Unpaved roads

Got an idea for OpenTTD? Post it here!

Moderator: OpenTTD Developers

Eddi
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 8258
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 00:14

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Eddi »

Pascal Lambert wrote:Maybe I can start a new project for this... but I am not a dev, neither I am an artist, neither I know OpenTTD coding.
with that skillset, you should probably find an easier project to start...
Pascal Lambert
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 30
Joined: 30 Aug 2004 15:45
Location: France

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Pascal Lambert »

Eddi wrote:
Pascal Lambert wrote:Maybe I can start a new project for this... but I am not a dev, neither I am an artist, neither I know OpenTTD coding.
with that skillset, you should probably find an easier project to start...
I agree.
But if I do not make the first step, who will ?
Eddi
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 8258
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 00:14

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Eddi »

we don't have a shortage of people making first steps. what we do not have is people having the patience and endurance to follow through to the end, combined with enough architectural knowledge of OpenTTD to know what they are doing, and enough understanding what NewGRF artists and coders will need.
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8548
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by kamnet »

Pascal Lambert wrote:
Roslav wrote:Why not make it to be extensible via NewGRF like rail and let default be as is now?
Does anybody have an idea about how to do this ?
Maybe I can start a new project for this... but I am not a dev, neither I am an artist, neither I know OpenTTD coding.
Who may join a team to start the work on roads ?

Pascal
Again, this is pointless until somebody finishes the RoadType spec. The easiest part is developing code and graphics for NewGRFs.
Roslav
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 59
Joined: 19 May 2014 21:50
Location: Slovakia

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Roslav »

kamnet wrote:
Pascal Lambert wrote:
Roslav wrote:Why not make it to be extensible via NewGRF like rail and let default be as is now?
Does anybody have an idea about how to do this ?
Maybe I can start a new project for this... but I am not a dev, neither I am an artist, neither I know OpenTTD coding.
Who may join a team to start the work on roads ?

Pascal
Again, this is pointless until somebody finishes the RoadType spec. The easiest part is developing code and graphics for NewGRFs.
Is anyone currently working on it? I have found only some old thread (http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=56411), wiki entry (http://wiki.openttd.org/User:Leandenx/NewGRFRoadTypes) and IRC discussion (http://irclogs.qmsk.net/channels/opentt ... -01?page=5), everything from 2011.
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

I would bet a fair sum that RoadTypes won't appear in the next 5 years, if ever. It has been talked to death in irc. There is no agreement on whether it's even desirable, much less spec. Neither has anyone shown interest in coding it. :)

Nor, given the discussion so far, is it likely to make progress by talking about it even more, it has been talked to death. Amongst other issues, nobody can explain how it improves gameplay meaningfully.

If someone turns up with a 100% working patch it might get included, if its got gameplay value, but otherwise its a dead idea ;)
Netist
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Oct 2014 20:16

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Netist »

The same argument can be made about different rail types. How do different rail types meaningfully improve gameplay? All the rail types basically do the same thing! It's such a waste of space! All they do is artificially bar progression. Why not just have one type of rail? Actually, we've already got two types of roads in the game. Why not just get rid of streetcar tracks? It's pointless. Why not just have trams run on the road like normal cars?

Because I think we can all agree that wouldn't be much fun.

Vehicles are, honestly, boring as hell right now, especially in the vanilla game. It's one of the big reasons I tend to avoid using them. Rails are complex. There are meaningful design challenges associated with creating an efficient rail network. I'm pretty sure that's why most people here are playing this game. The same really can't be said about road vehicles. In fact, road networks tend to just kind of manage themselves. Usually this is okay, but some times it can be frustrating (I'd love for the second lane on one-way roads to function as a passing lane!). Different road types allows the same progression that rails have, which introduces at least some kind of complexity. And when you start adding complexity, you open up the possibility for meaningful design choices (as long as you're adding complexity intelligently).

More road types also add meaningful economic decisions to the game. Again, it's no different than rails. If I upgrade my rails to electric rails right now, I could potentially make some more profit using a faster electric train, but is the increase enough to warrant the investment? If I upgrade my roads to asphalt right now, I could potentially make some more profit using a faster truck, but is the increase enough to warrant the investment? The parallel isn't hard to draw.

You could also consider the realism factor. I, personally, like to play games that start as early as 1700 or 1800. Having paved asphalt roads with dashed yellow lines looks completely stupid. I'd love to have dirt or cobblestone roads at this point, which I could later replace with more modern roads, just as I'd do with railroads. I'd also love for some earlier vehicles (like horse-drawn wagons) to be added into the game proper, but that's a discussion for another time.

My point is, these are all arguments for the inclusion of road types that I pulled out of my rear after thinking on the issue for all of 10 minutes. Given more time, I'm sure I could come up with more. OpenTTD is, fundamentally, a sandbox game. Anything that makes building more enjoyable inherently contributes to the game meaningfully. The core dev team is in no way obligated to add anything to the game, of course. But if you don't want to do it, just say so. Saying "I don't get it", or "I don't see how this is meaningful" seems like a really poor excuse to me.
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

[Apologies for wall of text! I didn't intend to do that, just got typing]

I don't think meaningful economic decisions are particularly fun gameplay. :)

I think the core game (sometimes), and newgrfs (frequently) reach for "it causes players to do cost-benefit" as a post-hoc rationalisation for "I had this idea that seemed good at the time". And because there are constant messages in the world that life is a cost-benefit, rational-maximisation exercise, we unthinkingly accept that this must also be a good model for good gameplay. But I find that doing economic cost-benefit is remarkably boring in a game. :)

But anyway, and so...

Trams have a different routing model to non-tram RVs, which adds variety to gameplay. Nothing in the many RoadType discussions I've seen (and there have been many) proposes additional routing models. Mostly the focus is on issues like appearance, catenary, sidewalks, speed limits, costs, modifying vehicle TE or power, and enabling/limiting vehicle types.

Road appearance is already modifiable via newgrf, and there are many road grfs. There is (limited) date support, offering dirt roads before a certain date.

Horse wagons are in eGRVTS, they're vanishingly unlikely to appear in core OpenTTD ;)

Issues like overtaking and use of lanes are currently inherent limitations in OpenTTD's vehicle handling, and would not be touched by RoadTypes.

And...

To implement RoadTypes is a lot of work, given
- the limitations in the map array (there are free bytes, but only enough for a limited implementation)
- roads are inherently shared infrastructure, so any RoadTypes spec needs to be careful about accidental griefing by towns / other players / AIs. (Deliberate griefing is fine, if you don't like it, just don't play with idiots).
- multiple RoadTypes can be present on a tile. Different railtypes cannot. Handling this is non-trivial.
- roads need a relatively complex stack of sprites to handle cases like tram tracks and catenary.
- different types might contend to provide sprites like catenary.

There's no single blocking issue, but it adds up to a lot of fiddly work, and nobody is very interested so far in taking it on. Any debate about it typically ends in either "but first we need to rewrite the map array" or "what's the actual benefit to all this?".

And to end :)

Still nobody yet has made a compelling case for gameplay benefit of RoadTypes. But tbh, from what I've seen of development that's not how features tend to arrive anyway. Typically someone turns up with working code, and it gets in or it gets rejected. There is sometimes very careful up-front design and such (especially in newgrf spec and networking), and other times something looks fun and meets code standards so it goes in. I don't want to give a misleading impression that there is a constant rational debate about features, cos I'm not aware of one :D

So there's some more hot air expended by me on a feature that's never going to happen :twisted:
Last edited by andythenorth on 03 Nov 2014 22:09, edited 1 time in total.
Netist
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Oct 2014 20:16

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Netist »

andythenorth wrote:[Apologies for wall of text! I didn't intend to do that, just got typing]

I don't think meaningful economic decisions are particularly fun gameplay. :)

I think the core game (sometimes), and newgrfs (frequently) reach for "it causes players to do cost-benefit" as a post-hoc rationalisation for "I had this idea that seemed good at the time". And because there are constant messages in the world that life is a cost-benefit, rational-maximisation exercise, we unthinkingly accept that this must also be a good model for good gameplay. But I find that doing economic cost-benefit is remarkably boring in a game. :)
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I enjoy that kind of analysis.
andythenorth wrote:Trams have a different routing model to non-tram RVs, which adds variety to gameplay. Nothing in the many RoadType discussions I've seen (and there have been many) proposes additional routing models. Mostly the focus is on issues like appearance, catenary, sidewalks, speed limits, costs, modifying vehicle TE or power, and enabling/limiting vehicle types.
I don't see how tram routing is really any different than non-trams. If I cover a road system in tram track, the RV and trams move about in pretty much the same way. Maybe I've missed something.

