Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

GH_Lieste

Roads and towns on Steep slopes

I've recently begun work on a map.

The terrain is fairly sparse, with some significant relief, and low population. The villages that are present are connected by a few predominantly level roads running along the contours.

This causes a problem as the road has a cross-slope of approximately 45 degrees, making traction interesting. When the road runs through a number of houses located at flatish bits of this terrain, but still steeper on average than say 10 degrees, the road degenerates into a chaotic mess, as each house claims a large flat plot for itself, regardless of proximity to the road or to each other, and indeed with little relationship with the building size.. the SB1 carry overs seem to have larger than average plot sizes (or are smaller buildings?)

I was somewhat dismayed by the inability to use roads correctly in this type of terrain, as the road should give a nice smooth, flat and stable surface for fast driving (so long as you don't miss the corners or drive too fast ;) ), and therefore excellent (if overly predictable) BP with no appreciable trunnion cant.

As a temporary expedient, I have added a chain of bridge elements along the line of the original road, and with some provisos the effect is similar to what the roads should be. The bridge deck merely joins the two elevation points at each end in a straight line, and doesn't visually modify the underlying terrain (so partial intrusions of the underlying hill side occur to approximately the centre line of the road section). It does however give a nice flat driving surface, good BPs. It isn't possible to get good junctions with adjoining sections or particularly side-roads, and SB doesn't chain them together. Care needs to be taken not to collide with the walls near corners, as collisions with the ends/outsides of the wall are effective, even though it is possible to drive through them when leaving the road...

Despite looking a bit rough round the edges, and obviously being an abuse of the designed function of these objects, I think it is a significant improvement of the driving experience on this type of road.

Very early WIP:

SS_10_54_44.jpg.a1673b45f31a3c1772913584

SS_10_54_44.jpg.a1673b45f31a3c1772913584

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I noticed how the bridges over the streams didn't follow the slope, and thought to myself can I place bridges just anywhere... and it grew from that..

But it is, and looks a bodge.. so:

How far down THE LIST is proper 3d roads, with embankments and cuttings as required, and an overhaul of the town flattening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How far down THE LIST is proper 3d roads, with embankments and cuttings as required, and an overhaul of the town flattening?

The idea of 3D roads has been haunting me ever since PE came out. Especially since its likely to be never implemented - however it would be AWESOME to have 3D roads (especially railroads) that are not just a flat textures on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of 3D roads has been haunting me ever since PE came out. Especially since its likely to be never implemented...

Can't confirm that assertion. It has been identified as an "important" and "desirable" element. It's just that the change isn't trivial, so timing is essential in the context of a proper development plan. (see the other thread for details)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Ssnake and DarkAngel.....How hard would it be to create a sculpting tool that could shape features at a smaller scale than current map resolutions used to generate height maps.

Is SB locked to reproducing only what is publicly available ....DTEDs and such or can it go 1M or smaller and deal with shorter elevation distance changes?

Guessing since we have vehicle emplacements that can change size and bumpiness and trenches in the old SB ...it is possible to make custom features..we just need to make a palette of "terrain" feature like we have for houses.

Engineered roads would be a first start great!

Instead of Height/Terrain...what would be needed is Height/Engineered/Terrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Can't confirm that assertion. It has been identified as an "important" and "desirable" element. It's just that the change isn't trivial, so timing is essential in the context of a proper development plan. (see the other thread for details)

Yes I think that's clear to everyone, I just wished you guys would just wake up one morning with a feel of a gigantic enthusiasim & desire to go further than it's "required" and raise the bar not contemplating wheter some new feature is being payed for or not. I know I'm a bit carried away with this as I am viewing things from a personal customer view - if I would be in your shoes I would manage things probably the same way.

But still, some "F*ck it, lets do this anyway" mentality would be cool from time to time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but a what price?

Even if the guys could do the modelling "now" what are the impacts?

Does the size of the map need to shrink to something nearly useless (say 2km x 2km) so the "average" user's PC can do all the computations required, or do you put on the system requirements "Cray required" and then get a tsunami of complaints that no one can use it on their existing machine?

There's a trade off required for this sort of detail.

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Some of that trade off might be to wait until the 'entry-level' machine(s) can cope with the required number of calculations... It would still hurt those with 'existing' low and mid-range machines, but it is more likely to be successful than requiring top-end(-or-above) machines today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. :wink:

No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.

__________________

Pong anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I congratulate you on your financial security.

Personally I can't afford a few hundred thousand dollars for a Cray, let alone whatever the software would cost (US$125 a copy wont recoup the R&D required).

Its easier for me to arrange some dry training on the real thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.

__________________

Pong anyone

And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

jeez I had to sum this up :D

Hedge: No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.

Tac: And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it.

Congo: No point in having kick ass software if you need a superubercomputer to run it.

Deja: And certainly no point to having a superubercomputer if there isn't any kick ass software to run on it.

Hedge: I refer you to my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from the revered Floridia: "You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round."

Round Right Baby Round Right Me Spin You.

Sounds better, No?

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

I got a question Which came first the chicken or the software?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

I got a question Which came first the chicken or the software?

Don't you mean which was implemented first? :biggrin:

Guess that answers your question. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now