Sea Planes [proposed set, looking for info]

[Zephyris]

Sea planes will be priced almost exactly as their equivalent land planes, drifting towards slightly slower speeds and higher running costs, the niche is as a result of where seaplane airports may be built... I have a test grf complete for the Saunders-Roe Princess which looks good (it includes taking off, crusing, landing and taxiing in water graphics)...

[chrisbryant99]

So how can we get seaports? Do we just download a seaplane GRF? Or do we need a seaport one as well?

[Sarin]

I think seaports are part of developed airport patch...

[PikkaBird]

I'm just wondering about one thing.. what sort of niche would seaplanes fill in OpenTTD? Or doesn't it actually make any sense but is only there for eyecandy?

When airports cost a fortune, and not every village is guaranteed to become a metropolis within a few years of being serviced, seaplanes will find their niche.

[richk67]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *deep breath* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

We wont expect you to finish it if you no longer want to, but do you think its possible to salvage any the part you've already done?

Hey, I didnt say I was abandoning it - no salvaging needed. I have been sidetracked by real life (and other games), but I'll come back and do more to it.

The main thing is the-power-that-be wanted me to integrate the NewGRF_ports code with the NewStations code. Although I can see that this would be a good thing eventually, it is NOT easy. In fact I have coded about 3 different attempts, none of which even came close to linking (I could get it to compile, but linking spat its dummy out). (See note below)

The benefit of doing it is a) unification of code, and b) station animation - really necessary for airport radars, windsocks, etc. But also looking ahead to seaports, animation would be great for dock cranes, etc.

However the mega-negative about doing the code unification is a) I hate doing optimisations for optimisations sake, b) I dont like being told that I have to develop something because I have to, rather than because I really want to, c) Im not convinced that any solution I come up with would actually be approved of - and so all my time and effort getting something to work would be wasted, and now d) doing this unification is discouraging me from actually coding new features into NewGRF_ports. Its all "why bother, when the devs will reject it anyway".

Further hassles, are that so much has changed now in the main code, that re-synching is a nightmare. If I decide to do anything on the project, then I first have to spend 2-3 evenings getting the darn thing re-synched. By which time, I have lost the desire to code anything new.

So .... if I could get at least one other coder involved, then maybe I could get things moving again. It would be dumb (in my view), when we have a system for creating and loading new airport designs, with all new graphics, etc. to let it just go to waste. But I have lost the will to do anything much on my own.

Note: I requested assistance and/or design suggestions for this integration, as I knew it was stretching my (non-VC++.net) C++ skills to the limit. The attitude that came back was "go away and code something, then come back to us and we will mark your attempt, and then tell you where you are wrong". Great. Talk about aiming to waste my time by setting an unknown, unseen, hurdle I have to cross. I have coded large chunks "in parallel" to avoid breaking code elsewhere, but there is enough similarity that one of the experienced super-coders would be able to integrate it FAR more easily than I can, but they were insistent that I do it. Nett effect: I have done no real coding on this branch since being "set my homework". Nicely motivated guys.

[chrisbryant99]

I think seaports are part of developed airport patch...

Do you mean rich's airports patch? Because that's been rescinded

[richk67]

I think seaports are part of developed airport patch...

Do you mean rich's airports patch? Because that's been rescinded

Huh? Rescinded? Not that I know of. And it isnt a patch - its an entire branch.
[edit] the branch is still live, so no, it is not rescinded, dead, or any other terminal description. It is, like a volcano, dormant

(The note at the top of the NewGRF_ports thread is to do with my RealWorldAirports.grf. which is not complete, is buggy, and I dont want it being used by people who dont understand that WIP means "not yet finished" when they chime in with their "Are you aware XYZ doesnt work?"... I got cheesed off with answering too many queries about that .grf.)

[chrisbryant99]

Sorry, this is going to be a completely dumb question, but i'm new to this kind of thing!! How do i get the newGRFairports? I've used BuildOTTD to compile nightlys, but i've never added anything to them

[Roujin]

Just direct BuildOTTD to the url of the branch instead of the normal trunk url.

svn://svn.openttd.org/branches/NewGRF_ports

[chrisbryant99]

That's great thank you!!

[ostlandr]

Probably a stupid idea, but what would happen if you used "ship" vehicle IDs and aircraft graphics? Then they could use regular docks, which is what IIRC seaplanes did. Can the code that makes aircraft look like they're taking off and landing be adapted to a ship ID?

Here's a seaplane info site I ran across:

http://www.pacific-seaplanes.com/Boardi ... index.html

[Zephyris]

You can easily give a ship plane graphics but it would be exactly that, a ship with plane graphics. You couldn't get it to take off, fly over land or move at plane speeds...

*edit* And apologies for a lack of progress, I was somewhat disheartened by richk67's post. I do have one vehicle complete and coded (with placeholder statistics), though with the lack of support in trunk for the foreseeable future I am going to stall this work and focus on OpenGFX...

[richk67]

*edit* And apologies for a lack of progress, I was somewhat disheartened by richk67's post. I do have one vehicle complete and coded (with placeholder statistics), though with the lack of support in trunk for the foreseeable future I am going to stall this work and focus on OpenGFX...

Yeah, the likelihood of hitting trunk soon is very low; I have some free-ish time coming up though, and may see if I can get together with 1 or 2 other devs and crack this integration problem. If that is done, and I complete the other items on the "must be done to complete airports" part, then it may make trunk late this year... maybe.

(After all, the only reason for going down the whole loadable airports route was that it was the necessary requirement for inclusion in trunk of more new airports... ie. make them like NewStations, and not actually part of trunk at all)

For a more complete summary of the progress so far, read this post, or the opening post of the NewGRF_ports thread below.

[Momasbrain]

it would be cool

[kamnet]

Dug up this old thread, and I'm updating for archaeological purposes.

If anybody is interested in seaplane, I've developed a spreadsheet of many types of seaplanes with some possible stats.
viewtopic.php?p=1147184#p1147184

Feel free to use it as you wish, and contact me if you have questions.