Transport Tycoon Forums

I think making diagonal track laying draggable already increases your efficiency in building tracks.

Laying double track would be just as easy as doing a double click-drag-drop.

I was referring to handling the intersections between the tracks, not laying the tracks themselves - that is, which one intersects where and in what way. Also, you'd have to have a funny diagonal section to connect the ending of a double-track section where the two tracks are on either side of the square, with a single-track section where the track is in the center of the square.

But then, if you were going to have trams with tracks laid into the streets, then that would be the same way, with two tracks per each square (one on each side of the road).

Thoughts on how this should work?

Trams, does that mean stops on the side on the road instead of a bay?

what I was thinking was this:
1: You wouldnt build two tracks on 1 square, you would just build on two ( or six) parallel squares in the same 'drag'. this is best explained by the following: instead of making two pencil strokes, you tie two pencils together and use that.
2: The tracks would end up exactly the same as if you had built them seperatley.
3: for the selection I was thiking that you would add a 'number selector' (like in the station window or 2 little arrows?) to the rail building interface, and then that number applyied to everything, 2 tunnels, tracks, bridges (signals?) side by side (or whatever appropriate. changable?). And then the other options. It wouldnt be more than 3 or so buttons.

Oh, I see what you mean. I'm not sure it would be more helpful than confusing, but I don't see any harm in it if they want to do it. As long as it doesn't delay the first release.

Yes, trams run along the road and stop on the side of the road. Actually there's usually a platform along the sidewalk as a designated "tram-stop".

He, I know how trams are implemented, I travel them almost daily. I only wondered what they would come to look like in TTS!

The way I envisioned them, is that you would build track on top of existing roads. When you clicked "tram-track" on a road, you'd get double-track on the square - one track in each lane, for each direction. The trains can't go against traffic of course.

There would have to be the ability to get off the road and onto dedicated right-of-way, which would basically be normal track and follow the rules of normal track (signals, etc.) Trams could also use ordinary stations in this way.

There would have to be the ability for a crossover in the street, as trams would be assumed to be reversible on demand.

While on the road, trams wouldn't have signals, they would just follow the rules-of-the-road as if they were trucks.

You could denote any section of track as a tram-stop, this would just be a pullover to the curb and all trams passing would stop there.

This would only work well if passengers had specific destinations, otherwise it would be very inefficient. But I think this will be a difference of TTSD - passengers don't just "go anywhere," they actually have somewhere they want to go, and they will wait for the right vehicle and/or change vehicles. So you might have a person that would wait at a tram-stop for a tram, ride the tram to the central station, wait for a train, ride that train to an airport interchange, wait for a plane, and then fly across the board to another city. Much more realistic.

And perhaps follow that person, your own Sim ?!

Ummm...

I suppose if you had it coded such that each person had a destination, then yes, it would be possible to follow that person. But I don't think you could do it visually. Were we planning on showing actual people?

Although as I think about it, it would be kind of cool to visually be able to see a jam-packed station platform getting sucked into a train when it arrives.

I think we are getting into something very complicated here, and I don't know if that's a good idea.

Three suggestions:

1. Starting year
Somewhere in the 1800's (1850 would be nice).

2. Evolving towns
No, not growing in size but evolving by placing modern buildings.
A city in 1850 will have those old type houses made of wood and some made of bricks. (Those german type houses in TTD for example.) While a city in 2000 would have taller buildings made of concrete.

3. Editor
Don't know if you're planning on adding an editor but there's one thing I'd like to see in it:

In TTD you can place cities, but you can't decide which buildings go where.
More control over this would be nice. For example, when you build a city only the name of the city appears on the map. Another button in the city building menu will say something like "place random buildings" and another one will say something like "place buildings manually".
The last one would give you a menu with three buttons; "houses", "offices" and "decorations" (parks, statues, etc.). Click on any of the buttons and you'll get a scrollable list with images and statistics of all buildings in that category.

Having really old trains would be a little awkward because they are so small in comparison to the already-unnaturally-small TTD trains. I'd say 1900 would be good enough.

A more detailed editor wouldn't be bad. But you'd have to rig it so the buildings stayed put. TTD cities have a nasty habit of shrinking.

NitroX infinity wrote:Three suggestions:

1. Starting year
Somewhere in the 1800's (1850 would be nice).

2. Evolving towns
No, not growing in size but evolving by placing modern buildings.
A city in 1850 will have those old type houses made of wood and some made of bricks. (Those german type houses in TTD for example.) While a city in 2000 would have taller buildings made of concrete.

Splendid ideas. That's why I and others suggested them earlier. I think they are listed in the suggestions document.

I should say, I do like the evolving-buildings idea.

the city should also keep most of its older houses like they do in real life, and the modernbuildings built in the middle and new houses on outside of city.

Also the settlement should be categorised as hamlet, village, town, city or Metropolis

And they should expand with or without linkage to any transport. The growthrate would be lower then of course and could be linked to the economic development.

Right.

How about towns being created dynamically in the game, any suggestions ?

That doesn't happen often in reality... it should be a very rare event.

I don't know what you're going to do with industries (same as TTD or more and new ones) but here's a small list of possible industries:

Oil Wells [Crude Oil] -> Oil refinery [Goods] -> City
Oil Wells [Crude Oil] -> Oil refinery [Oil] -> Oil Power Station

Uranium Mines [Uranium] -> Uranium Refinery [Plutonium] -> Nuclear Power Reactor

Clay Mines [Clay] -> Clay Factory [Goods] -> City

Arathorn wrote:That doesn't happen often in reality... it should be a very rare event.

Well, if we're talking about the 1850's there was a tendency to go live close to factory's (abandoning small towns). And besides that ppl from small towns were moving to bigger cities, because that's where the jobs were.

On the other hand in the late 1900's there's tendency to go live around big cities, and have a job in the cities, because of the better mobility (which also creates a constant stream of passengers from and to those villages/cities).