2.6 nightly/alpha discussion

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 16 Nov 2006 09:24

That crash is at patches/adjacentst.asm:722. Given the value of esi, I'm curious if the movzx doesn't need to be a movsx instead.

wallyweb · Post by **wallyweb** » 16 Nov 2006 12:17

Following up on my RV List Window Crash in r1199 and all other Alphas reported above:

I just changed the sortvehlist setting in ttdpatch.cfg from 10 to off to see if that would resolve the issue.

This resulted in NO existing vehicles appearing in any of the lists when running with the alphas.

Vehicles appeared as expected when running with 2.5beta9.

What is really strange with these issues is that they occur in the alphas only, both before and after the beta release, but the beta is not affected, almost as if the problem lies in the lack of version detection.

JGR · Post by **JGR** » 16 Nov 2006 15:37

Dalestan wrote:That crash is at patches/adjacentst.asm:722. Given the value of esi, I'm curious if the movzx doesn't need to be a movsx instead.

You're right, in my haste I misread the original code:

Code: Select all

0054930A 0F BF F6				 movsx	 esi, si
0054930D 0F B7 DB				 movzx	 ebx, bx

Apologies again...

Very experimental commit fixing second bug made, not tested under DOS, (works fine under windows).

PS. if someone who can compile and run the DOS version of TTDP can test this, it would be appreciated such that I can avoid breaking the DOS nightly for more than 6 consecutive nightlys

Thanks

Patchman · Post by **Patchman** » 16 Nov 2006 17:17

wallyweb wrote:This resulted in NO existing vehicles appearing in any of the lists when running with the alphas.

That's probably this issue then:
http://wiki.ttdpatch.net/tiki-view_trac ... itemId=128

Both are likely related.

wallyweb · Post by **wallyweb** » 16 Nov 2006 21:34

Patchman wrote:
wallyweb wrote:This resulted in NO existing vehicles appearing in any of the lists when running with the alphas.
That's probably this issue then:
http://wiki.ttdpatch.net/tiki-view_trac ... itemId=128

Both are likely related.

Thanks patchmam.
As my first issue where clicking on the rv when sortvehlist is set to "on" or an absolute value (eg 10) resulted in a crash, perhaps the status in the bug tracker should be changed to crash. I don't know if I can or should do that.

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 17 Nov 2006 09:02

> Very experimental commit fixing second bug made, not tested under DOS [...]

r1207 now works under DOS. Thanks.

Did you notice that it´s not possible anymore to "overbuilt" station tiles for "adjacent stations"? I.e. make a station, then place a new adjacent station and you´ll get the old TTD error message for every tile you´re trying to overbuilt?

regards
Michael

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 19 Nov 2006 10:04

What is this one?

Wiki wrote:Long format introduction date (2A)

Set the vehicle introduction date, in days since the year 0. This takes account of leap years; dividable by 4, but not 100 unless 400. A start date of 1920-01-01 is obtained with a value of 701265 (51 B3 0A 00). This property must be set after property 00 to take effect. In TTDPatch, dates after 2044 will be limited to 2044.

I´ve set a loco to ~1900 (2A C8 96 0A 00) and I additionally included a "startyear 1900" in ttpatch.cfg (just to be sure), but there´s no effect (in r1212), neither in introducing this loco before 1921 nor displaying its "design date" as being earlier. Everything is just like w/o this new property?

regards
Michael

Aegir · Post by **Aegir** » 19 Nov 2006 11:29

michael blunck wrote:What is this one?

Wiki wrote:Long format introduction date (2A)

Set the vehicle introduction date, in days since the year 0. This takes account of leap years; dividable by 4, but not 100 unless 400. A start date of 1920-01-01 is obtained with a value of 701265 (51 B3 0A 00). This property must be set after property 00 to take effect. In TTDPatch, dates after 2044 will be limited to 2044.
I´ve set a loco to ~1900 (2A C8 96 0A 00) and I additionally included a "startyear 1900" in ttpatch.cfg (just to be sure), but there´s no effect (in r1212), neither in introducing this loco before 1921 nor displaying its "design date" as being earlier. Everything is just like w/o this new property?

regards
Michael

If I remember correctly, Michael, I think that this is something more for OTTD than TTDPatch. Don't quote me on that though.

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 19 Nov 2006 11:53

> OTTD [...]

Mmh, firstly, there´s no mention of "OTTD" in that paragraph rather it mentions "TTDPatch" explicitly and secondly, since when do patch developers work exclusively for OTTD but not for TTDPatch?

regards
Michael

Aegir · Post by **Aegir** » 19 Nov 2006 12:07

michael blunck wrote:> OTTD [...]

