Started by falconne, December 10, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteNetwork mode is not supported. I saw that the "click and drag" method isn't supported in network mode either and my patch uses a similar technique as that, so I disabled this feature when in network mode. I haven't investigated the reason for this yet.
Quote from: prissi on December 12, 2011, 08:32:09 PMIt was discussed several times already, that waiting for completion takes actually the fun out of construction for a fair number of player.
Quote from: isidoro on December 13, 2011, 12:02:32 AMRefocusing on the design mode again, would it be possible/desirable that the plans are only seen by the player doing them and others in the network game would see them only if they are committed?
Quote from: sdog on December 13, 2011, 12:37:40 AMwhat should happen if two players desig something in design mode that interferes with each others construction?
Quote from: wlindley on December 10, 2011, 03:21:06 PMWill the bulldozer (erase) tool work while in this mode, so you can weigh the effect of several possible alignments, or a straighter path if a house were to be removed?
Quote from: Dwachs on December 10, 2011, 03:54:01 PMClick-and-drag is supported in network mode. With the exception of click-and-drag for bridges / tunnels / elevated ways (this restriction can be removed as well if anybody would write a patch for it)
Quote from: prissi on December 10, 2011, 11:10:01 PMJust the way of a dialog with button to confirm certain building actions is not very much simutrans UIish. I that case, I would also rather favour an "planning mode" by a button like the underground mode. (That could be even connected with the smart cursor ... )
Quote from: jamespetts on December 12, 2011, 09:06:18 AMA more realistic game would have people plan things in a preview mode of the sort that Falconne is designing here, then click the "Apply" button as in Falconne's dialogue box and wait a realistic number of game months for the things to be built. Each type of way, building, bridge, tunnel and each sort of ground engineering tool (raise/lower land, etc., which, incidentally, ought also be included) ought have a specification in their .dat files as to how long that they take to build (the expectation being that newer types take less time to build). There could do with being an "under construction" graphic for buildings, ground works and each base type of way (e.g., rail, road, canal, etc., rather than each specific type of railway, road and canal), and, preferably, each such graphic should have an introduction date, so that we do not see bright yellow bulldozers in 1830 or gangs of navvies with wheelbarrows in 2005.
Quote from: falconne on December 13, 2011, 09:34:42 AMActually I was thinking of something similar, but not involving construction times. What if, for the first month or so after building certain infrastructure, if you demolish it you get all the money back without any demolish cost? It avoids a whole lot of problems that my current method has to deal with, will work in multiplayer mode and require a lot less code change. I'd like to hear what people think about that because it might save me a whole lot of work if I just do it that way instead (assuming there's not too many complications adding an extra "build date" field to various dinge objects).
Quote from: jamespetts on December 13, 2011, 11:27:08 AMI rather prefer a construction times approach (which, as suggested above, might be made optional), as it more accurately simulates the realistic amount of time that it takes to build things in the world. The problem with the idea of getting a full refund if one destroys it within a month is - what if one's vehicles have traversed it in the meantime? Indeed, would it not be possible in theory to keep rebuilding and demolishing sections of one's network within a month such that one never has to pay for an entire route at all?
Quote from: falconne on December 14, 2011, 01:02:19 AMI would like to know what the devs think about this, because it's much easier to implement and it means you can build the whole route, bridges and all, mould it how you like, without having to create a whole preview mode.
Quote from: falconne on December 18, 2011, 05:42:52 AMSo that's a "no" on the time limited refunds then? That's a shame as it achieves the same objective with far less complexity and code change required.
Quote from: prissiAn extended UNDO (maybe with an expiration data set be the server) is certainly a great idea (but also an effort, as most object to be deleted are rather first copied into a lsit, and deleted later. That will give a whole new headache for the cleanup funktions. So please continue in another thread an extended UNDO.)
QuoteAlso, if I allow landscape changes in design mode, I might need to recalculate each path after each change.
Quote from: Dwachs on December 18, 2011, 11:56:29 AMWhere do you read a "no"?If the your goals of the design mode could be easier to achieve by extending undo functionality, then it would be a good idea to proceed into this direction. A possibility would be to add to each tool (werkzeug_t) an undo method, that reads custom data, which is produced when the tool is executed.
Quote from: jamespetts on December 18, 2011, 01:48:27 PMWhy wouldn't the depot building tool also be part of design mode? But, yes, a multiple tool design mode is important for it to work properly, especially with things such as bridges, tunnels and elevated ways, but also stops, etc., so that people can see the full costs of their projects before commencing them.
Quote from: falconne on December 19, 2011, 07:31:04 AMExtended undo is different to my refunds suggestion... what I was suggesting is that if you use the bulldozer to destroy infrastructure and you do it a short while after building it and it hasn't been used by vehicles, then you get the full cost refunded and no demolish cost. Essentially you pretend you're in "planning mode" for that grace period. Extended undo would force you to remove entire sections, in reverse order of building and you still have to deal with time limits and tracking if vehicles have used the section. A bulldozer refund allows you to fine tune your route however you wish for a short time.Nobody seems to be in favour of that though...
QuoteNobody seems to be in favour of that [extended undo] though...
Quote from: sdog on December 19, 2011, 07:32:32 PMi think it's a brilliant idea, i did not post because i thought it's such an obvious sollution, without any drawbacks that it doesn't need much discussion.
Quote from: prissi on December 20, 2011, 09:24:20 AMCould we please focus on the design mode as it is now, and the addition needed to make it work with the network mode and on the UI whether using a dialogue or a new toolbar.
Quote from: prissi on December 20, 2011, 12:46:35 PMIn the end it would be an extended UNDO. IF not moving stuff is to be restored, an extended UNDO seems also not so difficult, as most of the infrastructures is there. You might need an undo-class to undo different kind of objects. (Like terraforming will delete trees and alter height of many tiles.) Since those stuff goes via dingliste, maybe a lot of stuff could get there.) Well, if this is the route you want to go, please open a new thread.
Quote from: falconne on December 21, 2011, 08:52:12 AMAs for graphics, making the infrastructure itself transparent may confuse people. I was thinking maybe making the grass tile under the infrastructure go brown during the grace period? Making it look like freshly excavated land where grass hasn't grown back yet?
Quote from: falconne on December 21, 2011, 08:52:12 AMNo, this undo term keeps causing confusion. I don't intend to use "undo". I intend to make bulldozing within the grace period give you refunds. That's much more flexible than using undo.
Quote from: fabio on December 21, 2011, 09:49:00 AMwould you change the hue programmatically or require new graphics?
Quote from: fabio on December 21, 2011, 09:49:00 AMconsider ways never RESERVED by a vehicle, even if not transited yet.
Quote from: prissi on December 21, 2011, 09:50:06 AMWhy not undo? That functionality is know from almost any other program. It is also not so difficult to add to the program, because all relevant objects for way building needs to be saved for undo in grund_t::neuen_weg_bauen.