Patch: Disable Random Closing and Opening of Industries

[Korenn]

[Edit] TTDPatch users had newindustries long before us. I do not recall as much shields raising as there have been in OTTD since we've implemented them. Does it mean the users have different gaming views/phylosophy?[/Edit]

shields raising? this is not criticism on the new industries, this is a request for an additional feature, based on (in my case) personal experiences with too many industries closing in ottd. This happened with new industries, but also with the old ones.

I like realism, but only so far as realism is not forced upon me in place of a fun game. Call me silly, but I prefer gameplay over realism.

about whether or not this should be a cheat option, that's just my view

[CARST]

I don't know why there have to be a discussion over that patch.

People who like, like me, could use it, people who don't like it don't use it. And if it gets in to trunk make it a feature which can be disabled.

I know that feature is against reality but it enhances the possibilities of custom scenarios where industries should stay where they were placed...

[sc79]

On a standard TTDPatch map, it is quite possible to connect up all industries on a map early in the game (if only with basic routes to keep industries alive). On any map size 512x512 or larger, this is impossible. Trying to use George's ECS on large maps just creates a huge amount of frustration, which is disappointing, because its a fantastic set which brings a lot of the game.

Personally, I think there could be better solutions than a simple enable/disable toggle, such as a system that warns of potential closures and gives the user time to adjust; or stops industries from closing down in areas of the map with no network close (so that half the map isn't devoid of industries by the time your network gets there). However, as nothing along those lines seems to be in the works atm, I'll happily take the toggle and get stuck into some large maps with George's grfs.

So we have to get our jollies out of thinking about how to adapt, instead of by complaining that the industries do things that cramp our style.

This has always been a problem with large maps, but when limited to 12 industries and chains a maximum of 3 industries long, it can be annoying, but thats about it. With 33 industries, and many more chains, most of which feed each other, it isn't possible to play the game to its potential.
As someone who constantly hounds on the fact that TTDPatch has hundreds of configurations, allowing you to play the game "any way you want", I'm surprised to see you push for a hardcoded playstyle in this case.
George's grfs highlight this issue, but it is a OTTD problem, not grf specific.

I'd also be curious, since I haven't seen an appearance from him yet, whether George thinks this would be a violation of his set. Personally, I'd use it in every game if the industries were 'stable'.

[CARST]

I agree here, that there could be anotehr solution than just disabling the closing of industires.


But the development should go step by step and that is why i think this is good first step. Other revolutions of industry-behavior can be made to a later point.

[one billion daleks]

So we have to get our jollies out of thinking about how to adapt, instead of by complaining that the industries do things that cramp our style.

Well, I've adapted - sort of. Nowadays, when developing scenarios, I create labels as placeholders for industries instead of the industries themselves. That way, I don't have to watch helplessly as the game engine completely trashes my carefully thought-out scenario within 3-5 years!

As someone who constantly hounds on the fact that TTDPatch has hundreds of configurations, allowing you to play the game "any way you want", I'm surprised to see you push for a hardcoded playstyle in this case.

Yes, I completely agree with that ... I just can't see what the big deal is with providing a simple Configuration Option that enables / disables industry closures and spawning.

Furthermore, I don't see why people are kinda being compelled to waste so much time having to make a case for this in the first place! Surely it is self-evident to anyone with two braincells that it is a quite reasonable and sensible request.

To me, arguing against it just looks like an exercise in 'argument for its own sake' ... looks a bit bloody-minded and pedantic if you ask me!

[DaleStan]

As someone who constantly hounds on the fact that TTDPatch has hundreds of configurations, allowing you to play the game "any way you want", I'm surprised to see you push for a hardcoded playstyle in this case.

Go read what I said again. I certainly meant to be recommending that obedience unto the GRF file be hardcoded. Sorta the way it is in Patch, maybe?

Yes, I completely agree with that ... I just can't see what the big deal is with providing a simple Configuration Option that enables / disables industry closures and spawning.

Because that violates the contract that is established between GRF files and the GRF host. This contract states that the host will ask the GRF file, and will then proceed to perform as the GRF file requests. What the user wants is present in the contract in two ways:
1) The user's choice of GRF files loaded.
2) The parameters the user gives to the GRF file.

Furthermore, I don't see why people are kinda being compelled to waste so much time having to make a case for this in the first place! Surely it is self-evident to anyone with two braincells that ...

I have never seen "refusing to honor the behaviour specified by the GRF will reduce the number of GRFs available to OpenTTD" misspelled quite that horribly.

@Belugas, Re: That variable you were suggesting. Assuming that the value TTDPatch is supposed to return is 4, not 3 ("base 2 logarithm of (tile count divided by 4096 (64*64))", right?), speak the words, and I can make it appear in TTDPatch with probably about 15 minutes work. Unless you think there's some chance it (i.e. the map size) could change mid-game (more specifically, without re-processing the action Ds), my preference would be "Patch-special" variable 13 (ActionD/ReadingPatchVariables).
If Patch is supposed to return 3, well, I can make that happen just as easily, but then I don't understand how the value is supposed to be calculated.
Possibly more useful, would be ????XYSS, where X and Y are the old-style (6 to 12(decimal)) sizes, minus 6, and SS is X+Y. Then 64x64 would be 0000, 64x128 0101; 64x256, 0202; 128x512, 1304; 1024x64, 4004; &c.. Patch would return 2204h. This allows differentiating between skinny maps and square maps, if desired, without requiring any extra effort to get the size.

[belugas]

Yes indeed, i meant 4 while i said 3
My memory is a sponge

The code has already been done, it is just a matter of agreement with the other devs

[one billion daleks]

I have never seen "refusing to honor the behaviour specified by the GRF will reduce the number of GRFs available to OpenTTD" misspelled quite that horribly.

Well, ptoof to you too! That looks like just another of your dismissive put-downs masquerading as techie-talk. Your posts are always full of this 1970s old-school 'bluff & bluster' DaleStan ... you make everything sound like rocket-science - "it can't be done (that way)" stuff. But I ain't convinced, I think it's mostly waffle.

Seems to me there are heaps of graphics functions (as opposed to "GRF behaviours") that can be set via Configure Patches, and I don't see why closing / spawning Industries couldn't be another one.

For example, it's not too much of a stretch to see it as a derivative of "Industries can be built close to each other" and "Allow multiple industries per town". If spawning can already be controlled to this extent via Configure Patches, then I can't see why spawning / "un"spawning (closing), shouldn't be do-able too.

There again, I expect it's all a bit over my head ... ... so I'll stick with 'placeholder' labels as a solution.

And seeing as you expect players to 'adapt' rather than 'complain', you devs may as well remove that 'Fund New Industry' button from the Scenario Editor altogether - it's utterly useless - the game's gonna remove them anyway, and pretty quickly too!

[DaleStan]

Seems to me there are heaps of graphics functions (as opposed to "GRF behaviours") that can be set via Configure Patches, and I don't see why closing / spawning Industries couldn't be another one.

For example, it's not too much of a stretch to see it as a derivative of "Industries can be built close to each other" and "Allow multiple industries per town".

You missed two details about those switches. First, they are "Allow unless the GRF says otherwise", not "Allow even if the GRF says otherwise."
Second, they apply to user-initiated actions and host-initiated actions, not GRF-initiated actions. Find a setting that causes GRF-initiated actions to be ignored (and where the GRF can't respond by refusing to load) and I'll think more of your argument.

[one billion daleks]

I can't see that the game closing industries has anything to do with GRFs, it seems to me to be a routine in the core code.

Albeit I've only conducted a brief review ... but it seems to me that GRFs just set such things like the era an industry appears in, the probabliity of it being spawned, its colour-code in the mini-map etc ... not whether an industry can be closed down or not.

And I can't spot a "GRF-initiated action" that would conflict with simply switching-off the game's habit of closing industries down willy-nilly ...

After all, both the game-engine and a player can open (Fund) and close (Cheat) industries with no ill-effects -- or not -- in the case of the player. So why can't that > "or not" < be a game-option in Configure Patches too ...?

[sc79]

Find a setting that causes GRF-initiated actions to be ignored (and where the GRF can't respond by refusing to load) and I'll think more of your argument.

Disable wagon speed limits (which, funny enough, is also a Patch settings).

Again, this is a gameplay issue, not grf specific. Even without ECS industries, most people would be happy to see this patch added.

[Korenn]

Yes, I completely agree with that ... I just can't see what the big deal is with providing a simple Configuration Option that enables / disables industry closures and spawning.

Because that violates the contract that is established between GRF files and the GRF host. This contract states that the host will ask the GRF file, and will then proceed to perform as the GRF file requests. What the user wants is present in the contract in two ways:
1) The user's choice of GRF files loaded.
2) The parameters the user gives to the GRF file.

contract

what are you blabbing on about Dalestan... please point me to where I've initiated such a contract by playing with any of the new industry grfs.

I just can't understand how you in one thread vehemently oppose someone implementing a new kind of PBS that can't coexist with the normal signals and forcing you to use them if you've applied the patch, and in this one you're vehemently advocating grf files to force a form of gameplay without options. To me that reeks of hypocrisy.

If you're going to be a nagging annoyance on the forums, then at least be a consistent nagging annoyance.

[belugas]

I have never seen "refusing to honor the behaviour specified by the GRF will reduce the number of GRFs available to OpenTTD" misspelled quite that horribly.

Well, ptoof to you too! That looks like just another of your dismissive put-downs masquerading as techie-talk. Your posts are always full of this 1970s old-school 'bluff & bluster' DaleStan ... you make everything sound like rocket-science - "it can't be done (that way)" stuff. But I ain't convinced, I think it's mostly waffle.

It is all a matter of perspective. I personally do not think your Entropy in OTTD topic is a wonderfull piece of clarity either.
Dalestan has expressed a very good point of view in the matter. You do not understand it? Not his nor my problem. The point been that the GRF has a behaviour implemented in his code. YEs, surprise! GRF have code! They are not simply some nifty ways of changing sprites here and there. You have only scratched a very tiny layer of it with your own grf, Dalek. And by the way, Dalestan has not insulted you, or I did not saw it. So keep the ptoof for you,next time, please.

Seems to me there are heaps of graphics functions (as opposed to "GRF behaviours") that can be set via Configure Patches, and I don't see why closing / spawning Industries couldn't be another one.

For example, it's not too much of a stretch to see it as a derivative of "Industries can be built close to each other" and "Allow multiple industries per town". If spawning can already be controlled to this extent via Configure Patches, then I can't see why spawning / "un"spawning (closing), shouldn't be do-able too.

Let start from the beginning. Why can a industry close? Because of its production. If production falls, but the industry can not closes, are you in any better position? No, since the industry will simply sit there, with its VERY LOW or NONE production going on. And I can just imagine the bug reports...
You see, there is an hawfull lot of difference between a static feature like industry placement and industry life control. So your argument is not applicable.

And seeing as you expect players to 'adapt' rather than 'complain', you devs may as well remove that 'Fund New Industry' button from the Scenario Editor altogether - it's utterly useless - the game's gonna remove them anyway, and pretty quickly too!

I do hope you're not serious and have just been overwhelmed by the converstation. If you are not, well... one advise. You see it? Don't use it. Others DO like it. And others might have a better strategy and use of it than you, perhaps.

I can't see that the game closing industries has anything to do with GRFs, it seems to me to be a routine in the core code.

So wrong from you... a GRF can (and does) dictate the life cycle of an industry. And, surprise, it can even make it so that 4 input and 3 output cargos be made avaible. So, yes, GRF can have a big, very big impact on your game. Quite more than most of you all realize it. Or maybe you are just starting to.

Albeit I've only conducted a brief review ... but it seems to me that GRFs just set such things like the era an industry appears in, the probabliity of it being spawned, its colour-code in the mini-map etc ... not whether an industry can be closed down or not.
...
And I can't spot a "GRF-initiated action" that would conflict with simply switching-off the game's habit of closing industries down willy-nilly ...

Take a deeper look toward Callbacks, will you? And while you're at it, look at the OpenTTD code, if you dare. You may be only looking at Action 00. There are Action 02, Callbacks and more to consider. Someone suggested to read the whole spec first before actually complaining. I guess it could be a good idea.

After all, both the game-engine and a player can open (Fund) and close (Cheat) industries with no ill-effects -- or not -- in the case of the player. So why can't that > "or not" < be a game-option in Configure Patches too ...?

There is a Close Cheat? If you mean the Magic Bulldozer, than i've got no problem for you to use it. But be aware that there can be a price for removing an industry, if ever the author of the grf decided to add one
We all agree that the Fund and Dynamite an industry does not have any side effect. But wer're not talking about that. We are talking about the behaviour of a RUNNNING industry. If you remove it yourself: it's gone, who cares. If it is funded, go exploit it and try to keep it alive. But a RUNNING one is a different situation.

contract

what are you blabbing on about Dalestan... please point me to where I've initiated such a contract by playing with any of the new industry grfs.

I just can't understand how you in one thread vehemently oppose someone implementing a new kind of PBS that can't coexist with the normal signals and forcing you to use them if you've applied the patch, and in this one you're vehemently advocating grf files to force a form of gameplay without options. To me that reeks of hypocrisy.

If you're going to be a nagging annoyance on the forums, then at least be a consistent nagging annoyance.

The contract in question is not reagrding the user. It is regarding the author of the GRF and the program that is loading it.
Both TTDPatch and OpenTTD are obeying the newGRF specs. That spec specifies a lot of thinks. How to read this, how to interpret that, what to do with x, y, z.
If, for a very hypothetical reason, one of the programs decides to NOT FOLLOW anymore the specs, or to make something that is not in any way controlable by NFO, it is a breach of contract.
The GRF behaviour does not reflect anymore the intentions of the author. It is actually BREAKING it. It is almost like a law. What would you think if a policeman give you a speed ticket on a zone where you've always driven at said speed, and as a sudden this policeman decided it was too high while prior of it, all policemen including that one, allowed such a speed?
It's a bit twisted, I know, but it gives you the idea. You do not break a contract, or a spec. Simply as that.

I do not deny the presence of a problem. But the problem are big maps. Not industries. Dealing with big maps may need you to change your game plans. The closure of industries follows the original behaviour. As simple as that.
The only solution i might eventually accept would be a static industry model, where production NEVER changes, industries NEVER close and are NEVER randomly be created.
And of course, if ever a newindustry grf is detected, NO MATTTER its impact on the game, the above static model will be canceled for this game.
And it would have to be debated with other devs, anyway. As i'm not alone in the decision chain.

[DaleStan]

^^ What he said. I won't bother repeating it.

After all, a player can open (Fund) and close (Cheat) industries with no ill-effects -- or not

The option to not close is not the same as the option to prevent closure.

Find a setting that causes GRF-initiated actions to be ignored (and where the GRF can't respond by refusing to load) and I'll think more of your argument.

Disable wagon speed limits (which, funny enough, is also a Patch settings).

And this, funnily enough, can be tested for by the GRF, and the GRF can refuse to load if the wagon speed limits are off. Try again.

please point me to where I've initiated such a contract by playing with any of the new industry grfs.

You did not initiate it by playing with the GRF. Open initiated it by loading the GRF. You are an unaffiliated third party who happens to be affected.

I just can't understand how you in one thread vehemently oppose someone implementing a new kind of PBS that can't coexist with the normal signals and forcing you to use them if you've applied the patch, and in this one you're vehemently advocating grf files to force a form of gameplay without options.

No conflict. I can not load a GRF file. Or I can change the GRF file. Or I can write my own GRF file. I cannot control code changes that finely. Code changes, therefore, must be more configurable than GRF files.

[richk67]

OK, maybe Ive totally and utterly missed the point here... but isnt the following quote, PRECISELY, what has been requested?? A way to switch off industry creation & removal globally, regardless of whether any ECS or whatever industries are added by NewGRF.

The only solution i might eventually accept would be a static industry model, where production NEVER changes, industries NEVER close and are NEVER randomly be created.

Personally, it is one of my pet gripes on large maps, with the standard industries. (Maybe an alternative solution is that the "lack of service expiry time" is scaled by the map size.)

(And yes, all the puff about contracts is a load of tosh. Its a game, not a legal agreement.)

[CARST]

I sign that what richk wrote anytime!


If you give us the option to play with stable industries, not appearing or leaving that would be great.

For people creating scenarios based on real world it would even be better. You make a huge effort in placing industries everywhere where they should be and 10 years later into the game there are oil wells in Germany and woods in northern africa...

[belugas]

OK, maybe Ive totally and utterly missed the point here... but isnt the following quote, PRECISELY, what has been requested?? A way to switch off industry creation & removal globally, regardless of whether any ECS or whatever industries are added by NewGRF.

The only solution i might eventually accept would be a static industry model, where production NEVER changes, industries NEVER close and are NEVER randomly be created.

Didn't you forgot about that part, just underneath?

And of course, if ever a newindustry grf is detected, NO MATTTER its impact on the game, the above static model will be canceled for this game.

(Maybe an alternative solution is that the "lack of service expiry time" is scaled by the map size.)

Funny, this is exactly the tool Dalestan and I are planning to offer to grf writers

(And yes, all the puff about contracts is a load of tosh. Its a game, not a legal agreement.)

So, imagine how YOU will feel wne a grf writer decides to write a grf that will BREAK your newgrf_ports...
It has nothing to do with legal agreement. And you know it. It is about obeying a spec.

[DaleStan]

OK, maybe Ive totally and utterly missed the point here... but isnt the following quote, PRECISELY, what has been requested??

The only solution i might eventually accept would be a static industry model, where production NEVER changes, industries NEVER close and are NEVER randomly be created.

No. What was requested was stable newgrf industries. Which cannot be done, largely because production of a newgrf industry is controlled by the newgrf, not by Open. I wouldn't be surprised if the static (that is, action 0) production settings are often set to "produce nothing" for new industries. The dynamic production (action 2) can't be made static without keeping all the accessible variables constant, and if you do that, then you set to a constant zero both cargo available to be processed and cargo percentage transported last month. Most newgrf industries have better (or indeed, non-zero) production when these numbers are larger.

So, you have the choice, assuming you're willing to violate the newgrf contract, of obeying:
1) The static rules that say not to do anything, (or, alternatively, are left at some unspecified default.)
2) The first dynamic result, which is controlled by the cargo delivered and transported before the industry was built, or
3) The current dynamic result, which is, well, dynamic, not static.

(And yes, all the puff about contracts is a load of tosh.)

Then what is the word for the understanding between the developers (of both Open and Patch) and the newgrf authors that Open and Patch will perform as the GRF requests? "Contract" is the best word I can think of.

[richk67]

(Maybe an alternative solution is that the "lack of service expiry time" is scaled by the map size.)

Funny, this is exactly the tool Dalestan and I are planning to offer to grf writers

Good. Even us idiots can think along the right lines then. (I thought of the idea independently - if its already in the works/even in this thread, then good.)

(And yes, all the puff about contracts is a load of tosh. Its a game, not a legal agreement.)

So, imagine how YOU will feel wne a grf writer decides to write a grf that will BREAK your newgrf_ports...
It has nothing to do with legal agreement. And you know it. It is about obeying a spec.

"And you know it"... try reading Dalestan's diatribes then. He makes it sound as though the world will cave in, with lawyers flying around, if "thou shalt deviate from the NewGRF tablets of stone".

Nope. Its just about in-spec, or out-of-spec. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no great horror if something is done that doesnt give all the power to the grf writers, but retains some for the poor user who has to put up with some of their obsessions/personal preferences paraded as unmoveable objects.

It may not work precisely as per spec, but that is the player's choice, just as "unloading a newgrf in use may give unpredictable results". We allow the latter, which to me is a FAR worse permission than disabling some (very annoying) functions of a newgrf.

And as for my spec? I would feel totally ambivalent. If someone wants to rewrite the airportsbasic.grf so that its broken - then that's their choice. A stupid choice, but hey - thats the Patch "everything is an option" ethos.

[DaleStan]

Nope. Its just about in-spec, or out-of-spec. Nothing more, nothing less.

Find me one GRF author, anywhere, who thinks that it is a good idea for Open to fail to obey the requests of their GRF. (So you thinking industries should not be closed when requested doesn't count until you seriously release an industry GRF that requests closure.)

It may not work precisely as per spec, but that is the player's choice, just as "unloading a newgrf in use may give unpredictable results". We allow the latter, which to me is a FAR worse permission than disabling some (very annoying) functions of a newgrf.

So, you'd rather the industries stick around, but refuse to accept or produce cargo? It's no harder to do that in NFO than it is to actually close the industry.

And as for my spec? I would feel totally ambivalent. If someone wants to rewrite the airportsbasic.grf so that its broken - then that's their choice.

Except that the example is backward. How would you feel if I came along and changed OpenTTD (Imagine for the moment that I had commit rights and you didn't.) so that airportsbasic.grf was broken?
And then imagine that everyone else who had commit rights tacitly approved, by refusing to revert the offending commit, and by refusing to update airportsbasic.grf?