Transport Tycoon Forums

Hi all.

I have a suggestion to all newgrf devs;

The names of the sets gets rather confusing when you have a lot of them in OTTD.
What if "we" a set of rules regaring the name.
Look at my list in the attachment, the ECS-part is easy to see, and why not make it in the same matter with vehicles, stations and so on? 5-6 years ago were there only 5 or 10 newgrfs, now there are 100's...

An example of what i mean: What do you think?

As file names? Incompatible with ttdpatch DOS, AFAICT. Plus, spaces might cause nasty issues in linking and websites.

I think he means the name in Action8.

I think this is actually a very good idea, but names like "Vehicle - Train - DBset V0.82 ECS extensions" are probably far too long to fit into the window.

To solve this problem, we could introduce abbreviations like STA for stations, VEH for vehicles and a whole bunch of others like INF, RD, TRN, TRM, AIR, LND and what not.

Only one problem still remains: all the finished sets out there will most likely not change their names. It probably takes years before those sets are superceded by new sets with the new naming scheme.

[too many .grfs]

[...] now there are 100's

A proper solution would be to get rid of them.

Nobody needs a single .grf for every tiny piece of something. We had that in the beginning and the decision was towards larger sets. So, in consequence, the current situation is just a penalty for those who don´t obey the rules of common sense.

I have a different proposal: only allow for .grfs with a built-in best-before date.

regards
Michael

Having hundreds of .grfs and getting confused is only an issue when fools try and load multiple trainsets, multiple plane sets, vehicle sets, and such (And then they come back and whinge at us for the conflicts anyway). Or better yet, multiple versions of the same set.

Let's just be sensible, folks.

7of9 wrote:What if "we" a set of rules regaring the name.

I would assume, that if anyone is capable of coding a GRF, they have enough brains to label their work in a sensible way. If they can't, well that's their own problem.

Is it really necessary to regulate every little bit of what we do? At most, make a list of suggestions for new coders, but not more -- something along the lines of

Name your GRFs clearly and sensibly. Don't forget to include the version number.

I think the keyword here is this:

7of9 wrote:OTTD

On your local file system, you probably have your GRFs neatly organised in folders, subfolders and whatnot.

With TTDP, this directory structure is also used in your newgrf[w].cfg, thus keeping that nice and ordered too.

On the other hand, in OTTD you add newgrfs to the game with use of the built-in dialog window. No directory structure, no nothing in there. Just all grfs alphabetized. And that's exactly where this category system comes in handy: as a substitute of your directory structure.

While typing this, I just came up with a new feature for OTTD:
Make it possible to retain the directory structure of the data folder inside the Add NewGRF dialog.

If OTTD is a problem (even though once you highlight the GRF, you see the path there too), wouldn't you say that it would be a lot more sensible to adjust the GRF management window in said game, rather than trying to adjust all the existing GRFs?

minime wrote:

Name your GRFs clearly and sensibly. Don't forget to include the version number.

Date might be a good thing too. In any case, *something* that is guaranteed to be different for every release.

Leviath.NL wrote:I think he means the name in Action8.

that IS exactly what i ment...

And i do have a directory struckture in my "data" (new-grf) folder, but that dont do anything when useing the grf-selector

Jesus gentlemen.

All this talk about "common sense"?

What is this rubbish? Not only now am I being told how to define my industries, and my road vehicles, but also how to name my set!

Where am I!? Petrograd!?

Dave Worley wrote:Not only now am I being told how to define my industries, and my road vehicles, but also how to name my set!

Yes, in fact those guys who have lost the overall view regarding loads of .grfs would be free to rename them. Simple as that.

The only thing which really matters for a .grf would be the information in action08 but not its file name.

regards
Michael

I can sympathize with a grf author who keeps a file name simple and without version numbers that would require the player to edit his newgrf.cfg with each and every update. However, a grf author who does not include some differentiating information in the Action 8 description is somewhere short of inconsiderate.

michael blunck wrote:

Dave Worley wrote:Not only now am I being told how to define my industries, and my road vehicles, but also how to name my set!

Yes, in fact those guys who have lost the overall view regarding loads of .grfs would be free to rename them. Simple as that.

Perhaps such decisions from a long time ago might be more readily published?

[file renaming]

Dave Worley wrote:Perhaps such decisions from a long time ago might be more readily published?

Pardon?

regards
Michael

I was referring to this quote, on the basis that I thought you were making reference to it:

michael blunck wrote: Nobody needs a single .grf for every tiny piece of something. We had that in the beginning and the decision was towards larger sets.

Are there any documents published on such a decision?

I have to say, with greatest respect, that you make much reference to the past in terms of agreements made and so on. Speaking personally, I wasn't around in such times, and when you bring these points up it's the first I've heard of them. Surely in this case, since we welcome .grf authors creating new graphics, that agreements made on the development of graphics for TTDPatch should be available for viewing (and not just available... readily available).

Dave Worley wrote:I have to say, with greatest respect, that you make much reference to the past in terms of agreements made and so on.

Not much.

Well, those basics have been discussed in agmtt and/or the TTDPatch mailing list quite some time ago. Of course, it makes more sense to have a small number of large sets than to have a large number of small sets, both from a maintainer´s and from a user´s POV. E.g., that´s why the NewShips had been moved into one large .grf. Before, they were single .grfs.

Same would be true for Aegir´s station .grfs. It´d be useful to have them in one large .grf rather than to have such many. OTOH, for George´s ECS collection, it makes sense to have the vectors apart.

Surely [...] agreements made on the development of graphics for TTDPatch should be available for viewing (and not just available... readily available).

Well, this one´s not that formal. It just makes sense to me after all.

regards
Michael

TTDPBASEW would be another nice example. However I don't think that even this is something that needs to (or can) be formalized. As Michael points out, most of this is common sense - something that an experienced developer will realize on his own, and an inexperienced one won't need to worry about until he knows enough to realize it anyway.

Why this obsession with rules and bureaucracy for every single thing we do?

minime wrote:Why this obsession with rules and bureaucracy for every single thing we do?

You will have to stand in that queue over there and request form #ttdx/ottd-666 - Request For Information. When you have filled out the form and had it properly notarized, return to this counter where we will accept the form. You will then be notified within 30 business days of our intention to respond.

NEXT!



Quiet DaveWorley. My lack of sanity has already been well established.