Re: Rivers development Reply #140 – January 27, 2009, 08:47:22 pm Very impressive! I would just say that it depends on your road waybuilding settings in simuconf.tab (in case anyone else has this problem?)To start with I kept getting very short stubby rivers only, until I used the waybuilder settings in the latest pak128 simuconf.tab. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #141 – January 27, 2009, 08:52:44 pm The length mostly depends on your landscape. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #142 – January 27, 2009, 09:00:25 pm New revision of the patch. Now rivers will join each other. Unless there is a UI interface 20 rivers are created. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #143 – January 27, 2009, 09:52:18 pm Quote from: prissi – on January 27, 2009, 08:52:44 pmThe length mostly depends on your landscape.Yes - but this was on identical maps with otherwise identical settings. It's all fixed anyway :-) - I just mentioned it in case anyone else gets that problem (especially if they are using older paksets with older simuconf.tabs like I was to start with). Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #144 – January 27, 2009, 09:56:49 pm Ok, UI still lacks but gerw rivers (with a little cleaning up and some additions to avoid flowing uphills) they are in the trunk. In principle the waybuilder tool could be done with rivers too. (Also the preview woul be no good then.)[attachment deleted by admin] Quote Selected Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 10:09:32 pm by prissi
Re: Rivers development Reply #145 – January 27, 2009, 10:11:55 pm Please add UI on final version.Because people who use height maps don't want random rivers which don't exist there. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #146 – January 27, 2009, 11:21:35 pm That screenshot looks very promising - I love the merging rivers, and the variable length estuaries! (Although, variable width estuaries would also be good...) Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #147 – January 28, 2009, 09:02:12 am There is already an UI in the trunk. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #149 – January 28, 2009, 10:13:48 am This is a crossing. Whould a bridge looks nicer? It is possible to let the programm build a bridge?PS. I'm very happy with the new rivers. Thank you gerw and prissi. For more screenshot look at http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=37.msg13432#msg13432 Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #150 – January 28, 2009, 12:00:43 pm would it be possible to make rivers not navigable but make it cheaper to change rivers to canals than start canals fresh? Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #151 – January 28, 2009, 03:10:02 pm Quote from: squeaky – on January 28, 2009, 12:00:43 pmwould it be possible to make rivers not navigable but make it cheaper to change rivers to canals than start canals fresh?Rivers not navigable: not hard, if in your pakset you ste max speed=1 and maxweight=1, for sure they are uneconomical to navigate.But upgrading them to canals it costs as much as lying a whole new canal, as it happens for roads and railways. once it was discussed to pay less to upgrade ways, but it has been rejected long ago. (But you can talk about this with James Petts, maybe he's interested in this for his Experimental Simutrans) Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #152 – January 28, 2009, 03:36:04 pm For me, it would be interesting even if rivers start from a stream source (headwater) than a channel.Obviously that stream would not be navigable. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #153 – January 28, 2009, 09:11:52 pm Yes, some rivers are navigable, and others are not. Weight is probably a sensible way of distinguishing between them - a weight limit of 1 will mean that not much bigger than a small pleasure boat could get up the river at any sensible speed, which is enough of a restriction for commercial purposes. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #154 – January 29, 2009, 07:37:36 am Very nice feature! gerw and little prissi: thank you for implementing! Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #155 – January 29, 2009, 12:16:29 pm Quote from: jamespetts – on January 28, 2009, 09:11:52 pmWeight is probably a sensible way of distinguishing between them - a weight limit of 1 will mean that not much bigger than a small pleasure boat could get up the river at any sensible speed, which is enough of a restriction for commercial purposes.Small boats for p****engers and mail could still travel over small rivers.But hovercrafts can p**** the most shallow water, they can even master land, so the weight limit would restrict these more than necessary. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #156 – January 29, 2009, 01:05:14 pm Then just make them light? Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #157 – January 29, 2009, 01:31:54 pm Weight is also used for acceleration, so the effective power would have to be lowered by magnitudes. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #158 – January 29, 2009, 02:07:43 pm Quote from: whoami – on January 29, 2009, 01:31:54 pmWeight is also used for acceleration, so the effective power would have to be lowered by magnitudes.couldn't acceleration be lowered using the gear ratio? Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #159 – January 29, 2009, 03:01:49 pm Whoami said "effective power", so I ****ume he already meant that. Anyway, that would make the vehicle either crawl when loaded, or rocket-start when empty, as the difference between loaded and empty weight would increase a lot.For starters, I would go for a simple system using a special canal version called "river", just as fabio created for 128, with no strings attached. Also I'd like to remind that pak64 must be in this sense feature-complete, since that is the official testing data set. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development (was: Rivers) Reply #160 – January 29, 2009, 03:09:11 pm In order to avoid confusions with similar topics in Pak128 and Pak96 boards, I renamed the topic.Have fun. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #161 – January 29, 2009, 03:56:14 pm In the nightly PAK64 (Tomorow) is a River ....(I look at the SVN) Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #162 – January 30, 2009, 09:20:12 am One suggestion: would be possible to have different river's graphics according to the different existing climates in Simutrans? i.e. frozen river for tundra, river with ice plates for artic, river with green water for tropical, etc..imho, It would add more variety and realism to landscapes. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #163 – January 30, 2009, 11:16:16 am Way can have winter images since ages ... Apart from than no, and since those are vanilla way graphcis will not be considered for inclusion.(You greedy guys: River are not yet finished and still you damand the next feature! ) Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #164 – January 30, 2009, 11:32:58 am Quote from: prissi – on January 30, 2009, 11:16:16 amWay can have winter images since ages ...present time river in pak 128 (which will soon be changed) has already winter graphs... Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #165 – January 30, 2009, 12:05:16 pm I'll take that as a NO... ....*vilvoh starts drawing sketches of winter rivers* Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #166 – February 01, 2009, 12:00:39 am Rivers in latest PAK64-130!!! BRILLIANT. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #167 – February 01, 2009, 12:03:29 am I have to say - I am very impressed with the speed and quality of the development of this feature. It is a major addition to Simutrans. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #168 – February 01, 2009, 11:43:29 am The rivers in pak64 are not very nice. It would be nice to have at least 3 different river types, gradually increasing, with the smallest type not straight but meandering (curve) with some gr**** etc. I know what I mean, I hope.Same is true for the other paksets too, I presume. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #169 – February 01, 2009, 11:55:47 am Quote from: prissi – on February 01, 2009, 11:43:29 amI know what I mean, I hope. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #170 – February 01, 2009, 12:00:23 pm I don't make a bug report, but sometimes freeze and rarely quit without any error dialog during creating rivers.I waited more than 5 minutes but didn't progress. Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #171 – February 01, 2009, 12:15:56 pm Quote from: prissi – on February 01, 2009, 11:43:29 amSame is true for the other paksets too, I presume.I'm making rivers for pak128 this way, but it takes time... they'll be ok in a short time, though Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #172 – February 01, 2009, 03:36:39 pm Fabio,I shall very much look forward to those rivers! I have been testing the rivers in the latest Pak64, and one of the things that I like about those rivers is that one cannot build a crossing over them: one is forced to build a proper bridge. Do you think that it would be possible to put that into the Pak128 rivers, too? Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #173 – February 01, 2009, 03:45:08 pm That would not require putting something into pak128, but to remove something from it (= crossings for waytype water with both track and road), I think... Quote Selected
Re: Rivers development Reply #174 – February 01, 2009, 04:00:39 pm Ahh, I see. Could that be done? Quote Selected
Topic: Rivers development (Read 92874 times)
previous topic - next topic
