New map features

[JGR]

As much as it'd be better to solely use newgrf properties, as this feature would only exist in non-trunk versions, it seems unrealistic to expect any significant subset of past or future newgrf authors to choose to implement it. Having some sort of fallback such as allowing bridges over roofless stations is probably necessary for the feature to be of practical use with newgrf stations.

[Eddi]

i think adding this property should have been done years ago, so NewGRF authors could have had time to prepare. it's not like the discussion is new or anything...

also, there isn't really something in the way of adding this to trunk, as the NewGRF thing is the only real issue holding it back.

[wallyweb]

Alternatively, we can also tell users not to use a tall rail station tile under a bridge? It is not as if the particular station tile choice has any impact on gameplay, right? Is there any NewGRF out there that only offers roofed tiles?

I would really like this to be done properly with a NewGRF property similar to bridge height for objects.

this means, any existing NewGRF stations would be excluded from having bridges over them. relying on the fallback graphics type is not reliable, and any hacks involving sprite height or stuff are nonsense.

As much as it'd be better to solely use newgrf properties, as this feature would only exist in non-trunk versions, it seems unrealistic to expect any significant subset of past or future newgrf authors to choose to implement it. Having some sort of fallback such as allowing bridges over roofless stations is probably necessary for the feature to be of practical use with newgrf stations.

i think adding this property should have been done years ago, so NewGRF authors could have had time to prepare. it's not like the discussion is new or anything...

also, there isn't really something in the way of adding this to trunk, as the NewGRF thing is the only real issue holding it back.

Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware:
Allow bridge building at any level.

Considering the above suggestions as well as HackaLittleBit's, kamnet's, Quast65's and Streckenläufer's thoughts and questions, how about the following? ...
For evaluation purposes, code a NMF diff/patch that allows any level bridge over road, rail and sea stations, waypoints, buoys and depots with a warning in the diff/patch release post that the feature is for player evaluation and is not saved game safe pending the development of a proper NewGRF Specification.
This will give everybody a chance to see and comment upon what works and what does not work from a graphical point of view and give Cirdan an opportunity to resolve any coding bugs.

Once a NewGRF Specification has been done and tested, it can be included in the default station hard code. Authors of existing GRFs can then decide whether to update their code with this property. Authors of future GRFs will have access to this property right out of the box.

At the risk of being cast into an eternal flame, may I suggest inluding bridges over bridges as well? I am having some interesting thoughts of the possibilities.

[planetmaker]

As much as it'd be better to solely use newgrf properties, as this feature would only exist in non-trunk versions, it seems unrealistic to expect any significant subset of past or future newgrf authors to choose to implement it. Having some sort of fallback such as allowing bridges over roofless stations is probably necessary for the feature to be of practical use with newgrf stations.

Implementing an additional propertyA which defines the height of the building and whether bridges are allowed over it in new NewGRFs is not a big deal. So if the specs should be created in a reasonable manner, I would expect it to stick and be picked up. Starting with "evaluation hacks" on the other hand is a sure way to bad results and will make sure people rather not spend time on implementing it.

[HackaLittleBit]

Just a pic to illustrate all the problems.

1 Pillars through ceiling.
2 Bridges with and without pillars.
3 Distance between pillars.
4 Roof height of building.
5 Tiles with and without roof.

Did I forget something?

[cirdan]

As much as it'd be better to solely use newgrf properties, as this feature would only exist in non-trunk versions, it seems unrealistic to expect any significant subset of past or future newgrf authors to choose to implement it. Having some sort of fallback such as allowing bridges over roofless stations is probably necessary for the feature to be of practical use with newgrf stations.

I too think that this is the way forward, at least for now.

Considering the above suggestions as well as HackaLittleBit's, kamnet's, Quast65's and Streckenläufer's thoughts and questions, how about the following? ...
For evaluation purposes, code a NMF diff/patch that allows any level bridge over road, rail and sea stations, waypoints, buoys and depots with a warning in the diff/patch release post that the feature is for player evaluation and is not saved game safe pending the development of a proper NewGRF Specification.
This will give everybody a chance to see and comment upon what works and what does not work from a graphical point of view and give Cirdan an opportunity to resolve any coding bugs.

