Transport Tycoon Forums

would it be worth having a third for cargo planes in the default patch?

Yes, I think so. That way cargo-planes can (un)load at a different place than passenger planes. Which is also how it works in real life

Quast65 wrote:

would it be worth having a third for cargo planes in the default patch?

Yes, I think so. That way cargo-planes can (un)load at a different place than passenger planes. Which is also how it works in real life

Im thinking yellow for passengers and white for cargo.

Sounds good to me, that way it is easy to see what is what

Transportman wrote:Looks very interesting. Do you also have a mock-up/idea on how players can build the airports in the new system?

Here is your mockup:
From Left to Right:

Taxiway, Dynamite, Hangar, Runway, Gate, Sign ("Signals"), Bulldozer, Buildings (Non-Track Tiles)

I'll do a mockup a bit later of how it looks building the airport. But pretty much imagine its very similar to how you place Railway Track/Stations.

Im wondering whether I should somehow try to keep the original airport layouts or just do away with them altogether in favour of the new style.

Quast65 wrote:Sounds good to me, that way it is easy to see what is what

Quast, the terminals, could you do graphics to go at the front of the buildings to repesent airport entrance:

Leanden wrote:Quast, the terminals, could you do graphics to go at the front of the buildings to repesent airport entrance:

Probably, but that will have to wait for a couple of weeks. Got some other projects I am working on and the Easter holiday is near. I have got more free time in april. Will see what I can come up with then.

Leanden wrote:Im wondering whether I should somehow try to keep the original airport layouts or just do away with them altogether in favour of the new style.

If you want to be able to load old savegames, you'll have to handle the original airport layouts in some way.

Leanden wrote:could you do graphics

If I know that in some point the project is so far that graphics also get used, I also would invest some time into it. I have had some ideas of my own couple of years now

ISA wrote:

Leanden wrote:could you do graphics

If I know that in some point the project is so far that graphics also get used, I also would invest some time into it. I have had some ideas of my own couple of years now

Well i'm certain somewhere along the line it can be expanded into the NewGRF specification to replace and add further graphics.

Alberth wrote:

Leanden wrote:Im wondering whether I should somehow try to keep the original airport layouts or just do away with them altogether in favour of the new style.

If you want to be able to load old savegames, you'll have to handle the original airport layouts in some way.

In which case, it is probably worth leaving the original airports in, having a drop down in the airport selection button to choose between the two options with a setting parameter to disable one or the other.

Leanden wrote:having a drop down in the airport selection button to choose between the two options with a setting parameter to disable one or the other.

You mean I can either continue to play with the original airports and not use yours, or I have to start a new game?

In that case, I wouldn't bother, people with existing savegames have no use for your patch then.

Alberth wrote:In that case, I wouldn't bother, people with existing savegames have no use for your patch then.

Exactly the same as for example More Heightlevels. Seriously, what's the problem with that?

Converting old-style airports in the new-style ones on-the-fly in a running savegame is probably madness. So to keep compatibility you have to keep the code for both variations in the game. And it makes sense then that the player is allowed to deactivate one, if he wants to avoid cluttering the build options with something he doesn't use.

Alberth wrote:

Leanden wrote:having a drop down in the airport selection button to choose between the two options with a setting parameter to disable one or the other.

You mean I can either continue to play with the original airports and not use yours, or I have to start a new game?

In that case, I wouldn't bother, people with existing savegames have no use for your patch then.

No absolutely not what i mean. The old airport would still be there, but like how you can choose to build trams instead of roads, or electrified railway instead of normal railway, you can build modular airports instead of fixed airports.

And then exactly how in advanced settings now you can turn game elements on and off, you could enable or disable either original or modular airports.

Sweet Jesus i remembered the community here was toxic, but you guys sure are doing your best to remind me.

Pyoro wrote:the player is allowed to deactivate one, if he wants to avoid cluttering the build options with something he doesn't use.

If he de-activates the new aitports, what is the point of playing with the new patch then? He/she can just use standard game.

Leanden wrote:

Alberth wrote:

Leanden wrote:having a drop down in the airport selection button to choose between the two options with a setting parameter to disable one or the other.

You mean I can either continue to play with the original airports and not use yours, or I have to start a new game?

In that case, I wouldn't bother, people with existing savegames have no use for your patch then.

No absolutely not what i mean. The old airport would still be there, but like how you can choose to build trams instead of roads, or electrified railway instead of normal railway, you can build modular airports instead of fixed airports.

