01> It is only eyecandy
18:34:12  <Alberth> people try to push RL into the OpenTTD model, but that is never going to work, since it doesn't aim to be a realistic simulator
18:34:28  <Alberth> it's a game, you buy trains, you transport stuff
18:38:02  <Alberth> 45 degrees angles is no problem, but not having 2 pixels 3rd rail, oh no, that's bad!
18:41:01  *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
18:41:17  *** mescalito has quit IRC
18:41:22  <andythenorth> Wolf01: did you solve it? o_O
18:41:36  <Wolf01> Nope
18:41:41  <Wolf01> Still thinking
18:41:59  <Wolf01> Or stinking...
18:43:45  <supermop_> Alberth: what i meant, is that unless you give rail vehicles a property like 'gauge' and then also apply that to rails, it will be impossible to have a model of compatibility that makes sense
18:44:17  <Eddi|zuHause> Alberth: i don't think telling people "you should not want <X>" is the solution to any problems
18:45:31  <supermop_> but sometimes people are not going to want to care if a tram is 600, 1000, or 1435 mm gauge
18:45:49  <supermop_> they just want 'trams go on tram tracks'
18:46:27  <andythenorth> if we’re playing relative weighting
18:46:35  <Wolf01> I've come to some conclusions, but they aren't TT at all
18:46:47  <andythenorth> I concluded we need to make a different game :P
18:46:50  <andythenorth> like an actual _gam_
18:46:55  <andythenorth> _game_ *
18:47:49  <andythenorth> not a bad isometric version of
18:48:28  *** glx has joined #openttd
18:48:29  *** ChanServ sets mode: +v glx
18:56:57  <supermop_> damn the house we rented in melb is now worth over a 1Maud
18:59:49  <frosch123> houses increase in worth after you lived there?
19:00:33  <Wolf01> I could rent you one :P
19:06:18  * andythenorth plays openttd
19:08:54  <Eddi|zuHause> <supermop_> but sometimes people are not going to want to care if a tram is 600, 1000, or 1435 mm gauge  <-- sure, then they just don't use a track set that distinguishes those, but one that unifies them
19:09:33  <Eddi|zuHause> there's no reason for roadtypes to actively prevent distinguishing the gauges, though
19:09:57  <andythenorth> that’s a straw man anyway
19:10:06  <frosch123> why are there no road gauges?
19:10:12  <andythenorth> there are axle weights
19:10:33  <andythenorth> and max heights
19:10:40  <frosch123> why are american cars not 4m wide?
19:11:06  <andythenorth> they wouldn’t fit the drive through
19:11:44  <frosch123> so car size is limited by garage size?
19:11:50  <andythenorth> mcdonalds
19:12:39  <frosch123> i guess cars are generally two horses wide
19:13:13  <frosch123> never heard of a car with 3 or 4 horses in parallel
19:16:45  <debdog>
19:16:46  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: even back in ancient rome, horsecarts had standardized sizes
19:19:56  <frosch123> that's only europe though
19:20:06  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: it would have been very impractical for any one place to start making them bigger than usual, because they were meant to go to different cities
19:20:14  <frosch123> what roadsize did ancient india use?
19:20:50  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: also, american cars are generally a bit larger than european cars (mostly longer rather than wider, though)
19:20:57  <andythenorth> frosch123:
19:21:00  <andythenorth> Indian
19:21:20  <andythenorth>
19:21:24  <frosch123> is that a car or a tram? :)
19:21:31  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: not ancient enough :p
19:21:53  <andythenorth> is a guided busway a car or tram? o_O
19:22:01  <andythenorth> no overtaking, probably a tram
19:23:16  <Eddi|zuHause> i seem to recall a similar system being operated in lissabon
19:23:27  <Eddi|zuHause> where it was called "tram"
19:29:00  <__ln__> known as lisbon in english
19:29:32  <frosch123> <- hah! broad gauge road
19:35:19  <andythenorth> ha
19:35:40  <andythenorth> what was the problem again?
19:35:59  <andythenorth> people can’t distinguish tram catenary from trolleybus catenary?
19:36:37  <Wolf01> ^
19:37:08  <frosch123> i wondere whether there exist roadtypes at all :p
19:37:56  <frosch123> is there narrow gauge and broad gauge cobblestone road?
19:38:39  <andythenorth> there were different gauges for cobble roads, yes
19:39:51  <frosch123> narrow gauge cars can run on broad gauge road?
19:40:45  <frosch123> narrow gauge road vehicles allow a tram to overtake in the middle?
19:42:00  <andythenorth> eye-candy NRT?
19:42:07  <andythenorth> all types are compatible, but they can look different?
19:42:43  <planetmaker> doesn't sound like a bad idea actually
19:42:59  <planetmaker> keep the tram type and the road type
19:43:18  <planetmaker> but have all roads compatible to current road and all trams to current trams. Just allow co-existing different looks
19:43:26  <frosch123> there could just be a ground type
19:43:29  <Wolf01> Still the problem about telling which one has the catenary
19:43:46  <planetmaker> make that a 3rd road type :)
19:43:54  <planetmaker> which can co-exist with the former two
19:43:55  <frosch123> 64 ground types, 3 flags for road, tram, catenary
19:44:11  <frosch123> the ground type provides graphics for road, tram and road+tram
19:44:25  <frosch123> i.e. no independent road/tram track graphics
19:44:34  <planetmaker> we have that now, though
19:44:54  <planetmaker> I like the idea to compose ground + road + tram (in that order) on top of an arbitrary ground tile
19:44:54  <Wolf01> Not really, road+tram graphics might be a problem
19:45:20  <planetmaker> though currently we only compose (ground+road) + tram
19:45:34  <planetmaker> (ground with road) + tram
19:45:44  <planetmaker> and (ground w/o road) + tram
19:45:47  <andythenorth> how do we determine poweredness?
19:45:57  <frosch123> planetmaker: my point is, judging by current grfs, we have tons of ground types, 2 road types (andy's haul, well and normal road), and tramtypes have too little pixels to make a real difference
19:45:59  <planetmaker> road vehicle / tram vehicle. Like now
19:46:21  <andythenorth> planetmaker: so tram always gets catenary? o_O
19:46:24  <frosch123> i do not see how 16 tramtypes would make sense
19:46:25  <andythenorth> and no trolleybuses?
19:46:56  <planetmaker> agreed, frosch. I don't see the need for many different tram types. Though people will argue they want different-looking tram tracks for different towns
19:47:10  <andythenorth> it’s not the look
19:47:11  <planetmaker> but I don't get your argument about ground types
19:47:15  <frosch123> but the graphics are mostly defined by the road, not by the tram
19:47:15  <andythenorth> trams have different gauges
19:47:21  <frosch123> road or ground
19:47:24  <andythenorth> and trams have multiple voltages
19:47:25  <Wolf01> Different ground, tram tracks are the same 2 grey lines every time
19:47:31  <andythenorth> THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT
19:48:08  <planetmaker> andythenorth, I'd make 'catenary' a separate flag (additional to road or tram). And just have the vehicle give a flag 'needs catenary'. That solves the power problem
19:48:34  <andythenorth> eh, but what about the voltages?
19:48:37  <andythenorth> :P
19:48:39  <planetmaker> so a vehicle is powered if it has the proper road type (road/tram) and catenary (if it requires it)
19:48:47  * andythenorth isn’t making a case that andythenorth believes in
19:49:20  <planetmaker> voltage... in German I can make a word game with that: Spannungen zu unterscheiden oder nicht führt nur zu Spannungen ;)
19:49:44  <Wolf01> Also, what if you have trolleybus + a tramway which supports 3rd rail on the same tile? Both will become electrified? With a single bit, that is
19:49:54  <planetmaker> ~: to differe between voltages/tensions you will create tension
19:50:31  <planetmaker> wolf: kinda
19:50:48  <supermop_> andythenorth I dont think there is enough variety in tram power to make a difference
19:51:02  <supermop_> seems nearly all systems are 600-750 VDC
19:51:13  <Wolf01> Then 2 bits, one for type like the original idea by andy
19:51:45  <Wolf01> But there is still the problem about telling if there's trolleybus or tram
19:52:18  <supermop_> Wolf01 currently trolleybus wires overrule tramway wires
19:52:25  <Wolf01> I know
19:52:35  <andythenorth> can’t people just draw them red and blue or something?
19:52:49  <supermop_> it doesn't bother me
19:52:51  <Wolf01> And when bot are present is yellow?
19:52:55  <Wolf01> *both
19:53:05  <andythenorth> yes
19:53:12  <Wolf01> Or an overlay which tells what is missing?
19:53:34  <andythenorth> or that
19:53:38  <supermop_> because two trolley bus wires with one tram wire in the middle looks basically the same as just two trolleybus wires
19:53:59  <frosch123> i think allowinging combining road and tramtrack graphics from different grfs was a mistake
19:54:14  <andythenorth> how else do I build trams in towns?
19:54:22  <andythenorth> oh, from different grfs?
19:54:25  <supermop_> anything more and you can't see through the wires
19:54:33  <supermop_> frosch123 why?
19:54:33  <andythenorth> different grfs are always a mistake :P
19:54:40  <frosch123> currently i prefer a single newgrf type per tile, which provides all road, tram and electrifcation graphics
19:54:40  <Wolf01> frosch123: nah, we should only find a better way to tell what there is on a tile
19:55:11  <supermop_> I am happy to add sprites for tram+trolley wires superposition if supported
19:55:20  <frosch123> electrification type could be catenary or some other method within the road, but it makes no sense to have independent electrifcation for road and tram
19:55:22  <supermop_> but I am not bothered by lack of it
19:55:46  <planetmaker> yes... But does it need to be from different NewGRF?
19:55:53  <Wolf01> frosch123: from the gameplay pov you are completely right
19:56:00  <supermop_> frosch123 trolley buses cannot run on tram wires
19:56:07  <planetmaker> if road is separate from tram is separate from catenary... it's the players fault if it looks weired
19:56:13  <andythenorth> frosch123 I can’t find a compelling argument that electrification isn’t just a tile property
19:56:27  <andythenorth> but that makes vehicle compatibility a mess?
19:56:34  <frosch123> andythenorth: you want to distinguish catenary from different electrifcation like 3rd rail
19:56:39  <andythenorth> I don’t want to
19:56:40  <supermop_> i feel like that distinction is much more important than track gauge
19:56:46  <andythenorth> I think other people want to
19:56:48  <frosch123> one has pantographs, the other has a third slot in the track
19:57:06  <frosch123> it makes a visual difference
19:57:14  <frosch123> gauge is invisible for trams
19:57:15  <Wolf01> I'm fine with the electrification as tile property, but for sure somebody will say "I don't want ELRL and trolleybuses"
19:57:27  <frosch123> it's barely visible for trains, and tram has even fewer pixels
19:57:34  <andythenorth> Wolf01 are they volunteering to write the spec?
19:57:38  <andythenorth> :)
19:57:41  <supermop_> gameplay wise 3rd rail is not in anyway meaningfully distinct from overhead wire
19:57:53  <Wolf01> Ask SimYouLater :P
19:58:04  <Wolf01> He wants to write a lot
19:58:28  <supermop_> but there is is definitely a gameplay effect from saying trolleybus can drive wherever electric tramway is
19:59:28  <Wolf01> Also allowing trams travelling on tiles without catenary but 3rd rail
19:59:58  <Wolf01> It's electrified, but is uncanny
20:00:00  <supermop_> I for one certainly would prefer road electrification to somehow be independent of tram power
20:00:21  <supermop_> who wants 3rd rail trams anyway
20:00:28  <Wolf01> People?
20:00:33  <andythenorth> what about rope tramways?
20:00:37  <Wolf01> That too
20:00:37  <supermop_> that's easy
20:00:44  <andythenorth> why are we fixating on electrification?
20:00:54  <andythenorth> we already know it just resolves to the label
20:00:55  <supermop_> cable cars are simple
20:01:08  <Eddi|zuHause> it makes more gameplay sense if trolleybus only goes where trolleybus catenary was installed, not simply where tram catenary is installed
20:01:12  <Wolf01> And don't forget people will ask for wetroads, metro, and pipelines
20:01:27  <supermop_> Eddi|zuHause exactly
20:01:41  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: we’ve convinced ourselves the opposite
20:01:43  <Wolf01> Eddi|zuHause: like it's now
20:01:45  <andythenorth> what’s the evidence base?
20:01:51  <supermop_> trolleybus needs two wires
20:01:52  <Eddi|zuHause> even if that means it may be tricky to find the spot where you forgot to place the catenary
20:02:01  <andythenorth> has anyone actually encountered the problem?
20:02:15  <Wolf01> That's easily solvable with an information layer
20:02:20  <supermop_> idk I think i am the only player who plays with trolleybuses
20:02:31  <Wolf01> And it would be useful for rails too
20:02:46  <Eddi|zuHause> i think you will find enough people who want to play with trolleybus
20:03:05  <supermop_> Eddi|zuHause they do not seem to have yet found the buses
20:03:17  <Wolf01> I usually convert big parts of the rail infrastructure to electric when it becomes available, and I always miss a spot
20:03:37  <Wolf01> With NRT this will apply to roads too
20:03:57  <supermop_> with nrt, making cable cars is trivially easy though,
20:04:06  <supermop_> make tramway type Rope
20:04:13  <supermop_> make cable car,
20:04:16  <Eddi|zuHause> Wolf01: once upon a time there was a tile highlighting patch, where you could have two layers of information displayed by coloured frames around a tile
20:04:28  <supermop_> cable car has max hp and TE when on rope
20:04:28  <Wolf01> I remember that one
20:04:34  <Wolf01> I'm older than that :D
20:04:39  <Eddi|zuHause> i never quite understood why that wasn't included
20:04:54  <supermop_> and ROPE has high infrastructure cost
20:05:13  <Wolf01> Because it tried to tell up to 4 things at the same time, adding complexity
20:05:59  <Eddi|zuHause> anyway, that could easily display unelectrified rail in one colour and electrified in another colour
20:06:31  <Wolf01> We should just add 2 transparent tiles, one green and one red, then with a new tool ask "where in the map is this *type present?"
20:06:54  <Eddi|zuHause> or you select a railtype, it will draw "same", "powered", "compatible" and "incompatible" in different colours
20:07:55  <Wolf01> Yes
20:08:41  <Eddi|zuHause> (where by "colour" i always mean the regular highlighting frame sprite, with a recolour map applied)
20:10:09  * andythenorth was going to re-implement HEQS trams as industrial tramtype
20:10:13  <andythenorth> might wait :P
20:10:48  <supermop_> well at least the steam ones shouldn't change
20:10:53  <supermop_> brb
20:11:08  <frosch123> andythenorth: what makes industrial tram look different to other trams?
20:11:10  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: what distinguishes industrial tram rails from regular tram rails?
20:11:16  <frosch123> :p
20:12:08  <Alberth> size, power, carried cargo, and probably place of tracks
20:12:27  <Wolf01> Above or below?
20:12:49  <Alberth> difference between trams
20:13:06  <frosch123> Alberth: tramtracks, not trams :)
20:13:57  <Alberth> simpler design, most likely
20:14:57  <Alberth> but at pixel level, not much, except perhaps the amount of rust :p
20:17:23  <Eddi|zuHause> Alberth: nothing of that justifies introducing a (incompatible) tram type specific for industrial trams to go
20:19:03  <frosch123> he, i was just wondering about the graphics?
