OpenTTD Icon

[Merlon]

There's a .svg vector image on the wikipedia. Click the image in this link. Since it's vectorbased you can scale that up to whichever size you need without loss of quality.

There's also a 256x248 icon/image included with the svn source.

[athanasios]

Nice way to waste resources and electricity...

[Bjarni]

There's a .svg vector image on the wikipedia. Click the image in this link. Since it's vectorbased you can scale that up to whichever size you need without loss of quality.

Interesting. It would appear that somebody on wikipedia made an svg based on our png. Luckily it's gpl so we can use it (I don't think using it would end up as a problem anyway since it's based on our icon). I tried it and now I have a 1055x1022 png. It should then scale to the correct size when entering the icon file. The only issue now would be to figure out how to do this without breaking backward compatibility for both using and editing (which might turn out not to be an issue).

There's also a 256x248 icon/image included with the svn source.

256x248 isn't big enough for this.

Nice way to waste resources and electricity...

I agree. However our opinion means nothing as Apple included this without caring if we approve or not.

[Killer 11]

Nice way to waste resources and electricity...

Oh no it's going to display a large image on my desktop! Surely nothing else does this. oh wait wallpaper...
Seriously it wastes nearly 0 resources and really no electricity...
Besides not only mac users would benefit from this. Big icon would be great for that windows game list.

[Bjarni]

Nice way to waste resources and electricity...

Oh no it's going to display a large image on my desktop! Surely nothing else does this. oh wait wallpaper...
Seriously it wastes nearly 0 resources and really no electricity...
Besides not only mac users would benefit from this. Big icon would be great for that windows game list.

The issue is not the icon size but the animated moving through files. It's a bit tricky to see on a screenshot but when you move from one file to the next then all the icons will move, rotate, resize and so on (it's 3D). It runs on the GPU and it actually demands more GPU power than you would imagine. Personally I don't think a filesystem or display of a filesystem should depend heavily on the GPU.

[Killer 11]

So it's not even optional? i mean you can't browse your mac in any other way? If you can then i see no problem because if you want to have 2d stuff you go for 2d way and if you want 3d way then you use 3d browser.
I have nothing against it. Since i do a lot of gaming it would make little to no impact on my overall power usage.

[athanasios]

Certainly I like eye candy, but to a proper extend. Of course it should not trade functionality. May I inform you that I rarely use Windows Exproler or that I have Small Icons in my Start Menu? And I hate the trend: "We have all this power available in newer PCs why not?" (Not to mention this: "In the next version let us make this eye candy that needs a newer PC so we will force all to buy new PCs".)

We can use Bio-Fuel why not? Let us use rice maze and wheat for fuel and let the poor die...

[Killer 11]

As i said i don't really care as long as it's optional wich means that if you want it you can use it. Playing games is a waste of power and electricity too but face it all of us here do it(else we wouldn't be here in the first place).

Now if you have no option but to use eyecandy browsing then it's a bad os.
And icon size is very very related to resolution you use athanasios. For example if i used small icons on my resolution i would barely see what i have on desktop. so i use medium.

But anyways lets end this off-topic shall we.

Oh and all this "electricity should be saved" would be irrelevant if green idiots wouldn't have gone against nuclear power so much...
Chernobyl was a mediocre design and BAD usage, the guys there KNEW that that experiment they did was nearly fatal and htye still did it I blame USSR for being utterly ignorant, the plant was safe enough. Really if we used nuclearp ower to it's full potential we would have less air pollution from all those coal, oil and other burning fuel powered plants...

[Roujin]

Sure, nuclear power is the answer to all our problems

Nuclear plants don't solve the problem of pollution, they replace it by a thousandfold bigger pollution set off by a time delay. So instead of solving the problem, you replace it with a bigger problem in future. What are you going to do with all the nuclear waste? Shoot it into space? Now the answer is probably "Eh, I don't care - That'll be after my lifetime anyways"

[Killer 11]

suuuuure so lets keep on using oil and coal till it runs out and we have a power crysis that messes up all the world... That's a great idea! Atleast nuclear fuel lasts longer and by the time we could have a problem with used nuclear fuel we could already have a sollution oh and launching ingto space may be feasible by then too. Oh and don't say wind and water power to me... dams destroy enviroment by flooding surroundings and windmills chop up birds besides they make awful lot of sound too.

[Roujin]

suuuuure so lets keep on using oil and coal till it runs out and we have a power crysis that messes up all the world... That's a great idea!

I never said I am in favor of that.

Atleast nuclear fuel lasts longer and by the time we could have a problem with used nuclear fuel we could already have a sollution oh and launching ingto space may be feasible by then too.

And what if we don't have a solution until then? Maybe decades ago people said "Well, in the future we'll probably have a solution for that, so for now we can just start burning oil and coal like hell and not think about what happens when we blow all that stuff in the air."

Oh and don't say wind and water power to me... dams destroy enviroment by flooding surroundings and windmills chop up birds besides they make awful lot of sound too.

Not all power generating water dams were placed somewhere artificially creating a sea and flooding the area. IMO it's mainly governments of countries who don't give a s*** about their people and/or the landscape that do this.
And I don't know numbers, but some killed birds is in my opinion better than killing - eventually - all life on earth.

Then you didn't mention solar energy. You also got some far-fetched disadvantage of this?

[Mchl]

Ummm... nights?
You need a way to store electricity (or energy in general) to rely heavily on solar power. In Poland we have a hydro-storage plant that acts as a country wide energy accumulator. It was designed to work together with a nuclear plant, that was never finished.

Anyway. I've been browsing Wikipedia recently and have found some interesting information about new nuclear reactor designs. Safer, more efficient, producing less waste, and so on... really interesting lecture. Starts with 'Nuclear reactor' article of course

[cmoiromain]

The solution to all you problems!

[Roujin]

The solution to all you problems!

If it doesn't go all wrong and blow us all to smithereens, that is...

[flake]

since the topic is allready highjacked bejond repair, i'll hop in.

Sure, without nuclear power plants our CO2 problem would be much worse, and yes we need to look for other energy resources then oil.
And i also agree with Killer 11 that "green idiots" (as he politely calls them) created a really bad image for nuclear power.
But thats mainly the fault of "nuclear idiots", who followed the strategy of blocking information for decades.
(I have an biophysics professor who said that leaving the population ignorant was their biggest mistake)

YES we could build quite secure and less waste producing nuclear power plants. And the deposits for nuclear waste are small,
compared to other long time waste types.

So lets build a reactor in every house and live happly ever after ?

Nope, because we just don't have enough uran.

Don't get me wrong, i am no specialist in this matter and could be way wrong, but as far as i know, replacing oil with uran would deplete uran resources faster than oil.

In 2004, the world's uranium mines produced 46,500 tonnes of uranium oxide, compared with world consumption of 79,000 tonnes.
In 2004, the 41% shortfall in uranium supplies was met from secondary supplies (stockpiles and obsolete weaponry). While the quantity of secondary supplies of uranium is unknown, it is unlikely that this is a long term solution.
There are about 450 nuclear power plants operating in the world today. At mid-2006 these include 103 in the USA, 23 in the UK, 10 in Sweden, 8 in Spain, 7 in Belgium, 18 in Canada, 59 in France, 17 in Germany, 55 in Japan, 4 in Finland, 6 in Czech Republic, 10 in China, and 31 in Russia - click here to see the complete table.
These reactors, and the 27 currently under construction, as well as 143 under consideration, will continue to drive uranium demand.

ITER's technology (fusion) wil need along time before it is cost effient (if it doesn't blow us all to smithereens).

but there is a way out. just don't use that much energy and don't get that manny friggen kids

OECD uran resources, production and demand summary
http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2006 ... nglish.pdf
i hope this non ottd thread will not be deleted.

i demand windmills and dams in ottd !

[Sopenas]

Ichi!

I think your icon is amazing, i vote for it

ok here's my contribution:

[Mchl]

So lets build a reactor in every house and live happly ever after ?

Nope, because we just don't have enough uran.

There are other nuclear fuels considered. Thorium being one of them.

[athanasios]

Do you trust 3rd world countries ability to maintain a nuclear reactor?
Have you thought about terrorists?
In Sri Lanka LTTE wrap around themselves explosives and kill innocent people in buses.
How many countries are ruled by an army officer who is overthrown next year with a 'civil war'?
Where will the waste go? Buried to pollute future generations? (Because no one will waste money to dump it in space.)

Nuclear? Unclear.

The sun is the only solution.

[Zutty]

Do you trust 3rd world countries ability to maintain a nuclear reactor?
Have you thought about terrorists?
In Sri Lanka LTTE wrap around themselves explosives and kill innocent people in buses.
How many countries are ruled by an army officer who is overthrown next year with a 'civil war'?
Where will the waste go? Buried to pollute future generations? (Because no one will waste money to dump it in space.)

Nuclear? Unclear.

The sun is the only solution.

The IAEA keeps an eye on that. Everyone in the world has the right to nuclear energy.

I agree that the Sun is a more sustainable option ()if that what you are trying to say) than nuclear fission, but renewables are VERY expensive and the world never far away from an energy crisis of some kind. Nuclear is safe, cheap, and produces zero carbon emissions. Yes waste is an issue, but at least it doesn't get automatically pumped into the atmosphere!

As for the topic, I prefer the logo OpenTTD already has!

[Mchl]

The sun is the only solution.

Luckily it is not.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that nuclear power is a remedy to all energy problems. I just think it is only feasible solution, as long as there are no really efficient means of utilising renewable sources and/or fusion power.