That's why I asked. You may not have meant an exclusive old or exclusive new, but "choose between the two options with a setting parameter to disable one or the other." can be read that way, or at least, that's how I read it.

And then exactly how in advanced settings now you can turn game elements on and off, you could enable or disable either original or modular airports.

Sweet Jesus i remembered the community here was toxic, but you guys sure are doing your best to remind me.

I wasn't intending to be toxic at all, it's just reading the sentence differently from intended meaning.

Alberth wrote:If he de-activates the new aitports, what is the point of playing with the new patch then? He/she can just use standard game.

Ah, I think I see what you mean. But ultimately I think every patch should have the goal to get into trunk - whether it actually happens or not, and then it makes sense to be able to turn it off, like you can play with the old amount of heightlevels or turn off cargo dist or go into the config files and turn off "build on slopes" ...

Even if NOT talking about trunk inclusion it makes sense for for example patch packs. You can also set daylength factors to 1, so if you download a patch pack for features x, y and z but don't want daylength you can essentially turn the patch off.

And, really, a menu entry to turning off features is probably the smallest hurdle in something as huge as this.

I'm not sure I see why the GUI must only be able to present one mode or the other at any given time, controlled by a setting.
Either a combined functionality window (e.g. another item in the airport class drop-down), or one window or toolbar button for each mode, would work just as well.

Pyoro wrote:Ah, I think I see what you mean. But ultimately I think every patch should have the goal to get into trunk - whether it actually happens or not, and then it makes sense to be able to turn it off

Having an on/off setting is rather orthogonal to targeting future trunk inclusion. That aside I don't think that every patch should try to get into trunk, for most patches it's unrealistic and setting unreachable targets is not a good way to sustain motivation.

Pyoro wrote:Even if NOT talking about trunk inclusion it makes sense for for example patch packs. You can also set daylength factors to 1, so if you download a patch pack for features x, y and z but don't want daylength you can essentially turn the patch off.

GUI issues aside, there'd be nothing stopping players from just not building the new airports, so I don't really see that an on/off setting would add much except in a multi-player environment where such features were considered undesirable for whatever reason. This is not the same as something like the daylength factor which has significant side effects even if the player takes no action.


That aside, I don't think that converting old savegames is insurmountable. If your new layout mechanism is sufficiently flexible that you can create a tile and reservation layout which closely-enough matches the old airport layouts and state machines, you can do the conversion at load time as necessary. If strict correctness isn't an issue but economy of effort is, you can also just throw all aircraft in the air at conversion time as some other airport patches do.

So maybe im not being clear enough with my wording, i thought the tram/road comparison would clarify but i will reiterate. The airport class menu would have both options, Classicc Airports and Modular Airports.

Leanden wrote:So maybe im not being clear enough with my wording, i thought the tram/road comparison would clarify but i will reiterate. The airport class menu would have both options, Classicc Airports and Modular Airports.

Like how you click and hold on Roads to select between Roads and Trams, click and hold on Railway to select between Rail, Electric, etc...

You'd click and hold on Airports to select pre-made and modular airports?

LabUser wrote:

Leanden wrote:So maybe im not being clear enough with my wording, i thought the tram/road comparison would clarify but i will reiterate. The airport class menu would have both options, Classicc Airports and Modular Airports.

Like how you click and hold on Roads to select between Roads and Trams, click and hold on Railway to select between Rail, Electric, etc...

You'd click and hold on Airports to select pre-made and modular airports?

Precisely...

Intriguing.

I like the idea of having the defaults there as a set of "preset" layouts.

Seems like there's a lot of things we miss out on because of the need for backwards compatibility - can Leanden not just code something in that says "oh, this save game was made with an older version, so disable the feature in this game"?

I like the rail models of the current defaults. Also the idea up the thread about take off weights and that, but let's not run before we can walk...

Following with interest...

I like the ideas in this thread. I would also add "airtypes". So you can have airport versions in gravel, asphalt or water versions. Each airtype can have a minimum length for its runways and other specs. Also, you can later decide aircraft compatibility with airport types.
I started doing some work to code it but I only work on it during summer.
I converted old airports (layouts) to the new system. In the end, movement of aircraft in old airports and modular ones will be controlled via a new pathfinder. You can also build an old layout and then modify it.
It is something much of us would like to see in OpenTTD, but remember there are people who prefer finite state machines.