SC4 Devotion Forum Archives

SimCity 4 Devotion Custom Content Showcase => Network Addon Mod (NAM) => Topic started by: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 06:27:00 AM

Title: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 06:27:00 AM
Why are there no transit enabled lots in the NAM? Why does the NAM team insists of not including lots in the NAM?
About a year ago before joining the NAM Team, I had the same questions that people continue asking. The same as Z who asking in the FLUPs topic today:
Quote from: z on January 11, 2009, 03:17:39 AM
As for the NAM prohibition against lots, I think a number of people are beginning to question whether it has outlived its usefulness.  I personally will be taking this up with the NAM team some time after the coming NAM release.

My very first modding project was to extend the Marrast underpass lots for streets, oneway road, ... - you find the download here on the LEX (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1401). These are transit enabled lots.
Next, I worked on tram stations which are also transit enabled lots.
Then, I started working on the NAM because I needed more tram-avenue puzzle pieces.
So I understand both, NAM and transit enabled lots. So I give you my answer:

In the original SC4 game, you have draggable traffic networks (roads, rail tracks, ...). Easy to use and flexible. The achievement of the NAM team was to understand how this system works and to add custom content to it.
How the system works is described in the topic NAM Inner Workings (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5560.0).
Section 2 tells: NAM deals with Networks and Networks only. Not Lots. There is a distinct difference between the two, internally. Networks are handled differently by the game compared to Lots, Lots like those used for a building for example. As such, there is a completely different process involved in the handling & creation of Network Related items compared to Lots.

Networks are controlled by one controller file (NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat) that contains the network rules (RUL files). If you add new network related stuff, you do have to change the controller file. It's the heart of the traffic network.
It is also the reason why there is only one NAM team. We are forced to work together, whether we like it or not (I like it  :) ). Therefore, we publish the NAM together as team. We have some special projects like SAM, HSRP, RHW, ..., but in the end, they depend on references from the controller file, and therefore, are part of the NAM.

When developing Lots, for buildings or transit enabled lots, there is no force to work together. Everybody can publish his stuff himself under his name.

And therefore, you don't find lots in the NAM. Only stuff depending on the controller shall be included in the NAM. The NAM is defined exactly as collection of all traffic network related stuff that depends on the controller, and nothing in addition.

Z, your above statement simply tells that you do not understand the NAM yet. If you want to learn, read the NAM Inner Workings (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5560.0), use the Reader, export the RUL files and read them with an ASCII editor. Take the Reader and look at the other files in the NAM. And ask questions, we do help each other.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 07:28:08 AM
Chrisim, there is a relation between the network capacities and the station capacities,
and especially for TE stations, like the in-game toll booth and monorail station.

For proper working all station capacities should be increased in the same proportion as the network capacities have been increased.

As an example, simulators A and B Easy increase the road capacity from 1000 to 5600.
However, the in-game toll booth, with a capacity of 600, becomes a useless bottle neck if used on these roads.

The Census Repository Facility (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1831) operates as a toll booth in the game.
In order not to cause adverse effects I had to create 6 versions of it, with different capacities for different simulators.

I still agree with Z, that if NAM changes the network capacities, it should change the capacities for the in-game stations as well.
NAM should have the best experience in knowing what the station capacities should be for the increased network capacities.

Otherwise, NAM, or someone working with NAM, should provide update packages for the ingame stations.
I have myself considered doing this, but as long as every new release of NAM includes yet a new set of simulators with new sets of network capacities, I would prefer to see the responsibility for this remaining with NAM.

I'm posting the experiment I made with the Census Repository Facility here.
It has been posted in a private board before, and Z has seen it.






Quote from: RippleJet on October 25, 2008, 10:38:16 AM


Since I've been modding my Census Repository Facility this week, I decided to take a look at this.
The reason being, the CRF is set up to work as a Toll Booth across a road:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FCensusRepositoryFacilityBoothDay.jpg&hash=31c5bbbc3e9581189f4b0ffb1284dc2b5464a1fb)

I didn't want to set the Transit Switch Traffic Capacity before knowing what happens... ::)
The Transit Switch Point is identical to that of Maxis' toll booths:


In other words, no switching, only through traffic for peds, cars, buses and trucks in the North-South direction.
The Transit Switch Entry Cost is set to 0.02 and the Transit Switch Fare to 0.25 (compared to 0.1 for Maxis' toll booths).

Now, the in-game toll booths have the following Transit Switch Traffic Capacity, compared below to the corresponding Network Traffic Capacity:


Toll Booth
   Switch
   Network
placed on:
   Capacity
   Capacity
Road
600
1000
Avenue
1500
2500
Highway
2400
4000

I have halved the traffic switch capacities for the toll booths on avenues and highways, as they are doubled due to the two sides.
In other words, the toll booth capacity set by Maxis is 60% of the network capacity.
What does this mean in the game?

...but beware... I love pictures... :D






I set up the following situation, using the same city I used before when testing the Entry Cost
(which you probably can guess from the name of the city)... $%Grinno$%

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRFStartup.jpg&hash=84afef3eefece7341b4ad286577f15de79a97d8c)

All residents live to the left and all jobs are to the right.
There is one single road connecting those two districts.

I'm still running the May 2007 version of NAM with NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Standard.dat.
Thus, the road capacity is still 1000 and Congestion vs Speed is 0,1, 1,1, 2,0.65, 3,0.3

I let the city run till the first unemployment signs appeared (in the lower left-hand corner).
At this stage the road had a usage of 2,954.

As a side note, the message "Local Road Reaches Limit - A Chaos of Cars" is set to appear when a road's traffic congestions exceeds 320.
It did however appear already when the usage was slightly over 2,000 (whatever that means)...

I saved the city at exactly this moment, using it for every test shown further down.
After this I let the city run for another 3 months to get a point I could compare to the other runs:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithoutCRF.jpg&hash=9eb6e301ba411b8c1c15393d00ce40a9fd496e31)

Another side note...
you can clearly see how the two intersections on either side of the roundabout radiate congestion.
The roundabout itself is bright green though...






First, I plopped my Census Repository Facility with a traffic capacity equal to that of Maxis' toll booths, ie. 600.
It is plopped just to the left of that query, between the residential and commercial districts.

After letting it run for 3 months, the results were not very encouraging.
Quite a lot of unemployment, and the road usage was down at 2,400 (four times the station capacity):

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF600.jpg&hash=becb02571a647d853c1d621195fc26eb550a6f47)






Thus, I decided to double the traffic capacity of the Census Repository Facility, to 1,200.
Plopped it in the same city as above, and had really no influence from it at all:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF1200.jpg&hash=a0b865f288aa5c1109d150140bb54434e9a50a13)

However, as you know, one disadvantage with having too high a capacity is
that the congestion starts showing green and yellow instead of red at lower usages.
To show this, I plopped three more of them, further to the left:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF1200x4.jpg&hash=827ca74b07dac2a34b6e1901e00a09beee88ff7f)

You might also have spotted the little yellow square a bit to the right of the CRF.
That is one, from the previous testing, remaining bus blocker by 1dera3, having a capacity of 2,000.






Now, what if we gave the CRF an even lower capacity?
Well,the result was not very surprising. The road usage maxed out at 1,200 (four times the station capacity):

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF300.jpg&hash=98bc2c17fa6028d1420607640e42b0e4c42f4347)

Note, that this is also what you would experience if you plopped the in-game toll booth when running NAM with a road capacity of 2,000.
And Simulators A and B have road capacities between 2,500 and 5,600 depending on difficulty level... ::)

I once more want to stress that NAM should include all in-game stations, properly modded, with each separate traffic plugin... :P






Now, I wanted to see which transit capacity gives the same result as the road alone...
Thus, first a test with a capacity of 800:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF800.jpg&hash=db158e4a2e9539eb9669f72ccdac3ab9d7202ce3)

...and the same after plopping three more CRF's to the left:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF800x4.jpg&hash=3caac65ee51665a2c8153fe08c48e75f95fae6e7)

Doesn't look too bad, does it?
The usage seems to have dropped a little though.






Then a test with a capacity of 900:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF900.jpg&hash=f4030262ca57a6be04ab6360402a02bfe2fcafaf)

and after plopping three more of them:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF900x4.jpg&hash=95c91d96932c95be1e1bfd50f6ced8a3a79c3aff)

Seems like the capacity is a little bit too high now, as the road shows slightly more congested than the CRF's.






Now, to run a definite test, I returned to the original city without CRF's and let it run for more than a year.
During this year, the road's usage stayed between 3,353 and 3,439 cars plus 30-35 pedestrians:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithoutCRF1year.jpg&hash=9ff6acdbb0734206296a2962b2f132e42b720075)

After this I plopped the CRF with a capacity of 800 and let another year pass.
During this year the capacity dropped slightly and stayed between 3,127 and 3,180 cars plus 30-35 pedestrians:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FRoadCongestionwithCRF8002years.jpg&hash=304f71fa5e16ed9605e9567b7e88edb37b6906d8)

It definitely seems like the maximum usage through a station that doesn't allow any switching is 4 times the capacity.
And the maximum capacity of the road seems to be around 3,400.

Thus, to make a road toll booth that doesn't influence the congestion, would require a capacity of:
    3400/3200 × 800/1000 = 850

In other words... 85% (or maybe it should be 5/6) of the network capacity.
Maxis reduced this to 60% in its toll booths, obviously on purpose to reduce the capacity.






Now, the annoying thing with all these different network speeds is that to be complete,
I would need to make no less than 6 versions of the CRF. &sly

One each for the following road speeds, with the toll booth capacity to the right:


Simulators C-E - Standard   
1,000
850
Simulators C-E - x 2
2,000
1,700
Simulators A-B - Hard
2,500
2,125
Simulators A-B - Medium
3,750
3,187
Simulators C-E - x 5
5,000
4,250
Simulators A-B - Easy
5,600
   4,760
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 08:09:56 AM
Quote from: RippleJetI once more want to stress that NAM should include all in-game stations, properly modded, with each separate traffic plugin...

Well, the main problem is not the Maxis stations, but the hundreds of custom stations that are out there. When the NAM Team released a patch for most of the GLR stations that made them usable with the draggable GLR, a lot of people simply dumped all patch files into their plugins folder, which caused numerous issues. There is no way that anyone can make patches for all available custom stations, and even for the more popular ones, it would be quite a task.

If the NAM would include patches for the Maxis stations, the updated values of those would conflict with unmodded custom stations. I guess the only effective way to solve this problem is developing a tool that scans the plugins folder, picks all stations and adjusts the values according to the numbers of your current Traffic Plugin. Even I, who has the modding knowledge that is required to do this manually, wouldn't really want to go through my entire plugins folder and adjust every single station manually...
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 10:36:11 AM
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 08:09:56 AM
Well, the main problem is not the Maxis stations, but the hundreds of custom stations that are out there.

The first time I recommended NAM to modd the in-game stations,
was because most in-game stations do not have an Entry Cost.
I am including the complete post regarding this further down here.

With mott's research, the "X Tool" was set to include an entry cost for each station.
All stations made with the "X Tool" since November 2007 do now have an Entry Cost.

Since nobody has updated the in-game stations, the Sims will now (as you can see from the post below),
whenever possible, use only Maxis stations (or older custom stations).

NAM has performed a lot of research on the Entry Cost and the Network Capacities.
However, if NAM does not provide means of updating the in-game stations to match these results,
NAM should at least point out in the readme what implications you'd get by e.g. increasing the network capacities.

The users should at least be told that in-game TE stations are not NAMpatible, unless you use the standard Simulator C, D or E.
And maybe NAM could post some recommendations about what the station capacities should be, depending on the Simulator used.
Thus at least those users who know how to do it, can modify their own custom stations and in-game stations properly.

For the "X Tool" I would also appreciate if NAM could provide some recommendations on how custom stations by default should be modded in the future:







Quote from: RippleJet on September 11, 2008, 06:52:58 AM

After mott posted his excellent tutorial TE Lots, Transit Switches, and You (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2763.0), I posted this reply and request:

Quote from: RippleJet on October 25, 2007, 04:40:40 PM
I will implement the transit switch entry cost in the formulas for the "X Tool" for the creation of custom stations in the future!
And I suggest that the next NAM changes that property for all in-game stations accordingly! ;)


Stations modded with PIM-X have since had an Entry Cost of 0.30.
After CLR1SC4D's excellent investigation and testing above, I suppose it should be lowered to 0.27 though.

However, making custom stations with an Entry Cost is futile as long as Maxis' own stations still have an Entry Cost of 0.00.
The picture below shows Sims walking some 17 tiles to a Maxis bus stop instead of taking any of SimGoober's closer ones.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FStupidSimsTakingMaxisBuses.jpg&hash=6386f5dd8870359ccdc52529e1cfc03d773819ab)

PS. Thanks Barby for the picture! :thumbsup:

In this picture there are four SimGoober 1×2 bus stops
(edit: those 1x2 grass patches that are squeezed in between the residential zones),
all being closer to the Sim's house than the 1×1 Maxis stop in the lower left hand corner.

The Sims actually walked past one of SimGoober's bus stops on the way to the Maxis bus stop.
All these stops by SimGoober do of course have an Entry Cost of 0.3.

I know NAM doesn't contain any lots... at least the latest update did not change the Entry Cost of any of them.
Should I in that case make a separate mod that changes the Entry Costs for the in-game stations and stops?
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
We had a discussion about the Transit Switch Entry Cost property at SimForum just a while ago, and Chrisim posted some interesting calculations that were based in various postings from here etc. After much talking, we were concluding that the same what I said above also applies here: Unfortuantely, there are so many stations released "into the wild" already that it's virtually impossible to come up with a proper value. The large majority of the custom lots simply use the default "0" that is suggested by the Plugin Manager, and Maxis used this value as well for the in-game stations. This means that any station that is "properly" modded has a disadvantage, compared to the stations with a TSEC of 0. So the question remains: How can we achieve that the existing lots get a proper modding, so you can use them together with the "NAM Team approved" works?

The background of this story: People were complaining that the SFBT S-Bahn stations "don't work", whereas other stations (with TSEC = 0) seemed to work fine. I modded the SFBT stations with a TSEC of 0.3, as suggested by you (and some others), and for me, I get proper usage, some of them even went over capacity. But this was with a slightly modified "Better Pathfinding" plugin, so the others probably used a more radical one, or didn't set up their transit network as effective. I don't really have a good solution for all this, at least as long as there are various Traffic Plugins out there, and a large variety of "properly" and "improperly" modded stations...
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 01:46:31 PM
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
So the question remains: How can we achieve that the existing lots get a proper modding, so you can use them together with the "NAM Team approved" works?


Regarding the Entry Cost:


The original recommended by mott (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2763.msg84648#msg84648) was based on the pedestrian speed:

The modified recommended by CLR1SC4D (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4272.20) was slightly reduced:


Recent recommendations have been more aimed at blocking the slowest vehicles from shortcutting, thus basing the entry cost on the bus speed on streets.
This again would be dependent on the Simulator that the lot is designed to be used with:

Simulator A:

Simulator B:

Simulator C/D/E:

I suppose the values above could be multiplied by 0.96 as well, to be in accordance with CLR1SC4D's experiments.


Another NAM member, Cogeo, has tested the Entry Cost with his RTMT, and concluded that 0.02 should be good enough to block all vehicles from shortcutting.
This corresponds pretty well with the speed of cars and buses on roads, regardless of Simulator (but might lead to some shortcutting if plopped next to a street):

Simulator A:

Simulator B:

Simulator C/D/E:


Personally I am more inclined at using a default value of 0.02 as an Entry Cost for all stations created by the "X Tool".
My own testing also shows that an Entry Cost that would block all pedestrians from shortcutting isn't really feasible.
0.02 was the value I decided to use with the Census Repository Facility as well (which is to be plopped on top of a road).

Could such a value get the endorsement from NAM? ::)
If so, I'll probably make a mod that would update all ingame stations to have an entry cost of 0.02.

And I'll change the formulas for the "X Tool" so that 0.02 would be the default Entry Cost...
...and start demanding everyone who's uploaded an "X Tool"-modded station to update their lots... &mmm
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
We had a discussion about the Transit Switch Entry Cost property at SimForum just a while ago, and Chrisim posted some interesting calculations that were based in various postings from here etc. After much talking, we were concluding that the same what I said above also applies here: Unfortuantely, there are so many stations released "into the wild" already that it's virtually impossible to come up with a proper value. The large majority of the custom lots simply use the default "0" that is suggested by the Plugin Manager, and Maxis used this value as well for the in-game stations. This means that any station that is "properly" modded has a disadvantage, compared to the stations with a TSEC of 0.
No, Andreas, you did not understand me correctly.
My theory is as follows. Let's assume rail as example.
First, railways stations plopped next to rail track should always have a zero entry cost.
It is more complex for stations plopped ontop of rail tracks. These "ontop" stations should have a positive entry cost.
Let's assume we wish to mod a new rail station. Which value shall we use?
My conclusion at Simforum was: A station plopped on rail track should have the same Transit Switch Entry Cost value as the time, a train needs to drive along a rail track of same length. For a four tiles long stations and a standard speed of 110, it is 4/110=0.036
I believe this equals Cogeo's formula.
If you put a larger number, rail traffic is penalized versus car traffic and less passengers will use rail, especially when many "ontop" rail stations are used and their spacing is dense. If the value is much too high, it may block rail traffic through the station.
A station with zero entry cost is a minor cheat because Sims will jump with infinite velocity through the station, but the impact on the overall traffic is small.

Mott had a different motivation for his formula. He wanted to prevent Sims (Pedestrians) to jump with infinite velocity through the station. The price he pays is that also rail traffic running trhough is station is penalized or even blocked. His motivation was good, but there is a serious side effect.
So, I do suggest using Entry cost = Length devided by speed,  similar as Cogeo.

Quote from: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 01:46:31 PM
Could such a value get the endorsement from NAM? ::)
If so, I'll probably make a mod that would update all ingame stations to have an entry cost of 0.02.
You should not put a 0.02 value to ingame station that are plopped next to track, because you would penalize rail traffic versus car traffic.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 02:44:12 PM
Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
No, Andreas, you did not understand me correctly.

Maybe you were talking German... :D


Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
First, railways stations plopped next to rail track should always have a zero entry cost.

Wouldn't this lead to e.g. all passengers getting off the train at the front end of the station, jumping across the station at no cost, and getting on the train at the rear end of the station? And wouldn't this shortcutting lead to all through traffic thus getting added to the station's usage?


Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
It is more complex for stations plopped ontop of rail tracks. These "ontop" stations should have a positive entry cost.
An "ontop" station with a much too high entry cost would not be used and any traffic through such a station is blocked. Never use much too high values!
A station with zero entry cost is a minor cheat, but the issue is minor. In case of doubt, you can ignore such stations.
Let's assume we wish to mod a new rail station. Which value shall we use?
My conclusion at Simforum was: A station plopped on rail track should have the same Transit Switch Entry Cost value as the time, a train needs to drive along a rail track of same length. For a four tiles long stations and a standard speed of 110, it is 4/110=0.036
I believe this equals Cogeo's formula.
If you put a larger number, rail traffic is penalized versus car traffic and less passengers will use rail, especially when many "ontop" rail stations are used and their spacing is dense.

That is how we all thought the Entry Cost should have been multiplied for larger stations.
However, I think Christopher (CLR1SC4D) proved that the game itself handles that multiplying in his post:

Quote from: CLR1SC4D on May 03, 2008, 09:05:32 PM
Experiment 2:  What entry cost would prevent Sims from short cutting through a station of varying size at a corner of a road?  In this scenario the road touched the station along two adjacent sides.  Stations were varied in size as listed below.
(1X1, 1X2, 1X3, 1X4, 1X5, 2X2, 2X3, 3X3, 10X10)
Surprisingly all stations had the same value that prevented most Sims from using the station as a shortcut 1.3435/Transit Speed.

Experiment 3:  What entry cost would maintain the commute time of Sims traveling across a transit station?  A city was setup with residential on one side and commercial & industrial on the other separated by 9 tiles in one of the following configurations; pedestrian mall tiles, pedestrian mall tiles alternating with a 1X1 transit station (5 pedestrian mall tiles & 4 transit stations), pedestrian mall tiles alternating with a 1X3 transit station (3 pedestrian mall tiles & 2 1X3 transit stations), and pedestrian mall tiles on either side of a 1X7 transit station.
The transit switch entry cost that maintained a constant commute for the 1X1, 1X3 and 1X7 station was found to be the same as found in experiment 2, 1.3435/(Transit Speed).

Experiment 4:  What entry cost balance the number of Sims traveling across two equal distance paths?  A city was setup with residential on one side and commercial & industrial on the other separated by 9 tiles with one path of 9 pedestrian mall tiles and the other in one of the following configurations;  pedestrian mall tiles alternating with a 1X1 transit station (5 pedestrian mall tiles & 4 transit stations), pedestrian mall tiles alternating with a 1X3 transit station (3 pedestrian mall tiles & 2 1X3 transit stations), and pedestrian mall tiles on either side of a 1X7 transit station.
The transit switch entry cost that kept all the Sims on the pedestrian mall tiles was 1.3445/(Transit Speed).  At 1.323/(Transit Speed) half of the Sims used each route.  With 1.303/(Transit Speed) all the Sims traveled the route through the transit stations.


Another interesting point is that 1.3435 is 95% of the diagonal across a 1X1 tile.  I do not know if this means anything or not.

Is it possible that the transit switch entry cost is applied for each tile across a station?
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 11, 2009, 04:27:27 PM
Wow!  I turn away for a few hours, and this huge thread pops out of nowhere!   :o

I don't have time for detailed comments right now (I'd like to add some later), but there's one simple question I'd like to answer.

Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PM
First, railways stations plopped next to rail track should always have a zero entry cost.

Quote from: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 02:44:12 PM
Wouldn't this lead to e.g. all passengers getting off the train at the front end of the station, jumping across the station at no cost, and getting on the train at the rear end of the station? And wouldn't this shortcutting lead to all through traffic thus getting added to the station's usage?

This shortcutting is exactly what happens; I have observed it with RalphaelNinja's 4-square long Boulevard Station placed lengthwise next to a rail line.  The default station has a TSEC of zero (which I fixed in my game after I saw this).  Sure enough, every single passenger (thousands in this case) was getting off the train at the beginning of the station and reboarding at the end.  The rail line usage plunged to zero in between.  I don't recall what happens to the station's usage, but I can see no reason why all these transfers would not be added to it.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Tarkus on January 11, 2009, 04:31:33 PM
I'll add a few thoughts myself, namely to Tage's proposal about including "fixes" for various stations to match the changed capacities for the various Simulators.  

Doing so, in theory, would not require including a Lot per se, but rather, an exemplar that affects a Lot--thus, I don't think it would necessarily go astray of the "No Lots in the NAM" rule.  However, it would be pretty much impossible to account for all publicly-available stations/TE Lots.  Thus, if any sort of solution like this were to be implemented, it would have to apply strictly to the Maxis lots, leaving the third-party station/lot fixes to those Lots' developers, or modders who wish to assist those developers.

I also should make clear that I believe that the NAM Core and the other integrated RUL-bound Optional Plugins (RHW, HSRP, T-RAM, etc.) should remain Lot-free.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 12, 2009, 01:50:38 AM
@Chrisim and RippleJet: Neither of you understood me correctly. ;) As Alex (Tarkus) pointed out, I wasn't questioning the actual value of the Transit Switch Entry Cost property, but I was asking how we can get those stations updated that have been released over the past few years, and which have been downloaded by thousands of SC4 players from all over the world. I can easily update all stations at SimCityKurier, for instance, but the players would have to download them again, and update their plugins folders accordingly.

I wasn't the one who suggested to continue using a TSEC of 0 as the "lowest common denominator", but after all, this might be the only way to continue our work without an enormous effort, since any station with a TSEC higher than 0 wouldn't be used as much as the other stations, if you place them both together in a city (usage meaning the total usage, including shortcutting sims, which are counted as well). Nearly all railway stations I know are transit enabled lots, and as an example, Ill Tonkso released at least 30 different ones over the time. We would have to fix at least 200 different downloads, which is a huge task, and then spread the word into the community...
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: JoeST on January 12, 2009, 05:58:38 AM
so, in effect, what you are suggesting is a "multiplier" exemplar to be stored in the specific simulator file?

btw, this topic is awesome :)

Joe
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: k808j on January 12, 2009, 07:47:26 AM
Couldn't the Cleanitol be modified to remove the transit entry cost and a patch developed to replace the transit entry with the appropriate one?
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 12, 2009, 07:50:32 AM
Quote from: Andreas on January 12, 2009, 01:50:38 AM
I was asking how we can get those stations updated that have been released over the past few years, and which have been downloaded by thousands of SC4 players from all over the world. I can easily update all stations at SimCityKurier, for instance, but the players would have to download them again, and update their plugins folders accordingly.

I don't think anybody would suggest fixing ALL existing stations around the world...
as little as we've ever thought of making all existing RCI buildings CAMpatible with proper stats and so on.

However, I think we should aim at making all stations on LEX using the same Entry Cost (in the same way as all RCI buildings on LEX have proper stats).
And that I think would be possible. That task would be comparable to, if not even easier than, Zelgadis' effort to make existing stations functional on a Mac.

Besides, if the Entry Cost that we'd agree upon would be 0.02, we wouldn't get the same problem as with SimGoober's bus stops above, that had an Entry Cost of 0.30. An Entry Cost of 0.02 doesn't give such a big disadvantage that no Sims would ever use such a station, even if there were others nearby with an Entry Cost of 0.

The main purpose with giving each station a small Entry Cost would of course be to avoid having traffic shortcutting through the station, instead of going along a network next to the station. Doing nothing would defy the research that NAM has done. Certainly, you and I can mod our stations accordingly, but why not give at least those downloading stations from LEX the option of knowing that they are modded in accordance with the best knowledge?


Quote from: k808j on January 12, 2009, 07:47:26 AM
Couldn't the Cleanitol be modified to remove the transit entry cost and a patch developed to replace the transit entry with the appropriate one?

No, but it can be used to remove an older station's Sc4Lot file that a new download would replace.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Yermam on January 12, 2009, 09:05:10 AM
Could a possible solution to custom stations and their modding be some sort of certification by the NAM team that they are modded correctly? 
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: sithlrd98 on January 12, 2009, 11:46:59 AM
I know that this thread seems to mainly be about stations...but how would you go about making a lot act like a puzzle piece? Some of the posters here have an idea of what I'm still trying to do , still I would love to get more info into all of this.

Jayson
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: ScottFTL on January 12, 2009, 12:15:17 PM
This is a really interesting and productive discussion.

I'm not exactly sure where this information came from, but the Prima guide does list TSEC values for transit stations.  Freight Rail is the only station listed with a TSEC of 0.  All other transit stations are listed with a TSEC of 0.05 with parking garages and toll booths set to 0.2.  Maxis never implemented these values with the exception of the toll booth, but perhaps this information provides some guidelines for reasonable values.

It seems reasonable to say that a TSEC of 0.2 or higher is meant to discourage usage since it was used for the toll booth.  I have read some reports of usage problems with the SFBT S-Bahn Stations and the revised SG Bus Stops, and both had the TSEC set to 0.3.  So I think the maximum value lies somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 for sure.  These values are in line with Mott's and CLR1SC4D's formulas based on pedestrian speed.

The minimum values would depend on the network and traffic types.  I won't discuss the older NAM traffic simulators that modified that network speed properties because I think there is agreement that this had a negative effect on the traffic simulator.  When you use the 1/Speed formula with Simulators A and B in the latest NAM, here is what you get:

Bus/Truck on Street0.0286
Car on Street0.0250
Bus/Truck on Road0.0182
Car on Road0.0167
Bus/Truck on Avenue0.0182
Car on Avenue0.0167
Bus/Truck on One Way0.0182
Car on One Way0.0167
Bus/Truck on Highway0.0111
Car on Highway0.0100
Passenger Rail0.0091
Freight Rail or Subway0.0067
Monorail0.0050
If I understand correctly, these are the values that prevent the traffic type from having a free trip across a transit-enabled lot.  It does seem like 0.02 is in line with these numbers, although I think there are additional considerations for certain types of transit-enabled lots such as Road Top Mass Transit.

This is my long-winded way of agreeing with RippleJet.  I do not think we can eliminate all pedestrian shortcutting, but we can significantly reduce it.  His figure of 0.02 definitely works, although I wonder if anyone would like to test with all stations set to 0.05.  It is possible that Maxis found the magic number but failed to implement it.  However, I do think Cogeo found 0.02 to be the sweet spot in his testing.

I think it is important that there is some agreement on the best way to mod transit stations.  There is a lot of extremely technical information out there, and it can be hard for the average SC4 devotee to figure out what is best.  I'd like to see some guidelines or standard on modding transit stations to work best with the traffic simulator.

I also agree that the Maxis stations need to have the TSEC set in order to work well with properly modded stations.  It would be most convenient as part of the NAM, but it would be easy enough to create a patch and link to this as a dependency in the NAM readme.  I already have such a patch created, so I would be happy to share this if there is consensus on the proper TSEC values.

As for the existing stations on this site and others, there will definitely be problems dealing with that issue no matter what.  There's just no way around it.  I believe the content on the LEX can and will be updated, but there are many older stations on the STEX and elsewhere that we cannot expect to be updated.  Many of the creators have left the SC4 community. 

Based on this, I think something like the GLR patches would be the best way forward.  I know that many of these stations have incorrect properties courtesy of the PIM and do not work well on Macs, so this would be an opportunity to fix these issues and correct the TSEC values.  I think Andreas is correct that we cannot update them all, but we could still have a good collection of properly modded lots.

I would be willing to do this work, if there is interest.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Jonathan on January 12, 2009, 01:14:45 PM
I don't know much about lots and their exemplars, but what is a parent Cohort for? Is it something that can be used to override properties in an exemplar at a later date, if so couldn't every lot uploaded (at least to the LEX)be require to have this field so that a patch can be created for all stations in one go, without getting the icon problem?

Jonathan
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 12, 2009, 02:36:04 PM
Parent cohorts are basically a template for exemplar files, so they won't work in the way you suggested, but actually the other way round. ;) I also think they only work for growables; Maxis did this to provide default pollution values and such for a wide variety of similar buildings (all those small houses, the rowhouses etc.). But even if they would work for ploppables as well, lot builders would have to modify their work in order to incorporate those default values into the lots.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: jplumbley on January 12, 2009, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: ScottFTL on January 12, 2009, 12:15:17 PM

It seems reasonable to say that a TSEC of 0.2 or higher is meant to discourage usage since it was used for the toll booth.  I have read some reports of usage problems with the SFBT S-Bahn Stations and the revised SG Bus Stops, and both had the TSEC set to 0.3.  So I think the maximum value lies somewhere between 0.2 and 0.3 for sure.  These values are in line with Mott's and CLR1SC4D's formulas based on pedestrian speed.

The minimum values would depend on the network and traffic types.  I won't discuss the older NAM traffic simulators that modified that network speed properties because I think there is agreement that this had a negative effect on the traffic simulator.  When you use the 1/Speed formula with Simulators A and B in the latest NAM, here is what you get:

Bus/Truck on Street0.0286
Car on Street0.0250
Bus/Truck on Road0.0182
Car on Road0.0167
Bus/Truck on Avenue0.0182
Car on Avenue0.0167
Bus/Truck on One Way0.0182
Car on One Way0.0167
Bus/Truck on Highway0.0111
Car on Highway0.0100
Passenger Rail0.0091
Freight Rail or Subway0.0067
Monorail0.0050
If I understand correctly, these are the values that prevent the traffic type from having a free trip across a transit-enabled lot.  It does seem like 0.02 is in line with these numbers, although I think there are additional considerations for certain types of transit-enabled lots such as Road Top Mass Transit.

This is my long-winded way of agreeing with RippleJet.  I do not think we can eliminate all pedestrian shortcutting, but we can significantly reduce it.  His figure of 0.02 definitely works, although I wonder if anyone would like to test with all stations set to 0.05.  It is possible that Maxis found the magic number but failed to implement it.  However, I do think Cogeo found 0.02 to be the sweet spot in his testing.

Scott you are entirely correct with your post.

What is required is a balance that is safe and does what is required.  If it was my personal game (if it was installed still), I would be using a value of 0.029.  The value is based off of the speed of a Bus on the slowest network (the Street).  This value will make it so that the Sims on the Bus do not have an advantage of using the station as a skipping stone as they pass, except in rare circumstances (such as a bus on a corner where the diagonal through the single tile bus station is shorter actually travelling around the corner.  This in real-life would most likely represent a transit switch anyways where the person is switching from the N-S bound bus to the E-W bound bus or something similar.

Mathematically, Cogeo's value of 0.02 works on every other network except Streets as you have shown Scott.  Streets are not generally used often in long trips and tend to be start/end points of a given trip (generally speaking), therefore since Cogeo's value works on every other network he will have reduced the issue in most general cases by probably 80-90%.  The shortcutting will still occur on Streets though.  And if the goal is to eliminate shortcutting from anything other than Pedestrians, then it should be 0.029 rather than 0.02.  (Im not trying to pick a fight here, just state the obvious)

If your goal is to prevent all shortcutting of any nature, which would include Pedestrian traffic, then you would be forced to base your Entry Cost off the speed of Pedestrians, which for the MAXIS Default Simulator would be a speed of 3.5 or an Entry Cost of 0.29.  Now, I do not believe this to be the most beneficial way of preventing shortcutting, since Pedestrian shortcutting is not very prevalent at all, it is very difficult to track and actually in turn promotes walking.    Not to mention that it costs other traffic types much more than they should be, such as Rail Stations.

In any case, I would endorse the 0.029 value since it covers all networks and would be suitable for ALL TE Lots including Rail, Subway, etc.  This value would not need to change between Simulators because if you want to Standardize, you should base it on the slowest Bus Speed on Streets amoungst all Simulators, since they really should not deviate to much from each other.

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

Before we get into retro-fitting old Stations with new values.  I ran into a CTD issue with TE Lots approximately 9 months ago in March 08.  It was a while ago and its a little fuzzy so I dont know what exactly remember what the issue was.... I believe, if I remember correctly... That it was when changing the Transit Switches of a lot that was already plopped in-game.  This may not have an effect on the re-release of old lots, but it will have an effect if any of the old lots require updated Transit Switches.  I cannot go back and test this, because as stated above I do not have SC4 installed currently and well, I dont plan on installing it right now.  So, I would suggest whoever takes on this endevor that you test out the Transit Switches, Transit Switch Capacity and the Entry Cost properties before publically re-releasing any existing lots.

I do remember that the CTD was caused when you changed the exemplar of a lot that was plopped in-game before the changes were made.  By, reverting the exemplar back and re-entering the game the CTD was gone and you could bulldoze the lot and then make your changes.  As I said above, I believe it was the Transit Switches, but cant remember exactly.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 12, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
I have no problem settling for 0.029, if that would be the consensus of NAM.
That would actually be closer to Christopher's formula of 1.3435/Speed for buses on roads, ensuring no shortcutting would appear.

Road-top stations could probably still be given individual Entry Costs, depending on the network they're designed to be plopped upon.
However, those are special cases, and I'm sure Cogeo and Z can mod them properly.

On the other hand, would there be any benefits from separating monorail, subway and train stations from this 0.029?
Looking at Scott's comparison, I wonder if we could use lower values for there (based on Christopher's foluma),
e.g. 0.007 for monorail stations, 0.010 for subway stations and 0.013 for train stations.

I know there have been complaints about the monorail and rail usage not being high enough.
Maybe we could encourage these a little by reducing the entry costs, at least compared to bus stops?

This can easily be adopted in the "X Tool", which doesn't (yet) allow the creation of combo stations.
Even if combo stations could easily be added, it would still be simple to set the Entry Cost according to the slowest traffic type.

I also agree with you Jason, that testing is imperative. Not only for the sake of avoiding possible CTD's,
but also to check the functionality of stations (in relation to each other) with the suggested Entry Costs.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 12, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
It looks like yesterday was the wrong day to have a sick day.  I'd like to start at the beginning here and work through the thread, as I think that the large issued raised at the beginning have a big effect on the issues raised in the rest of this thread.  I'll start with Chrisim's first post.

Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 06:27:00 AM
When developing Lots... there is no force to work together. Everybody can publish his stuff himself under his name.

And therefore, you don't find lots in the NAM. Only stuff depending on the controller shall be included in the NAM. The NAM is defined exactly as collection of all traffic network related stuff that depends on the controller, and nothing in addition.

What about traffic simulators?  They certainly don't depend on the controller.  So your definition of the NAM appears to be incomplete.  And in fact, you can replace the word "lots" in the first paragraph with "traffic simulators," and the statement still reads correctly.  Yet no one would deny that traffic simulators are part of the NAM, and a very necessary part at that.  TE lots are also required for the proper functioning of the NAM; a NAM without TE lots to go with it is of very limited usefulness.  And the fact that most of this thread is devoted to discussing what the properties of TE lots should be is an implicit admission of their importance to the NAM.  So if traffic simulators can be part of the NAM, why not TE lots?  And it's not just traffic simulators; the current version of the NAM contains a Traffic Congestion View, which is completely different from both network pieces and traffic simulators.  So even at this stage, Chrisim's definition of the NAM doesn't encompass everything in it.  Essentially I am proposing that we recognize this, and recognize that our users are better served by a functional definition of the NAM, instead of an implementation-dependent definition.  For example, a first pass at such a functional definition would be "Networks and everything that deals directly with them."  Or, even more concise and more focused on functionality, "Everything that directly deals with transit."  When it comes to transit, you come to the NAM.  That doesn't mean that the NAM should include every MT station ever built.  But it does mean, as people are implicitly recognizing in this thread, that for the NAM to work smoothly, it needs to have authority over all areas of transit.  It also means that the NAM should provide a complete basic package for everything it introduces.  I'll elaborate on this last point later.

QuoteNAM deals with Networks and Networks only. Not Lots. There is a distinct difference between the two, internally. Networks are handled differently by the game compared to Lots, Lots like those used for a building for example. As such, there is a completely different process involved in the handling & creation of Network Related items compared to Lots.

Yes, internally, lots and networks are handled completely differently.  (Then again, traffic simulators and data views form yet other categories.)  But the NAM is developed for the user, and I think an important question we have to ask is, What does the user really want, and what does he or she find easiest to use?

For example, look how Maxis organized the game.  The rail menu contains the rail and monorail networks, along with their associated stations.  Similarly, the miscellaneous transit menu contains a mixture of networks, stations, and network transtitions that happen to be TE lots.  The NAM team has continued to observe this grouping method; networks and TE lots are mixed together in the same menus.  Not only does this not bother the user, but it seems a natural way to organize things.  The underlying idea, which is an important one in any UI, is that features are grouped together by functionality, not by details of implementation.  And the fact that TE lots and networks are implemented completely differently is, to the average user, just an implementation detail, and of no concern to them.  As such, in a good UI, it is hidden.

Here is an example from my own experience of the consequences of exposing these implementation details to the user:  When I first downloaded the NAM, I immediately started using the GLR.  I noticed that there was a transition piece for GLR to elevated rail, but nothing for GLR to subway, which I really wanted.  I searched the STEX for the latter piece, but I missed it, either due to the way I phrased my search, or by not recognizing its name.  It was months before I found the piece, and until then, I used all sorts of awkward workarounds in my cities.

Now, to everyone here, it's obvious why the GLR-to-elevated-rail piece was present in the NAM, while the GLR-to-subway piece was not.  The first is a puzzle piece, while the second is a TE lot.  But if you tell this to a typical user (who has probably never heard of TE lots), you may very well get a response such as, "So?  They perform the same function, don't they?"  And from a player's point of view, this user is absolutely correct; the two pieces are functionally equivalent.  The elevated rail is really no more like the GLR than the subway is, except at the implementation level.  So I think that it makes no sense to say to users, "No, we won't provide you with that transition piece because it's actually a TE lot.  But we'll provide you this other transition piece, because it's a puzzle piece."  To the user, both are network transition pieces, and both are functionally part of the network.  The user doesn't care about implementation details in this case, and shouldn't have to care.  Users simply want complete functionality with their networks, and it would seem to be the job of the NAM team to give it to them.

This is all I have time for now; I'll continue this later.  But first, I'll answer a simple but important question:

Quote from: jplumbley on January 12, 2009, 02:57:32 PM
Before we get into retro-fitting old Stations with new values.  I ran into a CTD issue with TE Lots approximately 9 months ago in March 08.  It was a while ago and its a little fuzzy so I dont know what exactly remember what the issue was.... I believe, if I remember correctly... That it was when changing the Transit Switches of a lot that was already plopped in-game.  This may not have an effect on the re-release of old lots, but it will have an effect if any of the old lots require updated Transit Switches.  I cannot go back and test this, because as stated above I do not have SC4 installed currently and well, I dont plan on installing it right now.  So, I would suggest whoever takes on this endevor that you test out the Transit Switches, Transit Switch Capacity and the Entry Cost properties before publically re-releasing any existing lots.

I do remember that the CTD was caused when you changed the exemplar of a lot that was plopped in-game before the changes were made.  By, reverting the exemplar back and re-entering the game the CTD was gone and you could bulldoze the lot and then make your changes.  As I said above, I believe it was the Transit Switches, but cant remember exactly.

This is an important question that Cogeo and I had to deal with when planning the next RTMT release.  I wanted to keep the same TGI IDs for everything, and simply change the exemplars, so that users could keep their old stations with the new release.  Cogeo expressed the same concern over the CTD problem as jplumbley does, but also couldn't remember the exact details.  So I did extensive experiments, plopping current stations, then changing, one by one, virtually every property in the examplar, and plopping the new stations.  I also changed the funding levels at many points in between.  None of this caused a CTD.

Further experimentation showed what the cases were that caused a CTD.  If a lot has a funding slider in its query, then if you change its exemplar without bulldozing the old lot, you will get a CTD when you attempt to move the slider on the old lot.  A classic example of this is the fixed opera house, or the private schools enhancement.  But since all TE lots have their funding controlled centrally, it never happens with them.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: ScottFTL on January 12, 2009, 07:20:36 PM
Quote from: jplumbley on January 12, 2009, 02:57:32 PM
In any case, I would endorse the 0.029 value since it covers all networks and would be suitable for ALL TE Lots including Rail, Subway, etc.  This value would not need to change between Simulators because if you want to Standardize, you should base it on the slowest Bus Speed on Streets amongst all Simulators, since they really should not deviate to much from each other.

This seems like a good starting point, but I would like to clarify my understanding in this area.  For a network tile, the cost to travel is calculated by the formula 1/Speed.  If we apply the same formula to a TE lot, the cost to traverse the TE lot is the same as it would be to travel on the network.

If I am correct here, then this is the proper calculation for TE lots such as Road Top Mass Transit where you do not want to slow through traffic on the network.  However, I have the same questions as RippleJet...

Quote from: RippleJet on January 12, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
On the other hand, would there be any benefits from separating monorail, subway and train stations from this 0.029?
Looking at Scott's comparison, I wonder if we could use lower values for there (based on Christopher's formula),
e.g. 0.007 for monorail stations, 0.010 for subway stations and 0.013 for train stations.

I know there have been complaints about the monorail and rail usage not being high enough.
Maybe we could encourage these a little by reducing the entry costs, at least compared to bus stops?

In addition to reducing shortcutting, I believe we also want to replicate the real-world penalty for stations.  This is best illustrated with the example of commuter rail.  While an express train would pass a station at full speed, a local train would travel more slowly due to the time penalty of stopping at all stations.  So we would need to set the TSEC higher than the 1/Speed formula to reproduce this behavior.

While the value of 0.029 does meet this criteria, it could be too high in some cases.  For example, a monorail station with a TSEC of 0.029 would cost almost 6x more than the 1/Speed value of 0.005.  It seems like this could reduce usage, but obviously testing is required to validate the proper TSEC settings.

Quote from: z on January 12, 2009, 05:03:23 PM
Further experimentation showed what the cases were that caused a CTD.  If a lot has a funding slider in its query, then if you change its exemplar without bulldozing the old lot, you will get a CTD when you attempt to move the slider on the old lot.  A classic example of this is the fixed opera house, or the private schools enhancement.  But since all TE lots have their funding controlled centrally, it never happens with them.

It's good to know about this problem, even if it is a rare event.  Thanks for the information, Z.  I believe that users would have to delete and replop all transit stations anyway since the simulator will prefer the old stations with no entry cost.  I know there will be groans from some users, but fixing these stations could really add a new level to the game.  Sims would no longer simply prefer the network with the fastest speed - the layout would actually matter.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
This is a continuation of my previous post.  The next topic I wanted to address is the relation of MT stations to the NAM.  I think that the discussions for setting standards for these stations in this thread are very important, and I'll be contributing to them in a little while.  But first I want to start off with some larger questions, and then work down to the details.

There are two main issues that need to be addressed with stations:  Transit Switch Entry Cost, and capacity.  There has been much discussion on the first, and I'll delay any comments here, other than to say that I think the one wrong number here for any station is zero.  Capacities are a somewhat simpler issue to address.  The first question to address is, How many capacity levels should there be for a given station?  Almost all stations currently have a single capacity level, which to a large extent just depends on the feelings of the developer.  On the other hand, the current version of RTMT has five capacity levels for each station - one for each traffic simulator that existed when it was released.  If you were to add versions for Simulators A and B, that would bring it up to eight versions, and if you add in versions for Simulator Z, that would bring it up to twelve.  This is similar to the problem RippleJet expressed earlier, except where he has one lot to change, RTMT has dozens.  Dozens of lots times twelve simulator versions equals unmanageability.  Cogeo and I were in complete agreement about this for the next version of RTMT; we both wanted to reduce the number of versions, not increase them.  So a lot of thought has gone into this that I think applies equally to other MT stations.

First, the whole notion of separate capacity versions for each simulator capacity was reevaluated.  Traffic simulators and TE lots are obviously fundamentally different in many ways, but there's one difference that's especially applicable here.  At any point in the game you can swap out one simulator and swap in another (e.g., a higher capacity version) with no ill side effects.  After a settling period, essentially no traces of the previous simulator remain.  But that is not how MT stations work.  You can certainly swap in higher capacity versions of the same station with no ill side effects, but the stations that are already in place retain their old capacity.  To get the higher capacity version, you have to bulldoze the old station and plop a new one.  Since this can be a huge amount of work in large cities, you really want to avoid doing this.  So for the next release of RTMT, we are going to have exactly two versions of each station - Low and High capacity.  The Low capacity version is designed for rural areas and/or small- or medium-sized towns; it is basically designed for regions where there will never be a need for a traffic simulator with a capacity higher than the Hard version of Simulators A or B.  The High capacity version of RTMT stations is designed for all regions above that limit.  The High capacities were originally designed to be sufficient for the old CAM simulator, which has capacities not too far from the Easy level of Simulators A and B, but testing has shown that these capacities are sufficient all the way up to the Ultra level of Simulator Z.  So one thing I would propose here is just a slight variation on what Alex proposed on the previous page:  For all Maxis stations, there would be exemplars made for Standard, Low, and High capacity versions, which would be included with the NAM.  The appropriate version would be automatically installed whenever a traffic simulator was chosen.  The Standard version would have the same capacity as the original Maxis version, but it would have its Transit Switch Entry Cost set to the proper value, whatever that is determined to be.  It would be used only when the user chose the vanilla Maxis traffic simulator.  For custom-made stations, the Standard version could be optional, as the vast majority of custom-made stations already have higher capacities than the Maxis ones.

If people are interested in this proposal, I can publish the capacities we will be using for Low and High in RTMT, and explain in detail how they were reached.  It's not a simple relationship, though:

Quote from: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 07:28:08 AM
For proper working all station capacities should be increased in the same proportion as the network capacities have been increased.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work; especially with the higher capacity simulators, this would give you stations with a fraction of the capacity of what's needed.  My experiments showed that the relationship between network capacity and proper station capacity is quite nonlinear.  Also, things like station size need to be taken into account; the figures I have compiled apply only to stations that are the same size as the basic Maxis ones.  Large bus terminals and huge train stations are obviously going to have higher capacities than the standard-sized versions of these stations; it may take some work to figure out what these capacities should be (both Low and High, if that system is used).

Dealing with updating the Maxis stations is fairly simple compared to the problem of updating all the other stations out there, on the LEX and otherwise:

Quote from: Andreas on January 12, 2009, 01:50:38 AM
I was asking how we can get those stations updated that have been released over the past few years, and which have been downloaded by thousands of SC4 players from all over the world. I can easily update all stations at SimCityKurier, for instance, but the players would have to download them again, and update their plugins folders accordingly.

This is indeed a crucial issue, and although it's from a discussion entry costs, it applies equally to the capacities question.  And it would certainly seem to make sense to address both questions at once, as that would be much less work in the end.  Just as RippleJet has said that NAM, or someone working with NAM, should provide update packages for the ingame stations, I think that the NAM team is the most reasonable body to set and enforce standards for custom stations as well.

In my next post, I'll spell out my proposal for updating custom stations.  I'll end this post by addressing a question that RippleJet asked.

Quote from: RippleJet on January 12, 2009, 04:18:10 PM
On the other hand, would there be any benefits from separating monorail, subway and train stations from this 0.029?
Looking at Scott's comparison, I wonder if we could use lower values for there (based on Christopher's foluma),
e.g. 0.007 for monorail stations, 0.010 for subway stations and 0.013 for train stations.

I know there have been complaints about the monorail and rail usage not being high enough.
Maybe we could encourage these a little by reducing the entry costs, at least compared to bus stops?

I would definitely recommend using the lower numbers for the rails.  In my experiments while building Simulator Z, I found that it did not take much at all to discourage Sims from using faster transport.  I explained some of my findings in this post (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5382.msg198330#msg198330); the Edits actually contain the most relevant information.

As for monorail and rail usage not being high enough, I found that some of this was due to reasons explained in the abovementioned post, while the rest was due to simulator bugs, which I fixed in Simulator Z.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 13, 2009, 01:30:35 AM
Another reason why there are no stations made by the NAM Team (at least not as part of the NAM) is the mere fact that the NAM Team members never were prolific BATters. Of course one could take existing models from other custom content creators, but in the entire history of the NAM, it was produced as "free of any dependencies". Comparing the NAM to the Rush Hour expansion doesn't really work as well, because RH is a full-blown expansion pack that doesn't have to care about other development groups, whereas the NAM is solely a transportation mod. I agree that it's not always clear (esp. for novice users), but from a technical point of view, the setup does make sense. In addition, browsing the LEX, STEX, PLEX, SimCityKurier or whatever download area will never give you an "all-inclusive" package like RH - there might be a nice set of suburban homes somewhere, but then you'll need an elementary school, a fire station, a few commercial lots and what not in order to complete your new suburb. Those are always individual uploads, so why it is so surprising that you'll have to download a GLR station separately as well?
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 01:45:34 AM
Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
Unfortunately, this doesn't work; especially with the higher capacity simulators, this would give you stations with a fraction of the capacity of what's needed.  My experiments showed that the relationship between network capacity and proper station capacity is quite nonlinear.

Is there any difference between ordinary stations and roadtop stations here?


Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
Also, things like station size need to be taken into account; the figures I have compiled apply only to stations that are the same size as the basic Maxis ones.  Large bus terminals and huge train stations are obviously going to have higher capacities than the standard-sized versions of these stations; it may take some work to figure out what these capacities should be (both Low and High, if that system is used).

Yes, both the size of the building and the size of the lot should have significance here.
Below are XML extracts from the "X Tool" giving the formulas for the Transit Switch Capacities.
These are extrapolated from those capacities Maxis gave their stations (Standard Network Capacities).

Bus Stop, Train Station, Garage
<eval name="TSCap" value="100*int((1000*sqrt(LotSizeX*LotSizeY)+Volume/10.)/100.)"/>

Subway Station, El-Rail Station, Monorail Station
<eval name="TSCap" value="100*int((2000*sqrt(LotSizeX*LotSizeY)+Volume/10.)/100.)"/>


Volume is the volume of the building: Filling Degree × Width × Depth × Height
LotSizeX and LotSizeY are the width and depth of the lot, in tiles.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: daeley on January 13, 2009, 02:05:44 AM
I have the feeling there are two separate issues here, originally the question was "why are there no lots in the NAM", but it seems to me this is not the real core issue. In my opinion the core issue is: why are there no NAM standards for TE lots? I think the short answer to both questions would be:

a) because the NAM team decided they didn't want any lots in the NAM
b) because the issue was never adressed or discussed properly as is being done in this thread

I think this discussion is quite fruitful, and in fact a NAM standard for all TE capacities and entry costs would be a good thing. I also personally have the feeling that right now there are just simply too many traffic simulators out there and it's my personal feeling that maybe there is a need to select one or two "release" simulators and keep the others in the "experimental" tray.

Secondly, I'd like to chime in on Andreas' comment that comparing the NAM to Rush Hour is not fair: RH was made by a company to make money and is a full expansion, NAM is an addon made by hobby enthousiasts in their free time with no profit concerns. If they prefer not to put lots in the NAM, I can live with that.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: ScottFTL on January 13, 2009, 02:19:02 AM
Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
There are two main issues that need to be addressed with stations:  Transit Switch Entry Cost, and capacity.  There has been much discussion on the first, and I'll delay any comments here, other than to say that I think the one wrong number here for any station is zero.  Capacities are a somewhat simpler issue to address.  The first question to address is, How many capacity levels should there be for a given station?  Almost all stations currently have a single capacity level, which to a large extent just depends on the feelings of the developer.

Well said... "The wrong number for any station is zero."  I look forward to your contributions to the discussion about appropriate Transit Switch Entry Costs.

I agree that Capacity is another issue that should be addressed, and there are multiple issues when you start discussing Capacity.  Whatever the relationship between network and station capacity, it is a fact that the default capacities need to be modified to support the current and upcoming generations of traffic simulators.  Many custom stations were created with artificially high capacities in order to prevent congestion under the vanilla or previous generation traffic simulators.  It becomes more subjective, but the size of the station - including not just dimensions, but number of tracks for rail-based transit - is another factor to consider in setting proper capacities.

If we can keep the variations to a minimum as Z suggested, I think it is possible to update a fair amount of stations for both Capacity and TSEC.  I'd also like to point out that many stations have PIM defaults for other properties, such as Power Consumed 61 and Water Consumed 0.  I have also seen that many creators removed all pollution properties - and there are even a few station with improper transit switches.  However, aside from the transit switches, these are more annoyances than problems.

Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
My experiments showed that the relationship between network capacity and proper station capacity is quite nonlinear.

I'm wondering how you determined proper station capacity at all.  It seems quite subjective.  Is the capacity proper if it is extrapolated from Maxis stations?  Or is it a function of the network capacity?  I would imagine that you want a station to become congested when you reach a certain percentage of the network capacity, but that percentage would vary based on the size of the station.

Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
If people are interested in this proposal, I can publish the capacities we will be using for Low and High in RTMT, and explain in detail how they were reached.  It's not a simple relationship, though.

I would definitely be interested in how you reached the capacities for RTMT, whether in this thread or another one.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 13, 2009, 02:43:14 AM
Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 12:57:14 AM
Unfortunately, this doesn't work; especially with the higher capacity simulators, this would give you stations with a fraction of the capacity of what's needed.  My experiments showed that the relationship between network capacity and proper station capacity is quite nonlinear.

Quote from: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 01:45:34 AM
Is there any difference between ordinary stations and roadtop stations here?

No, I tested both types of stations extensively and found that they required the same capacities, which makes sense to me.

Quote from: Andreas on January 13, 2009, 01:30:35 AM
Comparing the NAM to the Rush Hour expansion doesn't really work as well, because RH is a full-blown expansion pack that doesn't have to care about other development groups, whereas the NAM is solely a transportation mod.

I agree; both you and Daeley are right.  I was trying to make a certain point, but my analogy doesn't fit very well in retrospect.  I withdraw it.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 03:20:18 AM
Quote from: daeley on January 13, 2009, 02:05:44 AM
I have the feeling there are two separate issues here, originally the question was "why are there no lots in the NAM", but it seems to me this is not the real core issue. In my opinion the core issue is: why are there no NAM standards for TE lots?

That's a perfect analysis, Daeley! :)

Instead of making a comparison to RH, I'd like to make a comparison to CAM...

CAM does not include any new lots, and probably never will.
What CAM does include though, is a fix for certain in-game lots that needed to be tweaked in order to be CAMpatible.
In addition to this CAM has set up standards for how new CAMeLots should be modded for both old and new growth stages.

Contrary to Z, I don't think NAM would have to include new station lots, not even for the new networks that have been added.
What NAM should include though, is a fix for those in-game lots that need to be tweaked in order to NAMpatible.
NAM should set up standards for how new stations should be modded for both old and new transit networks and simulators.

The standards for CAMeLots are embedded into the "X Tool".
It's equally important that the standards for "NAMeLots" are embedded in the "X Tool" as well... ::)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 13, 2009, 04:15:56 AM
My thoughts on these issues have been evolving through this discussion, as I have found it as fruitful as everyone else.  The CAM model was something that I was thinking more and more of myself, and I can say that at this point, I am completely in agreement with RippleJet's post directly above.  It seems like there is some consensus building here. :)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: b22rian on January 13, 2009, 05:20:40 AM
Quote from: z on January 13, 2009, 04:15:56 AM
My thoughts on these issues have been evolving through this discussion, as I have found it as fruitful as everyone else.  The CAM model was something that I was thinking more and more of myself, and I can say that at this point, I am completely in agreement with RippleJet's post directly above.  It seems like there is some consensus building here. :)

it is easily the best and most informative thread ive ever seen on devotion.. I would have to agree..

Quote from: daeley on January 13, 2009, 02:05:44 AM



I think this discussion is quite fruitful, and in fact a NAM standard for all TE capacities and entry costs would be a good thing. I also personally have the feeling that right now there are just simply too many traffic simulators out there and it's my personal feeling that maybe there is a need to select one or two "release" simulators and keep the others in the "experimental" tray.


I have to fully agree with this...
From having done extensive testing on all the traffic sims.. There are now clearly 2-3 traffic sims that stand out
above all the rest.. 2 of them are listed in the RHW thread as traffic sims, A and Z..and if the bug is fixed in traffic
sim B, than I would include that as a third option.. These 3 traffic sims have better path finding and there better
in other areas as well.. in addition each uses different difficulty settings..which should satisfy just about any gamer
The rest of the traffic sims out their to me are obsolete in
comparison.. and it makes no sense whatsoever for anyone to be using any of them.. So to me the first
step would be some "simplification" of reducing the number of traffic sims used to 2-3 .. and than go from there..

Quote from: daeley on January 13, 2009, 02:05:44 AM


Secondly, I'd like to chime in on Andreas' comment that comparing the NAM to Rush Hour is not fair: RH was made by a company to make money and is a full expansion, NAM is an addon made by hobby enthousiasts in their free time with no profit concerns. If they prefer not to put lots in the NAM, I can live with that.

there is one other option that can be used ,that I havent seen mentioned much here... and that is for players
to change their own settings for both the transit entry costs and station capacities, using the "illive reader"..
I suspect that the majority of players truly interested in the content of this thread are able and capable of
doing this... If not,, its really as most of you know not difficult to do...
Obviously the discussion here is most fruitful in determining what those values should be, and Im most grateful for
it.. But I will defer i think in determining exactly whose responsibility it should be to change all those value for
the older stations.. to the more knowledgeable people engaging in this wonderful discussion.. If a helpful patch were developed at some point , sure that would be great.. and obviously,
I wouldnt be against the idea of some future standards being set by the NAM in so far as any new stations
being developed in the future... I see no problem with doing this..

thanks, Brian
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 05:59:35 AM
Quote from: b22rian on January 13, 2009, 05:20:40 AM
But I will defer i think in determining exactly whose responsibility it should be to change all those value for the older stations.. to the more knowledgeable people engaging in this wonderful discussion.. If a helpful patch were developed at some point , sure that would be great.. and obviously, I wouldnt be against the idea of some future standards being set by the NAM in so far as any new stations being developed in the future... I see no problem with doing this..

Whoever starts making those patches, would have to be someone having (or getting) access to the "X Tool".
That way not only these properties would be corrected, but also all the others, e.g. pollution, consumption, civic jobs, etc.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: b22rian on January 13, 2009, 07:01:04 AM
Quote from: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 05:59:35 AM
Whoever starts making those patches, would have to be someone having (or getting) access to the "X Tool".
That way not only these properties would be corrected, but also all the others, e.g. pollution, consumption, civic jobs, etc.

Yup good point and I agree totally.. that these aspects would also be affected..  So might be a possibility
to make such a patch in the future and than the station capacities could be left up to individual players
using the illive reader to change according to what each would want..I still agree with Z that the capacities
are also quite important in all this RE: his excellent discussion about it above..

Brian
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Andreas on January 13, 2009, 07:40:18 AM
Adding some presets for those values in the X-Tool would be a good idea; it would also help the average user (once the X-Tool is published) to modify his files accordingly. The Reader is not exactly for the faint-hearted, and even SC4Tool can be a mystery for some, as you have to specify your own values (the embedded building database should provide some guidelines, though). I think the actual values are not that much important, but it is more important that the values of all lots that you have installed are in line with each other. Otherwise, some stations might get overcrowded very soon, while others "don't work at all" in the very same spot.

As usual, this requires much explanatory work on our behalf, so both custom content creators and players pick up the necessary tools and adjust their work properly. Once we managed to spread out the tools among the public, it would be easy to tell them "pick the preset that is named after the traffic plugin you installed" and apply that to all lots that are installed.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: k808j on January 13, 2009, 08:19:45 AM
In reference to making a patch for the older transit stations via the NAM group, I believe that most members of the LEX and STEX would support it, because a lot of us don't know how to change values.  The problem is would the NAM members want to do this or should another group be form just to handle patches of all sort?
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: ScottFTL on January 13, 2009, 08:41:12 AM
Quote from: RippleJet on January 13, 2009, 05:59:35 AM
Whoever starts making those patches, would have to be someone having (or getting) access to the "X Tool".
That way not only these properties would be corrected, but also all the others, e.g. pollution, consumption, civic jobs, etc.

Ah, how could I forget about the jobs?  All of those stations in the wild with 100 jobs!  I almost forgot because I check and modify everything before using in my game, but it is an awful lot of work.

I don't have access to the "X Tool" but I would not be opposed to this.  ;D  Seriously, I am willing and able to help with this effort once we have consensus on some standards.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: cogeo on January 13, 2009, 12:06:33 PM
NAM is defined as Network Addon Mod, and this speaks for itself. So this should answer the question "Why no Lots in the NAM". To me this was a very reasonable decision. NAM is network stuff, no stations. And this is quite unlikely to change now, as almost all NAM memvers are transit networks modders, though many (I would say "most") of them are certainly capable of making good-behaving station lots. However the definition could be relaxed to include some TE lots that are not literally stations, but serve other functions. For example, the GLR-to-Subway Transition could had been done by the NAM Team. It's not a station, but connects the GLR to the subway network, something that's really useful and realistic too (in many real cities the subway network extends to the suburbs as ground light rail - emerges to ground level; they are the very same trains that run underground and overground). It wouldn't be bad, if NAM contained such TE lots. On the other hand, I con't see why the double-decker El-on-Road Station is refered to as "NAM Station".

And some replies to previous posts:

As for the Transit Switch Cost, I think this should rather be capped to 0.05 (maybe somewhat higher, but not much). This value causes a noticable effect on the stations' usage. A value of 0.10 causes a severe effect (the station becomes far less attractive). A value of 0.20 or 0.30 makes stations almost unusable. And these are absolute values (not related to the lots' size). These are test results. There have indeed been cases of stations with unreasonably high TSEC settings, rendering them almost unusable by many players. This was the result of the attempt to eliminate pedestrian shortcutting (calculation based on the pedestrian speed and the lot size). I think it's pointless to attempt eliminating shortcutting, without taking into account the effect on the stations' usage. The shortcutting problem mostly concerns large station lots (eg St Pancras, Gare du Nord), especially if they are surrounded by roads (which they usually are). I can't really think of any satisfactory solution for such cases: a TSEC value that could considerably reduce shortcutting would be so high that the station would be completely unusable. Maybe the way to go would be accept some (or unfortunately most) shortcutting, consider the station usage only, and maybe increase capacity to compensate for the (estimated) increased usage reported. Why is shortcutting considered so evil finally?

Indeed, trackside stations may cause passing trains to be somehow "teleported" through the stations. Proper setting of the TSEC property can eliminate the problem. In my Rural Rail Stations Pack I have lots 3-, 4- and 6-tiles long. Each one has a different TSEC value, resulted from experimentation. As we don't have real knowledge of the internals of the traffic simulators, and furthermore not its actual implementation (the source code) I haven't bothered establishng a "theory", and prefered to experiment instead. I tested values in steps of 0.01, trying to find the minimum value for which this "teleporting" does not occur. And of course, this does relate to the lots' length.

As for RTMT, I don't know if this has become clear, but RTMT has no issues at all with shortcutting. This is because of the way RTMT stations are modded and used. They are plopped on top of road a.o. networks, and the only transit switching takes plaace at the north and south sides of the lot. Except for cases of very strange network layouts, the east and west sides normally have no adjacent roads, so what shortcutting can really take place on roadtop lots? Shortcutting is a concern for roadside lots, lots plopped at corners or between roads, etc. So the TSEC setting is far less significant here. I think it should be set considering are the (average) speed of all transit types running through the lots. Another thing to consider is that players may have plopped a large number of stops/stations along some roads, so a value higher than the that corresponding to the network speed could cause a significant increase in commute times.

RTMT stations capacities relate to the network capacities, as the through traffic is added to the stations' usage. This is a poor implementation by Maxis (subways don't have this problem) which I think originates from the tollbooth, the only roadtop Maxis lot: it has to report the through traffic as "usage", in order to collect fares based on the uasge (by employing the Transit Switch Entry Fares property). RTMT stations are not tollbooths (and the fares setting is of course 0). The "problem" is that the through traffic is considered usage. Therefore capacities must be increased by the estimated through traffic. So capacities for RTMT (currently) consist of two components, the "net" station capacity ("net" here doesn't mean "network", it's an adjective, the opposite of "gross") and another one that compensates for the through traffic. If you check the capacities in the menu and the query, you will notice that they differ. The former is the "targeted net capacity" (which is the same for all NAM capacities plugin), while the latter is the total ("gross") capacity. Maintenance costs are on par with the Maxis standards, that is $5/1000 pax for the "slow" transit types (bus, train) and $10/1000 pax for the "fast" types (subway, el/GLR, monorail), rounded (up) to the closest multiple of $5. Of course, this calculation is based on the net capacity, not the total one. This is explained in more detail in the RTMT readme. I don't know if this is going to be kept in the next versions. One may argue about the values (eg if the calculation of the estimated through traffic is correct), but I think the approach does make sense.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Chrisim on January 13, 2009, 01:26:26 PM
Discussions are great but game tests are better. I wanted to understand the Maxis rail stations better and I wanted to create support for my arguments in my second posting in this topic:
Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PMFirst, railways stations plopped next to rail track should always have a zero entry cost.
A station plopped on rail track should have the same Transit Switch Entry Cost value as the time, a train needs to drive along a rail track of same length. For a four tiles long stations and a standard speed of 110, it is 4/110=0.036
I believe this equals Cogeo's formula.
If you put a larger number, rail traffic is penalized versus car traffic and less passengers will use rail, especially when many "ontop" rail stations are used and their spacing is dense. If the value is much too high, it may block rail traffic through the station.
A station with zero entry cost is a minor cheat because Sims will jump with infinite velocity through the station, but the impact on the overall traffic is small.
The test described below showed that my first argument was wrong. But it confirmed my other arguments: Cogeo's formula is fine, Mott's formula gives much too high values (rail traffic is penalized and car traffic increased). And a value of zero is not right, but not really a major problem.

Here are the details: I created the following test city that I ran from scratch for each scenario. No plugins except NAM, using the standard C simulator (the default Maxis simulator).
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F22501aa2364a9aa7c21cf6072b8c931c.jpg&hash=0e5486263f30de51f6558d4b448109b48a13f4a1) (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fb950f0b1f81a362b03674aa191f9beb6.jpg&hash=7873e1a5a66ef4e89fb5d613d7c5f56f617324a6)
Industry and Commercial area is away from the residential area and these zones are connected by a single rail line on the left and a rail line parallel to a road on the right. The right picture shows how it looked like after three years: a test town, not beautiful.

For each scenario, I noted the rail usage on the patch between residential and commercial zones,
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F80b180e41e048d25a17ad56b00b07e73.jpg&hash=286b829876a1b2c21387b3eaa922a9f1c5b4660c) (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F6d657a7720bd8e0afd5cb6fff902fc6f.jpg&hash=0d5dae926eb065133f26a3424326f77dd0a1f7d8)
and car usage on the road, and the table on the right shows the results
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fb6f06d91b2bdde34e125c9691873d629.jpg&hash=aaa6be270d3f384f1b324961cb0b099f09236195) (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F70077d37380ab5de1fc29cb8bbcb7fac.jpg&hash=6cdcdea12a4083e6aa2f2b1a99e8e36c89645755)
TSEC is the transit switch entry cost, from 0 (Maxis), via 0.0091 (my default value 1/rail speed), 0.02 (Cogeo's standard), 0.0273 (3/rail speed, because the station is 3 tiles long), 0.2 to 1 (close to Motts value for this station).
Since I started the town from scratch each time, the houses, commerce and industry grew differently and this also had an effect on total traffic numbers. However, the trends are clear: For TSEC=0, the rail usage is highest. Car usage drastically increases with TSEC=0.2 and higher. So, the value's from Mott's formula, that is presently implemented in the X-Tool and that were used for the recent SFBT stations, these are too high because they reduce rail usage, in particular when rail tracks are close to roads.

Next step was to look closer at TSEC=0 which is Maxis' value for the station. When looking at the traffic volume display for passenger trains (left picture), there are blue colors indicating a good usage of railways, but at stations there is one white tile. When querying, it became clear: 269 trains passengers came from the south (bottom of picture), 273 were the first rail tile next to the station (apparently 4 boarded the train), on the second rail tile next to the station there were only 34 passengers and on the third rail tile next to the station, there were 341 passengers (same number as several tiles further in the middle between residential and commercial zones). The right picture shows the usage when clicking onto the station
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F3aaf056f586d8553ad1a19e3e8499619.jpg&hash=18141b49f91d82b9202dad78c71465a4b90a9d53) (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F8309002ef2e9076c459e836915b484a5.jpg&hash=cf746eb0269d261dbe9d31c9309cecba9ae8c6cf)
It is obvious: 90% of the passengers leave the train to buy a newspaper or sandwich. Unrealistic. And worse, the pink arrows show that many passengers (about 300 according to the station usage) run through the station and board the train on the third tile. These are the short cutting pedestrians that are avoided by using Mott's formula.
Let's try the same with TSEC=0.02. When looking at the traffic volume display for passenger trains (left picture), there are blue colors indicating a good usage of railways and no white tiles at stations. When querying, 179 trains passengers came from the south (bottom of picture), 235 were the first rail tile next to the station (3 left the train and 59 boarded the train), on the second rail tile next to the station there were 239 passengers (4 more passengers boarded the train) and on the third rail tile next to the station, there were 242 passengers (3 more passengers boarded the train). 3+59+4+3 gives 69 passengers who used the station. Capacity is not a problem for stations next to the track. The vast majority stayed on the train and just very few passenger took a short cut through the station. The right picture shows the usage when clicking onto the station - on first glance there are may pink arrows suggesting short cutting, but the actual numbers are very low. Don't trust the arrows, an arrow may represent a single or hundreds of pedestrians.
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F3ad26fe278929866ca950b600a9c51fa.jpg&hash=733a5b53054700b5925779dfaba8a3ce911eaa53) (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fa3a4003756e98ee51abbfae21db37a9f.jpg&hash=41b6242b72459ee06a0d4718432e6d01012d8fa3)
The table above had shown that rail traffic is reduced more than car traffic, when going from 0 to 0.02. The fact that both were reduced is probably due to the fact that I started each scenario from scratch (empty town) and for each case it developed differently.

A large value (according to Mott's formula = the present X tool formula) prevents 100% of the pedestrians to take a short cut through the station, but it also significantly reduced rail traffic and encourages car usage. A medium value (in the order of 0.02, according to 2/speed) prevents most of the short cuts and causes a slight reduction of rail traffic. A value of zero is most eco-friendly, because rail traffic is highest, but most rail passengers leave the train, short cut through the station and board the train again. Although this is unrealistic, it's not a major problem for this special station plopped next to the rail track, as long as the capacity of the station is high enough. I will use 0.0091 (1/speed) for this station from now on, as best compromise, although I do expect much protests from the local newspaper and sandwich shops owners in these stations  ;)

I started testing one of Ill Tonkso's stations that is plopped on top of the tracks, but it became clear that the transit switch point values were wrong. Only cars could enter (no pedestrians) and only pedestrians could leave (no cars). Transit switch point values are very important and much more difficult to mod correctly than the transit switch entry cost or capacity ...

While I was writing this posting, Cogeo posted. It gives a much wider overview than my simple test that concentrated on rail and one type of station only, but to me Cogeo's conclusions sound right and consistent with my experiences (except that I insist that TE-lots do not belong into the NAM)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: SimGoober on January 13, 2009, 02:21:07 PM
Ok, I wanted to chime in here as a BATter, as opposed to the many MODders who are figuring this thing out.  First off, thank god someone is figuring this out, and secondly, that it is not me!   :D

I get enough out of this discussion to understand it is important and worthwhile, but also learned that I am hopelessly behind in the tech end of it.

As a BATter, I can say that I tend to be a little defensive when people tell me what capacities my buildings should be.  Here, I am referring to RCI capacities, not traffic.  For the most part, the X-Tool provides good rounded numbers I agree with, though I tweak them here and there as necessity dictates.  Every so often, I get arguments that these are not "realistic" numbers.  My answer is that they seem to work best with the game simulator, which is why I use them.  I only state this to preface my next point.

For traffic enabled lots, or stations (of which I have several out there), I have always used default values, except capacity, which i used what I thought worked best in the game as I was playing it.  I can now see where the "standard" for these lots needs to be a little more set in stone, to keep the game balanced.  I have no problem agreeing to using these standards, and endorsing them.

As a BATter, with limited abilities in modding, I would appreciate and eventual guidebook of sorts to use as a basis for all newer stations.  For example, bus stations should be one of X number of sizes (small, medium, large?) and each should use these properties to be balanced with the current NAM release.  X-Tool can incorporate the base values here, but sometimes the creator of the lot needs to determine which level that lot is (small, medium,large).   That might be something else that could be incorporated into the X-Tool : Select the size of this station you want it to represent... (?)

Once this discussion is complete, and numbers are agreed to, I will volunteeer to update my older lots, and release updates as per the standards agreed upon.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: b22rian on January 13, 2009, 03:15:53 PM
I just wanted to take a break from the tech side of the thread to say a special thanks to both Chrisim and
Sim Goober.. First to Chrisim for your nice test you ran, it was quite informative and interesting..

Second thanks to Sim goober for volunteering to change his stations values for us , of which we are talking
about a lot of great stations !

Brian
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 14, 2009, 12:11:02 AM
This thread has been moving faster than I can post, so I think I'll use this opportunity to put in my two cents about entry costs.

I think that Chrisim's experiments and Cogeo's post point out clearly how entry costs work best.  According to Chrisim's earlier post, which he quotes:

QuoteA station plopped on rail track should have the same Transit Switch Entry Cost value as the time a train needs to drive along a rail track of same length.

I'm not sure if it was clear from Cogeo's post, but this was his motivation exactly when calculating entry costs for RTMT via experiment.  The question of shortcutting didn't enter into it.

The 1/speed formula gives a good approximation for a neutral value of the TSEC, but as CLR1SC4D showed, and I had found independently, .96/speed is exactly accurate.  If we are going to hardcode this, why not use the best number?

The one important question that still lies open is, Which speed do we use?  By this, I am referring to the fact that all three of the latest traffic simulators (A, B, and Z) have different speed tables.  For the slower vehicles, the differences aren't very great, and so the value of 0.02 for buses and cars works fine.  But in rails, there is quite a divergence in places, with A being the slowest and Z being the fastest.  Should we use one of these simulators specifically, or should we use an average of the three?

This question is important because it is tied in very closely with levels of rail usage, and how it is answered will affect those levels.  So first of all, what is the effect of rail speeds on rail usage?  As you'd probably expect, all other things being equal, the faster rails get heavier usage.  That's just a side effect of the way the traffic simulator is designed - it tries to get the Sims to their destination by the fastest route possible.  So Simulator Z's faster speeds are a big reason for its greater rail usage compared to Simulators A and B.  These are essentially the same speeds I started out with from the CAM traffic simulator.  I acknowledged on the first page of my simulator thread that the rail speeds were slightly higher than real life, but I also listed the reasons why I felt that was necessary.  One further reason has come to light in subsequent testing, which I described in a post to which I referred at the end of my previous long post in this thread.  I think it would be good to briefly summarize the situation here.  One user reported that he had a test city with a long avenue next to a monorail line.  As he expected, the vast majority of Sims took the monorail to work.  But when he replaced the avenue with a highway, everyone took the highway, even though the monorail was more than twice as fast!  Analysis of the situation showed that the Sims were actually doing the right thing, as the access time for getting to and from the monorail wiped out the monorail's speed advantage over the highway, which is only about 15 seconds if the test track is 64 squares long.  With the avenue, the monorail's advantage was closer to 45 seconds, which was enough to accommodate the additional access time, and so the Sims chose the monorail.  If the test track with the highway and the monorail were extended longer, eventually the Sims would switch to the monorail.  Note that all of this is using the higher speeds of Simulator Z.

Notice the small times involved here, despite the large speeds.  This comes down to the fact that even large tiles are only 4 km square, and very few routes use a significant fraction of that.  One of the crucial ways SC4 differs from RL is that routes tend to be shorter, often much shorter, and this is enforced by the size of the city tiles.  As a result, for the speed of a mode of mass transit to make a difference in the Sims' travel strategies, it must be significantly higher than the alternatives, due to the disproportionate effect that access time to mass transit plays in SC4.

That's the theoretical justification for the higher speeds.  For practical evidence, we can look at the identical test results obtained by Chrisim, Cogeo, and me.  Station entry costs affect just a small percentage of squares on a mass transit line.  If raising the cost slightly for those stations (thereby lowering the effective speed on those few squares) can have a big effect on the usage of that line, it is certainly easy to see how a change of speed that affects the entire line is going to have a much bigger effect.

Also, right now, most MT stations have a TSEC of zero.  Raising that number at all is going to reduce mass transit usage somewhat for all traffic simulators.  I think we want to minimize that reduction while still getting the benefits of the TSEC.  And I think that the best way to do that is to use the speeds of Simulator Z in the .96/speed formula.  Doing so does not give Simulator Z an advantage over Simulators A and B; it is in their interest as well to have a low TSEC for best mass transit usage.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 14, 2009, 02:23:06 AM
Quote from: z on January 14, 2009, 12:11:02 AM
As a result, for the speed of a mode of mass transit to make a difference in the Sims' travel strategies, it must be significantly higher than the alternatives, due to the disproportionate effect that access time to mass transit plays in SC4.

An option would of course be not to raise the speed of MT, but reduce the speed of cars.

E.g. instead of having the rail speed of 150 compared to a car speed of 50, how about reducing that to 120 for the rail and 40 for the cars? And increasing the "Commute trip max time" accordingly.

From Maxis' simulator the speed of cars (on road), buses (on road), trains and monorails have shifted quite a lot:


Simulator   
    Car Speed
    Bus Speed
    Train Speed
    Monorail Speed
Maxis
31
46
110
200
A
60
55
100
175
Z
50
40
150
250

Maxis had the monorail speed at 6.45 times the speed of cars.
Simulator A reduces this to 2.92.
Simulator Z reduces this to 5.00.

Maxis had the rail speed at 3.55 times the speed of cars.
Simulator A reduces this to 1.82.
Simulator Z reduces this to 3.00.

Maxis had a bus speed at 1.48 times the speed of cars.
Simulator A reduces this to 0.92.
Simulator Z reduces this to 0.80.

Maybe one problem is that every custom simulator seems to want higher car driving speeds...

Basically, the Entry Cost shouldn't be that much dependent on the network speed.
It would be better if only one Entry Cost per type of station could be used.

The Entry Cost simulates the time it takes to buy tickets and wait for the MT to arrive.
Thus, like Cogeo said, it should probably be somewhat higher than the minimum speed to avoid shortcutting.
The lower the network speeds are, the more freedom we would have with the Entry Cost.
If the average road speed for cars is 31, the entry cost on train stations can be higher than if the cars are allowed to drive 50 or 60.

If the city decides to upgrade all roads (change simulator) to allow an almost doubled speed limit and average speed, then there is no doubt passengers will abandon rail, unless there's a superfast train leaving once a minute (higher network speed and smaller entry cost).


Unfortunately (naw, luckily) I'm about to leave for a 3-week vacation,
so I will probably not be able to take an active part in this discussion for some time...  ::)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 14, 2009, 03:29:03 AM
Quote from: RippleJet on January 14, 2009, 02:23:06 AM
An option would of course be not to raise the speed of MT, but reduce the speed of cars.

E.g. instead of having the rail speed of 150 compared to a car speed of 50, how about reducing that to 120 for the rail and 40 for the cars? And increasing the "Commute trip max time" accordingly.

There are many, many reasons why this would not work.  Travel speeds are just hooked into too many other things in the game that would be thrown out of balance.  This is one big reason why the "5x Speed" simulators no longer exist; this would just create the inverse of the problem they had (among others).  "Commute trip max time" actually affects more than just commute trip max time, and this change would seriously mess up intercity travel.  And narrowing the range of speeds only compounds the problem of the affect of access time on mass transit.  I would expect mass transit usage to drop even further under this scheme, possibly drastically.

Quote
From Maxis' simulator the speed of cars (on road), buses (on road), trains and monorails have shifted quite a lot:


Simulator   
    Car Speed
    Bus Speed
    Train Speed
    Monorail Speed
Maxis
31
46
110
200
A
60
55
100
175
Z
50
40
150
250

Maybe one problem is that every custom simulator seems to want higher car driving speeds...

I don't think that's it.  I think that if you look at all three simulators under consideration, the car speeds of all of them are much more realistic than the Maxis speed.  To have an entire region where the maximum car speed is 31 kph (about 20 mph) is pretty unrealistic.  And to have bus speeds 50% higher than bus speeds everywhere - that doesn't make sense, especially when you consider all the stops that buses make that the game cannot directly account for.

Quote
Basically, the Entry Cost shouldn't be that much dependent on the network speed.
It would be better if only one Entry Cost per type of station could be used.

Yet all of the experiments quoted in this thread are in agreement that 1/speed (or .96/speed) produces the best results, reducing shortcutting while also minimizing the effect on transit usage.  But for basic stations, this still turns out to be one entry cost per type of station.  For combo stations, using the speed of the fastest network generally produces the best results.

Quote
The Entry Cost simulates the time it takes to buy tickets and wait for the MT to arrive.

In theory, yes.  In practice, if you stray far from the 1/speed formula you run into trouble, with teleporting on one end and abandonment of mass transit on the other.

QuoteThus, like Cogeo said, it should probably be somewhat higher than the minimum speed to avoid shortcutting.

The relevant quotes I see in Cogeo's post are, "I think it's pointless to attempt eliminating shortcutting, without taking into account the effect on the stations' usage," and "Why is shortcutting considered so evil finally?"  I agree with both of these sentiments.  The effect of even a small reduction in mass transit usage has far more effect on the game than shortcutting.

QuoteThe lower the network speeds are, the more freedom we would have with the Entry Cost.
If the average road speed for cars is 31, the entry cost on train stations can be higher than if the cars are allowed to drive 50 or 60.

That's true.  But your mass transit usage will be way down.  I can't see the point in doing this.

Quote
If the city decides to upgrade all roads (change simulator) to allow an almost doubled speed limit and average speed, then there is no doubt passengers will abandon rail, unless there's a superfast train leaving once a minute (higher network speed and smaller entry cost).

In testing, I have changed simulators from A to Z and back again more times than I can count.  I never saw the type of abandonment you describe, going in either direction.

In summary, I don't think this will work at all - I think it will only make things worse.  It's contrary to all the traffic simulator behavior I have seen.  If someone disagrees, they should do tests and present the results.

Quote
Unfortunately (naw, luckily) I'm about to leave for a 3-week vacation,
so I will probably not be able to take an active part in this discussion for some time...  ::)

Yeah, I would say luckily - vacations are always good!  Sorry to be so critical of your idea, but I thought I should report my experience.  Have a great vacation, and we'll look forward to your return. ;)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: SimGoober on January 14, 2009, 07:44:47 AM
QuoteI don't think that's it.  I think that if you look at all three simulators under consideration, the car speeds of all of them are much more realistic than the Maxis speed.  To have an entire region where the maximum car speed is 31 kph (about 20 mph) is pretty unrealistic.  And to have bus speeds 50% higher than bus speeds everywhere - that doesn't make sense, especially when you consider all the stops that buses make that the game cannot directly account for.

One minor point to make here; Are we trying to make this more realistic or more functional?  It's been my experience that the game does not always allow for both.  For RCI stuff, I have found it best to make something look more realistic, but perform more functionally in game.  For example, if a building looks like a little shop in a low wealth area, it would probably employ 5 or 6 people in real life.  But to function well in game, it may employ 30 or more.  Several BATters have gotten caught up in this ongoing debate; and it never ends.

My suggestion would be to look at "upgrades" to these traffic related ideas as 95% functional, 5% realistic.  SimCity is not a perfect simulation; it is more utopian, and generalised.  In the above comment, a speed limit of 20 mph in an entire city is not realistic, but in an inner city, high density zoning, it is close.  That may be why that number was picked, as Maxis probably assumed everyone would want to end up in a high density, high population city.

The only way to make it more realistic I suppose would be to find a way to enforce variable speed limits in different areas...  :-\
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: imperialmog on January 14, 2009, 12:19:24 PM
Is there a way to enforce variable speed limits in different areas? If there is a way to do that it would be great in terms of realism.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 14, 2009, 12:42:15 PM
Quote from: SimGoober on January 14, 2009, 07:44:47 AM
One minor point to make here; Are we trying to make this more realistic or more functional?  It's been my experience that the game does not always allow for both.  For RCI stuff, I have found it best to make something look more realistic, but perform more functionally in game.  For example, if a building looks like a little shop in a low wealth area, it would probably employ 5 or 6 people in real life.  But to function well in game, it may employ 30 or more.  Several BATters have gotten caught up in this ongoing debate; and it never ends.

My suggestion would be to look at "upgrades" to these traffic related ideas as 95% functional, 5% realistic.  SimCity is not a perfect simulation; it is more utopian, and generalised.  In the above comment, a speed limit of 20 mph in an entire city is not realistic, but in an inner city, high density zoning, it is close.  That may be why that number was picked, as Maxis probably assumed everyone would want to end up in a high density, high population city.

The only way to make it more realistic I suppose would be to find a way to enforce variable speed limits in different areas...  :-\

This is an excellent point, and I agree with you completely here.  My approach has always been to start with realistic numbers, but modify them as necessary to get the best functionality.  And the best functionality usually ends up looking the most realistic to the players (at least with traffic), even though the numbers may disagree.  My point about realism in my previous post was simply to explain where the current car speeds came from.  On the other hand, my support for the .96/speed entry costs means that vehicles never even slow down for stations, much less stop.  That's about as unrealistic as you can get.  Yet it's required for best functionality.  My main argument with RippleJet's suggestion was not from a realism point of view, but from a functional one - it would break too many things.  Some I didn't even think of at the time.  For example, if you change speeds, you have to change network capacities, as capacity is directly dependent on speed.  There are undoubtedly other implications as well; I think that by the time you're done, you'd end up building a whole new traffic simulator - one that wouldn't have any better functionality than the current ones.

And yes, I've thought many times that variable speed limits would be great, but so far nobody has figured out a practical way to implement this. :(
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: RippleJet on January 15, 2009, 01:35:28 AM
Posting from the City Terminal in Stockholm, so this will be short... ::)

I don't think 31 km /h is that unrealistic either for big cities...
I believe most metropolises in the world have an even lower average speed downtown...
Wasn't that of London something lilke 10 km/h before the congestion charges?

Besides, since the cities in SC4 are smaller than in RL, with shorter routes from home to work,
sholdn't the speeds be smaller than in RL, rather than larger?


Regarding the advantage I was trying to explain about having smaller network speeds...

Consider a Sim searching for the fastest way to work...
The straight path leads to a railway station.
From there he can choose two equally long alternatives, rail and road, both being 40 tiles long.
In the other end, there are 3 more tiles from the railway station to his job.

In eiher alternative he would take the car to the first railway station.
Then he'd have to choose. Park the car and take the train or drive on?

With Maxis' Simulator the train would take 40/110 = 0.36
The walk from the train to work would take 3/3.5 = 0.86
Thus, the total time from the first station to work is 1.22

By driving he would get there in (40+3)/31 = 1.39
This means that he would take the train if each station
would have an entry cost of no more than (1.39-1.22)/2 = 0.085

Now, consider the city upgrading the roads and rails to Simlator Z.

The train would now take 40/150 = 0.27
And the walk to job would take 3/5 = 0.60
Total time from the first station = 0.87

By driving he would now get there in (40+3)/50 = 0.86
Thus, regardless of the entry cost of the station, he would probably not consider taking the train, unless road congestion makes that route considerably slower.

And Simulator A would be even worse...


This is all theory, but I hope it explains a little better what I meant was the problem when each custom simulator has (proportionally) increased the car speed more than the speed of any MT... and then trying to solve the problem of MT not being used by optimizing the entry costs of stations.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone to start changing the Simulators or even adding new ones...
I'm just trying to explain my feelings about some of the problems...

It's a pity Maxis didn't implement the entry cost themselves, if 0.05 may indeed have been what they intended to use...
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on January 15, 2009, 03:23:44 AM
I think I see your point here, and in principle, it makes sense.  The problems I found come in more complex cases, where what the Maxis simulator does tends to be less predictable.

Quote from: RippleJet on January 15, 2009, 01:35:28 AM
I don't think 31 km /h is that unrealistic either for big cities...
I believe most metropolises in the world have an even lower average speed downtown...
Wasn't that of London something lilke 10 km/h before the congestion charges?

Here in the U.S., I've seen downtown speeds that range from 40 kph to 50 kph.  In all the big (U.S.) cities I've been in, 50 kph is the most common speed outside the downtown core.  And as you get into the suburbs and farther out, speeds on the main roads tend to increase.  So I felt that in the face of a lack of variable speed limits, 50 kph was a reasonable average.

Quote
Besides, since the cities in SC4 are smaller than in RL, with shorter routes from home to work,
sholdn't the speeds be smaller than in RL, rather than larger?

This definitely makes a good amount of sense, and if I were building a traffic simulator from scratch, I would feel that this would be an alternative that needed to be investigated thoroughly for its practicality.

Quote

Regarding the advantage I was trying to explain about having smaller network speeds...

Consider a Sim searching for the fastest way to work...
The straight path leads to a railway station.
From there he can choose two equally long alternatives, rail and road, both being 40 tiles long.
In the other end, there are 3 more tiles from the railway station to his job.

In eiher alternative he would take the car to the first railway station.
Then he'd have to choose. Park the car and take the train or drive on?

With Maxis' Simulator the train would take 40/110 = 0.36
The walk from the train to work would take 3/3.5 = 0.86
Thus, the total time from the first station to work is 1.22

By driving he would get there in (40+3)/31 = 1.39
This means that he would take the train if each station
would have an entry cost of no more than (1.39-1.22)/2 = 0.085

Now, consider the city upgrading the roads and rails to Simlator Z.

The train would now take 40/150 = 0.27
And the walk to job would take 3/5 = 0.60
Total time from the first station = 0.87

By driving he would now get there in (40+3)/50 = 0.86
Thus, regardless of the entry cost of the station, he would probably not consider taking the train, unless road congestion makes that route considerably slower.

And Simulator A would be even worse...

Here you've got the Simulator Z speeds slightly wrong, enough to change the outcome in your example.  It looks like you got the speeds from my simulator thread.  The walking speed is my fault; I didn't update it when I raised it to 15 kph (which happened to double monorail usage).  I've updated it now.  But the 200 kph for passenger trains has been in there all along.  So using the actual Simulator Z numbers, instead of coming out in favor of the car, you get:

The train would now take 40/200 = 0.20
And the walk to job would take 3/15 = 0.20
Total time from the first station = 0.40

By driving he would now get there in (40+3)/50 = 0.86
This means that he would take the train if each station
would have an entry cost of no more than (0.86 - 0.40)/2 = 0.023

So that's a narrower margin than the Maxis one, but it still has the Sim taking the train.  And it still leaves room for an entry cost of .96/speed.

Quote
This is all theory, but I hope it explains a little better what I meant was the problem when each custom simulator has (proportionally) increased the car speed more than the speed of any MT... and then trying to solve the problem of MT not being used by optimizing the entry costs of stations.

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone to start changing the Simulators or even adding new ones...
I'm just trying to explain my feelings about some of the problems...

It's a pity Maxis didn't implement the entry cost themselves, if 0.05 may indeed have been what they intended to use...

Again, I think your point is much clearer now.  But then there's also the issue of backward compatibility.  Right now, all cities are built with the implicit assumption that vehicles don't slow down or stop at stations.  Changing that behavior would adversely affect a lot of those cities.  It would also mean that if someone built cities with the vanilla Maxis game (which has no entry costs) and then moved to stations with relatively high entry costs, the working Maxis city could easily break.  Neither of these problems arise now, and by setting the entry cost at .96/speed, which means that vehicles travel through stations at the network speed, we can ensure that they don't arise.  And the fact that vehicles don't slow down or stop at stations is hidden from the user (as is the fact that all vehicles are actually single-passenger), so I don't see a compelling reason to use a different TSEC.

Nevertheless, you've certainly provided some interesting ideas for future simulator builders.  ;)
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Tropod on February 18, 2009, 06:44:47 AM
This topic has come up quite a few times over the years. And it's always interesting to see/hear what others think about it  ;).
Many of you have valid points & good suggestions  :thumbsup:.


QuoteWhat about traffic simulators?  They certainly don't depend on the controller.

I just wanted to touch on this aspect here;
The NAM inner workings is by no means a complete document, and there's stuff that it doesn't even deal with that only Maxis would know about I would imagine. The idea behind it is to give people some idea of how it all works, not a comprehensive idea. Suffice to say though, that the controller(s) do depend on the simulator, albeit even if in a round about way (note that NAM relies on core functionality provided in the standard traffic plugin not given by stock game). And though many other aspects/areas of the game depend on the (various) simulators as well, it isn't detrimental to the point of specific functionality of the game not working if their not included. And the same could be said for Lots, Graphs, Dataviews, and many other areas/aspects of the game.
Essentially, it was/is/has-been a case of non-fundamental items that were not essential &/or could work as a stand-alone product, were not included - this, to a significant degree, goes towards people being able to do their 'own thing'. And so subsequently, Lots came under this umbrella. Not because they were Lots, but because the items in themselves could be provided as a stand alone product without requiring anything else in order to work i.e. they're not tied in functionally "directly" (all aspects of the game are tied in together, either directly or indirectly) to those files contained within the NAM. Anyways though.....



As for the issue itself:
The idea of some sort of NAM Lot department (NAM LD for short  %$payas)() sounds promising, something that deals only with standard/Maxis based TELs, that were released as a separate component (NALAM - Network Addon Lot Adjustment Modd  ???). And possibly/perhaps another additional separate component that dealt with NAM sponsored/approved TELs items specifically designed for the purpose of addressing these particular issues.


If I could make a suggestion; I was just browsing through the Traffic exemplar; and wondered if it would be worthwhile someone taking a look into the Trip Starting Cost by travel type for Mass Transit 0xEA8C3CDB property; it could potentially help address certain aspects of what's being discussed, and then again maybe not.



Ultimately, Maxis clearly designed the game the way they did. With us many a times wondering why why why......they (probably) had their reasons for doing certain things this or that way, but without knowing why they did something the way they did, we can only draw so much conclusion(s) from the files & tests.
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: Jonathan on February 18, 2009, 07:03:14 AM
Hey Tropod, look in the NAM private thread as theres been some discussion there about lots and a seperate 'Department'

Jonathan
Title: Re: Why are there no Lots in the NAM?
Post by: z on February 18, 2009, 02:26:27 PM
Quote from: Tropod on February 18, 2009, 06:44:47 AM
If I could make a suggestion; I was just browsing through the Traffic exemplar; and wondered if it would be worthwhile someone taking a look into the Trip Starting Cost by travel type for Mass Transit 0xEA8C3CDB property; it could potentially help address certain aspects of what's being discussed, and then again maybe not.

When I was building Simulator Z, I discovered that this property was actually one of the most important in the whole simulator.  It has a large effect on the efficiency of the pathfinder, and a disproportionately large effect on monorail usage.  (I also discovered that monorails are sensitive to many things that other networks aren't.  I figured this had something to do with their being introduced in RH.)  The Maxis and Simulator A values for the second value in this property are 1.95;  Mott used 1, which is what I use in Simulator Z.  The lower this value, the more efficient the pathfinder; but on the other hand, as the value gets lower, less attention is paid to the Travel Strategy Percent properties.  (These two facts are undoubtedly related.)  I think the ideal value is a little over 1, and when I get time, I'm going to try to pin it down more exactly.  However, the effects of this property are quite orthogonal to the Transit Switch Entry Cost, and adjusting the former doesn't really help resolve any of the issues that were under discussion.