SC4: Stacked Highways?

[MisterDigitalGuy 5]

While browsing through some custom content for SC4, I began to notice that there don't seem to be any stacked highways (like this one). Would creating something along these lines be possible with SC4's technology, or will I have to stick with regular, side-by-side highways?

[kingofsimcity 5,740]

It's possible. The Network Addon Mod will in fact, allow you to create double-decker highways with support for on/off ramps at both decks.

[f3cs 1,063]

It's not impossible, just unusual, because they have less capacity then the side by side highways

[MisterDigitalGuy 5]

Out of curiosity, how many levels can you have? It seems like two levels works fine, but I'm curious as to whether it's possible to go beyond that (e.g. 4 levels).

[matias93 7,535]

Only two, but you can cross it with surface networks, as is seen on the images. I believe that is technically impossible to add more levels, in no small part because the paths would merge from the different levels, allowing vehicles to 'jump' quantically from a decker to another.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

8 hours ago, f3cs said:

they have less capacity than the side by side highways

Why would the capacity decline when the road-beds stack? Is the number of lanes restricted?

[Tarkus 6,935]

17 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

Why would the capacity decline when the road-beds stack? Is the number of lanes restricted?

SC4 network capacity works on a per-tile basis.  The simulator cannot count lanes.  By setting the first value of the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect (ITCE) in the NAM Traffic Simulator to 1.25 (the default is 0.7), and using dummy paths ("distilled intersection paths" or "DIPs") to make the simulator think the orthogonal network is actually an intersection, we are able to trick the game into giving some override networks a 25% boost over the listed capacity.  But that's as far as we can go.

The DDRHW-4 is a single-tile override network, based off the RHW network with the DIPs applied, so its capacity is 1.25 times the listed capacity for a single tile of RHW.  The RHW-4, however, is a dual-tile override network, based off the RHW without DIPs, so its capacity is 2 times the listed capacity for a single tile of RHW.

We did, at one point, try to trick the game by using the Rail network as a basis for the DDRHW, as it had a higher listed capacity, but it was later discovered that capacity only applied to rail traffic--putting car/freight truck/bus traffic on it caused the game to revert to the Road network's capacity and speed.  The only way we could actually get the DDRHW-4 beyond a DIPs multiplier is if we changed the implementation from an RHW-based draggable to an MHW-based FLEX setup (which, after receiving DIPs, would actually be at a 56.25% boost over the single-tile RHW capacity), but that would considerably impact the ease of use of the base DDRHW-4.  The RHW-3 also is a single-tile network with DIPs, so it has an identical capacity to the DDRHW-4.

A few other things to note about DIPs and the ITCE trick:

• Crossover paths, used on some of the wider RHW and NWM networks (namely, the RHW-6C, RHW-8C, RHW-8S, RHW-10S, TLA-3, TLA-5, TLA-7, OWR-4, OWR-5, and AVE-6), also invoke the ITCE effect, and will receive a 25% boost per tile.  This does mean that networks with crossover paths cannot receive further DIPs treatment--"double DIPping" is not possible.
• The networks that currently have DIPs are the RHW-3, DDRHW-4, RHW-6S, AVE-2, ARD-3, OWR-3, NRD-4, and RD-6.  The Type 110 and Type 220 setups in the future FLEX Turn Lanes (FTLs) and existing Turn Lane Extension Pieces (TuLEPs) also possess DIPs.
• The exact size of the boost is dependent on the first value of the ITCE property.  It is possible to raise this value above 25% (the old Simulator A by jplumbley had this set to 30%--it was with Simulator A that the boost idea was first observed on a TLA-3 prototype), but the end result is that this will also boost the capacity of intersections, and of networks with crossover paths.  z1 and I came up with the 25% value, as the best compromise, given which network features are affected by that value. 
• In order to get the same basic effect of the original game values, while still allowing this capacity boost, z1 dropped the values of the second and third values of the ITCE property (which control the capacity of networks one and two tiles away from the intersection, respectively) to 0.2 and 0.4, from the default values of 0.8 and 0.9.  This will cause the tiles adjacent to the intersection to appear congested more quickly (though this effect can be tuned down with the "Intersection Effect Multiplier" option in the Traffic Simulator Control Tool (TSCT), which can alter these values).
• Because the default Maxis settings put that first value at 0.7, trying to use an RHW or NWM network that has crossover paths or DIPs with the default simulator will actually reduce the network capacity by 30%, instead of boosting it by 25%.