20:19:30  <frosch123> i can only imagine ground types, hardly any tramtypes
20:20:50  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but if you only introduce industrial tram as visual tram type, then there's no reason to recode HEQS for that, you can simply introduce the type as compatible to regular tram
20:21:16  <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: i hoped andy had some graphics in mind
20:21:59  <Wolf01> PEAT
20:22:23  <Eddi|zuHause> some HEQS trams are inspired by "Feldbahn"
20:22:25  <Wolf01>
20:23:00  <Alberth> Wolf01:  nah, PEAT doesn't use trams, they would sink, gorund is too wet
20:23:01  <Wolf01> uh... does this even has tracks?
20:23:51  <Alberth> could just be stone guiding the wheels
20:24:20  <Alberth> andy once also had pictures of stone rails :)
20:24:25  <Wolf01> Me too
20:24:35  <Alberth> oh, maybe it was you :)
20:24:41  <andythenorth> difference of trams
20:25:14  <andythenorth> in my view, a key part of the game is contention for tile space between different route types
20:25:32  <andythenorth> it’s a core mechanic (and it’s also why ships suck)
20:25:51  <Wolf01> Nice that you look for "stone rails" on google and you get chalk/cement fences, actual rails and a factorio picture
20:26:31  <andythenorth> newgrf vehicle authors tend to think the choice is between many kinds of wonderful locomotive
20:26:43  <andythenorth> but the choice is already made when you choose the type of route
20:28:04  <andythenorth> so the purpose of another tram type is to add range to the available routes
20:28:23  <Wolf01> Difference of trams: no signals to bother of, consists already available (just select the length you need)
20:28:31  <Wolf01> And compactness
20:28:46  <andythenorth> industrial trams would be slow, high capacity, and relatively long
20:29:04  <andythenorth> they would actually have crap throughput, measured per tile
20:29:10  <andythenorth> but they would look impressive
20:29:37  <andythenorth> mining trucks on HAUL would have *much* more capacity
20:29:44  <andythenorth> (throughput)
20:30:38  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: i think the advantage of industrial trams would be that they're available much earlier than useful trucks
20:30:54  <Eddi|zuHause> even if they then don't reach the truck peak
20:31:02  <frosch123> you mean you have to decide in advance whether you want vehicle A or B, because you cannot just switch or mix them on the same track?
20:31:06  <andythenorth> yes
20:31:21  <andythenorth> this has worked so far in Iron Horse
20:31:33  <frosch123> incompatibility as feature :)
20:31:39  <andythenorth> as long as there are consistent characteristics to the vehicles of that type
20:31:39  <Wolf01> :)
20:31:44  <andythenorth> the mistake is ‘balancing’
20:31:53  <andythenorth> trying to provide a range of vehicles in the type is BS
20:32:07  <andythenorth> or at least, a wide range
20:32:46  <andythenorth> hmm
20:32:53  * andythenorth counts on fingers
20:32:56  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: i don't see why "city bus" (high capacity, slow) and "long range bus" (low capacity, fast) would require incompatible road types
20:33:10  <andythenorth> they don’t, they’re a totally valid edge case
20:33:20  <andythenorth> took me a while to figure that case out
20:33:45  <andythenorth> although a case could be made for ‘highway’ roadtype, for express buses only
20:33:48  <andythenorth> maybe
20:34:12  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: but similarily, "passenger tram" and "industrial tram" are already significantly distinguished by what areas they go to, they don't need separation by track type
20:34:40  <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: long range busses have same capacity, but slower loading
20:34:52  <frosch123> long range busses usually have two decks
20:35:00  <frosch123> while short distance ones are articulated
20:35:00  <andythenorth> RH provides pax and freight trams, but all of roughly same speed, and moderate capacity
20:35:11  <andythenorth> industrial rail would be different
20:35:12  <frosch123> except the brittish did it weird
20:35:12  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think the general idea was that with local busses, you allow standing places, but long range does not
20:35:22  *** Alberth has left #openttd
20:35:23  *** FLHerne has joined #openttd
20:36:13  <Eddi|zuHause> i think there's a law where if you allow standing places, you can't go faster than 60km/h
20:36:16  <andythenorth> I can justify 3 or 4 tram types (2 types, with and without catenary)
20:36:25  <andythenorth> but I can’t find any rationale for more than 2 roadtypes
20:36:34  <andythenorth> unless, again, with and without catenary
20:36:35  <andythenorth> hmm
20:37:34  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: if we're still discussing NRT design choices, then you're probably too focused on a single use-case
20:37:42  <andythenorth> I am yes, I am biased
20:37:53  <andythenorth> I am not the right person to get this out of the ditch
20:38:10  <andythenorth> at least we have evidence now, in the form of playable grfs
20:38:14  <andythenorth> not just hot air
20:38:40  <frosch123> andythenorth: i guess you get more roadtypes when adding speed bs
20:38:52  <andythenorth> yes I guess
20:39:07  <andythenorth> unrelated: removing MNSP from FIRS Basic economies => win
20:39:08  <frosch123> but maybe speed is a property of the groundtype
20:39:14  <andythenorth> Basic is now more relaxing
20:39:18  <frosch123> it's obviously shared by road and trams
20:39:33  <frosch123> and it depends on the surroundings, i.e. walkway vs. planks
20:39:56  <andythenorth> I am the wrong person to comment
20:40:10  <andythenorth> I find the idea of restricting speed redundant :P
20:40:17  <andythenorth> vehicles already have speed limits
20:40:41  <frosch123> it's a passenger thing :)
20:41:00  <frosch123> if you connnect towns with busses, they may drive at different speeds throughout the route
20:41:41  <andythenorth> for realistic towns?
