SC4 Devotion Forum Archives

This is the official thread for describing new and proposed additions to RTMT.  Comments are welcome.

The next release of RTMT will not have a lot of new content, largely so that we can get it out the door soon.  It will contain a few maintenance fixes that have become necessary in the year since the last release.  It will have a streamlined, easier-to-use installation system.  Finally, it will have three levels of station capacities from which the user can choose; these levels have been chosen to be appropriate for all the traffic simulators currently in use.  The station capacities will be updated from previous versions of RTMT based on experience that has been gained since the last release.

The centerpiece of the following release after that one will be the new version of ebina's Underground Rail RTMT stations.  It will be fully integrated into the main RTMT package, although its installation will be optional.  Ebina has already completed most of the work on this version, and has taken it to the beta testing stage.  Many of you are familiar with the first version of ebina's stations; these new stations are greatly improved, and now include stations with subway access, in addition to bus and underground rail access.  Click on the image below to see a preview picture of the stations in their current state of development.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg86.imageshack.us%2Fimg86%2F3600%2Furailrtmtrtlotsio4.th.jpg&hash=fa02976fe3cec673bd5cf775bfb9b9af548dbd17) (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=urailrtmtrtlotsio4.jpg)

In the final version, the station props will be customizable in the same way as in all the other RTMT stations.

Additional enhancements to RTMT are in the proposal stage at this point.  How many of them get done, and in what time period, depends to a large extent on how many qualified volunteers we get for the RTMT Team.  Some of the smaller enhancements may appear in the same version as ebina's Underground Rail stations; others may appear in later versions of RTMT; and others may end up not appearing at all.  I'll be editing this list from time to time to keep it up to date.  Here, in no particular order, is the current proposed list:

• RTMT stations for SAM
• RTMT stations for diagonal roads and avenues
• RTMT stations for elevated rail over road
• RTMT stations for elevated roadways
• RTMT stations for NWM
• RTMT stations for FAR
• Rural Road bus stops
• DAMN menus
• An enhancement to make RTMT stations easily integrate with turning lanes on roads and avenues
• Reducing the footprint of the 1x2 stations to 1x1 with overhang; appearance would remain unchanged
• More customization in selecting road markings
• Compatibility with customized sidewalk textures

That's it for now.  Please feel free to comment on the existing suggestions, or make new suggestions of your own.  We would like to make RTMT as complete and easy to use as possible, serving all your road top mass transit needs.

If you would like to help turning these proposals (or others) into reality, please consider either joining the RTMT Team as a Member or an Associate, or becoming one of our testers.  Full details can be found in the thread Call for RTMT Team Members, Associates, and Testers (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5632.0).

I think this is a fantastic project.
I do use another set of RTMT stations. It is the Diagonal Intersection RoadTop SubwayBus Station
by uroncha. It is form 2005, can be found on the STEX.

http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=14010

It works fine for me, but has one disadvantage: I cannot use it together with the SAM, because, of course, it does not include the SAM textures.
It would be a great achievement if in some way it would be possible to make the street top stops in such a way that they would show the according SAM texture. But without the need for making bus- and subway stops for every single SAM texture... Because this would need almost a hundred stations....
Do you think this is possible?

Quote from: FrankU on September 09, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
It would be a great achievement if in some way it would be possible to make the street top stops in such a way that they would show the according SAM texture. But without the need for making bus- and subway stops for every single SAM texture... Because this would need almost a hundred stations....
Do you think this is possible?

I think making street stops/stations using the SAM textures, is feasible, and is not really much work. So this could even be implemented even in the next version. Actually I have considered 2-3 ways of doing this. Can you help me with SAM? I need to know the following:
- Are the SAM textures wealth-dependent, ie change according to the wealth level of the adjacent lots?
- Can you only use one texture (or set) at a time, or instead you can have more than one texture/set in the same city at the same time?

Then we can discuss it and maybe suggest a solution.

I dont believe they are wealth dependant, but I am not sure, and you can have many in one city at once.

hope that helps

Joe

Quote from: FrankU on September 09, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
It works fine for me, but has one disadvantage: I cannot use it together with the SAM, because, of course, it does not include the SAM textures.
It would be a great achievement if in some way it would be possible to make the street top stops in such a way that they would show the according SAM texture. But without the need for making bus- and subway stops for every single SAM texture... Because this would need almost a hundred stations....
Do you think this is possible?

I have this set, and have made SAM texture versions of them for my own use.  I have a few minor issues relating to the icons, I'll look at fixing them and maybe uploading the lots.  There is no way I know of that will allow the texture of the lot to change depending on the road sorry. 

Quote from: cogeo on September 09, 2008, 09:26:41 AM
I think making street stops/stations using the SAM textures, is feasible, and is not really much work. So this could even be implemented even in the next version. Actually I have considered 2-3 ways of doing this. Can you help me with SAM? I need to know the following:
- Are the SAM textures wealth-dependent, ie change according to the wealth level of the adjacent lots?
- Can you only use one texture (or set) at a time, or instead you can have more than one texture/set in the same city at the same time?

Yes, the SAM textures are wealth dependant in that the grass and footpath will change depending on the wealth, exactly the same as normal street.  We have considered making the roadway wealth dependant too, although haven't looked more into this yet.

For your second point... you haven't used SAM have you?   :D  The point is that all textures are available through a puzzle piece, which you plop and drag from, starting the texture.  There are currently 9 I think, although bus stops for the dirt roads are possibly not so critical, and neither for the parking lots.  I think there are 4 or 5 that would be needed at present.

@JoeST and Diggis: thanks for your replies!

The current version of RTMT (V3) uses textures without the little grass strip. It wouldn't lokk nice, as the busstop or subway props would be half on the grass and half on the pavement, plus it wouldn't look realistic either as the grass would be destroyed by the passengers! So these are using an all-pavement texture for the sidewalk part (plus the street texture part, of course). I guess this isn't going to change in V4. So the same design principle could be used for the SAM textures too. That is, without the grass strip there would be no need for wealth-dependent textures (btw what do you mean by "footpath"?). Making wealth-dependent textures is feasible, but the problem is that these are (TE) lots, not networks, and lots have their own wealth. All RTMT lots and buildings are wealth-neutral (contain no wealth settings), and this does work, eg you won't get mid-wealth streetlights when all the housing around is low-wealth, but I think it's impossible to make them affected by the surrounding lots, so as to make the wealth-dependent textures feature work. The wealth for RTMT lots is none, which defaults to mid-wealth. But as said above, all these problems can be avoided by using a texture without the grass, which fortunately looks better as well.

I can't think of a "perfect" solution satisfying everyone.
There are two ways for making RTMT stations with SAM textures:
- Make an additional RTMT (base) texture with the desired SAM texture for the street part and the desired sidewalk mod texture for the sidewalk part (no grass). Make three additional RTMT stations for streets (using this texture instead of the standard RTMT street texture). This has the obvious disadvantages of allowing only one SAM texture (with RTMT) and requiring three additional station lots. It's not scalable either, as it would require another three station lots for each supported SAM texture.
- Make props using special flat models (16x16m large, 0.2m tall) using directly the SAM textures. These props can be grouped as prop-families, using a selection mechanism like the one in current RTMT (prop-families mode). Prop-families in SC4 are used for variety (eg take a look at the vending machines in the ingame subway station) but I didn't actually intend in variety when using prop-families in RTMTV3, at least in the way they are usually used in SC4. I just wanted to be possible to have, say, a certain bus-stop model along the main avenue, another one in the suburbs, and a different one in the industrial area. For this reason prop-family implementations in RTMTV3 are contained in two propfiles; by installing/uninstalling these, it is possible to specify the prop to be selected in each plop. This selection mechanism was devised by me, and I have to admit it's tiresome and awkward, but does allow selecting props. I though the extra effort (for players) would be worth in cases like CJs (and actually some players had asked for this) but I have seen very few cases of players using this feature correctly (see an example in Ennedi's MD, Sholasoza). Many players just plop the stations having all datfiles installed, and this causes the props to be selected randomly (as usual), resulting in a weird, often funny look, eg two different shelter models in the same busstop lot, or all-different models throughout the city! Actaully many players think that this is the only possible way to use the prop-families feature, though the opposite is clearly stated in the readme (which I doubt if players actually read). So a mechanism like the one described above, along with all its minuses (complexity, hard to use) can be used, but I'm afraid it would cause trouble to many players. Another problem is that the current road markings scheme (those BUS/STOP and SUB/WAY markings - implemented as overlay textures) wouldn't work for streets with SAM textures (they would be obscured by the flat model descrined above). But someone could say this isn't much of a loss, as markings on cobbled streets wouldn't look realistic either.

Which "solution" really looks best to you? Do you have any other method to suggest?

A short disclaimer here:  I haven't used the SAM, either.  But after reading what cogeo has written, I think there might be a complete solution here.  It basically involves using cogeo's first solution, but actually making separate RTMT station sets for each SAM texture.  This is a fair amount of work, but it should be straightforward, and this is the type of thing we're trying to get team members for.  The biggest question here is what to do with all these stations - you clearly don't want to just dump them in the menu.  Instead, I would suggest putting them on a TAB ring with the existing street stations.  That way, no more menu space would be taken up, but you'd have access to all RTMT stations for all SAM textures.  What do you think?

Quote from: z on September 09, 2008, 01:33:21 PM
Instead, I would suggest putting them on a TAB ring with the existing street stations.  That way, no more menu space would be taken up, but you'd have access to all RTMT stations for all SAM textures.  What do you think?

That's a nice idea, z, but unfortunately, it's not possible to put Lots in a TAB Loop.  The TAB Loop capability is only possible for puzzle pieces, as defined in RUL 0x10000000, and to my knowledge, it's not possible to turn a transit station into a puzzle piece, other than simply producing a strictly eyecandy one.

If you are looking at ways to have more stations without putting additional burden on the menu systems, you can either use the MML (Menu Management Lot) technique that cogeo used with RTMT 3.5, or there's also a new menu development technology, DAMN (I never learned what that stood for, actually--and I'm an acronym fiend :D), which Daeley has been working on.  He posted a Development Kit for new DAMN sets here (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2917.msg158016#msg158016), where you can also read more about it.

Hope that helps! :thumbsup:

-Alex (Tarkus)

Quote from: Tarkus on September 09, 2008, 01:41:39 PM
That's a nice idea, z, but unfortunately, it's not possible to put Lots in a TAB Loop. 

That's really too bad - TAB loops are so useful.

So MML is certainly a possibility.  If only 4 or 5 SAM textures are currently needed, then that would mean 12 or 15 stations, if you include subways.  One question is:  Do people really want subway stops on SAM streets?  Or would they just seem out of place?  Without subways, you'd only need bus stops, and that would mean a total of 4 or 5 additional stations, which might be reasonable to put on the main menu.  Or if you want the full complement of street stations, that would mean 12 or 15 stations, and for that, you'd want something like another MML piece.  Of course with all the other features being proposed, DAMN menus would be ideal, but I have no idea when they're going to be ready.  Does anyone else?

Meanwhile, if cogeo is willing to implement this for the next version, as he says, that's fantastic!  I'm sure that he and I will be able to work out the menu issue for now with no trouble, in that case.

z: DAMN menu's are still in beta, but are perfectly useable and from my testing i found no bugs.

Is it possible to have a RTMT station at a rail, glr, or elevated rail crossing?

Quote from: Shiftred on September 09, 2008, 09:04:05 PM
Is it possible to have a RTMT station at a rail, glr, or elevated rail crossing?

If you mean at the actual crossing itself, with props surrounding the other network, the answer is no.  But if you mean directly next to such a crossing, then the answer is yes, though you may have to do some terrain smoothing in order for everything to connect up properly.

It's only residential Lots that are effected by having a TE lot in front of them, Com and Ind work fine with a TE lot in front of them.  And with one of the sets there are T and 4 way stations which work great too.  So there is no need to waste space.  Personally I use them cos they look more realistic.  I also tend to link them up using BSC trail parks.

Hi all..

Really love what is going on here...

Z, cogeo, testers and other contributing.. all of you are doing a nice job here and off to a wonderful start..

I have a question for Diggis though..

Quote from: Diggis on September 10, 2008, 12:55:53 AM
Personally I use them cos they look more realistic.  I also tend to link them up using BSC trail parks.

When you say "link them up"..
Do you mean more from an eye candy or visual perspective..or are some of the BSC park series actually transit
or Ped- enabled ?

Thanks, Brian

Quote from: b22rian on September 10, 2008, 03:25:06 PMI have a question for Diggis though..

When you say "link them up"..
Do you mean more from an eye candy or visual perspective..or are some of the BSC park series actually transit
or Ped- enabled ?

Visually only.  If I have to leave a gap for the RTMT I use the BSC Parks to create a path between the lots, to maybe another street.  It's not functional, but it looks real.

Quote from: Diggis on September 10, 2008, 03:28:31 PM
Visually only.  If I have to leave a gap for the RTMT I use the BSC Parks to create a path between the lots, to maybe another street.  It's not functional, but it looks real.

Ok, thanks diggis for replying so quickly..

i agree its still sounds and im sure looks very Kool :satisfied:

Brian

well according to what jplumbley said, wouldn't the planned intersection RTMT lots circumvent the problem in question? yes it would cause some issues with pathfinding and capacity, but this could be avoided with transit switch costs and larger capacities....

I don't often take sides with arguments and such, but please, let's keep this on simply developing new RTMT and not turn this into a discussion of feasibilities and simulator effects. Some of us just want to play.

Quote from: redraider147 on September 10, 2008, 09:42:32 PM
well according to what jplumbley said, wouldn't the planned intersection RTMT lots circumvent the problem in question? yes it would cause some issues with pathfinding and capacity, but this could be avoided with transit switch costs and larger capacities....

The planned intersection lots actually offer no more functionality than the existing RTMT lots; they would exist merely for a more varied appearance.  And if you reread cogeo's post, you will see that there are no zoning problems at intersection lots.  I will shortly be posting a message to the RTMT FAQ explaing in more detail some of the functionality of the current lots when used at intersections, so you may want to check that in a while.

Quote from: zakuten on September 10, 2008, 10:31:51 PM
I don't often take sides with arguments and such, but please, let's keep this on simply developing new RTMT and not turn this into a discussion of feasibilities and simulator effects. Some of us just want to play.

I'll second that!  We developers have limited time, and we'd much rather spend it developing RTMT for you and answering appropriate questions than getting bogged down in off-topic discussions.

I've realized that the NWM is eventually going to need RTMT stations, so I've added it to the list in the first post of this thread.

As I was the first to raise a question in this thread I cannot shut up now.

A fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer....

Wow, what a discussion did come up! I read about possibilities I never thought of.

As I asked wether it would be possible to use SAM textures in RTMT stations I want to make a counting.

