OTTD 2

[mexicoshanty]

First of all take the time to think about what i'm about to say rather than shooting it down instantly. It may however something that the community just doesn't want.

It has become apparent to me that within the OpenTTD community there are two schools of thought. The first is that OpenTTD should remain true to the original TTD as much as possible with slight improvements that do not effect the overall game play. The second is that OpenTTD should be developed to become the transport game that everyone has dreamed of.

This conflict effects everyone and the game. Take the 32bpp project as an example. On one side you have people that believe it would destroy OpenTTD and on the other you have people who want OpenTTD to look prettier. The thing is i agree with both. I would like OpenTTD to look as sexy as this project promises but i still would like to be able to play OpenTTD the way it is now. If the 32bpp project is completed then one way around that is to load up an old version of OpenTTD . But then i can't play online and don't get any new features, OpenTTD with retro graphics is effectively dead.

But it's not just the 32bpp project. There are numerous other projects going on that could destroy OpenTTD gameplay as we know it and enhance it in new and exciting ways. So i propose that OpenTTD 2 is put on the table. OpenTTD would still remain in development indefinably.

The reason i didn't suggest forking OpenTTD and calling it something else like a million and 2 people have done is because i don't want another game, i want OpenTTD! Just enhanced with all the radical projects that people have proposed. I believe it is possible to keep the OpenTTD feel and personality while that dream transport game is created.

Some current projects that I think should be in OpenTTD 2 are:
- Economy and Balancing
- 32bpp Graphics
- Passengers/Mail with Specific Destinations

Initially i believe there should also be a rework of the scales (to be more realistic).

Then there are a lot of things that would be nice but just not even considered because they were too radical or would have put too much strain on the system requirements. Here's a few ideas that i think should be considered for later development (most stolen from iNVERTED fork thread).

- Curved tracks
- 3D rendering for vehicles
- Traffic lights on roads
- Civilian cars on roads
- Diagonal roads
- Four- and six-lane roads
- Custom airports - place spare land, runways, hangars, terminals, loading bays and jetties
- Underground view for building tunnels
- Bridges over bridges, bridges with corners and tunnels with corners
- Rotate the view
- RCT-style water (i.e. different depths of water that cost different amounts of money to "reclaim" as land)
- Conveyor belts


So what does everyone think? Is there interest in the suggestion? It would also be a good opportunity to do things right the first time as there wouldn't be any compatibility problems to worry about. The system requirements could also be raised.

[AlexW]

I think this is a very interesting suggestion and should not be shot down at all. My concern would be that creating an OTTD 2 would either a) not work as development would focus on OTTD or b) take all attention and development and leave OTTD unattended.

The question that underpins your suggestion is therefore "would the developers be able to / want to work on two similar yet very different projects?"

[Brianetta]

...but OTTD 1.0 isn't even out yet...

[mexicoshanty]

The question that underpins your suggestion is therefore "would the developers be able to / want to work on two similar yet very different projects?"

Indeed. That is why it is in the developers section.

...but OTTD 1.0 isn't even out yet...

lol, true. But will it ever? OTTD's nature is that it's always in development.

[DeletedUser21]

I was thinking about your sollution and the word that crossed my mind was copyrights. One of the reasons OTTD went to use different graphics (and while were at it, enhanced graphics) was because of the possible copyright infringement. I say then we could (in line with Mexicoshanty's suggestion) branch OTTD with 'alternate' 8BBP graphics (like in the old days ) and a 32BBP version. Heck! It could even be switchable within just 1 program. (Why 2 seperate versions if we could integrate them into 1?)

*me keeps dreaming...

[klogg]

Why 2 seperate version if we could integrate them into 1?

Exactly! Isn't this possible?

klogg

[WWTBAM]

couldnt it even be like an officiall miniin but only with developer patches. about traffic lights thats been shot down by many people, even CS himself tried it in the development of locomotion and shot it down because it caused too many poblems mainly large traffic jams.

[mexicoshanty]

Why 2 seperate version if we could integrate them into 1?

Exactly! Isn't this possible?

klogg

While that is possible for the 32bit project (even though to do it properly would require a rework of scales), you're missing the point. I used the 32bit project as an example. The question is do we want to develop OTTD as far as it can go (without being reckless and creating some monster that is no longer resembles TTD) or keep OTTD true to TDD but just with enhancements? Either way we can't satisfy both ideals unless we have 2 versions.

[prissi]

I see no apparent reason, why OTTD could not run with several sprite sizes, since frontend and backend (or game logics and graphics logics) are seperated.

In simutrans we have sprite sets with 32x32, 64x64, 96x96, 128x128 and 196x196 size. I see no reason, why this should not work with OTTD 1.0 or so (given the spespective sprite behaviour is clarified enough).

On the other things, I woul djust say, to be patient. The balanced economy is initiated by a developer, and of the all the other things are many a considered when stable and debugged. I see no need (and no way) to rush this process without using paid fulltime stuff.

[peter1138]

since frontend and backend (or game logics and graphics logics) are seperated.

*cough* yes... of course

[PouncingAnt]

Most patches have an on/off switch. Why not just use that?

[Ailure]

Yeah, there should be patch options for most things that are being added so people can play in the old way. I used to be really really against electrified tracks, until I started playing trainsets where diesel isn't totally obsoleted by electrical such as UKRS. Well, it's not possible for everything. Some GUI stuff was changed to fit in new features or for make up weaknesses in the old GUI, so you would have to be a very conservative player to get annoyed at those changes.

[Bot_40]

Well I think eventually it would be a good idea to branch off and try and create a totally new more balanced game, to me it doesn't make sense to do it any time soon as major things like the new map array are far from finished. Keeping stuff in sync for such a long time would be a nightmare.

[DaleStan]

It has become apparent to me that within the OpenTTD community there are two schools of thought. The first is that OpenTTD should remain true to the original TTD as much as possible with slight improvements that do not effect the overall game play. The second is that OpenTTD should be developed to become the transport game that everyone has dreamed of.

You seem to be implying that the former and the latter are somehow not the same thing?
Or maybe that the latter somehow precludes the possibility of doing the former with the same binary?

[CobraA1]

You seem to be implying that the former and the latter are somehow not the same thing?

I think it's a fair implication. I do in fact see that some people want OpenTTD to remain nothing more than TTD with a few minor adjustments, while other people want to make major, sweeping changes that makes it into practically a whole new game.

Or maybe that the latter somehow precludes the possibility of doing the former with the same binary?

Unfortunately, it could - there are in fact some decisions that may require a fairly large and potentially irreversible overhaul of how the game works.

Take, for example, 3D graphics. Some people like the idea, while others don't. Unfortunately, 3D would require substantial changes to the game, as well as the system requirements to play the game. Instead of being able to play the game on any computer with a VGA monitor, a 3D version of OpenTTD would most likely require at least a DirectX 9 compatible video card.

[mexicoshanty]

Ok i guess it's not what's need or wanted. But i still don't think you guys have put much thought into. Your responses are exactly as i expected. That probably indicates that it's a stupid idea or maybe that the ottd community is stuck in a rut.

I see no apparent reason, why OTTD could not run with several sprite sizes, since frontend and backend (or game logics and graphics logics) are seperated.

That makes sense in theory but in reality high res graphics makes the inconsistency of scales much more obvious. Also things such as curved tracks aren't needed with the current graphics (and probably not wanted) but when everything is more detailed it's going to look mighty funny looking with trains turning at 45degrees.

On the other things, I woul djust say, to be patient. The balanced economy is initiated by a developer, and of the all the other things are many a considered when stable and debugged. I see no need (and no way) to rush this process without using paid fulltime stuff.

It's not that i'm impatient by any means. My wish for OTTD 2 was not to get the 'features now' but to create a well balanced game.

Most patches have an on/off switch. Why not just use that?

Because in order for a lot of the projects/suggestions to work well they have to be in combination with other projects/suggestions. For example:
- balancing the economy would benefit greatly from changing the scales of things.
- As mentioned before the 32bit project would benefit from changing the scale of things
- But you cant change the scale of things without new graphics and reworking the economy.

to me it doesn't make sense to do it any time soon as major things like the new map array are far from finished. Keeping stuff in sync for such a long time would be a nightmare.

Yeah I agree. I was actually going to mention that exact issue in my original post but i forgot.

You seem to be implying that the former and the latter are somehow not the same thing?
Or maybe that the latter somehow precludes the possibility of doing the former with the same binary?

Yes i believe it does. Not because it is impossible to code. Of course it's possible to code (it just be a lot more difficult) but mainly because people are idiots. 99% of those who play OpenTTD would not visit the forum often and have no clue about what combination of patches to enable/disable or even know that they can enable/disable certain patches to get a game so different.

Also how long is OTTD going to follow TTDP? I'd like to think OTTD remains compatible with TTDP forever but there are a lot of possibilities for OTTD that would probably break that bond (my understanding of the way OTTD works is pretty limited so correct me if i'm wrong). In a new version with no backwards compatibility, we could break free of all current restraints.

Personally i think the scope of these 'features/suggestion" used in combination (which would work best) suggests a natural version change.

The most important thing is whether the developers are interested in this project. If they are then there is no reason why 2 versions can't live side by side. Take PHP for example, both PHP 4 and 5 are still in development.

[Rubidium]

... there is no reason why 2 versions can't live side by side. Take PHP for example, both PHP 4 and 5 are still in development.

As far as I am aware, (some of) the PHP developers are paid to do so. However, because we all have a daytime job/study there isn't that much time we can spend on the development.
Furthermore, define 'development' because the majority of the changes in PHP 4 since about august 2003 are bugfixes; for the 5.x.0 releases you can see much more added features etc. than for 4.x.0 releases since august 2003.

So I classify PHP 4 as if we were continuing making bugfixes for OpenTTD 0.4 and PHP 5 more like OpenTTD 0.5 is now.

Look for example at the MiniIN. After a few months the updating of everything when OpenTTD progressed became cumbersome; especially because people also wanted the features and bugfixes from trunk.

In a new version with no backwards compatibility, we could break free of all current restraints.

That means a completely different game if you want to break free of all constraints.

[mexicoshanty]

As far as I am aware, (some of) the PHP developers are paid to do so. However, because we all have a daytime job/study there isn't that much time we can spend on the development.

I totally understand and i don't expect you guys to do anything if you didn't want to.

I say lock this topic it aint going anywhere useful.

[orudge]

...but OTTD 1.0 isn't even out yet...

lol, true. But will it ever? OTTD's nature is that it's always in development.

It took over 10 years for FreeDOS to hit version 1.0.

[Korenn]

Take PHP for example, both PHP 4 and 5 are still in development.

quoted this because it's exactly where I see the problem. The PHP community is a lot larger than the ottd community, and most of them are programmers, as opposed to a mix of graphics designers, coders, set composers, etc.

Any plan that would split the current development force in two halves is doomed to fail, unless the amount of developers would miraculously double. So the whole of the developers force would have to shift over to the new project, abandoning the former. That could theoretically happen, but you'd have to be very convincing indeed