SVN coordination

Topic: SVN coordination (Read 34709 times) previous topic - next topic

SVN coordination

September 01, 2008, 09:41:51 pm

So, first question:
Why is folder config alone on top level, when pak128.prototype contains all the other files?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #1 – September 01, 2008, 09:43:50 pm

good Question .... but I get the source on this way ...

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #2 – September 02, 2008, 02:14:45 am

Quote from: VS – on September 01, 2008, 09:41:51 pm

So, first question:
Why is folder config alone on top level, when pak128.prototype contains all the other files?

The scripts (pak128.bat and arbeite.sh) work to folder simutrans/pak128.

The change of config files goes so fast, not only in the under folder needs to be changed.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #3 – September 02, 2008, 09:14:55 am

I don't understand. Why do you have to put that one folder apart and keep the other ones where they were? What is the difference? Wouldn't it be easier to copy them all?

#2. As to the batch. It doesn't work. It is totally broken in the first place. Is it supposed to be universal? I guess no...

Code: [Select]

cd simutrans\pak128

This browses to folder that doesn't exist in svn.

Code: [Select]

echo j|del *.pak

That's for German version of Windows. I press 'a' and in English speaking countries it is probably 'y'.

Code: [Select]

rem start /w ZipBackup.exe pak128.txt pak128

Hehe, you can surely know what I'm going to say about this one. (Even if it's commented out)

I'll work on the Python script. Right now it has the same problems as batch, but eventually it should be able to do everything on any system. (Python is imho the only way to keep it multiplatform easily.)

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #4 – September 02, 2008, 09:23:34 am

Quote from: VS – on September 02, 2008, 09:14:55 am

Code: [Select]
echo j|del *.pak
That's for German version of Windows. I press 'a' and in English speaking countries it is probably 'y'.

ohhh yes this is a pain in windows, there are many dendencies with language settings ... not on the 'y'/'j' (maybe for spanish 's') even date an time formats are differing.

using something like a real programming language will help certainly ...

Jörg

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #5 – September 02, 2008, 12:38:22 pm

You can do a shell script. Look at the pak64 makefile, which is usually done under Windows using cygwin or mingw. And it works on almost any other platform, even on BeOS where I have no python due to old age ...

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #6 – September 02, 2008, 05:41:30 pm

Quote from: VS – on September 02, 2008, 09:14:55 am

...

Code: [Select]
cd simutrans\pak128
This browses to folder that doesn't exist in svn.

search 'simutrans/pak128' and rename 'pak128.prototype' then working to this folder

Quote

Code: [Select]
echo j|del *.pak
That's for German version of Windows. I press 'a' and in English speaking countries it is probably 'y'. ...

del 'echo j|' them working all windows

this is minor changed for working to the SVN folder

for phyton I install phyton and lerning the phyton syntax

Windows batch script working all windows, not install a programm

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #7 – September 02, 2008, 07:19:47 pm

Ich weiß nicht, ob ich verstehe was sie möchten sagen im English... Warum habe ich nicht mehr Deutsch gelernt

Is that ok?
I changed the .bat, please test.

Move "config" to pak128.prototype - yes/no? Why?

We can have batch, python, makefile, shell script, ruby, perl, scons, vbscript, autotools ...

Add your own if you want.

But any script must start with data from svn and produce folder ready for play. Ok?

Quote from: Frank – on September 02, 2008, 05:41:30 pm

del 'echo j|' them working all windows

Probably yes, I did not see any error. (But I would like to see Microsoft say this to be sure.

)

Quote from: Frank – on September 02, 2008, 05:41:30 pm

lerning the phyton syntax

You do not have to; the program (pakmak.py) reads pakmak.tab files with simple commands: read another pakmak.tab in folder abc (similar to function call with stack), compile dat in this folder, etc. Look at the files pakmak.tab...

Quote from: Frank – on September 02, 2008, 05:41:30 pm

Windows batch script working all windows, not install a programm

True, but very simple. Older windows do not have some features (if, for). Even .sh is better.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #8 – September 10, 2008, 09:27:31 am

Werner told me pakmak does not work. Who else can confirm this?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #9 – September 10, 2008, 09:35:20 am

I get problem on startin it with my "nightly-Server".

A Linux (Gentoo) System ..

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #10 – September 10, 2008, 10:12:53 am

How do you start it, as ./pakmak.py or python pakmak.py or...? The first non-commented word in this file is "import" which is also imagemagick program, so it seems pakmak.py is not run as python script but shell script...

After you told me, I added #! usr/bin/python as suggested in help...

BTW - Werner, Frank: what makeobj version do you use?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #11 – September 10, 2008, 11:18:30 am

At the Moment I start it with

Code: [Select]

python pakmak.py

But at now I don´t find the pak-Files not in the right Direktory ...

some in !base/..
some in home/simutrans/PAK/PAK128/simutrans/pak128/..
some in simutrans/pak128/..

I don´t start the PAK in homedirektory, I start in ~/PAK/PAK128

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #12 – September 11, 2008, 07:59:26 pm

Quote from: VS – on September 10, 2008, 10:12:53 am

...
BTW - Werner, Frank: what makeobj version do you use?

offical makeobj 49

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #13 – September 11, 2008, 08:27:28 pm

Code: [Select]

simutrans@birgit ~ $ ./bin/makeobj --help

Makeobj version 49 for simutrans Nightly 100.1 and higher

But build from the source

Code: [Select]

simutrans@birgit ~ $ ls -lha ./bin/makeobj
-rwxr-xr-x 1 simutrans simutrans 108K 27. Jul 15:56 ./bin/makeobj

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #14 – September 11, 2008, 08:42:39 pm

Good, I used 48 and didn't understand what is wrong with depots

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #15 – September 16, 2008, 06:14:48 pm

I was thinking about the plan needed for 128 and realized the only item for next "serious" release is balancing vehicles again.

The only bug (that is part of that) concerns TGV duplex – power/gear is not enough.

Still it might be nice to get out something for people to play with 100.0, even if it's partially broken. How do you feel about a 1.4.3.1 release...?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #16 – September 16, 2008, 06:35:39 pm

Not quite yet. I think we should at least work over the menus so that the tools for the new waytypes maglev and narrowgauge will be available and maybe provide bridges for powerlines now that they are possible.

After that, the main issue will be updated balancing.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #17 – September 16, 2008, 06:54:08 pm

Hm. For maglev and narrowgauge... what would we actually need? Just entries in the tabs, or even tracks and all that?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #18 – September 16, 2008, 07:05:46 pm

I'd say we should provide at least the menus (along with new icons), so that people creating addons (like gauthier for maglev) and players who want to try these addons will find a prepared environment for it.

Maybe we just create an entry and a toolbar with just a dummy icon that says something like "coming soon..." or so... Because with just a menu entry without content, the toolbar would be empty - and that would look like a bug to people. With such an icon everyone'd know what's up - and there's stuff to come one day.

How about that?

Because for the full program, we'd need tracks, electrification, bridges, tunnels, stations, signals... that will take quite a while - in any case, much too long to be suitable for a "quick" release like you mentioned.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #19 – September 16, 2008, 07:47:53 pm

Or we could rip Raven's Japan narrow gauge project and double the pak size in one go

I am particularly concerned about numerous questions of the "where is maglev" kind. Something similar is happening with trolleybuses now. I included these wires just so that it's ultra-easier to get new vehicles into game, but so far it generated only a plethora of demands. I can't say I am particularly pleased with that development; it partially follows the double track or overtaking problem pattern (pretend for a moment it is one month back isidoro did nothing yet), and I don't intend to create situations where we get angry over things that could be prevented.

This is just a very far-fetched prediction from my very personal feelings; right now I look at such post and think "bah, not again". But it might develop that way eventually, and I don't want to waste energy on truly artificial problems.

These buttons stay visible even if there is nothing in the resulting toolbar. Which is understandable, since we don't want the menu reshuffle on the go, one usually learns after a few months by heart where to click...

It's not that I don't see the good that can come from it, only I take the pessimistic stance. Let's make a bet: we get trolleybuses (all infrastructure is there) in two months, you win. We don't, it's your job to deal with all the angry player threads. Note there is nothing in it for you, so better don't accept!

