Merging tracks (build-mode)

[Praetorian_INTP]

(TL;DR version: is there a way to suppress the auto-snap functions for merging tracks in build-mode?)

I gotta say: I am extremely frustrated, when in comes to the issue of intersections in this game.
Not having the ability, to "cross" tracks, is really annoying as is, but when I try to build under or over it, more frustration emerges.
Building underneath seems to be prohibited; like there is no possibility to press "page down" on even ground to tunnel under an existing rail, atleast not in the scenario I am doing this in.

So... this only leaves me with building bridges over the damn thing.
I really wish there was a specific tool, that allowed me, to have the minimum required hight (automatically), while I just tell the thing how much slope I find acceptable.
But instead I have to do it all by hand.

Here's the thing: the game already frustrated me with merging tracks when I just want to build in parallel; the snap-function is really annoying at times. (also: what is it the "collision" logic, for when a track supposedly interferes with another and can't be build? The logic seems weird at times...)
But when it comes to building a bridge, esp. at an angle (unavoidable, due to terrain!), the game constantly wants to force me to merge with the tracks I want to cross, even though, my new track is supposed to be on hight +4, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥!

It makes no sense, and it really has me cooled off with this game.
The track-layouts which are possible are already very restricted, as is, but forcing a merging of tracks, 4 "hights" down from where the track is supposed to be, is just bonkers...
Is there no way to suppress this with some hotkey which I missed ? (I didn't find any)
Same with parallel-building; hotkeys would do so much for better control...

[Devilhunter]

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

So... this only leaves me with building bridges over the damn thing.

Yeah. It's the only way :(

[Praetorian_INTP]

I still need (desperately!) a hotkey or something, to toggle those auto-merging and auto-paralleling functions on or off.
They are interfering with my plans 9 times out of 10 (not exaggerating! - I have to redo, and redo, and redo again, over and over and over, because the most minute bit too close, and the thing snaps back in where it MUSTN'T...)
I am close to [literally] pulling my hair out over this annoyance, but so far I resorted to a number of ALT+F4 substitute actions...

-.-

Also: the fact that rails collide with rails ("structures"), to the point, where they interfere with THEMSELVES, constantly having to rip out build tracks, over and over again (or reloading to the point, where non of my whiskey is ever produced, because it resets the progress every goshdamn time!!!)... it's exhausting.
Trying to build neat mergers and whatnot, under these conditions, is a literal pain in the you-know-what . . .

At this point, I am wasting thousands upon thousands of dollars, just so I can avoid all the "collisions", that, most of the time, make no sense to me, as I am already keenly aware, and try to plan well in advance for this NOT to happen.

[Praetorian_INTP]

hm....
You know: If there was a "button" for building bridges, even w/o the desired functionality I expressed above, most of this could be avoided...

If I am building at a "+4",
then, it should be obvious,
[that] I do not wish to merge with tracks underneath (jumping over them, not intermingling with them, is the very thing I desire!).

If there was a "build bridge" button (pressed for that very moment (hold? toggle?)), that avoided unwanted merging of tracks, it could even allow me, to "snap" parallel to the track underneath (with the foot of my current track-portion / endpoint),
in order to find the perfect point for my [to-be-built] track to slope from "+0" to "+4" (thus giving me better control (finding the perfect jump-off-point),
in order to get the slope I wanted (3 or 4 or 5... I am not even sure, how much these numbers mean in terms of accelleration for the trains; but 7, 8 or more seems excessive!), just in time to have the perfect hight RIGHT THERE.
... then the same for the opposite side
... then slope back down to "+0".
... done!

Also...
What would I give, to have a "build 2 or 3 tracks in parallel" functionality!
It would allow me to avoid ripping out parts of tracks [over and over again] to find perfect solutions [for the most part, I guess...].
I want one-way-tracks, double layouts, for minimizing conflicting-usage by opposing trains!

EDIT:
You know what... this all points back to the desired functionality, of suppressing [individually] either
a) the forced merging of tracks (and the snap-in for those)
b) the forced paralleling of tracks
... subduing the forced mergers, would already give me the desired functionality, I suppose!
So, the only question that remains is:
toggle?
- or hold?

[Devilhunter]

Railroad snap probably could be modded 🤔, but I wish I had time to do that now. Because when I have time, you probably won't be playing 🙈
Either due to loss of interest or due to exceeding the level of irritation.

[Praetorian_INTP]

Originally posted by Devilhunter:

Railroad snap probably could be modded 🤔, but I wish I had time to do that now. Because when I have time, you probably won't be playing 🙈
Either due to loss of interest or due to exceeding the level of irritation.

Yours or mine? (irritaton/interest)

Also: what do you mean by the time-constraint?
Where are you from (/located right now), if I may ask?
(For myself: I am German, living in Germany; that would be "CEST", if I am not mistaken. We are talking timezones here, right?)

[Devilhunter]

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

Originally posted by Devilhunter:

Either due to loss of interest or due to exceeding the level of irritation.

Yours or mine? (irritaton/interest)

your

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

Originally posted by Devilhunter:

Also: what do you mean by the time-constraint?
Where are you from (/located right now), if I may ask?
(For myself: I am German, living in Germany; that would be "CEST", if I am not mistaken. We are talking timezones here, right?)

I'm not only a moderator here, but also one of the developers. Now we are very focused on Railroad Corporation 2. We have to release it this year, we can't postpone game release any further.
There are a few months left to end of the year and still a lot of work to do.

[Praetorian_INTP]

Originally posted by Devilhunter:

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

Yours or mine? (irritaton/interest)

your

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

I'm not only a moderator here, but also one of the developers. Now we are very focused on :rrctrain: Railroad Corporation 2. We have to release it this year, we can't postpone game release any further.
There are a few months left to end of the year and still a lot of work to do.

huh!
I was wondering, anyway, why some "mere moderator" would care to contemplate a "mod", that would fix the problem I did describe; though, some people out there are very dedicated, so I didn't want to rule out anything...

... interesting :D

btw.: I played the demo (RC2); and some of the things one could do with those finance-employees was insane! ^^ (also: the clutter of unsigned employees got unbearable, after a while; or the interface in general)

Even just an army of "+4% to coal sales" employees, could do tremendous work, rendering other enterprises useless (having to build dorms all over the place was dwarved by the outlook of printing money free of charge with them... other than wages, which are manageable). This, and the fact, that these mechanics allowed me to sell paper to the books factory at a higher price, than it did cost me to purchase their books... xD

Maybe "dorms" isn't the best solution, of how to enhance office space . . .

Anyway: the demo got me curious; your original game was once on my wishlist, but I only bought it (dirt cheap), after the rc2 demo got me intrigued.
... I miss those times, when demo versions were the norm, not the exception :(
(... the time, when printed gaming-magazines were still relevant, with their added CDs, full of demoversions and patches; and a free game here and there)

...
-- aaaaanyway: I wish you best of luck to your project!
I am looking forward to what you guys(&and gals?) will have cooked up with your second version.
I do remember, that cross[-connect-]ing tracks was possiblle in the demoversion, so this would address most of my concerns above (if the auto mergers and auto-paralleling would be left to the discretion of the player, to toggle on or off (even mid-build), at will...); but only for THAT game.

[Praetorian_INTP]

another thing (concerning the rc2 demoversion):
it felt very unfair, to go bankrupt (w/o warning), at the end of the year thanks to "taxes"; esp. since they were calculated weirdly (quarterly? -- but paid annually? ... not a good angle from a players perspective). I didn't even know what happened at first, and had to work it out myself, little by little, since there was no proper message linking one issue to the other...
I was lucky, that I had a bunch of products still laying around, which I had to sell to the cities, asap, in order to avoid that devious pitfall!
Note, that my company was doing very well at that point, I just didn't have the money in raw funds to pay those unannounced (!) taxes xD

I had huge pile of notes I took from that demo, but never cared to make it into a discussion article/adding it to the discussion of the demo itself...

[Devilhunter]

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

Even just an army of "+4% to coal sales" employees, could do tremendous work, rendering other enterprises useless (having to build dorms all over the place was dwarved by the outlook of printing money free of charge with them... other than wages, which are manageable). This, and the fact, that these mechanics allowed me to sell paper to the books factory at a higher price, than it did cost me to purchase their books... xD

Maybe "dorms" isn't the best solution, of how to enhance office space . . .

I hope thing things will be balanced later. Especially with more reports from players.

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

Anyway: the demo got me curious; your original game was once on my wishlist, but I only bought it (dirt cheap), after the rc2 demo got me intrigued.
... I miss the time, when demo versions were the norm, not the exception :(

These days I see more and more demos available for games. Not for expensive ones though.

[/quote]
I hope thing things will be balanced later. Especially with more reports from players.

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

-- aaaaanyway: I wish you best of luck to your project!
I am looking forward to what you guys(&and gals?) will have cooked up with your second version.

Thank you

[Devilhunter]

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

another thing (concerning the rc2 demoversion):
it felt very unfair, to go bankrupt (w/o warning), at the end of the year thanks to "taxes"; esp. since they were calculated weirdly (quarterly? -- but paid annually? ... not a good angle from a players perspective). I didn't even know what happened at first, and had to work it out myself, little by little, since there was no proper message linking one issue to the other...
I was lucky, that I had a bunch of products still laying around, which I had to sell to the cities, asap, in order to avoid that devious pitfall!
Note, that my company was doing very well at that point, I just didn't have the money in raw funds to pay those unannounced (!) taxes xD

I had huge pile of notes I took from that demo, but never cared to make it into a discussion article/adding it to the discussion of the demo itself...

Agree. I had the same problem during my playtest. I just lost the game and couldn't figure out why. So this problem eventually will be fix somehow. Otherwise I think it may generate many negative reviews with headers like this

RANDOM GAMEOVER! DEVS, DO SOMETHING
I've lost the game and don't understand why. ☝

[Praetorian_INTP]

Originally posted by Devilhunter:

Originally posted by Praetorian_INTP:

another thing (concerning the rc2 demoversion):
it felt very unfair, to go bankrupt (w/o warning), at the end of the year thanks to "taxes"; esp. since they were calculated weirdly (quarterly? -- but paid annually? ... not a good angle from a players perspective). I didn't even know what happened at first, and had to work it out myself, little by little, since there was no proper message linking one issue to the other...
I was lucky, that I had a bunch of products still laying around, which I had to sell to the cities, asap, in order to avoid that devious pitfall!
Note, that my company was doing very well at that point, I just didn't have the money in raw funds to pay those unannounced (!) taxes xD

I had huge pile of notes I took from that demo, but never cared to make it into a discussion article/adding it to the discussion of the demo itself...

Agree. I had the same problem during my playtest. I just lost the game and couldn't figure out why. So this problem eventually will be fix somehow. Otherwise I think it may generate many negative reviews with headers like this

RANDOM GAMEOVER! DEVS, DO SOMETHING
I've lost the game and don't understand why. ☝

ha!
Atleast I can pride myself in having figured out what went wrong (without notification!)

"Death 'n taxes...", amIright?
Death, taxes and negative reviews...

anyway: all the best, to your endeavors!