Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Railtypes: improve snow transition #4573

Closed
DorpsGek opened this issue Apr 3, 2011 · 4 comments
Closed

Railtypes: improve snow transition #4573

DorpsGek opened this issue Apr 3, 2011 · 4 comments

Comments

@DorpsGek
Copy link

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 3, 2011

dandan opened the ticket and wrote:

This is related to #2071.

The snow transition (especially with a variable snowline) has never really looked so great around rails and roads because, unlike ground tiles, rails and roads have only two stages: snow or no snow (see screenshot).

I think for rails coming from new railtypes, this could be improved without the need for more sprites: Since the new rail sprites typically only cover part of the tile, the tile underneath should not be restricted to only two stages. It would also look better to use the snowy rail sprites only on tiles that are completely covered in snow.

Technically this would require two changes:

  1. The ground sprite under a new rail type should behave in the same way as an empty ground tile.
  2. Variable 40 for railtypes should only report 4 (=on or above snowline) when in the completely snowy region.

These two suggestions are kind of independent. If 1) cannot easily be done because of the way information is stored in the map array (I have no clue), then 2) would still be an improvement IMO. It is also possible that 1) without 2) would work better. Any thoughts?

Attachments

Reported version: trunk
Operating system: All


This issue was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4573
@DorpsGek
Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Apr 4, 2011

planetmaker wrote:

In principle 1) is possible, but it might want to be embedded in the bigger context of FS # 2071. IIRC SmatZ had an interesting patch on this topic, but I don't know anymore the details of the discussion around it.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4573#comment9827
@DorpsGek
Copy link
Author

@DorpsGek DorpsGek commented Sep 1, 2017

andythenorth wrote:

Railtypes have var 40, but lack any equivalent to industry var 60, which includes tile height.

https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/VariationalAction2/Railtypes# Terrain_type_.2840.29
https://newgrf-specs.tt-wiki.net/wiki/VariationalAction2/Industry_Tiles# Land_info_of_nearby_tiles_.2860.29

If tile height is known, partial snowing can be calculated by subtracting from global snowline var. This mechanic is proven for industries in FIRS and other places.

This does look worth solving, IMHO, but I don't know whether it has performance or MP implications.


This comment was imported from FlySpray: https://bugs.openttd.org/task/4573#comment14696
@andythenorth
Copy link
Contributor

@andythenorth andythenorth commented Apr 12, 2018

See also #6407 - fixing one might entail fixing the other. Or not.

@andythenorth
Copy link
Contributor

@andythenorth andythenorth commented Jan 7, 2019

Although this would be nice to have, it isn't something we expect to fulfill in the next year, and on that basis I'm closing it. We do this to keep the project manageable, productive and fun. We hope you do understand. Thanks for contributing though! Here you can find more about how we handle feature requests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.