21:03 <+Hellfire667> Ok. Let's get started. Meeting starts, the rules stated in http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Meeting_Rules apply as usual.
21:03 <+Hellfire667> Our agenda for today:
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 1 [FRDF] Who builds airports?
21:04 <+Hellfire667> Discussions
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 2 [RFD] Cell based, freeform or something in between ?
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 3 [RFD] Station & Industry directions (edited)
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 4 [RFD] Sharing of infrastructure
21:04 <+Hellfire667> Miscellany
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 5 AOB
21:04 <+Hellfire667> 6 Close 
21:04 <+Hellfire667> The usual chores: do we have a volunteer for minutes man? ~
21:04 < Zuu_ircii> ! no minute maker have been selected!
21:04 -!- mode/#transportempire [+o Hellfire667] by L
21:04 <+Hyronymus> I have exams coming week
21:04 <+Hyronymus> ~
21:05 <@Hellfire667> Zuu, would you mind making them again? ~
21:05 < Zuu_ircii> I would mind (a bit)~
21:05 -!- TinFoil^ [Stephen@DarkPho.users.quakenet.org] has joined #transportempire
21:05 -!- mode/#transportempire [+v TinFoil^] by L
21:05 <+Hyronymus> Steve^, our saviour~
21:06 < Zuu_ircii> But if there is noone else, I can make them.~
21:07 <@Hellfire667> Could you do it this time? Then we'll get someone else for the next time(s). ~
21:07 < Zuu_ircii> sure, I will do them.~
21:07 <@Hellfire667> Great. Let's start with the first item on the agenda:
21:07 <@Hellfire667> 1 [FRDF] Who builds airports?  ~
21:07 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:08 <@Hellfire667> Go ahead. ~
21:08 -!- Steve^ [~Stephen@DarkPho.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Ping timeout]
21:08 <+Hyronymus> is this a completely new revote on this topic?~
21:08 < Grunt_> ->
21:08 <@Hellfire667> Grunt. ~
21:08 < Grunt_> well, did we reach a conclusion with the old vote? ~
21:09 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:09 <@Hellfire667> I'm diving into the minutes. Does anyone have an answer?
21:09 <@Hellfire667> Hyr? ~
21:09 <+Hyronymus> I thought the votes weren't enough to speak of a majority~
21:09 <@Hellfire667> This means that we have to vote on the forums. ~
21:09 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:10  * TinFoil^ is back
21:10 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:10 -!- TinFoil^ [Stephen@DarkPho.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Signed off]
21:10 < Zuu_ircii> There is a vote on the forums. Cant we just sum up that vote?
21:10 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:10 -!- Steve^ [~Stephen@DarkPho.users.quakenet.org] has joined #transportempire
21:10 -!- mode/#transportempire [+v Steve^] by L
21:10 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:10 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
21:10 <+Hyronymus> please do, Zuu_ircii~
21:10 <@Hellfire667> I'll count the votes. ~
21:11 <@Hellfire667> Hmm...
21:11 <@Hellfire667> Wait a minute...
21:11 <@Hellfire667> A few meetings ago, this was decided with a more than 66% majority for option H...
21:11 <@Hellfire667> ~
21:11 < Grunt_> ->
21:11 <@Hellfire667> Grunt. ~
21:11 < Grunt_> That was last meeting, wasn't it? ~
21:12 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:12 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:12 < Zuu_ircii> Not last.~
21:12 -!- Prof_Frink is now known as Prof_Food
21:12 <+Steve^> ! Whuch is H?
21:12 < Zuu_ircii> ! http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13573
21:12 <@Hellfire667> The one before last. The one where I wrote the minutes way too late. ;) ~
21:13 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:13 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:13 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:13 < Zuu_ircii> So is there anything more to say about this pint?~
21:13 < Zuu_ircii> *point~
21:13 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667. 
21:14 <+Hyronymus> lol
21:14 <@Hellfire667> It was decided on february 26:
21:14 <@Hellfire667> 2. Airports: how is they constructed? by modules or fixed?
21:14 <@Hellfire667>     - With a 6 vs 2 vote, option H: "Players initiate, construct and own 
21:14 <@Hellfire667>       airports" was chosen.
21:14 <@Hellfire667>     - Airports outside towns can be built using the same moduled approach.
21:14 <@Hellfire667> ~
21:14 <+Steve^> ->
21:14 <@Hellfire667> stteve~
21:14 <+Steve^> I thought we decided A for inside towns?
21:14 <+Steve^> ~
21:15 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:15 <@Hellfire667> This is outside towns. ~
21:15 < Zuu_ircii> <-
21:15 <+Steve^> ->
21:15 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:15 <+Steve^> Then what are we discussing? ~
21:15 <@Hellfire667> I have no idea what ChrisCF was thinking when he put this on the agenda. I suggest moving on. Any objections? ~
21:16 < Zuu_ircii> !no~
21:16 <@Hellfire667> I take the almost-unanymous silence as no's :)
21:16 <+Hyronymus> !no~
21:16 <@Hellfire667>  [RFD] Cell based, freeform or something in between ? ~
21:16 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:17 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
21:17 <+Hyronymus> I think we should not try to invent something that not even major companies didn't dare.
21:17 <+Steve^> ->
21:17 <+Hyronymus> Let's play safe & smart and go for cellbased with as much freedom as possible~
21:17 <@Hellfire667> Steve .~
21:17 <+Steve^> What companies are you speaking of?
21:18 <+Steve^> CS? He is just stuck in the old ways.
21:18 <+Steve^> And JoWood are hardly groundbreaking. ~
21:18 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:18 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667
21:18 <@Hellfire667> I agree with Steve. I think we should shake up the sim-games world a bit.
21:19 <+Steve^> ->
21:19 <+Hyronymus> _>
21:19 <@Hellfire667> After all, Doom was a revolution after Wolfenstein, which was also limited to a grid.
21:19 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:19 <+Steve^> When coding this project, we are going to find problems.. and we'll have restrictions
21:19 <+Steve^> I think it's best to avoid restrictions now, and deal with the new exciting ones later on. Not only is it more of a challenge, it'll be a much more different and dynamic game. ~
21:20 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
21:20 <+Hyronymus> ok, that sounds fair Steve^ but I fear that when restrictions are met it will take ages before they are acknowldged
21:20 <+Hyronymus> That's beyond our interest now but I think a warning in advance won't harm~
21:21 <+Steve^> ->
21:21 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:21 <+Steve^> I agree, it should be noted when the groups are formed. ~
21:21 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:21 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:21 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:22 < Zuu_ircii> As long as construction won't be to easy
21:22 < Zuu_ircii> becuse you can do what you want, or
21:22 <+Steve^> ->
21:23 < Zuu_ircii> imposible becuse you cant place the dam track where you wnat.
21:23 < Zuu_ircii> ie somewhere between, I 
21:23 < Zuu_ircii> can accept the so called freedome model.~
21:23 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667.
21:23 <@Hellfire667> So what can we decide for now? Anyone against a vote? If restrictions are encountered, we'll take a step back.
21:23 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:23 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:24 <+Steve^> I see your point zuu, but don't think that'll be the case. Track still takes up space, it doesn't matter how it is laid out and we'll always have enough room as we'd have in a strict cell based network
21:24 <+Steve^> The main advantage would be putting track in more diections, rather than in the strict 4 diections of TTD. ~
21:24 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus ~
21:24 <+Hyronymus> I've got no problem with a vote, we need to vote sooner or later to get it into the DD~
21:25 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:25 <+Steve^> ->
21:25 <@Hellfire667> Ok, I'll make a poll then.
21:25 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:25 <+Steve^> Firstly, you want to let us speak before we vote :)
21:25 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:25 <+Steve^> Secondly, have we defiently got rif of triangular grids? ~
21:25 <+Steve^> *rid ~
21:26 <@Hellfire667> -> ->
21:26 <@Hellfire667> Ok. My two -> 's.
21:26 <@Hellfire667> First of all: ok, go ahead and speak. In the mean time I'll prepare the poll.
21:26 <@Hellfire667> Second: Yes, triangles are gone. ~
21:26 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:26 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:27 < Zuu_ircii> But we didn't have a dev poll in the forums right?
21:27 <+Hyronymus> !not that  remember~
21:27 < Zuu_ircii> 33 < result < 66%
21:27 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:27 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:27 <@Hellfire667> I don't see any votes on the forum. ~
21:27 <+Steve^> ->
21:27 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:28 <+Steve^> We voted against triangles in a meeting ages ago. ~
21:28 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:28 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:28 < Zuu_ircii> Yes, but the result was more than 50 % for drop, but less than 66% for drop.
21:29 <@Hellfire667> ! Hyronymus, could you take over for a few minutes? Something happened in my house. Have to check it out. ~
21:29 <+Hyronymus> ok
21:29 < Zuu_ircii> So acording to our rules a dev poll should be made. 
21:29 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:29 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:29 <+Hyronymus> ok, my turn
21:30 <+Hyronymus> I suggest we don't put up the two polls at the same time. I think it's best to decide on triangualr or rectangular by dev poll first
21:30 <+Hyronymus> when those results are in we can setup  dev poll for cellbsed, freeform etc
21:30 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:30 <+Hyronymus> Anyone against?~
21:30 <+Hyronymus> Zuu~
21:31 < Zuu_ircii> I agree with you.~
21:31 <+Hyronymus> Steve^, what do you think?~
21:31 <+Steve^> Good-o ~
21:31 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:31 <+Hyronymus> Zuu_ircii~
21:32 < Zuu_ircii> Or maybe: options: a) fredome b) rectangular cells c) triangular cells.~
21:32 < jpl> ->
21:32 <@Hellfire667> ! I'm back. Thanks, Hyronymus. ~
21:32 <+Hyronymus> jpl~
21:32 < jpl> why triangular cells?
21:33 <+Steve^> ->
21:33 < jpl> ~
21:33 <+Hyronymus> !hands over the hammer to Hellfire667~
21:33 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:33 <+Steve^> Some dude made a topic about it.. i thought people may of liked the idea. ~
21:33  * Steve^ didn't ~
21:33 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:34 <@Hellfire667> True. I liked his idea's, but if we go for a freeform or a cell-based limited freeform, we don't necessarily need triangular tiles to have more than 8 directions. ~
21:34 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:34 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
21:34 <+Hyronymus> I sense mass confusion
21:34 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:34 <+Hyronymus> I say we should go with my propsoal for two polls after eachother~
21:35 <@Hellfire667> I agree. ~
21:35 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:35 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. 
21:35 <@Hellfire667> ~
21:36 < Zuu_ircii> I thik that it is roughtly three options: Cellbased triagles, Cellbased squares or Freedome
21:36 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:36 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:36 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus: your proposal was to vote on grid shape first and then on building style (freeform/cellbased), right?
21:36 <@Hellfire667> ~
21:37 <+Hyronymus> yes~
21:37 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:37 <@Hellfire667> Zuu.~
21:37 < jpl> ->
21:37 < Zuu_ircii> Which shape of the cells we use does not matter in the DD if we choose Freedome.~
21:37 <+Steve^> ! Can we please just vote on something! ~
21:38 <@Hellfire667> jpl. ~
21:38 < jpl> It would be good to know if developers have something to say about this. ~
21:38 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:38 <@Hellfire667> I suggest the following setup:
21:39 <@Hellfire667> Step 1. We vote HERE on freefrom or cell-based.
21:39 <@Hellfire667> Step 2. The forum votes on triangles vs. quads, given the outcome of this poll. I agree with Zuu that this doesn't really matter if true freeform is chosen.
21:39 <@Hellfire667> --
21:39 <@Hellfire667> Any objections? ~
21:39 < Zuu_ircii> nope~
21:39 < jpl> no.~
21:40 <+Hyronymus> nope~
21:40 <@Hellfire667> Steve? ~
21:40  * Steve^ mumbles
21:40 <+Steve^> (In other words, whatever.) ~
21:41 <@Hellfire667> Ok. ~
21:41 <@Hellfire667> The options for the vote:
21:41 <@Hellfire667> (If I'm not conforming to the meeting rules, please say so in a "!". )
21:41 <@Hellfire667> Option A) True freeform: track endpoints can be placed anywhere
21:42 <@Hellfire667> Option B) Cell based: a limited set of track pieces are available, which can be placed on the cells of the map.
21:43 <@Hellfire667> Option C) "In between", as freeform, but the endpoints snap to a grid that is smaller or equal to the grid of the map.
21:43 <@Hellfire667> Place your votes, please :) ~
21:43 <+Steve^> C, would love A.. but that's never gunna happen! ~
21:43  * Hellfire667 votes option C ~
21:43 <+Hyronymus> C~
21:43 < jpl> C.
21:43 < jpl> ~
21:44 < Zuu_ircii> C~
21:44 <@Hellfire667> Grunt? ~
21:45 <@Hellfire667> Well then. C was voted unanymously. I'll place the result on the forum and open a topic to vote on the tile shapes. 
21:45 <@Hellfire667> Next item:
21:45 <+Steve^> ->
21:45 <@Hellfire667> Steve? ~
21:46 < Zuu_ircii> !  RESULT: a: 0 b: 0 c: 5 (minutes)
21:46 <+Steve^> Before i say what i was going to say, what is the next item? ~
21:46 <@Hellfire667> 3 [RFD] Station & Industry directions (edited)  ~
21:46 <+Steve^> Thought so
21:46 <+Steve^> Please, do your research. That isn't the main point at discussion here
21:46 <@Hellfire667> !
21:46 <+Steve^> The main problem is: How we use C, me and zuu had differing views
21:46 <+Steve^> (or whoever)
21:47 <@Hellfire667> <-
21:47 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:47 <+Steve^> My model uses a cell split evenly with 5 points on a side, and points in the middle
21:47 <+Steve^> The other model just has points round the edges.
21:48 <+Steve^> We need to vote whether the (slightly) simplier code on the second model is beneficial after the restrictions the model causes. ~
21:48 -!- Prof_Food is now known as Prof_Frink
21:48 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:48 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:48 < Zuu_ircii> My model have 4 snapponts on each edge + inside. One for each lane/track.
21:49 < Zuu_ircii> As we decided to go for 4 lanes/tracks per cell, I think the snappoints has to be decided with that in mind.
21:49 <+Steve^> ->
21:49 < Zuu_ircii> Becuse when we decided 5 I think most of ous did just think that 5 is a OK value, 
21:50 < Zuu_ircii> without thinking about the geometry.~
21:50 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667
21:50 <@Hellfire667> First, I don't think that the code for the second model (only snappoints on the edges) would be simpler.
21:51 <@Hellfire667> Second, 4 or 5 snappoints per edge is a matter of taste, I think.
21:51 <@Hellfire667> Zuu, am I correct that two of your five snappoints are the corners of the cell? 
21:51 <@Hellfire667> Steve, your comment first. ~
21:51 <+Steve^> With 4 points, you have 2 in the middle and 2 on the edges. You won't be able to build on the edges if there is a building on the neighbouring tile, so your stuck with 2 lanes.
21:51 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:52 <+Steve^> So, you either have 5 per side, and build the roads 2 lanes at a time, or you go up to 6 per edge.
21:52 <+Steve^> Hellfire667, it's not a matter of taste, we need to find the lowest value that offers what we need. ~
21:52 <@Hellfire667> ! Doh! Zuu said 4.
21:52 <@Hellfire667> ~
21:52 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:52 < Zuu_ircii> Please look at this http://www.tt-forums.net/files/snappoints_170.png while I am reading steves comment...
21:53 <+Steve^> ->
21:53 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:53 < Zuu_ircii> hmm, 
21:53 <@Hellfire667> ! 
21:53 < Zuu_ircii> I think It is resonable to build two lanes at one time, 
21:54 < Zuu_ircii> whic still internaly could be represented as two lanes connected to seperate snap points,
21:55 < Zuu_ircii> UT not what about train tracks?
21:55 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:55 <@Hellfire667> My ! :
21:55 <@Hellfire667> Now I noticed, Steve's 5-snappoints proposal puts a lane between two snap points. Zuu's 4-snappoint proposal puts lanes on top of snappoints. 
21:55 <@Hellfire667> Steve, your -> ~
21:56 <+Steve^> Sorry, i forgot about your odd layout. I'm still wondering if that is easy to do though.
21:56 <+Steve^> It does?
21:56 <+Steve^> No, it uses the snap points. 
21:56 <+Steve^> And Zuu, can you rephrase your last line? ~
21:56 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:56 <@Hellfire667> <-
21:56 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:57 < Zuu_ircii> BUT what about train tracks?
21:57 < Zuu_ircii> ~
21:57 <@Hellfire667> ->
21:57 <+Steve^> ->
21:57 <@Hellfire667> Treat the same as lanes. ~
21:57 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
21:57 <+Steve^> What about them? ~
21:57 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:57 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
21:58 < Zuu_ircii> Whith your aproach to you asume that two train tracks can be placed becide each other just as lanes, by sharing a snap points.
21:58 < Zuu_ircii> ?
21:58 -!- Grunt_ [~grunt@s0106000c413a1c49.cg.shawcable.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:59 < Zuu_ircii> And what if I have a single track and whant to uppgrade it to a doubble track, do I have to move the existing one
21:59 < Zuu_ircii> sightly to the left/right?~
21:59 <+Steve^> Train tracks will be much wider than road lanes. Or maybe i'm just used to TTD. It seems sensible though to make them bigger.
21:59 <+Hyronymus> ->
21:59 < Zuu_ircii> ->
21:59 <+Steve^> That's the same in any system, if you don't leave space, you'll have to rearrange.
21:59 <+Steve^> I'll just say ~
22:00 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
22:00 <+Hyronymus> sorry, not ready yet~
22:00 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:01 < Zuu_ircii> We have decided that one lane will have the same width as a single track I think.
22:01 < jpl> ->
22:01 < Zuu_ircii> so basicly on one cell you can have up to 4 lanes or up to 4 tracks side by side.~
22:01 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:01 < jpl> track width should be same as for one lane. ~
22:01 <+Hyronymus> 0>
22:01 <+Hyronymus> *->
22:01 <@Hellfire667> Hyronym0s. ~
22:02 <+Hyronymus> standar European track width is 3150 mm
22:02 < Zuu_ircii> ->
22:02 < jpl> ->
22:02 <@Hellfire667> ! No way!
22:02 <+Hyronymus> I belive dutch highways have a width of 3m per lane~
22:02 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:03 <+Hyronymus> !track profile, not the distance between the left and right rail~
22:03 < Zuu_ircii> Which means that we can asume that they have the same width.~
22:03 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:03 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:03 < jpl> track width is 4500 mm in Finland. area that is covered with ballast. ~
22:04 <+Steve^> ->
22:04 <@Hellfire667> European track.. So that's why English trains are narrower than european ones. :P. ~
22:04 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:04 <+Steve^> I can see what your saying now, but it seems a bit scary that the normal distance between 2 buildings is enough for 4 train tracks
22:04 < Zuu_ircii> ->
22:04 < jpl> ->
22:04 <+Steve^> Seems like a very large distance. (i don't mean buildings that are right next to each other)
22:05 <+Hyronymus> bbiaw
22:05 <+Steve^> And if we stuck with 4, we would need a different track system as we don't want to build 2 tracks together like 2 lanes on roads
22:05 <+Steve^> But it would fit 3.. is that enough? :) ~
22:05 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:06 < Zuu_ircii> However I think that if we choose 4 tracks per cell it will simplify for the user.
22:06 < Zuu_ircii> Or at least that was what I kept in mind while designing my snappoint pattern.
22:06 < Zuu_ircii> ~
22:06 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:06 < jpl> correction to my last line: 4.5 m is width of railway area to be clear. ~2 m is the width covered with ballast. so one track = one lane. ~
22:07 <+Steve^> ->
22:07 <@Hellfire667> Steve ~
22:07 < Zuu_ircii> ->
22:07 <+Steve^> If you had several tracks together, wouldn't it be less than 4.5m for each track? Eg: Less ballast in the middle? 4.5 seems too much. ~
22:07 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:08 < Zuu_ircii> If we are going to allow tracks on roads (trams) it is preferable if they have the same width.
22:08 < Zuu_ircii> And remember, this is a GAME
22:08 < Zuu_ircii> ~
22:08 <@Hellfire667> !
22:08 < jpl> ->
22:08 <@Hellfire667> Having heard all that, can we move to make a decision? ~
22:09 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:09 <+Steve^> ->
22:09 < jpl> | <- 4.5 m -> | (hope you understand this drawing) ~
22:09 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:09 -!- orudge [orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org] has quit [Quit]
22:09 <+Steve^> I vote 6 bits per tile. Will solve all our problems! I hope. ~
22:09 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:10 < Zuu_ircii> ->
22:10 <@Hellfire667> 6 bits = 6 snappoints? or 6 area's between snappoints? ~
22:10 < jpl> ->
22:10 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:10 <+Steve^> 6 snappoints. ~
22:10 < Zuu_ircii> ->
22:10 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:10 < jpl> 4.5 m between track origins. ~
22:10 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:11 < Zuu_ircii> If they are placed hoyemusly the distance between each track or lane will be eaven less with 6 snappoints.
22:11 < Zuu_ircii> But that can be fixed by tweeking the scale, 
22:11 <+Steve^> ! Not when the make the tile bigger ~
22:11 < Zuu_ircii> abit.~
22:11 < jpl> ->
22:12 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667
22:12 <@Hellfire667> How about we just take the technically simplest solution:
22:12 -!- Zuu_ircii is now known as Zuu
22:13 <@Hellfire667> Divide each cell into 16 subcells. Every corner of a subcell will be a snappoint. This will give 5 snappoints on each edge of the cell. Also, the subcells can be addressed by just adding 2 bits to each of the two cell coordinates.. ~
22:13 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ~
22:13 < jpl> how many adjacent lines can we have for one tile? two would be simple enough? ~
22:14 <+Steve^> ->
22:14 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:14 < Zuu> ->
22:14 <+Steve^> I vote we settle for a grid with even snap points spread across it, and deal with the exact moment later on when it needs to be coded. ~
22:14 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:14 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:15 < Zuu> Or have one snap point in the middle of each of these 16 sub-cells.
22:15 < Zuu> ~
22:15 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire667
22:15 <@Hellfire667> I agree with Steve. Let's postpone it 'till the coding phase. ~
22:15 < Zuu> ! agreed~
22:16 < jpl> ok. ~
22:16 <@Hellfire667> All happy? ;)
22:16 <@Hellfire667> Next!
22:16 <@Hellfire667> 3 [RFD] Station & Industry directions (edited)  ~
22:17 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:17 <@Hellfire667> If noone has anything to say, I'll go first.
22:17 <@Hellfire667> I say, stations can fit around any piece of track in the game.
22:17 -!- jfgprs [~jfgprs@213.83.230.102] has joined #transportempire
22:18 <@Hellfire667> Industry's follow the same rules as town buildings. ~
22:18 < Zuu> ->
22:18 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:18  * Steve^ agrees ~
22:18 < Zuu> I agre with Hellfire~
22:19 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:19 <@Hellfire667> Wow... No resistance? :P What do you think, Hyronymus? ~
22:19 < jfgprs> ! i'll just lurk a bit
22:20 <@Hellfire667> Jpl? Anything to say? ~
22:21 <@Hellfire667> I'll put that description on the forum for further comments. Let's move on to the next item.
22:21 <@Hellfire667> 4 [RFD] Sharing of infrastructure ~
22:21 < Zuu> ->
22:21 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:21 < Zuu> Thats a heavy topic,
22:22 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:22 < Zuu> do we want it? 
22:22 < Zuu> Who will use it?
22:22 <@Hellfire667> ->->
22:22 < Zuu> I say it will be an intresting ffeature for multiplayer.~
22:22 <@Hellfire667> I totally agree that this is a very interesting feature for multiplayer games.
22:23 <@Hellfire667> But it could also be a nice extension for scenarios.
22:23 < Zuu> ->
22:23 <@Hellfire667> e.g. "Connect Paris to Constantinopel, but use as much existing lines as possible."
22:23 <@Hellfire667> Second thing:
22:23 < Zuu> <-
22:23 <@Hellfire667> I like Zuu's way of exit and entry points. 
22:24 <+Steve^> ->
22:24 <@Hellfire667> Perhaps we should put some demands on the vehicles that pass those entry points.
22:24 <@Hellfire667> For example: max speed > 200 kph for LGV lines. ~
22:24 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:24 <+Steve^> I wouldn't use it.
22:24 <+Steve^> But having it there wouldn't be bad if i can easily ignore it
22:24 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:25 <+Steve^> The exit points looks good in that context, but what about when you have multiple tracks?
22:25 <@Hellfire667> !
22:25 < Zuu> ->
22:25 <+Steve^> Trains would have to cut across lanes to make sure they reach the exit. Humans have enough trouble on real life networks.. and what if because of trains changes, it can't get out?
22:25 <+Steve^> You can't exactly charge it extra cash.
22:25 <+Steve^> I think this is maybe too complicated to bother with! ~
22:26 <@Hellfire667> My !:
22:26 <@Hellfire667> Retracted. You already said it: what if trains can't get out.
22:26 <@Hellfire667> My ->: 
22:26 <@Hellfire667> I would use it. Well... Not to allow AI on my network but to get MY trains on the AI network. ~
22:26 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:26 < Zuu> Build one split for each track that join up in one exit point. 
22:27 < Zuu> ~ ->
22:27 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:28 < Zuu> To prevent trains geting lost, let the track owner setup routes from enter points to exit points. And let him decide if trains must obey these 
22:28 < Zuu> routes.
22:28 < Zuu> ~
22:28 < Zuu> ->
22:28 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:29 < Zuu> However I agree that this is on the edge of what is to complicated. 
22:29  * Hyronymus is back, sorry for being away~
22:29 < Zuu> On one hand this is a feature that people have requested, along 
22:29 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:30 < Zuu> with that people have requested better multiplayer games.
22:30 < Zuu> On the other hand if we want to attract new players rather than the old wise TTD players this is a quite complex feature.~
22:31 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire
22:31 <@Hellfire667> I see that IF we implement this, we face two options:
22:31 <@Hellfire667> 1. Keep it for multiplayer games only. Human tracklaying is probably better than AI and will hence have less problems integrating to players' networks.
22:32 <@Hellfire667> 2. Make the AI build good networks, such that having trains belonging to the AI on your network will not screw up your own efficiency.
22:32 <@Hellfire667> ~
22:32 -!- jfgprs [~jfgprs@213.83.230.102] has quit [Quit: used jmIrc]
22:32 <@Hellfire667> (to players' = two players')
22:33 <@Hellfire667> ~
22:34 < Zuu> ->
22:34 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:35 < Zuu> acording to the result (http://www.tt-forums.net/files/game_focus_voting_results_583.png) of this (http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Talk:Game_focus#Voting) vote 
22:35 < Zuu> multiplayer is not top priority.
22:36 < Zuu> , But on the other hand this feature is related to building routes, which is top priority.~
22:36 <+Steve^> ->
22:36 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:36 <+Steve^> If people mainly want it for multiplayer, then i think it may not be worth it. Single player, as just stated, is priority. ~
22:37 <@Hellfire667> Anything else to add to this? ~
22:37 < Zuu> ! lets vote for or aginst it~
22:38 <@Hellfire667> Ok. Poll round!
22:38 < Zuu> ->
22:38 <@Hellfire667> Zuu? ~
22:38 < Zuu> I just thoght of one thing.
22:39 < Zuu> forget it, untill we have rejected sharing of infastructure.~
22:39 <@Hellfire667> Poll then:
22:39 <@Hellfire667> Option A. Keep sharing infrastructure.
22:39 <@Hellfire667> Option B. Drop sharing infrastructure.
22:39 <@Hellfire667> Option C. Go away with your poll! :P
22:39 <@Hellfire667> ~
22:39 <+Steve^> I'll have a helping of B, with a side order of C please. ~
22:40 <@Hellfire667> I go for A. ~
22:40 <@Hellfire667> Zuu? Hyr? ~
22:40 <@Hellfire667> Jpl. ? ~
22:40 < Zuu> I go for B
22:40 <+Hyronymus> a~
22:40 < Zuu> ->
22:41 <@Hellfire667> 66% majority will not be reached. The vote will be held on the forum.
22:41 <@Hellfire667> Zuu, your comment? ~
22:41 < Zuu> <- (same as you)
22:41 <@Hellfire667> Ok, what was your "I thought of one thing?"
22:41 <@Hellfire667> ~
22:41 <+Steve^> If we ignore Hyronymus, we have 66% :) ~
22:42  * Hyronymus slaps Steve^ real hard~
22:42 < Zuu> ! lets move on then~
22:42 <@Hellfire667> OT: with or without a large trout? :P ~
22:42 <@Hellfire667> Ok.
22:42 <@Hellfire667> AOB? ~
22:42 < Zuu> -> Yes
22:42 <+Steve^> ->
22:43 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:43 < Zuu> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13650
22:44 < Zuu> Should be discussed next meeting.
22:44 < Zuu> ~
22:44 <@Hellfire667> Ok. I will add it once I open the topic for the next meeting. 
22:44 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:45 <+Steve^> Can we discuss the group stuff now? ~
22:45 <@Hellfire667> I have no objections. What would you like to say about it? ~
22:45 <+Hyronymus> !no objections here either~
22:45 < Zuu> ->
22:45 <@Hellfire667> Zuu, you can go first. :) ~
22:46 < Zuu> Have you read: http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Technical ?
22:46 < Zuu> ~
22:46 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:46 <@Hellfire667> I thought that was just an example. ~
22:46 < Zuu> ->
22:47 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:47 < Zuu> I agree. But I also agree with the exampla that the art/music etc. could be a sub group of technical.
22:47 < Zuu> ~
22:47 < jpl> A. ~
22:48 < jpl> (sorry for being a bit late ;) ~
22:48 <+Hyronymus> ->
22:48 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
22:48 <+Hyronymus> I sene the main problem is in dividing tasks between management and non-code. Just a short yes or no if you agree, then I like to continue~
22:48 <+Hyronymus> !*sense~
22:49 < Zuu> ->
22:49 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:49 <+Steve^> ->
22:49 < Zuu> Agree on what? Continue with the meeting? or what?~
22:49 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:49 <+Steve^> I thought we had new.. easier to understand.. groups? ~
22:50 <+Hyronymus> ->
22:50 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
22:50 <+Hyronymus> yes, we did but not everyone seemed convinced iirc
22:50 <+Hyronymus> anyhow
22:50 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:51 <+Hyronymus> Management as I learned it is about looking ahead, making and maintaining a planning and dealing with non-technical requests for the sake of the project~
22:51 <@Hellfire667> Hellfire
22:51 <@Hellfire667> I think we shouldn't worry to much about the names of the groups and the specific content of the work done. 
22:52 <@Hellfire667> It's not that important who does it and for which group. It's the project that matters. Not the subgroups. ~
22:52 <+Hyronymus> !can you post that in th related tpic, Hellfire667?~
22:52 <@Hellfire667> Yes I can, Hyronymus. ~
22:53 <+Steve^> ->
22:53 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:53 <+Steve^> I just wondered about where the wiki and stuff were going to end up. I thought SF was disliked a while ago? ~
22:53 < Zuu> ->
22:53 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:54 < Zuu> Cant we just have this buch of peopel we have today, and create groups when necessary. As the main resons for groups was that they will be able to have thier own meetings.
22:55 < Zuu> So that not everyone have to come to the coding meetings etc.
22:55 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:55 <+Steve^> ->
22:55 < Zuu> But as for now ..~
22:56 <@Hellfire667> Groups will indeed be for dividing the tasks. 
22:56 <@Hellfire667> And for dedicated meetings.
22:56 <@Hellfire667> But people are not fixed to groups, i.e. they can migrate as they please.
22:56 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:56 <+Steve^> I think the time to split is now, rather than later and having to split up all the work done as well. ~
22:57 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:57 <@Hellfire667> Noted. So what's the fuss all about? Why are three groups not enough? I think that "coding", "technical" and "non-technical" are sufficient. ~
22:58 < Zuu> ! I agree with Hellfire~
22:58 <+Steve^> They are vague! ~
22:58 <@Hellfire667> ->
22:59 < Zuu> ->
22:59 <@Hellfire667> So what do you think are better names? (And what should those groups do?) ~
22:59 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
22:59 < Zuu> <-
22:59 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
22:59 <+Hyronymus> ->
23:00 <+Steve^> Like i said in the thread. Coding, other stuff in the game, external stuff that is just for the game
23:00 <+Steve^> ~
23:00 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
23:00 <+Hyronymus> Non-technical comes down to management in the end so why not call it like that from the start~
23:00 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:00 <@Hellfire667> So what about "Code," "Content" and "Management"?
23:00 <@Hellfire667> ~
23:00 < Zuu> ->
23:01 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:01 < Zuu> Is the coding standard(s) conten?
23:01 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:01 < Zuu> Is useability content?
23:01 < Zuu> I don't think so~
23:01 <+Steve^> ->
23:02 <@Hellfire667> Coding standards are management issues (this was already noted in the topic)
23:02 <@Hellfire667> Useability COULD be a content issue. ~
23:02 <@Hellfire667> Steve. ~
23:02 <+Steve^> I agree with: "Code," "Content" and "Management"
23:02 <+Steve^> ~
23:03 <+Hyronymus> ->
23:03 <@Hellfire667> Hyr. ~
23:03 <+Hyronymus> useability is in the hands of the coders and the artist but at first the management could write a small guideline to measure it i.e.~
23:04 < Zuu> ->
23:04 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:04 < Zuu> I think "Code," "Content" and "Management" is good enoght,but I have nothing against "coding", "technical" and "non-technical".
23:04 < Zuu> ~
23:05 <@Hellfire667> Is everybody happy then if we take Code/Content/Managment? ~
23:05  * Hyronymus is~
23:06 < Zuu> ! managment => management~
23:06 <@Hellfire667> :P
23:06 <@Hellfire667> (But you're right!)
23:06 <@Hellfire667> Anything else for AOB? ~
23:06 <+Steve^> I'm a very happy bunny. ~
23:07 <+Steve^> ->
23:07 <@Hellfire667> Stephen. ~
23:07 <+Steve^> That website thing? 
23:07 < Zuu> ->
23:07 <+Steve^> Dude.. you spelt my name right..
23:07  * Steve^ claps ~
23:07 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:07 < Zuu> I think that can be left for now
23:08 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:08 < Zuu> And in paralell of creating the DD, others can consentrate on management stuff as Website.~
23:08 <@Hellfire667> Wasn't Jpl going to make a website concept ages ago? ~
23:08 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:08 <@Hellfire667> Oh, and I agree with zuu. ~
23:09 <+Hyronymus> ->
23:09 <@Hellfire667> Hyronymus. ~
23:09 <+Hyronymus> I'm willing to concentrate on website stuff with the management group but we will always need feedback/support from the other groups
23:10 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:10 <+Hyronymus> that's a weak point of managing stuff, no info means nothing to manage~
23:10 <@Hellfire667> Ok, can we close this discussion then? ~
23:11 <+Hyronymus> sure~
23:11 < Zuu> !
23:11 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:11 < Zuu> Shall I write down your note in the minutes (hyr)?
23:12 <+Hyronymus> no, I'll post a general thing on management
23:12 < Zuu> ! ok~
23:12 <+Hyronymus> ~
23:12 <@Hellfire667> AOB? ~
23:13 <+Steve^> Revolt!
23:13 <+Steve^> ~
23:13 <@Hellfire667> ? ~
23:13 <@Hellfire667> That's a RC car game... ~
23:13 < Zuu> ! thats a nice game~
23:14 <@Hellfire667> Ok. Next meeting in one week or two weeks? I say two. What say ye? ~
23:14 < Zuu> ->
23:14 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:15 < Zuu> What is left untill we can begin with the DD? 
23:15 < jpl> Hellfire667: yes... it is still in "planning" stage.
23:15 < Zuu> Sharing of infrastructure only?
23:15 < Zuu> Anything more?~
23:16 <@Hellfire667> I think there were two forum polls that had to be done.
23:16 <@Hellfire667> ~
23:16 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:16 <@Hellfire667> One poll for the cell shapes.
23:16 <@Hellfire667> One poll for the infrastructure. 
23:16 <@Hellfire667> ~
23:16 < Zuu> ->
23:16 <@Hellfire667> Zuu. ~
23:17 < Zuu> Ok, but they could be made in parallel, as they are independent of each other.
23:17 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:17 < Zuu> So next meeting would be about sharing of infrastructure + suming things up?~
23:17 <@Hellfire667> ->->
23:18 <@Hellfire667> The polls can be done in parallel and should be open for a week or so.
23:18 <@Hellfire667> The next meeting would be to confirm the polls, sum things up if necessary and start that DD. ~
23:18 <@Hellfire667> ->
23:18 <@Hellfire667> In retrospect, one week would be better for that meeting. ~
23:19 <@Hellfire667> Next meeting: Saturday 2005-03-19, 1900 UTC (same time, same day). 
23:20 <@Hellfire667> Meeting adjourned! ~