[OpenTTD] NuTracks - Dev Thread

[DJ Nekkid]

Awsome! Is that something that is bound to be introduced? If so, then is the poll im running here worthless

[Leanden]

I cant seem to get the GRF to run in Openttd. Im using Openttd 1.0.0 RC2, I've tried putting the grf in the openttd folder, the data folder, and its own subfolder "nutracks", and it doesnt appear in the graphics choice menu, and it wont load as a grf. What am i doing wrong?

[DJ Nekkid]

you still needs RC3 (not out yet) or nightlies

[Leanden]

Well that explains it

[DJ Nekkid]

as 1.0.0-RC3 came out today, did i add a new version of this set to Bananas, with the proper version set. So this is now available and compatible to RC3

[Chelsona]

At first, sorry for big screenshot...

This GRF is just marvelous for me, and I have some comments on it.
I tested NuTracks version r46 with OpenTTD r19454, and most of them seems not fixed in the recent version, r53M.

- Depot graphic error -- please ignore it: I know it is fixed.

- Graphical giltches on road crossings -- still buggy, I think. So many cute information icons

- This is just a question. Is there any reason that rail plan's default station graphic is Maglev's one?

- Some track graphics are slightly misplaced
...1) You can see that 230kmh track graphic is slightly lower than other tracks.
...2) For some track types, rails on hillside tiles are also slightly lower than others.

- r46 was compatiable with Hankyu Rail set, but r53M does not.
Is this problem can be avoided by further upgrading of NuTracks?

And I have another suggestion on this set, (on the screenshot, number 3) but I think it deserves an another topic since it is too complex to describe..

[Chelsona]

Sorry again, first for double-posting, but this one is so long to describe so I splitted it from my previous reply.
and the following one would be an annoying issue to NuTrack developers (so, first, I'm sorry if you feel so )
and, it maybe just a paranoia of me,


I tried to construct EVERY rail types on the existing EVERY types of railways to make a railway crossing between different types of railways.
Of course I can understand that two different types of railways cannot exist in a single tile in TTD system. So the crossing will become a single railtype: newly constructing one or previously constructed one.

For example, in the traditional TTD rails, building normal railway on electricified railway always results an electricified crossing. (old rail type survives on the crossing)
However, building electricified railway on normal railway will also make an electricified crossing. (the crossing is re-typed to the newly building rail type)
And there are third option: building monorail on the normal railway causes "Impossible track combination" alert, since both of railtypes are just not compatiable with each others.

I would call these 'rules' as "Construction compatiability" of tracks.

So I tested it for NuTracks, and got a result as following:

Code: Select all

Attempt to build a crossing of different but compatiable NuTracks rail types (r46)

O - The crossing become the previously constructed railtype
N - The crossing become the newly constructing railtype
X - "Impossible track combination" error

Constructing:      1 1 1 1 2 2 H 3 3
               8 8 2 2 6 6 3 3 S r r
               0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R d d
                 +   +   +   + + + 
                 C   C   C   C C C 
Old type     +-----------------------
80kmh        |   N N N O N O N N O X
80kmh +C     | N   O N O O O O O O X
120kmh       | X N   N O N O N N O X
120kmh +C    | O X O   O O O O O O X
160kmh       | O N O N   N O N N O X
160kmh +C    | O O O O O   O O O O X
230kmh       | O N O N O N   N N O X
230kmh +C    | O O O O O O O   O O X
HSR +C       | O O O O O O O O   N X
3rd-rail +C  | O O O O O O O O X   O
3rd-rail     | X X X X X X X X X N

In summary, current rules of construction compatiability is:

1) Electricified railway always survive against new construction
...except 120kmh one (against 80+C) and 3rd rail (against HSR)
2) Non-electricified railways,
...survive against building of other non-electricified ones
...re-typed when electritified rail is built over it
3) 120kmh railways have problem
...Normal 120kmh rail cannot be directly constructed over normal 80kmh rail
...Electricified 120kmh rail cannot be directly constructed over electricified 80kmh rail
...Electricified 120kmh rail does not survive against construction of elec. 80kmh rail, while other rails with catenary does not
4) 3rd rails
...Normal 3rd rail is not so compatiable for construction over other railtypes

Personally, I think the current rule is not so clear.
Moreover I think the construction compatiability would can be used to help users to build rail networks in 'proper' combination.
I have no idea how the construction compatiability can be compiled in GRF, but I would suggest:

Code: Select all

Suggested contruction compatiability

O - The crossing become the previously constructed railtype
N - The crossing become the newly constructing railtype
X - "Impossible track combination" error

Constructing:      1 1 1 1 2 2 H 3 3
               8 8 2 2 6 6 3 3 S r r
               0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R d d
                 +   +   +   + + + 
                 C   C   C   C C C 
Old type     +-----------------------
80kmh        |   N N N N N N N N N N
80kmh +C     | O   X N X N X N N N X
120kmh       | O X   N N N N N N N N
120kmh +C    | O O O   X N X N N N X
160kmh       | O X O X   N N N N X X
160kmh +C    | O O O O O   X N N X X
230kmh       | O X O X O X   N N X X
230kmh +C    | O O O O O O O   N X X
HSR +C       | O O O O O O O O   X X
3rd-rail +C  | O O O O X X X X X   O
3rd-rail     | O X O X X X X X X N 

Suggested rules:
("Impossible track combination" error can be used to alert users when 'invalid' crossing is occasionally tried to be built.)

