Started by Chrisim, January 11, 2009, 06:27:00 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: z on January 11, 2009, 03:17:39 AMAs 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.
Quote from: RippleJet on October 25, 2008, 10:38:16 AM
Quote from: RippleJetI once more want to stress that NAM should include all in-game stations, properly modded, with each separate traffic plugin...
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 08:09:56 AMWell, the main problem is not the Maxis stations, but the hundreds of custom stations that are out there.
Quote from: RippleJet on September 11, 2008, 06:52:58 AM
Quote from: RippleJet on October 25, 2007, 04:40:40 PMI 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!
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 10:52:07 AMSo 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?
Quote from: Andreas on January 11, 2009, 10:52:07 AMWe 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.
Quote from: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 01:46:31 PMCould 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.
Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PMNo, Andreas, you did not understand me correctly.
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.
Quote from: Chrisim on January 11, 2009, 02:23:54 PMIt 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=0.036I 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.
Quote from: CLR1SC4D on May 03, 2008, 09:05:32 PMExperiment 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?
Quote from: RippleJet on January 11, 2009, 02:44:12 PMWouldn'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: Andreas on January 12, 2009, 01:50:38 AMI 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.
Quote from: k808j on January 12, 2009, 07:47:26 AMCouldn't the Cleanitol be modified to remove the transit entry cost and a patch developed to replace the transit entry with the appropriate one?
Quote from: ScottFTL on January 12, 2009, 12:15:17 PMIt 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 Street0.0286Car on Street0.0250Bus/Truck on Road0.0182Car on Road0.0167Bus/Truck on Avenue0.0182Car on Avenue0.0167Bus/Truck on One Way0.0182Car on One Way0.0167Bus/Truck on Highway0.0111Car on Highway0.0100Passenger Rail0.0091Freight Rail or Subway0.0067Monorail0.0050If 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.
Page created in 0.284 seconds with 35 queries.