Times are UTC Toggle Colours
00:01:31 *** gelignite has quit IRC 00:11:04 <Wolf01> 'night 00:11:06 *** Wolf01 has quit IRC 00:14:33 *** guru3 has joined #openttd 00:16:41 *** supermop has quit IRC 00:17:11 *** supermop has joined #openttd 00:18:49 *** maciozo has quit IRC 00:27:59 *** FLHerne has quit IRC 00:39:42 <Samu> I did it, partylu 00:39:46 <Samu> partly* 00:40:33 <Samu> return cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length); 00:42:08 <Samu> unc_len is uncounted_length 00:42:33 <Samu> the length of the parts of a train that do not have a running cost associated 00:42:55 <Samu> like wagons 00:47:33 <Samu> the cost is modified based on the currently calculated running cost of the parts that have it 00:48:50 <Samu> if the train got 3 engines, Ginzu A4s for instance 00:49:37 <Samu> meh, my english 00:49:48 <Samu> whatever, it's working as I intended 01:06:21 <Samu> http://i.imgur.com/ABssBH9.png 01:07:24 <Samu> it works! 01:07:57 <Samu> compare the running costs between 1.6.1 and my testing 01:09:06 <ST2> try it with 2cc newgrf's 01:10:54 <Samu> hmm which servers do btpro host those? I'll just download missing newgrfs 01:11:16 <ST2> none 01:11:24 <ST2> but can find them here: http://bananas.openttd.org/en/newgrf/ 01:21:06 *** Snail has joined #openttd 01:24:18 <Samu> i dont understand 2cc 01:25:37 <ST2> I only spoke of 2cc, because your changes... to be even considered, must work with all newgrf's 01:25:53 <ST2> already done or to be made 01:26:56 *** iSoSyS has quit IRC 01:28:51 <ST2> but if want to make some tests with Road Hog, Iron Horse and FISH 2 - all under FIRS, server #97 is up 01:29:07 <ST2> FIRS 2* 01:30:35 <Samu> hmm what i really wanted to test was a mixture of base cost changes for trains, engines or wagons, with or without running costs in them 01:30:47 <Samu> ok let me check firs 01:32:32 <ST2> to the told server, all can be downloaded via Check missing content 01:44:47 <Samu> cyas 01:44:53 *** Samu has quit IRC 01:45:13 *** markasoftware has joined #openttd 02:54:52 *** glx has quit IRC 03:19:23 *** tokai has joined #openttd 03:19:24 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai 03:26:43 *** tokai|noir has quit IRC 03:30:58 *** KouDy has quit IRC 03:31:12 *** KouDy has joined #openttd 04:16:26 *** Supercheese has joined #openttd 04:37:40 *** fiatjaf has quit IRC 04:37:43 *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd 05:11:05 *** Snail has quit IRC 05:12:29 *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest151 05:12:30 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd 05:15:55 *** Guest151 has quit IRC 05:31:13 *** markasoftware has quit IRC 05:42:30 *** sim-al2 is now known as Guest152 05:42:32 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd 05:47:31 *** Guest152 has quit IRC 05:54:52 *** chomwitt has joined #openttd 06:17:51 *** Alberth has joined #openttd 06:17:51 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o Alberth 06:17:57 <Alberth> moin 06:43:57 *** supermop__ has joined #openttd 06:45:00 <Alberth> hi hi 06:48:20 *** supermop_ has quit IRC 07:47:45 *** mescalito has joined #openttd 07:58:35 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd 08:03:17 *** andythenorth has quit IRC 08:13:37 *** Sova has joined #openttd 08:38:35 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd 08:39:56 *** andythenorth has left #openttd 08:58:31 *** sim-al2 has quit IRC 09:00:50 *** Supercheese has quit IRC 09:03:40 *** supermop has quit IRC 09:09:33 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd 09:12:27 *** maciozo has joined #openttd 09:25:37 *** skapazzo has joined #openttd 09:40:56 *** Samu has joined #openttd 09:41:20 <Samu> hi 09:41:35 <crem> hi 09:53:54 *** Wolf01 has joined #openttd 09:53:57 <Wolf01> o/ 09:54:25 <Arveen> \o 09:58:36 <Samu> I like this http://i.imgur.com/ABssBH9.png 09:58:50 <Samu> but it lacks customization 10:06:00 <__ln__> windows 10 :( 10:07:39 <Samu> my big coding skills: https://paste.openttdcoop.org/pdk6cftpp 10:08:01 <Samu> i always take so much time figuring out how to code something, and then it's just so small 10:15:03 <Samu> https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=65246 10:16:00 <Samu> i'm following the formula 10:16:16 <Samu> very similar to it 10:16:54 <Samu> Engine_Running_Cost - instead of engine running cost, this is now the running cost of parts of the trains that have a running cost 10:17:44 <Samu> Number_of_added_Wagons - instead of number of added wagons, this is now the length of parts of the train that do not have a running cost 10:18:57 <Alberth> o/ all 10:19:20 <Samu> Constant_Variable - this part is, for now, based on _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length 10:19:45 <Samu> i'd like to have this to become a customizable user value 10:19:59 <Samu> hi Alberth 10:52:15 *** zwamkat has quit IRC 10:53:22 *** zwamkat has joined #openttd 11:11:56 *** iSoSyS has joined #openttd 11:21:31 *** Sova has quit IRC 11:46:20 *** Sova has joined #openttd 11:53:21 <__ln__> Wolf01: ketchup on pizza -- heresy or not? 12:26:17 <Wolf01> Heresy 12:28:39 <Wolf01> Samu, please, don't do "return cost += cost * ..." 12:29:14 <Samu> hmm why? what happens? 12:29:27 <__ln__> nothing, there's just ketchup on the pizza then 12:29:31 <Wolf01> It's ugly as fuck 12:29:53 <Samu> just ugly? 12:30:03 <Samu> no real issues? 12:30:44 <crem> +1 for "return x += x * blah" being ugly 12:31:49 <Samu> return cost = cost + cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length); 12:31:58 <Samu> is this preferible? 12:32:02 <Wolf01> No matter what, you should split in 2 lines 12:32:16 <Wolf01> No assignments in return 12:32:23 <Wolf01> It's error prone 12:33:03 <Wolf01> And try to forget the idea that fewer lines in a patch is better 12:33:24 <Wolf01> A good patch is good, no matter how many lines 12:34:32 <Wolf01> Also comment difficult to read code to understand what it should do 12:35:13 <__ln__> I agree, assignment in return statement is both ugly and harder to understand than doing it elsewhere. 12:35:19 <Samu> heh, for me it was hard to understand that an articulated vehicle is not the same as a dual-headed vehicle 12:36:10 <Samu> oki 12:37:00 <Wolf01> Also an assignment in return is useless as there is no other code which uses the variable 12:38:07 <Samu> cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 3 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length); return cost; 12:38:15 <Samu> is this it? 12:38:20 <__ln__> Oh, indeed, i didn't even look that closely to notice cost is a local variable. 12:38:43 <Samu> 2 lines 12:38:51 <Wolf01> Yes, that's better 12:40:01 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd 12:41:56 <crem> I'd also use while{} rather than do{}while even though the first iteration is guaranteed to be non-NULL. But that's matter of taste I guess. 