[2.0.15] Elevated Rail 90 degree turn not possible?

[Kezbar]

I was trying to recreate the exit to elevated rail from train stops shown in the friday facts 378.

For some reason the rail planner would not allow me to connect to a rail support from rail ramp in clean 90 degree.

Base Premise.png (7.08 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

Bottom is the 90 degree elevated rail between 2 rail supports that I am trying to recreate with ramp and support.

from support to ramp.png (6.29 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

planner is trying to place a support in place of ramp

from ramp to support.png (6.45 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

planner places another support right in front of the targeted support

as aside i tried to pre build the rails to force it to connect, but....

prebuilt elevated rail.png (6.4 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

prebuilt elevated rail middle support.png (6.28 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

prebuilt elevated rail middle support 2.png (6.65 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

[mmmPI]

have you tried without the rail planner ?

[Kezbar]

have you tried without the rail planner ?

What do you mean by without rail planner? isn't the rail planner automatically used when extending the rail segment?

if you mean not from the map and from the character inventory then yes, it seems to behave the same.

[mmmPI]

What do you mean by without rail planner? isn't the rail planner automatically used when extending the rail segment?

if you mean not from the map and from the character inventory then yes, it seems to behave the same.

No i mean manually placing the support manually, it seem you placed a few and expect the rail planner to finish, but it is possible if you try to mix both that you end up asking the rail planner something it can't do, as it would have placed the support that were manually placed differently and can't finish.


Edit :

planner is trying to place a support in place of ramp

At this stage, while you have "shift" pressed for the rail planner, you can press "R" to ask it to try different positionning, maybe it can find a solution but it's not it's first guess

[boskid]

11-10-2024, 12-27-37.png (640.94 KiB) Viewed 1092 times

is not full 90 deg until rail support.

11-10-2024, 12-28-07.png (378.32 KiB) Viewed 1092 times

[BlueTemplar]

Ah, I see the difference, despite the end of the rail ramp looking exactly like a support, it isn't 'flexible' enough to fit a curved rail :

90deg_supports_vs_90_deg_ramp.jpg (1.06 MiB) Viewed 1059 times

Still, despite not being a bug, expect amateurs of neat rail layouts to complain endlessly about this issue.

[boskid]

Because end of the ramp contains a straight piece of rail, it already consumed "2" from the support distance provided by the visually embedded rail support so there is not enough for 2 bendy rails.

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, meanwhile supports can be placed with only partial rails or even no rails :

[mmmPI]

Yeah, meanwhile supports can be placed with only partial ralis or even no rails :

placing support without rails at first helps a lot for counting and seeing things

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, the question is :
should you be able to place ramps too without the «ending rails» ? (Especially the elevated end ending rail ?)
(how about no rail at all ??)
(yes, I know, the recipe might need to be tweaked too)

Of course, this might add extra complications graphics-wise ?
(EDIT : Or worse : signal-wise ??)

[Kezbar]

11-10-2024, 12-27-37.png

is not full 90 deg until rail support.

11-10-2024, 12-28-07.png

Welp missed that,

it disheartens me a bit that i cannot make perfect 90 degrees right from the ramp, but I guess I will just have to come with other designs to satisfy my OCD.