Transport Tycoon Forums

Posted: **10 Nov 2007 14:46**

I have noticed that the grf's are largely supported by both TTDPatch and OTTD.
Currently each has its own graphics section.
What I am finding is that a lot of OTTD questions are landing in the TTDPatch section.
I don't frequent the OTTD section yet but I imagine they may see the occasional TTDPatch question as well.
Is there any good reason why the two graphics sections should not be combined into one?
If this is possible and is done, I further suggest that two sticky threads be added:

- How to install a grf into TTDPatch
- How to install a grf into OTTD

Then there would be a greater chance that threads about a specific grf would not be cluttered with general installation questions and if such a question should be posted it would be easier for a moderator to move it.

At the same time, the authors of a grf who start threads about their grf could add a line to their first post indicating which games [version] are supported by their grf:

- Supported by both TTDPatch [version] and OTTD [version]
- Supported by TTDPatch [version]; not tested in OTTD
- Supported by OTTD [version]; not tested in TTDPatch
- Supported by TTDPatch [version]; not supported by OTTD
- Supported by OTTD [version]; not supported by TTDPatch
- 32bpp - Supported by OTTD [version]; not supported by TTDPatch

Some added benefits to all this:
- The authors of a grf would double the chances of being noticed without having to post in two sections (= less drain on orudge's resources)
- The player of one game, who may be missing out on grf's supported by both games but only posted in the other game's section, would have a wider selection
- Fewer email notifications (= less drain on orudge's resources) for those who have elected to watch a thread.
- Technical questions regarding grf coding and also perhaps requiring developer support would be under one roof for both games thus promoting cross game compatibility and the sharing of implementation techniques.

Have I missed anything?
Any constructive comments?

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 04:00**

One problem I see is OpenTTD is also doing 32bpp gfx in their forum so it would cause a problem merging them. I geuse you could leave the OpenTTD one alone and move the TTDPatch one to under the Transport Tycoon section and have it as the central GRF location. One problem I see with that is that there are some people that will refuse to use the moved forum if there are OpenTTD only projects in it, both developers (both game developers and GRF developers) and users.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 06:15**

robotboy wrote:One problem I see is OpenTTD is also doing 32bpp gfx in their forum so it would cause a problem merging them.

I don't think so ... I edited my post and added another 1st post line suggestion. Also, the authors could include 32pbb in their post titles if needed.

I geuse you could leave the OpenTTD one alone and move the TTDPatch one to under the Transport Tycoon section and have it as the central GRF location.

The whole idea of the suggestion is to avoid this.

One problem I see with that is that there are some people that will refuse to use the moved forum if there are OpenTTD only projects in it, both developers (both game developers and GRF developers) and users.

I hope we are all more mature than that by now.

There are now many TTPAtch players who support and play both versions. I don't yet, but if all the graphics were under one section, I'd be sure to notice the "OTTD only" items and could be enticed to take the leap if I saw something that interested me. I'm sure others would be of the same mind. And that would apply in the other direction as well.

Thanks for the input. All good questions and we couldn't address them unless they were put forth.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 07:16**

WallyWeb wrote:
I geuse you could leave the OpenTTD one alone and move the TTDPatch one to under the Transport Tycoon section and have it as the central GRF location.
The whole idea of the suggestion is to avoid this.

I meant that to be read together with the previous sentence, ie leave it for the 32bpp only stuff and keep all the 8bpp grfs in the new forum.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 07:23**

Wallyweb, I second your idea. It will certainly help everyone, especially the NOOB's. It took me over a year to find all the graphics & still i find some new one here & there!!!

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 11:02**

I'm in favour of this too, but only for sets for OTTD and TTD. I don't see much use for the Transport Empire graphics to be included.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 11:42**

Couldn't you make a 8bpp section and a 32bpp section in the TT forum?
You could also make subforums for TTDP and OTTD in those sections (though I don't see the need for that in the 32bpp section, yet)

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 12:52**

robotboy wrote:I meant that to be read together with the previous sentence, ie leave it for the 32bpp only stuff and keep all the 8bpp grfs in the new forum.

denny577 wrote:Couldn't you make a 8bpp section and a 32bpp section in the TT forum?

Hyronymus wrote:I'm in favour of this too, but only for sets for OTTD and TTD. I don't see much use for the Transport Empire graphics to be included.

I think we can address these three in one response.

How about this:
Forum Section:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
TTD Graphics ( - Note the absence of Patch and OTTD because both are included but TTD is added to narrow the field a bit and differentiate from Freetrain, Empire and all those other good games.)
- Subsections:
==============================================
- 8bpp - TTDPatch & OTTD
-- Sub-Subsections:
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- OTTD Graphics General Installation & Technical
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- TTDPatch Graphics General Installation & Technical
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- All Those Fine 8bpp GRF Graphics
==============================================
- 32bpp - OTTD
-- Sub-Subsections:
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- 32bpp Graphics General Installation & Technical
---------------------------------------------------------------
-- All Those Fine 32bpp GRF Graphics
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

blitzkrieg wrote:Wallyweb, I second your idea. It will certainly help everyone, especially the NOOB's. It took me over a year to find all the graphics & still i find some new one here & there!!!

It will help some of us OLDB's (who can't remember where we put our slippers last night on our way to bed) too.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 13:35**

wallyweb wrote: TTDP Graphics ( - Note the absence of Patch and OTTD because both are included but TTDP is added to narrow the field a bit and differentiate from Freetrain, Empire and all those other good games.)
- Subsections:

Isn't TTDP short for TTDPatch?

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 14:06**

Leviath.NL wrote:Isn't TTDP short for TTDPatch?

Ooops!

Good catch. I've fixed it. Thanks.

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 22:11**

This has been "suggested" before and was refused before.

I don´t see any additional arguments at the time being.

[Graphic´s section]
Maybe move the TTDPatch one to somewhere else and leave the OpenTTD one alone [...]
Well, the "graphics section" has been and still is the core of the TTDPatch forum (69206 posts, against only 23205 in "General TTDPatch"). Since beginning, it isn´t used only to present graphics but it was and it still is used heavily for TTDPatch related problems and development.

In fact, it´s the most important "development forum" for TTDPatch (see higherbridges, canals, riverbanks, numerous discussions about train set sublties, railway-specific discussions, etc., pp.)

You can´t bring about more damage to TTDPatch than by taking away the graphics section from the TTDPatch forum.

The best way would be to create Graphics subforum [...] subforum) with 3 sections: 8bpp, 32bpp and dev.
No.

In the screenshot forum you can see what is for what on the tags people use like [TTDP] or [OTTD] [...]. That works nicely.
No.

Personally, as I´m dedicated to TTDPatch, I won´t use any other graphic´s section rather than TTDPatch´s one, neither for my own work nor for any discussion related to TTDPatch.

regards
Michael

http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=586553#p586553

It´s still a silly and inacceptable idea from my opinion.

regards
Michael

Posted: **13 Nov 2007 23:10**

Thanks for your reply Michael.

I was waiting for your input. You always have something interesting to contribute. I should have searched for that earlier thread, but unfortunately, in my haste to put this suggestion forward, I neglected to do so. That said, this thread is here now so I will address your reply.

I agree that the graphics are the core of TTD. Its what the game is all about. Between Joseph's (patchman) patch and your excellent work, I have become nearly addicted to this game. The addition of new patch features and the graphics that eventually arose from those features have been nothing short of remarkable and are a testament to the talents and efforts of the new developers, coders and artists that have followed in your and patchman's footsteps. Many of them have moved on to other things such as family, school and work. A few have even moved next door to OTTD. Yet, you, patchman and others, such as myself, remain even as new folks join the game. The Patch is currently facing some challenges but it will survive.

The reality is that the Patch shares tt-forums with many other topics, including OTTD. Cross posting is inevitable and indeed, we see it every day. Mostly, this cross posting is from OTTD players who want to use graphics that have been developed and posted under the Patch heading who come to that section with their questions. Often the answer to their questions is not a graphic issue but rather an OTTD issue. The intent of my suggestion is to make it easier for players to direct their questions properly so that the graphic threads are not cluttered with directions to go elsewhere for an answer nor with the technical replies that do not concern the graphic in whose thread the question was posted. This happens even when originating from within the Patch realm.

I would expect that appropriate questions (Development and bug resolution) would still remain largely within the other sub-sections of the TTDPatch section: General TTDPatch, Problems with TTDPatch and Suggestions, and similarly with OTTD. But in as much as the graphics mostly play well in both TTDPatch and OTTD, I can't see how combining their graphics under one section would contribute to the demise of the Patch. I, as do others, remain as committed to the Patch as do you.

At this stage, this topic remains merely a suggestion, but if it should be accepted and go forward, I would hope your graphics are a part of it. Even if you remain committed to only posting under the TTDPatch section, I, for one, will continue to seek out your threads and news of your work.

My games demand it.

Regards,

Wally

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 08:55**

Wallyweb wrote: [...] The reality is that the Patch shares tt-forums with many other topics, including OTTD. Cross posting is inevitable and indeed, we see it every day. Mostly, this cross posting is from OTTD players who want to use graphics that have been developed and posted under the Patch heading who come to that section with their questions. Often the answer to their questions is not a graphic issue but rather an OTTD issue. The intent of my suggestion is to make it easier for players to direct their questions properly so that the graphic threads are not cluttered with directions to go elsewhere for an answer nor with the technical replies that do not concern the graphic in whose thread the question was posted. This happens even when originating from within the Patch realm.

I would expect that appropriate questions (Development and bug resolution) would still remain largely within the other sub-sections of the TTDPatch section: General TTDPatch, Problems with TTDPatch and Suggestions, and similarly with OTTD. But in as much as the graphics mostly play well in both TTDPatch and OTTD, I can't see how combining their graphics under one section would contribute to the demise of the Patch. [...]

Well, as has been pointed out many times, TTDPatch and OTTD are two distinct undertakings, so each one has its own place in this forum. E.g., there´s a "problems" section for both, and there´s a graphics section for both as well (in the beginning, OTTD didn´t have such, it only originates with the planning of "all new graphics" for OTTD, rendering etc ...)

And, as I already pointed out as well, the TTDPatch graphics section isn´t the place where to go to "find graphics" and hence it would be difficult for OTTD users to find them because it´s located in the TTDPatch sub-forum. No! It´s a graphics development section, and o/c it´s the development section for TTDPatch (see number of posts!). For simply finding graphics we have grfcrawler, and for questions how to install a particular .grf we do indeed have those problem sections. And o/c we do have moderators to keep the forums clean. That´s why they´re there.

At this stage, this topic remains merely a suggestion, but if it should be accepted and go forward, I would hope your graphics are a part of it.

Why should it be accepted? And by whom? I really can´t understand how people who don´t develop for TTDPatch always come up with irritating "proposals" polluting the work of the developers.

regards
Michael

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 09:15**

michael blunck wrote:Why should it be accepted? And by whom? I really can´t understand how people who don´t develop for TTDPatch always come up with irritating "proposals" polluting the work of the developers.

regards
Michael

Calm down, Michael. Your generalising in multiple directions here without actually making a point. The fact that someone doesn't develop for <insert transport sim here> doesn't limit the right of that someone to make proposals about the forum. Every member of the forum has the same basic right to come up with such suggestions. And if you read carefully (your other quote proofs you did), you know that this proposal doesn't just affect TTDPatch.

On your question "who should accept it" I can give you a name: Owen. He has the final vote in forum changes.

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 09:45**

Hyronymus wrote:Calm down, Michael. Your generalising in multiple directions here without actually making a point. The fact that someone doesn't develop for <insert transport sim here> doesn't limit the right of that someone to make proposals about the forum. Every member of the forum has the same basic right to come up with such suggestions. And if you read carefully (your other quote proofs you did), you know that this proposal doesn't just affect TTDPatch.

On your question "who should accept it" I can give you a name: Owen. He has the final vote in forum changes.

I´m more than calm. The only thing I don´t like is people coming up always with "proposals" already rejected, without any new basis for it. And I don´t think the annoyance that some stupid users posting their superfluous messages in every thread they like would give a sound basis for a new discussion.

And yes, every user of this forum may make suggestions. But! Firstly, a very similar proposal had already been rejected a few months ago with good reason, and secondly, in this case the rights of quite a lot of TTDPatch graphics developers would be affected which IMO doesn´t outweigh the mere "right to make suggestions".

And lastly, you´re right that last time Owen didn´t give in to such useless suggestion. I hope he won´t do this time.

regards
Michael

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 10:05**

michael blunck wrote:And yes, every user of this forum may make suggestions. But! Firstly, a very similar proposal had already been rejected a few months ago with good reason, and secondly, in this case the rights of quite a lot of TTDPatch graphics developers would be affected which IMO doesn´t outweigh the mere "right to make suggestions".

[...]
regards
Michael

That's the beauty of personal opinions: they seldom match the opinions of others. I'm sure that's nothing new to you though. Now if you allow me some nitpicking: very similar != similar.

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 13:45**

michael blunck wrote:Well, as has been pointed out many times, TTDPatch and OTTD are two distinct undertakings, so each one has its own place in this forum. E.g., there´s a "problems" section for both, and there´s a graphics section for both as well (in the beginning, OTTD didn´t have such, it only originates with the planning of "all new graphics" for OTTD, rendering etc ...)

Agreed

And, as I already pointed out as well, the TTDPatch graphics section isn´t the place where to go to "find graphics" and hence it would be difficult for OTTD users to find them because it´s located in the TTDPatch sub-forum. No! It´s a graphics development section, and o/c it´s the development section for TTDPatch (see number of posts!). For simply finding graphics we have grfcrawler, and for questions how to install a particular .grf we do indeed have those problem sections.

This is indeed where I have a problem. What you describe is indeed as it should be. Its not though. I am in the process of rebuilding my master newgrf.cfg and updating my grf files. I have a lot. I'll take a shot at estimating that 50% were NOT in GRFCrawler. Furthermore, many were buried deep within their threads and not in the first post for ready accessibility. The fact of the matter is that many of the authors and coders are more interested in producing a grf than in making it accessible.

And o/c we do have moderators to keep the forums clean. That´s why they´re there.

Perhaps they could be a bit more encouraging of the authors and coders to list their works in GRFCrawler.

At this stage, this topic remains merely a suggestion ...
Why should it be accepted? And by whom? I really can´t understand how people who don´t develop for TTDPatch always come up with irritating "proposals" polluting the work of the developers.

Its not a question of whether it should be accepted. I can't dictate that. I can only suggest. By whom would be orudge, however, and quite correctly, he won't do it unless there is a consensus. As to whether the suggestions are irritating or polluting, we have no way of knowing this until we propose them. The reason why we submit these suggestions is because we love this game and the features enabled by the Patch. Sometimes we get a bit frustrated when trying to avail ourselves of those features. I like to think of myself as a customer who is getting some rather poor service in some sections of the store. Unfortunately, there is nowhere else to shop.

You are right. GRFCrawler is indeed the place to list the graphics. If some of the authors and coders were to be more conscientious about posting to it, in all probability my suggestion would not have been made.

Michael, I hope you are not taking this too personally. I like and respect you, I value your opinion, and I really do appreciate the works you have provided us with and I am greedily hungering after more.

The suggestion I made in this thread arises out of frustration. The intent is to seek out an amicable solution, a consensus, to make life a bit easier for all. OK, so lets follow your approach. Now how do we get those errant authors and coders to stock their wares in GRFCrawler?

Regards,

Wally

* EDIT * Maybe we could give GRFCrawler its own section ...

I'll go hide now.

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 19:45**

wallyweb wrote:
mb wrote:[...] the TTDPatch graphics section isn´t the place where to go to "find graphics" [...] It´s a graphics development section [...] For simply finding graphics we have grfcrawler, and for questions how to install a particular .grf we do indeed have those problem sections.
This is indeed where I have a problem. What you describe is indeed as it should be. Its not though. I am in the process of rebuilding my master newgrf.cfg and updating my grf files. I have a lot. I'll take a shot at estimating that 50% were NOT in GRFCrawler. Furthermore, many were buried deep within their threads and not in the first post for ready accessibility. The fact of the matter is that many of the authors and coders are more interested in producing a grf than in making it accessible.

Well, yes. But I see no reason to risk the large success in producing graphics packages for TTDPatch by changing anything to that section´s structure, just because of the shortcomings you´re talking of. Especially, because they´re only weakly linked to the main purpose of that section of the forums.

Whether a certain .grf would be listed on grfcrawler or not is entirely due its author(s). We can´t do anything to get a certain .grf package listed there, except from encouraging people to use grfcrawler more than today.

It may well be that a number of .grfs are "buried" in large threads. But that´s more or less unimportant. There are even more .grfs which aren´t even buried in tt-forum´s threads but are located on other servers. We don´t need to run a registration office for .grfs, especially not in a section which should be used for very different ends..

And if a .grf would be worth being used, it´ll be known where to find it. And even more: IMO, there´s not much use in digging out all those tiny and forgotten .grfs which have been produced years ago by some (or no) reason (at all). Stick to the main .grfs and keep your newgrf.cfg unclogged.

mb wrote:[...] I really can´t understand how people who don´t develop for TTDPatch always come up with irritating "proposals" polluting the work of the developers.
As to whether the suggestions are irritating or polluting, we have no way of knowing this until we propose them. The reason why we submit these suggestions is because we love this game and the features enabled by the Patch. Sometimes we get a bit frustrated when trying to avail ourselves of those features. I like to think of myself as a customer who is getting some rather poor service in some sections of the store. Unfortunately, there is nowhere else to shop.

Well, IMO, the TTDPatch graphics section is a place to develop graphics, where .grf authors communicate problems and ideas, where newbies would get help, and a place to be used as a showcase for new developments, etc. pp. From the mere fact, that it´s dedicated to TTDPatch (and not to OTTD at the outset) it´s clear that many of it´s themes are closely linked with TTDPatch. I´d repeat myself if I´d point to many new developments for TTDPatch which were started inside the TTDPatch graphics section (higherbridges, canals, rivers, custom signals, ...).

To have a repository for each and every TTD-related graphics, be it for TTDPatch or OTTD, it wouldn´t be the right place.

You are right. GRFCrawler is indeed the place to list the graphics. If some of the authors and coders were to be more conscientious about posting to it, in all probability my suggestion would not have been made.

Yes, GrfCrawler would be the right place, but we can´t press the authors to use it.

Michael, I hope you are not taking this too personally. I like and respect you, I value your opinion, and I really do appreciate the works you have provided us with and I am greedily hungering after more.

Walter, I don´t take it personally at all. If someone other did post that proposal I´d have written the same text.

The suggestion I made in this thread arises out of frustration. The intent is to seek out an amicable solution, a consensus, to make life a bit easier for all. OK, so lets follow your approach. Now how do we get those errant authors and coders to stock their wares in GRFCrawler?

IMO, there´s no other solution than to advertise GrfCrawler even more than has been done in the past. But it should be understandable that we can´t force someone to use it, be it as an author or as a user.

regards
Michael

Posted: **14 Nov 2007 21:26**

michael blunck wrote:Yes, GrfCrawler would be the right place, but we can´t press the authors to use it.

IMO, there´s no other solution than to advertise GrfCrawler even more than has been done in the past. But it should be understandable that we can´t force someone to use it, be it as an author or as a user.

Agreed.

I will now step back from my suggestion and shift focus.
The goal remains "To make it easier for the players to find all those excellent graphics".

1. The old hands in this forum know about GRFCrawler. New players don't. "Where do I get it?" posts abound and the replies may point to GRFCrawler but often point the player to the forum's search function instead.
How about a sticky topic in both the OTTD and TTDPatch sections?
"GRFCrawler - Find your graphics here!" would be a good title, with a breif description and the link inside.

2. The maintainers (authors and/or coders?) of a graphics thread could be encouraged to include in their first post:
- A link to GRFCrawler.
- A coment about game support (As I suggested some posts above).
- A download link. (Either the file itself or pointing to where the file is located).

When visitors to a thread come across a link to a grf file that is not referenced in GRFCrawler, they could add the following to the discussion:

"I'm interested in this file and have downloaded it. Thank you.

Why don't you list it in GRFCrawler so that others may find it too?

"

Code: Select all

I'm interested in this file and have downloaded it. Thank you. :D 
Why don't you list it in [url=http://grfcrawler.tt-forums.net/]GRFCrawler[/url] so that others may find it too? 8)

Any thoughts on this?

Posted: **16 Nov 2007 16:50**

And the beginning would be removing of your Index Thread and pointing to GRFCrawler.

(I hope, you don't take that personally, too.

Edit: I also realized, that it would be possible to include GRFs to GRFCrawler without beeing the author, I am not sure, how that is supposed to work or even allowed.

Greets
Ammler

Transport Tycoon Forums

Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?

Re: Time For Graphics To Have Its Own Section?