Jump to content





Photo

Sixty City Revised Rail Proposal


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Poll: Whats your opinion? (6 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the new design?

  1. Final design? (5 votes [83.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 83.33%

  2. Modify with suggestions? (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  3. Scrap the Rails completely? (1 votes [16.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  4. Other see my comment. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Nekcalb

Nekcalb
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Evildoer

  • 1,138 posts
  • LocationCorn Field
  • Nationality:'merican

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:04 AM

I decided to scrap the initial Rail Proposal due to the complexity of it, diagonal lines become an issue because powered rails only work as a straight piece, it kept feeling bulky and out of place, so after numerous tries trying to figure out a viable way of doing it like planned i was to the point of completely throwing in the towel. It was discussed among the veterans and some agreed if that is how i felt then do so.

I do not want to just give up on it, but the design had to change to something i was more comfortable building. I know some people are fond of Ethos Lab station design, which is fine and dandy for a point A to point B rail line. But personally i think it needs to be a continuous ride where you never get out until you reach your destination. Also i wanted to keep the stations to a minimum for a faster ride just cutting threw the city from one zone to another. Also having a complete city wide subway is pointless, i guarantee no one would use it if the entire ride was underground.

Realistically you could probably run to where your going faster than the rail line could get you there, but i want a rail system mainly to get a scenic view of Sixty City once it matures. But i also felt a simpler design would work better.

So here is what i came up with, a big square 500 x 500 the same size as a zone. With direct offshoots connecting to all the surrounding zones.

The main line will have an elevation of y-70, 7 blocks above sea level. So in low lying areas the rail will be elevated, other places it will be at ground level, and in a few probably lower than ground level. If a mountain stands in the way then it will be tunneled threw.

There will also be 4 lines that submerge into an underground subway that leads to the center of the portal hub. y-55 8 blocks below sea level.

There are 13 stations overall.
1 Four way subway terminal that leads to the main line.
4 Four way junctions that connect the main line to the zone lines.
4 Two way junctions that lead to the portal, (these will only be accessible on the inner rail line)
4 One way stations, (these are only stops)

So here is the blueprint map, tell me what you think. Should this be the final design? Does someone else have ideas? Should we completely forget any kind of city rail line?

The Red (on map) would be Stone Bricks, the Grey (on map) would be either Red, Green, Yellow, and Blue for the mainline, and each spur of the subway. The lines connecting the zones would be Black.
Posted Image
  • 0
Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is to pay an adequate wage. -- Eleanor Roosevelt


#2 infiniteduck

infiniteduck
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Stick

  • 429 posts
  • LocationCanada Eh?
  • Nationality:Mutt

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:13 AM

This is a toughy. Having the elevated rails could get messy and having floating tracks kinda messes with me. I agree putting the tracks under ground isn't much of a view, but it does keep it hidden.

I imagine if we are careful and design a very nice looking rail system for above ground it could be fun, but we should avoid putting rails directly on the ground as animals or mobs could jump on to the tracks and thus stop the rider.

I kinda refuse to vote on this one, I'm not being a jerk, but simply I can't decide how I'd want it done.
  • 0
Posted Image


#3 Nekcalb

Nekcalb
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Evildoer

  • 1,138 posts
  • LocationCorn Field
  • Nationality:'merican

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:32 AM

we should avoid putting rails directly on the ground as animals or mobs could jump on to the tracks and thus stop the rider.


The tracks will be well lite so mobs can't spawn on them. And i believe animals still need grass to spawn, any ground level tracks can have fencing beside them to prevent animals from wandering onto them.
  • 0
Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is to pay an adequate wage. -- Eleanor Roosevelt


#4 infiniteduck

infiniteduck
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Stick

  • 429 posts
  • LocationCanada Eh?
  • Nationality:Mutt

Posted 26 November 2011 - 09:37 AM

The tracks will be well lite so mobs can't spawn on them. And i believe animals still need grass to spawn, any ground level tracks can have fencing beside them to prevent animals from wandering onto them.


That'll work well then. I had to fence in my tracks in single play to prevent me from bouncing off cows. Worse when it bounces you back into a speed boost rail and you go flying back the way you came. *waggles fist*

Are we going to have two sets of tracks? Coming and going?
  • 0
Posted Image


#5 Nekcalb

Nekcalb
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Evildoer

  • 1,138 posts
  • LocationCorn Field
  • Nationality:'merican

Posted 26 November 2011 - 10:02 AM

Are we going to have two sets of tracks? Coming and going?


Yes double lines going each way. Except were the mainline connects to the subway. That would be single lines where it meets the mainline, but it merges into a double track that goes to the subway station.

To respond to your earlier comment about "floating tracks"

I have no intention of levitating rails, the elevated tracks will have support pillars, probably arched bridges to be more specific.
  • 0
Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is to pay an adequate wage. -- Eleanor Roosevelt


#6 infiniteduck

infiniteduck
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Stick

  • 429 posts
  • LocationCanada Eh?
  • Nationality:Mutt

Posted 26 November 2011 - 01:19 PM

Got curious what it might look like so dragged myself into the creative area on the server and made a quicky rail just for kicks. More for me to get an idea how it might look. It's in creative if anyone wants to add to it.

http://img.photobuck...1-26_151423.png
http://img.photobuck...1-26_151440.png
  • 0
Posted Image


#7 GarrikP

GarrikP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationEast Texas
  • Nationality:US

Posted 26 November 2011 - 03:03 PM

I'd say scrap it, at least for now.
Once the city is laid out at least, we can decide to put some rails in with direct lines to the main points of interest that can then flow with the land and/or roads & buildings. The railway might even be able to be built as a part of the road at that point.
  • 0

<Profound statement>



#8 Nekcalb

Nekcalb
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Evildoer

  • 1,138 posts
  • LocationCorn Field
  • Nationality:'merican

Posted 26 November 2011 - 06:20 PM

Here is why i reintroduced a new design.

1. I think the city would feel more like a city if it had a rail system, it is part of the game, and i have the materials to contribute, i've been lugging them around for what feels like 3 months, so why not put them to use.

2. To wait until after the city is built is not only impracticable but down right foolish, your just asking for a headache trying to weave the thing all over the place. If it's a roller coaster i sure wouldn't use it. I already built one of those, and i learned my lesson not to try that again.

3. Personally i like giving my finger a break once in awhile, the game having no auto run sucks, and the glitchy sprint doesn't help much.

Well since i thought i explained the design well enough, but apparently i was a bit confusing so i took some screenshots to give a little better idea what i had in mind.

A simple straight forward design.

Here is an example of the mainline (blue in this case)

Posted Image

And two more screens at night.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Here are two screens of ground level track. (it would never be 100% mob or animal free since they could wander in at grade crossings from the roads, but then you could tell the story of how you hit a cow)

Posted Image
Posted Image

These next three are the station design that leads to the Portal Hub Subway.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

The Four Corner Stations would be based off this design, but above ground, plus it will use all buttons instead of levers.
Posted Image

The Portal Hub Subway Station will use a similar design, but the center will be larger.


Bottom line is i would hate to just throw 2 chests of rail tracks in the garbage, but i don't want to just build it without the majority of the servers support either.
  • 0
Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is to pay an adequate wage. -- Eleanor Roosevelt


#9 mctheta

mctheta
  • PipPip
  • Inactive
  • Plank

  • 204 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:02 PM

Here is why i reintroduced a new design.

1. I think the city would feel more like a city if it had a rail system, it is part of the game, and i have the materials to contribute, i've been lugging them around for what feels like 3 months, so why not put them to use.

2. To wait until after the city is built is not only impracticable but down right foolish, your just asking for a headache trying to weave the thing all over the place. If it's a roller coaster i sure wouldn't use it. I already built one of those, and i learned my lesson not to try that again.

3. Personally i like giving my finger a break once in awhile, the game having no auto run sucks, and the glitchy sprint doesn't help much.

Well since i thought i explained the design well enough, but apparently i was a bit confusing so i took some screenshots to give a little better idea what i had in mind.

Bottom line is i would hate to just throw 2 chests of rail tracks in the garbage, but i don't want to just build it without the majority of the servers support either.

1. agreed

2. i think it would be cool if it moved around a little thru the city, but i agree it uses extra resources and can complicate the design. my advice would be to build the rails and then maybe have buildings or areas of Sixty City that incorporate the rail design as opposed to the build the rails around the buildings.

plus it would be cool to see the rail actually going thru some buildings when you're inside.

3. agreed

please do not throw away to chests of rails. I'll gladly take them off your hands. :)
  • 0


#10 torcido

torcido
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Torch

  • 762 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:28 PM

I like the pre-built idea, as getting 'rights-of-way' around/through/over already constructed structures will be a pain (though not necessarily 'foolish', as it would be nice to know where points-of-interest will be to figure out whether a train to that place is needed. Future lines might be useful if something impressive or useful warrants a pass.)

I also like the above-ground approach, since it allows for the convenience of auto-travel while being able to check out the surroundings in a more convenient way than sprinting through weaving back and forth like a cockroach (no offense, RDB) as you try to look this way and that.

At the same time, I disagree about the 'utility' of a below-ground subway. The Inverse Skyline in FreeBuild was frequently used by some of us who had bases along it's course (even resulting in occasional collisions on the single rail). If 'Point A to Point B' straight-line utility was all that was wanted, I think it would be beneficial (particularly if it's well lit as it can be safer, since spiders can jump fences, I think).

But that wouldn't be as nice as the aboveground one that Nek has planned, and I'll likely only be riding the rails for fun (I'm not a bordering zoneholder so I'll be using the portals for most normal travel to/from 6TCT.) A 'Scenic' rail would make it worth the price of admission.

All in all, I trust Nek's work, having visited his zone a couple of times, and the images above bear testament to how good it can be. I'm curious about the working tolerances on this, though. I think (hope?) it's intended as 'rail corridors' somewhere along the painted lines at 'around' y=70, give-or-take, so that it allows for some use of the topography, particularly to capture nice views, and isn't so strict as to create other complications (such as a long run in a 2-3 block deep trench dug into y=72 plateau or 2-high walls blocking a y=68 field, or carved into an overhang on the wrong side of a hill overlooking what would be a nice view 20-blocks to the left, etc.).

Anyway, I know it'll be better than anything I could have done, and if not right out of the box, then he'll just keep working on it till it is. So I'm 'on board', if you'll pardon the pun.

(Besides, if anyone wants a more curvy and windy scenic run, we could always 'build it later' in any open space still available, as suggested.)
  • 0
Posted Image


#11 Eryng

Eryng
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Applications Manager

  • 629 posts

Posted 26 November 2011 - 07:38 PM

My original suggestion would be to put the idea on hold, but since you've got everything planned out and designed, it would be a shame not to use this.
  • 0


#12 FreddyNO

FreddyNO
  • Pip
  • Inactive
  • Log

  • 126 posts
  • LocationDisney World
  • Nationality:Norwegian

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:14 PM

I have to say I love this Nek, please go ahead and go with this great design :)
  • 0
*a reminder to make a signature*


#13 Rayvolution

Rayvolution
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • Retired Admin

  • 1,870 posts
  • LocationTexas
  • Nationality:American

Posted 26 November 2011 - 08:35 PM

My original suggestion would be to put the idea on hold, but since you've got everything planned out and designed, it would be a shame not to use this.


I felt the same way as Ery, and I also agree.

Get to work! *cracks whip*
  • 0

sig.png



#14 tim_vanloo

tim_vanloo
  • Inactive
  • Retired Veteran

  • 98 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 02:11 AM

I was reluctant at first but this looks very good.

EDIT:
Actually, I'm kinda uncomfortable with:

"4 Four way junctions that connect the main line to the zone lines."

Could you elaborate, what zone lines? Wouldn't it be better to limit the lines to SixtyCity, and only there?
  • 0


#15 Eryng

Eryng
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Applications Manager

  • 629 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 08:00 AM

I was reluctant at first but this looks very good.

EDIT:
Actually, I'm kinda uncomfortable with:

"4 Four way junctions that connect the main line to the zone lines."

Could you elaborate, what zone lines? Wouldn't it be better to limit the lines to SixtyCity, and only there?


I believe by zone lines he means the bedrock boarder, not rail lines into other zones. He's just saying that the rails will stretch all the way to the edges of the SixtyCity zone.
  • 0


#16 roachdabug

roachdabug
  • PipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Veteran

  • 280 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:07 AM

These rails need to be in the city. I will donate all my iron.
  • 0
Posted Image


#17 Nekcalb

Nekcalb
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Inactive
  • Retired Evildoer

  • 1,138 posts
  • LocationCorn Field
  • Nationality:'merican

Posted 27 November 2011 - 10:26 AM

These rails need to be in the city. I will donate all my iron.


Appreciate it, but right now i should have it covered, as a rough guesstimate i probably have 90% of the mats needed, if i am short on anything it will be stone bricks, but it will be quite a few days before i run out.



Could you elaborate, what zone lines? Wouldn't it be better to limit the lines to SixtyCity, and only there?


They will just connect to the edge of the city, if others want to connect to it to their zone they can, the infrastructure will already be in place, if not it will just loop back on itself.


*cracks whip*



Oww, that hurt man


All in all, I trust Nek's work, having visited his zone a couple of times, and the images above bear testament to how good it can be. I'm curious about the working tolerances on this, though. I think (hope?) it's intended as 'rail corridors' somewhere along the painted lines at 'around' y=70, give-or-take, so that it allows for some use of the topography, particularly to capture nice views, and isn't so strict as to create other complications (such as a long run in a 2-3 block deep trench dug into y=72 plateau or 2-high walls blocking a y=68 field, or carved into an overhang on the wrong side of a hill overlooking what would be a nice view 20-blocks to the left, etc.).


(Besides, if anyone wants a more curvy and windy scenic run, we could always 'build it later' in any open space still available, as suggested.)


Well after proposing the y-70 elevation, i am thinking i should bump it 5 higher to y-75, that will eliminate most trenches and give it an elevated track over 90% of the city also allowing a more clear view of the horizon. After looking at the prototype some and comparing it to to the 3d map i think raising it some will be necessary.

&

There is opportunity to easily expand individual lines off of the mainline, there are 4 inner stations, and 8 outer stations that are currently just stops.
  • 0
Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is to pay an adequate wage. -- Eleanor Roosevelt


#18 torcido

torcido
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Torch

  • 762 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Posted 27 November 2011 - 04:11 PM

Well after proposing the y-70 elevation, i am thinking i should bump it 5 higher to y-75, that will eliminate most trenches and give it an elevated track over 90% of the city also allowing a more clear view of the horizon. After looking at the prototype some and comparing it to to the 3d map i think raising it some will be necessary.



I was thinking maybe a y=70 +/-2 tolerance or something, so that it stays 5-ish levels above ground surface in some areas to allow easy movement beneath it, while being able to react somewhat to a slight elevation change up or down in other areas without creating a blocking wall or trench (also to protect line-of-sight views in some areas where a 5-10-block high structure might inhibit a nice view).

Either way, though. The posted images look like they're real, and they're spectacular.
  • 0
Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users