Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2012-05-07 03:44:52
|
On 2012-05-06 15:27, Erik Vos wrote: > On further checking I see, that in 1837 only the three merger companies have > a fixed starting price. > > For the other companies, the start price can be chosen, but still is not to > be indicated on the stock chart until floating time - which seems awkward to > me: apparently you'll have to remember the price until that time. Or lay > the price token upside down initially. 1837's stock market has a separate par-price display next to it, because only two companies are allowed to use each price. |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-05-07 12:41:08
|
Ah, thanks, I had overlooked that. My conclusion is that we need a generic provision to allow postponing current price token laying. Setting this flag on will then be the default for companies that have a fixed start price. For all others the default will be off. In a later stage we can add explicit configuration parameters to change the setting per game and/or per company(-type). I don't think we need these explicit configuration items now, because, if I haven't missed something, no non-default cases have yet surfaced amongst the games currently (being) implemented in Rails. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...] > > 1837's stock market has a separate par-price display next to it, because only > two companies are allowed to use each price. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat > landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will > include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-05-07 15:08:30
|
Erik: do you expect to implement a fix today or tomorrow? Otherwise I will go ahead with 1.7.4 today. Stefan On 05/07/2012 02:08 PM, Erik Vos wrote: > Ah, thanks, I had overlooked that. > > My conclusion is that we need a generic provision to allow postponing > current price token laying. > > Setting this flag on will then be the default for companies that have a > fixed start price. For all others the default will be off. > > In a later stage we can add explicit configuration parameters to change the > setting per game and/or per company(-type). > I don't think we need these explicit configuration items now, because, if I > haven't missed something, no non-default cases have yet surfaced amongst the > games currently (being) implemented in Rails. > > Erik. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...] >> >> 1837's stock market has a separate par-price display next to it, because > only >> two companies are allowed to use each price. >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat >> landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will >> include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails-devel mailing list >> Rai...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-05-07 15:26:48
|
Stefan, No, not really. I'm still in the phase of gathering requirements. I think that's about complete, so I may get it done later this week, but I can't make promises. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:08 PM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Bug in 1.7.3 1835, Token of a starting company > > Erik: > do you expect to implement a fix today or tomorrow? > Otherwise I will go ahead with 1.7.4 today. > Stefan > > On 05/07/2012 02:08 PM, Erik Vos wrote: > > Ah, thanks, I had overlooked that. > > > > My conclusion is that we need a generic provision to allow postponing > > current price token laying. > > > > Setting this flag on will then be the default for companies that have > > a fixed start price. For all others the default will be off. > > > > In a later stage we can add explicit configuration parameters to > > change the setting per game and/or per company(-type). > > I don't think we need these explicit configuration items now, because, > > if I haven't missed something, no non-default cases have yet surfaced > > amongst the games currently (being) implemented in Rails. > > > > Erik. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John David Galt [mailto:jd...@di...] > >> > >> 1837's stock market has a separate par-price display next to it, > >> because > > only > >> two companies are allowed to use each price. > >> > >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------ > > -- > >> Live Security Virtual Conference > >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. > >> Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the > >> latest in malware > > threats. > >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rails-devel mailing list > >> Rai...@li... > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > Live Security Virtual Conference > > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. > > Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the > > latest in malware threats. > > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat > landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will > include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-05-08 12:04:18
|
I have pushed the implementation of the delayed laying of the price token for companies with a fixed starting price. This applies to 1835 (it fixes a bug reported by Volker Schnell) and 1825. Only defaults are set. Please note: the fixed starting price is NOT yet indicated on the Stock Chart before floating time. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:27 PM > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game' > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Bug in 1.7.3 1835, Token of a starting company > > Stefan, > > No, not really. I'm still in the phase of gathering requirements. > I think that's about complete, so I may get it done later this week, but I can't > make promises. > > Erik. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] > > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:08 PM > > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Bug in 1.7.3 1835, Token of a starting > > company > > > > Erik: > > do you expect to implement a fix today or tomorrow? > > Otherwise I will go ahead with 1.7.4 today. > > Stefan > > > > On 05/07/2012 02:08 PM, Erik Vos wrote: > > > Ah, thanks, I had overlooked that. > > > > > > My conclusion is that we need a generic provision to allow > > > postponing current price token laying. > > > > > > Setting this flag on will then be the default for companies that > > > have a fixed start price. For all others the default will be off. > > > > > > In a later stage we can add explicit configuration parameters to > > > change the setting per game and/or per company(-type). > > > I don't think we need these explicit configuration items now, > > > because, if I haven't missed something, no non-default cases have > > > yet surfaced amongst the games currently (being) implemented in Rails. > > > > > > Erik. |
|
From: Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...> - 2012-05-06 18:47:06
|
Hi Stefan, Lemmi's moderator handles this correctly, that's why i stumbled about this issue. Volker Am 06.05.2012 13:36, schrieb Stefan Frey: > Volker: > thanks for catching this. > > I have to admit that I did not know that rule by heart myself, I would > have guessed that the (stock market) token is layed as soon as the > president's share is available. > (So in effect BY and SX price markets are on the stock chart from the > start of the game). > > Rails currently lays the token as soon as the president's share is > bought (so similar what I believe is correct for most 18xx), which > given the rules quoted is wrong. > > It seems that is not excessively hard to change that, but I want to > wait for Erik's opinion on this. > > I will delay the 1.7.4 release until this is fixed. > > Stefan > > PS: Volker do you know if Lemmi's moderator handles this correctly? > > And another PS: Does anybody now when in general is the stock market > token placed for other 18xx with par prices? I do not have time to > check that now, but I had guessed that it usually happens at the same > time that the par price is set (so after the president shares is bought). > > > On 05/06/2012 11:07 AM, Schnell, Volker wrote: >> David, thanks for the hint. >> here is the right one. >> >> >> Am 06.05.2012 02:46, schrieb John David Galt: >>> The save file you attached is from an 18EU game. >>> >>> On 2012-05-05 14:09, Schnell, Volker wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I found another Bug in 1835. Rails-Version 1.7.3 >>>> in the SDR 2 Shares of the Bayern were sold (92> 88). In the same >>>> round but later the Sax was founded (50% sold shares). >>>> in the following OR Sax operates before the Bayern. see attached >>>> saved-file >>>> Thats wrong. >>>> >>>> from the Rules (first german, then english) >>>> 2.7.1 Sind von einer Gesellschaft mindestens 50% erstmalig verkauft >>>> worden, ist die Gesellschaft "in Betrieb". >>>> 2.7.2 In dem Moment, in dem die Gesellschaft in Betrieb geht, erhält >>>> der Direktor den entsprechenden Besitzbogen und alle Marker der >>>> Gesellschaft. >>>> 2.7.3 Einer der Marker wird auf das gekennzeichnete Startposition der >>>> AG auf der Aktienkurstafel gelegt. Ist das Feld schon von anderen >>>> Markern belegt, wird er unter diese geschoben. >>>> >>>> english. >>>> 2.7.1. if 50% Shares of a company are sold for the first time, the >>>> company "operates" >>>> 2.7.2. at the Time, the company operates, the director receives the >>>> compony sheet and all company-token. >>>> 2.7.3. One marker is layed at the marked Position of the company on >>>> the stock-table. If the field is already occupied by other token, >>>> then the token is placed under the other token. >>>> >>>> greetings >>>> >>>> volker >>> If it happened in the first OR, I would agree that that is a bug. >>> I've seen Sx correctly operate before By (once) if Sx floats in SR2. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Live Security Virtual Conference >> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and >> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. >> Discussions >> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in >> malware >> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails-devel mailing list >> Rai...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > -- Volker Schnell email: vol...@ar... homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-05-06 12:10:04
|
