Transport Tycoon Forums

Wasila wrote:How many times do I need to repeat myself? This is not for more petty feature requests - this is for an overarching goal. Perhaps something large like shunting/dynamic train composition, or scriptable UI. But 'All vehicle types attending a station in one list, which can be filtered' should not be the thing which, when achieved, makes the devs announce version 2.0.

we can always read between the lines, the last few guys features mostly can be summed up as "new map array"
but does it really matter, like 'ChillCore' said this is a dream thread, you dont really think that the devs will adopt this view
my guess that the devs roadmap will be adding things from ttd patch, improvements and may be some patch if one come along the wat, 2.0? well we get there when we get there ...

i really hope they will consider the feedback here, because some of the thing mentioned here was already attempted so i really hope they make a concentrated effort to make them happen
its nice to see that the devs reading it (you can see the iterated responses to the ever repeating 3D and "easy" fixes ) but the lack of other kind of comments its what tells me no to hold my breath, still its nice to think that us little peeps do make a difference

beside what i seen of ottd roadmaps its not about long term plan but more of task assignment for next release and if they do have some long term plan its will definitely not be decided here but in a dev forum (as in ppl not the technical term)

/small print- usually such posts back lash at me because somewhere someone will consider i slighted him, who ever you are ignore that thought.

Wasila wrote:How many times do I need to repeat myself?

First off, people are going to say what they think and feel is appropriate. If you believe a post isn't appropriate to this thread, well, there's always the report post button.

This is not for more petty feature requests - this is for an overarching goal. Perhaps something large like shunting/dynamic train composition, or scriptable UI. But 'All vehicle types attending a station in one list, which can be filtered' should not be the thing which, when achieved, makes the devs announce version 2.0.

Well, one of the minor features from that list shouldn't be reason for 2.0, but multiple features from that list should definately be reason enough. Maybe one of the nicer features (the new map array requiring ones, anyway), should be more then enough.

And, no, stations on bridges and in tunnels doesn't mean you'll need a new map array by definition. For graphics of stations on bridges, the graphic could be dependant of the bridge type.

For stations in tunnels, the tunnel entrance could be changed to reflect that a platform is inside the tunnel.

As to how to handle this on the map is simple: a tunnel entance/bridge ramp could contain a flag which tells the game engine there's a station platform on the bridge.

All that being said, that entire list of features boils to: new map array, more OOP code and increased scripting support in openttd. OpenTTD is already C++, however not entirely OOP.

whats an oop code

Object Orientated Programming. Creating modules (functions) that you can easily reuse. So that you do not have to know how the function works but only what it does and what it returns; Now each time a visitor comes to my house I just call the function Visitor() and the code knows what to do.
It is also easily expandable.
Not using OOP would require more code to achieve the same.

[off topic]Do you shake hands with your girlfriend? Thats odd... [/off topic]

ChillCore wrote:Object Orientated Programming.

thanks, i know what Object Orientated Programming

Ironically enough, the given code snippets explain functional abstraction, not object orientation

RE: roadbuilding AI:

There is a feature I would like- more road-building between towns, and between a town and it's industries. Don't know if that would shift the game balance in favor of RVs- might have to tweak road vehicle running costs and/or train running costs. Giving road vehicles "free" roads to run on so they can out-compete trains would be way too realistic for me.

Eddi wrote:Ironically enough, the given code snippets explain functional abstraction, not object orientation

You have to start somewhere ... (read: ChillCore is still learning)

Anyway just for completeness and those interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-ori ... rogramming

Thank you for correcting me Eddi, as always I appreciate it very much.
Now where did I put my spare foot again?

ChillCore wrote:Ah come on Wasila, let the peeps dream ...

Assuming you are the main developer and assuming shunting/dynamic train composition and scriptable UI are your goals for 2.0.(And maybe a few other patches ...)
What will you do if tomorrow someone comes along with a patch for both. release 2.0 before 1.0 or 1 week after?

Highly unlikely

As for v2.0, I do not think you will ever get a satisfying answer.
Or do you prefer Rubidium to name a few things and then when the time comes says, " Sorry that did not make it." ?

Which is what might happen with a dozen smaller features - the aim last time was to make OpenTTD truly open and it happened. For example, 'to make OpenTTD more accessible to newer players and to ease the learning curve.' Something to work for in general. Actually, I quite like that one.

The best answer you are going to get is there will be in v2.0 what will be in, because nobody can predict the future.
Unless you knew that 1.0 would follow after 0.7.5 ? I Mean if the OpenGFX gang would have drawn a bit slower, we would have been playing 0.7.6-rc2 now.

No, but when OpenGFX WAS complete it was declared that the 0.x series would end. Same here.

Also what exactly is a new map array? I am aware that it would allow many new features but more details please?

A problem I can see with the goal "make it more user-friendly for newbies" is that I can't see a good way to determine when that goal has been accomplished.

First you have the problem of how to measure user-friendliness. Secondly how much more user-friendly does it has to be in order to make the goal accomplished? Can you put numbers on that or something that can easily be tested to see if the goal has been reached or not?

i dont know about "make it more user-friendly for newbies" but making the user interface more consistent for everyone should be more measurable

Perhaps something like when a Tutorial is included (scripted, of course) or something.

tutorial its not a dev's problem, just like openSFX/GFX/MFX/Whatever isnt theirs, they only make the tools to allow us to make it happen.
beside i dont see a tutorial as relevant to the UI improvement, which suppose to revolve around improving functionality and accessibility
like including the better grf manager patch and adding some of the functionality of the multilayer patch, in other words improvements to common tasks and easy of use to everyone and other things as well.

Yeah neob - but for newbs are tutorial would be very helpful and it will attract even more people. And as you said, it's not up to them to make it happen. But, as with OpenGFX, it's up to them to supply the tools to make it happen, or allow it to work.

i didnt said i dont support tutorials i just dont see it as part of the GUI improvement but as one of the nice "side effects" of normal scenario editor

Support for the DOS TTD Music files.

Firstly I'd like to congratulate you guys on achieving 1.0, well done

Secondly as someone who started playing at 0.5 on the recommendation of a friend having had no prior experience of TT I'd like to throw in with the people who say the goal should be improved accessibility and extensibility.

The game is not something it's easy to pick up off the bat and some aspects (like growing industry) feel like voodoo to me still. If you want the games community to thrive you need to cater to new players as well as old which means the game should be easier to get into. This doesn't neccessarily mean it should be easier but rather that it should be easier to learn. This would have knock on effects for veteran players by vastly improving the gui both visually and in terms of the information it presents. Creating a framework for tutorial development and then building a few basic ones/opening it up to the community would be great example of something you could do to meet this goal.

In addition, having achieved 1.0 you should now sit back and look at what you've built, not from the point of view of the player but the developer. Ask yourselves, is there anywhere that's particularly bad? Is it easy to work on? Do changes in one place have unexpected effects somewhere else? What is the underlying design of the various parts and of the whole? What improvements could be made in increase modularity and accessibility for third party extensions? Some posts mentioned that some of the codebase isn't yet migrated to C++, completing this migration would be something you could do to meet this goal.

Therefore I suggest the mission statement for 2.0 should be something along the lines of: Improve accessibility through an advance gui and tutorial framework whilst laying the foundation for future development and extension through codebase improvements.

For an example of what I mean by a more advance gui dig up an old copy of civilisation 2 or maybe 3, play it for a while, then switch to 4. Forget all the sparkly 3d models and stuff and concentrate on the gui, see how 4 streamlines things instead of making you navigate menus and screens, how it presents information without you having to go look for it, that's what I'm talking about. These kinds of enhancements are good for both newbs and veterans alike and are what I'd like to see from your 2.0 milestone.

I'm picturing OpenTTD 2.0 going beyond OTTD and cherry-picking the best features from Chris Sawyer's "Locomotion" also. The tracks and roads in LoMo always looked gorgeous, even if the rest of the graphics had issues (like factories larger than mountains, etc.) Variable slopes, sloped and curved bridges and tunnels, elevated stations- those would be my picks. And if the 32BPP folks keep going, I can picture road vehicles from George, PikkaBird and Andythenorth with working taillights, smoke from the exhausts, etc.

Fantasy stuff? How about power lines, a' la' Simutrans? Give the power stations a reason to exist other than to suck up coal. Hey, it IS transport, after a fashion. . . You'd have to monitor the "congestion" of the grid, add more/heavier lines, transformer stations, etc.

Good ideas! I always liked locomotion, but several things were off (like the industries) but the old vehicles and constant sound took care of that. A few things like outdoor elevators and fountains are animated on lomo and not OTTD, especially 32bpp (I don't no if its possible to do animation like that on Blender) and the sparks on power lines topped off the game, but like all commercial games, eventually the players find tons of problems in them, but that is why OTTD started over a decade ago in the first place. Utilizing power plants would be cool. But above all that, making exhaust & breakdown smoke that looks right on 32bpp, not jutting out of the roof. Also the turn signals sound cool.

Here's another idea. What about straitening out the time? Last time I checked, It doesn't take a truck a week to cross a town of 550 citizens, and that need straightening out. Don't change distance, blocks or speed, just the speed of the date box, and maybe adding hours and minutes to it. Also a night mode, like Simutrans, would be cool. But with OTTD's 32bpp, the lights at night could be 50* better. But this would be very complex to do, so I'm not sure. Also, the roads AI is something that would be nice to have, but also we should add some new roads: (last time I checked roads weren't paved with tar in the 1800's, and we do have expressways today that don't have 90º turns, and have merging entrances.)

There is:
1. A GRF that makes roads look different over time.
2. A patch to change day length.
3. A "day to noght conversion" GRF(though it does not introduce a night/day cycle).

Just search.