Train cornering speed limit - variable radius corners

[SkiCarver]

Ok, now without ironic: Thank you for making your standpoint clear.

ssilk, do we need to create a 'suggestion' thread for the ideas in this thread in order for the devs to assess them, or do they read these threads?

[Koub]

The devs read most, if not all the topics. However, if the people discussing here feel it would make sense to syntesise the whole discussion into something understandable, coherent, and suggestion-friendly, feel free to do so.

Or, if you all think the thread is already all that, I can move it into the suggestions subforum - or Ssilk can do it too .

[mmmPI]

I would be happy to see more developpement on the rail system, because I consider myself an experienced player now, train was one of the first thing I fiddle around when begining and also what hook me up the most was the mess i was creating with chain signal, and after 100 hours in a week or two, i was able to to do what i wanted and realised the game has so much potential and bought it.

Having things "locked behind technologies" is a good thing as it helps new player to focus on the essential at first. It answer one aspect of the item bloat that seems to be considered a problem, where some other games would sell it as " extra moar content ".

You can turn of pollution or biters completely, it allows for replayability since what is the most efficient with one set of setting isn't with another.

There could be a setting to turn on " Railways realism " which wouldn't be a perfect realistic one, but could allow for the tweaking of some parameter, one being a tickbox for " realistic curves " , and a slider for " impact of curve on the speed for train " and maybe one for "Grid snapping 8 - 16 direction".

So you could play with more pieces after a few hours in , when you start tweaking the settings, you could make it easier , by playing with more pieces but not care about speed yet, and eventually you could configure yourself a harder settings where you only have the " most realistic curves only" and set the " impact of curve on the speed for train " to the maximum.

Why not a freeform one ?, well that will make it hard to blueprint, will create weird interaction for when you reach the limits, like hyper minimalist setup, i doubt it is easy or even doable with the game engine. Those are the reasons i don't see it happening, it seems like a non-sense to a devs point of view as Hannu pointed out.

The ideal would be if you don't have to load and keep in memory the extra sprite when you don't plan to use them, which would be the case if it was like an "official" mod , this would keep the minimum specs fairly low, thanks to the great work on optimisation, and would also widen the number of people that could enjoy playing factorio on laptops during a train travel irl for example


EDIT: i should have refreshed before posting,

now we need to open a new poll to know if we consider the thread readable enough to be moved to the suggestion area ( this is ironic ) , it would be easier to read if the proposed picture for the new rail were easy to find and were only explained by 1 coherent explanation, with option for poll that are smaller, like a yes , no , we need to discuss more.

Some answers for people who not sure how anything function like me about what is technically possible / easy / inefficient would help before proposing that coherent explanation.

[Koub]

TBH, I think all this is would add too much uneeded complexity, only for the intellectual pleasure of the most train-nerdy minority. I might be wrong though, being at the opposite spectrum of the train nerdiness (I'm more a train-stupid than a train-nerd ). I feel rather overwhelmed by the train complexity, but I can understand others might be underwhelmed.

Now, the question I've seen Ssilk ask many times : what would it add to gameplay value, save for increased realism (which is not a priority if it's the only benefit) ?

I would gladly advise to mod it if needed, but I fead that without proper support from the game engine, this could not be moddable.

So the question to our top tier modders here : is it moddable in the current game state ?

[darkfrei]

Now, the question I've seen Ssilk ask many times : what would it add to gameplay value, save for increased realism (which is not a priority if it's the only benefit) ?

I would gladly advise to mod it if needed, but I fead that without proper support from the game engine, this could not be moddable.

So the question to our top tier modders here : is it moddable in the current game state ?

Now it's all is hardcoded or it looks like so.

The replayable game is much better that not replayable.
My first rocket was after about 50 hours, why I need to play this game again? ___ And again? _______ And again?
If I have new mods with new railroads then I can play the game again: better, harder, stronger than before.

[SkiCarver]

TBH, I think all this is would add too much uneeded complexity, only for the intellectual pleasure of the most train-nerdy minority. I might be wrong though,

......

If we were to suggest the inclusion of train speed limits based on track radius. a beginner/casual player can run the game with standard rails with no change to gameplay .. they would simply see the trains slow for the corners and see a slight dent in throughput (which would likely not be noticeable for the casual player). The "train-nerdy" and high-thoughput players would have additional options to explore. I guess this would be similar to the fact that you can get to rocket launch with only yellow belts, but those who choose to can build massive factories with red or blue belts if they so choose.

This, to me, is the beauty of factorio .... it is many different games in one. The game can be played in many different ways, it can be played fast, or slow, solo or team .... it is a set of tools and the player can choose how to use them. Adding additional tools to the rail system would allow those who wish to optimise their rail network additional tools.

How to move forward....


There have been a number of great posts on here. Perhaps those who wish to can create a post on this thread in the format of a game suggestion (tl;dr, what why) and we can collectively critique and decide on which proposal we like best and want to put forward as a suggestion (with the obvious caveat that the devs may disagree!)

Perhaps an additional question that could come from those familiar with modding of the rails system ... Are there any ways that the base game can be improved that would make it easier to create train system mods?

[coppercoil]

Maybe it’s a noob question but… what will be the benefits having higher speed? Despite high speed looks cool, delivery time itself is not a big deal, what about throughput? Let’s say, we have some express rails, so what will be the throughput gain if we increase train speed, say, from 50% to 100%? Larger speed means longer braking distance (a/2 * v^2), it means larger intervals between trains, it means… more or less time between trains? V^2 sounds not good. It would be great to see some math or experiments, that shows how exponentially increasing distance will increase the throughput.

[Ranger_Aurelien]

Wider curves would be nice for aesthetics, but I think simple addition of couple of still unrealistically small radiuses would not give enough bang for the buck for devs or players.

I'll disagree with this point. I would gladly let a train slow to a crawl to maneuver sharply (but not unrealistically so) to get to an otherwise awkward station in the "urban" area near my main base to unload (as a station should be off the main line and the train would be slowing down anyway).*

I will agree that I think there are enough main geometries of track orientation for straight track right now...


* Oh, here is another wishlist item for train mods: speed limits for blocks. Since we can show our block areas on maps, why not set speed limits? (Say this urban area I often cross, set to 50kph)

[Hannu]

I'll disagree with this point. I would gladly let a train slow to a crawl to maneuver sharply (but not unrealistically so) to get to an otherwise awkward station in the "urban" area near my main base to unload (as a station should be off the main line and the train would be slowing down anyway).*

Typically minimum radius for 4 axle railcars connected with normal couplings is about 150 m. Cars in Factorio are significantly shorter (7m) than same type of real boxcars (for example 18 m) , but we can not talk about any kind of realism at below 50 m. And then speed is walking speed in industrial or railyard area. In Finland normal short switches (speed limit 35 km/h on curved track) have radius of 200 m and they are 28.3 m long (it may be some European standard). So, realistic dimensions are clearly very impractical for gaming purpose.

* Oh, here is another wishlist item for train mods: speed limits for blocks. Since we can show our block areas on maps, why not set speed limits? (Say this urban area I often cross, set to 50kph)

I agree. It would be nice to limit speed at railyard areas for more realistic look and safe operations. Speed limit control could be in signal's GUI and default value no limit. As far as I know anything about programming, it would be relatively easy to program and it would not disturb anyone's experience. Possibility of control through circuits would also be nice. I would prefer separate sign (recipe same as signals), but probably someone would complain about "item bloat" (they should be happy that they do not have to buy electronic components, for example one large European supplier have about 600000 different items in stock and not very well search function, that's what I would call item bloat).

[SkiCarver]

Attached vid is actual train speed .... and if you were in this train ... you would be turned to soup from the g-forces...!!!

F1Train.mp4

(10.31 MiB) Downloaded 135 times

While I am not after "full realism", I believe that cornering performance should not be affected by the fuel and it should be limited. As someone else has suggested, perhaps cornering performance could be enhanced by the "train braking performance" tech ... and leave this as an infinite tech.

So, to summarise;

Track Tech level 1 (analogous to yellow belts)
Very slow trains and tracks with tight radii (I suggest R8 rather than the R10 we have now)
suitable for moving content around the base to drop off locations.
The 'slow track' can be used to provide crossing points throughout the game as it forces the trains to travel slowly.
Tracks made from wood, iron plates and stone - track cost low. (use of wood for sleepers - ties in US english - as per original railway)




Track Tech level 2
Medium speed track with medium radius turns (R16)
track can interface with tech1 track.
Track can upgrade existing tracks
Tracks to be made from steel, concrete and stone. (This is justified by the use of concrete for sleepers and high-quality steel in modern track)
Possible inclusion of "embankment" to facilitate small bridges (Bridge to be one track width - but multiple bridges can be placed to allow two tracks to pass) Bridge speed very slow.

TrackTech2.png (3.5 MiB) Viewed 5294 times

Tech2 bridge requires 8x2 embankment
Tech2 bridge is 6x6 with track below visible on the entrance and exit - this ensures carriages are always visible - thus avoiding the 'hidden in tunnel' issues discussed elsewhere.
Tech2 bridge comes with the embankment - when placed next to another tech2 bridge - the additional bridge covers the embankment - this is to avoid having "embankment" as it's own entity.
Bridge to be brick and stone (brick for bridge section and stone for the embankment.)





Track Tech level 3
High speed track with very large radii >/= R32.
Tech also includes a long bridge (bridge to be sufficient length to span 8 game tiles)
Track to interface with and upgrade levels 1 and 2 track.
Track to be made from steel and concrete and must be placed on concrete foundation.
Bridge to be 16-8-16 and 2 wide. (see picture)
Bridge to be concrete and steel and be very expensive.

Tech3.png (3.46 MiB) Viewed 5294 times

[FuryoftheStars]

* Oh, here is another wishlist item for train mods: speed limits for blocks. Since we can show our block areas on maps, why not set speed limits? (Say this urban area I often cross, set to 50kph)

I agree. It would be nice to limit speed at railyard areas for more realistic look and safe operations. Speed limit control could be in signal's GUI and default value no limit. As far as I know anything about programming, it would be relatively easy to program and it would not disturb anyone's experience. Possibility of control through circuits would also be nice. I would prefer separate sign (recipe same as signals), but probably someone would complain about "item bloat" (they should be happy that they do not have to buy electronic components, for example one large European supplier have about 600000 different items in stock and not very well search function, that's what I would call item bloat).

There was actually a mod that added speed limit signs for trains, but it was never updated for 0.17.

[mrvn]

Maybe instead of having a second curve type for the existing rails it would be more useful to have a completely separate set of rails. This could go two ways:

1x1 rails for a slow, this rails network. The smaller rails and slow speed would allow for smaller curves. Wagons would also have smaller carrying capacity. But this would fit nicely into factories or mods that have cave systems.

High speed, long distance rails. Could be mono rails or maglev. Acceleration and breaking force could be low while speed is higher. This would also have much larger curves. For short trips the low acceleration and breaking would make it unsuitable but over larger distances the higher speed would come into play.

Could also use vacuum tubes to remove wind resistance and allow the higher speeds. So maybe 4x4 rails for straight rails. And rail stations could need airlock segments that have gates at the front and back. Adjacent segments combine to for a larger airlock and loading/unloading only happens when the train fits between the gates and the gates are closed.

[SkiCarver]

Maybe instead of having a second curve type for the existing rails it would be more useful to have a completely separate set of rails. This could go two ways:

1x1 rails for a slow, this rails network. The smaller rails and slow speed would allow for smaller curves. Wagons would also have smaller carrying capacity. But this would fit nicely into factories or mods that have cave systems.

High speed, long distance rails. Could be mono rails or maglev. Acceleration and breaking force could be low while speed is higher. This would also have much larger curves. For short trips the low acceleration and breaking would make it unsuitable but over larger distances the higher speed would come into play.

Could also use vacuum tubes to remove wind resistance and allow the higher speeds. So maybe 4x4 rails for straight rails. And rail stations could need airlock segments that have gates at the front and back. Adjacent segments combine to for a larger airlock and loading/unloading only happens when the train fits between the gates and the gates are closed.

Some interesting ideas. I like the maglev idea ... but I also like the idea that the different rails can interface like the yellow and red belts.

[Xynariz]

So, to summarise;

Track Tech level 1 (analogous to yellow belts)
...
Track Tech level 2
...
Track Tech level 3

I absolutely love this idea. I like specifically how it addresses previous concerns (invisible train car in tunnel) while also mentioning how price scales up. There are very few cases where this new T3 bridge would be practical (due to its length), but in exactly those scenarios, it might be worth allowing straight traffic to speed through while designing an intersection around these bridges to allow for crossing. I know that at some point we're crossing the line into total traffic simulation, but personally, I would enjoy that (even as a mod, assuming the base game allowed for it in a way that didn't require scripting/huge UPS hits)

[SkiCarver]

So, to summarise;

Track Tech level 1 (analogous to yellow belts)
...
Track Tech level 2
...
Track Tech level 3

I absolutely love this idea.

.......

Thank you kind sir/madam. Does anyone have any specific objections to the track tech levels I described above?

[Hannu]

Thank you kind sir/madam. Does anyone have any specific objections to the track tech levels I described above?

They seem to be interesting and well thought. I would like to have it. Except one thing. Large radius curves should be available at all levels so that it would be possible to lay main lines with primitive tracks so that it would be possible to update to more advanced tier without changing the line. There is not any reason, from real world or gaming, why large radius should not be possible with primitive track technology and it should not be too complex for players either.

[SkiCarver]

Thank you kind sir/madam. Does anyone have any specific objections to the track tech levels I described above?

They seem to be interesting and well thought. I would like to have it. Except one thing. Large radius curves should be available at all levels so that it would be possible to lay main lines with primitive tracks so that it would be possible to update to more advanced tier without changing the line. There is not any reason, from real world or gaming, why large radius should not be possible with primitive track technology and it should not be too complex for players either.

That is a good point. So if we think about that aspect (rail corners).

Tech1 rails - Low maximum speed and low cornering speed. Small medium and large radii corners available. Small and medium corners reduce the speed limit further.

Tech2 rails - medium and large radii corners available. Track can upgrade other tech1 track. Medium corner reduces the speed limit.

Tech3 rails - large radii corner only. Track can upgrade* tech1 or tech2 track (not the smaller radii corners). Tech3 corner and bridge do not reduce train speed.
Tech3 rails - in order to replace lower tech rails - concrete must be placed before the upgrade.

@Hannu, does that seem reasonable? .... what do you think of the "concrete foundation" requirement for the tech3 rail? To my mind it fits with IRL high-speed rail designs (they cannot use a loose stone base as the speed causes the stones to be lifted off the track and thrown at high-speed!). It also means you have to do a little work to get the high-speed track laid down.

[mmmPI]

Does anyone have any specific objections to the track tech levels I described above?

I just want to understand, you cannot have different radii for tier 1 and tier 2 AND also hope to have tier 1 upgrade to tier 2, unless you only allow for upgrading the straight rails, which loose quite a bit of the purpose of upgrading.

Or you could start using tier 1 rail to make curves radius with the upgrade to tier 2 or tier 3 in mind, as Hannu suggested, and only upgrade those that are wide enough but this means tier 1 will have not only the tight radius curves, but also all the others different possible pieces, which may increase the difficulty at the beginning of the learning curve, where it is the hardest already.

It could also appear easier to draw what you want with more pieces. Hard to figure out , i'm too used to the game now.

I don't personnaly mind all the pieces at the start but maybe it can be done a bit differently to help newcomers.


I also like the idea of having some rails that would not interface like the maglev, or a different tech like the tube vacuum or anti grav curves i found the idea great too as you don't care at all at first, it's only far in the game that the tech would appear for obsessive perfectionnists

The problem i see with placing those like the maglev at tier 3 is that it's what most people who are usually playing a lot with trains will end up using the most; it means changing the core gameplay for those players contrary to adding stuff that you " don't use if you don't like "; i'm ok with the change but it's harder to ask for if people are against, rather than not really concerned.

Also i laughed at the video, i like that, i found it funny and you don't feel like you are not being efficient when laying down curves everywhere, you may loose that feel if you make it compulsory to use the speed limit on curves, contrary to that feel you have inside like "glad i'm not on manual" when you see your train choosing through junction at full speed several time in a row.

Else than that i'm very appealed by the suggestions, and also the concrete foundation makes total sense from a gameplay perspective as a "don't do if you don't want".

[SkiCarver]

The collated idea posted above is, broadly speaking, three levels of rails that have different speeds and are (for the most part) interchangeable.

Do we want to consider three levels of 'mass transport' that are not interchangeable?

For example....

Tech 1 (replaces existing trains in tech tree) --- Roadways and trucks.
2 tile wide roadways with semi-truck (lorries in UK english!)
These would have a very similar operation to current trains (and would have mostly the same code) but be very slow, have one container and be suitable for driving around bases between loading/unloading stations.
They would be able to drive around T-junctions and be very flexible in a base setting.
In particular, as they are slow moving the 'cornering speed' issues is dealt with by being slow moving in the junctions.


Tech 2 (Rails - these would be like the tech2 rails in the previous post. medium speed - medium journey length suitable for moving ores etc from mines to smelting. There will be 2 corner sizes with the differing maximum speeds.

Tech3 (Maglev / hyperloop type rails)
high level tech that will be for the mega-base crowd only. rail lines are not interchangeable with tech2 rails. High cost but ultra-high through-put rail system. If this tech is used, it will be created so that the player can walk under the rail/tube.

each of the techs are 'use if you want to' and not essential to achieving a rocket launch.


So, the broad question ....
Three levels of interchangeable rails
or
Three discrete mass-transit sysstems (which internally would use almost identical code with different parameters for speed etc and obviously different graphics)

[ssilk]

ssilk, do we need to create a 'suggestion' thread for the ideas in this thread in order for the devs to assess them, or do they read these threads?

Well, this is already a suggestion thread and if I had more time for moderation I would have moved it long ago to Suggestions, but now it is as it is... (BTW in Suggestions-board polls are forbidden due to logical reasons, it's explained somewhere there)

And we cannot know if they read it. I would say it depends on how many (different) people write about it. At some level the devs will know. But even then, in my eyes there is no chance, that this would be implemented within a year, because now the main goal is 1.0 and till then there is a very clear roadmap.

And sadly rails are one of the cases, which cannot be modded - it would have been done long ago, if it would be possible. I explained it above: The rail-code is highly optimized for the types of tracks we have yet. So a change here seems to be very deep.

Already explained by some others: very high afford for change, high chance of bugs, not so high gameplay-value, so a very low chance of beeing implemented.

But dreams are still allowed.