20:41:58  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: speed limits are so there's no benefit to running a fast bus for inner-city travels
20:42:15  <andythenorth> ok
20:42:20  <andythenorth> no counter argument here
20:42:28  <andythenorth> they’re the least of the current problems eh?
20:42:32  <Eddi|zuHause> and to have a reason to have separated tram routes
20:43:13  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think the "ground type" argument can easily be solved if you always take the minimum of the two speeds
20:43:17  <frosch123> i guess fast roads would not supply houses
20:43:26  <frosch123> so you can build fast routes inside a town, but houses die along them
20:43:29  <andythenorth> can I do HAUL as a ground type? :P
20:43:53  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i think i did originally suggest something like that, not sure if it was considered for implementing
20:44:20  <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: i do not try to solve the groundtype issue :p i think ground types are the solution :p
20:44:20  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: a flag "this type will be considered by the town growth algorithm"
20:44:25  <FLHerne> andythenorth: My bet is that the high-ish limit will be reached fairly easily with misc. not-actually-road types
20:44:37  <FLHerne> e.g. pipes would make vastly more sense as a road
20:44:43  <FLHerne> Than the current rail ones
20:45:21  <frosch123> hmm, pipes :)
20:45:50  <frosch123> sounds again like a ground type, you cannot combine it with other road or tram
20:47:28  <Eddi|zuHause> pipes should be a separate transportation type
20:47:37  <Eddi|zuHause> but that's a different issue
20:48:00  <FLHerne> Yes, "continuous" systems would be nice
20:48:11  <Eddi|zuHause> pipe/conveyor/ski lift/...
20:48:12  <frosch123> pipes are already pretty meh in factorio
20:48:23  <FLHerne> But until that glorious day, they'll all be roadtypes
20:48:23  <frosch123> i guess they are like ships in ottd
20:48:25  <FLHerne> Hm
20:48:31  <frosch123> stuff just flows independently
20:48:38  <FLHerne> For cosmetic-only purposes, can NRT roads be animated?
20:48:48  <Eddi|zuHause> you have one "station" that continuously emits new vehicles, and another station which consumes them
20:48:57  <frosch123> FLHerne: what do you want to animate?
20:49:03  * FLHerne doubts that many people actually care if their ski-lifts move passengers around
20:49:05  <Eddi|zuHause> and a path inbetween without switches/crossings
20:49:24  <FLHerne> So if the road tiles can be animated, you could do ski-lifts without any real vehicles
20:49:35  <frosch123> you can do that with objects
20:49:43  <FLHerne> Oh, right :P
20:49:54  <Eddi|zuHause> i'm pretty sure that GRF already exists
20:49:55  <FLHerne> It's been done with objects, even?
20:50:13  <frosch123> i have seen ski lifts as objects
20:50:14  <FLHerne> Yeah, I remember it now
20:50:18  <Wolf01> Yes, better use objects if there isn't the need to use stuff along with vehicles
20:50:22  <frosch123> but it were only screenshots, so no idea whether animated
20:51:06  <frosch123> the road funiture object grfs would work better as groundtypes though
20:51:23  <Eddi|zuHause> but i think working ski lifts would be nice for some tourist industries
20:52:04  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: so you need an additional "road decoration type"?
20:52:46  <frosch123> hah, i was talking about that all day :p
20:52:52  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: or alternatively, an Object that allows to place a road on top of it
20:53:29  <Eddi|zuHause> or an object that behaves like a road (with state machine)
20:54:00  <Eddi|zuHause> (as a byproduct of newgrf road stations)
20:55:22  *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC
20:58:37  <Eddi|zuHause> (with these road-objects you can then do "fun stuff" like onramps, roundabouts, ...)
20:59:05  <Eddi|zuHause> (i possibly talked about these before)
20:59:12  <Wolf01> Too bad they are just eyecandy
20:59:44  <Eddi|zuHause> (also in the context of ship-locks, drawbridges, ...)
21:02:17  <andythenorth> frosch123: so do ground types have any labels, or how does it work? o_O
21:03:07  <frosch123> ground types may have multiple labels
21:04:46  <frosch123> this ground can act as road, rail, elrl, road+rail, road+elrl
21:05:25  <frosch123> that ground can act as hway
21:06:01  <frosch123> some ground can act as hway, rail, elrl, but not combined (inner city high speed)
21:06:39  <frosch123> ground would define how it transforms when you add/remove road or tram, or convert road or tram
21:09:23  <andythenorth> so each tile can only have content from a single grf?
