• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

RealRailway (RRW) - Development and Support

Started by Swordmaster, June 14, 2013, 08:42:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Simmer2

________________________________________________________________________________

noahclem

Great work  &apls  Love the usage of the creepy nod and smile emoticon  ;D

c.p.

The SAM crossings look great :thumbsup:

Quote from: eggman121 on February 03, 2016, 06:33:22 PM
Lets play a game. Who would like to guess what new angles are in this curve  ;D

FARR-2 and FARR-6?

gn_leugim

Quote from: Swordmaster on January 31, 2016, 10:22:15 AM



However, major point: there will be no height transitions.


I will be clear on this:





Noooooo!!!! Don't do that :o

I am the mayor, I make the laws, why have I to comply with others rules? XD if a mayor wants a step height transition, let it be :P

Otherwise Will, Awesome job you have been doing!  &apls &apls

mgb204

I do worry, whilst a focus on realism is something many crave, the more casual user might be put off RRW by such inflexibility. I agree using them generally ruins a scene and that on-slopes are a better solution. But, many players aren't interested in making everything realistic, they are just playing a game. As such, they just want an easy way to make crossing with other networks. I guarantee if you don't include them, TE versions will inevitably pop up to fill the void. If the models already exist, wouldn't it be better to keep the whole system network based too?

art128

He's not going to delete that piece, but simply there will be no support for the draggable network for that piece. You'll still be free to plop it as you may.

That's what I understood.
I'll take a quiet life... A handshake of carbon monoxide.

Props & Texture Catalog

gn_leugim

Quote from: mgb204 on February 07, 2016, 02:07:12 AM
I do worry, whilst a focus on realism is something many crave, the more casual user might be put off RRW by such inflexibility. I agree using them generally ruins a scene and that on-slopes are a better solution. But, many players aren't interested in making everything realistic, they are just playing a game. As such, they just want an easy way to make crossing with other networks. I guarantee if you don't include them, TE versions will inevitably pop up to fill the void. If the models already exist, wouldn't it be better to keep the whole system network based too?

is not just about making it realistic, is about making choices. Same this happened with RHW, where you can barely make any interchange the size of Maxis ones, though, although some may argue that is not, they have realistic sizes, because I can find here is Pt many interchanges of that size. and if it exists in RL, then its realistic :p


I just hope the same won't happen to RRW. And for Art says, maybe it wont :)

mgb204

I think the difference for me between RRW and RHW here, RHW is totally optional. When you decide to install it, you are making a decision not to use the Maxis Highway and it's interchanges. In fact, even that's not strictly true, since you can still use MHW along side it. It's also worth noting, the nearest thing to a pre-fab RHW interchange is from the MHO. Such pieces are simply too much work to realise. RHW never took anything away, it just did things differently, such pieces never existed to begin with.

RRW is intended to replace rail in the NAM. Sure, it's still always going to be optional, but any user wanting the advanced functionality for Rail, must have RRW installed or they will be left behind. If we want as many users on board with this as possible, then we need to be thinking about the bigger picture and not dictating what RRW can and can't include for the sake of realism. Realism is a decision by the player, not something that the game/NAM should dictate.

Alan_Waters


noahclem

The last thing said by the guy making all this stuff was that the existing piece would stay. You would think that would be the end of the conversation, but you would of course be wrong. Five of the last six comments have complained about a piece disappearing that is not going to disappear

Several months ago when Stephen started getting really prolific with his flex curves there was a big burst of complaining from people wanting his work but not wanting it the way he was doing it (as part of RRW). While the vast majority of people stayed out or tried to offer something polite and constructive some people refused to accept Stephen's decision on the matter until he threatened to quit. Fortunately no one is threatening to quit at this time but this pattern of repeated and somehow self-righteous complaining about the developers needs to stop. This site exists and has its focus on developers because of the way developers were being treated elsewhere. If this kind of thing is happening over and over here then we've really lost our raison d'etre.

mgb204

I'm sorry Noah, but who is complaining exactly? I read some general discussion and peoples opinions. I understand the puzzle piece will remain.

I know it's really tough to be a developer recently, you're preaching to the choir here. But I've not seen any behaviour or comments here that would warrant moderation or speaking to anyone? Ultimately part of the development process, especially if you make it public is such feedback. As a creator, it's your job to decide what direction to take, even if that doesn't fit with the feelings of others. No one is trying to muscle in and demand anything, we are just looking to have our feelings heard on the matter, nothing more.

art128

Nobody really complained, but it's more the fact that you continued discussing this that is a bit dangerous.
Think about it this way, the last time such a discussion emerged it pushed Stephen to almost completely quit the project and stop doing any SC4 related work altogether. I know it's not your intention, of course it's not. But by simply start a conversation like that, it may attract some less delicate people who'll start to complain " why don't you make Y instead of X " and then it'll all go tumbling down again and again. Sorry but I don't want that. I may sound like a despot here but the RRW made it this far, I don't want to see it end because of such stupid incidents.

Now to make things clear. The short transition for elevated rail > rail will NOT be deleted from the game. I'll be part of the puzzle pieces as it has always been. HOWEVER, the recent development showing the DRAGGABLE Elevated RRW WILL NOT include such a transition simply because RRW aims at a realistic rendering of the railways in simcity and that transition is everything but realistic.

And I'm even going to go even further and add something else: to the future people who think they'll be wise to complain that RRW isn't realist.... is ugly etc but want the RRW features (Flextracks, wide curves etc) for the standard rail, well why don't you try your hands at coding and do it yourself? The NAM team does their work on their free time that I'm sure they would like to spend doing something else rather than RUL for hours. What's more they do it for free because the NAM is FREE. It takes lots of time, lots of hours everyday for weeks and months to come close to have what we have now. So please understand that before complaining about such things.

That will be all from me.

Arthur - SC4Devotion Administrator.
I'll take a quiet life... A handshake of carbon monoxide.

Props & Texture Catalog

gn_leugim

Oh I?m sorry, I didn't mean by my comment (it was more than a comment, not a complaint), about the matter, was totally not my intention to start a discussion or harm in any way the project.  &mmm  &mmm

I understand that the piece is going to stay, my bad reading, so, end of chapter ok? :)


Swordmaster

Thanks Noah & Art. This kind of thing has come up since day one--human nature tends to resist change--but the RRW has been doing fine all along. In fact, shortly before its initial launch, I remember a fellow NAMite claimed (also publicly) no one would use it. I've noticed that right now, he uses it himself. . .

Now, I've rewritten Part 1 of the STR crosslinks code; all orthogonal adjacencies should now be in good shape. Next up are the diagonals.

Meanwhile I've taken the chance to add the DxO SAM crossings. This code should form a good basis for the ERRW SAM overpasses.




Also some additions to the SAM stability while I was at it.




Cheers
Willy

Wiimeiser

The transition is scrapped due to grade restrictions. I'm not sure what the standards are anywhere, if this is any indication, 256m is not enough for an elevation increase of 7.5m. In the 19th century there was this one slope in the UK that was considered downright terrifying; wheelchair ramps are steeper
Pink horse, pink horse, she rides across the nation...

woodb3kmaster

Just to reiterate: The existing puzzle-based viaduct rail transition is not being "scrapped", deleted, or otherwise made inaccessible to users. Its model simply isn't getting reused for the new draggable ERRW paradigm. You'll still be able to plop the old puzzle piece if you want to (unless I've seriously misunderstood the last few posts), just like you can choose to install and plop any of the RHW's now-deprecated puzzle-based ramps or height transitions. It just won't have any of the new, draggable functionality; it'll continue to be a static puzzle piece.

Feel brand new. Be inspired.
NYHAVEN - VIEWS FROM WITHIN
Nuclear City - 5/8

eggman121

Ok

woodb3kmaster is correct! The static piece is not being removed! We don't like removing already released content for backwards compatibility unless absolutely necessary!

There are very few instances that this has happened.

So enough!




Any more comments regarding this issue may result in corrective action!

-eggman121

Alan_Waters

woodb3kmaster
Thanks for clarifying! This is very true!

Gugu3

Excellent job Willy!As for the transition pieces....I am not a great fan of them as i think they really look unreal, but as mentioned before those puzzle pieces are not going to disappear so if anyone fancies using them he is free to do so :thumbsup:

Simcoug