Friday Facts #377 - New new rails

[Cobaltur]

With all the new rails I'm hoping F.A.R.L. (Fully Automated Rail Layer) will be capable to handle this.
It was my favorite mod within the first 1000 hours (currently at 3992)

[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.

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

Ah, so it is. Not sure what I was looking at before, then, as at one point in time I was wanting to change the wood ties to other materials but whatever it was I found had everything mashed together in one picture layer, so I just said screw it as that was going to be rather hard to work with.

[SupplyDepoo]

I love this!

2020.png (159.79 KiB) Viewed 3721 times

fff377.png (43.25 KiB) Viewed 3721 times

[Henry Loenwind]

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.

That's because we know that that incompatibility isn't real. The old rails still will be in the game for a while, you'll just be unable to place them. This keeps savegame compatibility. Blueprint compatibility and "fix destroyed rail" compatibility will be trivial to be added by mods, which are able to place any entity in the world not matter if it has an item or not.

I'm not sure if mods can coax the rail planner to plan and lay the old rails, but---tbh---I don't see many people having an issue with laying new rails for stuff they route manually.

There's also a possibility that old blueprints will lay down old rails. For this to work, WUBE needs to keep the old item<->entity mappings in there and hide them when those rail items are used manually. Then the "old rail" ghosts will accept the rail item to fulfil their requirements. (Hint: This may be a good idea to have for a transition period. Much easier to rework blueprints while the old ones still work.)

[Henry Loenwind]

I love this!

So what? The "not going to happen" stuff didn't happen. The FFF explained the exact same reasoning boskid wrote back then, just in way more words.

[mmmPI]

But the purpose for which the special S bend piece was requested seem possible now thanks to the additionnal half diagonal pieces, while still avoiding junctions with more than 3 ways as was deemed problematic back then.

[FuryoftheStars]

I love this!

I think you missed the point.

[Drury]

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.

Hey there, first I want to point out your second picture doesn't depict a monorail train at all, but rather a standard express train crossing a regular railway bridge spanning the Ouyodo river in Miyazaki, Japan

It's a common misconception that monorails are faster than traditional trains, or that they take up less space. Their main advantage is actually in having rubber wheels contacting a central concrete beam, effectively giving them some road vehicle characteristics, such as a lower carrying capacity (rendering them useless for carrying freight), but also being able to navigate steeper grades and narrower curves. This makes them useful in Chongqing, China, a city built on the mountainous banks of a winding river... And pretty much nowhere else Most monorails started their life as vanity projects and got eventually replaced by more practical transit options, though some float by on tourist appeal.

I typed all that out because the multilayered irony of suggesting monorails that are faster, require wider curves, carry more cargo per wagon and can be built on water - all of which sounds really cool, but doesn't meaningfully improve over regular Factorio trains - is just amazing


However, I can see monorail trams being useful on space platforms. You wouldn't really need two rails in space, just one for the train to grip onto is enough, there's no weight to worry about either and the narrower curves would help navigate the limited space and distribute a decent amount of of resources around, kinda like a bot network. Speaking of bots, they wouldn't work in space at all, no? No atmosphere, no lift for the rotors. Space monorail unironically lowkey confirmed as an alternative?

[Henry Loenwind]

However, I can see monorail trams being useful on space platforms. You wouldn't really need two rails in space, just one for the train to grip onto is enough, there's no weight to worry about either and the narrower curves would help navigate the limited space and distribute a decent amount of of resources around, kinda like a bot network. Speaking of bots, they wouldn't work in space at all, no? No atmosphere, no lift for the rotors. Space monorail unironically lowkey confirmed as an alternative?

You mean stuff like this?





That would be neat and it would fit into Factorio's visual design language.

PS: Finally found a modern foto:

[Twisted_Code]

Here it is! (beep boop)

https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-377

With that S bend and all the added flexibility, I think I might actually be able to enjoy working with rails enough to make my own modular blueprints instead of just using the 2 lane rails from "Kitch's Factorio Blueprint Book". I support your conclusion that this will have been worth your while!

Also I love the new spaghetti potential here!

[GTexperience]

Will u be able to connect the new rail system to the old one? Or should I start replacing the old one with the new one as soon as I update?

[mmmPI]

Will u be able to connect the new rail system to the old one? Or should I start replacing the old one with the new one as soon as I update?

As you can probably guess, the new rail curves will be incompatible with the old ones. Savegames from 1.1 can be opened and trains will still run on previously built rails just like normal, but you won't be able to construct the old rails at all anymore.
In some future Factorio update when we decide to drop 1.1 savegame compatibility (Let's say 2.1), we will eventually get rid of the old rail shapes completely.

I would guess you can connect the new rail to the old one but with care as removing part of the old rail cannot be "redo".

[Xorimuth]

Will u be able to connect the new rail system to the old one? Or should I start replacing the old one with the new one as soon as I update?

I think you can connect on straights, but not curves/diagonals.

[husnikadam]

1a) is it possible to load/unload vagons on all 8 straight segment variants?
1b) if so, what about pumps and fluid vagons?

2) I would like to see a possibility to place a train stop on all 8 straight segment variants. It would allow way more flexible and interesting stop designs. Have you thought about that? If so, and decided against it, why?

[XelSelenius]

One thing to say:
LOVE IT! The curves are perfect, it's better than the old ones(current) and the new shapes unlock new possibilities - Totally worth it!
Can you also electrify trains too? Wanna be greener and reduce refueling bottlenecks.

[mrvn]

Looking at the new rail pictures it looks like there are still at most 3 ways a rail can go. Look at the last picture for the biggest example. Correct?

As for backward compatibility: If the game can load old savegames and the rails still work then why not allow placing old rails? Maybe just keep having the old rails and disable the automatic rail layer stuff that depends on the larger curves. Manually placing rails or from blueprints should not be hard to keep. What if the game has rail ghosts? What if a rail is destroyed by aliens? Will the construction bots still place / replace the old rail?

Next question: If I have old rails can I always connect them to new rails? Doesn't that mean I can have a fork going 5 ways then? One rail going straight, one each going left / right with the old rails and then I add left / right curves with the new larger curves to make it 5 ways. Or will the game not allow me to connect a new curve where an old curve already is, preserving the 3 way split limit?

[boskid]

Looking at the new rail pictures it looks like there are still at most 3 ways a rail can go. Look at the last picture for the biggest example. Correct?

Yes. On top of that this system is complete: for every direction there are always 3 rails available: one that will turn left by 1/16th, one that will go straight and one that will turn right by 1/16th.

As for backward compatibility: If the game can load old savegames and the rails still work then why not allow placing old rails? Maybe just keep having the old rails and disable the automatic rail layer stuff that depends on the larger curves. Manually placing rails or from blueprints should not be hard to keep. What if the game has rail ghosts? What if a rail is destroyed by aliens? Will the construction bots still place / replace the old rail?

Technically it was not yet made to disallow building old rails but it is highly non recommended. Old rails are still available for use but they will be only for the duration of 2.0 as we want to get rid of them to get rid of their technical debt (double bounding boxes of curved rail, overlapping signal positions for diagonal rail pieces).

Next question: If I have old rails can I always connect them to new rails? Doesn't that mean I can have a fork going 5 ways then? One rail going straight, one each going left / right with the old rails and then I add left / right curves with the new larger curves to make it 5 ways. Or will the game not allow me to connect a new curve where an old curve already is, preserving the 3 way split limit?

Old rails and new rails only differ on the entity prototype type part, internally they are all Rails. There are so far 11 rail prototype types (2 for legacy rails, 4 for ground rails, 4 for elevated rails and 1 for ramp). Differences are only on connection point positions, position functions, chart shapes and hardcoded bounding boxes. Old rails can be connected to new rails on straight (non diagonal) sections as the connection points are aligned here. Diagonal rails have different alignment so it is not possible to connect them (when not abusing off-grid building). Since i was aware there will be transition period, i also made it so that old curved rail and new curved rail will collide with each other in case one of their connection points overlaps as this is the case which would require the "extra 2 directions, one for additional left, one for additional right" so i just made them collide to avoid this case.

[mrvn]

Great news, thanks for the clarifications.

How hard would it be to support even larger curves in the future with the same trick that the bounding boxes would collide?

Or to support a second set of rails, like monorails or vacuum tubes, that is completely incompatible with the existing rails. Maybe trains on vulcan would use different rails to nauvis due to the environment? Or just normal and high speed rails with a much larger curve?

Even better would be if the new rails would be defined by the prototype specifying connection points so curves would be customizable. Wouldn't that be great?

[glenjimen]

I think I may have answered my own question already, but I'll post anyway and see what you guys think.

I'm looking over these new new rails and they are fantastic! At first I thought the 45 degree rails would be replaced by 30 & 60 degree, but upon closer inspection all angles will be available. Which means there will need to be transitions between all those track "puzzle-pieces". And that leads to my original question.

Factorio uses track that is two grid tiles wide, as opposed to conveyors that are one one grid tile. This means you could theoretically end up with this offset problem on angled track. (Yes, I know the curve radius is wrong, but it doesn't effect the overall problem)

track on a grid with offset problems

railgeo3.png (30.57 KiB) Viewed 1230 times

The two rail segments are offset by half the track width.
Not a big deal, just delete one curve and relay. But what if you have two huge established bases and you now want to connect the rail lines, and they're offset like this?
I was thinking about this for a while, then called up the game just realize this problem has already been solved by restricting the player to even increment placement. You can only place track every other grid tile, so you cannot get this half-width-offset problem. Cool! That restriction is a very small price to pay for your rails always lining up correctly.

But how will it work with 30, 45, 60 & 90 degree track?
Hopefully this problem is old news, and the devs are way ahead of me, and the new new rails will be flawless. But if it is an issue, I think it would be good to address it sooner rather than later.

[Loewchen]

This means you could theoretically end up with this offset problem on angled track.

You can create offsets of diagonal rail right now, the step over is just a bit further. The only important thing is the ability to transition into cardinal directions from any possible offset and angle which is obviously given, so I don't see a problem.