Underground station extensions

[gauthier]

As seen in the SMSC April edition
=>

It could be nice to have underground station extension

[Ghost-cz]

Nice, I Want download It 

[vilvoh]

Do you mean an extension building type just for underground mode, gauthier?

[The Hood]

I'd certainly support extension buildings that could be built underground (currently they can only be built above ground).  I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

[MoTw]

Certainly a good idea. Especially in big cities where you use underground networks not to destroy the buildings but when stops get crowded, you need to "delete" houses in order to place extension buildings anyway.
I support underground extension buildings

[Fuzzy Peach]

As do I. It's a good idea.

[jamespetts]

I also support this proposal (including The Hood's) - it would make a lot of sense.

[Václav]

I also agree with idea of underground station extensions. Then very interesting subway stations could be built - for example real transfer stations where the first line has station on underground level 1 in one direction (for example left top - right bottom) and the second one has station on underground level 2 in else direction (left bottom - right top).

[skreyola]

I'd certainly support extension buildings that could be built underground (currently they can only be built above ground).  I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

:support:

[gauthier]

so ... waiting the saying of our dictator Prissi

[The Hood]

Any views from any of the dev team on this?  Would really help de-clutter menus and help make underground mode more interesting/better IMO.

[neroden]

I also agree with idea of underground station extensions. Then very interesting subway stations could be built - for example real transfer stations where the first line has station on underground level 1 in one direction (for example left top - right bottom) and the second one has station on underground level 2 in else direction (left bottom - right top).

I already build these, but the lack of actual transfer passageways makes them look odd to say the least.  (I just imagine invisible elevators.) 

Yeah, this would be a really nice extension.

[gauthier]

The dev team seems to not care 

[jamespetts]

The dev team seems to not care 

They probably just have more pressing projects :-) Being a developer can be hard work...

[skreyola]

Perhaps if someone makes graphics for stairways/escalators/entrances and ticket windows and stuff, they will code for it. Wouldn't be the first time, as I understand.

[vilvoh]

The graphics are already painted, check the first post, and available for downloading at japanese.simutrans.com

[Dwachs]

The dev team seems to not care 

I would say, they have no time to care.

If there would be a patch out there that is working to some degree, the likelihood that something like this comes into trunk increases rapidly. But active programmers are rare these days :/

These request is not trivial to implement (but not very hard either). Some checks needs to be added to prevent tunnels being built through a stairway...

I'd certainly support extension buildings that could be built underground (currently they can only be built above ground).  I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

This is definitely a good idea.

[skreyola]

The graphics are already painted, check the first post, and available for downloading at japanese.simutrans.com

Oops. My mistake.

[Fabio]

I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

Support for this, and also for extension buildings.

[wlindley]

Perhaps in overground mode, you would see the traditional depots and extension buildings, but when you switch to underground mode, the toolbar would change, removing the overground-only ones and adding the underground ones?

This would address both this issue and the idea of better handling of Metros; see

• Metro versus Tram discussion,
  http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=4476
  
• Separate Metro toolbar in Pak128,
  http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=5084

[jamespetts]

WLindley's idea is a good one - but, how would the toolbar separation work in sliced underground mode?

[gauthier]

when you switch to underground mode, the toolbar would change, removing the overground-only ones and adding the underground ones?

The best thing to do.
Also, since it's underground, a z axis system for underground extensions should be nice : I mean extension on multiple levels.

Also, some extensions should be able to be placed one on each over, so their picture change. ... maybe a schema to understand

_____________ (the ground)
EEEEEEEEEEEEE (the underground with nothing carved into)
EEEEOOEEEEEE (tubes)
EEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEOOEEEEEE (other tubes)

There the two stations have to be connected by an extension (only a graphical connection since there're already connected in game).
Extensions are built next to each station :

_____________
EEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE[]OOEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE[]OOEEEEEE

But we want to connect them ! :

_____________
EEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE[]OOEEEEEE
EEE[]EEEEEEEEE
EEE[]OOEEEEEE

Graphicaly there are three extensions one on each over ... we want to have one big on the three levels : so graphics have to change :

_____________
EEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEE||OOEEEEEE
EEE||EEEEEEEE
EEE||OOEEEEEE

The multiple layouts system should be changed to have this kind of extension.

[prissi]

How do you properly display then the tools in the sliced mode? Then this is the only mode such buildings could be built.

[gauthier]

The multiple levels'extensions aren't one building but multiple buildings which the picture changed, the same system as multiple layouts stations for example. So only the part of the extension which belong to the displayed level will be displayed.

[skreyola]

In slice mode, your menu should, I think, display either all tools, or only the underground extensions, since the reason to use slice mod is to see what's underground. But in aboveground mode, you could still place a 2-story extension, but only the above-ground portion would be shown/used for alignment, as per the subway staircase entrances of New York and other cities.

I agree about the multi-level extensions. It's one-level tiles that just use different graphics when lined up with compatible extensions on adjoining levels.

[prissi]

Multilevel buildings is an entirely different topic, since current multi-level buildings are programming wise only one tile height.

Foundations and shafts for coal mines and oil rigs and normal building were a completely different extension topic.

(It is a very good way to never have thing done by going overboard with demands in the first round.)

[gauthier]

I don't understand neither Skreyola's answer nor Prissi's one ...

[Dwachs]

My two cents: show icons of underground extension building only when in sliced undergroundmode. In full underground mode, simutrans would not know on which level it has to place said extension.

Coal shafts could be as well be implemented as some kind of underground fields.

[The Hood]

I think there are several issues here:

1) underground/overground only buildings/stations - use binary flag as suggested above to determine where they can be built (where they appear in menus is another issue!)
2) multi-level underground extensions: sliced view only sounds sensible to me as level can be determined exactly
3) foundations/mineshafts as underground fields sounds like a genius idea to me.

Although these are all related, I agree with prissi - not a good idea to overcomplicate things at the beginning.  Maybe each of these should be implmented separately, one at a time, and that would make it simpler for now.

[neroden]

I think there are several issues here:

1) underground/overground only buildings/stations - use binary flag as suggested above to determine where they can be built (where they appear in menus is another issue!)

Can buildings (station extensions, not platforms) be built underground at *all* right now?  I think they can't.  (EDIT: Am I wrong?  If I am, how do you build them?)  I would say that that should be part of step 1.  Make them buildable in sliced mode at least.

[Dwachs]

Can buildings (station extensions, not platforms) be built underground at *all* right now?

No. This was the original extension request iirc.

[skreyola]

Multilevel buildings is an entirely different topic, since current multi-level buildings are programming wise only one tile height.

Foundations and shafts for coal mines and oil rigs and normal building were a completely different extension topic.

(It is a very good way to never have thing done by going overboard with demands in the first round.)

Sorry. I was not really saying multi-level extensions were necessary, just explaining how I imagined they would work if they were included. (per gauthier's comment)

Re: TheHood
I think you may be right about the implementation needing to be split out.
1) Agreed, and that's probably the first step. This, I think, would make it easy to fill menus, as you just look to see if a thing can be built where you're viewing. However, this might make slice-mode menus too full.
2) If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about things like stairways, which as Prissi pointed out, need to be built one level at a time (and priced out as individual tiles), and I think that the graphics for that kind of extension should change if a compatible tile is adjacent one the same or an adjacent level.
3) Not sure what this one is. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to build right underneath an aboveground building? I think that would complicate both gameplay and code significantly.

I'd be happy with just 1 and 2 in slice mode or all underground-buildable views.

[greephus]

Hi all,

I just have a simple question. I forgot how to build the entrance to the japan underpass pack. Could you please help me? Thanks

[DirrrtyDirk]

IIRC it was all built via the ship menu - and there's a special tunnel for ships that builds the basic structure (hope we're talking about the same addon here)

[greephus]

Thans for your answer!
I mean this one, pls see screenshot.
Unfortunately there is no tunnel option under shiptools.

[greephus]

Problem solved! I just reinstalled the JPN Ungerpass package and now working fine
The button was missing.

[victor_18993]

Thans for your answer!
I mean this one, pls see screenshot.
Unfortunately there is no tunnel option under shiptools.

Hi greephus I would like to know where to download these add. thaks

[greephus]

Hi greephus I would like to know where to download these add. thaks

Hi victor,

here you can find some really nice addon

http://japanese.simutrans.com/index.php?Site_Map

Hi greephus I would like to know where to download these add. thaks

...underpass set is under this link:

http://japanese.simutrans.com/index.php?Addon128/RoadTools%201

Mod note: please do not double-post. Edit your last comment instead.
~IgorEliezer

[neroden]

Hmm.  How difficult *would* it be to add a flag to buildings saying "can be built underground in sliced mode", and then to make it possible to actually do that?

At the moment I'm still trying to fix code merge problems, but this might be an "easy" project (if someone else doesn't get to it first).

[jamespetts]

Nathaneal - I was planning something similar for Experimental: see here for details. It will be a long time before I get around to it, though, so if you can make a patch for Standard in the meantime, that would be most worthwhile (and be one less piece of Experimental specific code to maintain). See my description in that post (last item) as to how I suggest that this be implemented for maximum flexibility.

[Fabio]

Here's James's idea:

Stops/signals/roadsigns that can be built only underground or only above ground
It would be helpful for the purposes of developing underground railways were it possible to restrict certain station types to above ground/underground. This way, the cost of building underground can properly be modelled, as well as creating the right appearance for underground stations (as it looks absurd, for example, for underground stations to have overall roofs or flower beds).

The best way of doing this would be to add a flag to the .dat files of objects "allow_underground". If "allow_underground=0" is set, the stop/roadsign/signal cannot be built underground. If "allow_underground=1" is set (which should be the default), the stop/roadsign/signal can be built underground or overground. If "allow_underground=2" is set, the stop/roadsign/signal can be built only underground.

The GUI for this would need to follow the current pattern of dealing with things that can and cannot be built underground: in underground mode, for example, the menu buttons for station extensions are hidden. The same effect would be needed here: in overground mode, only stations/etc. that can be built overground should be shown; in full underground mode, only stations, etc. that can be built underground should be shown; and in sliced underground mode, all stations, etc. should be shown.

[Fabio]

I'd certainly support extension buildings that could be built underground (currently they can only be built above ground).  I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

Bumping this request, considering this thread: http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=10126.msg101685#msg101685

[greenling]

Fabio
This idea it crazy.

[gauthier]

This thread is about stations extensions, nothing in common with Mega's stations and depots.

[prissi]

How would you built an underground only extension building in full underground mode? Those would only be builtable in sliced mode.

But other than that the modifications needed are small. I think in underground mode also some tunnel should be able to be built without portal. If we allow this, some pedestrians roads (system type 255, like fences etc.) could be easily added too.

[Fabio]

This thread is about stations extensions, nothing in common with Mega's stations and depots.

I remembered this thread from the past and the idea born here that I quoted:

I'd also like additional parameters in the dats which allow platforms to be built either only underground or only above ground, e.g.

Code Select Expand

allow_underground = 1 or 0
allow_aboveground = 1 or 0

This would be needed for mEGa's platforms (but also to restrict some platforms to above ground only).

[Ters]

How would you built an underground only extension building in full underground mode? Those would only be builtable in sliced mode.

That's not much of a restriction. I have hardly used full underground mode since sliced underground appeared.

[gauthier]

How would you built an underground only extension building in full underground mode? Those would only be builtable in sliced mode.

It's not a problem.
Pedestrian roads would be an interesting way of connecting two stations.

In fact Fabio's idea is nice.

[isidoro]

How would you built an underground only extension building in full underground mode? Those would only be builtable in sliced mode.
[...]

Once we have sliced mode, is there a necessity for full underground?
If we get rid of it, interface would be much cleaner.  For instance, it is quite weird for a newbie that you have to build underground tracks with the tunnel tool.  One would expect to use the same track tool to build under and overground, though charged differently...

Vertical entrances would be a plus too.  You'd be allowed to keep a diagonal track with no deviation going underground...

[Carl]

It's nice to have the option to look at the whole of the underground network at once, rather than only one level at a time.

[Ters]

Full underground offers a full overview (or is it underview). It is also more suited when building upwards sloping tunnels, something which I've underused it for since I hardly remember it.

[kierongreen]

Unless I am building very complex underground interchanges I stick to full underground mode rather than sliced - it gives you a much better idea of how everything fits together in my opinion.

[Ters]

Unless I am building very complex underground interchanges I stick to full underground mode rather than sliced - it gives you a much better idea of how everything fits together in my opinion.

Almost the opposite of what I was thinking. It is for complex layouts that I would need the full view, so that I don't slope up or down until I've passed the overlying or underlying tunnel, and can continue building after sloping up. But maybe I don't have complex enough underground layouts.

Despite differing views on what it's useful for, we agree that it is useful.

[Fabio]

In full underground mode, extensions could be built at the same z-coord as the adjacent station.
If there are adjacent stations at different z-coords, well, return an error saying the program can't guess the right location

[Roads]

Kinda embarrassed to ask this but what is full underground mode or how do you access it?

[Ters]

Shift+U in pak64 at least.

[Fabio]

In Pak128 as well!

[Sarlock]

I usually use full underground mode to check on things, to see the interactions between multiple levels and use the sliced mode for most construction.

[Roads]

Thanks guys but I don't see any difference between using cntrl+u and clicking sliced map view.  On this subject though there is one thing I wished we had - that is for grid to turn white or some light color so you can see it.  Trying to figure out where the squares are is literally like feeling around in the dark.

[Ters]

You won't see much difference unless there is something underground. You'll never see whats above ground when in full undergroup, while sliced underground will show everything on the selected level, whether above ground or not.

Trying to pinpoint a location in three dimensions using full underground is almost impossible, which is perhaps (one of) the reason(s) sliced underground was made.

[isidoro]

For me, the problem with current full underground mode is that it is very difficult to imagine at what level you are building/connecting due to the perspective used in ST.  Besides, most underground real life works is done level-wise, isn't it?

With sliced mode, I build layer by layer and then, make the suitable connections among them.  The semantics imposed by old full underground (tunnel track vs. normal track) makes no sense to me and was very confusing to me when I started playing.

My idea is not to get rid of the "full underground view", but the full underground special building tools.  Why wouldn't I have in a real case the same kind of track at 50kmh both over and underground?

[An_dz]

I can't remember any game I've played with an easy underground mode, the only exception is RollerCoaster Tycoon 2 with a kinda easy underground mode.

I can't find a screen from RCT2 now.

[Ters]

My idea is not to get rid of the "full underground view", but the full underground special building tools.  Why wouldn't I have in a real case the same kind of track at 50kmh both over and underground?

Is there a difference between full underground tools and sliced underground tools? But that's a different thread, isn't it?

[wlindley]

The latest Experimental, at least, lets you define extension buildings that are only to be built in underground mode. Unfortunately, they wind up at the surface, regardless of where the cursor was when you built them.  Here's an excerpt of the .dat file and a screenshot of what happens. 

Code Select Expand

Obj=building
Name=LT_Ticket_Hall
type=extension
waytype=track
copyright=wlindley and Timothy Baldock
enables_pax=1
enables_post=0
enables_ware=0
NoInfo=1
NoConstruction=1
allow_underground=1
Dims=1,1,1
Level=4
intro_year=1890
intro_month=11

.pak and source code: http://wlindley.com/simutrans/underground-hall.zip

[jamespetts]

Yes, I am aware of this - I tried to change the code to allow underground stations, but abandoned the project as it seemed to require too fundamental a set of changes to be practicable at the time. It should be possible in theory, but will need more work. I do like your structure, however!

[ӔO]

Some thought on an easier to use underground/overground structure system. I think a system of cubes, like in minecraft, instead of squares/tiles, would be the most satisfying to the end user. Then you can dig out the cubes underneath existing structures without doing surgery that leaves scars at the surface.

But, rather obviously, that's a major change to the existing system and who knows how many hundreds of hours of coding required.