Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
Moderator: Graphics Moderators
-
- Chief Executive
- Posts: 675
- Joined: 03 Apr 2016 20:19
Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
Is this a good idea, or is it redundant?
I could at least see it working for trams, since there are both meter gauge and standard gauge tram track types.
I could at least see it working for trams, since there are both meter gauge and standard gauge tram track types.
Licenses for my work...
You automatically have my permission to re-license graphics or code by me if needed for use in any project that is not GPL v2, on the condition that if you release any derivatives of my graphics they're automatically considered as ALSO GPL v2 (code may remain unreleased, but please do provide it) and carry this provision in GPL v2 uses.
Please ask someone in-the-know to be sure that the graphics are done by me. Especially TTD-Scale, long story.
You automatically have my permission to re-license graphics or code by me if needed for use in any project that is not GPL v2, on the condition that if you release any derivatives of my graphics they're automatically considered as ALSO GPL v2 (code may remain unreleased, but please do provide it) and carry this provision in GPL v2 uses.
Please ask someone in-the-know to be sure that the graphics are done by me. Especially TTD-Scale, long story.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
The rough result of the last discussion about this topic was: there's not enough vehicle sets yet to see whether that is really needed, and which details need to be modelled.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
Tramtype scheme is redundant. There's no reason to differentiate between that and the Railtype scheme.
As for the Roadtype scheme, that'll be really useful. Make sure to base it on the Railtype scheme tho.
And I agree with Eddi, it's a bit too early to make any definitive statements.
As for the Roadtype scheme, that'll be really useful. Make sure to base it on the Railtype scheme tho.
And I agree with Eddi, it's a bit too early to make any definitive statements.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
This never got implemented, did it?
Is this a good scheme for standardized roadtypes?
UXXX = Unpaved
PXXX = Paved
AXXX = Any letter here - newgrf-side for more variants, like asphalt, powered_roadtype_list could be used to fallback on U or P.
XAXX = Low speed
XBXX = Mid speed
XCXX = High speed
XXAX = Lightweight vehicles (ROAD)
XXBX = Heavyweight vehicles (HAUL)
XXXN = Non-electrified
XXXE = Trolleybuses (ELRD)
LXXE = Utility Lines
LXXP = Pipelines
LXXU = Mixed Utilities
Is this a good scheme for standardized roadtypes?
UXXX = Unpaved
PXXX = Paved
AXXX = Any letter here - newgrf-side for more variants, like asphalt, powered_roadtype_list could be used to fallback on U or P.
XAXX = Low speed
XBXX = Mid speed
XCXX = High speed
XXAX = Lightweight vehicles (ROAD)
XXBX = Heavyweight vehicles (HAUL)
XXXN = Non-electrified
XXXE = Trolleybuses (ELRD)
LXXE = Utility Lines
LXXP = Pipelines
LXXU = Mixed Utilities
I have Asperger's, please be easy on me about stuff. My apologies if I've been a problem for you in the past.
- 2TallTyler
- Route Supervisor
- Posts: 507
- Joined: 11 Aug 2019 18:15
- Contact:
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
It seems to follow the standardized railtype scheme. Beyond that I don't know enough to have an opinion.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
This is just my opinion, but I think a standardized scheme for non-electrified roads makes no sense, as there's generally no physical reason a vehicle can't drive on a dirt road vs paved road or whatever. Schemes like this are useful for rails due to physical limitations (i.e. different gauges, power systems, etc.) but roads and road vehicles don't generally have those issues. The only marginal usecase we've seen so far is to keep heavy equipment on a separate haul road and off "public" roads, but honestly even that has always seemed slightly dubious to me as usually nothing is actually stopping that from happening other than regulations. Is it unrealistic to have a 90-ton dumptruck driving down a highway? Yes (most of the time anyway), but again physical limitations are practically non-existent (ignoring things like low power lines and bridge weight restrictions, which don't exist in the game and would be separate from the roadtype itself anyway). Again just my opinion, but unless someone can honestly think of several common gameplay reasons for these standards to exist, I think it's a bit overkill
Electrified roads on the other hand are different, since those do have physical limitations in the form of different power systems which could be useful to standardize, though I have no opinion on the specific scheme which should be used there. Perhaps something similar to the railtype electrification guidelines would be good.
Electrified roads on the other hand are different, since those do have physical limitations in the form of different power systems which could be useful to standardize, though I have no opinion on the specific scheme which should be used there. Perhaps something similar to the railtype electrification guidelines would be good.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
I have to agree there is no real need for this other than the consensus there allready is.
There are 2 defaults, ROAD for roads and ELRL for tramtracks.
All other tags are not hardcoded but by consensus, RAIL for unelectrified tramtracks, ELRD for trolleybuses, MONO for city monorails and HAUL for offroad.
This follows a logical pattern that we know for railway tags.
Changing a tag like ELRD in the road grf to XXXE would break compatibility with all existing trolley bus sets for NRT.
There is no real need for a scheme for different speeds I think, those roads can be coded to be compatible with ROAD (or HAUL).
If in the future ppl want to create a narrow gauge tramway perhaps it would be good to have a consensus on that, because there seem to be some incompatibilities in the railway NG sets.
Maybe NGRL and ELNG.
There are 2 defaults, ROAD for roads and ELRL for tramtracks.
All other tags are not hardcoded but by consensus, RAIL for unelectrified tramtracks, ELRD for trolleybuses, MONO for city monorails and HAUL for offroad.
This follows a logical pattern that we know for railway tags.
Changing a tag like ELRD in the road grf to XXXE would break compatibility with all existing trolley bus sets for NRT.
There is no real need for a scheme for different speeds I think, those roads can be coded to be compatible with ROAD (or HAUL).
If in the future ppl want to create a narrow gauge tramway perhaps it would be good to have a consensus on that, because there seem to be some incompatibilities in the railway NG sets.
Maybe NGRL and ELNG.
Coder for the 2cc trams (passenger) and the 2cc cargo trams
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
I agree here, with ROAD, ELRD and HAUL, most roadset compatibility seems to be taken care of.Arnoud wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 22:28 I have to agree there is no real need for this other than the consensus there allready is.
There are 2 defaults, ROAD for roads and ELRL for tramtracks.
All other tags are not hardcoded but by consensus, RAIL for unelectrified tramtracks, ELRD for trolleybuses, MONO for city monorails and HAUL for offroad.
This follows a logical pattern that we know for railway tags.
Changing a tag like ELRD in the road grf to XXXE would break compatibility with all existing trolley bus sets for NRT.
There is no real need for a scheme for different speeds I think, those roads can be coded to be compatible with ROAD (or HAUL).
If in the future ppl want to create a narrow gauge tramway perhaps it would be good to have a consensus on that, because there seem to be some incompatibilities in the railway NG sets.
Maybe NGRL and ELNG.
As for the tramways, the existing standardised railtype scheme would work fine. It deals with every rail-esque incompatibility that comes with this.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
Your opinion is valid, however...Andrew350 wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 19:17 This is just my opinion, but I think a standardized scheme for non-electrified roads makes no sense, as there's generally no physical reason a vehicle can't drive on a dirt road vs paved road or whatever. Schemes like this are useful for rails due to physical limitations (i.e. different gauges, power systems, etc.) but roads and road vehicles don't generally have those issues. The only marginal usecase we've seen so far is to keep heavy equipment on a separate haul road and off "public" roads, but honestly even that has always seemed slightly dubious to me as usually nothing is actually stopping that from happening other than regulations. Is it unrealistic to have a 90-ton dumptruck driving down a highway? Yes (most of the time anyway), but again physical limitations are practically non-existent (ignoring things like low power lines and bridge weight restrictions, which don't exist in the game and would be separate from the roadtype itself anyway). Again just my opinion, but unless someone can honestly think of several common gameplay reasons for these standards to exist, I think it's a bit overkill
Electrified roads on the other hand are different, since those do have physical limitations in the form of different power systems which could be useful to standardize, though I have no opinion on the specific scheme which should be used there. Perhaps something similar to the railtype electrification guidelines would be good.
You have to realize that, unlike rails, roadtypes have "outbound compatibility". Let's say that Dev A creates GRF A with the roadtype RDAA. Then Dev B creates GRF B with the roadtype RDBB, which is supposed to allow RDAA vehicles to drive on it.Erato wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 22:35I agree here, with ROAD, ELRD and HAUL, most roadset compatibility seems to be taken care of.Arnoud wrote: ↑16 Jul 2020 22:28 I have to agree there is no real need for this other than the consensus there allready is.
There are 2 defaults, ROAD for roads and ELRL for tramtracks.
All other tags are not hardcoded but by consensus, RAIL for unelectrified tramtracks, ELRD for trolleybuses, MONO for city monorails and HAUL for offroad.
This follows a logical pattern that we know for railway tags.
Changing a tag like ELRD in the road grf to XXXE would break compatibility with all existing trolley bus sets for NRT.
There is no real need for a scheme for different speeds I think, those roads can be coded to be compatible with ROAD (or HAUL).
If in the future ppl want to create a narrow gauge tramway perhaps it would be good to have a consensus on that, because there seem to be some incompatibilities in the railway NG sets.
Maybe NGRL and ELNG.
As for the tramways, the existing standardised railtype scheme would work fine. It deals with every rail-esque incompatibility that comes with this.
With railtypes, RLAA doesn't have to be edited by Dev A. Dev B could make RLBB to allow RLAA trains on RLBB tracks using compatible_railtype_list. Railtypes have "inbound compatibility".
But with roadtypes, Dev A has to add RDBB to powered_roadtype_list in order for road vehicles that drive on RDAA to also drive on RDBB. In practice, this means that Andrew350 and Ufiby would have to add every roadtype used in Country Roads, Unspooled and Docklands. Fortunately, the trimmed-down GPL Roadtype Collections I made don't change the roadtype labels from the original GRFs they're based on.
If you want proof that outbound compatibility is a thing, I will gladly provide you with the source code of Utility Roadtype Set. The "road vehicles" that run on PIPE and WIRE will also run on various roadtypes, but road vehicles for normal roadtypes won't run on PIPE or WIRE. Outbound compatibility at work.
EDIT: Just tested Utility Roadtype Set with URaTT. The telegraph "road vehicle" runs on utility roads and normal roads, while normal vehicles run only on roads. Here's the code that proves that my point is correct...
Code: Select all
label: "WIRE";
...
powered_roadtype_list: ["UTIL", "WIRE", "CEAE", "UTIL", "GSLP", "GLMP", "UAAE", "UBBE",
"ROAD", "ELRD", "OLD_", "RCDE", "RECE",
"ASP0", "ASP1", "ASP2", "ELSP", "ELA1", "ELA2",
"CBRD", "CBRE", "PVRD", "PVRE", "ISRD", "ISRE",
"ELHL",
"IBEN", "IBEE",
"SRD0", "SRD1", "SRD2",
"FORD", "FRZN",
"CBRD", "CBRE"];
- Attachments
-
- URS_37.7z
- Latest source code of Utility Roadtype Set
- (1.11 MiB) Downloaded 110 times
I have Asperger's, please be easy on me about stuff. My apologies if I've been a problem for you in the past.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
That's exactly the same thing....maybe I'm missing your point, but nothing changed with how this works for roadtypes. Powered = compatible here.
No it doesn't, because all my roads are compatible with ROAD, and that's all they should be compatible with. If your vehicle is "normal", it should be given the road_type ROAD so it will run on all "normal" roads just fine (regardless of label), and not on anything it shouldn't. If your vehicle's road_type is not ROAD, then it will not run on anything except exactly what you define there, or what that type is specifically compatible with. And compatibility is not transitive, e.g.. if A is compatible with C, while B is compatible with A, it does NOT make B compatible to C (B would have to define C as compatible specifically).
So in your case of making a "telegraph" vehicle which has the special ability to drive on different, normally incompatible roadtypes, you must define a new roadtype just for that vehicle which gives it the correct poweredness on the types you want it to drive on. It is a special case which needs to be handled internally by that set, not one which needs to be added by all other sets
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
- That's fair enough.So in your case of making a "telegraph" vehicle which has the special ability to drive on different, normally incompatible roadtypes, you must define a new roadtype just for that vehicle which gives it the correct poweredness on the types you want it to drive on. It is a special case which needs to be handled internally by that set, not one which needs to be added by all other sets
No, I will tell you briefly - draw it yourself, that you have a special with the road. How did Andrew350 do this. (Andrew350, well done)In practice, this means that Andrew350 and Ufiby would have to add every roadtype used in Country Roads, Unspooled and Docklands.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
Look, I already said elsewhere, I found the solution...ufiby wrote: ↑17 Jul 2020 17:10- That's fair enough.So in your case of making a "telegraph" vehicle which has the special ability to drive on different, normally incompatible roadtypes, you must define a new roadtype just for that vehicle which gives it the correct poweredness on the types you want it to drive on. It is a special case which needs to be handled internally by that set, not one which needs to be added by all other setsNo, I will tell you briefly - draw it yourself, that you have a special with the road. How did Andrew350 do this. (Andrew350, well done)In practice, this means that Andrew350 and Ufiby would have to add every roadtype used in Country Roads, Unspooled and Docklands.
Code: Select all
//ford
item(FEAT_ROADTYPES, ford, 7) {
property {
name: string(STR_NAME_FORD);
label: "FORD";
map_colour: 157;
speed_limit: 8 km/h;
introduction_date: date(1525,01,01);
construction_cost: 2;
maintenance_cost: 1;
powered_roadtype_list: ["WAAN", "OFFR", "AMPH", "WWAY", "FRZN", "RWAY", "DIRT", "AUZB", "AUZC"];
alternative_roadtype_list: ["WAAN", "OFFR", "DIRT", "AUZB", "AUZC", "ROAD"];
roadtype_flags: bitmask(ROADTYPE_FLAG_NO_HOUSES);
toolbar_caption: string(STR_TOOLBAR_CAPTION_FORD);
menu_text: string(STR_MENU_TEXT_FORD);
build_window_caption: string(STR_BUILD_WINDOW_CAPTION_FORD);
autoreplace_text: string(STR_AUTOREPLACE_TEXT_FORD);
new_engine_text: string(STR_NEW_ENGINE_TEXT_FORD);
sort_order: 37;
}
graphics {
gui: gui_furt;
underlay: switch_underlay_furt;
depots: switch_depots_furt;
bridge_surfaces: switch_bridge_surfaces_furt;
roadstops: switch_roadstops_furt;
}
item(FEAT_ROADTYPES, normal_roadway, 0) {
property {
label: "ROAD";
powered_roadtype_list: ["FORD"];
//introduces_roadtype_list: ["ELRD", "YDRD", "CBRD", "CBRE", "PVRD", "PVRE", "ISRD", "ISRE"];
}
}
}
EDIT: I apologize that this post was so harsh. Let's just put it behind us.
I have Asperger's, please be easy on me about stuff. My apologies if I've been a problem for you in the past.
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
This is not about graphics. My opinion. You have created telegraphs or pipes to be compatible with roads. Really?
The only problem that the Telegraph or pipes intersect with roads (or with road sets) is not a solution , but rather rather a problem.
See this image below. Openttd simply doesn't exist to work. With the exception of using bridges. So you follow the give, so that it ride on the road or should not be. It is better to take an example from Andrey, as he made boxes (boxes should not be transported on asphalt or on a primer...)
I mean that the red line passes through the pipes and the roads, right? To be honest, I don't understand. But you may have chosen this project.The only problem that the Telegraph or pipes intersect with roads (or with road sets) is not a solution , but rather rather a problem.
See this image below. Openttd simply doesn't exist to work. With the exception of using bridges. So you follow the give, so that it ride on the road or should not be. It is better to take an example from Andrey, as he made boxes (boxes should not be transported on asphalt or on a primer...)
Re: Standardized Roadtype and Tramtype Schemes?
I'm already making modifications to the Utility Roadtype Set to fix this. The pipeline pumps should only run on city roads, not on rural roads. As for why, it's because the utility "vehicles" are meant to be able to provide water/electricity to cities without getting stuck in traffic like trams do.ufiby wrote: ↑19 Jul 2020 10:33 This is not about graphics. My opinion. You have created telegraphs or pipes to be compatible with roads. Really?
Pipe+Road.png
I mean that the red line passes through the pipes and the roads, right? To be honest, I don't understand. But you may have chosen this project.
The only problem that the Telegraph or pipes intersect with roads (or with road sets) is not a solution , but rather rather a problem.
See this image below. Openttd simply doesn't exist to work. With the exception of using bridges.
Pipe+road2.png
So you follow the give, so that it ride on the road or should not be. It is better to take an example from Andrey, as he made boxes (boxes should not be transported on asphalt or on a primer...)
Edit: According to someone I know, the Concrete and Cement Slabs of Road were only used in city centers, at least in North America.
I have Asperger's, please be easy on me about stuff. My apologies if I've been a problem for you in the past.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests