Possible idea - implementation of existing real world railway lines

[PhUnKi_Ro0sTa]

Hi all,

I actually find it hard to design real world railways from scratch, therefore, I propose that existing real world rail lines be implemented in the game from the start, however they are able to be modified, built on top of, stations moved, speed limits changed independently, etc. This could give new players ideas on how to improve existing rail lines instead of having to build them from scratch.

Thoughts?

Cheers

Jamie

[robertklein78]

I think that would take away the core of the game. And yes, designing and adapting lines yourself is more challenging, but also more rewarding. This already is more a simulation then a game, so taking away the little game-element would make it too much bare-boned.

[coenvijge]

Yes, it would take away a big part of the fun of the game. For me it's a lot about building.

Apart from that it would be a very hard job to get the railway map in the game. As far as I know there is only one good digital railway map that you could use: the Open Railway Map. It is based on Open Streetmap. But it isn't perfect. Sometimes you'll find only the main tracks, sometimes you'll find some tracks extra, sometimes you find almost every track. And, due to the way it is made, it's hard to tell if the map on the spot you are using is up to date or not. You can look at Google Earth, but also that can give allready historical information.

[xsrvmy]

Actually what would be more useful is a layer to show IRL tracks so that you can actually build them accurately.
I think OSM uses polygons so the shapes wouldn't work with the current building system.

[MatCauthon1327]

I'd love to have the option of importing existing rail networks from openrailwaymap, as trying to accurately recreate real world networks is a pain in my behind, I have much more fun building new stuff entirely, and wish I could connect that new stuff to what I know is there in real life but I can't be bothered to recreate.

[Josquius]

This is what the game needs as it approaches the final version yes.

[power man]

it would take away the core function and uniqueness of the game, players would complain since they would lose the satisfaction of building from scratch just like the real railway engineers like Stephenson or Brunel, those men were pioneers of intercity lines and it feels great knowing the obstacles they had to overcome when building lines

[MatCauthon1327]

Originally posted by power man:

it would take away the core function and uniqueness of the game, players would complain since they would lose the satisfaction of building from scratch just like the real railway engineers like Stephenson or Brunel, those men were pioneers of intercity lines and it feels great knowing the obstacles they had to overcome when building lines

That's why it should be an option; some people will want to go from scratch and others from pre-exisiting infrastructure. Having an option hurts nobody.

[Crane_33A]

this game is meant to express your own idea of what the railway network should be like.You CAN bring real world design to your imaginary network or even just build a same one as the real world,but simply putting on a layer of real world network will really decrease its fun.At least this should be optional.

[MirkoC407]

Originally posted by sunjiahesfls:

simply putting on a layer of real world network will really decrease its fun.At least this should be optional.

For sure optional. But I am building two networks, based on states I back then created for a browser based political game. And I find myself using in both cases mostly the real networks, rebuilding closed lines or adding more. Plus in both cases the real capitals not being parts of my covered area I need to rearrange some lines to my fictional centres. Having the real network and just editing it for increasing lines speeds, doubling or quadrupling tracks and adding lines not existing (ever or anymore) in reality would siginificantly decrease my "sensless" building time and actually *increase* my fun. However I understand your point though and for sure it should be optional. Once we have a working economy I'd probably try a network on a white sheet of paper either.

[power man]

honestly, i doubt the dev will ever do it, optional or not, since i think he explained why he wouldn't put the tracks back many times, im fine with his decision because even though i can see the fun of it for other ppl, theres nothing like the satisfaction of building everything yourself

[beth, 324]

I agree with the idea of it being an optional *graphical* layer only. Especially on longer rural routes, it's easier and more fun for me to just follow the existing railroad lines when it's a couple hundred miles between major metropolitan areas, rather than just placing down track randomly. I would love to be able to see real railroads on the map; would not enjoy having it actually place them in game as tracks.

[PhUnKi_Ro0sTa]

I think the layer would be great as you could use the IRL lines as a reference guide.

[Wittner]

Seems to me the option to overlay a rail image layer (screengrab or other jpg/png) would be a great addition. If people don't want to use it of course nobody is forcing them to. Can't imagine it's a big problem to implement if you don't need to actually import track data. You may well be designing new rail networks, but I imagine that would often need to link to existing networks and if you don't want to spend time re-laying existing track this would certainly help you get your new creations off the ground.

If this is early access I think the developer should be open to the needs/wants/ideas of their customer rather than telling people exactly what the game is about and forcing opinions on people. I'm sure that's not of interest to anybody creating a game. Making their game come to life is important but I'm sure flexibility and choice play a part too.

[WolfHugo]

as soon as save game sharing is implemented, you can load a savegame and improve/change that layout. And as many people are building real world railways, it should not be too difficult, to find a rail network, you are interested in.

[adlet]

I just laid a few thousand miles of track that copies a real railroad. In most instances it was easy to do because NIMBY map shows a different color for the tract of land the line uses. I was still checking Google Maps and ORM throughout those miles to make my track closer to real. In other places it was difficult because the NIMBY map did not capture properly the real landscape from OSM/ORM, or perhaps because it was just a barren plain with not much there. Overall I find having a layer that would show existing tracks would have been helpful, though I would not want to see them when not laying track, they would be too much in the way (and most of them would be freight only track).

There is a big difference between incorporating an image layer (just some color lines as in ORM, that would show against another color background that already exists) and having actual pre-built lines. The former would simply show as guides and you would still need to build all track, e.g. right on top of the existing track.

Doing actual pre-built lines matching real track is probably not realistic. Probably good 90% of the world's rail track at stations is freight use only. This is what I realized laying my thousands of miles. A station has 40 tracks, and of those only 5 are for passenger trains, plus say a few tracks for train layover or maintenance. There is no way to tell what is where, unless you study how trains operate at this particular station. Also, ORM is not always accurate with crossovers (I find many are missing in various areas, especially between main line tracks).

May be if there is a line-only layer there could be a function to select a particular area (e.g. a rectangle) and convert any lines inside it into track of a particular type. Then you would still need to do plenty of finetuning, but at least the base is there.

One practical trick I will share that I am using now when laying track over long distances is this. This helps deal with the lack of a track layer by making the process more streamlined.

People want to build railroads as straight as possible. So real railroads tend to be long stretches of straights, connected by curves as needed. Of course, in the mountains etc. the straight stretches may be relatively short, but I find they are still there most of the time (in other words, not many true S-curves without a straight stretch).

So I replicate this when laying track, and I find this makes the process easier. My first pass is to lay straights only (single or double track as applicable), the entire distance that can be a few hundred miles long. Laying straights is very easy.

Then I go back to the start and my second pass is add curves to connect the straights. For most connections you need no or just one additional spot for a smooth curve connection. (More will be required for longer curves.) This is also fairly easy. I also add spots as needed to convert track to bridges or tunnels during this second pass. This part has become a lot easier with 1.6 functionality.

I typically add platforms in a separate process as well, made a lot easier with 1.6.