Narrow Gauge vehicle sizing [Poll added 03/04/13]

[Voyager One]

As far it concernes these Swiss NG coaches, AndersI has the main point. They seem much closer in dimensions to SG than to some VeryNG ones. Therefore, I still stand behind my thoughts about same dimension. However...

Keep them 8px wide, and play with the shading effects so that the final effect will be that of somewhat smaller vehicles.

This is the idea I like very much. It's basically the same thing as we do to make trains rounded, pointed, etc. - ILLUSION.

Also, some, mostly older vehicles DO HAVE very narrow bodies. It comes to common sense for artists - and some proper research. I.e. I know for a fact that some very very old coaches are narrower and shorter in height than later models. Why should all our vehicles have 8px or 6px, why couldn't we have both, depending on their IRL counterparts? In fact, that would only stress the difference between modern more "standardized" vehicles and older vehicles.
---

@moderators, I think we should move this important NG dimensioning discussion to its own thread, else we won´t find it again in the future.

I agree.
---

Well, loading gauge for NG is "generally" smaller than for SG or BG. But there might be exceptions.

I.e. Identical NG and SG He 2/2, now that we're in the "Swiss" thread...
---

[SwissFan91]

Good to see some healthy debate here

Why should all our vehicles have 8px or 6px, why couldn't we have both, depending on their IRL counterparts?

I like this idea. However, we would need to be careful which we make 8px and 6px as it may restrict building a 8px loco with 6px carriages. After all, people do not always create OTTD trains according to their IRL counterparts.

[michael blunck]

Why should all our vehicles have 8px or 6px, why couldn't we have both, depending on their IRL counterparts?

Because it´s more straightforward to use the "default" TTD vehicle dimensions rather than work with intermediate dimensions (coding offsets, mixing vehicles, etc). It´s a can of worms.

regards
Michael

[Voyager One]

OK, I don't really understand anything about coding stuff but is it really impossible to code both 8px and 6px width the same way you would code 8px? What difference is there if they're all templated the same?

Also, (in-game) making a trainset with both dimensions is fine by me. A wide loco with old narrow coaches or vice versa... if a player wishes to make it... what's wrong with that (apart from "realism" nonsense)? Why would we need to "restrict building a 8px loco with 6px carriages"?

Note: all these thoughts are about NG trains. Of course that mixing SG and NG is out of the question.

[Snail]

I think Michael was referring to "intermediate dimensions", i.e. 7px for a vertical sprite. That would be the "correct" solution, but implementing it in OTTD would lead to sub-optimal results, the trains not being centered in the tile anymore. I could do some tests, but I'm not sure if they'd be worth the time.

I think AndersI's point comes from the fact that, in the transition from SG to NG, the track becomes roughly 30% narrower (at least when we consider "metric gauge", since there were many different NGs historically) while the trains become around 10% narrower. On top of that, the track being already narrower than the train magnifies this effect. Hence the more pronounced overhang.
I still think the solution is making the tracks narrower, so that the overhang is shown with 6px-wide sprites too.

Your suggestion to mix 6px and 8px vehicles might be worth trying out, especially with sets having wide modern rolling stock, such as RhB. It's fun to note, however, that this point is also valid within SG trains. Modern SG trains are wider than old ones (especially SG trains from the XIX century)...

[Voyager One]

I think Michael was referring to "intermediate dimensions", i.e. 7px for a vertical sprite.

A-ha. Sure, that is something I disagree with too. Trouble for artists, trouble for coders...

[SwissFan91]

It would be good to make a decision WRT the DACH set so drawing can continue (or restart, depending on what is chosen ). So it seems like we have the following options:

- Keep drawing the vehicles at 8px in accordance with most of the real life sizes and to show this 'overhang' that NG trains tend to have over the rails.

- Draw the vehicles at 6px in order to keep to OTTD scale in that NG trains should be visibly smaller by definition.

- Use a mixture of 8px and 6px sprites.

What do we think Dev team?

[Yoshi]

Keep 8px drawing

[Voyager One]

- Use a mixture of 8px and 6px sprites.

Can you code it using the 8px template only? If yes, then this is my preference.

[Purno]

Personally I'd prefer 8pix wide. The tiny scale of TT is hard enough to make well detailed sprites. As an artist it's fun to add details, as a player I like to admire details. 6pix would be incredibly small. And most road vehicles and trams are 8pix too.

But personally I don't really have a feeling for narrow gauge trains. I barely see them in real life. I don't think I'll be playing with a narrow gauge trainset anytime soon, since I can't see their ingame advantage either.

[Yoshi]

Can you code it using the 8px template only? If yes, then this is my preference.

Theoretically, it's possible

[SwissFan91]

I agree with the above in that we should just solely draw based on the dimension of the item. So use 8px or 6px depending on the size rather than saying that because it's NG it should be 6px by default.

[Voyager One]

Settled.

IF something will be made 6px wide, it will still be templated as normal, it will only look like a "cropped" or "clipped" 8px vehicle.

TBH, so far I haven't encountered an engine (from the list) that should be drawn narrower. Maybe some older things I still haven't started.

[Yoshi]

I made two versions:

EIW_FFA_II.png (5.06 KiB) Viewed 2255 times

EIW_FFA_II_small.png (5.02 KiB) Viewed 2255 times

Which of these schemes looks better?
With lower or higher roof?

[michael blunck]

Which of these schemes looks better?
With lower or higher roof?

The one with lower roofs, of course.

regards
Michael

[SwissFan91]

Which of these schemes looks better?
With lower or higher roof?

The one with lower roofs, of course.

regards
Michael

Well, don't forget to vote Michael!

For further reference, here they are on rails with engines:

Full mock up flat.png (4.92 KiB) Viewed 2225 times

Larger on the left and smaller in the middle.

[Snail]

Which of these schemes looks better?
With lower or higher roof?

The one with lower roofs, of course.

Agreed. They're both way too tall anyway for NG, at least the lower roof models the coaches' length slightly better.
Voted

[Voyager One]

I'm speaking on my behalf regarding the DACH NG set...

Most Swiss NG engines are (IRL) as high as their SG counterparts - meaning 6-7px in OTTD scale (not counting pantographs). However, I have drawn several of them 1px lower to get a better "illusion".

With that in mind, coaches with the lower roof seem better. Also, as I've managed to notice, most of those Swiss coaches DO NOT have very rounded roofs so making them in the "small" variants would make them look more flat too.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, that engine in the mockup is my MGB BVZ Deh 4/4 I - 6px height, that is one of those lower engines.

[Twyster]

In terms of deciding a standard, does anyone think it would be a good idea to make a mockup using every (dual-rail) track graphic made to date placed side-to-side and go from there? There seems to be a conflict between the default/Nutrack scale and the "finescale" used by Pikkabird and a couple other sets.

Or is this just for the DACH? I can't tell from the main title...

[Snail]

This is just for DACH. It is by no means a standard for all the sets.