Friday Facts #377 - New new rails

[Illiander42]

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?

Glad someone other than me said it.

[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?

Glad someone other than me said it.

You're funny. How can I compare the characteristics of transport in the real world and virtual? I did not suggest adding horses with carts that would move on jet fuel. I'm sure it's easier for developers to add an airport with cargo planes

[FuryoftheStars]

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?

Glad someone other than me said it.

You're funny. How can I compare the characteristics of transport in the real world and virtual? I did not suggest adding horses with carts that would move on jet fuel. I'm sure it's easier for developers to add an airport with cargo planes

There are a couple problems with an elevated track system (be it monorail or train bridges) that could conceivably prevent these from being implemented:

1. It would be something elevated that would (in order to properly convey the elevation/3D) perpetually block visibility of anything behind it.
2. Due to the limitations of the game engine (no true 3rd dimension), it could be interacted with by inserters and the like on the ground where it conceivably shouldn't be.

(For bridges, it could be limited to water only, then you don't need to make the graphics look like it's truly elevated, but this would remove some of the need for landfill, may allow safe transversal against biters, and many people want them for intersections and their factory in general anyway.)

But even without those problems, I'm not sure I see the point? What you're proposing is functionally no different than what we have now (aside from elevation, which bridges for trains could solve), but would be a separate system wherein the trains from one can't cross over to the other.

[FuzzyOne]

yellow = 22.5°-angel (wider than high)

BTW arctan(0.5) = 26.6°, not 22.5°

Literally unplayable

True. Looking at the anchor points (indicated by the short cross members) on the quadrant in TheRaph's next post is even more interesting. Compare the subtended angles of the anchor points of the curved pieces from the circle centre to the angle of the straight pieces.

Arctan(y/x) Σ Angle ∆ Angle Angle Arctan(y/x)
arctan(0/13) 00.00° 00.00° 00.00° arctan(0/2)
arctan(5/12) 22.62° +3.95° 26.57° arctan(2/4)
arctan(9/09) 45.00° 00.00° 45.00° arctan(2/2)
arctan(12/5) 67.38° -3.95° 63.43° arctan(4/2)
arctan(13/0) 90.00° 00.00° 90.00° arctan(2/0)

The angles from the circular track are very close to 22.5° which is good for making circles look round and even given that 5²+12²=13². However, with the difference in angle between the straight pieces and the ends of the curved pieces being 3.95° for the "22.5°" parts, it must have taken a little bit to get these to connect together nicely without spoiling the circle too much. Overall I think that the end result by Wube is absolutely fantastic and I'm fully looking forward to building new rails. The price of the expansion is worth it for this alone (and it's even free for vanilla)!

[gravityStar]

Also I don’t think anyone here would be mad if you broke saves. If breaking saves is going to happen in 2.1 I’d rather wish it happens when 2.0 is released. Honestly why bother keeping compatibility for such a big update. This is a chance for the developers to add features that were not possible before. Limiting yourselves I feel

First, note that the changes in this FFF to rails are fine with me; they look great. Similarly, the changes regarding quality seem interesting.

However, I'm shocked that quality, being an additional feature, is receiving so much criticism, while breaking savegame and blueprint compatibility seems like no big deal, to the point that there are people asking for explicit incompatibility.

[morhp]

while breaking savegame and blueprint compatibility seems like no big deal

I mean the expansion pack (or even just the free update) will probably have so many new features and mechanics that you'll probably want to start a new game anyway.

[coppercoil]

The angles from the circular track are very close to 22.5° which is good for making circles look round and even given that 5²+12²=13².

Actually, 1:2 slope ratio is the only clever solution in the game because it matches how we build sloped walls and other buildings.
I just wanted players to not say "22.5°". Half diagonal - that's good.

[Illiander42]

Also, half-diagonals will let us do better hex grid rails.

[Picks]

The new graphics look oddly colored. Also too "clean".
Is there a reason the visuals have been changed?

[Naik_Trofimov]

I’m in shock, maintaining a railway network is my favorite activity in Factorio and in 2.0 I will be able to do it with even more pleasure, God, I’m already in tears, I’m happy!

[Tec]

Afaik the rails IRL ale constructed using 3 types of curves:

• Euler Spiral (Clothoid) - transition curve, to linearize centrifugal force change

• Circular - the actual arc, at constant centrifugal force

• Linear - to cover distance...

[BlackKnight]

Awesome news!
I've been hyped about the update but this FFF got me to post. Rails look so fluid now, hard to get over seeing them as I have been so used to the old set - it feels like the new sprites fall into the uncanny valley where something just seems off. I'm sure it wont take long to get used to though . And a big fan of the 32 chunk power pole update!!!!-Have been cursing my chunk aligned blueprints with 'double' the required poles recently. I know rails will change blueprints but I can't wait a year to start enjoying at least some improvements mentioned. I installed https://mods.factorio.com/mod/PowerPole32 and anything else (QoL at least) I find that allows experiencing the update now.


Rail changes to consider

• Rail tile detection auto adjusts texture (hides gravel) based on underlying tileset. Rail + organic tile = gravel else hidden below any manufactured tileset (brick/concrete..). I have been using https://mods.factorio.com/mod/naked-rails_se which does an Ok job but could look a lot more natural between transitions and be vanilla. Technically setting the z level of gravel and ties to always exist below manufactured tiles would solve this, no? A great rail/concrete mock-up I found from a (reddit discussion )
• New rail object with concrete ties would really look cool.
• Since rails show wood ties, should it not require wood in its recipe? To solve automated rail production/usable in research, require using the concrete tie version ..or possibly make automated wood production possible?
• Would be super cool to see authentic rail intersection transition graphic-components integrated. But as V453000 pointed out recently, this is currently way out of scope due to effort required. In case any other rail enthusiasts may be interested (reddit link with context).

Train changes to consider

• Train schedule
  • Station Renaming Please! Example: if renaming stations and all trains set to it, they stay with the old station name. Requires manually creating a new schedule entry with new station name and entering all logic again and then finding all the trains with the old schedule and pasting the new schedule onto them. Really time consuming.
  • Train groups! Using [https://mods.factorio.com/mod/TrainGroups] (does help with the above coincidentally) is a must for QoL. Would be awesome for vanilla.
  • Local stop conditions. ie, '(NOT) Skip Station if' - (ie refueling etc). With that in mind, more logic in the scheduling UI would be great.
• Train speed adjustments
  • If the only station is turned off, the train should slow down to a stop (still following original path) instead of suddenly artificially stopping dead, unless hits end of rail or something.
  • Trains slow down around corners?
• Larger collision boxes for trains -- so the sprites dont intersect each other (as much at least) before impacting.
• Train destruction animation update. A bit over the top but I noticed a few others discussed the concept. Instead of trains exploding instantly, on impact maintain locomotive/car graphics while the train skids off in a similar trajectory showing consecutive random explosions (already exist) over the sprites as they are sent off the tracks. Could come to rest with some parts as a remnant sprite(s) (unrecoverable) or retain original sprite(s) with the contents still intact but non operational/requires repair before re-placing on tracks again. May even cause destruction of track segments resulting in rail remnants. One can dream

New/Old Rail comparison overlay (within chunk)
A few were curious, myself included what a u-turn and roundabout would look like chunk aligned compared to current rails. Two cobbled together composites based on images provided in earlier posts and I came up with this - if helpful to anyone curious [larger=new, smaller=old].

newoldrailcomparex2.jpg (201.02 KiB) Viewed 3450 times

[FuryoftheStars]

Rail tile detection auto adjusts texture (hides gravel) based on underlying tileset. Rail + organic tile = gravel else hidden below any manufactured tileset (brick/concrete..). I have been using https://mods.factorio.com/mod/naked-rails_se which does an Ok job but could look a lot more natural between transitions and be vanilla. Technically setting the z level of gravel and ties to always exist below manufactured tiles would solve this, no? A great rail/concrete mock-up I found from a (reddit discussion )

Well, there is no z axis in this game. They're all sprites in "layers" that merely controls which one wins out when they overlap. Currently the sprite for rails is a single graphic, and although they could split it into two graphics, I'm not sure if the game engine was designed with having different "layers" for each graphic of the same sprite in mind. Not to say I'm against the concept... I'm just not sure if it'll be possible.

