I have thought of one other benefit - IRL it is not uncommon for station buildings to be adjacent to a bridge, over the tracks (in the UK, the Great Central was fond of this, as were other companies building in already built up areas. An 'elevated land' (which is what this really provides) would allow such a construction. it is beneficial for adding to station facilities in an existing urban environment. Or just because it looks nice (to you) to do so!
On a related thought, has anyone considered implementing station facilities underground? Concourses, mail centres, etc - again, this is a benefit to those building in an urban environment.
Anyway, thank you all for your support of the ideas & constructive criticism - now, does anyone have ideas of how to get it implemented ...if it's considered useful enough, and anyone has time, of course. Unfortunately I am not blessed with C skill, nor artwork (CAD yes, art no!), nor (most seriously) time. So my thanks go to all those who do give time & skill for my and others enjoyment.
It's nice to see the graphic update fro switches only having one direction (in development/bug discussion).
BUT this is only eye-candy. Nice eye-candy, and something with future re-use too, but still only eye-candy. I would agree with a number of others, that the allowance of very acute turns (on non-tramway track) is a significant unrealistic aspect of Simutrans. It's just not possible to turn a train on an adjacent-track 'U' or even a tight '90 degree' bend IRL. Trams manage 90 degree bends (just) but only very slowly. At the moment, a lot of effort seems to be going into 'realism' in the debates in ST... so restricting rail tracks to 45 deg bends may be a worthwhile consideration. It's always been something that's bugged me about ST. The original signalling block system was a more serious flaw, and interestingly, we were told for a long time that the signalling couldn't be improved, but then along came PBS control, which is simply lovely. So maybe the revised curves/switches isn't an unrealistic request...
So here goes: is it possible, given the increased realism of gameplay, to restrict rail track build to 45-degree bends. This woudl include switch & crossing [S&C] design. Adjacent-tile 'U' bends would be impossible, whether on plain line or S&C. Crossings between adjacent tracks would be 'trailing' or 'facing' by design, although it should be possible (at a cost) to build 'scissors' crossings too.
If it is, there would be some significant changes to gameplay. Reversal would always have to be by the means of 'shunt forward and reverse over the switch/crossing'. Junction layouts would be more fun to design. And probably a new signal would be needed (a one-way signal that does not restrict reverse working, allowing a reverse-direction train to p**** as though the block was to the next facing signal (ie reserving the route from facing signal to facing signal, and p****ing through reverse signals of this type).
An interesting matter is raised here: IRL, S&C are a serious cost on build and maintenance. Modern railway track & signalling designs minimise S&C for this reason. Should ST impose a cost to build and maintain S&C beyond that of plain line? Especially for high-speed junctions (but then the effect of the curve on speed limits at the junction is an issue too - and the subject of separte development experioments it would seem).
Cheers - look forward to comments! Tom.
PS If there was a previous topic & I didn't finid it, sorry; please feel free to moderate if required :-)
Well, it's nice to see the graphic update... ...BUT I would agree with others, that the allowance of very acute turns on non-tramway track is a significant unrealistic aspect of Simutrans. At the moment, a lot of effort seems to be going into 'realism' in the debates in ST... so restricting rail tracks to 45 deg bends may be a worthwhile consideration. It's always been something that's bugged me about ST, although the original signalling block system was more serious. Interestingly, we were told for a long time that the signalling couldn't be improved, but then along came PBS control, which is simply lovely. So maybe the revised curves/switches isn't an unrealistic request... ...I'll add my voice to the extension requests. As you say, it will depend on someone with coding knowledge wanting to do it - anyone? Whether or not the code gets modified, it's a nice piece of work, although I do think the changing layout might be confusing.
One point though: the trees sometimes report Cr100 and sometimes a couple of Cr50. Where do the Cr50 come from (e.g. is it some other obstruction type, like rocky ground?)
Hmm. But that still doesn't add up. I think the per-tree cost is Cr50, so up to Cr150 per tile. But building rail gives Cr300 for each and every forested tile (plus Cr80 for the wooden rails). So far, doesn't make sense. Maybe someone can advise the actual costs? I'll investigate further & see what's happening.
Hmm, I thought I de-routed all the buses (and I definitely deleted the line), but I suppose the bus might have a schedule without a line all the same. Thanks for the pointer - it seems logical as there is one bus still in a depot.
(r2366 with Pak64-102.0 on WinXP Pro, latest patches & SP)
I note that when building a way on a forested tile, the cost varies depending on how I clear the tile. e.g. wooden Rail = Cr80 Delete trees = Cr100 Rail built directly onto forested tile = Cr380
Hmm. That does not add up. So I clear the tiles manually and then build, saving Cr200 per tile. Is this intended behaviour (whole-service contractor charges more than individual separate contracts, for the convenience/speed?), or is it a bug?
Thanks Tom. PS again, I could not find a report of this behaviour so far. Please accept apologies if it was previously reported.
I have a small network, at the point of the bug it was linking two nearby towns. There's a local bus net in each town, based on a hub stop. There was originally a bus trunk line between the towns. When this became overloaded (6 buses & demand rising) in only 3 months, I built a railway link, and to avoid risk during changeover, I diverted the trunk bus to run from the larger town's railway station while I built the railway. In the smaller town, the trunk bus stayed at the 'town hall' stop. The local buses there had the station stop added to their lines.
When the railway was complete, I activated the train line and deleted the bus trunk line (re****igning most buses to the busier local bus lines). BUT the p****engers continued to route through the smaller town's 'town hall' stop. This resulted in large numbers of unhappy p****engers at each end of the former trunk bus route. I even deleted the small town's 'town hall' stop, in which case the p****engers at that stop were lost, and the ones at the larger town's railway station re-routed to use the railway.
Success you may think. But when I rebuilt the small town's 'Town Hall' stop on the same site, p****engers returned to the former bus route. In the end, I had to delete the small town 'Town Hall' stop and rebuild it one tile to the side. That has cured the routing (at no small cost to revenues though).
Any ideas? Sadly, I have overwritten the closest savegame (in a hurry to get out to work vaguely on time).
Cheers, Tom
[can't find this one reported, please move if appropriate]
PS I've been using Simutrans on-and-off since the days of Hajo's solo work, but have not had time to actually play for over a year. Still don't have time but need to relax a bit, so what the heck...it's such fun. Using pak64 'cos it's easier, and I need the fun more than the challenge at present! BTW well done to the developers, this is such a playable game. As a UK signalling enthusiast, I so love the PBS signalling. It's really very good, although sometimes a little restrictive in complex junctions / single line cases. They can be a nightmare IRL so no surprise there
...if it's considered useful enough, and anyone has time, of course. Unfortunately I am not blessed with C skill, nor artwork (CAD yes, art no!), nor (most seriously) time. So my thanks go to all those who do give time & skill for my and others enjoyment.