Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"

[Phil D. <de...@gm...>]

I can see what's going on, I think rails is checking all possible
orientations of the tile lay on F17 in order to see if it's a legal
play.  In this case it can't be a legal play because in order to
maintain the existing track the tile must be laid in an orientation
that doesn't give CA a connection.  It is a bug, I'll try and get a
look if I ever get my dev environment set up to scratch again but
Stefan could probably fix this quicker if he is still active!

Phil

On 28 February 2013 20:19, thomas wall hannaford, jr.
<twa...@ya...> wrote:
> Chris & Aliza, you may both be correct.
>
> However I'm looking at this as a feature (projected potential tile-lays),
> already included in the RAILS program, that isn't working correctly.
>
> What RAILS proposed, in this situation, as a potential 'CA' upgrade
> tile-lay, wouldn't be allowable under any 18XX RAW, that I'm aware of.
> -TWHJr
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Shaffer <chr...@gm...>
>
> To: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...>
> Cc: Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...>; Ken Soo <dr...@ho...>; Paul
> A Zieske <zi...@ju...>; Paul Zieske <pau...@gm...>;
> "rai...@li..." <rai...@li...>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:29 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"
>
> I think Aliza is pointing out that you are making a feature request, not a
> bug report.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:40 AM, thomas wall hannaford, jr.
> <twa...@ya...> wrote:
>
> Aliza, the RAILS program must have an algorithm/code that "projects"
> possible (?) tile-lays; this needs to be refined so that it only works with
> accessible current track-tiles that can be upgraded, or accessible current
> (dead-end?) track-tiles that can be extended. -TWHJr
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aliza Panitz <ali...@gm...>
> To: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...>
> Cc: "rai...@li..." <rai...@li...>;
> Ken Soo <dr...@ho...>; Paul A Zieske <zi...@ju...>; Paul Zieske
> <pau...@gm...>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 6:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rails-users] Fw: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA & RAILS "bug"
>
> Rails has never claimed to enforce track-laying rules.
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013, thomas wall hannaford, jr. wrote:
>
> Attention RAILS programmers; note the "bug" that I've detected regarding a
> 'CA' potential upgrade tile-lay suggested by the program.
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "thomas wall hannaford, jr." <twa...@ya...>
> To: "zi...@ju..." <zi...@ju...>; "dr...@ho..."
> <dr...@ho...>
> Cc: "pau...@gm..." <pau...@gm...>; T Wall HannafordJr
> <twa...@ya...>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: 1856PTK-OR3b> Paul CA
>
> in OR3b Tom operates the 'GW' (it greens London, withholds $140, takes out a
> 4th loan [net $60], buys a 2nd T3, and buys-in the 'TCC' Private for $100
> -still has $90 in its Treasury); it looks like the 'CA' will beat the 'LPS'
> into London.
>
> Paul, although RAILS shows the 'CA' could green that gentle curve yellow
> city port (that is to the east of all those whistlestops), that is not legal
> in '1856' RAW -you need to be able to run a Train on the new track, and the
> 'CA' still won't connect to that upgraded city.
>
> It's now Paul's 'CA' since Keng withheld the 'LPS' in OR3a (maybe Paul was
> stunned that the 'LPS' withheld in OR3a -he may suffer a TKO with the 'GW'
> also withholding to start OR3b [let's see if the 'CA' and 'LPS' also
> withhold in OR3b). -TWHJr
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_feb
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-users mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-users
>