Land bridge?

[fredinno 54]

I have no idea how this formed- it's a "land bridge" of sorts- made by zoning agricultural onto two hills. I don't get how this was supposed to be formed. It also is unable to be passed under by a road or street- like a normal bridge.

 

Since it only works from streets, it's not really 100% useful. But still interesting.

[Compdude787 916]

It's because the slopes were too steep and there was a big valley to cross between where you started dragging and where you finished dragging. If you want the roads to go underneath the bridge, just download the Under Bridge Lots from that Japanese website. It's well worth having.

[rsc204 21,808]

I can see why the game would place a bridge. But, I didn't think it was possible without water being beneath the bridge? As such it's an interesting find, but I guess it's not overly useful except in very specific situations.

[matias93 7,535]

It is possible, depending on the slopes, but I've noted that Ennedi slope mods make land bridges less probable to appear, being needed to use some water tool to catalyze the bridge building instead of terraforming.

And while they could look inadequate on urban settings, land bridges are very practical on hilly rural environments, where heavy terraforming is relatively expensive and there is no need to preserve crossing ability under the bridge. This, added to the facts that bridges aren't height-fixed (as opposed to NAM viaducts) and allow for MMPs to be plopped under them, makes them very useful tools for functional landscaping.

[rsc204 21,808]

I wonder then, is this just for the streets? Because it's to do with the auto-placement when zoning? Of course this is limited to streets only.

I've been using the rain tool to force land-bridges, because for the most part, dragging them without water will simply terraform the land or throw up an error. That said, any slope properties would affect the behaviour.

[matias93 7,535]

I've done them with roads and avenues too, and I think they are also possible with rail, but I haven't tried yet. I guess they are indeed possible with every network, provided a given vertical clearance and an specifical slope pattern. In any case, it looks like it was the intended behaviour...

[rsc204 21,808]

Interesting, I guess then it's only useful for ravines... but, with modified settings, maybe it could work with shallower hills, could make the need for the rail tool redundant...

That said, messing with it could screw with bridges, but worthy of a little poking around methinks.

[matias93 7,535]

27 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

could make the need for the rain tool redundant...

Not so sure... I did this with the rain tool:

And while is not permanent and because of that I didn't used the real depth (it should be as deep as the empty valley on the right, where an MMP river should be), it is very useful to alter the moisture simulation and to get precise information about the placement of trees and plants on over-sea-level water bodies. (yes, that sounded as crazy control-freak and obsesive nitpicking... and that is precisely)

[rsc204 21,808]

Well I say redundant... but I mean for specifically land bridges... Have you tried JenX's Poseidon mod? For a lake like that above sealevel, it has a useful lot you can plop to fill it with water. The key difference being it's permanent.

[airman15 4,111]

Bridges for any network will form as long as you have two points at similar heights over an area you can't access otherwise. Much like in the real world it's an alternative to shimmy your way down a slope face to end up in a ravine only to pull up and do the same uphill. Don't get me wrong, over-land bridge spans are impressive in their own right and it's not unusual to see them in mountain-themed settings.

In certain situations, it can be very useful to use a bridge as they have the ability to transfer power along it's length! This way you don't have to add power plants on either end. Going by the zoning in your photo, it's kind of a moot feature as zoning already takes care of it's own power.

On the other hand if it's realism you're going for this method is best reserved for highway scenes. The Network Addon Mod has an amazing selection for different types of highways passing over and under each other but if you haven't used it much it will mean some trial and error in getting it to work for your preferences.

[HayleyRenaNemeth 465]

Just a little while ago when I was dragging a MHW it asked if I wanted to make a bridge , the land with much shallower. the slopes weren't that steep. I think it just needs to be both sides at a similar elevation. I elected not to build the bridge. 

[Compdude787 916]

I know that it will happen with the Ennedi Slope Mod, because I remember reading the Readme and it says that the slope settings are such that you can create bridges without having to use the rain tool.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

I recently looked inside the Ennedi slope mod(s). They show SC4 parameters for bridge (and tunnel) eligibility, as well as slope intolerance (reducing road elevation changes). If you (or any of your mods) have tweaked those parameters, then you'll see more bridge formation than vanilla, both because bridges are allowed in more places and the road is not allowed to dive and climb as much.

Ennedi has 3 variations, and the flattest hardly allows any slope or slope-changes at all. In that mod I've seen bridges just crossing lumpy (eroded) marshland. I also saw way to many red stripes prohibiting any building whatsoever. I had to shift to the hill version before the game became workable.

It was during that exercise that I dove into the mod file using iLives. I saw the many cool settings, so of course I tweaked anything and everything to suit my own tastes (and changed the name of the file locally).

If you're having any heartburn over any drag-drop actions, get yourself a slope-mod as a starting point, look at its versions for reference, and then edit to fit your own balance between workability, realism and final appearance. It's because I found so many setting so useful that I suggested the NAM incorporate a slope-settings gui into their TSCT. That's not going to happen (it's out of scope), so the field is open for someone else to add a GUI to a slope mod.

[rsc204 21,808]

1 hour ago, jeffryfisher said:

It's because I found so many setting so useful that I suggested the NAM incorporate a slope-settings gui into their TSCT. That's not going to happen (it's out of scope), so the field is open for someone else to add a GUI to a slope mod.

Isn't iLives reader essentially a GUI for editing SC4 files? I get that you are looking for it to be perhaps simplified, but the hard part is understanding what the properties do and how to keep the settings balanced. I don't think a specific slope mod GUI would really make that a whole lot easier.

[APSMS 1,892]

6 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I don't think a specific slope mod GUI would really make that a whole lot easier.

Well, I don't know how practical a GUI would be, but it would be better than sifting through iLive's reader staring at the exemplar listing wondering what exactly the stuff goes to. I wouldn't exactly call the Reader a GUI, though I am aware that the actual code that comprises the DAT probably is hideous and unintelligible.

That being said, one of the advantages of iLive's is that you have to know what you're doing, and you're aware when you do it, making crashes/unwanted behavior less likely to affect the novice, and increasing user understanding of what goes into a slope mod/network smoothing. So there are tradeoffs to both, but of course making a GUI is not everyone's cup of tea, and the number of people that can do it, are still active, and are willing are essentially zero, even for personal projects (Tropod still drops in with updates for stuff, I suppose), so an actual utility is going to be hard to really justify, especially given the limited market appeal (how often do you fiddle with your slope mod that you haven't already got ready-made variations to swap in and out of your plugins with? I'm guessing you do it a couple times, get it fixed, and then never think about it again. I try not to, anyway).

[rsc204 21,808]

The thing is, users don't want to be mucking around with this stuff. 99% are simply going to take what is offered as a pre-packaged mod or not bother. Without wishing to be condescending, we're talking about users who can't handle extracting zip files and placing the files in a folder. Why do you think those annoying installers exist for one dat file? To reduce time spent supporting people who need it explained. #1 problem of my mods with installers? Users change the install dir, even though it's clearly recommended they don't, and explained in hideously boring detail in the readme.

A very small majority will be editing and tweaking things. iLives reader is not complicated, it just looks like it is, usually because people are afraid to break things. Most people don't know what half the features in Word do, so much so, MS has hidden them from view, frustrating those who do and now have to click all over the place to find them.

So for example, I open up my custom Slope/Tunnel/Bridge mod settings DAT, There are 9 exemplars (files) in the list. An exemplar is a properties or settings file. A DAT is just like a .zip file, it just contains multiple files, often compressed into a single file. Each of these has an Exemplar Name, those all correspond to the network that page of properties adjusts. Other than that, the 9 files are pretty much identical. Now there are lots of properties you could edit, but in practise, you only need to modify a couple. All those are explained for you here.

So, the real question is how does a GUI make this any easier? Because all the properties are explained, they are easy to find if you follow the guide too. The hard part is knowing what settings to use, what effect that will have etc.

Lets say a simple tool did exist, it wouldn't pack those explanations into a small window. Perhaps we could alter a few names to make them easier to understand? Even go so far as to offer a brief explanation for each one you select. Actually, I'd argue in both cases, the documentation I linked is even more concise than you could make such an application handle. So ultimately, we'd end up duplicating the contents of that thread into a readme, so users could use this app.

We could build in safegaurds for when you select figures outside the allowable range. But, Reader actually tells you the settings allowed and provides a description of the property:

So again the question comes up, does a specific application actually make this easier to understand? I'd argue it doesn't. I'd go further, having such an application wouldn't encourage more people to modify these things either, at least not in any significant way. Given development of the app, testing and providing support is all very time-consuming, the benefits simply aren't sufficient to justify the effort.

If you worry about breaking things, you won't get started modding. Breaking things is sometimes part of the process, you learn from your mistakes. But the simple rule to follow is, make a copy of any files before modifying them, put that in a safe place. If things go wrong, worst-case, restore the file and move on. There are plenty of areas that might benefit from a simpler process, but I don't believe this is one of them.

[APSMS 1,892]

34 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

So again the question comes up, does a specific application actually make this easier to understand? I'd argue it doesn't. I'd go further, having such an application wouldn't encourage more people to modify these things either, at least not in any significant way. Given development of the app, testing and providing support is all very time-consuming, the benefits simply aren't sufficient to justify the effort.

I was agreeing with this point in my last post. Given the number of times people actually fiddle around with their slope mod after installing it (or even adjusting it to their liking), the ROI of such a project is simply not there. Even I don't fiddle around with my slope mod anymore. I made 3 versions, for when I'm felling giddy or serious, and left it at that. I think there's a few values I'd like to change right now (I haven't cracked open SC4 in a while), but generally speaking even those changes aren't strictly necessary, and I've gotten into the habit of evening out undesirable slopes before hand with the Rail tool anyways if I already know that the current slope parameters on other networks won't be what I'm looking for.

A tool would be nice, but I'm not about to suggest someone go make it unless they are already planning to do so.

[fredinno 54]

http://klex.blog85.fc2.com/blog-entry-11.html

"File not available"

[rsc204 21,808]

55 minutes ago, fredinno said:

"File not available"

Yup, I think this one is no longer available, I seem to recall this came up on the Can't Find it Ask Here thread recently. Check back a few pages (sometime in Dec in memory serves) and you should find either a different link or the answer.

Otherwise, wait for the Indiana Jones of custom content, @Yarahi to come along. He knows where to find all the treasure .

[fredinno 54]

12 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Yup, I think this one is no longer available, I seem to recall this came up on the Can't Find it Ask Here thread recently. Check back a few pages (sometime in Dec in memory serves) and you should find either a different link or the answer.

Otherwise, wait for the Indiana Jones of custom content, @Yarahi to come along. He knows where to find all the treasure .

It doesn't seem to be there in that thread.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

18 hours ago, APSMS said:

how often do you fiddle with your slope mod that you haven't already got ready-made variations to swap in and out of your plugins with? I'm guessing you do it a couple times, get it fixed, and then never think about it again.

That's pretty much how I look at the TSCT for configuring NAM. It has presets, and it allows me to tweak a few settings from my chosen baseline. Once I get the balance I want, I don't touch it anymore. That's why I thought slope settings would fit well in that tweaker.

That said, I'm one of those who can and has overcome the iLives adoption barrier, so I can live without additional help. I'm also not a typical user, so my guesses about what would interest others may be wildly wrong.

[Compdude787 916]

I just sent Kazuki an email about the issue with the Under Bridge Lot. Hopefully, he'll get it. I'll keep my fingers crossed...

[rsc204 21,808]

3 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

That's pretty much how I look at the TSCT for configuring NAM. It has presets, and it allows me to tweak a few settings from my chosen baseline. Once I get the balance I want, I don't touch it anymore. That's why I thought slope settings would fit well in that tweaker.

The key difference between the two is that the TSCT is doing something that extremely complicated by comparison. Even with this easy to use tool, it's very easy to break your game with a few clicks. The presets are there to help you avoid those pitfalls.

Whereas, if you want different pre-set slope mod options, just download the different slope mods that have been created and upload for that purpose. You'll note (not because of the TSCT's existence either), that no such pre-sets, outside of NAM, exist for the traffic simulator.

46 minutes ago, Compdude787 said:

I just sent Kazuki an email about the issue with the Under Bridge Lot. Hopefully, he'll get it. I'll keep my fingers crossed...

Worst case scenario, if Kazuki's files are gone forever, I'll remake a new set, since I've got the models to do it, it shouldn't take too long. But that may take me a while to get round to.

[Yarahi 1,816]

On 1.2.2017 at 10:30 AM, rsc204 said:

Indiana Jones of custom content. He knows where to find all the treasure .

I have all ze treasures, and they're mine - all mine *cough*

To bad no one (not even our chinese friends) have picked up the pieces after his site went belly-up

On 2.2.2017 at 4:55 AM, rsc204 said:

Worst case scenario, if Kazuki's files are gone forever, I'll remake a new set

If you should need some details from the originals, let me know. I'm sure we can provide

[rsc204 21,808]

1 hour ago, Yarahi said:

If you should need some details from the originals, let me know. I'm sure we can provide

I should be fine, I have the originals here for reference.

I was thinking for a while about updating them to use my S3D overhanging system. That way they will adapt to the installed Road/Street textures. Including matching the installed sidewalks too. It's a simple enough TE to Subway lot, but no doubt I'll be upping the capacities there too.

Since you've confirmed they are all gone, and you've probably hidden yours in a temple with large boulders so no one can get to them... I'll try to get to them shortly. They should be pretty quick/easy to make.

Note I've already made overhanging PedMall props, although they are eye-candy only. I've linked the attachment here. As such, I won't be re-making those. Just the Road, OWR, Ave, Street and Rail ones.

MGB S3D Pedmall Props.zip

[rsc204 21,808]

Once again SC4 is throwing me an annoying curve ball:

So here in Cyan/Blue is my normal Sidewalk Overhanging Filler. In Red are my PedMall overhanging fillers (note the better lining up of the latter). Both of these have the models raised by .2m in height, which is necessary to avoid anything they cover (Lot/Network textures) from showing through. It's this tiny offset that creates the problem of lining up the pieces, because the Sidewalk is exactly a 16x16m square, the offset skews the perspective, giving the impression they don't line up. To counteract this, I adjusted the PedMall variants to be .2m longer, which as you can see solves the issue.

The key problem here is z-fighting, which seems to affect RTK0 models in a way it doesn't with RTK1 models. RTK0 = True 3D models, RTK1 = BAT Models. These problems have plagued development of some really cool stuff, it's also messing with the UB plans too. So once again, I realised the UB props would need to be raised, but for reasons that are beyond my comprehension, even though .2m is clearly sufficient for the Pedmalls/Sidewalks, .45m is necessary for the UB network props. In fact, you can still see some z-fighting going on (the black lines), to kill those, I've had to further raise them to .5m high. Why is that a problem? Well simply put, things don't line up properly, most clearly seen with the Rail texture. This problem gets noticeably worse by raising the props to .5m too. There is no way to compensate for it either, because any alterations that fix it in one rotation, will have the knock-on effect of making the other three worse as a by-product.

So I've managed to make smart-props that adapt to the installed textures. They even adapt to show sidewalks too as a separate layer that match what's installed. The UB lots are functionally working. But, why do models made exactly the same way need to be raised by .5m instead of .2m, to work in exactly the same situation? That's also why you don't get shadows upon them incidently, they are too high and above the shadow.

This sort of problem infuriates me, because I know in all likelihood there is no one that is going to drop in and say "ah, try this" or assist me to resolve it. In essence, I'm on my own here. Now consider, these have taken hours to get to this point, also that I almost certainly will never use these lots myself. I could BAT some replacement models which didn't auto-adapt, but why would I? Kazuki already made them, I have them, I would champion getting those released instead. The point here was that I wanted to do something better whilst I was at it. So the question is (barring someone enlightening me on the problem), would these be acceptable as-is? Because I have little motivation to spend hours and hours trying to fix them without the slightest clue as to where to look for the issue. I've been there, the success rate is low and the time you devote trying is high. So it's how they are or nothing I think. They still need hours of work modding, so if the lining up issue is a deal breaker, I'll cease development here. Perhaps I'm being picky, but I wouldn't use them like this myself. That's why the sidewalk props are still not on the STEX, until they are perfect, they remain a pre-release.

 

[badwithnames14 35]

On 31/01/2017 at 8:33 AM, matias93 said:

Not so sure... I did this with the rain tool:

And while is not permanent and because of that I didn't used the real depth (it should be as deep as the empty valley on the right, where an MMP river should be), it is very useful to alter the moisture simulation and to get precise information about the placement of trees and plants on over-sea-level water bodies. (yes, that sounded as crazy control-freak and obsesive nitpicking... and that is precisely)

On 31/01/2017 at 8:58 AM, rsc204 said:

Well I say redundant... but I mean for specifically land bridges... Have you tried JenX's Poseidon mod? For a lake like that above sealevel, it has a useful lot you can plop to fill it with water. The key difference being it's permanent.

Oh hey, what's this about a rain mod and above sea level water? It sounds pretty cool. I'm newish here so would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Oh and on the topic of bridges, long ago I found out about it while playing this tiny island raised far out of the sea that just so happened to have a ravine with the janky teraforming single digit year old me did. It was a wow moment coming from 3000. Twas a road bridge I made, and I thought streets couldn't be bridges, unless it's NAM? 

[rsc204 21,808]

Links to JenX's Poseidon and Terresu's Rain Tool:

Roads will draw on some terrain with supports, but that's not technically a bridge. This is what I'm talking about:

(That's a VERY old image, one of my first). Don't worry, I made it better:

[matias93 7,535]

11 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Perhaps I'm being picky, but I wouldn't use them like this myself

I think you are being really picky. I understand from where that comes, but being on the position of an user, I think your work, as it is now, is good and useful. Just consider when the gaping problem would be a problem: during gaming one normally doesn't use z5 or 6, and cannot see this details, and when trying to create some detailed image, one normally edits the capture, this being able to correct the gap visually.

[jschlegel48 10]

19 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Once again SC4 is throwing me an annoying curve ball:

OK.....how did you get those roads under the bridge??????????