21:09:38  <frosch123> yes, that's the main difference
21:10:18  <frosch123> it assumes that combining road from grf 1 and tram from grf 2 will never look right, unless tram pixels are insignificant
21:11:14  <frosch123> it can provide trolley and tram catenary, can allow both or make them exclusive
21:11:34  <andythenorth> I can’t see any argument against it
21:11:35  <frosch123> but it puts all the blame on a single grf to make them visually distinct
21:11:42  <andythenorth> yes
21:11:47  <andythenorth> whilst allowing flexibility
21:12:01  <andythenorth> removes any need for social contract
21:12:31  <andythenorth> how do I construct it? :P
21:13:24  <andythenorth> unified icon on main toolbar?
21:13:32  <andythenorth> then object/station style UI chooser?
21:13:56  <frosch123> from a bit point of view: current nrt allows choosing 16 road and 16 tram independently where the majority of combinations are useless. ground types allow choosing 256 combinations of road+tram pre-filtered by the grf author for stuff that makes sense
21:14:32  <frosch123> andythenorth: i think toolbar would still be separate
21:14:41  <frosch123> you build road and tram independently
21:14:54  <frosch123> just the groundtype tells whether it is possible to combine them, and what happens if you do
21:15:26  <andythenorth> is there a lot ‘this type cannot be built here’? o_O
21:15:41  <frosch123> otoh, maybe main toolbar has only one icon, but the construction toolbar itself has buttons to build road and tram?
21:16:04  <frosch123> though that would be weird for bridges/tunnels/depots
21:16:26  <andythenorth> I wonder if they’re on/off flags like one-way road
21:16:42  <andythenorth> or if they’re actually like stations, you choose a type, then sub-menu
21:17:03  <andythenorth> and you literally get a preview of ‘road’, ‘tram’, ‘road+tram’, ‘electrified road+tram’ etc
21:17:14  <frosch123> yeah, maybe like that
21:17:34  <andythenorth> could it not fill the screen on 2x zoom? o_O
21:17:35  <frosch123> you pick a ground type, then have some suboptions to select
21:17:41  * andythenorth complicates the issue :P
21:17:43  <frosch123> andythenorth: would need some toggle button
21:17:48  <frosch123> expand/collapse
21:17:53  <andythenorth> windowshade :P
21:18:01  <andythenorth> I patched that for stations :P
21:18:26  <andythenorth> hmm
21:18:32  <andythenorth> I guess it needs a spec
21:18:52  <andythenorth> if the spec works, and a patch works, and we test it, and it makes trunk...
21:19:00  <andythenorth> …can we throw away railtypes?
21:19:01  <andythenorth>  :P
21:19:12  <frosch123> then you can have your mining ground type, which allows to select haul road, or feldbahn
21:19:24  <andythenorth> yes
21:19:30  <andythenorth> it’s better
21:19:35  <andythenorth> they overlap the same concern
21:19:46  *** Offlithium has joined #openttd
21:19:55  <Offlithium> hello
21:20:06  <frosch123> hoi
21:20:21  <andythenorth> so if I choose auto-road button, is that when a chooser UI appears, with one type already selected?
21:21:07  <frosch123> andythenorth: i think you select the road toolbar, and there is a select ground button at the end, which opens a bigger window, where you select stuff, close it again, and then build with the selected stuff
21:21:40  <frosch123> maybe you can select favorites, which are then selectable from the main toolbar
21:22:05  <frosch123> so, only one main toolbar button, and user-filtered choices in the dropdown
21:22:21  <andythenorth> ok, so that’s potato/potato compared to choosing from main toolbar, except you get a visual preview
21:22:31  <frosch123> while the complete selection is multi-dimensional instead of a 1-dimensional list
21:22:37  <andythenorth> it basically moves a dropdown menu
21:22:43  <andythenorth> and expands it
21:25:21  <andythenorth> so do all of supermop’s roads collapse to ‘road’?
21:25:39  <andythenorth> and then it’s literally like a station set to choose the road surface?
21:25:56  <frosch123> something like that
21:26:39  <frosch123> maybe road/tram types are filters
21:26:54  <frosch123> you select what road/tram you want, and you get a filtered list of available groundtypes for that combination
21:27:32  <andythenorth> a picture would avoid ambiguity, but that reads like what I am imagining
21:27:57  <andythenorth> select HAUL -> see stuff
21:28:27  <andythenorth> I dunno, ‘concrete HAUL’, ‘mud HAUL’, ‘concrete + tram HAUL’ etc
21:28:59  <andythenorth> still not convinced that tram / road / catenary aren’t boolean toggles
21:29:36  <andythenorth> so like a station set, all tiles for a roadtype label could just be grouped in one menu?
21:29:52  <frosch123> supermob wanted one-wire tram catenary, two-wire trolley catenary, three-wire combined catenary or something
21:29:57  <Eddi|zuHause> no, because there may still be functionally different tram types
21:30:09  <Eddi|zuHause> instead of just visually different
21:30:33  <andythenorth> eh, but then aren’t they different labels?
21:30:37  <andythenorth> or do I miss something again?
21:30:44  <frosch123> concreate ground would also allow selecting third rail tram, while mud-ground would not
21:30:52  <andythenorth> how do we provide for functional difference, except by label? o_O
21:31:08  <frosch123> andythenorth: i think road and tram would keep their current labels
21:31:14  <andythenorth> ok
21:31:16  <frosch123> but multipe grounds supply the same labels
21:31:28  <frosch123> you do not need to change the label to provide a different ground
21:31:32  <andythenorth> no
21:31:41  <andythenorth> so then we can just filter on sets of labels, no?
21:31:46  <andythenorth> that was my naive assumption
21:32:13  <Eddi|zuHause> so tram type "has" a label, ground type "supports" a label, and a vehicle is "powered" on a label
21:32:24  <frosch123> yes, you select "trolley road" and "electrified tram", and the ground type says: impossible combination :p
21:32:37  <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: that’s roughly how I’m understanding it
21:33:01  <andythenorth> ‘no ground tiles are available for this combination'
21:33:44  <andythenorth> bit like the new filter in auto-replace, but with 2 dimensions?
21:34:05  <frosch123> you convert existing tram to electrified tram, and the groundtype either allows it, or if not either it is rejected or the groundtype is replaced
21:34:43  <frosch123> i guess 3 conversion tools: convert road, convert tram, convert ground
21:34:58  <andythenorth> interestingly complex:P
21:35:04  <frosch123> each fail if the resulting combination is not allowed
21:35:29  <frosch123> maybe complex, but handcrafted complexity
21:35:45  <frosch123> it's no combinatio of any 16 types with any 16 types, but a human selection
21:36:55  <andythenorth> yes
21:37:15  *** Wormnest has quit IRC
21:39:03  <frosch123> i am not sure how depots would work
21:39:39  <frosch123> currently depots have a single explicit road/tramtype, which defines which vehicles you can build
21:39:40  <andythenorth> interesting case
21:39:52  <andythenorth> multi-type depots? o_O
21:40:00  <frosch123> would ground types result in depots being able to have both road/tram?
21:40:07  <andythenorth> is there any reason not to?
21:40:27  <andythenorth> the current arrangement has no particular upsides or downsides
21:40:47  <frosch123> you can already build compatible roadtypes in the same roaddepot
21:40:58  <frosch123> so i guess separating road and tram is kind of arbitrary
21:41:06  <frosch123> so, let's say it's a good thing
21:41:37  <frosch123> to allow both
21:43:33  <frosch123> hmm, ground types would also be able to supply new station graphics
21:44:47  <andythenorth> yes
21:44:51  <Eddi|zuHause> i think you should leave station graphics out of the patch
21:45:08  <andythenorth> I have never been convinced of the benefits of complete NewStations spec for roads
21:45:15  <andythenorth> not that anyone has tried it :)
21:45:23  <andythenorth> but eh
21:45:43  <Eddi|zuHause> tram turning loops...
21:45:52  <frosch123> the problem with newstations are the nontrack tiles :)
21:47:56  <andythenorth> solved problem :)
21:47:56  <andythenorth> it’s total hax, but it works
21:47:56  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: yes, but that's because they were put in as an easy hack, before a proper general solution could be discussed
21:47:56  <andythenorth> ideally they’d just be ‘station tiles’ and available in all route construction menus :P
21:47:56  <andythenorth> the only negative is having to switch building tool
21:47:56  <andythenorth> autorail -> 9 -> build :P
21:47:56  <Eddi|zuHause> "a,9" is a terrible key combination
21:47:56  <frosch123> which should be objects or something
21:47:56  <Eddi|zuHause> too far apart
21:48:13  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but objects don't extend catchment area
21:48:23  <frosch123> exactly
21:48:37  <frosch123> station walking is a terrible thing
21:48:47  <andythenorth> frosch123: for roadstop graphics, if we need one grf controlling the tile for appearance of road/tram stuf, then it’s odd to let an arbitrary grf decide the station in sprites future
21:48:53  <andythenorth> sprites / in /s
21:48:58  <frosch123> i have always dreamed of reducing airport area to zero, and only allow transfers
21:49:03  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: no, it's not :p
21:50:04  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: well, that would require station catchment radius being only applied to the tile that induces it, not to the whole station
21:50:18  <andythenorth> so I’ll have to patch nml again? o_O
21:50:27  <frosch123> that's also something on my todo list, i don't know why it is not done yet
21:50:31  <Eddi|zuHause> so a bus station at an airport would not cause a catchment area around the airport
21:50:40  <frosch123> so many people talked about catchment preview, but noone fixed it
21:50:56  <andythenorth> talking doesn’t need QA :P
21:51:07  <frosch123> i do not even consider the catchment fix particulary hard
21:51:43  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: but that again works against your non-track argument, because obviously a representative train station building should have a catchment area much larger than a simple platform
21:53:41  <frosch123> no
21:53:59  <frosch123> maybe a representative train station would accept/consume tourists
21:54:04  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: also, you'll clash with the kind of people that would just encircle an airport with train station tiles so it goes back to having a catchment area
21:54:15  <frosch123> but it certainly does not affect cargo transport
21:55:09  <Eddi|zuHause> frosch123: i've seen people walk quite long distances to train stations, even though tram/bus systems were available
21:55:15  <andythenorth> frosch123: ground types does nothing for the compatibility issue eh?
21:55:25  <andythenorth> e.g. ROAD can’t go on HAUL
21:55:37  <frosch123> andythenorth: it massively reduced the amount of labels you have to consider
21:55:51  * andythenorth is not sure that transitiveness really matter
21:55:54  <andythenorth> matters *
21:56:02  <andythenorth> although players discovered it straight away
21:56:42  <andythenorth> anybody made a mixed gauge railtype yet? :P
21:56:51  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: the non-transitive cases are exactly what makes upgrading hard
21:57:25  <andythenorth> because…?
