Started by The Hood, January 21, 2014, 10:17:42 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: kierongreen on January 21, 2014, 11:54:53 PMWell, this goes back to it being impossible to have all scales in simutrans consistent. Road vehicles and trams were roughly the same scale as buildings previously. Buildings are to the same scale as roads, with trains and railways to a smaller scale. If you try and make railways and roads the same scale then either trains will end up very long with lots of clipping errors, or road tiles will appear unnaturally wide. Really roads should be two tiles across (which would solve double track trams at the same time), but that's another story, and a whole load of extra things to code.
Quote from: The Hood on January 24, 2014, 08:52:24 PMYes - I'd tend to agree with that view prissi. If anything I'd be in favour of increasing the scale of vehicles rather than decreasing them. pak128.Britain vehicles could all be scaled up by a factor of 1.25 and still fit on one tile (ie length<16). I've spent some time comparing paksets and from what I can tell pak128 vehicles tend to be slightly wider and taller but a lot shorter (many of them are still exactly half a tile long like in the old days). pak128.german has much larger vehicles than pak128.Britain, although looking at them I suspect they are not 1:1 ratios. Nevertheless they do look good. I've made a trial with your newer vehicles jamespetts and from what I can see exaggerating their widths and heights by a factor of 1.28 seems to give more visually pleasing results.
Quote from: kierongreen on January 25, 2014, 02:40:49 PMFurther to what the Hood has said, I would say that trains should look good next to trams, and trams look good next to buses.
Quote from: kierongreen on January 25, 2014, 09:40:38 PMWe accept that there are different scales going on, that vehicles that are likely to be near each other should have similar but not necessarily identical scales. If trams are 1.25x scale of trains, and buses are 1.25x scale of trams for example it's unlikely that the differences compared to all being at the same scale will be particularly objectionable.
QuoteUltimately having buildings being able to take up several tiles, as well as vehicles able to be several tiles long, possibly combined with each road lane being a tile, no limit of image size, and more realistic curves would possibly enable a consistent scale across all transport types and buildings. That is a long way off - if indeed it is desirable at all.
QuoteP. 79 gives some interesting information on some early (1875) designs of tram engine, these destined for Paris (whose steam tramway was not a success and which reverted to horse operation before electrification in 1896), but designed and built by English company Merryweather & Sons Ltd.. They were vertical boilered engines, although not to the Wilkinson patent, weighing 2t with dimensions of 1.6m long, 2.01m wide and 3.35m high; it had 5" x 9" cylinders with a 90psi boiler. The heating surface and firegrate areas are not given. This was the only locomotive built to these dimensions, the second locomotive, also sent to Paris, had 6" x 9" cylinders and weighed 4t. This latter type of engine became the Merryweather Type 1, and an example belonging to the Wharncliffe National Rifle Association, which used it in an annual makeshift tramway on Wimbledon Common for many years (p. 80).
Quote...it is reported that the (standard gauge) Drypool & Marfleet Steam Tramway Co. paid between £500 and £600 apiece for some Thomas Green tramway engines in May 1889 (a caption on a picture on p. 41 gives a figure of £604 per engine). These were compound engines of two cylinders in an 0-4-0 arrangement with a 5ft wheelbase. Boiler details and cylinder dimensions are not given, but the overall length was given as 11ft 6in, a width of 6ft and a total height of 10ft 4in (not including chimney) (p. 39).
QuoteIn 1905, the LCC ordered a new class E, and built 300 of them (page 41). These were of a bogie type and fully enclosed from new (apart from the driver's position). These were also 33ft 6in long, but only 15ft 9in high. The bodies were apparently of "sturdier construction" than previous cars (implying higher weight), but actual weight is not given. Most class Es were fitted with (again, I assume two) 42hp motors.Classes F and G were single deck cars seating 36, which ran through the Kingsway tunnel before it was enlarged (p. 41). They were 33ft 6in long, ran on bogies, and were 11ft high. Power and weight are not given.
QuoteEdit: Another unverified source, this 'blog comment gives dimensions for the Feltham tram as 40′ 10″ long and 7′ 3″ wide.