Hmm, that's an 1835 rule detail that had slipped out of my mind (it's a long time ago that I played 1835), but you are obviously right. Rails now drops an SX token to indicate its price as soon as it starts, as in all other games. 1825, another game with fixed start prices, has the same rule. Are people aware of other such games? If the 1835 rule applies to all similar games, we need: a) a provision to mark fixed start prices on the Stock Chart, to be shown only if a company hasn't yet floated, b) for fixed start price companies, postpone stock chart token laying until floating time. If exceptions exist, we'll also need a new game parameter to define the correct rule for each such game. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Schnell, Volker [mailto:vol...@ar...] > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2012 11:09 PM > To: rai...@li... > Subject: [Rails-devel] Bug in 1.7.3 1835, Token of a starting company > > Hi > > I found another Bug in 1835. Rails-Version 1.7.3 in the SDR 2 Shares of the > Bayern were sold (92 > 88). In the same round but later the Sax was founded > (50% sold shares). > in the following OR Sax operates before the Bayern. see attached saved-file > Thats wrong. > > from the Rules (first german, then english) > 2.7.1 Sind von einer Gesellschaft mindestens 50% erstmalig verkauft worden, > ist die Gesellschaft "in Betrieb". > 2.7.2 In dem Moment, in dem die Gesellschaft in Betrieb geht, erhält der > Direktor den entsprechenden Besitzbogen und alle Marker der Gesellschaft. > 2.7.3 Einer der Marker wird auf das gekennzeichnete Startposition der AG > auf der Aktienkurstafel gelegt. Ist das Feld schon von anderen Markern > belegt, wird er unter diese geschoben. > > english. > 2.7.1. if 50% Shares of a company are sold for the first time, the company > "operates" > 2.7.2. at the Time, the company operates, the director receives the compony > sheet and all company-token. > 2.7.3. One marker is layed at the marked Position of the company on the > stock-table. If the field is already occupied by other token, then the token is > placed under the other token. > > greetings > > volker > > -- > Volker Schnell > email: vol...@ar... > homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell |
|
From: Mike B. <com...@ip...> - 2012-05-06 12:56:46
|
In general, tokens are placed on the stock market chart only when sufficient shares are sold that the company can operate. Until then, the value remains the par value of the stock. One game's rules (I forget which, but one of those that does not have fixed par values) suggests placing the tokens on the stock market board upside down until the company launches. The other general rule is that whenever a token enters a space on the stock market, it is placed under (and therefore operates after) any counter that is already in the space. This rule also comes into effect when one (higher stock value) company withholds income while another with a lower stock value pays a dividend, such that they both end up in the same space on the stock market. In fact, I am not aware of any exceptions to these general rules, though that does not preclude the possibility of there being such an exception. And I've played _most_ of the major 18xx games (including 2056, which is an asteroid-mining game with many similar mechanics to the 18xx series), so I have a fair basis of comparison. Mike Bourke Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120505-0, 05/05/2012 Tested on: 6/05/2012 10:55:58 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-05-06 13:35:22
|
Mike: you really got me confused for a few moments: But I doubt that your first paragraph is correct for 1830 (at least the original game): It is allowed to sell shares even if the company has not yet floated and this moves the stock market token down. There are three conditions in the original rules of 1830 (rule 12): "During his or her turn of a Stock Round a player may sell any amount of Railroad stock except that: 1) No stock may be sold during the first Stock Round. 2) No further stock in a Corporation may be sold if the Bank Pool already holds 50% of the stock in that Railroad. 3) The president’s stock certificate may NOT be sold into the Pool; it can only be disposed of as explained in 13.0." It does not disallow selling stock of a company that has not yet floated. And rule 8.1 of 1830 states that the stock market token is put down as soon as the president's certificate is taken from the bank. But it might be different for other games, especially those which delay selling the first certificate (see http://www.fwtwr.com/18xx/rules_difference_list/2_3.htm) Stefan On 05/06/2012 02:55 PM, Mike Bourke wrote: > In general, tokens are placed on the stock market chart only when sufficient > shares are sold that the company can operate. Until then, the value remains > the par value of the stock. One game's rules (I forget which, but one of > those that does not have fixed par values) suggests placing the tokens on > the stock market board upside down until the company launches. > > The other general rule is that whenever a token enters a space on the stock > market, it is placed under (and therefore operates after) any counter that > is already in the space. This rule also comes into effect when one (higher > stock value) company withholds income while another with a lower stock value > pays a dividend, such that they both end up in the same space on the stock > market. > > In fact, I am not aware of any exceptions to these general rules, though > that does not preclude the possibility of there being such an exception. And > I've played _most_ of the major 18xx games (including 2056, which is an > asteroid-mining game with many similar mechanics to the 18xx series), so I > have a fair basis of comparison. > > Mike Bourke > Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com > Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com > > > > --- > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. > Virus Database (VPS): 120505-0, 05/05/2012 > Tested on: 6/05/2012 10:55:58 PM > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. > http://www.avast.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Mike B. <com...@ip...> - 2012-05-06 13:42:14
