Face customization patch - TESTING requested!

skidd13 · Post by **skidd13** » 22 Oct 2006 21:25

jez wrote:skidd13: Why did you hyphenate Gesichts-Nummerncode?

Why?! Good question. =)
It was my personal feeling that it looks better readable than "Gesichtsnummerncode".
Absolutely correct german would be "Nummerncode des Gesichts".

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 23 Oct 2006 00:21

Bjarni wrote:
skidd13 wrote:sorry, I removed a dubbled line with an editor. Just my fault!
Never do that. Each time I tried to do that, I broke the diff, so after a few times, I completely stopped doing it. Using svn to make the diff will ensure that it will live up to the standard so it can be merged

Indeed. It is safe to remove a full patch band, (An @@ ... @@ line up to, but not including the next @@ ... @@ line), or to change an added line, but anything else is basically guaranteed to break the patch.

jez · Post by **jez** » 04 Nov 2006 22:44

Initial post edited - updated to patch v10.

Versions 7 through to 10 involved major code changes in the patch to adapt its coding style to the OpenTTD style guidelines.

jez · Post by **jez** » 05 Nov 2006 22:27

v10 is compliant with OpenTTD coding standards!

Unfortunately, it will not get included in the trunk, because DarkVater doesn't think it should go in there. He is the only one that has a problem with it.

If you don't like it, I suggest you get in touch with him.

Here's an idea. Get on IRC, irc.oftc.net #openttd

He's usually on with the nick Darkvater or DarkSSH. Go tell him, or the #openttd channel, that you want this patch included.

Until enough people do that, you can thank Mr. Darkvater for keeping this patch out! The community thanks you, sir!

Over and out.

Invisble · Post by **Invisble** » 05 Nov 2006 23:25

why not try to get it into the next MiniIN? that way we can play around with it and try to break it along with everything else? Anyway I admit to preferring the Mini IN, just has more of the features I would like to see in the main game, just undergoing extended testing.

Bot_40 · Post by **Bot_40** » 06 Nov 2006 01:15

I would really like to hear his reasoning for that. It's hardly like it changes anything even remotely core to the game

Digitalfox · Post by **Digitalfox** » 06 Nov 2006 01:25

Bot_40 wrote:I would really like to hear his reasoning for that. It's hardly like it changes anything even remotely core to the game

Yeah me too

Unless he haves a new 3D super face generator on his mind, and that would rock

KUDr · Post by **KUDr** » 06 Nov 2006 17:09

Actually it is not so bad. The last agreement we have made is, that:

1. Commit is postponed to after the 0.5.0 release. This is because the current patch breaks the compatibility with the old savegames. Internally it uses different bit layout inside the face code (uint32) variables. So if you load the old savegame into patched version, the face is totally different, than when you load the same savegame into the version without this patch. By other words, this patch is not 0.5 compliant. We must find some way how to solve this bakwards compatibility issue.

2. The new face customization GUI needs to be reworked a bit. The new part (right side with the arrows and numbers) will be hiden by default and it will only show - pop out to the right, like the station window does to the bottom when 'ratings' are clicked. The left side should look the same as before the patch (except this new button).

3. The coding style must stay 'ottd compliant'

jez · Post by **jez** » 06 Nov 2006 19:13

That solution sucks. I see no good news. Darkvater sucks.

There's no sensible reason for the UI to be hidden by default. You think people are so damn retarded they wont know how to use it?

KUDr · Post by **KUDr** » 06 Nov 2006 20:11

Jez: I don't think that if somebody has different opinion than you it gives you any reason to behave like arrogant b******. This way it will probably never come to trunk. Then you can thank only yourself that the two weekends we have spent with the code cleanup was really wasted time.

Digitalfox · Post by **Digitalfox** » 06 Nov 2006 21:14

jez wrote:That solution sucks. I see no good news. Darkvater sucks.

There's no sensible reason for the UI to be hidden by default. You think people are so damn retarded they wont know how to use it?

Hey jez, no need to be so agressive..

People love you patch and want it in the trunck, but you have to be patient..

Just relax, 0.5 should not to far away and then it could be applied..

I do and think everybody knows that you had a lot of work with it, so yes you should had been rewarded with it in the truck ( it was just bad luck that the 0.5 is coming ).. But not with this atitude...

Invisble · Post by **Invisble** » 06 Nov 2006 22:16

I want to ask when 0.5.0 is out, but I know the answer is "When it is ready", so I wont ask.

Anyway, I know you would like to see it in the main trunk (I would love to see it in the main trunk, as far as I can see it does not remove anything from the game play just makes it a little more fun, but hey thats me). But paitence is a virtue and I think that in the mean time the Mini-IN would be a good place to get the patch seriously tested while darkvater makes up his mind as to when (and maybe even if) it gets included.

I know you, and others, have put in a lot of hard work on this patch (I remember when the idea was first broached way back in 0.4.5, last year sometime, and I remember then that some people were against it), but sometimes it takes other people a while to recognise good idea's and good work. Just be patient.

Though I would love to know roughlt just how long we are going to have to wait before 0.5.0 (a year anyone?)

jez · Post by **jez** » 06 Nov 2006 22:49

KUDr wrote:Jez: I don't think that if somebody has different opinion than you it gives you any reason to behave like arrogant b******. This way it will probably never come to trunk. Then you can thank only yourself that the two weekends we have spent with the code cleanup was really wasted time.

If I behave angrily it's because I'm angry. The way I see it, DV has singlehandedly vetoed the patch, going against large numbers of users. If you think that's reasonable, I think you're wrong.

