Elevation

[HuîtrePsychopathe]

I cannot wait to play this game. I was wondering, does elevation have an effect on track laying? If not will it in the future?

[Weird and Wry]

It does not, and it is not planned to. Proper elevation support requires a 3D or 2.5D PoV and I don't have the resources to make such a game at the level of quality I want to.

[Avantgarde]

Are the contour lines / hill shading at least visible enough at high zoom levels so that we can pretend that there are terrain obstacles? Nonetheless I'm eagerly looking forward to the game!

[Weird and Wry]

Originally posted by Avantgarde:

Are the contour lines / hill shading at least visible enough at high zoom levels so that we can pretend that there are terrain obstacles? Nonetheless I'm eagerly looking forward to the game!

Sort of, it gets blended out at certain point. Otherwise you would get to enjoy the amazing mountain ranges of downtown Manhattan :) My dataset is free but it's not cleaned up.

[Desolan]

While 'proper' elevation control may not be able to be implemented, I wouldn't think that adding different levels of difficult terrain build zones where laying track is more expensive and/or speeds are decreased should be too difficult. It feels a little odd to not be penalized for bulldozing a normal ground line through the mountains after all. Should at least force some of it to be tunnels.

Anyway, one more thing to work towards, keep up the good work.

[InfiNorth]

Originally posted by Desolan:

While 'proper' elevation control may not be able to be implemented, I wouldn't think that adding different levels of difficult terrain build zones where laying track is more expensive and/or speeds are decreased should be too difficult. It feels a little odd to not be penalized for bulldozing a normal ground line through the mountains after all. Should at least force some of it to be tunnels.

Anyway, one more thing to work towards, keep up the good work.

Trains generally do well up and down hills (at least in modern times), it's curvature that is more impactful, and from what I have seen... I think NIMBYRails limits speed based on curve radius.

[Weird and Wry]

Originally posted by Desolan:

While 'proper' elevation control may not be able to be implemented, I wouldn't think that adding different levels of difficult terrain build zones where laying track is more expensive and/or speeds are decreased should be too difficult. It feels a little odd to not be penalized for bulldozing a normal ground line through the mountains after all. Should at least force some of it to be tunnels.

Anyway, one more thing to work towards, keep up the good work.

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

[Fat_Maniac]

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

Originally posted by Desolan:

While 'proper' elevation control may not be able to be implemented, I wouldn't think that adding different levels of difficult terrain build zones where laying track is more expensive and/or speeds are decreased should be too difficult. It feels a little odd to not be penalized for bulldozing a normal ground line through the mountains after all. Should at least force some of it to be tunnels.

Anyway, one more thing to work towards, keep up the good work.

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

I think this will become a necessity fairly quickly. I've been watching some early youtube play, and simply laying track along geographic mountain ranges, is an easy exploit method. You can build great distance at significantly lower cost, as the mountainous regions have less population centres and roads to navigate, with the associated bridge and viaduct building costs. So at the moment for example, the cheapest way to build a pan American line North South appears to be to build along the length of the Rocky And Andes mountain chains. In reality this simply couldn't happen, and is the reason real world railways have to find alternative routes, build very expensive tunnels, and take a big hit on speed finding a twisting path through the terrain. It's a very important aspect to most other rail simulator games. Building a flat world simulation of the real world to street level, for a mode of transport that is probably the most susceptible to gradient changes, is simply not going to end well from a game play viewpoint. I'm not having a go or questioning your judgement. Given the fantastic work you have done to date, I'm sure you will find an acceptable compromise solution, that adds another layer of game play and complexity. I just believe you are going to have to do this sooner than you think.

[power man]

tbh, i'll just use tunnels when it comes to mountains

Originally posted by Fat_Maniac:

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

I think this will become a necessity fairly quickly. I've been watching some early youtube play, and simply laying track along geographic mountain ranges, is an easy exploit method. You can build great distance at significantly lower cost, as the mountainous regions have less population centres and roads to navigate, with the associated bridge and viaduct building costs. So at the moment for example, the cheapest way to build a pan American line North South appears to be to build along the length of the Rocky And Andes mountain chains. In reality this simply couldn't happen, and is the reason real world railways have to find alternative routes, build very expensive tunnels, and take a big hit on speed finding a twisting path through the terrain. It's a very important aspect to most other rail simulator games. Building a flat world simulation of the real world to street level, for a mode of transport that is probably the most susceptible to gradient changes, is simply not going to end well from a game play viewpoint. I'm not having a go or questioning your judgement. Given the fantastic work you have done to date, I'm sure you will find an acceptable compromise solution, that adds another layer of game play and complexity. I just believe you are going to have to do this sooner than you think.

[Weird and Wry]

> I just believe you are going to have to do this sooner than you think.
Since it's not a competitive game, I'm not super concerned about this particular aspect of the cash balance, specially for the first versions which are still waiting big system-level changes like the new tracks. Other worse gremlins are probably waiting right now in the code.

[TransportNut]

Originally posted by Fat_Maniac:

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

I think this will become a necessity fairly quickly. I've been watching some early youtube play, and simply laying track along geographic mountain ranges, is an easy exploit method. You can build great distance at significantly lower cost, as the mountainous regions have less population centres and roads to navigate, with the associated bridge and viaduct building costs. So at the moment for example, the cheapest way to build a pan American line North South appears to be to build along the length of the Rocky And Andes mountain chains. In reality this simply couldn't happen, and is the reason real world railways have to find alternative routes, build very expensive tunnels, and take a big hit on speed finding a twisting path through the terrain. It's a very important aspect to most other rail simulator games. Building a flat world simulation of the real world to street level, for a mode of transport that is probably the most susceptible to gradient changes, is simply not going to end well from a game play viewpoint. I'm not having a go or questioning your judgement. Given the fantastic work you have done to date, I'm sure you will find an acceptable compromise solution, that adds another layer of game play and complexity. I just believe you are going to have to do this sooner than you think.

IMO the game is meant to be more of a sandbox, or at least that's how intend to play. Rather than look for exploits, I'll be tunnelling under or going round mountains etc. to create a realistic network. I don't believe it's a necessary feature.

[Avantgarde]

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

I like the idea of having to avoid high gradients a lot! Weird and Wry, in case you didn't know: QGIS even has a function to convert a DEM to slope data. You can find it under Raster -> Analysis -> Slope

[Fat_Maniac]

[quote=Transport Nut;3112518479603907176

IMO the game is meant to be more of a sandbox, or at least that's how intend to play. Rather than look for exploits, I'll be tunnelling under or going round mountains etc. to create a realistic network. I don't believe it's a necessary feature. [/quote]

Exploit isn't a term I would use. Like you I consider this a sandbox and intend to play it as such. Exploit is a term being used in some of the early youtube video's I've watched from streamers.

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

Originally posted by Desolan:

While 'proper' elevation control may not be able to be implemented, I wouldn't think that adding different levels of difficult terrain build zones where laying track is more expensive and/or speeds are decreased should be too difficult. It feels a little odd to not be penalized for bulldozing a normal ground line through the mountains after all. Should at least force some of it to be tunnels.

Anyway, one more thing to work towards, keep up the good work.

Mmmh, considering gradient instead of elevation, while keeping everything flat, could be workable. The Majestic Manhattan Mountains problem remains, but it's a more workable feature. I will make a low prio note to think more about this, good idea!

Would blocks of terrain be useful? An elevation rounding to create rectangles? Then add a multiple of build costs to represent the up and down nature of the terrain. Even every 1,000 feet would be useful.

Failing that, you could create no-go areas on the map easily enough, for very high elevations.

I saw Colonel Failure build right through 12k mountains...there has to be a solution that doesn't break the CPU/Storage bank.

[Sir Ludicrous]

I agree that an elevation feature would be great to have!
if you can access gradient data, maybe you can prevent the "manhattan mountains" by telling the game to ignore areas of high population density
It would be a simple heuristic ruling that should work very reliably (i cant think of any metropolis thats located in a steep mountain range)

And i think the best way to implement the limitation (if the gradient information thats available allows this) might be, not to make steep tracks more expensive, but to simply not allow tracks to be built if they are too steep.
Though that would also require some sort of info layer so that players know what direction they can build in

[qunow886]

Originally posted by Weird and Wry:

It does not, and it is not planned to. Proper elevation support requires a 3D or 2.5D PoV and I don't have the resources to make such a game at the level of quality I want to.

I think the graphic is less important when it come to elevation support, as the topographic map already do the job. But more importantly, I wish the game would take into account gradient for construction and operation of rail line, as well as the cost of construction for rail line across mountains and ocean.