Mar 05 19:30:29 <+Steve^> ======= Meeting Started ======= Mar 05 19:30:45 <+Steve^> Firstly, i am acting Chair, while Chris is hurring to a computer Mar 05 19:30:51 <+Steve^> *hurrying Mar 05 19:31:09 <+Steve^> We need a man of minutes. Who would like to volenteer? Mar 05 19:31:10 <+Steve^> ~ Mar 05 19:31:35 <+Steve^> ChrisCF Steve^ Born_Acorn Grunt_ jfs ln orudge Prof_Food_Feed SpComb Zuu Mar 05 19:31:42 * Prof_Food_Feed is now known as Prof_Frink Mar 05 19:32:12 i'm back~ Mar 05 19:32:15 <+Steve^> Ok, who shall i force to be the minutes person? ~ Mar 05 19:32:20 I am not part of the dev team Mar 05 19:32:40 <+Steve^> Doesn't mean you can ignore the rules. ~ Mar 05 19:33:01 <+Steve^> Now, hopefully by next week, i could say ??MeetingRules SpComb Mar 05 19:33:02 * orudge` (~orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 19:33:07 then I'll go away Mar 05 19:33:14 <+Steve^> http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Meeting_Rules will do for now ~ Mar 05 19:33:40 <+Steve^> So.. who is going to make the minutes? Mar 05 19:33:43 <+Steve^> jfs? ~ Mar 05 19:34:09 * SpComb (Hailee@ppp-62-245-242-76.mnet-online.de) has left #transportempire (have fun) Mar 05 19:34:22 <+Steve^> Zuu? ~ Mar 05 19:34:33 I have little time.~ Mar 05 19:34:40 * orudge has quit (Ping timeout) Mar 05 19:34:46 <+Steve^> orudge`? ~ Mar 05 19:34:50 * orudge` is now known as orudge Mar 05 19:34:56 Yes? Mar 05 19:35:06 Oh Mar 05 19:35:09 No, sorry Mar 05 19:35:10 <+Steve^> Right then. orudge will make the minutes. ~ Mar 05 19:35:11 Won't be here the whole time Mar 05 19:35:24 <+Steve^> And follow the rules! ~ Mar 05 19:35:35 I can't make the minutes, sorry ~ Mar 05 19:35:43 <+Steve^> Slacker. Mar 05 19:35:54 <+Steve^> ln? ~ Mar 05 19:36:23 => Mar 05 19:36:27 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 19:36:28 back again~ Mar 05 19:36:53 I think it is best if I, Grunt, or jfs make them. As we know what is exepted. Mar 05 19:36:58 ~ Mar 05 19:37:03 -> Mar 05 19:37:05 <+Steve^> Ok. Which of you will do it? ~ Mar 05 19:37:09 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:37:16 I don't have my full attention here... can't really be minutemaking... sorry.. :/ ~ Mar 05 19:37:27 <+Steve^> Then jfs will do them? ~ Mar 05 19:37:32 i doubt my ability to do it~ Mar 05 19:37:48 <+Steve^> Well, your better than nothing! ~ Mar 05 19:38:21 => Mar 05 19:38:26 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 19:38:43 Maybe we can share it if noone can take the whole agenda.~ Mar 05 19:39:20 <+Steve^> There are only 5 topics apparently. ~ Mar 05 19:39:48 I volunteer Mar 05 19:39:50 ~ Mar 05 19:40:00 <+Steve^> Alrighty. ~ Mar 05 19:40:48 <+Steve^> We are in a new room today as Metalcore aka Evan, is a bit annoying Mar 05 19:41:10 <+Steve^> And the system working in #tempire with the random ops/voices isn't an ideal situation. ~ Mar 05 19:41:22 <+Steve^> I'm sure ChrisCF can explain more when he gets here. ~ Mar 05 19:41:58 <+Steve^> I'll give him a few minutes. I wasn't supposed to start till 7.45 anyway :) ~ Mar 05 19:42:57 <+Steve^> Any other news? ~ Mar 05 19:43:21 Who shall I not write as present in the minutes? Mar 05 19:43:27 ~ Mar 05 19:44:11 ln, ..?~ Mar 05 19:44:22 iLurk. Mar 05 19:44:25 <+Steve^> Born_Acorn, ln, orudge, Prof_Frink.. ? Mar 05 19:44:36 <+Steve^> Although Frink is slightly here. ~ Mar 05 19:45:16 -> Mar 05 19:45:20 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:45:24 I am here.. just not sure what to do ~ Mar 05 19:45:30 It's 19:45 now... do we want to keep waiting for Chris to get back, or do we want to start? ~ Mar 05 19:45:38 <+Steve^> I'll start i guess ~ Mar 05 19:45:43 ! Ok. ~ Mar 05 19:45:47 <+Steve^> Born_Acorn, just gives comments :) ~ Mar 05 19:45:56 Ok :D ~ Mar 05 19:45:58 <+Steve^> 1. Project structure Mar 05 19:45:59 I'm here, but not doing that much ~ Mar 05 19:46:11 <+Steve^> I have no idea what that means.. but i'm sure someone does? ~ Mar 05 19:46:20 -> Mar 05 19:46:23 <+Steve^> jfs ~ Mar 05 19:46:30 i think we'll have to let chris explain that... Mar 05 19:46:38 hopefulyl he returns to a keyboard soon Mar 05 19:46:40 ~ Mar 05 19:46:45 -> Mar 05 19:46:45 <+Steve^> I agree. Mar 05 19:46:47 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:46:55 We should move on until he returns, then. ~ Mar 05 19:47:05 !agree~ Mar 05 19:47:08 ! Mar 05 19:47:08 <+Steve^> Yes, that was the plan. ~ Mar 05 19:47:11 <+Steve^> jfs ? Mar 05 19:47:12 * Prof_Frink eats some more of the free biscuits Mar 05 19:47:26 we can't know if it's something important that might change something vital about the meeting yet~ Mar 05 19:47:54 => Mar 05 19:48:00 <+Steve^> Well, i see no other solution than leaving it until after 2 Mar 05 19:48:02 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 19:48:05 (argh my fingers are frozen just from being out for 10 minutes at most!~) Mar 05 19:48:17 I guess it has to do with roles and such in the project.~ Mar 05 19:48:23 >jfs< wear gloves Mar 05 19:48:33 <+Steve^> Either way... Mar 05 19:48:39 <+Steve^> 2. Discussions Mar 05 19:48:44 <+Steve^> 2.1 [RFD] Construction of stations in cities Mar 05 19:49:07 <+Steve^> ANyone? ~ Mar 05 19:49:21 => Mar 05 19:49:28 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 19:49:31 Perhaps stations will be more and more expensive the more far from ground level they get, to acout for escalators, and elvators for people to get to the platforms. Mar 05 19:49:43 (from forums)~ Mar 05 19:49:49 -> Mar 05 19:49:59 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:50:22 Of course, if you were to, say, build a station underground, the cost of doing that would be more expensive per unit of height than doing the same above ground. Mar 05 19:50:37 Shouldn't necessarily be a fixed price per unit of height. ~ Mar 05 19:50:42 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 19:50:50 <+Steve^> I don't think he meant that. Mar 05 19:51:02 => Mar 05 19:51:27 <+Steve^> I think we can do the change in height costs easily, as a levetated stations would need something to sit on anyway. Extra calculations for escalators probaly isn't necessary. ~ Mar 05 19:51:28 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 19:51:42 -> Mar 05 19:52:04 I meant that on top of the cost for pilars, stations has to pay Mar 05 19:52:40 for the cost of escalators or such which depends on the distance from ground level.~ Mar 05 19:52:48 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:53:02 I'm just saying that the difference in cost differences between, say, 1m vs. 2m and 10m vs. 11m don't necessarily have to be the same. Mar 05 19:53:22 It's not necessarily going to be a linear system of computing the cost associated with building a station that's not at ground level. ~ Mar 05 19:53:30 <+Steve^> Ok. Mar 05 19:53:59 <+Steve^> Anyone against Hyr's system, where you get warnings and such when your about to knock down some buildings? ~ Mar 05 19:54:07 -> Mar 05 19:54:11 -> Mar 05 19:54:12 <+Steve^> jfs ~ Mar 05 19:54:33 imo it shouldn't even be allowed to remove town buildings for any reason Mar 05 19:54:40 ~ Mar 05 19:54:43 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:54:46 I think it's a good idea, but players should have the option of turning it off if they don't like it. It might annoy some players. Mar 05 19:54:56 <+Steve^> ! Mar 05 19:54:56 For that matter, being able to demolish town buildings should be an option too. ~ Mar 05 19:55:08 <+Steve^> Why would a warning be annoying? ~ Mar 05 19:55:15 -> Mar 05 19:55:17 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:55:23 Because some players won't care about the havoc they're wreaking. :) ~ Mar 05 19:55:55 <+Steve^> I think it's best to incorperate it into the planning mode, so they will see the cost of destruction like normal. ~ Mar 05 19:56:00 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 19:56:09 <+Steve^> Destruction of buildings: Mar 05 19:56:40 <+Steve^> I think not letting you destroy ANY buildings is far too restrictive. Otherwise, once a city is set up, you couldn't do anything inside the town. Mar 05 19:56:45 -> Mar 05 19:56:50 Being a very complicated person who likes very complicated games, I would say you need to buy the area from the bank or respective area then able to demolish the ones you want, and then sell em back. Mar 05 19:56:54 <+Steve^> Buildings get knocked down everyday so new ones can go up ~ Mar 05 19:57:05 <+Steve^> Born_Acorn... Read the meeting rules. ~ Mar 05 19:57:06 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:57:09 It should be a function of the player's rating in the town as to what they can demolish, if anything. Mar 05 19:57:23 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 19:57:25 Then again, the method by which we can determine if you can knock buildings down could be a difficulty setting... Mar 05 19:57:42 e.g. have an option of all building knockdowns, one as a function of local rating, and one not at all. ~ Mar 05 19:57:54 -> Mar 05 19:58:02 <+Steve^> I was thinking that some buildings would be easier to knockdown than others. A derelict building would be easy to knockdown, as the town wants you to replace it. ~ Mar 05 19:58:04 <+Steve^> jfs ~ Mar 05 19:58:17 -> Mar 05 19:58:44 it should be easier to knock down newer buildings, especially those close to the edge of the town, if anything Mar 05 19:58:54 i can't argue why that would be good though, it's just a hunch :P ~ Mar 05 19:59:04 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 19:59:06 So then individual buildings might have a "value to town" rating by which it determines how much of a rating the town would need to have of you in order to do anything with it and what the effect on the town's rating of you would be by demolishing it Mar 05 19:59:19 e.g. if you're coming in and knocking down all the derelict buildings, your rating goes up. Mar 05 19:59:35 But if you come in and level several city blocks of high quality office buildings your rating tanks. ~ Mar 05 19:59:39 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 19:59:52 <+Steve^> Rating shouldn't go up from destroying stuff Mar 05 19:59:56 -> Mar 05 20:00:11 <+Steve^> As you could just destroy it, leave all the homeless people homelesser, and go away ~ Mar 05 20:00:12 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:00:27 But what if the town _really_ doesn't want it anymore? They would appreciate your cleaning up, say, a garbage dump or a perennial fire hazard. :) ~ Mar 05 20:00:54 <+Steve^> That's too much micromanagement i think.. the cases that that would be true are few. Mar 05 20:01:01 -> Mar 05 20:01:13 <+Steve^> jfs, care to explain why newer buildings should be easier to demolish? ~ Mar 05 20:01:16 * Zuu_ircii (~leif@as11-4-1.ld.bonet.se) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 20:01:35 i don't know why it should be so Mar 05 20:01:46 it's just some strange idea... i can't argue for it~ Mar 05 20:01:56 <+Steve^> Ok.. Mar 05 20:01:58 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:01:59 Some players will _want_ micromanagement though. At least make it an option. ~ Mar 05 20:02:22 <+Steve^> "Let destruction raise ratings" isn't really option material. Mar 05 20:02:25 * Zuu will use Zuu_ircii becuse I cant make the text bigger in kvirc.~ Mar 05 20:02:37 <+Steve^> Lets take a quick vote. Mar 05 20:02:58 <+Steve^> Should buildings have an individual rating, showing how the town will react to the destrcution of such a building? ~ Mar 05 20:03:05 ! Yes. ~ Mar 05 20:03:14 yes~ Mar 05 20:03:17 <+Steve^> Yes ~ Mar 05 20:03:18 Dont care~ Mar 05 20:03:37 <+Steve^> Ok, so Yes it is. ~ Mar 05 20:04:14 <+Steve^> Anyone against us incorperating warnings for building destruction into planning mode? ~ Mar 05 20:04:29 ! I support the warnings. ~ Mar 05 20:04:32 good idea imo~ Mar 05 20:04:36 <+Steve^> Me three. ~ Mar 05 20:04:46 * Zuu_ircii is for. Mar 05 20:05:48 <+Steve^> Everyone agree that stations above/below towns will need extra costs for facilites? Can we just equate them into normal construction costs for the bridge, tunnel or hill the station is built on? Mar 05 20:05:50 <+Steve^> ~ Mar 05 20:05:59 <+Steve^> I agree. Yes. ~ Mar 05 20:06:05 ! Probably. ~ Mar 05 20:06:18 facilities would just be part of the usual costs~ Mar 05 20:06:20 -> Mar 05 20:06:36 <+Steve^> Zuu? Mar 05 20:06:56 I think it is ok to~ Mar 05 20:07:01 <+Steve^> jfs ? Mar 05 20:07:03 what about maintenance costs? would they also depend on height/depth? Mar 05 20:07:04 ~ Mar 05 20:07:11 -> Mar 05 20:07:14 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:07:21 That would just be part of the normal maintenance cost of the bridge/tunnel. ~ Mar 05 20:07:33 -> Mar 05 20:07:36 <+Steve^> I agree with Grunt_ Mar 05 20:07:39 <+Steve^> jfs ~ Mar 05 20:08:08 well but if we have "facilities" as a hidden part of the construction cost, surely they should also be part of the maintenance cost? Mar 05 20:08:20 -> Mar 05 20:08:22 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:08:45 which would mean that a high station with facilities would need a higher cost than just a bridge which doesn't have any Mar 05 20:08:45 ~ Mar 05 20:08:59 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:09:01 That would be part of the maintenance cost of the station, not of the bridge/tunnel, would it not? ~ Mar 05 20:09:10 <+Steve^> Steve^ Mar 05 20:09:13 ! true~ Mar 05 20:09:20 ! I don't think you need to recognise yourself :) ~ Mar 05 20:09:29 <+Steve^> I think that the costs can easily be included in bridge/station maintenence. Mar 05 20:09:49 <+Steve^> The actual costs of building a staircase is probaly too small to care about. Mar 05 20:09:50 => Mar 05 20:09:55 <+Steve^> And maybe too much micromanagement. ~ Mar 05 20:09:58 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 20:10:00 -> Mar 05 20:10:14 * L (TheLBot@lightweight.quakenet.org) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 20:10:14 * blueyonder1.uk.quakenet.org sets modes [#transportempire +o L] Mar 05 20:10:15 * Prof_Frink has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer) Mar 05 20:10:19 <+Steve^> hey ChrisCF ~ Mar 05 20:10:22 <@ChrisCF> hello all Mar 05 20:10:23 I just want that it should be not too cheep to build stations on pilars or underground. ~ Mar 05 20:10:42 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Keep going for a minute, need to catch scrollback Mar 05 20:10:49 <+Steve^> Will do. ~ Mar 05 20:11:01 <+Steve^> I don't think anyone is saying it will be cheap :) Mar 05 20:11:03 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:11:06 ...but some players _like_ micromanagement! :) Mar 05 20:11:09 And no, it won't be cheap. Mar 05 20:11:13 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:11:24 Just like it won't be cheap to build tracks in tunnels or on bridges. ~ Mar 05 20:11:35 <+Steve^> Some people do... but most people don't. Mar 05 20:11:42 -> Mar 05 20:12:04 <+Steve^> Ultimately, we shouldn't make a complex system, if a simple person can't understand it. Plus it's extra programming. ~ Mar 05 20:12:06 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:12:07 I still think it would be advisable to provide some of the micromanagerial aspects as optional parts of gameplay. ~ Mar 05 20:12:20 -> Mar 05 20:12:22 <+Steve^> There may be aspects. But not everywhere. Mar 05 20:12:24 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:12:29 Actually, I suppose that those that really care about it can code it themselves. :) ~ Mar 05 20:12:36 <+Steve^> :) ~ Mar 05 20:12:45 <+Steve^> Anything else on this topic? ~ Mar 05 20:12:51 ! Not that I can think of. ~ Mar 05 20:13:04 => Mar 05 20:13:09 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 20:13:14 What did we agree on for maintaince? Mar 05 20:13:18 -> Mar 05 20:13:24 <+Steve^> What my vote was i think. Mar 05 20:13:25 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 20:13:46 The maintenance costs will just be split between normal station and tunnel/bridge maintenance costs, if I understand correctly. ~ Mar 05 20:14:00 <+Steve^> Yea. ~ Mar 05 20:14:17 <+Steve^> I will now pass the Chair to ChrisCF Mar 05 20:14:29 * ChrisCF drops everything to catch it Mar 05 20:14:35 <+Steve^> Going back to 1. and then to 2.2. And perhaps a brief stop about #tempire ~ Mar 05 20:14:48 <+Steve^> I am going to get some cake. ~ Mar 05 20:14:51 <@ChrisCF> OK. Point 1 was labelled "Project structure" Mar 05 20:14:54 ! Bon appetit. :) ~ Mar 05 20:15:43 <@ChrisCF> Thje background is all the fuss in #tempire over the last few weeks which came to a head in the last couple of days, which meant I have had to bring this forward a little Mar 05 20:17:26 <@ChrisCF> Evan, aka Metalcore, with his rather minor role, seemed reluctant to pass on the channel ownership to anyone with a closer role in the project, and felt that I should no longer be opped due to banning his annoying bot all the time. Mar 05 20:17:43 <@ChrisCF> But that is secondary, and only the reason why we're in a different channel. The body of the idea is as follows: Mar 05 20:18:52 >Grunt_< Mmmm chocolate. Mar 05 20:18:54 <@ChrisCF> At the moment, the "structure" is more or less "Here's a bunch of people working on the design, we've got some guy in charge, and someone else ready to lead the coding, and that's about it." There's also not very much info for newcomers to the project other than "Hey, welcome. Just, sit around for a bit and pick things up as you go." Mar 05 20:19:15 <@ChrisCF> Any questions before I continue? Mar 05 20:19:17 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:19:26 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:19:26 no~ Mar 05 20:19:27 <@ChrisCF> (This is going to be pretty long and wordy) Mar 05 20:19:30 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:19:34 <+Steve^> Well, as you know, i am a relative newcomer Mar 05 20:19:51 <+Steve^> And i hold myself partially resposible for the surg of things getting done :) Mar 05 20:19:59 <+Steve^> It wasn't too hard. The FRD filled me in... Mar 05 20:20:00 <+Steve^> ~ Mar 05 20:20:05 -> Mar 05 20:20:09 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:20:16 Yes, the FRD will get the idea across to most people new to the project Mar 05 20:20:20 It certainly did for me. ~ Mar 05 20:20:27 * Born_Acorn has quit (Quit: ( www.nnscript.de :: NoNameScript 3.81 :: www.XLhost.de )) Mar 05 20:20:32 -> Mar 05 20:20:36 <@ChrisCF> jfs: Mar 05 20:20:38 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 20:21:04 but after the DD has been written, i had the idea that the FRD would be scrapped Mar 05 20:21:11 -> Mar 05 20:21:18 -> Mar 05 20:21:20 but i suppose the DD would somewhat be an entire replacement then~ Mar 05 20:21:51 <@ChrisCF> My concern isn't so much people finding information, but a combination of finding information, using it, and then finding an appropriate point of contact afterwards. Mar 05 20:23:54 <@ChrisCF> (sorry for the delay) ~ Mar 05 20:23:57 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:23:58 The FRD is still effectively the sum total of what we've managed to do with the project at the moment. Once the DD gets underway it'll serve that purpose and the FRD will be obsolete. At least, that's the way I see it. Mar 05 20:24:12 I also think that the wiki holds a lot of the supporting information of the type you describe people as looking for Mar 05 20:24:16 e.g. contact information Mar 05 20:24:19 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:24:24 -> Mar 05 20:24:29 ...it certainly holds enough information to show people how to get more information. ~ Mar 05 20:24:32 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:24:36 I think it is good that you have broght this up. ~ Mar 05 20:24:44 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:24:54 <+Steve^> I would suggest reorginazing the wiki. The meeting rules aren't on the main page. (last time i checked) ~ Mar 05 20:24:58 -> Mar 05 20:25:03 <@ChrisCF> jfs: Mar 05 20:25:10 agree, i have a hard time finding almost anything on the wiki~ Mar 05 20:25:14 -> Mar 05 20:25:20 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:25:25 A lot of those issues will be solved if we decide to move over to an actual non-wiki website. Mar 05 20:25:37 Then again, if we reorganise the wiki it could serve as our actual website. :) ~ Mar 05 20:25:42 -> Mar 05 20:25:43 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:26:07 I was thinking that during the time when some of us will make the DD, the rest can do things like fixing the wiki, and maybe a home page Mar 05 20:26:20 <+Steve^> ->> Mar 05 20:26:25 . Comon space for minutes etc.~ Mar 05 20:26:29 <@ChrisCF> jfs: Mar 05 20:26:32 can i suggest that someone makes an actual TOC for the wiki? at least for the main pages... ~ Mar 05 20:26:35 <+Steve^> And some nice, non-breaking, forums :) ~ Mar 05 20:26:38 <+Steve^> SOrry! ~ Mar 05 20:26:55 <@ChrisCF> Lucky about the ~ there Mar 05 20:27:23 <@ChrisCF> Now, I thought about dividing the project roughly three ways: Mar 05 20:27:44 ! afk for a min Mar 05 20:28:13 ! suggestion for mainpage http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/New_main_page~ Mar 05 20:28:14 <@ChrisCF> 1. Code-related Mar 05 20:28:27 <@ChrisCF> 2. Technical, but not code Mar 05 20:28:30 <@ChrisCF> 3. Non-technical Mar 05 20:28:54 ! back~ Mar 05 20:29:20 <@ChrisCF> 1 contains the obvious, 2 deals with things like standards, usability, i18n, etc. and 3 covers things like doc writing, wiki maintenance, welcome wagon, etc. Mar 05 20:29:40 => Mar 05 20:29:43 <@ChrisCF> Does this sound like a sensible set of top-level categories? Mar 05 20:29:47 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:29:55 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:30:01 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:30:09 <+Steve^> <- Mar 05 20:30:10 Where will content cration go (3d models music etc.)~ Mar 05 20:30:13 * Steve^ says yes ~ Mar 05 20:30:22 -> Mar 05 20:30:31 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:30:33 That would be covered under non-technical. ~ Mar 05 20:30:40 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 20:31:15 <@ChrisCF> I'm not sure myself. Actual building of the models might be non-code technical, though the music might be non-technical. ~ Mar 05 20:31:51 -> Mar 05 20:31:55 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:32:07 what about creating a section for content creations? Mar 05 20:32:09 ~ Mar 05 20:32:28 -> Mar 05 20:32:41 <@ChrisCF> That sounds fine, but then there's the next little detail to deal with ... Mar 05 20:32:45 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:32:48 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 20:32:57 So then instead of having a non-technical section, we'd have a content section and something along the lines of an "other" section Mar 05 20:33:05 (can't be bothered to think of a name for them right now) ~ Mar 05 20:34:07 <@ChrisCF> Maybe. The little detail was that each of the top level sections would have a person-in-charge. Those people would be able to deal with issues entirely in their category. Mar 05 20:34:25 -> Mar 05 20:34:49 <@ChrisCF> So, e.g. the person in charge of the code can arrange their own meeting for thrashing out code, etc., without having to put these things to the entire project, unless they can't resolve it themselves. ~ Mar 05 20:34:54 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:35:09 Lets say content => non-technical as ChrisCF said.~ Mar 05 20:35:54 -> Mar 05 20:36:13 <@ChrisCF> I'd have no issue with a line for content, but we'd have to decide on someone to lead that particular section "on the board". Mar 05 20:36:16 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:36:19 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:36:48 Well after thinking I think it might fit better with i18n and such. Mar 05 20:36:58 <+Steve^> ! Mar 05 20:37:14 So I don't know where we should put it~ Mar 05 20:37:14 <@ChrisCF> Hold there. Steve? Mar 05 20:37:17 <+Steve^> What's i18n (in 15 words or less)? Mar 05 20:37:23 <+Steve^> ~ Mar 05 20:37:37 <@ChrisCF> "internationalisation" - making the software usable in different languages Mar 05 20:37:51 <@ChrisCF> (i-18 letters-n) Mar 05 20:37:54 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:38:15 <@ChrisCF> paired with "localisation" (l10n), which is actually making it available in a specific language. ~ Mar 05 20:38:18 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:38:21 <+Steve^> I'm for this structure. I'd suggest making forums with the seperate sections, so it's clear what's going on where. ~ Mar 05 20:39:06 <@ChrisCF> New forums might be an option when the structure is distinct, and we've got enough material that it needs to be separated. ~ Mar 05 20:40:04 <@ChrisCF> Based on the lay of the land right now, I would suggest Hellfire to lead on code, me to lead on non-code tech, and Hyronymus to lead on non-tech. Any other nominations? ~ Mar 05 20:40:43 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:40:59 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:41:05 <+Steve^> Don't you need someone at the top? To overview the 3 categories? Like a Pope to his bishops. ~ Mar 05 20:41:17 <+Steve^> (probaly a frightfully bad example) Mar 05 20:41:28 -> Mar 05 20:41:32 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:41:47 I know that having someone up on top would help to facilitate communication between the three branches. Mar 05 20:41:47 ~ Mar 05 20:42:14 <@ChrisCF> Some might have spotted when I mentioned earlier on "all the Mar 05 20:43:10 <@ChrisCF> I mean "on the board". The three "heads" would work closely on directing the project, much as happens now. Having a person on top would realy be only a figurehead, ... Mar 05 20:43:29 -> Mar 05 20:43:45 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:44:16 <@ChrisCF> since the idea would be that the three branches could work independently - each branch would of course be responsible for keeping the others informed on what's going on. Mar 05 20:44:20 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:44:22 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:44:23 Well, we can see if and how this will work without having an overall head of project. If it does work, we carry on with it. If it doesn't, we pick someone to serve that role. ~ Mar 05 20:44:53 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:44:54 <+Steve^> I was thinking those leaders might be too involved for that. I see them as doing the job, like their underlings, but reporting on it. But i agree with the Grunt. ~ Mar 05 20:46:55 * Steve^ pokes ChrisCF Mar 05 20:47:08 <@ChrisCF> Anyone else have anything to say? Mar 05 20:47:17 no~ Mar 05 20:47:23 ! No. ~ Mar 05 20:47:29 <+Steve^> Yes. No. ~ Mar 05 20:48:09 -> Mar 05 20:48:13 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:48:48 Maybve we should ask Hyronymus first, before we choose him as Leader for group 3 (non-techincal) Mar 05 20:48:50 ~ Mar 05 20:50:32 <@ChrisCF> In my view, it would be only formalising what he already doe around the place, and he's one of the people to whom we owe the current state of the project. Though I agree that he should have final say on whether he takes that position. ~ Mar 05 20:50:50 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:50:54 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:50:54 <+Steve^> Next! ~ Mar 05 20:50:56 ! I agree with you.~ Mar 05 20:51:26 <@ChrisCF> OK? On we go. Which discussions haven't we started yet? 2.2? Mar 05 20:51:38 <+Steve^> We did 2.1, that's it. But we did it good! ~ Mar 05 20:52:05 <@ChrisCF> As a guide, I'm looking to wrap this up in rather less than the normal 3 hours, so let's go. Mar 05 20:52:15 <@ChrisCF> 2.2 [RFD] Constructing roads Mar 05 20:52:32 <@ChrisCF> Anyone want to start? Mar 05 20:52:34 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:53:05 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:53:10 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:53:26 <+Steve^> Roads in a city should be city owned. That may also mean the city "stealing" roads it finds as it expands. ~ Mar 05 20:54:14 <@ChrisCF> Outside of a town? Mar 05 20:54:15 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 20:54:19 -> Mar 05 20:54:23 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 20:54:27 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:54:33 Well, I suppose cities could build their own inter-city routes if they really wanted to Mar 05 20:54:33 but Mar 05 20:54:42 most roads outside of cities will be owned by the transport companies. ~ Mar 05 20:54:52 -> Mar 05 20:54:58 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 20:55:05 <+Steve^> oi! Mar 05 20:55:08 <@ChrisCF> oops Mar 05 20:55:09 Will random maps have roads between cities?~ Mar 05 20:55:13 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:55:22 <+Steve^> I agree that towns can build their own roads. Mar 05 20:55:24 <@ChrisCF> (won't happen again) Mar 05 20:55:46 <+Steve^> Outside towns, people can choose to have their roads only accept their own trucks, but others could use it for a fee Mar 05 20:56:11 <+Steve^> And i see no reason why random maps wouldn't have them. As they have airports and stuff too. ~ Mar 05 20:56:56 <@ChrisCF> Not sure what timescale we're using, but remember that in the early days of railways, in many cases the railways were constructed before roads were firmly laid. ~ Mar 05 20:57:29 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 20:57:31 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 20:57:39 <+Steve^> Is it worth discussing road stations here too? ~ Mar 05 20:58:05 ! why not?~ Mar 05 20:58:16 <@ChrisCF> Might as well. ~ Mar 05 20:58:17 <+Steve^> If yes -> Mar 05 20:58:22 <@ChrisCF> Go for it Mar 05 20:58:30 <+Steve^> We can have several types: Mar 05 20:58:44 <+Steve^> Stops: For buses, no full load orders. Drop off, pick up, go Mar 05 20:59:09 <+Steve^> Terminals: Off the side of the road. Bit like TTD. Although, if we have a really flexible system they'd just be: Mar 05 20:59:35 <+Steve^> Side thingy (give me a name). Seperate road off the main road. A bit like a petrol station works. ~ Mar 05 21:00:21 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 21:00:37 <+Steve^> ChrisCF ~ Mar 05 21:00:47 <@ChrisCF> Why, thank you Steve^. Mar 05 21:00:50 <@ChrisCF> :) Mar 05 21:01:35 <@ChrisCF> Perhaps we should look at systems similar to TT, except with separate entrances. Mar 05 21:01:56 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:02:03 <@ChrisCF> In addition. Ultimately, it would be down to model builders to provide "extra" designs on top of what we supply as standard. ~ Mar 05 21:02:07 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:02:13 <+Steve^> I think we should look at real life systems. And systems which are cool to watch. ~ Mar 05 21:02:52 <@ChrisCF> Cool to watch is always a nice bonus to have :) Mar 05 21:03:20 -> Mar 05 21:03:23 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:03:29 Just make sure we don't put that above functionality. :) ~ Mar 05 21:03:30 -> Mar 05 21:03:35 <@ChrisCF> True. Zuu_ircii Mar 05 21:04:22 If city roads are placed in the center of cells, and the rest is free. Why not use the extra space becides a 2 lane road for stops. And for 4 lae roads have the stops at the outer lanes. This way a company that builds a stop cant block the traffic on public roads. Alltroght on a 4 lane road the traffic will be a bit hindered. Mar 05 21:04:33 ~ Mar 05 21:05:26 <@ChrisCF> Sounds sensible. Indented bus bays where space allows. Only pathing may be an issue there, but that can be dealt with later. Mar 05 21:05:30 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 21:05:45 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:05:53 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:05:56 <+Steve^> What about cycle lanes? We must think of the cyclists! ~ Mar 05 21:06:04 -> Mar 05 21:06:09 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 21:06:10 Those can be at the side of the roads. :) ~ Mar 05 21:06:11 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:06:17 ! oops. ~ Mar 05 21:06:20 <@ChrisCF> Bit pre-emptive there :) Mar 05 21:06:36 -> Mar 05 21:06:47 <@ChrisCF> Indeed we must think of the cyclists. Must make sure the buses hit them hard when they swing around the roundabouts :) Mar 05 21:06:50 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 21:06:50 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 21:06:55 We should not care about cycle lines.~ Mar 05 21:07:09 -> Mar 05 21:07:11 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:07:14 Except as a visual quirk, maybe. ~ Mar 05 21:07:32 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:07:36 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:07:43 <+Steve^> I was being Sarcastic. ~ Mar 05 21:07:57 <@ChrisCF> nATURE: Mar 05 21:08:02 <@ChrisCF> Curse my capslok key Mar 05 21:08:12 * Steve^ curses ChrisCF's capslock key Mar 05 21:08:13 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: you have the floor for a couple of minutes Mar 05 21:08:18 <+Steve^> Sweet Mar 05 21:08:22 <+Steve^> What about the walls? ~ Mar 05 21:08:29 ! I claim the ceiling. ~ Mar 05 21:08:45 ! order plz~ Mar 05 21:08:46 <+Steve^> Good luck holding it up.. i got the walls too. ~ Mar 05 21:08:52 * jfs rushes to the sound system~ Mar 05 21:09:00 <+Steve^> Anyone against us closing this road topic thing? ~ Mar 05 21:09:07 for~ Mar 05 21:09:10 -> Mar 05 21:09:10 ! Carry on. ~ Mar 05 21:09:15 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 21:09:19 What is decided? ~ Mar 05 21:09:33 <+Steve^> Well... Mar 05 21:09:40 -> Mar 05 21:09:47 <+Steve^> Inside a city, all roads are owned by the city. Mar 05 21:09:55 <- Mar 05 21:10:16 <+Steve^> Outside, cities may build their own routes between towns. Player's roads can be solo or shared (for extra cash). Mar 05 21:10:31 <+Steve^> We have several types of station. Mar 05 21:10:53 <+Steve^> Bus stops can be idented if space to make it look nice and pretty. Mar 05 21:11:06 -> Mar 05 21:11:07 <+Steve^> And ChrisCF has a sadistic problem with bicyclists. Mar 05 21:11:09 <+Steve^> Grunt_ ~ Mar 05 21:11:12 And not to block traffic, of course. ;) ~ Mar 05 21:11:25 <+Steve^> Oh yea.. traffic... sure. Mar 05 21:11:27 <+Steve^> Next! Mar 05 21:11:32 ! Agreed. ~ Mar 05 21:11:41 * Steve^ closed his agenda d'oh Mar 05 21:11:53 <@ChrisCF> Thanks Steve^ Mar 05 21:11:59 <+Steve^> 2.3 [RFD] Trams Mar 05 21:12:06 <+Steve^> Over to you Chris-o! ~ Mar 05 21:12:36 <@ChrisCF> That reminds me - are we going to add traffic for visual effect? Quick poll, yes/no. Mar 05 21:12:49 no~ Mar 05 21:12:54 <+Steve^> I would like yes. But will accept no if it's too hard to do. ~ Mar 05 21:12:57 Yes, but only as an option. ~ Mar 05 21:13:05 No~ Mar 05 21:13:09 <+Steve^> Yes, as long as it isn't an option! ~ Mar 05 21:13:40 <@ChrisCF> I'm going to add a no, to make it 3-2. Mar 05 21:13:52 <@ChrisCF> Now then, trams Mar 05 21:15:24 -> Mar 05 21:15:36 <@ChrisCF> Scanning the thread, it seems like most people seem to be agreed that while they have to obey the traffic rules (stopping behind buses), they run more-or-less like any other vehicle. ~ Mar 05 21:15:40 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:15:52 yes, that's about the sum of it. ~ Mar 05 21:16:03 -> Mar 05 21:16:07 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:16:07 <- Mar 05 21:16:11 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:16:16 <+Steve^> They should stop behind cyclists too. ~ Mar 05 21:16:21 -> Mar 05 21:16:38 <@ChrisCF> Move to kick steve if he mentions cyclists again? ;) Mar 05 21:16:40 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:16:41 I disagree. Cyclists are not the problem of the trams. :) ~ Mar 05 21:16:50 ! (sorry :) ~ Mar 05 21:17:08 * ChrisCF kicks Steve^ in the shin Mar 05 21:17:15 <+Steve^> Oooof Mar 05 21:17:50 -> Mar 05 21:17:55 <@ChrisCF> The only thing which I think is missing, looking at the thread, is a decision on the following: Mar 05 21:18:04 <@ChrisCF> which I wil hold back for Zuu_ircii to speak Mar 05 21:18:41 Should Trams just be trains on road that are labled trams or hard coded "Trams". Mar 05 21:18:54 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:18:54 I think the first.~ Mar 05 21:19:01 -> Mar 05 21:19:07 <@ChrisCF> That was along the lines of what I was going to poll people for. Mar 05 21:19:21 ! sorry~ Mar 05 21:19:33 <@ChrisCF> Don't be. It's an important-ish point. Mar 05 21:20:00 <@ChrisCF> Trams can run on: Mar 05 21:20:09 <+Steve^> ->> Mar 05 21:20:10 <@ChrisCF> A. Light rails only. Mar 05 21:20:29 <@ChrisCF> B. Light rails and normal rails Mar 05 21:20:40 <@ChrisCF> C. Light rails, build into roads only. Mar 05 21:20:56 <@ChrisCF> Before we vote, I'll hear things from people that are waiting Mar 05 21:20:59 <@ChrisCF> Steve #1 Mar 05 21:21:09 <+Steve^> Hard coded trams. Trains can't run down roads. And wouldn't stop for vehicles. (Or cyclists) Mar 05 21:21:24 <+Steve^> That's it. I just wanted to say it before the vote. ~ Mar 05 21:21:27 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:21:28 I see trams being as trains, but make sure there's engines that are specifically suited to the task. The local authority won't be very happy when a full scale high speed engine demolishes all the local traffic ;) Mar 05 21:21:41 Also note that most trains can't run on the light rail tracks that you'll need to be able to do this ~ Mar 05 21:21:53 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:22:00 <@ChrisCF> That didn't stop them doing it in Weymouth. Steve^ Mar 05 21:22:17 <+Steve^> Only certain trains can do each job. So why not just keep them seperate for simplicity? ~ Mar 05 21:22:25 -> Mar 05 21:22:41 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:22:43 Because I think tram engines should still be able to run on normal rails. ~ Mar 05 21:22:50 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:22:53 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:23:07 -> Mar 05 21:23:19 <+Steve^> Signalling. Road doesn't have signals like track. So trams need to respond to 2 sets of signalling, which would be confusing. ~ Mar 05 21:23:50 <@ChrisCF> -> Mar 05 21:23:52 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 21:23:53 I agree with Grunt_. + that I am not sure if it will be simpier.~ Mar 05 21:25:04 <@ChrisCF> Trams signals tend to be the same as traffic signalling. They will indicate the lay of the points, and whether it's clear to proceed, however, trams run at low speeds, so they tend to be allowed to run up behind each other. Mar 05 21:25:12 <@ChrisCF> Now, to take the vote above. ~ Mar 05 21:25:19 <@ChrisCF> To recap: Mar 05 21:25:25 <@ChrisCF> Trams should run on: Mar 05 21:25:28 <@ChrisCF> A. Light rails only. Mar 05 21:25:33 <@ChrisCF> B. Light rails and normal rails Mar 05 21:25:38 <@ChrisCF> C. Light rails, build into roads only. Mar 05 21:25:50 <@ChrisCF> Your votes please ~ Mar 05 21:25:52 ! I vote B, as I've already establised. :) ~ Mar 05 21:25:53 A ~ Mar 05 21:26:04 <+Steve^> A, if that's C+off road ~ Mar 05 21:26:27 (my vote on the same condition as steve's~) Mar 05 21:26:43 <@ChrisCF> A is indeed C + light rails not built into road Mar 05 21:26:47 B or A~ Mar 05 21:26:55 <@ChrisCF> So that's 2A, 1B Mar 05 21:27:06 <@ChrisCF> I'm voting B, based on tram systems that I've seen Mar 05 21:27:52 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: I would ask you to make up your mind, but since either way we remove C, and get a 3-2 result, this is still undecided. Mar 05 21:28:02 B~ Mar 05 21:28:16 <@ChrisCF> Fine. 3-2 to B, but no final decision. Mar 05 21:28:28 <@ChrisCF> But at least C is out of the running. Mar 05 21:28:55 <@ChrisCF> Which now makes this "Do trams run also on normal rails? Yes/No", with 3-2 against. Mar 05 21:29:05 <@ChrisCF> I lie. It's 3-2 for. Mar 05 21:29:09 <+Steve^> C was silly anyway :) ~ Mar 05 21:29:43 -> Mar 05 21:29:46 <@ChrisCF> Are we all agreed on the new interpretation of the current vote? Mar 05 21:29:49 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 21:29:55 * Prof_Frink (~Alan@cpc2-shep3-4-0-cust99.leic.cable.ntl.com) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 21:29:55 * Prof_Frink has quit (Registered) Mar 05 21:29:55 * Prof_Frink (~Alan@ProfFrink.users.quakenet.org) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 21:30:00 Anything else need to be done before we move on (besides this new agreement)? ~ Mar 05 21:30:08 ! (I agree, incidentally.) ~ Mar 05 21:30:48 <@ChrisCF> Not really. Since we didn't get a 2/3 majority, we have to take it to a dev forum poll, and then to a gen forum poll if that doesn't resolve it. Mar 05 21:30:58 <@ChrisCF> And hibyehi to Prof_Frink. Mar 05 21:31:04 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:31:11 boioing! Mar 05 21:31:12 <+Steve^> Next! ~ Mar 05 21:31:23 <@ChrisCF> 2.4 [RFD] How are docks constructed Mar 05 21:32:05 <+Steve^> H. ~ Mar 05 21:32:26 <@ChrisCF> Any objections to accepting that as the result? Mar 05 21:32:29 * orudge has quit (Ping timeout) Mar 05 21:32:32 ! No objection. ~ Mar 05 21:32:55 ! No ~ Mar 05 21:33:06 * orudge (orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org) has joined #transportempire Mar 05 21:33:11 <@ChrisCF> H passed then. Mar 05 21:33:47 <@ChrisCF> As was raised in the forum topic, we have another 4 RFDs to deal with before moving on to the lone FRDF, so here we go. Mar 05 21:33:59 <+Steve^> :o Mar 05 21:34:08 <@ChrisCF> [RFD] Finding routes & services Mar 05 21:35:41 -> Mar 05 21:35:45 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 21:36:04 Shall we use PJayTycys quiestion form?~ Mar 05 21:36:46 ! begining with 1) At what frequency should new passengers be created? ~ Mar 05 21:37:02 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:37:07 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:37:15 <+Steve^> I vote 1) be dismissed at it isn't relevant at this time. Mar 05 21:37:21 <+Steve^> We have no idea how fast the game will run. ~ Mar 05 21:37:31 ! agree~ Mar 05 21:37:55 <@ChrisCF> Might as well. The floor is open (no ->'s) for people to vote on those under heading 2 on that post. ~ Mar 05 21:38:05 <@ChrisCF> Votes only. Mar 05 21:38:15 <+Steve^> http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/index.php?t=archives&date=last Mar 05 21:38:22 <+Steve^> sorry Mar 05 21:38:26 <+Steve^> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=253034#253034 Mar 05 21:38:48 <+Steve^> A. ~ Mar 05 21:39:39 Pjay: A Mar 05 21:39:42 <@ChrisCF> A. Mar 05 21:39:43 Me: A~ Mar 05 21:39:54 I don't care. ~ Mar 05 21:39:54 * Steve^ will be right back! Mar 05 21:41:04 <@ChrisCF> So that's A agreed. Mar 05 21:41:25 <@ChrisCF> Votes under heading 3 please? Mar 05 21:41:35 <@ChrisCF> 3) Do we assign them their complete route from start => finish or just drop them at a certain station ? Mar 05 21:42:03 <@ChrisCF> Put more simply: do we accept passengers who can almost but not completely finish their journey? Yes/no Mar 05 21:42:12 Pjay: a Mar 05 21:42:24 me: blank~ Mar 05 21:42:31 yes. ~ Mar 05 21:42:46 <@ChrisCF> A = no. B = yes. Mar 05 21:43:04 <@ChrisCF> Add my yes, and that's 2-1 in favour Mar 05 21:43:11 <+Steve^> wait Mar 05 21:43:34 <@ChrisCF> though if nobody else votes, I won't accept a majority out of 3 votes. Mar 05 21:43:43 <+Steve^> No, we don't accept those passengers. ~ Mar 05 21:43:57 <+Steve^> ! Mar 05 21:43:58 B Mar 05 21:43:59 ~ Mar 05 21:44:19 <@ChrisCF> Steve^? Mar 05 21:44:20 <+Steve^> Those 2 votes aren't the same thing! ~ Mar 05 21:44:54 -> Mar 05 21:45:05 <@ChrisCF> A is only accepting a passenger onto the network and counting them as moving if they can complete their journey. Mar 05 21:45:28 <- Mar 05 21:45:34 <@ChrisCF> B is accepting those that can make progress. It's safe to assume they won't join the network if they can only go 2 miles down the road out of 30 to work. Mar 05 21:45:35 wah! let me remove then. only accept passengers that can get to their destination ~ Mar 05 21:45:56 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:46:02 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:46:10 <+Steve^> We should only have passengers that can get to where they want to go, but Mar 05 21:46:17 <+Steve^> That isn't what (3) is on the forums! ~ Mar 05 21:46:51 <@ChrisCF> Ah. True Mar 05 21:46:55 <@ChrisCF> Apologies all. Mar 05 21:47:17 -> Mar 05 21:47:38 <@ChrisCF> A corrected vote: Once we know that a passenger will be using the transport network, do we assign their entire route at the start, or dynamically as they go? Yes/no (Yes = A. No = B). Mar 05 21:47:42 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 21:47:48 Can we make a new vote using the question at forums. (as it is clear) Mar 05 21:47:55 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:48:20 But, with your lat post it is quite clear. Mar 05 21:48:30 So we can use that.~ Mar 05 21:48:53 <@ChrisCF> It's not entirely clear, but I guess it's about cargo and passengers which have joined the network, rather than those that *might* join it. Mar 05 21:48:57 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:48:59 <+Steve^> I think we should use a system that jfs suggested last time. Where all routes are found, the best are selected, and they take which one comes first. Mar 05 21:49:25 <+Steve^> At each station, they would narrow down their choices, so it would be dynamic, like in B. But with some structure. ~ Mar 05 21:49:52 <@ChrisCF> The question at hand is simply if their entire route, including changes, are decided before they start travelling. Mar 05 21:50:01 <@ChrisCF> So that's a no. Mar 05 21:50:02 <+Steve^> Then, No. ~ Mar 05 21:50:05 -> Mar 05 21:50:08 <@ChrisCF> jfs: Mar 05 21:50:27 * Zuu_ircii vots blank~ Mar 05 21:50:43 <@ChrisCF> PJ votes "Yes" on this, right? Mar 05 21:50:46 if we decide the entire route before the passenger enters the network, and never changes it, we'll have a problem if a part of the route "disappears" for some reason Mar 05 21:50:54 (removed by player, crash or whatever) Mar 05 21:51:02 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 21:51:06 or if the track is changed or otherwise Mar 05 21:51:28 that's why statically decided routes can't be used at all, imo ~ Mar 05 21:51:35 ! yes PJay votes A (yes).~ Mar 05 21:51:38 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 21:51:39 <+Steve^> I agree. And it's harder for the player to tend to the customer's needs, if they start picking exact routes. ~ Mar 05 21:52:35 <@ChrisCF> That's true. I might find out that my planned train is cancelled, or very late, and choose one which arrfives earlier. Mar 05 21:52:38 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 21:53:05 <@ChrisCF> Anyone feel that allocating the route statically has anything going for it, or shall we reject it now? Mar 05 21:53:08 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 21:53:17 <+Steve^> ! Gunna make a quick drawing to show the idea ~ Mar 05 21:53:50 static routes has the advantage of less cpu usage~ Mar 05 21:54:42 -> Mar 05 21:54:58 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 21:55:34 Better routes might be selected if we do the full pathfinding when the passenger/cargo is created, than on the fly.~ Mar 05 21:56:30 -> Mar 05 21:57:20 Such as weighting more things in, like travel time number of changes etc. ~ Mar 05 22:00:36 * Steve^ watchs some tumbleweed float by Mar 05 22:01:05 -> Mar 05 22:01:23 <@ChrisCF> That was strange. Power in the how spiked off for a moment. Mar 05 22:01:31 <@ChrisCF> Grunt_: Mar 05 22:01:37 I get the feeling that this is something that we're not going to be able to decide in the context of the meeting... ~ Mar 05 22:02:28 <+Steve^> I feel that too. But i am one with the force. ~ Mar 05 22:03:24 ! back soon...~ Mar 05 22:04:49 <@ChrisCF> So, postpone that part? Mar 05 22:04:51 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 22:04:59 <+Steve^> I'll make a post in a few mins Mar 05 22:05:04 <+Steve^> Leave it till next time. ~ Mar 05 22:05:08 <+Steve^> -> <- Mar 05 22:05:30 <@ChrisCF> As much as I hate to have to end things, shall we close now, and leave the few remaining points for next time? Mar 05 22:06:07 ~! back~ Mar 05 22:06:09 -> Mar 05 22:06:14 <+Steve^> Zuu ~ Mar 05 22:06:22 >ChrisCF< =) Mar 05 22:06:26 Just in time for biscuits Mar 05 22:06:37 There's not many custard creams left Mar 05 22:06:39 Maybe we shall leave this for the codeers team to decide.~ Mar 05 22:07:50 <@ChrisCF> Anyone object to finishing up now, dividing up the bisuits between you, and deciding on the next meeting time? Mar 05 22:07:53 <@ChrisCF> ~ Mar 05 22:08:33 <+Steve^> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=255408#255408 ~ Mar 05 22:08:38 ! no objections~ Mar 05 22:09:15 <+Steve^> Damn forums just died... Mar 05 22:09:30 <+Steve^> I think we have some things still to discuss ~ Mar 05 22:09:40 <+Steve^> (Meeting dates etc too) ~ Mar 05 22:10:12 <@ChrisCF> Do we want to go with next weekend or the weekend after? Mar 05 22:10:26 -> Mar 05 22:10:41 Next weekend is OK for me.~ Mar 05 22:12:49 <+Steve^> Whenever for me. ~ Mar 05 22:12:53 <+Steve^> 1930 ~ Mar 05 22:12:56 <@ChrisCF> So, same time next Saturday? Mar 05 22:12:57 -> Mar 05 22:13:01 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 22:13:17 Saturday yes please. But earlier if possible.~ Mar 05 22:13:50 <@ChrisCF> Anyone might have trouble with 1900? Mar 05 22:14:03 <+Steve^> I might. ~ Mar 05 22:14:16 It means reconfiguring my time machine... Mar 05 22:14:38 <@ChrisCF> There are worse problems, like my VNC server repeatedly dying due to 10054. Mar 05 22:14:43 <@ChrisCF> Anyway ... Mar 05 22:15:39 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 22:16:09 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 22:16:11 <+Steve^> Can we talk about about future website/wiki/forum arrangements? ~ Mar 05 22:16:22 <+Steve^> Like.. where are they going to go.. ~ Mar 05 22:16:26 -> Mar 05 22:16:38 <@ChrisCF> I suppose we can put in 5 minutes ready for next week Mar 05 22:16:39 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 22:17:10 I think that can be made by the rest of the team in paralell of wrriting the DD. Mar 05 22:17:38 Plus that I think we shall decide next meeting before taalking about anything else.~ Mar 05 22:17:53 <@ChrisCF> We have. Next Saturday, 1900 Mar 05 22:18:30 <@ChrisCF> In all fairness, for those in positive difference to GMT, we should start a little earlier for once Mar 05 22:18:42 ! 2005-03-12 @ 1900~ Mar 05 22:19:10 <@ChrisCF> Correct. ~ Mar 05 22:19:25 <@ChrisCF> If there's nothing else ...? Mar 05 22:19:37 -> Mar 05 22:19:42 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 22:19:54 <+Steve^> -> Mar 05 22:19:56 Chairman and Minute maker for next meeting.~ Mar 05 22:20:30 -> Mar 05 22:20:32 <@ChrisCF> Who here wants to chair next time? Mar 05 22:20:45 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: Mar 05 22:20:46 * Steve^ wouldn't turn it down Mar 05 22:20:53 <+Steve^> Cyclists. Cyclists. Cyclists. ~ Mar 05 22:21:05 * ChrisCF kicks Steve^ up the arse Mar 05 22:21:09 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 22:21:28 Or at least decide who is going to anounce next meeting Mar 05 22:21:33 .~ Mar 05 22:21:57 <+Steve^> I vote ChrisCF! ~ Mar 05 22:22:20 <@ChrisCF> I'll put out an email mid-week announcing it, and we can hurriedly decide on chair and secretary at the meeting when we know who's there. Mar 05 22:22:34 ! agree~ Mar 05 22:22:51 <@ChrisCF> Any objections? Mar 05 22:22:59 <@ChrisCF> No? Mar 05 22:23:12 <+Steve^> I don't object ~ Mar 05 22:23:12 -> Mar 05 22:23:18 <@ChrisCF> Zuu_ircii: Mar 05 22:23:46 Meetings should be anounced one week before, so I suggest that you anounce it asp after I have finnished the minutes.~ Mar 05 22:24:18 objection-oriented discussion~~ Mar 05 22:24:30 * Steve^ chuckles Mar 05 22:25:09 <@ChrisCF> When you've done the minutes, drop me an email chriscf at gmail dot com, and I'll make sure to get that done. Mar 05 22:25:30 ! ok. Mar 05 22:25:31 <@ChrisCF> Now I'm going to sneakily adjourn the meeting to avoid Discussion Creep :P Mar 05 22:25:35 <+Steve^> You really think someone can grab your email addy off irc? Mar 05 22:26:01 yeah, L is actually an email snatcher Mar 05 22:26:02 <@ChrisCF> Some IRC clients generate logs automatically Mar 05 22:26:29 <@ChrisCF> While he's not in right now, remember that jpl logs the channel, and will probably be logging this one too - and them posting the logs online Mar 05 22:26:45 Then he can get a new gmail from me.~ Mar 05 22:26:45 <+Steve^> True... Mar 05 22:27:53 <+Steve^> I might make EmpireBot makes logs too Mar 05 22:28:22 ! is the meeting closed?~ Mar 05 22:28:28 <@ChrisCF> It is now