Show us What you're Working On

[simmering 2,743]

2 hours ago, Girafarig said:

Does anyone have any recommendations as to what to use to have fully rail transit-enabled rail within my dock?

I am not entirely sure I understand the request. Are you looking for dock elements that have tracks to fill the gap between the container port and the shipping company?

2 hours ago, Girafarig said:

can anyone recommend an inland container lot to use in the spare space here?

I recommend @nbvc's Modular Container Port. They include some inland lots. You could add @SimNation's Freight Containers which have various sizes. That comes in handy in tight spaces:

 

[Girafarig 1,414]

1 hour ago, simmering said:

I am not entirely sure I understand the request. Are you looking for dock elements that have tracks to fill the gap between the container port and the shipping company?

The large CDK3 lots, such as the container port and the shipping company (but also the inner/outer corner lots, the other ports, and a couple others I forget) are 5 tiles deep (with usually, but not necessarily, 2 tiles in water and 3 on land) and transit-enabled for rail, running at the third row of the lot (over what would be the actual shore).

Because they're transit enabled, you actually can't put two of these lots immediately next to one another. At least, I can't -- it needs to have some space for the rail. You do have 1-tile lots available, and those fit nicely. However, they're not transit-enabled, so the rail line is actually cut off. Good for cosmetic effect, not so good if you want to run trains through.

Right now, I'm using a riprap wall in these gaps, but it looks kind of weird. It would be nice to have some sort of CDK3 lot that was either 2 tiles deep (and placeable over water) or somehow transit-enabled, yet able to be placed right next to the other transit-enabled lot (which can't be done, I think, due to game limitations).

  Edited July 28, 2024 by Girafarig  
Fitting images

[Barroco Hispano 26,931]

I've finished making the 4 lots of my substations, the only thing I'm missing is the modding but I'm completely ignorant about energy issues. I was wondering if someone who is an expert in these matters can create those files (4 .desc files) and send them to me (I can share the .sc4model files). Send me a DM if you're interested. 

Modding is a topic that doesn't interest me right now, if it were up to me those stations would be a Landmark (I don't even play the game). 

Rivian EDV-500 2023 (Amazon livery):

[hugues aroux 3,867]

8 hours ago, Barroco Hispano said:

Modding is a topic that doesn't interest me right now,

If you could offer us these magnificent elements in a simple prop package, that would already be great!!!

[simmering 2,743]

11 hours ago, Girafarig said:

You do have 1-tile lots available, and those fit nicely. However, they're not transit-enabled, so the rail line is actually cut off. Good for cosmetic effect, not so good if you want to run trains through.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I never looked at transit through the port lots but I get the challenge now. I am not aware of any peace that could do that. 

11 hours ago, Girafarig said:

Right now, I'm using a riprap wall in these gaps, but it looks kind of weird. It would be nice to have some sort of CDK3 lot that was either 2 tiles deep (and placeable over water) or somehow transit-enabled, yet able to be placed right next to the other transit-enabled lot (which can't be done, I think, due to game limitations).

I think, patching together a solution is the best one can do. Here is what I could come up with:

This solution uses three pieces:

• The seawall is from uki, you can find it on http://uki-sim.seesaa.net/article/245190662.html
• The rail is normal rail, but it is covered by an overhanging concrete slab from the tile above.
  That piece is part of @murimk's NightOwls Diagonal Industrial Fillers and Extenders. It is special as it lets the rail shine through while covering the brown underground. I am not sure if this was ever intended or is a reliable effect. But it is useful here.
• The last piece is a simple fence piece from the Modular Container Port, which I already mentioned in the other post

As the rail connection is only visually covered it should still be functioning.

[Dreadnought 8,231]

11 hours ago, Girafarig said:

The large CDK3 lots, such as the container port and the shipping company (but also the inner/outer corner lots, the other ports, and a couple others I forget) are 5 tiles deep (with usually, but not necessarily, 2 tiles in water and 3 on land) and transit-enabled for rail, running at the third row of the lot (over what would be the actual shore).

Because they're transit enabled, you actually can't put two of these lots immediately next to one another. At least, I can't -- it needs to have some space for the rail. You do have 1-tile lots available, and those fit nicely. However, they're not transit-enabled, so the rail line is actually cut off. Good for cosmetic effect, not so good if you want to run trains through.

Right now, I'm using a riprap wall in these gaps, but it looks kind of weird. It would be nice to have some sort of CDK3 lot that was either 2 tiles deep (and placeable over water) or somehow transit-enabled, yet able to be placed right next to the other transit-enabled lot (which can't be done, I think, due to game limitations).

It's been some time since I used the "PEG" ports to move cargo out of a city, but I seem to remember them working in a very peculiar way. 

The port acts as a "receiver".  The freight is originated in a nearby industrial zone and the train "visually" carries the freight to the port (if your rail network is not too convoluted).  Once the freight train arrives at the port, it "visually" drives into the first seaport it comes to -- and having unloaded the freight -- promptly disappears from the game.

The Maxis-generated freight trains do NOT "visually" move through a port -- and they never appear coming out the other side of a port complex.  The port is a "receiver" -- so it does not generate freight trains that would come out the other side.

You could build a "fake" port with docks, cranes, and warehouses along the waterline, lay Maxis drag-and-drop rail behind it, then build more "fake" port infrastructure on the opposite side of the track for visual purposes.  That way -- your trains will visually move through your port structure.  All the way at the end of your port complex -- you could then plop a PEG port to actually receive the freight and preform the freight removal function for the city.  However, the trains will still "disappear" once they enter the PEG port -- because that is the way the "freight removal" function works.

Having said all that -- if I am in error of my understanding of the Maxis freight mechanics -- please do not hesitate to correct me.

As I recall -- @rsc204 did some research on these PEG ports two or three years ago.  I do not know what results he achieved -- but I'm sure he could "authoritatively" confirm the game mechanics function of the ports one way or the other.

My above mentioned solution worked very well for me in the "Imperial Dockyards: Wilhelmshaven" -- but it does require a great deal of re-lotting to build the "fake" portions of the port structure.

Hope that helps --

[mayorleers 23]

17 hours ago, mitsos said:

San Andreas International airport

That poor alone blue plane bottom left :-(

[rsc204 21,866]

38 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

It's been some time since I used the "PEG" ports to move cargo out of a city, but I seem to remember them working in a very peculiar way. 

The port acts as a "receiver".  The freight is originated in a nearby industrial zone and the train "visually" carries the freight to the port (if your rail network is not too convoluted).  Once the freight train arrives at the port, it "visually" drives into the first seaport it comes to -- and having unloaded the freight -- promptly disappears from the game.

The Maxis-generated freight trains do NOT "visually" move through a port -- and they never appear coming out the other side of a port complex.  The port is a "receiver" -- so it does not generate freight trains that would come out the other side.

You could build a "fake" port with docks, cranes, and warehouses along the waterline, lay Maxis drag-and-drop rail behind it, then build more "fake" port infrastructure on the opposite side of the track for visual purposes.  That way -- your trains will visually move through your port structure.  All the way at the end of your port complex -- you could then plop a PEG port to actually receive the freight and preform the freight removal function for the city.  However, the trains will still "disappear" once they enter the PEG port -- because that is the way the "freight removal" function works.

Having said all that -- if I am in error of my understanding of the Maxis freight mechanics -- please do not hesitate to correct me.

As I recall -- @rsc204 did some research on these PEG ports two or three years ago.  I do not know what results he achieved -- but I'm sure he could "authoritatively" confirm the game mechanics function of the ports one way or the other.

My above mentioned solution worked very well for me in the "Imperial Dockyards: Wilhelmshaven" -- but it does require a great deal of re-lotting to build the "fake" portions of the port structure.

Hope that helps --

So the main problem here is that even if you could place two TE lots together, there is no way for transport to connect any type of transit between the two. As such, it is not practical to use the Seaports as a through route. Essentially as you say, they are ‘collector’ lots or destinations.

There is an issue with all Seaports, they don’t offer any benefits. I.e., they will collect freight via trucks and rail, but you don’t get any benefit from it. By comparison if freight leaves by truck or rail at a city border crossing, you will get a boost to demand for further Industrial (demand cap increase).

Given both these factors, I’m personally inclined to keep these more eye candy, of course the best way to do that would be not to use the functional variants of them (seaports). 

[Tyberius06 12,267]

8 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

So the main problem here is that even if you could place two TE lots together, there is no way for transport to connect any type of transit between the two. As such, it is not practical to use the Seaports as a through route. Essentially as you say, they are ‘collector’ lots or destinations.

Technically one could do it, but it is awfull lot of modding with the use of custom paths and still there isn't any garantee, that it's gonna work properly. And it's even more unsure with single tile width lots. I know in some form placing TE lots in a modular way right next to each other was working with Neko's JPN Facelift mod with the modular Avenue pieces, but I don't know if the same applies for the rail network. 

[simmering 2,743]

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

The Maxis-generated freight trains do NOT "visually" move through a port -- and they never appear coming out the other side of a port complex. 

 

52 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

So the main problem here is that even if you could place two TE lots together, there is no way for transport to connect any type of transit between the two.

So I guess, @Girafarig, there is no need for any kind of workaround as it makes no difference compared to the existing non-TE lots from the CDK3.

54 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

There is an issue with all Seaports, they don’t offer any benefits. I.e., they will collect freight via trucks and rail, but you don’t get any benefit from it. By comparison if freight leaves by truck or rail at a city border crossing, you will get a boost to demand for further Industrial (demand cap increase).

Given both these factors, I’m personally inclined to keep these more eye candy, of course the best way to do that would be not to use the functional variants of them (seaports). 

Now that is rather useful information. I have been struggling trying to fit these functional ports to my coastline because I thought they would boost the industry. As they do not, I might as well use small freight train stations and eye candy port lots. Thanks for clearing that up!

[Girafarig 1,414]

28 minutes ago, simmering said:

So I guess, @Girafarig, there is no need for any kind of workaround as it makes no difference compared to the existing non-TE lots from the CDK3.

Now that is rather useful information. I have been struggling trying to fit these functional ports to my coastline because I thought they would boost the industry. As they do not, I might as well use small freight train stations and eye candy port lots. Thanks for clearing that up!

Fair enough. I would've still liked having the option for through traffic, if for no other reason because the port is built in a somewhat cramped area and it's always nice to have more manoeuvring space for rails -- but since I managed to build a line outside of the port proper anyway, it has become a bit of a moot point anyway.

[rsc204 21,866]

2 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

I know in some form placing TE lots in a modular way right next to each other was working with Neko's JPN Facelift mod with the modular Avenue pieces, but I don't know if the same applies for the rail network. 

I wasn’t aware of any lots being used. This is just clever trickery with T21s and S3D planes. Essentially the same concept as I use for my S3D endeavours. But the base pieces are actual networks/puzzle pieces.

Sure with SC4Fix you can place two TE lots together. But the transit switches won’t allow for transit between two lots. Only between a lot and a network or vice-versa. 

[ncamferdam 1,504]

Still need to do a lot of dress-up on this, but I was fairly pleased with the symmetry:

[Dreadnought 8,231]

6 hours ago, rsc204 said:

So the main problem here is that even if you could place two TE lots together, there is no way for transport to connect any type of transit between the two. As such, it is not practical to use the Seaports as a through route. Essentially as you say, they are ‘collector’ lots or destinations.

There is an issue with all Seaports, they don’t offer any benefits. I.e., they will collect freight via trucks and rail, but you don’t get any benefit from it. By comparison if freight leaves by truck or rail at a city border crossing, you will get a boost to demand for further Industrial (demand cap increase).

Given both these factors, I’m personally inclined to keep these more eye candy, of course the best way to do that would be not to use the functional variants of them (seaports). 

Yo, guy --

THANK YOU very much for the reply -- I  learn something new about PEG seaports every day -- !!

Considering that there is no "CAP" benefit derived from PEG seaports -- then the only other reason for using them at all (other than "eye candy") -- might be to divert freight truck traffic out of a city to reduce congestion.  But, again -- it would simply be easier to make an off-map connection with another city and divert the freight traffic that way.

In the final analysis -- it looks like seaports would be better built as "eye candy".

[kschmidt 6,223]

20 hours ago, Girafarig said:

The large CDK3 lots, such as the container port and the shipping company (but also the inner/outer corner lots, the other ports, and a couple others I forget) are 5 tiles deep (with usually, but not necessarily, 2 tiles in water and 3 on land) and transit-enabled for rail, running at the third row of the lot (over what would be the actual shore).

Because they're transit enabled, you actually can't put two of these lots immediately next to one another. At least, I can't -- it needs to have some space for the rail. You do have 1-tile lots available, and those fit nicely. However, they're not transit-enabled, so the rail line is actually cut off. Good for cosmetic effect, not so good if you want to run trains through.

Right now, I'm using a riprap wall in these gaps, but it looks kind of weird. It would be nice to have some sort of CDK3 lot that was either 2 tiles deep (and placeable over water) or somehow transit-enabled, yet able to be placed right next to the other transit-enabled lot (which can't be done, I think, due to game limitations).

 

Think a none transit eye candy filler ir end piece might be the only solution as mentioned. Harbour companies don't have endless quails.Harbour and canals being always little sideline feature  Real feeder like with modular regional arport freight rail feeder edited for ports ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Tyberius06 12,267]

9 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I wasn’t aware of any lots being used. This is just clever trickery with T21s and S3D planes. Essentially the same concept as I use for my S3D endeavours. But the base pieces are actual networks/puzzle pieces.

Sure with SC4Fix you can place two TE lots together. But the transit switches won’t allow for transit between two lots. Only between a lot and a network or vice-versa. 

I was referring to the Neko Overpass AddOn Lots.

Those form overpasses and they can be placed after each other; they were modded for AVE and the last I checked (6 years ago), they were functional. I ran some quick tests and I figured they are actually semi-functional. And they are modded in a way poorly by todays standards. The TSEC is set to 0 on all lots, the capacity is around 10k and the TE Switches are 4 way switches for all intended travel types (car, bus, freight, ped). Though they are supposed to be parking lots, this functionality were not modded at all.

Though the following images will show, that in certain conditions and circumstances, the set-up is able to show some limited functionality.

The trick as I figured is the parallel road/street network along the AVE lots. That's triggering actually the traffic. It's not only allowing traffic to drop down people for the jobs along the overpass by the parallel networks, but I found pass through traffic from residential areas to farther industrial or other jobs.

If there is not any parallel network, then it stops working.

So as I originally stated it's a lot of uncertain modding. I'm not even sure if I were to "fix" the modding to today's standards, that would not break the whole concept big time. To be fair, these lots should have directional switches (instead of the 4 way), added carpark function, and a TSEC of 0.02 and the capacity would be 24k per lot. But again, I'm not sure that these changes would work at all.

[Girafarig 1,414]

And here we have the new port kind-of, sort-of finished. It is, of course, built right where the June gloom hits the hardest, and the entrance channel wound up being a bit too narrow on account of the island pier -- but I think it looks neat and this area combines industrial (top), commercial (casino, island) and residential (to the left). Now I don't know if I should fill in the shallows to the left or leave it as-is.

[jestarr 3,423]

Okay, the non-canal/seaport version is finished. This comes as a 14x5 lot. As it's transit enabled, it'll only come as a landmark with IM jobs. I said I wasn't going to make an HD version, but I rendered one anyway. I may not upload it since the building is three times the size of the SD version at 5.3MBs.

[Tyberius06 12,267]

21 minutes ago, jestarr said:

I may not upload it since the building is three times the size of the SD version at 5.3MBs.

Why not? You could upload just the model and a prop and if someone wants it they can lot and mod it. Or swap the TGI in the building exemplar to use the HD model. File size is not an issue these days. I recall when Simmer2 had similar dilemma with his ADM Grain Elevator uploads. It exists as SD and HD version. 15-20 Mb is nothing, we have bigger single models and 60mb+ mega packs.

 

[Girafarig 1,414]

Since I had placed a bus depot on an island last time, I had the "brilliant" idea of getting good road (read = highway) connections to the island chain at my port. There are two highways converging there, after all.

Of course, building roads near waterways can only mean one thing: underwater tunnels!

First, I had to prepare the terrain. This means raising everything ≈ 45 meters, making the tunnel, digging 30 meters in the middle of the raised land in order to get good slopes (I had to settle for monorail slopes, since regular highway doesn't dive deep enough and I simply didn't have enough room), and then sinking the whole contraption 45-60 meters so I could get an acceptable water depth…

Like this. Cue some fine tuning and rebuilding, and the end result…

Is a neat little tunnel! I also had to reroute two highways, get a cloverleaf connection going, and a bunch of other, assorted fittings that came to a grand total of §200,000. But it's worth it! Or so I'll tell myself until I'm convinced.

[kaimai 1,067]

Mashallah

(I'm spending way too long on this but maybe I'm learning something? kinda?)

[Gemeentekaart 72]

Mashallah brother.

very interesting, love the mosque 

[Null 45 3,114]

I got the variable income/expense portion of the custom budget DLL working:

In this example, it is configured to provide an additional § 2 per 1000 residents. Which is probably low for a casino. 

[simmering 2,743]

10 hours ago, Girafarig said:

and then sinking the whole contraption 45-60 meters so I could get an acceptable water depth…

How do you sink just a portion of your terrain without destroying the tunnel?

[Girafarig 1,414]

1 hour ago, simmering said:

How do you sink just a portion of your terrain without destroying the tunnel?

Carefully /s

The tunnel will stand (hold?) as long as you don't fiddle with the entrance or the tile right behind it. After that, it's all fair and square. This is my first underwater tunnel, but I had a monorail tunnel under an airport in another city, you can build stuff with no problems.

Well, kinda. Automata will follow the land contour to an extent. If you go below sea level, you may find yourself on top of the tunnel somehow, or you may be able to complete the crossing (I don't exactly know what causes automata to resurface).

But travelling sims can and will use the tunnel with no issues, as you can see in this picture:

It should also allow ferries to use the channel across, though for now, there's no routes through here, and ferries are kind of finicky in general.

As for what I used to dig, after I established a slope I was happy with, I simply used the NAM digger lot. If you use it every other square, it maintains the inclination grade as you sink all the land. That's why the tunnel plot is actually three tiles wide, if you pay close attention -- I needed the extra space to make the digger work properly. But technically speaking, I could've probably gotten away with just using the Mayor-mode Landscape Tools (maybe even the God-mode tools, if I had the finesse).

[The Mayor of Hiversbridge 341]

I really need to get the new building styles mod working - hand plopping everything is murder.

[jestarr 3,423]

Made this yesterday while waiting for the diagonal Fall River Mill in HD to render on my desktop machine. It comes in SD and HD -- ortho and diagonal. It's nothing special, just a 2x2 filler building.

[Krisman 4,652]

Made some changes to the main boulevard in my city to really get that southern France vibe ...

[ncamferdam 1,504]

51 minutes ago, Krisman said:

Made some changes to the main boulevard in my city to really get that southern France vibe ...

I always get excited when I see you’ve posted another set of detail views. Superbly done every single time 

[kschmidt 6,223]

On 31-7-2024 at 2:15 PM, Girafarig said:

Carefully /s

The tunnel will stand (hold?) as long as you don't fiddle with the entrance or the tile right behind it. After that, it's all fair and square. This is my first underwater tunnel, but I had a monorail tunnel under an airport in another city, you can build stuff with no problems.

Well, kinda. Automata will follow the land contour to an extent. If you go below sea level, you may find yourself on top of the tunnel somehow, or you may be able to complete the crossing (I don't exactly know what causes automata to resurface).

But travelling sims can and will use the tunnel with no issues, as you can see in this picture:

It should also allow ferries to use the channel across, though for now, there's no routes through here, and ferries are kind of finicky in general.

As for what I used to dig, after I established a slope I was happy with, I simply used the NAM digger lot. If you use it every other square, it maintains the inclination grade as you sink all the land. That's why the tunnel plot is actually three tiles wide, if you pay close attention -- I needed the extra space to make the digger work properly. But technically speaking, I could've probably gotten away with just using the Mayor-mode Landscape Tools (maybe even the God-mode tools, if I had the finesse).

Last Chicago subway tunnels I had a extreme deep chicago river. At the crossing level the water bttom to reasonable level from shore to shore established a working connection. Steep slopes with automata won´t work. What should help might be little more hole digging at both sides and a slope entrance ? Exraordinaire slope use on the water section will result in a more curved tunnel profile ? That would be new for me , have to try that out sometime !