Friday Facts #377 - New new rails

[TheRaph]

Dear developers, you forgot about an unpleasant problem. About the offset by 1 cell if we change the number of trains from 1 to 2

Did you ever consider removing the restriction that rails needed to be aligned to the 2x2 grid, so blueprints with rails could be moved by a single tile?

I guess, that would be hell. Imagine, you start two different independent rail networks, and then... they are off...

The fist opinion may be solved if Transtops dont have to Align at a 2x2 grid. But that might be some problem becaus the mecanics seem to depend on the 2x2-track-tile the stop is attached to.

So it would be indeed a nice option to NOT have to align to an 2x2 grid.
They just need to add 8 transition-tiles between even grid and odd grid for each straigt direction. And there a no problems with control points.
Look here (orange + yellow = normal length, orange = short lengt to connect to offgrid):

half-tracks.png (1.27 MiB) Viewed 4229 times

[Dragomina]

That sounds really nice; no more redoing a whole train track because it didn't line up with another one built from a different direction The only thing I'm not looking forward to is redesigning my rail blueprints, but that will be a temporary effort.

I have one idea in my mind for a more versatile rail system. Many people are asking for tunnels/bridges or faster train travel. I don't care too much about the former but I would love to see the latter, especially as the distances to the furthermost ore patches grow and grow.

What about high-speed-tunnels (or -bridges) designed to traverse very long distances? They would ignore trees, cliffs, buildings, intersecting regular rails etc. and trains could reach a higher max velocity. As a trade-off, no train stops could be placed in them and you couldn't enter or get off a train while it traverses them. Tunnels would probably be easier to incorporate into the world with only entrances and exits to be visible in the world, but the tracks and trains could still be visible on the map, maybe with slightly altered colors...

I also like the already mentioned idea of integrating rails into concrete. The concrete could have a different color/different visuals to make the rail sections more visible though. We all know how easy it is to get run over by that uranium fuel powered train that was nowhere to be seen in the minimap a second ago. It would feel really bad carelessly running through a big concrete-floored factory all zoomed out only to be run over by said train because the rails blend in so well xD

[FuzzyOne]

...
Look here (orange + yellow = normal length, orange = short lengt to connect to offgrid):
half-tracks.png

I like your grid overlay picture. Is there any possibility of posting one with the grid overlaying the curved tracks as well, please, so I can track what is going on a bit better.

[Anarkhos]

Definitely a well made update that everyone can agree is a good idea. Unlike some updates I could mention.

[Breizh]

They look nicer.

I don't like wider curves. I feel stations already take too much space compared to the assembly lines they're serving, and that looks bad in its own way, even if the rails look nicer. But maybe the S-curves can save space in other places, and it was always weird to not have them, so overall I like this.

Well, make bigger assembly lines then

[wobbycarly]

What about high-speed-tunnels (or -bridges) designed to traverse very long distances? They would ignore trees, cliffs, buildings, intersecting regular rails etc. and trains could reach a higher max velocity. As a trade-off, no train stops could be placed in them and you couldn't enter or get off a train while it traverses them. Tunnels would probably be easier to incorporate into the world with only entrances and exits to be visible in the world, but the tracks and trains could still be visible on the map, maybe with slightly altered colors...

What happens if the train runs out of fuel in the tunnel?

[FuryoftheStars]

What about high-speed-tunnels (or -bridges) designed to traverse very long distances? They would ignore trees, cliffs, buildings, intersecting regular rails etc. and trains could reach a higher max velocity.

Heh. I read this and my brain saw "high-speed" and the line of it's ignoring everything and it immediately thought of a contraption firing off trains at relativistic speeds and just destroying everything in its path.

[Henry Loenwind]

Nice, I just have one tiny issue with what was presented:

I find the direction arrows on the segment visualisation herd to read (especially ⬥ vs ◂/▸). I think it would be better to use ⤛ ⤜ and ↞ ↠, or ↢ ↣, or maybe just ⇽ ⇾ ⇿ or ↤ ↦ ↥ ↧. Less "blobby".

↞◇↠ (i.e. > at the base and >> at the tip) would probably read the clearest. (⬷ ⤐ but with solid lines)

[TheRaph]

...
Look here (orange + yellow = normal length, orange = short lengt to connect to offgrid):
half-tracks.png

I like your grid overlay picture. Is there any possibility of posting one with the grid overlaying the curved tracks as well, please, so I can track what is going on a bit better.