|
Sorry for any confusion, Stefan! The two would seem to go hand-in-hand - you have to have a token on the stock market board to reflect changed values if you can see shares. But I think that the 1830 game and its variants are the only ones where this is the case. Most of the 18xx games explicitly state that you can't sell shares until the company has floated, or (in some cases) actually had an operating round. Mike Bourke Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120505-0, 05/05/2012 Tested on: 6/05/2012 11:41:26 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com |
|
From: Mike B. <com...@ip...> - 2012-05-06 13:51:28
|
That should be "sell shares" not "see shares"! Mike --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 120505-0, 05/05/2012 Tested on: 6/05/2012 11:50:39 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2012 AVAST Software. http://www.avast.com |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2012-05-06 18:44:12
|
On 2012-05-06 05:55, Mike Bourke wrote: > In general, tokens are placed on the stock market chart only when sufficient > shares are sold that the company can operate. Until then, the value remains > the par value of the stock. One game's rules (I forget which, but one of > those that does not have fixed par values) suggests placing the tokens on > the stock market board upside down until the company launches. The only game I know that does this, other than 1835, is 1837. Playing this way definitely won't work for 1830 or any other game where you can sell shares of a company that hasn't floated yet (and the price falls). |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-02 15:16:19
|
Stefan/Brett/Erik: > I do not know if everyone has to commit to one framework before you could start. Understood. But then at least Erik and me should have the same opinion on this issue, as we are currently the only ones actively working on the UI layer. On top of that, the docking framework adoption would be a refactoring of the current UI (not an additional UI) - as changing frameworks would be rather invasive. ==> I'll wait for Erik's opinion / assessment before moving on. > When considering any libraries or frameworks for use, please only consider those with GPL-compatible licensing. The lib's licence is LGPLv2.1 which is listed as GPL-compatible. So that would be ok. -- Frederick |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-02-02 18:51:35
|
Frederick, When I tried to load the first patch (with 'git am'), I got errors like: .classpath does not match index build.xml does not match index Not sure what to do about these errors. The second patch loaded fine. I think it's fine to experiment with such ideas, but I'm a bit sceptical about the result. Yes, it would release ORPanel again from its chains, but what other problems would it solve? My main issue is, that our screens are (or at least mine is) too small to have all frames open at a convenient size, and at the same time not overlap each other. I don't immediately see how docking could fix that. But I may be wrong. In any case, I would prefer docking to remain optional. And out of the way (i.e. in a separate branch) until it's proven to work and do a better job (whatever that means). Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Frederick Weld [mailto:fre...@go...] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:16 PM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Swing Docking Framework for Rails > > Stefan/Brett/Erik: > > I do not know if everyone has to commit to one framework before you > could start. > > Understood. But then at least Erik and me should have the same opinion on > this issue, as we are currently the only ones actively working on the UI layer. > On top of that, the docking framework adoption would be a refactoring of > the current UI (not an additional UI) - as changing frameworks would be > rather invasive. > > ==> I'll wait for Erik's opinion / assessment before moving on. > > > When considering any libraries or frameworks for use, please only consider > those with GPL-compatible licensing. > > The lib's licence is LGPLv2.1 which is listed as GPL-compatible. So that would > be ok. > > -- Frederick > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is > just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro > Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-02-03 11:39:46
|
