[21:00] * Hellfire[Coder] changes topic to ':: Transport Empire :: Meeting in progress. /msg Hellfire[Coder] if you want to join the meeting :: www.tt-forums.net :: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tt2/ ::' [21:00] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +m [21:00] Let's begin then. [21:00] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: -o ^XP^ [21:00] Deop ^XP^ so he won't kick me for flooding. [21:01] Our topics for today: [21:01] · Idea processing progress [21:01] · Means of communication [21:01] · Core features, revisited [21:01] · Programmer recruitment, revisited [21:01] · Design documents [21:01] · Setting up mailing list [21:01] Looks good [21:01] * eXinion has nothing to add [21:01] Hmm. Hyronymus forgot one: Short discussion of the minutes. [21:02] Any comments on the minutes of last time? [21:02] Ah yes, the boring bit [21:02] nope [21:02] I don't have anything [21:02] none [21:02] Alright. Then the minutes are accepted. Do we have any volunteers to make minutes this time? I could do it, but then they'll be ready on monday. [21:03] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +v Jpl [21:03] I'll make minutes [21:04] Okay, let's move to the first item on the agenda. · Idea processing progress [21:04] Call me a n00b, but what does that mean? [21:04] http://jpl.yi.org/te/ <- there [21:04] I have processed my ideas... I have comments after //'s and not in the comment field though. Maybe there was no comment field when I did them or maybe I just didn't notice it :P [21:05] Last meeting, we decided to go through the ideas topic and sum up all ideas in the database to which jpl just gave a hyperlink [21:05] Qton: I moved them to comment field.. :) [21:05] OK [21:05] good :) [21:05] it's looking good [21:05] Yeah but very long even though they are "processed" :P [21:06] Yes, that's true. Perhaps we should categorize them. [21:06] is everything progressed then? [21:06] processed sorry [21:06] Hmm, bedtime reading... [21:06] Hyronymus has done his part and Broodje's part, so I guess everything is covered. Or am I wrong? [21:07] I beleve that all idas is not compatible with each other. [21:07] Quess so. [21:07] Maybe someone with nothing better to do should go through that thread and just sum up all those posts into one big list of ideas [21:07] Tombe: that's what we have done: summing them all up in a big list. [21:07] Zuu_Info that's not a problem right now. They are processed just for the sake of easier review. [21:07] @zuu: it can be categorized into: gameplay/graphics/network comm/ AI / etc [21:08] Good idea [21:09] But about 95% of them are gameplay ideas [21:09] should we add category field to idealist? [21:09] But perhaps we can categorize them along the way when writing a functional design document. [21:09] Jpl: yes, that would be a good idea. [21:09] because it's mostly gameplay, maybe even a categorization into different aspects... i.e. train/truck/plane/roads/stuff/etc :p [21:10] That sounds like a better one, Ex [21:10] I suggest a dropdown list in the idealist, so you can not add other categories [21:10] sounds good. [21:11] * Tombe[Music] nods [21:11] Good, which categories should be added then: [21:11] yes, that can be done easily. [21:11] first we have to devide the UI from the game [21:11] i suggest graphics and network communication as two of the top categories, as there will not be many suggestions of those [21:11] Graphics, Multiplay, AI, Gameplay (subdivided) [21:12] user interface [21:12] yes, I would add that last ne [21:12] one [21:12] So basically what eX said, and then Gameplay with subcategories. [21:12] Graphics could be subdivided into GUI, models and textures [21:12] Tombe: sounds even better [21:12] Soundsystm [21:12] Soundsystem [21:13] as another top categorie Zuu? [21:13] Sound seems to be a pretty low priority ATM, zuu [21:13] Sound = part of User Interface. [21:13] ok [21:13] true... [21:14] Good call [21:14] maybe a categorie for 'low priority'-ideas :p [21:14] So lets summarize what we have so far: [21:14] Categories: User interface, Network Comm, AI, Gameplay (with subcategories) [21:14] Subcategories: [21:14] umm [21:14] none yet. [21:15] how about: trains (and everything that goes with it (track etc)), trucks (and roads and stuff), ships, planes, ... more? [21:15] So for gameplay... What would be good subcategories. [21:15] Economy, industries, towns... [21:16] Well, I think that vehicle types would be too detailed to have a private category. [21:16] How about: [21:16] Vehicles / Stations / Track / Cities [21:16] sounds good :) [21:16] Where Vehicles can be planes trains and automobiles, [21:17] Stations can be truck depots, train stations, airfields. [21:17] Tracks can be rail, road, etc [21:17] do industries fall under the categorie Cities? [21:17] That sounds better actually [21:18] list needs some cleaning: some items have many ideas in one [21:18] Perhaps. Perhaps not. What would you suggest. Include them in Cities (and change the name into "Environment" or "map") or give them a subcategory of their own? [21:18] Shuld we have a misc subdir? [21:19] Yes [21:19] I think they can be in a subcategory together... there weren't that many suggestions for those two [21:19] Then we get: Vehicles, Stations, Track, Cities/Industries [21:20] when we call it environment or map, we get to include ideas/suggestions about floors/nature (trees)/etc ... [21:20] Finance / transport concepts [21:21] Good one [21:21] What do you mean with "Transport concepts"? [21:21] like if passengers shuld have destinations or not. [21:22] At this point, I say no to that [21:22] Passengers having destinations, that is [21:22] it's more of a feature, to be implemented later [21:22] But I know we're coming to that later [21:22] BRB, two-hour cut off, sorry [21:22] * orudge has quit IRC (Quit: Ta ta for now!) [21:22] wtf? :) [21:23] This database shuld contain any ida, am I right? [21:23] so, what do we have for subcategories now? [21:23] Er... Bye Owen... [21:23] eX: Vehicles, Stations, Track, Environment, Economic [21:23] * orudge has joined #tempire [21:23] * L sets mode: +o orudge [21:23] sounds good :) [21:23] Zuu: I took your two suggestions together into Economic. [21:24] sounds ok. [21:24] (back) [21:24] welcome back, owen :) [21:25] Hello again [21:25] I think we're sorted as far as categorising goes [21:25] Right, so now to go through the list and sort the ideas by category and split ideas that have multiple ideas in one record... We have 194 ideas. Who volunteers to go through some of them? [21:25] * Hellfire[Coder] raises hand. [21:25] I'll take some [21:26] Get me some too. [21:26] that makes three :p [21:27] I'll take the ones I put there.... [21:27] 1-61 [21:27] my mess my cleanup :P [21:27] that leaves 133 ideas :p [21:27] Okay, eX, can you take 62-123, then I'll take the rest and it's done. :) [21:27] alright :) [21:27] It depends if I can find anything to do next week [21:27] Are we finnshed with subcat discussing. We said that UI shuld have subcats. [21:27] If not, I might do some [21:28] Zuu: I don't think there are that many ideas for the UI [21:28] too late Tombe :p [21:28] ok [21:29] Meh, no worries [21:29] Well then, anyone have something to add on processing the ideas? [21:29] not me [21:30] no [21:30] wait I do... [21:30] who puts the categorie dropdownlist at the site? :) [21:30] Nopers [21:30] Jpl, because he owns the site. [21:30] okay :) [21:30] yes :) [21:31] Next item would be · Means of communication [21:31] Que? [21:31] but I'll skip that because it is mentioned twice on the agenda. [21:31] lol :) [21:31] So on to: · Core features, revisited [21:31] OK then [21:31] Last meeting we had a discussion and the following core features popped up: [21:32] - Multiplayer games: up to 8/16/32??? players. [21:32] - Extensibility/Flexibility: The database of vehicles/objects/graphics should be stored in [21:32] separate files in a directory structure (able to add vehicles and such to the game without [21:32] recompiling or having to remove other vehicles) [21:32] · A hierarchy in track types, where subclasses of a tracktype inherits properties of the [21:32] parent, but adds some of its own. [21:32] - Hard limits far exeeding practical limits. [21:32] - Cross-platform support: Windows, *nix and Mac support through SDL. [21:32] - 3D engine: to be determined (19/06/2004). [21:33] so, 3D engine is next? [21:33] I have one to add [21:33] Keep the game simple [21:33] Yes no micro-management! [21:33] Or at least no more than in Transport Tycoon :) [21:34] Looks like it [21:34] I agree to that... things like that can always be added, when we're done :p [21:34] Okay, I'll add it to the list. [21:34] Indeed [21:35] was there anyone doing research on cross-platform 3d engines? [21:35] We don't want the game to become too baroque or it just won't be any fun [21:36] None, except some research into SDL and WxWidgets. We agreed on SDL last meeting. [21:36] Tombe: I added this to the list of core features: - Simplicity: keep it simple. Extending can be done at a later time. [21:36] * chochmah has quit IRC (*.net *.split) [21:36] does that include a graphics engine? or just a graphics library [21:36] just the library. [21:37] k [21:37] For those unfamiliar to SDL (www.libsdl.org) : SDL is a cross platform media library, which gives one uniform interface to the UI of any OS it compiles on. [21:37] * Zuu_Info has quit IRC (Read error: EOF from client) [21:38] any more decisions to be made? [21:38] Thanks, Hellfire [21:38] * Zuu_Info has joined #tempire [21:38] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +v Zuu_Info [21:39] Actually, on the 3d engine, but I'm still wondering what Hyronymus meant with that. Should we decide on parts of the UI that aren't really important in this phase of development. I mean: we know that we want to use 3d. Isn't that enough right now? [21:39] my client crashed, but now I'm back. [21:39] I don't think that's important yet... that's something for when we actually start coding.... [21:40] Even then it isn't that important: in OpenGL, changing a 3d view is just a matter of adjusting some variables. Nothing more. [21:40] exactly... but there is a difference (be it small) between 2D and 3d [21:40] * Tombe_Music has joined #tempire [21:41] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +v Tombe_Music [21:41] Sorry about that, I just got randomly disconnected [21:41] 2 tombes? [21:41] Hmm, wyrd [21:41] you're not gone yet :p [21:41] What's going on here? [21:41] Tombe: we're discussing the 3d engine. [21:42] Well, I'll be posting as Tombe_Music from now because I can't seem to get the other one back [21:42] * Tombe[Music] has quit IRC (Ping timeout) [21:42] I'll repeat what I just said: Actually, on the 3d engine, but I'm still wondering what Hyronymus meant with that. Should we decide on parts of the UI that aren't really important in this phase of development. I mean: we know that we want to use 3d. Isn't that enough right now? [21:42] I think so, yes [21:42] We can worry about perspective when we come to cameras and stuff [21:42] hyronymus @ ttforums: Can anyone tell the others that pages 10-18 and 28-37 from the TE ideas section are in the database jpl made? [21:43] Let's see... [21:43] Since all ideas have been copy/pasted, just do a linear search on the full list of ideas... [21:44] ChrisCF in the ideas topic: "appointing an "AI" manager" [21:44] Is in there, idea #154 [21:45] huh? what are you talking about [21:45] About 3D engine: shall someone reserch on it or do we know enoght to make a decision? [21:46] did I miss something? [21:46] On page 11, the idea of "appointing an "AI" manager" is listed in JPL's database as idea number 154 [21:46] What did that have to do with what we were talking about? :p [21:46] zuu, I think we should just leave it as it is for now [21:46] Hmm... Yes, let's continue with the core features discussion, and discuss the remaining part of the ideas when we're done, OK? [21:47] yes, ... [21:47] OK [21:48] Zuu: we're building our own 3d engine. The core features document incorrectly suggests that we're going to use a prebuilt 3d engine. [21:48] ok [21:49] Anything to add on the core features? [21:49] We have the simplicity thing now so... No, I don't [21:49] Can someone sum what we discussed? [21:49] * eXinion has nothing... [21:50] We discussed another core feature: simplicity of the gameplay. Not too much micromanagement and stuff like that. We also decided that the choice of 3d view is not important to the game. It's just a few variables that have to be set during development. [21:51] ok [21:51] Back to the ideas database then. [21:51] I just showed that pages 10-18 are in there. [21:52] yes, and 28-37 [21:52] Now, about 28-37... [21:52] I have to go now [21:52] Bye everyone [21:52] * Tombe_Music has quit IRC (Read error: EOF from client) [21:52] byebye [21:53] according to hyronymus 28-37 are in the DB as well [21:53] On page 35, there is an idea by Mysty Transport [21:53] I found it in the database at idea number 128 [21:53] So pages 28-37 have been done too. [21:53] So we can conclude that all ideas are in the database. [21:53] yup [21:54] 19-27? [21:55] Jpl: I'll check. Just a moment... [21:58] Hmm. I think not... [21:59] Lemme check the minutes for who should have done them. [21:59] seriously? that's not good... [21:59] I may have missed some ;) [21:59] Jpl: have you done those? [21:59] mostl [21:59] mostly [22:01] just say what I have missed from there. [22:01] maybe we should do this another time and continue with the meeting :) [22:02] well.. yes [22:02] Yes, well, I just found the stuff in the logs... Just a sec! [22:03] DARN! Hyronymus said that the pages he mentioned WERE DONE... It was not a question. [22:03] And I'm searching like a stupid ***** [22:03] :P [22:03] next item. [22:03] · Design documents [22:03] The only snipped of a design document we have so far is the list of core features. [22:03] tell us...what about it? :p [22:04] should we make some docs about AI or stuff like pathfinding? [22:04] And Uzurpator's effort, which has been updated at January 24th for the last time: http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=2591 [22:05] that was a pretty good doc... very much typos, but who cares ;p [22:05] eX: that can be in a later specifications document. We're concentrating on the functional requirements right now. [22:05] ok [22:05] Well then, we'll take what's in there and use it as a base to start from. [22:06] ow btw I think it's pretty detailed... maybe a little too much? [22:07] I think that Uzurpator's document would make a nice start for an appendix of the specifications. Do we agree on that? [22:06] high speed switch for railway ;) [22:06] * eXinion agrees [22:06] high speed switch? [22:06] that was my idea somewhere in there. just found it [22:07] lol :) [22:07] Nature is calling! I'll be back in a few minutes! [22:07] Chapter 8 : Airplanes > is about ships [22:08] my fault. [22:08] no it isn't zuu... [22:08] there's two chapters 8 [22:08] only the head caption of chapter 9 says it's chapter 8 [22:09] that's all [22:09] I noticed that. [22:09] can get a bit confusing :p [22:09] back on topic.. [22:09] yes [22:10] We talked about if we shuld use this doc and how. [22:10] as railways have switches/turnouts, called "short" and "long" types and speed is lower (ie. 30-50 kph) in short and higher in long (80-160 kph)... [22:11] now there is explanation :) [22:11] ah look at that... that's totally different from what I imagined.. I thought you meant a switch to make the train go faster :p [22:12] We should start with a functional requirements document, which contains the requirements which the game has to respect. Requirements like that are for example the ideas in the database that can be done and the core features. Perhaps we should postpone the requirements doc until the ideas database has been fully categorized. [22:12] Shuld we go throght every point we dissagree? [22:12] I say no. [22:12] Zuu: I say no too. [22:12] that'll take a long time Zuu... I say no too [22:13] @Hellfire, waiting until everything is categorized is a good idea [22:13] true [22:14] My suggestion: we'll discuss the FR document on next meeting, when the database is categorized. At the next meeting we'll divide the task of converting the ideas into a nice well-strucured document along the participants and discuss that document at a next meeting. [22:14] maybe a flag for every idea, which states wether the idea is implementable at start (if it's not, it's a feature to be added later on) [22:15] good idea Hellfire [22:15] eXinion: how about a rating from 0 to 10: 0 = not implementable, 10 = essential. 5 would then be "nice for later" [22:16] even better :p [22:16] maby to many stepps. [22:16] Or perhaps, (thinking of adding a field to the database: ) 0 = not processed, 1 = not implementable, etc. [22:17] not implementable => delete it from dbase? [22:17] which flags shuld we have? [22:17] eXinon: no they can easly be ignored by the listing script. [22:18] At least these: "not implementable", "hard to implement", "easy to implement", "necessary feature" [22:18] @zuu: very true, @hellfire: I think that covers m all [22:19] Zuu, any objections or additions? [22:19] shuld we have something about prirority to implement the ideas? [22:19] yes! [22:19] a separate flag? [22:19] perhaps. [22:20] then we would have a flag for "ease of implementing" and a flag for "priority to implement" [22:20] then I'd let the ease go from 1 to say: 5, and the priority from 1 to 10 or so [22:21] shuld we have defined steps for prirority? [22:21] The ESA model for software engineering suggests three levels of priority: "Must have", "Should have", and "Nice to have" [22:22] sounds ok. [22:22] What if an idea is just plain crappy? [22:22] that's acceptable... [22:22] Do we need to flag it "Nice to have" even though it's crap? [22:23] Perhaps we could add a priority "Bad idea" (or something more diplomatic) [22:23] lol :) [22:23] But actually, in design documents, bad ideas are left out :) [22:23] What about 'Maybe later' [22:23] who decide if an ida is bad or nice? [22:24] Zuu that's a good point. [22:24] Maybe we should have a voting system. [22:24] the person that categorizes it :p [22:25] maby the person who categorizes the idas vote one time. [22:25] and the readers can also vote. [22:25] I think running votes over 194 ideas is a bad idea. Perhaps we should just flag some ideas as "questionable" and vote for them when we're done categorizing. [22:26] I would let the vote of the developers count a lot more than the vote of the readers... [22:26] true. [22:26] So what are the flags gonna be? [22:27] "Must have", "Should have", "Nice to have" and "Questionable"? [22:27] Yes..accepted..:) [22:27] agree [22:28] * chochmah has joined #tempire [22:28] Alright. The "Questionable" ideas will require votes. If the developers vote in favor, the idea is added to the design documents and implemented. [22:29] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +v chochmah [22:29] yep, sounds greaat [22:29] -a [22:29] what status shuld be base status for new ideas? [22:29] If the developers vote against, we post a poll on tt-forums, and the users would require a 2/3 majority to push the idea through. [22:30] @zuu: questionable.. [22:30] that's good Hellfire [22:30] 2/3 is good [22:31] Do we all agree on this? [22:31] I do [22:31] * eXinion too [22:32] Zuu, do you? [22:32] hmm.. [22:32] if a bad idas goes troghts.. [22:32] then that's just you [22:32] Others like it if it gets through. [22:33] sure. [22:33] but if noone of the coders like it. [22:33] yup [22:33] it wont hapen. [22:34] So perhaps we do the same for the developers: [22:34] but the ida sems rsonable, so I agree. [22:34] It will if 2/3 of ppl vote in favour :P It's not the coders that choose the ideas. They just make them possible. [22:34] exactly [22:34] 2/3 or more people against then we drop the idea. [22:35] no...that's 1/3 hellfire... [22:35] So if there is reasonable doubt (i.e. between 1/2 and 2/3 of the people are against the idea) then we ask the users, and if not, the developers decide. [22:35] eX: I meant developers. [22:35] ow okay :p sorry [22:35] So: if a majority of the developers are in favour, we take the idea [22:36] If a 2/3 majority is against, we drop the idea [22:36] and in other cases, we let the users decide. [22:36] on 50:50 [22:37] Qton: I was thinking 33:66 for the users. [22:37] what about 50:50 INcluding the votes of the developers...? [22:37] I mean if we can't decide.... If we end up 50:50 then we ask the users? [22:38] Example: we pick a random idea, the dev group votes. [22:38] @Qton: if we end up with a vote between 33 % and 66 % for the idea, then we ask the users [22:38] yeah [22:38] if more that 66 % of the developers likes it, we implement it, if less than 33 % likes it, we don't implement it [22:38] got it [22:39] everyone agree? [22:39] in which cases is the ida acepted, and in which is it stoped, and when do we ask users? [22:39] i read what eXinion wrote, and get it. [22:40] no 33% | ask users | 66% yes [22:40] Good. Do we agree? [22:40] I do [22:40] and if users vote 50 | 50? [22:40] * eXinion does 2 [22:40] @zuu: we get another user to vote :p [22:40] I agree [22:40] Ok then. [22:41] Can we move on to the next item on the agenda? [22:41] yes please [22:41] yes. [22:41] Which would be: · Setting up mailing list (last item) [22:41] yes :) [22:41] I can be brief about that: [22:42] whan did we discuss "Programmer recruitment, revisited " [22:42] * oliver_ has joined #tempire [22:42] Oh right... I forgot. [22:42] we didn't [22:42] let's continue with mailinglist first [22:43] We have two mailing lists on Sourceforge, (see http://sourceforge.net/projects/tt2), one for announcements and one for discussions. I think that all people who want to be involved in TE should subscribe to those mailing lists. [22:43] * Hellfire[Coder] sets mode: +v oliver_ [22:43] damnit i'm late! [22:43] * eXinion has already... and was also thinking about sending the minutes over them.... which one shall I use for that? [22:44] hi oliver... [22:44] only almost 2 hours :P [22:44] good evening [22:44] damned tiemzones [22:44] u hyronymus? [22:44] No, that's Oliver :P [22:44] ow no, that can't be [22:44] hyronymus wasn't a TU/e student right? [22:44] eXirion: use the discussion list for the minutes, and post them on tt-forums, plz. [22:45] okay, i'll do that [22:45] Here's a deeplink for the mailing lists: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=73145 [22:45] what I miss : ) [22:45] that's it for the mailinglists right? [22:46] I guess so. [22:46] IRC log allready online? [22:46] Let's quickly revisit the programmer recruitment, so we can close the meeting :) [22:46] No, not yet, as the meeting isn't over yet. [22:47] programmer recruitment: can be done pretty quickly... Mek and I joined up ! :p [22:47] ok i'll shut up then : ) [22:47]