12:42:28 <crem> There are lots of do{}while though. 12:43:10 <Samu> uh, wait, explain me better, i'm noob 12:44:03 <Wolf01> There's a difference between while() {} and do {} while() 12:44:27 <Wolf01> The former tests the variable at the beginning, before executing the code 12:45:02 <Wolf01> The latter executes the code and then tests the variable to know if it should do another loop 12:46:01 <Samu> ah, the engine always has a cached_veh_length, doesn't it? 12:46:12 <Samu> be it articulated or not 12:46:27 <Samu> engine or wagon 12:47:26 <Samu> cached_veh_length is the length of the current part being iterated 12:47:44 *** tycoondemon has joined #openttd 12:48:37 <Samu> if it's not articulated, it still has a cached_veh_length 12:48:49 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd 12:48:50 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir 12:49:38 <Samu> if it is articulated, cached_veh_length is the value of only 1 of the parts 12:49:46 <Wolf01> Then, what's the problem? 12:49:48 <Samu> so it needs to sum all parts 12:50:03 <Samu> i think my code is fine 12:50:53 <Samu> my do {} while() 12:54:14 <Wolf01> As crem says, it's only a matter of taste if it works the same way 12:55:56 *** tokai has quit IRC 13:06:21 *** tycoondemon has quit IRC 13:12:00 *** JezK_ has quit IRC 13:15:58 <Wolf01> "But do not ever write, 'a = b +=1' or we will have to kill 10 kittens, 27 mice, a dog and a hamster." XDDDD 13:17:18 *** tokai has joined #openttd 13:17:18 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai 13:18:45 <Alberth> I wonder what value a gets :) 13:19:19 <Alberth> probably same as b 13:19:26 <Wolf01> I think is the same of a = ++b, but not sure 13:19:53 <Alberth> ha, I never write pre-increment either :p 13:20:22 <Alberth> always post-increment, and always as separate statement 13:20:26 <Wolf01> Me too 13:20:55 <Wolf01> Pre-increment is for code obfuscation 13:23:20 <Alberth> I can see pre-decrement being useful, but pre-increment, I wouldn't be able to give a useful example now 13:23:27 <Wolf01> Lol "for(int x=0; x<100; x++); cout<<x;" -> 100... fucking semicolons XD 13:23:44 <crem> nope, all postfix operators are for code obfuscation. It's natural for all unary operators to be prefix. 13:24:13 *** tokai|noir has quit IRC 13:26:43 *** Arveen has quit IRC 13:26:53 <Alberth> no compile error for unknown x? :) 13:27:28 <Alberth> crem: sure, as soon as we have 1 =+ a 13:27:57 <Wolf01> Might be, I just shortened the code 13:28:23 <crem> What is "1 =+ a"? 13:28:28 <Wolf01> Wtf is +=A? 13:28:30 <Wolf01> Lol 13:28:35 <Alberth> prefix form of a += a 13:28:36 <Wolf01> *=+ 13:28:40 <Alberth> a += 1 13:29:02 <crem> += is a binary operation, it is infix. 13:29:15 <Wolf01> I was reading this one http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/134118/why-are-shortcuts-like-x-y-considered-good-practice 13:30:03 <Alberth> crem: not really, left hand side and right hand side have different properties 13:30:10 <Wolf01> The accepted answer is really explanatory 13:30:13 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd 13:30:29 <Alberth> Normal + is a binary operation imho 13:31:07 <crem> It's right-associative binary operator. 13:31:10 <crem> += 13:31:12 <crem> i mean 13:32:29 *** alex_ has joined #openttd 13:33:10 *** tokai|noir has joined #openttd 13:33:10 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai|noir 13:34:48 <Samu> "cost += cost * unc_len...;" is this bad? 13:34:59 <Alberth> "operator" has no side effects in my view, which is why "operator" doesn't seem the right word to me 13:35:24 <Alberth> Samu: quadratic costs? 13:35:38 <Alberth> ie cost = cost + cost * unc_len 13:35:45 <Samu> yes 13:35:58 <Samu> cost = whatever it is right now + extra 13:36:13 <Samu> that extra is based on the cost that whatever it is right now 13:36:21 <Alberth> where "extra" includes the cost you have to far 13:36:28 <Wolf01> Where unc_len is 0 <= x < 1 I hope 13:36:29 <Alberth> sure, will work 13:37:34 <Samu> unc_len is 1 to ... hmmm 64*8*2 13:37:36 <Alberth> but it may not do what you expect it to do 13:37:57 <Samu> oh, it can also be 0 13:38:03 <Samu> so 0 to 64*8*2 13:38:06 <Wolf01> I already have enough with transport fever where running cost of wagons are x10 than the purchase cost of an engine 13:38:28 <Alberth> good model for making money :p 13:38:57 <Alberth> free wagons, you just pay per km :p 13:39:13 <Wolf01> No, the problem is that even the wagon costs a lot 13:39:34 <Wolf01> You usually can't start with trains in that evil game 13:39:41 <Alberth> so they too have the problem of being too sand-boxish? 13:39:55 *** alex_ has quit IRC 13:39:58 <Wolf01> No, it's the opposite 13:40:03 *** tokai has quit IRC 13:40:08 <Wolf01> Everything costs too much 13:40:27 <Wolf01> But you can enable the sandbox mod and have everything for free 13:40:32 *** Stimrol has joined #openttd 13:40:38 <Alberth> E_TOO_MUCH_REALISM :p 13:41:13 <Wolf01> Yup, like a 3 seats car (counting the driver) can carry 24 pax 13:41:15 <Alberth> I could see it as a way to drive you to simpler buses etc 13:42:08 <Samu> cost += cost * unc_len / (VEHICLE_LENGTH * 2 * _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length) 13:42:20 <Samu> wanna help me work on a better formula? 13:42:40 <Wolf01> 1. what you want as a result; 2. what the variable mean 13:42:57 <Wolf01> Cost is the entire consist running cost iirc 13:43:17 <Wolf01> Which in vanilla is calculated for engines only 13:43:34 <Samu> let me copy paste, i got it explained earlier today 13:44:09 <Wolf01> I understood you want to make running cost based on consist length 13:44:17 <Samu> Cost = this is the running cost of parts of the train that have a running cost 13:44:19 <Wolf01> I think is better to have a grf feature instead 13:45:02 <Samu> unc_len - the sum of the length of parts that do not have a running cost 13:45:53 <Wolf01> What _settings_game.vehicle.max_train_length has to do there then? 13:46:25 <Samu> i wanted some level of customization... 13:46:27 <Wolf01> I wouldn't mix a setting value in calculations 13:46:30 <Samu> but that's probably bad 13:47:12 <Samu> I plant have a separate user-defined value 13:47:15 <Samu> plan* 13:47:21 <Samu> plan to* 13:47:33 <Wolf01> Leave it out for now 13:48:25 <Samu> ok, replace it with which value? 13:48:31 <Samu> default is 7 13:48:48 <Samu> default of max_train_length that is 13:49:17 <Wolf01> That is a multiplier, and max_train_length is not the right one to use, the weight multiplier could be a better one 13:51:15 <Wolf01> Also like that, the greatest is the length, the lower is the cost 13:51:49 <Wolf01> Just put your formulae in excel and throw at it some numbers, make a chart and see 13:52:02 *** fiatjaf has quit IRC 13:52:19 *** fiatjaf has joined #openttd 13:53:13 *** Stimrol has quit IRC 13:53:18 <Samu> hmm 13:53:56 <Samu> running cost based on train weigth isn't a good idea imo 13:54:03 <Samu> the weigth is varied 13:54:22 <Samu> it would be constantly changing the running cost values 13:55:20 <Samu> but it's an idea that could go into a newgrf perhaps 13:57:22 <Samu> "I wanted to achieve something "simple"" 13:57:36 <Samu> more wagons = more costs 13:57:39 <Samu> less wagons = less costs 13:57:47 <Wolf01> Just add running costs to wagons? 13:58:03 <Samu> no, because that would require newgrf 13:58:16 <Samu> default wagons have no costs 13:58:45 <Samu> i wanted to do it for the default wagons 13:58:50 <Samu> without the need of a newgrf 13:59:03 <Wolf01> Then why you want to add obscure costs? We already have the "other" category which is weird enough 13:59:48 <Samu> because it's unfair that train size can go up to 64 tiles, and yet the running cost of a train doesn't change 14:00:23 *** Snail has joined #openttd 14:00:24 <Samu> i know 64 isn't exactly playable 14:00:40 <Samu> but most servers use the default of 7, maps also larger 14:00:43 <Wolf01> But you will need to add more engines or the train won't move, there your added running cost goes 14:01:41 <Samu> i have it explained in my old topic 14:01:56 <Samu> https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=65246&start=20#p1074177 14:02:05 <Samu> if you care to read 14:02:15 <Wolf01> Also different wagons should have different costs, I could have a flat wagon 1 tile long which costs less than an armored wagon of 1/4 tile 14:08:50 <Wolf01> Btw, I'm not saying you are trying to do a bad thing, I would like it too (I like realism) but I would do it via grf 14:10:25 *** Snail has quit IRC 14:10:25 <Wolf01> As I don't like when something is changed in obscure ways, as if the running cost for engines says "2M/y" and the info window says "3.5M/y", where the 1.5M comes off? 14:11:25 <Samu> you won't know until you attach the wagon into a train 14:11:38 <Samu> and then look into the train details 14:11:46 <Samu> it's "obscure" 14:11:48 <Wolf01> If you do it with a grf, each wagon can show its running cost, like engines do, and you can sum the numbers 14:12:16 <Wolf01> Why do the running cost of a wagon changes with train length? 14:12:55 <Wolf01> Can't you just sum 2M+200k+200+150k+150k+300k? 14:13:09 <Samu> that's not always the case, there are wagons with running costs specified, and some without 14:13:19 <Samu> if you mix it up with newgrfs' that is 14:13:19 <Wolf01> Instead of doing 2M+(black_magic)? 14:14:44 <Wolf01> 1. mixing up grfs is your fault, as most of miscalculations reported in the forum; 2. vanilla game should not change vanilla values using black magic 14:15:53 <Samu> i mean mix vanilla with a newgrf that contains wagons with running costs 14:16:36 <Wolf01> That's bad enough 14:17:04 <Wolf01> Also if you need to report the running cost for a wagon, you should do another function and apply the cost to that wagon with the wagon lenght, not the length of entire consist which means nothing 14:17:09 <Samu> yes, that's one issue, i intend to solve it by having a game setting that enables or disables these costs 14:17:27 <Wolf01> I won't pay less the fuel if I make my car bigger 14:18:47 *** enygmata has joined #openttd 14:20:51 <Wolf01> What I mean is that you should do cost += ... into the loop, not at the end 14:21:29 <Samu> i got this http://i.imgur.com/ABssBH9.png 14:21:49 <Wolf01> The problem is that you might not know the cost of the engines because you didn't have already looped through all the consist 14:21:50 <Samu> same formula 14:22:23 <Samu> the engine cost is added 14:22:26 <Wolf01> But you could use a constant for vanilla or when you don't have defined running cost 14:22:33 <Samu> cost += GetPrice(e->u.rail.running_cost_class, cost_factor, e->GetGRF()); 14:22:41 <Samu> that's already in there, i didn't touch that 14:22:55 <Wolf01> Also I can't understand why you must derive wagon running cost from an engine 14:23:00 <Samu> this is the running cost of engines, but also of wagons that do specify running cost 14:23:41 <Wolf01> For vanilla engines you could add 1/8 of their price 14:23:44 <Wolf01> *wagons 14:24:42 <Samu> that would still make usage of the most powerful/fast train preferible, and i wanted to change that 14:24:46 <Wolf01> And just leave out all the lenght calculations which don't mean anything 14:24:50 <Samu> for the early part of the game, that is 14:26:06 <Wolf01> I can't follow you 14:26:08 <Samu> in the case of vanilla, running cost of wagons should be dependant on engine running cost 14:26:12 <Wolf01> No 14:26:12 <Alberth> turn on breakdowns, and you get a much different choice in engines 14:26:31 <Samu> most of the time, a powerful engine got high running cost 14:26:41 <Samu> a less powerful engine got low running cost 14:26:51 <Samu> it's not always the case 14:27:15 <Alberth> use a different newgrf if you don't agree 14:27:36 <Samu> meh, my post 14:27:43 <Samu> https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=65246&start=20 14:27:49 <Wolf01> You are going to purchase a trailer: "it's 100$ says the dealer, to what vehicle do you want to attach it?" "a ferrari" "then its 500$" 14:28:01 <Samu> exactly! 14:28:05 <Alberth> giving parameters free for tuning by newgrf authors means some makes choices different from your ideas 14:28:05 <Wolf01> NONSENSE 14:28:31 <Samu> makes no sense to you, :( 14:28:45 <Wolf01> Make no sense to everyone else than you 14:28:54 <Alberth> it works for Apple :p 14:29:13 <Samu> i had tested a Dash 14:29:26 <Samu> running cost of dash is about £1400 14:29:48 <Samu> wagons attached into Dash were about ~£93 or so running cost 14:30:00 <Wolf01> Wagons which don't have running costs should be derived from other wagon details not from planets lining up and a total ecplipse" 14:30:04 <Samu> a manley-morel dmu running cost is about £1700 14:30:05 <Wolf01> *eclipse 14:30:12 <Samu> wagon attached would be about ~£113 14:30:54 <peter1138> did inflation ever get fixed 14:30:56 <Samu> this cost isn't shown in the wagon, because by the time you're purchasing the wagon, you don't know into which train it's going to be attached 14:31:27 <Wolf01> ^ and that is wrong 14:31:36 <Samu> but why? that's the intention :( 14:32:17 <Wolf01> Because I purchase wagons and engines based on running costs too, If I can't make 2M/y, I won't purchase an engine which costs me 3M/y 14:32:18 <peter1138> then you need a specific wagons for that use 14:32:28 <Wolf01> And with hidden costs I can't know that 14:32:52 <Samu> the only thing you will know is that the running cost is not displayed in the wagon 14:33:09 <Wolf01> The only thing I won't know is the running costs 14:33:11 <Samu> if the wagon does specify a running cost, it will say it, and it will use it 14:33:25 <Wolf01> If it's not displayed it's 0 14:33:33 <Wolf01> And it should be 0 14:34:03 <Samu> if it's.. £100 for the wagon and £1400 for the engine, it will be £1400 + £100 14:34:10 <Samu> if it doesn't display it 14:34:15 <Samu> it will be based on the engine 14:34:22 <Samu> if it displays £0 14:34:30 <Samu> it will be £1400 + £0 14:35:11 <Wolf01> But it isn't displayed, how do I know it's 100? 14:35:32 <Samu> you won't know, until it is attached into the train 14:35:36 <Wolf01> Also, it's based on the engine 14:35:40 <Samu> yes 14:35:41 <Wolf01> But also on length 14:35:48 <Wolf01> So E+W = 1400+100 14:35:57 <Wolf01> E+W+W = 1400+80+80 14:36:10 <Samu> that length is the length that does not have a running cost 14:36:18 <Wolf01> E+w+w+w+w+w+w+w+ww+w+w+ They pay me to run it 14:36:21 <Samu> if all wagons don't have a running cost 14:37:01 <Samu> meh, let me take a screenshot 14:37:02 <Samu> brb 14:37:26 <supermop__> yo 14:39:49 <Wolf01> https://paste.openttdcoop.org/p6yvowge9 <- Is this too different than your idea? 14:40:29 <Wolf01> You can even put a multiplier and use the same multiplier to show the actual running cost on the details 14:41:40 <Wolf01> I simply can't understand the relation of the wagon running cost with the engine 14:42:02 <Samu> http://imgur.com/2tlxByp 14:42:12 <Samu> let me try with another engine, brb 14:42:37 <Wolf01> Also it's just a nonsense to spread the running cost of the engine to the entire consist based on the length of the consist 14:42:43 <supermop__> If i have a pullman coach with fancy waiters and staff onboard, i assume they do not ask for more pay depending on what locomotive hauls them? 14:43:44 <Wolf01> 1400 + 1W -> 100, +2W -> 80, +3W -> 60 14:43:49 <supermop__> although in that case i guess you need at least 1 waiter when there is one coach, but maybe only 2 waiters for 3 coaches? 14:43:54 <Samu> http://imgur.com/a/gIMx7 14:44:00 <Samu> refresh page, should display 2 images 14:44:39 <Samu> the ferrari effect 14:44:47 <Wolf01> Samu I can't give a fuck of the screenshots, it's the wrong implementation behind it which is the problem 14:44:53 <Samu> :( 14:45:01 <Wolf01> The idea is good, but not the implementation 14:45:27 <Samu> let me look at your code 14:45:43 <Wolf01> You buy 3 apples: 3€, 3 apples and 1 pear -> 25€, how much costs the pear? 14:45:49 <Samu> ah, that would make the cost permanent 14:45:52 <Samu> for each wagon 14:45:57 <Samu> independent of the egine 14:46:25 <Wolf01> Hint: the pear costs 0.75€, but you have a ferrari 14:47:54 <Samu> hmm so the ferrari effect is bad for realism 14:48:06 <Wolf01> Not just for realism, it's nonsense 14:48:37 *** orudge` has joined #openttd 14:48:37 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge` 14:48:54 <Wolf01> Because the next time you might want to apply a different cost if the depot where you purchase the wagon is near an airport 14:50:48 <Samu> okay, if i don't base it on the length of the engine, what do I base it on 14:50:59 <Wolf01> The cost of the wagon 14:51:01 <Samu> erm,... running cost of the engine 14:51:04 <Wolf01> The weight of the wagon 14:51:07 <Samu> power? 14:51:12 <Samu> power of the train? 14:51:16 <Wolf01> Forgot about the engine 14:51:16 *** sim-al2 has quit IRC 14:51:19 <Wolf01> éForget 14:51:31 <Samu> weigth 14:51:48 <Wolf01> You have a wagon and its details 14:51:52 <Wolf01> Nothing else 14:52:21 <Samu> i see 14:52:30 <Wolf01> Use the length of the name of the wagon multiplied by the id of the default cargo, do what you want, just use the same wagon details 14:52:44 <Wolf01> It *must* be reproducible 14:52:54 <Samu> 19t (49t) for grain, i see 14:54:21 <Samu> not sure, hmm... 14:54:43 <Wolf01> Also, please don't make it strange for mixed grfs, it's already weird to have different purchase prices 14:55:14 <Samu> newgrfs are already a mess indeed 14:56:18 <Samu> running cost based on wagon weigth, independently of engine 14:57:13 <supermop__> maybe dirt should be something different than rough mining roads etc 14:57:23 <supermop__> and those can be gravel 14:57:24 <Samu> do you mean the current weigth of the wagon? 14:57:32 <Samu> if it's emtpy, it's 19t 14:57:36 <Wolf01> We have a lot of gravel roads here 14:57:36 <Samu> if it's full it's 49t 14:57:46 <Samu> or do i use the max value always? 14:58:10 <Wolf01> I would use min value 14:58:13 <crem> Running cost should also depend on velocity! For realism. :) And age. 14:59:37 <Samu> i don't think it would achieve anything by just adding permanent costs to wagons, just for the sake of being the same 15:00:03 <Samu> we're at odds, you have a different issue than me 15:00:08 <supermop__> any gameplay need for shittier tramways? 15:00:11 <Wolf01> Btw, I would use purchase_cost / factor * breakdown_chance 15:00:25 <Samu> my goal was to achieve balance 15:00:40 <supermop__> seems like it will be easier to run out of road types than tram types 15:00:46 <Samu> incentive usage of lower running cost trains 15:01:09 <supermop__> as long as you don't use exotic tram power supplies 15:01:46 <Samu> but my proposal is nonsense, not realism 15:02:02 <Samu> i dunno, i gotta test 15:02:02 <Wolf01> supermop__, yes, I thought that too, 23 / 7 instead of 15 / 15 could have been a better choice 15:02:05 <supermop__> currently only want normal tram and modern faster light rail, 15:02:22 <Samu> i prefer balance over realism 15:02:47 <supermop__> but there is scope for drawing at least a shittier looking catenary with even lower speed than regular tram 15:03:04 <supermop__> but i dont think there is need for shittier tramway track 15:03:34 <Wolf01> But you could have lightrail, elrail, catenary, suspended, train on rubber 15:04:04 <Wolf01> Small metro 15:04:18 <supermop__> maybe this: light railway; LR with shitty wire; LR with decent wire; LR with nice modern catenary 15:05:23 <Wolf01> Also some industrial consists might be placed in tram section just to keep them separated from road 15:05:26 <supermop__> and not worry about quality of trackbed in such a basic grf 15:06:28 <supermop__> thing is, in that case, then you might want the modern light rail to not be buildable on road 15:07:05 <supermop__> anyway that gives variation and only uses 4 out of 15 slots 15:07:15 <Wolf01> The one with grassy paths and cement? 15:07:52 <supermop__> when tram is in the roadway, it all looks the same 15:08:07 <supermop__> not worth worrying about quality of track 15:08:43 <supermop__> when tram is out of the road, it either looks like crappy rails, nice rails, or is still set into concrete 15:08:55 <Wolf01> http://citytransport.info/Digi/4967a.jpg <- this would be a nice addition to cities 15:09:24 <supermop__> wolf: yes 15:10:17 <supermop__> sometimes it looks like this though: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QYRVsdiyZwY/maxresdefault.jpg 15:10:23 <Wolf01> I know you could just let bare land under it, but with some decoration and forbidding to build it over road / build road under it, it is a cool thing 15:10:27 <Alberth> ever looked at how many train track types exist? :) 15:11:27 <Wolf01> The problem might be crossings 15:11:57 <supermop__> and sometimes like this: https://i0.wp.com/urixblog.com/p/2013/2013.06.02t/picture-11.jpg 15:12:44 <Wolf01> I already have a patch to disable crossings on the same roadtype, I think making a patch which allows only to cross another roadtype and not build it in the same direction is not so difficult 15:12:51 <supermop__> is it worth 3+ tram types though for the different ways it can look when absent of roadway? 15:14:05 <supermop__> can maybe abuse town zone/sidewalks to get fancy grass or pavement in town, gravel ballast outside 15:14:10 <Wolf01> Btw, let's ask the cat when he arrives 15:14:16 <supermop__> yes 15:14:22 <crem> The aspect in ttd that I always didn't like is that from the very beginning it's possible (and encouraged) to build large routes in random places of the map. In reaility companies usually start small and local. It would be nice to have a "distance from headquarters penalty", purchasing permits to extend area where you can build or something like that. 15:15:25 <supermop__> crem: in 1994 playing tto, my neighbor told me that reliability and running cost improve the closer a vehicle is to your HQ 15:15:44 <supermop__> i believed that for about 10 years and was so sad to find it was not true 15:16:24 <Wolf01> But, let's make it and don't tell others, for the glory of satan 15:16:39 <Wolf01> Commit message: changed stuff 15:16:50 <crem> "fix" 15:16:57 <supermop__> Wolf01: is it possible for tramtype to block roads or vis versa yet? 15:17:11 <Wolf01> Not yet, but soon 15:17:38 <Wolf01> We need to make the core working flawlessly first 15:17:52 <Wolf01> Then flag-fest will happen 15:18:43 <crem> All that you discuss now, trams etc.. Will it be available in "pure" openttd with default gfx? Or one has to build from some fork, know what gfx to download, etc? 15:19:16 <supermop__> crem: https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=75637 15:19:23 <supermop__> please DL and test 15:19:46 <supermop__> cannot go into regular Openttd until it is well tested 15:20:13 <crem> But eventually, will it? 15:20:39 <supermop__> only if enough people test it and work to make sure it works 15:21:09 <supermop__> there is no guarantee if users are apathetic towards it,it will die 15:23:42 <crem> Because even in last major versions updates, all "major" changes were like "more height levels" and "windows remember their size". It's sad to see actual gameplay enchancements which don't get into the game. 15:24:25 <supermop__> crem: the more complex a feature is, the more work it needs to make sure it can go into trunk 15:25:09 <supermop__> if you follow threads for the major patchpacks in the forums, you will see there are constantly bugs, problems, conflicts 15:25:21 <Wolf01> Like NRT, which might see trunk next xmas if I can't fix some of the shit I've done 15:25:22 <supermop__> and the maintainer has to work constantly to resolve them 15:26:14 <Wolf01> And andy already wants me at work on docks 15:26:15 <Wolf01> :P 15:27:18 <supermop__> a patch for trunk has to make sure that it absolutely does not cause problems first, and that the code follows standards, so if the author dies tomorrow, some other dev can easily follow it 15:28:21 <supermop__> notice that Cdist took like 4 years or more to get into trunk, and even now people complain about it not working the way they expect 15:28:45 <supermop__> also, more height levels was a huge patch that took years and years of work 15:28:59 <Alberth> wiki doesn't do a great job in explaining what you should expect from cdist :) 15:29:33 <Wolf01> https://www.shutterstock.com/it/image-vector/vector-isometric-icon-infographic-element-representing-334377383 supermop__ 15:29:48 <supermop__> people clamored for MHL for years but it took Chillcore and others tons of work to get it to be suitable for trunk 15:30:29 <supermop__> Wolf01: nice 15:30:47 <Wolf01> Btw, I would like a grf set (and baseset too) with that kind of graphics 15:31:14 <supermop__> i will make for 50,000.00 USD 15:31:17 <Wolf01> Simutrans has a sort of it 15:31:35 <Wolf01> I could make it with voxels 15:31:38 <supermop__> buy now and i'll only charge 45,000 15:32:47 <supermop__> can probably just hire that artist 15:33:21 <Wolf01> He does really cool things 15:33:58 <Wolf01> Too bad I'm shit at drawing (and at coding too, but a bit better there) 15:34:56 <Wolf01> https://motowalknz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/dsc00423_piakocountytramway.jpg?w=624 what? 15:35:29 <Samu> testing ship vs train vs road vehicle 15:35:41 <Samu> be back later 15:36:31 <supermop__> just make a few hundredthousand eur and pay the artist 15:36:40 <supermop__> or pay me and i will try to learn 15:37:07 <supermop__> Wolf01: that looks pretty cheap 15:38:48 <supermop__> label for shitty tramway? SHTR? 15:38:53 <Wolf01> Uhm, it would be possible to make bridge graphics which merge when 2 bridges are build close? 15:39:15 <supermop__> wolf: ive always wanted that 15:39:20 <Wolf01> Just SHIT is enough, it's already tramway :P 15:39:26 <Wolf01> http://www.gochengdoo.com/images/blog/7103.jpg <- 15:39:38 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd 15:40:07 <supermop__> currently only idea i have is use 3+ bridge types: regular, left, right, and maybe center 15:40:11 <FLHerne> There's a grf somewhere for that, IIRC 15:40:22 <FLHerne> (with seperate bridge types for each side) 15:40:51 <supermop__> i don't care about having 3 types of suspension bridge anyway 15:41:12 <supermop__> but until nml does bridges, im not going to bother with it 15:43:19 <supermop__> brb 15:45:04 *** Landscape has joined #openttd 15:49:04 <Wolf01> http://www.amusingplanet.com/2016/06/the-haytor-granite-tramway.html <- btw, granite tramway 15:49:51 <Landscape> hey you developers, what about this suggestion: Possibility to generate Landscapes with cliffs? So, hills are generate in one way - a cell can only be one level higher ore lower than the neighborcell. My idea is to change the hillgenerator to a mountaingenerator where a cell can be two level higher or lower than a neighborcell. what do you think about it? 15:51:01 *** Sova has quit IRC 15:52:58 <Landscape> it shouldn´t be able that trains, cars and ships can pass this cliffs.they only could drive the normal ways. I know, it would be difficult to generate landscapes and change it with the landscape-changetools... now i´ve to go 15:53:02 <FLHerne> Landscape: With extra-steep slope tiles, or actual vertical cliffs? 15:53:20 <FLHerne> Both have been suggested quite a few times :P 15:53:48 <FLHerne> (if you want to implement it, great...) 