• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

RAIL

Started by 0715463494, August 15, 2017, 05:35:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

0715463494

Hi all.Can someone please tell me if there is 8 track or double train track bridges somewhere available to download.

mgb204

I don't know of any. But the problem I foresee here is that bridges are one of those areas where it's likely a game limitation prevents them being wider that a single tile, or the width of the actual network. It may be there is a workaround for that, I really don't know all the ins and outs there, but if you were to find such a thing, it's most likely a non-functioning bridge (or Eye-Candy model).

0715463494

I wish someone could do something about it,because when you play with double tracks and you get to water,you always have to make 1 tile space to get the 2 lines over the water.Very frustrating.

Alan_Waters

Smooth curve on one track, and two bridges across the tile.

Kitsune

Someone would have to

a) make a two tile wide rail bridge (and not many people around making bridges these days)
b) would have to be modded as a ground highway or avenue bridge.

Depending on the complexity of the bridge made in a ... b can be either be pretty simple for someone who understands it or can be a pain.
~ NAM Team Member

Tarkus

The Double-Decker version of the Tsing Ma Bridge, which jeronij modeled and smoncrie modded, did actually have Rail and El-Rail pathing on an Elevated (Maxis) Highway bridge (the upper deck was for cars, the lower deck for trains).  It did indeed accept the Rail and El-Rail traffic, which is sometimes a concern with some networks, due to hardcoded quirks.  That said, it was never actually released, however, in large part due to the fact that as soon as either type of train tried to use it, it would cause the thing to turn blood red in the Congestion Data View.  I actually tested the bridge myself quite a bit a few years ago, after jeronij supplied me with the files.  The Congestion Data View situation appeared to be a display bug, as the various tests I threw at it showed that traffic still found it usable (and preferred it to alternate routes that weren't showing up severely congested).

However, that only takes care of dual-tile situations . . . once you throw a third tile into the mix, you're back at square one again (which is why the RHW-6C/8C and the triple-tile NWM networks don't have bridges--trying to do an eyecandy fake isn't really an acceptable option by my standards, due to the severe capacity issues, and the really wacky pathing it'd require). 

The Diagonal Bridge Enabler's method, of using temporary files that (a) drain out the water, (b) institute completely flat slope rules, and (c) add retaining wall support, would be the only real way to pull it off at present (though the RRW support files haven't been added in yet).  It's the terrain engine, IIRC, that imposes the restriction on side-by-side bridges. 

-Alex

Kitsune

out of curisoty - is it the two rail networks being side by side or the double deck of two different types causing the issue ?
~ NAM Team Member

Tarkus

As best I can tell, it's due to the network types.  I almost suspect the same issue would result with a single-deck Rail bridge built using a dual-tile network, as there's been some other tests we've done where Rail pathing gums up the works in a similar fashion.

-Alex

Kitsune

Quote from: Tarkus on August 16, 2017, 01:14:02 PM
As best I can tell, it's due to the network types.  I almost suspect the same issue would result with a single-deck Rail bridge built using a dual-tile network, as there's been some other tests we've done where Rail pathing gums up the works in a similar fashion.

-Alex

and a .... do you mind me poking you over a PM sent a while ago? (atleast I think I sent it  %confuso)
~ NAM Team Member

0715463494

Hi all,sorry was a bit busy.I am talking about side by side bridges that you always have to make 1 tile space before you can drag it over the water.

mgb204

I think that's pretty clear, as Tarkus mentioned it's a game limitation, the only work-around is to use a dual-tile network as the bridge, then convert it to rail. But as mentioned previously, that presents major problems, so likely isn't a workable solution.

I agree the Advanced Bridge Enabler would be the most likely way to resolve this problem. It's hard to put a timescale upon that though, since right now there is already a bulging list of planned additions for NAM in the works.

0715463494

Yep i see that the problem is with the game itself,i just thought that maybe 1 of your genius members could do some magic,LOL.I am really just a player,maybe a bit of lotting and stuff,nothing major.But thanks for the comments and advice.

