[Ryan B.]

A quick conversion tells us that:

7.5 metres = 24.6 feet

5.0 metres = 16.4 feet

[kwakelaar]

Seems every time I look in here, something new is being developed. I enjoyed looking at your city layout with the rail tracks and the landscape.

[BarbarossaS]

Magnificent David, your always a true inspiration, and you never dissapoint! That riverwalk is just amazing  

-Stijn-

[Swamper77]

Maybe because all ingame elevated networks (el highway, el train, monorail) are 15 m high?

Correction:

The elevated highway has its paths at 15 meters high.
The elevated railways (elevated rail, monorail) have their paths at 15.5 meters.

The choice was made long ago when the NAM's first components were made as part of RedLotus' Transit Bugfixes. While the height of 15 meters may seem unrealistic, it does keep the double-decker buses and train cars from colliding with the overpasses. The Maxis Road tunnels are 13 meters high from ground to the top.

-Jan

EDIT:  Jan, if I thought anybody knew, I figured you did.  That said- we have 14 meter/45 foot tall double-decker buses?  Or 12 meter/39 foot tall rail cars?  Time to rethink them, eh?  Would they be that hard to eliminate from the game in favor of more realistic bridges?  Just askin'. -DE

[io_bg]

Thanks for the correction

[Tarkus]

I just did another round of "ERHW Limbo" just to see how low I could go.  Here's how the 5m turned out:



Large trucks are grazing the bottom part of substructure.  Given that the general advice in the BATing community is that stuff should be upscaled to about 130% in terms of height, it seems logical that the 5m height is problematic, and what we've actually got is a 3.84m-high (~12.6 ft.) overpass.  For the appearance of an RL 5m-high overpass, the height would actually have to be about 6.5m in game.  In order for things to mesh up mathematically with the height of the existing elevated roadways, 7.5m may make the most sense as a lower limit.

-Alex

[Swamper77]

EDIT:  Jan, if I thought anybody knew, I figured you did.  That said- we have 14 meter/45 foot tall double-decker buses?  Or 12 meter/39 foot tall rail cars?  Time to rethink them, eh?  Would they be that hard to eliminate from the game in favor of more realistic bridges?  Just askin'. -DE

Double-decker buses are not default material, so it is up to the user to decide if they want to use them or not. It's usually the UK folks that are using them, for the most part. Sound Transit operates a few out here in Washington State, and they clear the overpasses by a margin. I think the bridges out here have a 16'-0" clearance to the bottom of the overpasses.

As for the double-decker train cars, they are custom content as well, so it is up to the user if they want to use them or not. The ones that I have seen available as custom content are usually no taller than the default Maxis passenger train engine. The only train cars I would worry about hitting overpasses with are the deep-well intermodal container cars that I made for the Jestarr Train Set that I released awhile back.

-Jan

[JBSimio]

Given that the general advice in the BATing community is that stuff should be upscaled to about 130% in terms of height, it seems logical that the 5m height is problematic, and what we've actually got is a 3.84m-high (~12.6 ft.) overpass.  For the appearance of an RL 5m-high overpass, the height would actually have to be about 6.5m in game.  In order for things to mesh up mathematically with the height of the existing elevated roadways, 7.5m may make the most sense as a lower limit.

-Alex

This was my initial thought on the matter as well, but I didn't have any "real reason" to offer the way Jan did.  Let's face it, most of my buildings have a 5m floor to ceiling height which, at 16 plus feet is an awfully tall room!   Looking at Alex's pictures, I would say that yes... lower overpasses would technically work, but I'm not sure if I would like them all that much (from the standpoint of personal taste more than anything).  To me, the lower overpasses just don't have enough visual seperation from the at-grade road deck.  The supporting columns are almost completely hidden by the overhanging upper deck (although I see that they could be pushed closer to the edges where more would of the structure would be seen)  Just my thoughts anyway...

The riverside park looks great, David!  I really like the "free form" feel... it all looks very natural and in perfect harmony.  Rather than a developed and planned city park along the water, it seems more like an undeveloped area that was later upgraded with a foot path.  For me, that translates into the perfect park! 

JB

[dedgren]

I wish I'd known how to do this stuff three years ago...



Heh!



Want it?  Check out the bottom of this post.


David

306818

[j-dub]

Yeah, that idea would have been great when the game first came out, instead of having to do lotted parks. They had the tech, but they seemed to chicken out on it, or something. At least we finally have such great ideas out now. As always David, thank you for your many, useful mayor ploppables.

[sithlrd98]

Love the first pic! These MM plops are excellent! Of course instead of scrolling forever in the parks menu , the mayor menu is gettin rather fat!

Jayson

[ldvger]

So David-

About the river walk path, is that made using the path paintbrush tool I saw a while ago?  Have you taken the time to figure out how wide the path tool makes the path?  Does it climb slopes without fragmenting or getting wierd?  Does it level anything as it is applied into the game landscape?  Is it bull-dozable? 

Knowing what you do about modifying tools and stuff, I'd really like someone (maybe you?) to look into the mechanics of how this path paintbrush tool works.  It seems to me it must be a god tool that has somehow been modified, but I could be wrong.  I think this tool has tremendous potential as yet another ploppable water tool.  If the base texture was changed from dirt to say Edmonton water, we could use this tool to "paint" watercourses into our landscapes, yes?  Especially if the tool is already slope tolerant.  Also, if it is a modified god tool, how hard would it be to make it responsive to the area/intensity modifiers the other god tools have built into them?  If the base texture was modified to be water instead of dirt and we had the area modifier also, we could paint trickles of water or streams up to a tile wide without haveing to create "beds" for them, right? 

I actually went so far as to print out the i-Live Reader instructions booklet a few years ago, thinking this would allow me to find the God Mode tool controllers somewhere in the game code and figure out how to modify it, but after the first page my brain was completely scrambled.  This is really one area of play I don't think I'll ever want to dig too deeply into, but I know there's lots of coders out there who might be encouraged to look into this possiblility.

Just some thoughts. 

Lora/LD

EDIT:  The Reader comes with an instruction manual???  That sure makes my last three years of trial and error figuring it out look like a farce.  Oh, well- learn something every day, Lora.  btw, I'll be back on the topic of PW this weekend, and will address your questions there. -DE

[jacqulina]

riverpark is beautifull

[thundercrack83]

Ploppable gazebos! What a strange and wonderful find, David!

That Plopperizer™ is pure gold, my friend!

Dustin

EDIT:  Isn't the plural of gazebo "gazebi"?  Just askin'. -DE

[metarvo]

Another game limitation is removed, and it happened in 3RR.  Now we can build gazebos without having to place a lot.  Nice stuff, David!

 

[Darmok]

That riverwalk is simply stunning David! and the ploppable Gazebo is a great idea...


John

[bat]

Yes, a really nice idea there!
Looking forward to more....

[carkid1998]

Ploppable gazebos!? That plopperizer™ is a thing of wonder!

Can't wit to see what is next.  Ploppable houses??

[dragonshardz]

Ldvger: Actually, the riverfront pathway is a plopable developed as part of the RRP. Yes, it is bulldoze-able. It will looks good on hills to apoint (over about 20 degrees of slope and it starts to look funny). As a plopable, it doesn't affect the landscape in any physical way. Think of it as the Edmonton water with a dirt texture.

What David did to make a seamless path is known as a click-and-drag.

[girlfromverona]

Wow... just caught up on the 10 or so pages since I checked in last. Lots going on, as usual! 

I hope to be around a bit more in the near future.