pierreh

The United Cities of Talaran

108 posts in this topic

Pierre ,

I love the look here of this large highway winding its way through tall sky scrapers !

I am glad for the most part, you will be able to keep the same design. I think for me at least this is going to

look even better with the even larger RHW- 8S highway in its place. This sounds like a pretty large construction

project for you and I very much look forward to the final result and your new pics which will confirm this ,,,

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interim report on the highway upgrade. I found out in which city this was required, and I proceeded with the upgrade. Here is a more global view of the 'before' state:

ZLZ3SG.jpg

The part of the highway to upgrade from 6-lanes to 8-lanes stretches between points 1 and 7 in the picture. The avenue underpass at 2 doesn't require upgrading, since thre the highway has already 8 lanes. Other roadways that are affected by the upgrade are:

3 and 4 - road underpasses

5 - railway overpass

6 - avenue underpass

The 90 degrees curve gave me a bit of trouble, but eventually I got it together and it is now in place. Most of the rest could be stitched back, including some subway tunnels that got partly demolished, along with 3 or 4 buildings.

I got in trouble with the parclo (7). A merge of 2 RHW.4S into a RHW-8S, originally done with puzzle pieces, needs to be redone with another method, presumably with flexing, a technique that I haven't used yet. Until this issue is solved, the work remains incomplete and the city is at a standstill.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre,

 

this is quite a large upgrade project you have going here and I have done few to match it in its scope and complexity..

A really nice " before", zoomed out pic here that gives us a nice over view of what your trying to accomplish here...

Please keep us updated on this multi step highway construction project ..as you go through its various stages of

completion  !

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Success at last!

I spent some time trying out this and that, asking - and getting - help, finding out that the NAM version I had in my game was not up to par, and upgrading my NAM to version 35 without difficulty, Then, installing a flex E2 ramp and upgrading to RHW-8S turned out to be extremely easy. My 6-lanes to 8-lanes upgrade being now completed, here is the 90 degrees curve after upgrading. Some commercial buildings nearby had to be destroyed, and what was rebuilt after the upgrade is still a bit underdeveloped, but I have no doubt that there will be further upgrading  in that area later.

1ETmlK.jpg

 

The technique used to create the RHW-8S 90 degrees curve is described in this video created by Robin.

One minor issue resulting from the NAM 35 upgrade is that, when loading the city, I now get a message about 2 extension packs missing. I'll have to chase that eventually..

I can now continue to develop my cities, and I am current with NAM.

Edited by pierreh
Small typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre,

this really looks stunning your new 90 degree RNW - 8 S curve !! :o

Congrats, on finally finishing up this part of your upgrades... :modernwinky:

I think few players have accomplished constructing this curve in actual game play..

 

i just wanted to mention, that it is possible to do a DRI RHW- 8S, E2 split off ramp, but it involves a long 3 step process ..,

where you have to start off of this with just a base rhw-2 from scratch ,,,

Because I was able to construct one  last night, in one of my testing maps...

But, it is surely easier in this case to just go ahead and plop the flex E2 ramp , as you have done so as a part of this involved RHW upgrade project.

Although there do seem to be advantages to using as much draggable content as you can , especially i think in terms of making

re: builds and upgrades go more smoothly.. And perhaps in some cases the stability of draggable content is just a tad higher than using other construction methods, although I am unable to verify specific examples of this at the moment ..:huh:

I just wanted to verify something -

So than there is actually 3 different methods one could use  when constructing this e2 ramp for the RHW 8S network :

1) using the flex ramp method

2) using the depreciated static e2 ramp from the game menu

3) constructing a DRI,  E2 ramp from the 3 step process i describe above..

You used method (1) right ?

 

Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice update! How did you get your game to notify you of the missing extensions? I hadn't played in a while, so I don't remember much about that aspect. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing extensions: when the city gets loaded, a message appears on the screen, mentioning about missing extensions and giving long numbers for each of them. I think that it has been determined that these numbers can't be interpreted into something meaningful. But the missing stuff - at lest in my case - was easy to identify: For some buildings - in my case for railway stations - I got the gift boxes. Querying those boxes gave me the name of the stations that should be there. SInce this happened after a NAM upgrade, I was able to restore the missing prop files from the backup of the previous NAM version. It seems that, at upgrade time, Cleanitol decided to remove the props for these stations, for some reason (Hint for Brian: those were SLURP'ed stations...)..

 

OK, next issue: RHW-6S bridges. I have a large number of them in my cluster, because of all the waterways, and because 6-lane highways are the standard in that cluster. After the NAM 35 upgrade, all those bridges 'disappeared', looking like this:

3aID9b.jpg

The lampposts (!) are still there, hanging in mid-air, and the effect of the piles in the water are also still visible; the rest is gone.

After chatting about it with Brian earlier today, I tried my luck with one pair of those bridges. I deleted each of the old bridges by bulldozing a tile of where it was earlier on - this removes the lampposts and the water effects, showing that the bridge is really removed. Then I dragged new bridges. There is a single model of bridge for RHW-&S, so of course I chose that one:

j64wxW.jpg

It's the 'Concrete Box Girder RHW-6S Bridge', first box in the second row of bridges offered in the selection window. The bridges get built without any problem. Then I have a major reconstruction effort to rebuild all such bridges in the various cities. This issue is considered as resolved.

 

I have another one, which I also discussed with Brian in chat. The volume view shows volumes in various shades of blue, in the global window and on the roadways, tram tracks, subway tunnels, etc. For example:

zd8LGj.jpg:

I find that very annoying. There is probably a way to get the old coloring scheme instead, which was a lot more convenient. This is the object of my current research. If anyone knows the solution to this, I'll be obliged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre ,

that looks like the old maxis volume view, before steve re did it many years ago..

You may want to check your nam folder to see what is installed in there ?

Or if both are installed somehow and the maxis one is over riding the Z file ...volume view

the name of the proper one should be something like -

NetworkAddonMod_Volume_Data_View_Z_Medium

Let me know what you find out.. ?

Otherwise very nice update and congrats on resolving the bridge construction/ missing issues... !!

Brian

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian, thanks for your advice, which allowed me to resolve that issue.

I use the Ultra setting, so I searched for a file called NetworkAddonMod_Volume_Data_View_Z_Ultra.dat - and didn't find it in the main NAM folder! In fact, there was no Volume Data View file at all there, which explains why my volume view reverted to the old Maxis volume view, by default.

It turns out that the file (which was of course present in my old NAM environment, prior to the upgrade) gets removed from the NAM folder during the Cleanitol phase of the upgrade. Why that file is being removed, I don't know. Maybe it is meant to be replaced by a 'newer' file (which would be the exact same file since the Traffic Simulator is stable since many years....), and that replacement isn't done.

I moved back the file to the main NAM folder, and I get again the proper color scheme in the volume views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to hear you got your problem worked out with help from Brian. I can't wait for you to post more updates, I always am able to pick up something new about the game from these journal updates here at Simmania!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here looms the next issue to address: saturation on a pair of rail tracks, in a situation where the trackage was already doubled to cater to the heavy usage of rail:

iCHiAe.jpg

The second pair of tracks, next to the one showing saturation, still has a bit of capacity, but not a lot (the number, which I forgot to record, is around 50'000).

It will take me a while to figure out what to do in order to alleviate that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least that one little corner is still in the green. :P

On a serious note, best of luck figuring it out, I am sure you will come up with a way to combat that problem. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre, that is an amazing amount of rail traffic you have generated there !

I think this rivals some of the huge rail corridors I have created in the past..

yes it should be interesting what sort of traffic solution you intend to employ in this section ..

 

By the way as a side note, now that my population has exploded because of the condo Phase

being in full swing , i have some major traffic issues to tend to in the Isles..!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your encouraging words!

I didn't specifically plan to have such an amount of rail traffic in my cluster of cities, but I think that this is a result of my encouraging too much usage of public transit in the various cities, by providing a generous amount of bus, tram and subway connections, linked of course with the railway stations. Well, I am 'stuck', in a way, with that situation, and now I have to make the best of it and develop solutions to keep things moving. It is, needless to say, just the type of challenge that I wished to have to deal with when embarking on this cluster project.

Returning to the rail triangle I was showing in my previous post: in order to get more information about the volumes on the various branches of dual tracks, I took measurements and summarized them in the following drawing:

JLsBY2.jpg

The city in which the rail triangle is located, is Deramey. The numbers are supplied by the volume query. As can be seen, the tracks on the right of the drawing connect with the neighbor city of Arcens; those at the bottom of the drawing connect with Cherenne. On the top of the drawing, the right pair of tracks lead to Deramey's main station (and further, to another local station in Deramey), The left pair of tracks branches, on the right to the main station, on the left to other local stations in Deramey.

All track pairs show heavy usage. The exception is the 'little corner', the pair of tracks linking the left vertical tracks to the bottom horizontal tracks, where the volume is only 18970. The two dual tracks going to Arcens have a total volume of 52799 + 18970 + 50543 = 122312; this is still less than 2 times 65535, but the loads are not balanced between the two pairs of tracks. There is still some capacity on the left tracks going to Cherenne.

As an immediate measure, the link shown as a dotted red line should be added, to help balancing the load between the dual tracks to Arcens, and make use of the reserve capacity on the left track to Cherenne. In order to keep with the current practices in RL, this cannot be implemented at surface level, because of the conflicts at the intersection of tracks. A flyover solution needs to be put in place. Due to the relatively cramped conditions of the area, this will be difficult to realize. The city authorities have already declared that tearing down the Congress Center and rebuilding it elsewhere is out of the question. The project is being tendered with the hope that several engineering firms will respond with solutions acceptable both financially and urbanistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre, I really like your last post...

That is really a great idea to create the schematic diagram !

Not only is this helpful to you in , in terms of finding some alternative transit options.

but of course it is also helpful to us in better viewing the overall rail situation as you also

did a fine job of articulating and explaining the transit issues to the rest of us...

 

It would appear given the lack of space in this area + no major demolition of buildings will be allowed,

that additional help from subway will likely be needed ?

 

thanks, Brian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent diagram, I think you did a great job explaining this, I look forward to more progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first plans shown by the railway specialists to resolve the triangular junction issue in Deramey were turned back by both the city authorities because of the impacts on the area, and the TRC (Talaran Railway Company) because of the insufficient capacity. The engineers were asked to return to their desks and come up with something better.

Meanwhile, there was expansion in other cities. The total population of the 9 cities has now reached the total of 5 600 224 Sims.

Edited by pierreh
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pierre, thanks much for your update !

Yes, that is really starting to get up there on the total population front, now that you have gone well past 5 million .

Keep us updated on the rail congestion solutions.. That is still quite interesting what you have going on with that my friend..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rail specialists at Deramey have asked for more time to refine their proposal; this request has been accepted, even when rail travellers have sent a petition with several thousands of signatures to request more capacity on the trains.

------------

Meanwhile, another issue has been noted, on the RHW-6S highway linking Marlande and Arcens:

IqcXxf.jpg

This is a congestion view taken in Marlande. Aside from the connecting tile on the side of the RHW-6S highway where the measurement is taken. the highway shows only a medium level of congestion.

Has anyone else already seen more than 50'000 bus travelers on a highway? Can I claim a record here?

In RL, standing passemgers are not allowed on buses running on highways (at least in most western European countries) . They must all be seated. A standard bus has a seating capacity of about 50, If we apply this rule in the game (and I am inclined to do so), this means that we need a bit over 1100 buses per day to carry the commuters coming from Arcens. That's a lot of buses, especially if it all has to happen during the morning commute..

In the other direction the stats show 9528 cars, 1216 buses and 148 trucks - nothing to worry about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2016 at 2:37 PM, pierreh said:

Has anyone else already seen more than 50'000 bus travelers on a highway? Can I claim a record here?

 

No Sorry, Pierre I have gone over the maximum traffic reporting limits on a highway network of well over 80 K.

It was for buses on an MIS Network

 

But that is a very strange issue here. That only the final tile is congested or an increase in congestion just before it goes to the connection of the other city.

However, we have seen this sorta buggy behavior from city connections ( mostly concerning traffic - related) issues before with the game, have we not ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rail Triangle Upgrade project in Deramey was finally brought to a satisfactory completion. It was not easy. Some citizens, supported by the Chamber of Commerce which complained about disrupting the commercial area next to the rail tracks triangle, proposed an underground solution, that got rejected mainly on account of the immense cost.

Eventually a solution was proposed which was accepted by all parties concerned. Once the project was accepted, work proceeded swiftly and with a minimal amount of disruption. Only two commercial buildings needed to be demolished, and their owners were suitably compensated. Rail services had to be temporarily suspended and replaced by buses.

The completed upgrade, with 3 commercial lots to be rebuilt, is shown in the following picture:

aeA2ho.jpg

The mayor inaugurated the new layout by riding on the first train using the upgraded rail triangle. Rail service resumed on the same day, with a new schedule featuring more trains.

Edited by pierreh
Revised text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now