-- LOG START -- [16:03:09] <@Hyronymus> azzaz, Born_Acorn, eis_os, Jpl, Purno, XeryusTC [16:03:11] TinFoil had logs too, didn't he? [16:03:19] <@Hyronymus> he had, Steve^^ [16:03:19] Yea, I'll get him back for next time [16:03:20] I'm awake [16:03:30] I'm here [16:03:33] 1. Start meeting [16:03:34] Check [16:03:43] Rules apply from now on [16:03:51] 1a. Pick a chairman and a minutes man [16:04:02] I'm the former and Purno wants to be the latter. Objections? [16:04:11] Nopes [16:04:13] ~ [16:04:20] <@Hyronymus> no, fine with me~ [16:04:26] 1b. Discuss minutes of previous meeting [16:04:31] http://www.tt-forums.net//files/minutes15062006_321.txt [16:04:37] Anyone? ~ [16:04:56] !I agree with them :>~ [16:05:04] > [16:05:09] azzaz [16:05:11] ! agree ~ [16:05:30] 2b. did not seem to get done, apart from that all good [16:05:35] ~ [16:05:45] > [16:05:47] Actually, on that note [16:06:00] Why is Hellfire the leader of the group, shouldn't it be Hyronymus? ~ [16:06:03] Purno [16:06:22] azzaz, watcha mean? What's wrong with 2b?~ [16:06:38] I think he means the task wasn't done [16:06:42] not the minutes are wrong [16:06:46] ~ [16:06:48] ! 2b. Coding - Launch 'Core Engine Developers'-team ~ [16:06:56] <@Hyronymus> > [16:07:04] Hyronymus [16:07:20] <@Hyronymus> Hellfire leads the Coders team, something we agreed upon last year [16:07:24] <@Hyronymus> I'm not a coder [16:07:48] <@Hyronymus> I didn;t check if Hellfire actually granted XeryusTC access [16:07:54] <@Hyronymus> I now understand he didn't [16:07:58] <@Hyronymus> ~ [16:08:01] ! access to what? [16:08:01] > [16:08:04] > [16:08:08] Is Hellfire active? ~ [16:08:10] azzaz [16:08:12] < [16:08:19] that was my question steve ~ [16:08:47] <@Hyronymus> > [16:08:52] Hyronymus [16:09:24] <@Hyronymus> he is less active these days. Either Steve or me can take over Hellfire's chairmanship of the Developers usergroup btw. [16:09:29] <@Hyronymus> ~ [16:09:55] "@Hyronymus I'm not a coder" I intend to be a coder, so should it be me? ~ [16:10:05] > [16:10:08] Purno [16:10:17] <@Hyronymus> !yes, Steve^^. Fine with me :)~ [16:10:33] Is it necessary the chairman of the usergroup (technically!) is a coder?~ [16:10:59] I guess not [16:11:08] <@Hyronymus> > [16:11:17] We can't make multiple moderators of the group because of phpbb? ~ [16:11:18] Hyronymus [16:11:23] > [16:11:48] <@Hyronymus> I suggest we ask Hellfire to sacrifice his 2 "chairmanships" and give the coders' to Steve and the other to me [16:12:02] <@Hyronymus> he'll naturally keep access~ [16:12:06] Purno [16:12:54] Steve, you're right. phpbb can't have multiple mods of a group, unless a modification is installed. Hyronymus, why wouldn't you use the same person as chairman for the usergroups? Wouldn't it be more efficient to keep one person maintaining the groups?~ [16:13:17] <@Hyronymus> > [16:13:23] Hyronymus [16:13:55] <@Hyronymus> all is fine with me, as I'm a global mod I can change whatever I want anyhow. So that means Steve becomes the chairman of both~ [16:14:02] > [16:14:09] Purno [16:14:22] Can moderators in phpbb change usergroups?~ [16:14:53] <@Hyronymus> !no~ [16:14:56] > [16:14:59] Purno [16:15:40] so, hyro, then I don't get your comment. You bieng a global mod shouldn't (AFAIK) have influence wether you can change usergroups (add members and such). Please explain?~ [16:15:50] Hyronymus [16:16:21] <@Hyronymus> I said it wrong. I meant I can post anywhere so in case of Steve's absence I can take care of some things although I *officially* have no access [16:16:31] <@Hyronymus> ~ [16:16:32] !ok~ [16:17:08] <@Hyronymus> !Trust me, I won't abuse the powers.~ [16:17:24] Ok, lets move on [16:17:28] !that's not why I asked. I wouldn't give you my ftp pass if I didn't trust you;)~ [16:17:47] Any other meeting stuff? [16:17:52] > [16:17:54] Purno [16:17:57] *minutes [16:18:14] Shouldn't we decide who's gonna lead the usergroups now? I thought we were about to do that?~ [16:18:34] > [16:18:45] !yes?