🚀 go-pugleaf

> I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a way to
> place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them inside the
> tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.

That's a good idea.

> I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything ever
> became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just not feasible
> or something?

If it's not, how about signals on bridges?

*Satis
==Off=the=Rails==
howard_offtherails at hotmail.com

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:31:40 GMT, Satis posted to
alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:

>> I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a
>> way to place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them
>> inside the tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
>
> That's a good idea.
>
>> I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything
>> ever became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just
>> not feasible or something?
>
> If it's not, how about signals on bridges?

Yes, that's right. The discussion did include implied signals on bridges
as well. I forgot about that since I tend to use a lot more tunnels than
bridges.

I remember Josef was thinking about it and said he thought he knew of a
way he could do it, but as far as I know it never materialized as a part
of The Patch.

-- 
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?

It's impossible for now and for the future as well. The problem with tunnels
lies in the fact that trains don't exist in tunnels. Idon't know if a
similar problem underlies the fact that signals on bridges can't be realized
either.

"Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:Xns94B1502A142AAklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:31:40 GMT, Satis posted to
> alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:
>
> >> I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a
> >> way to place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them
> >> inside the tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
> >
> > That's a good idea.
> >
> >> I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything
> >> ever became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just
> >> not feasible or something?
> >
> > If it's not, how about signals on bridges?
>
> Yes, that's right. The discussion did include implied signals on bridges
> as well. I forgot about that since I tend to use a lot more tunnels than
> bridges.
>
> I remember Josef was thinking about it and said he thought he knew of a
> way he could do it, but as far as I know it never materialized as a part
> of The Patch.
>
> -- 
> Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?

hmm I believe you are not right about this hyronymus, I believe the 
trains are there, they are only invisible and colision detection is off. 
  Eis_os explained it to me once some time ago, but maybe a patcher can 
confirm this. In fact to make it worse this sugestion still is on the 
todonow list from josef (on the sourcecode page)

Hyronymus wrote:
> It's impossible for now and for the future as well. The problem with tunnels
> lies in the fact that trains don't exist in tunnels. Idon't know if a
> similar problem underlies the fact that signals on bridges can't be realized
> either.
> 
> "Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> schreef in bericht
> news:Xns94B1502A142AAklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> 
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:31:40 GMT, Satis posted to
>>alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:
>>
>>
>>>>I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a
>>>>way to place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them
>>>>inside the tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
>>>
>>>That's a good idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything
>>>>ever became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just
>>>>not feasible or something?
>>>
>>>If it's not, how about signals on bridges?
>>
>>Yes, that's right. The discussion did include implied signals on bridges
>>as well. I forgot about that since I tend to use a lot more tunnels than
>>bridges.
>>
>>I remember Josef was thinking about it and said he thought he knew of a
>>way he could do it, but as far as I know it never materialized as a part
>>of The Patch.
>>
>>-- 
>>Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
> 
> 
> 

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:03:33 GMT, Hyronymus posted to
alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:

> It's impossible for now and for the future as well. The problem with
> tunnels lies in the fact that trains don't exist in tunnels. Idon't
> know if a similar problem underlies the fact that signals on bridges
> can't be realized either.

Are you one of the code contributors of The Patch? I don't recall seeing
your name before, but perhaps you are and really do know what you're
talking about.

It used to be that stations larger than 4x5 were impossible. Larger than
7x7 used to be impossible too. People actually working on the patch are
the ones that make the impossible possible. It's up to the rest of us to
offer ideas and encouragement and anything else we can.

Long live the coders!

-- 
"Some folks are dissatisfied with free enterprise if it doesn't work
perfectly, and satisfied with government if it works at all."
  -- Daniel B. Klein

Klaatu wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:03:33 GMT, Hyronymus posted to
> alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:
> 
>> It's impossible for now and for the future as well. The problem with
>> tunnels lies in the fact that trains don't exist in tunnels. Idon't
>> know if a similar problem underlies the fact that signals on bridges
>> can't be realized either.
> 
> Are you one of the code contributors of The Patch? I don't recall seeing
> your name before, but perhaps you are and really do know what you're
> talking about.
> 
> It used to be that stations larger than 4x5 were impossible. Larger than
> 7x7 used to be impossible too. People actually working on the patch are
> the ones that make the impossible possible. It's up to the rest of us to
> offer ideas and encouragement and anything else we can.

It's true that you can't have signals inside tunnels, because tunnels don't
exist -- the only thing that exists about them are the entrances.  What
happens in between is "virtual".

However, it should be possible to make trains behave as if there were
virtual signals at every tile.  Still, that's too much work at the moment.

-- 
   Josef Drexler                 |    http://publish.uwo.ca/~jdrexler/
---------------------------------+----------------------------------------
 Please help Conserve Gravity    |  Email address is *valid*.
 Walk with a light step.         |  Don't remove the "nospam" part.

Uhmm, I'm very tempted to go with your suggestion but I'm not a coder. I
only made some graphical contributions sofar. I profoundly wonder if I ever
get to understand any other programming language then BASIC :p.

"Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:Xns94B4539ECE27Eklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:03:33 GMT, Hyronymus posted to
> alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:
>
> > It's impossible for now and for the future as well. The problem with
> > tunnels lies in the fact that trains don't exist in tunnels. Idon't
> > know if a similar problem underlies the fact that signals on bridges
> > can't be realized either.
>
> Are you one of the code contributors of The Patch? I don't recall seeing
> your name before, but perhaps you are and really do know what you're
> talking about.
>
> It used to be that stations larger than 4x5 were impossible. Larger than
> 7x7 used to be impossible too. People actually working on the patch are
> the ones that make the impossible possible. It's up to the rest of us to
> offer ideas and encouragement and anything else we can.
>
> Long live the coders!
>
> -- 
> "Some folks are dissatisfied with free enterprise if it doesn't work
> perfectly, and satisfied with government if it works at all."
>   -- Daniel B. Klein

"Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94B09B858497Aklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a way to
> place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them inside the
> tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
>
> I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything ever
> became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just not feasible
> or something?
>
> --
> I always wanted to be somebody--I guess I should have been more specific.

not a coded solution but what i use to do was create a few shorter tunnels
by digging a square ( full 1 square must be level) and having a normal piece
of track on that with the signal on it...
eg

-- is normal track, __ is the tunnel, \ & / are tunel entrance/exit, -s- is
track with signal

so
---\____________________________________________________________/---
would become
--------\_________________/-s-\___________________/-s-\______________/------
-----

like wise if u have a brigde over sea, you can build up the land say half
the distance so you have atleast 1 square flat on the build where normal
trac+signal would go!

let me know if u have problems..
Raj

"Raju" <rajuvora@hotmailREMOVEPLZ!.com> wrote in message
news:MBSkc.38062$Y%6.5231306@wards.force9.net...
>
> "Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns94B09B858497Aklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> > I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a way
to
> > place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them inside the
> > tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
> >
> > I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything ever
> > became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just not
feasible
> > or something?
> >
> > --
> > I always wanted to be somebody--I guess I should have been more
specific.
>
> not a coded solution but what i use to do was create a few shorter tunnels
> by digging a square ( full 1 square must be level) and having a normal
piece
> of track on that with the signal on it...
> eg
>
> -- is normal track, __ is the tunnel, \ & / are tunel entrance/exit, -s-
is
> track with signal
>
> so
> ---\____________________________________________________________/---
> would become
> --------\_________________/-s-\___________________/-s-\______________/----
--
> -----
>
> like wise if u have a brigde over sea, you can build up the land say half
> the distance so you have atleast 1 square flat on the build where normal
> trac+signal would go!
>
> let me know if u have problems..
> Raj
>
>


You mean like this ???
homepages.maxnet.co.nz/mrt/scr2.jpg
homepages.maxnet.co.nz/mrt/scr3.jpg

Sometimes digging out a hillside is not that feesable.

Reuben

"RT" <mrt@maxnet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:409418a8$1@news.maxnet.co.nz...
>
> "Raju" <rajuvora@hotmailREMOVEPLZ!.com> wrote in message
> news:MBSkc.38062$Y%6.5231306@wards.force9.net...
> >
> > "Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94B09B858497Aklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
> > > I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a
way
> to
> > > place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them inside
the
> > > tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
> > >
> > > I remember Josef looking into the issue but I don't think anything
ever
> > > became of it. Does anyone know whatever happened? Was it just not
> feasible
> > > or something?
> > >
> > > --
> > > I always wanted to be somebody--I guess I should have been more
> specific.
> >
> > not a coded solution but what i use to do was create a few shorter
tunnels
> > by digging a square ( full 1 square must be level) and having a normal
> piece
> > of track on that with the signal on it...
> > eg
> >
> > -- is normal track, __ is the tunnel, \ & / are tunel entrance/exit, -s-
> is
> > track with signal
> >
> > so
> > ---\____________________________________________________________/---
> > would become
>
> --------\_________________/-s-\___________________/-s-\______________/----
> --
> > -----
> >
> > like wise if u have a brigde over sea, you can build up the land say
half
> > the distance so you have atleast 1 square flat on the build where normal
> > trac+signal would go!
> >
> > let me know if u have problems..
> > Raj
> >
> >
>
>
> You mean like this ???
> homepages.maxnet.co.nz/mrt/scr2.jpg
> homepages.maxnet.co.nz/mrt/scr3.jpg
>
> Sometimes digging out a hillside is not that feesable.
>
> Reuben
>
>

exactly like that :-p

On Sat, 01 May 2004 19:05:33 GMT, Raju posted to
alt.games.microprose.transport-tyc:

>
> "Klaatu" <klaatu@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns94B09B858497Aklaatunospaminvalid@127.0.0.1...
>> I remember at least a year ago a discussion on the possibility of a
>> way to place signals inside tunnels. Well, not actually placing them
>> inside the tunnels, but having them there "virtually" somehow.
>>
> not a coded solution but what i use to do was create a few shorter
> tunnels by digging a square ( full 1 square must be level) and having
> a normal piece of track on that with the signal on it...

Well, thanks for the suggestion and all, but that's what I have been
doing for years already, and it's exactly that which I'm trying to avoid.

I tend to avoid bridges for two reasons:

1) trains slow down on bridges, and
b) you can't place a bridge over a bridge like you can tunnels.

There are two main problems with building a rail network using the method
you suggest:

a) it takes a long, long, time to build (I know, I've done it thousands
of times), and
2) the cutouts for the one section of normal tract actually affect a
much, much larger area. This impacts many things from placement of
industries and stations to other track running above the 1 full square of
normal track.

So, I'm still hoping the fine people who make the patch possible can come
up with virtual signals inside tunnels, or the equivalent.

-- 
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.