Anyway. Looking at what is on the (better) German version of wiki, there seems to be a kind of deadlock. Normal track can be low and elevated, monorail too. But maglev? Does system_type apply to it as well? Because now we have official schwebebahn, which uses both system_types, and the maglevs from Timothy and Gauthier do so, too. It might be good to eventually ask for change so that everything "tracked" can have elevated version.

If we had official narrowgauge in 128, I would envision it as something good for shorter distances, maybe when you have both industries on one screen. That might change over the course of years. If in very far future we have nothing to do and extend timeline into late 19th century, narrowgauge should at that time play a role similar to road vehicles - medium distances, light cost, mediocre characteristics. if my memory serves me right, there were hundreds of these small railways, often with one locomotive, and gradually disappeared with the advent of automobiles. Some of them are still preserved and operated by railway fans... so they should get ineffective around 1930-40 and eventually reappear later with not-totally-useless p****enger revenues. Think connecting special buildings and such.

~~(more later - I have to do something right now)~~

I'll try my hand with powerline bridges.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #20 – September 16, 2008, 08:19:11 pm

Wow, that was a long one.

And I agree: maybe the menu should still wait. Sure as hell I won't accept that bet - I know how some people around here are.

The problem I see with narrogauge (especially with raven's set) is that there is no good distinctive way to draw it. I mean the difference in gauge IRL is usually only about 30-40 cm. And reducing the spacing by 2 pixels is way too much at this scale. So we'd need something else to make them unique... I have been thinking about the same things on my own projects, too - can't say that I have found a solution yet...

---

Now speaking of waytypes, and the wiki: I believe the wiki is not quite up-to-date on this page.

Maglev and narrowgauge are new and completely independent waytypes, both with the full list of options. Including elvated ways, bridges, tunnels - the whole lot. I tested that with Maglev already. Should it not work with narrowgauge, that would be bug that prissi would surely try to remove a.s.a.p. - just as he did with the initially non-working crossings, so don't worry on that part.

Also monorail and maglev cannot be mixed - at least not in current ST versions. It's either one or the other. gauthier has changed MLM stuff to be Maglev and the Schwebebahn should be (and stay) as a monorail variant, IMO.

---

The use of narrowgauge... well it depends on country/culture. The scenario you described is true for Europe, I guess. However, in Japan for example, almost the complete railway network (except for the Shinkansen lines and some private companies) is run on narrowgauge tracks up to this day. But I guess for inclusion into the current pak128 style, what you described sounds better suited.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #21 – September 16, 2008, 09:12:51 pm

Good to know the modern waytypes don't matter then. Schwebebahn of course stays what it is and where it is.

Since there is already working maglev, albeit as addon, it should be accessible. That is sensible.

I know about Japan's gauges. But I had in mind something different; those miniature trains with ridiculously small cars going some 30 km at most - from the forest to the sawmill or such. The attached picture shows better than words what I mean. With that, two pixels less can be about right.

Also while I'm at this, the eventual plan for trolleybuses is the following:

"city" speed
high engine power and gear
low running cost
high infrastructure maintenance

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #22 – September 16, 2008, 09:23:09 pm

Oh... those!

Well, for those one could probably just put the tracks 2 pixels closer together.

So we might give raven's old NG tracks another look. Or, if we have a couple of weeks (or months), I might be able to convert some of my normal sized tracks for that... just kidding. Tracks are a lot of work, if you want them done right! Don't know when I started mine - I'm still not done!

BUT... aren't we maybe "throwing away" a potentially useful waytype for this toy-like eye-candy stuff (of only limited use)?

EDIT:
The trolley bus idea sounds good.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #23 – September 16, 2008, 11:31:24 pm

Before I plunge into the depths of narrow gauge dispute, let me add that the trolleybus characteristics should basically apply also to underground trains (subway, metro, underground), if there are ever some.

Quote from: DirrrtyDirk – on September 16, 2008, 09:23:09 pm

BUT... aren't we maybe "throwing away" a potentially useful waytype for this toy-like eye-candy stuff (of only limited use)?

I don't really know. The plan involves obsoleting them with trucks, so the point has even double weight.

The first answer that seemed obvious to me is, the looks and actual performance can be two very different things. Even if this looks too small for serious consideration, the numbers do not have to match

As always, I skilfully withheld a few important pieces... Narrow gauge trains as pictured here would dominate the world in times preceding the current timeline, and this leaves lots of open possibilities. The big picture is - if we ever get more industry graphics, the industry line should start back then with small production and later increase, which will bring more money, except that then the "inflation" kicks prices of everything up. So, the player's overall financial wealth should rise numerically, and amount of transported material, too, but so should the prices as well! In the beginning the vehicles are old and small, thus everything must be cheap, and industry production lower. Logical.

Does that make sense?

Second "counterattack" falls into different category.

Narrow gauge vehicles are, if the term is interpreted precisely as a term, not so different from broad gauge. Tracks. Cars. Same engines - combustion, electric, steam. Same cargo handling, same infrastructure.

Following this logic, there should be also broad gauge, funicular and rack (cog) railways, and more importantly, another special category for vertically capable aircraft (helicopters), zeppelins as well since their landing operations are different from aircraft, conveyor belts, heck maybe even flying saucers as a vehicle type (sorry Patrick

).

That approach is not exactly what I would call reasonable. Sure, in the end all of these new vehicle types truly are justified in some way. That's why they exist in real world. But here we are within a game.

What is the difference between these and what we have now? For all the mentioned aircraft, one new category is actually sufficient for purposes of a simulation game. The special railways are so rare - out of question as seriously used mode of transportation, too. Conveyor belts are too short to be plausible on our landscape scale. That leaves just broad gauge.

What is so special about it? What about narrow gauge? The differences in real world were caused by more factors, but historical reasons aside, the ones we should take into account are terrain and moved cargo. For some operations it is practical to have vehicles as big as can be. On the other hand, sometimes there isn't enough space to even lay properly normal track. With this in mind, comparison with Simutrans world doesn't tell... much.

Ways of all kinds take up a whole tile - and just one tile. No particular reason to differentiate in so fine aspects as track gauge.

So what opportunities does a "vacant" waytype present in itself? I understand why it seems exciting - a whole new world, to be filled with new toys

But this fun would be spoiled if it became just another railway, only with smaller looking track.

In fact its representation as I outlined in my earlier post above does not differ that much from normal trains, even so. The difference had to be accented, thus the miniature visage for rolling stock and different pricing. There should be some reason for players to look at it and think, "wheeee! narrow gauge!" instead of "why is there just another railway?"

Now I have left out one factor - realism. Of course it is possible to use narrow gauge for Japanese rolling stock models and let it be that way. Or, say, the Switzerland ones. But, what do we gain, and what lose?

In the same way as you suggested wasting a waytype on eye candy, here the waytype could be wasted on duplication. This is something I would like to avoid...

It's particularly funny that these two approaches (mini & realistic) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. After the "mini" epoch is over, the waytype can get completely new vehicle sets for the second part of 20th century.

Please note that this was my view on the matter, and nothing beyond that. I still want to hear your opinions (Napik, Werner, Frank, where are you?), and will consider them. Writing long texts doesn't do the actual job you know

PS: All this rambling is on hypothetical, future extensions. Right now there are more pressing tasks than new modes of transport.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #24 – September 17, 2008, 08:07:39 am

I don´t know if I understand ...

Trollybus use tracks???

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #25 – September 17, 2008, 08:49:00 am

My two cents...

Since when have we had a separate narrow gauge? Being one for realism I think that is cool! As narrow gauge was pretty big on the industrial transport side of things pre about 1930s in Britain, I'd be pretty keen to include that in PakBritain. A couple of questions though - does narrow gauge have different characteristics in any way? Narrow gauge is normally used on routes which are bendy and/or steep, as well as being cheap. The cost bit is easy to do, but is there a way of making the deceleration due to corners/hills less for narrow gauge? That would give them a niche in the game I think.

Also, if you're looking for more industry graphics, my current project is drawing a complete industry timeline from 1750-2000ish for PakBritain, and you are welcome to steal any of these for normal pak128, but they might not fit in with the graphics style for normal pak128 100%. There are a few screenshots on the old forum. I've been meaning to start a new thread on this forum but never quite got round to it - maybe when I get home from work :-)

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #26 – September 17, 2008, 09:19:16 am

wernieman - summary of the long texts so far:

Trolleybuses - characteristics: powerful, cheap operation, costly wires.
Metro (if it ever appears) - the same.
Maglev - none yet, but add into menuconf.tab for addons (Guthier & Timothy).
Narrow gauge - still discussed.
Old industries - just some ideas.

Hood - afaik there is no difference program-wise from normal trains.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #27 – September 17, 2008, 12:35:54 pm

@TheHood:

narrowgauge was just recently introduced. Most major bugs were removed by around nightly r2006 and crossings worked from r2009 on.

Yes, AFAIK it behaves exactly like normal track, except it cannot be connected to normal track (= also not to tram).

About special abilities:

I was thinking about the same thing, too: IRL it's better suited for curves or mountaineous areas - maybe the weight penalties ST uses for vehicles on curves and hills could be reduced (just a bit) for this waytype? Just a quick thought...
It certainly only allows for much lesser maximum speeds (I think the fastest the Japanese can go right now is 160km/h - not much compared to the 300+ for normal gauge around the world) - but that doesn't need to be limited by ST - that's just for pak-maintainers to keep in mind.

---
@VS:

Metro/Underground:

Are we talking about waiting for another new waytype, or what do you mean with "if it ever appears"? Because I think it could/should use either of the two track systems already available. So that would leave only vehicles and stations, right?
And there are (or at least were) some vehicles available already. Some from the London Tube (by Timothy, I think) and on the Japanese sites, most (if not all) trains from the current lines of both, Tokyo Metro and Toei, are available, and on the German forum there are some from Berlin, too - IIRC.
Timothy also did some stations, fitting for his way-objects that allowed not only electrification, but also improved the tunnel look quite a bit...
So what are we waiting for exactly?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #28 – September 17, 2008, 01:05:18 pm

Underground... remember the licence project. From now on, the stuff that gets "in" must be already licensed. Or do you want to include things and then remove again?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #29 – September 17, 2008, 01:20:12 pm

Quote

Or do you want to include things and then remove again?

No, certainly not.

But we do agree that it is already generally possible with the current systems and items, right?

So the answer to my question "what are we waiting for?" is simply: creators' permissions.

And we will never get these, unless we begin asking for them... (and if they don't give them, there's always raven we could ask

)

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #30 – September 17, 2008, 01:23:36 pm

Ah, right. We can include things on the spot if we get permissions (and if they fit into the set).

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #31 – September 17, 2008, 01:27:10 pm

When we don´t get the permission, we must do the next step and remove the grafik. When we geht the permission later, then we could reinstall it ...

I think at first we need a base, on wich we can begin to build the next PAK

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #32 – September 17, 2008, 01:36:05 pm

Quote from: DirrrtyDirk – on September 17, 2008, 12:35:54 pm

@TheHood:

narrowgauge was just recently introduced. Most major bugs were removed by around nightly r2006 and crossings worked from r2009 on.

Yes, AFAIK it behaves exactly like normal track, except it cannot be connected to normal track (= also not to tram).

About special abilities:

I was thinking about the same thing, too: IRL it's better suited for curves or mountaineous areas - maybe the weight penalties ST uses for vehicles on curves and hills could be reduced (just a bit) for this waytype? Just a quick thought...

That was exactly what I had in mind. Anyone know how easy that is to change?

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #33 – September 17, 2008, 01:51:57 pm

Wernieman - for now we don't "activate" the licence change yet. It may take a few months until we can be sure the rest of authors isn't going to respond. Plus I am rather slow with writing them

So, the next release definitely won't be "open" yet.

Re: SVN coordination

Reply #34 – September 17, 2008, 03:48:06 pm

But even if we do not include maglev and/or narrowgauge into the menuconf.tab yet - we should definitely remember to include symbol.MaglevStop.pak and symbol.NarrowgaugeStop.pak !