### Author Topic: pak128.Britain scale problems  (Read 22987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #35 on: January 26, 2014, 02:31:35 PM »
The tram in the first post is scaled consistently with all of the rail vehicles in the pakset, and the tracks, save for those rail vehicles which are at the wrong scale. If the tram were any larger, it would not be in proportion to the tracks.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #36 on: January 26, 2014, 03:03:33 PM »
If it is scaled according to the track, then how do you explain that I can see one rail and the lines on the road that should be hidden beneath the tram. Is it so badly aligned? Counting the pixels - it is 6 px wide and 24 px long, that makes it 1,5 m wide and 6 m long. Is that really the size of blackpool balloon (or whatewer it is on the screenshot?)

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #37 on: January 26, 2014, 03:12:37 PM »
I imagine that the visibility of the rail and the road is indeed due to an alignment issue: that is, as far as I could find, the size of the Blackpool Millennium (a rebuilt Balloon as featured in the opening post).

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2014, 04:11:35 PM »
Oh, come on, - is that beast really only 6m long? How would you fit 100 people inside? I tried to find some specs, but I couldnt. However judging form the many photos on web I would guess that it is about the same length as common buses - i.e. 12 m, and slightly wider than the track gauge - at least 2 m. That would make it 8 px wide and 48 px long. Two times longer than the picture in the first post.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2014, 04:47:38 PM »
Some dodgy maths going on here... A balloon car is roughly 12m long, it's certainly longer than 6m! But don't forget at pak128 scale 64px is the width of a tile (because of the isometric projection) so 64px = 32m and the tram = 12m long - all correct there. Also the tram tracks are not the realigned ones that James has recently drawn although the trams are aligned for the newer tram tracks.

Thanks for the data James. I've done a few quick checks on the early locos and yes they are "too large" by the 30m per tile accurate scaling. However the graphics produced (e.g. LMR Patentee as a similar early 2-2-2 to the one you had data for) were tiny. Guestimating a similar scale for the Rocket and other really early locos produced similarly microscopic collections of pixels that were just about distinguishable as steam locos (with some imagination). The big question is, what is more important? Accurate scaling or graphics that are worth looking at and actually enjoyable to play with? In an ideal world, both of course. To my mind we can only have both if we SCALE UP most of the graphics, e.g. to 24m or even 20m per tile. That would mean a major redrawing project (and that's just for the vehicles before considering what changes might need to be made for tracks - I'm not sure you've had the "pleasure" of that James!). Given it's realistically practical to only have either a consistent linear scale or graphics that are large enough to see and use enjoyably, it's a no-brainer for me as a graphics artist given the myriad other ways in which Simutrans suspends reality.

Some images just to give a flavour of what I mean...

LNER A3 at current scale:

LNER at 24m per tile (NB I only extended the length as it already has exaggerated width and height)

LMR Patentee 2-2-2 as at present

LMR Patentee at accurate 30m per tile scale

LMR Patentee at 30m tile length with x1.28 width and height.

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #40 on: January 26, 2014, 05:16:11 PM »
Some dodgy maths going on here... A balloon car is roughly 12m long, it's certainly longer than 6m! But don't forget at pak128 scale 64px is the width of a tile (because of the isometric projection) so 64px = 32m and the tram = 12m long - all correct there.
OK, if the scale is supposed to be 64px = 32m, then the standard rail gauge would be only 3 px. That is less than pak64.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2014, 05:27:32 PM »
Argh this is doing my head in now! This is precisely why I think we should just use our own visual judgement and have some *guideline* scales. Most vehicles are exaggerated at least on their widths to allow for the fact that tracks would be inordinately narrow otherwise. Earlier vehicles should probably be slightly more generously sized so you can actually see something. That's exactly how most graphics are already and that's the reason for it. As long as the general principle holds that for any given point on the timeline larger vehicles are generally larger than smaller vehicles, there really isn't too much of a problem.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2014, 05:35:10 PM »
Ahh, the real question is whether it is more important for the vehicles to look good individually or together with the pakset as a whole. Undoubtedly, when looked at individually, the bigger the better; but the whole thing looks awful when one realises that things are drastically out of scale (and note that I have scaled all the early railway carriages to match their accurate length, which then makes them much too small for the overscaled early locomotives). The lower image of the Patentee isn't too small as far as I can discern (indeed, even the second to last one is perfectly serviceable).