(Edit to strike out some of the comment due to this. While the remainder is technically true, it's pointless, but there's no sense in removing it.)

[pleegwat]

Rail tile detection auto adjusts texture (hides gravel) based on underlying tileset. Rail + organic tile = gravel else hidden below any manufactured tileset (brick/concrete..). I have been using https://mods.factorio.com/mod/naked-rails_se which does an Ok job but could look a lot more natural between transitions and be vanilla. Technically setting the z level of gravel and ties to always exist below manufactured tiles would solve this, no? A great rail/concrete mock-up I found from a (reddit discussion )

Well, there is no z axis in this game. They're all sprites in "layers" that merely controls which one wins out when they overlap. Currently the sprite for rails is a single graphic, and although they could split it into two graphics, I'm not sure if the game engine was designed with having different "layers" for each graphic of the same sprite in mind. Not to say I'm against the concept... I'm just not sure if it'll be possible.

It's previously been mentioned that rails consist of multiple layers (5 or so) which is how intersections are displayed.

[lecakun]

Please don't give me the news to break my heart.
I had dropping the game a damn long time to save my life.

Can't wait for 2.0 for all those new expansion and features, but i can't spend another thousand hours for playing. PLEASE GOD SAVE ME.

[Svip]

Rail tile detection auto adjusts texture (hides gravel) based on underlying tileset. Rail + organic tile = gravel else hidden below any manufactured tileset (brick/concrete..). I have been using https://mods.factorio.com/mod/naked-rails_se which does an Ok job but could look a lot more natural between transitions and be vanilla. Technically setting the z level of gravel and ties to always exist below manufactured tiles would solve this, no? A great rail/concrete mock-up I found from a (reddit discussion )

Do people not understand the importance of ballast? While concrete slabs underneath rails exists, particularly in underground tracks, like say a metro, they are generally rare above ground.

Ballast, what I see people call "gravel", has multiple important purposes. For one, the stones allows dirt and other potential environmental damage to wash away with rain. Secondly, the slightly "soft" surface allows the train tracks to adjust as trains passes through (basically the trains push the tracks ever so slightly), if not, the tracks would become uneven and trains would derail. Ballast using stones are generally a cheap option (compared to concrete slabs), and usually only need maintenance every 25 years.

Removing the ballast because there is concrete underneath would hardly be realistic. Additionally, Factorio also use wooden sleepers rather than concrete sleepers, which would require ballast anyway (also limits top speed). So unless we need different tiers of railway tracks in Factorio, I feel like the look - as is - is fine.

[coppercoil]

Removing the ballast because there is concrete underneath would hardly be realistic.

The concrete is absolutely realistic.

concrete.jpg (242.76 KiB) Viewed 3046 times

Of course, this is expensive and this is used only where needed, or if... railway owner is too rich

[Khagan]

Removing the ballast because there is concrete underneath would hardly be realistic.

I live a stone's throw from one of the world's smallest curve radius mainline railway junctions (Newmarket, NZ). The tracks in the junction are set in concrete to withstand the extreme lateral forces. No gravel or other ballast is visible.

[tufoed]

Train yards as on the last pic looks great but in fact are useless, since proper signalling of such contraption is impossible for now. Hope, that new signals that occupies no tile alongside the rails (may be placed on the rail itself) may also be implemented. I kindly request this improvement ))

[Svip]

Removing the ballast because there is concrete underneath would hardly be realistic.

I live a stone's throw from one of the world's smallest curve radius mainline railway junctions (Newmarket, NZ). The tracks in the junction are set in concrete to withstand the extreme lateral forces. No gravel or other ballast is visible.

You are correct, "hardly realistic" was a poor choice of word. In fact, one could argue that concrete underneath rails might lead to a ballastless track. But I was initially focused on the mod without ballast at all, and inadvertently made a focus on concrete. But regardless, I have no problem with the current look of ballast on concrete.