As for hiding the interface by default, that's ridiculous. Why was the livery dialog just overhauled? That new, complex interface, didn't need to be hidden by default, so neither should this. DV is just trying to spout bulls*** at you and you're taking it. Why is it 'not going to be read for 0.5'? What's so special about 0.5? It's ready when, apparently, DV says it meets his standards. That may or may not be before the release of 0.5 so it seems pretty stupid to me to rule out 0.5.

pringles · Post by **pringles** » 06 Nov 2006 22:57

shame, would be nice to see it in miniin at the least

Bot_40 · Post by **Bot_40** » 07 Nov 2006 01:07

Flaming is going to get everybody nowhere fast. Yes I would like to see this patch in the trunk now but if it's breaking save game compatibility then I can see it's not possible. I believe keeping save game compatibility has always been a no1 priority for openttd.

And clicking a roll-out button isn't exactly the end of the world. I don't really see it as necessary either but it's still significantly better than the current technique - hammering the random face button 500 times till it finally throws up something roughly similar to what you want.

Maybe it would be more constructive to discuss calmly what would need to be done to get the patch up to standard before 0.5 rather than just starting a flamewar? If it has to wait till 0.5 then that's just the way it is. If there's one thing I've learned since I started playing openttd it's that you have to be patient. Good things come to those who wait

XeryusTC · Post by **XeryusTC** » 07 Nov 2006 07:10

KUDr wrote:1. Commit is postponed to after the 0.5.0 release. This is because the current patch breaks the compatibility with the old savegames. Internally it uses different bit layout inside the face code (uint32) variables. So if you load the old savegame into patched version, the face is totally different, than when you load the same savegame into the version without this patch. By other words, this patch is not 0.5 compliant. We must find some way how to solve this bakwards compatibility issue.

Don't you guys have savegame versions? You can always just raise the number and say that when the version is below x then it would use the old loading code, if the version is above x it will use jez's loading code. And after loading you can always show jez's windows. I don't really see the problem with this point.

KUDr · Post by **KUDr** » 07 Nov 2006 08:59

XeryusTC: Loading code is the same as it was before. It just reads 32 bit number. But the old values must be remaped/converted into new ones. Now the face code is split into reasonable bitfields (each one contains the value of just one attribute - mouth, nose, eyes, etc.) and it is well designed / documented. But the old face code (stored in the old savegames) was really messy. We need to write a new piece of code that will detect old savegame version and will descramble the old face code, decode each attribute and store it into new face code as separate value.
This looks like many hours of hard work. The result will be single remaping function from one uint32 value into another. But the problem is to find the proper algorithm HOW to do it.

jez · Post by **jez** » 07 Nov 2006 10:37

KUDr: Yeah, because so many people care about faces from old savegames staying the same.

As I said to you before (and you readily accepted), those who don't care about faces won't notice. Those who do will quickly customize them as they wish. Within a couple of weeks of 0.5 being released, 99% of savegames will be in the new format anyway.

And peter was able to totally revamp the livery dialog so it was MUCH more complex than before; did that need a 'rollout button'? I mentioned it at the time but it was dismissed. Talk about a double standard.

Loop · Post by **Loop** » 07 Nov 2006 11:28

The thing here is somehow very disturbing.

Firstly, I can understand jez and his irritation, but one thing is sure - this kind of behaviour won't do any good, so calm dawn, take a few deep breaths.

Secondly, I completely don't understand the devs. If the idea of the patch isn't welcome - why did you help him clean up the code in the first place?

It looks very, very strange. He starts his work. You help him with it, work on it together. It is obvious, that when the devs interfere with mortal-patches, they want them IN the trunk.

So jez is cleaning the code, following the guidelines, and when he finishes his work... you say suddenly: no, we don't want this patch!

Why?

The reason concerning savegame compatibility is a good one. But knowing this, why did you help him in the first place? And some people mentioned here a way to override the collision - isn't it possible?

Finally, the thing with hiding the customization panel. For me - plain old silly. Why?

An example:
Many people wanted to play sometimes without the el_rails. But you considered it a stupid request, and did nothing to make it custom (I know about the cheat, but it's not the same).

And now, when someone makes something very useful, only adding some flavour to OTTD, you want to make it as custom as it can be - by hiding the options.

Acting like this won't encourage people to write any good, useful patches. Because why bother?

Don't get me wrong, I really respect your work, and thank you very much for it (esp. that you do it for free). I just wanted to express my feelings about this strange situation.

richk67 · Post by **richk67** » 07 Nov 2006 12:29

Just a few words from my perspective of having been through the agonies of getting 2 patches accepted. The first (NewAirports) took 2 months of fiddling, and then when it was ready, other devs - who hadnt up till then been involved - suddenly took notice and moaned. Things are better than that now.

The second patch (TerraGenesis) I sorted the main algorithm, and in the knowledge of the agonies of my first patch, I handed it over to Truelight, Rubidium and the team to make all the dev-design decisions. They took it places I would NEVER have managed technically, so it was the right decision, and hopefully everyone now enjoys real terrains.

The Face Customiser is not fundamental to gameplay in any way. Therefore, to many devs, it is a low priority unless it is in perfect condition - coding wise, and aesthetically.

Personally, I do not like the very cluttered layout - you can always increase the window panel size to give yourself more room - and was quite happy with the old interface. I would prefer to retain the old, with the new available via a flyout.

The only two buttons I would really like to add to the old layout would be Load & Save. Then, I can use the customiser once, find my Fave face, Save it, and then Load it into every game. I dont need to see the full customiser every time.

Finally - priorities are now v0.5.0. All else will be parked for a while. Frustrating? Yes. But its only a game, and if you can code it, then you can always compile it into the game you play.

IMO there are far more useful and established patches that should be included way ahead of this one. (Note: If you provide a MiniIN version, with the new interface optional - ie. a patches option - then I'll add it.)

Transport Tycoon Forums

Face customization patch - TESTING requested!

Who is online