~ [16:18:54] I wonder why we need to lock up the coders forum now.. it's not as if anything is happening [16:19:08] am I right that guests can't even see it? [16:19:09] ~ [16:19:13] <@Hyronymus> > [16:19:15] > [16:19:32] Hyronymus [16:19:54] <@Hyronymus> yes, you are right. I was just thinking why not delete the Coders usergroup and make it acessible to everyone in the TE Development team. Can we vote on that?~ [16:20:02] Purno [16:20:09] < brb mom calls [16:20:20] ok.. lets vote [16:20:43] ! isn't the coders group ment to be for TE devs only so outsiders couldn't see what is happening? [16:20:54] <@Hyronymus> > [16:20:58] But it's open source? [16:20:59] Hyronymus [16:21:02] > [16:21:27] <@Hyronymus> XeryusTC, it was an attempt to keep non-coders from "interfering". But it's a bit harsh I think~ [16:21:40] eis_os [16:22:27] ! Hyronymus: ok [16:22:28] I don't see a benefit for a closed group when the project doesn't even really get started, TTDPatch is GPL and has a closed group, but there is actually a need for it~ [16:22:49] Lets vote then [16:22:50] !or better say it was before IRC times [16:22:58] Who votes we should delete/hide the Coders usergroup and make the coders forum public to all? ~ [16:23:34] me [16:23:36] > [16:23:40] I do too [16:23:45] Purno, can it wait? [16:23:46] i agree [16:23:53] <@Hyronymus> !I vote for deletion of the Coders Userbgroup and make the Coders section accessible to everyone witt TE Development status~ [16:23:55] dunno, I think it can~ [16:24:08] then people vote please ~ [16:24:09] it's related to hyro's thingy~ [16:24:17] > [16:24:22] !If the coders group isn't deleted, does it hurt?~ [16:24:23] Purno? [16:25:27] Well, if I'm not mistaken, the TE Dev forum is only accessable (dunno if that means viewable, postable, or even hidden) for members of the usergroup. I guess we can do the same thing with the coders forum, and thus not really making it public, but do make it fully postable by other TE Devs.~ [16:25:45] <@Hyronymus> > [16:25:48] Hyronymus [16:25:55] <@Hyronymus> That's what my extensive vote was about [16:26:03] > [16:26:12] <@Hyronymus> it will only be accessible/viewable/postable to TE DEV's~ [16:26:28] Purno [16:26:50] > [16:27:05] I'd suggest start voting again with these 3 options (so not only yes and no). Lets say there's the option of making it public, making it available for all TE Devs, or keeping as it is.~ [16:27:20] Ok [16:27:24] we'll do that [16:27:52] > [16:27:53] But why is the development forum closed too? [16:28:02] I don't really know what's going on now... [16:28:05] Purno [16:28:29] When choosing the second option, there's also the choice of hiding it or make it viewable (but not postable)~ [16:29:18] My vote is we make _everything_ (development, coding) public to everyone. If you disagree, give me a reason why. ~ [16:29:24] > [16:29:39] <@Hyronymus> no, wait [16:30:26] <@Hyronymus> this is becoming anooying now. I suggest you think about the poll options you want and announce them when we reach Any Other Business, Purno [16:30:39] <@Hyronymus> the poll options keep being modified now [16:30:41] <@Hyronymus> ~ [16:30:44] There is no poll [16:30:55] > [16:30:56] this is just a silly discussion, I'm moving on. [16:31:08] We have much more important things to discuss [16:31:09] <@Hyronymus> !even worse. I want to move on and return to this at point 4.~ [16:31:12] < [16:31:21] 2a. Coding: Design Document - Odd and unclear things in the DD [16:31:38] Vague... what's odd and unclear? [16:31:43] I'd say alot of stuff... ~ [16:31:50] > [16:32:13] azzaz [16:32:28] we now have a wiki with the DD in it, which is good [16:32:35] so now we need to modify it ~ [16:32:50] <@Hyronymus> > [16:32:54] Hyronymus [16:33:15] <@Hyronymus> I think I should've provided a link to a topic there [16:33:24] > [16:33:47] <@Hyronymus> http://tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=25687~ [16:34:09] <@Hyronymus> !it's basicly the same as 3f., as I said in the announcement~ [16:34:33] Purno [16:34:47] azzaz says we have a wiki, but I can't find a link to it. Where is it?~ [16:35:06] ! http://www.transportempire.com/wiki/ ~ [16:35:07] http://wiki.transportempire.com [16:35:15] It's in the "Wiki" thread ;) [16:35:26] > [16:35:31] > [16:35:47] That thread is too long to be discussed here.. we need to split it up and deal with it methodically [16:35:51] Purno [16:36:43] <@Hyronymus> > [16:36:45] It's not in the topic. There's only discussion of possible locations for the wiki, but no final link. I'd suggest making that more clear ;) besides, a link at the main website would be nice too :) . Anyways, lets move on :P~ [16:36:59] Hyronymus [16:37:36] <@Hyronymus> azzaz, could you copy the list in this topic I linked to to the wiki and summarise key questions you need an answer too from it [16:37:49] <@Hyronymus> we should then use the wiki to answer you~ [16:38:02] yes, that should be fine ~ [16:38:04] nononono [16:38:07] <@Hyronymus> !*need an answer to [16:38:09] that's not how to use a wuju [16:38:12] wiki [16:38:34] I don't see how making a page for that will help anything [16:38:44] > [16:38:52] We deal with it section by section, using the information we had last september from those meetings ~ [16:38:56] Purno [16:39:11] IIUC, Hyro wants to use the wiki for discussion? Shouldn't we use the forum for that?~ [16:39:29] <@Hyronymus> > [16:39:39] Hyronymus [16:39:45] ! And IIUC? [16:39:54] ! If I Understand Correctly ~ [16:40:46] <@Hyronymus> I prefer the forums too but nothing happened after azzaz posted it. Are we waiting for each other to start? [/rant] But fine, let's stick to the forum and answer azzaz' questions there.~ [16:41:15] Hyronymus, to be honest I didn't read it all, nothing will be decided in that fashion [16:41:26] I propose: [16:41:59] We go through the DD section by section, updating it from our last comments. After that, if there is still an issue, we can discuss any problems in a section by section fashion on the forum [16:42:09] Or perhaps they can leave notes on the talk pages and we go on from there [16:42:11] ~ [16:42:23] <@Hyronymus> > [16:42:40] Hyronymus [16:43:32] <@Hyronymus> You think chopping azzaz's large topic in a topic per DD chapter would be fine. The smaller topic will be locked once all questions azzaz has are answered [16:43:52] > [16:43:54] <@Hyronymus> and if you like that idea, do we deal with all chapters at once?~ [16:44:14] azzaz [16:44:44] i would rather go through the whole DD, rather then just what i listed, as i dont know if its complete or whatnot ~ [16:44:51] <@Hyronymus> > [16:45:02] Hyronymus [16:45:48] <@Hyronymus> we did that last year already so for as far as we're concerned it's "fine". It now really depends on if you can live with it as we presented it, azzaz. [16:46:14] <@Hyronymus> I'm willing to look at it for the general purpose but we need your vision now~ [16:46:25] > [16:46:41] Hyronymus, I don't think the DD was updated when what we decided last year [16:46:44] azzaz [16:47:05] I've started trying to code using the DD but I run into roadblocks in the form of uncertain parts or incomplete sections [16:47:17] so thats why I would like to see some more work done on it ~ [16:47:27] Yes. I agree we need to do that [16:47:33] last time I read it, things were plain wrong [16:47:40] So you can't code on it really ~ [16:47:49] <@Hyronymus> > [16:47:52] Hyronymus [16:48:55] <@Hyronymus> that means a new thorough round of reading it + reading earlier comments and checking if they were processed. This time I would suggest 1 chapter a time and some DEDICATED people who read it. I volunteer to be on them~ [16:49:08] <@Hyronymus> !*one of them~ [16:49:14] > [16:49:21] > [16:49:28] Purno [16:49:59] I'm lazy. I don't like reading big pieces of text. If discussing 1 chapter at a time makes the pieces of text smaller, I'm all for it :)~ [16:50:24] azzaz [16:50:28] i agree with hyros proposal, and i think we should call it the "Design Committee" ~ [16:50:39] > [16:50:45] Ok [16:51:12] We shall make a Design Commitee with whomever on it. Invitation only perhaps, me and Hyronymus can decide that [16:51:20] > [16:51:22] I'll make it clear on the wiki how comments should work [16:51:26] <@Hyronymus> !yes, sounds good~ [16:51:36] ! i agree ~ [16:51:55] if you disagree, add a comment on the talk page. These comments can be read by the "Design Commitee" and things done. The talk page is then cleared when things are dealt with [16:52:11] > [16:52:15] This will give us a good indication of what's going on [16:52:33] For now, we'll update the DD with what we have, rather than discussing more [16:52:42] then we can deal with the comments we have right now [16:52:55] <@Hyronymus> > [16:52:58] < [16:52:59] I don't see the point of trying to comment on something that may already be correct, but somewhere else [16:53:16] I think that's all.. [16:53:19] XeryusTC? [16:53:59] i agree with the commitee thingy, but maybe we should get someone in it that wasn't involved in the creation/discussion about the DD and that isn't a dev [16:54:15] this way we can get more objective views on it~ [16:54:43] XeryusTC, can you name one of those people who actually has a passion for the project and can be helpful? [16:55:38] <@Hyronymus> ~ [16:56:02] It wasn't meant to be rhetorical, but it can be if you want [16:56:06] shall we move on? [16:56:12] ! i don't know anyone that wants to do that AFAIK that isn't a dev but maybe we can find someone on the forums [16:56:12] <@Hyronymus> !no [16:56:18] <@Hyronymus> !I'll be checking if all remarks from last year's round were processed accurately to the DD after the meeting and tomorrow~ [16:56:28] oke doke [16:56:39] how about now? [16:57:08] <@Hyronymus> !16 chapters while being at a meeting? You want me dead?~ [16:57:39] no [16:57:43] can I move on now? [16:57:49] <@Hyronymus> oh, yes~ [16:58:02] 2b. Coding: Design Document - Define track types [16:58:08] http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=25673 [16:58:08] > [16:58:14] Purno [16:58:23] What's the difference between 2b and 3e? [16:58:25] ~ [16:58:53] <@Hyronymus> !no idea :D, let's merge them~ [16:59:14] And on that note, i'll move on to 3 [16:59:17] > [16:59:23] Purno?> [16:59:51] I really like to discuss Track Types, but dinner comes closer. Would you mind discussing it now, and skip 3e instead?~ [17:00:00] fine. [17:00:04] Discuss. [17:00:09] > [17:00:17] go Purno go [17:01:37] Tho it might sound strange, I'd like to have cable lift in the game. It would open total new way of transporting, especially in mountainious (arctic) scenarios, it's original (I don't know any other game including it), and I think it shoudln't be too complicated to code (cable lifts can have intersections and such). That's one point I want to discuss:>~ [17:01:55] can't*~ [17:02:13] > [17:02:34] An issue I see is how passengers would use it. We'd need to choose popular mountains that passengers simply must get to the top of [17:02:46] > [17:02:48] But I don't see why we can't have the lifts [17:02:49] Purno [17:02:52] > [17:03:34] I'd just be a system of transportation, just like a bus. Tho if we want it as a touristic attraction, we should do the same with trains and such~ [17:03:48] azzaz [17:03:48] <@Hyronymus> > [17:04:06] Purno: If you can compile a list of cable lifts in real life that are used as more than tourist options then that would be good [17:04:18] > [17:04:20] otherwise if there arent many, then its not very realistic? ~ [17:04:26] Hyronymus [17:04:31] <@Hyronymus> tourist attractions have to deal with something else first though: do we want tourists in TE. That's something the DD should tell us. [17:04:33] <@Hyronymus> ~ [17:04:41] > [17:04:46] tourists are passengers too! [17:04:49] Purno? [17:06:00] I believe some lift hills even were used for cargo transportation. I can't see why passengers (even original inhabitans of towns) won't use lift hills. They're probably faster uphill/downhill than the bus or train, and possibly even cheaper too. Besides, as Steve said, if we don't define a seperate cargo type for tourists, passengers include the category tourists, right?~ [17:06:20] eis_os [17:06:21] > [17:06:23] Coding wise there is a huge difference in allowing such stuff (cable lifts), which needs a completely different design then simple on-ground transportation systems [17:06:35] > [17:06:58] you need to have special bounding box code, moveing code and builidng code ~ [17:07:13] Right now tourists are not a different cargo type to worry about. If we give passengers routes that they will follow, it is simply a case of making touristy routes. ~ [17:07:15] Purno [17:08:13] !Sample: You don't want to have a building at the corridor of a cable lift... [17:08:43] Well, I can be wrong, but I imagined our track/road building kinda looks like Locomotions, being that tracks can be of any height of the groud, and thus not being "simple on-ground transportation systems". Then the difference between cable lift (which in fact is nothing more than a few poles of x height, with a straight line cable between them) would be smaller, right?~ [17:09:02] > [17:09:32] If we use my idea of bridges just being an extension of the terrain/landscape, then track is still on the ground. [17:09:55] I say we put it on the table with a rating of "Nice to have". If it's unreasonable, we drop it. Otherwise we have it. [17:10:01] ~ [17:10:23] > [17:10:28] Purno [17:10:37] !Show me I am wrong, but you will need a pill of extra code for that ... [17:10:48] > [17:10:53] azzaz [17:10:59] umm [17:11:00] no [17:11:01] sorry [17:11:01] Can't you have cable lift always being at a certain hight above the ground, just like railways are 0 above the ground? [17:11:03] ~ [17:11:08] now azzaz [17:11:20] > [17:11:39] if we do it Loco style then if you select a slope which is too high then just have the option to use a cable lift? ~ [17:11:49] <@Hyronymus> > [17:11:51] <@Hyronymus> >>>>> [17:11:55] lol [17:11:56] Hyronymus? [17:12:17] <@Hyronymus> can we just wait for the vote on wether we all want cable lifts and then break our heads on it if we do want it?~ [17:12:35] ! better idea! ~ [17:12:41] well perhaps [17:12:42] ! sounds good indeed ~ [17:13:12] but my point is cable lifts won't be a certain height above the ground.. you need to consider houses, roads, valleys etc [17:13:33] and azzaz, you want a train track to turn into a cable lift? :P [17:13:41] > [17:13:41] Shall we just call a vote? [17:13:43] eis_os [17:14:08] I do think TEmpire should stick more to the realistic stuff which can be done by the current coders [17:14:22] ! steve: if that wasnt then intention then that changes everything ~ [17:14:25] as far as I remember the DD didn't want a Locomotion System [17:14:36] > [17:14:52] A locmotion system consists of BlockSlots at certain heights [17:15:10] if you want to do that you need to decide it before all other stuff [17:15:37] ! we're not using a locomotion system, at least not to my knowledge ~ [17:15:43] however the height differences as seen at the DD + a locomotion like slot system is overkill on current Hardware~ [17:15:59] <@Hyronymus> !we're going in to deep, this is 100% besides the point of cable lifts. Please move on mr chairman~ [17:16:18] I'm not sure we all know what cable lifts are [17:16:22] but we'll vote anyway [17:16:27] < [17:16:31] <@Hyronymus> !use the forum to eplain it~ [17:16:40] Vote: Shall we have cable lifts? All vote.... NOW! [17:17:06] <@Hyronymus> !no, we will vote on the forum once Purno showed us an image of cable lifts~ [17:17:06] * Steve^^ coughs [17:17:10] ! http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/521421/2/istockphoto_521421_cable_lift.jpg <-- cable lift~ [17:17:16] * Steve^^ sighes [17:17:19] fine. Moving on [17:17:29] 3a. General - Licensing [17:17:42] ! http://www.astro.ncu.edu.tw/contents/research/taos/mount_crate_arring_on_the_cable_1_low_res.jpg <-- even cargo ~ [17:17:48] What are the options? Lets just choose the best one? ~ [17:18:15] <@Hyronymus> !I thought XeryusTC knew them by heart [17:18:30] ! I only know the basics of GPL [17:18:56] ! and there are almost 60 different open source licenses [17:20:07] Can you just define "proprietary"? [17:20:14] > [17:20:39] eis_os [17:21:10] My suggestion, first you should decide what is allowed and not allowed, like useing parts in other games, useing it in parts with non free code, allowing it to be sold [17:21:37] and so on ... I guess a topic would be best, then you can decide what license fits best [17:22:04] I do think most people haven't yet thought about what should happen with TEmpire at all~ [17:22:12] That's a good suggestion [17:22:14] Lets do that [17:22:25] !and with that you will not be able to decide... [17:23:08] oke [17:23:17] move on? [17:23:30] <@Hyronymus> !yes~ [17:23:33] 3b. Development - Sharing of infrastructure, what are our exact expectations [17:23:39] biiig topic [17:23:48] What happened with last years vote, Hyronymus? [17:24:11] <@Hyronymus> nothing, there was no vote. azzaz corrected me on that. [17:24:28] <@Hyronymus> but I think we can skip this now that we decided to erect a Design Comittee~ [17:24:30] I found some voting but no results taken [17:24:35] Ok, skipping [17:24:52] 3c. Development - Industry chains [17:24:54] skip too? [17:25:00] > [17:25:02] azzaz [17:25:13] instead of skipping, we should assign this to the Design Comittee [17:25:16] ~ [17:25:27] consider it assigned [17:25:36] <@Hyronymus> !bah, he's getting the hang of it~ [17:26:00] 3d. Development - Bridge type & station design [17:26:12] <@Hyronymus> !assign too~ [17:26:21] I presume everyone loves my idea of bridges being landscape changes? [17:26:29] <@Hyronymus> > [17:26:32] I ask the coders amongst us if that's even feasible? [17:26:32] Hyronymus [17:27:12] <@Hyronymus> I have trouble visualising it actually. If you could explain it (on the forums I think) in how it differs from TTD I might have a chance understanding it~ [17:27:31] hmm, oke [17:27:32] moving on [17:27:39] !no [17:27:43] or not [17:27:55] > [17:27:58] XeryusTC [17:28:01] > [17:28:23] i see the landscape as the landscap, so it is only the ground, everything else are seperate objects [17:29:31] this makes bridges being a different object too, objects behave differend of the landscape [17:30:23] it would be better to thread bridges as part of the track, it will be a foundation that belongs to a certain piece of track [17:30:32] > [17:30:33] ~ [17:30:39] azzaz [17:30:44] adding to XeryusTC's comments: the way you defined it steve just takes the abstractness out of the object of the bridge, so yes, its feasible, and favourable ~ [17:31:27] you're going to have to explain that, I understood that XeryusTC says my idea was bad and you say its good? [17:31:33] ~ [17:32:05] i wrote that before XeryusTC's last line: so I'm gonna have to think ~ [17:32:12] k [17:32:36] i dont really get what XeryusTC is saying sorry ~ [17:32:45] XeryusTC: Must a bridge only belong to single bit of track? I considered a situation where you could build an empty bridge and put track a road and so on to it ~ [17:33:04] ! in which case you can't just assign it to the track ~ [17:33:17] > [17:33:21] ! steve: that is what i was thinking ~ [17:33:32] XeryusTC [17:34:16] you could thread a bridge as a seperate object (just like a building) and when you lay a piece of track on it, it will be assigned to the piece of track [17:34:28] although it wont be part of it~ [17:34:50] > [17:34:54] azzaz [17:35:08] here is a mock-up of how the objects relate to each other: (in my mind) [17:35:11] Ground -> Bridge (many levels) -> Tracks bind to different levels [17:35:14] ~ [17:36:26] hmmm [17:37:04] ! this