tunnel

[user43]

is Enhanced_Tunnel planed for openttd?

[FooBar]

Maybe in some developer's secret lab (hopefully), but not that I know of.

[belugas]

Last time we discussed about it, we did not liked it, therefor decided not to integrate it
Assuming you;re talking about the TTDPatch version... of course

[cmoiromain]

does that mean another form of enhanced tunnels will be included in OTTD?

And since I can't find this last discussion, could you please quickly sum up the main reasons for not wanting such a feature?

[belugas]

It depends what kind of enhancement you are talking about.

If it is the rails that are running on the top of the tunnel entrance, no way.
We talked about it on IRC, I do not have the courage to try to find the conversations on the logs.

But basically, we did not liked the idea nor the look.
plus, once more, we do not have to do everything TTDPatch does, and vice-versa.

[Gremnon]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it in Open, but if it's too much trouble...
Meh, I reckon you'll come back later and wonder why you didn't put it in actualy.

[dihedral]

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing it in Open

there are a lot of people that want to see something in openttd. nice thing is, openttd is a project with developers that actually think about the stuff they are doing, such as planing a direction the game will / will not take.

once they have decided NO on a topic, there is usually a very good reason to it.

Meh, I reckon you'll come back later and wonder why you didn't put it in actualy.

dont think so, just because you want something, does not mean the devs are going to miss it!
and if they do add it at any later stage, they will probably have found a 'something' that does not stand in contradiction with the reason they had for not adding it before.

[el koeno]

It depends what kind of enhancement you are talking about.

If it is the rails that are running on the top of the tunnel entrance, no way.
We talked about it on IRC, I do not have the courage to try to find the conversations on the logs.

But basically, we did not liked the idea nor the look.
plus, once more, we do not have to do everything TTDPatch does, and vice-versa.

I'm wondering; if somebody were to make a perfectly functioning patch (that obeys coding guidelines etc.) that introduces enhanced tunnels, would you include it?

[athanasios]

What about rails over road tunnel and road over rail tunnel? Will this cause rv crashes?

[Draakon]

Looks like someone else has to do it. And when it does, well, we must compile it our self. Oh well, the world is cruel, but that's the world.

[belugas]

I'm wondering; if somebody were to make a perfectly functioning patch (that obeys coding guidelines etc.) that introduces enhanced tunnels, would you include it?

All the avenues are possible. But you have to understand that saying "Yes" without any work been shown first is a bit suicidal
On the other hand...
Since we did not liked the overall idea...

[el koeno]

I'm wondering; if somebody were to make a perfectly functioning patch (that obeys coding guidelines etc.) that introduces enhanced tunnels, would you include it?

All the avenues are possible. But you have to understand that saying "Yes" without any work been shown first is a bit suicidal
On the other hand...
Since we did not liked the overall idea...

Wow, you said absolutely nothing at all. If you decide to stop coding OTTD, a career in politics might be good alternative!

[LordAzamath]

No, he DID say something.. "Code it first and then we might consider." Or something like that

[belugas]

NO, I said : Since we do not like the idea of the enhanced tunnel, I doubt that even if a perfectly written patch would be accepted.
We do not bring in trunk stuff that does not please us.
Hope it's clearer...

[Draakon]

Why don't you like half of the features anyway that are being made by patchers?

[Mchl]

Because these features don't fit into vision of OTTD that developers have?
They're responsible for this project, so they can decide in what direction it goes. Anyone with different vision can branch off (that's not rude word I hope). Different patch packs might be considered just this - a different approach to OTTD development.

---

edit: I actually wrote 'nod rude'...

[belugas]

Mchl expressed the situation exactly as it is
It's OpenTTD, Open as Open Sources -> available for all to see.
Not Open as Everyone Can Put Their Features In

[maquinista]

If someone creates a fork with found a town, enhanced tunnels, traffic lights, diagonal level crossings, water viaducts and custom bridge heads, I will forget OTTD.

Mini-in was one of the best patched versions of OTTD.

[Rubidium]

Why don't you like half of the features anyway that are being made by patchers?

First of all: most of the time it is not the feature we do not like but the implementation of the feature.

Causes why we don't like implementations:
1) not correctly saving settings and such
2) multiplayer unsafe
3) lack of documentation
4) vast duplication of code
5) not following the coding style; showing that you at least attempt to follow the coding style and fail sometimes is so much more appreciated than telling our coding style sucks. A consistent coding style makes it the code easier to read for everyone.
6) incorrect/broken functionality
7) enormous unsplit patches that dramatically impact the game
unsound implementation
9) unfinished implementation
10) author who think their patch is simple and works but doesn't work in all cases
11) author who refuse to actually fix their implementation/change it based on our tips/hints/requests

If someone creates a fork with ..... , I will forget OTTD.

Reasons why the mentioned patches are not included are not already included in OpenTTD:
found a town: 4 and 11
enhanced tunnels: no implementation
traffic lights: 3 and 9
diagonal level crossings: 6 and 9
water viaducts: no implementation
custom bridge heads: 1, 6 and 9

The total of MiniIN suffered from all of the mentioned causes why it would not be included.

[Draakon]

What about Copy & Paste then?