Make rails follow the terrain

[mumia]

How can I force the game to lay rails following the terrain?
It always tries to construct cuts or bridges or enbankments everywhere sometimes raising the price by several magnitudes.

The only way to get around that is to build the track from very short segments at a time. And adjusting the height manually for each segment. But even then it will create some cuts and banks only slihtly smaller ones.

So Is there a way to force the rails to be on the existing terrain withot any earth moving?

[dave]

Nup. Short lengths and working with hight lines on is about the only way to do it.

It doesn't bother me as I love that aspect of the game. But it can be a pain at times and you need to be able to read the lay of the land somewhat, which I appreciate is not everybodies idea of fun.

[𝓕𝔁]

Railway track has limitations to slope gradient, therefore, the game is trying to provide the best possible compromise between slope and speed, which is why longer tracks try and stay more level, to allow the train to travel at a more consistent velocity.

If it was to follow the terrain, it would be very unrealistic.

[mumia]

It's very inconvenient. That the shorter segments you use the cheaper the construction will be.

[mumia]

Originally posted by FX2K:

Railway track has limitations to slope gradient, therefore, the game is trying to provide the best possible compromise between slope and speed, which is why longer tracks try and stay more level, to allow the train to travel at a more consistent velocity.

If it was to follow the terrain, it would be very unrealistic.

The game is the exact opposite of compromise it tries to create the whole segment as a straight line (from the height profile perspective) That's the issue here. It has nothing to do with realism.

[dave]

Actually, there is something else you can do which takes much of the 'sting' out of steep inclines.
As in real life, you can 'double head' your trains. That is use two locos to pull a train.
Yes, expensive to set up and with high maintainance cost, but in the right place, they can also be a huge money earner.

[𝓕𝔁]

If you had constant steep hills up and down, all your trains would be slowing to a crawl multiple times on their trip, whereas building a long track tries to make it so you get the best possible speed with the lowest possible slope gradient. Trains can't go up steep hills.

So whilst it's inconvenient, it's also inconvenient in real llife. Build your tracks following the contour lines (or thereabouts). Its all part of the game, planning the most efficient route you can.

[mumia]

I don't think either of you understands the actual issue here. A straight line from a rail profile view is not the most efficient way to connect two stations.

The way I would've implemented this is to have the player set the maximal slope and the game should only create banks where neccessary to keep the inclination bellow the desired value. Having a track that has the same inlcination from beginning to end has no benefits. Noone in their right mind would build a 50m enbankment to keep the track at the same height above sea level. When the slope in the same place without embankment would be less than 0.5%

Either way thank you for the answers. There is no way around it in the game, I understand, you don't need to ideologize it.

[saturn__7]

When you lay a track from A to B, the game will use the same slope everywhere (with some differences at the endpoints, to make slope not changing abruptly).

By pressing 'm' and 'n', you can change the elevation of the mid point, and making the rail fit the terrain a little bit better. Otherwise, as have been said, the best advice is using only short tracks.

[krist.vanbesien]

Originally posted by mumia:

The way I would've implemented this is to have the player set the maximal slope and the game should only create banks where neccessary to keep the inclination bellow the desired value.

You can do that. Click on the slope arrow and you can fix it to constant value.
When I need to build a line up a hillside I always to it like this:
- Switch on height contours.
- Set a constant incline.
- Build the line in short segments, following the countours.

That way I do get a line that quite realistically snakes uphill along a hillside. Exactly like in real life...

[Pyoro-2]

The thing with short segments - and I don't know if this is just me, or something with the game - is that I occasionally get unexplained "speed bumps" in the tracks, even when the construction shows full speed: trains that run over them just suddenly slow down and then accelerate again. It's very annoying since there isn't really any display that at one glance would show such problematic segments ...

Also, short segments sometimes create really ugly up-down rides; nothing how a train line would ever be build. So with both short and long segments its (at least if you care about aesthetics and such) important to keep a close eye on what the tools propose to build.

[robrassler]

I don't go with the realism thing, realism kills games, like flight simulators, they used to be joystick up, down, left, right, with speed forward and back. Then the writers got on the realism thing, most of us are not pilots and never will be, realism just made it dull. Gads I even saw one where the loading of passengers was long-slow-slow, just sat at the terminal waiting for late comers .. No, sod realism, we want it game-like.

In TF2 When you are trying to wind up a hill, Or a Snowdonia-like train up a hill, you don't want to be limited to a track laying system that was created by members of the flat earth society.

I have played Trainz, and I have played Transport fever.
Trainz is much freer when working on different levels, and much easier to deal with large areas of terrain.
Whereas, TF2 is much easier with cities and controlling vehicles.

If only we could merge the two together somehow. It isn't far fetched, they are so obviously sat on the same terrain engine.

[Tsubame ⭐]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and mine is that a degree of realism is required to make games fun, and that the mechanics of Transport Fever 1 and 2 (this is the forum for the 1st) are very fine as they are.

In fact, I use them as my city builder of choice because of the shortcomings regarding transport simulation/building/realism of City Skylines.

If you want a flight "arcade" game go play some free to play cell phone game lol. A "simulator" should be as realistic as possible. Transport Fever's mechanics are nowhere as hard as playing the latest flight simulators anyway.

Regarding the OP, if the issue is the uneven terrain surrounding the rail/roads after building, you can always smooth the terrain around them after building them up. A straight line connecting two stations/points is almost always the most cost-efficient way to build things, but may not result in the look you are aiming for.

[waite]

I build in short segments and get the ugly up-down rides that @Pyoro-2 mentioned. After I'm finished I go back and delete a couple segments at a time and replace with a longer segment. The result is a smoother track, but it is tedious and not perfect.