Upscaling everything to 24m/tile would be an insane amount of work, and would require redrawing every single vehicle and rail type way, bridge and tunnel in the pakset. The least work to get a consistent scale would be to re-scale all out of scale vehicles to 30m/tile length and 1.25x that in width and height, as most vehicles are at that scale already. The trams would need to be rescaled in width and height only (which would be relatively easy, as the ratios would be the same for all), and the earlier rail vehicles would need to be rescaled correctly.

Quote
As long as the general principle holds that for any given point on the timeline larger vehicles are generally larger than smaller vehicles, there really isn't too much of a problem.

The trouble with this using anything other than a consistent scale (which is not the same as a linear scale; consider the ships - although applying this to other types of vehicles would require vast amounts of work) is that this can make adding new intermediate vehicles impracticable because (for example) they have to be bigger than an earlier vehicle but to make it any bigger than the earlier vehicle would make it bigger than or the same size as a later vehicle which is supposed to be bigger than it and with when the two can coexist at the same time. That is precisely the experience that I have had many times over when adding rail vehicles (especially early steam locomotives and carriages) that prompted me to be more strict about scaling in the first place.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2014, 06:10:18 PM »
Upscaling everything to 24m/tile would be an insane amount of work, and would require redrawing every single vehicle and rail type way, bridge and tunnel in the pakset. The least work to get a consistent scale would be to re-scale all out of scale vehicles to 30m/tile length and 1.25x that in width and height, as most vehicles are at that scale already. The trams would need to be rescaled in width and height only (which would be relatively easy, as the ratios would be the same for all), and the earlier rail vehicles would need to be rescaled correctly.

That's the conclusion that seems best to me. Trams and some of your newest locos would need this width treatment. Some older locos would need scaling down (e.g. Patentee), but the vast majority are probably fine. I also think a few houses could do with scaling down too but that can wait.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2014, 06:29:01 PM »
The newer rail (as opposed to tram) locomotives I had not sought to scale accurately for width, but based the width on existing types ultimately from Standard. I did not measure the heights but attempted to judge them visually. Do you think that these need increasing?

Edit: Incidentally, are the road vehicles also not rather larger than 30m/tile?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2014, 07:31:25 PM by jamespetts »

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #45 on: January 26, 2014, 09:35:53 PM »
Some of the newer trains still appear too small - can't remember which just now. I'll investigate another time. Which road vehicles are bothering you? They *should* be the same scale as the trams as that's what I derived them from graphically.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #46 on: January 26, 2014, 09:42:55 PM »
Ahh, yes, that's the trouble: they are the same scale as the original trams, which are a different scale to the trains (except for the second generation trams, which were the same as the trains). The trams that I drew were to the same scale as the trains, save that they were scaled 1:1 on height and width rather than 1:1.25. Even if the trams are redrawn to be 1.25x wider and higher than they are now, the first generation trams will be smaller than before and therefore smaller than the road vehicles. Which of the newer trains appear to be too small, incidentally?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2014, 09:54:01 PM »
I still don't follow. The trams were done at 30m per tile (for the ones I had data for), albeit some of the earlier ones I couldn't find data for and made them too large (assuming your scales are correct, which I am because your research was more thorough than mine). Bizarrely however I notice your new Croydon tram is >1 tile even though it is the defining scale for the pak - it should by definition fit exactly into 1 tile. In that case some of your trams are *longer* than the originals!

LBSCR train wise it's particularly the early tanks - on closer inspection of the blends it's the height not width that makes the difference. They just seem to squat and exaggerating the height seems to improve things nicely.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2014, 10:11:30 PM »
Hmm - that is rather odd. All of my scaling is based on my 15m rule, which I used for all the ships and boats, which is in turn based on the length of the Mk. I carriages in the pakset. When scaling the trams, etc., based on the historical data that I found in the thread to which I linked, I found that the second generation trams were almost all the correct length (but I reduced the width and height as I had adopted a 1:1 ratio rather than a 1:1.25 ratio), but the first generation trams I found to be far too big on all dimensions, and rescaled them accordingly (it was not possible to find data for all trams, but, where data were not available, I scaled them to match the size of similar contemporary trams for which data were available). They will now need to be increased in height and width but not length, which will mean that they will still be smaller than they were before.

One of the first generation trams - I forget which now - had to be increased slightly in length to match the accurate scale as measured by my 15m ruler. That might have been the Croydon tram, but I am not sure.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #49 on: January 27, 2014, 08:12:10 AM »
OK, but a 2-car 2nd generation tram (e.g. Croydon Flexity Swift or Metrolink T86) should fit exactly into a 1-tile station. This will need tweaking once again.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2014, 09:33:20 PM »
I thought that they were all supposed to be the same scale...?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2014, 09:46:10 PM »
Yes, but what I'm saying is that these trams DEFINE the scale for the set, so if your rescaled versions don't fit on the tile then something is slightly wrong with your scaler. The Mk1 carriage is scaled from the tram scale. Also bear in mind that the scale in simutrans is discrete (length=1,2,3,4,...) so you effectively have to round your scaling to 1/16ths of a tile (1.875m) or have undue gaps or overlaps between vehicles. Perhaps that is what caused the difference and the length=9 for your tram cars is an artefact of such rounding errors?

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2014, 09:52:17 PM »
Hmm - I was not aware until this discussion that the Flexity Swift trams were intended to define the scale: I have scaled everything, including my re-scaled version of these trams, according to the BR Mk. I carriages (without any rounding).

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2014, 09:55:56 PM »
That was kierongreen's intention from the outset so that this type of 2nd generation tram would still only require a single tile. Some 2nd generation trams are longer (e.g. NET/Sheffield Supertram) so won't fit, but they were drawn later.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #54 on: January 27, 2014, 11:25:19 PM »
Indeed - I didn't see the point in minimum length trams not fitting in a single tile. Having trams slightly over this limit will make them disproportionately more expensive to run and difficult to build infrastructure for.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #55 on: January 27, 2014, 11:33:16 PM »
But aren't the actual stops on Croydon Tramlink at least twice as long as a normal 'bus stop in any event?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2014, 11:53:01 PM »
But buses themselves are far shorter than a single tile. You can see this effect in simutrans where traffic jams have large gaps... Single units of short modern trams (including DLR) should only need one tile stations, of course these are quite often doubled up.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #57 on: January 28, 2014, 12:09:21 AM »
Would that not have the effect of meaning that trams and 'buses need similar stop infrastructure in Simutrans, whereas in reality trams need greater stop infrastructure?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #58 on: January 28, 2014, 07:12:43 PM »
Short trams don't really need much more than a bus stop. Once you start having units coupled together, or longer trams that's a different matter. Consider that original DLR stock (28m) and a Croydon CR4000 (30m) are only a few metres longer than a Class 153 (23m) for example. There's also consistency here - it shouldn't matter what type of short tram you use it should only use 1 tile otherwise people will get caught out upgrading between seemingly similar models. If you're coupling more than one unit together (like the DLR does now) then you'll need more than one tile. Similarly longer trams, for example Edinburgh Trams (43m - when these are added...) should naturally need more than one tile for a stop. The new Croydon Variobahn trams (again, when added?) while only slightly longer (32m) than the original CR4000's (30m) should probably need more than one tile - the reason being that these are articulated units with multiple segments. With both these and Edinburgh Trams players should have the option to construct units with fewer segments that fit in one tile, or units with more segments which would require an additional tile (or tiles).

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2014, 09:55:37 PM »
The position seems to be that, unbeknownst to me, the Croydon Tramlink tram was intended to be the scale determiner of the pakset at 30m/tile; I have based the scale of the vehicles that I have produced (and there are a great many of those) on the BR Mk. I carriages, on the assumption that they were as good a vehicle as any other on which to base the scale. It turns out that the scale of the BR Mk. I carriages is slightly different (larger) than the Tramlink trams. It does not seem practical to re-do all the vehicles that I have drawn (including ships, boats, trams and trains) to change the scale very slightly. Should the Tramlink trams then be in a (slightly) different scale to all the other vehicles?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #60 on: January 29, 2014, 10:54:19 PM »
Tramlink wasn't the scale basis for the pakset. BR Mk.1 is indeed the scale basis for the pakset. However as I indicated above basic trams should have scale modified slightly to ensure they always fit in one tile.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #61 on: January 29, 2014, 11:20:00 PM »
Thank you for the clarification: that is helpful.

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #62 on: January 29, 2014, 11:46:19 PM »
Just to add - in terms of infrastructure required for trams remember that trams are only single track so automatically require twice as much as buses anyway. Also buses within cities will run mainly over city roads which don't cost anything in maintenance for the player.

#### ӔO

• Devotee
• Posts: 2345
• Total likes: 2
• Languages: en, jp
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #63 on: January 30, 2014, 01:04:47 AM »
I don't think it would be bad to increase the length on those very long trams.
I think, with the updated length calculation code, the sheffield supertram (34.5m) doesn't fit inside 1 tile anyways, on some rotations.

And then there is also the Edinburgh Tram, which is slated to be 42.85m long, which definitely doesn't fit inside one tile.
My Sketchup open project sources
various projects rolled up: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17111233/Roll_up.rar

Colour safe chart:

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #64 on: January 30, 2014, 08:29:40 PM »
Looks like I was mistaken on the length of trams and what defines pak scale then. Sorry for any confusion caused there. But in any case I'd agree with Kieron about fitting the Flexity Swift and Metrolink T86 onto a single tile. Old graphics should suffice for this.

Otherwise, where are we up to on this debate? Are we now in agreement? Who is going to rescale the various trams and old steam locos to the new scale?

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #65 on: January 30, 2014, 08:40:14 PM »
I think that we have found a workable compromise as follows:

(1) all road, tram, rail, narrow gauge, maglev, monorail (if any) vehicles are scaled by reference to the BR Mk. I carriages, and should be 1.25x as high as long and wide, save for some modern trams (it would help to have a definitive list) which should be slightly shorter to enable them to fit into a single tile per tram car;
(2) all water vehicles are scaled by reference to the BR Mk. I carriages save for those longer than 15m, which are scaled on the basis that length additional to 15m is scaled using a square route formula the details of which I now forget (it should be buried in a thread somewhere);
(3) (I assume that aircraft do not need to be further rescaled - Giuseppe has been using his own internally consistent scale for those); and
(4) buildings are to retain their existing scale, save for some which are too large compared to the others.

As to who is to rescale the early steam locomotives and trams, I had planned to do that eventually, but accumulating bug reports in Experimental currently take priority, so it might be a while before I get around to that; the best thing is for whoever is free first to start on the work and post on this thread that the work has started on a particular set of vehicles in order to avoid duplication.

It would also be useful., I think, to have a stickied Pak128.Britain scale guide in the relevant subforum.

One final thing: the ship and boat graphics that I produced were scaled at 1:1:1 rather than 1:1.25:1.25 as trains and road vehicles - do these need rescaling, too?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.

#### The Hood

##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #66 on: January 30, 2014, 10:37:47 PM »
A useful summary. I'd leave the boats as they are.

#### kierongreen

• Dev Team, Coder/patcher
• Moderator
• Posts: 2249
• Total likes: 46
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2014, 12:53:57 AM »
I don't think it would be bad to increase the length on those very long trams.
I think, with the updated length calculation code, the sheffield supertram (34.5m) doesn't fit inside 1 tile anyways, on some rotations.

And then there is also the Edinburgh Tram, which is slated to be 42.85m long, which definitely doesn't fit inside one tile.
I already mentioned that the Edinburgh Tram would be more than one tile. Sheffield Supertram can also be more than one tile as there should be a Manchester Metrolink (29m) available at a similar time which does fit in one tile.

In summary trams which should fit in one tile (at most) are:
DLR stock (all varients 8+8)
Croydon CR4000 (8+8)
Manchester T-68 (8+8)
Manchester M5000 (8+8)
Birmingham T-69 (length 7+7)
Tyne and Wear Metro (length 7+7)
Units of each type should be able to be coupled together to form longer trains.

Ones which should be scale length are:
Croydon Variobahn (prototype is 18=4+4+2+4+4, 4+4+2+4 could be allowed fitting into one tile?)
Edinburgh Tram (prototype is 24=4+4+2+4+2+4+4, 4+2+4+2+4 could be allowed fitting into one tile, maybe allow 4+4+2+4+2+4+2+4+4=30?)
Birmingham Urbos 3 (prototype is 19=4+4+3+4+4, 4+4+3+4 could be allowed fitting into one tile?)
Sheffield Supertram (prototype is 20=8+4+8 - no alternatives)
I've given prototype lengths for these with suggested alternatives that we could let players choose to enable them to fit in one tile. Should players be given this choice or is that just a needless complication?

Some of these trams haven't been drawn yet it should be noted. Also for the Tyne and Wear Metro I can't get a source for a unit length, however from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyne_and_Wear_Metro_Capacity_and_Saloon.jpg it appears to be around 24m long (assuming a width of 2.6m), so easily fitting within one tile.

#### jamespetts

• Simitrans-Extended project coordinator
• Devotee
• Posts: 15688
• Total likes: 395
• Cake baker
• Languages: EN
##### Re: pak128.Britain scale problems
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2014, 09:59:57 AM »
I know that some of the trams that are actually three articulated vehicles, such as the Nottingham vehicles, are actually drawn as two vehicles, with the central vehicle part of the graphics of the leading vehicle; I suspect that that was done to reduce awkwardness (and I did something similar with the new Blackpool trams for the same reason). I wonder to what extent that this system is applicable for the other trams that you mention?

Want to help with development? See here for things to do for coding, and here for information on how to make graphics/objects.