Transport Tycoon Forums

PBS was moved to it's own branch of svn, but AFAIK for the last few weeks nothing's changed there. Does it mean that the PBS is completly dead and burried now? Or is there still a chance?

I hope not, I found it very nice to use for some crossections. Not all, but some. So I hope they try to find a solution to the problems they are having with the current implementation.

PBS made people lazy, i'm glad its gone, you should be able to do everything you could do with it, without it, only using up a bit more space, any maybe some bridges and/or tunnels.

anyway, i'm pretty sure that it will come back, after its been bugfixed, however, there are a few more important things going on first, like map re-write.

bobingabout wrote:PBS made people lazy, i'm glad its gone, you should be able to do everything you could do with it, without it, only using up a bit more space, any maybe some bridges and/or tunnels.

I agree, it is just that for me (I use a lot of roundabouts), it speeds up the flow of the trains because 2 can enter the same roundabout as long as their paths do not interfere.

bobingabout wrote:PBS made people lazy, i'm glad its gone, you should be able to do everything you could do with it, without it, only using up a bit more space, any maybe some bridges and/or tunnels.

I mainly used it for creating more life-like setups and belive me, I have a lot of bridges and tunnels too as even PBS can't solve some problems. Besides - if someone doesn't like PBS doesn't have to use it

if you look at my second sentance, i don't dis-agree with PBS.

i just never used it.

pshemko wrote:PBS was moved to it's own branch of svn, but AFAIK for the last few weeks nothing's changed there. Does it mean that the PBS is completly dead and burried now? Or is there still a chance?

KUDr, the main PBS developer, was working on making NPF quicker before he was going to do more work on PBS IIRC.

what a genius

PBs is realistic it mades it posibble to use more trains on same amount of tracks.
I hope PBS will be come back in future.

why always get started on a new project before the other is finisched?

Horse wrote:why always get started on a new project before the other is finisched?

That is the nature of open source projects, they stay in beta forever because people keep adding features.

Which would explain all those open source projects that aren't in beta anymore... Adding features doesn't mean "in beta" any more than not adding features means "released". Otherwise, microsoft windows is still in beta.

Ok, bad example, but you get my point? KDE, Gnome, Samba, the entire GNU toolchain, PostgreSQL and Mozilla Firefox, to name a few projects, are definitely not in beta, but they're still getting new features.

XeryusTC wrote:KUDr, the main PBS developer, was working on making NPF quicker before he was going to do more work on PBS IIRC.

Which is good, since PBS is highly dependent on NPF. It's not possible to write good PBS support as long as there is work going on on NPF. I think that the removal of PBS is also used to clean up some of the other features.

hertogjan wrote:Which is good, since PBS is highly dependent on NPF.

For reasons no one has EVER explained. It has been proven by demonstration that PBS is possible without NPF, so this insistence that PBS remain dependent on NPF boggles my mind. A proper pathfinder-agnostic PBS will work just fine as long as NPF continues to provide all the same services, even if it doesn't provide them in the same way.

<rhetorical> I've asked this before, but I think it's worth asking again: If taking screenshots in OTTD requires that you have the GIMP running, but the GIMP bogs down your machine, is that a problem with the GIMP, or with OTTD?

If we change the question to "If using PBS in OTTD requires that you have NPF running, but NPF bogs down your machine, is that a problem with NPF, or with PBS?" does your answer change? </rhetorical> If so, why? I fail to understand how those two questions are fundamentally different.

DaleStan wrote:For reasons no one has EVER explained. It has been proven by demonstration that PBS is possible without NPF, so this insistence that PBS remain dependent on NPF boggles my mind. A proper pathfinder-agnostic PBS will work just fine as long as NPF continues to provide all the same services, even if it doesn't provide them in the same way.

the thing is that PBS is closely linked to the path finder and it have been written for NPF. Nobody have spent the needed time to make it work with the other one as well since it's not a simple task. That's why.

OK. Correction. I understand that it *was* written that way. What I don't understand is why people automatically assume that it must *remain* that way.

Because people are...eh simple

I think "pathfinder agnostic" is the concept that has never been done.