Hello! The code refactor of rails presented last week is great, but the motivation for such a task wasn't quite just some shape changes for rails. As explained last week, we can now define any kind of rail shape, and we had some very specific shapes in mind all along...
…small concern though: I currently use the rail planner a lot, usually to map out how I want my outposts to look at long distances. If the rail planner, particularly shift + click, is actively looking for rails to snap to, I hope it won’t greedily try to snap to rails I don’t want it to. I’m sure the devs already have this considered, but I just want to make sure that if I have multi-layer train crossings, and I’m trying to plan them out before I actually build them, that I’m able to path out rails behind an elevated rail without the rail planner assuming I want the rail to connect to the elevated rail. I hope that won’t be an annoying issue.
HOLY FUCK I AM SO FUCKING HARD
…small concern though: I currently use the rail planner a lot, usually to map out how I want my outposts to look at long distances. If the rail planner, particularly shift + click, is actively looking for rails to snap to, I hope it won’t greedily try to snap to rails I don’t want it to. I’m sure the devs already have this considered, but I just want to make sure that if I have multi-layer train crossings, and I’m trying to plan them out before I actually build them, that I’m able to path out rails behind an elevated rail without the rail planner assuming I want the rail to connect to the elevated rail. I hope that won’t be an annoying issue.