dev:proposals:largetracks
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
dev:proposals:largetracks [2022-09-13 10:23] doxydoxy [56i's Opinion] reply |
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: | There will be several ideas and opinons regarding this. They are listed here, at this section: | ||
| - | ===== 56independent' | ||
| - | 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. | ||
| - | |||
| - | < | ||
| ===== Blockhead' | ===== Blockhead' | ||
| 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 151: | Line 146: | ||
| (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, | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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.1663057410.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022-09-13 10:23 by doxydoxy
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