0715463494

Hi again,i just want to know why i can do this,but not drag the rails over water.

mgb204

Because when you drag rail over water (just like other game networks), it triggers the building of a functional bridge. The behaviour is hard-coded into the game, it will always want to build a bridge if a network is dragged over water.

The puzzle pieces however, such as these viaduct rail pieces, they do not work in the same way as draggable networks. Since they can be placed on water and they are not technically a bridge (even if they look like one placed in water), they do not have the limitation where two can not be side-by-side. So you might be thinking, why couldn't we use such puzzle pieces in order to make a fake-bridge which would get round this problem? Well, the answer to that can be gleaned from your own screenshot, because it would look terrible. Puzzle pieces will always sit on the base of the terrain, so if they are in water, that means they will be at the depth of the river or sea bed. If that's more than the 15.5m height of the viaducts, then they would be submerged under water. Similarly, the abutments of the bridges and the whole bridge itself is all sloping to follow the terrain. This is because puzzle pieces work this way, they have a set height/size and sit on the terrain, which doesn't always look great. Then lastly these viaducts don't really look the same as a bridge, all these visual issues would not be ideal for most players. That said, if you just want the functionality, it's a perfectly usable workaround. With special "bridge" pieces you could solve some of the visual issues, but the number of them needed would be staggering, because each bridge will be placed in different circumstances. It's not practical to have 20 different height viaduct pieces or support many variants of different slopes etc. Even with hundreds of special pieces, you'd barely cover most potential situations. So whilst it's possible, it's totally impractical to realise this way.

That's why the solution offered by the ABE (Advanced Bridge Enabler) would be far better. You can drag the rail over water, without triggering the bridge building code. Initially that will be rail floating in the air, but using something called T21s, props can be attached to the rails to give the look of a bridge, without technically being one. Those T21s can have various "styles", allowing for various different looking bridges to be used. If you have used the current DBE (Diagonal Bridge Enabler), it will give you an idea of how this would all work. Of course as with everything NAM-wise, it's necessary for someone to do all the work to make these things a reality. With only 3 fully active developers though, it's hard to give a timescale for such developments to be realised.

eggman121

Quote from: mgb204 on August 21, 2017, 10:52:17 PM
That's why the solution offered by the ABE (Advanced Bridge Enabler) would be far better. You can drag the rail over water, without triggering the bridge building code. Initially that will be rail floating in the air, but using something called T21s, props can be attached to the rails to give the look of a bridge, without technically being one. Those T21s can have various "styles", allowing for various different looking bridges to be used. If you have used the current DBE (Diagonal Bridge Enabler), it will give you an idea of how this would all work. Of course as with everything NAM-wise, it's necessary for someone to do all the work to make these things a reality. With only 3 fully active developers though, it's hard to give a timescale for such developments to be realised.

There are many ways to make a side by side ABE Bridge. One other method would be to make a set of True 3D models and use RULs to cascade the pieces down the track network for both orthogonal and diagonal networks.

Both would be need the same mechanics of the existing DBE/ ABE setups and could be used to make some interesting bridges.

One such application would be Triple Track Rail (TTR) for the RRW plugin. Preliminary testing has proved that such an enhancement will need to be a dual tile setup for pathings sake and Diagonals would use the double diagonal setup. The realization of such a network is at least a while away but something quite on the radar.

As mgb204 has said, there are quite limited resources at the moment and current projects will have to take precedence.

-eggman121





0715463494

Thank you very much for the explanation,these technical stuff makes ones head spin.

0715463494

Hi again,i tried the ABE system and it works fine for me dont care if its a real bridge or not,it looks like 1 feels like 1 works like 1,so it must be 1,LOL.Again,thanks for the advice.

eggman121

Quote from: 0715463494 on August 23, 2017, 12:08:45 AM
Hi again,i tried the ABE system and it works fine for me dont care if its a real bridge or not,it looks like 1 feels like 1 works like 1,so it must be 1,LOL.Again,thanks for the advice.

Yep. converting such setups with NAM components will be a great way to use the feature.

There are all sorts of things that can be done with the draggable components and more complex bridges may come online once we (The NAM Team) decide what direction to take the ABE once we sort out the current projects on hand.

-eggman121