@ThomasRoderick
Lines get blurred once sides get taken.

Large. 1x2m-ish.

Walking and bicycle tunnels can address weather concerns (especially important in hot regions).
It is absolutely an evil to use unnecessarily as it is a TERRIBLE form of transport, one that's inefficient and incredibly dangerous to everyone, that's best avoid absolutely wherever can be made practical. It needs to be discouraged, which means it needs to become in no uncertain terms inferior 99% of the time. Hopefully by making other travel means better, but also, in certain areas, making driving everywhere more difficult. Removing free parking would be a start (so long as the alternative is already in place).

Perhaps. Cars would be an end-point-only thing, ideally. Using a large train to take them 90% of the way would be quite desirable.

@Graingy

I can see those being dragged on a large wagon without too much issue, unless they're incredibly heavy.

How large is your wagon, and for how far? I do have a bicycle trailer for small grocery trips so I'm really unsure about the size of the wagon you're referring to. (Hopefully you aren't talking about a rail wagon! A horse-drawn one is also straight out.)

Most people should be able to get by without driving.

Although I do agree with the sentiment, the damning word here is "most", and even then it would only be applicable for people living in denser cities. Plus, there are common forms of inclement weather (non-flood level rains, high winds, dust storms) that makes driving preferable to walking/cycling between stations and destinations. IMHO widespread automobile usage is not and should not be considered a moral evil or a social problem in and of itself, end of discussion here.

Japan needs to go further, basically. More trains!

Choo Choo Muh Fren!

3m rail gauge or bust. Trains being too narrow is why tanks can't get any bigger; it's why the Maus is so narrow (despite still being incredibly wide). It all comes back to trains.

Sir I think I found your life story. (The locomotive in question is likely a Hunslet Austerity 0-6-0ST BTW just to prove my 'tism cred.)
.
..
... Hmmmm.... if we do get ulta-wide gauge rails one day, roll-on-roll-off trains anyone? Both in the "rolling parking lot" sense for trains to carry cars/jeeps directly to popular camping sites and bypassing highways and "moving bike racks" that supports a start -> bicycle/scooter -> train -> bicycle/scooter -> destination route.
....
.....
...... Oh, right, assuming we can miniaturize fusion reactors, VTOL trains for disaster relief, anyone? Or failing that, using trains to transport disaster relief VTOLs as close to affected regions as possible.

@ThomasRoderick All online discussions inevitably transform into increasingly long-form arguments.

I can see those being dragged on a large wagon without too much issue, unless they're incredibly heavy.

The fact you have to account for cars in any substantial quantity at all. And when everyone needs a car, everyone needs parking. That is a massive sacrifice in cities. Most people should be able to get by without driving.

Yes, miniature rail would probably only work for fewer, larger things...

A few mountains can go kaput without that much bad stuff happening I'm sure. Unless a lot of dangerous isotopes are created by the radiation... Earthquakes would hardly be an issue, even massive landslides don't do all that much in regards to seismic waves.

Genuinely Japan is fucked.
Japan needs to go further, basically. More trains!

3m rail gauge or bust. Trains being too narrow is why tanks can't get any bigger; it's why the Maus is so narrow (despite still being incredibly wide). It all comes back to trains.

@Graingy
About the same size as a small carry-on suitcase. Large enough that carrying them on buses and trains (or dragging them on a wagon on foot) are impractical but not large enough to warrant a truck.

The only "sacrifice" I'm seeing with the existence of larger shopping centers and shopping trips is the existence of cars and large parking lot in and of itself.

Yes to delivery and esp. aerial delivery. Rail network just for parcel delivery is straight out given the infrastructure and maintenance required. Nobody in the right mind should promote replacing cars with VTOLs if just because VTOL'ing is hella inefficient energy-wise.

PLEASE DON'T BLOW UP MOUNTAINS WITH FUSION BOMBS GOSHDARNIT ! ! !
Even if we ignore the X-ray/Gamma/neutron radiation released by even a pure fusion device, just imagine the ecological disaster created by randomly removing mountains to build ultra-wide gauge rails, plus the localized earthquakes and whatnot....

Japanese trains are overcrowded b/c Japan is kinda overcrowded in and of itself (large population + little useable landmass = recipe for disaster), and their city planning (plus economic model) meant working hours would concentrate a few city's worth of people in a select few downtown areas, which is just... inefficient. Still, Japan is among the only countries with a constantly maxed-out rail network plus a largely localized grocery shopping, so I'd still say Japan is at least a really good reference point for city planners to make transit-friendly cities.

I guess we can end the discussion here and agree to disagree on the form of future transport systems, but I guess two things we can definitely agree on is "we desperately need more and better transit esp. in the US and countries with similar urban planning" and "replacing everyday automobiles with VTOLs is a BAD idea", eh?

@ThomasRoderick How large are these carboard boxes? Could they even fit inside a car? Chances are they could be pulled on a cart.

Perhaps, but then you have to make sacrifices elsewhere. Alternatively, delivery services are much better nowadays. Under the assumption that American-style suburbs have been nearly entirely phased out, perhaps a miniature guage railway could perform deliveries. If that's too unreliable, you could use drones (which would present much less potential disaster than trying to bring a whole person to a store and back with a flying car).

This ain't 1850 anymore. Terrain isn't nearly so great a restriction as it used to be. If a mountain needs to be blasted away so a large-gauge railway can avoid sharp turns, so be it. Unfortunately those nuclear test bans also include tests for pure-fusion explosives, so there's a lot of lost time to make up for there...
Japan is hardly a role model. Their transit is notoriously overcrowded, to say nothing of how strict they are with timelines because of it (and the disasters this has caused). Japan needs far, far more transit.
To be real, I do not view Japan favourably, but that is neither here nor there.

@Graingy
So should I rent out a truck just because I have five cardboard boxes' worth of stuff or a single TV set to move around? Probably not.

Large grocery trips are objectively more efficient time-wise. Personally, why bother with five trips when you can get everything you would need for the next two weeks in one trip? Also I'm pretty sure the Japanese are doing exactly what you're saying about smaller shops and more frequent grocery trips, so we do have a precedent we can follow for more efficient urban planning. Cars there are still used for longer leisure trips though.

Rail gauge is limited not only by the international standard but also by practical concerns like "terrain" and "turning radius" so.... nope for most applications for rail.
Once again, I guess Japan does offer a good example on how to make full use of public transit (high-speed rail for long-range intercity travels, light rails for short-range intercity and inner-city travels, busses for less populated regions), yet they still have quite a few cars on the road, so I really don't think cars as a means of individual transportation would (or should) go away any time soon.
More and better transit would definitely make roads safer and faster for cars though so for me the solution is to always diversify instead of considering it a moral imperative to promote any particular means of transport above others and shoehorn it in use cases it's less compatible with.

@ThomasRoderick
"Specialist" here basically means "used only sometimes for specific duties". For example, if you need to move furniture you can rent/take out a truck.

Perhaps. Though I reckon it's better to restock many smaller stores (for everyday items) using a few trucks than have to put up with one massive story with many cars. Alternatively, make it so the one massive store can be easily and quickly reached every few days so people don't need to do large shopping trips.

I will never stop advocating that rail gauge needs to be increased. The more tracks are built to that tiny ~1.4m standard the deeper this problem becomes. A bigger standard NEEDS to be adopted, at least for major lines. Personally I'd put 3m as ideal. The current gauge is probably the single biggest logistically limiter around in regards to how big things can be. Everything else can be made bigger, except when trains are involved. Trains are great, but they are FAR too small at present.
As for wagons, more meant personally things like like those folding fabric ones some people have.

Transit certainly can't do everything (I admitted as much myself earlier), but they can do a lot more than often credited.

@Graingy

Individual vehicles are specialist, however.

Define "specialist". Although I guess an autonomous "taxi" service can probably replace individual cars in the (distant) long run. Individual air vehicles are definitely a niche market though if just due to the energy consumption involved in getting things airborne without a runway.

Additionally, it's better to have a grocery system that doesn't require long distance travel to begin with.

Arguably yes, but economies of scale that benefits larger shopping malls and supermarkets still exists, and unless everyone enjoys buying groceries everyday from a convince store a block away I doubt large grocery trips is going away any time soon.

Also, larger (read: wider) rail cars could alleviate much of the space issues to begin with. Additionally, if stations can be made wheelchair accessible I see no reason they couldn't accommodate something akin to a wagon.

The width of a train car is limited by the rail gauge itself, and unless once again you liver quite close to a station, dollies would not help you that much beyond getting your luggage off the train. (Non-accessible stations are shit for even the first suit case so it's rather beside the point.)

Once again, I'm all for more public transport doing what they're good at (getting large amount of lightly-loaded people between pre-planned points), but to assume they're end-all-be-all solutions is somewhere between "unrealistic" and "naïveté" for most use cases. The good thing though, is that as more people have the option of taking public transit for commute and bicycles/scooters for inner-city travel it actually makes the road safer and faster for those who actually need to drive, so it's a win-win situation, no?

Jumpy cursers and text select messed that up several times. I swear, why do laptops have to warp so easily...

@ThomasRoderick True. Individual vehicles are specialist, however. Additionally, it's better to have a grocery system that doesn't require long distance travel to begin with.
Also, larger (read: wider) rail cars could alleviate much of the space issues to begin with. Additionally, if stations can be made wheelchair accessible I see no reason they couldn't accommodate something akin to a wagon.

@Graingy
Trains are pretty much the most efficient form of mass transit (plus bulk cargo transport over land), but they inherently restrict the amount of luggage/cargo a person can carry per trip (unless you're doing checked luggage and have a car waiting for you at the destination) and are terrible at moving people from point A to point B especially when there's more luggage involved, so I really don't think cars are going away any time soon from highways or city streets any time soon. What trains (and public transit in general) are very good at though, is alleviating traffic on highways and city streets during rush hours, as people going to / returning from work/school don't tend to carry much luggage or groceries regardless.
Remember, there's no such thing as "too many options" when it comes to solving real-life problems, what we can and should though, is to diversify options so the comparative advantages of the various solutions can be maximized while their comparative disadvantages can be minimized. Diversity is strength as far as engineering solutions are concerned.
.
TL;DR: Trains and buses for daily commute, cars for visiting friends and bulk grocery trips, bicycles/scooters for leisure + small grocery trips + covering small distances quickly, and VTOLs for luxury transport and urban first responders (plus flood relief if possible). Q.E.D.

Cool!

@Berulacraft another long shift right? just like on feb

@LettuceRob119 i believe in german engineering, but i do think it needs more rotors

@Postcommenter6969 I'm working, man, I need to work to pay my bills. 💀

where have you been vro

Hmmm... it needs more rotors, i dont think thats enough 🤔
(Heres a chocolate bar 🍫)

@ThomasRoderick Honestly, best just stick to trains.
Not saying there isn't a use for these lighter helicopters, but cars in the sense they're known today need to die in nearly every form they take.
They belong in the outskirts and the wild, not in the cities or highways.

@Graingy
I do agree that aviation and automobile-like numbers wouldn't mix well for now, and until non-networked AIs and LiDARs are advanced enough for near-flawless crash avoidance on an air-gapped craft it would remain a poor combination for the foreseeable future. (Yes, I know Tesla's less-than-stellar safety record but IIRC it's largely down to Elon being an abysmal engineer who refused LiDARs or even binocular vision on his car AIs; turns out automobile and rocketry are two VERY different fields with completely different design requirements and use cases afterall...)
Autonomous networked vehicles are every-closer to maturity right now, but anything that relies on a central server for crash avoidance is about one dedicated attack / serious bug / power outage away from a mass-casualty event.
.
Hey at least those craft are much smaller than a fully-fueled widebody jetliner (~50 metric tons of Jet-A for a 767) so thank the small mercies for that, eh?

@ThomasRoderick You're going to get 17 9/11s per rush hour, at least.

@Graingy
Personally I'd wait for the aviation industry to give the verdict on the feasibility of EVTOL vehicles in general, but helicopters do have the inherent problem of the large main rotor making it noisy and dangerous for intra-city flying, so I do think EVTOLs with a large combined rotor area might find a market/niche as urban luxury transport or first responder vehicle.
"Don't reinvent the wheel" argument only works when the purported new product doesn't solve any problems of the existing system, so I'm not really sure whether it would still apply here. EVTOLs do add new problems of lower energy efficiency due to the higher disk loading (unless it's a tiltwing/tiltrotor design then the wings might add some efficiency back in level flight at the trade-off of higher mechanical complexity), lacking true autorotation/gliding capabilities (once again unless they're tiltrotors or tiltwings), and all the additional challenges posed by the low energy density of batteries itself....
Hmmmm.... hybrid electric VTOLs, anyone?

@ThomasRoderick My point is that flying cars are utterly nonsensical and are only pushed by people who've either no idea what they're talking about or are trying to make a quick buck out of smoothbrained investors. Seeing as this is tagged "replica", it seems likely to be another of those situations. Not to disparage the builder of this replica, of course.
Flying cars already exist: they're called helicopters. If a helicopter isn't already doing it, it shouldn't be done.

I think some rotors are missing.

Cool Screenshot and craft

So much rotors... Still not enough.