Re: Patch: More conditonal orders (r15271)
Posted: 03 Apr 2009 16:55
See svn rev 14828
The place to talk about Transport Tycoon
https://www.tt-forums.net/
I find it silly that people complain about stuff they are getting after having contributed nothing towards it, and expecting volunteers to put in more effort than they already have.Xanobia wrote: If so i find it 'silly' that patch makers dont release a patch that works with the last stable release of the game making it easier for us non-c++ programmers to combine any number of patches we like.
I fail to see where i complain about anything? or for that matter where i expect anyone to do anythingConditional Zenith wrote:I find it silly that people complain about stuff they are getting after having contributed nothing towards it, and expecting volunteers to put in more effort than they already have.
Well did you read my post at all or did the 'silly' word just catch you eyes and you went off on that? All you did was looking like an arrogant person.Conditional Zenith wrote:And once you have 2 patches, no matter what version they are made for, there is a chance of a conflict which requires resolution (which requires at least a basic understanding of the code). Making them against stable gets us nothing. And it doesn't exactly take programming skills to download the latest trunk source instead of stable source.
I was asking in a friendly way and thankfully got a friendly answer from someone else (thank Therken). Your answer only encourage me to say "f*** this" and never waste time on it again. As i stated i have NO C++ experience, but 'wow' maybe i was considering it so i could contribute to this project. But not even I can master C++ in 2 weeks.Conditional Zenith wrote:Before you start calling things 'silly', you should understand how things work.
Well to be fair there is no maintaining in releasing a patch thats compatible with the latest release, it pretty much a one time deal?Terkhen wrote:Maintaining a patch for both 0.7.0 and trunk can add a lot of work for such little gain, and if you're going to use custom builds there's almost no difference between both versions.
Thats weird, I noticed no conflicts from SVN when updating to 16061. I guess perhaps there is conflict between close airport, my vehicle console commands or this patch. Where exactly is there a problem/patch conflict with your combination?Xanobia wrote:(tried trunk 16055 for this patch but then Vehicle Console Commands and Close Airport didnt work)
Maintaining patches for stable makes sense, but usually only for patches that maintain network compatibility (like copy & paste, my vehicle console patch and basically any other GUI/interface improvement), as most multiplayer servers run stable and if you want to play multiplayer, you need to use stable version.Terkhen wrote:... patch that can be applied to stable and forget about any future changes at the patch, grab a version of it just when a new stable version comes out and use it. I just don't see the need...
Calling things silly is what annoyed me. There are plenty of better ways you could have phrased your question, with out calling the author's actions silly. And I'm fairly sure I didn't come here calling things silly without understanding how things worked, most people don't.Xanobia wrote:I fail to see where i complain about anything? or for that matter where i expect anyone to do anythingConditional Zenith wrote:I find it silly that people complain about stuff they are getting after having contributed nothing towards it, and expecting volunteers to put in more effort than they already have.
When did you start contributing when you first got here? 2 weeks later? 2months? 2 years? maybe, just maybe you should ease up and try and remember how it was for you first time you got 'here'. such arrogance!
See above.Xanobia wrote:Well did you read my post at all or did the 'silly' word just catch you eyes and you went off on that? All you did was looking like an arrogant person.Conditional Zenith wrote:And once you have 2 patches, no matter what version they are made for, there is a chance of a conflict which requires resolution (which requires at least a basic understanding of the code). Making them against stable gets us nothing. And it doesn't exactly take programming skills to download the latest trunk source instead of stable source.
No, that's not at all what I was suggesting. There are more options than saying "this is silly" or going away. As I said before, there are many ways you could have just asked your question without saying that the patch author was being silly.Xanobia wrote:I was asking in a friendly way and thankfully got a friendly answer from someone else (thank Therken). Your answer only encourage me to say "f*** this" and never waste time on it again. As i stated i have NO C++ experience, but 'wow' maybe i was considering it so i could contribute to this project. But not even I can master C++ in 2 weeks.Conditional Zenith wrote:Before you start calling things 'silly', you should understand how things work.
I would apologize for calling the author's patching practice silly, but that's just me.Xanobia wrote: Again i apologize for being OT
Tried again with 16061 and everything seemed to work, well it compiled only with some warnings (from more conditional orders i think), maybe i screwed something up on previous attempt Anyway thanks for your time Bilbo.Bilbo wrote:Thats weird, I noticed no conflicts from SVN when updating to 16061. I guess perhaps there is conflict between close airport, my vehicle console commands or this patch. Where exactly is there a problem/patch conflict with your combination?
Code: Select all
4>..\src\console_cmds.cpp(2191) : warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
Code: Select all
3>Generating english_US language file
3>c:\Users\XXX\Documents\!!openttd_src_trunk\src\lang\english_US.txt(2683): warning: STR_ORDER_CONDITIONAL_REQUIRES_SERVICE: Param idx #0 '<empty>' doesn't match with template command 'STRING'
3>c:\Users\XXX\Documents\!!openttd_src_trunk\src\lang\english_US.txt(2696): warning: STR_CONDITIONAL_TRUE_FALSE: Param idx #2 'STRING' doesn't match with template command '<empty>'
Merely a warning, I've fixed that :) I'll release new version of my patch once I add some new features to it :)Xanobia wrote:Code: Select all
4>..\src\console_cmds.cpp(2191) : warning C4800: 'int' : forcing value to bool 'true' or 'false' (performance warning)
Guess there is problem with the conditional orders+close airports combo, as my console patch does not modify any language files or anything related to translations. It is not lack of translation, just the strings are in wrong format/have wrong number of parameters. Try adding only one patch, then compile, if it works, add only second patch ... that way you can perhaps isolate the cause to single patch.Xanobia wrote:and A LOT of these language warningsone set for each language, not sure if it matters? (lack of translation right?)Code: Select all
3>Generating english_US language file 3>c:\Users\XXX\Documents\!!openttd_src_trunk\src\lang\english_US.txt(2683): warning: STR_ORDER_CONDITIONAL_REQUIRES_SERVICE: Param idx #0 '<empty>' doesn't match with template command 'STRING' 3>c:\Users\XXX\Documents\!!openttd_src_trunk\src\lang\english_US.txt(2696): warning: STR_CONDITIONAL_TRUE_FALSE: Param idx #2 'STRING' doesn't match with template command '<empty>'
Conditional Zenith wrote:There are more options than saying "this is silly" or going away. As I said before, there are many ways you could have just asked your question without saying that the patch author was being silly.
Nowhere did I say that you said that. Swallow did not maintain a stable version of the patch (very few patch authors do, I certainly don't), you said that practice is silly. It seems you are saying Swallow is silly for not maintaining a stable version of the patch (as opposed to making the patch in the first place). Have I made some mistake here?Xanobia wrote:Conditional Zenith wrote:There are more options than saying "this is silly" or going away. As I said before, there are many ways you could have just asked your question without saying that the patch author was being silly.
Try reading what i wrote one more time, and pay attention to the "if so" just 5 words before the silly word, and reading from there its the process of not maintaining a stable 'version' of a patch that strikes me as odd/silly, NOT the patch itself. And i very much would appreciate you not putting opinions/words into my 'mouth'. No-where did i call swallow silly for making a patch I obviously want to use in my own game.
Did you use shared orders to test this? Which shared orders such 'waves' should not occur.Bilbo wrote:BTW I have taken out the "skip in N percent of cases" part of this patch, changed it to "Skip randomly in N percent of cases" (it skips randomly, not deterministically, which avoids situations when vehicles could get "in sync" and skip/not skip orders in waves) and uploaded it to flyspray - FS#2840. Maybe that part in that form gets to trunk
Well, I have not actually tested it, though I changed it to random to be sure. From what I saw in the patch, the counter is in the order, so with shared orders it should not be a problem, but there still could be issues with synchronizing between different order sets targeting the same station. And my patch basically contain only the random part :)Swallow wrote: Did you use shared orders to test this? Which shared orders such 'waves' should not occur.
FYI, due to issues with the PBS lookahead code I fear both your and my patch have very little chance to be trunked, regardless of quality. Especially the random part of your patch will be problematic.
I saw and see little point in maintaining a separate patch for 0.7.0 since most people will use trunk anyway. If you want, backporting is relatively easy and involves little more than changing the savegame version in two places.