Here you are:

grid-n-tracks3.png (2.3 MiB) Viewed 3883 times

blue = horizontally and vertically
green = 45°-angel
yellow = 22.5°-angel (wider than high)
red = 22.5°-angel (higher than width)

Same color and same orientation may connect

[TheRaph]

And in connection

colors as described above.

tracks-connected.png (1.44 MiB) Viewed 3857 times

[Dragomina]

What about high-speed-tunnels (or -bridges) designed to traverse very long distances? They would ignore trees, cliffs, buildings, intersecting regular rails etc. and trains could reach a higher max velocity. As a trade-off, no train stops could be placed in them and you couldn't enter or get off a train while it traverses them. Tunnels would probably be easier to incorporate into the world with only entrances and exits to be visible in the world, but the tracks and trains could still be visible on the map, maybe with slightly altered colors...

What happens if the train runs out of fuel in the tunnel?

That's a good question and a problem I haven't thought of... A quick and dirty solution would be to make the train reach the end of the tunnel no matter what and stop just outside but that could feel really weird for very long tunnels. Or the tunnel could have an in-built refueling ability where you would need to insert fuel into the entrance/exit and that would make the train run again. So it could run out of fuel and block the tunnel but you would have two fixed points where you can fix the problem (no matter where in the tunnel the train runs out of fuel) and you could automate it with inserters.

What about high-speed-tunnels (or -bridges) designed to traverse very long distances? They would ignore trees, cliffs, buildings, intersecting regular rails etc. and trains could reach a higher max velocity.

Heh. I read this and my brain saw "high-speed" and the line of it's ignoring everything and it immediately thought of a contraption firing off trains at relativistic speeds and just destroying everything in its path.

A new weapon: the train cannon. Leaves behind a swath of devastation and a usable train at the end point

[Splitframe]

This seems like a universal win in my book.
The only thing I don't like is that the new rails look "too clean" you can see this in the slide comparison of the T junction.
The previous rails, aside from not being a smooth curve, had more roughness to them.

[SnowZyDe]

what about monorails? why don't you add them to the game? this type of transport could be very high-speed 500km/h-1000km/h and deliver resources located far from the base. It is also possible to build monorails over the water in the form of a bridge. Due to the fact that the speed of the monorail is higher, the turning rails would have a larger diameter. The capacity of the monorail car could also be increased x5 times. Currently, wagons can carry less than what is contained in 1 steel chest.

[egerlach]

what about monorails? why don't you add them to the game?

Because of this video: Why Monorails Are A Bad Idea

Adam Something is Czech, WUBE are based in the Czech Republic, they must know each other and share the same opinions, right?

[SnowZyDe]

what about monorails? why don't you add them to the game?

Because of this video: Why Monorails Are A Bad Idea

Adam Something is Czech, WUBE are based in the Czech Republic, they must know each other and share the same opinions, right?

[FuzzyOne]

...
Look here (orange + yellow = normal length, orange = short lengt to connect to offgrid):
half-tracks.png

I like your grid overlay picture. Is there any possibility of posting one with the grid overlaying the curved tracks as well, please, so I can track what is going on a bit better.

Here you are:

grid-n-tracks3.png

blue = horizontally and vertically
green = 45°-angel
yellow = 22.5°-angel (wider than high)
red = 22.5°-angel (higher than width)

Same color and same orientation may connect

This is absolutely fantastic! Thank you very much TheRaph .

[FuzzyOne]

And in connection

colors as described above.

tracks-connected.png

This is quite an interesting way of looking at the new curves. The colours show a nice symmetry about the new track curves which then take half of each colour.

[Troyseph]

Thoughts:

• The new rails look very shiny and clean, I agree that the visuals pop more, but have lost some of their grime-core IMO

• I love the directional arrows for rail segments, could long segments also have arrows mid way at regular intervals?

• Designing rail blueprints was a lot of fun, I can't wait to play with all the new oppertunities!

[adysnook]

Still waiting for intersections without junction. Bridges, tunnels, etc?

[coppercoil]

yellow = 22.5°-angel (wider than high)

BTW arctan(0.5) = 26.6°, not 22.5°

Literally unplayable :D