Differences

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

--- dev:proposals:largetracks [2022-08-21 13:42]
breadbox64 Added bit about 15 degree track.
+++ dev:proposals:largetracks [2023-01-17 14:46] (current)
evictionbot Evict 56independent
@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 There will be several ideas and opinons regarding this. They are listed here, at this section:
-===== 56independent's Opinion =====
-What i believe is a good option is putting both regular and large track segments in the mod, giving the choice between large track segments and regular tracks. This ensures backwards compatibility with existing rail networks whilst allowing large track segments on new line.
-I also believe that simple junctions should also have their own segments. Building a t-junction is currently a lot of work, and i believe that a single-block spawner would make sense. You should choose between gaps, like 1-void for railyards, 2-void, and 3-void, as well as driving direction, whether it is the same on both sides or different.
-<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>
 ===== 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.
@@ Line 135: / Line 130: @@
 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====
 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 140: / Line 138: @@
+It gets a no from me due to combinatorial explosion. Adding two more angles of track doesn't just add straight track segments, it adds basic turnouts, y-turnouts and 3-way turnouts at that angle. It also adds diamond crossings that cross each other at that angle. The crossings are a particularly bad problem. According to my calculations there are 28 possible shapes with our current system (though some are omitted due to being too shallow of an angle, so we have more like 20). Angles wouldn't be a problem with a large track segment. But with a 15 degree system, there are 66 different combinations. Diagram:
+{{:dev:proposals:crossing_combinatorial_explosion.png?200|}}
+This would increase the amount of time needed to manually make them, making more obvious we should have an algorithm that generates the track shapes. But even if they're made by algorithm, each one adds to the media file size of advtrains, for shapes that maybe nobody will ever see. Finally, it's a block game, not a train simulator: I think we should be content to even have the 30 degree system, since carts don't even really have a true 45 degree system. If you want a good game with voxel terrain and a good track system, try something like Railroads Online, not Minetest.
+--Blockhead 2022-08-22 02:47 (UTC)
+(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)
+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//

Advanced Trains

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools