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

Orders: toggle display of implicit orders #4540

Closed
DorpsGek opened this issue Mar 3, 2011 · 16 comments
Closed

Orders: toggle display of implicit orders #4540

DorpsGek opened this issue Mar 3, 2011 · 16 comments

Comments

@DorpsGek
Copy link

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Mar 3, 2011

Razmir opened the ticket and wrote:

Hi, sometimes I use some track designs, where the trains are navigated by some other ways than just orders (for example two-way EOL). But in this case I find this new feature of automatic orders extremely annoying. They make such a mess in orders list (see screenshot)! Since they do not affect pathfinding, they could be hidden by "per client" setting. Could we have option not to display them? I would be very happy for this one item in Advanced settings, but if there would be some problem with that, one item in openttd.cfg would do the same.
Pretty please :)
Thank you.
Razmir

Attachments

Reported version: 1.1.1
Operating system: All


This issue was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Mar 7, 2011

LMB wrote:

I second your opinion. I have exactly the same problem.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9760
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 10, 2011

fonsinchen wrote:

This little patch gives you a config option to turn off automatic orders. It's available in the "order" section in openttd.cfg and it's called "add_auto". I don't provide a GUI entry for it as I don't want cargodist players to switch it off and nag me about cargo not going where it's supposed to.

Attachments


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9869
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 10, 2011

LMB wrote:

Thanks.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9870
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 12, 2011

Razmir wrote:

Thanks very much. I understand your point about CargoDist. GUI is not necessary. Will the patched 1.1.0 version be able to connect to regular 1.1.0 stable servers? Hope so. If I will be able to try it before the answer comes, I add it later myself...


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9876
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 14, 2011

Razmir wrote:

um, I was not able to patch the 1.1.0 sources. I must say I don't really understand the matter, I just follow guides found on internet. Can you help me please? I gave the output to the pastebin: http://pastebin.com/siJjDfpG


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9889
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 14, 2011

fonsinchen wrote:

No, you cannot use the patch with unpatched servers. That is, maybe you can, but it's dangerous and might desync. The patch is intended as resolution to the above problem and thus it is directed at the OpenTTD developers who may or may not accept it in trunk. It's not intended to be applied to 1.1.0.

The point about compatibility is still valid, though. In fact the patch should increment the savegame version and declare a "from" version for the new setting. I forgot about that. The attached new patch is updated accordingly.

Attachments


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment9890
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 1, 2011

blup wrote:

I think the request was more about not listing the automatic orders, but you are actually disabling them. Since you are completely disabling the automatic order, yes you need to sync save-games and the network. On the other hands, as Pavel asked for, is only a per-user/per-client configuration option to hide the automatic order, thus avoid drawing them, which do not requires any sync with the network nor the save-games.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10029
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 1, 2011

LMB wrote:

For me it's OK to have an option not to display automatic orders. With 20 or 40 stops on the timetable I'm having problems managing vehicles. It is ok to have each stop show passing vehicles.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10030
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 2, 2011

blup wrote:

The patches to display/hide implicit orders. Add Advanced Settings->Vehicles->Hide implicit orders (bool). Can be changed at any time, patch force a refresh of all WC_VEHICLE_ORDERS window already opened. I could maybe add a hotkey in a following patch if I have the time.

DO NOT USE THESE PATCHES! They are bugged and may cause a de-sync when networked. The reason is that the order's window code use the location of the order in the list as a vehicle order identifier and seem to send that on the wire. I'm currently working on a fix that will be added into # 4668.

Attachments


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10031
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 2, 2011

LMB wrote:

Thanks. Hotkey is maybe not necessary, but the patch applied to the trunk would be kinda useful. Not everybody wants to recompile.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10032
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 2, 2011

fonsinchen wrote:

There are two problems with this patch:

  1. You don't have to change all the language files. If no translation is available english will be displayed by default.
  2. If you disable the display of implicit orders and an order list grows to 255 entries (implicit or explicit), you can't add any more explicit orders as the order list is full. Furthermore you can't delete any implicit orders as you don't see them and so you're in a confusing situation then. That's why my patch disables implicit orders altogether instead of hiding them.

This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10033
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Jul 2, 2011

blup wrote:

Thank you for (1), I wasn't aware of that.
As of (2), if you try the patch, you will see that it does not change the numbering of the orders, it only prevents the draw. This mean that order may jump from 1 to 4 to 11 to 20 to then come back to 1. That is also why I proposed to add an hotkey to allow the player to quickly redisplay the implicit orders globally and a button in the window could do the same locally.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment10036
@DorpsGek

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Aug 25, 2017

3298 wrote:

I've written my own patch for this feature. I think most of the concerns about hidden orders are solved by putting the switch that hides and reveals them directly into the window. The order numbers are another hint that there are some orders which are not shown. That may be situational, but it was enough of a reason to keep this instead of an <# explicit>.<# implicit> numbering scheme as shown in https://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=68002 (which is where I got the toggle button idea, by the way).
There's also a patch for the timetable window. I find it a little inelegant, mostly due to some ancient design decision that the last timetable line should actually be part of the first order, but I think it works, so it's attached.
A hotkey patch for the timetable window is also included because I have it. I won't mind if it's discarded, but because the implicit order patches come after it in my local feature branch, omitting the hotkeys may result in (small, easily resolved) rejected hunks.

Attachments


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4540#comment14646
@andythenorth

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@andythenorth andythenorth commented Jan 5, 2019

Thanks for this. There's been no activity on this for some time, and as it stands, it doesn't look likely that it will go any further. Since OpenTTD moved to GitHub, we use pull requests rather than patches, as they are a much more productive workflow.

I'm planning to close this soon (in 7 days), as we try to keep the issue count low for OpenTTD, it helps us focus on things that are important and fun.

If you would like to continue with this patch, the best way would be to move the patch to your own GitHub fork, update it for the current OpenTTD master, and then create a pull request. For more information, please see our CONTRIBUTING.md.

We are also happy to discuss directly on the issue, or in #openttd irc, including help to get this into a pull request. Thanks for your contribution!

@LordAro LordAro removed the stale label Jan 12, 2019
@LordAro

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@LordAro LordAro commented Jan 12, 2019

3298's patches don't quite apply, but it looks like they're close, and something to collapse a horrendous long list of implicit orders would be nice(tm)

@stale

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Mar 13, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity in the last two months.
If you believe the issue is still relevant, please test on the latest nightly and report back.
It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Mar 13, 2019
@stale stale bot closed this Mar 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.