Transport Tycoon Forums

"Mr. ChiRho" wrote:

You like counters, don't you!
So far they all use the same images (less overhead)

And there is a planned section about programming on your page. What content
will be added there?
Dunno yet

Little snippets of VB code I've written (not very impressive ones, but
more than I could have done last year), and anything anyone wants to
send in. Few links, maybe a bit of C++ as I'm learning it. Might
improve the learning process.

I'm thinking about opening a virtual library with design and algorithm
snippets, too, but I'm afraid it will take some time until it gets online.
It will be mainly about programming knowledge in general, maybe biased
towards C++ and Java, and specific sections for simulation and adventure
games.

Maybe one we collected enough interesting articles to start we can join
efforts

BTW Even thoguh Simutrans is no match for TTD, it's still a great
effort.

Thanks
Today I really needed a bit of positive feedback!

I especially like the realistic passengers. If I get on a
bus, I don't always just go to the next stop either. KIU

Passenger even transfer from one transport to another in Simutrans. You can
use busses for short range service and trains for long range service. If you
have combined stations for busses and trains, the passengers will first use
the bus to get to the train station, then use the train to travel near their
final destination, and from there (if available) use busses again. They
change transport up to 30 times to reachg their destination. And you don't
need to bulldoze lots of buildings because bus stops are placed at the
streetsides and the train station can well be a bit outside of the city.

This allows to build really interesting pasenger service networks, not just
point to point connections. Freight transport is still much the same as it
is in TTD.But we're working on that, too.

We're still working on Simutrans, and there is hope that it will finally
supersede TTD - but if Joseph constantly keeps updating The Patch, Simutrans
has a hard time to win ground. Now that TTD runs on XP too, once again a
advantage of Simutrans was vaporized by The Patch. Still Simutrans can be
run at higher resolutions, but I'm afraid it's just a mater of time until
the patchmakers make a HiRes Patch, too.

Well, let's wait. At least if Simutrans got subways and trams, we have
something unmatched in TTD

--XP

c.u.
Hajo

Hansjörg Malthaner wrote:

We're still working on Simutrans, and there is hope that it will finally
supersede TTD - but if Joseph constantly keeps updating The Patch, Simutrans
has a hard time to win ground. Now that TTD runs on XP too, once again a
advantage of Simutrans was vaporized by The Patch. Still Simutrans can be
run at higher resolutions, but I'm afraid it's just a mater of time until
the patchmakers make a HiRes Patch, too.

If it's of any comfort to you, this at least does not seem likely to
happen. AFAICT the screen resolution is, directly or indirectly,
hardcoded in way too many places in TTD

Well, let's wait. At least if Simutrans got subways and trams, we have
something unmatched in TTD

Another thing that will probably remain unmatched forever are larger
maps. To go beyond 256x256 in TTD one would have to recode the entire
game (you surely realize why)...
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/S d- s+:- a- C++>$ ULS(++) P L+>++ E-@ W+ N++ o? K w(+) O? M? V?
PS+ PE Y+ PGP- t(+) 5? +) !R tv--@ b+ DI+ D G+ e+++>++++ h! r(-) y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Adam Kadlubek wrote:

As for Win9x, it also intercepts some hardware accesses, even in DOS
virtual machines. The main problem with Win9x kernel is that some parts
of the memory are shared between all 16-bit Windows apps without being
properly protected.

And party becouse W9x/me boots one virtual machine for all windows
applications and one for each dos program. So when TTD will crash W9x will
safely close it (I never had to reboot a computer when after dos prog
crashed).

If the DOS application contains protected-mode code (TTD does) it can
also access the Ring 0 and crash the entire system. I had this happen
many times when we (Josef and I) worked on the GPF logger. Sometimes
when the TTD's exception handler crashed it could go into an infinite
loop, going through the same interrupt gate over and over again while
keeping interrupts blocked. The net result was a solid hang.

I don't really know how protected-mode DOS apps work in WinNT. I guess
the critical operations are emulated.
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

??? Oh yes they do.

Where?

--
Adam Kadlubek
TTD Site http://www.ttdlx.prv.pl
GG 1511994
There is no knowledge that is not power

"Bill Hayles" <bill...@wanadoo.es> wrote in message
news:a52ga3.3vu8bvj.1@billnot.com...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:37:59 -0000, "Tom Cumming"
tcummin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


I know that Windows 95 and 98 *can* be pretty stable if you use good
software, memory and drivers, and you reboot it quite frequently, but
Windows NT, 2000 and XP are a *lot* better. When a program crashes it
tends
not to bring the whole system down, and so you can leave your machine
running for days, weeks, months without rebooting.

Unless you're me, playing TTDX under XP using Josef's patch in full
screen mode. After 15 minutes or so, the system will spontaneously
reboot itself with no BSOD or warning.

Well, I've yet to see a perfect operating system


--
Tom Cumming
tcummin...@yahoo.go.away.spambots.co.uk

Adam Kadlubek wrote:

??? Oh yes they do.

Where?

