Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

[perk11]

Yes, the same problem is with that revision without patch I'll try to use one of previous versions.

[Rubidium]

As your build does not support making a backtrace the information you've given is not enough to get this debugged. To be helpful create a full debug binary (./configure --enable-debug=3) and run that in gdb (make run-gdb). Then once it has crashed type "bt full" to get a full backtrace of the crash location and post that in this thread.

What would also be helpful is writing support for dumping the back/stracktrace, but that might be difficult or not even possible.

[Hirundo]

Without a stack trace or FreeBSD machine, there's little I can do. Following Rubidium's steps should help.


The main problem of IS is that there are some things that are very hard / impossible to do *properly*:
- Cargo payments, when multiple companies are involved in transportation of a cargo packet.
- Handling bankruptcies and changes of sharing settings in a graceful manner, while still retaining the possibility to prevent 'abuse' of your network.

These issues are not very prominent in the more friendly #openttdcoop-style environment, but they cannot be ignored when IS has to work in the rest of the world. As a consequence, unless someone comes up with a solution, any attempts to merge with trunk will be futile, even when ignoring the general difficulty of merging a 50-100kb patch. This resulted in a reduction in motivation which, combined with a drop in available free time, brought my work on this patch to a standstill.

Nevertheless, updating to trunk should be relatively easy and I may do that in the near future. However, I will not be writing any new features and such. If someone is interested in taking over development and/or reintroduce individual sharing settings, I'll be more than happy to provide any advice / information needed.

[perk11]

As your build does not support making a backtrace the information you've given is not enough to get this debugged. To be helpful create a full debug binary (./configure --enable-debug=3)

I made another thing: ./configure CXXFLAGS="-g -O0 -fno-inline" CFLAGS="-g -O0 -fno-inline" and got 70Mb openttd binary After trying ./configure --enable-debug=3 gdb was just crashing.
So here is the result of "bt full"

strace.txt

(3.42 KiB) Downloaded 117 times

[Rubidium]

That trace smells like the IS2.1.1 binary finding a sound set from a later release and crashing on loading it; that is crashing on the fact that the filename of the soundset is null. Loading such sound sets was introduced not that long ago, which is probably why IS2's binary crashes.

Note that the backtrace contains quite a few odd numbers/values, e.g. filename differen between OpenBankFile and FioOpenFile, and as such my guess might be incorrect.

[perk11]

That trace smells like the IS2.1.1 binary finding a sound set from a later release and crashing on loading it; that is crashing on the fact that the filename of the soundset is null. Loading such sound sets was introduced not that long ago, which is probably why IS2's binary crashes.

Note that the backtrace contains quite a few odd numbers/values, e.g. filename differen between OpenBankFile and FioOpenFile, and as such my guess might be incorrect.

Oh yes, wrong data files were the reason of crash, it works now, thank you! I'll post server adress here when I decide on settings and start it.

[perk11]

So thanks to all. I started the IS2.1.1 server.
address: perk11.info
grfs: http://perk11.info/p.rar
Name: "Free for all, never ending, no autoclean grfs: perk11.info/p.rar"
A complete pack for windows (download and run): http://perk11.info/tmp/is2_sborka.rar

[escopena]

Hi,

I am going to update my patch pack from revision 14563 and I would like to use this new version of Infrastructure Sharing. I feel a bit uncertain how actively this patch is developed in future... How many developers are actually updating this? Is there a plan for future development?

Nice work this far, keep it going!!

[planetmaker]

Currently it's unlikely to receive updates.

There are a number of issues when it comes to trunk inclusion (see http://dev.openttdcoop.org/projects/is2/issues to get an idea) which basically have no satisfactory solution. As such development is in hibernation.

[escopena]

We are currently using original Shared Infrastructure patch. For payments I have developed station rent system. You can determine how many percent of last year profit of visiting vehicle you want to get as rent. We have found that very easy way to pay and receive rent for using shared infra.

For example company A is using company B airport. Company B sets rent to 25%. So company A is paying 25% of profit of its planes to company B.

Track and road can also be easily rented. Company A builds a track and one station in middle sets rent as 5% and all other companies using track are paying 5% of profit for company A as rent.

[2007Alain2007]

what if the train only uses part of the track with no station i think you should also add the rent to way ponits as well easyer on the eyes

[escopena]

Yes, waypoints should also be used for receive/pay rent. I haven't implemented this because we are using so old trunk revision that waypoints are only for single track and therefore useless.

It would be very nice to have IS2 core functionality in its own patch. Patch should be also kept sync with trunk. Core functionality covers only possibility to use share infra. Only GUI what is needed is option button to turn sharing on or off. No individual sharing settings, no time/tile based rents... Just basic path finding functionality to use shared infra. Transfer fees should be handled as there are handled inside single company. That kind of patch would greatly help to develop new solutions to payments and other issues.

[perk11]

what if the train only uses part of the track with no station i think you should also add the rent to way points as well easier on the eyes

I agree, but waypoints is not very nice too, because players must calculate track lengths themselves! My ideal vision of this patch implementation (I mean usability, not code) variant is to pay for every day (or maybe tick) that train is on opponent's rails. And taking % of profit is good idea but I think: 1. % of receipts is better than % of profit, because other players may create unprofitable trains which will still load my rails! 2. Player should be able to choose he or herself whether they want to take % of receipts or regular fee for each player, because for the same reason as in point 1. This may be implemented as contracts among players for example for one year with automatic prolongation if both sides haven't cancelled the contract or didn't agree on a new one for the next year (or other period)

[SwissFan91]

Apologies in advance, but I am a newcomer to this patch. What are the main reasons for this not being in trunk? Are there known bugs that are preventing it, or is it a case of someone needing to do the coding work, or what?

[FooBar]

See planetmaker's post, about five posts earlier.

[SwissFan91]

Oopsie. The only thing was, I was thinking of starting a game with this, and wondered if there were any major bugs that prevent normal gameplay?

[FooBar]

Given the list of issues (I haven't tried this patch myself any time recently), the version existing today is playable without problems, but trunk inclusion needs some major work. Furthermore some features may be missing, but not broken.

I think it's safe to say that you can play a game with this without problems.

[Anon]

Latest infrastructure sharing against 1.0.2

[Ammler]

Your help would be more appreciated, if you update against trunk, as you can't use it with stable anyway.

[Anon]

Why can't? Already using