1) 3rd rail and catenarized rail should always be kept
...violations should be alerted (e.g. building 80kmh catenary rail on 3rd rail w/o catenary)

2) Catenarized/3rd rail tracks MUST NOT ABLE to be built over tracks w/o catenary or 3rd rail whose speed limits are faster than newly building one
...vlolations should be alerted (e.g. building 80kmh catenary rail on 230kmh rail w/o catenary)

In this case,
...keeping old track (e.g. 230kmh w/o catenary) will cause electric train on 80kmh rail to stop
...re-typing to new track (e.g. 80kmh catenary) will cause express train on 230kmh rail to slow down
...so, force to avoid such construction will be the best choice

3) In other cases, building over other track type would be possible, but the faster rail types should always survive against the slower ones



Again, I'm sorry if you feel annoyed with this suggestion.
Actually I'm not sure that I clearly explained the problem I felt and my suggestion on it... this reply maybe just a long, long meaningless set of words to you...

Anyway I love this set really. It is very realistic stuff for railroad construction game like TTD, which have been often ignored by many other games. I just want this set to be more, more perfect and cool for every other TTD users.

[DJ Nekkid]

That were two quite large posts... And i probably need to study them more to give you a good awsner, but the short one is:
I know there isnt any crossings yet, and that is pretty much intentional, as the track gfx are getting an overhaul quite soon.
Nutracks vs The japanese ones:
Probably because i've added two new railtypes (Narrow guage + Eletrified NG), and this only leaves one railtype for other sets. And my best bet is that the mentioned trackset use 3 different ones?

[vanOekelen]

Could you make the planning tracks available for all types of trains, but with a very low speed limit?

The depot can then be used to upgrade trains to another train type.

[petert]

Could you make the planning tracks available for all types of trains, but with a very low speed limit?

Why would you need a very low speed limit?

[vanOekelen]

To enable trains to enter the depots. Inside the depots they could then automaticly be upgraded to a difefernt train type.

[ColdIce]

Nutracks vs The japanese ones:
Probably because i've added two new railtypes (Narrow guage + Eletrified NG), and this only leaves one railtype for other sets. And my best bet is that the mentioned trackset use 3 different ones?

actually, hankyu uses only one railtype.

with r51 there is no problem

[stevenh]

...actually, hankyu uses only one railtype...

Railtype: 04 to be precise... I imagine both sets are fighting for it?

[peter1138]

To be expected. There are only 16 types available, and NuTracks fills them all.

[DJ Nekkid]

No, actually, ID 0E should be free...

Here is the code for setting the different IDs, but the RACKRAIL have not been included yet (in an action0), and i dont think it will either, but ive not made up my mind yet. But this is 15 (x00-x0F minus one), but monorail might be included in this, so it is in reality only 15 (or even 14 if one exclude maglev) railtypes that can be defined as "new" ones? (or actually, only 12, but i reuse RAIL/ELRL?)

Code: Select all

// IDs
#define R_80 00
#define E_80 01
#define R120 02
#define E120 03
#define R160 04
#define E160 05
#define R230 06
#define E230 07
#define HIGHSPEED   08
#define ETHIRDRAIL  09
#define THIRDRAIL   0A
#define NARROW      0B
#define ENARROW     0C
#define RACKRAIL    0D
#define MAGLEV      0E
#define PLANNING    0F

I Heavent actually looked at the code for the mentioned railset, but an option can be to add two action0's for thoose rails if compatability with NuTracks is wanted, as i didnt touch Monorail...

Code: Select all

-1 * 0  00 10 \b15 01 04  "_ID_" // action0, for rails, numprops, numrails, ID, Railtype ID
<properties>

and underneeth:

Code: Select all

-1 * 0  07 88 04 0A "DJT" 01 01
-1 * 0  00 10 \b15 01 04  "MONO" // action0, for rails, numprops, numrails, ID, Railtype ID
<properties>

[peter1138]

I didn't say NuTracks defines all 16, only that all slots are filled by it. Default rail types that you haven't modified don't magically disappear.

[DJ Nekkid]

yes, that is what i ultimately ment

I.e. one can only add 12 new types, and the default 4 will be there regardless, altho, they can be modified without problems. Hence my solution to the Japanese tracks.

[StefanV]

Is it possible to use normal railtracks as graphics at other speeds other then 80km/h?

[DJ Nekkid]

Is it possible to use normal railtracks as graphics at other speeds other then 80km/h?

It could be with a parameter, but to ask a stupid question; why would you? Its damn hard to distinguish the different tracks from eachother

[StefanV]

Simply because I want to create 'sections' in my network where trains cannot go faster than xx km/hr. I don't need any special tracks, but I need the different speed levels. The only thing I would need is the high speed track, to keep is as real as possible.