Full slope buildings

[Václav]

I know that common buildings (com, res and ind - and also mon and cur) can appear on slope - but at most times it looks very strange. So I would like to ask for small change for allowing buildings which really stand on slope - it means that its base will be slope, not horizontal.

It would help Simutrans for greater variability of buildings called above - regardless of it would mean quite difficult painting of such buildings.

[Fabio]

I would go for an option in the .DAT file, specifying how the building should behave upon a slope:
1) raise slope to flat
2) lower slope to flat
3) use specified image and don't change the slope

[Václav]

Thanks for support.

Appearing of building on slope lowered to flat under building on slope raised to flat would give very interesting result - but I have in mind mainly choice 3 - using specified images.

If I wrote something about difficulty of painting, it would be because these buildings could be only in all four rotations.

[skreyola]

I agree with fabio. City buildings that need to be on level ground should try first to alter the terrain, rather than building retaining walls. If that can't be done, I think a slope-designed building (such as stilted on one side) should be tried. And only if one of the appropriate type and density is unavailable should a retaining wall be built to hold up a building in the fashion that is currently the norm.
Also, the city builder should prefer to not build on slopes, because it's more expensive in the real world.
But I would love to see both of these, the dat-file behavior marker and the new slope-friendly buildings.
:support*2:

[Fabio]

If I wrote something about difficulty of painting, it would be because these buildings could be only in all four rotations.

It wouldn't be 4, but 8, as there are also corner slopes.
Anyway, this possibility would be exploited only for new building objects, as i don't think people would paint the new 8 rotations for existing buildings.

Appearing of building on slope lowered to flat under building on slope raised to flat would give very interesting result - but I have in mind mainly choice 3 - using specified images.

As far as I know, in RL people mostly flatten a piece of land before building on it, or let it sloping if very gently, or let just sloping the garden around.

Also, the city builder should prefer to not build on slopes, because it's more expensive in the real world.

I disagree here. A city in game looks much better if it is "compact" and not too sprawled. Leaving ST slopes (mostly) unbuilt would look bad in game.

What i see is this entry in the DATs:

Code Select Expand


SlopePreference=0 #Flatten slope, default
SlopePreference=1 #Build foundation wall, current behaviour
SlopePreference=2 #Use specified sprites

SlopeImage[N]=... #Only used if SlopePreference=2
SlopeImage[S]=...
SlopeImage[E]=...
SlopeImage[W]=...
SlopeImage[NE]=...
SlopeImage[SE]=...
SlopeImage[SW]=...
SlopeImage[NW]=...


Anyway, I would see as a priority the possibility to choose between 0 and 1 (Flatten slope vs Build foundation wall), where I see the dedicated images as lower priority.

[VS]

Hmm... what is the difference between flattening up, down and "foundations" ?

[Václav]

Also, the city builder should prefer to not build on slopes, because it's more expensive in the real world.

Here I have to agree with Fabio. Buildings have various bases and small place by them are flattened but rests of gardens are sloped sometime very much.

Hmm... what is the difference between flattening up, down and "foundations" ?

Very simple ... with this all object will copy terrain - may be that not fully - but yes. But I have not any photo of any house built on slope - for better explanation.

[Fabio]

example 1: I would like to paint some beach resorts (climate=water): with the slope flattered it would just be on the sea. On the other hand, lighthouses (climate=water) look better on foundations.

example 2: Houses with gardens look generally a bit silly on foundations, buildings which fill the entire tile look better on foundation.



On the other hand an even better criteria would be: "slope follows the road". If the building on the slope is next to a road placed on the lower side, lower the slope; if the building on the slope is next to a road placed on the upper side, build the foundations.

[Václav]

By the way, I think it would be applicated also on some factories. For example in the beginning of the twentieth century still many mines were as very small shafts entering to the depths from slope - as the best place for it.

[skreyola]

example 2: Houses with gardens look generally a bit silly on foundations, buildings which fill the entire tile look better on foundation.

I quite agree.
But I'm surprised people argue with the fact that building on a slope (the slopes in ST are fairly severe) is more expensive in the real world than building on fairly level ground.

On the other hand an even better criteria would be: "slope follows the road". If the building on the slope is next to a road placed on the lower side, lower the slope; if the building on the slope is next to a road placed on the upper side, build the foundations.

I think this is a great idea.
However, I think multi-tile buildings, like factories, should always prefer, if possible, to raise slopes rather than building a foundation in a sloped tile. It looks better, and it makes it easier for the player to build around it, because once a foundation is placed, it becomes very difficult to modify the slopes nearby.
@fabio: I think your conf idea is a good one. I'm always for giving the player more options.

[Václav]

I have searched for usable photo of building built on slope for very long time - and here it is

Müller's villa, Prague, 1929 - functionalism