Most Maintained/Updated Pacset

[thisandthat]

Which pacset is the most updated/maintained 128? 192.comic?

Started at 128 game, and bridges don't work...Made me rethink that pacset and maybe going to 128 German, or 192.

Thanks!

[Andarix]

...

Started at 128 game, and bridges don't work...

see wiki -en_build_bridgetunnel_halfhight

[Roboron]

Currently, 192 seems to be the most active.

But bridges in 128 definitely work!

[Matthew]

Currently, 192 seems to be the most active.

But bridges in 128 definitely work!

This is the third time this year I have seen people confused by the requirement that bridges are 2 levels higher than roads/tracks. I understand their situation, because it's counter-intuitive (everything else in Standard can be built on a neighbouring tile AFAIK). Wouldn't it be better if the default Steam paksets were set to allow bridges to be built at one level above roads and tracks?

[Leartin]

Wouldn't it be better if the default Steam paksets were set to allow bridges to be built at one level above roads and tracks?

I don't think it's helpful to have different behaviour in Steam paksets, as that makes it even more confusing when players of different versions meet (besides disabling shared server games). And it's nice to differentiate waytypes by whether or not steep slopes are available, since that adds to their identity, so having steep ramps for all bridges isn't really an option either. (And changing the setting to allow for lower clearence messes with tunnel portals...)

To me, this does not seem like an issue that the paksets should solve by avoiding game options, rather like something the game itself should handle better. Eg. by introducing bridges with two ramp tiles, allowing to get the required clearance without steep ramps and thus allowing to bridge ways with no need to terraform. Naturally, paksets would need to provide graphics for such ramps, but that's less work even than creating steep slopes...

[prissi]

Road bridges have two ramp tiles and should work in pak128. Just the rail bridges needs two tiles.

One would still need to draw new graphics for a two-tile ramp for quite some of the bridges with different graphics for ramps and span, although for most bridges a pillar would do. And the bridge builder and deleting would need to be extended a lot as it needs to check even more locations before allow to build a bridge. It would also cause new error messages when there is not enough space in front of a line.

It is a long term pak128 issue, but I really would focus on getting the current release out first, so networkgames with Android would work.

[thisandthat]

Currently, 192 seems to be the most active.

But bridges in 128 definitely work!

I'm sure they work....just not how it worked in every last game I've played of Simutrans. Quite a few versions at this point I'm sure.

I"ll try going up a couple levels.

[Andarix]

Road bridges have two ramp tiles and should work in pak128. Just the rail bridges needs two tiles.

One would still need to draw new graphics for a two-tile ramp for quite some of the bridges with different graphics for ramps and span, although for most bridges a pillar would do. And the bridge builder and deleting would need to be extended a lot as it needs to check even more locations before allow to build a bridge. It would also cause new error messages when there is not enough space in front of a line.

...

I think it would help if you could manually select via Ctrl-click whether you want to build single or double height. Analogous to the player buildings, where you can choose the orientation by Ctrl-clicking.

The construction methods with keys and clicking or dragging with the mouse are so diverse that it is difficult to remember. Especially since it is not documented which combination can be used to build which bridge height.

[prissi]

The problem is that there are no rail bridge heads for double height. So the bridge builder forbid such bridges.

[Leartin]

One would still need to draw new graphics for a two-tile ramp for quite some of the bridges with different graphics for ramps and span, although for most bridges a pillar would do.

Technically, this issue is just about ease of building the bridge. The logic required for the bridgebuilder to place double-ramps could instead be used to raise the ground, mimiking what players do now, and this is eligible for all paksets without need for extra graphics. Two-tile ramp graphics make sense, but are admittedly just eye candy.



The goal needs to be 'player can build non-level crossing with one tool', no matter how it works internally.

[prissi]

I agree, but raising tiles or ramps with pillars, both would need quite a lot changes to the bridge builder ...