Uhm... Keiji, I suggest you duck for the heavy things Dalestan will throw at you now.iNVERTED wrote:I hate GRFs
Well anyway, your plan really sounds ambitious but it also sounds very good. I wish you the best of luck with your fork.
Moderator: OpenTTD Developers
Or the rest of the community.Mr. X wrote:Uhm... Keiji, I suggest you duck for the heavy things Dalestan will throw at you now.iNVERTED wrote:I hate GRFs
I know that, but some people really do mature.Aegir wrote:Keiji = iNVERTED = BobXP and all the various fun and games from times gone by.
Yeah, but I suddenly realized this is probably going to die as soon as I get bored of openttd and work on one of my other billions of projects. Eh, we'll see.Mr. X wrote:Well anyway, your plan really sounds ambitious but it also sounds very good. I wish you the best of luck with your fork.
I don't even remember someone called Aegir from years ago... and more importantly, if you still have a grudge of me you can just shut up and not read this topic.Mr. X wrote:I know that, but some people really do mature.Aegir wrote:Or the rest of the community.Mr. X wrote: Uhm... Keiji, I suggest you duck for the heavy things Dalestan will throw at you now.
Keiji = iNVERTED = BobXP and all the various fun and games from times gone by.
Well to me most of the code in OTTD, especially the internals, are a spaghetti mess. Hence why I am rewriting them.As I understand it there's coding style enforcement in large projects for a reason. To make everyone _elses_ life easier and to prevent the code-base turning into some sort of spaghetti mess (Or spaghetti western).
Why?iNVERTED wrote:and as for GRFs, I hate GRFs
You mean, thats all you can throw at him before he gives a reason why he hates itDaleStan wrote:Why?iNVERTED wrote:and as for GRFs, I hate GRFs
(I think that's just about the heaviest thing I can throw, Mr. X.)
It may well be that this fork produces some results that we can transfer back into OpenTTD. So *please* show some support!Aegir wrote:Or the rest of the community.Mr. X wrote:Uhm... Keiji, I suggest you duck for the heavy things Dalestan will throw at you now.iNVERTED wrote:I hate GRFs
Ahh, this thread is so much more amusing when you're old enough to remember that Keiji = iNVERTED = BobXP and all the various fun and games from times gone by.
Me? I don't really care. Forks come and go (OpenTTD challenge spinoff for example. Although that wasn't 'Waaah, you won't let me code how I want, I TEH FORK UR CODE LAWL' (Like Beryl), it was a seperate project with a seperate gameplay aim altogether).
As I understand it there's coding style enforcement in large projects for a reason. To make everyone _elses_ life easier and to prevent the code-base turning into some sort of spaghetti mess (Or spaghetti western).
enjoy ur codebase lawl
Except that that requires a *valid* reason. "I didn't design it so it must be crap" and "I have no idea how it works so it must be crap" aren't valid. Nor are hyperbole or FUD.PouncingAnt wrote:You mean, thats all you can throw at him before he gives a reason why he hates itDaleStan wrote:(I think that's just about the heaviest thing I can throw, Mr. X.)
Useless to the ottd-trunk? That doesn't matter one bit. What matters is that we're exploring ways of implementing these ideas. Its an important step in progressing ideas.richk67 wrote:We have a gazillion ideas, and a ton of patches that are functionally interesting, but suck code-wise.
Anything developed in this fork will be useless to ottd-trunk, as the starting base is several THOUSAND revisions old. If any good ideas are developed, they would need recoding from scratch to work with ottd-trunk.
If you want to see any possibility of features in an alternate ottd making its way into trunk, you need to stay as close to trunk as possible, keep it in sync, code to the style and standard of trunk. All these iNVERTED has already ruled out.
I wish him well - and I'll go buy shares in pharmaceutical companies... he is going to have a headache of enormous proportions. (MiniIN was bad enough!!)
Sorry, I misquoted. I was talking to Aegir when I mentioned the grudge. And yeah, this is based on an ancient revision because I had actually started this months ago, then got bored and left it for ages, but I will always come back to it eventually.Mr. X wrote:Hey I don't hold a grudge against you! I support you! That is because I endorse people to behave in some kind of mature way. (We all have our 'things' but in a general manner I mean. )
I hope you don't give up on the project if your interest in OTTD has dropped. And if you do, I hope you will pick up again later.
I want to make file formats generic. I have developed a file format called XDA (eXtensible Data Array) which is like XML but much much smaller because it is in binary rather than using stupid XML tags. It therefore makes sense to me to use XDA for every single thing that I code. Besides that, it would be much easier for "GRF" developers to simply save their image and load OTTD to test, without having to use grfcodec every single time they want to test. Hence why I am using a BMP + XDA combination, and whenever I bother to learn how to use PNG files, then make that PNG + XDA.DaleStan wrote:Why?iNVERTED wrote:and as for GRFs, I hate GRFs
(I think that's just about the heaviest thing I can throw, Mr. X.)
