• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

RealRailway (RRW) - Development and Support

Started by Swordmaster, June 14, 2013, 08:42:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gugu3

#80
Oh my god!!!! &apls &apls &apls
Willy,are you planning to work on some 7.5m content for rail too???
cheers
Guglielmo

Uzil


art128

AWESOME!

The overhead line looks incredibly well on Willy's rails!

Quote from: eggman121 on June 19, 2013, 03:10:56 AM
If you could contact Uki and see if the original gmax files still exist than I could or he could make sets to the specifications above

That would be awesome²  ! I'll try to contact Uki and tell him about the situation. :)
I'll take a quiet life... A handshake of carbon monoxide.

Props & Texture Catalog

memo

Quote from: Swordmaster on June 17, 2013, 01:02:28 PM
Find the new thing. . .



I love this picture! Do you think we need end stubs for FAR as well?

Quote from: eggman121 on June 18, 2013, 06:32:55 AM
Thanks for all the kind words everybody :thumbsup: Although I may need some help with the diagonal T21s. Maybe Memo could help in this matter since it appears that he knows more about T21s than I do. More hands make lighter work as they say.

You called me? I'll try to offer my help as best as I can.

The zig-zagging overhead wires definitely have a nice look, but be aware that it will multiply the amount of work. Only few T21s are necessary for orthogonal tracks, but then consider a 45 curve: For the ortho-to-curve tile you will need four different T21s to account for the different offsets of the overhead wire. You will also have to differentiate between flipped and non-flipped tiles. Moreover, you need to differentiate at least between two different rotations of the tile, maybe all four. This makes at least 16 different T21s for a single tile, if I see the problem correctly.

I'd suggest to implement orthogonals, diagonals and a curve piece at first, possibly with prototypes only, and then reconsider this. Don't get me wrong: the zig-zagging is truely a nice detail, and T21 files allow for all the customisation you need for this. On the other hand, Swordmaster can tell you how many rail textures there are.

Quote from: eggman121 on June 19, 2013, 12:20:16 AM
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...

The Texture Viewer of the Reader comes in handy for this. There is also this database for rail by Dedgren. Otherwise, reading the RULs is indeed the best strategy.

Indiana Joe

Quote from: Gugu3 on June 19, 2013, 06:27:23 AM
Oh my god!!!! &apls &apls &apls
Willy,are you planning to work on some 7.5m content for rail too???
cheers
Guglielmo

That would require modeling a whole new network level, so I'll just say don't get your hopes up.  The transit modding community is definitely full of miracles, however...


The wires are looking spectacular eggman, even if they're going to be a pain in the butt to finish  :thumbsup:

MandelSoft

I do have the experience that diagonal props on slopes can look awkward. Try to find out if that works well first. This is what's keeping me from adding steel barriers on the RHW diagonals...
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Swordmaster

Who durst drag this into the conversation?




Miracles? No. Lot of work? Yes. Planned? Some time.




Quote from: memo on June 19, 2013, 09:27:41 AM
I love this picture! Do you think we need end stubs for FAR as well?

I do. It only takes a couple of lines in RUL2 anyway.


QuoteSwordmaster can tell you how many rail textures there are.

Maxis rail (76) + NetworkAddonMod_WideRadiusCurves_Rails_Plugin (69) + NetworkAddonMod_FractionallyAngled_Rails (59) + RailwayAddonMod_STR (160) is 364, give or take a few bits and pieces such as NWM and RHW crossings and the like. As to what will be added in the future, I can't even make estimates at this point, but it may be billions and billions. I mean. . . well, hundreds.


Quote from: eggman121 on June 19, 2013, 12:20:16 AM
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...

Check PM ;)


Cheers
Willy

eggman121

Quote from: Swordmaster on June 19, 2013, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: eggman121 on June 19, 2013, 12:20:16 AM
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...

Check PM ;)


Cheers
Willy

Thanks Swordmaster

Quote from: memo on June 19, 2013, 09:27:41 AM

You called me? I'll try to offer my help as best as I can.

The zig-zagging overhead wires definitely have a nice look, but be aware that it will multiply the amount of work. Only few T21s are necessary for orthogonal tracks, but then consider a 45 curve: For the ortho-to-curve tile you will need four different T21s to account for the different offsets of the overhead wire. You will also have to differentiate between flipped and non-flipped tiles. Moreover, you need to differentiate at least between two different rotations of the tile, maybe all four. This makes at least 16 different T21s for a single tile, if I see the problem correctly.

I'd suggest to implement orthogonals, diagonals and a curve piece at first, possibly with prototypes only, and then reconsider this. Don't get me wrong: the zig-zagging is truely a nice detail, and T21 files allow for all the customisation you need for this. On the other hand, Swordmaster can tell you how many rail textures there are.


The Texture Viewer of the Reader comes in handy for this. There is also this database for rail by Dedgren. Otherwise, reading the RULs is indeed the best strategy.

I'm only going to use the zigzagging for straight sections of Rail. Bends Don't need to be zigzagged since the bends automatically do this. your advice is more than welcome and I'll ask if I get into any major difficulties with the T21ing

weixc812

Wow, looks amazing..  &apls &apls
Is it possible that making a facelift mod that we can change the base tile as we like?
Welcome to ALFERRID(UPDATE 5-District C)
And my other pics at SimCityChina:click here

Indiana Joe

Quote from: weixc812 on June 19, 2013, 05:30:10 PM
Wow, looks amazing..  &apls &apls
Is it possible that making a facelift mod that we can change the base tile as we like?

Making new texture sets would be easy, at least compared to something like the El-Rail Facelift mod.  The catenary wires would be a bit more challenging, eggman has a long way to go with the first set.  But we'll see.

threestooges

Very nice work shown in here.

Eggman, as a BATter, I'm curious how you went about modelling/exporting the wires to make them work as well as you did on slopes. If I'm viewing them correctly, it looks like they're a collection of smaller (1m long?) models set next to each other via t21. Is it as "simple" as that, or is there a more complex trick to it?
-Matt

eggman121

Quote from: MandelSoft on June 19, 2013, 01:29:31 PM
I do have the experience that diagonal props on slopes can look awkward. Try to find out if that works well first. This is what's keeping me from adding steel barriers on the RHW diagonals...

I'm having the same problem too. The diagonals don't want to play ball. There is a tutorial created by budddybud but some of the images he refers to are missing so it is of limited value at this stage.

The tutorial can be found here http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=3650.0

I would like to know what you have tried Mandelsoft. Maybe we could find a solution.

Quote from: threestooges on June 20, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
Very nice work shown in here.

Eggman, as a BATter, I'm curious how you went about modelling/exporting the wires to make them work as well as you did on slopes. If I'm viewing them correctly, it looks like they're a collection of smaller (1m long?) models set next to each other via t21. Is it as "simple" as that, or is there a more complex trick to it?
-Matt

Thanks Matt. The method you described was not used on the Orthogonal wires. But you have given me an idea for the diagonals.

I just used one wire with an overhang at both ends with the prop centered in the middle half of the lot as shown here...



The value for the sc4.Desc file is set to orientate to slope true which is 0x02.

The overhang is used for the gaps that occur when the wires go up and down slopes.

-eggman121

MandelSoft

#92
Quote from: eggman121 on June 20, 2013, 09:03:02 PM
Quote from: MandelSoft on June 19, 2013, 01:29:31 PM
I do have the experience that diagonal props on slopes can look awkward. Try to find out if that works well first. This is what's keeping me from adding steel barriers on the RHW diagonals...

I'm having the same problem too. The diagonals don't want to play ball. There is a tutorial created by budddybud but some of the images he refers to are missing so it is of limited value at this stage.

The tutorial can be found here http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=3650.0

I would like to know what you have tried Mandelsoft. Maybe we could find a solution.
1. I've tried to split up the model. Didn't work well, the models still bent to the other side
2. I made tight LODs. Didn't work either...
3. I rotated the model 90 degrees. No luck either.

Maybe  I did something wrong during the process. I think the last time I tried was last year...

This is what I've tried so far...

Best,
Maarten
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

RickD

I am so excited to see this project has taken off. And the catenarys with wires are a very nice surprise for me. Great job, everyone.  &apls

Will you provide textures with the mod so that we can update railway lots in lot editor?
My name is Raphael.
Visit my MD: Empire Bay (My old MD: Santa Barbara County)

memo

Couldn't cutting the wires into pieces like this (blue)



or like this



work, where the bullets are the pivot points and the green line is the kink which will always be horizontal? In the T21, the props would have to be placed minimally off the diagonal, so that they adjust to the right slope.

cogeo

At last, someone has started working on this!

I've been asking for this for quite a long time, as those "electified track" mods don't look quite realistic with only the poles.

I would like to suggest that in order to get rid of the alignment problems, the solution might not be using (slightly overhanging/overlapping) props for the wire (through T21s), but instead implement it as a network model. Network models are automatically bent by the game, so they follow the elevation variations. For example, take look at the monorail track, esp when placed on uneven terrain. Network models must be 1-Z/R though, not the 20-Z/R models created by BAT exporting. Some more details in this post.

Another point, don't you (all members here) that it's time for a SAM-like configuration for rails (instead of overriding the one and only rail network)? Players could then have normal, track, electrified track, or the rusty track showcased above, in the same city at the same time. I can consider countless more variations, like electrified track w/ a third rail, prefab concrete blocks, rack railway etc etc. If there is not enough room available (ID-wise) we could consider fewer variations, eg 8 or even 4 instead of 16, or even making all those variations puzzle pieces rather than draggable networks, with all their "stability" problems. Please take into account that all this will also require interconnection network tiles (eg normal track branching out of electrified one), in addition to the usual crossings and over/underpasses.

Excellent work so far, and congrats!

MandelSoft

Though it's a nice idea to make a SAM like rail mod, the problem is cross-linkage, not only with itself, but also other NAM networks. This also brings up the issue of stability and a lot of coding involved these cross-links...
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

APSMS

Not even being a transit modder I am aware of the problems involved in cross linkage with the other networks. However, aside from the problem of crossing overridden rail networks perhaps if this were implemented all road - rail crossings would use only one texture (e. g. The standard texture for that specific road network railway crossing). The problem of stability after crossing overridden networks like SAM networks would remain (potentially solved by just placing another starter on the other side) but should make code on that front much simpler since the intersections wouldn't need special code to account for the different types of rail styles.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

My Mayor Diary San Diego: A Reinterpretation

Swordmaster

Cogeo, it's "only" a matter of coming up with the textures. I don't see why we couldn't take a look at how to implement it if a third party modder were to make them. But I don't see anyone in the NAM team doing that at this point. And the further I expand the RRW, the more work it'll be to make those textures and the more code it'll take. Judging from the SAM's 150,000 RUL2 lines, a full RRW override could multiply this easily.


Cheers
Willy

memo

Not to mention the considerably longer start-up times due to the thereby increased size of the controller. (cough) ;)


Regarding the suggestion of using network models for the wires, this could work, but it would be difficult to achieve the same degree of detail like the zigzagging wires.