-Tarkus

Edit: Corrected value of boost of using MHW-based FLEX with DIPs--it's actually 56.25%, not 50%.

 

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

22 hours ago, Tarkus said:

SC4 network capacity works on a per-tile basis.  The simulator cannot count lanes.

Or levels apparently. That's very sad; a tile of double-decker freeway should count as a tile per level, plus a tile of whatever passes beneath it.

This one-tile / one capacity rule has implications for freeway interchanges: In the middle where two freeways cross, there will be two traffic streams sharing tiles.

Does this per-tile effect also jam FLUPs under roads/avenues? What about roads / avenues passing under elevated highway?

All this time, I've been paying a premium for full cloverleaf interchanges, FLUPs and tunnels, but Maxis treats them all as if they were level intersections.

What if the double-decker were changed to use the OWR's higher capacity? That would help as long as each level could go in a different direction.

[Tarkus 6,935]

32 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

This one-tile / one capacity rule has implications for freeway interchanges: In the middle where two freeways cross, there will be two traffic streams sharing tiles.

. . .

What if the double-decker were changed to use the OWR's higher capacity? That would help as long as each level could go in a different direction.

The game generally sees the crossing of the two freeways as an intersection, so it'll apply the first value of the ITCE to the affected tiles.

Changing the DDRHW to be OWR-based would actually drop the capacity and speed of the network (OWR has a higher per-tile capacity than Road and Avenue with the NAM Simulator, but a quite a bit lower than that of the RHW).  Due to the EXE-controlled tidal flow system that network has, it would also force all the traffic to move in a single direction (unless implemented as FLEX rather than draggable, and at that point, you'd be better off using the MHW-based FLEX).

-Tarkus

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

10 hours ago, Tarkus said:

OWR has a higher per-tile capacity than Road and Avenue with the NAM Simulator, but a quite a bit lower than that of the RHW

Aha... I've been building NWM's TLA-5 and 7 recently, so that's where my mind was (I wasn't paying attention to the 'RHW' at the end of DDRHW, perhaps because I'm not yet familiar with it).

I can't tell you guys how really disgusted I am to learn that multiple levels to not equate to multiple and separated capacities. The separation is so intuitive and obviously necessary that it never even crossed my mind that it could be violated. I mean, isn't the whole purpose of an overpass to allow two traffic streams to avoid each other? It boggles my mind that Maxis could program its simulation so that traffic on an overpass could bugger traffic passing below. What were they thinking?

Are there any exceptions for FLUPs, tunnels, traffic circles etc? Does a tunnel perhaps teleport its traffic from one end to the other without loading the tiles in between? If so, then my whole freeway design strategy will change (and I will finally need to dive into RHW). In that event, prefab RHW interchanges couldn't come soon enough, because I really like the convenience of plopping perfectly symmetric 4-leaf clovers. Indeed, that's what's kept me in MHW to date.

SIGH... If all else fails, then at least I have the NAM traffic config tool to help me fashion a work-around. If necessary, I can inflate highway capacities to levels fitting 2-level separated flow. I can live with the single-level stretches having double any reasonable capacity much more easily than I can tolerate my interchanges clogging because they cross the streams (Didn't Ghostbusters warn us against that?).

[rsc204 21,869]

48 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

I can't tell you guys how really disgusted I am to learn that multiple levels to not equate to multiple and separated capacities. The separation is so intuitive and obviously necessary that it never even crossed my mind that it could be violated. I mean, isn't the whole purpose of an overpass to allow two traffic streams to avoid each other? It boggles my mind that Maxis could program its simulation so that traffic on an overpass could bugger traffic passing below. What were they thinking?

The thing is, you need to look outside of the NAM and custom content when forming any fair opinion of what Maxis did here. If you look at the base game, such things as multi-stacked highways simply were never an intended thing. So Maxis wouldn't have necessarily factored that into their thinking in the first place. Whilst they did make a game that was highly possible to mod, they didn't design it from the ground up trying to think about what things would be modded. This is the reason why many of the things done in the NAM are based upon working within the limits the games code presents. As such tricks to make things work as best as we can is all we can really do here.

48 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

Are there any exceptions for FLUPs, tunnels, traffic circles etc?

No.

48 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

Does a tunnel perhaps teleport its traffic from one end to the other without loading the tiles in between?

Can't say for certain. My guess is the game knows how long (number of tiles) the tunnel is and applies the general network properties, i.e. it functions the same as if the network were not in a tunnel.

48 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

If so, then my whole freeway design strategy will change

I don't understand this? If it isn't broke and all that. Has this need for change come about because of problems playing the game? Or because understanding how it works has given you some sort of confidence issue? Either way, whilst RHW does have tricks to improve its capacities, that doesn't mean everything that doesn't is broken, it's just different.

48 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

If all else fails, then at least I have the NAM traffic config tool to help me fashion a work-around. If necessary, I can inflate highway capacities to levels fitting 2-level separated flow.

But if you do this, such changes are applied equally across all networks. So the net gain (or difference) is simply a capacity increase. Which is only an issue if your current networks don't have sufficient capacity.

[APSMS 1,893]

7 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Can't say for certain. My guess is the game knows how long (number of tiles) the tunnel is and applies the general network properties, i.e. it functions the same as if the network were not in a tunnel.

7 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

Does a tunnel perhaps teleport its traffic from one end to the other without loading the tiles in between?

We could test this. I imagine that tunnels occupy a sub-level (akin to Subway) that prevents them from interacting with surface networks and therefore also having their capacity influenced by normal street intersections on the surface above them. There are definite disadvantages to subways, though, first from a realism perspective but also from the perspective of that tunnels cannot be close packed; minimum separation of 1 tile is still in order, due to tunnel behavior being mostly locked in the EXE.

I can safely say that there is no approximation with tunnels as regards the traffic simulator. Just draw a tunnel, open up UDI, and attempt to drive through one. You will see that you can drive all the way through the tunnel, and mission vehicles traveling through tunnels may also be identifiable by their markers even when inside tunnels. UDI is a great way to test for broken or problematic pathing, even though not all non-UDI paths are actually broken; UDI will reveal quirks in pathing whose effect you may notice on your Sim/automata behavior, though again this is not always the case. Game pathing that is approximated or non-visible, like Subway transitions, will end the UDI mission and prevent further driving, mostly because the game is not actively simulating anything happening there (purely a statistical simulation at that point).

I agree with rsc204, though. There is no need to fret unless you are seriously running into capacity issues on higher NAM settings. Consider that the game does not take into account slope or turn angle as a factor of speed or network capacity, so for all those capacity reducing crossovers, every Sim is merrily tooling along at 150kph, or about 90mph across every flyover, up every 15% graded ramp (if transitions are only 4 tiles long, then a 64m run and a 7.5m rise yields an ~6.7 deg slope, which when divided by 45 yields the grade of ~15%).

I cannot recall the last car I was in that could pull 90mph up a 15% grade without slowing down. I'm sure they have a car that does it, but I know for a fact I've never been in it.

The MIS had the same capacity as RHW-4 as a result of not being able to see lanes (all intersections in SC4 are by definition, flat; this includes flyovers; pathing and vertical separation of the paths along with a lack of available crossover keeps Sims from deck jumping in almost all situations--such differences in height, even in MHW, are purely cosmetic). Most RHW setups and even super dense interchanges will usually have more than enough capacity for most of your needs. Even in the tightest of pinches, Sims never actually stop moving on busy roads, even if the automata stop. Statistically speaking all the Sims will continue to move along merrily at the minimum speed, even in the highest of congested situations. Mostly this is to prevent the game from breaking down, because Sims don't wait like people do, but these are, imo, more "unrealistic" than simply being unable to count lanes or having flyovers reduce network capacity from two separate networks to an intersection of networks (1.25 capacity), mostly because of the other compromises that had to be made elsewhere in the system to accommodate the limitations imposed by the game.

In short, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[matias93 7,535]

In any case, and in respect to tunnels, I tend to believe that they are a completely separate system in respect to congestion. Why? because of my crazy experiments, once I ran an avenue under another avenue, of course using a tunnel for the bottom one. If the tunnels were simulated simply as extra lanes on the same flat tile, they would have had jumping automatas, and shared traffic congestion on the traffic view; instead, the top avenue was noticeably more congested than the bottom one (not in small degree for my bad road planning). Also, when using the traffic query on the tunnel, it was possible to see how the routes tend to cross over themselves, something that doesn't happen on surface networks.

I guess we won't be able to get a conclusive answer until decompiling the executable, or getting a really long inverview with Ocean Quigley.

[CorinaMarie 29,934]

On 5/2/2017 at 0:50 AM, APSMS said:

We could test this. I imagine that tunnels occupy a sub-level (akin to Subway) that prevents them from interacting with surface networks and therefore also having their capacity influenced by normal street intersections on the surface above them.

 

 

It seems to me if the tunnel and above ground street were interacting that particular spot would show as Red and not the same color Orange.

[Jeffrey500 577]

Alrighty. Interesting spot to. Never know that this could happen.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

19 hours ago, rsc204 said:

you need to look outside of the NAM and custom content when forming any fair opinion of what Maxis did here.

Actually, I wasn't even thinking about custom content. What floors me is that a full clover-leaf interchange behaves like a level intersection, that the overpasses are just eye-candy. I've been investing in such interchanges (and full-stacks) because, IRL, they're better than diamonds that interrupt cross-traffic with multiple signals.

Now I learn that the only effective difference is the real-estate that they occupy. It's that sort of epiphany (discovering where in the game that real-life ceases to be a useful guide to good design) that will change what I choose to build.

19 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Has this need for change come about because of problems playing the game? Or because understanding how it works has given you some sort of confidence issue?

You might call it confidence: I've wired together my large region with MHW and rail, but I have not yet painted the zones and started the clock, so I don't yet have a sense for how much traffic they'll handle. What I do know is that I've invested considerable time building a network according to one set of (naive) beliefs, and now I discover that my beliefs were wrong, so many of my decisions were wasteful. What I thought was helping my region was just eye-candy taking up extra acreage.

Once I've figured out what the real constraints are, I'll probably go back through the 150+ sectors of my region replacing 100+ full-cloverleaf and stack interchanges with more compact crossings that serve just as well.

Thank goodness for the moolah cheat that can give me my money back for the huge structures I shouldn't have built in the first place!

11 hours ago, APSMS said:

There is no need to fret unless you are seriously running into capacity issues

What's making me fret is that I thought I knew what I was buying with my simoleons and land allocation (and time), and it turns out that I was buying something else. My understanding of the relative merits of interchanges and intersections was based on the real world. While I didn't expect SC4 to be completely "realistic", I thought its relative values (good, better best) would be similar.

However, it turns out to violate some principles I thought inviolable. I'm still stunned that such a compromise was made. Maybe it's because I've written a traffic flow model before (air-traffic for the FAA in 1985, not cars for sims in 2002), that I have a what-I-would-have-done expectation. Adding to my irony is that I applied for work at Maxis in the mid-90s. You can bet that if I had made it onto the SC4 team, I would have found an elegant way to solve the crossing-level problem even if I'd had to stay late off-the-clock. Oh well, it no use dreaming of what might have been.

Now I need to completely analyze an alien set of interchange purchase options that I had previously thought I understood intuitively (and where avenues / TLAs are involved, I must also compare traffic-circles and intersections). I'm not sure yet what will emerge as my preferred interchange / intersection for each use case, but I expect I'll have a lot of tear-down and replacement when I get there.

12 hours ago, APSMS said:

Even in the tightest of pinches, Sims never actually stop moving on busy roads, even if the automata stop. Statistically speaking all the Sims will continue to move along merrily at the minimum speed, even in the highest of congested situations.

It's good to know that there are balancing shortcuts to keep the game from freezing, but I'll still be re-evaluating the relative merits of interchanges and probably tossing my cloverleafs for something else. I'll also be less afraid of stop-light intersections of boulevards. Why struggle with FLUPs if they suffer as much as an easily built flat intersection?

The tunnels bear more experimentation. Corina's example is promising, but where a road crosses under a street, the capacity is that of the road, yes? So the combined traffic might well cause orange congestion.

Sorry if it sounds like I am complaining too much, but I just found out that a lot of my work was misguided and will probably be thrown away (and I have much to learn before I even know what should replace it). It's a lot to digest.

[APSMS 1,893]

38 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

The tunnels bear more experimentation. Corina's example is promising, but where a road crosses under a street, the capacity is that of the road, yes? So the combined traffic might well cause orange congestion.

Cori's example was just confirming my thoughts, that tunnels occupy their own klinker space of sorts; even tunnels that should in theory be on the same level do not interact, although their traversals are not approximated by the simulator. This means that capacity in tunnels is solely of the network in the tunnel, and nothing else, because there's no such thing as a tunnel intersection in SC4.

40 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

I'll also be less afraid of stop-light intersections of boulevards. Why struggle with FLUPs if they suffer as much as an easily built flat intersection?

Consider that the NAM makes it so that reducing intersections on boulevards and such does in fact impact transit time, and larger intersections can handle more traffic due to the increased likelihood that Sims will be on different tiles and thus spread usage across the intersection. It's also worthy to note that a lot of NAM options are cosmetic, although technically form follows function, and that MHW and RHW have significantly higher capacities than their surface network counterparts (like Avenue), and sufficient at-grade intersection capability for them does not really exist (you can, I believe, set up a RHW-4xRHW-4 at-grade intersection but it looks pretty terrible, isn't guaranteed to carry the override through or work properly, and generally the accepted setup is to convert to Avenue before such an intersection, which severely lowers the overall network capacity, but still provides the speed boost of the RHW to mitigate any congestion that might arise at the intersection.

FLUPs are useful for simulating real life city designs, and for controlling traffic flow through a restricted access intersection. The avenue roundabout with the fountain is a good illustration of one consideration of this design.

47 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

You might call it confidence: I've wired together my large region with MHW and rail, but I have not yet painted the zones and started the clock, so I don't yet have a sense for how much traffic they'll handle. What I do know is that I've invested considerable time building a network according to one set of (naive) beliefs, and now I discover that my beliefs were wrong, so many of my decisions were wasteful. What I thought was helping my region was just eye-candy taking up extra acreage.

Unless you are seriously packing in the Sims, this is again unlikely to be a problem, and of course actual testing is no match for theory, unless you can calculate A* pathfinding yourself (which I understand is not impossible to do manually), and are willing to test it on your game before the final build. I think you will find, as many do that leave the simulator turned on when building (or who build in stages), that the paths the game picks are not always immediately obvious, but also that it takes a great deal of practice to predict how to lay out your cities to encourage the game's pathfinder to always select the path you want Sims to take.

Simulator Z with perfect pathfinding makes this much more intuitive, as Sims are more likely to take the main thoroughfares but which ones get utilized more and so on is also heavily dependent on what grows in your zones, and again there is no way to predict this unless you are plopping everything (which, of course, has it's own set of serious game-breaking/headache-inducing bugs associated with it).

[rsc204 21,869]

3 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

What floors me is that a full clover-leaf interchange behaves like a level intersection, that the overpasses are just eye-candy. I've been investing in such interchanges (and full-stacks) because, IRL, they're better than diamonds that interrupt cross-traffic with multiple signals.

I think you might be overthinking things here. For starters a diamond has a very different purpose to a clover-leaf. One is basically a set of on/off ramps, the other is designed to be a multi-directional switch between two different highways. For example, traffic flow will be hugely more efficient on the latter, even if the capacity isn't higher.

3 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

You can bet that if I had made it onto the SC4 team, I would have found an elegant way to solve the crossing-level problem even if I'd had to stay late off-the-clock. Oh well, it no use dreaming of what might have been.

Have you considered that they may be another rationale behind why things work the way they do? This is a complex simulator, but its purpose it to be a game. So no, you can't expect a scientific approach to have been considered during development. Instead a pragmatic one that keeps the number of calculations and variables down to a minimum would have been employed. More complexity, when the game doesn't need it, just adds to the work your computer needs to do. Overall I think Maxis balanced this wonderfully and produced a game that does things no other game has since.

3 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

Maybe it's because I've written a traffic flow model before (air-traffic for the FAA in 1985, not cars for sims in 2002), that I have a what-I-would-have-done expectation.

Thing is, Maxis didn't make something to reflect the real world, it tries to represent it in many ways, but how it works under the hood couldn't be more different. This is the difference between making a game and designing something which will have practical applications in the real world. Honestly this is a storm in a tea cup, if you want to spend a lot of time changing things because you've had an "epiphany", my opinion is that it's a foolhardy endeavour, that will only come unstuck. At which point you'll realise the simulator will be worse off because you've just removed a bunch of more optimised networks and replaced them with less optimised ones. A real simulator and a video game simulation are not the same thing.

