Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Building water_tower not permitted with multiple ind. per town #1476

Closed
DorpsGek opened this issue Nov 23, 2007 · 8 comments
Closed

Building water_tower not permitted with multiple ind. per town #1476

DorpsGek opened this issue Nov 23, 2007 · 8 comments
Labels
flyspray This issue is imported from FlySpray (https://bugs.openttd.org/)

Comments

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member

SirkoZ opened the ticket and wrote:

Hi!

Release: 0.6.0-beta1

A funny bug really - with multiple industries per town one can easily build a diamond mine near a bank, a water supply near water tower but one can not build a water tower in a town that has a water supply a few squares from its center.

An oddity at best. :-)

Regards

SirkoZ

Reported version: 0.6.0-beta1
Operating system: All


This issue was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476
@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

SirkoZ wrote:

Oh my - just now I've been going through the industry_cmd.cpp and saw this:

/* accepting industries won't be close, not even with patch */
if (_patches.same_industry_close && indspec->accepts_cargo[0] == CT_INVALID)
return true;

Could one please explain to me why not - I mean - could you at least make an exception for the water tower, because it's really impossible to grow a desert town that has a water supply near it (with multiple industries per town patch ON) - and sometimes it would really useful to grow it...


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment2792

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 7, 2008

Belugas wrote:

The code is like that since r1 of current trunk.
But, looking at my archives, i found out it has not always been that way. in r607 (pre-crash), there was not accepts_cargo test.

I suspect that the arrival of the option "same_industry_close" may have made the game too easy.
And it has been the decision of the dev at that time to limit the user in forbidding placing any industries near primary ones (extractive or organic).
My assumption is that factories were funded close to farms, producing countless bundles of goods/foods.

The only thing, apart removing the test, is to change it to if (_patches.same_industry_close && indspec->life_type == INDUSTRYLIFE_ORGANIC),
which will allow to process extractive industries.
Don't know, it's the best i can think of right now


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3170

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 7, 2008

SirkoZ wrote:

Yes - that would be just right.
All I wanted was if the switch is ON and someone is using that water supply for the other to be able to grow that town (if it's a desert town).

Thx.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3171

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 7, 2008

Belugas wrote:

You're missing the point. The point is why the code has been changed to be the one we have right now.
So, it is more about finding the original intent then fixing your issue. Maybe there is no issue at all, and the change was really sane to begin with.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3173

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 8, 2008

SirkoZ wrote:

I understand that and also the intention to make things perhaps more challenging, but the whole switch to me looks like a game simplification/appropriate for competition too - but one should still be able to grow desert towns, so your proposed fix looks ok to me.
I don't see it as being sane if one cannot do the same things as with this switch OFF. ;-)


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3185

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 8, 2008

Belugas wrote:

but the whole switch to me looks like a game simplification/appropriate for competition too
Care to explain?

but one should still be able to grow desert towns
AS far as i can see, it does not SPECIFICALLY point out to the water tower/supply part. Look at the whole picture.

I don't see it as being sane if one cannot do the same things as with this switch OFF
I do not follow you at all.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3186

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 8, 2008

SirkoZ wrote:

Here's an explanation: if same type of industries close - if one decides to enable it, he does so because he either wants more industries (most cases) or less distance between the industries (for so multi-cargo trains).

-> AS far as i can see, it does not SPECIFICALLY point out to the water tower/supply part. Look at the whole picture.
But it sure acts that way. ;-)
And that's what is at most importance, gameplay, isn't it?
And the whole picture shouldn't change - explanation to the last point of yours ("I do not follow you at all")
If one can build water towers in any desert town without the industries_of_the_same_type_close_together option, one should be able to do that with the switch ON too, wouldn't you say?
It is the player's choice to enable/disable those switches, but gameplay shouldn't be impared with them being ON. And in this case - the gameplay is limited by the fact that if the industries_of_the_same_type_close_together switch being used, in the desert terrain - one could not develop that desert town which has water suply near it.
That is the impared gameplay experience I'm talking about.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476#comment3187

@DorpsGek
Copy link
Member Author

DorpsGek commented Jan 9, 2008

Belugas closed the ticket.

Reason for closing: Not a bug

As agreed, closure of the bug, as it is not one, but a limitation of the system, which is not relevant to the patches activated


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/1476

@DorpsGek DorpsGek closed this as completed Jan 9, 2008
@DorpsGek DorpsGek added Core flyspray This issue is imported from FlySpray (https://bugs.openttd.org/) labels Apr 6, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
flyspray This issue is imported from FlySpray (https://bugs.openttd.org/)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant