OTTD 1.11.0 - Removing the possibility of playing on flat maps in an arctic climate - a good idea?

[Eddi]

i think at this point it's probably a good idea to try to separate the snowline height from the terrain generator maximum height

[Captain Rand]

...............

Thank you for taking the time with your detailed explanation. I understand it fully now.

If you set the setting on "very low", you will see that when there is a bit of flat land, it is kinda big.
........
What the setting is most useful for, is if you like maps with a lot of mountains, but also really like to have flat pieces of land where you can build your infrastructure.

This is exactly what I want when generating a map. I've never gone "bumpier" than "Hilly" for precisely this reason,ie having flat(ish) areas on which to build.
Armed with this knowledge I'll be a bit more adventurous with my next game.
Thanks again!

Pete.

[Aegir]

Best suggestion I have read so far: "Height Limit". That seems to mostly fit And move it to settings .. and default it to 255 ..

i think there was a thing with varying snowline that makes a default of 255 impractical.

You are correct. The snowline height set by NewGRFs are scaled towards the height limit. But that should be an easy fix to make that scale to the highest peak generated, honestly Just not sure that is the intention .. the snowline height NewGRF prop is a bit unclear to me .. so yeah, it is not as trivial as just changing the value

The snowline height that newgrfs can set is just a straight height value. You can set it above or below the games snowheightline setting or even past the map's maxheight. Totally separate thing. I can however confirm that the snowheightline setting absolutely has an effect on TerraGenesis map height generation (much like we've established that there is absolutely something crippling Sub-Arctic map generation and preventing it from getting anywhere near maxheight like temperate can).

Since I've been poking my nose in and around snowheightline to implement rainforestheightline I'll see if I can figure out where TGP is altering it's output and see if I can fix generation for both climates while I'm at it.

[TrueBrain]

(..)

The snowline height that newgrfs can set is just a straight height value. You can set it above or below the games snowheightline setting or even past the map's maxheight. Totally separate thing..

(..)

As talked about on Discord, and I just write this for future-someone searching the forums for this: this is not completely correct.

The specs are, as always, a bit vague. For GRFv8 and later it is well defined, and also what is implemented. GRFv7 and earlier does something similar, just not written in the specs
https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/A ... e_.2810.29
https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/blob ... .cpp#L2742

Basically, for GRFv8+ the value scales to maxheight. So a value of "128" with maxheight of 20 will be a snowline height of 10, not 128
For GRFv7 and earlier the max value is 127, and it is scaled similar.

So no, you cannot go past maxheight with NewGRF snowline height This is the reason I am not allowed to just change "max height" to 255 by my fellow devs

That said, for OpenGFX+Landscape, which most people talk about, there is something clever going on. The GRF itself accepts "snowlineheight" as settings. These values are absolute, as the GRF itself knows about the scaling and compensates for it. So if you enter 16 there, the snowline will be on 16. Just internally it is first ranged to the max-height by the GRF and later that is scaled back to 16 by the game But this is not generally true for all GRFs. Hence the: "not completely correct". Just shows one more of the nuances there is related to the "max height" setting

[LaChupacabra]

(..)
Basically, for GRFv8+ the value scales to maxheight. So a value of "128" with maxheight of 20 will be a snowline height of 10, not 128
For GRFv7 and earlier the max value is 127, and it is scaled similar.
(..)

I'm not sure what exactly you write about, but with OpenGFX+Landscape you can set the exact snow height. You will set 10: you have snow from a height of 10.

The same setting but in the map generator also gives the exact result. You set 10: you have 10. The problem is that the terrain height setting no longer has anything to do with what will appear in the game. It doesn't matter if you set 15, 30, 100 or 255 - the result determines the snow height setting. It is illogical. What's more - apart from flat maps - it made it impossible to generate high snow-capped mountains - snow can only be on the peaks... on flat peaks, because now it is impossible to get also steeply ended mountains with real peaks.

The following terrain obtained in 1.10.3 is impossible to generate in 1.11.0

Imposible in 1.11.0 new game creator.png (258.04 KiB) Viewed 1341 times

There was supposed to be more snow, and as a result, there is almost no snow

Map generated with a similar setting. I did not choose the same one, because there would be no snow at all.

Alpine terrain, height c.a. 25, almost no snow.png (180.41 KiB) Viewed 1341 times

It is the largest snow covered area I have found on the entire 2048x2048 map.

[Aegir]

(..)

The snowline height that newgrfs can set is just a straight height value. You can set it above or below the games snowheightline setting or even past the map's maxheight. Totally separate thing..

(..)

As talked about on Discord, and I just write this for future-someone searching the forums for this: this is not completely correct.

The specs are, as always, a bit vague. For GRFv8 and later it is well defined, and also what is implemented. GRFv7 and earlier does something similar, just not written in the specs
https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/A ... e_.2810.29
https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/blob ... .cpp#L2742

Basically, for GRFv8+ the value scales to maxheight. So a value of "128" with maxheight of 20 will be a snowline height of 10, not 128
For GRFv7 and earlier the max value is 127, and it is scaled similar.

So no, you cannot go past maxheight with NewGRF snowline height This is the reason I am not allowed to just change "max height" to 255 by my fellow devs

We all had a little chat and we worked this one out. Turns out we were both right, and also both wrong, and the situation is a lot more complicated than either of us realized going into it .

Anyone on the discord knows I've been wrenching away on the terrain gen as well looking at various little things that bug me over the last few days from a players perspective, so rest assured folks, there's quite a few sets of eyes over this beast at the moment. Please trust me when I say this is nowhere near as simple as some people think it is!

[TrueBrain]

If this thread made one thing clear, is that many people do not understand a few of the settings in the NewGame GUI, or have a hard time using them in a useful matter. And I have been very vocal that I do not think this is a user issue, but an UX one. This Pull Request tries to correct the most common mistakes people make.

I would like to serious thank Aegir for engaging in a constructive conversation about all of this. It makes such a difference to have such conversations; seriously, tnx. Also tnx to andythenorth for some gravedigging in old threads and frosch123 for sparring about solutions and possibilities. This hasn't been easy

Attached to the PR is a preview, which you can click to test it in your browser. This will most likely ship for 1.11, or at least parts of it. Strongly depends on how solid my work has been

[Aegir]

I would like to serious thank Aegir for engaging in a constructive conversation about all of this. It makes such a difference to have such conversations; seriously, tnx. Also tnx to andythenorth for some gravedigging in old threads and frosch123 for sparring about solutions and possibilities. This hasn't been easy

I did nothing. You can't prove anything. I want my lawyer.

[LaChupacabra]

This Pull Request (...)

From the beginning, I believed that You could create something much better. This solution is incomparably better. I really disliked the limitations and inconsistencies introduced by that change. Here it is quite the opposite. Not only does everything seem logical and simple, but this change also opens up new possibilities and fixes other problems.

Snow in flat areas remains a problem, but believe that it can also be solved.

Many thanks to You as well as to Aegir, frosch, andythenorth and everyone else involved in this change.

I did nothing. You can't prove anything. I want my lawyer.

There are too many circumstantial evidence to your involvement. So yes, You share the responsibility for this really good change.