• 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 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

ivo_su

I can only say
Long live Maarten!
I am pleased shown only worried that moves court Maarten light speed and can overtake Alex. Just kidding

Ivo

Ramona Brie

That avenue blank filler would be helpful as a cosmetic piece for avenues...

Nego

I've made some of the currently missing textures shown by mrtnrln:

AVE Blank Filler:


new AVE-4 to TuLEP-A-S:


Road Blank Filler:

GDO29Anagram

@Maarten: Looks as though you got all of them down. Personally, since MAVEs can't have an A/B/D/E TuLEP version, I'd classify them under their own button. I'd classify them under the Road TuLEPs button and pass it on as "Road and MAVEs", but how many people have made the "Road = MAVE-2" connection?

There's still a few on your chart I'd want to rearrange (For the Road TuLEPs, I think it should be more like A1S, A3S, A4S, A2S, A1S Blank), but I'd say we're close.

I wouldn't exclude MAVE TuLEPs entirely from the rest; There's the Road to TuLEP transition that's like a MAVE to AVE TuLEP transition...

There's a reason I suggested stripping all the numbers off of the ABCDE nomenclature: To simplify it. Perhaps "Dashed version" would work best for the dashed ones. I guess I did a good job at specifying what A-E meant, so I'd resurrect a part of Alex's nomenclature, though I wouldn't use the letters, I'd use the full words:

Quote from: TarkusL-Left
R-Right
T-Thru
TL-Thru-Left
TR-Thru-Right
LR-Left-Right (for T intersections)
A-All-Way

Left, Left-Thru, Left-Right, Thru-Right (For T-Intersections on the right, or if you're LHD, then on the left; This is where C-TuLEPs can take over), and All-Way.

Now all that's left to repeat the pattern for C, D, and E, repeat the pattern again for AVE-6 and AVE-8, possibly do it all over again for the barrier versions that I suggested (IE, SA's RCM, but on dedicated pieces)1, tackle the not-so numerous MAVE TuLEPs, and figure out what to do for the OWR TuLEPs.

1 - To simplify adding barrier TuLEPs with the non-barrier TuLEPs, the barrier TuLEPs are added into the non-barrier TuLEPs's rotation ring.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Twyla

Not to seem a bitch about it, but...

Has anyone considered intersections where these cross various OWRs?

I've noticed a distinct lack of OWR intersections in the present TuLEP set.

ivo_su

Twyla you can expect parts, pieces and sections of the developments of TuLEP's for OWR no earlier than one year. As far as I know, even in the advanced version of TulEP's not attending intersections  of OWR.

Best,
Ivo

GDO29Anagram

Quote from: Twyla on May 19, 2011, 04:03:24 PM
Has anyone considered intersections where these cross various OWRs?

I've noticed a distinct lack of OWR intersections in the present TuLEP set.

That's because there aren't any OWR TuLEPs yet (And I know it gravely disappoints a few here). The logistics for such may still need to be figured out, as Alex said some time ago.

Quote from: Tarkus on May 17, 2011, 05:51:34 PM
Part of the reason I haven't done much on the OWR TuLEPs is also due to alignment/intersection geometry issues.  I've been needing to do more research on how intersections involving One-Way Roads with turning lanes work on this front.  Typically speaking, something like this, to borrow your example:



raises a lot of questions in an RHD context.  Maybe it's the armchair engineer in me being picky (:D), but a "through-left"/"right" setup would typically imply an OWR-1 being on the opposite side of the intersection.  Because of the way the game's networks align due to the tile system, there would have to be a mid-intersection "jog" in the lane, which is, at best, slightly awkward.  This does happen from time to time, and especially with OWRs, but usually, it's more often with wider networks rather than an OWR-2.  

This applies to ANY network intersecting with ANY OWR width.

Then again, there are the "plain" intersections, the ones without fancy offset turn-lanes. As far as I can tell, only one Basic OWR SIP has ever been made, with a picture of a prototype (And I really mean PROTOtype) OWR-2 TuLEP back on page 2.

