• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

FLEX Turn Lanes (FTL) and Related Projects - Development and Support

Started by Tarkus, August 01, 2009, 09:36:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

strucka

riiga, as I see you have implemented ped crossings, so well done, but you forgot one at the slip lane, so that could be added. And if I'm already playing the critic here, they could be a little longer, could they?

riiga

Quote from: strucka on May 18, 2011, 02:31:03 PM
riiga, as I see you have implemented ped crossings, so well done, but you forgot one at the slip lane, so that could be added. And if I'm already playing the critic here, they could be a little longer, could they?
I'll make one with slip lane crosswalks tomorrow and make it customizable so you can choose. ;)

strucka

Your awesome! And, to choose between the two is even more awesome! Your Captain Awesome! You all NAMite's are

Nego

Quote from: riiga on May 18, 2011, 02:10:07 PM
The problem is that there are only two pieces - Arrow left + no arrows and Arrow left + arrow right. If I were to add forward and right arrows to the first one, you wouldn't be able to use it for T-intersections, and if I just added forward arrows it would look weird when there's a right turn (X-intersections).

So it looks like I have a problem here. I may try making a puzzle piece to solve this problem, but that will mean a delay in the project. Sorry, Ivo.

ivo_su

Do not worry Nego I'm not so urgent. From what I observe here, however, all use dashed lines to separate lanes and I think it's wrong. Perhaps it is better at about 20-30 meters from the junction to the dotted line is for everyone to be rebuilt in the correct lane but the last 16 meters compulsory lines should be continuous so that everyone stays in the bar that is chosen. I'll try to do a drawing to make it understandable

Ivo

GDO29Anagram

@Everyone: I guess with the recent influx of all these TuLEP RCMs recently (Turn-Lane Extension Piece Retexture-Cosmetic Mods; I'm calling them RCMs, it sounds catchy), I can't help but feel like there's something missing...

SA's TuLEP RCM needs to be Americanized. :P

Also, excellent work to everyone else's RCMs. :thumbsup:
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Tarkus

I should also add, the plan going forward with TuLEPs involves moving away from textural built-in arrows to model-based arrow overlays, much as has been done with the RHW Cosmetic Pieces for RHW Version 4.2.  Meaning, in effect, one would in theory only need a base texture.  I've actually already generated both left/thru/thru-right and a left/thru/thru setups for Avenue this way.

One of the main reasons they haven't really gone anywhere is because we haven't yet figured out how we're going to logistically arrange the menus and such.  In fact, that (and to a somewhat lesser extent, pathing on intersections) are the real hold ups on TuLEPs Advanced stuff.  We're not short on textures or ideas by any stretch, and can make the actual puzzle pieces quite easily . . . but we need to figure out how best to set the menus up so that we're not immediately inundated with complaints about it being "too complex" or "difficult to navigate".

-Alex

ivo_su



Something I meant earlier. There are a bunch of comments but this is  just to show what I mean and it is done with paint anyway.

Ivo

Tarkus

An L/T/R (Left-Thru-Right--that's the new nomenclature I'm planning to use on TuLEPs Advanced) setup on Avenues has a similar issue with intersection geometry as the previously mentioned examples . . . what happens on the other side of the intersection?  An AVE-3?  How will that line up?

Speaking of the nomenclature, rather than having things like A1, B2, etc., my inclination has been to keep the letter name, but rather than giving a vague and inconsistent numeric designation, actually spell out the lane configuration as follows:

L-Left
R-Right
T-Thru
TL-Thru-Left
TR-Thru-Right
LR-Left-Right (for T intersections)
A-All-Way
n-"Neutral"/No arrow (blank)

And possibly:
M-Median (for pieces that have an unused median but otherwise conform to the geometry/alignment of the given type)
S-Single-Lane Slip Lane
D-Two-Lane Slip Lane

So, for example, the following existing TuLEP items could be spelled out as follows:

Road Type A1 →→ Road Type A L/n
Road Type A2 →→ Road Type A L/R
Road Type A-Blank →→ Road Type A n/n
Road Type A-Blank T-End →→ Road Type A M/n
Avenue Type A1 →→ Avenue Type A L/n/n
Avenue Type A2 →→ Avenue Type A L/R/R
Avenue Type B1 →→ Avenue Type B L/L/n/n
Avenue Type A-Blank →→ Avenue Type A n/n/n
Avenue Type B-Blank →→ Avenue Type B n/n/n/n
Road Type A Slip Lane →→ Road Type A n/n/S
Road Type A Dual Slip Lane →→ Road Type A S/n/n/S

-Alex

Nego

@Tarkus: If you've already made the pieces with through and right turn arrows, then there is no point in me making them, too, since they will become obsolete when the Advanced TuLEPs are released.

Regarding the menu issue, you already have a good foundation with the Basic TuLEP menu button. You could have the Advanced TuLEPs menu like this:
Click for full size


Of corse you would change the puzzle piece names to the scheme that you came up with after I finished this table. ::) And if you think about it, 5 buttons isn't really a lot. The RHW mod has at least 13 different buttons.

GDO29Anagram

@Alex: It would be better to just keep the A-C lettering, but then to have the numbers stripped off, so the following is given:

A - Single Left-Turn (For AVEs and TLAs)
B - Double Left-Turn (For AVEs and TLAs)
C - Displaced Right Turn (MAVEs only, though it can work for AVE/TLA; For a MAVE to have an A/B variation, it has to convert into its AVE version)

Then I would expand it:

D - A+C
E - B+C

Keep this in mind for network classification:

Two-Laners: AVE-2, TLA-3, MAVE-2 (Road)
Four-Laners: AVE-4 (Default Avenue), TLA5, MAVE-4
Six-Laners: AVE-6, TLA-7, MAVE-6
Eight-Laners: AVE-8, TLA-9, MAVE-8?

The MAVEs only have C-TuLEPs. AVEs and TLAs have everything, unless it's a two-laner; The Two-Laners don't have a B/E-TuLEP version. (Since when did you see a two-lane road with a double left-turn lane?)

The SIPs would bear just the five-letter system. (SIPs are defined as the TuLEPs that have the traffic lights.)

The rest of the TuLEPs would have the L/T/R system, but I'd still have the "TuLEP Caste System" to subdivide them into the five "castes". (Oh my Ford, where's Mustapha Mond?) Essentially binomial nomenclature.

Consider the AVE-4 A-TuLEPs: There would be L/T/TR (This one would be blank except in the left-turn lane; Rotate for the all-arrowed version), L/T/T (Also blank except in the left-turn lane; Rotate for the all-arrowed version), L/R/R, L/LR/R, and the blank one.

Then the B's: LL/T/TR, LL/R/R, LL/T/T

C's: LT/T/R, T/T/R, T/TR/R (There would be two sets of these, one for MAVE-4 and one for AVE4/TLA5)

D's: L/T/T/R, L/T/TR/R?

E's: LL/T/T/R, LL/T/TR/R?

It gets trickier when you reach OWR TuLEPs.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Tarkus

Nego and Ganaram, thanks for the feedback and suggestions--that helps immensely! :thumbsup:  I like the idea of having intersections under a button and a more unified concept of what A, B, C, etc. mean.

Quote from: GDO29Anagram on May 18, 2011, 06:30:52 PM
(Since when did you see a two-lane road with a double left-turn lane?)

More often than you might think. :D  See here and here.  (The latter also actually shows an AVE-4 Type A L/T/R turning into an AVE-3 on the other end, too, coincidentally.)

-Alex

j-dub

Wow, a lot occured while I was busy. First of all Nego, I love what I see, secondly,

Tarkus, you mentioned the thing about jogs making you go crazy? There are so many situations like that in my state. I actually have seen Ivo's

get switched. Before when that existed at this one intersection, it was aligned better, but now, the end result is a dangerous jog when the light changes:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Naperville+near+79th+Street,+IL&aq=1&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=57.161276,114.169922&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=79th+St,+Naperville,+DuPage,+Illinois+60565&ll=41.740339,-88.127949&spn=0.000376,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.740339,-88.127949&panoid=JQGeXBx0FvoiNoRws7IQiw&cbp=11,3.85,,0,6.98

EDIT, I just went down there, and they got rid of the historic green paint on the lights just to p me off for the plain gray look like everywhere else!

GDO29Anagram

Something just hit me:

If all the TuLEPs later on just require a blank base, I would bet it wouldn't hurt to have dedicated TuLEPs for both AVE and TLA instead of them just sharing the same set.
- TLA TuLEPs - The current AVE TuLEPs in the basic set appear to be more suited for TLAs than both TLA and AVE, plus the AVE to TuLEP transition looks far too abrupt for the AVE median.
- AVE TuLEPs - I personally thought that SA's RCM were dedicated puzzle pieces... These TuLEPs would have a barrier instead of those yellow lines, because sometimes, yellow lines painted on the ground isn't enough (And it bugs me on the AVE-6 TuLEPs). This is more common in urban areas, so a so-called "divided highway" can stay divided. An AVE-class network can still connect to a TLA-class TuLEP, but a special transition piece is needed, one designed like the current AVE-2 to TuLEP piece. Not unless you like adding a TLA to AVE transition first.

That way, something like this can exist.

That example shows an AVE-class TuLEP and a TLA-class TuLEP coexisting. It also shows a possible MAVE-class network to TLA-class TuLEP transition for larger networks, like how the current Road to TuLEP pieces are designed.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

travismking

also GDO, here and here (just showing they also exist outside oregon as well :))

riiga

Said and done...



And yes, there are crossings on slip lanes as well, I just didn't put them in the picture. ;)

MandelSoft

My proposal for the menu setup:

Menu button 1:


Menu button 2:


Menu button 3:
All current intersection pieces.

Menu button 4:
All current slip lane pieces.

Red: Not yet created.
Blue: Allready created, but not yet public.
Green: Available in the public version.

What do you think?

Best,
Maarten
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Ramona Brie

You are forgetting the rail-crossing-TuLEP pieces (category blue). Otherwise, great start!

MandelSoft

Indeed, I forgot those  ;) as well as the NWM and OWR TuLEPs of which I think they should get their own TAB-ring.
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Tarkus

So is each row supposed to be a point on the TAB Loop, with flipping between those items being accomplished through Home/End rotation?  Seems like a good, logical plan, though I wonder about putting the transitions after the main TuLEPs.


Edit: Upon closer examination, I see you've put the Type A Transitions before Type A, and Type B Transitions before Type B . . . I like that. :thumbsup:

-Alex