- This topic has 17 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I believe the number of pillars which bridges need is excessive. I think the game could be improved by halving the number of pillars needed for a bridge. Perhaps this could just be for one type of bridge which costs more. At the moment if you have an existing viaduct it is very difficult, if not impossible to build roads and tracks under it between the pillars due to there being so many pillars. Building bridges over wide tracks and wide roads, especially with a skew can be very troublesome. There are loads of examples of real bridges spanning much greater distances than what can be done in train fever without a “bridge pillar collision”. This bridge for example spans 6 traffic lanes, two hard shoulders and a very wide median with a skew angle of around 45 degrees with a single span:
Does anyone know if it would be possible to modify the number of bridge pillars with a mod, or is it hard-coded and thus only changeable with access to the source code?
Here is another example of a viaduct, notice how wide the spacing between the pillars is compared to the road.
I second your idea. Indeed, the bridge pillars are not spaced enough, creating both ugly and unrealistic bridges, and furthermore very tedious obstacles to any underpassing road/track. Often the only way to create a road/track under the bridge is deleting the bridge and then rebuilding it.
Time for some photoshop
Here is a screenshot of a bridge how it currently appears in trainfever:
Here is the same bridge with half the pillars edited out
I like the second one better, both it looks better, more realistic and it’s easier to build stuff under it.
I agree, this is what we need in game!
Please Devs, take the time to halve the number of bridge pillars in the game, the change should be easy and the result is really better!
The pillars standing way too close is one of the many nasty game design issues in Train Fever that makes you wonder if the devs have ever played their game themselves.
This one has my vote too. Maybe, if the devs wish, they can stay with the full lot of pillars for wooden bridges, but iron and brick brigdes should have less pillars.
Maybe this can also be a difference between bridge times. What are the differences right now, only cost and visual? In RRT you could cross the more expensive bridges faster than wooden brigdes.
I think you can even remove 1/3rd or so more from the pillars (from the second picture).
Because it looks indeed way more awesome!The chines low budget landbridge uses 30 meters between eatch foundation, but they have two sets of pillars on every segment. The unitwagon IV in the game i beleve its about 27 meters long, so a few meters shorter than a normal landbrige span.
More expensive bridges that is in place constructed might be as long as 50 meters with out any additionally support. Normally a bridge might be build with low cost elements over land then longer elements over water and roads (where its needed). This increase the price of the bridge quite a lot (real cheep land-bridge cost about $20M/km, the in-place constructed ones cost over twice that).
One more thing that is missing is gateway pillars that allow a bridge to cross a road in any angle, they are also usually quite expensive, $1-2 million a pice, but you might just need 2 or 3 to cross a highway in a low angle. They are also used comonly when the railway pas from the side of the highway up into the center where it might folow the center of a highway to reduce over all cost.
I second this, bridges look unrealistic and are difficult to build. Traintracks crossing in \/ format is impossible and you can only have them cross at a 90 degree angle, which in turn takes the speed out of the track.
The bridges in the pre-alpha version seemed to have had larger spacing between the pillars. Or are they the same?
Yea, it defently look like that. The right hand bridges look like then have 40 meter span (that is quite far span, but totally realistic). The left bridge look like it have a 75 meter span, that is… well possible, not economical realistic. (for example the Oresund link bridge have a huge 250 meter span, but its over water and really high).
It seems that the game have something like 15 meter span, that is just plain non realistic. The pillars will be quite a bit more expensive then the actual brige. The only reason to make a so short brige is if it have to be really thin or if it pases over a very narow object (a contry road for example)
0-15 meter – concretion beem brige
15-30 meter – concretion box bridge
30-100 meter – gridsteal bridge (as in image)
100- cable stay bridges…contrary to popular belief there exist no suspension rail bridges, a myth that hollywood spreads.
And that is of course for modern bridges… i would say from about 1960 and forward. For bridges from the 1800 i´m not sure (I am a construction engineer, not a historian) But i can guess.
0-15 meter wood bridge15-30 meter, gridiron bridge.
30-50 meter, grid steel bridge
steel was really expensive up to around 1890, then when production increased steel become almost as cheep as iron quite quickly. Around 1910 or so steel was so cheep that it was basically no point in using iron for anything else than cast. Also before like 1960-1970 something iron was realtivly expensive in high volumes to, so thats why most old bridges are in wood.Also, steel track was not really that common during the mid 1800-reds, they just become common in the late 1890 (o nooo.. back to the future lied to us).
The majority of the British rail track was actually built with iron track, not steel. It was later just in the end of the century switched to steel track. For example great western railroad where they switched to standard gauge and steel track.
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.