Signals in-between tiles

[l_Blue_l]

I believe it would be relatively possible to have signals in-between tiles. To keep it save game compatible you would still have the old signal in the center of the tile.

(I relies this has been talked about before but i was unable to come across any of this information)

Is there anything atm in the way of something like this being implemented?

Do devs support the idea of haveing signals in-between tiles?


Edit:

When developing it would only be necessary to stored a max of two signals per tile. For an example each tile would store there signals in the top left and top right. While the tiles to the bottom left and bottom right would take care of the storing from that tile. As there is no need for both center signals and signals in-between tile on the same tile the center signal could then be stored where the in-between tile signals would be.

[Ailure]

You want to have one-way signals tighter than it's already possible? Isn't that kinda going too far. Though I understand if this would be useful in tight junctions...

Unfortunately, it's one of those things that would be tricky to implent now as far I know.

[l_Blue_l]

Yes the point to it would be for junctions use and not for decreasing the length between signals but to keep save game compatibility it most likely that the old signals will still be in the game.

[Expresso]

You could also go for a more clean and simple solution; only store those signals facing the tile on the tile. The next tile could be checked to look for a signal facing the other way.

However, this way you'd need 12 bits (3 bits per direction) per rail tile (and I don't know if they're available or can be made available). You'd get it stored nice and clean.

[draketrumpet]

I would like to make an additional request that signals in-between tiles be reconsidered. I see several advantages to having signals in between the tiles instead of on them:

1. interchanges could be constructed more efficiently and compactly.
2. placing signals between tiles would allow for simplified station upgrades to hander a higher volume of traffic
3. introducing a second entrance/exit to large stations could easily be converted to two-way entrances/exits without having to redo large portions of the entrance.

As far as usability (I'm not much of a programmer...sorry), I can't see any advantage the signals in the middle of the tile have over ones that would be placed in-between the tiles.

[DaleStan]

Do you have mockups to demonstrate your claims?

[draketrumpet]

http://wiki.openttd.org/images/0/0c/Pre ... tation.png
In the first picture I linked to, no changes to the existing track would be needed to aggregate a two-way entrance since a signal could be place between the two tiles in the middle of the junction. As compared with the second graphic which requires a less efficient use of space and changes to existing infrastructure to accomplish the switch
http://wiki.openttd.org/images/1/14/Doubleentrance.png

PS. I'm new to this whole posting thing too, what types of images are supported?

[DaleStan]

I don't think "two-way" means what you think it does.
I also don't think you've considered the relative merits of PBS over in-junction signalling. That second junction has a problem that PBS will fix but tile-edge signals will not:
Q: What happens if there is one available platform, and two trains arrive simultaneously (or are already waiting)?
A: They both enter the double junction. One gets the platform, and the other is stuck bouncing around in the junction, waiting for an empty platform, just as if you didn't have presignals at all.
With PBS, and no in-junction signals, one train would enter the junction, and reserve its path to the one platform. Then, when the other tried, it would not be able to find a path to that platform, and would wait, like it should.

By "supported" do you mean "allowed by the forum software" or "allowed by the forum regulars"? In the latter case, JPG for photographs, PNG for everything else.

[Expresso]

It would appear to me it is not intended to solve the same problem as pbs does, however it certainly is possible that it could solve some of the same problems (not all) that pbs solves.

Signals between tiles could also help reduce the size of big junctions (especially for those who just love to make a 2x45 degree turn in a single tile. And that's exactly what I'd use it for.

[DaleStan]

Signals between tiles could also help reduce the size of big junctions (especially for those who just love to make a 2x45 degree turn in a single tile.

ENOPARSE. Show me such a junction, please?

[Expresso]

Well, I've collected some examples of where signals between tiles would be useful from a game I'm playing at the moment (I hope it satisfies the need for explanation).

They all show situations in which pbs is not able to be of much help. Though, I must confess those junctions would have looked quite different if pbs was available to me.

Though, little traffic is shown, they illustrate the need for signals between tiles quite nicely, in my opinion. I can come up with more examples if need be.

So, here goes.

[thgergo]

Your junctions would be improved if signals on bridgeheads and tunnelheads become possible.

[ZxBiohazardZx]

simply make your between bridges tile 1 longer, i see some room to move the other line down a bit...?

[sc79]

Dalestan was asking for an example where signals between tiles would makke a junction more compact, thats all. Obiviously in this case, it can be extended no problem, but I've certainly come across plenty of situations where creating a spare tile for signals can be difficult. Its pretty obivious that if all signals were between tiles instead of taking up a full one, it would make junctions smaller (you could have tracks splitting off every tile, without the need for gaps in between), but I expect its probably more effort that its worth currently; I don't think it can be done with the current map array.