enables blank bridges ~ [17:37:06] maybe we should move on [17:37:14] we're on different wavelengths [17:37:23] 3f. Design Document - Design Document Comments [17:37:31] We kinda already covered this? [17:37:42] <@Hyronymus> !yes~ [17:37:48] !bbl, dinner~ [17:37:52] 4. Any other business [17:37:57] > [17:37:59] <@Hyronymus> ! yes [17:38:11] <@Hyronymus> > [17:38:16] Are we using that engine that was posted about? [17:38:45] <@Hyronymus> < [17:38:46] XeryusTC's engine [17:38:59] what's the status with that? [17:39:05] > [17:39:10] XeryusTC [17:39:42] the GUI stuff is basicly done, we implemented everything we need right now but maybe we don't have everything that is needed yet [17:40:06] > [17:40:29] the terrain engine is currently being reimplemented, it currently uses SM 2.0 but fallbacks will come soon [17:40:58] Are you developing this with TEmpire in mind? [17:41:40] our network and sound engines are fininished now too, although im not completely sure about the sound engine because i didn't do work on it nor did i use it~ [17:42:39] Are you developing this with TEmpire in mind? [17:42:39] ! Steve^^: we have the idea that the engine should be independend of any game so every other game can use it, it isn't specifically designed for TRoS nor TE [17:43:05] Ok.. [17:43:07] azzaz? [17:43:14] two questions [17:43:16] XeryusTC: could we be kept informed on how the engine is going? (on a semi-regular basis) its obviously something very important for us ~ [17:43:47] and forget the next question ~ [17:44:05] I just want to make sure that the engine will do everything we need of it [17:44:17] I'm ok with using a pre-built engine, it'd probably better this way [17:44:36] But some design considerations will need to talk the engine into account, like bridges themselves [17:44:40] ! you can always check the svn logs (if you have a svn client), and you can check our forums (http://tros.xepo.nl/forum/) although there isn't being worked on that very much, and it being developed slowly [17:44:41] ! so long as we can request things and get it ;-) ~ [17:45:39] XeryusTC, is this a project just for you and Seniltai, or for us to help with? Or do we work seperately? I'm not sure how we'd actually be using the engine [17:46:20] our engine is meant to be a wrapper around basic things like user input handling, or like a wrapper around SDL, it also supplies some tools like the terrain engine [17:47:13] Steve^^: TRoS was originally meant as a MMORPG, now it is a engine and a MMORPG based on that engine so people can help if they want but don't need to [17:48:21] our engine doesn't know a thing about what is happening in the game, so it will only be the wrappers and TE needs to handle input itself [17:48:36] hmm, ok [17:48:50] we need to decide some stuff here [17:48:56] confirm we're actually using the engine [17:49:10] and then learn of any design considerations that the terrain engine etc impose [17:49:21] ! its hard to say we are using something which isnt finished ~ [17:49:27] <@Hyronymus> > [17:49:59] <@Hyronymus> can't we say we have the intention to use the engine and monitor progress as it goes? [17:50:06] <@Hyronymus> ~ [17:50:07] I guess [17:50:12] are you finished XeryusTC? [17:50:43] ! yes [17:51:12] I'll leave further discussion for the forums [17:51:17] Hyronymus, AOB? [17:51:35] <@Hyronymus> !no, we discussed it when we dealt with usergroups~ [17:51:41] > [17:52:11] azzaz [17:52:16] Should we use this time to start the Design Comittee? [17:52:18] ~ [17:52:33] hmm, we could do [17:52:53] Well obviously me and Hyronymus are in, whom else? [17:53:11] <@Hyronymus> !both coders, azzaz and XeryusTC~ [17:53:42] ! yes I can do that ~ [17:54:18] ! i will join the comittee [17:54:28] <@Hyronymus> > [17:54:42] Hyronymus [17:54:44] <@Hyronymus> I agree with having an outsider but I cannot think of anyone~ [17:54:52] > [17:54:57] I can very objective [17:55:00] azzaz [17:55:05] *can be [17:55:21]