15:55:02 <Landscape> yes, with extra steep slope tiles while using the normal graphics for slopes but stretched 15:55:34 <Landscape> it would not be possible without new tiles... i tried to build them on a peace of paper 15:55:52 <FLHerne> 'stretching' pixel art tends to look awful 15:56:45 <FLHerne> Maybe for compatibility with old terrain grfs, but you'd need new sprites for the baseset and any updated grfs 15:56:47 <Alberth> nice Wolf01 15:57:00 <Landscape> you´re right, but i think it´s not the most difficult thing with the graphics, i don´t know 15:57:32 <FLHerne> Also, slopes are exposed to newgrfs, so you'd have to think about back-compatibility and how to extend the interface for that 15:58:08 <Alberth> trickiest bit is likely the slope, and tunneling/bridge building 15:58:43 <Alberth> the vertical foundations are not stored, only drawn 16:01:29 <Samu> i must be doing something terribly wrong 16:01:31 <Samu> http://imgur.com/TMQ5JFz 16:01:50 <Samu> almost no difference 16:02:22 <Samu> year 1951 16:03:13 <Wolf01> Landscape, I was trying to do it, but current engine glitches too much 16:03:14 <Landscape> ok, i knowed there are quite a few of things to think about. Tunnel and bridges..., first i´ve to prepare my own developer- station on my pc 16:06:50 <Landscape> Wolf01, you tried? Probably another solution could be this: Not to hight up the hills extremly but generate some zones where no trains, vehicles and ships can pass. this zones should be scattered along the hightlevels of hills 16:07:50 <Wolf01> I just tried to make the terrain use foundations instead of slopes when raising a tile corner with CTRL 16:08:13 <Samu> at least i brought the running cost of those 2 trains to be on par with those of 3 ships and 18 trucks 16:08:24 <Samu> it's something! 16:08:47 <Wolf01> It's just 1 train, put there 10 and you see a big change 16:08:49 <Samu> but i fear insufficient 16:09:24 *** matt11235 has quit IRC 16:09:44 <Samu> 3 ships: -£11,074 16:10:04 <Samu> 2 trains (1.6.1): -£6,890 16:10:28 <Samu> 2 trains (mine): -£11,025 16:10:54 <Samu> 18 trucks: -£11,369 16:11:01 <Alberth> so? 16:11:08 <Samu> so? it's something! 16:11:25 <Alberth> how does 3 ships compare with 2 trains, other than in cost? 16:11:44 <Samu> the starting loan was £150k 16:11:53 <Samu> i wasted as much as i could for each 16:11:57 <Wolf01> I have 3 ships... I have 2 trains .... PA! Running costs are the same 16:12:02 <Alberth> ie 2 trains 1.6.1 looks the same like 9 trucks to me 16:12:38 <Alberth> maybe you need 10 trucks 16:13:17 <Landscape> ok, thanks for the short chat and the quick answeres about this theme with the slopes, i´ve to go now. have a nice day 16:13:31 <Alberth> but my point is, why is 2 trains 1.6.1 vs 9 trucks bad, and 3 trains yours vs 18 trucks good? 16:15:03 *** Landscape has quit IRC 16:16:35 <Samu> good question 16:16:36 <Alberth> maybe trains were designed to have a high initial purchase cost and low running cost, while trucks are easier to buy initially, but cost more to run? 16:16:39 <Samu> you made me think 16:17:28 <Alberth> so depending on how long or often you intend to use them, what is best changes? 16:20:55 *** enygmata has quit IRC 16:22:26 <Samu> it's just not possible to balance this, is it ? :( 16:22:35 <Samu> i'm losing my motivation 16:23:57 <FLHerne> In practice, I think Samu's right 16:24:49 *** supermop has joined #openttd 16:25:04 <FLHerne> No-one actually builds short-term links in OTTD, because towns and (non-oil) industries don't move once you've served them 16:27:00 <FLHerne> (but increasing the rail maintenance costs to prevent long empty straight lines is probably simpler) 16:27:41 <Samu> oh, infrastructure maintenance costs is turned off, perhaps i should turn it on, see if it makes a difference 16:27:48 <Samu> brb 16:29:56 *** supermop__ has quit IRC 16:33:58 <Samu> property maintenance for ships is nearly non-existant 16:34:59 <Samu> property maintenance for rails is nearly 3 times that of the road 16:35:29 <Samu> in the long run, it's still insufficient 16:35:39 <Samu> trains still dominate :( but i will wait till 1952 16:39:57 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd 16:40:59 <FLHerne> Samu: Maintenance costs scale non-linearly with network size 16:41:42 <FLHerne> They do seem to prevent some of the sillier ways to use trains 16:43:24 <Samu> @calc 18 * 20 16:43:24 <DorpsGek> Samu: 360 16:43:38 <Samu> calc 9 * 30 16:43:43 <Samu> @calc 9 * 30 16:43:43 <DorpsGek> Samu: 270 16:43:56 <Samu> @calc 9 * 30 * 2 16:43:56 <DorpsGek> Samu: 540 16:43:58 <Samu> ah 16:44:23 <Samu> @calc 160 * 2 16:44:23 <DorpsGek> Samu: 320 16:47:05 *** Flygon has quit IRC 16:49:26 <Alberth> calc should refuse to do such simple calculations :) 16:49:53 <Wolf01> Or just return wrong answers :D 16:50:02 <Alberth> "yes" 16:50:22 <Alberth> "more than previous" 16:51:33 <Rubidium> Alberth: just randomly choosing a radix for the input and output data would do enough 16:51:41 <Alberth> haha :) 16:52:49 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd 16:55:26 <Samu> :) gonna combine with weigth multiplier for freigth 16:55:37 <Samu> thought this discards passengers... 16:56:33 <Alberth> don't know if mail counts as freight 16:56:35 <Samu> this map is too flat too 16:56:40 <Samu> hmm 16:56:46 *** Flygon has joined #openttd 17:03:17 <Samu> there's many ways to test this, all pointing out to train supremacy, i'm sad, losing motivation 17:03:26 <Samu> dunno what to do 17:11:35 <supermop> ok 17:12:21 <Alberth> use a newgrf for trains 17:12:35 <Alberth> one with bigger costs 17:13:02 <Samu> 4 kirby pauls vs 3 jubilees vs 2 ginzus 17:13:09 <Samu> vs the rest 17:13:12 <Alberth> but yes, you cannot balance all, as different authors have different ideas about "good" 17:13:56 <Alberth> default trains are designed for original map, so that's where you should test 17:14:08 <Samu> even the kirby pauls beat the road vehicles 17:14:28 <Alberth> but transport tycoon is a train game 17:14:41 <Samu> something is amiss and I am yet to find out what 17:15:31 <Samu> kirby paul can't even reach max speed, it maxes out at 52 km/h 17:15:49 <Samu> still faster than road vehicles at 48 km/h 17:18:03 *** iSoSyS has quit IRC 17:22:15 <Samu> @calc 9 * 30 * 4 17:22:15 <DorpsGek> Samu: 1080 17:22:50 <Samu> 1080 cargo delivered once all 4 kirby pauls complete a journey 17:23:41 <Samu> only 360 cargo delivered for all 18 trucks 17:32:19 <supermop> i wonder when gravel roads were 'invented' 17:32:33 <supermop> most dirt roads in the US are now gravel 17:32:48 <supermop> but surely gravel was used for roads before that switch 17:39:45 <supermop> im sure people could have build gravel roads in 400bce, but it seems like it wasn't common until like 1800 17:39:48 <supermop> or even later 17:40:24 <Wolf01> supermop, did you see the granite tramway? 