mvgulik wrote:If this case: "O--------x----|----x . . . . . O". It will only allow a connection to be made from x to O. but not from O to x.
Ahhh, yeah because in this case the game / sign thinks you're making an entirely new road.
Last experiment from a few minuts ago.
In this case: "O--------x . . . . . x--------O"
It will not allow a connection between the two x's. (Same trail name ... Blank string in my case, although 'That Should Not Matter' in my view)
Same thing with this case, you've already made a whole new trail with a completely new ID to it.
If you than remove and rebuild one x like: "O--------x--------x . . . . . O". It still wont allow you to make a connection between x and O. Either way. Now this is interesting.
It seem to me the moment you extend a O by adding a x it is given some unique, and permanent, trail-id (independent of the used trail string it seems). Well, that at least would explain the behavior I'm seeing.
Potential background/code logic's aside, it just feels illogical from a in-game/user point of view to me.
I get you, it does feel a bit awkward. But even from at a glance I can tell that having it coded this way, rather than a different way to allow pass of this rather niche situation is vastly simpler coding. From a user point of view... I can't really think of any time I've ever felt the need or desire to extend off two different roads and extend them to one point, unless I was already planning on making a Milestone at that point anyway as a check point.