Mod to adjust airplane crash chance?

[Pinstar]

The IRL chance of a plane crash is 1 in 11 million. Significantly lower than the current crash chance in game.

I understand the 5% chance when you try to force a big plane to land at a little airport, but the current base chance is still huge compared to the crash chance of trains (with proper signals) which is 0. Airplanes already have other issues which is why many ignore them, but having the option to eliminate or near eliminate the crash chance would at least make them more usable.

[Skarfester]

I guess this isn't something you can change via newGRF, so you'll probably need a patch for that.
Last time I used planes in a game I just deactivated planes crashes (except for big planes on small airports, which I think is right).

[Eddi]

there is already a setting to disable the crash chance.

i see no benefit of fine tuning the crash chance. also, in your "1 in 11 million" chance you need to consider that a real plane lands multiple times per day, while an ingame plane can have months between landings.

[LaChupacabra]

there is already a setting to disable the crash chance.

What about online games? Why did you made impossible to play multiplayer games without plane crashes?

And why did you force players to use cheating to continue their games? Thus, preventing the game result from appearing on the list of high scores.

[Eddi]

Why did you made impossible to play multiplayer games without plane crashes?

how can you put so much nonsense into so little words?

a) the cheat only applies to the "too short runway" part of the crashes, while this topic is about the other crashes, for which there is a regular setting.
b) you can play multiplayer while the cheat is active, you just can't activate the cheat during a multiplayer session
c) i don't even have words for the rest of the nonsense

[mak]

Steady Eddi

look at the very last line of his post, I suspect his native language is Spanish.

Iam sorry for may English. I know is bed.

Lachupcabra:

This should be,

I am sorry for my English, I know it is bad.

[dol422]

Steady Eddi

look at the very last line of his post, I suspect his native language is Spanish.

Iam sorry for may English. I know is bed.

Lachupcabra:

This should be,

I am sorry for my English, I know it is bad.

Just curious as how you came to that conclusion. I can't see where that indicates the kangaroo is Spanish

[mak]

Hi, just a guess I may be wrong.

Chupacabra
The chupacabra or chupacabras is a legendary creature in the folklore of parts of the Americas. The name comes from the animal's reported vampirism—the chupacabra is said to attack and drink the blood of livestock, including goats.Wikipedia
Other name(s):Chupacabras, El Chupacabra
Country:Puerto Rico, Mexico, United States
Region:Caribbean (chiefly Puerto Rico), Central and South America, North America (chiefly Mexico and the southwestern United States)

[LaChupacabra]

how can you put so much nonsense into so little words?

nonsense you say? Not enough words?

Ok, so maybe I'll use more words and write it straight. Players just should to know who they owe it to.

YOU are the main person responsible for removing the no plane crashes option from the game.

It was YOUR change that removed the option to play without any crashes (Github PR #7302: make crash chance at short runway independent of plane crash setting)

You did it despite clear objections. These objections have been devalued to the vote of a single player as usual.
(Your response to the objections: You keep saying that, but i've never seen any of these hypothetical people. - it was about what you thought, that all players in your opinion consider the lack of accidents as a bug. Players who think otherwise are hypothetical)

You did this even though there was an alternate patch that kept the previous behavior. (Github PR #7293) Nay! Your PR was a response to this, and you did it intentionally to eliminate the possibility of a game without plane crashes!

You did it to - consciously or not - impose on others the right style of play in your opinion. To call cheaters all those who want to play differently than you and just without accidents. To label them a "cheater".
Because accidents at small airports should be out of players' control.
Because the ability to land large planes at small airports is an exploit.
These are not my words, these are quotes from other developers with which you seem to fully agree.
You had a choice, it could still be one of the settings, but you preferred it to be a cheat.

Do you know what forced accidents are at small airports? This is your lack of imagination, lack of knowledge and rigid interpretation of the game's virtual reality. But mostly it's ignorance and disrespect to players who don't replicate your play style. It is also ignoring the rules written for the purposes of game development, because although this option was not in the original, it was present in OTTD for almost its entire existence and for many players it was one of the foundations of their style of play - a different, but very common style, which you should respect and take into account when making changes. But you developers don't care about players and their expectations. You will never ask the players what they want, what they expect. You just do what you want, what you expect. This is no exception, but unfortunately increasingly the rule.
Even with very significant changes, their opinion does not interest you. You push through your senseless, destructive changes, probably hoping no one will speak up. The topic of deleting the share function and your arguments compared to the players' opinions very well shows how much your ideas are diluted with the players' expectations. Not all players, but a lot of them.
Maybe I'll remind you...

Developer imaginations about removing the share feature from the game:
(from Github PR#10709: Remove: buying/selling/owning company shares )

Now, what does it add to the player?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.(here)

To add to your point that this is a useless feature for players ... (here)

Few of the players real opinions:
(from tt-forums topic: OTTD 14.0 - Removing the possibility to buy/sell company shares)

I think it's complete bulls***. You just need to fix it somehow so that it makes sense even in online games, and put a limit there that you don't buy 100% - Or it could only be available in offline play and for AI.
This approach - something doesn't work and we don't want to fix it, so we'd rather cancel it - I never liked it.

Is this actually going ahead?
If so then thanks a f*&%%£%^g bunch
The ability to buy out an A.I is an ESSENTIAL part of my gameplay.
There are others who say they don't care, or they don't use the feature. Please bear in mind that not everybody plays the way you do. This will COMPLETELY RUIN a very important part of the game for me. Please don't do it.

This is basically the worst possible change you developers have made. JGR's patch pack allows for infrastructure sharing and realistic competition between companies and that is now completely broken. I have been playing this game for 10 years now, and am now seriously considering quitting completely.

I know I am meant to be surprised, but looking at the direction of development on the main OpenTTD version, my unsurprised meter is *taps it several times*, huh, off the chart broken.

Why is it that some people (no idea who that might be) want the game to be played their way regardless of how others want to play.
My grfs have LOTS of options to allow lots of different ways of playing.
Shares NEED to remain as an option. I know it's a poor system but it's been like this from the start and I can live with that.

There are lots of ways of playing that I never use but I would never dream of removing them simply because I don't like them.

I've been trying to avoid this topic because it really annoys me and I didn't even feel like replying to your arrogant post. For the same reason, I never opened this topic. But the fact is that whenever I launch one of my older saves, almost every time the game starts with the f###### plane crash information, which I hate and always had turned off. Now I have to use the cheat option and mark the game as cheated every time I want to continue playing. For multiplayer games before your ignorant change, crashes were completely disabled on most non-vanilla servers. Currently, there is not a single server where you can freely build.
So yes, it's because of YOU that there's no way to play multiplayer today without these idiotic disasters!

Unfortunately, the removal of the no plane crashes option was the first in a series of nightmarish changes in recent years. Prior to 1.4.0, since I've known the game, there hasn't been a single bad or controversial change. Until 1.10.0...

[Auge]

Hello

I don't understand the excitement. Since ages [1] the game tells me, if a plane has order(s) to airports with to short runways (see [2]). Every player who uses airplanes and once entered a too small airport in the flight plan of a large airplane should know that.

Furthermore it was also since "ever" a cheating option to prevent jetplanes frequently crashing on to small airport [3]. So I "since ever" expected to have to prevent such cases by using large Airports for large aircrafts or by disabling both settings, disasters and plane crashes.

After reading the heated discussion, I am really surprised, that it was possible in the past to land large aicrafts on to small airports without the "chance" to crash but also without using the appropriate settings (as mentioned above). That's why I (and of course this only applies to me) can fully agree with Eddi's statement: The overwhelming response […] has been: "Wait, i thought that is how it worked already".

So IMHO the change made by Eddi only reflect the statements, the game made "since ever". Apart from that, it is still possible to play with completely deactivated airplane crashes, even only without deactivated disasters or with the cheat. I doubt, that gamers who want to play together on multiplayer servers, care if this is now only possible by cheat (if not deactivated by deactivated disasters anyway). So what?

Tschö, Auge

[1]: for me, playing OpenTTD since around 2008, "since ages" means since I started playing OpenTTD
[2]: from the repo in the status of one commit before commiting PR 7302: {WHITE}{VEHICLE} has in its orders an airport whose runway is too short
[3]: from the repo in the status of one commit before commiting PR 7302: {LTBLUE}Jetplanes will not crash (frequently) on small airports: {ORANGE}{STRING}

[LaChupacabra]

I don't understand the excitement. Since ages [1] the game tells me, if a plane has order(s) to airports with to short runways (see [2]). Every player who uses airplanes and once entered a too small airport in the flight plan of a large airplane should know that.

None.png (409.49 KiB) Viewed 5562 times

Do you understand what these four letters mean?
Can you see what planes are at this small local airport in the title screen game?
Did you know that this option has been available for over 10 years?

Before this Eddi's change, "None" meant "None"
It didn't require any further explanation. There were no contradictions, no "but". Everyone could play according to their preferences. Nobody imposed anything on anyone. As someone wanted to play with these disasters, he could play with disasters. If someone didn't like it, they could turn it off completely and no one called them a cheater because of it.
The only problem was leaving the cheat option, which became redundant after adding the no plane crash option to the game.

Apart from that, it is still possible to play with completely deactivated airplane crashes, even only without deactivated disasters or with the cheat. I doubt, that gamers who want to play together on multiplayer servers, care if this is now only possible by cheat

Only when you define yourself as a cheater - that could still be one of the settings, but Eddi wanted to call cheaters those who want to play differently from him. What's more, another developer, Lord Aro, even considered to remove this option as well, so that no one, in any way, could play without disaster and to make it completely pointless to continue the old saved games.

I doubt, that gamers who want to play together on multiplayer servers, care if this is now only possible by cheat

You won't find a single server today where plane crashes are completely disabled. You won't find it, because even if it existed, you wouldn't be able to check it.

Developers are increasingly limiting acceptable playstyles. The option to play without plane crashes has been removed, the option to buy/sell shares has been removed, it was planned to make the construction of complex transport networks completely unprofitable (only primitive A-B connections were to be acceptable)(PR#9002), soon creating long routes on large maps will become completely devoid of economic sense (PR#10596) and you say it's all ok?! Seriously?!

[Redirect Left]

Unfortunately, the removal of the no plane crashes option was the first in a series of nightmarish changes in recent years. Prior to 1.4.0, since I've known the game, there hasn't been a single bad or controversial change. Until 1.10.0...

I've been playing since around 2009, which according to the helpful released.txt on each release in the CDN, means probably around 0.7.0. I can't recall there being any massive upheaval style changes around those times either. Anything that could have caused upset was put behind a setting, such as Cargodist in 1.4.0, so no one was forced into a certain style of play. No matter how 'good' that style of play was to one or more developers.

Developers are increasingly limiting acceptable playstyles. The option to play without plane crashes has been removed, the option to buy/sell shares has been removed, it was planned to make the construction of complex transport networks completely unprofitable (only primitive A-B connections were to be acceptable)(PR#9002), soon creating long routes on large maps will become completely devoid of economic sense (PR#10596) and you say it's all ok?! Seriously?!

I think a lot of this stems from how the current batch of developers do all their discussing (from what I can tell) of stuff on GitHub, which is a platform specifically designed for developers, and not the typical user. Whilst it certainly is true, there are users on there too making comments, a lot of people do not, nor is it reasonable to expect the typical player is even aware GitHub exists, the same for something like IRC, especially those who come from platforms such as Steam, where its download game, play, oh no its broken or I don't understand anything, go to either Steam Forums or google for help, which for the record the #1 result for 'openttd help' currently is the OTTD wiki, which is helpful for trivial stuff issues or understanding the game more, then the OTTD website, which in English at a least, suggests TT-F as the #1 place to go for on the community tab, and then IRC for official stuff, which is slightly beyond the norm for the average person now, although 10-15 years ago, sure why not. Whilst it does state GitHub for development #1, it's hardly a friendly platform for non-coders/developers to use, compared to something like TT-Forums, which is also listed on the development list of the community tab, possibly erroneously though.
Either way, i don't see this problem going away any time soon unfortunately, for several reasons, but mostly the massive disconnect between certain people who contribute code, and the bulk of players who do not use certain platforms all the discussions of the future of the game take place on, which to a degree makes these forums redundant for those causes, and more of a hang out place for people who happen to play a game, or like transport.

It's odd to me that throughout versions since the change to aircraft crashing was made, no one has thought "...maybe we should change the 'none' to 'mostly off' or 'none - with exceptions'.". Because as a native English speaker, 'none' is 100% not the definition of what it currently does. You could even say, it makes the setting none the easier to understand. Thank you, I've been here 17 years, my dry humour never improves.

[Eddi]

YOU are the main person responsible for removing the no plane crashes option from the game.

Fine. If that's what you want to believe. From my point of view, i just threw a contribution into an ongoing discussion, and it happened to be the foundation of the final decision on that topic. No single person decides anything in the development process of this game.

It was YOUR change that removed the option to play without any crashes

and here's the fundamental flaw in your argument. no option was removed. there were two overlapping options, and they've been cleanly separated.

You did it to - consciously or not - impose on others the right style of play in your opinion. To call cheaters all those who want to play differently than you and just without accidents. To label them a "cheater".

aaah, and here's your real problem. it's not that this playstyle is now "impossible", but that it somehow clashes with your vanity.

these are quotes from other developers with which you seem to fully agree.

You know how discussions work? people have different opinions, and you try to reach a consensus, and then people agree. (or maybe not)

very common style, which you should respect and take into account when making changes.

we did take that into account. that's why it's still possible to play this way.

[off-topic rant]

well, the point you seem to be missing about that topic is that none of the posts you quoted had any constructive input, while the posts which did have actually been taken up by "the developers" (who, by the way, isn't some mythical cabal in an ivory tower that nobody can talk to.)

[kamnet]

I completely agree with Eddi 100% on this, and he probably addressed it more politely than I would have had it been addressed to me in such a disrespectful manner. Not only was LaChupacabra rude, he was completely wrong from the jump.

With that said, from this point forward let's keep the discussion about the suggestion, and any more speculative statements about forum members are going to get a very unkind sanction.

[Auge]

Hello

I don't understand the excitement. Since ages [1] the game tells me, if a plane has order(s) to airports with to short runways (see [2]). Every player who uses airplanes and once entered a too small airport in the flight plan of a large airplane should know that.

None.png
Do you understand what these four letters mean?

Yes I do.

Can you see what planes are at this small local airport in the title screen game?

Yes I do and - surprise! surprise! - I see them crashing from time to time in the title screen. This is the behaviour that the explanations of the game engine imply and the behaviour, that I expect precisely because of it.

Did you know that this option has been available for over 10 years?

I know, and I wrote exactly about it im my latest message. But, as I mentioned there, the game itself states to have another behaviour.

Before this Eddi's change, "None" meant "None"

Yes, but only because of a misbehaviour. The game says, you will encounter crashes because of too short runway but it behaves differently. One could say, it's a bug or at least a misbehaviour, that makes it possible to cheat without activating the cheat. One could also say, it's a nice feature, but strictly speaking it is none but only the exploitation of a programming error. Two sights of the same situation.

It didn't require any further explanation. There were no contradictions, no "but". Everyone could play according to their preferences.

Something, that is still possible, so what?

Apart from that, it is still possible to play with completely deactivated airplane crashes, even only without deactivated disasters or with the cheat. I doubt, that gamers who want to play together on multiplayer servers, care if this is now only possible by cheat

Only when you define yourself as a cheater

C'mon, really? That's bulls***. Cheating is an issue in a competition. Most of the games are not run as a (serious) competition. Even it was, all players have the same starting position, no one is favoured over the others. So far there is only one person who makes cheating an issue and that is you.

… that could still be one of the settings, but Eddi wanted to call cheaters those who want to play differently from him.

I see, you have found your nemesis. IMHO your statement is rubbish because you are so unnecessarily focussed on the term "cheater".

What's more, another developer, Lord Aro, even considered to remove this option as well, so that no one, in any way, could play without disaster and to make it completely pointless to continue the old saved games.

To paraphrase your harsh "Do you understand what these four letters mean?": Do you understand, what Lord Aro wrote in the linked comment? Therre is no word about anything, that leads to "remove this option as well, so that no one, in any way, could play without disaster". So why do you say such things?

I doubt, that gamers who want to play together on multiplayer servers, care if this is now only possible by cheat

You won't find a single server today where plane crashes are completely disabled. You won't find it, because even if it existed, you wouldn't be able to check it.

As stated a few times it is possible to configure a game that way, that one is able to play without any plane crash. The fact that you don't like the way this has to be done doesn't change the facts.

The option to play without plane crashes has been removed

That's not true. You can very well do it, you just don't like the way it's done. So what?

the option to buy/sell shares has been removed,

That is true.

… and you say it's all ok?! Seriously?!

Where do you read something like "it's all ok" from me? I expressed my astonishment and my sight on the issue "plane crashes". Not less, not more. If you just want to get upset and want to make a problem out of that, then do it alone. But know that I will not be muzzled just because my opinion is not yours. For now here is EOT for me.

Tschö, Auge

[Argus]

That's the Spanish hot blood
I don't see anything strange about a large plane crashing at a small airport, because in reality it would only try to land there for an emergency.
I was looking at other linked posts. Developer discussion only about possible cargo aging adjustments. Although I like to build extremely long lines, I don't see this development in any negative way, because quite a few traffic newgrfs actually also adjust the aging of cargo.
I've seen a post from one of the developers in history that he believes most people don't actually use industry newgrf, and I certainly don't think that means he wants to disable this newgrf. Even developers are just people with their opinions, right.
And yes, here again we run into the fact that the developers are only on github, while most of the players are here or on other forums. Then players sometimes feel that the developers are completely detached from the reality of the game. But, on the face of it, if they were to discuss here as well, their heads would start to hurt very soon.
And yes, not being able to redeem shares is a rather unfortunate decision, but if the feature lacked meaning, it now gives a chance to create it again and better. From the fact that no one even tried to make a reasonable patch, the developers must have assumed that no one uses it.