Openrct2: Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

[brettpenzer123]

Just making some final adjustments.

[Gymnasiast]

Snow with a temperature of 17°C?
Also: a white cloud would be better than a dark grey one (talking about the weather symbol).

[brettpenzer123]

Obviously I haven't implemented the temperature change but I'll nearly done :dancer:

[brettpenzer123]

The sprite was already implemented.

[spacek531]

Could the snowflakes on the screen be enlarged a little? It's not very easy to tell what they are.

[chrismilne300]

It would be amazing if the ground changed like it does in Locomotion:

[Superjustinbros]

Perhaps the snow could be made into some tiny star-shaped sprites instead of being (for the most part) recolored rain and instead of the screen getting darker like in the rain, it gets brighter and more pale.

[IntelOrca]

Shouldn't this be a pull request rather than an issue?
We have a work in progress label for pull requests.

[WhenPenguinsAttack]

I agree that the snow should be bigger so we can see it easier, and also agree with the ground changes so that we can see built up snow.

[brettpenzer123]

I've made the snow drops bigger then the ones in previous image. I'm also adding in some weather effects that can be toggled on/off like rain that makes flowers bloom again and snow that can form ice on grass. If we had more terrain options I'd gladly add more surface type snow.

[Ziscor]

Here's a thought: the snow should fall slower than rain does (unless that's exactly what you've done). If the snow were to fall at the rate at which it does now it would be a damn blizzard :snowflake:
It should be gliding/ drifting across the screen.

[Superjustinbros]

@Ziscor I like that idea.

[brettpenzer123]

I've decided to remove bigger snowflakes as it was getting in the way. The snow falls at a 125 degree angle which looks great.

[brettpenzer123]

Currently it runs within drawing.c function gfx_draw_rain and rain.c function draw_light_rain which isn't very optimal but I'm going to make its own functions and calls in time.

I also decide to change climate names and transitions. Climates are named after seasons (Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter) The transition change makes the weather feel more fluid.

[IntelOrca]

How can you change the names of the climates to seasons? The climate is fixed to the scenario, seasons would happen every game year, and parks aren't usually open in the winter which is why the months run from March to October (assuming northern hemisphere).

[brettpenzer123]

The game has strings available for Jan to Dec it runs a season every three months. Some parks wouldn't be open during the weather heavy_rain or thunderstorm but we don't close rides nor do we close the park. So it doesn't matter if a park wouldn't open in winter.

It's a simulation game not a simulator. I know you want to stay true to RCT2 but...

[IntelOrca]

In the game a climate is a fixed scheme of weather and temperature patterns. It can not change throughout a scenario. You have:

CLIMATE_WARM
CLIMATE_HOT_AND_DRY
CLIMATE_COLD

You said you changed those to seasons... but they aren't. Each one of those climates defines a pattern of temperatures throughout the year thus, simulating the seasons. The idea is that you make a desert map to CLIMATE_HOT_AND_DRY and a ice map to CLIMATE_COLD. You wouldn't expect snow ever on a CLIMATE_HOT_AND_DRY map, but to get it frequently on a CLIMATE_COLD map. Less frequently, probably just March and October for CLIMATE_COOL_AND_WET.

[brettpenzer123]

I understand but if change one I must change all.

[brettpenzer123]

I was looking at pull requesting the snow weather but I have to sort out what isn't needed for the development version. Most of my code conflicts and isn't pull requested anyways it will more then likely stay in my development.

[IntelOrca]

I understand but if change one I must change all.

I don't know what you mean.

I was looking at pull requesting the snow weather but I have to sort out what isn't needed for the development version. Most of my code is conflicts :)

I can't see any commits on your repository for this, which suggests you haven't pushed your local changes to GitHub. It means no one can see what you have done or suggest anything. Pull requests are a good way of tracking the changes and testing if its mergable.

Most of my code isn't pull requested anyways and will more then likely stay in my development.

This doesn't make any sense.

[brettpenzer123]

My whole post above was to state that my code is way out of sync with the rest of the project.

[IntelOrca]

@brettpenzer123 read this:

https://guides.github.com/introduction/flow/

You push your changes to your fork. Your code will be out of sync because that is what happens when you branch. Its not until you rebase or merge that your code becomes in sync again with the main branch. You should always regularly push changes to your fork, it doesn't matter whether you think they are out of sync or not.

[brettpenzer123]

Thanks for the information. This is why my code is way out which will take me longer to convert it from one source to the other. When I'm done moving the code over then I will start fresh.

When I'm trying to implement a new feature I don't want any of the global variables or other code not working properly. This is probably why you don't want anyone working on anything new until most of the code is optimal. I just prefer to just work offline.

[IntelOrca]

@brettpenzer123 that's not how this works and I think you are misunderstanding this. Your fork is your own version of this repository. You can do what you like with it and anything anyone else does will not interfere with it. You should never ever need to start fresh, that defeats the whole principle of git and source / version control.

Have a look at https://guides.github.com/activities/forking/

[brettpenzer123]

I know that isn't how it works. This is just my preference.

[janisozaur]

What was your point in opening an issue and showcasing something you apparently are not willing to contribute?

[IntelOrca]

@brettpenzer123 That's unfortunate to hear as that goes against ours and GitHub's contribution etiquette. I really hope you reconsider.

[brettpenzer123]

@janisozaur I didn't say I'd never add it. I just decided to not use the standard procedures.

@IntelOrca That's fine. I did say once I get it into the source you are currently merging I'll happily get on the wagon. Now I'm rewriting all the code because most of the variables that I used are changed or removed. If anything I should be the one complaining because its going to take longer to pull request.

My method equals time due to the massive amount of change. I understand the proper method...