That's exactly the point. I love playing OTTD, and I wish the features mentioned in my first post existed, which is one reason why I am making them. The other reason is just as you said - to drastically increase my programming skill so that I can finish Fusion, which is my main project and will bring together all of my other projects.richk67 wrote:IMO the only benefit from iNVERTED's exercise is to iNVERTED's skill base. It proves nothing about what can or will happen in trunk.
Ooh, nice idea!iNVERTED wrote:I want to make file formats generic. I have developed a file format called XDA (eXtensible Data Array) which is like XML but much much smaller because it is in binary rather than using stupid XML tags. It therefore makes sense to me to use XDA for every single thing that I code. Besides that, it would be much easier for "GRF" developers to simply save their image and load OTTD to test, without having to use grfcodec every single time they want to test. Hence why I am using a BMP + XDA combination, and whenever I bother to learn how to use PNG files, then make that PNG + XDA.
How is XDA more generic than GRF? The grf container can hold any number of things, normally called "sprites", which can optionally be compressed using at least two different algorithms, and carry almost no meta-data. If you want these "things" to be "files", prepend a header indicating this, and containing name, timestamps, and external compression scheme, if used.iNVERTED wrote:I want to make file formats generic. I have developed a file format called XDA (eXtensible Data Array) which is like XML but much much smaller because it is in binary rather than using stupid XML tags.
What? Its hard to press [up][enter] before testing? This is news to me.iNVERTED wrote:Besides that, it would be much easier for "GRF" developers to simply save their image and load OTTD to test, without having to use grfcodec every single time they want to test.
-sigh- I'm not proposing for a second the Devs should do that work. Why would you assume that? Theres hundereds of programmers out there who could do it, not just the devs.richk67 wrote:Err... no. If you want something in trunk, code it for trunk. There is far too much for the devs to do rather than do the recoding work for someone's experimental patch in another code-base.
This experiment will be useful. Experimentation is a good foundation for improvement. We're going to get a gameplay test of these features to see if they're viable. Possible problems to be encountered will be made clear (though may of course be obsolete), for one thing. There is much to be gleaned from this, it just requires a bit of scientific thinking.richk67 wrote:We have design ideas and test code and patches galore... we dont need experiments in design & implementation; we need good solid live code for all the features people clamour for. An experiment (except if very short term) is unnecessary on a project such as OTTD. And an experiment on an incompatible code-base proves nothing whatsoever, and is more likely to lead development down blind alleys.
For the most part I agree, actually. Its true that it is better practice to do one patch at a time. I can see this branches code getting irretrievably entangled with its own code, making it god-knows-how difficult to implement into a real patch.richk67 wrote: If someone wants to really do something of value, then follow mart3p's example; develop a feature, test it, debug it, update it for trunk, take advice, make it compatible style and code-wise, test it, test it again, and then celebrate when its in trunk.
I think better to say its not realistic to assume that nothing that happens in the fork will have any bearing on the trunk. I'm not talking about the relatedness of the fork's code to the trunk. It doesn't matter that the code obviously wont work first-second-or-third attempt at implementation into the trunk. This is about how to implement ideas into the game, whether they fit with the game. The code can be redone, its the idea thats important, and I for one want to see the ideas in action.richk67 wrote: It is just not realistic to think that anything that happens in a fork will have any bearing whatsoever on trunk. Only a branch has that possibility - a branch that is based on current trunk, is kept in sync, and doesnt wholesale reject the advances in OTTD over the last 3500 revisions.
I think I'll resort to quoting this:DaleStan wrote:Lots of pro-GRF words
Anyway, just because I'm using XDA doesn't mean you can't use GRFs as well. GRFs that worked with r5929 will also work with my fork. It's not like I'm going to disable using them. That would be silly.Jupix wrote:If I understand the situation correctly, this is a project started, maintained and developed only by iNVERTED, so he may use the nightly rev / programming language / features he pleases without having to explain his choices ("properly" or not) to anyone.
It's not hard to press up->enter, but you can't deny that it saves time.DaleStan wrote:What? Its hard to press [up][enter] before testing? This is news to me.iNVERTED wrote:Besides that, it would be much easier for "GRF" developers to simply save their image and load OTTD to test, without having to use grfcodec every single time they want to test.
And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?iNVERTED wrote:The main advantage of XDA is its inbuilt ID system. Each key is given a unique ID. This is very useful for things like savegames, as if a feature isn't available in a certain program version it can be ignored, and if required data isn't present in the XDA file, this can be noticed and a default value given. This is certainly better than having to run totally separate code for every single minute difference in the savegame format.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests