NewRoutes - new graphic system for rail and roads RFC

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 11 Jul 2006 13:17

@snail
> And how about NG rack 3rd rail?

Yes, but I think there´s only one worldwide, the Chemin de Fer de Martigny au Châtelard.

Mmh, apparently there´s some problem with the "â" in the URL above.

regards
Michael

Post by **PikkaBird** » 11 Jul 2006 13:19

Chemin de Fer de Martigny au Châtelard.

comrade-max · Post by **comrade-max** » 11 Jul 2006 18:25

varied bridges, a random looking bridge of similar type when picking suspension, changes over time

Post by **WWTBAM** » 12 Jul 2006 04:43

on the subject of road/rail ageing is it possible to have this happen to catenary and the third rail if vissible. Also is it possible to mke it an option so the player has to replace the ageing rails/power poles/roads.

Caelan · Post by **Caelan** » 12 Jul 2006 06:48

lifeblood wrote:For roads, what's the possibility of having different surfaces? Dirt roads, for instance, that are quite cheap to build, but have a low speed rating of, say, 50 km/h. Or concrete highways that can support speeds in excess of 100 km/h.

I would favor speedlimits as well. Perhaps we cna set them manually (according to each nations standard) That would mean 80 for normal road outside town, 5o for normal road in town; 120 for speedway outside town and 80 for speedway in town here in the Netherlands.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 12 Jul 2006 21:20

I would like to check another idea of mine. Maybe this is conceptually impossible, but I'd like to hear the developers' feedback anyway.

One of the things you propose is to separate ground from rails and roads. Now, why don't we separate electric power sources (such as overhead wires and 3rd rail) from the rails themselves?
My idea would be to introduce a Locomotion-like system. We could have, say, 6 basic rail types (SG rails, monorail, maglev, high-speed SG, NG, BG if needed), and then have the option to add catenary, 3rd rail, and/or rack rail to each of them.

I would see quite a few advantages to do this:

1. We would get many realistic track combinations that would be impossible with "just" 8 track types;
2. We could have both catenary and 3rd rail on the same track without defining a new track type;
3. A different gauge rail type would only occupy one slot, regardless of how many power source it needs;
4. Rack rail could be introduced without adding any slots.

Adding catenary, 3rd rail or rack rail to any existing track type could be done very simply; maybe with a button, the same way we add signals.
Of course, the possibility of adding catenary etc. should be extended to depots as well, and the list of the available engines would change depending on how many power sources are installed in the depot.
And certain vehicles, of course, would need the presence of their correct power source to run.

Thinking about the rack rail, its presence could boost tractive effort if the engine supports it, to help it pull the train on slopes. I couldn't really see any other way to use them.

Would this be possible? If so, any interest in developing such a system? I think it would add a new dimension to NewRoutes.

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 13 Jul 2006 07:20

While this are all nice ideas, however somehow it has all to be programmed and the trains need to know what tracktype power source a rail piece has. I consinder this currently as to much work...

As we have to use the Action2 system it won't be easy anyway... which comes to a different point, I am not sure I am able to write big parts of new routes... as I have a completely different concept of how it should work in my mind (which is fundamental incompatible to the current grf systen) so Josef or Csaba needs to do the work...

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 14 Jul 2006 14:22

Ok, some update, Sample of the spritelayout format that newroutes may use:

Code: Select all

	recolorflags(1): 0=none, 1=company color, 2=2cc company color, 3=transparent, C=callback company color, FF=recolor map sprite follows
	
	sourceid(1): 0=ttd 1=action1 2=apply grf parameter value
	spriteid(5-6): <sourceid:b> [<grf parameter number:b>] <spritenummer:w>	
	boundingbox(6): <x:b> <y:b> <z:b> <xextend:b> <yextend:b> <zextend:b>
	offset(2): <x:b> <y:b>

	opcodes:
	00 <recolorflags:1> <recolormap spriteid:5-6> <spriteid:5-6>	// draw ground sprite
	01 <boundingbox:6> <recolorflags:1> <recolormap spriteid:5-6> <spriteid:5-6>		// drawsprite
	02 <offset:2> <recolorflags:1> <recolormap spriteid:5-6> <spriteid:5-6>	// drawrelsprite
	0C <call other spritedrawing>
	80 quit

DaleStan · Post by **DaleStan** » 14 Jul 2006 14:32

" sourceid(1): ... 2=apply grf parameter value"
Shouldn't that be done with action 6 instead?

And, when said parameter is used, which byte(s) does it modify, and how?

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 14 Jul 2006 14:45

DaleStan wrote:" sourceid(1): ... 2=apply grf parameter value"
Shouldn't that be done with action 6 instead?

And, when said parameter is used, which byte(s) does it modify, and how?

The point is to not use Action 6 anymore to change the spritelayout for GRM.
GRM should be something natural to layouts, not something you need to hack in via Action6

It will add the grf parameter value to the spritenumber following.

Post by **WWTBAM** » 17 Jul 2006 05:47

Raichase wrote: Also, I wonder if it is possible to change gated crossings over to modern boom gate crossings in the later years?

Just some suggestions, becuase it's a really nice level crossing.

That came from the UK Gated crossing thread.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 21 Aug 2006 05:43

As suggested by DaleStan, I'd like to make a request for a feature in New Routes: the set I'm working on will need a variable that contains the tile's track type.

The problem is, that in France there were many engines that could run both on 3rd rail tracks and under catenary (had both pantos and 3rd rail shoes). So what I was thinking is, to do two sets of sprites for those engines, one with pantos up (to display when the engine is under catenary) and one with panto down (when it drives on a 3rd rail track).

Will this be possible?

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 21 Aug 2006 08:22

I think so... shouldn't be that hard to copy the current track type to the vehicle information array...

I only need a good way so people don't make incompatible slot type grfs...

So I propose a fixed 8 track type system:

One slot is HighSpeed (the Japanset would use Shinkansen, the DBSetXL would use this slot as ICE Neubaustrecke, for France it would be the TGV Highspeed tracks) as Example. So a TGV of one set would be compatible to the DBSetXL of the other set... (and would run faster on highspeed tracks)

I don't prefer the ECS chaos ....

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 21 Aug 2006 09:18

> I don't prefer the ECS chaos ....

-v, please.

regards
Michael

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 21 Aug 2006 09:32

What?

Bastiaan · Post by **Bastiaan** » 21 Aug 2006 10:22

-voice, "shut up", like in IRC, I think he means

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 21 Aug 2006 10:45

Still doesn't make sense to me ...

-edit-

I don't want that sets overwrite the meaning of track types.
We have only 4 slots, would be very odd when on the narrow gauge ICE would run

Because narrowgauge.grf or something like this is loaded...

michael blunck · Post by **michael blunck** » 21 Aug 2006 10:50

>>>> I don't prefer the ECS chaos ....

>>> -v, please.

>> What?

> -voice, "shut up", like in IRC, I think he means

Are you going to stir up hatred between Oskar and me?

Nonono.

"[...] In der Form -v taucht verbose auch im Usenet häufig auf, um eine nähere Erläuterung zu erhalten."

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbose

regards
Michael

Bastiaan · Post by **Bastiaan** » 21 Aug 2006 12:39

I think I need a -v for myself

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 21 Aug 2006 13:48

eis_os wrote:I only need a good way so people don't make incompatible slot type grfs...

So I propose a fixed 8 track type system:

One slot is HighSpeed (the Japanset would use Shinkansen, the DBSetXL would use this slot as ICE Neubaustrecke, for France it would be the TGV Highspeed tracks) as Example. So a TGV of one set would be compatible to the DBSetXL of the other set... (and would run faster on highspeed tracks)

That could be fine if we found a list of 4 new track types that pretty much all the sets would use.

I would propose:
- Highspeed
- 3rd rail
- Narrow gauge
- Electrified narrow gauge

This would address the need of most sets, I think.

However, if a set anyway wanted to forcefully overwrite a slot it doesn't need, would it be still possible (even considering it could bring up compatibility issues with other sets)? I'm thinking about some odd requests that could be specific for just one set (threephase catenary, narrow gauge 3rd rail, broad gauge...) The Italian set I'm planning for the future will need threephase, for instance, and the French set could really use NG 3rd rail, but I understand these requests might be very set-specific.

-edit- A solution could be to leave one slot free for the .GRF to define, for instance either the monorail or the maglev one.

Transport Tycoon Forums

NewRoutes - new graphic system for rail and roads RFC

Who is online