The International Simutrans Forum

Oneway signs on taxiways are visible through the airplane in two of the four directions.
R1953 with Pak128-62

Not changable, since these are "front" graphics and are meant to be drawn on top of vehicles. Additionally, given the large size of aircrafts, such clipping errors are cannot easily prevented.

OK, but then I don't understand why in two directions the signs are not visible.

Because the are the signs, which are on the right side of the road, i.e. usually drawn behind a car ... As such, these are back images.

Wouldn't be more reasonable to use only backimages in four views? They're signs on the road, and in this case the vehicle will always p**** over the sign. Other thing is that I can't be possible due to the way signs are implemented. I'm afraid the game engine does not distinguishes between signs on the road and "elevated" signs, does it?

EDIT: I've done a little search in the SVN, and I thought the problem is the way signs are implemented. You can't use front and back images in sign dat files. A example from 64pak:

# no entry sign
obj=roadsign
name=NoAirEntry
copyright=timeshock
cost=500
waytype=air
min_speed=0
single_way=1
image[0]=roadsign.0.0
Image[1]=roadsign.0.1
Image[2]=roadsign.0.2
Image[3]=roadsign.0.3
Icon=> roadsign.0.4
Cursor=roadsign.0.5

So, imho,  if you want to fix that you will have to repaint the sign or code it in another way... :(

Image[0] and Image[3] is FrontImage
Image[1] and Image[2] is BackImage

grafics and dat in german Wiki (http://de.wiki.simutrans-forum.de/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=de_SignaleDef&bl=y#Verkehrsschilder)

I don't understand the wiki explanation. It's a bit confusing for me.. ???...I guess the current dat file of that object could be something like this:

Image[0]=pre_signale.1.0
Image[0]=one_way.1.0 --- Front S
Image[1]=one_way.1.1 --- Back S
Image[2]=one_way.1.2 --- Back E
Image[3]=one_way.1.3 --- Front E
Image[4]=one_way.1.4 --- Front N
Image[5]=one_way.1.5 --- Back N
Image[6]=one_way.1.6 --- Back W
Image[7]=one_way.1.7 --- Front W

and If I haven't read wrong it could be fixed just coding it this way (removing lines that make reference to FrontImage and coding them as BackImages), couldn't it?

Image[0]=one_way.1.0 --- Back S
Image[3]=one_way.1.3 --- Back E
Image[4]=one_way.1.4 --- Back N
Image[7]=one_way.1.7 --- Back W

No roadsign has just four images.

And what about using just the ones refered to FrontImage (0,3,4 and 7 if I haven't understood wrong)? Would it work?

Sorry, a road sign has only four images. Not 5 not 8, but maximum four currently. Thus you can put image[4] into the pak, but it will never been used. Four, not three, not five but four.

Also unlikely to be changed, since this would also mean changes to signals and so on.

I see...I thought you were refering to the amount of lines related to images, not to the Image index number.I think that a way this can be fixed is using an sign that doesn't need four views, but the point is that in this case you need to show which is the allowed direction.... :-\

One thing more, so signs are supposed to have only two rotations? and what about semaphores?

The same wiki page will show it to you: Four images per state. This is, because signals are based internally on signs.

In real airports they use this sign:

Which means the same as for road vehicles

More info about taxiing signage, in case you want to try a different design:

• aopa.org (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/taxi/taxi_signage.html)
• taxiway markings (http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/communication/taxiway_markings.htm)
• wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxiway)
• List of all taxiway sign with explanation (http://airportsafety.blogspot.com/)
• Runway markings (http://www.rollanet.org/~mopilots/Runway/RunwayMarkings_files/frame.htm)
• Rules of the air (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20012128.htm#86)
• Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices (http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp312/Chapter5/5-2.htm)

personaly its only a small grapics problem, i dont see the problem with it, it is possible to live with it isnt it?