In graphics for one. DirectX 6 supported SSE, SSE2 is in DirectX 8.

Obviously applications can use it too. I run Prime95, it is 2.8 times
faster using SSE2.
--
Bob Cousins.

Bill Hayles wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:37:59 -0000, "Tom Cumming"
tcummin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


I know that Windows 95 and 98 *can* be pretty stable if you use good
software, memory and drivers, and you reboot it quite frequently, but
Windows NT, 2000 and XP are a *lot* better. When a program crashes it tends
not to bring the whole system down, and so you can leave your machine
running for days, weeks, months without rebooting.

Unless you're me, playing TTDX under XP using Josef's patch in full
screen mode. After 15 minutes or so, the system will spontaneously
reboot itself with no BSOD or warning.

Unfortunately, Microsoft made changes to the NT core which improved
performance at the expense of reliability. In particular, in NT4, the
graphics routines now run at kernel level instead of user level.This
saves a lot of context switching, but means that a bad pointer in a
graphics routine (either an NT function, or a graphics driver
function) can bring down the kernel, instead of just the application
as previously (see http://www.zdnet.co.uk/pcmag/supp/nt4/intro2.html).

There is a whole history of NT and Microsoft to go into, but somewhat
off-topic and dull to those not interested. Let's just say a Microsoft
outsider designed a beautiful OS which MS have been hacking to pieces
ever since: deja vu, again
--
Bob Cousins.

In graphics for one. DirectX 6 supported SSE, SSE2 is in DirectX 8.

Direct X is not a part of the operating system. It is an api and a set of an
interfaces that allow to do "direct" use of the "toyish" hardware (3d cards
in 3d mode and other). Win XP could go quite good without it. Also dx
!supports! sse - it is up to the application to use SSE or not.

Obviously applications can use it too. I run Prime95, it is 2.8 times
faster using SSE2.

I never said that applications don't use SSE.

--
Adam Kadlubek
TTD Site http://www.ttdlx.prv.pl
GG 1511994
There is no knowledge that is not power

Adam Kadlubek wrote:

In graphics for one. DirectX 6 supported SSE, SSE2 is in DirectX 8.

Direct X is not a part of the operating system.

I didn't say it was! And before you said "uses" not "is part of the
OS". The previous poster said "supports". So if you change your
statement to something you didn't say and I didn't disagree with, then
yes you are 100% correct. But what you actually said was incorrect.

Whether DirectX is part of the OS or not is a trivial issue and not
worth arguing about either.

Obviously applications can use it too. I run Prime95, it is 2.8 times
faster using SSE2.

I never said that applications don't use SSE.

I didn't say you did. Just trying to be informative.

Man, if I ever entered a pointless argument, this was it!
--
Bob Cousins.

Whether DirectX is part of the OS or not is a trivial issue and not
worth arguing about either.

Well, I'm not going to start a war, but it is part of the OS, as it is
supplied and installed by default, and isn't possible to remove it without
some hackery. Windows probably would be able to function without it, but it
is part of the OS.

This conversation is now closed.

--
Owen Rudge
http://www.owenrudge.co.uk/

MSN Messenger: oru...@freeuk.com
ICQ: 125455765

In graphics for one. DirectX 6 supported SSE, SSE2 is in DirectX 8.

Direct X is not a part of the operating system.

I didn't say it was! And before you said "uses" not "is part of the
OS". The previous poster said "supports". So if you change your
statement to something you didn't say and I didn't disagree with, then
yes you are 100% correct. But what you actually said was incorrect.

We have a little misunderstanding here.
My preposter claimed:

"Pentium 4 and AMD Athlon XP support for instance."

All windows from 98 'support' these (support for sse2, sse and 3dnow is
brought to windows by directx which is availible for both systems - which is
quite reasonable solution).

"Windows 98 is slower on these systems because it does not support the
advanced instructions these CPU's can process."

Which is compleatly untrue since system (by system I mean kernel, memory
menager and interfaces for hardware drivers which are mostly supplied by
microsoft , or even built into system by default - other stuff are just
"fireworks") does not use them to run (too much of loss of clock cycles
would occur when switching between ia32 and sse/3dnow mode).

And now a context
1. My preposter presented support for sse/3dnow as a reasen to buy XP while
both systems support those.
2. He thought that system uses those CPU enhancments to run and so it is
faster that w98 - and I corrected that mistake.

Whether DirectX is part of the OS or not is a trivial issue and not
worth arguing about either.

Agreed

Man, if I ever entered a pointless argument, this was it!

--
Adam Kadlubek
There is no knowledge that is not power

Well, I'm not going to start a war, but it is part of the OS, as it is
supplied and installed by default, and isn't possible to remove it without
some hackery. Windows probably would be able to function without it, but
it
is part of the OS.

But you can remove it (just like internet explorer or other "you must have
it" programs windows installs) which you cannot do with other elements such
as memory menager. So DX is just a bunch of drivers that is not a part of
operating system.

This conversation is now closed.

