SC4D Homepage
BSC File Exchange
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length


Author Topic: NAM: Development  (Read 399435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline APSMS

  • San Diegan
  • *
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: us
  • Total likes: 244
  • Reputation: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • "Omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina"
Re: NAM: Development
« Reply #1600 on: December 07, 2017, 02:00:08 AM »
If anything I would prioritise adding OWR-4/OWR-5 setups for the dual-avenue networks, before adding intersections for any dual-tile networks. But certainly there is room for expansion here, I'm just not sure how far I want to go right this moment.
No problem. ;) Thanks for the work you've already done. I can already see uses for it in my head.  &idea
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

My Mayor Diary San Diego: A Reinterpretation

Sim City 4 Devotion Forums

Re: NAM: Development
« Reply #1600 on: December 07, 2017, 02:00:08 AM »

Re: NAM: Development

Offline druidlove

Re: NAM: Development
« Reply #1601 on: December 07, 2017, 12:15:34 PM »
Here's an interesting reference that would answer the railroad height clearance:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/rcbook_55515_7.pdf

According to the State of Michigan, the height would be 22' 6" from the top of the rail to the top for available clearance space. While this is one state's representation, this is a standard that can be used to compare to the game. The 22' 6" clearance space given could hypothetically fit in the 24' 7" number (7.5m). Realistically, this must include factors such as height of rail from base to rail top, and overhead width concerns. However, I don't see how the L1 rail/L2 RHW could not be possible.

Sim City 4 Devotion Forums

Re: NAM: Development
« Reply #1601 on: December 07, 2017, 12:15:34 PM »

 


If you experience visual glitches in our site, we strongly suggest you to use Firefox to browse the forums. Also a 1024*768 or higher resolution is highly recommended to view this site

SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2011
SMFAds for Free Forums

Page created in 0.248 seconds with 45 queries.