[2.0.16] Inconsistent spacing of elevated rails

[BlackKnight]

Test System: PC; Win 10. No mods

Inconsistent spacing of elevated rails.

[2.0.16]-Inconsistent-spacing-of-elevated-rails.png (921.33 KiB) Viewed 319 times

- Spacing 1 - Attach rail to ramp without modifier keys, then move to furthest length before a rail support is placed.
- Spacing 2 - Using the above but holding shift mode - extends the rail support one segment further.
- Spacing 3 - With rail ramps as ghosts, place ghost ramp and attach rail - rail supports suggested have completely different spacing (actually being wasteful and suggesting two supports are needed)

Expected behavior - all modes suggest/use consistent spacing.

...Which might be either: Furthest possible length from last ramp or support Or, if between a larger gap / two ramps, an average spacing between the start and end. All modes should be the least wasteful of resources.

[boskid]

Thanks for the report.
Case 1 is not going to change because this case is manual building distance limited and there are some rails that are no longer supported by ramp. In this case support is proposed at the last possible spot. This i am considering a correct case.
Case 2 is the correct case.
Case 3 is now fixed for 2.0.19. It looks like ghost rail planner was not accounting for supports provided by existing ghosts when calculating which supports should be included in the rail build plan.