Factorio Forums

Maybe.

But it's a good point: I'm a bit sceptical, why everybody wants to have the train logic exactly the same as in those other games: a window with many tabs where I can choose under which circumstances the train should arrive and/or depart. And so on.

Much of that logic is only needed, if you have not so much space. In Factorio you can easily place 3 stations into one chunk. Or more. One for every case you have!
In Factorio it would be possible to let circuit logic choose the "right" station.
And so on.

I won't say, do it so, but I would like to see, if that really makes sense in a game, cause in reality it makes.

I'd love to get more logic components into the railway system, and some of the components in OpenTTD would be nice to have.
I do however agree with whats said by ssilk above, it doesn't have to be the same implementation of the components.

I would love to get pre-signals to output their state to the circuit network, and having some signal(s) which accept input from the circuit network to turn on/off.
Making the logic network able to check the contents of a cargo wagon and output signal(s) to the circuit network could make for very interesting and complex systems.

And now if we'd only get the ability to cross under(or above) other tracks then I probably will probably loose my job due to Factorio <3

mazetar wrote: ...if we'd only get the ability to cross under(or above) other tracks ...

Yes .. underground train passage please !

Underground train tunnels, why didn't I think of that.
It fits the current theme of belts going underground.

Nova wrote:

-root wrote:Just whatever you do in .12, do not change the corners of belts. leave them as they are.

Hopefully they change it.
(It makes no sense to discuss this, especially not here.)

The question is, what they change it to.

If its some smoother, better version of what we have, sure, all for it.

But if they remove the speed difference from the outer and inner belt lines, I feel like it would detract from the game. Its a good example of complexity arising from something very simple and it adds a really, really nice wrinkle to the game when you have to design your belts in such a way that corners don't slow them down overly much.

-root wrote: But if they remove the speed difference from the outer and inner belt lines, I feel like it would detract from the game. Its a good example of complexity arising from something very simple and it adds a really, really nice wrinkle to the game when you have to design your belts in such a way that corners don't slow them down overly much.

For the impatient readers: This post calls for KEEPING the lane speed difference in corners.
I agree to the point and it would be unfortunate to have anyone misinterpret it.

ible wrote:Underground train tunnels, why didn't I think of that.
It fits the current theme of belts going underground.

You didn't because a train is far higher than some dust/rock lying on the ground.
Sinking it underground in just one tile is riddiculously unrealistic.
Combined with the max incline/slope trains could climb, it could take lost of to do it.

What do you think about the solution proposed on [Idea] Train-proof facility instead?

MF- wrote:Sinking it underground in just one tile is riddiculously unrealistic.

Who says it should be in one tile? The train to ground piece would certainly be several tiles long.

kovarex wrote:Who says it should be in one tile? The train to ground piece would certainly be several tiles long.

Do you really want to add new spreadsheet of train-on-slope sprites? ʘ̆_ʖಠ

hitzu wrote:

kovarex wrote:Who says it should be in one tile? The train to ground piece would certainly be several tiles long.

Do you really want to add new spreadsheet of train-on-slope sprites? ʘ̆_ʖಠ

Well, it is one of the possibilities, as it would be only needed in 8 directions, and the train sprites could be moved into the ram-only memory. The other possibility would be to hide it completely.

kovarex wrote:Well, it is one of the possibilities, as it would be only needed in 8 directions, and the train sprites could be moved into the ram-only memory. The other possibility would be to hide it completely.

In my opinion the slopes eiter natural or artifitial would be out of strong Factorio design. The game is beautiful by its flatness. Of course you could add some sort of floors or layers to bring the depth into the game, just like old-fashion pseudo-3D games had, but there is really no need for bumpy-lumpiness. Think like Esher did.

kovarex wrote:Who says it should be in one tile? The train to ground piece would certainly be several tiles long.

Underground train passages fit the game perfectly and will greatrly improve the massive train networks. They will also help avoid train jams due to imperfect signals mechanism. I would be OK with having only horisontal and vertival underground passages (same as pipes and belts)

hitzu wrote:In my opinion the slopes eiter natural or artifitial would be out of strong Factorio design. The game is beautiful by its flatness.

The underground train passage doesnt require the world to be unflat, same as underground belts and pipes.

Cloner wrote:The underground train passage doesnt require the world to be unflat, same as underground belts and pipes.

I didn't argue with that.

Would we need to see the train on the slope?
If the train enters the underground passage by going into a tunnel, we wouldn't see the train after it enters the tunnel entrance

Cloner wrote: I would be OK with having only horisontal and vertival underground passages (same as pipes and belts)

I agree, even if we only have horizontal and vertical passages this would be great.