Advanced Trains

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Advanced Trains » Developer Reference » proposals » Large track segment ideas
dev:proposals:largetracks

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
dev:proposals:largetracks [2022-08-23 06:43]
breadbox64 [15 Degree Track - BreadBox64] Reply to Blockhead 		dev:proposals:largetracks [2023-01-13 12:06]
56independent [56independent's Opinion] Add example makefile for my silly little script and publish it for complaints
Line 44: Line 44:
  
 <del>Also, 2-void is for those who like making a pain for themselves and hate ornaments in the centre of track, such as pillars and signal poles</del> <del>Also, 2-void is for those who like making a pain for themselves and hate ornaments in the centre of track, such as pillars and signal poles</del>
 +
 +As a fluent python programmer working a little with some models, i have already created a small language determining how different .obj models can be edited. Creating a series of rotations for large track segments wouldn't be too difficult (i have already written unreleased and untested python code to do this automatically).
 +
 +For example, to merge two obj models, you can do ''signal_mast+ks_signal_front'', which would put together the blue signal mast and the black part of the Ks signal. To make a series of rotations, you could do ''dtrack_st*r'', which would make versions of ''dtrack_st'' rotated by 22.5 degrees (half of 45 degrees, should be the knight's move track) each.
 +
 +You put all these commands as seperate lines in a file and pass the filename to the script:
 +
 +<code>
 +(signal_mast+ks_signal_front)*r
 +dtrack_st*r
 +dtrack_switch*r
 +</code>
 +
 +Brackets are not yet supported though (but i would add support if requested)
 +
 +This could easily reduce the effort needed to make the different models.
 +
 +If you wish to be see the code, visit [[https://pastebin.com/28yvuj6D|This paste]]. For any questions, contact me.
 +
 ===== Blockhead's Ideas ===== ===== Blockhead's Ideas =====
 Sorry about this wall of text, this probably isn't going to get much visibility, but I've been doing a lot of thinking over an extended period and I felt the need to dump it all out. Sorry about this wall of text, this probably isn't going to get much visibility, but I've been doing a lot of thinking over an extended period and I felt the need to dump it all out.
Line 135: Line 154:
 What i think is a good idea is versions of these rails without sleepers and those with sleepers, for tram systems and ballastless track. What i think is a good idea is versions of these rails without sleepers and those with sleepers, for tram systems and ballastless track.
  
 +No, my proposal would have sleepers on all track nodes. 
 +To make tram tracks, you would put the tracks 1/8 node deeper, using https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/12352.
 +This allows to use all track nodes both with and without sleepers. --- //doxydoxy 2022-09-13 10:21//
 ==== 15 Degree Track - BreadBox64==== ==== 15 Degree Track - BreadBox64====
 I agree with the set state concept, but was wondering what everyone's opinion on 15-degree track is? I think that having 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degree track pieces would help make curves look more consistent and allow certain alignments that would look weird otherwise. Considering the scale of these changes, I think integrating 15-degree track would make sense. I agree with the set state concept, but was wondering what everyone's opinion on 15-degree track is? I think that having 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 degree track pieces would help make curves look more consistent and allow certain alignments that would look weird otherwise. Considering the scale of these changes, I think integrating 15-degree track would make sense.
Line 148: Line 170:
 (Sidenote, afaik Railroads Online is not voxel-based internally and certainly isn't in-game, it's free placement.) (Sidenote, afaik Railroads Online is not voxel-based internally and certainly isn't in-game, it's free placement.)
 I think adding the necessary turnouts would not be much of an issue, I estimated file size based on the existing models and came to a total of 494KB for all straights, curves, and switches, which would only increase the models folder from 3.62MB to 4.11MB, which isn't too bad in my opinion. On the other hand, I hadn't fully considered the number of crossing pieces and I agree with you that it's an excessive amount of models that won't see much use. I went by hand and calculated how many crossovers would be required, advtrains right now has 17 crossing models, and with 15 & 75 degrees this increases to 41 models. When I estimated the file size change it came out to around 2475MB bringing the net file size to 6.59MB, a bit less than double the current size. I am not convinced this is necessarily a deal breaker, especially considering the number of models set-state track would take. However, this would definitely necessitate the creation of a model creation script. The other option would be to not add the crossings, just the straight, curved, & switches. In my opinion, even though this is inconsistent, it is no more so than the current missing angles, as we effectively have a 15-degree system with 2 angles missing rather than a 30-degree system.  --BreadBox64 2022-08-23 04:40 (UTC) I think adding the necessary turnouts would not be much of an issue, I estimated file size based on the existing models and came to a total of 494KB for all straights, curves, and switches, which would only increase the models folder from 3.62MB to 4.11MB, which isn't too bad in my opinion. On the other hand, I hadn't fully considered the number of crossing pieces and I agree with you that it's an excessive amount of models that won't see much use. I went by hand and calculated how many crossovers would be required, advtrains right now has 17 crossing models, and with 15 & 75 degrees this increases to 41 models. When I estimated the file size change it came out to around 2475MB bringing the net file size to 6.59MB, a bit less than double the current size. I am not convinced this is necessarily a deal breaker, especially considering the number of models set-state track would take. However, this would definitely necessitate the creation of a model creation script. The other option would be to not add the crossings, just the straight, curved, & switches. In my opinion, even though this is inconsistent, it is no more so than the current missing angles, as we effectively have a 15-degree system with 2 angles missing rather than a 30-degree system.  --BreadBox64 2022-08-23 04:40 (UTC)
 +
 +Besides the combinatorial explosion mentioned by Blockhead, I think there is no real visual advantage.
 +First, the current angles are 0°, 26.57°, 45°, and 63.43°.
 +If we add another one at “15°”, that would mean 14.04° (1:4) or 11.31° (1:5).
 +Then we could argue whether there should be more angles between 26.57° and 45°, e. g. 33.70° (2:3).
 +Second, these angles will look nice at places where a single track line transitions to double track (like in front of a station).
 +But they are less useful than 1:2 for open line, because no blocks can be shaped in 1:4 or 1:5 slopes.
 +--- I think additional angles (for smooth transitions) can be useful as add-on.
 +Without providing turnouts from 14.04° to 26.57° and so on, and without diamond crossings.
 +Similar to the tram track set visible in my proposal, which serves specific uses but is not as complete as the track set otherwise. --- //doxydoxy 2022-09-13 14:11//
dev/proposals/largetracks.txt · Last modified: 2023-01-17 14:46 by evictionbot

Page Tools

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki