Friday Facts #377 - New new rails

[Tooster]

Awesome changes.

There is one thing I don't quite understand yet, and would love some clarification: Why must rails be constrained to grid at all?
I'm asking because I'm curious what bad things would result if rail control points could be placed anywhere. By default they could be snapped to integer coordinates like they are now, but holding shift to fine-control the control point could allow for the ultimate flexibility. Things like "project point onto bezier" and "distance to bezier" would then be used to assure that curves aren't placed too close.

Any rail-related things could then be stored separate from the tiles, so that signals, rails, stops etc could be placed compactly everywhere. They would just snap to the curve (positions represented in "rail space" as distance along the curve instead of the "tile space"). When there is a need to interface between rail-world and other machines, the rails would only have to be "close enough".

Another thing I was thinking about: being able to put signals right beside rails with no spacing between other rails (like on last screenshot from this FFF). Dual grid or something? Visually it looks like signals could fit between one rail or the other, so it's sometimes sad that "it looks like it would fit but there is no free tile space so it can't be placed here"

I was also often wondering that signals could be placed directly in the middle of the rails, on the boards. It would probably solve a lot of pain coming from trying to design compact junctions and fitting the signals. Sometimes the constraints for placing signals on diagonals and curves are just too limiting.

I would really love to see more possibilities of placing signals, train stations and other related things on curves and diagonals.

Finally, I would really love to see some changes to hotkeys related to rotating rails while planning (maybe with ctrl+mouse wheel?) and some improved mode of planning ghost tracks through existing entities like belts. Sometimes I wish I could plan a track but it crosses a bus, so I'd like to deconstruct appropriate part of the bus/upgrade it to undergrounds and still plan the tracks.

[ickputzdirwech]

Awesome news! May I ask if you also fixed these two bugs while you were at it: 82754 and 51753?

[pleegwat]

I'm unsure about the 'old geometry' compatibility. If the old geometry still works in 2.0, then players are probably not going to fix it right then and there, and will end up still having to redo their entire rail network once 2.1 deletes their rails, or having to redo large swathes because a biter ate a curved segment.

I also echo attaching signals to rails directly, without forcing them onto the grid.

[SlicedUp]

Amazing and very excited to play it!

Any chance elevated trains could be a thing? Even just a native second level allowed and let the modders fill in the rest...

[FuryoftheStars]

I like everything about this one.
(Edit: Oh, except I guess I'm (somewhat) indifferent on the big pole wire reach. In a way, I liked it being 30 simply because it wasn't chunk aligned. )

Would be great if multiple rail types (for speed bonus/penalties) could be in 2.0, but ya know. I do realize this may not make it due to the possibility of increased UPS overhead as the train needs to check each rail segment as it goes over, though I suppose that depends on how it's implemented.

This looks wonderful! I'm wondering, is signaling even possible in the last image?

Nope, and never has been. Still could have use cases, I guess, though.

-------------------------

Also I don’t think anyone here would be mad if you broke saves. If breaking saves is going to happen in 2.1 I’d rather wish it happens when 2.0 is released. Honestly why bother keeping compatibility for such a big update. This is a chance for the developers to add features that were not possible before. Limiting yourselves I feel

There shouldn't be much issue in just leaving it, but this is also something that they've done for every x.x version change. I have also seen a number of people talk about their factories that they've had since 0.14/0.15 running on 1.1 because they upgrade it with each release. I imagine they would not be happy if 2.0 was a breaking update.

-------------------------

One thing I would love to see would be a rail planner that allowed you to plan long distance rails with multiple parallel tracks and the ability to separately (and/or together) route around trees, rocks, or cliffs. Personally, I really hate harming trees, and can't harm cliffs until I have cliff explosives (and I prefer not to anyway), but I could care less about rocks. And I also want two or possibly 4 parallel lines. The current option for tree, cliff and rock avoidance works for me, but it's really fiddly to manage multiple parallel lines.

Ideally, it might be nice to associate a cost for mowing down a tree, rock or cliff and have the planner act accordingly. Something like, an ordinary tile is 1 point, every tree is worth 4 points, a tile with a rock is 1 point, and a cliff tile is 20 points.

The people who talk the most seem to go for 'chunk aligned rail blueprints' and just stomp their way across the landscape with these. I really prefer a more organic look to my factories. I only use blueprints for intersections.

I love the changes you've describe in this FFF though. Thank you!

Absolutely 100% agree! Would be awesome to have like a UI interface for the ghost rail planner where you could select obstacle avoidance, what it avoids, costs to the avoidance, how many parallel tracks, automatic signal placement with distance between signals. Kind of like FARL, but with ghost planning.

Edit: Have this UI and its functionality be moddable, too, so that modders can add in extra things, like power poles, lights, etc.

[Lacero]

I love it so much I even bothered to comment. Thanks

[Xyletic]

I really like this change, it's "simple" on paper, but will add so much benefit to the game. I do have a question though.



For this image, and perhaps a point I missed, will we be able to also signal in-between these gaps now? As much as the image is a dream come true, without signaling, this specific example won't add too much value to the new system unfortunately.

Thanks!

[deegeeooh]

The new rails come as a free update with 2.0 even when you don't buy the expansion!

That's great, but seriously, like any single factorio player wouldn't buy the expansion

Really great stuff, I love my trains and the new graphics and possibilities look great!

Awesome stuff ! Can't wait to reinvigorate my factorio addiction !

[Justderpingalong]

This is wonderful... but there is one thing... I do wonder how the hell FARL is going to cope with all of this... that'll probably need to be rewritten entirely. But yes, the new rails look AWESOME and I can't wait to get my hands on them.

[SnowZyDe]

Dear developers, what you are doing is super. I've been playing for a long time and I think it's time to add bridges to the game. With the help of bridges, we could lay rails on water, over forests and mountains without destroying them.

[Locane]

All around excellent update. I was struck by the graphics as well, and I can't wait to place less frustrating rails!

Release when??

[fusionfan]

NGL, I'm not super thrilled - the changes are OK, but there were already ways to connect nearby rails in a tight fit (train stackers hellooo), and having to redo hundreds of blueprints which might have curled rails in them (e.g. cityblock bluperints) will be a major pain.

Unlike the other FFFs I don't see the major problem that this change is trying to address, but it costs us savegame and blueprint compatibility (tho I guess that may be screwed by other things eventually anyway).

[chickdan]

So many amazing updates coming with 2.0 but few of them are considered breaking changes. Oh how I wish we could get these as 1.x releases instead of waiting!

[IForgotMyName]

I wonder if the new type of diagonal rails were placed as close together as possible, would it be a normal two-lane railway? If yes, then the width of the wagons should be no more than 57 pixels so that the trains do not collide

[SnowZyDe]

what will happen to the rails?

[saturn7]

Did you ever consider removing the restriction that rails needed to be aligned to the 2x2 grid, so blueprints with rails could be moved by a single tile?

[pointa2b]

With everything we know so far about the DLC, its definitely coming together into something very exciting. And just to think, we're only a handful of FFF's in! This game has come such a long way since being introduced to it nearly 8 years ago. I'm beyond excited to try it out the day it comes out, and I know I'll be into the game just like when I first discovered it. Great work Wube.

[BrainlessTeddy]

Holy crap that is incredible. You can split rails in two and have a 2 tile gab exactly in the center. That's a gamechanger. Never thought much of the rails except for how the curve doesn't really look as smooth with the straight piece in the middle. But even the curves look better now.

And on top of that the new graphics. That is f*cking wild.

[OldFart]

TBH, All this chnges required a lot of work, but changes for player experience are minimal.
Tunnels and/or bridges - that is what we need for good bases

[dasiro]

Is it too much to be asking for signals to be part of the track? If you increase the amount of rails in a single shape for example:

• no signals
• 1 light
• 2 lights
• 1 chain
• 2 chains
• 1 light 1 chain

then you should need to put logic in place that you can't put 2 signal rails on top of each other and suddenly creating a railsystem is simplified tremendously + you could get rid of left/right hand side designs by just using a mirror image