Transport Tycoon Forums

After locking and splitting some useless argumentation out of this thread, I will now let you all back at each others' throats. However, if I see any further mentions of anyone or anywhere specific in any kind of accusatory of derogatory sense, you will be warned. Keep it clean.

DISCLAIMER: I barely know what Simuscape is, I do not have a secret agenda, I rarely use BaNaNaS at all. I am aware of the cause of the debate, I have read the ENTIRE thread and what I write below is my own opinion ONLY and I do not speak for anyone else.

1) I do not assume any "malicious" intent on the part of the GRF author. For me, making content for OpenTTD is a big contribution and I respect and I am thankful to ALL content authors (even if I don't ever use the content or like the person). Who or what the person is like is IRRELEVANT.

2) Unfortunately, said NewGRF file is blatantly an ADVERTISEMENT. OK, you get it "free", but you have to visit an external website to get content "present" in the in-game content-download system? Potentially, raising traffic (and revenue) on that said external website? Sorry, but you can ask for donations or say it costs 0.01c or something, rather than forcing me to create an account to get the actual content. Again, no hard feelings to whoever did this, but I just feel it is an ABUSE of the system.

3) Unfortunately (again), it falls to the devs and people responsible for BaNaNaS to resolve this issue. IMHO, advertisements (and teasers btw) should be DISALLOWED. Only complete, functional content should be uploaded. Dependencies should be allowed, including optional dependencies, but these should also be retrievable from BaNaNaS. The info should be there on the readme and that's it: E.g. Download ANY trainset to enable X or Y.

4) Perhaps links (even to TT-forum threads ?) should be disallowed too, to safe-guard against spam. At least they can automatically be detected with a script, so less work on the devs to check that TOS is observed. A good side is that, in the absence of other information, people might actually LOOK at readmes.

5) And by the way, yes, the TOS should be changed, as evidently the system can be abused and not everyone is thoughtful enough not to. Coupled with the fact that you cannot delete what YOU uploaded, it makes it difficult to correct even honest mistakes. If someone made a scenario using a "teaser" or advertisement NewGRF already, too bad. Apologies, but we had to make the system safe to prevent potential abuse. It would be nothing compared to "changing newgrfs in game" change.

I like your post Tafidis, I would just say a few things:

1) absolutely yes, while I cannot say I am a part or a fan of simuscape what so ever, the hate that has arisen here is just wrong and not solving the actual problem

2) advertisement, whatever, people can advertise whatever, point is that it doesnt add anything (for no reason) to bananas as all other newGRFs do, which is abusive.

3) tasters/teasers/alpha/beta/testing/whatever are all names for an early version of a newGRF. As long as the newGRF ID stays the same, it is valid and fully within that project.

4) The link to the website is for further info, place for bugreports, better readme, or even like a wiki (case of NUTS). That it has been used for the download in this case is obviously wrong, but does not mean links should be disabled.
I think the link is a very important feature for players to easily get in touch with the newGRF technical basement etc.

5) hard to tell if that is necessary, if we can communicate out that it will not be done anymore I think not changing ToS is easier way to go

Tafidis wrote:3) Unfortunately (again), it falls to the devs and people responsible for BaNaNaS to resolve this issue. IMHO, advertisements (and teasers btw) should be DISALLOWED. Only complete, functional content should be uploaded. Dependencies should be allowed, including optional dependencies, but these should also be retrievable from BaNaNaS. The info should be there on the readme and that's it: E.g. Download ANY trainset to enable X or Y.

Out of curiosity, why do you want teasers removed too? When is content "complete" and "functional"?

As an example; We worked on the Dutch Trainset for several years. We had quite a few people waiting for us to release something playable. We released a teaser with the few trains we had ready to release at that moment, since we wanted to give our fanbase something, and since we loved to see their enthusiasm. Meanwhile we continued our work to finish version 1. At a later date, we found a coder with more skills, and several limitations from TTDPatch/OpenTTD were resolved. As a result, we made a version 2 which included many more features and trains.

Should, in your opinion, the teaser not be uploaded at Bananas? Should we have not uploaded version 1 because it's not as "complete" and "functional" as version 2?

Where to draw the lines?

Purno wrote: Where to draw the lines?

"same grfID" could be one criterion. But nothing beats common sense.

planetmaker wrote:

Purno wrote: Where to draw the lines?

"same grfID" could be one criterion. But nothing beats common sense.

Isn't that more of a version-control thingy? As in "this GRF replaces the other GRF since it's an update"? Doesn't say anything about what precisely is included as content. Or am I misunderstanding this grfID thing?

Purno wrote:

planetmaker wrote:

Purno wrote: Where to draw the lines?

"same grfID" could be one criterion. But nothing beats common sense.

Isn't that more of a version-control thingy? As in "this GRF replaces the other GRF since it's an update"? Doesn't say anything about what precisely is included as content. Or am I misunderstanding this grfID thing?

Every NewGRF needs exactly one grfID for its unique identifcation which does not need to change ever (nor should it change) for any version. Different versions of the same NewGRF and their (backward) compatibility are distinguished by the version information in the action14 (not to be mixed up with the grf version - which is desribed below, nor the needed OpenTTD version)

So using the same grfID prevents a huge list of all different versions of the same GRF showing up at Bananas? Using the same grfID ensures only the last version is displayed, replacing any previous version that was displayed before?

Am I right? Just trying to say it in my own simple words to be sure I understand correctly

Purno wrote:So using the same grfID prevents a huge list of all different versions of the same GRF showing up at Bananas? Using the same grfID ensures only the last version is displayed, replacing any previous version that was displayed before?

Am I right? Just trying to say it in my own simple words to be sure I understand correctly

There and by default it also prevents that within OpenTTD's NewGRF lists, so that you are shown the latest versions only when selecting them for your (new) games. If you want to see all versions, you need to set newgrf_show_old_versions = 1 via console or in your openttd.cfg

I would tike to express my opinion about babanas here.

What is bananas service ?
I see it as package/content distribution system, where packages are newgrfs/scenarions/heightmaps/AIs ...

Lets compare bananas to other package distribution systems, for example linux APT. There are many feature that APT have and bananas does not have, but i would like to mention only two of them:

1. In apt user can access many content servers. In ottd, there is only one content server ( + one mirror server) and it is hard coded in src\network\core\config.h NETWORK_CONTENT_SERVER_HOST ( + NETWORK_CONTENT_MIRROR_HOST for mirror).

2. With apt user can easily add new server or remove dead server from servers list by editing text file /etc/apt/sources.list. In ottd patch is needed.

If those two features would be available in ottd, then SAC ( or simuscape goup ) could announce her content server's name e.g. bananas.simuscape.org and sill have a full control over her server and content. Users would have a free choice to use or not to use 3rd party content, by adding/skipping bananas.simuscape.org url to source.list file.

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to find out what the users of the game think with regards to the iGRF (assuming the forums are an accurate representation of the user base)? And then maybe update the TOS for all new GRFs and updates to old ones?

Personally I don't agree with the iGRF but as it is, theres technically nothing wrong with it and this technicality is where the problem lays. I'd rather not see BaNaNaS overrun by GRFs that add nothing to the game and make it harder to browse - not everyone searches text strings and many users will just browse through the list checking out interesting titles but that's just me. To be honest the GRF list is getting a bit packed anyway and it might be a good idea to periodically clear out any useless/broken GRFs. Yes, it may break some savegames but sometimes you have to get rid of legacy items to move forward.

Purno wrote:Out of curiosity, why do you want teasers removed too? When is content "complete" and "functional"?

When it does not require you to go somewhere else to get the content. If you upload a new GRF with one train and a readme with a link saying: click here to get all trains, then that's ADVERTISING.

If, on the other hand, you release the one train and then "overwrite" that grfID with increasingly more complete versions of the set as you draw/code, that's super duper.

One can imagine contrived examples that make "drawing a line" very hard, such as: I draw a FABULOUS trains/station/track set, and upload ALL the content on BaNaNaS, EXCEPT this ONE super-beautiful steam train, with which you can start game 5-10 years earlier and make THAT one train part of the "complete" set, which you NEED in order to also play on my online server. Also, this complete set can be got from my website after you register for the forum and get password for said servers and perhaps even pay a fee. Advertisement or not advertisement? I say the first.

@V453000 : I only suggested forbidding links as a very crude, but effective and feasible way to automatically ban spam. Of course I feared that authors would not like that exactly for the reasons you listed.

W.r.t. to Aptitude and other such full-featured package managers: I honestly think that building such functionality for OpenTTD is overkill (but that's just me). The system is fine as it is for its purpose, it only needs to be treated with respect (and some spam-control). I would rather our beloved devs keep focused on the game itself (although in-game content provider is part of the game, but you know what I mean).

Tafidis wrote:

Purno wrote: Out of curiosity, why do you want teasers removed too? When is content "complete" and "functional"?

When it does not require you to go somewhere else to get the content. If you upload a new GRF with one train and a readme with a link saying: click here to get all trains, then that's ADVERTISING.

If, on the other hand, you release the one train and then "overwrite" that grfID with increasingly more complete versions of the set as you draw/code, that's super duper.

How are you going to overwrite that one train if you are not allowed to upload teasers Tafidis?
Maybe the author intended to only include a few things in the set? like eg. pizzabote.grf or taxiw.grf or some trees.grf that I still use to date.

Also there is nothing wrong with giving authors the opertunity to provide additional info in an easy way by providing a homepage link IHMO. At the same time users have a shortcut to support.

Tafidis wrote:If you upload a new GRF with one train and a readme with a link saying: click here to get all trains, then that's ADVERTISING.

If, on the other hand, you release the one train and then "overwrite" that grfID with increasingly more complete versions of the set as you draw/code, that's super duper.

it's a really thin line that you're arguing there.

what if i release a GRF, put it on the online content, then say "this is the stable version, check out my site for the development version which contains more stuff"... on which side of the line is it?


and that is half of the problem here. whatever exact line you draw, someone will come along and say "i am a µ over this line, so i'm fine, what do you complain about?"

people are trying to make up a strict rule what would be "appropriate content" and what not, but that can never work. whatever rule you put up, someone WILL abuse that rule in the end. there must always be an instance of "common sense" that says: "no, it wasn't meant like this", and people will always be offended by that one way or the other.

And to conclude: (this is my personal opinion)
The GRF that is debated here has no place on the content downloader, since it has no content whatsoever. if people want to "advertise" something, they need to pay for it. that is how the world works. "normally", you would "pay" the online content service by providing valuable content, which is not the case here. so either you negotiate with the operators of the service about other means of "paying" for the advertisment (which i have no idea if they would agree or not), or you leave it off.

ChillCore wrote: How are you going to overwrite that one train if you are not allowed to upload teasers Tafidis?

I was explaining exactly that. I am fine with "alpha" versions. By "teasers" I meant "iGRFs" that have partial content and then you have to go to some other website to get the whole thing, for the whole purpose of actually having to go over there. Maybe we don't all mean the same thing by "teasers". For example, movies release "teaser trailers": you watch a couple of scenes, then you go to the theater, pay and watch the whole thing. That's ADVERTISING.

The process Purno decsribed earlier with releasing development versions as "teasers" is perfectly fine with me.
In other words, uploaded newgrf with one train is "complete and functional" provided that is is not part of something that I have to go to X website to get it as a whole. Conversely, please read the example in my last post.

So, it seems that actual amount of content is not important (provided there IS a minimum functional unit). Rather, pointing the user to third-party websites that require users to do x and y (including increasing traffic to that website) to get additional content is a better criterion. Now, it seems that several NewGRF authors maintain external repos and that's fine. LINKING to those from BaNaNaS in order to get the content is NOT. It is also fine to link to webpage for information, extended credits etc. V453000 pointed that out earlier also and I agree: auto-disabling links is not the way to go.

Eddi wrote:since it has no content whatsoever

But you are also drawing a line: GRF needs to have content. But it can still advertise? Like the "bad teasers" (let's call them that) I just described

Tafidis wrote:

ChillCore wrote: How are you going to overwrite that one train if you are not allowed to upload teasers Tafidis?

I was explaining exactly that. I am fine with "alpha" versions. By "teasers" I meant "iGRFs" that have partial content and then you have to go to some other website to get the whole thing, for the whole purpose of actually having to go over there. Maybe we don't all mean the same thing by "teasers". For example, movies release "teaser trailers": you watch a couple of scenes, then you go to the theater, pay and watch the whole thing. That's ADVERTISING.

As far as I'm aware, a "teaser" is a small GRF to show the fanbase how epic the whole set is gonna be, while the developers continue work on the complete set which they don't consider good enough to release yet.

no, i am not "drawing a line", i make a "ruling" [not that i would be in a position to uphold that ruling in any way] in this single case only, and give a reason for that ruling. this has no limitation on future rulings.

@Purno: fine. I presume people understand the term "teaser" the way you explain it, is what I get from the replies. I hope that I have clarified what I meant.

@Eddi: But you need to justify your "ruling" and in that moment, you make a "rule"

you are missing the point. you (and several people before) try to make a "generic rule" that is supposed to cover theoretical future events, which i am saying can never work out. wheras i refer to the one specific current event only.

Actually, I wasn't trying to "make" a general rule. I clearly said that it is up to the devs/BaNaNaS admins. I was only trying to offer some suggestions. And the whole point of "there being no rule and hence no violation" was a strong argument in this debate (at least for one side).
But, you raise a good point: Whatever rules (or no rules) abuse will be possible. No need to restrict freedom for authors only because occasionally the service can be abused.