George's Long vehicles V4 beta4 is out (07 sep 2007)

[George]

George, I get an error on sprite number 198, any suggestions?

I think it worked in the old version but now something was changed. Well, I'll have a look when I have time

[George]

It uses x5 sprites

actually, to cover all the angles, I guess it's x8. Maybe I'm missing something because of my lack of patch knowledge...

1) not turning sprite
2) first part turned left
3) last part turned left
4) first part turned right
5) last part turned right

I think I'm gonna get flamed, but, I thought that the turning sprites could be assembled from those already done, by adding the stretched 'joint' so it would not have to be so much work to draw. But, a waste of sprites is a waste of sprites...

Absolutly right. It is not hard to assemble them, but the new grf support is required

This could then be used for articulated RVs, like assembling the vehicles from 2(3?) sprites (front/back(joint?)), depending on their angle. Or not?

It would work for trailers but not for semitrailers, because the rear part of the hauler shoud be drawn under the semitrailer. But may be I'm missing something

[Wile E. Coyote]

It would work for trailers but not for semitrailers, because the rear part of the hauler shoud be drawn under the semitrailer. But may be I'm missing something

Maybe it isn't similar (I don't know ), but some US locos are drawn just like that (Cab-forward AC 6 for example), as semitrailer

[KrevRenko]

Those locos are actually 2 vehicles bound together, aren't they? You can't do that to an RV.

But, I think that if you draw the truck first, then on top of it its trailer, then if something should be visible, it probably will be. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? If I am, just go ahead and tell me.

So, I ask the devs again: Is this going to be possible? Because from what I understood from the spritestream discussion it seems to me that you can only make masks that recolor other pxls (Oskar wrote this, sorry if I got it wrong)

[DaleStan]

George, I get an error on sprite number 198, any suggestions?

Roll back to a42. That GRF violates a rule that was first enforced in alpha 43.
George: It's a standard 2 that doesn't have the same feature byte as the preceeding action 1.

And once I figure out how U-turns work, I'll post a GRF that only uses 24 real sprites, without using the nonexistant 24-direction action 1. (Does anyone else have problems with a todo list that just *will* *not* get shorter?)

[krtaylor]

Those locos are actually 2 vehicles bound together, aren't they? You can't do that to an RV.

No you can't, because you can't bind together two RVs. Can this be changed? Maybe, but it hasn't been.

[KrevRenko]

That's exactly what i mean, Ken, it probably won't be, and if there is no need to, then why, anyway?

I drew buses (on paper) and, well, I think that because you don't need | and _ views w/ a straight bus, and rear end turning is actually front end turning +1 angle, need would be for 12 actual views. Not that much, is it?

The views:

/...x2
*
\...x2
*
\_.x2
*
_/.x2
*
.|
/..x2
*
\
.|.x2

Wrong?

[krtaylor]

Actually, I view this as being related to the trams issue. Because if trams get done, odds are at the same time it will be possible to hook together two or more vehicles (because that's how trams work.) But since they'd use the RV movement routines, I think that in the process multi-part RVs would become possible.

[George]

It would work for trailers but not for semitrailers, because the rear part of the hauler shoud be drawn under the semitrailer. But may be I'm missing something

Maybe it isn't similar (I don't know ), but some US locos are drawn just like that (Cab-forward AC 6 for example), as semitrailer

The problem is that the second part is drawn OVER the tender, that is the next part, while for the hauler the rear part shoud be drawn UNDER the semitrailer

And once I figure out how U-turns work, I'll post a GRF that only uses 24 real sprites, without using the nonexistant 24-direction action 1. (Does anyone else have problems with a todo list that just *will* *not* get shorter?)

It would be very interesting to see. You could use the volvo 5000 turning graphics from test.grf for your tests.

That's exactly what i mean, Ken, it probably won't be, and if there is no need to, then why, anyway?
I drew buses (on paper) and, well, I think that because you don't need | and _ views w/ a straight bus, and rear end turning is actually front end turning +1 angle, need would be for 12 actual views. Not that much, is it?

But you can't code it this way in ttdpatch. You even can't acces other graphics block for the graphics loading state in action 2

Actually, I view this as being related to the trams issue. Because if trams get done, odds are at the same time it will be possible to hook together two or more vehicles (because that's how trams work.) But since they'd use the RV movement routines, I think that in the process multi-part RVs would become possible.

may be I'm wrong, but I think (IMHO), that trams would better use trains code, not RV code.

[krtaylor]

may be I'm wrong, but I think (IMHO), that trams would better use trains code, not RV code.

It would have to be a combination. They would be like trains in that they could have more than one piece, but they would move like RVs in that they wouldn't have signals - they would move on only one side of a square in one direction, and on the other side in the other direction, and stop at an intersection for opposing traffic.

[George]

may be I'm wrong, but I think (IMHO), that trams would better use trains code, not RV code.

It would have to be a combination. They would be like trains in that they could have more than one piece, but they would move like RVs in that they wouldn't have signals - they would move on only one side of a square in one direction, and on the other side in the other direction, and stop at an intersection for opposing traffic.

And what would be the proffit agains RVs?

[krtaylor]

They wouldn't have a real operational advantage against RVs, except maybe that they could go faster on out-of-town tracks. But they'd look cool. Also they'd be useful in the early part of the game when RVs are not great. Plus trams can hold lots more people.

[DaleStan]

And once I figure out how U-turns work, I'll post a GRF that only uses 24 real sprites, without using the nonexistant 24-direction action 1.

Uggh! Those U-turns were *nasty*!
I suppose it didn't help that I repeatedly failed my SAN checks.

This GRF works regardless of which side of the road your vehicles drive on, but if you change it after starting TTD, click apply in the GRF status window, or the U-turns won't work correctly.

[KrevRenko]

I wanted to post a reply yesterday but I get strange browser behaviour with the forums these days.

Anyway, looks great DaleStan, really promising. Would it really be so hard on sprites, George? There aren't so many articulated busses, are there?

Is the midturn straight view there because of the station arrival? Because it looks funny in turns.

Other than that, with the sprite offsets sorted, it would be a great thing for the bus set.

[DaleStan]

Is the midturn straight view there because of the station arrival? Because it looks funny in turns.

Do you want the official reason, or the real reason?
The official reason is that that's the way George's GRF did it.
The real reason its there is because it would be an absolute pain to remove (if you thought U-turns were bad...)

Even it was removed, it wouldn't look very good anyway; you can already see the bent bits sliding along in ways they shouldn't.

[KrevRenko]

well, nothing can be done about those, as long as all the angles are 45 degrees, so that's all that CAN be expected, makes me happy, anyway.

[George]

And once I figure out how U-turns work, I'll post a GRF that only uses 24 real sprites, without using the nonexistant 24-direction action 1.

Uggh! Those U-turns were *nasty*!
I suppose it didn't help that I repeatedly failed my SAN checks.
This GRF works regardless of which side of the road your vehicles drive on, but if you change it after starting TTD, click apply in the GRF status window, or the U-turns won't work correctly.

Hey, your idea is cool. It never came to my mind that it is possible to screw the patch with 1 directional action 1. But looks like it works! May be I understand the things wrong, but it could help Josef to make 24-directional action 1 much easier. Could you play a little more with your code? Look the attached file. I made boxes instead of the bus to see the behaviour better. Now the jumps, but could you make their turn smother? If yes, I shall draw all the articulated buses this way and make them turning with your code. Anyway, thanks for giving articulated buses the second chance to be implemented

[KrevRenko]

And who brought it up? Who did? WHO?

Just kiddding.

So looking forward to all this! Can't wait!

[DaleStan]

George, I'm getting a ENOPARSE on "Now the jumps, but could you make their turn smother?"
I can get it to read "Now they jump; could you make them turn more smothly?" but I can't tell what you mean by that.
I guess what I need to know is: Under what circumstances does the bus misbehave, and what should it do instead?

[George]

George, I'm getting a ENOPARSE on "Now the jumps, but could you make their turn smother?"
I can get it to read "Now they jump; could you make them turn more smothly?" but I can't tell what you mean by that.
I guess what I need to know is: Under what circumstances does the bus misbehave, and what should it do instead?

Yes, you read it right. Look at the box while turning on a small speed. You can see, that sometimes it moves back (that I called jump). Would it be possible to make smooth moving of the box, where
1) the box is drawn in the different position every time
2) the box can not move more than 2px left or right and 1 px up or down at once, except for cases of smooth turning effect (than it should not move more than 4px left and right and 1px up and down or 2px left and right and 2px up and down)?

P.S. it easier to track the RV motion when it is the box
P.P.S. I hope these scamas could make thing more clear