Erik: the errors occur as Eclipse does not refresh all folders after the patch: It seems that it does not refresh the library folder, so it does not find the new libraries. However this is not too surprising as the lib folder is excluded from being a source folder for Rails. So you have to refresh that path manually. Stefan Frederick: I did some quick testing: It is great to be able to drag around panels as you wish . However as it is the case with docking frameworks is that it allows users to easily mess-up the layout of panels, if there is not intelligent algorithm triggering resizes or adding scrollbars to the panels. It is too easy to get this gimp-like feeling as a user that you have never know where each menu item might be hidden. So I agree with Erik that this is most likely to be a major rework and cannot be done easily in a evolutionary fashion. So my suggestion is to synchronize that work with my Rails 2.0 development to avoid rewriting it for 1.x first and than having to adapt it to 2.0 again. Stefan On 02/02/2012 07:51 PM, Erik Vos wrote: > Frederick, > > When I tried to load the first patch (with 'git am'), I got errors like: > .classpath does not match index > build.xml does not match index > Not sure what to do about these errors. > > The second patch loaded fine. > > I think it's fine to experiment with such ideas, but I'm a bit sceptical > about the result. Yes, it would release ORPanel again from its chains, but > what other problems would it solve? > My main issue is, that our screens are (or at least mine is) too small to > have all frames open at a convenient size, and at the same time not overlap > each other. I don't immediately see how docking could fix that. But I may be > wrong. > > In any case, I would prefer docking to remain optional. And out of the way > (i.e. in a separate branch) until it's proven to work and do a better job > (whatever that means). > > Erik. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frederick Weld [mailto:fre...@go...] >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 4:16 PM >> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game >> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Swing Docking Framework for Rails >> >> Stefan/Brett/Erik: >>> I do not know if everyone has to commit to one framework before you >> could start. >> >> Understood. But then at least Erik and me should have the same opinion on >> this issue, as we are currently the only ones actively working on the UI > layer. >> On top of that, the docking framework adoption would be a refactoring of >> the current UI (not an additional UI) - as changing frameworks would be >> rather invasive. >> >> ==> I'll wait for Erik's opinion / assessment before moving on. >> >>> When considering any libraries or frameworks for use, please only > consider >> those with GPL-compatible licensing. >> >> The lib's licence is LGPLv2.1 which is listed as GPL-compatible. So that > would >> be ok. >> >> -- Frederick >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >> Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! >> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is >> just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro >> Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails-devel mailing list >> Rai...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-02-03 13:39:16
|
> the errors occur as Eclipse does not refresh all folders after the > patch: It seems that it does not refresh the library folder, so it does not find > the new libraries. However this is not too surprising as the lib folder is > excluded from being a source folder for Rails. > So you have to refresh that path manually. It was not Eclipse but (command-line) git (Git Bash) that gave these errors. > It is too easy to get this gimp-like feeling as a user that you have never know > where each menu item might be hidden. > So I agree with Erik that this is most likely to be a major rework and cannot be > done easily in a evolutionary fashion. > > So my suggestion is to synchronize that work with my Rails 2.0 development > to avoid rewriting it for 1.x first and than having to adapt it to 2.0 again. A note aside: I suspect that saved docking layouts should be game-dependent, as window sizes (in particular the map) differ widely. Erik. |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-04 15:59:39
|
Erik/Stefan:
based on your replies and my first experiences, I decided not to move
substantially further with the adoption of the docking framework.
There are several reasons for that:
- I've already achieved my main goal of being able to detach panels
from the OR window.
- Demand beyond this is currently not clearly existing.
- Any further adoption of the framework would be invasive and
longer-term oriented (not being part of master).
This decision means the following (already available in the repository):
(1) docking framework included into master - but disabled by default
- option (within section "Window") for enabling dockable panels
of the OR Window
- Anybody can evaluate the docking framework by activating
option (no patch/branch need)
(2) Only add a few key features in addition to the prototype
- the button panel can be detached
- e.g., I put it below the upgrade panel in my local layout
- the OR Window layout is persisted / restored on a per-game basis
- upgrade panel tiles are displayed in the same zoom step as in the map
- This wasn't possible before as the upgrade panel's width
couldn't be adjusted
(3) Refrain from refactoring OR window's panels
- supporting the configuration option renders such refactoring
too cumbersome
(4) Refrain from extending the scope of the docking framework to other
windows/panels for the time being
- wait until there is the "pull" for more (based on others'
experiences / feedback)
> Erik:
> [Docking Framework] It would release ORPanel again from its chains, but what other problems would it solve?
Even for one monitor, I could perceive advantages of adopting the
docking framework: Each round could have its own perspective which
could be further configured by the user. Think of minimizing /
reducing the size of the stock market / chart for ORs and the
map/tracks during SR.
-- Frederick
|
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-02-04 18:57:37
|
Frederick, It works fine, and I like it. A few remarks: > - the button panel can be detached > - e.g., I put it below the upgrade panel in my local layout The extra space taken by the detachable panels is significant, and will increase the need to actually do some detachment in many cases. This is particularly important for 1835 with its tall map. Certainly in such a case I would like to be able to detach the existing ORPanel as a whole, i.e. including the buttons. Or move these two panels into a different window. Would such things be possible? > Each round could have its own perspective which could be > further configured by the user. Yes, enabling round-type dependent layouts would reduce my scepticism by a lot. The two extra jars take almost 3 MB. That's pretty large. Erik. |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-04 19:38:39
|
Erik: > Certainly in such a case I would like to be able to detach the existing > ORPanel as a whole, i.e. including the buttons. Or move these two panels > into a different window. > Would such things be possible? I don't know the docking framework enough to give a definitive answer to that. My guess is that this would be possible. (But the linked docs would have to be consulted for how to achieve that.) But how about docking the buttons together with the upgrade panel or at the right side of the OR window? (Don't forget that I altered the button panel's preferrence size such that the button may be listed vertically or in a grid.) My layout also looks like that (or panel dragged to the second monitor while buttons docked just above the upgrade panel being part of OR Window on the first monitor). > The two extra jars take almost 3 MB. That's pretty large. I had also doubts on that at the beginning. But then again the 18GA background map svgs also have a combined size of 3MB... -- Frederick |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-02-04 20:17:48
|
> > Certainly in such a case I would like to be able to detach the > > existing ORPanel as a whole, i.e. including the buttons. Or move these > > two panels into a different window. > > Would such things be possible? > > I don't know the docking framework enough to give a definitive answer to > that. My guess is that this would be possible. (But the linked docs would have > to be consulted for how to achieve that.) > > But how about docking the buttons together with the upgrade panel or at > the right side of the OR window? That's better, though not good enough for 1835. Anyway, I'm getting the idea. It certainly looks promising. Erik. |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-05 10:26:35
|
Erik: As to the question whether it is possible to dock together two externalized panels (eg., or panel and button panel), I have found the definitive answer (and a how-to) in the forum (see http://forum.byte-welt.de/showthread.php?p=13574): It is possible but requires some adjustment of the framework's behavior. That solution is now included in master (with some minor / but necessary adjustments). I think one could quickly learn the basics of the framework by examining how ORWindow works now. btw: It appears that the creator of docking frames (Benjamin Sigg - Beni) provides excellent support for how-to questions regarding the framework (in the forum). -- Frederick |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-02-05 11:52:43
|
Frederick: some quick replies and observations. Overall it seems to work without critical bugs, for me however it does not improve the handling so far. * At least on my system (Linux KDE 4, Java OpenJDK/IcedTea 6) it is pretty easy to create a layout which is a complete messed up and it is nearly impossible to get back into something useful (via the UI and not by deleting the configuration file). * More seriously: After closing the Map/ORWindow via the GameWindow menu and recreating it, only parts of the ORWindow get restored: However which parts can be recovered changes each time I tried that. * It would be great if there were some pre-defined sensible layouts available to select from, especially if those are game dependent (for example taking into account how the map looks like and how many companies exist). * Configuration files in general: There are now three types (my rails_config, Erik's rails_ini and Fredericks' DockableLayout/rails_ini) of configuration files saved using different mechanisms and file locations. We should at least consider some consolidation here. * Configuration and log-files: It would be nice if saving and opening of configuration files would be written to 18xx.log, which allows * Size of the jar-files: In the long-run we should provide resource packages (e.g. for maps and libs), so that for updates only fewer files should be required: The whole setup and installation mechanism is something we should have a look at. However I believe that a size of 11MB is still very reasonable. Stefan On 02/04/2012 04:59 PM, Frederick Weld wrote: > Erik/Stefan: > based on your replies and my first experiences, I decided not to move > substantially further with the adoption of the docking framework. > There are several reasons for that: > - I've already achieved my main goal of being able to detach panels > from the OR window. > - Demand beyond this is currently not clearly existing. > - Any further adoption of the framework would be invasive and > longer-term oriented (not being part of master). > > This decision means the following (already available in the repository): > > (1) docking framework included into master - but disabled by default > - option (within section "Window") for enabling dockable panels > of the OR Window > - Anybody can evaluate the docking framework by activating > option (no patch/branch need) > > (2) Only add a few key features in addition to the prototype > - the button panel can be detached > - e.g., I put it below the upgrade panel in my local layout > - the OR Window layout is persisted / restored on a per-game basis > - upgrade panel tiles are displayed in the same zoom step as in the map > - This wasn't possible before as the upgrade panel's width > couldn't be adjusted > > (3) Refrain from refactoring OR window's panels > - supporting the configuration option renders such refactoring > too cumbersome > > (4) Refrain from extending the scope of the docking framework to other > windows/panels for the time being > - wait until there is the "pull" for more (based on others' > experiences / feedback) > >> Erik: >> [Docking Framework] It would release ORPanel again from its chains, but what other problems would it solve? > > Even for one monitor, I could perceive advantages of adopting the > docking framework: Each round could have its own perspective which > could be further configured by the user. Think of minimizing / > reducing the size of the stock market / chart for ORs and the > map/tracks during SR. > > -- Frederick > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-05 13:50:03
|
Stefan: > After closing the Map/ORWindow via the GameWindow menu > and recreating it, only parts of the ORWindow get restored: However > which parts can be recovered changes each time I tried that. Thanks for this observation. This should now be fixed (retest successful at least for my reproduction path). Regarding the other points: I understand that much more would be needed if we wanted to really productize these new features (ie., defining them as standard). However, I have made the decision not to pursue this aim for the time being. Everyone who wants to make experiences with this (rather hidden) functionality is welcome to do so - he can return to the standard rails UI at any time. Some of the points in more detail: - Messed up layouts: It would be rather easy to add a "reset layout" button to the OR Panel's menu. But this would only help regarding the symptom. The root issue here is that you are able to create broken layouts. I have never been able to "achieve" that. I'm really wondering how you did this. - Predefined game-dependent layouts and config file merge: Very sensible but, in my opinion, much too early to think about that. One target design could be do put all panels (incl. status window etc.) in one frame. So this should wait until the target design is fixed. -- Frederick |
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-02-05 14:04:50
Attachments:
rails_docking.png
|
Frederick, I simply played around for a minute and I came up with the following setup (see attachment). I do not even know where the map panel disappeared to. Maybe it is not messed up in your eyes ;-) Stefan On 02/05/2012 02:49 PM, Frederick Weld wrote: > Stefan: >> After closing the Map/ORWindow via the GameWindow menu >> and recreating it, only parts of the ORWindow get restored: However >> which parts can be recovered changes each time I tried that. > > Thanks for this observation. This should now be fixed (retest > successful at least for my reproduction path). > > Regarding the other points: > I understand that much more would be needed if we wanted to really > productize these new features (ie., defining them as standard). > However, I have made the decision not to pursue this aim for the time > being. Everyone who wants to make experiences with this (rather > hidden) functionality is welcome to do so - he can return to the > standard rails UI at any time. > > Some of the points in more detail: > > - Messed up layouts: It would be rather easy to add a "reset layout" > button to the OR Panel's menu. But this would only help regarding the > symptom. The root issue here is that you are able to create broken > layouts. I have never been able to "achieve" that. I'm really > wondering how you did this. > > - Predefined game-dependent layouts and config file merge: Very > sensible but, in my opinion, much too early to think about that. One > target design could be do put all panels (incl. status window etc.) in > one frame. So this should wait until the target design is fixed. > > -- Frederick > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Try before you buy = See our experts in action! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Frederick W. <fre...@go...> - 2012-02-05 14:49:57
|
Stefan: > Maybe it is not messed up in your eyes ;-) Apart from the map, the layout is ok / could be restored. BUT the map is definitely missing on the screenshot. Even if it's just hidden somewhere, you have proven that such situations could occur. I'll think about how to deal with this finding. -- Frederick |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X