The International Simutrans Forum

 

Author Topic: Alternate pillars for elevated ways  (Read 1763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isaac.Eiland-Hall us

  • Benevolent Dictator
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 3659
  • PanamaCityPC.com/support/
    • Facebook Profile
  • Languages: EN
Alternate pillars for elevated ways
« on: March 06, 2012, 08:48:00 PM »

See here: http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=3233.msg88904#msg88904


It is, of course, a known problem. I think I have a relatively simple way (ha ha) of fixing - at least, I hope it's simple enough.


An elevated way (or perhaps bridges in general) should check what it's placed on; or rather, what its pillars are placed on, and depending on what it finds, use alternate (or no) pillars.


The first suggestion (and the most important) would be: If the elevated way is placed on top of another way tile (elevated, bridge, or way on ground), check the ribis. If it shows a way going perpendicular to the elevated way, use one alternate pillar. If it shows parallel, use a second alternate. If it shows multiple (an intersection), use a third alternate -- if defined, of course, in the elevated way.


This would allow intra-city usage of elevated ways, allowing for variety in pillars and design, that wouldn't graphically interfere with a way below the elevated way.


But while thinking about this, I think it would be useful in at least one other case: If a bridge or elevated way crosses a stream, for example, the designer could specify no pillar (or a special pillar) for the stream tile. Now, over water, I assume you want pillars every tile or ever X tiles, but imagine a bridge that crosses a valley, and in that valley is a stream - and perhaps some flat tiles on either side of the stream. So regular pillars would be used over the land, then no (or alternate) pillar over the stream...


There might be other good ideas, but these two cases (streams and ways) are the only ones I can think of offhand.