17:41:02 <supermop> i did ! 17:41:12 <supermop> seems more like a rail type tho 17:43:37 <supermop> ok 9 roadtypes: DIRT, GRAV, EGRV, STON, ESTN, ROAD, ELRD, HWAY, EHWY 17:43:41 *** FLHerne has quit IRC 17:43:45 <supermop> not sure stone is needed 17:44:51 <supermop> maybe road becomes stone, and hway is the asphalt with stripes 17:45:38 <supermop> can add two more for BRT/EBRT 17:46:53 <Alberth> romans already built stone roads 17:47:40 <Alberth> need for gravel roads is likely connected with increasing weight of traffic 17:47:58 <Alberth> or with intensity/reliability or so 17:53:40 *** glx has joined #openttd 17:53:41 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v glx 17:56:47 <supermop> Alberth: yes, there are stone roads in antiquity, but gravel is cheaper 17:57:18 <supermop> but it needs a society to be already producing lots of crushed stone 17:57:40 <Alberth> since we build stone houses that we tear down after 20 years :) 17:58:00 <supermop> so romans probaby didn't bother with gravel - if the road is minor build dirt, if major build stone 17:58:41 <Alberth> vehicles were likely not that heavy, as they had to drive on non-stone roads as well 17:58:54 <supermop> where 'build dirt' was probably less grading and more 'walk along this path enough and it becomes a dirt road' 17:59:32 <Alberth> we still have those today, in woods, and along rivers 18:00:07 <Alberth> regular traffic likes to drive in straight lines 18:00:32 *** gelignite has joined #openttd 18:00:39 <Alberth> so not in woods and alongside rivers 18:00:47 <supermop> today in the US, dirt roads only really exists on private land, and very remote areas of parks and protected land 18:01:02 <supermop> unpaved public roads are now gravel 18:01:07 <supermop> where they remain 18:01:53 <supermop> i still remember some public dirt roads in minnesota from when i was a kid 18:01:55 <Alberth> likely, given the budget of road maintenance in the USA, as I understood it 18:03:51 *** Ethereal_Whisper has joined #openttd 18:05:42 <supermop> not sure anyone will care about building a road more expensive than dirt but cheaper than asphalt 18:06:08 <supermop> unless roads can modify the TE of vehicles 18:06:15 <Ethereal_Whisper> I mean of the road technologies out there, asphalt is basically the cheapest unless you don't pave it at all 18:06:48 <supermop> most mining access roads are going to be dirt or gravel though 18:07:42 <supermop> so any player who wants a variety of roads probably wants a road that looks good leading to a mine, and doesn't look like a city street 18:07:46 *** Progman has joined #openttd 18:08:29 <Samu> alright, it's not possible to balance running costs without being too obtrusive 18:08:46 <Samu> i have just increased it by 10 and it's still not enough 18:11:09 <Samu> capacity matters way too much and trains are kings here 18:16:33 *** FLHerne has joined #openttd 18:18:24 <Samu> something similar to what has been done with infrastructure maintenance costs for airports, has to be done with trains 18:18:35 <Samu> very disruptive 18:18:50 <Samu> and i bet no one would like that 18:18:59 <Samu> heck, i don't even like what happened with airports 18:19:53 <Samu> they went from viable as first transport type, to impossible as first transport type 18:37:10 *** Gja has joined #openttd 18:43:48 <supermop> airport newgrfs can reduce the infra costs 18:45:15 <supermop> or increase it 18:45:48 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: Commit by translators :: r27762 /trunk/src/lang (4 files) (2017-02-28 19:45:37 +0100 ) 18:45:49 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: -Update from Eints: 18:45:50 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: catalan: 5 changes by juanjo 18:45:51 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: greek: 29 changes by kyrm 18:45:52 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: croatian: 2 changes by UnderwaterHesus 18:45:53 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: (...) 18:46:04 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd 18:46:06 <andythenorth> o/ 18:46:50 <supermop> heyooo 18:47:26 <supermop> eager to hear your opinions on gravel 18:48:48 <supermop> also your name for the crappiest trackbed you can imagine 18:49:56 *** HerzogDeXtEr has joined #openttd 18:50:05 <andythenorth> gravel is small stones 18:50:06 <supermop> wolf and i settled on "SHIT" 18:50:20 <andythenorth> we won’t let my kids play that then :P 18:50:41 <supermop> well i need the string def. from you 18:52:28 <andythenorth> DIRT 18:52:29 <andythenorth> LAME 18:52:32 <andythenorth> SLOW 18:52:51 <supermop> dirt is road 18:53:09 <andythenorth> PATH 18:53:11 <andythenorth> GOAT 18:53:29 <andythenorth> goat trail is considered to be at the more technical end of 4x4 driving 18:53:52 <andythenorth> https://www.facebook.com/events/1072488169437383/ 18:54:00 <andythenorth> http://www.dangerousroads.org/australia-and-oceania/australia/3971-billy-goat-bluff-trail.html 18:54:36 <supermop> whats the name for the equivalently worthless tramway 18:54:46 <supermop> CANE? 18:54:49 <supermop> PEAT? 18:55:00 <andythenorth> dunno 18:55:19 <Samu> you know what? it might actually be a good idea 18:55:32 <Samu> disrupt train supremacy 18:55:51 <supermop> trains are supreme because they are fun 18:55:54 <Samu> but it's definitely not what I had in mind initially 18:55:59 <supermop> airplanes are boring 18:57:03 <supermop> Go to airport 1, go to airport 2, 18:57:13 <supermop> clone until holding pattern full 18:58:28 <planetmaker> \o 18:58:39 <andythenorth> hi planetmaker 18:59:00 <planetmaker> so we have now sensible accelerations as defaults? That's good :) 19:00:06 <Samu> there's BaseCostsMod 5.0 which could increase the running costs of trains, but it's not really the same feel as a game setting for vanilla 19:00:17 <Samu> vanilla engines 19:02:33 <Eddi|zuHause> with about 7 years delay 19:03:55 *** Progman has quit IRC 19:05:21 <Samu> what's wrong with http://imgur.com/ 19:05:25 <Samu> i can't open it 19:06:33 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause: 7 years is almost no time, for mature software :D 19:08:03 <Wolf01> <supermop> CANE? <- dog? XD 19:08:17 <Wolf01> Oh, is cat o/ 19:10:49 <andythenorth> is 19:10:56 <andythenorth> is refactoring FIRS? 19:10:57 <andythenorth> is 19:11:22 <V453000> Cat massive 19:17:29 *** Samu has quit IRC 19:18:44 *** Samu has joined #openttd 19:20:21 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd 19:20:28 *** matt11235 has quit IRC 19:20:31 <Wolf01> Quak 19:22:25 <Wolf01> https://youtu.be/i3tiuGVDDkk WHAT 19:23:50 <frosch123> hoi 19:24:36 <Samu> does imgur work? 19:24:42 *** Samu has quit IRC 19:24:50 *** Samu has joined #openttd 19:25:00 <Samu> i can't open it, i wanted to post an image to show you 19:25:17 <Wolf01> Half of the web doesn't work well for me 19:25:59 <frosch123> do you at least have the better half? 19:26:02 <Samu> any alternative? 19:26:13 <Samu> i get nothing, just a white page 19:26:13 <Wolf01> I have 1/4 good and 1/4 bad 19:26:39 <Wolf01> It works for me, just takes 3 minutes to load 19:28:05 <Samu> i didn't want to use onedrive, links are gigantic, but oh well 19:28:21 <Wolf01> It's not twitter here 19:31:11 <Samu> https://q3uyjw.dm2304.livefilestore.com/y3pfMvehotv6Cu9rPbMfDzr8J6YFr_ncTxlPzI7-yJhT8U-Q9M7hp1uhs1D6oDU4zzXGmtRtoAtjDnKWmzCXhFh3sytvfWKqhBkkABAj7UqjWi_0EasEQCdcI-d4Etskzd0LZ_bczXofE9WX2ci2FDyZ3bYmBpmVKM9FEuZee5QvwA/2017-02-28%20%282%29.png?psid=1 19:31:43 <SpComb> us-east-1 S3 is down 19:32:55 <Samu> hmm i forgot what i was going to say 19:33:03 <Wolf01> Yes 19:33:07 <frosch123> they are installing a new web filter 19:33:31 *** Arveen has joined #openttd 19:33:34 <andythenorth> is that why my Zendesk is broken :P 19:34:00 <Samu> ah, about infrastructure maintenance costs 19:34:38 <Samu> i turned it on for trains, and also increased the running costs massively on them 19:34:58 <Samu> what do you think? 19:35:45 <Samu> running cost went from -£1,101,367 to -£7,563,774 19:36:25 <Samu> property maintenance went from -£120,000 to -£6,790,668 19:36:49 <Samu> and there's the profit graph to have a look at the difference over 1 year 19:37:21 <Samu> the other openttd shows infrastructure costs for aircraft 19:37:48 <Samu> that part is untouched 19:37:59 <Samu> it's just for comparison 19:38:01 <Wolf01> Can't see the picture 19:38:03 <Samu> oh t.t 19:38:35 <Samu> damn imgur, do you know an alternative? 19:40:29 <Samu> https://files.catbox.moe/8gz5k2.png 19:40:34 <Samu> does it open 19:46:35 *** Samu has quit IRC 19:46:45 *** Samu has joined #openttd 19:52:04 <supermop> andythenorth: guided busway? 19:52:21 <supermop> more interesting than hway? 19:52:47 <andythenorth> bbl 19:52:48 *** andythenorth has left #openttd 19:59:53 *** matt11235 has joined #openttd 20:06:21 <supermop> speed limits for dirt is tricky 20:06:44 <supermop> if i have a rally car, i should be able to drive 100mph on a private dirt road 20:07:41 <supermop> as dirt roads are outside of town, far from the cops, they should have higher speedlimit than ROAD 20:08:20 <Samu> dirt rally tycoon 20:16:01 <Eddi|zuHause> only if you have general lee 20:20:39 <supermop> hmm can i make ROAD unbuildable by player? 20:24:17 <frosch123> introdate in far future? 20:26:26 <supermop> then towns cant grow 20:26:53 <supermop> so i have dirt 50kmh, gravel 70kmh, stone 80kmh 20:27:22 <supermop> asphalt 100kmh, hway no limit? 20:27:37 <frosch123> you can also increase the cost by factor 1000 :p 20:27:42 <supermop> maybe lower gravel? 20:27:58 <frosch123> but it may make money when converting road 20:28:19 <frosch123> towns building gold roads 20:28:25 <frosch123> players harvesting them 20:28:54 <supermop> is gravel cheap to maintain because it's so simple, or expensive because you have to re-grade it every year? 20:29:38 <supermop> it seems like stone should be more expensive to build than asphalt, and slower, and more expensive to maintain 20:29:42 <frosch123> that depends on the usage :) 20:29:47 <supermop> so no reason to ever build it 20:30:03 <supermop> unless you start in 100BCE 20:30:26 <frosch123> gravel is cheap and lasts long if rarely used 20:30:43 <supermop> maintenance cost based of traffic? 20:31:24 <supermop> so the newer roads are more expensive, but their upkeep costs scale better with traffic 20:38:23 *** Wormnest_ has joined #openttd 20:45:25 *** Wormnest has quit IRC 20:47:35 *** orudge` has quit IRC 20:47:56 *** orudge` has joined #openttd 20:47:56 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o orudge` 20:55:54 <Alberth> make a gold road for towns :p 20:58:12 <supermop> the sprites already exists in the nrt wiki page 21:02:30 <supermop> should the crappiest tramway be cheaper than gravel road? 21:03:07 <frosch123> you mean andy's yellow road? 21:04:18 <__ln__> anyone going to go see the solar eclipse in august? 21:04:30 *** supermop has quit IRC 21:04:46 *** supermop has joined #openttd 21:05:17 *** skapazzo has quit IRC 21:12:10 *** ericnoan has joined #openttd 21:12:15 *** Wormnest__ has joined #openttd 21:17:44 *** frosch123 has quit IRC 21:18:45 *** Wormnest_ has quit IRC 21:26:35 *** supermop_ has joined #openttd 21:30:32 *** sim-al2 has joined #openttd 21:31:46 *** supermop has quit IRC 21:36:36 *** Alberth has left #openttd 21:41:32 <Eddi|zuHause> why is firefox using 25% mem, and "Web Content" using another 20%? 21:42:37 <Eddi|zuHause> also, why did my sound break? 21:46:22 *** Eddi|zuHause has quit IRC 21:46:44 *** Eddi|zuHause has joined #openttd 21:51:07 <Samu> hey 21:51:16 <Samu> Wolf01: i found the engines.h file 21:51:52 <Samu> i can try now wagon running cost based on the wagon weigth 21:52:15 <Samu> if i give wagons a running cost class, that is 21:52:32 <Samu> there's steam, diesel and electric 21:53:26 <Samu> steam = expensive, diesel = medium, electric = cheap 21:54:21 <Wolf01> Wagons don't have a type 21:55:16 <Samu> but i can edit that in 21:55:33 <Wolf01> It makes no sense 21:55:42 <Samu> let me see how broken this breaks openttd, brb 21:56:35 <Samu> i just gave a running cost to passenger carriage 21:56:41 <Samu> £615/yr 21:56:44 <Samu> lel 21:57:04 <Samu> it's 25 tonnes, so the cost factor is also 25 21:57:29 <Samu> then some magic is done to get the price into a number and it became £615/yr 21:57:38 <Samu> openttd computing GetPrice 21:59:22 <Samu> there's 3 carriages for the same type 22:01:30 <Samu> maglev = steam 22:01:43 <Samu> monorail = diesel 22:01:58 <Samu> rail = electric 22:02:39 <Samu> brb 22:04:42 *** gelignite has quit IRC 22:05:48 <Samu> http://imgur.com/28oGKD6 22:05:49 <Samu> nice 22:17:13 <Samu> okay, it makes no sense then, reverting changes 22:25:10 *** sla_ro|master has quit IRC 22:46:51 *** matt11235 has quit IRC 23:18:51 <Samu> @calc ((1920) - 1) / 4 - ((1920) - 1) / 100 + ((1920) - 1) / 400 + 1) 23:18:51 <DorpsGek> Samu: Error: unexpected EOF while parsing (<string>, line 1) 23:20:16 *** Wormnest__ has quit IRC 23:21:07 <Samu> @calc 1919/4-1919/100+1919/401 23:21:07 <DorpsGek> Samu: 465.34553616 23:22:51 <Samu> @calc 365*20+465 23:22:51 <DorpsGek> Samu: 7765 23:23:41 *** HerzogDeXtEr1 has joined #openttd 23:24:05 <Samu> @calc 365*1920+465 23:24:05 <DorpsGek> Samu: 701265 23:24:45 <Samu> @calc 703092-701265 23:24:45 <DorpsGek> Samu: 1827 23:30:16 *** HerzogDeXtEr has quit IRC 23:30:17 *** JezK_ has joined #openttd 23:47:59 *** Gja has quit IRC 23:52:20 *** FLHerne has quit IRC 23:53:49 <Samu> Wolf01: did you see that? 23:53:59 <Samu> http://imgur.com/28oGKD6 23:54:17 <Samu> running cost based on wagon weight