Transport Tycoon Forums

Posted: **03 May 2012 23:21**

Find the correct binary here.

The first post has more info.

Posted: **03 May 2012 23:26**

Level Crossing wrote:Find the correct binary here.

The first post has more info.

i mean the updated one - that 2.1.2 - i think someone didn't make yet

Posted: **03 May 2012 23:29**

http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=21678

^ Links to a thread about patching. Warning: it's not easy if you have few computer skills.

Posted: **04 May 2012 07:15**

Level Crossing wrote:http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=21678

^ Links to a thread about patching. Warning: it's not easy if you have few computer skills.

Disagree. I work with PC a lot but just resently figure out what is compiler gcc and how build ottd with it. For me this article was very helpfull. Step by step and all I was able to make my own build of ottd.
rsdworker: I cannot put my binaries here because of strange occasion - it work on one virtual machine but fails to start on another (that carring very same system). Because of this I cannot guarantee that this binaries will work somewere else of my VW

But if you just follow step-by-step instructions from http://wiki.openttd.org/Compiling_on_MinGW you will able to build what you want and not only with this patch

Posted: **08 Jun 2012 19:21**

dadymax wrote:Yep, that is. Transfer income is displayed on main window and in vehicle view but on finance window and balance has no effect. Learn this mechanism now...

Upd:
Well... Add two conditions and one line in economy.cpp. Short test show that now transfer pays right. Here is fixed version of Infrastructure Sharing patch. Let say that is IS 2.1.2 Please test it and report it.

It doesn't compile.

Code: Select all

 /home/perk11/openttd/trunk/src/aircraft_cmd.cpp:38:33: fatal error: infrastructure_func.h: No such file or directory
compilation terminated.
make[1]: *** [aircraft_cmd.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/perk11/openttd/trunk/objs/release'
make: *** [all] Error 1

Upd:
And here is working windows32 binary compiled by Visual Studio from previous patch (r24114M) in case someone needs it: http://perk11.info/openttd/openttd-IS-r24114.rar . Also I'm planing to start a server on this version.

Posted: **09 Jun 2012 17:17**

THANK YOU - i am happy now

Posted: **12 Jun 2012 07:45**

After 150 years of game, this version started to produce desyncs hardly :/ So I don't recommend playing it
Save producing desyncs attached

456.sav: (2.22 MiB) Downloaded 280 times

Posted: **26 Jun 2012 09:20**

perk11 wrote:After 150 years of game, this version started to produce desyncs hardly :/ So I don't recommend playing it

Very sad

Unfortunately currently I do not have possibility to fix something...

But the first 150 years were stable - that cool!

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 10:29**

so IS still didnt make it into trunk, any crashes or so preventing it?

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 11:34**

ZxBiohazardZx wrote:so IS still didnt make it into trunk, any crashes or so preventing it?

Well the de-synch bug above is one factor; playing IS i notice anomalies around 140 years in, game-breaking by 150-160 usually when using just the IS binary...

I also recall a problem with maps larger than 1024x1024 and with huge network sizes; save-games don't always save tiles in the correct state, meaning loading them fails, or tiles go missing from your network... I'll dig around to see if the save's still around... Its been a long time since i played vanilla IS patch...

I also must try to complete a CPP game to 150 years to see if that has the same de-synch problems; if not, then i guess Chill has fixed it in his version of the IS patch... But as mentioned on his own thread most patches are heavily modified in the CPP so using the code for them independently of the CPP is unlikely...

As to the other issues; it's probably best a dev speaks on this...

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 15:15**

Something about possible abuse I believe, it's not about coding issues because Hirundo would've fixed that. It should be in this thread somewhere. On the other hand, Pikka said something sensible about something related in the past few days (topic was roadtypes, http://irclogs.qmsk.net/channels/opentt ... 1357336990)

< Pikka> if some jerk is removing the tram tracks from the one tile of road he owns on your route, he sucks, stop playing with him!
< Pikka> (and it's not like people can't do similar things already, eg removing a piece of road and buying the tile)

It would be a shame if a feature isn't included because of possible abuse. Ofcourse, it's good to make it as hard as possible but if the feature can also bring a lot of fun... well, obvious reasoning is obvious

. Doesn't make it necessarily right though, I can't judge because I'm not really into the patch.

EDIT: summary of why it's on hold can be found here: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php? ... 60#p878510

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 15:41**

With regards to abuse of patches, when this issue is raised, I've always wandered why patch makers, who want to get their work into trunk don't just then do what the 255 GRF Patch, to name but one did, and make the patch Single Player Only (As greater than 64 causes de-synchs in MP)... Also, cheat functions are SP only; so doing it is simply down to amount of time a coder wishes to put into their work as much as it is their determination to work towards trunk... And IMHO this is what differentiates the best patch makers on here from those who want to experiment or learn (Not that that is a bad thing, i'm a learner myself

)...

How easy would it be for the IS patch to be made Single Player only? Would this increase it's chances of trunk inclusion if a current complaint is it's risk of abuse?

As to my personal thoughts on playing MP with people who abuse functions; I'm with Pikka on this; firstly just don't play with them, or secondly (and if applicable) report and get them kicked from the server. It infuriates me when people simply don't heed to what should be basic approaches to MP gaming... Losing a such an interesting feature because of how people may abuse it doesn't seem right when equally that feature could encourage people to work together...

As to the specific points as summarised:

EDIT: Modified and amended in repost below... Cargo Packets; this is difficult, as a log of time travelled, number of tiles, and with which companies would have to retained for each packet... It's only logical that the ratio of profits is split according to those factors... But i can foresee CPU load being an issue when games get large...

Bankruptcy; Why not give all companies the chance to take over the network infrastructure in some kind of bidding system; the winner would then take control. Alternatively; can a dummy company be created to take up the infrastructure ownership until a player company can afford to buy it out?

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 15:48**

JacobD88 wrote:How easy would it be for the IS patch to be made Single Player only?

Surely that would remove a large part of the point? AIs are hardly going to be interesting to share tracks and co-operate with, even if they can build something that actually works and isn't hideous...

Posted: **10 Jan 2013 15:54**

FLHerne wrote:
JacobD88 wrote:How easy would it be for the IS patch to be made Single Player only?
Surely that would remove a large part of the point? AIs are hardly going to be interesting to share tracks and co-operate with, even if they can build something that actually works and isn't hideous...

Agreed, hence my comments on MP play below that; but i do enjoy using IS in single player where i often create multiple companies and switch between them in the cheats, or use AI networks... I'd rather have the feature in just one instance of play rather than neither if a solution cannot be found for MP.

On another front, i was editing my post while you were posting to add this regarding other issues too

As to the specific points as summarised:

Cargo Packets:
This is difficult, as a log of time travelled, number of tiles, and with which companies would have to retained for each packet... It's only logical that the ratio of profits is split according to those factors... But i can foresee CPU load being an issue when games get large (Which is one big problem with CargoDist, which has not currently got a solution to CPU overload either)... On the other hand, IS working in this form would compliment CargoDist at a later time should both make it to trunk as they could share information from the same cargo packet information...

Bankruptcy:
Why not give all companies the chance to take over the network infrastructure in some kind of bidding system; the winner would then take control (The most "realistic" #DirtyWord situation).
Alternatively; can a dummy company be created to take up the infrastructure ownership until a player company can afford to buy it out?
The latter, Dummy Company, is most likely the easiest coding option as a bidding system would require a lot of extra work.
The Dummy company would be kept afloat by the income from people using it's infrastructure. If the dummy company goes bankrupt, again, it's just replaced with another dummy company until bought out.

Posted: **11 Jan 2013 04:53**

FLHerne wrote:
JacobD88 wrote:How easy would it be for the IS patch to be made Single Player only?
Surely that would remove a large part of the point? AIs are hardly going to be interesting to share tracks and co-operate with, even if they can build something that actually works and isn't hideous...

While I, like JacobD88, also play in single player mode and use multiple companies running AIs, I think excluding this patch from multiplayer would make it a lot less useful.

Posted: **11 Jan 2013 11:26**

kamnet wrote:
FLHerne wrote:
JacobD88 wrote:How easy would it be for the IS patch to be made Single Player only?
Surely that would remove a large part of the point? AIs are hardly going to be interesting to share tracks and co-operate with, even if they can build something that actually works and isn't hideous...
While I, like JacobD88, also play in single player mode and use multiple companies running AIs, I think excluding this patch from multiplayer would make it a lot less useful.

I agree. Disabling this patch in Multiplayer would be a disaster for me because I actually play with my friends using IS. Furthermore, I hate having to cheat to switch companies, the GUI for doing that in MP is a lot more convenient. And if there's a problem with cheaters, either disable IS in the settings before setting up the game or kick those fools out. If you're the host you can do whatever you want, after all. That problem would solve itself rather quickly if fair play is enforced.

Posted: **14 Jan 2013 12:00**

Valle wrote:And if there's a problem with cheaters, either disable IS in the settings before setting up the game or kick those fools out. If you're the host you can do whatever you want, after all. That problem would solve itself rather quickly if fair play is enforced.

Amen to that Valle

If the patch developer(s) do get the bugs and problems ironed out (to which i suggested solutions above), what are the chances of getting a community vote on this for inclusion?

Posted: **14 Jan 2013 13:19**

Community vote? Now that's just weird. It's not as if 'we' can vote so that the devs can do the work (of reviewing, including, maintaining, etc.). The devs include things in which they want to invest their own time in, they're not obliged to do anything. If some people here make a poll and ask whether you would clean the toilet with a brush because we like it, that wouldn't make you do anything would it? Even if they would ask nicely. (I do understand that that's not exactly the same

).

As much as I would like it as well, apparently it's not that simple. Hirundo (not your average newbie) didn't see opportunities to finish it nicely. It's good to keep on discussing opportunities (it's not the first time a new angle can be a turning point), I can't judge whether your proposals are feasible. We'll have to wait until a dev steps in or if you're impatient, ask around on irc.

Posted: **14 Jan 2013 16:20**

JacobD88 wrote:what are the chances of getting a community vote on this for inclusion?

Historical precedent suggests the chance is zero

Posted: **14 Jan 2013 17:35**

there is no reason why you couldn't have a "community vote". but there's also no reason why the devs should act on such a vote...

Transport Tycoon Forums

Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1

Re: Infrastructure sharing 2.1.1