Collectively closing gates at adjacent rail/road crossings

[aahz77]

I think the title says it all, and I see two stages of possible implementation:

1. It would be nice if adjacent level crossings all close their gates simultaneously when a train approaches (see attached screenshot - in RL, the gates at B, C, and D would also close).

2. Even better would be an enhancement of the appropriate GRF (which is ttdpbase[w].grf, isn't it?) so that gates wouldn't even be displayed between adjacent level-crossing tiles (i.e. in the screenshot, there would be no gates between A and B, A and C, C and D. Only B (northern side) and D (southern side) would have gates, which would close if a train approaches any of the, in this case, four tracks.

[michael blunck]

Even better would be an enhancement of the appropriate GRF (which is ttdpbase[w].grf, isn't it?) [...]

There is no "appropriate .grf" for gates. The common gates found in a couple of different .grfs all work by action 0A which is only simple sprite replacement.

> so that gates wouldn't even be displayed between adjacent level-crossing tiles [...]

Then we would need additional graphics with only one gate (left and right).

BTW, a normal-sized bus/truck fits between adjacent gates. Not a LV, though ...

regards
Michael

[Vloris]

I think the major problem, even without considerations about how to code it is that the gates should close much earlier to avoid buses getting stuck on the rails when a train arrives at the crossing.

It's a problem in real life as well: here in Holland for example, I do not know of a single level crossing with more then 3 tracks that are controlled automatically by a train approaching. They all work "manually", controlled by the train-operator who sets train-routes through his assigned trackspace. He can only assign a route over the crossing if it is closed.

[michael blunck]

I think the major problem [...] is that the gates should close much earlier

You may use PBS. As soon as a train reserves a path including a crossing tile, its gates are closed.

regards
Michael

[aahz77]

> so that gates wouldn't even be displayed between adjacent level-crossing tiles [...]

Then we would need additional graphics with only one gate (left and right).

Of course we would! That's what I meant with "enhancement if the appropriate GRF". I didn't spell it out yet because I wanted to hear some opinions first (of one or another dev, too?) about the implementation number 1.

I remember reading somewhere that it is possible to get the status of an adjacent tile. So if the adjacent tile of a rail/road crossing is also a rail/road crossing, I expect it should be possible to open / close the gates of the other tile(s) as well.

BTW, a normal-sized bus/truck fits between adjacent gates. Not a LV, though ...

I know this. But I didn't have any RVs in mind when I suggested this. It only looks a bit silly when one pair of gates closes and those of the parallel tracks stay open. It doesn't work that way in RL.

[SuperTycoon]

BTW, a normal-sized bus/truck fits between adjacent gates. Not a LV, though ...

I know this. But I didn't have any RVs in mind when I suggested this. It only looks a bit silly when one pair of gates closes and those of the parallel tracks stay open. It doesn't work that way in RL.

Yes, but experiments with placing ballast between two additional tracks, shows that TTD tracks are too far apart for this to look realistic either.

Now an alternative if you only want realism would be to code a station that looks like a level crossing, I believe the code allows for a stations graphics to change when a train approaches. This solution would also allow for different styles of crossing to become available at different years. However, I'm not entirely sure whether it is presently possible (or will ever be possible) to allow RVs to cross station tiles.

[aahz77]

Yes, but experiments with placing ballast between two additional tracks, shows that TTD tracks are too far apart for this to look realistic either.

OK, I also thought about that. But then again, I would appreciate having a dev's opinion for the complexity of implementing point 1 from my first post (as that would be quite neat and should look much more realistic than how it is now.

[Pookey]

I can see one possible problem with your first suggestion. If all the gates closed simultaneously, that may mean that they are all linked and only one train can therefore frequent any of the four tracks at any one time. Just a possible problem...

[Samwise]

I wonder, how are those fences on both sides of the 4 tracks coded? Don't they do the same thing as the idea of his level crossing? They disappear as soon as a second track is laid against it..

[Pookey]

I wonder, how are those fences on both sides of the 4 tracks coded? Don't they do the same thing as the idea of his level crossing? They disappear as soon as a second track is laid against it..

Oooh, now there's a possibility...

[c2R]

An issue might be that if there are, say, 6 tracks next to eachother; the gates would have to close when the train was several squares away, otherwise you may end up with a vehicle that travels at 30mph stuck inside closed gates trying to cross all the tracks...

[aahz77]

I can see one possible problem with your first suggestion. If all the gates closed simultaneously, that may mean that they are all linked and only one train can therefore frequent any of the four tracks at any one time. Just a possible problem...

Of course, the tiles should not act as a single block of track. But I think you already got the idea from Darkmast49's post:

I wonder, how are those fences on both sides of the 4 tracks coded? Don't they do the same thing as the idea of his level crossing? They disappear as soon as a second track is laid against it..

Oooh, now there's a possibility...

I hope so! Is there any Patchdev who knows how this works and whether it could be used for my suggestion?

An issue might be that if there are, say, 6 tracks next to eachother; the gates would have to close when the train was several squares away, otherwise you may end up with a vehicle that travels at 30mph stuck inside closed gates trying to cross all the tracks...

I don't care about the road vehicles; anyone who uses road vehicles to cross such track "carpets" should not use the switch.

[Stevie D]

I think the major problem, even without considerations about how to code it is that the gates should close much earlier to avoid buses getting stuck on the rails when a train arrives at the crossing.

Multiply the lead time by the number of adjacent crossings, would be the easiest way to do it. If there are 4 tracks, bring the barriers down when the approaching train is 4 times further away, and do that irrespective of which track the train is on.

Yes, you could say that if the train is on the outside track, barriers on that side could be closed later, but I think would make it far too complicated, and in danger of trapping buses in the middle. But you would want buses to be able to drive out if they were in the middle of the crossing when the barriers went down - that would probably be the most difficult bit.

It's a problem in real life as well: here in Holland for example, I do not know of a single level crossing with more then 3 tracks that are controlled automatically by a train approaching.

In the UK, almost all level crossings are activated automatically, by the train passing a certain point - the barriers are then lowered. On certain types of crossing, the crossing must then be checked by eye, either from an adjacent signalbox or via CCTV, before the rail signals are cleared to green, but the crossing barriers themselves are mostly automatic.