RAM (Rail Addon Mod) - Development Thread

[arl85]

I was reminded recently of the bug with the STR S Curve puzzle piece.

The attached file fixes that bug in both RHD and LHD.
Drop this file into the RAM Directory.

I don't know if it is the bug you were talking about or not, but this path error seems to be still there...

[strucka]

Sorry to bump this thread, but I really wondered if this was possible and if so, it would really be a good addition to (N)RAM.

So here goes: would it be possible to create and add a couple of ''new'' viaducts for RAM, that would be able to coexist with the ones we have now? Because we now have these 1x1 pieces that are of course old. At least in Europe no one makes rail viaducts with stone half arches anymore. Theyre made out of concrete usually pretensioned concrete (which gives them the ability to span much much further) And so as we already have steel structures going over RHW, we could as well have some concrete ones that would supplement the old stone ones. Maybe even replace the steel ones for the RHW. I mean, I ussually make viaducts a space or two larger than needed, or sometimes even over the fake rivers and it just doesn't look good, or modern made. So that would be a nice touch. A difference between existing rail infrastructure and new infrastructure.

Just a suggestion. Thanks for listening (reading)! =D

[jmyers2043]

Just a suggestion. Thanks for listening (reading)! =D

That is a good suggestion. I am doing some rural bats and lots right now. I started some transit things a couple years back but never finished them because they didn't turn out the way my minds eye wanted. Maybe someone from the NAM team will see your post?

- Jim

[ivo_su]

I wondered what had happened to the development of RAM, and in particular the projects of David. He is not particularly active lately, lest they met any serious difficulties in the implementation of the project or would perhaps RL hit him. Although NAM 31 will focus mainly on the real highway, if there is any chance of an update and other projects such as RAM.

[jdenm8]

I wondered what had happened to the development of RAM, and in particular the projects of David. He is not particularly active lately, lest they met any serious difficulties in the implementation of the project or would perhaps RL hit him. Although NAM 31 will focus mainly on the real highway, if there is any chance of an update and other projects such as RAM.

There will be some expansion of the RAM's capabilities (like the ability to cross STR using Road Overpasses), however TTR development has essentially been halted due to a mixture of RL on Dedgren's end as well as an undesirable jumping issue we have been unable to fix.

[Wiimeiser]

What jumping issue? The one that happens normally with cars? I believe paths were coded to treat all paths sharing an exit side as being legal jumps, except car paths where they have to share an entrance as well, which was done because of highways, otherwise OxD overpasses would result in undesirable car jumping.

[Tarkus]

It's a different issue.  That issue operates on the traffic simulator level, whereas this issue is related to train automata behavior.  Train vehicles are suddenly jumping tracks while going down the line, and not just at junctions and overpasses.  David called it a "showstopper".

There are theories about how to fix it, involving making sure that the "path numbers" match up (and a proof-of-concept I did awhile back showed promise), but the files are a mess at present, and we already have our hands full with P57-Mk2 and getting the file architecture worked out for the Monolithic NAM.

-Alex

[Wiimeiser]

Ah, I see. So automata are snap-to, but it doesn't seem to work for rail right now.

[Tarkus]

Snap-to is a UDI thing . . . although you don't really want to be trying to do UDI on an STR or TTR line that has actual rail traffic on it, that's a different issue, too.

-Alex

[jdenm8]

No. On non-straight sections of rail, automata that would appear while you were playing the game would jump between paths going in the same direction. For cars, this is acceptable behaviour since it's not very noticeable, but on rail it's very noticeable and therefore unacceptable in Dedgren's eyes.

[eggman121]

I wonder if this will ever make it into a NAM release 



It still needs some work but you get the idea. Thoughts anyone?

[Swordmaster]

Depends on what purpose you want this for. Maybe as part of a railyard? Then, yes. But you wouldn't want to use this for a mainline spur. That kind of switch (we call it an "Englishman") requires a lot of maintenance and can't handle speeds above 40km/h. You would want to use two separate switches for higher speeds and more modern building standards. From an engineering point of view.

Cheers
Willy

[eggman121]

Thank you Swordmaster for your feedback.

Although the switch is uncommon on mainlines they do exist. I know of this switch being used on mainlines in Australia, especially where there is limited space to place properly designed turnouts. They also occur near busy junctions where many lines converge and near stations.

Thankfully in Melbourne many of these "Englishman" turnouts are being replaced or removed due to the facts you have stated which are high maintenance costs and slow crossing speeds. (Although I know of one of these "Englishman"  turnouts with running trains across it at 60 to 80 km/h.)

Yes they are uncommon but they do exist on mainlines.

Sorry for going off topic

eggman

[Tarkus]

RAM development has been discontinued.  Further railroad development will be part of the new RealRailway (RRW) project.

Thread closed.

-Tarkus