Quote from: Tarkus on October 14, 2010, 02:57:39 PM
Made a prototype last night:



And Ivo, make that TWO years ago... And to say that OWRs won't EVEN receive TuLEPs? Dead wrong... :thumbsdown: They will, but don't expect them to be an immediately attended-to request.

Quote from: Tarkus on August 06, 2009, 12:12:36 AM
And now for a new development pic . . . introducing OWR TuLEPs.


<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

j-dub

Nego, great to see missing pieces textures, but I did like that new diagonal crosshatching mod you made, but you probably already did that in the background as the diagonal cross stripping surprised me.

MandelSoft

More missing links to come! Created these textures within half an hour...



Best,
Maarten
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Tarkus

While TuLEPs intersections with OWRs would not necessarily require OWR TuLEPs (it could just intersect a plain old OWR), there were some OWR-specific considerations that hadn't been worked out when we made the initial TuLEPs Basic release.  They are worked out now with the proof-of-concept of the SIPs (Signalized Intersection Pieces) that GDO29Anagram mentioned.

Quote from: ivo_su on May 19, 2011, 04:37:33 PM
Twyla you can expect parts, pieces and sections of the developments of TuLEP's for OWR no earlier than one year. As far as I know, even in the advanced version of TulEP's not attending intersections  of OWR.

Given that we don't give out any release dates or timelines for release for our items, it would not be accurate to say that there will be one year before we get around to it.  We've also repeatedly stated that we plan to include the OWR network in future TuLEP plans.  We cannot do it instantly, and there are some logistical considerations to work out, plus some temporary constraints on our free time for modding, before we can dive in head first.




There has been some good, constructive discussion from this thread recently.  In particular, the discussion of menu/organization logistics is an area where we really need public feedback in order to proceed with TuLEPs Advanced (including any OWR-based content).  It is something that those of us who are busy can still facilitate more or less (being a less time-intensive/dependent task than modding) and will help us to structure of developmental tasks better once we're back to full capacity.  Additionally, there is the recent creation of all these great cosmetic/texture mods that have better regionalized the mod for a substantial number of users, as well as textures for new items.   My (metaphorical) hat is off to Blue Lightning, Shadow Assassin, Nego, riiga and mrtnrln for their efforts on that front--you guys have done a great job.

There has also been some not-so-productive discussion here.  I realize it's been awhile since there's been a release, and certain segments of the user base are quite excited about the potential for certain items and are anxious to request them.  Those of us doing the development generally want this stuff, too--don't forget that.  We most likely wouldn't be doing this otherwise.  But there's not much we can do right this second developmentally.  It'll be about 2-3 weeks until I am really back to developing any SC4 transport content myself, and many others have similar restrictions.  Not everything is going to be done instantly, and continuing to beg for it is not going to expedite those efforts, especially under the circumstances.  

I recognize that requests are often the signs of an interested user base and, in some instances, can lead to productive further development.  Generally, to that effect, we try to keep their flow relatively unimpeded on these sorts of development threads.  But sometimes, they begin to become overwhelming, putting developmental discussions into a more confrontational and less constructive state that frustrates both the general public and the folks making the content.  In some cases, this can actually impede development on that content.  That's something we all should strive to avoid.  We've gotten close to that line here recently--please, I kindly ask, tread lightly with TuLEPs requests, and especially anything relating to OWR TuLEPs, for the next couple of weeks (unless, of course, you're talking about their placement in the proposed menu and button schemes).  

If you're working on a new texture/cosmetic mod or contribution, by all means, share your latest news on that front here.  If you've got ideas on how we can order the menus (including buttons, TAB Loop and Home/End Rotation arrangements) and file architecture for TuLEPs Advanced and other future TuLEPs content, by all means, share your thoughts, ideas, diagrams, etc. here.  And of course, if you've got a technical issue, this is a support thread, too, and we're here to help.

Thank you for your understanding, support, interest, and patience.  We'll be back to full steam ahead before long. :thumbsup:

-Alex

MandelSoft

^^ Amen! Well said, Alex!

I'll be trying out my new menu organisation this afternoon, and maybe I'll start create some new puzzle pieces for the TuLEPs as well (although I don't think I have enough time for that)...
Lurk mode: ACTIVE

Twyla

Quote from: Tarkus on May 20, 2011, 12:44:27 AMIn particular, the discussion of menu/organization logistics is an area where we really need public feedback in order to proceed with TuLEPs Advanced (including any OWR-based content).  It is something that those of us who are busy can still facilitate more or less (being a less time-intensive/dependent task than modding) and will help us to structure of developmental tasks better once we're back to full capacity.  Additionally, there is the recent creation of all these great cosmetic/texture mods that have better regionalized the mod for a substantial number of users, as well as textures for new items.   My (metaphorical) hat is off to Blue Lightning, Shadow Assassin, Nego, riiga and mrtnrln for their efforts on that front--you guys have done a great job.
First of all, my apologies for neglecting to offer the much-deserved kudos.

On this note, I started a Menu Development Thread - my apologies if I jumped the gun on doing this.


As to organizing the TuLEPs...

My thoughts on the matter tend to gravitate towards the familiarity of the base Maxis Ground Networks:

  • Road-Type TuLEPs
  • OWR-Type TuLEPs (when available)
  • Avenue-Type TuLEPs
  • Expanded TuLEPs (for triple-tile NWM network, when available)
  • TuLEP Intersections
  • Avenue Roundabouts (including TuLEPs, when available)

I'd like to see the different variants in Tab-Rings relative to their respective base networks (much like mrtnrln has shown), with the Slip Lane options being in the Rotation Rings.  The stand-alone Slip Lanes would be the last Tab-Ring of the TuLEP Intersections set, providing easy access (via Shift-Tab), with potential variations being in its Rotation Ring.  The RABbeTs (when/if they come to pass) could be put in the Avenue Roundabout Tab Ring to help avoid clutter.

It's a pity that SC4's menus aren't capable of providing a fourth layer - which would make organizing so much awesome content worlds easier. 

Nego

@Alex: I'm glad someone has put words to what many of us were thinking. ;)




How about some more missing textures, huh?
Road A1B:


Road A2B:


AVE-4 to TuLEP-A-S:


And some with diagonal crosshatching for j-dub:

Road Blank Filler:


AVE-4 to TuLEP-A-S:


AVE-4 to TuLEP-A-B:


TLA-5 to TuLEP-A-B:


TLA-5 to TuLEP-B-B:


Blank AVE Filler:


Blue Lightning

Also known as Wahrheit

Occasionally lurks.

RHW Project

samerton


Nego

@Blue Lightning: Nice job! &apls I'm definitely looking forward to downloading these soon. :thumbsup:

Blue Lightning

Also known as Wahrheit

Occasionally lurks.

RHW Project

j-dub

Nego, still a nice job, but Blue Lightning also did such a nice job that I just am torn between what I see. Nego, I thank you for doing those, but others will and do too, as I know that the American look is what American players would of preferred. I assumed your (first) diagonal strips were done with careful time because I assume math is required to get that even look of the diagonal, not only the accuracy for size and distance, but the fact that the avenues are two tiles. I will be frank, I am not familiar with doing textures in a paint program that are going to be split. When I used to mess around with SimCity's rival, that also allowed the TLA and avenue thing, it took forever to figure out the math to make such diagonal stripping, and make the separated squares match, because of the two tiles; but you proved it possible for this game Nego. I did not anticipate you to act fast with texturing, but if you really can texture new that fast, that is impressive.



In any event with the road blank filler, for some reason, the lane on the right looks at least one pixel space wider then the lane on the left on a 28 inch.

jdenm8

Actually, they look like they were lifted from my WRHW-2 textures which were originally lifted from the original Prototype Euro texture chevrons (they're just yellow instead of white) ::) Whoops, they are actually new :P


EDIT: On that width thing...



From that, it appears that the footpath is wider on one side than the other.


"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

Nego

I see what you mean. That was one of the textures I was having trouble with. I'll go back and see what I can do to fix that. Thanks for the helpful feedback. ;)


Edit: What do you think now? Does it still look off? I modified the yellow lines slightly and also the diagonal crosshatching. I checked and each travel lane is the same width and I didn't touch the sidewalk textures, so nothing's shifted over a pixel or anything.