Transport Tycoon Forums

Zuu wrote:The issue with ships disappearing before they have fully entered the tunnel is however not solved by adding a clip rect.

Well, the position in which vehicles disappear is chosen so that the default ground vehicles don't show. If sprites are clipped, that point could be moved. Problematic in that regard would be very short tunnels where the sprite is longer than the tunnel.

-- Michael Lutz

planetmaker wrote:

Hyronymus wrote:Perhaps a stupid suggestion but will it work if you extend the water tunnel graphics to the tile immediatly behind the tunnel entrance? I.e. extend it with a flat green tile.

That of course will look great, if it's a rail tile, a house tile or an industry tile. Or even a water tile.

@Roujin: nice to see you back

Wrt tunnels: wouldn't it make sense to implement for water tunnels straight the way we draw newgrf rail tunnels which allow separate drawing of ground, rail, portal and slope. Of course ground and rail would in this case be the water tile - but portals and slope could be a separate sprite which do not contain the water itself. And it could contain an overlay sprite (analogue to rail) which would allow to simulate shaddow on the water.

I don't know, you tell me - if this is preferred I shall change my patch accordingly. I thought this seperate-drawing-scheme was done for rail mainly so that railtype newgrfs can be made independent of landscape baseset/newgrf, so as there is no such thing as canaltypes, this would not be useful for water tunnels.
The overlay sprite to simulate shadow is news to me. So if you think this is worth the (suspected) drawing overhead, tell me and I shall change it for the next version of my patch.

Zuu wrote:[clip rect ideas]

That sounds like a good idea, not only for ships, but for all vehicles, allowing longer vehicles without glitches. Hmm, that immediately makes it sound out of scope for this patch, but fit for a standalone patch.
Do you know if there is code in place already for drawing limited to a clipping rect, or would this have to be done from the ground up?

There is already clipping code in the game, e.g. for the ground sprite on half-foundations. but i fear that you need something more dynamic with vehicles

personally, i hate this "draw shadow when vehicle is underground" patch...

Eddi wrote:personally, i hate this "draw shadow when vehicle is underground" patch...

That's why there's always an option to enable/disable it, like with most other features.

Supercheese wrote:

Eddi wrote:personally, i hate this "draw shadow when vehicle is underground" patch...

That's why there's always an option to enable/disable it, like with most other features.

It's pretty useful when you're using signal in tunnels.

Eddi wrote:there is no technical reason that prevents water tunnels, but the graphics will glitch horribly, because ships are just too big.

Is it possible to solve this by enlarging the tunnel entrance to, for example, at least two tiles in height?

Maybe 2-tile tunnels (one up slope and one down slope) should be disabled?

Zuu wrote:The issue with ships disappearing before they have fully entered the tunnel is however not solved by adding a clip rect.

There is already a solution to the problem of graphics of input-output for the ship and the tunnel - this is a ship depot: to draw entrance and exit of the tunnel for ships similar to entry and exit of ship depot.

But even better would be to use special frames at the entrance or exit of ships in the tunnel - pictures of these frames have to be one half transparent (invisible).

Ship tunnels - this is a great idea - this would be very usefull.

Kogut wrote:It is something completely unrealistic and redundant. You can build canals.

well, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... unnel.html

I have always wished water tunnels were in the game, from when I first started playing OTTD.

OK, so it'll be glitchy. Make it an option in the settings menu, with the default set to "off", and a warning in the notes about the glitches if enabled. Those that feel it's too "unrealistic" can ignore it. Others will accept the glitches and use it.

As an example, I personally don't like Cargodist, so I set everything to manual and I don't have to use it. I'd have water tunnels permanently on. I can live with the glitches.

And as for "realism", has anyone ever seen an oil tanker or a container ship on an aqueduct? That's already possible in the game, why not this?

Pete.

As a boat lover, I would be very happy if somewhere in time ship tunnels are added to the game Realistic or not. Which I agree realism is not a necessary sense to go by when deciding in adding something or not.
I mean, it's not exactly easy to build a brigde or canal at the peaks of the Himalaya... there a tunnel would be nice.

As a Norwegian and a ship lover, I still think that the planned Stad tunnel is a very special case, and not one to be emulated in OpenTTD. There are lots of things that I'd rather wish that the devs will spend their time on, like an official variable daylength implementation.

It's not like they have to choose one or the other. Developers basically work on whatever is of interest to them, whether it's trivial or difficult. And that goes for coders who are not on the dev team as well.

Let's rather add it to this list : https://wiki.openttd.org/Requested_features
and have a developer's thought if we can include it in "rejected"...

leifbk wrote:As a Norwegian and a ship lover, I still think that the planned Stad tunnel is a very special case, and not one to be emulated in OpenTTD. There are lots of things that I'd rather wish that the devs will spend their time on, like an official variable daylength implementation.

It is not a very special case.

This kind of tunnel already exists in France since at least 1755.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voûte_du_ ... _Bourgogne

And some pictures of this tunnel : https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tu ... ORM=HDRSC2

We could also take as example the Canal Saint-Martin in Paris. Although it's not meant for very big ships.

In openttd oil tankers would probably fit through that

As the water tunnels would be coded from scratch, may it should be a list of watertype like railtype.

As a result, channel costs should be different if you want to use only barges or super-tanker too.

If someone works on watertunels, he may try to look at the airports if there is a way to make them "navigable": there is currently no channel ports, and seaports look like IRL most to OTTD airports as a simple dock.

There's already a patch for multiple docks per stations + ships avoiding themselves, also you have the ISR/DWE Objects NewGRF to make any seaport look esthetical.

I wish I knew the littlest about programming, so to know if there's even a real chance that the developers might consider water tunnels.

I mean, for example I use NewGFR for trams, and that isn't in the standard game (as far as I know). It adds new depot, new rails, new vehicles... has its own bridge and tunnel too. It can be set either alone or upon a road. So, compared to all this, in my ignorance it seems like a water hole-through shouldn't be that much of a problem, either coded in the game or put as another NewGFR

Please everyone feel free to explain me why I'm wrong. I'd really like to know if that's the case.