Ast thee wishes Milord

--
Adam Kad³ubek
There is no knowledge that is not power

But you can remove it (just like internet explorer or other "you must have
it" programs windows installs)

Yes, but not without some serious hackery, in the registry among other
places. Also, Windows 2000 and XP channel sound sent through WaveOut to
DirectSound now I believe (so you can have multiple sounds playing at once
even if using WaveOut).

Ast thee wishes Milord

Let's draw a line under this conversation...
____________________________________________________________________________
____________

--
Owen Rudge
http://www.owenrudge.co.uk/

MSN Messenger: oru...@freeuk.com
ICQ: 125455765

Owen Rudge wrote:

But you can remove it (just like internet explorer or other "you must have
it" programs windows installs)

Yes, but not without some serious hackery, in the registry among other
places.

Err, hacking the registry is IME *required* to get Windows to work at
least approximately right.

BTW, I found out the hard way that some video drivers (Savage4 in my
case) will not work at all if you don't have DirectX 7 or later
installed.

--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

I'm thinking about opening a virtual library with design and algorithm
snippets, too, but I'm afraid it will take some time until it gets online.
It will be mainly about programming knowledge in general, maybe biased
towards C++ and Java, and specific sections for simulation and adventure
games.

Maybe one we collected enough interesting articles to start we can join
efforts

(light bulb lights)

I've been looking to get a sort of partner program going. No fees
whatsoever, just a link back with code that I will (eventually) come
up with.

I'm looking to eventually create an exchange, as it were. A bit like
a directory-type thing with a ratings and "find similar" type thing.
Unfortunately, since the only application space I have is 15MB on
IIS5, it looks like it's VBScript (which is good for a VB programmer
like me who can't write C++ or Java just yet)

Passenger even transfer from one transport to another in Simutrans. You can
use busses for short range service and trains for long range service. If you
have combined stations for busses and trains, the passengers will first use
the bus to get to the train station, then use the train to travel near their
final destination, and from there (if available) use busses again. They
change transport up to 30 times to reachg their destination.

I'm sure Steven Byers would be glad to hear that idea of an
"integrated transport policy" - something I would love to do in TTD,
but can't. It annoys me that wwhen I have a bus station with 600+
passengers, 9 busses serving it, routes so short, they are queueing,
and by the time a bus is replaced at the station by the next in line,
another busload of passengers has arrived. I try to unload them at a
railway station, but it takes passengeres, so they are sold off and
don't transfer ... (usual horror story - that's what you get for
expanding a 500 town to 7500 in the Scenario Editor!)

--XP
http://www.chirho.i12.com/
Coming soon: the ChiRho Guide to Station Design

Err, hacking the registry is IME *required* to get Windows to work at
least approximately right.

Well, I suppose that depends on what you do with the machine and whether
it's Win9x or an NT-based version, but yes, I do do a lot of hacking in the
registry too.

--
Owen Rudge
http://www.owenrudge.co.uk/

MSN Messenger: oru...@freeuk.com
ICQ: 125455765

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:

Owen Rudge wrote:

But you can remove it (just like internet explorer or other "you must have
it" programs windows installs)

Yes, but not without some serious hackery, in the registry among other
places.

Err, hacking the registry is IME *required* to get Windows to work at
least approximately right.

I must doing something wrong then - on my private computers I got everything
going without editing the registry so far.

But here in the company our sysadmin seems to solve all rpoblems by changing
registry entries

Marcin Grzegorczyk

c.u.
Hajo

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:

Owen Rudge wrote:

But you can remove it (just like internet explorer or other "you must have
it" programs windows installs)

Yes, but not without some serious hackery, in the registry among other
places.

Err, hacking the registry is IME *required* to get Windows to work at
least approximately right.

BTW, I found out the hard way that some video drivers (Savage4 in my
case) will not work at all if you don't have DirectX 7 or later
installed.

Damn, I think you just fixed my problem! I had some video cards I just
couldn't get the driver to run (NT 4 SP5). I gave up and bought
different ones!

--
Bob Cousins.

Hansjörg Malthaner wrote:

Marcin Grzegorczyk wrote:

Err, hacking the registry is IME *required* to get Windows to work at
least approximately right.

I must doing something wrong then - on my private computers I got everything
going without editing the registry so far.

Apparently your expectations of an OS are lower than mine.

(OTOH, one of the most annoying problems I keep getting is related to
code page issues, and these really can't be resolved in Win9x without
registry hacking. You're lucky to live in a Latin-1 area.)
--
Marcin Grzegorczyk

"Bob Cousins" <bob@$NOSPAM$lintilla.demon.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lqrk7uo5nrfdphjuf92jln2e8ot0667vu5@4ax.com...

Damn, I think you just fixed my problem! I had some video cards I just
couldn't get the driver to run (NT 4 SP5). I gave up and bought
different ones!

Same here O_O
Well, actually it was on a friend's PC. We couldn't get his Savage4 to run.
I'll ask him if he's solved it all yet.

Greetings,
Phillip
--
the sXe Bassist