See below. Note that savegame compatibility is not a problem, as the format is not changed. If you build a bridge that we later disallow, you will be stuck with a bridge that may look ugly and cannot be rebuilt, but that is all.

At the risk of being cast into an eternal flame, may I suggest inluding bridges over bridges as well? I am having some interesting thoughts of the possibilities.

When I designed my new map array, I deliberately reserved 4 bits in each bridgeable tile so that we could have overcrossing bridges with signals. Then again, having room for them in the map array is only the beginning.

Here is a new version of the patch. It allows bridges over buoys (an oversight in my first patch) and over rail stations and waypoints:

• For standard rail station tiles, the bridge deck must be 4 levels higher than the station for roofed tiles, 2 levels higher for the station building tile and at any height above for standard non-roofed tiles.
• For standard waypoints, the bridge deck must be 3 levels higher than the waypoint.
• For custom rail station and waypoint tiles, you can build a bridge at any height, for testing purposes.

Please test and report what you find. The values for standard tiles are the minimum required to avoid glitches, but that is all the testing that I have done. Please test your favourite NewGRFs, so that we can reach a consensus on what to do with them and whether to extend the spec for this.

[wallyweb]

Here is a new version of the patch. It allows bridges over buoys (an oversight in my first patch) and over rail stations and waypoints:

• For standard rail station tiles, the bridge deck must be 4 levels higher than the station for roofed tiles, 2 levels higher for the station building tile and at any height above for standard non-roofed tiles.
• For standard waypoints, the bridge deck must be 3 levels higher than the waypoint.
• For custom rail station and waypoint tiles, you can build a bridge at any height, for testing purposes.

Please test and report what you find. The values for standard tiles are the minimum required to avoid glitches, but that is all the testing that I have done. Please test your favourite NewGRFs, so that we can reach a consensus on what to do with them and whether to extend the spec for this.

Here is the unguaranteed Win32 binary 2nd Edition pathched to the current NMF push:

OpenTTD-NMF-bridge-test-g2505861bM-Win32-2nd-Edition.7z

THIS IS THE 2ND EDITION

(5.46 MiB) Downloaded 89 times

Happy Testing.

[Timeflyer]

would be very very very very nice to have the Houseplacing in the map editor !!!!

This would be more than awesome for most map-creating people !!!!

[cirdan]

Here is the unguaranteed Win32 binary 2nd Edition patched to the current NMF push:

Thank you, as always.

would be very very very very nice to have the Houseplacing in the map editor !!!!

This would be more than awesome for most map-creating people !!!!

Err, have you actually tried? It should already be there.

[Timeflyer]

Err, have you actually tried? It should already be there.

would be nice to have this ONE in a STABLE VERSION !!!! That's waht i mean

[HackaLittleBit]

would be nice to have this ONE in a STABLE VERSION !!!! That's waht i mean

Why do CAPITAL LETTERS so annoy us?
It would be more helpful if you would point out what is not stable in Cirdan's branche!

[HackaLittleBit]

Just some testing.

Code: Select all

uint gfx = layout[platform * plat_len + offset];
uint check_bridge = (statspec != NULL) ? 1 :  (gfx < 2 ? 1 : gfx < 4 ? 2 : 4);

check_bridge is always 1 with newgrf correct?
Att. Ore unloader station 0.1 has moving crane.

Awesome graphics by the way.

[HackaLittleBit]

Implementing an additional propertyA which defines the height of the building and whether bridges are allowed over it in new NewGRFs is not a big deal. So if the specs should be created in a reasonable manner, I would expect it to stick and be picked up. Starting with "evaluation hacks" on the other hand is a sure way to bad results and will make sure people rather not spend time on implementing it.

just a preliminary proposal.
Some things may be missing.
But it is food for thought.
I hope it makes sense.
Note, I do not know newgrf's inner workings.

Byte for buildings

Code: Select all

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0  : Bridge construction allowed. (no yes)
1  : Bridge pillars on north side allowed. (no yes)
2  : Bridge pillars on south side allowed. (no yes) 
     If both north and south are zero, no pillars allowed.
     If both north and south are one, tile handles pillars unconditional.	 
345: Amount of extra z-levels to add, before bridge construction is allowed. (7 levels)
     Or height in z-levels of structure.
67 : Reserved.

Byte for bridges

Code: Select all

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0  : Bridge can be build over buildings. (no yes)
1  : Has pillars. (no yes)
234: Max length of middle section bridge = 7 tiles or more. 
56 : Min length of middle section + 1 = 1 .. 4 tiles
     Zero means bridge has no middle sections.
7  : Minimum z-level nescessary of bridge deck to clear roof top's. (zero or one)

[wallyweb]

The image below demonstrates that the player does have default bridge options where the pillars do not penetrate the roof of the hall.

NMF Bridge Test - Default - Small.png (396.18 KiB) Viewed 956 times

Loading the TBRS GRF seen below shows the player has even more options to pick from.

NMF Bridge Test - TBRS - Small.png (412.89 KiB) Viewed 956 times

The attached save game shows almost all the default bridges.

NMF Bridge Test - Default, 24th Sep 2000.7z

(7.54 KiB) Downloaded 93 times

Now load TBRS into that game and see what happens.

Bridge pillars vary greatly in quantity, shape and positioning. It would be a nightmare to work up code to control them from another GRF such as stations.
If anything, to provide the player with more choice, the number of defined bridges (13) should be increased or multiple bridge sets should be allowed.
I no longer think that "allow bridge" and "bridge height" should be added to station properties. The images and saved game demonstrate that the player has a wealth of choices to explore. Until quantum computing comes to TTDX/OTTD, only the stupid AI needs guidance. As much as politicians and the Illuminati wish we were, humans are not AI ... (yet ).

[HackaLittleBit]

Another solution could be giving a preview of bridge to be build + button to actually construct.

Player selects site to construct bridge and then selects a bridge in option box.
The bridge is shown as preview on the selected site.
Only when player clicks 'build' button, the action is completed.

[JGR]

Byte for bridges

Code: Select all

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
234: Max length of middle section bridge = 7 tiles or more. 
56 : Min length of middle section + 1 = 1 .. 4 tiles
     Zero means bridge has no middle sections.

I don't really follow this bit, the bridge tile layout and length restrictions are already defined in the GRF spec.
There's no need to specify them again by a separate mechanism unless you're implying adjusting the bridge tile layout to match the restrictions of tiles underneath?

Also more generally, memory isn't *that* scarce and I don't think it's necessary to be that tight-fisted with bit allocations within the GRF interface. Some level of future-proofing is generally prudent to avoid creating future maintenance work for yourself.

[HackaLittleBit]

unless you're implying adjusting the bridge tile layout to match the restrictions of tiles underneath?

Sort of.
If you look at the pic you can see that bridge 3 and 4 only differ at the middle section.
If you would know before building the bridge, the size of that middle section or available middle sections you would be able to say if bridge would put pillars or not on station.
Bridge 1 has a middle section of 2 or 3.
The idea was to give info to the routine of available length of middle sections, to give as little interference as possible to the underlying structures.(houses stations etc.)
I don't know if this is possible.
Correct me if I am wrong, but for example bridge 4 with a middle span of 5 or 7 tiles would be awesome.
Just brain storming.

[wallyweb]

Another solution could be giving a preview of bridge to be build + button to actually construct.

I like this.

I don't know if this is possible.
Correct me if I am wrong, but for example bridge 4 with a middle span of 5 or 7 tiles would be awesome.
Just brain storming.

The possibilities are here.

[HackaLittleBit]

The possibilities are here.

Thanks.

[HackaLittleBit]

And other solution.
Substituting sections of bridge with BRIDGE_PIECE_MIDDLE_EVEN.