Mmh, firstly, there´s no mention of "OTTD" in that paragraph rather it mentions "TTDPatch" explicitly and secondly, since when do patch developers work exclusively for OTTD but not for TTDPatch?

regards
Michael

I'm not exactly sure, perhaps I'm completly wrong and it is indeed the beginings of a full feature for ttdpatch.

I just remembered hearing something about OpenTTD supporting extended start years, and they were interested in support for that being added to the newgrf format.

I'm not too sure either way.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 19 Nov 2006 12:44

Please calm down and look at the history of the wiki pages... And yes there is no real effect for TTDPatch yet and maybe there will be never an affect for ttdpatch. If you would look here: http://wiki.ttdpatch.net/tiki-index.php ... artingYear you would know you can't set pre 1921.

It's still all in progress, please stop your negative comments. A simple doesn't work is enough. From the code I would say Josef tries to add a bigger display range... (pre 1920 as Example)

Patchman · Post by **Patchman** » 19 Nov 2006 18:16

Correct, the only effect is to display the introduction year when it's set to 1920 or before. A start year before 1920 is not implemented.

Make sure to set this property after prop. 00. It worked fine when I tested it to have a loco with introduction year 1794 that way.

Code: Select all

    2 * 18       00 00 01 03 16 2A 51 B3 0A 00 00 00 0A 00 00 00 0C 00

Ah, and I think "eternalgame" has to be on, otherwise dates outside of 1920..2070 are not supported.

Prebral · Post by **Prebral** » 19 Nov 2006 18:41

I have experienced a crash with r1200 when purchasing a train engine this week. I sent three trains to depot to purchase an additional engine for each. When I ctrl-clicked on an engine i the purchase list, the game collapsed. No save available, it was a relatively new track and I did not save game for a while.

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 19 Nov 2006 18:41

> Ah, and I think "eternalgame" has to be on [...]

Yes, with this switch set it does indeed work. Very nice.

<makes screenshot>

regards
Michael

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 21 Nov 2006 07:59

[long introduction date]

patchman wrote:Correct, the only effect is to display the introduction year when it's set to 1920 or before. A start year before 1920 is not implemented.

Mmh, after playing around with that feature, I´m not so sure about its usefullness anymore.

Problem is that it´s "only effect" is simply not to "display the introduction date" but indeed it´s setting the introduction year to 1920/21 when specifying an earlier date, thus overwriting the date given in prop0.

The background of my idea is that because of that fixed earliest introduction date of 1920/21, I usually introduce engines with a design date of <1920 in later years, sort of a second-hand deal. In this way, I get a nicer distribution in the very early years rather than have them all show up at game start. But now, using the new "long date" feature, all the affected engines appear en masse although they do show their correct design date now.

I don´t think this is useful for me (and for other .grf authors as well?). Instead, if there´s no chance to implement a start year before 1920 in TTPatch, couldn´t you make it so that this feature leaves the "real" introductory year as given in prop0 unchanged and only really display the "design year" in the engine information window, as stated above?

regards
Michael

Raichase · Post by **Raichase** » 21 Nov 2006 08:06

michael blunck wrote:Instead, if there´s no chance to implement a start year before 1920 in TTPatch, couldn´t you make it so that this feature leaves the "real" introductory year as given in prop0 unchanged and only really display the "design year" in the engine information window, as stated above?

I've long been a fan of Michaels "second hand" locos coming in in the first few years, so I'll echo my support (although, as a non-coder-game-playing-moocher), it wouldn't carry as much weight.

It's a nice idea, buying "second hand" stock from imaginary existing railways pre 1920, and having a large selection of engines in 1921 is rather confusing, and you never get to use them all!

Still, overall, really cool idea

Wile E. Coyote · Post by **Wile E. Coyote** » 21 Nov 2006 09:22

Yes! Great improvement! Now will be possible to show real introduction date!

Go on great work!
(Something I was dreaming about long time ago...)

Patchman · Post by **Patchman** » 21 Nov 2006 17:04

michael blunck wrote:Mmh, after playing around with that feature, I´m not so sure about its usefullness anymore.

The main purpose of this was to not break grf files using this property that was originally defined for OTTD only. I found it very easy to also show the real introduction year, so I added that feature as well.

A more thorough implementation will have to wait, and definitely won't be in 2.5.

MJS · Post by **MJS** » 29 Nov 2006 06:54

Have the nightlies stopped to be built? Last one I can find is from Saturday, and svn.ttdpatch.net shows a few changes after that. (I use TTDXC but have looked in the /latest folder as well.)

Patchman · Post by **Patchman** » 29 Nov 2006 14:56

Yes, the server is having problems.

Transport Tycoon Forums

2.6 nightly/alpha discussion

RV List Window Crash

Re: RV List Window Crash

Re: RV List Window Crash

Who is online