What are people's thoughts on passenger routes across stations? I never see stations having proper exits for people to walk along, so I made a quick temporary bridge for the concrete platform. It looks very cartoon-y since it's drawn by hand. The Japanese have these and I think they really add to the station design.
Is this something that would add to the pak or is it just eyecandy that will clutter the interface further?
Also, if these bridges/walkways limit speeds of vehicles travelling below them, isn't that against the point of using them to traverse high speed services?
I would imagine it being best if such decoration could be generated automatically. For example if you have a run-through station with platforms at the sides of a double track then a walk way would automatically be created between both sides of the station.
They only fulfill a visual function. Unless they're added as a transfer time reducing feature of a station, they are only costlier and offer a lower capacity.
I am a little hesitant to introduce things that appear as if they are features with a function, but are actually only decorative, as it is likely to be confusing for players.
They can serve the purpose of bridging over tracks that have no platforms on stations like this:
(http://wikiwiki.jp/twitrans/?plugin=ref&page=addon%2Fpak128.japan%2Ftrain7&src=1700ss.png)
Currently I usually build an elevated road across to keep a physical joint between the two platforms, but that's usually not an elegant solution.
That would still be a cosmetic feature, would it not; or is the intention that they be used to make one what would otherwise be two stations?
Yes, since parts of stations can exist without being on adjacent tiles as long as they were once connected that way, it's cosmetic.
Quote from: jamespetts on July 08, 2015, 09:33:26 PM
I am a little hesitant to introduce things that appear as if they are features with a function, but are actually only decorative, as it is likely to be confusing for players.
I think if you can use experimental you can probably decide whether to use or not cosmetic features, and if there's not too many of them, I don't think there's any risk for cluttering.
I think a tool such as "merge stop" would be more useful first. It is silly having to build then demolish platforms to connect two remote areas.
What's the replace stop function for? I always thought it was a merge function.
The confusion is likely to arise from the fact of a feature that has no economic effect; I am always reluctant to have things that appear to have an effect but, in fact, do not, as that is inherently confusing and likely to be frustrating for players (perhaps these sorts of things should be made available as an add-on?).
A merge stop feature might be useful, but it is not a priority at this stage.
The replace stop feature allows one type of stop to be replaced with another (of the same way type) without deleting and rebuilding.
The thought of offering that as an addon has occured to me. If I manage to find the blender files related to stations, I'll see whether I can make something interesting.
I found that the replace stop feature moved scheduled waypoints of vehicles on the tile. This is pretty handy for renovations and temporary stop assignment. Not sure how you would go about replacing types or buildings of stops.
I'd certainly use them... once Experimental is playable again.
I'll make it available as an addon, which should be independent from all development.
What clearance do the bridges need? I'm currently at 4.5m clearance, which seems ok. How about width?
A bit wider than that, perhaps? It tends to vary a lot though what sort of width is provided, depending on the station.
The current width of the footbridge was around 85cm, is now 1.2m. I'm setting off to England tomorrow, so there will be opportunities to observe the footbridges.
Is it possible to make the whole set up modular? Stairway-platforms would have stairs up to a common level and point across all buildings. All stations pieces would be the same by dimensions. From there on, elevated pieces/buildings take care of the bridging. The benefits here would be that no renovations on the platform are needed if the footbridge is converted into a larger building (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Madurodam_18.jpg/800px-Madurodam_18.jpg). Express trains can then pass without passing through a station tile, circumventing slowing them down.
edit: I've attached an image of a station draft. The glass on the walkway makes the platform level windows look weird. Feedback appreciated.
That does look quite nice: it reminds me of Oxford station.
Spenk: *huzzah* Would you consider a multi-storey building in that "modern glass" motif, in a single rotation (symmetric) such that the elevated walkways would look good joining it? As a station lounge/restaurant/hotel that could sit alone or in combination. A matching stub-end "bus terminal" would make some splendid combination stations.
I have created another platform, from which the next tile down can be adapted. The initially designed footbridge is at around 4.6m from the ground, so I've taken the general floor height to be the same. The station is built to .3m off the ground at the trackbed, 4.2m is an average loading gauge and some clearance is there too.
Just found the GitHub from The Hood, which actually contains the station files...
As far as I'm concerned I'd try to avoid cluttering the menus. However I think there could potentially be option of automatically adding pedestrian footbridges and/or tunnels (if this could be added to underground complexes it would be even nicer). I'll think of some algorithms for this...
Quote from: kierongreen on August 09, 2015, 12:13:49 AM
As far as I'm concerned I'd try to avoid cluttering the menus. However I think there could potentially be option of automatically adding pedestrian footbridges and/or tunnels (if this could be added to underground complexes it would be even nicer). I'll think of some algorithms for this...
That's an interesting idea. I agree about not cluttering the menus with things that are merely cosmetic, however.
I think that's a good idea too, but not suited to this game. Simutrans is about micro-management and people would be put off if a specific station layout was forced onto them.
Is it possible to open a sub-menu in a menu? The ctrl+click for rotations is very nice, making another menu window appear (behaving like any other) could be added in there.
What makeobj.exe do I need to compile these?
Quote from: Spenk009 on August 17, 2015, 03:23:15 PM
What makeobj.exe do I need to compile these?
Depends what features you want, but as it's just a station building, any experimental version (or even standard) makeobj should be fine.
I don't really care about menu cluttering myself. I'll use it. My menus are already cluttered by removing every building's abolition date. ;p
I have made pak files using different makeobj.exes. None show up on the gui, so I presume the issue to be with makeobj. Or does Simutrans display a message on a problematic/faulty pak?
What does it say when it is compiled? Any messages?
And what does the dat look like?
It says the usual "There is a possibility of not operating correctly though the makeobj work ended".
The dat is an adjusted dat file for another station building.
Here's another footbridge/walkway.
Are see-through objects something desirable?
That is very nice, although the graphic should exclude the platform, since this ought to be able to be placed onto any sort of platform. See through objects are fine in principle, but one has to be careful because of the need to use the transparent image colour everywhere that one can, in fact, see through them. This can cause trouble with intricate designs and anti-aliasing, and you might have that trouble in this image.
Yes, I was worried that while the transparent parts could look great in theory, zoom would have a similar effect on it as trees face.
Is there a way to make this versatile by allowing the bridge to be placed on any station tile?
As far as I know, they have to include platform section, or it won't work as a platform?
Quote from: Junna on November 09, 2015, 09:14:46 PM
As far as I know, they have to include platform section, or it won't work as a platform?
There would be a visual gap in the platform, but game-wise it would be ok.
Ahh, yes, I see what you mean - they can't be overlaid, can they? We would have to have different ones for each type of platform in that case. I do wonder whether things like footbridges might be things that could affect the transfer time for passengers in a station and thus have a real gameplay mechanic, but quite how to calibrate that (without being able to do extremely complicated things such as work out whether there are multiple platforms separated by a line of rails and calculate the transfer time based on that) is a matter for further thought.
Well it might be fine to render the image of walkway without platform, and combine it with any platform as front/back image.
Quote from: Vladki on November 09, 2015, 11:25:47 PM
Well it might be fine to render the image of walkway without platform, and combine it with any platform as front/back image.
Yes, I suppose that that would have to be done for the opposite platform in any event, but unless it were to be coded as an extension, which would be awkward to use, it would have to be built into a platform on one side of the tracks. How is it done in Pak128?