New map features

[Eddi]

that proposal cannot really work.

a) some bridges may appear to have no pillars, but actually they do have invisible pillars (like the green arc-bridge)
b) if you do want to make bridge construction more flexible, do it properly (tm)

[HackaLittleBit]

Understood.
I do not have knowledge of newgrf's.
A pitty however.
Here is the patch for longer bridge spans.

And yes, some bridges need adjustments

[wallyweb]

Is it really necessary to manipulate existing bridges?
As I demonstrated above, the player does have options.
If more options are wanted, better to extend available defintions from 13 (0 through 12), perhaps doubling the range, or allowing multiple bridge sets to coexist, and then encouraging bridge artists and coders to work their magic.
The default bridges and sets such as TBRS were conceived to display a touch of reality and much work was done to make all the parts fit. Retroactively inserting sections defeats the integrity of the artists' original concept. Add to that, why add complication to an elegant solution that already exists?

[cirdan]

Is it really necessary to manipulate existing bridges?

Indeed. We cannot really alter existing bridges. Either we allow a bridge over something or we do not, but we cannot change the appearance of the bridge.

If more options are wanted, better to extend available defintions from 13 (0 through 12), perhaps doubling the range, or allowing multiple bridge sets to coexist, and then encouraging bridge artists and coders to work their magic.

I am open to this, but the type of a bridge is stored in the map array, where space is limited. We can increase the number of bridges to 32 or even 64 without much work, but there will always be a line somewhere. So we should not take this path lightly.

All in all, I am still undecided about what we should do with custom station tiles. Some of HackaLittleBit's screenshots show that the pylon check may not be a good fallback, as we cannot know the height of the structures in some tiles that should use pylons. As I see it, either we allow unrestricted building of bridges over custom stations, and let the user face whatever ugliness ensues; or we introduce a new station tile property that specifies its behaviour with respect to bridges, in which case you will never be able to build a bridge over stations in existing NewGRFs that are not updated. Then again, I do not use any station NewGRFs myself, so I do not know how much of a problem this would be for players? After all, we have been living with no-bridges-over-stations for two decades, and nobody will be worse off even if we take the conservative approach.

[wallyweb]

...

How does this sound ...
Allow any bridge height for now. Include road, rail and sea items (depots, docks, buoys, halls, platforms, waypoints, etc.). If players find insurmountable issues, we know now that the question can always be revisited.

We can increase the number of bridges to 32 or even 64

This has me confused.
The original TTDX default allowed for 11 bridge slots with each slot accommodating 4 deck types: road; rail; monorail and maglev for a total of 44.
OTTD added two slots for 13 giving a total of 52.
Does this mean that there could be 32 slots x 4 deck types for 128?

[Eddi]

i'm fairly sure it's already possible to have 16 types of bridges without any (serious) code changes

but that doesn't change the fact that there are only very limited ways to design bridges (and their pillar configurations)

[HackaLittleBit]

Here are three screenshots of all possible bridges.
The above patch was applied.
There are no problems with the graphics of OpenGFX and the original OTTD.
The "Total Bridge Renewal Set" has some glitches.
I fixed a couple of them.
The gothic hanging bridge needs some fixing in part 4 or max lenght 7 tiles (nfo change)
The truss bridge can be reconfigured back to it's original configuration.(nfo change)
That leaves only the concrete viaduct to be altered a bit.
The rest I have done myself.

And you can not solve this problem with newgrf only, because the existing code is not flexible enough.
The 'Tied arch bridge' uses the maximum possibilities of the existing code. (span 5 tiles) but this is only possible on ground level.
This bridge is not able to cross higher structures.

I may be wrong and I would be pleased to hear how to do it.

[wallyweb]

...

The challenge is not how many middle parts to add. It is how to make all those parts fit together such that they would have the appearance of being structurally sound if built in real life.

[Eddi]

And you can not solve this problem with newgrf only, because the existing code is not flexible enough.

no, but if you open that can of worms, you should make it COMPLETELY customizable by the NewGRF how to configure bridges. like have more different middle parts, and adjust the order of the middle part. and this in a way that is either cached by the game, or performant enough so it can be run over and over.

also, this has almost nothing to do with this patchpack.

[HackaLittleBit]

no, but if you open that can of worms, you should make it COMPLETELY customizable by the NewGRF how to configure bridges. like have more different middle parts, and adjust the order of the middle part. and this in a way that is either cached by the game, or performant enough so it can be run over and over.

also, this has almost nothing to do with this patchpack.

Yup, indeed a can of worms with most probably a performance penalty.

or we introduce a new station tile property that specifies its behaviour with respect to bridges, in which case you will never be able to build a bridge over stations in existing NewGRFs that are not updated.

I think that is the way to go.
Maybe with temporary option to override.

Then again, I do not use any station NewGRFs myself, so I do not know how much of a problem this would be for players? After all, we have been living with no-bridges-over-stations for two decades, and nobody will be worse off even if we take the conservative approach.

[te_lanus]

I know this is a dumb question, but wonder if anyone can help.

I did a "git clone NMF-souce" and got the latest source from the repo, did a ./configure & then make j=5 & ended up with a file I could run on my OS (Linux Mint 17.3 32-bit). Now when I start it it's showing me Norev000 as revision number, and with the revision number set wrong FIRS don't want to work, claiming my fexe is to old, do anyone know how to get the right revision number from being used while compiling. (and I did download it twice to see that it works

[HackaLittleBit]

I know this is a dumb question, but wonder if anyone can help.

I did a "git clone NMF-souce" and got the latest source from the repo, did a ./configure & then make j=5 & ended up with a file I could run on my OS (Linux Mint 17.3 32-bit). Now when I start it it's showing me Norev000 as revision number, and with the revision number set wrong FIRS don't want to work, claiming my fexe is to old, do anyone know how to get the right revision number from being used while compiling. (and I did download it twice to see that it works

Somehow config.lib line 1041, or findversion.sh line 87 can not find your git repository.
Cirdan made some changes there about 6 weeks ago.
Check if you installed git in your root directory.

Edit: And you have to use administrators rights most probably (sudo)
I installed tortoiseHG on my linux box and am very happy.
It worked on mint imediately.

[te_lanus]

I know this is a dumb question, but wonder if anyone can help.

I did a "git clone NMF-souce" and got the latest source from the repo, did a ./configure & then make j=5 & ended up with a file I could run on my OS (Linux Mint 17.3 32-bit). Now when I start it it's showing me Norev000 as revision number, and with the revision number set wrong FIRS don't want to work, claiming my fexe is to old, do anyone know how to get the right revision number from being used while compiling. (and I did download it twice to see that it works

Somehow config.lib line 1041, or findversion.sh line 87 can not find your git repository.
Cirdan made some changes there about 6 weeks ago.
Check if you installed git in your root directory.

? not sure what this mean (sorry) I installed everything according to the wiki. And my src dir is /mnt/storage/src/fttd

Edit: And you have to use administrators rights most probably (sudo)
I installed tortoiseHG on my linux box and am very happy.
It worked on mint imediately.

I've compiled a few (mostly) emulators (MAME, Stella ect) without a problem, so nut sure why NMF can't find it's rev number

[HackaLittleBit]

You know I had the same problems as you.
I do not remember exactly what I did.

Fed up I found out that tortoiseHG was also available for linux.
I installed that and it worked first time.
Amazing!

I am now on my linux bx and tested loading FIRS
It works here without a problem.

With Git I can't help you nor with any versioning software as a matter of fact.
I can't get used to command line screen

What I would do is also install tortoiseHG and see if it works.
And if it does't also install svn

Good luck and don't gat frustrated

And... come back if the problem persists.

[cirdan]

How does this sound ...
Allow any bridge height for now. Include road, rail and sea items (depots, docks, buoys, halls, platforms, waypoints, etc.). If players find insurmountable issues, we know now that the question can always be revisited.

Well, that is essentially what my last patch was for, although only for stations. Depots and locks can always be added later (it is easier to move a depot out of the way).

We can increase the number of bridges to 32 or even 64

This has me confused.
The original TTDX default allowed for 11 bridge slots with each slot accommodating 4 deck types: road; rail; monorail and maglev for a total of 44.
OTTD added two slots for 13 giving a total of 52.

Current code allows for 16 different bridge types, and each of them can be used with road/tram or any of the rail types.

Does this mean that there could be 32 slots x 4 deck types for 128?

Yes, we could easily increase the number of bridge types to 32 if there is a need.

I did a "git clone NMF-souce" and got the latest source from the repo, did a ./configure & then make j=5 & ended up with a file I could run on my OS (Linux Mint 17.3 32-bit). Now when I start it it's showing me Norev000 as revision number, and with the revision number set wrong FIRS don't want to work, claiming my fexe is to old, do anyone know how to get the right revision number from being used while compiling. (and I did download it twice to see that it works

As HackaLittleBit has already pointed out, recently I did some changes to the git revision detection code so that it would handle git worktrees (which I now use—it is really nice to have several branches checked out at the same time sharing the same repository). Perhaps I broke other uses? Does ./configure complain that it cannot find the revision (it should pause for about a second if it does)? Can you try compiling commit 1239efd73a0bca54b69090113d9a5e3909bf7737? More generally, if you feel comfortable with git, can you try bisecting the problem?

[wallyweb]

Depots and locks can always be added later (it is easier to move a depot out of the way).

The ugly empty space under a bridge is a convenient place to hide a depot where it will prevent the accumulation of empty beverage bottles and used carry-away food wrappers. I completely forgot about locks. I've always wanted to be able to build bridges over locks.

Current code allows for 16 different bridge types, and each of them can be used with road/tram or any of the rail types.

The GRF Specifications provide for only 13 bridge slots (00h through 0Ch) using Action A to replace existing sprites. Six of those slots are recolour of existing bridges (2x Suspension; 2x Cantilever; 2x Tubular) and can be modified using Action D GRF Resource Management (GRM). Can those undescribed slots (0D; 0E; 0F) currently be accessed via GRM? If yes, then we probably won't need to expand to 32 slots immediately. My Urban Transit Bridge uses this method. It will be an easy matter to experiment. I'm off to an afternoon in the lab.

[HackaLittleBit]

...

The challenge is not how many middle parts to add. It is how to make all those parts fit together such that they would have the appearance of being structurally sound if built in real life.

Sigh, I now know what you mean.
What a patience and skill from these guys.

Just a question: Would it not be possible to make a sprite for bridges with length 2 tiles eg overlapping?
I am not sure, but isn't the whole bridge repainted?

Edit: No, I saw it already.

[wallyweb]

It will be an easy matter to experiment. I'm off to an afternoon in the lab.

Lab report:
The game tells me that bridge IDs 0D, OE and 0F are invalid.

[cirdan]

It will be an easy matter to experiment. I'm off to an afternoon in the lab.

Lab report:
The game tells me that bridge IDs 0D, OE and 0F are invalid.

Ah, yes, MAX_BRIDGES is 13 even though the map array would allow for 16 bridge types, but this would be easy enough to change if needed.

[wallyweb]

Ah, yes, MAX_BRIDGES is 13 even though the map array would allow for 16 bridge types, but this would be easy enough to change if needed.

All 13 slots are used by the default bridges. TBRS only uses 11 slots because it was released before the last two slots (Golden Tubular; Silicone Tubular) were added. My Urban Transit bridge replaces Golden Tubular. I have another bridge in progress that will replace the Silicone Tubular. Those final three slots could be used by my two bridges as well as for development of a bridge to span the largest of stations.