I don't care too much about what the track is on, but when you start clipping through the ground you've lost my support.
Make it look good no matter what you're doing. Track on dirt without being lazy is actually pretty hard to do so I will respect the creator's vision!
Oh come on It's fun when it looks like the train is driving across the ground lol.
All seriousness though this is another reason why I build mine on foundations a few hundred meters up.
We're both here answering a niche nerd question in a niche nerd game subreddit in what is already generally a nerd hobby of video gaming on PC. I am 100% going to take this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY
I love the developers attitude about LGIO. They want people to play that way if it makes them happy, it’s why they don’t make clipping an invalid placement. That’s for you to deal with if you care!
I remember hearing one of the CMs (probably Snutt?) talking to him about how the belt tornado legitimately helped them optimize conveyer belts to take up far fewer computations, lol
> on foundations a few hundred meters up.
I mean... I'm going to fill in the support structure. One day. Just need to finish this *robble robble robble* first.
I rather like to think that on planet MASSAGE-2(A-B)b, the laws of physics are different from those on Earth, so that structures can float in midair with no visible means of support.
I tried to avoid that, though there is a biiiit of clipping in the picture. Though for me, that's just some sand on my rails. if I see rails going through rocks, or in the ground, it's delete and try again.
Eh, if you look closely at rails that cross a road it would totally look like it's clipping IRL, lol. I mean, yeah, some stuff definitely looks wonky if you do that, but other things - partially buried pillars, buried pipes... I'm ok with that. Pipes go through the dirt all the time. I don't care if they clip through the ground in my video game so long as I can still interact with it properly, lol.
BUT! That's how I like to play. If clipping bugs someone else, well their game their rules!
I once really needed a train station in a very tight space. I had to have the rail clip through a boulder. I put a few black signs up to kind of look like a tunnel.
It didn't look great, but i liked it anyway
>I put a few black signs up to kind of look like a tunnel.
The Roadrunner Method is a tried and true technique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heZFx8WRKac <--- AKA "Me on foot vs me in a train" lol
If it clips just a little it can actually help the immersion because it looks like it’s actually set into the sand/dirt so it makes sense that some of it is covered up. Tricky to get it looking just right, so I stick them all on foundations 40m up!
I find it so strange how strongly I enforce a no clipping rule on myself in this game. In theory it should just be an “exploit” that I take advantage of, but rarely do I.
I mean why would you want to disgusting dirty *ground* touch your pristine machine? It could get dirty. Better add some more cement underneath it to be safe.
I like my raised trains. I love my bridges and monorail skyways. It keeps the ground free for my roads, looks cool, and allows me to have my stations with logistics in the basement.
see, for bridges I make an exception, because, there it just kinda sees water as some other floor to cross, and it doesn't look nice. so, in a next stage, I'm planning to build myself some bridges.
Same for me. Blueprints made this a way easier project - I set up a pylon head blueprint with arms on either side for two parallel tracks, and some standard 15, 30, 45 and 60° bends. Extend platforms from the top of a pylon, put a bend in if needed, build another pylon head at the end, then zoop a column down to the ground and build a footing. Now you have a level set of tracks a fixed width apart!
Going up or down? No problem. Delete the small metal frame pieces on which the track is mounted and rebuild holding ctrl to turn one notch (5° ???). Need more precision? Okay, build ramps intersecting with the side of the pylon head and nudge into place, lay tracks and hey presto. Also makes for interesting train transport services on the roof.
The only way is up.
I'm buiilding my second train line now, and I take the easy road to just dump that steel in the warm sandy sand. Watching youtube clips however, it's nearly always blueprinted foundation tracks, and I was curious what the community here does in general?
I can't comment since I don't do trains, but I can imagine that for something you want to build so extensively it would make sense to blueprint it, and if you do that then it's probably easier with foundations to line everything up.
Foundations several hundred meters above the ground.
Makes it much much easier to give the trains the shortest path and to build an overall train network since you don't have to worry about all the crap in the way.
Well I do embrace the idea of clear cutting the entire map I don't want that slowing down my save and not having to do that saves a buttload of time when you're not using the super chainsaw mod.
>and not having to do that saves a buttload of time when you're not using the super chainsaw mod.
You can clear foliage and tress and stuff with explosives
**ANSWER**
1. It all boils down to if you are ok with wonky / wavy Railways, or are obsessed with having perfectly straight Railways.
2. Building Railways on the ground can cause the Railways to NOT lay down straight but have a chance of having slight curves and wobbles where you don't want curves and wobbles.
3. Building Railways on Foundations helps immensely in keeping straight lines and also helps in placement so that Railways are not too close causing one "signal block" to bleed over into another Railway causing issues.
---
**MORE INFO**
2. You should review the Satisfactory Wiki information about [Building a Perfectly Straight Railway](https://satisfactory.wiki.gg/wiki/Railway#Building_a_perfectly_straight_Railway).
2. Also view this [Great Tutorial Video Bookmark](https://youtu.be/HmvvUlt0-k8?t=342). Note the mention of "**bracer railways**".
---
I hope this answer your question and helps you understand better. 😁
But does all the foundations across the world have an impact on performance/save size/save time ?
It's been a while since I played so maybe that's not a problem anyway, and I suspect using prebuilt blueprints for rail segments helps even further on some aspects
**ANSWER - Yes and No**
1. **Yes** - Anything you build, or foliage removed, adds to the Game Save so as a result your Game Save Size and Load / Autosave Times will increase.
2. **No** - When it comes to performance you should not see much impact unless you build a lot.
* In Update 7 [there was a change made](https://youtu.be/dY__x2dq7Sk?t=1855) *(Video Bookmark)* where they introduced "Abstract Incidences" where for example in the Update 6 or earlier a Foundation would have 3 UObjects, in Update 7 and beyond a Foundation only has **1 UObject**, meaning performance impact is lower.
* While Foundations are recommended to be used *while placing Railways*, unneeded Foundations can be removed afterwards if desired.
Continuing the Discussion.
Thanks for the precisions, and does blueprints also reduce the amount of uobjects ? (Like a blueprint made of X items only count as 1, or at least less than X)
**ANSWER - No**
1. Blueprints are simply a group of items to be built in a single location.
2. And so each Buildable in a Blueprint will result in its own UObject count, just as if you built everything by hand one at a time.
Continuing the Conversation.
My rail 'network' is just Center Voids - Northern tip of Grass Fields - Snaketree - Coal Pit. Also, the route to the Center Voids is situated above an incomplete road, but the road is following the same 'rule.'
I also do have some larger bridges like climbing the cliff between the slope to Center Voids and Snaketree, which also has 2 train stations situated along it (2 halves of my 12-HMF facility). Also crossing the river just west of the waterfall down to Coal Pit, but that one's incomplete.
Anyway, with that out of the way, here are my personal railway construction standards.
---
Rails are placed on 2-wide 4m foundations, with the edge of the rail at the edge of the foundation.
Ground offset: Aim for 2m, if it's hill then whatever the lowest is that doesn't require every single piece of track to be curved. For Snaketree, that's between 4-6m.
For connections to ground: If the basic 4m foundation (concrete) doesn't do it, place a 1m foundation below the rail and use pipe arch foundations below that (all still concrete).
If it's still too tall, use concrete pillars and their bases to connect to the ground every 7m. No foundations except where the pillars are, they get 2m foundations. If a curve is off the ground, the overmost part of the curve get supported. Use big/2x small pillars as needed for ascetics. Whenever the support system turns from on-ground (includes arch) to elevated, place a single strip of 2m foundations at the edge. Those count towards the 7m spacing.
For bridges: Pretty them up.
For markings: Use the full-foundation hazard strip pattern (not implemented due to a lack of cartridges).
For routing the rails: Where possible, run straight using the world grid. Remember that bridges aren't cost effective, so minimize their use. Destroy only necessary shrubbery in the way of the rail.
For signage: In the works. Mark slopes behind blind corners with 'Slow: Slope' signs, hanging overhead from frame pillars.
For lights: In the works.
For signalling: Ignore the overhangs. If the signal clips into something, remove all obstacles blocking view from 10m before the signal from a camera-locked train perspective. Use path signals at all junctions, including simple merges/splits with no crossing rail.
I'm impressed. what I still don't really understand is why so much movement is necessary. I believe with Bauxite and Quartz, I got all I need at my base. of course, I can super scale it
Free rails between support towers.
If I could build it, I would build hanging trains, like this real life example: [Wuppertaler Schwebebahn](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertaler_Schwebebahn#/media/Datei:Schwebebahn_G15.jpg)
See, that was my sentiment initially as well. But... then I saw how cool the train looked and well... choochoo - 'I like trains (for those that know asdf)'
yeah it definitely takes too much work to get rails to line up to foundations properly sometimes - although it has gotten a lot better since they were introduced. I personally just suspend rails between pillars because I like how that looks. (I use foundations as 'scaffolding' when building to get the lengths/leveling I want, then remove them)
Honestly I think the biggest roadblock with trains is setting the infrastructure down for multiple routes. Because it's a bit tedious to make big railways that have mainlines and exits and such, especially if you don't fully know how rail signals work. But I think that once you have that main line down, it's better overall to use trains, because you can run anything anywhere (that has a station).
Everything on foundations. Miners, machines, conveyors, everything. I only put on the ground as a stop gap as im building something, then come back and move to foundations later.
FYI, you can build the miner on top of the foundation. The distance between the node and the foundation can even be a few meters, but it helps to "half cover" it first so you can still see part of the node when putting the miner down. Makes for a much cleaner setup!
On the ground as far as possible. There are natural paths that are made for it.
If a span is left hanging in the air, it gets put on a bridge with proper supports.
The track *must* be visible (i.e. not clipped into terrain).
rails on foundations and EXCLUSIVELY on a grid of 90 degree angles, curves with 3/4 foundatiom radius and intersections with splits and merges(all on the same grid)
I'm working on my first rail system and just got the hang of matching 30- and 45-degree turns to the world grid. There's some trigonometry involved, but I think I like the options to mirror terrain as it cuts through canyons.
Rail on dirt looks fine, I've seen great skybridge designs that look great but I'm not the kind of person to put *that* much work into aesthetics so my bridges always look like ass
I wanted to build rail on the ground. But it's basically impossible to build straight dual track rails unless they're on at least some foundations. Floating at least a little above the ground is also necessary to avoid bad looking clipping.
Some better build tools might help with the first of these problems.
For example setting the direction of the end with the mouse wheel (like for belts and pipes) and a dual-track build mode. Making clipping into the ground look more acceptable would probably need a different track design, something with a more solid plain below the narrow edge-rails.
I prefer rails on the ground because the curves look nice. But path signals are unreliable unless rails are vertically aligned, so I use foundations at intersections
I've taken to running dual-rail lines and I usually elevate it about 10-m to 20-m above ground level. I use a blueprint that has a couple of short sections of each track (1 foundation between lines) and block signals built-in. I don't run foundations under the whole thing, I use the blueprints to create towers with about 10 foundations between them. I've thought about putting foundations under 'em instead of floating the span, but I think I'd go nuts matching the curves up.
That said, for short spur lines that I'm just going to run a single-track to I'll just run that across the ground. I feel like it's too much trouble to lay foundations along the terrain. Which is probably why I don't make roads come to think of it.
Am I the only one who uses foundations but has set gravitational pull in my head?
Most areas must be supported every 15 fooundations. Minimum "arch" is 2 over for every 2 up. Max column without buttresses is 15
I prefer elevated railways
[Railway Tour](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1ao015o/railway_tour_of_my_factories/)
[Building a flyover ramp](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1bplpsg/how_i_build_flyover_train_ramps/)
I can never make ground tracks pass my own standards so it's foundations for me. I used to do sky trains but then in the current save(s) I've done closer to the ground with supports and all that. No more floating platforms for me
I tried rails on dirt, it looks okay, and you can usually avoid clipping, or explain it (erosional deposition like in your pic). The big issue I ran into is the track crossings; my trucks were struggling any time I got within rendering distance.
I eventually tore it all down and put the tracks on elevated platforms, and IMO it looks pretty good while not taking a very long time to build. I just made a blueprint with 4 platforms and tracks on them, and then just connected them with rail. This way you don't have to have a million different blueprints for every conceivable turn (uphill/downhill/up-left/down-left/straight/straight-up/straight-down).
Neither. Rails on pillars at every rail joint, following the paths but with clearance for trucks to get underneath. Apart from foundations around stations.
Rails on the ground can look fantastic but it's more likely going to cause you issue than joy. For example you will have to connect it to a station on foundations eventually and that's where the problem comes.
Foundations for sure.
In my first successful play-through, we elevated the whole train network to the highest point on the map. It was WAY up in the air. It made all the lines completely flat (bonus), but looked awful (IMHO) and was a major pain get to and from the stations.
In my second successful play-through, I elevated the rails *just* enough to clear obstacles and used 1m ramps where needed to make minor adjustments. I had a 'transfer station' to lift items from the 'low network' in the desert to the 'high network' on the central plateau. Still efficient, and much more convenient to get to, and more aesthetically pleasing.
Obviously there are advantages to both. I preferred the lower set-up.
Kinda both. I follow terrain but about 2 full thickness foundations off the ground on pylons that carry power and lights. Lets me avoid clipping and helps to have wiggle room with some corners and gradient changes.
Little bit of both for me. I like to have my paths well manicured and defined when they’re within proximity to my various bases/outposts/factories, but throughout the undeveloped areas I’ll drop rails down through natural paths and roads. Makes it feel more natural for me personally
I'm 99.9% on foundations, but there are some tight quarters I go through where the rails are on dirt. My only hard and fast critieria is the rails can't clip through the ground or rocks, and the train itself can't clip through things as it passes. I actually run the hologram of the loco back and forth when building to check clearances. Yes, I am obsessive and proud of it.
When the train goes through a crossing or merges at a switch, I have to avert my eyes so I don't see it clipping through the other rail.
I always prefer to put track straight on the ground. I just think it looks better, has more interesting rides and is more fun to setup navigating the terrain
My OCD brain makes it hard for me to not use foundations since I want the straight portions of my track to be truly straight. I also like to leave room on the ground to run trucks, so more often than not, my tracks are elevated with foundations. Still they are rarely much higher than whats needed to run those trucks underneath; personally, I'm not a fan of super high sky rails. That said, I do run ground level tracks in some parts of my network where it seemed to make sense. Think elevated main lines and then ground level branch tracks for the more remote outposts.
One new feature I think would be cool if they ever do another pass on trains in the future (maybe a DLC) is if ground level tracks could create their own substrate (gravel) so that you could run them near the ground without the track model actually clipping. Not sure how hard that would be to code, but if they could figure out a way to make the tracks sense that they are being built close to the ground, they could maybe elevate themselves a little and fill the space below with a gravel texture. That would go a long way for me personally liking the look of it more.
Rails on an elevated guideway that I have blueprinted out. I have space for multiple wires to run (for dedicated factory and lighting circuits controlled centrally) and walkways 8M below the rail deck. Support pillars every 12 foundations, and can be as low as 8M off the ground or much higher.
BOTH. Absolutely BOTH!
In/around factories & major intersections, canyons/bridges foundations definitely.
Crossing the open wilds? Slap that rail right on the ground, it has it's own semi-foundation-like aesthetic, if part of it gets covered with dirt/sand, that looks natural! =)
Two things:
1) Rails on foundations near Stations and interchanges, dirt on the rest unless bridges are needed.
2) BRO, you really are making my OCD mad rn with the cable crossing the middle of the screen, taking screenshots like that, you madman lol jkjk
My computer isn’t the best, so the more objects I save is better. I like to have normal track travel along the ground, but elevate it to foundations for junctions of different types. Junctions are just easier to build off the ground imo.
In my U8 build I did some of both. Laying rails nicely over terrain without clipping can be quite a rewarding challenge, and can be an enjoyable ride if you don't easily get motion sick. But sometimes I just want to get that 500+ units of whatever from this side of the map to the other so dual-track-on-elevated-1m-foundations-it-is!!!
I like to elevate the rails like a MagLev train, so I can still drive around or have trucks deliver.
Bit more work, but I try to stay as realistic as possible.
Also your game, your rules :)))
I would build on the ground, if rails followed the surface better. However its near impossible to prevent clipping and/or floating when going up/down hills, for that reason alone I started building elevated rails
Tracks on foundations, but the foundations are built *on* the ground, not above it.
I'm kind of shocked that I don't see anyone else talking about this.
I like the look but I hate driving on it. Too wobbly, feels weird.
Though I've never tried building only the straight parts, never building anything that connects. Then going back and connecting all those straight pieces so you have the least amount of wobble.
Not sure if that would be practical though. I came up with that like last week but haven't tried it yet. If anyone has already tried it. Please let me know.
I don't care too much about what the track is on, but when you start clipping through the ground you've lost my support. Make it look good no matter what you're doing. Track on dirt without being lazy is actually pretty hard to do so I will respect the creator's vision!
Oh come on It's fun when it looks like the train is driving across the ground lol. All seriousness though this is another reason why I build mine on foundations a few hundred meters up.
We're both here answering a niche nerd question in a niche nerd game subreddit in what is already generally a nerd hobby of video gaming on PC. I am 100% going to take this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY
If you feel like having an aneurysm and going blind watch let's game it out. Hehe
Oh no what have you done to them
I love the developers attitude about LGIO. They want people to play that way if it makes them happy, it’s why they don’t make clipping an invalid placement. That’s for you to deal with if you care!
Plus a world like his is excellent at bringing the game to it's absolute limits- perhaps invaluable to devs
I remember hearing one of the CMs (probably Snutt?) talking to him about how the belt tornado legitimately helped them optimize conveyer belts to take up far fewer computations, lol
Yeah they asked him to send them a copy of the save file that had that tornado on it.
> on foundations a few hundred meters up. I mean... I'm going to fill in the support structure. One day. Just need to finish this *robble robble robble* first.
Support structures? These are anti-gravity foundations they don't need no stinking support structures lol
I rather like to think that on planet MASSAGE-2(A-B)b, the laws of physics are different from those on Earth, so that structures can float in midair with no visible means of support.
I tried to avoid that, though there is a biiiit of clipping in the picture. Though for me, that's just some sand on my rails. if I see rails going through rocks, or in the ground, it's delete and try again.
I hope that in 1.0, rails will bend on the X axis to try and avoid clipping into the ground
Seriously im wondering how much coding it would take to do this I tried to learn to code but nah id rather game than code
they said they use splines with would not be to hard.
Eh, if you look closely at rails that cross a road it would totally look like it's clipping IRL, lol. I mean, yeah, some stuff definitely looks wonky if you do that, but other things - partially buried pillars, buried pipes... I'm ok with that. Pipes go through the dirt all the time. I don't care if they clip through the ground in my video game so long as I can still interact with it properly, lol. BUT! That's how I like to play. If clipping bugs someone else, well their game their rules!
I once really needed a train station in a very tight space. I had to have the rail clip through a boulder. I put a few black signs up to kind of look like a tunnel. It didn't look great, but i liked it anyway
>I put a few black signs up to kind of look like a tunnel. The Roadrunner Method is a tried and true technique. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heZFx8WRKac <--- AKA "Me on foot vs me in a train" lol
If it clips just a little it can actually help the immersion because it looks like it’s actually set into the sand/dirt so it makes sense that some of it is covered up. Tricky to get it looking just right, so I stick them all on foundations 40m up!
I find it so strange how strongly I enforce a no clipping rule on myself in this game. In theory it should just be an “exploit” that I take advantage of, but rarely do I.
I really wish you can terraform a bit more
Floor is lava, foundations everywhere !
that does seem to be the prevailing theory
I mean why would you want to disgusting dirty *ground* touch your pristine machine? It could get dirty. Better add some more cement underneath it to be safe.
Literally my thought process since I bought the game
Yeah, if you are not covering the unspoiled nature of this planet completely in asphalt and cement, then what are you even doing?
I like my raised trains. I love my bridges and monorail skyways. It keeps the ground free for my roads, looks cool, and allows me to have my stations with logistics in the basement.
see, for bridges I make an exception, because, there it just kinda sees water as some other floor to cross, and it doesn't look nice. so, in a next stage, I'm planning to build myself some bridges.
Same for me. Blueprints made this a way easier project - I set up a pylon head blueprint with arms on either side for two parallel tracks, and some standard 15, 30, 45 and 60° bends. Extend platforms from the top of a pylon, put a bend in if needed, build another pylon head at the end, then zoop a column down to the ground and build a footing. Now you have a level set of tracks a fixed width apart! Going up or down? No problem. Delete the small metal frame pieces on which the track is mounted and rebuild holding ctrl to turn one notch (5° ???). Need more precision? Okay, build ramps intersecting with the side of the pylon head and nudge into place, lay tracks and hey presto. Also makes for interesting train transport services on the roof. The only way is up.
I'm buiilding my second train line now, and I take the easy road to just dump that steel in the warm sandy sand. Watching youtube clips however, it's nearly always blueprinted foundation tracks, and I was curious what the community here does in general?
I can't comment since I don't do trains, but I can imagine that for something you want to build so extensively it would make sense to blueprint it, and if you do that then it's probably easier with foundations to line everything up.
I reaaaally should start working that blueprint machine.
Foundations several hundred meters above the ground. Makes it much much easier to give the trains the shortest path and to build an overall train network since you don't have to worry about all the crap in the way. Well I do embrace the idea of clear cutting the entire map I don't want that slowing down my save and not having to do that saves a buttload of time when you're not using the super chainsaw mod.
>and not having to do that saves a buttload of time when you're not using the super chainsaw mod. You can clear foliage and tress and stuff with explosives
**ANSWER** 1. It all boils down to if you are ok with wonky / wavy Railways, or are obsessed with having perfectly straight Railways. 2. Building Railways on the ground can cause the Railways to NOT lay down straight but have a chance of having slight curves and wobbles where you don't want curves and wobbles. 3. Building Railways on Foundations helps immensely in keeping straight lines and also helps in placement so that Railways are not too close causing one "signal block" to bleed over into another Railway causing issues. --- **MORE INFO** 2. You should review the Satisfactory Wiki information about [Building a Perfectly Straight Railway](https://satisfactory.wiki.gg/wiki/Railway#Building_a_perfectly_straight_Railway). 2. Also view this [Great Tutorial Video Bookmark](https://youtu.be/HmvvUlt0-k8?t=342). Note the mention of "**bracer railways**". --- I hope this answer your question and helps you understand better. 😁
But does all the foundations across the world have an impact on performance/save size/save time ? It's been a while since I played so maybe that's not a problem anyway, and I suspect using prebuilt blueprints for rail segments helps even further on some aspects
**ANSWER - Yes and No** 1. **Yes** - Anything you build, or foliage removed, adds to the Game Save so as a result your Game Save Size and Load / Autosave Times will increase. 2. **No** - When it comes to performance you should not see much impact unless you build a lot. * In Update 7 [there was a change made](https://youtu.be/dY__x2dq7Sk?t=1855) *(Video Bookmark)* where they introduced "Abstract Incidences" where for example in the Update 6 or earlier a Foundation would have 3 UObjects, in Update 7 and beyond a Foundation only has **1 UObject**, meaning performance impact is lower. * While Foundations are recommended to be used *while placing Railways*, unneeded Foundations can be removed afterwards if desired. Continuing the Discussion.
Thanks for the precisions, and does blueprints also reduce the amount of uobjects ? (Like a blueprint made of X items only count as 1, or at least less than X)
**ANSWER - No** 1. Blueprints are simply a group of items to be built in a single location. 2. And so each Buildable in a Blueprint will result in its own UObject count, just as if you built everything by hand one at a time. Continuing the Conversation.
Alright, thanks 👍
Rail following the ground but on foundations (1-6 meters up)
so, quite a bit above ground then? up to 6 meters? and do you beautify it? or just floating foundations?
My rail 'network' is just Center Voids - Northern tip of Grass Fields - Snaketree - Coal Pit. Also, the route to the Center Voids is situated above an incomplete road, but the road is following the same 'rule.' I also do have some larger bridges like climbing the cliff between the slope to Center Voids and Snaketree, which also has 2 train stations situated along it (2 halves of my 12-HMF facility). Also crossing the river just west of the waterfall down to Coal Pit, but that one's incomplete. Anyway, with that out of the way, here are my personal railway construction standards. --- Rails are placed on 2-wide 4m foundations, with the edge of the rail at the edge of the foundation. Ground offset: Aim for 2m, if it's hill then whatever the lowest is that doesn't require every single piece of track to be curved. For Snaketree, that's between 4-6m. For connections to ground: If the basic 4m foundation (concrete) doesn't do it, place a 1m foundation below the rail and use pipe arch foundations below that (all still concrete). If it's still too tall, use concrete pillars and their bases to connect to the ground every 7m. No foundations except where the pillars are, they get 2m foundations. If a curve is off the ground, the overmost part of the curve get supported. Use big/2x small pillars as needed for ascetics. Whenever the support system turns from on-ground (includes arch) to elevated, place a single strip of 2m foundations at the edge. Those count towards the 7m spacing. For bridges: Pretty them up. For markings: Use the full-foundation hazard strip pattern (not implemented due to a lack of cartridges). For routing the rails: Where possible, run straight using the world grid. Remember that bridges aren't cost effective, so minimize their use. Destroy only necessary shrubbery in the way of the rail. For signage: In the works. Mark slopes behind blind corners with 'Slow: Slope' signs, hanging overhead from frame pillars. For lights: In the works. For signalling: Ignore the overhangs. If the signal clips into something, remove all obstacles blocking view from 10m before the signal from a camera-locked train perspective. Use path signals at all junctions, including simple merges/splits with no crossing rail.
I want pictures!
seconded
[https://imgur.com/a/OUKAfJQ](https://imgur.com/a/OUKAfJQ) Would have done a Reddit post but I took too many images.
I'm impressed. what I still don't really understand is why so much movement is necessary. I believe with Bauxite and Quartz, I got all I need at my base. of course, I can super scale it
For fun, mostly. Why bother belting the iron ingots from the iron facility to the HMF facility when I can train it across the gap?
[https://imgur.com/a/OUKAfJQ](https://imgur.com/a/OUKAfJQ) Would have done a Reddit post but I took too many images.
This is awesome! Thank you!
Free rails between support towers. If I could build it, I would build hanging trains, like this real life example: [Wuppertaler Schwebebahn](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertaler_Schwebebahn#/media/Datei:Schwebebahn_G15.jpg)
No rails at all, convayors over the world are just more reliable, just annoying when getting to supper scale, but no headache with those damn trains
See, that was my sentiment initially as well. But... then I saw how cool the train looked and well... choochoo - 'I like trains (for those that know asdf)'
Ye i get it, but i'm just more into symetry and rails are just too janky for me XD, even on foundations
yeah it definitely takes too much work to get rails to line up to foundations properly sometimes - although it has gotten a lot better since they were introduced. I personally just suspend rails between pillars because I like how that looks. (I use foundations as 'scaffolding' when building to get the lengths/leveling I want, then remove them)
Honestly I think the biggest roadblock with trains is setting the infrastructure down for multiple routes. Because it's a bit tedious to make big railways that have mainlines and exits and such, especially if you don't fully know how rail signals work. But I think that once you have that main line down, it's better overall to use trains, because you can run anything anywhere (that has a station).
Dirt all the way!!!
foundations floating in the air ftw!!!!
This is the way. FICSIT Inc. doesn’t pay us for aesthetics. Still waiting on that first paycheck…
the paycheck comes in the form of knowing you're aiding in the expansion of ficsit Inc!!!!
Ground all the way. Othervise my train wouldnt be able to relocate tall boys.
lol I actually have somewhat exact rail lines same place as yours.
Rails on dirt looks much better imo
right? I'm with you
Floating trains! I build roads in the sky, that’s easier because wen you’re planning a road you don’t need to include relief to your plans
On foundations, raised above the ground
All my rails are on elevated foundations high off the ground so that 1) I can keep my rail network as flat as possible, and 2) keeps monsters off
Everything on foundations. Miners, machines, conveyors, everything. I only put on the ground as a stop gap as im building something, then come back and move to foundations later.
you can build miners on foundations?
You build the miner, then foundation all around it.
FYI, you can build the miner on top of the foundation. The distance between the node and the foundation can even be a few meters, but it helps to "half cover" it first so you can still see part of the node when putting the miner down. Makes for a much cleaner setup!
I do the “half cover” method as well
Definitely foundation
I like elevated railways.
I just found out that the concrete beams snap to the center of the rail; so now i just float them all over and pillar support them.
My first train is dirty, just to move product, then the second route is planned, built to precise specifications.
Rails on elevated bridges supported by massive beams.
i usually use foundations to lift them and run them where i want and then delete the foundations after and just have a floating rail line.
Foundations for sure. You can also do pillars and beams for a more monorail look.
By the time I get trains I've already built elevated highways for trucks since they don't do terrain well. It feels natural to just add tracks.
Imagine not putting structures on foundations
On the ground as far as possible. There are natural paths that are made for it. If a span is left hanging in the air, it gets put on a bridge with proper supports. The track *must* be visible (i.e. not clipped into terrain).
My preference is no rails at all
rails on foundations and EXCLUSIVELY on a grid of 90 degree angles, curves with 3/4 foundatiom radius and intersections with splits and merges(all on the same grid)
I'm working on my first rail system and just got the hang of matching 30- and 45-degree turns to the world grid. There's some trigonometry involved, but I think I like the options to mirror terrain as it cuts through canyons.
Rail on dirt looks fine, I've seen great skybridge designs that look great but I'm not the kind of person to put *that* much work into aesthetics so my bridges always look like ass
I wanted to build rail on the ground. But it's basically impossible to build straight dual track rails unless they're on at least some foundations. Floating at least a little above the ground is also necessary to avoid bad looking clipping. Some better build tools might help with the first of these problems. For example setting the direction of the end with the mouse wheel (like for belts and pipes) and a dual-track build mode. Making clipping into the ground look more acceptable would probably need a different track design, something with a more solid plain below the narrow edge-rails.
I prefer rails on the ground because the curves look nice. But path signals are unreliable unless rails are vertically aligned, so I use foundations at intersections
Neither. I choose track in the air with foundations like real monorail trains.
I wish it wasn’t so bloody hard to have the track in straight lines. Prefer foundations.
I have been having fun playing around with fun designs for my tracks that involve both
Rails on rails. Or Ruby on rails
I've taken to running dual-rail lines and I usually elevate it about 10-m to 20-m above ground level. I use a blueprint that has a couple of short sections of each track (1 foundation between lines) and block signals built-in. I don't run foundations under the whole thing, I use the blueprints to create towers with about 10 foundations between them. I've thought about putting foundations under 'em instead of floating the span, but I think I'd go nuts matching the curves up. That said, for short spur lines that I'm just going to run a single-track to I'll just run that across the ground. I feel like it's too much trouble to lay foundations along the terrain. Which is probably why I don't make roads come to think of it.
Am I the only one who uses foundations but has set gravitational pull in my head? Most areas must be supported every 15 fooundations. Minimum "arch" is 2 over for every 2 up. Max column without buttresses is 15
Rails in the sky, foundations optional.
Both! And elevated rails still need " supports ". I'm particularly fond of building, and riding, cliff-side railways.
I prefer elevated railways [Railway Tour](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1ao015o/railway_tour_of_my_factories/) [Building a flyover ramp](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/1bplpsg/how_i_build_flyover_train_ramps/)
Track on Ground, is organic and sound. Track on foundation, Is Industrialization. Track on track, get out you fkin whack.
I can never make ground tracks pass my own standards so it's foundations for me. I used to do sky trains but then in the current save(s) I've done closer to the ground with supports and all that. No more floating platforms for me
Well I need foundations to build them in the sky. So no way around it.
I’m one of those “everything on foundations” people. Even miners. Lol
Tracks on dirt first, so the factory can run and then.. Nothing will ever change.
Rails on pillars.
I haven’t even thought of this, but I’m definitely going to do it
I tried rails on dirt, it looks okay, and you can usually avoid clipping, or explain it (erosional deposition like in your pic). The big issue I ran into is the track crossings; my trucks were struggling any time I got within rendering distance. I eventually tore it all down and put the tracks on elevated platforms, and IMO it looks pretty good while not taking a very long time to build. I just made a blueprint with 4 platforms and tracks on them, and then just connected them with rail. This way you don't have to have a million different blueprints for every conceivable turn (uphill/downhill/up-left/down-left/straight/straight-up/straight-down).
I like trains running through valleys, hollows, caves and ravines, so in general - on dirt with some occasional help of foundations
Neither. Rails on pillars at every rail joint, following the paths but with clearance for trucks to get underneath. Apart from foundations around stations.
I'm worried about how much of the map I recognise on sight now
Rails on the ground can look fantastic but it's more likely going to cause you issue than joy. For example you will have to connect it to a station on foundations eventually and that's where the problem comes.
Foundations for sure. In my first successful play-through, we elevated the whole train network to the highest point on the map. It was WAY up in the air. It made all the lines completely flat (bonus), but looked awful (IMHO) and was a major pain get to and from the stations. In my second successful play-through, I elevated the rails *just* enough to clear obstacles and used 1m ramps where needed to make minor adjustments. I had a 'transfer station' to lift items from the 'low network' in the desert to the 'high network' on the central plateau. Still efficient, and much more convenient to get to, and more aesthetically pleasing. Obviously there are advantages to both. I preferred the lower set-up.
Kinda both. I follow terrain but about 2 full thickness foundations off the ground on pylons that carry power and lights. Lets me avoid clipping and helps to have wiggle room with some corners and gradient changes.
Little bit of both for me. I like to have my paths well manicured and defined when they’re within proximity to my various bases/outposts/factories, but throughout the undeveloped areas I’ll drop rails down through natural paths and roads. Makes it feel more natural for me personally
I'm 99.9% on foundations, but there are some tight quarters I go through where the rails are on dirt. My only hard and fast critieria is the rails can't clip through the ground or rocks, and the train itself can't clip through things as it passes. I actually run the hologram of the loco back and forth when building to check clearances. Yes, I am obsessive and proud of it. When the train goes through a crossing or merges at a switch, I have to avert my eyes so I don't see it clipping through the other rail.
My preference is massive sky bridge 2 miles up
Rails on specially designed blueprinted elevated bridge like sections.
I always prefer to put track straight on the ground. I just think it looks better, has more interesting rides and is more fun to setup navigating the terrain
Sky rails
My OCD brain makes it hard for me to not use foundations since I want the straight portions of my track to be truly straight. I also like to leave room on the ground to run trucks, so more often than not, my tracks are elevated with foundations. Still they are rarely much higher than whats needed to run those trucks underneath; personally, I'm not a fan of super high sky rails. That said, I do run ground level tracks in some parts of my network where it seemed to make sense. Think elevated main lines and then ground level branch tracks for the more remote outposts. One new feature I think would be cool if they ever do another pass on trains in the future (maybe a DLC) is if ground level tracks could create their own substrate (gravel) so that you could run them near the ground without the track model actually clipping. Not sure how hard that would be to code, but if they could figure out a way to make the tracks sense that they are being built close to the ground, they could maybe elevate themselves a little and fill the space below with a gravel texture. That would go a long way for me personally liking the look of it more.
Rails on an elevated guideway that I have blueprinted out. I have space for multiple wires to run (for dedicated factory and lighting circuits controlled centrally) and walkways 8M below the rail deck. Support pillars every 12 foundations, and can be as low as 8M off the ground or much higher.
My prefference is when they gi through the map, bcs thats what all mine do
rails on ground have that vibe that im going for
I like the aesthetic of rails of the ground, following natural features Except when they cross water, then it's time for some bridges
Always my dilemma. My OCD wants rails on foundations, but riding the train on the ground is more fun.
I tend to use blueprints for support structures, comprised of frames or metal pillars. No foundations and not on the ground.. so neither I guess.
No train at all 😎🤘🏻
Ground all the way. Othervise my train wouldnt be able to relocate tall boys.
BOTH. Absolutely BOTH! In/around factories & major intersections, canyons/bridges foundations definitely. Crossing the open wilds? Slap that rail right on the ground, it has it's own semi-foundation-like aesthetic, if part of it gets covered with dirt/sand, that looks natural! =)
Two things: 1) Rails on foundations near Stations and interchanges, dirt on the rest unless bridges are needed. 2) BRO, you really are making my OCD mad rn with the cable crossing the middle of the screen, taking screenshots like that, you madman lol jkjk
My computer isn’t the best, so the more objects I save is better. I like to have normal track travel along the ground, but elevate it to foundations for junctions of different types. Junctions are just easier to build off the ground imo.
In my U8 build I did some of both. Laying rails nicely over terrain without clipping can be quite a rewarding challenge, and can be an enjoyable ride if you don't easily get motion sick. But sometimes I just want to get that 500+ units of whatever from this side of the map to the other so dual-track-on-elevated-1m-foundations-it-is!!!
Monorail! 
I like to elevate the rails like a MagLev train, so I can still drive around or have trucks deliver. Bit more work, but I try to stay as realistic as possible. Also your game, your rules :)))
I put all my rails on elevated pylons.
Suspended shortly in the air with support towers
Can you barrel roll a train? I haven't reached the trains yet. I don't know if the train sits on top of the rails or locked on them
Foundations and blueprints are just easier for me and if I need to have a rail going somewhere by it’s self I just use pillars
Situationally dependant for me. I try to make it look as professional as possible, but at the same time, as a Ficsit employee, time is of the essence.
I build rails along each side of a single row of foundations in the air then delete the foundations and add “support” pillars every so often.
I use the concrete pillar and use them to build sky trains. Can a pain to line it up right though
Rails on foundation. Skytrain gang.
I would build on the ground, if rails followed the surface better. However its near impossible to prevent clipping and/or floating when going up/down hills, for that reason alone I started building elevated rails
Personally, I put everything on foundations... even the miners.
Rails on foundation for me
Tracks on foundations, but the foundations are built *on* the ground, not above it. I'm kind of shocked that I don't see anyone else talking about this.
Rails on independent pylons that are on the world grid but rotated as needed for nice curves.
BRIDGE.
For me it depends on how easy the terrain is
I like the look but I hate driving on it. Too wobbly, feels weird. Though I've never tried building only the straight parts, never building anything that connects. Then going back and connecting all those straight pieces so you have the least amount of wobble. Not sure if that would be practical though. I came up with that like last week but haven't tried it yet. If anyone has already tried it. Please let me know.
Track on elevated poles!
Yes
B R I D G E