Improved rail curves

[Zeblote]

It bothers me that I can't connect rail curves properly:


Instead I have to put a straight piece between them, but that doesn't end up to a circle:



From here on I have two options of ugly rounded octagons:



Instead of the small circle intersection I wanted:

(Note that it's still not perfect, especially the curves that connect the straights to the ring)

Some kind of larger curves would also be nice:


Are there any plans to improve these?

[johanwanderer]

I can see this breaking so many current games I wonder if we can just mod in new rail segments with slightly modified curvature / connections and see how it work. I might attempt to do that if I get enough free time.

[Zeblote]

I can see this breaking so many current games

Well, backwards compatibility wasn't an issue when they improved belts and turrets. It's an alpha after all!

[johanwanderer]

I wasn't saying that as bad thing. Anyway, my earlier point was that we might need different curvatures anyway, in order to have both small and large circles. Unless we want to build square-ish large circles.

[Zeblote]

I think the main problem is that proper curves can't end on a tile border unless a whole quarter is one piece.

Though I just realized that

Factorio 0.13 (2015)

• Better rail building

It seems to already be on the roadmap! So I'll just wait for 0.13 and see if it's better then

[sillyfly]

Let met play the role of the ssilk-bot for a post:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=12603
(Also note the first reply, by ssilk himself, for more about this topic).

About the 0.13 note - I'm not sure they mean changing the rail geometry, more like making it easier to actually build extensive rail networks (Maybe something like the FARL mod?)

[Zeblote]

Let met play the role of the ssilk-bot for a post:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=12603

Oh! That topic is full of great ideas

[Choumiko]

About the 0.13 note - I'm not sure they mean changing the rail geometry, more like making it easier to actually build extensive rail networks (Maybe something like the FARL mod?)

Not sure, but i think it was more like click+drag. I'm sure ssilk-bot can find it

[DerivePi]

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=10340

I think the argument now is whether we should have a rail system that is flexible but prone to misalignment when placing. Or, do we want a semi-rigid rail system that is more forgiving when being placed, at a small loss of flexibility. In either case, I don't think the developers can go wrong on improving the current system.

[Zeblote]

I'd prefer a more flexible rail system, even if it means that I have to build intersections 2 or 3 times before they work. Can just make blueprints after that

[Peter34]

Well, personally I think worrying about rail curve perfection is silly.

My personal opinion aside, though, it's a well-known fact that many Factorio fans have some degree of OCD, and based on that, improving the rail symmetry could be a good use of developer man-hours.

[hitzu]

The best impoving of rail curves would be the possibility to mine straights pieces under the curved ones.

[johanwanderer]

The best impoving of rail curves would be the possibility to mine straights pieces under the curved ones.

I use the deconstruction planner for this. Just deconstruct both pieces, then un-deconstruct (shift-click) the curved piece.

[ssilk]

I think this detail is so annoying (or annoying enough ), that it should be handled as a bug.

[orzelek]

There is one very important question here - are you willing to handle the update after it rolls out on your network?

I do agree that current rails looks slightly off and that can be annoying.

[Cooolaid]

I agree with the original Poster.
Turns and curves of rails should be seriously improved.
It does look off and very odd looking. Hopefully in the future it gets fixed.

Just putting my signature on this because its needed.

[tobsimon]

Oh, I missed it. But you guys already linked my 2 cents about it.

Had a good laugh at Peter34's comment, also, no it's totally not silly, you're silly.

Id love to see more feedbeck on the question DerivePi raised: Which geometry is preferable,
the new flexible one,   (https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=12603 "New rail geometry")
or the fixed old one?   (https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... =6&t=10340 "Simple fix for the ugly rail circles")
(both already linked before)



Also the deconstruction issue gave me an idea for rail building:
As always, there should only be one generic rail piece in the inventory. You can build it as a straight piece (rotate as usual), but shadows of the curves appear, which might be build in it's stead, like so:

RailBuilding.png (285.18 KiB) Viewed 8633 times

This only happens, when you build connecting to prexisting rail. These shadows do not invoke the construction bots. They disappear, when you deselect the rail or build another rail piece. The curves are actually built, when you click on them, or when you build a rail piece connecting with them. In this case, the straigt disappears again, if it is terminal. If it is connected on both ends, it stays where it is. You may build on an existing continuous rail to display the shadows of the 4 curves (left and right, both directions) which can be built there to branch the rail.

Actually building a curve costs 4 rail pieces (same as current price, mathes it's length). Since one piece is already spent for the straight which will be replaced once the curve is built in it's stead, the remaining cost of 3 pieces is taken out of the inventory when the curve is actually built. Full cost of 4 in case of a branch.

I think this way, new players can easily see how to build curves, and it's seems to me an elegant way to build advanced stuff also. It is however a new variant of the build action not used (usable) anywhere else. But it expands very well to two different radii as used in the proposed new rail geometry.

You like it?

[Zeblote]

New flexible rail geometry is definitely better than temporarily fixing the old one!

[katyal]

IIRC Kovarex touched on the subject in one of the friday blog posts (Can't seem to find the post maybe it was here on the forums after all). More specifically mentioned they wanted to go for a generic rail and making it easier to lay