21:58:41  <Eddi|zuHause> for example if railtype A is present on a tile, and is used by a train of railtype B, then you build a railtype C over that tile, which is compatible with A but not B
21:59:02  <Eddi|zuHause> the upgrade algorithm determines that C can overbuild A because it's compatible
21:59:20  <Eddi|zuHause> but that breaks the route for B
22:01:48  <Eddi|zuHause> if it were transitive, it would be fine, because C compatible with A and A compatible with B means C compatible with B
22:02:56  <andythenorth> how can B be compatible with A but not C?
22:03:17  <andythenorth> that makes no sense
22:03:37  <andythenorth> [as a design choice]
22:03:55  <Wolf01> You are thinking about A->B->C, but think it as normal->catenary->3rd rail
22:05:12  <Wolf01> (it makes no sense to "upgrade" catenary to 3rd rail, but one train that can run with catenary might not run on 3rd rail)
22:06:15  <andythenorth> why?
22:06:20  <andythenorth> who’d do that?
22:06:50  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: maybe C is like "high speed rail without freight trains"
22:07:37  <Eddi|zuHause> or B is "oversized train that cannot run under catenary"
22:07:55  <Eddi|zuHause> or all sorts of weird combinations
22:07:56  <andythenorth> ok, but all the cases presented are rational
22:08:04  <andythenorth> and the player has made a dumb choice
22:08:20  <andythenorth> player chooses to break their route, that’s up to them
22:08:31  <Eddi|zuHause> that's not the problem
22:08:48  <Eddi|zuHause> the problem is that the algorithm cannot determine the case reliably
22:09:04  <Eddi|zuHause> so the game behaves inconsitent/wrong from the view of the player
22:09:11  <Wolf01> The problem is that he didn't know it until tried to convert track under a train
22:09:51  * andythenorth didn’t realise there were upgrading algorithms
22:10:01  <andythenorth> I thought it just built what I wanted?
22:10:38  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: build a rail in X direction, build an electrified rail in Y direction. watch the magic happen
22:10:58  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: then build electrified rail first, and normal rail second
22:10:58  <frosch123> andythenorth: there is a difference between the convert tool and adding trackbits
22:11:57  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: and then the problems begin when you have complicated railtypes with weight, different AC/DC catenary, 3rd rail, ...
22:12:22  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: there might be a "universal" railtype, but the game cannot possibly find that automatically
22:12:35  <andythenorth> why should it? o_O
22:12:46  * andythenorth is confused as to the problem being solved there
22:12:52  <andythenorth> magic rarely works
22:12:56  <andythenorth> don’t try, mostly
22:12:57  <Eddi|zuHause> there are algorithms for finding that, but they require the graph to be transitive
22:13:10  <Eddi|zuHause> and the graph is not transitive (in general)
22:13:49  <andythenorth> don’t attempt magic
22:14:04  <andythenorth> sometimes magic is necessary :(
22:14:47  *** Gja has quit IRC
22:15:28  <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: but the current overbuilding algorithm is clearly better than requiring the player to switch railtypes when connecting electric and non-electric rails
22:15:50  <Eddi|zuHause> which makes junction building really annoying in mixed networks
22:16:42  <andythenorth> understood
22:17:07  * andythenorth must sleep
22:17:46  *** synchris has quit IRC
22:17:55  <andythenorth> bye
22:17:56  *** andythenorth has quit IRC
22:18:25  *** frosch123 has quit IRC
22:21:05  *** Offlithium has quit IRC
22:21:21  *** Offlithium has joined #openttd
22:30:16  <Wolf01> I want to drive a EMD DDA40X :|
22:30:53  <Eddi|zuHause> sounds heavy
22:30:59  <Wolf01> It is
22:31:09  <Eddi|zuHause> DD as in axle scheme?
22:31:20  <Wolf01> Let me check trainz simulator
22:31:42  <Wolf01> Is the Centennial
22:32:25  <Eddi|zuHause> yeah, axle scheme Do'-Do'
22:34:41  <Wolf01> If I have it I must use it on freeplay, and that isn't interesting :(
22:42:05  <Wolf01> How do I drive a diesel locomotive? I'm too used with coal ones :P
22:42:51  <Wolf01> Too many brakes
22:43:30  <peter1138> what
22:44:22  <Wolf01> It's moving \o/
22:48:38  <Wolf01> Ok, ok, I was in easy mode :(
22:48:59  <Wolf01> That's just a cog to rotate
23:03:12  *** HerzogDeXtEr1 has quit IRC
23:06:11  *** cHawk has joined #openttd
23:08:20  *** FLHerne has quit IRC
23:10:17  *** gelignite has quit IRC
23:29:07  <Wolf01> 'night
23:29:09  *** Wolf01 has quit IRC
23:40:27  *** mindlesstux has quit IRC
23:40:56  *** mindlesstux has joined #openttd
23:54:00  *** Progman has joined #openttd
23:55:50  *** mindlesstux has quit IRC
23:56:24  *** mindlesstux has joined #openttd

Powered by YARRSTE version: svn-trunk