Train features

mendel: Another idea: centering force only on deck pieces and rail texture! That would be harder to implement, though.

[mendel]

1) Train centering force only in levels where Zsize=8, possibly up to 16.
This should not break existing levels, but make real 3D levels easier to do. The way this would work is that I'd make a 20x20 or greater for the depth I'd need, and Pontifex would "turn off" the centering force.

2) I got bitten by nonintuitive and possibly non-documented engine start placement. I raised the ground and put the left  width line to the edge of the grid, and Pfx started the train at the usual height. Since that was below ground, I was not thrilled. Moving the green line inwards solved it.
Why can't the train just start above the yellow "rails" line? (That's what I intuitively assumed, but that's not the case now.)
Again, this should not break most levels, and if it did, it would be easy to fix.

[mendel]

Chillum, your idea is notwhat I had in mind. It's a good alternative. It would exclude my "train winds around cliff face" idea, although it would work if the cliff was concave, not convex.... (bend inward, not outward - if the cliff is to the left of the train, the train is slowly turning right)

[Entroper]

I wholeheartedly agree with 2), but I think if 1) is to be implemented, it should be a map option.  Sometimes you may want large levels and be able to retain the centering force.

[mendel]

If you have a level with a large Z where the centering force comes in handy, I'd  like to see it (honestly, I would - must look interesting!). I can see easily that large X does not affect the usefulness, but no train is ever even going to reach the forward/backward edge of a 32x32 flat level without doing some of that stuff I've been advocating, and THAT will be much easier and replaced by much more possibilies if centering force is abolished.

Unless you're thinking about a bridge where the anchors are far, far away to the side.... and even then the train should  run straight most of the time even without centering?

Changing the map format to allow for centering off might break existing maps, unless some high bit on a low number is used (e.g. use a negative Zsize if centering is off).

Personally I'd like to see the map editor default to 'width' rather than 'land', I always go to set the width and end up with a huge lump of terrain...gets me every time! But maybe that's just me...

Yeah, I'd prefer centering as an option if it didn't involve altering the existing map format. It'd lower my golf handicap for sure  ;)

(Edited by Chillum at 11:14 pm on Nov. 5, 2001)

[Entroper]

I'm exactly talking about bridges with the anchors far away.    And if the anchors aren't symmetrical, it's very likely you'll need the centering force.

Also, having the centering force be an option would allow you to turn it off for maps without a large change in Z.

[mendel]

> I'm exactly talking about bridges with the anchors far away.

So up to exactly which Z would you want to go? Surely not 256?

> And if the anchors aren't symmetrical, it's very likely you'll need the centering force.

Yes, then the deck might sag differently on each side and tilt slightly.

> Also, having the centering force be an option would allow you to turn it off for maps without a large change in Z.

I thought you could always make a bigger Z you're not using, but that costs game speed.

Another idea: centering force only on deck pieces and rail texture! That would be harder to implement, though.

[Entroper]

> So up to exactly which Z would you want to go?

Whatever the mapper has in mind.    The whole point of what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a hard boundary.  You shouldn't have to go beyond a certain Z to turn off centering, and you shouldn't have to be within a certain Z to turn on centering.  No matter where you set the boundary, it unnecessarily limits the properties of bridges.

(Edited by Entroper at 8:20 pm on Nov. 6, 2001)