Combined two-way signals

[Eddi]

How about two-way, two sided PBS that doesn't eat up two blocks ? Sounds like a better (and straighter) idea...

that was deliberately removed. because it does not make any sense.

[Alberth]

What you may want to try is a block long enough for a train, and two one-way PBS signals (one at either side), with the front pointing to the block.
That way you can have a train in the block without reserving blocks around it, and have no deadlock problems.

[YNM]

I was shocked by Eddi's response, so I left it there and forget it; Didn't noticed Alberth's.

No idea, what kind of use do you have in mind?
I find the 2-way PBS signal that extends the path in one direction very useful, as it prevents deadlock situations (two trains at both sides of the signal, both wanting to go through the signal), like you can have with the regular two-way block signal.

There are some cases where people may want put signals like this :

PBS.png (7.69 KiB) Viewed 8923 times

It currently will always take 2 tile spaces, what I'm suggesting is something with the exactly same behavior but only take up 1 tile. Still might be useless, through.

[Eddi]

It currently will always take 2 tile spaces, what I'm suggesting is something with the exactly same behavior but only take up 1 tile. Still might be useless, through.

Ah, maybe you should have made that example more clear. No, that is not possible with the way the reservations are done currently. you either have to reserve the signal tile, which means the train will automatically pass it, or you don't reserve the signal tile, but then you get two trains that stand opposite of each other.

if you're going that deep into signal behaviour, you're better off implementing signals at tile borders (with loooots of implications on train movement, map storage and stuff, so a very big project!). you'll end up with signals effectively using no space then, which is probably way more flexible.

[YNM]

I do realize that this will confronts the current behavior of signal as a tile on it's own - I even don't really know how the current one is implemented !

[adf88]

You do know - train tries to reserve a track until a signal tile, excluding the tile. Reserved paths can't cross or touch. What you are suggesting is to violate this basic rule, everything just to save a very little space, not a good idea.

BTW, "combined signals" patch is almost ready
All you gone so off-topic... maybe rehabilitate and give some feedback on combined signals idea?

[Alberth]

The only reasonable alternative of combining signals next to the current ones, is some form of priority, I think.
The question is then how far back? The simplest approach is 1 block then.

I see a lot of connections between this kind of setup, and multi-block look-ahead, for eg orange signals.
Perhaps even to the point of the latter required for the former???

[Eddi]

ok, an on-topic question: will you change the UI so that the signal construction will only build single signals in the area that the mouse hovers over (like autorail), and will you add highlight effects for that?

[adf88]

I did it other way. "Clicking" didn't change, you have to select a piece of a track. In the signal window you can select a single type or a combination. If single type is selected then everything works as usual. If you select a combination then two signals will be placed if you click on a track.

single

1.png (20.21 KiB) Viewed 8722 times

combined

2.png (28.7 KiB) Viewed 8722 times

[Eddi]

... um... that sounds totally weird

[YNM]

Too complicated IMO. I mean, well, you need to click as much as 5 times, and moving the mouse around (between buttons, placing the signals). I'd still liking it better if it's like the way to put one-way signals in LoMo : Build one at the desired side and it's 1-way, build another at the other side and it's 2-way.

Also, how to differ if you want to build an
exit to far side, entry to near side,
and entry to far side, exit to near side ? That could add at least one click.

[adf88]

Build one at the desired side and it's 1-way, build another at the other side and it's 2-way.

Well, maybe ... but there are also disadvantages:

• The way it's designed now is closer to original TTD behaviour, going away is not good from some point of view.
• Picking proper side would be harder. While you can compensate this by highlighting but it's still harder (or less comfortable) to chose correctly.
• If we would treat each side separate then there would be more clicking on the map required (these clicks are harder then selecting buttons).
• What about signal dragging? If we left it as is, some inconsistencies arise. If we would like to treat each side separately the again more clicking is required.

I'm not sure which approach would be better. Anyway, it's for another patch.

Also, how to differ if you want to build an
exit to far side, entry to near side,
and entry to far side, exit to near side ? That could add at least one click.

It works the same way you chose signal side and it's quite intuitive. There is a side defined at which first signal will appear. This is the same side as if you build a PBS signal or cycle from two-sided signal to single-sided signal. First signal is the one on the front of the preview image, the one you selected first.


The patch is ready. Download here:
OpenTTD Development::[patch]Combined two-way signals

[YNM]

• The way it's designed now is closer to original TTD behaviour, going away is not good from some point of view.

Nope, you still need to add buttons and make new layouts. My plan can works without any additional buttons (ie. as-is).

• Picking proper side would be harder. While you can compensate this by highlighting but it's still harder (or less comfortable) to chose correctly.
• If we would treat each side separate then there would be more clicking on the map required (these clicks are harder then selecting buttons).
• What about signal dragging? If we left it as is, some inconsistencies arise. If we would like to treat each side separately the again more clicking is required.

Not at all, I do play LoMo, it's fairly easy, as long as you don't have hand stability problems. Wrong side when dragging ? Drag your mouse to the other side and it's done. (could that be realized ?)
The only problem remains here is signal side... but well, I guess most of us choose the same signal side every time we start our games ?

I'm not sure which approach would be better. Anyway, it's for another patch.

I'd be totally grateful if you do that.

[adf88]

• The way it's designed now is closer to original TTD behaviour, going away is not good from some point of view.

Nope, you still need to add buttons and make new layouts. My plan can works without any additional buttons (ie. as-is).

I was referring here to signal placement process. We get used to place signals in a certain way. Changing this is worse then changing few buttons in the GUI.

Wrong side when dragging ? Drag your mouse to the other side and it's done. (could that be realized ?)

Yes, it could be done. Nice idea, I didn't think about it. Then signal selection should be as easy it is now, even easier. Now I'm much convinced to that way .