3 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

 but where a road crosses under a street, the capacity is that of the road, yes? So the combined traffic might well cause orange congestion.

And here is where you are misunderstanding a key point in terms of traffic flow. Even if the tiles which share the FLUP (tunnel) and street have the same capacity, that doesn't mean they will be equally efficient to the intersection. The FLUPs will be more efficient, because traffic doesn't meet in the middle and slow down/give way to each direction. Traffic lights are eye-candy in a sense, but they are linked to properties around the intersections. A true intersection will have a time penalty, where two roads crossing at different heights will not. Capacity is not the key factor in whether such setups are beneficial, traffic flow is.

[CorinaMarie 29,934]

On 5/2/2017 at 1:45 PM, jeffryfisher said:

The tunnels bear more experimentation. Corina's example is promising, but where a road crosses under a street, the capacity is that of the road, yes? So the combined traffic might well cause orange congestion.

^ Ok. So now the road is getting a bit overwhelmed and I reduced the cars on the Street above. If the two were interacting then the street should not be Green there.

 

On 5/2/2017 at 2:52 PM, APSMS said:

Cori's example was just confirming my thoughts, that tunnels occupy their own klinker space of sorts ...

I believe my new test re-confirms this.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

19 hours ago, rsc204 said:

A true intersection will have a time penalty, where two roads crossing at different heights will not.

Aha, good to know. If I have two loaded AVE's, there will be some benefit (if I ever need it) in replacing their intersection with something more advanced. I just need to figure out in advance what that would be so I can leave room for it.

19 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

So now the road is getting a bit overwhelmed and I reduced the cars on the Street above. If the two were interacting then the street should not be Green there.

Indeed, I think that's the clincher. I begin to see the benefits of those RHW interchanges employing hole-diggers and tunnels in the tutorials. I'm still too lazy to construct a hundred of them on spec, but at least I'll have something to turn to wherever my intersections-in-disguise overheat at their crossing points.

I should force myself through the tedium of constructing at least one of them to measure how much more space is required so I'll know how much land around every stock interchange must be dedicated to expendable development (e.g. farms).

[CorinaMarie 29,934]

On 5/1/2017 at 4:24 PM, jeffryfisher said:

Does a tunnel perhaps teleport its traffic from one end to the other without loading the tiles in between?

When looking at the Traffic Data Overlay it sure looks that way. I decided to do a test. This first pic is showing the residential Sims on the south side of the hill. The industry is on the north side.  Two roads link these areas. One goes over the hill and the other thru it via a tunnel:

 

Zoomed in we can see the Sims have one choice which splits into those two roads. The Sims on the west side of town prefer the Hill Road and the Sims on the east like the Tunnel Route.

^ Notice I'm using the Commute Time graph. The numbers are essentially useless in and of themself, but they are relative to the speed and distance. We will use that for the basis of the comparison.

 

So, I bulldozed out a chunk of the Tunnel Road:

 

Let the game run for one year and now they all take the Hill Road to work. Commute time is unchanged.

 

I repaired the gap in Tunnel Road and chopped a hole in Hill Road.

 

Let it run for a year and now all the Sims burrow thru the ground on their way to work. Commute time is unchanged.

 

Then for a separate test I created a longer bypass-the-hill road and dozed holes in both Hill Road and Tunnel Road. And let it run.

 

And here's the final overview showing that the longer route does increase the commute time.

 

So, my conclusion is the game does treat the tunnel as the appropriate distance road in its calculations. This is how it should be and is unlike ferries which are instantaneous travel.

 

[RobertoR34 2]

On 4/29/2017 at 1:31 AM, kingofsimcity said:

É possível. O Network Addon Mod permitirá, de fato, criar rodovias de dois andares com suporte para rampas de ativação/desativação em ambos os decks.

Hi, how are you, I would like to know how I use the transition on this highway. If so, leave double deck mode for a standard dual carriageway?

[Propfam 2,315]

On 3/28/2024 at 5:00 PM, RobertoR34 said:

Hi, how are you, I would like to know how I use the transition on this highway. If so, leave double deck mode for a standard dual carriageway?

First, use the DDRHW-4 piece located in the RHW starter pieces. Second, drag it as long as you want. Third, to make the top and bottom ramp, you can either use flex ramp or puzzle pieces (tho deprecated). Finally, use the transition located in width/height transition to do that thing at the end of the image.