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

Feature: Raise a corner of land automatically when building aqueducts #7078

Closed

Conversation

SamuXarick
Copy link
Contributor

@SamuXarick SamuXarick commented Jan 22, 2019

No description provided.

@SamuXarick SamuXarick force-pushed the auto-terraform-for-aqueduct branch 2 times, most recently from 05ec602 to f0f850f Compare Jan 22, 2019
@SamuXarick
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SamuXarick SamuXarick commented Jan 22, 2019

nontbourne bridge transport 1950-04-25
nontbourne bridge transport 1950-05-11

@andythenorth
Copy link
Contributor

@andythenorth andythenorth commented Jan 24, 2019

I agree that aqueducts should not be limited by slopes. However terraforming isn't the correct solution: Rail/road bridges use foundations to solve the same issue.

It would be better to permit foundations for canals. I am happy to make the case that this would be good for the game, lots of other things have been made more permissive on slopes over time (e.g. road depots and drive-in roadstops).

Foundations would also imply allowing lowering of land next to a canal.

I don't know if there are implementation problems with foundations for canals, nor how rivers should be handled.

Issues

  • Aqueducts currently work differently to rail/road bridges, they're built like tunnels from a single tile, not dragged like rail/road bridges
  • frosch indicated that water on foundations might not be possible

@nielsmh
Copy link
Contributor

@nielsmh nielsmh commented Jan 25, 2019

Viewed with the (terribly dark) sunglasses of realism concerns, aqueducts should probably also occupy the tile height below them, requiring a two tile heights below for rail/road to be built.

@nielsmh nielsmh added the needs triage This issue needs further investigation before it becomes actionable label Feb 9, 2019
@SamuXarick SamuXarick force-pushed the auto-terraform-for-aqueduct branch from f0f850f to b57895c Compare Mar 1, 2019
@stale
Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Mar 31, 2019

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any activity in the last month.
Please feel free to give a status update now, ping for review, or re-open when it's ready.
It will be closed if no further activity occurs within 7 days.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale Stale issues label Mar 31, 2019
@SamuXarick SamuXarick force-pushed the auto-terraform-for-aqueduct branch from b57895c to 2904498 Compare Apr 1, 2019
@stale stale bot removed the stale Stale issues label Apr 1, 2019
@TrueBrain
Copy link
Member

@TrueBrain TrueBrain commented Apr 1, 2019

Given no developer showed interest in this for the last 2 months, I am going to call this a day. Sorry, but this doesn't seem to itch others as much as it does you.

Thank you for the contribution though!

@TrueBrain TrueBrain closed this Apr 1, 2019
@Hexus-One
Copy link
Contributor

@Hexus-One Hexus-One commented Jul 6, 2020

Is it possible to re-open this?
If aqueducts are indeed similar to tunnels then i think they should exhibit the same terraforming behaviours (eg how tunnels raise land to accomodate the other end). It would be more convenient for players.
Also I think it would give PR #7607 a bit more liberty in path options.
Makes me wonder though - should plain canal tiles also have the same behaviour? And locks as well?

@andythenorth
Copy link
Contributor

@andythenorth andythenorth commented Jul 6, 2020

I tried to re-open, but GitHub UI says no - 'Reopen pull request' button is disabled.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
needs triage This issue needs further investigation before it becomes actionable
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants