What patches are the devs working on?

[TrainLover]

So reading http://wiki.openttd.org/Requested_features I realized there are a lot of cool features that are at 90% development or 75% development? Does this mean that these will be in the next version of OpenTTD?

[Redirect Left]

I wouldn't take those numbers as accurate. The history for that page is very inconsistant, with gaps of over a year between page updates in the past https://wiki.openttd.org/?title=Request ... on=history

[FLHerne]

No, it just means the feature was '90% done' in the estimation of whoever added that entry, usually several years ago.

In general, '90%' seems to mean "a patch exists, and does the thing". The rate of external patches getting into trunk, even when apparently complete, is very low for Reasons*.

100% presumably means the feature is in trunk, hence will appear in the next release if it wasn't already in a past one.

*i.e. devs with commit access ignoring most patches until their author stops caring...

[Eddi]

the 90-90 rule says that once you're 90% done, you just have to do the other 90%.

[andythenorth]

That page on the wiki ought to be binned It's of no real use.

[Alberth]

Maybe the request itself is 90% complete

[Pyoro]

I like day length. It's at 50%. Well, the patch does it 100%, but since it comes with fundamental bugs, its approach is probably unsuitable for trunk inclusion, so that's 0% progress there. Which I guess amounts to 50% done. Ha ha. Rite ...

Still, it's a nice overview for patches. There's some I hadn't heard of. ^^

[JGR]

I like day length. It's at 50%. Well, the patch does it 100%, but since it comes with fundamental bugs, its approach is probably unsuitable for trunk inclusion, so that's 0% progress there. Which I guess amounts to 50% done. Ha ha. Rite ...

Still, it's a nice overview for patches. There's some I hadn't heard of. ^^

Which particular day-length patch are we talking about? There must be at least half a dozen flavours of varying levels of quirkiness floating around.

That page on the wiki ought to be binned It's of no real use.

It's a wiki, so in principle at least people can make edits to make it less out of date.

[Pyoro]

pavel's Another Daylength patch. Of course, which precise variation of that variation of daylength patches the wiki refers to - I have no idea either But I'm fairly sure they all have those animation problems.

[JGR]

pavel's Another Daylength patch. Of course, which precise variation of that variation of daylength patches the wiki refers to - I have no idea either But I'm fairly sure they all have those animation problems.

If you mean the industry/house/GRF animation slow-downs, those and some other day length issues are fixed in my patch pack, which is based on Pavel's patch.

[Pyoro]

Yes, that's the ones I meant. Interesting - yeah, I see it in your changelog now Guess I wasn't up-to-date.

So, release it separately and put it up for trunk inclusion

[JGR]

So, release it separately and put it up for trunk inclusion

Heh. If I were to start proposing stuff for trunk inclusion, day length wouldn't even be near the top of the list.

[kamnet]

Just curious, what would be your top 5?

[JGR]

Just curious, what would be your top 5?

I hadn't really thought that far when I made that comment, but thinking about it now I might go with (excluding bugfix/performance patches) in no particular order:

• Close adjacent level crossings
• Enhanced viewports (with bugfixes applied, etc.)
• Vehicles visible in tunnels (transparency setting)
• Build and refit
• Town cargo generation factor

Excluding enhanced viewports these are all fairly small and inoffensive. Of the large 3rd party patches that I've imported, enhanced viewports was probably the least troublesome.

[R2]

What means "enhanced viewports"?

Wasn't it planned to make the map turnable at least in 90° steps? Was that idea abandoned?

[kamnet]

What means "enhanced viewports"?

This: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=53394

Wasn't it planned to make the map turnable at least in 90° steps? Was that idea abandoned?

Unless somebody is writing a whole new game to make that happen, it was never a plan at all.

[Alberth]

A new game is even quite feasible, the bigger issue is making a few graphics (all base sets, and all newgrfs)

[kamnet]

A new game is even quite feasible, the bigger issue is making a few graphics (all base sets, and all newgrfs)

Feasible? Yes. But, again, who is actually working on it? Nobody. At least, nobody who has publicly announced it.

Waaaiiit... Alberth, are you holding out on something?

[JGR]

A new game is even quite feasible, the bigger issue is making a few graphics (all base sets, and all newgrfs)

You don't need a large choice of graphics to have a playable game, GRFs are mostly eye-candy, and users can create them themselves.
I wouldn't underestimate the accumulated development time/effort in the game itself, and in a hypothetical replacement.

[Alberth]

If you want rotatable maps, you need to fill3 extra views that currently don't exist in any newgrf or baseset, except for what is rotatable now, ie vehicles, tracks/roads, and airports.

My first attempt in the program would be to just walk the map array in a different order and render a different side. Alternatively, you could rotate the map-array itself, but that requires the view to be stored in the map too (which you would also need if you want free builds in any orientation, btw).