However, appearance, catenary, TE, power, restricting vehicle types; these are the ONLY reasons different rail types exist. If you would you try to argue that roadtypes are pointless because these are the only things they add, you must be forced to admit that different rail types are pointless as well. Anything else seems like an obvious contradiction to me. (I'm not trying to say you believe this, this is just the argument I've often seen)
andythenorth wrote:Road appearance is already modifiable via newgrf, and there are many road grfs. There is (limited) date support, offering dirt roads before a certain date.

Horse wagons are in eGRVTS, they're vanishingly unlikely to appear in core OpenTTD ;)

Issues like overtaking and use of lanes are currently inherent limitations in OpenTTD's vehicle handling, and would not be touched by RoadTypes.
As you say, date support for roads in newgrfs is limited. And there's no real way to have multiple types of functional road intentionally placed, as far as I know.

I know they're available in eGRVTS, I just don't see the harm in making the base game a richer experience. However, I also see the appeal in keeping the core game small and focusing on extensibility (*cough* road types :wink: ). This is a different discussion entirely, though. And yeah, lanes wouldn't be touched by roadtypes, it's just a random though I had while typing.
andythenorth wrote: Still nobody yet has made a compelling case for gameplay benefit of RoadTypes. But tbh, from what I've seen of development that's not how features tend to arrive anyway. Typically someone turns up with working code, and it gets in or it gets rejected. There is sometimes very careful up-front design and such (especially in newgrf spec and networking), and other times something looks fun and meets code standards so it goes in. I don't want to give a misleading impression that there is a constant rational debate about features, cos I'm not aware of one :D
I fail to see how "it's neat" isn't a compelling gameplay benefit on it's own. Again, OpenTTD is fundamentally a sandbox. Anything that adds enjoyment to building is inherently valuable.

Now, I'm not saying implementing it wouldn't be hard, and the effort could very well vastly outweigh the benefit (until some crazy b****** decides to write it all). But to suggest that there's no tangible benefit strikes me as a very poor excuse.
Supercheese
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1660
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 22:24
Location: Idaho, USA

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Supercheese »

andythenorth wrote:Trams have a different routing model to non-tram RVs, which adds variety to gameplay. Nothing in the many RoadType discussions I've seen (and there have been many) proposes additional routing models.
Surely Guided Busways have been proposed, no?
Eyecandy Road Vehicles | Fake Subways | Supercheese's NewObjects

"Fashions and cultures change, but steam trains shall always be majestic."
-Professor Hershel Layton
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

Netist wrote:I don't see how tram routing is really any different than non-trams. If I cover a road system in tram track, the RV and trams move about in pretty much the same way. Maybe I've missed something.
Trams need the route to be closed correctly so they can turn. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just a game fact.

Trams can only use drive through stops (whereas non-articulated non-tram RVs can use drive-in stops). OTOH the drive-in stops are thought to be lower performance than drive-through, so again, I'm not saying this is good or bad.
Now, I'm not saying implementing it wouldn't be hard, and the effort could very well vastly outweigh the benefit (until some crazy b****** decides to write it all). But to suggest that there's no tangible benefit strikes me as a very poor excuse.
I don't think anybody (apart from me) thinks there isn't any gameplay benefit. But somebody who wants to take it on would most likely be scratching a personal itch (rather than being persuaded by rational argument). Nobody has found that compelling itch yet :)

And for a 6-year gravedig ;) http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=37964
User avatar
Leanden
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 2613
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 19:25
Location: Kent

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Leanden »

To come flying in here. The first post of my original road types thread did actually suggest a change to pathfinder on multi-lane roads (i.e. new routing methods for dual carriageways and highways).

So it has in fact been suggested as a use of new road types :)
Image
leifbk
Chairman
Chairman
Posts: 810
Joined: 23 Dec 2013 16:33
Location: Bærum, Norway

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by leifbk »

I wonder what Monorail and Maglev tracks add to the gameplay. Let's have them torn out.

Seriously, blacktop roads look totally out of place before, say, 1920. For my own part I liked the CanRoads with its early dirt roads, but I managed to delete my good version before I realised that the latest one was deliberately borked. Luckily, Andrew350 is in the process of making dirt roads a feature of the American Road Replacement Set (ARRS).
User avatar
Leanden
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 2613
Joined: 19 Mar 2009 19:25
Location: Kent

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Leanden »

leifbk wrote:I wonder what Monorail and Maglev tracks add to the gameplay. Let's have them torn out.
These can't be removed as they were part of the original game, and to remove them would cause a whole host of problems that i don't even want to start getting into.
Image
User avatar
Sylf
President
President
Posts: 957
Joined: 23 Nov 2010 21:25
Location: ::1

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by Sylf »

Leanden wrote:
leifbk wrote:I wonder what Monorail and Maglev tracks add to the gameplay. Let's have them torn out.
These can't be removed as they were part of the original game, and to remove them would cause a whole host of problems that i don't even want to start getting into.
I consider them already torn out with the use of the universal rails, especially with the variants with no speed limit.
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

leifbk wrote:I wonder what Monorail and Maglev tracks add to the gameplay. Let's have them torn out.
It's pretty common that newgrfs do remove these (by not providing any vehicles for them). They don't add much to gameplay other than forcing an arbitrary mass-upgrade of track that is possibly fun on a 64sx64 map, and is increasingly tedious on larger maps. :)
Leanden wrote:These can't be removed as they were part of the original game, and to remove them would cause a whole host of problems that i don't even want to start getting into.
Nah. Not the case :) Monorail and maglev can be ignored by vehicles, and/or replaced by other railtypes (via compatibility) ;)
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8548
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by kamnet »

Honestly, any discussion of what types of roads to implement is silly. That should be left completely to NewGRFs so that players can decide. All we need is for somebody to implement the ability to add new roads.

Andy, you mentioned the limited space in the map array. Any idea of just what COULD be implemented? Say, two new types of roads instead of 12 like we got with RailType?
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

kamnet wrote:Honestly, any discussion of what types of roads to implement is silly. That should be left completely to NewGRFs so that players can decide. All we need is for somebody to implement the ability to add new roads.
Pretty much all of the roadtypes discussion is silly :) It's been discussed to death before. There is a 6 year old thread (revived again in 2013) here http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=37964

The map array isn't thought to be a limitation. At least one plausible spec has been drafted using the currently available map bits.

The limitation is that nobody is interested in doing roadtypes. :) Hot air doesn't make that any more likely :)

There seems to be an assumption that 'RoadTypes because RailTypes', but that's kind of boring.

Still no good case made for why we need new roads. And even if case was made, doesn't mean anyone will do it. :)
User avatar
kamnet
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8548
Joined: 28 Sep 2009 17:15
Location: Eastern KY
Contact:

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by kamnet »

There was no good case for new rails, either, other than "because we can". We could already replace the monorail and maglev if we had wanted, and, besides, why would you ever need any more than 640k of memory to run them? ;)

I think the one disappointing thing is that after all of these years we still haven't effectively figured out the articulated vehicle overtaking issue.
User avatar
andythenorth
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5656
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 14:23
Location: Lost in Music

Re: Unpaved roads

Post by andythenorth »

kamnet wrote:There was no good case for new rails, either, other than "because we can".
Because it interested one or more people enough to do it...

"RoadTypes because RailTypes" isn't a thing. It's not even "because we can". It's "because we already did RailTypes". Not very interesting.
I think the one disappointing thing is that after all of these years we still haven't effectively figured out the articulated vehicle overtaking issue.
Which has nothing to do with road types (it's vehicle movement and/or pathfinder), but is maybe a repeating feature of 'RoadTypes' discussions. :)
Post Reply

Return to “OpenTTD Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests