Show us Your Interchanges!

[Moskva 75]

I hugely disagree with "Maxis highways don't offer challange". Balls, i've had lots of fun planning my freeway ring around Lenin'sk mate . Also with the NAM i've done interesting interchanges.

OT: Is saying "balls" offensive somehow? In my language (italian) saying "balls" may also mean "lies", said with sarcasm. Thanks for teaching me english.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Moskva  

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

OT: Is saying "balls" offensive somehow?

Let's just say it's a little bit unsafe for use, but that's the average young adult male American's interpretation...

[1] I wouldn't mind seeing the Maxis highways replaced with something like that.

. . .

[2] For small bodies of water, I can just make a land bridge and lay the highway on top of that, but land bridges are hugely impractical for crossing large bodies of water, not to mention that they block ships from crossing. The RHW needs to be able to function better in imperfect scenarios then it currently does in order to be truly useful as a gameplay element and not just an ornament.

. . .

[3] Unless I'm mistaken, there is no way to cross over the tram roads with the RHW. Nor is there any easy way to recreate these bridges. Oh, and the elevated-only segments are also unbuildable because of the lack of proper ramps.

1a. Well, if you've been paying attention to the SC4D development forums, you'll know of the MHW to RHW retrofit that jdenm8 is working on. However, it's four-lane and not six. I've been working on a similar thing... I think six lanes that spread out on a diagonal might make pathing a challenge, but simple trigonometry shows that four lanes can fit quite comfortably.

1b. Did you know that Maxis originally designed their MHWs with four lanes, but was forced to jam two more?

1c. If an MHW retrofit were to come to fruition, you'll find that none of the original MHW interchanges will work, simply because they'll be too small, and no, we're not gonna redo any of them. (Hehce, the Symphony pieces...)

2. If you're having problems building long-distance RHW bridges, there's a available for download on the STEX. It's MHW-based, and doesn't require a gap between the two directions of traffic. That's essentially the only other RHW bridge available for download.

3a. Yes there is; Just separate the two networks. That's essentially the only available workaroud. Not compact, but it works. Or use the RTMT Tram-in-Road Tram to Subway transitions.

3b. I've seen people substitute an absent short-distance combined RHW-4 bridge with an AVE-4 bridge. Creates a bottleneck in traffic, but it's a rather short-range bottleneck. Plus, it works.

3c. If you bothered to read the RHW documentation, you'll find that certain ERHWs are currently overpass-functionality only. The problem, once again, is that ramps for them are model-based items, and model-based items are one of the hardest things to churn out. It's possible that many new ERHW networks will be overpass-only, either because there won't be ramps made for them yet or because a ramp above a certain height (L2) isn't too practical.

Finally (and this is unrelated to everything else), it takes a bit of trickery to get an RHW interchange really compact, but a simple diamond (or in this case, a SPUI) can be made extremely compact if one is resourceful enough.

I personally prefer something a little bigger but this is how compact RHW can be, in the right hands.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Ganaram DI  

[Moskva 75]

Thanks Ganaram, both for grammatical and RHW infos. I got curious about "Maxis initially designed Highway with two lanes", could you tell me why's that?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I got curious about "Maxis initially designed Highway with two lanes", could you tell me why's that?

I have no idea why Maxis wanted four lanes, but I do know that EA wanted to give a big-city feel. In my opinion, it gave us a poorly-designed underscale highway system... But in my opinion, it did give us NAMites a base for experimentation.

There used to be an MHW project that was designed to make all MHWs 4-lane again (it's buried in the SC4D RHW development thread; It's called Urban Highway), but that never came into fruition. I like to see the current MHW to RHW project as a resurrection of that original idea, as well as a much-needed update to an unrealistic and hard-to-model-interchanges-for network.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Ganaram DI  

[Moskva 75]

I am pretty sure that Simcity 2013 would not stand a chance against a heavily modified version of SC4 from Maxis. I dream that, Maxis back to old glory, making, let's say, a "Simcity 4.5". That would be the definitive city simulator, i've heard of too much stuff unfinished at release and this game has waaay toooo much potential.

[Cob92 360]

[1] I wouldn't mind seeing the Maxis highways replaced with something like that.

. . .

[2] For small bodies of water, I can just make a land bridge and lay the highway on top of that, but land bridges are hugely impractical for crossing large bodies of water, not to mention that they block ships from crossing. The RHW needs to be able to function better in imperfect scenarios then it currently does in order to be truly useful as a gameplay element and not just an ornament.

. . .

[3] Unless I'm mistaken, there is no way to cross over the tram roads with the RHW. Nor is there any easy way to recreate these bridges. Oh, and the elevated-only segments are also unbuildable because of the lack of proper ramps.

1a. Well, if you've been paying attention to the SC4D development forums, you'll know of the MHW to RHW retrofit that jdenm8 is working on. However, it's four-lane and not six. I've been working on a similar thing... I think six lanes that spread out on a diagonal might make pathing a challenge, but simple trigonometry shows that four lanes can fit quite comfortably.

1b. Did you know that Maxis originally designed their MHWs with four lanes, but was forced to jam two more?

1c. If an MHW retrofit were to come to fruition, you'll find that none of the original MHW interchanges will work, simply because they'll be too small, and no, we're not gonna redo any of them. (Hehce, the Symphony pieces...)

2. If you're having problems building long-distance RHW bridges, there's a available for download on the STEX. It's MHW-based, and doesn't require a gap between the two directions of traffic. That's essentially the only other RHW bridge available for download.

3a. Yes there is; Just separate the two networks. That's essentially the only available workaroud. Not compact, but it works. Or use the RTMT Tram-in-Road Tram to Subway transitions.

3b. I've seen people substitute an absent short-distance combined RHW-4 bridge with an AVE-4 bridge. Creates a bottleneck in traffic, but it's a rather short-range bottleneck. Plus, it works.

3c. If you bothered to read the RHW documentation, you'll find that certain ERHWs are currently overpass-functionality only. The problem, once again, is that ramps for them are model-based items, and model-based items are one of the hardest things to churn out. It's possible that many new ERHW networks will be overpass-only, either because there won't be ramps made for them yet or because a ramp above a certain height (L2) isn't too practical.

Finally (and this is unrelated to everything else), it takes a bit of trickery to get an RHW interchange really compact, but a simple diamond (or in this case, a SPUI) can be made extremely compact if one is resourceful enough.

I personally prefer something a little bigger but this is how compact RHW can be, in the right hands.

1. I know about it. Interesting, but all I see being made is another 4-lane country road that is no use in the heart of a city. I appreciate the effort that goes into it, but it's not something I can see myself using. As for the Maxis highways, they were only 4-laned early on because they were ported from SC3000. And from what I've heard of Symphony, it just sounds like an effort to force more people into building oversized interchanges with excess green space (look nice on the CJ's, but no good if you actually want to play the city).

2. It's the 4 lanes part that makes it undesirable. Again, 4 lanes is a country road. If I'm in an area where I can use a highway that small (aka nowhere near a city bigger than 100,000 people), I've got no reason to build a big bridge.

3. Separating the networks means I have to bulldoze the skyscrapers lining the street. That's easily 4000+ jobs gone for one little piece of rail. And AVE-4 doesn't work when you have 8000 cars on the highway. Yes, I know about the overpass only functionality. I'm just saying that until the RHW catches up to my needs, it's useless for what I want to build.

  Edited April 21, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

All I can say is this: There are two ways to judge the NAM. You can judge it by what it has already or you can judge it by what it doesn't have.

Continue to judge it by what it doesn't have and you'll miss out on what it can do already, even in its limited state.

And don't quote whole posts; That just makes your posts needlessly long.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

The fun of RHW only lasts so long as problems are solvable. Like I said, I play in regions with bumpy, uneven land and lots of random water puddles all over the place, as well as big bays that the highway needs to cross, not to mention medium and small city tiles where RHW doesn't really fit well.

Sounds like my region Imaginia, and I can deal with the RHW on bumpy terrain pretty well:

Also, try to avoid crossing small lakes and such and split up river crossings when you need to (like RHW-4/dual RHW-4/RHW-4).

[Moonraker0 192]

Two shots of an anti-weaving redesign of a T-interchange which Need4Camaro suggested to me. This is my city in the

[Tarkus 6,932]

And from what I've heard of Symphony, it just sounds like an effort to force more people into building oversized interchanges with excess green space (look nice on the CJ's, but no good if you actually want to play the city).

While I don't really know all the details on Symphony myself (as far as I know, it's still just in the conceptual stage at this point, though jdenm8 would be able to give a more accurate answer), it would not involve the creation of excess green space. The additional space that would be taken would be directly parallel and just extend the length of the ramps.

2. It's the 4 lanes part that makes it undesirable. Again, 4 lanes is a country road. If I'm in an area where I can use a highway that small (aka nowhere near a city bigger than 100,000 people), I've got no reason to build a big bridge.

The technology used to make that bridge could be coupled with the technology for the existing in-progress RHW-6S bridge to make a compact 6-lane bridge to RHW specs.

Separating the networks means I have to bulldoze the skyscrapers lining the street. That's easily 4000+ jobs gone for one little piece of rail. And AVE-4 doesn't work when you have 8000 cars on the highway.

Are you referring to the Tram-in-Road overpass? If so, there are plans to cross-link the RHW with the Tram Dual Networking system with the creation of overpasses with the next release. It's actually a pretty high priority on my to-do list.

Yes, I know about the overpass only functionality. I'm just saying that until the RHW catches up to my needs, it's useless for what I want to build.

Each release we add more functionality, and more people's needs are met with the RHW.

And Moonraker and Maarten, those are some very nice interchanges!

-Tarkus

  Edited April 21, 2012 by Tarkus  

[Cob92 360]

Well, here are a few shots from my newly launched retrofit of my city's freeway network:

[MandelSoft 2,769]

#1: That cloverleaf interchange can be smaller and smoother. Curved MIS transitions can be really usefull here. Here's an example of a nice, smooth and tight cloverleaf I made with the RHW v4.0 back in 2010:

Another thing is that the development is way too close to the RHW. Try to keep at least a space of one tile in between the RHW and development. No one wants to live next to a noisy freeway (and I'm not even complaining about exhaust gasses!).

For instance, this looks a bit more believable as an urban freeway:

#2: OK, though I wouldn't connect the top-left ramp in the way you did.

#3: Looks OK considering the current capabilities of the RHW...

#4 & #5: Interchange is OK, but again, development is too close to the RHW. Also, you can use slope walls here...

Best,

Maarten

  Edited April 23, 2012 by mrtnrln  

[AIX 270]

For instance, this looks a bit more believable as an urban freeway:

Best,

Maarten

I shortened the quote for readability purposes, but I do agree. However, I have seen places that have had far less than 16m (one SC4 tile) worth of space between development and freeway. In most cases this was commercial or industrial development. Here in Portland, we have shoulders of less than a metre in width with a wall about 4 metres high and commercial properties right on top. The Banfield Expressway (I-84) is what I am thinking of here.

Where Cobhris86 had those small commercial zones right on the freeway looks very real judging by what I see here.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

I guess I'm used to better urban planning

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Where Cobhris86 had those small commercial zones right on the freeway looks very real judging by what I see here.

I disagree; Look closely and you'll see in some areas, that's a 45-deg incline, and you expect to build on top of there? OK, you can build an embankment, but depending on the circumstances, that's a lot of work in real-life. Second, what if you have a slope-tolerant lot? I wouldn't wanna park there... It's one thing to have your car disappear on you, but to have hundreds to magically appear in a giant pile on an adjacent highway?

Additionally, you have Maarten's point: That's too close to being to an aura of unbreathable air and deafening sounds. Finally, Maarten follows European-styled ideals, and not most of the US-styled construction ideals of, say, building suicidally close to a highway to utilise every sliver of land (Not very green if you as me...); Even I wouldn't build that close and I'm American... Also, what if you want to expand a highway? (I'm not gonna bother with that; I think you know where this is going...)

-----

There's something else that's actually more of an undesired side-effect. Did you know that you can trick the system into zoning along RHW? If you zone along the starter (which is made of Road, and by network hierarchy, is higher than RHW), you can effectively provide zone access on an RHW network, but only on the starter tile.

If you zone suicidally close to an RHW network (and just about every RHW starter is either Road or OWR, both of which are "higher" than RHW, and no, this won't work with RHW-2 because there's no starter for RHW-2), you'll get the rather unrealistic effect of living or working along a highway, and preventing that requires having a one-tile gap anyway. Same especially goes with the 6S, but that's if you don't like tearing out shoulders and shortening travel lanes.

If you're thinking MHWs prevent that, think again; I've found MHW interchanges that provide a "magic shortcut", effectively bypassing a perfectly-placed arterial.

[Cob92 360]

Yeah, I realize that living right on top of a highway would be a rather undesirable circumstance (though I've seen a number of single family homes that back up onto a highway and have driveways that open onto frontage roads), but for the most part I've kept residential development at least a tile from the freeway ROW. In addition, those commercial properties were there before I dug the trench for the freeway, with the original design being an MHW surrounded by commercial development everywhere except the ramps, and I liked the look of the trench so I decided to keep them rather than bulldoze the whole thing (they also serve the function of soaking up potential loop commuters on the highway corridor). As for #2, it looks that way because the game wouldn't let me build the ramps symmetrically for some reason; as I said, this region has lots of tiny little bumps in the terrain that are barely visible but make highway construction a nightmare.

I appreciate the advice about the cloverleaf though. That interchange looks the way it does because I wanted it built as fast as possible, so when I revisit the area I'm going to take a look at how I can make it a faster and more compact setup. Don't forget, this wasn't a planned city where the highway was laid first; otherwise, I would have designed it to accommodate 8 lanes everywhere. The entire city was already built and the highway was just shoehorned in wherever it would fit. I'll post pictures of the renovations on the south side freeways once those are done too.

  Edited April 23, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[Moskva 75]

Haha that's true, sometimes i've seen sims dropping in or off the highway without a ramp, pretty hilarious however not big deal . Back to the topic, here's the F1-F2 Interchange in Strela. To make it clear, the F1 is the freeway coming from Lenin'sk and going north, the F2 is the bypass around the city outskirts.

[Cob92 360]

The latest renovation to the freeways of London County (aka the Clarksville metro area):

This sunken diamond interchange is in the suburb of Sydenham, just a few minutes' drive from downtown.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Compared to your previous interchanges, I'm seeing improvement! Way to go!

  Edited April 24, 2012 by mrtnrln  

[DavidB_ 83]

Yeah, I realize that living right on top of a highway would be a rather undesirable circumstance (though I've seen a number of single family homes that back up onto a highway and have driveways that open onto frontage roads)

COUGHCOUGH A14 in the UK, substandard four lanes of weaving long-distance HGVs competing with local travel and houses on slip roads. The village Lolworth only has one way out: A14! I dread to think of the results when the A14 is slow...

Don't forget, this wasn't a planned city where the highway was laid first; otherwise, I would have designed it to accommodate 8 lanes everywhere. The entire city was already built and the highway was just shoehorned in wherever it would fit. I'll post pictures of the renovations on the south side freeways once those are done too.

Ditto here when I began with RHW in my first region, I shoved it in where I had the space.

Oh, and that reminds me of one of my old MHW junctions Moskva!

[Moskva 75]

Yeah i had to do that crazy thing because the terrain is hilly and the freeways had no other space where to run. Came up with something interesting, at least .

[AIX 270]

I guess I'm used to better urban planning

Where Cobhris86 had those small commercial zones right on the freeway looks very real judging by what I see here.

I disagree; Look closely and you'll see in some areas, that's a 45-deg incline, and you expect to build on top of there? OK, you can build an embankment, but depending on the circumstances, that's a lot of work in real-life. Second, what if you have a slope-tolerant lot? I wouldn't wanna park there... It's one thing to have your car disappear on you, but to have hundreds to magically appear in a giant pile on an adjacent highway?

Additionally, you have Maarten's point: That's too close to being to an aura of unbreathable air and deafening sounds. Finally, Maarten follows European-styled ideals, and not most of the US-styled construction ideals of, say, building suicidally close to a highway to utilise every sliver of land (Not very green if you as me...); Even I wouldn't build that close and I'm American... Also, what if you want to expand a highway? (I'm not gonna bother with that; I think you know where this is going...)

I was assuming that the businesses in those sloped zones would build embankments Also, I would have leveled out that land and used some sort of wall set if I were building this setup, saving my poor sims the trouble.

The suicidally-close zoning and narrow shoulders here are the result of ramming a freeway through a historic neighbourhood that was around about 100 years before the freeway was even thought of. When the zones around the Banfield Expressway in Portland were platted, freeways had not even been invented yet. In addition, we have citizens and policy-makers here that are very against demolition. They have chosen the noise and pollution in favour of demolition. As for expansion, I honestly doubt Portland will ever see any freeway expansion again - not new construction or lane additions. In fact, two freeways were planned and never built because of "highway revolts".

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

You do realise that nothing I've said is intended to apply to RL, right? It's strictly all SC4 highway construction.

  Edited April 25, 2012 by Ganaram DI  

[Moonraker0 192]

Interchange in Eastern district, Hong Kong

[nathanthemayor 1,261]

@Moonraker0:That looks awesome!Good work on it!

Two new interchanges from Paridise Island, signage included.

[AIX 270]

@Nathan: I am really liking your more recent work!

[Cob92 360]

You do realise that nothing I've said is intended to apply to RL, right? It's strictly all SC4 highway construction.

It's the same basic reasoning in both cases though. Old, pre-freeway neighborhood, city doesn't want to bulldoze very much, freeway gets rammed into too-small space. Look at the FDR in NYC, it's the same sort of thing. You see higher quality freeway construction in cities where the government either has the means to clear a wide corridor or where the freeways are built before the area is developed. That's also why you tend to see longer ramps, better exit spacing and fewer abrupt turns in the suburbs and countryside as well. Land is cheap there and the only player that the highway authorities have to deal with is the local farmer (in the case of Texas, the frontage roads actually make the freeway a boon to the local landowners by driving up the property values adjacent to the freeway), as opposed to the myriad of landholders in any given part of a city. There are few or no buildings to demolish and no real space constraints.

  Edited April 25, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[Niellezzz 38]

Hello all, it's my first time I post my interchanges here so I'd like to hear some feedback.

This is a random interchange I made in a useless city.

This one is build in my 3rd biggest city and the biggest city with RHW, one connection is missing (west -> north). This was on purpose. I didn't finish the trees and stuff but it will look like the interchange I posted first.

[Moonraker0 192]

Well, there are few places in the first interchange where you can fit in smooth curves (the outer highway in the upper part of the image, for example) for RHW-4 if the lights are repositioned. Also, in the first image there is that ramp that moves over one tile abruptly, but that could be changed into a nice-looking fractional angle MIS ramp, and there's a piece for adding an additional lane like you're doing now, but at the smoother angle. The same case is true in the second image, near the bottom, where you used a lane shift/s-curve piece and then a dual RHW-4 to RHW-6s merger.

In both images, I noticed that you aren't really providing any merge/acceleration lane space at all, even after the dual RHW-4 to RHW-6s mergers, which would be unsafe/problematic in real life.

[DavidB_ 83]

I've seen enough acceleration/deceleration ramps of a similar size to those, including on the UK A1 road around Peterborough and Stamford. However, there looks to be enough space for most of them to be lengthened. A potential rebuild project?