• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

new traffic experiments

Started by ldog, October 23, 2009, 06:16:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

catty

Quote from: ldog on November 21, 2009, 02:18:55 PM
Ditto what Z said. It was pre-rh, I think it was also pre anyone actually hexing the traffic controller.

Oh well

You win some, you lose some and some don't even make it over the goal  ;D
I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" DEATH thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS ARE NICE.

ldog

Quote from: z on November 19, 2009, 11:50:33 PM
I am very curious about Max MT commute time, as my limited tests were not able to give me a completely satisfactory answer here.  At this point, I believe it's the maximum length of any single MT segment, where "walking" counts as MT.  But I haven't had the chance to fully test this out, so I will be interested to see what you find.

Well I've tried 4 (default), 6 (equal to default "regular" max), 12 (to see if it would go further than the regular max) and 1 (to see if it hurt MT)
So far I have not observed any effects from any changes. It could be another unused var although I think perhaps I will need a different testbed.
While I was confidant in this testbeds suitability for the previous tests, I find it questionable for this one (although changing it to 1 really should have caused a noticeable change)

z

Quote from: ldog on November 21, 2009, 05:50:31 PM
Well I've tried 4 (default), 6 (equal to default "regular" max), 12 (to see if it would go further than the regular max) and 1 (to see if it hurt MT)
So far I have not observed any effects from any changes. It could be another unused var although I think perhaps I will need a different testbed.
While I was confidant in this testbeds suitability for the previous tests, I find it questionable for this one (although changing it to 1 really should have caused a noticeable change)

Yes, I never got any changes I could really pin down to that variable either, and I was thinking that there was a good chance that it was just unused as well.  You might want to try setting it to zero - I would think that that should give you a pretty clear answer.  If you've still got Sims using MT at that point, I think we can pretty safely call it unused.  Your test using a value of one is certainly pointing in that direction.

ldog

Quote from: z on November 21, 2009, 05:56:51 PM
Yes, I never got any changes I could really pin down to that variable either, and I was thinking that there was a good chance that it was just unused as well.  You might want to try setting it to zero - I would think that that should give you a pretty clear answer.  If you've still got Sims using MT at that point, I think we can pretty safely call it unused.  Your test using a value of one is certainly pointing in that direction.

Oh yeah, great idea  :thumbsup: Glad I checked back here before I started setting up a new test.
Had no effect. I thought just to be extra sure that it maybe wasn't for the MT pref, I set everyone back to fastest.
Bus use dropped to what it was supposed to be (based on last fastest pref run) so once again the 0 MT had no effect.

Now I thought it odd that my average commute time actually jumped up .25 minutes on the graph, being as before we were on MT pref and now we were on fastest.
The city stabilized after 1 year at the new volume levels, although I let it run for 5 just to be sure. By the way, my scalar value is 0.041667 (1/24) am I correct in assuming that that should give me a 1:1 ratio and the value that you used in Sim Z was because it suited whatever you wanted to accomplish (which was not a 1:1)?

Also, I got a better look at my shortcutters, I have a few places near the local commercial where there is (crappy ascii art coming):

-----    where - is road, c is commercial, r is residential and b is bus station
c-b-r

So I had some sims from that R worked at that C and well it made perfect sense for them to walk across the bus station. Which means the TE cost I used of 0.274286(.96/3.5) is somewhere between dead on accurate and less than the cost of going 2 more tiles. I bring this up since I had some mass service declines after changing the TE costs in Gridlockcity to similar values. Although I was testing with walking speeds of 1, which otherwise worked fine (I divided all other speeds by 4 (which actually made walking relatively faster), multiplied max commute by 4 (or 16 total since I was already x4...for a max ct of 96) and my volume levels remained exactly the same) but apparantly a TE cost of .96 is not something the game likes  $%Grinno$%.

I guess this also is my segue way to my next phase of testing.

This is gonna be so not fun. If I cloned a bunch of stations with different times I would still need to modify ltext files for each as well or I would never know which is which right?
I am pretty positive a lot of people have said all over the forum stations have to be demolished and replopped everytime you make changes and my own experiences confirms that as well.
It still seems to me like no consensus was ever reached on what TE costs should be. For RTMT it is pretty cut and dry; .96/car speed of whatever network segment that station sits on.
Best I can determine .96 was what Chris found to be the value through experimentation? His methods did seem pretty thorough though (I think he did actually count tiles and such...going from memory at the moment), so I am pretty comfortable accepting it.
I know Cogeo found different values but he never says which sim he was using, which would of course totally change his results, since he gave direct values not formulas.

Anyways, I can see I am starting to ramble (yeah,yeah don't I always) into run-on sentences and I am fading. So I will go snuggle up to the wife and call it a night.
Tomorrow...we get to test...honey-do's  ??? ... yes, honey-do's  :( sometimes a mans got to do...what his woman says he's got to do... "$Deal"$
Hopefully I'll get a bit of simulator time in though.  ;)

z

Quote from: ldog on November 21, 2009, 07:55:21 PM
By the way, my scalar value is 0.041667 (1/24) am I correct in assuming that that should give me a 1:1 ratio and the value that you used in Sim Z was because it suited whatever you wanted to accomplish (which was not a 1:1)?

The value of .04 sounds familiar; I determined the 1:1 ratio experimentally, as I wasn't sure what effect max commute time had on it.  (It turns out that it has none.)  This gives you a 1:1 ratio as long as there is no traffic with neighbor cities.  The value in Simulator Z was adjusted so that it gives a value of approximately 1:1 for cities in a region with an average amount of intercity traffic; intercity traffic raises the average commute time way too much.  There's a whole lot of variation here though, even in a single region, so the numbers can only be approximate for connected cities.

QuoteThis is gonna be so not fun. If I cloned a bunch of stations with different times I would still need to modify ltext files for each as well or I would never know which is which right?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

QuoteI am pretty positive a lot of people have said all over the forum stations have to be demolished and replopped everytime you make changes and my own experiences confirms that as well.

It depends on which changes you make.  If you're changing numbers like the capacity or the TSEC, then yes, you have to replop.

QuoteIt still seems to me like no consensus was ever reached on what TE costs should be. For RTMT it is pretty cut and dry; .96/car speed of whatever network segment that station sits on.

One point everyone agreed on is that you never want to have the TSEC be zero.  My own feeling, after lots of experiments, is that things work out best if the TSEC is .96 divided by the speed of the fastest travel type that actually passes through the lot.  You'll get some speedy pedestrians, but I've never seen this have an effect on the game.  On the other hand, if you set the TSEC too low (e.g., for pedestrians), this can slow down MT enough to discourage the Sims from using it.

When doing these calculations, you don't have to worry about through subway traffic, as subways pass under stations rather than through them.  This effect is actually simulated in SC4, and is the reason you don't see any subway to subway transit switches in standard TE lots.

Quote
Best I can determine .96 was what Chris found to be the value through experimentation? His methods did seem pretty thorough though (I think he did actually count tiles and such...going from memory at the moment), so I am pretty comfortable accepting it.

Yes, I believe that's true, but it's also possible to derive this number directly from the fundamentals.  Each square is 16m, so a small tile is 1.024 km long.  Assume you're traveling at 1 kph.  That means it would take you 1.024 hours to cover a small tile.  But there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 64 squares in a tile, so to get minutes per square, you have to multiply 1.024 by 60/64, or .9375.  When you do this, you get exactly .96.

I think that this is the first time this number has been derived from theory; it's nice to see that it matches experiments.

QuoteI know Cogeo found different values but he never says which sim he was using, which would of course totally change his results, since he gave direct values not formulas.

Cogeo determined his results experimentally.

catty

Quote from: ldog on November 21, 2009, 02:18:55 PM
I went ahead and cranked the old "trip starting cost by travel type" to 4.4 and running for a few years, I observed no difference whatsoever.
So I think we can conclude that it really should read "trip starting cost by travel type for fastest method preferred"
...
Next for the fun stuff. WTH "Max mass transit strategy trip length" really means.

The "trip starting cost by travel type and the Max mass transit strategy trip length rang bells or in my case links with me, and I ended up on the old Sims 2 Modding Information Database in the section for "For any and all information for the Simcity4 modding crowd (MODD Squad etc.)" looking at the exemplars list, this is probably a repeat of information you already have  ;D

http://old_wiki.modthesims2.com/FullList

Quote<property num="0xa92356bc" type="Float32" name="Trip Starting Cost by travel type" desc="Starting overhead cost in time for each travel type"></property>
<property num="0xea8c3cdb" type="Float32" name="Trip Starting Cost by travel type for Mass Transit" desc="Starting overhead cost in time for each travel type for mass transit preferred trips"></property>

Quote<property num="0xea7b5f06" type="Float32" name="Max Mass Transit Strategy Trip Length" desc="Max time in raw trip length that the mass transit preferred strategy will go using mass transit"></property>

:sleeping:
I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" DEATH thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS ARE NICE.

z

This corresponds to the XML file that's reference by Ilive's Reader, so this is what you see in the description pane of the Reader in the bottom right.

ldog

#167
Quote from: z on November 21, 2009, 11:48:16 PM
This corresponds to the XML file that's reference by Ilive's Reader, so this is what you see in the description pane of the Reader in the bottom right.

Wait a minute...(yeah I know you mentioned the XML file before but it kinda slipped by me)
I guess I was under the impression it was directly read out of the data files, hence the references to "internal documentation"
The reader is pretty much just a specialized hex editor when you get down to it. I'll have to go poke around now.

Quote from: z on November 21, 2009, 08:46:26 PM
When doing these calculations, you don't have to worry about through subway traffic, as subways pass under stations rather than through them.  This effect is actually simulated in SC4, and is the reason you don't see any subway to subway transit switches in standard TE lots.

??? I never thought about it that way. I thought it was just another mistake on Maxis part. I've actually changed some of the stations quite a bit. Although going through my file, I left the subway station alone. Possibly because the subway station is one that works inline and offline (you can make the track run through it or you can put it next to the track and let it connect).

Outside-to-Inside,All Sides,Walk,Walk
Outside-to-Inside,All Sides,Walk,Ride Subway
Inside-to-Outside,All Sides,Ride Subway,Walk
Inside-to-Outside,All Sides,Walk,Walk
Inside-to-Outside,All Sides,Walk,Ride Subway

So we have to walk in. Then we can walk out or take the subway out. We can also walk in and become a subway but then we can only walk out. That shouldn't work, and yet we know the stations work. Since the subway can't enter the switch; unless of course what you said is true ;)

Quote from: z on November 21, 2009, 08:46:26 PM
Yes, I believe that's true, but it's also possible to derive this number directly from the fundamentals.  Each square is 16m, so a small tile is 1.024 km long.  Assume you're traveling at 1 kph.  That means it would take you 1.024 hours to cover a small tile.  But there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 64 squares in a tile, so to get minutes per square, you have to multiply 1.024 by 60/64, or .9375.  When you do this, you get exactly .96.

I think that this is the first time this number has been derived from theory; it's nice to see that it matches experiments.

I can make that even simpler. Derived from my formula from the other day (correctly stated of course)
16/16.666666666666666666666666666667= 0.96000000000000000000000000000038
:D

By the way, the other day when I said "oh, looks like Maxis tried to use MPH" that doesn't mean I think the sim works in MpH (it doesn't even work in KmpH) what I meant by that is when whoever over at Maxis sat down and decided to put the tile speeds in they probably sat there with a chart of speeds that were in MpH and plopped in the numbers. That is all I meant, nothing more, nothing less

Quote from: z on November 21, 2009, 08:46:26 PM
Cogeo determined his results experimentally.

I know. I don't know which traffic simulator he was using though. Very relevant as his observations would change greatly.

Quote from: catty on November 21, 2009, 10:29:48 PM
The "trip starting cost by travel type and the Max mass transit strategy trip length rang bells or in my case links with me, and I ended up on the old Sims 2 Modding Information Database in the section for "For any and all information for the Simcity4 modding crowd (MODD Squad etc.)" looking at the exemplars list, this is probably a repeat of information you already have  ;D

http://old_wiki.modthesims2.com/FullList

:sleeping:


Yup, those are the props we were working with.
<property num="0xa92356bc" type="Float32" name="Trip Starting Cost by travel type" desc="Starting overhead cost in time for each travel type"></property> should be amended to read:
<property num="0xa92356bc" type="Float32" name="Trip Starting Cost by travel type" desc="Starting overhead cost in time for each travel type for fastest method preferred trips"></property>

And "0xea7b5f06" can go into the bin next to "0xca76013b" aka "trip length to minutes display multiplier" cause both props have the same effect. ;)

ldog

Today Steve and I had a chance to discuss a few things about speeds, commute time, tsec and trip starting cost via pms.
It was mostly further details and clarifications and some of the finer points.
For tonights experiments I decided to drill down a little more into trip starting costs.

They don't work like any of us thought.
It isn't in minutes or any other time units I can see.

I am not going to go into a lot of detail tonight. I did many short tests (this test city stabilizes itself to any changes I have made so far to the traffic simulator in about 3 passes, so not even a full year, although I always let it run for several)

I tested under both fastest preferred and MT preferred methods. I set both walking and car starting costs to 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 112. Even setting it to 112 did not stop everyone from going to work. I was still seeing commutes of as much as 4 minutes minimum (because I am not going to sit there and count every tile nor figure out how congested it was; I did note plenty of car routes that went over 100 tiles by road, and there was congestion in places).

I did one last test with walking at 0 and car at 101.95 . Walking and bus shot way up, car shot way down. Even more extreme than previous tests, but it still didn't swing it all the way.

So it would seem the trip starting cost is some kind of weighting mechanism and not a penalty to travel time.

b22rian

Quote from: ldog on November 23, 2009, 07:04:54 PM
Today Steve and I had a chance to discuss a few things about speeds, commute time, tsec and trip starting cost via pms.
It was mostly further details and clarifications and some of the finer points.
For tonights experiments I decided to drill down a little more into trip starting costs.

They don't work like any of us thought.
It isn't in minutes or any other time units I can see.

I am not going to go into a lot of detail tonight. I did many short tests (this test city stabilizes itself to any changes I have made so far to the traffic simulator in about 3 passes, so not even a full year, although I always let it run for several)

I tested under both fastest preferred and MT preferred methods. I set both walking and car starting costs to 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 112. Even setting it to 112 did not stop everyone from going to work. I was still seeing commutes of as much as 4 minutes minimum (because I am not going to sit there and count every tile nor figure out how congested it was; I did note plenty of car routes that went over 100 tiles by road, and there was congestion in places).

I did one last test with walking at 0 and car at 101.95 . Walking and bus shot way up, car shot way down. Even more extreme than previous tests, but it still didn't swing it all the way.

So it would seem the trip starting cost is some kind of weighting mechanism and not a penalty to travel time.

   Hey lenny,

   This is a great area for you to explore, research and test.. I know we did some testing on this awhile back..
Steve probably mentioned this in your correspondence with him ... My recollection was it was much the same
as you described here in your post..  meaning in the tests i recall it had much less an effect on the game that I
thought it would myself... Definitely an area we need to re- explore i think . Steve mentioned in an e-mail to me
he wanted me to do some testing for him.. After reading your post here, Im hoping its in this area in which you
are now looking into here..

Thanks, brian

ldog

Quote from: b22rian on November 24, 2009, 03:36:28 AM
it had much less an effect on the game that I
thought it would myself... Definitely an area we need to re- explore i think . Steve mentioned in an e-mail to me
he wanted me to do some testing for him.. After reading your post here, Im hoping its in this area in which you
are now looking into here..

Oh, it has a very strong effect. My tests showed it can completely change the preference of walking/car. It just doesn't work anything like the xml describes.
I was very tired last night and I had limited time.
Sometime this week I will try to do more detailed experiments and make some pictures and maybe we can get a better idea of how it works.

Whatever it is Steve has you testing, I will be very interested to see the results of as well.

catty

Hi Lenny and Steve and anyone else that's following this topic

No links today

I started opening up the traffic simulators to have a look at the various settings so I could follow comments like

QuoteI set both walking and car starting costs to 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 112. Even setting it to 112

But with 29 traffic simulators in the latest NAM plus the original MAXIS version it gets a bit confusing, so for my own interest I added all the traffic simulator values and what simulator it belonged to, into a excel spreadsheet so I could see everything all on the one screen.

On the off chance that's useful to anyone else, I have zipped it up and attached it to this post

:)
I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" DEATH thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS ARE NICE.

ldog

Cat, you may want to collapse column A and put each simulator in it's own column (so A would just have the variable and following columns the values) would make it easier to read and make comparisons. I'd do it but I don't think I have upload rights.

The differences in easy/med/hard/low/high from each other are only in network capacities as far as I know (within A to A, Z to Z, etc)
Also the park and rides the only difference should be pedestrians are the only type able to reach destination. So you don't need to make yourself crazy looking between them.

z

Quote from: ldog on November 30, 2009, 11:51:15 AM
The differences in easy/med/hard/low/high from each other are only in network capacities as far as I know (within A to A, Z to Z, etc)

There are also slight differences in the value of the Customers/Traffic Noise Coefficient in the various levels of Simulator Z.

QuoteAlso the park and rides the only difference should be pedestrians are the only type able to reach destination. So you don't need to make yourself crazy looking between them.

These will also be disappearing as separate simulators, probably in the next NAM release; users will have the option to convert their simulator to Park & Ride via the NAM Tool (which they can do currently).

ldog

#174
Thanks for the clarifications Steve.

I also have to say, you were right about the speeds.

Even though the only thing it is truly relevant for is TSEC, the whole thing was bugging me still. Also some tests Jason brought up, which were where the conclusions that the max commute time could be exceeded came from (if you thought speed was tiles/minute). I started thinking maybe the peds were actually being affected by the 1.3 CvS except the numbers still weren't right.

I did a bunch of tests to see how it worked out. I did walking speed of 10 on road, started with max commute of 1 and went to 2, 3, 4, 5. Then I went to 10. Then 20. Results came out fairly close to kph.

So I figured out a test to be almost exact. With a speed of 1.6 kph and a max commute of 60, that is 1600 meters, which divides neatly into 100 tiles.
And I got 100-101 tiles of road, no more. If it were 1.6 tiles/minute at 60 minutes that would be 96 tiles.

So now that we've got that settled, my next question is, how is TSEC affected by CvS?

Also, correction to the commute time graph, it is 25 to 1 not 24 to 1 like Chris thought. Actually his whole formula doesn't make sense since I can put in numbers that break it. So a traffic graph plot scale of .04 (which is 1/25) is precise provided there are no intercity commuters. Although the multiplier in the traffic simulator doesn't work as we all know, it is correct at 25. Perhaps Maxis used that value pre-RH? Does anyone have a non-deluxe version? I'd be interested to see the traffic simulator exemplar from it.

z

Quote from: ldog on November 30, 2009, 07:01:23 PM
Thanks for the clarifications Steve.

You're welcome!

Quote
I also have to say, you were right about the speeds.

I'm glad you discovered that on your own, experimentally.  Chris came up with this experimentally as well.  And now you've saved me a whole long post on the issue.  ;D

QuoteSo now that we've got that settled, my next question is, how is TSEC affected by CvS?

Unfortunately, the TSEC is rather inflexible, so it can't accommodate the changes in speed dictated by the CvS.  But in practice, the number of squares affected by the TSEC is small enough that the CvS can simply be ignored, and the nominal network speeds used.

Quote
Also, correction to the commute time graph, it is 25 to 1 not 24 to 1 like Chris thought. Actually his whole formula doesn't make sense since I can put in numbers that break it. So a traffic graph plot scale of .04 (which is 1/25) is precise provided there are no intercity commuters. Although the multiplier in the traffic simulator doesn't work as we all know, it is correct at 25. Perhaps Maxis used that value pre-RH? Does anyone have a non-deluxe version? I'd be interested to see the traffic simulator exemplar from it.

Yes, as I mentioned, the .04 was a familiar number to me; I remember at the time thinking that it was interesting that it was so exact.  So I agree with you that this implies a 25 to 1 ration for the commute time graph.  Chris was close; I think his experiments were not quite precise enough to get the exact number here.  But he certainly got the .96 right on the head.

As we are now both in complete agreement about the various issues mentioned in these two posts, and our results were both obtained experimentally and independently, and the speeds in particular confirm Chris's experimental results, I hope that these results can be taken as being established fact from now on.  It would certainly make things easier for others in the future.  ;)

ldog

Quote from: z on November 30, 2009, 07:38:08 PM
Unfortunately, the TSEC is rather inflexible, so it can't accommodate the changes in speed dictated by the CvS.  But in practice, the number of squares affected by the TSEC is small enough that the CvS can simply be ignored, and the nominal network speeds used.

That's what I was thinking as well. Unfortunately it makes things more complicated.
Cutting across corners is not so bad. However what I have seen I do think is something much more serious.

Y'all know how much I love Peg's work. Peg really likes his network-enabled lots. The marina in particular I have had trouble with. I have not edited the lots themselves to remove the network segments but I have tried removing all TS props from the buildings, I have also tried with various TSEC. Results are very inconsistent. I think it has something to do with not just the TS props but also which base lot was the template. The base marina itself as well as the parking lot I have gotten to behave but the yacht club, sport fishing and guest services nothing seems to work.

The problem is that all traffic will divert through the lot. So I have a parallel road running alongside. Congestion will be red on both ends but green in the middle. The lot will of course go red, and in some cases they will even abandon themselves due to commute time (these are CS job lots).

Quote from: z on November 30, 2009, 07:38:08 PM
As we are now both in complete agreement about the various issues mentioned in these two posts, and our results were both obtained experimentally and independently, and the speeds in particular confirm Chris's experimental results, I hope that these results can be taken as being established fact from now on.  It would certainly make things easier for others in the future.  ;)

It does, although you could have saved us both a lot of time and trouble if you'd have just cited your test results instead of a bunch of otherwise generally useless documentation :P

Still, I suppose it needed to be done, because reading through all the posts here, even though most people tend to agree with you about the speeds, none of them took it into account in their traffic simulator tests. People need to realize that 1km/h is not 1 tile minute, it is 1.04 tiles per minute. While that may seem close enough that I am just splitting hairs, as my tests show it is enough inaccuracy to make otherwise normal test results seem strange and this has no doubt caused many an argument on these forums. It also accounts for some of the discrepancies between different peoples tests.

As for my reality assessment about MPH. One last attempt at clarification. If we take all the vanilla speeds and pretend they are in mph, then convert them into kph, the speeds seem more or less realistic. Considering those speeds come out much closer to what has been used in A, B, Z you really can't disagree.

So firmly knowing the speeds were in km/h we can explain it either as they thought it best to scale it down because of the mapsize (except looking at the game as a whole it is safe to say Maxis had no friggin concept of the words "consistent scale"), the speeds they chose just made the simulator work better (which y'all don't seem to agree with), or (and this is my personal favorite) the meathead that put the speeds into the simulator screwed up and forgot to convert his mph to km/h.

Just like we can make up some explanation that stretches suspension of disbelief even more (like Lucas did) for why Han Solo bragged he could do the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs, even though the parsec is a unit of distance not time, instead of just saying "hey, he was in the bar for hours, he was drunk out of his mind and he didn't know what he was saying"

At any rate, yes, children, speeds are in km/h, now let me sing you a song about it...Say! Hey everybody, have you seen my ba..." errr...nm [/Chef impression]

catty

Quote from: ldog on November 30, 2009, 07:01:23 PM
Perhaps Maxis used that value pre-RH? Does anyone have a non-deluxe version? I'd be interested to see the traffic simulator exemplar from it.

As requested the Simcity 4 Traffic Simulator Exemplar Pre-RushHour

ParentCohort 0x00000000,0x00000000,0x00000000
Exemplar Type 0x00000010 Uint32 0 Simulator
Exemplar Name 0x00000020 String 0 Traffic Simulator
Monthly Traffic Density Reduction 0x29136788 Float32 0 0
Traffic Volume Per Population 0x491332E6 Float32 0 2
Max speed by Network for walking 0x491332E7 Float32 8 3.5,0,0,3.5,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for driving 0x491332E8 Float32 8 31,0,82,21,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for a bus 0x491332E9 Float32 8 46,0,100,31,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for a train 0x491332EA Float32 8 0,110,0,0,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for a truck 0x491332EB Float32 8 31,0,82,21,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for a frt train 0x491332EC Float32 8 0,150,0,0,0,0,0,0
Max speed by Network for subways 0x491332ED Float32 8 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,150
Travel strategy percent WealthNone 0x4953E8A3 Uint8 3 0x00,0x00,0x64
Travel strategy percent Wealth$ 0x4953E8A4 Uint8 3 0x50,0x14,0x00
Travel strategy percent Wealth$$ 0x4953E8A5 Uint8 3 0x1E,0x00,0x46
Travel strategy percent Wealth$$$ 0x4953E8A6 Uint8 3 0x0A,0x50,0x0A
Freight traffic scaling factor 0x49A2E8BE Float32 0 0.05
Nearest Destination Attractiveness 0x4A678060 Float32 0 0.09
Monthly cost for network tile 0x6A84493E Float32 8 0.1,0.03,0.5,0.05,0,0,0,0.30000001
Max roads funding percent 0xA92356AE Float32 0 120
Max mass transit funding percent 0xA92356AF Float32 0 120
Damaged road extra step cost 0xA92356B0 Float32 0 0.1
Income per tile by travel type 0xA92356B1 Float32 7 0,0,0.001,0.001,0,0,0.001
Mass Transit Usage Chance 0xA92356B2 Uint8 0 0x64
Network Traffic Capacity 0xA92356B3 Float32 8 1000,3000,4000,100,0,0,0,3000
Travel type generates traffic 0xA92356B4 Bool 7 False,True,False,True,True,True,True
Travel type can reach destination 0xA92356B5 Bool 7 True,True,False,False,True,True,False
Maximum distance from origin to network 0xA92356B8 Uint32 0 0x00000001
Congestion vs Speed 0xA92356B9 Float32 8 0,1,1,1,2,0.64999998,3,0.30000001
Commute trip max time 0xA92356BA Float32 0 6
Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect 0xA92356BB Float32 3 0.69999999,0.80000001,0.89999998
Trip Starting Cost by travel type 0xA92356BC Float32 7 0,0.40000001,0,0,0,0,0
Job Scaling Constant 0xA92356BD Float32 0 1.20000005
Population Background Traffic 0xA92356BE Float32 3 0.05,0.2,0.2
Travel type affected by traffic 0xA92356BF Bool 7 False,True,True,True,True,True,True
Transit Switch Entry Cost vs. Budget 0xCA5F7821 Float32 4 0,2,100,1
Trip Length to Minutes Display Multiplier 0xCA76013B Float32 0 25
Trip Starting Cost by travel type for Car Pref 0xCAD64136 Float32 7 0.1,0,0,0,0,0,0
Max Mass Transit Strategy Trip Length 0xEA7B5F06 Float32 0 4
Trip Starting Cost by travel type for Mass Transit 0xEA8C3CDB Float32 7 0,1.95000005,0,0,0,0,0


Enjoy

:)
I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that truly makes living worthwhile?" DEATH thought about it. "CATS," he said eventually, "CATS ARE NICE.

b22rian

thanks a lot Catty  &apls

this is really appreciated and quite interesting too I might add..

also i appreciate all the hard work you have done research wise in making

this an even more interesting thread, than it already is..

Brian

ldog

Thanks once again Cat.

So nothing was different, except of course what was added in RH. My curiosity is satisfied at least. Mostly. I wonder if some of the unused vars were used back in the day. Not really important I guess. Although it might explain why some statements made by early pioneers which we know are wildly inaccurate might not have been at the time.  :blahblah: (look ma, I found more smileys; they even made one especially for me)

Just to be a little extra sure and also to see that the CvS works proper (at least at 0% congestion anyway) I repeated last nights final test with cars tonight.

1.6 km/h x 1.3 = 2.08 km/h
2080 m / 16 m = exactly 130 tiles

How far were we willing to travel by car in 1 hour? Exactly 130 tiles.
It's like...science...and...stuff ;)

So anyways...(yeah, I like saying that, a lot :P )
Being as I got a disc from our friend in Hawaii last night, it is time to install Capitalis and see what we can learn.
So regularly scheduled programming will be interrupted for a bit.
I know, I know...what will all y'all do with all that extra freetime on your hands.
  &opr