Passengers/Mail with Specific Destinations
Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
That's not always true. I've successfully compiled some older patch (not this one TBH) with a newer nightly than the patch revision a couple of times.tydev417 wrote:patch diff rev need to be the same rev as the source u try to patch
If the revisions match it's (almost) guaranteed that it will compile successfully.
If the revisions don't match you can try to compile. If it fails, too bad. If that's the case you can either rediff the patch yourself to match the latest nightly or wait till someone else does it.
missing cargo_entry.h
Hello,
I'm trying to apply patch 10198, and I downloaded rev. 10198 through svn.
Applying the patch goes without any errors, but compiling I get the error
Where do I get the file from?
(I checked, the file does not come with rev.10198)
What have I overlooked?
Thanks for your help!
I'm trying to apply patch 10198, and I downloaded rev. 10198 through svn.
Applying the patch goes without any errors, but compiling I get the error
Code: Select all
Cannot open include file: 'cargo_entry.h': No such file or directory
(I checked, the file does not come with rev.10198)
What have I overlooked?
Thanks for your help!
A game worth playing is a game worth modding 

That file is only available in older versions of the patch, you can find a copy of it some pages back. My best guess is that prissi forgot to add it.
Don't panic - My YouTube channel - Follow me on twitter (@XeryusTC) - Play Tribes: Ascend - Tired of Dropbox? Try SpiderOak (use this link and we both get 1GB extra space)

OpenTTD: manual #openttdcoop: blog | wiki | public server | NewGRF pack | DevZone

OpenTTD: manual #openttdcoop: blog | wiki | public server | NewGRF pack | DevZone







Since cargo_packets (in an incompatible format to this patch) made it to the trunk, I will not work further on this patch. It goes deep into the core, and since the new structure with the list it is even more incompatible to the current trunk, I do not see the point to further adapt things.
Cargo_packets could have been added to this patch quite easily, epscially since they were already there for passengers. However, it does not make sense to have two different (and incomaptible) implementations of cargo_packets. So I will stop.
However, on the bright side this can mean that passenger destinations are soon coming to the trunk in another way. (Although with the current implementation I wonder how this could be done in an efficient way. But maybe this is too old school, and when it is done, our computer will be again fast enough.)
Cargo_packets could have been added to this patch quite easily, epscially since they were already there for passengers. However, it does not make sense to have two different (and incomaptible) implementations of cargo_packets. So I will stop.
However, on the bright side this can mean that passenger destinations are soon coming to the trunk in another way. (Although with the current implementation I wonder how this could be done in an efficient way. But maybe this is too old school, and when it is done, our computer will be again fast enough.)
I can understand why you give up.prissi wrote:Since cargo_packets (in an incompatible format to this patch) made it to the trunk, I will not work further on this patch. It goes deep into the core, and since the new structure with the list it is even more incompatible to the current trunk, I do not see the point to further adapt things.
Cargo_packets could have been added to this patch quite easily, epscially since they were already there for passengers. However, it does not make sense to have two different (and incomaptible) implementations of cargo_packets. So I will stop.
However, on the bright side this can mean that passenger destinations are soon coming to the trunk in another way. (Although with the current implementation I wonder how this could be done in an efficient way. But maybe this is too old school, and when it is done, our computer will be again fast enough.)
Thanks for all the work you have put in to this patch, its not wasted

I hope someone else is going to take this idea and put it into code to go with the new cargo packets

Code: Select all
if (YouAreHappyAndYouKnowIt) {
ClapYourHands();
}
A real shame work on this patch is discontinued.
@prissi:
I well understand your feelings, prissi. I agree that unless the patch is going to find its way into the trunk in another way, the choice to put cargo_packets into the trunk is not a good one.
Your work has set a standard to what value cargo/pass. destinations are able to add to the game. Thanks a lot for that!
--griffin71
@prissi:
I well understand your feelings, prissi. I agree that unless the patch is going to find its way into the trunk in another way, the choice to put cargo_packets into the trunk is not a good one.
Your work has set a standard to what value cargo/pass. destinations are able to add to the game. Thanks a lot for that!
--griffin71
A game worth playing is a game worth modding 

I think it is not too difficult to adapt this to the trunk cargopackets. But I will not do this. Since its origin and stabilisation, most of the time I am spending in doing meaningless things, like hunting conflicts like the introduction of C++ and so on. I spent near four times more time on catching up than on development. Syncing this to a an extended version of the new cargopackets will most likely just finished, when the next incompatible change arrives.
It seems anybody, who is not developer or does not have very direct communication with them, cannot make some large patches. If they are not included fast (and most larger ones have not been aparently) they will never. In hindsight, when this thing was two weeks without error, but without reponse I should have given up. (Same was with the town growth patch or the season/day night support. I should have been warned.) If I am thinking back, also the subsidizes patch was such a thing, which was first rejected because too big. (Better reasons came later.)
Maybe a roadmap, when there would have been cargo_packets on it, would have been helpful. But there is not even a todo-list for orientation for patch developer.
If you want passengers with destinations use simutrans. If you want network games with passenger destinations, there are only two options: Somebody gets this to current version or somebody adds netowrk support to simutrans. Both some tasks ...
It seems anybody, who is not developer or does not have very direct communication with them, cannot make some large patches. If they are not included fast (and most larger ones have not been aparently) they will never. In hindsight, when this thing was two weeks without error, but without reponse I should have given up. (Same was with the town growth patch or the season/day night support. I should have been warned.) If I am thinking back, also the subsidizes patch was such a thing, which was first rejected because too big. (Better reasons came later.)
Maybe a roadmap, when there would have been cargo_packets on it, would have been helpful. But there is not even a todo-list for orientation for patch developer.
If you want passengers with destinations use simutrans. If you want network games with passenger destinations, there are only two options: Somebody gets this to current version or somebody adds netowrk support to simutrans. Both some tasks ...
Thanks! I created a .diff in which it is added.XeryusTC wrote:That file is only available in older versions of the patch, you can find a copy of it some pages back. My best guess is that prissi forgot to add it.
- Attachments
-
- destination_r10198_148_fix.diff
- prissi's last patch including cargo_entry.h
- (77.29 KiB) Downloaded 342 times
A game worth playing is a game worth modding 

@developers: As made clear in the above discussion, it is necessary that a thread will be added to the OpenTTD Development forum in which there is a list of the issues developers are currently working on.
I'm much looking forward to see it!
It's really a waste of contributors' effort and programming intelligence, if contributors make their patches that will never make it into the trunk anyway. And I much agree with prissi that a list with things that are scheduled to be developed by the developers is the best contribution they can give at the moment.Maybe a roadmap, when there would have been cargo_packets on it, would have been helpful. But there is not even a todo-list for orientation for patch developer.
I'm much looking forward to see it!
A game worth playing is a game worth modding 

- athanasios
- Tycoon
- Posts: 3138
- Joined: 23 Jun 2005 00:09
- Contact:
I agree. Look what happened with blender thread. All those graphics cannot be used yet and we do not know how long it will take. Now we have graphics in wrong scale and so we are still using original 8bpp ones. It is great that we have support for 32bpp, but artists should have been informed earlier. Not that they were not informed at all, but it was a bit late.
With a roadmap coders can work on patches that will be soon implemented and not waste their time.
My suggestion to developers:
Come in contact with all coders that have made patches to see their plans and how they can assist.
Create a new thread and list all patches.
Set a priority (1 - 10) for them.
With a roadmap coders can work on patches that will be soon implemented and not waste their time.
My suggestion to developers:
Come in contact with all coders that have made patches to see their plans and how they can assist.
Create a new thread and list all patches.
Set a priority (1 - 10) for them.
http://members.fortunecity.com/gamesart
"If no one is a fool I am also a fool." -The TTD maniac.
I prefer to be contacted through PMs. Thanks.
"If no one is a fool I am also a fool." -The TTD maniac.
I prefer to be contacted through PMs. Thanks.
I think that it would be a better choice to go on IRC and speak with the developers when you have an idea for a patch, they do give great feedback and will not keep you in the dark about later changes they are planning.
The problem with a thread or an exact roadmap is that it would stop development in areas where the devs have half a patch lying around for an extended amount of time. I'm sure the devs really take notice and get inspired by the patches and ideas that we offer them.
The problem with a thread or an exact roadmap is that it would stop development in areas where the devs have half a patch lying around for an extended amount of time. I'm sure the devs really take notice and get inspired by the patches and ideas that we offer them.
Code: Select all
if (YouAreHappyAndYouKnowIt) {
ClapYourHands();
}
Hmmm, i tried playing this patch in the lastest released version with a friend just before. Unfourtunatly it kept desyncing... Any ideas?
A fixed version of the older patch would be nice, even if it's not kept up to date with the current version of openttd...
Btw. it seemed that the desyncs appeared in the middle of a month... around 14th or something like that, although it could be randomness...
- Scarzzurs
A fixed version of the older patch would be nice, even if it's not kept up to date with the current version of openttd...
Btw. it seemed that the desyncs appeared in the middle of a month... around 14th or something like that, although it could be randomness...
- Scarzzurs
You are what you create.
-
- Engineer
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 23:24
Crash with revision 10198
Hello,
I really enjoy this new function and I hope it will be in the next official version. I've build an extensive network, but now when I try to optimize passenger flows I repeatedly get the same error message:
GB(st->goods{0].waiting_acceptance, 0, 12) == min(4095, total_pass)
The game crashes at the 31st of June 1984 every time. So it might have something to do with saving the game. Before I never experienced crashes of the game so I hope you can help me complete the game until 2050
Greetz, Mathijs Jansen
edit: Added is my latest autosavegame
I really enjoy this new function and I hope it will be in the next official version. I've build an extensive network, but now when I try to optimize passenger flows I repeatedly get the same error message:
GB(st->goods{0].waiting_acceptance, 0, 12) == min(4095, total_pass)
The game crashes at the 31st of June 1984 every time. So it might have something to do with saving the game. Before I never experienced crashes of the game so I hope you can help me complete the game until 2050
Greetz, Mathijs Jansen
edit: Added is my latest autosavegame
- Attachments
-
- autosave1.sav
- Save game just before crash
- (532.3 KiB) Downloaded 162 times
Re: Passengers/Mail with Specific Destinations
It's is sure a danm shame this patch i not going to be included in the game.. this patch adds, by fare, the most new aspechts to the game.
Re: Passengers/Mail with Specific Destinations
Indeed it does. As long as my version of openttd with this patch works and there isn't another version that works with this, i'm not going to change 
I wish i had time to look into it... Although i doubt i could do better then the original author...
- Scarzzurs

I wish i had time to look into it... Although i doubt i could do better then the original author...
- Scarzzurs
You are what you create.
Re: Crash with revision 10198
use the chat and jump to next year just a tad before 99,9% of 1984mathijsjansen wrote:Hello,
I really enjoy this new function and I hope it will be in the next official version. I've build an extensive network, but now when I try to optimize passenger flows I repeatedly get the same error message:
GB(st->goods{0].waiting_acceptance, 0, 12) == min(4095, total_pass)
The game crashes at the 31st of June 1984 every time. So it might have something to do with saving the game. Before I never experienced crashes of the game so I hope you can help me complete the game until 2050
Greetz, Mathijs Jansen
edit: Added is my latest autosavegame

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests