[19:32:31] Yes, who will b the cairman. (I have volunteered) [19:32:41] Steve^ gives Zuu a chair [19:32:53] electrified chair? [19:32:56] i have a feeling this meeting won't be very successful [19:33:01] Then Lets begin then. [19:33:07] the agenda: [19:33:20] Agenda: [19:33:20] [19:33:20] 1. Airports: how is they constructed? by modules or fixed? [19:33:20] 2. Docks [19:33:20] 3. Research [19:33:20] 4. Signalling [19:33:20] 5. Finding routes and services [19:33:20] 6. Company rating [19:33:20] 7. Liveries [19:33:20] 8. Variable trains? (attach/detach locos and cars) [19:33:20] 9. Vehicle breakdowns [19:33:20] 10. Computer players [19:33:20] 11. SI or not SI? [19:33:20] 12. Style [19:33:20] 13. Set next meeting and pick chairman + minute maker [19:33:21] 14. Deciding about the Design Document [19:33:21] 15. Pick new Featured Discussion subject [19:33:45] Lets see who is here first. [19:33:56] ChrisCF is away. [19:34:02] Metalcore ? [19:34:04] Bagsy minutes. Already prepared. [19:34:07] jpl? [19:34:20] Steve? [19:34:20] what? [19:34:26] Hello! [19:34:36] jpl are you here? (meeting have begun.) [19:34:37] jpl, you going to contribute today? [19:34:45] jfs? [19:34:48] Eg: Want to be on the list? [19:34:56] Mek_? [19:34:57] dunno. [19:35:03] i'll try to be active but i'm also doing other things [19:35:05] Prof_Food ? [19:35:16] Zuu? - Yes!~ [19:35:41] And remember to use ~ => <= to day [19:36:05] Alltrought I dont think it will be that messy with that few people here. [19:36:09] ! [19:36:11] Prof_Food [~Alan@ProfFrink.users.quakenet.org] is now known as Prof_Frink [19:36:15] Steve: [19:36:17] frink! [19:36:18] ~ [19:36:23] Sorry [19:36:23] Hat! [19:36:30] I was just saying we have ! too. [19:36:31] ~ [19:36:44] ok, noted. [19:37:09] Will you do the minutes today steve? [19:37:15] I will. [19:37:17] ~ [19:37:43] Lets bein then with 1. Airports: how is they constructed? by modules or fixed? [19:37:47] -> [19:37:52] Steve:~ [19:38:11] Hmm, i prepared for the wrong thing, anyway... [19:38:22] Modules. ~ [19:39:14] modules~ [19:39:22] -> [19:39:26] jfs: [19:39:28] ~ [19:39:36] -> [19:39:48] but i'd like to see some option to have pre-designed airports (of course built from the same modules) [19:40:04] and of course it should be possible to design new modules as well, somehow~ [19:40:19] Steve:~ [19:40:34] wtf.. where's my clipboard gone! [19:40:45] Let me type it again... [19:41:29] If we use a dynamic system, but keep it simple, like my brilliant diagram showed. We should be able to make dynamic airports, without always keeping to the same rigid structure. [19:41:49] So the town builds a bit more when it needs it, joining everything up. (Or player) [19:42:01] ! rigid?~ [19:42:11] For cargo airports.. which would be smaller and maybe not need to be upgraded, set patterns like jfs said would be nice. [19:42:29] rigid = not flexible. Would be the same everytime. [19:42:30] ~ [19:43:00] -> [19:43:06] jfs: [19:43:08] ~ [19:43:36] when i said templates, i was thiking like the pre-built rollercoasters in RCT [19:43:46] you select a template from a list and build it [19:44:04] the template it made up of the same modules as any other airport [19:44:12] => [19:44:13] so after building it, you can add or remove modules from it [19:44:16] ~ [19:44:21] Zuu: [19:44:36] I agree with you jfs.~ [19:45:01] also, it should be possible to take an airport design directly and save it as a template~ [19:45:33] -> [19:45:38] Steve:~ [19:45:41] Does that apply to town's? [19:46:17] If we want them to look after the airport, they'll surely be building it. With users perhaps just choosing spots for their new termina. [19:46:25] I'm not sure why i brought this up now [19:46:30] Ignore me ~ [19:46:55] (you should still be able to save them, in other words) ~ [19:47:56] => [19:48:02] Zuu: [19:48:07] Does you think that this meeting is givening? I don't think we will be able to make any decissions today, and the discussions are verry silent.~ [19:48:37] I think we use this opportunity to make sure our own ideas get in =) And then let the others moan later. [19:48:39] ~ [19:49:18] What do you think jfs?~ [19:49:19] So yes. We should just move along faster. I'm taking note of the good bits. ~ [19:50:19] as i said before the meeting started, i don't think this meeting will be very successful with this little participants~ [19:50:43] Perhaps we can look over and lock some discussions where decissions have been made at the forums.~ [19:51:14] Or just cancel the meeting.~ [19:51:34] No need to cancel it. As jfs said, there are things we can still do [19:51:38] ~ [19:51:46] i did? ~ [19:51:58] Ok, Zuu said it. ~ [19:52:22] Ok, will we be able to make a decssion on 1. ?~ [19:52:48] I've written down most of above. I think it's all good. ~ [19:52:55] i think there's pretty much agreement on it, from what i've read on the forums~ [19:53:07] -> [19:53:11] Steve: [19:53:12] ~ [19:53:17] We agreed on that user's can choose the spot of their terminal? ~ [19:53:55] => [19:53:55] Zuu: [19:53:55] I am not sure.~ [19:54:33] Why not? [19:54:43] ~~~~~~~~ [19:54:48] Checking my minutes...~ [19:55:54] Nothing in the minutes says that the player cant choice the spot.~ [19:56:20] => [19:56:26] Zuu:~ [19:57:26] What about having pre laid (by the airport desgner (town)) fields next to the taxi where you can build terminals, to prevent the player to [19:57:47] sabotage the airport constructors plan.~ [19:58:25] Ok. That's better. We just need to make sure the town is smart enough in the placeing of new facilites when everything is full ~ [19:59:32] -> [19:59:39] jfs:~ [19:59:57] that means airports must always be able to expand [20:00:29] i suggest that all templates must have some kind of + layout, that'll be the simplest, though not very flexible in every case [20:00:29] ~ [20:00:51] -> [20:01:02] Steve:~ [20:01:27] In certain circumstances, airports won't have room to expand. I think bigger templates with not yet built sections are good, but they shouldn't stop people from building over the area [20:01:44] Otherwise we could be left with big gaps of nothing, used by an airport that doesn't need it. ~ [20:02:40] But as we decided ONLY the ai (town ai or no-mans-land ai) can build airports, then what is the use for templates that the players can create? ~ [20:03:06] We only decided that because the people that decided it are wrong. [20:03:24] We have town airports, controlled by towns. But then in the outside land, the player can build what he wants! ~ [20:03:29] More fun. ~ [20:03:51] Or shall players be able to request a templeate when they ask LAs to build an airport?~ [20:03:55] => [20:04:06] -> [20:04:38] Steve: I agree with you that it would be more fun to create your own airports, however at the first FRD meeting we agreeed: [20:05:14] on: [20:05:14] C Local authorities construct and own airports, players initiate the construction (problem: you need a very good rating) [20:05:14] [20:05:14] for non-town areas.~ [20:05:21] Steve: [20:05:22] ~ [20:05:24] I don't think templates will differ that much in efficiency, so letting the town just build the starting blocks of one would be fine. ~ [20:05:30] And on the other bit: [20:05:48] I don't know why we decided that though.. ~ [20:08:23] Only hellfire voted for that players should make them, but if enoght people agree on [20:08:23] H Players initiate, construct and own airports (problem: each player would build his own airport; if this is prohibited (1 airport allowed per town) you are forced to share your airport with competitors or beg a competitor to use his airport) [20:08:23] For outside towns I think that can be changed. But then _many_ peopla have to agree.~ [20:09:41] I think there was confusion in the topic, people thought they were voting for towns. [20:10:01] You say only Hellfire did, but i damn right know i wouldn't of if i knew what the vote was for [20:10:15] I thought i pointed it out then as well. [20:10:24] How about we go next, and redo this on the forums? ~ [20:10:58] I regreted my self for voting C and not H after that meeting.~ [20:11:35] If this meeting can agree to make a revote I think that would be acceptable.~ [20:11:54] Revote! [20:11:55] ~ [20:12:43] Next! ~ [20:13:41] So the chairman wonders who want make a revote for "who constructs airports outside towns?" [20:13:41] Say yes if you want to do so or no if you don't want to make a revote.~ [20:13:46] yes~ [20:13:57] Yes. [20:14:11] jfs, what do you think?~ [20:14:38] Prof_Frink, what do you think?~ [20:14:49] what do I think of what? [20:14:50] yes~ [20:15:13] [PRIVMSG >>> Prof_Frink]: So the chairman wonders who want make a revote for who constructs airports outside towns? [20:15:24] [PRIVMSG >>> Prof_Frink]: Say yes if you want to do so or no if you don't want to make a revote.~ [20:15:32] I'm sure it's a good idea, whatever it is [20:15:32] Steve^ snores [20:15:55] yes or no?~ [20:16:24] yes? [20:16:56] The chairman wonders who want make a revote for "who constructs airports outside towns?" ~ [20:17:08] 00000000110 [20:17:24] I'm not here, remember [20:17:39] Ok, then I concider it decided. [20:17:44] We've had 50 mins already.... NEXT! We have an answer for re-vote! ~ [20:18:06] I make the poll then.~ [20:18:20] Are we finnished with 1. ? [20:18:36] .... yes/ [20:18:57] We continue on next meeting when the revote is made then. [20:19:12] Next: 2. Docks [20:19:15] ~ [20:19:58] -> [20:20:20] Steve^: ~ [20:20:21] Large areas on side of water, dockland can be expanded, offering greater capacity of docks. [20:20:36] Train stations built within dock area can get all cargo from the dock and will be given special graphics. ~ [20:21:05] Do we agree on that?~ [20:21:24] => [20:21:28] I agree. ~ [20:21:33] -> [20:22:02] How do you know how many ships that can dook at a time with that model? [20:22:30] I think you should be able to simply build several docks in one station.~ [20:22:34] jfs: ~ [20:22:44] mostly the same i wanted to say [20:22:55] one ship can be anchored at one dock at a time [20:23:13] the "if a trainstation is built on dockland" thing [20:23:45] is generalised by the "station parts built close together 'flow together' visually" part [20:24:05] but docking-places are built one at a time [20:24:05] ~ [20:24:07] Yes, you have the different docks on the water's edge all part of the same structure. ~ [20:25:09] Vissually they will be the same structure. Right? but the player will place many docks. ~ [20:25:30] agree with Zuu~ [20:25:35] Yea. ~ [20:26:44] Can we agree on that the player will build several docks, that will float togeather to one structure visually (if they are placed close to eachother.)? [20:26:56] Yes. [20:27:01] I agree. [20:27:09] Next! [20:27:21] wait on jfs.. [20:27:54] i already said twice that i'm for that idea..... ~ [20:27:57] next~ [20:28:24] next: Research.~ [20:28:45] -> [20:28:51] Steve:~ [20:28:59] Gets new vehicles faster. But not different vehicles than normal. Slight rise in effciency. [20:29:04] -> [20:29:05] Research may not get anything and be a waste of cash. ~ [20:29:25] ! Lets sumurize the results from the forums..~ [20:29:28] jfs: [20:29:30] ~ [20:29:39] i think i prefer the ttd model, the player can't affect anything research-related at all. new vehicles "just happen". [20:29:40] ~ [20:30:29] ! [20:30:34] yes~ [20:30:56] Steve:~ [20:31:00] My system would just replace the TTD system with the weird propsosals you get a year or so before it's meant to be released. [20:31:01] => [20:31:21] Then you have a way to control whether you get them earlier or not. With a bit of risk. ~ [20:31:47] Results: [20:31:47] 11 [20:31:47] 2 [20:31:47] 333 [20:31:47] 444 [20:31:47] 555 [20:31:47] 6666 [20:32:55] Which I consider as 3, 5, 6~ [20:33:08] I agree. 3,5,6 ~ [20:33:13] what were those? [20:33:18] ~ [20:33:26] I will sumurize.. [20:33:39] http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=249009#249009 [20:34:00] 3. Moderate control of what to research (can choose: locos) [20:34:00] 5. Gain new vehicles, tracks types, buildings etc earlier. [20:34:00] 6. Improve existing techs. ~ [20:34:00] [20:35:13] Can we agree on 3,5,6? as we all have casted our votes?~ [20:36:39] jfs [20:36:57] I agree~ [20:37:18] Can we presume if someone doesn't disagree, that they agree? To speed this up? ~ [20:37:59] ok, lets say that (as he have casted a vote on the forum (1).~ [20:38:21] Next! [20:38:22] Then it IS 3, 4 and 6~ [20:38:25] Next, [20:38:29] 356... [20:38:34] =) [20:38:40] 4. Signaling~ [20:39:08] -> [20:39:14] Steve^: ~ [20:39:24] Pre-signalling style options, to prevent breakups [20:39:44] Also, let trains go against signals, if their own track is jammed up (maintenence, breakdown) ~ [20:40:03] => [20:40:45] Steve " let trains go against signals" do you mean as in TTD where you can press a button for that, or something the train ai would do?~ [20:41:21] The AI. Would be tricky. But on a 2 way system, would be nice. ~ [20:41:47] Lets let the developers deal with it.. and they can always drop it later if it's too difficult? ~ [20:43:05] IWill there be EXIT signals that would have diffrent status depending on the train (ie Max speed)?~ [20:44:39] We could have cargo routes and passenger routes, if that's what you mean.. ~ [20:45:22] That is what I was thinking of. Altrought there can exist both slow and fast passenger trains.~ [20:45:40] K, i'll make a note [20:45:57] I think it's a good idea, as it'll mean you don't need to waypoint it everytime [20:46:34] ~ [20:48:18] * Oneway signals [20:48:18] * Twoway signals [20:48:18] * Presignals: [20:48:18] * Enter [20:48:18] * Exit [20:48:18] * Enter and Exit [20:48:18] [20:48:18] Status of exits can depend on the train that is in the box or just before the entrance.~ [20:49:07] Anything more?~ [20:49:09] pbs! [20:49:12] Need that too [20:49:22] ! agree~ [20:49:26] ~ [20:49:40] Agree.~ [20:49:43] I'll post my mintues, say if you disagree with any of it: [20:49:49] - Pre-signals to prevent blockages. [20:49:49] - Allow signals to be reversed on a 2 way system, if one way is blocked. [20:49:49] - System to split routes into different speed groups etc, for making cargo, high speed passenger routes. [20:49:49] - Path based signalling. [20:50:52] I think pre signals have to be described litle more.~ [20:51:33] SOmeone else can do that for the DD. ~ [20:51:45] Ok agreed.~ [20:52:04] brb [20:52:13] => [20:52:20] Another problem.. [20:52:36] Where should signals be placed? [20:52:41] ~ [20:53:12] Around the track. [20:53:12] -> [20:53:14] ~ [20:53:21] jfs~ [20:53:29] between track sections [20:53:37] not on track sections [20:53:38] ~ [20:53:46] => [20:54:08] -> [20:54:19] To make the pathfinding easier or dor other reasons? (I dont dissagree with you.)~ [20:54:25] Steve:~ [20:54:59] I'd want them to be as close to a split in the track as possible. So in the middle of the previous/next piece would be better. ~ [20:55:40] Although, taking it between track sections would make path finding and such alot easier. ~ [20:55:48] => [20:56:47] I think the UI can split the tracks up for you if you like to place a signal close to a split, and the segments are to long.~ [20:56:54] -> [20:57:00] jfs:~ [20:57:03] track probably can't be split just anywhere [20:57:16] if we go for a 5x5 snap-point per tile approach (as it seems) [20:57:16] Yea. [20:57:31] => [20:57:37] my reason for wanting signals only between track sections [20:57:58] is that then we have two cases: either a track section is occupied or it isn't [20:57:59] But quite close to a split? ~ [20:58:10] sry~ [20:58:19] Yea, i agree with that last bit of jfs's thing ~ [20:58:21] ~ [20:59:04] So can we agree that signals are placed on the points where two peaces joinup?~ [20:59:04] (if signals are built on the middle of a track section then there are four cases: first part occupied or not and last part occupied or not) [20:59:06] ~ [20:59:12] yes~ [20:59:16] k [20:59:22] I agree.~ [20:59:34] Anything more about signals?~ [20:59:41] Nope. ~ [20:59:54] Wait [20:59:58] Road signals? ~ [21:00:16] Shall we just presume they are always there? And let the computer handle them all? ~ [21:00:45] I think the FRD says something about traffic lights.~ [21:01:29] road traffic shouldn't need signalling~ [21:02:10] - Traffic lights not needed, let the game define right of way. Agree? [21:02:33] wait..~ [21:02:41] From the FRD: [21:02:41] Roads have civil traffic near and between towns. In case of heavy traffic, this might hinder a company's road vehicles. (Road) junctions should have an explicit rule about who may go first. This can be done by giving right-of-way to traffic from the right or putting traffic lights at the junction. City's will automaticly place traffic lights at 'big' junctions.~ [21:03:02] -> [21:03:06] jfs:~ [21:03:42] another argument for having signals on track joints is something that annoyins me in ttd [21:03:49] in eg. this construction: http://www.jiifurusu.dk/files/image-dir/screenshots/ttd/roundabout2.png [21:04:15] in the corners, there can't be signals, because there are crossings [21:04:31] it should be possible to haave signals between even so close crossings and similar~ [21:04:48] => [21:04:52] (i'd have made a better screenshot if just my ttd would actually start....~) [21:05:07] I think it's too squashed. I was thinking of just these signals between 2 joint pieces. ~ [21:05:47] Wouldn't you need to place the signals ON the track peaces to make that work and not on the join points. ~ [21:06:11] => [21:06:19] Steve:~ [21:06:47] I think, with our far superior building system, we could make extra room in the middle of those junctions to make a signals [21:06:49] -s [21:07:04] Possible signalling addition: roundabouts. They need some help to stop jams. ~ [21:08:17] Ever seen a graf over the efficentnes of a roundabout compared to a usal traffic junction? [21:08:20] ~ [21:08:52] It's more effecient? ~ [21:09:23] Lets take that after the meeting.~ [21:09:30] Traffic lights on a roundabout being most efficient for huge traffic flows [21:09:38] K, i'll add to AOB ~ [21:10:07] Back to signaling on Road.~ [21:10:20] => [21:10:57] what 'bout flying junctions? [21:11:33] I think Chris Sawyer has said that he have tried to use trafficligts, and they would not prevent grid looks better than the TTD way (first in first out).~ [21:12:05] I think we use something like PBS does for junctions [21:12:32] If a bus wants to go across the junction, if it's clear, it reserves that bit of the road and moves on. Otherwise it waits until it is clear. ~ [21:13:26] I agree on that, but what to do when there is four busses one in each direction that want to cross the junction?~ [21:13:51] Who will go first?~ [21:14:19] The one that got there first [21:14:20] ~ [21:14:56] Makeing a vote.. [21:14:57] We can split the junction into 4 bits, going across takes up 2 bits, on that side of the road [21:15:01] ~ [21:16:52] Do you agree that when RV's arrives to a junction it checks if the path it want to take is not reversed (free). If it is free it passes. Else it put it self last in a virtual queue. [21:16:52] The junction then lets the first RV in the queue to pass when the junction is clear.~ [21:17:16] I agree. [21:17:25] I agree.~ [21:17:43] Next then.. [21:18:16] 5. Finding Routes and signaling. [21:18:34] -> [21:18:43] 5. Finding routes and services! [21:18:45] hmm, was signaling here too. :D~ [21:18:57] Passengers coming to station could depend on what routes are going to that station. [21:18:58] Ahh. Thanks Steve.~ [21:19:14] And can be first come, first serve, rather than waiting for the specific route for simplicity. ~ [21:19:24] In other words: [21:19:34] No trains given a route to the staion = no passengers ~ [21:20:25] => [21:21:31] I think your simplicity have a point. But shall passengers just bord any train that will lead it to a station with less hops (from the routing rules) to its destination?~ [21:22:47] Well, the simplist way, is for them to board the first train that comes. Whilst it isn't realistic, i'm not sure we need to make it more complex [21:23:41] Or we could have listings for "Going to London". The train would come and get them.. but for a big station, with people going to one station and then another, you'd have a huge unmanagable list [21:23:42] ~ [21:25:32] Any response? [21:25:35] Problem: Passenger (he) want to travel from here to there. company A have a balanced service via station Q. Company B have a unbalenced service via station P, which have many trains to P, but just a few to his destination.~ [21:25:59] I see the problem yea [21:26:10]