Placing bridges at the start and end of tunnels (exits). I have seen it done before, in my humble opinion, in real life (but never actually seen it where I live now).
It can also be used for when you don't have enough space to place things (for example tunnels joining two tunnel entrances/exits when very near sea level, while letting ships to pass underneath the bridge). In my humble opinion one solution would be the ability for trains to enter into a tunnel through a vertical face - not just necessarily through a sloping tile. This could improve on how this might work (with the bridges, as well, and/or maybe not with the bridges). In my own humble opinion...
What about it? Would this be possible? :-\
EDIT: Also maybe for roads and maglevs, etc...
You mean like this?
No.
Please make the tunnel a little lower. :)
EDIT: Also try to make it a bit like there is not much space to place a bridge, for example.
If the tunnel was lower it would be at sea level and therefore flooded in the game!!! I'm not sure what you are asking for in game terms - maybe you could post a screenshot of the land layout you mean?
Oh not:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Yes, but I was talking about over the water and not underwater. :)
Quite ugly:
[attachment deleted by admin]
According to me he was talking about this :
It's the surface of the sea.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: z9999 on January 18, 2009, 04:58:44 PM
It's the surface of the sea.
Thank you all for you help. :)
Thanks z9999. :)
??? How, may I ask, did you do that, and how do you make it in pak128? :-\
it's ... not very realistic ...
I know, thanks for reminding me, gauthier. :)
It should be over the water to let ships pass through, shouldn't it? ... starting at the tunnel entrance... :)
I'm still not understanding what the OP wants..
A tunnel entrance/exit at sea level, then a bridge that rises above sea level to allow ships under?
Yes, all on one level. :)
Like this, only at sea level?
Thanks. :)
That's exactly what I intended to say. :)
OK :) The first tile under the bridge needs to be a land tile with a pathway (if I delete the bridge, that tile reverts to the pathway, road or rail, accordingly). What you want to do is enable the game to build a pathway one tile into water, so you can start a bridge (without all the ugliness that raising land/creating artificial slopes causes).
I think that would be very nice to have.. allowing bridges at the waters edge to start rising _into_ the water instead of forcing a slope before the water. But I cannot see it being added: Tiles at sea level are always water, while land is one level above sea level. The only time you'll have the situation of building a bridge at the waters edge then, is when you have a tunnel at the edge, because you'll _always_ have a slope at the edge, never a flat land tile. :(
Quote from: Casteele on January 18, 2009, 05:43:22 PM
I think that would be very nice to have..
Thank you for you understanding, Casteele. :)
Quote from: Casteele on January 18, 2009, 05:43:22 PM
But I cannot see it being added...
Ahh... :( thanks, anyway. I guess this is all that can be done, then. :-\
EDIT:
Quote from: Casteele on January 18, 2009, 05:43:22 PM
... a flat land tile...
Or a slope or a flat sea tile... :)
Not necessarily.. I cannot see the ability being added to the game engine itself.. but I might be able to figure out a work-around based on an idea from another post: If we could temporarily lower the sea level, build the pathway/bridge, then raise the sea level back up, the game engine should happily draw it correctly. Of course, I am assuming a lot about how the game engine operates.. if it just draws the tiles and graphics according to what the map says is there, without any checking for sea level, etc, it can be done.
Quote from: Casteele on January 18, 2009, 06:08:11 PM
... If we could temporarily lower the sea level, build the pathway/bridge, then raise the sea level back up, the game engine should happily draw it correctly. Of course, I am assuming a lot about how the game engine operates.. if it just draws the tiles and graphics according to what the map says is there, without any checking for sea level, etc, it can be done.
Ok, with some tools added in the tools menu, I pressume. :-\
You mean like raising and lowering sea and/or land level like in my http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=1103.0 extension request. :) Is it possible?... :-\
I think the idea of being able to exist a tunnel through a sheer/vertical face has merit, though. Can think of several in-game cases where this would have been very useful in constrained locations. It would enable a bridge to be built crossing the line immediately outside the tunnel - which I've wanted to do several times. The sloped tunnel-exit tile takes up space!
Don't know whether it runs contrary to the way the game is programmed though.
Quote from: AP on January 18, 2009, 06:31:34 PM
I think the idea of being able to exist a tunnel through a sheer/vertical face has merit, though. Can think of several in-game cases where this would have been very useful in constrained locations. It would enable a bridge to be built crossing the line immediately outside the tunnel - which I've wanted to do several times. The sloped tunnel-exit tile takes up space!
Don't know whether it runs contrary to the way the game is programmed though.
Thank you all for your responses. :)
Thanks for your support, AP. :)
Quote from: emaxectranspoorte on January 18, 2009, 06:14:26 PM
Ok, with some tools added in the tools menu, I pressume. :-\
You mean like raising and lowering sea and/or land level like in my http://forum.simutrans.com/index.php?topic=1103.0 extension request. :) Is it possible?... :-\
That was the post I was thinking about. ;)
I do not know about adding a tool the the game menus.. although it would be nice! I was more thinking about modifying the savegame file to set the sealevel one level lower, making your bridge, then editing the savegame again to restore the sea level. It would depend mostly on how hard the game engine would be to add sea level changes.
You can already do it. See attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Thanks, again, Casteele. :)
prissi, where is the sea and/or river, underneath the bridge, if you don't mind me asking? :-\
Well, choose your favourite?
Quote from: VS on January 19, 2009, 04:28:47 PM
Well, choose your favourite?
Thank you for your help, VS. :)
But what I actually meant is this... How would you place a bridge between those two? :-\ (Sorry, I would show you my real map now, but it takes a long time to load :o , if the game doesn't crash while loading first :( )
I see... well, how about an thinking out of the box solution :D
But that's considered as an underwater tunnel, isn't it? :-\
It's the panama canal ;)
Quote from: gerw on January 19, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
It's the panama canal ;)
??? I didn't know the panama canal includes train tunnels, as well? ;)
You want something that is not possible (at the moment at least) so you are given some choices how to do it otherwise...
??? :) Ok, why didn't you tell me that in the first place? ... :-\
EDIT: So which one would be the best to choose (for now) in your opinion? :-\
Oh! I guess everyone assumed you knew.
Factors:
1) money
2) space
3) aesthetics
4) other
If the distance is great, I would go upwards and on "normal" bridge. If it is short and on high speed line, the "tunnel covered with canal" could be best. What Lodovico showed is also bugless and small...
Quote from: VS on January 19, 2009, 05:50:42 PM
Oh! I guess everyone assumed you knew.
Factors:
1) money
2) space
3) aesthetics
4) other
Yes, I did know something about that. :) But that's not exactly what I was reffering to VS. I was refering mostly to you other jpg posts before. BTW, could you also include some tunnels, before and after the river and/or sea bridge, if possible and/or doesn't upset in any way? :-\ So I can make a better choice (for now). :)
Quote from: VS on January 19, 2009, 05:50:42 PM
If the distance is great, I would go upwards and on "normal" bridge. If it is short and on high speed line, the "tunnel covered with canal" could be best. What Lodovico showed is also bugless and small...
Thank you for your help. :)
I am not sure I understand?
Quote from: VS on January 19, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
I am not sure I understand?
Ok, maybe only tunnel entrances visible from the surface and not necessarily whole tunnels... :)
Is it better explained, or still not quite...? :-\
You want:
a) picture
b) something added to game
c) something added to pak
d) ???
Quote from: VS on January 19, 2009, 05:33:54 PM
You want something that is not possible (at the moment at least) so you are given some choices how to do it otherwise...
Allright. :) Picture for now (because of what you told me in the above quote). :-\
Then b) and/or c), if still possible... :-\
You seek a solution of a very unreal situation. And not only in Simutrans and the real World.
The attached solution shows the unreality.
There is not existing any road/railway ending just at the water-level of the coast.
In the same way you can create a Simutrans world full of psychedelic constructions,
like this one: (http://www.akrangard.cz/simutrans/mov/shipsf1.png)
[attachment deleted by admin]
The only thing I can think of is that Simutrans makes a presumption that all bridges have clearance for ships beneath. Yet in reality railway bridges across harbours or estuaries clearly do not provide this clearance. That clearance is the reason the tunnel can exit at "sea level" but the bridge needs a +1 ramp before its span starts.
In reality, low-level water crossings incorporate a swing span or lift span to provide that clearance. - only rarely do they climb to the spectacular heights necessary to provide the clearance reqiured by the Admiralty or similar for ocean-going ships to pass beneath.
E.g Barmouth Bridge does not provide clearance for ships.
(http://www.mallorn.info/images/barmouthbridge.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2412/2506340412_647cfdc292.jpg?v=0)
Whereas the Royal Albert Bridge at Saltash is rather spectacular specifically because it was required to provide that clearance for ships.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Royal_albert_bridge_hist.jpg/550px-Royal_albert_bridge_hist.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Royal_albert_bridge_hist.jpg)
If we cross a rail line over a canal on the flat, one of those nifty automatic lift bridges appears. We are able to cross it at water level, and so ensure a clear and level through run for our nice express trains.
My point, then, is simple. Why can we not provide an equivalent "flat" alternative for crossings over wider bodies of water? With a "lift" span appearing in the middle? A bridge which deliberately obstructs shipping except for that opening span.
To be clear about how close to the water I mean, there is a partly demolished one near my home. The timber trestles have gone but the photographer is standing on the former trackbed. Pivot for swing span is in the distance. [EDIT - This example is near Portsmouth harbour (map (http://www.multimap.com/s/CG9IWrY6))]
(http://www.hayling.co.uk/images/gallery/455__hayling.jpg)
Given the parallel conversation about rivers I think this has a bearing. I said over there the rivers should not require "hump back railway bridges" - this is the realistic solution. It's applicability to coastal situations (tunnels at sea level) is more niche. I've put the remark here because it follows neatly though.
There is a crossing for channels that was. Rarely such a swing bridge is over ocean ...
BTW, Lodovico's solution can be made more aesthetically. See screenshot.
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: prissi on January 19, 2009, 09:53:50 PM
There is a crossing for channels that was.
this is in pak128...