Traincraft-5
Traincraft-5 copied to clipboard
EternalBlueFlame
Add more types of Tracks
WE NEED TO REWRITE OUR SYSTEM BEFORE WE CAN ADD TRACKS THAT ARE KINDA SPECIAL
- [x] Lachie1770 asked in the MC Forums why 2-Way-Crossings are 5-blocks-wide. We should think about adding an 3x3 version of it. There was a time where it was 1x1.
- [ ] Pdevo suggested a smaller parallel switch track that melds into a smaller reverse parallel switch track http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/64178/1345736684m_SPLASH.jpg
- [ ] Cronosus sugguested a similar option to what Pdevo asked, but one that allowed for switching on both directions from both sides http://www.itvlaky.cz/fotky18461/fotos/_vyr_80283210.jpg
- [x] MggMuggins suggested more variety in the length of slopes. Preferably longer slopes.
- [ ] Parallel Curve by Cronosus
- [x] Street-Crossing by Cronosus
More types to be added
Yes, that's true, 1x1 would let player more choice. One kind of track thath I think it is very important to review is the parallel switch, that actually is ?x4 blocks and would be far better to have it ?x3 (I don't remeber exactly now the lenght) beacuse 2 blocks between rails instead of 1 isn't very necessary and 1 is I think just mre common than 2. Another point would be having a parallel switch that can connect two different continuous lines, so not like the one actually in-game that basically does 1to2 or 2to1 connections, but one that can do 2to2
@Pdevo well. I'm sure MrBrutal did this with something in mind but yeah, I agree that they are more realistic with x3. But please keep in mind that if we add new tracks we need to follow the old rules of Brutal which could cause serious problems for the designers. can you show us examples (pictures, drawings) of your last mentioned connection thing I don't understood anything from that. :D
Yes, I also agree with that. Personally I admit that x4 is more realistic and I already had to rebuild my railways two years ago and, yes, I find it not bad, It doesnt changes so much, what it changes is the 2t2 I was referring that now I will better explain:
I talk simply about this: http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/64178/1345736684m_SPLASH.jpg
That actually is impossibile to do as now and very frustrating, or better, can be done but using two parallels with x4, so having as result x8 space, basically 6 spaces between lines! with parallels having x3 would be mitigated and wouldn't require implementing what I refer to in the picture, and having a rail yard or a station with different tracks, but not necessarily so many, to connect or simply a two-way classical railway where you need to move a train from one side to other is complicated, with simply that would be far easier and useable
@Pdevo So you basically just want to have two parallel switches that are closer to eachother or more like something that is already a final track like the thing on the top right. Is this correct?
We should keep in mind too that since minecart functionality works on trains again, we should be able to use Zora no Densha rails too. I need to actually test that myself at some point.
Because this has gotten some talk recently, and some work too.... Due to track detection 1x1 crossings are potentially impossible. however 3x3 should not pose any issues. I think the 5x5 size unnecessary, both from a use and programming standpoint, if you want that size you could just add the extra 1x1 tracks manually.
Because railcraft tracks are extended off base game rails. TC tracks are anything but.
That being said, we have recently found out 1x1 would be possible, in fact it would be possible to remove all the little extra 1x1 tiles on tracks, like on switch tracks, but the main issue is going to be that a lot of things will need tweaks for it to work well if at all. Probably something to consider during the post-release cleanup.
I have a doubt because of my ignorance: is adding a new type of track possible, given that this is just a port?
Also, @NitroxydeX are you talking about this port of Traincraft (1.7) or it's same thing for 1.9 rewrite? Just for curiosity.
@matart0 yes it is. I'm talking 'bout this port. Don't know what's planed for the rewrite.
@matart0 well this is the github for the 1.7 port, i'd hope we were talking about it. haha. That aside, nitro is right that adding new types of track is possible, although it is difficult without the code being heavily cleaned up. it's all still a mess.
@Valaktik it would be possible to make diagonal sections, but the ends will have to be facing specifically north/south/east/west since they are designed to be used similar to base game/railcraft rails.
@EternalBlueFlame well wo don't need to face it into north/east/south/west. It's not only implementing the Tracks it's also to write the Code for EntityRollingStock and EntityBoogie that they are correct following the tracks.
@NitroxydeX true.... Well there was this old mod that did it for base game rails, its just a texture/model change if circumstances were right, it would be possible to do the same with TC rails, and it wouldn't get too complicated (after the code is clean) to add the necessary functionality like 90 degree turns and detection of nearby rails to prevent derailing at high speeds, as well as to change the graphic. http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/mapping-and-modding/minecraft-mods/1285612-1-4-2-forge-better-rails-mod
How hard is it to add a track? If possible, could there be, say, multiple block widths of the same type of switch/turn? Take the parallel switch, for example. Do one that only moves the track over one block (no space between tracks), one with one block in between (one block between tracks), etc. I would also suggest that there be a track similar to the parallel switch, just without the switch. Basically track that would move over a certain number of blocks without the switch. Basically a squiggly line.
Most of the issue is creating a new item, block, and entity, then sorting them into the registers, there would be at least three registers which would need it added (most with 6+ variables and more conditions than a single line of code should have), one of which it will need to be added 8 times so the pathing can be properly defined dependent on direction placed. This isn't even counting rendering (I still haven't even set foot in the rendering code), or making the model. Or dealing with switch functionality. At the current stage TC is anything but a copy paste system, nor is it as simple as 'import track' like it should be.
This is why I wanted to put off adding track until after the cleanup, it would cut down the work significantly.
That mess being said to answer your question on how hard it is, it's still good to keep track of this stuff for when the mod is clean enough where it won't be that big of a mess.
this type, posted by pdevo, will be really nice http://images.mocpages.com/user_images/64178/1345736684m_SPLASH.jpg
ad. and what about this? http://ttmodelar.eu/image/cache/data/zbozi/08-kolejivo/tillig-profilove/krizovatky/83161-1-300x80.JPG http://www.itvlaky.cz/fotky18461/fotos/_vyr_80283210.jpg http://www.rkmodel.cz/fotky44568/fotos/_vyr_343f6164.jpg (switch)
these crossings you can make from straight to crossing and back to straight ͞ ͞ \ / ͞ ͟ ͟ / \ ͟
The issue that will be with the first and third of those three is there is no diagonal track, and support for such a thing is very questionable due to the nature of how rails work. I agree though that the second one would be a good option...
you mean this? http://www.itvlaky.cz/fotky18461/fotos/_vyr_80283210.jpg this type i like most of all three i post, becase combining exchange-crossing and quadruple-paralel switch. Best choice
That should be fully possible. Ones like this: http://www.rkmodel.cz/fotky44568/fotos/_vyr_343f6164.jpg Won't really be an option because diagonals don't work with square based puzzle pieces like TC and normal rails.
post someone something like that? https://www.itvlaky.cz/fotky18461/fotos/_vyr_42936154_rgb.jpg something to rotate train (i know, just 4 directions are possible) will be nice too. (if is possible)
Yes, for sure not a priority and something that goes ahead from the "port" target, but would be great in a future, like also having detectors, activators, speed controllers and so on for new rails, not so many things indeed, just core functionalities like detectors and holders