Author Topic: Buildings in water  (Read 675 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Leartin

Buildings in water
« on: May 19, 2017, 04:54:29 PM »
I'm really surprised about that one. Appearently, only factories can be placed in water, while other buildings (tried it with cur only) can not?


Does not look as good on grass as I wanted it to :(

Offline Yona-TYT

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 07:53:27 PM »
I would love to see this incorporated. ;D ;D ;D

If not possible, but I would like to see ground objects too.  8) 

Offline An_dz

  • Web Admin
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2532
  • Total likes: 271
  • Helpful: 89
  • D'oh
    • by An_dz
  • Languages: PT, EN, (it, de)
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2017, 02:55:40 AM »
What's that? Dragon Ball Z? :D

Offline Yona-TYT

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2017, 03:44:51 AM »
What's that? Dragon Ball Z? :D
Where will Master Roshi be?.  8)

Offline JHSDF

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2017, 04:01:17 AM »
I was surprised your choice of building! I never thought it is so famous in other country!

I made such building as factory before.
This is not vehicle but "floating ship museum" as factory.


It behaves both factory and port in the sea. So I can put it anywhere, and call passenger as worker with
 boat.



If cur can be put on the sea, a lot of buildings will be port.

So, How about make this building as factory as a test?
I think it is better to put it on the sea as factory than as cur,Especially you would like to use transparent on the coast.

Offline Leartin

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2017, 06:53:32 AM »
If there won't be another way, I will make it a factory of course. Not sure if a factory with neither input nor output could exist, but it could always be a power plant, or perhaps an end consumer for magazines.

Still, I think it's strange that it would not be possible to place anything but factories in the ocean.

Where will Master Roshi be?.  8)
Probably at the Tenkaichi Budokai? I would have to pixel it to see if he is there...

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4544
  • Total likes: 163
  • Helpful: 106
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2017, 12:06:24 PM »
Still, I think it's strange that it would not be possible to place anything but factories in the ocean.

Apart from a very small number of military installations, the only off-shore installations in real life are industrial, so why would anyone even consider spending time on writing code for anything else? Even that little building in the first post isn't built on water, it is located one some tiny one-tile island (in principle).

Offline Flemmbrav

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2017, 01:04:24 PM »
I could imagine lighthouses and shipwrecks(attracts divers) as nice "offshore" buildings too.

Offline Yona-TYT

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2017, 01:12:00 PM »
Apart from a very small number of military installations, the only off-shore installations in real life are industrial, so why would anyone even consider spending time on writing code for anything else? Even that little building in the first post isn't built on water, it is located one some tiny one-tile island (in principle).

No matter if it is in the water or on an island, the important thing is that they can be placed on the water without having to modify the terrain.

I can not imagine how many tourist attractions or ground objects  you can build this way. ;)


It is best left to the imagination of the artist.  :P 

Offline Leartin

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2017, 02:52:09 PM »
Apart from a very small number of military installations, the only off-shore installations in real life are industrial, so why would anyone even consider spending time on writing code for anything else? Even that little building in the first post isn't built on water, it is located one some tiny one-tile island (in principle).

There are several things wrong with your assessment.
First, you are talking about off-shore installations. However, Off-shore installations would need to be about 20 kilometers away from any shore. I don't believe in a strict scaling in Simutrans, but even if you would go with one square kilometer per tile, that would be 20 tiles. Sure, especially with larger maps, you might have an ocean somewhere were a reasonable large area of water would actually be off-shore, but I tend to believe on most maps, there is more on-shore water tiles then off-shore water tiles. Especially with lakes (which, as far as I know, can't even be off-shore no matter how large they are)
If we are talking on-shore installations, real life gives us a lot more to work with. From something as simple as a buoy over common stilt houses to more prestigious buildings:


Then there is the question whether it needs to be an installation at all. If Ayers Rock is a valid curiosity on land, why not place Khao Ta-Pu in the sea? Alongside anything stationary that comes out of water and does not need to be buildt on by the player, like smaller islands or rocky, perhaps with something unique on them (old lighthouse?), reefs, or even an animated ground object of a blowing whale. Even a small fish could make an interesting object, just so it's not a wasteland - after all, wastelands in Simutrans are not wastelands either. Both deserts and arctic can be full of stuff, even though realistically, they should be pretty much empty.
If the statue of liberty was made as a land attraction, it could be anywhere inland. I'd rather have it in the middle of the ocean than in the middle of some desert.


So let's say this again: We do have a parameter "climate" which could be set to "water". We have several different kinds of objects for which a climate can be set. It just stands to reason that, if water is a climate, and a climate can be set, we should be able to set water as a climate, so stuff appears in water. That's not the case, and it really feels more like a bugreport than a feature request.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4544
  • Total likes: 163
  • Helpful: 106
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2017, 03:33:33 PM »
Both Statues of Liberties I know of are on land, although next to water, which is a concept Simutrans knows about. While I am no expert on lighthouses, all I know about are on land, even if some are surrounded by water on all sides. Unlike oil rigs and fish farms, it is possible to have underground structures beneath them.

It is best left to the imagination of the artist.  :P 
it really feels more like a bugreport than a feature request.
The functionality of Simutrans is made by developers. If they don't happen to imagine it, or are told about it, it won't exist. (It also won't exist if the developers do not want it, but I'm going into that aspect here.) Computers aren't magic. Everything they do have to be painstakingly designed and coded by developers. (Developers are in turn restricted by what the hardware designers had in mind.)

The developers wanted, or the community requested, the ability to have industry at sea. So a developer made it so. Industries, while reusing the generic building concept to some degree, function differently from other kinds of buildings. (Well, all types of buildings function differently from each other.) Nobody specified how other buildings should work with that climate, so the developer had no way of knowing how to implement them. A bug is when things don't work the way they were intended to, but in this case there was at the time no intention in the first place.

Offline Flemmbrav

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2017, 04:19:13 PM »
As for Lighthouses: They can stand near stones too, this one by example feels like it's in the middle of it's water.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchtturm_Kalkgrund

And of course there are ships (Lightvessels) for such services too, marking shallow or stones.

So anyways, now we do know that people are requesting it, and further we have a concrete example (first post of this thread) of a building fitting the climate "water".
Is there a developer out there who is now able to imagine buildings other than industrie beeing build on water?  ;)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 04:29:46 PM by Flemmbrav »

Offline Leartin

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2017, 05:15:32 PM »
Both Statues of Liberties I know of are on land, although next to water, which is a concept Simutrans knows about. While I am no expert on lighthouses, all I know about are on land, even if some are surrounded by water on all sides. Unlike oil rigs and fish farms, it is possible to have underground structures beneath them.
Nobody said otherwise. All I'm saying is that I'd rather have the statue of liberty in the middle of an ocean than in the middle of a continent, since it would still make more sense to me. Same for lighthouses - rather out in the sea than somewhere in the middle of a continent.

While simutrans does know how to build something at shore (climate=water, location=land), it only knows that at least one tile must be next to water. Furthermore, it does build on land-level, not sea-level. That's the same with lakes, but at sea, this means there will always be a wall straight up to land level before the object even begins. So not only do you have to create the object in a way that fits the landmass rather than the sea, it also needs to have some reason to have a straight wall down to the sea. If you could force objects to be placed at sea level, and force them to be rotated so one complete side faces the water, it would be very different, as the sea could be incorporated in the object and a smooth transistion could be used. All in all, I find that pretty useless as-is, but that'S not the point here.


A bug is when things don't work the way they were intended to, but in this case there was at the time no intention in the first place.
It would be better to define a bug by things not working the way they should. When you, as a user, start a program and it crashes on you, you will not second guess the intentions of the programs creator, crashing is not what it should do, so it's a bug. Furthermore, do you really know whether it was not intended to make it work for all buildings, but whoever made it work for factories simply forgot? Unless it was clearly intended NOT to work, it could still be considered a bug, even if intention had anything to do with it. Not that anyone even claimed it would be a bug in the first place.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4544
  • Total likes: 163
  • Helpful: 106
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2017, 06:26:08 PM »
As for Lighthouses: They can stand near stones too, this one by example feels like it's in the middle of it's water.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchtturm_Kalkgrund

And of course there are ships (Lightvessels) for such services too, marking shallow or stones.

So anyways, now we do know that people are requesting it, and further we have a concrete example (first post of this thread) of a building fitting the climate "water".
Is there a developer out there who is now able to imagine buildings other than industrie beeing build on water?  ;)

Lightships, buoys and small rocks could be interesting would be interesting maritime equivalents of ground objects. The latter two only makes sense on shallow water, though. And random placement of the former two will probably be a lot more jarring than the typical ground object.

While simutrans does know how to build something at shore (climate=water, location=land), it only knows that at least one tile must be next to water. Furthermore, it does build on land-level, not sea-level. That's the same with lakes, but at sea, this means there will always be a wall straight up to land level before the object even begins. So not only do you have to create the object in a way that fits the landmass rather than the sea, it also needs to have some reason to have a straight wall down to the sea. If you could force objects to be placed at sea level, and force them to be rotated so one complete side faces the water, it would be very different, as the sea could be incorporated in the object and a smooth transistion could be used. All in all, I find that pretty useless as-is, but that'S not the point here.

That is however something I do see the point in. If it could require water on all sides, it would work for the original image. However, it would be on ground, not water, as you would expect to be able to build an underground structure right beneath it.

It would be better to define a bug by things not working the way they should.

It is a bug if something does not behave the way the programmer has been told it should. (Although the original meaning is strictly speaking that the computer does not behave the way the programmer programmed it to do, because literal bugs, well moths actually, have entered the computer and short-circuited it.) It is not a bug if something doesn't work as the customer expects because the customer failed to tell the developer. As a professional software developer, this distinction is important. Bugs can typically be fixed by the developer alone, and might be fixed free-of-charge due to warranties and similar. New features on the other hand requires that the customer places an order, which includes both a description of how it should work and money. There is some form of middle ground where the program crashes due to the customer failing to specify how certain conditions should be handled. Ideally, the developer should have spotted this and contacted the customer, so the developer is partially responsible. However, it is also the customers fault, and may require more time and money to fix.

Bugs are not necessarily more important than new features, however. We have a substantial list of known bugs at work, some of them ten years old, but the customer wants us to work on other things. (The customer being another part of the organization means that the organization has to pay either way. Developers with fully independent budgets might not have a choice.) Simutrans is free, so you don't have to pay either way, but also comes with no warranties of any kind. (And I am on both sides of the table in this regard.)

Offline prissi

  • Developer
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 8685
  • Total likes: 294
  • Helpful: 228
  • Languages: De,EN,JP
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #14 on: Yesterday at 12:24:53 AM »
All those buildings were delibarated build in exactly that place for reason, and almost all offshore structures are industial or infrastruture related. Moreover, Simutrans will likely fail to build in a reasonable place for such buildings. So go to the scenario edior and replace the water by land (if it is shallow enough that is) and place you structure on this single tile.

And yes, factories with neither input nor output are possible, and have been used before (like to old smoking vulkano in former pak.japan). They are, however, not build atomatically.

Offline Leartin

Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #15 on: Today at 11:46:12 AM »
That is however something I do see the point in. If it could require water on all sides, it would work for the original image. However, it would be on ground, not water, as you would expect to be able to build an underground structure right beneath it.

We could go in that direction, but I think that would ultimately fail due to the many restrictions. For example, a single tile surrounded by water can only exist (naturally) in lakes with flat shore, never in the ocean with sloped shore. But even if such a tile exists on the map, the placement algorithm - as it is now - would never find it in time. Which means you would either need to manually place it, or the placement algorithm for such objects would look for water area (object_size+2)², raise the land in the middle of that area, and place the object there. At this point, it would be very similar to just spawning objects in the water though.

As for the matter of underground structure right beneath it: Look no further than the classic game start, a coal mine. Logically, what you see on the land would only be the tip of the iceberg, while most of the mine would be underground. Yet, you can build right underneath it in Simutrans.
Why would a building where you would expect to build underneath but can't be a problem, while a building where you would expect not to build underneath but can isn't?

It is a bug if something does not behave the way the programmer has been told it should. (Although the original meaning is strictly speaking that the computer does not behave the way the programmer programmed it to do, because literal bugs, well moths actually, have entered the computer and short-circuited it.) It is not a bug if something doesn't work as the customer expects because the customer failed to tell the developer. As a professional software developer, this distinction is important.
Besides that story about literal bugs being wrong (The moth was in the Mark II around 1950, while the term "bug" was used by Edison when he invented the light bulb, as if it was already established, hard to imagine that literal bugs could have an impact on the not so filigree electrical wiring of the time...
Let's take a step back. For custom software, it's important whether something is written in the contract or not, and since the word bugs and features come closest to that, it makes sense to use them in that context. Though even then, it's not that clear-cut. A company I worked at ordered a website with a search engine. The search engine we got did not work with Umlaut (ÄÖÜ). It was not specified in the contract, yet it was on the developer to fix it for free - since both partys of the contract were German, Umlaut would be normal letters, and them not working would be the same as XYZ not working. If it had been two English companies with the same contract, it would have required extra payment. And the end say in the matter would have had a court. Can it really be that whether something in a program is a bug or a feature is decided by a court and can change depending on who orderer/made the software? Sure - for custom made software it is, since a bug is an obligation, a request is not.

It makes no sense in free software without a clear objective where nobody pays noone. There is no contract, there are no assignments, nothing to pin down exactly what the software is supposed to be capable of and what not. Hence differentiating between bug and feature request the way it is done for contracted, custom software is impossible - there is never an obligation after all, even if software crashes, devs don't HAVE to do anything about it. Essentially, devs could choose willy nilly whats a bug and whats a feature based on what they want to fix.
Even with paid software, if it's from the shelf, same issue applies. The user wants to do something and the software does not let him. It does not matter whether the programmer botched code or was never told to make it work in the first place, since either way the user has software that does not do what he wants. Use Alpha Transparency in PNGS in Internet Explorer. IE6 could not do it at all, but IE7 could show alpha transparency in PNGs correctly. IE7 also allowed to change the opacity of a PNG, that worked as well. However, if you changed the opacity of an image with alpha transparency, IE7 would drop the complete alpha transparency and only use the opacity setting - contrary to how other browsers at the time worked. That's clearly not what's supposed to happen, as anyone would agree - NOT calling that a bug, no matter how it came to be, would serve no purpose except to act as an excuse not to fix something that clearly requires fixing.

Outside of custom-made software, bugs and feature requests blur into each other, and seperating them serves no purpose. Mind that I posted in Extension Request and said it feels like bug report, noting that this is somewhere in the blurred area, rather than posting it as a bug report, which in case of Simutrans is mostly crashes and UI.

Offline Ters

  • Coder/patcher
  • Devotee
  • *
  • Posts: 4544
  • Total likes: 163
  • Helpful: 106
  • Languages: EN, NO
Re: Buildings in water
« Reply #16 on: Today at 02:42:47 PM »
Why would a building where you would expect to build underneath but can't be a problem, while a building where you would expect not to build underneath but can isn't?

Because something you expect to work but doesn't is more obvious than something you don't expect to work but does. This discussion is itself proof of that. Nobody has been particularly eager to prohibit construction under coal mines.