Lord Aro wrote:
To aid trunk inclusion, you should of course:
a) split the patch up into separate changes (i know you've already done this, but i don't see a recent version published)
b) for minor things such as bug fixes that are (mostly) unrelated to the map features, make (individual) flyspray tasks
c) nag the devs constantly for a code review
It does not work 
. Unless, of course, dev nagging must be done in some special way that I am unaware of. It is hard to tell, because there is nowhere that says what to do to contribute patches to openttd.
I grew tired of updating patches in flyspray when I saw that no dev even cared to reply to my last submission 
. I even asked planetmaker a direct question
on the subject half a year ago, and he just hushed away.
wallyweb wrote:The only other feature I would have liked to have seen included would have been enhanced tunnels similar to the TTDPatch implementation. Perhaps these could be revisited on their own once the current patch is on its way to trunk.
There is nothing in my patch, as it is now, that precludes implementation of enhanced tunnels; to the contrary, the new map array design explicitly allows for them. It is just that nothing has actually been done towards them. If they ever were to be implemented, this patch would be a far better starting point for them than current trunk, if only for the improvements in the pathfinders and wormhole handling.
i have not tested this patch, and i don't speak for the devs, but the most likely reply you'd get from submitting this patch is "but we had a somewhat more flexible way in mind to extend the map capabilities" (besides code style and stuff)
that should not discourage you from trying anyway
This, too. OpenTTD, the project where vague plans stalled for years beat working code. And as if my new map array made those plans any harder, were they ever to be implemented.
But I have one suggestion: can you increase the limit of newGRF ID ?
If you mean the patch that Supercheese used to include in his binaries, I have never used it--in fact, I have never seen what it does. As such, I would have to review it and understand it first.
kyosuke1989 wrote:Are there any bits free in the new map array for eventual diagonal/unified level crossings?
Level crossings do have a few spare bits, so the map array would not be a problem for this.
Ok, so you have convinced me to update the patch. This may take a while, because there have been over 500 commits in trunk since my last patch, and I have a batch of pending adjustments that were waiting for a savegame compatibility break.