1. There are bus stations and subway stations and combinations of these. I can do without the single subway and would only need bus station and bus+subway station. Makes 2 combinations.
2. There are stops for straights, diagonals, T-crossings and X-crossings. = 4 combinations.
3. There are roads, one-way-roads, avenues, streets, 5 kids of SAM. = 9 combinations.
4. Then we have GLR stations straight and diagonal. =2
5. GLR only, GLR with bus, GLR with bus+sub, but I could do without the GLR only = 2
6. GLR in Avenue or GLR nex to avenue = 2

So the number of stations needed is:
1-3: 2x4x9 = 72
4-6: 2x2x2 = 16

Makes 88 stations!

Not nice to throw into your menu. Tabrings would be great, but appear to be impossible.
A DAMN solution is possible and workable, I guess... So perhaps we need to wait for that to be released.

Furthermore: I learned a lot form this discussion and thank all of you very much. I am really curious what this project is leading to.

Quote from: FrankU on September 11, 2008, 05:13:42 AM

3. There are roads, one-way-roads, avenues, streets, 5 kids of SAM. = 9 combinations.

To correct you, there are 7 kinds of SAM (parking lot, brick, trails, gravel, dirt, asphalt, cobblestone, brick2)

So the correct number of stations needed is:
1-3: 2x4x11 = 88
4-6: 2x2x2 = 16

That's 104 stations! A huge ammount of stations! I agree that's a little too large for a menu.

Ahh, but stations for the Parking lots, aren't really that important, and neither for the gravel and dirt, which actually leave 4.  And trails? There are 2 dirt roads.  (oh and you listed 8 :D) 

Well, I must admit that I was not sure about the amount of relevant SAM textures, because I am at the office now and are not allowed to play SC4 here. I am considered to do some RL work. &mmm
So this was a guess, but the message is clear: many lots!

Even for supporting "only" 4 or 5 textures, the number of lots is still too large. Not only it's too much work to do, and will clutter the menu, it can also prove a maintenance hog. I think I will contact Daeley to see if we can do something with scripts.

I love the new look of the RTMT's that z presented in the first post! :)
Despite knowing that they interfere with the pathfinding, I can't help using them myself either... $%#Ninj2

Quote from: cogeo on September 11, 2008, 10:06:45 AM
I think I will contact Daeley to see if we can do something with scripts.

You could contact Diggis as well! :thumbsup:
He's been helping Daeley with the DAMN.

Oh, yeh, they're real nice looking. My only confusion is why the U gets painted on the road, hahah~

Quote from: RippleJet on September 11, 2008, 10:25:18 AM
I love the new look of the RTMT's that z presented in the first post! :)
Despite knowing that they interfere with the pathfinding, I can't help using them myself either... $%#Ninj2

I'm glad you like the new look!  Over time, we will be adding new station props, and making it easier for users to select a consistent set for their cities.

But there's more good news, in that RTMT stations don't interfere with pathfinding.  So there's no reason to feel guilty about using them.  For a full explanation of why this is so, please see FAQ #3 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5650.msg179649#msg179649) and its associated reference.

@Ripplejet, by "scripts" I didn't mean a DAMN set (btw we would of course welcome Diggis if he wants to help, or undertake it completely), I meant to check if it's possible to avoid employing multiple lots.

@zakuten, the "U" is the german U-Bahn logo, and it is released on the STEX, as German MT Road Markings (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=14864). This replaces the original (BUS/STOP and SUB/WAY) markings, and of course is optional (you can select the original ones or even remove them altogether). This (ie having configurable road markings) is one of the "customisation" features or RTMT.

Ah, OK. I always just thought it was weird to write it on the street. Maybe if we go into customization, one with only just bus markings might be nice...?  ;)

group hug  :thumbsup:

I personally would like to see as much functionality as possible without regard to the number of lots used. If possible I'd like to see a tab loop for them, unless that is only possible for puzzle pieces and interchanges. If not...then...we'll have to accept tradeoffs. I'm already used to a cluttered menu, so I guess if the lots are arranged logically, I'll be fine with 88 lots. (The SAM types I use are cobblestone, PEG gravel, black asphalt, brick, and the occasional muddy brown street) But if a DAMN setup can be used, then I'd prefer that, but I haven't the faintest idea how DAMN menus work, or for that matter how exactly they are used.

Edited.  -Alex (Tarkus)

Oh, hmm, okay - I'm cool with that.  -nerdly_dood

I agree with you - our whole purpose here is to add functionality.  But we also want to do it in a way that's as easy to use as possible, which in this case means not cluttering up the menus if we can avoid it.  I personally like to do things elegantly, and one reason I joined this project was that I saw that elegance present in cogeo's work.  As Alex pointed out, TAB loops won't work in this situation.  Fortunately, DAMN sounds like the perfect solution here, and at some point early on in our coming development, I expect we'll be switching to DAMN.  I've seen some brief demos, and it looks very easy to use.  If and when we incorporate DAMN, full instructions on using it will be included.

As cogeo pointed out a while back, there's a lot of work involved in doing even a few sets of stations, especially when you take into account maintenance and updates.  So far, we haven't had any volunteers for RTMT Team Members, although we have been getting a good response for testers.  If any of you would like to help turn the proposals in this thread into reality, then by all means check out the Call for RTMT Team Members and Testers (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5632.0) thread.  Also, if any of you know people with the appropriate skills who might be interested, but who are unaware of these positions, please let them know.  Thank you.

Not sure if this is strictly RTMT as opposed to a NAM thing, but I'd like to see, and I know this is completely out of the blue, more "wayside"-type stops on roads. I was in China for class in May, and I noted that most of their highways indeed had bus-stops integrated in. I have one lot that does such, but I was wondering if anyone else was interested in the idea of it at all...?

Deadwoods has an excellent pair of ground highway transit hubs here (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=455) and here (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=456); I don't know if either of these is the lot you have.  Also, if you put a regular bus stop right next to a highway (ground or otherwise), it actually works, even if it's not near any sort of ramp.  I think that Deadwoods' solution is especially good; it even includes a subway station.  I'm not sure anything more than that is required.  But we're always open to suggestions.

Oh, yeah, that is actually it. However, I didn't indeed have both versions. ~goes and snags the brick one~ Yeah, that's what I had. I'd thought more like for maybe one half of an RHW-4, though, specifically.

I can certainly see how this would be valuable for RHW.  But as Deadwoods has already done most of the work here, I would suggest contacting him and seeing if he were willing to make RHW versions of these lots.  If so, that would be by far the most efficient way to proceed.  Or if he's too busy, perhaps he knows someone who would be willing to do the work on those particular lots.  If we were to do something, it would probably be in conjunction with Deadwoods, but that's a long way down the road, as we have a number of higher priority projects to do first.  So I agree that these stations would be a good idea, but I think Deadwoods is the man to talk to.

EDIT:  If you do contact Deadwoods, please post here and let us know what you find out.  Thanks!

Quote from: zakuten on September 11, 2008, 02:48:59 PM
Ah, OK. I always just thought it was weird to write it on the street. Maybe if we go into customization, one with only just bus markings might be nice...?  ;)

Hmmm, having markings for both busstops and subways is a feature carried over from version 2. Some players claim (and they are basically right) that subway markings are not realistic, and shouldn't be placed on the road as subways don't affect road traffic. Plus I'm not really aware of any subway markings (on the road) in the real world (if anyone does, pics are welcome). I guess these were put for uniformity and/or completeness; another reason might be that version 2 didn't actually had any subway (stairs) props, so it wasn't easy to tell wether the tile was a subway station or not, without these markings. I didn't change this in version 3, but version 3 is different in that the markings set is optional and interchangeable (all markings are contained in a single plugin). This makes it possible to use alternative or custom sets. The German set mentioned above is an exmaple (though I don't know if such markings really exist - any Gernan user please?). Another example is the British set (linkie (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=14065)). This one contains busstop markings only; bus stops and bus+subway stations have bus markings while subway (-only) stations have no markings.

So making a busstops-only markings set is possible, although the RTMT stations set actually supports textures for subways too. And most importantly, making road markings sets is independent from the RTMT "core", ie custom markings can be made and installed without having to update the station lots. So if someone wants to make, say Chinese markings, all he has to do is make a set of overlay textures (using some specific IDs, of course), and not update the lots. That is, there are going to be Chinese markings, not Chinese RTMT stations. Everyone interested in making a custom markings set, please PM or post.

Just a note here, due to limited capacity we cannot respond promptly to such requests. But you can post your ideas (or even requests) here, and maybe some people with texture-making (imaging) skills may find them interesting -or we could include it in the next release.
Actually we need some "artists" to join the team. If you have graphics design skills (Photoshop, Paintshop Pro or Gimp), please consider becoming a team member or associate (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5632.0).

You won't find any markings for subway on the road surface - I suggested this back then when the first RTMT set was in the making, because the original lots had the English word "SUBWAY" written on the textures. A German subway station is indicated with the white "U" on blue background, but only on a signpost, or maybe attached to a wall.

Well, actually I can't remember to have seen road top bus markings in any country I ever visited: a lot of European countries, and Israel and Egypt.
There are just bus stop signs next to the road.

Subwaysigns the same...

London has road markings, usually a red box for the bus to park in, with a yellow bus stop written inside.

Well, anyway, as long as there is an option to leave road markings out I am completely happy. Also I could perfectly play my game and have all the fun there is if I only had busstops with road markings.... I am not too interested in realistic detailling. I am more interested in nice looking and functional stops.

In Germany, "BUS" markings are common, esp. in combination with dedicated bus lanes. Here are a few pics:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Busspur_und_Haltestelle_in_Mannheim_100_9128.jpg/800px-Busspur_und_Haltestelle_in_Mannheim_100_9128.jpg

http://www.hvv.de/aktuelles/presse/fotoarchiv/fotos/hvv_6794_72dpi.jpg

http://www.region-dresden-online.de/images/bushaltestelle_gr.jpg

http://www.hansgeimer.de/images/projekte/elm_bushaltestelle.jpg

http://www.ndt.net/home/schulbusse/records/haltestelle/busspur.jpg

http://www.kieler-gsv.de/hp/fussball/bushaltestelle-rondeel.jpg

Guys, you are great.
Just to know, when do you plan to release version 4.0?

We at the RTMT Place are following the long-standing SC4 tradition of not having any schedules.  This is pretty much a necessity, as it's hard to predict how much time each developer will have to work on the project.  Nevertheless, we're actively working on V4, and it shouldn't take too long to complete.  However, after development is finished, which is still a ways away, we have to have a testing period.  So the next release will be a while from now - hopefully not too long.

Sorry to be so vague...   :-\

No, it's ok! I'm just damn curious to know what's boiling into the pot!
Please, can you spoil any news about the characteristics of v 4.0 and the differences with 3.5? :)

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!  $%Grinno$%

Orion, this is exactly what this thread is about.  :)

The first post contains a list of proposed additions. You can also go to the The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5681.0) and cast your vote.

Yes, but it is still a bit confusing for me, even because many of you write using abreviations, giving as granted that everybody does understand.  I'm back to SC4 after a 1 year pause so it is not THAT intuitive: in short, I was asking for a synthesis of major changes. Anyway, can help with testing if you want.

Quote from: 0rion79 on September 20, 2008, 01:38:51 AM
No, it's ok! I'm just damn curious to know what's boiling into the pot!
Please, can you spoil any news about the characteristics of v 4.0 and the differences with 3.5? :)

PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!  $%Grinno$%

Right now, all we can say for sure is what's at the top of the first post in this thread.  That's always the place to look for the most current information.  We're still looking into some things; if we decide to include them, we'll update that post.  But overall, you'll find 4.0 fairly similar to 3.5; many of the changes are under the hood.  And 4.1 will include RTMT for Underground Rail.  RTMT for SAM streets appears to have a lot of people interested in it, so it looks like it will be one of the earlier extensions that we will do.

And thanks for the offer for testing; I'll add you to the list.

Great, this is what I was looking for.
So, if I can express an advice, I really hope that the DAMN matter will pass beta testing and will be used instead than the MML.
If you can sort icons together, I think you chould do something like this:
        Shifting with TAB >>>
Menu:       road, avenue, OW, street (in this order because I think they are more often used in this way)
Bus           road, avenue, OW, street
Bus & Sub  road, avenue, OW, street
Sub           road, avenue, OW, street
...
Then a question: I've seen in page 1 that image with different U-train and subway stops. What's the difference about them? I think that it would be better to make just a kind of MT station for all underground/subway systems instead than 1 for subway only and 1 for u-rail only. Then it is just the player that chooses what kind of line is passing under the streeets, even because there are no conceptual differences for the commuters: he is just looking for the stairs on avenues or streets to take the kind of mass transit line that will bring him to job.
What do you think?

DAMN has finished beta testing, and has been formally released.  We fully intend to use it starting in one of the earlier releases.  However, we also intend to keep the menus, as they are sometimes easier to use, and some people prefer them.  MML's will also remain, but they will continue to be optional.  (You can bypass them in the installation.)

TAB rings are very attractive, but it has been established that they work only with puzzle pieces, not with lots.

As for the Underground Rail stations, much design work has gone into them, and the consensus is that we like them the way they are.

I would recommend reading through this whole thread, as some of your questions have been answered previously here.

Orion, the stations you see in the 1st page are for NAM's underground rail puzzle pieces, and these aren't actually roads, they are dual road/u-rail networks. They aren't sybways either. There is a "connector" puzzle piece that causes the underground track to emerge to ground level, and connect to the "heavy" rail neteork. That is the rail traffic for these is shown in orange (rail) colour, not yellow.

Having a U-Rail (-only) stations means that only passenger trains can stop there, not subways, even if there is subway tunnel under the station lot. Similarly, subway-only stations can only serve subway lines. That is, both are needed.

oh!! Ive been tricked by the image and by the fact that I never use them. Feel a nbit stupid now :)
I've been too exited at the idea to join this project: I should have definitely take more time to read previous threads!

Hello, since this is the post for new features request, I would like very much to have a different kind of menu icons for RTMT stops.

From Darkmatter version, the number of icons has increased a lot and even the visual complexity of road-top stops has increased. Even if the 3.5 version icons are really beautiful, they look too similar ech other, for me, and I have some problems recognizing 1-way stops from avenues or from 2-lanes roads.

In those days, I have made some new icons for personal use, because they help me to play faster. I made some for roundabout fillers, SBI, road signs... and, of course, RTMT too. I know that they look very home-made but they show what I would like to have... Since the menu icon space is so small, maybe it would be the case to paint new icons rather than taking snapshots from game. Maybe they would be more representative...

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3038%2F2951636233_2213036494.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=2358c1e0b281cd9309437c196797d7befa152520)

Also, I REALLY would like to be able to place subway stations using zone view: especially now that I'm using CAM, it becomes nearly impossible to center a road after that skyscreapers have already developed and became so high... somebody has told me that, since all subway stops in the game are made like that, then even RTMT should work in the similar way too. But I don't agree and, if possible, I would like it to be left as option in the setup executable file.

Thanks for attention :)

This is a reply to this post (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5681.msg191013#msg191013) (posted in the RTMT features Poll thread).

I split that post out of the RTMT features Poll thread and merged it into here (the post above this one), so that it'll be easier to follow the discussion.
/Tage

Orion, you're right that the RTMT buttons have a become a bit confusing, and they are going to be even more confusing as new stations are added. And yes, taking game shots (for the icons) is no longer a good solution, just because of the many, and often similar-looking station lots. In cases like GLR+Bus+Subway for GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces, it's really impossible to fit all station props in that little space. Also stations like ebina's subway-only, rail-only and subway+rail for underground rail/road puzzle pieces, look so very much the same, and it's almost impossible to the player to distinguish between them.

You have posted a set of buttons (thanks!), but... aren't these game shots as well? They are still hard to distinguish, eg between the 1st and 2nd button or the 4th and 5th.

I have discussed it with Steve, and we have some ideas.

Steve has suggested a solution that's been used successfully by many developers in this situation, which is to overlay a short letter code on top of each icon.  For example, a street bus stop would simply be S-B, and a road bus and subway stop two tiles long would be R-SB2.

Though this would definitely be an improvement, I don't really like this idea very much, being too cryptic and too much "encoded". Of course, encoding will be consistent, but this still requires "thinking" (for deciphering the code), which many players won't really like (it's a game, after all), so these will still mouse over; others will mouse over anyway, just to make sure! That is it still requires some "effort" on the player side, to "decipher" the code. Players must learn (and remember) the convention (network type left of the dash, transit types on the right) and the code letters. I think they will still read the description, just to make sure.

So my suggestion here is:
- Keep using a "distinctive" rather than a "standard" button style (the one with the little white border around the button), as this makes easy to tell which the RTMT icons are, at a glance. So players can easily tell whether they are inside or outside the "RTMT button area", and thus they don't need to examine each button carefully to determine "where RTMT ends"; the only additional "burden" here is just a few mouse rolls, which is a "mechanical" movement, not requiring any special attention. I wouldn't insist on keeping the current style though, maybe the bevel could be narrowed, so as to increase the "useful" area.
- Use the networks' textures as the buttons' background, but displayed vertically and occupying a bigger area, so that it's easy to tell the network type.
- Use some small icon (not letter) overlays for the transit types involved. I would propose using simple bitonal (well, maybe with an opacity mask, for controlling opacity and/or antiliasing) symbol-like overlays, rather than the colour icons. The colour could be pale white, superimposed on the network texture (which is quite darker). As an alternative there could be used well-known transit logos of real cities, eg London's roundel (red-blue for underground, all-red for buses, orange-blue for overground) or the German ones (the U,S,etc logos).

I think this would be easier to the players. But it's just my preference. It would be interesting to know the opinion of other members, and why not, their ideas too!

Using symbols is probably better than using plain letters indeed. "R-SB2" is rather cryptic, and a screenshot of the actual lot, with those symbols used as an overlay could do the trick. I don't know about other countries, but the German "H" ("Haltestelle"; [bus] stop), "U" ("U-Bahn"; subway) or "S" ("S-Bahn", commuter train) signs are pretty distinctive and recognizable even if they are very small. If it's not too much work, you could even do different sets of icons for the US, UK and German players.

Once I saw how DAMN worked, it seemed to me that that was the solution, as there's a short and very legible desription after each button.  When I sent the menu package to Diggis, I just asked him to use the descriptions that already showed up on mouse-over.  (This also allows us to keep all the currently supported languages without doing any new translating.)  So in DAMN, being able to see what the pictures are is much less necessary; in fact, one could argue that it's not necessary at all.  As the poll that I've run has shown a lot of enthusiasm for DAMN, I don't think it makes a lot sense to invest a lot of energy in redesigning the buttons one way or another right now.  For people who want to work on RTMT, we have lots of other things available for you...   ;D

Quote from: 0rion79 on October 18, 2008, 11:58:59 AM
Also, I REALLY would like to be able to place subway stations using zone view: especially now that I'm using CAM, it becomes nearly impossible to center a road after that skyscreapers have already developed and became so high... somebody has told me that, since all subway stops in the game are made like that, then even RTMT should work in the similar way too. But I don't agree and, if possible, I would like it to be left as option in the setup executable file.

As cogeo explained, the way DarkMatter got this to work was by using the Building:Bus and Building:BusStop Occupant Groups, essentially making the station look like a bus stop.  He also said, "This is not necessarily 'better' though," and explained why; I agree completely with his conclusions.  Furthermore, it's not really hard to place subway stations using the Zones view; I use CAM and I do it all the time.  See FAQ #5 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5650.msg185993#msg185993) for details.

So, will the newer versions be DAMN only, then? Is that the plan?

No, there will be an option during installation to install the current button arrangement (with optional MML) in addition to DAMN.

Yes, I agree very much about using simbols, but I want to point out something about my icons set.
First, they are not proposed to be used in 4.0 release, they are only a sample and I use them because I feel better with them.
Second, if you look to actual RTMT icons, there is not much difference between road,OWR and avenues. The icons that I propose, instead, have a "constant" that helps to recognize them: OWR has the arrow on the N/E icon corner, avenues have the green line in the middle, streets are gray and standard roads... well, are the ones without arrow or green line :D Also, it is possible to recognize in one eye shoot subway from bus, because subway has white writings and bus has yellow ones.
But maybe it is less clean now that icons are grouped into one single image.

More, I have moved them to get the order "bus, sub, bus+sub" so, as long as I have that order, it is very easy for me NOT getting confused.
But probably this works only because I have removed all GLR and 2x stops, since I hate when my buildings cannot develope because they have road access denied and 2x stops increase this risk. So, this means less icons and so less confusion.

I was even thinking of a kind of icon that is dark on the left side, and then shades to in-game snapshot of the RTMT stops. IN this way, there would be the space on the left for some reference letters or logos and on the right a pre-view of the stop kind, but maybe it is too small...

@Z, sorry but I don't agree at all. I know it is a subjective matter, but I have already tried with that procedure and I just don't feel confident with it. I don't like it. There is no reason for which the player has to adapt to the game instead than adapting the game to the player.

I also understand that it is not possible to make a RTMT version with too many alternatives, or the result would be a huge pack with too many options that would result confusing! Instead, you could add a step-by-step readme to customize RTMT only for those requestes that represent a strong minority of cases. Eg: add a different set of icons or, in my case, explain how to turn subways into bus stops for the game.

I think it would be quite easy with the iLive reader, but I want to know first what are the backdraws, to know why Darkmatter has told that "This is not necessarily 'better' though,"

Thank you!

Any pictures?  :o

Quote from: Andreas on October 18, 2008, 02:16:15 PM
... and a screenshot of the actual lot, with those symbols used as an overlay could do the trick.

Andreas, the screenshot would be partially obscured by the icons, and I believe it would be still hard to distinguish (esp between roads, oneway roads and avenues). That's why I suggested using the networks' textures (displayed vertically) as the buttons' background (diagonal stations could display the diagonal terxures), I think it will be much easier to distinguish - the player must be able to tell easily two things: the transit types invloved AND the network type.

Just my opinion, but I really think it would be better.

Good idea, I agree too!

Quote from: 0rion79 on October 19, 2008, 11:53:56 PM
Good idea, I agree too!

Although I said this would be much less of an issue with DAMN, and therefore not as high a priority, clearer buttons would still be an advantage.  So if you and cogeo agree on this proposed design, which I also think looks quite reasonable, and if you'd be willing to make the buttons, Orion, I'd be willing to include them for both the regular icons and DAMN.  Let me know what you think.

As for the subway stations, I'm afraid my use of the pronoun "he" was ambiguous; I was quoting cogeo, not DarkMatter.  You can see the entire quote here (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5651.msg186152#msg186152).  You're right in that it's a simple change in the Reader; it's the OccupantGroups property in the exemplar in the Stations files.  As for what the drawbacks might be, like cogeo, other than what he stated, I don't know, not having tested this.  But if you want to experiment, you may be able to get something that suits you fairly easily.  I'd certainly be interested in hearing what you find out.

@Fatsuhono:  What pictures were you referring to?

Z, just so you know, I did get your files.  I have had a pretty hectic month, and next month isn't likely to be much more fun, but I will look at these when I get the chance.  I will need icon files though as they dictate the IIDs of the L-Text files.

Oh, yes: now I see. Basically, Coego prefers to keep the subway vews to prevent hypotetical unexpected bugs that, in DM version, I have never experimented. Anyway, I think I will do that change and will report any eventual bug.

About icons, I would glady help but you need to give me some time because I have a very important schedule at the end of this month and don't have time to make a good work (I'm not even playing the game!). And, anyway, I belive that there should be somebody better than me with computer graphic  :-\ But, if you trust me, I'll do my best. C u soon!

Quote from: Diggis on October 20, 2008, 05:53:02 AM
Z, just so you know, I did get your files.  I have had a pretty hectic month, and next month isn't likely to be much more fun, but I will look at these when I get the chance.  I will need icon files though as they dictate the IIDs of the L-Text files.

OK, we'll look forward to seeing these when you have the time.  Sorry I missed the icon files - they were in a different folder from everything else.  I'll email them to you now.

@Coego, as you asked, here are some incons for RTMT.
I think that they can be recognized very quickly, since they are just representative images with only the most essential details and no frills.
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3283%2F3010753022_b3ff0843e6.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=142fe8b9ed8a6c3aaeec420ef4d965bc1af01a97)
As I've already written, I'm not very good with computer graphic.

I have also tried to add some things as trees, lights, post boxes, stairs or stops, but drawing them on larger icons and then resizeing them for SC4 format makes impossible for a newbee as me to obtaining a decent result. All what I've been able to obtain adding such details has been a greater visual confusion.

I was even thinking of changing the pedestrian tiles area with different colors, just to mark even more the difference between each icon set.

I have also tried to include a rail for ground light rail.

Let me know... I feel a bit idiot in doing so, because I know that I'm just no good at it, but as long as I can help, there is no problem.

Just to give an idea how those would look in game, I added the standard frame around the tightest one:

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 07, 2008, 07:59:38 AM
@Coego, as you asked, here are some icons for RTMT.

Actually, I think I was the one who requested them, so I'll respond to your post.  I think that the basic form of the icons is quite good and easy to understand.  And they do fulfill cogeo's basic requirements, which were "the player must be able to tell easily two things: the transit types invloved AND the network type."  The only modification I would suggest would be to have the appropriate main stop prop next to the stop name (except for avenues, where there's no room).  Not only would it look a bit nicer, but some of our foreign-language friends might find it helpful as well.  Also, the 1x2 stops would be easier to see at a glance, as they would have the extra props.  I gather you've tried to do similar things without success; do you think this is beyond you right now?  And if so, is there someone else who would be willing to undertake such a task?

You see, the problem is the "bird-flight" visual. From a perdpendicular view from above, everything would look "flat" and difficult to recognize, and the only solution would be to "bend" buildings a little bit, but this would result in a fake prospective.
I have tried, but I don't like the result. Maybe somebody more skilled than me...

I think the idea of your icons is really good.
They are very understandable.
The icons for Road, OWR, Avenue and GLR in Avenue are evident. The last icons are for street, and if an icon says x2 I guess the lot is 2 tiles long. Am I correct?

Sure, everything can be made better than it is, and also everything could be done in a different way, but I think you are on the right track.

Good work! &apls

i agree with frank U...

Orion I think you did great with the icons, and there fine the way they are...
You did a very nice job, Thanks !

Brian

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 08, 2008, 03:29:20 AM
You see, the problem is the "bird-flight" visual. From a perdpendicular view from above, everything would look "flat" and difficult to recognize, and the only solution would be to "bend" buildings a little bit, but this would result in a fake prospective.

Hmm...  I see what you mean.  Well, these icons seem to be quite popular as they are, so what makes sense to me is to use them like this, and if someone comes along later and knows how to enhance them in a realistic way, we can do that then.  But that may not happen for a long time, or even at all.  So let's go with your current design, which I think is quite good, and they can be included in the next version of RTMT that goes out after they're ready.  How's that?

Quote from: z on November 08, 2008, 09:38:24 PM
So let's go with your current design, which I think is quite good, and they can be included in the next version of RTMT that goes out after they're ready.  How's that?

Like this then? :)

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTRoadBus.png&hash=7ebdd8076406ac7b76392a36f08ed167f47b7f4d)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTRoadSub.png&hash=1b3718c45d00b76120b7f67f35770b3d41081f8d)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTRoadBusSub.png&hash=9a84e999355ceeeaffb34480a62c9657e6f65db8)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTRoadBusSub2.png&hash=f060814f59eda5be9ff8a7575a19ec95fde5d599)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMT1wrBus.png&hash=94ed42a93322d9852de80bc23999c0bb581db297)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMT1wrSub.png&hash=47878c726fb3ccdbfe3524f1feb039a58e99378f)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMT1wrBusSub.png&hash=17f6e9238232342b073f711c61d1e09cba56941b)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTAvenueBus.png&hash=78462409f6fb4d6a489c6a8c8ba9f44963a9c23c)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTAvenueSub.png&hash=5b0c07d0bcee5fae8f2bd6f08f45472501eb1398)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTAvenueBusSub.png&hash=dca90adb7f62abf88953ae8107b54cc268cc19d8)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTAvenueBusSubGLR.png&hash=fa5b3580159c3a29c4cd104fc16e2d52de0dbc8f)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTStreetBus.png&hash=64f302744ee0df8986852d39d662327f39db6d24)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTStreetSub.png&hash=88a0f802275097aa657b1c43edecc67f3abd9c58)
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi232.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fee198%2FRippleJet%2FIconRTMTStreetBusSub.png&hash=77ed268edc5960e964c12043139042fc12ceb58f)

A nitpick; oughtn't that last Road-Sub at the bottom be a street edition?

Quote from: zakuten on November 09, 2008, 12:08:40 AM
A nitpick; oughtn't that last Road-Sub at the bottom be a street edition?

Of course it should, and now it is! :thumbsup:
Picked the wrong one from Photobucket... thanks, Zakuten! :)

Quote from: RippleJet on November 08, 2008, 11:49:38 PM
Like this then? :)

Umm...  Yeah!  Like that!  Thanks, Tage!   :thumbsup:   And thanks, of course, to Orion, for creating these icons in the first place!  &apls


Tage:  It looks like it was your intention to create versions for all the buttons.  If so, there are a few missing.  They  are:

Road Bus 2x
Avenue Bus 2x
Ave/GLR Bus
Ave/GLR Bus 2x
Ave/GLR Sub
Ave/GLR GLR
Ave/GLR GLR/Bus
Ave/GLR GLR/Sub
Ave/GLR GLR/Bus/Sub

For the stations with GLR in the second part of their name, I think the easiest thing to do would be some sort of stylized GLR station covering part of the track, or maybe even just the letters "GLR" in black overlaying it.  I'll leave it to you and Orion to figure out what works best.  And thanks again, both of you!

Hi, sorry if I stop the excitement for my icons but... I have made some more experiment to see if something better could come out.
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3009%2F3015837658_5bd18879f0.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=d72c3f47150570a6117676b3929f8abc83426a19)
I have tried some other way to "fill" the icons with some more details.
As you can see..

in n° 1, I have added a miniature of a true autobus seen frontally. It is ok only when it is alone, but the space is too few to add even a subway icon, when there are 2 mass transit lines in the same stop (N° 2 & 3)
Also, I have tried to hand-draw some stops on my icons, but the space is so few that my sofwtare can't apply textures in a satisfying way. (n°4). Also, all buildings will look flat due to the visual, that is not "artistic" and elements as signs or lights will partially cover the writings.

So, the best solution that I have found to improve non-avenue icons is simply to reduce the pedestrian tiles and to add, on the left, modified snapshots from the game (n° 5).
I think that this one is the "optimal" solution, since the image can be recognized very quickly and, at the same time, there is the visual boon of the stops on the left, made in a way that don't interefere with the visual, making the icons even more a representation of an idea, instead than a "photographic" reproduction.

Do you agree with solution n° 5? Also, Tage, please don't apply the mask to those icons, yet, because I want to send you the original ones in BMP, instead than in JPG - which have a lower quality.

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 09, 2008, 06:01:08 AM
Hi, sorry if I stop the excitement for my icons but... I have made some more experiment to see if something better could come out.

No need to apologize - I don't think you've stopped the excitement at all!  I agree with you that Number 5 is the best.  I was originally thinking of something like Number 4, but I think you've shown that there's just not enough space to do that properly.  Number 5 has just enough space for easy recognition of the icons.  It also eliminates the need for the small "2x" legend, as you can just show two bus stops on the left.  So to me this looks like the ideal solution, especially given the small space we have to work with.  Good job!  :thumbsup:

For the avenues, there's just no room; it looks like we'll just have to skip the icons (unless you have a better idea), but I think that's OK because people will see them everywhere else.  (BTW, I really like your little rail for the GLR.)  So I think we just need to get a little more feedback from people who are following this, and also figure out how to represent GLR stations, as I mentioned earlier.  But this is very encouraging, and the more I look at Number 5, the more I like it. 

This is my attempt:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg161.imageshack.us%2Fimg161%2F9615%2Frtmtaglrbsgwe2.png&hash=4e84fc52cf4ded02ae6ba3035f1c43bbf3ebd02c)

It's the V3 icons but modified as I had proposed earlier. This is for the Bus+Sub+GLR station for GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces. For the overlay symbols I used London's logos (for GLR I used the DLR's colours, as those for the Overground, ie blue+orange would look very similar to that for the Underground). This is by far the most complicated network type/station combination as the network texture had to be scaled-down a lot (as it's a double-width network) and there are those tracks in the middle too. Every other network type should be more easily done and look better. For the roads, I would use the double yellow line (even if the MT signs are european) because it's easier to distinguish from oneway roads. The transit-type symbols can be replaced by more generic ones, of course.

Looks like a "RTMT Buttons Contest" lol!  :D

I like the icon with the logos - and I wonder how one with German logos would look like. ;)

Orion79,
No, the excitement is just growing by your posts!

But, I must say, your emptier icons are better, in my opinion. I think the added stuff only makes them harder to read. In my opinion icons should be as clear as possible. Your first ones are definitely.

Cogeo,
Your logo is colorfull, which is nice, but I think it is easier to recognize a letter than a color. So I prefer logos with letters that show the transportation type. Otherwise I always have to look up wether blue was subway, bus or GLR. You should, maybe, know that I am way over fourty already and I tend to forget simple things... :D

And icons with German are nice too. They have colors and letters!
I think that would be perfect.

Thank you for all your hard work.

I still preferi version n°5, but I bend to the community's decision. Majority wins!

Quote from: cogeo on November 09, 2008, 03:39:09 PM
This is my attempt:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg161.imageshack.us%2Fimg161%2F9615%2Frtmtaglrbsgwe2.png&hash=4e84fc52cf4ded02ae6ba3035f1c43bbf3ebd02c)

It's the V3 icons but modified as I had proposed earlier. This is for the Bus+Sub+GLR station for GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces. For the overlay symbols I used London's logos (for GLR I used the DLR's colours, as those for the Overground, ie blue+orange would look very similar to that for the Underground). This is by far the most complicated network type/station combination as the network texture had to be scaled-down a lot (as it's a double-width network) and there are those tracks in the middle too. Every other network type should be more easily done and look better. For the roads, I would use the double yellow line (even if the MT signs are european) because it's easier to distinguish from oneway roads. The transit-type symbols can be replaced by more generic ones, of course.

I like the way you've overlayed the colored symbols on top of the road, but for us world-ignorant Americans, those symbols really don't mean much.  I know that for me, they'd be harder to interpret than my original letter proposal (which I think has definitely been superseded by Orion's work).  But you mention "more generic" symbols; what did you have in mind?  If there were symbols that could easily be identified as a bus (or at least part of one), a subway train, and a tram, that would be ideal.

I agree with your suggestion about the double yellow line for the roads; it would add one more measure of clarity to the icons.

Here is another attempt:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg238.imageshack.us%2Fimg238%2F6281%2Frtmtaglrbsg2oe3.png&hash=b012ee77a35ea8bf0d4ffa1ea28c58f514d642a1)

There are two types of overlays, white and colour. The colours comply to the traffic map, ie blue for bus, yellow for subway/GLR (rail for ebina's set would be orange). The last two rows have beveled overlays, while the first two are flat.

The quality of the graphics can be improved further, eg the blue for the bus could be lighter, or the windscreen(s) could be not transparent, but of a colour of proper contrast to that of the vehicle(s). So this isn't it's final form, just wanted to show the idea.

I might suggest encasing the subway icon in a circle to show the tunnel?

Quote from: cogeo on November 11, 2008, 12:37:54 PM
Here is another attempt:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg238.imageshack.us%2Fimg238%2F6281%2Frtmtaglrbsg2oe3.png&hash=b012ee77a35ea8bf0d4ffa1ea28c58f514d642a1)

Much clearer!  :thumbsup:  I think the colored one with the beveled overlay is best.  I like the transparent windscreen, but I think a lighter color of blue would be better for the bus, as you can see the details more clearly that way.  Also, I would suggest making the tram white (the white looks good, and that won't conflict with any other network colors); that's one way to keep it from ever being confused with the subway.  But unlike zakuten, I don't think a subway tunnel is necessary; I think things would get crowded if you tried that.

What about streets and roads?  I think the way that Orion had the road off to the side and the icons in the one empty space worked very well; I also like the way that allows BUS and/or SUB to be shown on the street or road.

So these look very nice, and it's really great to have multiple ideas from which to choose.

That's true, an always-white tram would set it apart too

Coego, I appreciate a lot your efforts and I don't want to be aggressive nor competitive in expressing my opinion.
But also, please, understand that I have made my choices even as consequence of my degree in psychology of job and organization, that also inclueds notions about the easy of use of graphical tools. It is not a matter of tastes, but more a matter of method.

I think that the icons that you have created are great, but don't fit into the game for several reasons.

First of all, they may result confusing for color-blind people, and our additions should not be a limit for players that have all the rights to use RTMT and that have this kind of problems.

Also, I can recognize bus from subway, but it is not so immediate and I think that icons should leave the player free to think about the game, and nothing else.

Last but not least, they are too different from any other kind of icons in the game, so they don't merge very well with the game.

All SC4 icons are a snapshot of the "real" in-game building but this method is not good enough for RTMT icons, since roads, OWR and avenues look all too similar.
My approach instead is an attempt to grant "compatibility" with the rest of the game icons, since I have used more or less the same kind of textures and colors from the original game to produce icons that are quite similar to the real stops, but from a perpendicular view, that helps to quickly recognize the kind of used road, that was the main problem in RTMT 3.5.
I think that I have achieved it with easy-to-get details, as the grass or rail for avenues and avenues+GLR, or arrows for OWR and, at the same time, they look similar enough to the other icons.

For this reasons, I believe that the best option is to choose among the version with or without the stops on the right side of my set and, if all of you agree, to add Coego's icons as alternative in the same RTMT page. After all, with ILive's reader, changing icons is easy as stealing a candy from a baby :)

Hope that you won't get mad at me, but I write so because I think that this is the best solution for everybody, not because I want to defend something that I've done, just because it is mine.
They are just icons for a game, afer all :)

I have to say from the point of view of just a user of RTMT and who's vision is less than perfect and this is meant with no disrespect to cogeo ideas that I do prefer Orion79 icons as I can glance at Orion79 icons and tell what they are meant to be representing, but cogeo icons I am having to squint at, perhaps they would be easier to identify in the game menu

%confuso

Orion,

I really don't feel that your comments are aggressive or competitive, and of course in no case I would ever get... mad at these!

My idea was presented in detail in my previous posts. The goal was distinctiveness and clarity, while keeping the buttons as simple and uncluttered as possible. In summary, it was use the network texture as the background, and put some simple and easy to recognise overlay symbols, denoting the transit types served by the stations. I think the network texture is much more immediately recognised than ingame screenshots, which may not really be as clear and unambigous as the full network textures. Symbols should be immediately recognisable too, esp if they depict clearly the transit type; I think more easily and immediately than letters or letter codes (as a psychologist you certainly know the different capabilities of the left and right hemispheres of the brain). I think Maxis has done a good job here, I mean the hover mini queries of different buildings. For example, if you hover a bus stop you will see five bus icons, and this makes it easy to identify the transit type, without having to read the description.

My goal was to make symbols easily/immediately recognisable by everyone, I mean the shape alone should be enough to identify the symbols. Actually, if you read my previous posts, you will see that I had originally proposed pale white symbols. I put the colour ones as a last minute addition, to help improve distinctiveness (colour-blind people should be able to identify them by the shape anyway).

The reason for choosing a non-standard icon frame was also described in my previous posts. It has the advantage of easily distinguishing the icons of the package from the others at a glance (even at some loss of uniformity). It's easy to roll you mouse and tell immediately if you are within or out of the RTMT area; given that the pack contains quite many icons, this is important, as it makes it easy to identify where the RTMT area in the menu starts or ends.

So I would like to know if you disagree with the above in principle. I think we both agree that full textures and symbols are more easily recognisable that screenshots.

The quality of the implementation of these is another matter though. And as said in my previous post, these are not the final ones and could be improved - just wanted to show the idea.

The network texture is very recognisable, as is I think. And remember, this is the most complicated station type, with the overlays obscuring most of it. All others will be much less cluttered.

As for the symbols, there are two limitations that make things harder:
- Limited space and resolution (the overlays are only 12 pixels wide, and still obscure most of the background).
- Different backgrounds, with varying luminance.

As a solution, possible improvements could be:
- Make windscreens not transparent, but instead use a colour of reasonable contrast to that of the vehicles'. This would cause the windscreen not to interfere with the background(s).
- The bump effect rather causes problems (sorry Steve), so the flat version would rather be preferable, or instead its strength/depth could be greatly reduced.
- If you notice carefully you will see that the bus symbol has wheels, and the subway/tram rails. In many cases these are hardly visible. They could be dilated/thickened a little. To better "judge" these icons focus mostly on the 2nd and 3rd columns (normal and selected states respectively).
- The problem of the varying background can be solved or at least eased by applying a halo or drop shadow effect around the symbols. There is space for a 1-1.5 pixel wide effect.
- The problem with the bus symbol in the above pics is superimposing a dark symbol on a dark background. But the colour can be lightened a lot, mostly resembling that of the ingame bus automata, rather than the colour of the bus paths (it would still be "blue"). So after this adjustment all overlays would be "light"; combining this with a dark halo, I think will make them all easily distinguishable.
- The the pantograph is quite visible I think, but it could maybe be thickened/dilated by say, "half" a pixel or so.

These are my proposals. I don't know how these will be, but I really think they will look better. I think we should ask the opinion of an experienced graphics designer (only callagrafx comes to mind).

On the other hand, I'm not sure if the icons in your pic No 5 are easily recognised as a subway and a busstop. i can recognise the busstop (it's that old TfL busstop), but this is mostly because of its colour (what about colour-blind people here?) and beacuse I know that model well. But can you really say the same about other players too? To most of them these would rather look like "blobs" I'm afraid, rather than easily recognisable shapes. And this is almost impossible to improve too, because of the limited space you correctly mentioned. The whole thing here is "saved" by the markings, but this isn't as "immediate" as symbols I think, as it requires "reading" and "decoding". And I don't see a Bus+Sub+GLR icon either.

This is just my opinion, and I really think it would be a better solution too (and I don't either try to defend something I have done, errr.. started but not yet finished  :P). Actually I really appreciate your interest in this pack!  :thumbsup:

I think the newest version with the vehicle symbols looks great. The symbols should be easy enough to recognize if the various vehicles have different colors (and yes, the blue of the bus should be lighter). I'm not sure about color-blind users, but then again, there are the labels as well which should provide enough help for those who have problems to differenciate between red, green or other colors. Personally, I prefer the standard Maxis frames around the icons, but maybe, you could use a colored frame rather than the standard dark grey or black one (Pegasus was among the first who did this, and it looked really nice; see pic below for reference). This way, the various lots for road, oneway road, avenue etc. could be spotted easily as well. I must admit that the background with the various network textures is rather hard to decipher; maybe you shouldn't use anti-aliasing for the road markings and such.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg530.imageshack.us%2Fimg530%2F2493%2Fpegdeutschcollageed2.th.jpg&hash=d9459e9fc7282a60c8e3c0c284f67af2561864d3) (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pegdeutschcollageed2.jpg)(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg530.imageshack.us%2Fimages%2Fthpix.gif&hash=b9f623250bab885b715730703c901ba00778f515) (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Perhaps a poll might be best...?

@ Coego,

the same fact that I have to look carefully to "find" wheels in your icons marks them as difficult to distinguish.

About my "n°5" (Chanell parfume! hahah :D), the stops are merely a "side dish", since the writings on the road, that are similar to the ones that can be found in the game, will clearly mark the kind of stop used on different roads.
Stops are in just because Z asked for something that would recall the original buildings in the game, but I expect the player to see at the road, read "bus" "sub" or "sub & bus"  ( and see the rail or the grass for avenues )and quickly make his/her choice.

For the rest, they are different viewpoints, but as I've already written, I did my icons following scientific criterias that I've learend at univeristy and don't want - nor have time - to explain all reasons that are behind books made from hundreds of pages.

Then it is up to the community.

PS: @Tage, remember to send me the Photoshop mask...

Quote from: zakuten on November 13, 2008, 03:05:00 PM
Perhaps a poll might be best...?

Maybe eventually, but right now things are still developing, so I'd like to see where they end up first.

Personally, I think both styles are excellent, and I would be happy using either one.  I think it's also important to remember that the DAMN poll showed the vast majority of people will be using DAMN menus, which will be in one of the earlier releases, and these menus always have a description line right next to the icon.  So the actual icon content is a lot less crucial in this case.

Quote from: cogeo on November 13, 2008, 01:10:57 PM
My goal was to make symbols easily/immediately recognisable by everyone, I mean the shape alone should be enough to identify the symbols. Actually, if you read my previous posts, you will see that I had originally proposed pale white symbols. I put the colour ones as a last minute addition, to help improve distinctiveness (colour-blind people should be able to identify them by the shape anyway).

Also, the brightness of the colors is different enough that I would think they would show up as different shades of gray even to completely color-blind people.

Quote
As a solution, possible improvements could be:
- Make windscreens not transparent, but instead use a colour of reasonable contrast to that of the vehicles'. This would cause the windscreen not to interfere with the background(s).

As I look closer at the windscreens, I see the problem, and I agree that making them non-transparent would be an improvement.  I would think that something that looks as close as possible to glass would be best.  Also, a little dash of color here and there on the icons might help to bring out the details somewhat more; I don't think it's necessary to have them completely monochrome.

Quote- The bump effect rather causes problems (sorry Steve), so the flat version would rather be preferable, or instead its strength/depth could be greatly reduced.

I'll take your word for it, but for us non-graphics types, could you briefly explain why?  And I think even a small 3D effect would be better than a perfectly flat icon.

Quote- If you notice carefully you will see that the bus symbol has wheels, and the subway/tram rails. In many cases these are hardly visible. They could be dilated/thickened a little. To better "judge" these icons focus mostly on the 2nd and 3rd columns (normal and selected states respectively).

Yes, right now these are very hard to differentiate.  Some improvement here would definitely be helpful.  Again, maybe color would help.

Quote- The problem of the varying background can be solved or at least eased by applying a halo or drop shadow effect around the symbols. There is space for a 1-1.5 pixel wide effect.
- The problem with the bus symbol in the above pics is superimposing a dark symbol on a dark background. But the colour can be lightened a lot, mostly resembling that of the ingame bus automata, rather than the colour of the bus paths (it would still be "blue"). So after this adjustment all overlays would be "light"; combining this with a dark halo, I think will make them all easily distinguishable.

I think these would both be good improvements.

Quote- The the pantograph is quite visible I think, but it could maybe be thickened/dilated by say, "half" a pixel or so.

I think the pantograph is perfect just the way it is - you can't miss it.  If it were any bigger, I think it would look a little strange.

And now I have a couple of suggestions.  Why not put the tram in the middle of the button (or as close to the middle as possible) so that it's over the tracks?  That makes it really obvious it's a tram.  And then on the left side, if it doesn't look too cluttered, you could put the letters "B G S" vertically, and spaced apart, for bus, GLR, and subway.  Just a thought...

My guess is that we will end up having a poll on this, and if there's not a very clear winner, I may just make this another installation option.  Other ideas are welcome, as always.

Well, in the mean time, I have completed my set of icons.
This is the result. This time, it is a BMP image, without unwanted blurs.
Also, I have made even the icons that I didn't the last time and I've made 2 versions, one with the stops on the right side and one that is "simple".

I've followed the method of basing my icons on a matter of constants and variabiles, so that the eye will immediately get the differences and the player will be quickly be able to switch from one icon set to another, without thinking to what the icons mean.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3277%2F3029678422_aa9fd327eb.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=c0ffcb004ff467975810dc894db5f1ca40b35f0e)

Actually, if it is possible to create a setup file with all versions, maybe using a single file for icons only, the best solution is to add a "readme" file with samples from every set and allow the player to choose among...

- snapshots from the game
- coego's
- my set WITHOUT stops
- my set WITH stops on the right

So, everybody will be happy and we don't have to choose at all. The choice will be up to the single player that will download the file.

They look great Orion !
and would be easy to use in the game..
I doubt they could be improved on any further..
thanks very much for all the work and effort you have put into this !

Brian

Quote from: b22rian on November 14, 2008, 03:07:14 AM
They look great Orion !
and would be easy to use in the game..
I doubt they could be improved on any further..
thanks very much for all the work and effort you have put into this !

Brian

I'll second Brian, good job Orion79   :thumbsup:

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 14, 2008, 03:02:45 AM
Well, in the mean time, I have completed my set of icons.

A few suggestions:

For the single-stop streets, I would move the label over to the side, just as for the double-stop streets.  Also, the color scheme here is somewhat different from the game's, where you have a somewhat darker street with a lighter stripe down the middle.  Also, I think this would make it easier to make out the boundary between the street and the sidewalk, which are almost the same color right now.

I agree with cogeo that for standard roads, a double yellow line divider works best.

A whole class of stations seems to be missing; I don't see the Ave/GLR stations with a GLR stop.  (I'm not sure what the last icon is supposed to be.)  I would suggest using the letters "GLR" in black overlaying the track, perhaps in a slightly smaller font, for these stations.  You need stations for GLR, GLR/Bus, GLR/Sub, and GLR/Bus/Sub.  Good luck!

I'd also stagger the "bus bus" markings on the 2x1 stop, if possible, like:
B
U
S B
   U
   S
...or something along those lines.

I don't know, I like them centered as they are...

@Z, about streets, I can easily change the color, but I like more the writing centered as it is. Personal opinion, but also caused by a better contrast between BUS writing and street color, that is darker in the center. Also, a lighter street color can enter in conflict with the "SUB" writing, that is white, but I'll see what I can do in marking more the sidewalk: it is not a problem.

Also, I like zakuten's advice. Very easy to do.

instead, about doble yellow line, it can be done but, of couse, my icons set is inspired to old Europe, where we have lines as they are in my icons (well, except OWR, of course!). At least in Italy, we use yellow color to mark on-road stops or streets under work. But here again it is very easy to change.

About GLR, the point is that I don't use them in the game so I have an unclear idea of what they should look like.
Imho, having just the rail in the icon, instead than the grass, is a good reference for the player to recognize it. After all, since those icons will go in the "generic mass transit" icon tree, there won't be any bias with other icons.
The last one instead is just a "GLR" stop without bus or subway, but if it is unclear for you, it is the proof that it should be re-made, since it is not representative.
I await for more informations about GLR needs....

Yes, if you don't use GLR, I can see how you might miss some of the required stations.  The ones in the first section have no GLR stop, while the ones in the second section do.  For example, you may have more bus stops on your Ave/GLR than you do tram stops, so one of the stops in the first category is necessary.

Bus
Bus 2x
Sub
Bus/Sub

GLR
Bus/GLR
Sub/GLR
Bus/Sub/GLR

So this is why having a label such as "GLR" over the tracks is necessary, as otherwise the player would assume that even though this is an Ave/GLR station of some kind, there is no tram stop there.

As for the streets, one reason I suggested that the label be to the side is to give more of an impression of a two-way street, since there are no lane markers.  The current view looks just a bit too amorphous to me.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3169%2F3031682428_dc5e996f77.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=6780a57ee0015222d5940b3b4e23281dac75efbb)

Ah, I see.
So, what do you think about adding a train, to mark that a GLR STOP is here, instead than using writings?
Since the original subway train was very ugly, brown and like a box, I have used monorail train as reference point, but I can switch the train color to anything else, maybe blue, but I'm afraid that using metallic or white could make the train edges harder to recognize from the rails.

Also, I have tried to use the original color for the BUS writing on the roads, on the right, and it is too dark and I think that it is good only for the game but not for icons.

I have tried to experiment with zebras too... tell me if you like more the bigger or smaller one.

GLR uses trams, which look very different from trains.  As you've noted earlier, these are all difficult to distinguish from a direct overhead view.  Then you've also got the problem that these would be the only icons with vehicles, while all the others would have either signs, MT stops, or both.  My experience is that consistency is very important in a user interface.  So I would still recommend using the letters "GLR" where there are GLR stations.

I agree with you about the lighter colored BUS sign - legibility is what's most important here.

I would recommend skipping the zebras altogether.  Although they're certainly good in the game, there's very little room here, and things start looking cluttered.  The main point of the icons is to indicate as clearly as possible what the buttons do, and I don't think the zebras contribute to that.

As for the double yellow lines, I'm glad you're willing to add them, but that's not where they go.  They're only used to separate traffic going in opposite directions, so you should use them only on standard two-way roads.  Everywhere else, the dashed white line that you've been using (such as for one-way roads) is appropriate.  Also, the double yellow lines take up a fair amount of the road; is it possible to make them thinner and/or closer together?  If not, they're certainly usable as they are.

Thanks again for all your work on this.   :thumbsup:

No problem, I just have to understand what's missing. What do you think of this?
Just to see a GLR station.

I have addes a passenger platform, where I have interrupted rails and added the GLR writings... I think it is clear enough and that can be recognized from other GL rails with no platforms.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3175%2F3033507751_0f0b1dc342.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=33ce625b85fad477b55e586419e2dfdb9e7c90ef)

Also, no zebras.

PS: yellow lines on avenues were just to test the "effect", I'll apply all changes later

Much better!  :thumbsup:

Good. I will update the other icons soon.

But, just to know, Z, can you tell me what is the use of single mass transit stops, in a city? It is difficult to explain, so I will try with an example.

Let's say that I have a city with GLR, bus and monorail. Usually, I place "bus-stop only" in areas where there afre few Sims, or in poor areas, so that I have low costs but even low expenses. Instead, I keep subway for high-density and rich zones, so I can afford the costs but also will have a high revenue from tickets. In this second case, why should I want to use subway stops only, when I can use a stop that, using the same space, allows me to connect even buses and ground light rail? It will make things easier for sims and also looks more realistic for me, because in every city that I've seen with subway, there is also a bus stop nearby, to connect subway to the areas that are without.

Often times, I wind up using a subway-only RTMT simply because there aren't busses serving that area; for me, I mostly use bus- or try to- as a feeder for mass-transit or trams. Therefore, having a bus-stop next to the subway downtown doesn't help, because people will go on the bus rather than take the tram or subway to their bus. ...Sounds odd, that explanation, but I hope it makes sense. :-[

It is very strange, because I've seen that, without buses, people will use the subway less.
Subway is faster, so Sims in need to move from point A to point B will use the fastest way. The point is that bus can have a greater and more capillar (hope the word is right) distribution and using multiple stops will make easier for the sims that are connected with buses only to reach the subway.
Doing eselwhere, at least for me, has proven to increase congestions.

I agree with you, Orion, and the system you describe is used in many cities.  Before RTMT, when MT stations always took up real estate, I sometimes staggered stations.  But with RTMT, it's just as easy to plop a bus/subway combo station as it is to plop a standalone subway station, and I don't think I ever use the latter.  But some people clearly do.  (Although zakuten, I really think the fault is in your traffic simulator, not your transit system.  You might want to try Simulator Z (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5382.0;attach=4613), which doesn't have this problem.)  Nevertheless, some people may want to have subway stations in places like restriced downtown areas, or, for streets, restricted suburban areas, where they don't want any buses.

As for GLR, I can easily see cases where each one of the available options would be desirable.

So for many people, the standalone subway stop is unnecessary, but some people do use it.

Bus lines often act as "feeder" or "shuttle" services, if your "trunk" lines are subway or GLR. This indeed does work in SC4 too.
But there may be cases where players may want to use subways exclusively, eg in the business centre with a dense network of subway lines and stations. If you put subway+bus stations there, some sims may uses buses, which may be something the player may not want. I think it would best to leave players design their MT system the way they want, so subway-only stations should be an available option. There is no point dropping subway-only stations for having some 5 fewer RTMT lots.

I agree completely with cogeo, and no one has to worry about standalone subway stations being dropped.  Once again, it all comes down to personal style, and we want to support as many styles as possible.

Thanks a lot for explanation, it has been very useful!

Instead - if I may open a very little off-topic - I have some troubles with the file that Tage has sent me. It is the SC4 funciton for Photoshop. I'm using the ver. 11 Demo but the program says that I'm missing layers 1, 2 and 0. Icons result mirrored with the first and last spaces (eg, the grayscale one) empty and no external border. Any idea??

Sorry for double-posting, but I have updated the icons, accordingly with latest requests:
-USA version for streets, with double yellow line
-on-rail platform with GLR
- darker streets
- no zebras
- lightly difference of "bus" writng for x2 bus stops (only in some, so you can tell if you like how you like it more).

Here is the sample: (https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3270%2F3052464852_3621cdb40d.jpg%3Fv%3D0&hash=0a3492edc89906091ab33a5d83732c371952f7ba)

Don't worry about double posting - I'm pretty sure it applies only to multiple posts on the same day.  And if you didn't double post, this wouldn't have shown up when I clicked "Show new replies to your posts."  As one of the moderators, I personally don't object to double posting, as long as it's not just an addition to a previous post made a few minutes ago, and as long as it's not abused (e.g., multiple posts to bump somebody's post count).

Meanwhile, I think your icon set is looking quite good.  :thumbsup:  I definitely like the newer streets; I think those will work fine.  My only suggestion here is to make the "BUS" in the first street icon a little more contrasting in color; it's a bit hard to read right now.

As for the staggered versus aligned bus stops, your picture confirms what I thought - the aligned ones look better to me.

The platforms with the GLR make it stand out more - I like that.  The only thing I'm thinking here is that the black GLR (which is the color I suggested) might stand out better in a different color - something like a blue or a green.  But that's optional.  Other opinions on this could be useful.  Or you could just try something and see what you think.

Meanwhile, we haven't had Euro and US style buttons before - they've all been the same.  But since we have Euro and US style roadways, I can tie the buttons to the roadway selection without adding any extra choices for the user.

All in all, it's a really good set.  Thanks again for all the work you've put into this.  And I'm sorry I couldn't help you with your layers question.

Meanwhile, cogeo, are you still working on your set?  What are your plans?

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 16, 2008, 11:05:10 PM
Instead - if I may open a very little off-topic - I have some troubles with the file that Tage has sent me. It is the SC4 funciton for Photoshop. I'm using the ver. 11 Demo but the program says that I'm missing layers 1, 2 and 0. Icons result mirrored with the first and last spaces (eg, the grayscale one) empty and no external border. Any idea??

That script was created for PS version 8, and I know it was made to be backwards compatible with version 7.
Maybe you need to downgrade...  $%Grinno$%

My offer is still valid though.
Send me the images one-by-one, sized 44×44 pixels, and I'll run the script for you! :thumbsup:

OK, in the next days I will try some other change, but I think that changing the GLR color in red is the only option.
blue can be associated with bus stops, green with grass, while yellow and white are already used...
Anyway, I will see what will come out.

About streets & bus, instead, I'm afraid that there is not much to do except to make the street darker...

PS: RJet, thank you. I will try!

Orion79: your icons are great!
I am eager to use them.

I also had the problem with layers. I downloaded the file from the tutorial somewhere on this site, but as I opened it there were only some semi-transparent and opaque layers. No white edges... Pity.
If there is somebody who has a useful file, I'll please her/him to put it on the site somewhere.

hi, actually I'm editing my icons but I have followed RJ's advice and with Photoshop ver 7 or 8, the script is working fine. Probably you have to downgrade to a previous version.

Quote from: 0rion79 on November 16, 2008, 11:05:10 PMInstead - if I may open a very little off-topic - I have some troubles with the file that Tage has sent me. It is the SC4 funciton for Photoshop. I'm using the ver. 11 Demo but the program says that I'm missing layers 1, 2 and 0. Icons result mirrored with the first and last spaces (eg, the grayscale one) empty and no external border. Any idea??

I don't know how this script works (is it an action?), I can only guess. Maybe you don't have proper layer names? Can you post a screenshot with the exact information window?

Edit: I haven't noticed your last message... Anyway, the layer names could be a clue of this problem :).

I've just received word from Orion that his icons will be completely ready by the end of the month, so they will make it into RTMT 4.0, for both the standard menus and the DAMN menus, assuming the DAMN menus are ready in time for 4.0.  Meanwhile, I'm working hard to finish the rest of the release so I can pass it on to our testers.

More news coming soon...

I would like 1x1 non-RT stations with facing, so that I can mix RTMT-configured stations with any transit network, in those cases there isn't a RT solution or can't be.  Like subway for the ped mall or placing a similar station on a street that is using SAM or a road that needs to have a different facing.

-Crissa

These features already exist.  Non-Roadtop stations are available as an installation option in RTMT, but if you want to use them, you should get them from the latest patch described in this post (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5717.msg215500#msg215500).  A subway station for ped mall tiles can be found in the PedMall Compatible Transit Pack (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=13147&v=1).

I'm periodically asked what's going to be in RTMT V4, and how important it will be to upgrade.  Unfortunately, my progress has been slowed down a bit by RL, but things are coming along.  First, I thought I'd show you how Orion's menu icons look when they're installed:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg515.imageshack.us%2Fimg515%2F2456%2Fmenulk9.jpg&hash=b92310befc2d11e7d9074cc463af0b70b1f3a331)

I have them functioning in my game, and I have to say, they really do make a difference.  It's really easy to find the station I want at a glance now.

I've mentioned the customization features in the past; there are two aspects to what I'm doing here.  First, I'm making a custom installer that makes it easy to build stations step by step, without ever having to move files around.  The prop family and single prop modes are being retained unchanged, but they're much simpler to use this way.  The installer is being designed so that everything can be done without referring to the Readme file.

Secondly, I'm introducing an optional customization feature whereby you can automatically have different station styles for different roadway types.  For example, you can have one type of bus stop appear when you plop on streets, a different type appear when you plop on roads, and a third type when you plop on avenues.  Or you can have only two types if you want.  This will apply to all stations and props.  If this feature proves popular, it can easily be extended to the upcoming SAM stations, where automatically having different types of stations for different styles of streets would seem to be desirable for customizers.  I got a prototype of this feature working a while ago; all that remains to do is finish extending it to all props, and finish the automation aspect.

All known bugs in RTMT have now been fixed (there were only two!), and all that remains on this front is to propogate the fixes to all the affected stations.

As to whether or not you should upgrade in V4 when it's ready, I would say, definitely yes.  For one thing there are the bug fixes, which although they may be subtle (few people ever noticed the bugs) are nevertheless important; I noticed significant improvement in traffic patterns once I installed them.  Customizers will find the new system more powerful and easier to use.  And finally there are the new menu icons; chances are also good that we will have DAMN menus for the first release.  As for compatibility, you will be able to move to V4 without disturbing any of your V3 stations.

Comments or questions on these plans are welcome, as always.

Well, your plans are quite extensive. I would not know what to ask more. It looks like a great and complete pack. I'll install it definitely asap!

I'd like to add a bit more about coming plans for RTMT.  My previous message mentioned the features I was planning to put in the first release, V4.0.  I had indicated earlier that Ebina's new stations for underground rail would come in the following version.  However, two things have happened since then.  First, although I have always liked the underground rail feature a lot, I have found that in practice, there were a lot of limitations in its use.  I recently discovered (by accident, actually) a simple way of removing virtually all of these limitations, enhancing its usefulness greatly.  As this was quite simple to do, I have implemented and tested this, and it works fine.  I am now in the process of making this into a complete package, and it should be announced and released on the main NAM board in the next week or so.

The second thing that happened was that in the process of doing this, I had the opportunity to delve deeply into Ebina's work on underground stations.  It all appears to be quite complete, and is done just in the style of the rest of RTMT.  I would estimate that integrating it into the main RTMT package and getting it ready to go should only take a couple of weeks.

Putting these two events together, it would seem to me to be quite worthwhile to integrate the underground rail stations into the first release, V4.0.  The additional functionality I will be introducing for underground rail will make them even more attractive.  And I don't think it makes much sense to put out full releases only a couple of weeks apart.

Looking a little further down the road, SAM stations are definitely next.  As I gain more experience in the modding business, it's clear that this should be quite simple to do.

Finally, diagonal stations are definitely coming, and will probably be the next feature after SAM stations.  Since jestarr is doing most of the work needed for diagonal stations, they may even come out in the same release as SAM stations.  It's hard to say at this point.  But jestarr is hard at work on the props needed for these stations, and is making good progress.

After that, it's a bit open about what comes next.  To a large extent, I am being guided by the results of The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5681.0).  The poll is still open; the thread is merely locked for posting, as posting about new features should go in this thread.  I notice there's a fair amount of interest in intersection stations; just be aware that these are essentially eye candy, as any RTMT station placed right next to an intersection serves the whole intersection, as described in FAQ #2 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5650.msg179517#msg179517).

Hi all,

I have made some improvements to my proposed icons for RTMT V4, as I prefer symbols to labels.

The most important improvement is the addition of a tiny black "halo" around the symbols. This solves the problem of the varying background (dark for the road surface, light for the sidewalks and rails). As all symbols are now light-coloured, the black halo causes a good contrast, and as a result the symbols are not confused with the background. Ie this has improved distinctiveness. Other improvements are:
- The bus symbol is light blue coloured.
- The wheels are somewhat widened, and the undercarriage a little raised, in order to make them more easily to distinguish.
- For all symbols, the windscreens and the lights are now dark-coloured (no longer transparent) so that they have higher contrast to the vehicle (light-coloured) and they don't show the background through.
- For all symbols, the lights are somewhat widened.
- For all "rail" symbols, the sleeper has been moved forwards, so that it doesn't merge with the vehicle.
- For all symbols, the bump effect has been lessened a lot (it causes shadows and it wouldn't work well with the dark background or halo).
I think the above have made the icons better.

Here is an example (icons for the GLR-in-Avenue stations):

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg24.imageshack.us%2Fimg24%2F3743%2Frtmt4aglrix3.png&hash=ac081dd9dfc8884670669b3c0efc7ebe3440fec5)

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg238.imageshack.us%2Fimg238%2F6281%2Frtmtaglrbsg2oe3.png&hash=b012ee77a35ea8bf0d4ffa1ea28c58f514d642a1)

Compare it with the previous version (right image).

Another example (roads):

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg24.imageshack.us%2Fimg24%2F3539%2Frtmt4roadua4.png&hash=9e777579e89542c27a9ea1a188d834bc18e39129)

And U-rail/road dual puzzle pieces:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg24.imageshack.us%2Fimg24%2F5426%2Frtmt4urlyjw0.png&hash=582c43acf07919cadd901d24d64a37d1826841c4)

(got bored and didn't make all combinations, huh  :P).

I think the set is easy to be extended for diagonal stations and for SAM. Maybe the icons set could become an option in V4.

I think these are great.  The colors and shapes make the icons very easy to tell apart, especially since they use the standard SC4 color coding.  I think they would make an excellent alternative icon set for V4. :thumbsup:

Yes, I also think they are great.

Good work Cogeo, thanks a lot.

A set of new RTMT stations is in the midst of creation, and should be released shortly.  The stations are for T-RAM, which was a very recent decision.  The problem is that there are currently no stations for the T-RAM, so Sims who manage to get on the train at an avenue, for example, can't get off once it switches to the T-RAM.  They're a lot like Charlie on the MTA.  (My apologies to the non-American members for the cultural reference.)  I was specifically reminded of this verse:

                                         Charlie's wife goes down
                                         To the Scollay Square station
                                         Every day at quarter past two
                                         And through the open window
                                         She hands Charlie a sandwich
                                         As the train comes rumblin' through.

So I am putting together a small package of stations for the T_RAM folks so that their Sims can get off the train (and get on it more easily, too).  I plan to simply post this package in the T-RAM thread as a standalone file; when RTMT V4 comes out, the stations will be fully integrated with the rest of RTMT.

You can follow what's been going on in the T-RAM thread starting here (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6361.msg222603#msg222603).  Further comments about these stations should probably continue in this RTMT thread, and I am going to make a short post to that effect in the T-RAM thread.

The one thing that makes the T-RAM stations so challenging is that the sidewalks are so narrow that many of the standard RTMT props cannot be used.  No bus shelters, no subway stairs.  The one thing I managed to do since my last pictures in the T-RAM thread is to add the Maxis yellow-and-blue telephone to the station, leaving just enough room for pedestrians to walk by it.  Here's a picture of the current proposed combination bus and tram station, including the telephone.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg252.imageshack.us%2Fimg252%2F6361%2Fshortglrvg4.jpg&hash=2eff13e97a347f94f9cc363221d1a0386a091bf7)

There are lots more pictures in the T-RAM thread, including a nice night shot, with everything lit up.  I'd recommend reading the thread from the point I mentioned, and then posting any further comments here.  This is the first lot I've designed, so I'd be very interested in feedback.  Are there enough props?  Too many?  Which would you like to see added or deleted?  Please let me know.

It looks great but the black/yellow stripes barrier blocks the car lane slightly.
Just a minor detail, nothing big. :)

Quote from: z on February 17, 2009, 02:50:58 AM...  The problem is that there are currently no stations for the T-RAM, so Sims who manage to get on the train at an avenue, for example, can't get off once it switches to the T-RAM ...

That's not true.

I'm using BriPizza overhanging El-Rail stations for the T-RAM. I plop one station next to the TramOverRoad piece, and the sims can use or get out of the stations. Of course, it don't look aesthetic, but at least it works.

So, i'm planning to do some overhanging stations. I'll post a picture later showing it.

Quote from: Erzei on February 21, 2009, 11:27:56 PM

I'm using BriPizza overhanging El-Rail stations for the T-RAM. I plop one station next to the TramOverRoad piece, and the sims can use or get out of the stations. Of course, it don't look aesthetic, but at least it works.

So, i'm planning to do some overhanging stations. I'll post a picture later showing it.

i think the problem might be that both the station and puzzle piece are transit- enabled (TE lots).. and
it my understanding that you need to have at least one tile between (TE) lots before they can be functional
I think...

Thanks Brian

Quite a progress!

So for the straight T-RAM puzzle pieces (the diagonal ones are going to be released in the future) we have several models for the GLR shelter prop:
- Gshmails' : This is indeed good looking, and avoids the problem with the platforms by using only one platform in the middle. Maybe someone could ask gshmails to make a diagonal version too.
- SFBT : really nice, and no platforms!
- Chrisim's : two simple narrow side platforms; they barely fit, I would say they rather protrude to the road quite a bit.
- Antoine's : this is good-looking (well aesthetics is subjective), but it was desinged for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces (which do have more space in the middle); as a result the poles protrude in the road. I think we should ask Antoine to narrow it a little (and why not, make a diagonal version too). There is another reason for updating this, the model as far as I can see has been modded for (semi)transparency; without redesigning the LODs, this model will definitely have glitches, like the poles at the back shown in front of passing trams. I'm not sure if this can work by changing the LODs alone, it may instead require splitting it into two parts (front and back half) and combining them again in iLive. This, however is too tedious, and success isn't guaranteed.
- Mine (the ones currently included in RTMT) I will discuss this in some more detail:

- First of all, these were designed for GLR-in-Avenue too, and that's why they don't fit well in T-RAM. I wanted outer platforms too, and made them as wide as possible (they are still narrow though). As I would prefer RTMT having only one GLR Shelter prop, used in both GLR/Ave and T-RAM, I would suggest that we make a narrower version (for use in both cases).
- This is quite easy to be done, although the gmax file is currently missing. This is because the model actually consists of three parts: the poles and timetables, the roof (semitransparent) and the platforms. The reason I made it this way was technical: LODs are quite easier to make, and there are problems with shadows too ie while the roof and the poles should be a ground-level model (Is Ground Model = true), so that they display shadows, the platforms should preferably not, because the low height causes problems with shadows (the model may be obscured by its own shadow, or cause a "grille" effect - both visible in gshmails' model). A sideffect of having separate models is caused by another SC4 bug, the way shadows are rendered on top of another model (an awful grille effect is displayed). These were worked around by exploiting another... SC4 bug, ie that of the models displayed by using the Resource Key Type 4 property, only the first displays shadows. The part with the poles and timetables was the one that was put first, so only this casts a shadow. This way the platforms are not burried under their shadows, and get very little shadow (from the poles). The roof doesn't really cast a shadow, but this isn't very noticable, and it would cause a grille on the platforms. So I think for a the next version a new prop should be designed.

My proposed changes to the design are:
- The outer platforms should become quite narrower, so as to fit in T-RAM. As this is a separate model, only could make only this part (at least for testing).
- The platforms should be lowered further. As these don't really display shadows, the smaller height isn't a problem. The taller the height, the narrower the platform looks.
- For the same reason, a striped model should not be made. Not only it makes the platforms look taller/narrower, it acts as an eye-catcher too, and for an area that the designer would instead seek to avoid. The simpler and duller the texture here, the better. Such narrow platforms can never look really good, so the solution (if you want platforms) is try to make the observer focus at other parts of the model.
- As the platforms cause so many problems, one could consider making a model without platforms, as Andreas suggested.
- Finally there are going to be diagonal versions, so making a new model is unavoidable. It can be painted in more colours, so make a whole set of models. The gmax (BAT) for is currently missing, but such a model is quite easy to make. The roof is part of a cylinder; selecting the desired (or all, if the cylinder was sliced) edges, and clicking "Create Shape from Edges" creates a shape (spline) consisting of the selected edges. The shape doesn't need to be collapsed to mesh (to show in the export), instead an Edit Mesh modifier can be addeed, so that it is possible to change the splines' thickness easily, and select the one that looks best. The "stem" in the middle is a simple cylinder object. The glass is a sliced cylinder (or extruded arc) of a radious slightly smaller than that of the cylinder used to create the lattice. I think such a model would be a good "first BAT" for anyone who would like start BATting. Using the very same technique, more variants can be made, like with a single curved surface instead of two (with the edges being lower than the middle), or with level (but inclined) shelter instead of a curved one.
- Maybe each shelter could consist of three segments instead of four. This model has "too much lattice", and the semitransparency is hardly visible. Removing one segment will make semitrnsparency more noticable. The opacity could be somewhat lowered (eg try 40%, 33% or even 30%, instead of 50%), if it still looks too opaque.
- The lanterns (yes, they do exist - mostly visible in night view) could be a bit enlarged.
- Some players have commented that the model is oversized (tall?). I think it was made just tall enough to accomodate tram automata. Pls note that some of them have pantographs which make them quite tall. I think the most relevant person here is vester, and maybe he could be asked.
- I'm not an architrect, so I can't think of a good design, but maybe there's another thing that could change: the model has four poles, spaced evenly; maybe it could have five poles, but without the half-length empty spaces at the extends, ie |‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾| instead of ‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾  (the length and spacing of the poles would remain the same). Maybe someone with an architectural background could help here.
Or whatever you think it could improve the model.


As for the lot, firstly it was right to remove the benches, as not only they made the platform look narrower, and attracted attention to an area we would wish to avoid, they posed requirements about the GLR model design too (for example these couldn't be used with gshmail's model) and this is against RTMT's basic principles.

I think the lot still needs some work to make it like the rest of RTMT.
- The GLR stations could use a zebra texture, just like the GLR-in-Avenue stations.
- There are no markings; for GLR there are no markings anyway, but all other RTMT stations do have (optional) markings for bus stops. The textrure files (currently with V3.5) should be updated accordingly (include markings for T-RAM networks too). Exisitng markings will simply not fit.
- I think the lampposts not only overload the lot with props, to my opinion they look odd too. No other RTMT stations have lampposts. Also I don't know if T-RAM displays lightpoles (GLR-in-Avenue does, after running the game for a few game-months afrer plopping). In such a case they will look really odd. And not no mention that these ones are not from SC4 iteslf (are they ?), so an additional dependency would be required. So I think these should better be removed (sorry j-dub).
- As the lot is two-tiles long, the props could be moved off the middle, like in 1x2 Road/Bus Stations. This will fit better with the zebra texture too.
- Maybe the GLR-only and Bus-only lots could be one-tile long instead.
- I wouldn't rule out subways either. The sidewalks are very narrow (1m), but the subway props for RTMT are narrow too (2.3m). The props can use all space on the sidewalk and protrude 1.3 to the lots behind the station. They won't look very very nice, and there may be restrictions to where these could be placed (most lots won't have any problem at all though), but hey, you can have subways for T-RAM this way!. My only reservation is technical, ie this requires that the prop centre lies outside the lot, and I don't know if this works (LE won't allow to save such a lot, but the prop can be moved using the reader). Otherwise this would require an overhung subway prop.

EDIT:
- I think you should not release GLR-on-Road GLR stations. The inner black areas are actually road lanes, and the GLR shelter prop on top of the lanes looks unrealistic. Players can use the GLR-in-Road to GLR-in-Road transition pieces before and after the station. You can't do this with textures as this dictates the GLR prop's lenght (eg you won't be able to use the long model there). For GLR-on-Road you should only make busstops (and subways and bus/subway combos if you finally include subways).


Hope everything works smoothly, and this is released soon.

I do have a copy of gshmail's GLR-in-Avenue station, as he sent me the model back then, because he had troubles getting something right (I don't remember what it was, though). So I rendered a diagonal version today - if you want, I can send it to someone. You might want to contact him in the first place, though.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F12b5c2ef49df5e0048617273236c78b2.jpg&hash=02e281b9a466ab48af3d081366fe684e786037d7)

I have just made a set of buttons for T-RAM:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg27.imageshack.us%2Fimg27%2F8140%2Frtmt4tram.png&hash=3219ebcde0fa11a39c91500dc3c49bbd731813e9)

I could make the subways too, if you need subway buttons.

The main benefit of this design is expandability, ie you can easily make new buttons for any network. The only requirement is a clear and easy to distinguish background texture. As you can see, there is no problem with the symbols, as their design (light-coloured figure superimposed on dark background or halo) solves the problem of the varying background. Also diagonal versions are as easy to make.

Quote from: Andreas on February 22, 2009, 11:42:35 AM
I do have a copy of gshmail's GLR-in-Avenue station, as he sent me the model back then, because he had troubles getting something right (I don't remember what it was, though). So I rendered a diagonal version today - if you want, I can send it to someone. You might want to contact him in the first place, though.

That's great!  I would really appreciate it if you could send that to me.  I contacted gshmails early on about including his SC4Model files with RTMT; part of his response was, "Of course, use them to your heart's content!  I am glad to hear that people are still enjoying my designs."  I have since contacted him about the gmax files, but not gotten any response.  But I think the intent in his initial response was clear enough.  If people disagree, please let me know.

I'll be responding to Cogeo's very useful message when I have a little more time.

Steve, I sent the model to cogeo, as he was asking me via PM for it. If gshmails is ok with that, I guess we can use it without any problems (I got a similar reply for distributing his work at SimCityKurier, actually).

The RTMT T-RAM stations are finally ready, and can be downloaded from the LEX (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1986).  Everything you need to know about installing them and using them is in the ReadMe file; it is extremely important to read this whole file.  Good luck!  Support questions about the new stations should be directed to The RTMT V3 Support Thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5651.0).

Cogeo, I am preparing a reply to your message, but on my current schedule, it would have delayed the release of these stations a few days more.  But rest assured it is coming!  And thanks again for all your help that made these stations possible.

Z, Cogeo, you are doing great job here! Don't take to you r heart what had been said in the T-RAM thread. I think it is a bit of a "lost in translation" and a bit "it's a daddies girl" thing.

You stations are fine! Everything could stand an improvement - that is a granted, but they fill definite need of many players and people have somewhat different vision of what is realistic and what is not, especilally in regard of the city-building game.

Cogeo, you last big post sounds like an invitation to a tender. You sort of give techincal specs of required stations/stops :-) Is that so?

I have my couple of cents to add to the "thinking hat"

Quote from: cogeo on February 22, 2009, 08:40:12 AM
Quite a progress!

So for the straight T-RAM puzzle pieces (the diagonal ones are going to be released in the future) we have several models for the GLR shelter prop:
- Gshmails' : This is indeed good looking, and avoids the problem with the platforms by using only one platform in the middle. Maybe someone could ask gshmails to make a diagonal version too.
- SFBT : really nice, and no platforms!
- Chrisim's : two simple narrow side platforms; they barely fit, I would say they rather protrude to the road quite a bit.
- Antoine's : this is good-looking (well aesthetics is subjective), but it was desinged for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces (which do have more space in the middle); as a result the poles protrude in the road. I think we should ask Antoine to narrow it a little (and why not, make a diagonal version too). There is another reason for updating this, the model as far as I can see has been modded for (semi)transparency; without redesigning the LODs, this model will definitely have glitches, like the poles at the back shown in front of passing trams. I'm not sure if this can work by changing the LODs alone, it may instead require splitting it into two parts (front and back half) and combining them again in iLive. This, however is too tedious, and success isn't guaranteed.
- Mine (the ones currently included in RTMT) I will discuss this in some more detail:

- First of all, these were designed for GLR-in-Avenue too, and that's why they don't fit well in T-RAM. I wanted outer platforms too, and made them as wide as possible (they are still narrow though). As I would prefer RTMT having only one GLR Shelter prop, used in both GLR/Ave and T-RAM, I would suggest that we make a narrower version (for use in both cases).
- This is quite easy to be done, although the gmax file is currently missing. This is because the model actually consists of three parts: the poles and timetables, the roof (semitransparent) and the platforms. The reason I made it this way was technical: LODs are quite easier to make, and there are problems with shadows too ie while the roof and the poles should be a ground-level model (Is Ground Model = true), so that they display shadows, the platforms should preferably not, because the low height causes problems with shadows (the model may be obscured by its own shadow, or cause a "grille" effect - both visible in gshmails' model). A sideffect of having separate models is caused by another SC4 bug, the way shadows are rendered on top of another model (an awful grille effect is displayed). These were worked around by exploiting another... SC4 bug, ie that of the models displayed by using the Resource Key Type 4 property, only the first displays shadows. The part with the poles and timetables was the one that was put first, so only this casts a shadow. This way the platforms are not burried under their shadows, and get very little shadow (from the poles). The roof doesn't really cast a shadow, but this isn't very noticable, and it would cause a grille on the platforms. So I think for a the next version a new prop should be designed.

My proposed changes to the design are:
- The outer platforms should become quite narrower, so as to fit in T-RAM. As this is a separate model, only could make only this part (at least for testing).
- The platforms should be lowered further. As these don't really display shadows, the smaller height isn't a problem. The taller the height, the narrower the platform looks.
- For the same reason, a striped model should not be made. Not only it makes the platforms look taller/narrower, it acts as an eye-catcher too, and for an area that the designer would instead seek to avoid. The simpler and duller the texture here, the better. Such narrow platforms can never look really good, so the solution (if you want platforms) is try to make the observer focus at other parts of the model.
- As the platforms cause so many problems, one could consider making a model without platforms, as Andreas suggested.
- Finally there are going to be diagonal versions, so making a new model is unavoidable. It can be painted in more colours, so make a whole set of models. The gmax (BAT) for is currently missing, but such a model is quite easy to make. The roof is part of a cylinder; selecting the desired (or all, if the cylinder was sliced) edges, and clicking "Create Shape from Edges" creates a shape (spline) consisting of the selected edges. The shape doesn't need to be collapsed to mesh (to show in the export), instead an Edit Mesh modifier can be addeed, so that it is possible to change the splines' thickness easily, and select the one that looks best. The "stem" in the middle is a simple cylinder object. The glass is a sliced cylinder (or extruded arc) of a radious slightly smaller than that of the cylinder used to create the lattice. I think such a model would be a good "first BAT" for anyone who would like start BATting. Using the very same technique, more variants can be made, like with a single curved surface instead of two (with the edges being lower than the middle), or with level (but inclined) shelter instead of a curved one.
- Maybe each shelter could consist of three segments instead of four. This model has "too much lattice", and the semitransparency is hardly visible. Removing one segment will make semitrnsparency more noticable. The opacity could be somewhat lowered (eg try 40%, 33% or even 30%, instead of 50%), if it still looks too opaque.
- The lanterns (yes, they do exist - mostly visible in night view) could be a bit enlarged.
- Some players have commented that the model is oversized (tall?). I think it was made just tall enough to accomodate tram automata. Pls note that some of them have pantographs which make them quite tall. I think the most relevant person here is vester, and maybe he could be asked.
- I'm not an architrect, so I can't think of a good design, but maybe there's another thing that could change: the model has four poles, spaced evenly; maybe it could have five poles, but without the half-length empty spaces at the extends, ie |‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾| instead of ‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾‾|‾  (the length and spacing of the poles would remain the same). Maybe someone with an architectural background could help here.
Or whatever you think it could improve the model.

Making the platform into separate and NOT ground model prop is a great idea. since they are so "law-rise" they wouldn't created any markable shadow of they own in game. But this way they will be receiving the shadows from both - own canopy and other game elements. This is a very good idea cause other wise those platforms glow un-naturally in the dark of the well build areas. Things that have significant hight pass easier in this respect then something that is essentially on the ground. That is just theoreticizing on my part... To be honest I'm complete nub in the regards of all those Resource Key  properties...

Outer platforms - those could be considered not a platform per se, but rather the step to help get into the t-ram. Even if it is a law-floor model it may be helpful. Or may be even skipped - again for those law floor model (it is about 15cm from the ground as is!) Anyway even some "full blown platforms like taht are often just under a 1 m in width.

Central platform... although most of the time the platforms are on the outer side and in most cases/places rolling stock has doors on the outer side there are some exceptions - Brussels, for instance , or new series of t-rams in St.Petersburg(the russian one) they have doors on both sides and do have some stops with central island. Although such platforms are always quite wide...

Canopy and it's hight. I do thin that most of the canopies are made way to tall. It's skews the overall proportions of the game - things are way to equalized - big are made smaller - train stations, stadiums, Opera house most skyscrapers have ridiculously small footprint etc, while bus stops etc are hugely oversize. Although it wouldn't be realistic to restore total "proportional harmony" I thing some move to that direction is a good one. Most cities one see in LJs or MDs do suffer from bad case of the rhythmical monotony which makes them, well, boring all alike. So 12-15 m tall canopy for  at-ram stop isn't a good choice. BTW Vesters' tram is only 6,5m tall (and it easily could be adjusted downwards by say ,5 m) so canopy that is about 6,7-7m should be totally sufficient.

Making such a small elements for SC isn't as easy and straight forward as it may seem. So It could be actually quite challenging as a first project, or to be precise I doubt that such first attempt at BATing will be really successful. Attention to proportions and particularly fine-tuning of the render settings here play key role. First does normally come with time, second does require some other software than GMAX (unfortunately) and that software should be used in other way than just faster GMAX.

Hmm... this reminds me of a 1x1 station I made recently. Rather than being on the network it's off to the side but people still manage to get on and off the train.

This would help simplify building stations in awkward places (like the T-RAM or in places where normal stations don't work properly). In certain cases it also gives the effect of a one-platform station =O

- Allan Kuan

SimFox - Thanks for your support, and your contribution to this discussion!  I'll have a more specific response to your message shortly, but first, I am overdue for a reply to Cogeo.

Cogeo - There's a lot of useful feedback here (as usual!).  I'll do my best to address this, and it would be good to hear from other people as well.

Quote from: cogeo on February 22, 2009, 08:40:12 AM
So for the straight T-RAM puzzle pieces (the diagonal ones are going to be released in the future) we have several models for the GLR shelter prop:
  ...
- Antoine's : this is good-looking (well aesthetics is subjective), but it was desinged for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces (which do have more space in the middle); as a result the poles protrude in the road. I think we should ask Antoine to narrow it a little (and why not, make a diagonal version too). There is another reason for updating this, the model as far as I can see has been modded for (semi)transparency; without redesigning the LODs, this model will definitely have glitches, like the poles at the back shown in front of passing trams. I'm not sure if this can work by changing the LODs alone, it may instead require splitting it into two parts (front and back half) and combining them again in iLive. This, however is too tedious, and success isn't guaranteed.

I agree with you here; like most of the shelters designed for GLR-in-Avenue, this one's just a little bit too wide.  I've been in contact with Antoine a couple of times over the last few months, and unfortunately, he has given up the game completely and thrown away all his models.  He was very apologetic.  But we're free to do what we want with what we do have.  So for now, I was just planning on using this shelter as it is; it's no extra work to have it available.  If we're going to do diagonal stations, this shelter will have to be redone from scratch anyway, so the size issues can be addressed then.  I'm going to talk to jestarr and see if we can prioritize the diagonal models so that the ones that will benefit other parts of the game get done first.

Quote
- Mine (the ones currently included in RTMT) I will discuss this in some more detail:

- First of all, these were designed for GLR-in-Avenue too, and that's why they don't fit well in T-RAM. I wanted outer platforms too, and made them as wide as possible (they are still narrow though). As I would prefer RTMT having only one GLR Shelter prop, used in both GLR/Ave and T-RAM, I would suggest that we make a narrower version (for use in both cases).

Ideally, I agree - it's certainly a simpler to maintain.  But as V4 will be able to automatically use different models for different roadway types, this is less of a maintenance problem than it otherwise would be.  And unfortunately, the layout of GLR-in-Avenue and T-RAM are sufficiently different that it may be difficult to do this while maintaining the ideal look for each type of station.  The two sets of tracks are wider apart in T-RAM, while at the same time they're closer to the road.  (I know you've noticed these differences; I just wanted to point this out for the benefit of other readers.)  On the other hand, the response to the released T-RAM stations, which contain the unmodified GLR-in-avenue shelters, has been overwhelmingly positive.  So I think what we do in the end will depend largely upon what resources we have available.

QuoteMy proposed changes to the design are:
- The outer platforms should become quite narrower, so as to fit in T-RAM. As this is a separate model, only could make only this part (at least for testing).

Like SimFox, I like this idea.  It may even help the previous problem, in that the same station could be kept for GLR-in-Avenue and T-RAM, with only the platforms differering.

Quote- The platforms should be lowered further. As these don't really display shadows, the smaller height isn't a problem. The taller the height, the narrower the platform looks.

Again, this would work out well if we had separate platforms for GLR-in_Avenue and T-RAM.  One word of caution here - these stations don't level the ground when they're plopped, so if the platforms are too low, then if they're not placed on perfectly level ground, the platforms tend to disappear below ground level.

Quote- For the same reason, a striped model should not be made. Not only it makes the platforms look taller/narrower, it acts as an eye-catcher too, and for an area that the designer would instead seek to avoid. The simpler and duller the texture here, the better. Such narrow platforms can never look really good, so the solution (if you want platforms) is try to make the observer focus at other parts of the model.

I can see two points of view here.  On one hand, yours makes a lot of sense, and I think a lot of people will agree with it.  On the other hand, some people, such as myself, like the stripes; since the platforms stick out into the road a bit, the stripes have the additional function of warning the traffic away from the platforms.  Since I think both points of view are reasonable, I have left the stripes in, and given the users instructions in the ReadMe file on how to remove them.

Quote- As the platforms cause so many problems, one could consider making a model without platforms, as Andreas suggested.

This also sounds good; certainly, there are enough real life examples of this.

QuoteI think the lot still needs some work to make it like the rest of RTMT.
- The GLR stations could use a zebra texture, just like the GLR-in-Avenue stations.
- There are no markings; for GLR there are no markings anyway, but all other RTMT stations do have (optional) markings for bus stops. The textrure files (currently with V3.5) should be updated accordingly (include markings for T-RAM networks too). Exisitng markings will simply not fit.

Agreed on both points.  The only reason these station were released at this point at all was that there were no stations for T-RAM.  So I wanted to do something that was quick, good quality, and functionally bug free.  The two features you mention definitely belong in the stations; they simply would have stretched out their release too long, for two reasons:  1) I didn't know exactly how much work was involved, especially with the textures, where new overlays were clearly needed, but it was clear the amount of work was not trivial; and 2) due to pressing RL issues, I was going to have to wrap this up soon, or have it delayed longer for that reason.  But it was due to the lack of these features and others that I called these "Interim" stations, and people in general seemed to be quite happy with them in their current state.  Nevertheless, I agree completely with you about the need for zebra stripes and pavement markings, and they will be present in the V4.0 release.

Quote- I think the lampposts not only overload the lot with props, to my opinion they look odd too. No other RTMT stations have lampposts. Also I don't know if T-RAM displays lightpoles (GLR-in-Avenue does, after running the game for a few game-months afrer plopping). In such a case they will look really odd. And not no mention that these ones are not from SC4 iteslf (are they ?), so an additional dependency would be required. So I think these should better be removed (sorry j-dub).

There are two questions here.  First, are the stations overloaded with props?  I admit I'm not a great judge of this, so it would be good to hear opinions from others as well.  Second, as for the lampposts themselves, I thought they looked quite reasonable in the day view, and I really liked the look in the night view.  Even though some of the shelters are illuminated (and only some of them), the lampposts illuminate the area where the Sims are going to be waiting for both bus and tram.  It's true that other RTMT stations don't have lightposts, but I liked these so much that I think maybe they should be available as a customization option.  A selection of possible lampposts could then be included.  I would get significant feedback from users before doing anything along these lines.

The T-RAM puzzle pieces themselves do not display lampposts.  But I don't think it makes these look odd; in the US, at least, it's not uncommon to have lighting around certain public facilities even if the rest of the street is dark.

The lampposts themselves are used on the NAM Underground Rail pieces; for this reason, it would probably be good to add them to Ebina's stations for the sake of consistency.

I develop with my plugin folders almost completely empty to avoid unexpected dependencies, but I did need the NAM for these stations.  Sure enough, these lampposts come from the NAM.  This raises an interesing question:  How many RTMT users don't have the NAM installed?  There may be some, and I share your reluctance for adding dependencies.  But if these lampposts are optional, and available only through customization, the question becomes:  How many RTMT users customize their stations but don't have the NAM installed?  My guess is that that number is either zero or very close to it.  So I'm considering (for V4) listing the NAM as a dependency, but only for people who customize their stations.  In V3.50, there is only one set of stations dependent on the NAM:  the GLR-in-Avenue.  But in V4 we will be quadrupling that early on by adding T-RAM, Underground Rail, and SAM stations.  So the usage of RTMT for NAM-specific networks is going to be increasing substantially anyway.  I'd like to get more feedback from users on this issue.

Quote- As the lot is two-tiles long, the props could be moved off the middle, like in 1x2 Road/Bus Stations. This will fit better with the zebra texture too.

I experimented with this with the plain GLR station; there's a nice little space in the middle for the zebra stripes.  I'll probably revise the other GLR station in a similar manner.

Quote- Maybe the GLR-only and Bus-only lots could be one-tile long instead.

The bus-only lot currently is 1x1.  I was thinking about Chrisim's recommendation to have plain GLR "stops" instead of "stations"; i.e., no shelters, both for T-RAM and GLR-in-Avenue.  I'd like to add these, as his point about realism is well taken here.  But I think tram stops need to be two tiles long, due to the size of trams.  Of course, they could be 1x1 with an overhang, although I'd have to remove the station orientation restriction first.  But it looks like that's coming soon.

Quote- I wouldn't rule out subways either. The sidewalks are very narrow (1m), but the subway props for RTMT are narrow too (2.3m). The props can use all space on the sidewalk and protrude 1.3 to the lots behind the station. They won't look very very nice, and there may be restrictions to where these could be placed (most lots won't have any problem at all though), but hey, you can have subways for T-RAM this way!. My only reservation is technical, ie this requires that the prop centre lies outside the lot, and I don't know if this works (LE won't allow to save such a lot, but the prop can be moved using the reader). Otherwise this would require an overhung subway prop.

You know me - I like features.  ;D  So yes, I would very much like T-RAM lots with subways on them.  I think what you propose is the only way this can be done, though.  And I wouldn't have the subways stick out much into the sidewalk - otherwise, we force the poor Sims into the street.  (Actually, with the standard T-RAM paths, they'd simply walk over the subway.  ::))  And of course, this would work only for certain locations.  For buildings with large plazas, I think it would work very well.  And if we can do this for subways, why not for bus shelters?  There are many possibilities here.

Quote- I think you should not release GLR-on-Road GLR stations. The inner black areas are actually road lanes, and the GLR shelter prop on top of the lanes looks unrealistic. Players can use the GLR-in-Road to GLR-in-Road transition pieces before and after the station. You can't do this with textures as this dictates the GLR prop's lenght (eg you won't be able to use the long model there). For GLR-on-Road you should only make busstops (and subways and bus/subway combos if you finally include subways).

Two questions here:  1) Unrealistic for which countries?  I'll admit this is not a common sight, but that's not to say you'd never see it.  And especially for stations with no platforms or only a center platform, I don't think it looks bad.  It also avoids the traffic jams that would form by reducing the number of lanes, especially since the trams don't occupy the stations most of the time.  2) As SimFox has noted, different people have different ideas of what's realistic.  For those who think these stations are unrealistic, I have mentioned the alternative using transition pieces in the ReadMe file.  So this way, people have their choice.

QuoteHope everything works smoothly, and this is released soon.

Thanks!  It's worked out quite well so far, with the response being much more enthusiastic than I anticipated.  Originally, I was only going to post these on the STEX, with a separate link in this thread, since these are only interim stations, but the response on the STEX was so positive that I posted them on the LEX as well, where the response has been equally positive.

BTW, your T-RAM buttons look fine, and yes, you might as well do ones with subways, as it looks like they will be needed at some point.  When you have your whole menu set finished, please send it to me, and I'll be sure it gets into V4.0.

Now all I have to do is finish V4...  ;D

I am currently planning to remove RTMT stations for intersections from the proposed feature list, and I thought I should post notice of that here and describe my reasons before taking any final action.

First of all, the feature provides no additional functionality, as an RTMT station abutting a standard 4-way intersection will serve avenues, roads, or streets perfectly well, in any combination.  Secondly, such stations would destroy the turning lanes in the roads or avenues going into the intersection, for those people who use this feature.  This is made even more significant by the fact that RTMT stations for turning lane squares are on the drawing boards, and will be fairly simple to make.

For these reasons, I think that the RTMT stations for intersections would not be a useful project for the RTMT Team, and unless people have strong arguments to the contrary, I will remove it from the proposed feature list shortly.

Just about everyone is familiar with the way various civic buildings show up highlighted in bright green when shown in their respective View in SC4.  With my modified Traffic Volume View (which comes bundled with Simulator Z, and is available on the LEX for other traffic simulators), all transit buildings show up highlighted in green when this view is used.  Unfortunately, RTMT currently has no transit buildings, only props, so its stations are not highlighted in any way.  This is about to change, though.  Cogeo has constructed an invisible building that floats above the RTMT lots, and is in the form of the RTMT logo.  Furthermore, this logo reaches a height of 40m, which makes it visible in almost every neighborhood, except those consisting virtually entirely of tall skyscrapers.  Finally, Cogeo experimented a bit with the colors.  Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to use the logo colors for this effect, as the green component is always maxed out to 255 by the game.  For comparison, below are the original logo, the logo in standard green, and the logo when the original colors are imposed over the standard green:


There are basically three possibilities here:  1) We could simply use the logo in the standard green.  2) We could use the multicolored logo shown above on the right.  3)  We could use some other colors for the logo, the only restriction being that the green component of each color must be 255.

If we were to pick new colors, some colors could be repeated for multiple letters, of course.  The more adventurous of you might want to see what you can do under these limitations.  In any case, what do people think?  Should we go with #2, #3, or a custom-designed #4 (to be supplied by those who favor it)?

I would go for the logo in standard green, being closer to the other transit buildings also highlighted in bright green, for the unity of display style in the Traffic Volume View (which I appreciate a lot with Simulator Z).

I agree with Douzerouge.
Completely green fits with the other views and it is effective enough. Colours are fun, but don't put energy where it has no effectiveness. If it would be possible to highlight busstops in other colours than tram stops it would be really good! But I guess that's not possible, because you would have thought about it and would have proposed something.

Quote from: FrankU on May 11, 2009, 05:57:46 AM
I agree with Douzerouge.
Completely green fits with the other views and it is effective enough. Colours are fun, but don't put energy where it has no effectiveness.

Yes, we have decided to go with green.  Part of the reason for this is that no one could figure out a color scheme that looked reasonable with the limitations that I outlined above.

QuoteIf it would be possible to highlight busstops in other colours than tram stops it would be really good! But I guess that's not possible, because you would have thought about it and would have proposed something.

Actually it is possible, and we have considered it.  However, it would be a lot of work.  Not only are there bus stops and subway stops, but there are tram stops and underground rail stops.  And there are about 15 legal combinations of these four that are actually used (or will be actually used).  If we were to do this, rather than different colors, we would probably replace the logo with different letters for each type of station; combo stations would have multiple letters.  That's still a bit much work for right now, but if people want that, I could put that on the proposed to-do list.  It does have a certain appeal - one look out over your city and you could see which stations were where.  I think it would be good for people to see what the current system looks like first, though - it's not that far from release.

I will be happy with everything you come up with!
If it is possible to see the stations, it will be enough for me. Probably there will be too much information on the screen if every stop has its own colour or lettercombination and it will not be useful anymore.
What really would be nice is to have a possibility to show the map without buildings, but with streets. So that I will be able to place new busstops between skyscrapers without the risk of destroying them. I am aware of the fact that this is not a simple task, but when I see what NAM and other teams have done to the game, I have the feeling that anything is possible.

Hmmm, I'm favouring something different.

You know my preference for symbols over labels. They are instantly recognisable, and if coloured properly they would be more helpful. As for which symbols to use, for buses take a look here on Wikimedia (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bus_symbols). I especially like the BW one (Bus-logo.svg), this would look great in blue (well, cyan actually). For (heavy) trains take a look at this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/25_railtransportation_trans.svg/80px-25_railtransportation_trans.svg.png).

And this solution is not as complicated as it may look at first:
- There must be made 4 models/textures (bus, sub, GLR, rail).
- For each station type, these can be combined by using a RKT4 property (instead of RKT0).

This scheme is easily customisable too, eg one could make his own by just replacing (overriding) just those four images!

Quote from: FrankU on May 12, 2009, 06:31:44 AM
I will be happy with everything you come up with!

Ah, an easy man to please!  ;)

QuoteIf it is possible to see the stations, it will be enough for me. Probably there will be too much information on the screen if every stop has its own colour or lettercombination and it will not be useful anymore.

You didn't like the signs in the picture in the Station Highlighting (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=7845.msg245963#msg245963) thread and below?  :(  They show up only in the various specialized transit views.

QuoteWhat really would be nice is to have a possibility to show the map without buildings, but with streets. So that I will be able to place new busstops between skyscrapers without the risk of destroying them.

Do you mean like this:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F2512%2Fnetworkviewtn.jpg&hash=74959924e97fc64cf55da87b1a34e869d07ee978)

QuoteI am aware of the fact that this is not a simple task...

It most certainly was!  ;D

---

Cogeo, you raise some excellent points that require a detailed reply; I should be getting to them tomorrow.

excellent modification there z :)

Joe

Cogeo, I'd like to address the points you made about the station signs in reverse order, as my response will make more sense that way.

Quote from: cogeo on May 18, 2009, 02:04:04 PM
And this solution is not as complicated as it may look at first:
- There must be made 4 models/textures (bus, sub, GLR, rail).
- For each station type, these can be combined by using a RKT4 property (instead of RKT0).

This scheme is easily customisable too, eg one could make his own by just replacing (overriding) just those four images!

When I was designing the current signs, I thought it would be nice (and time-saving) if their parts could be made modular, so they could just be combined differently for different stations.  But being relatively new to this part of SC4, your solution didn't occur to me.  As soon as I saw it, though, I realized that your proposal of using an RKT4 for these signs would be ideal for this situation.  And you're also right that by proper use of the RKT4, the whole thing could be completely customizable; people would simply have to replace a single FSH file for any travel type they wanted to replace.  All the offsetting would be done in the RKT4, of course.  Very clever!  :thumbsup:

Now for my comments on your specific proposal about symbols:

QuoteYou know my preference for symbols over labels. They are instantly recognisable, and if coloured properly they would be more helpful. As for which symbols to use, for buses take a look here on Wikimedia (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bus_symbols). I especially like the BW one (Bus-logo.svg), this would look great in blue (well, cyan actually). For (heavy) trains take a look at this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/25_railtransportation_trans.svg/80px-25_railtransportation_trans.svg.png).

If there is demand for this, we could certainly put them in as an option.  The amount of work, as you pointed out, is reasonably small.  My biggest concern would be that this would be yet another option in an installer that's going to be full of options.  My second concern is that at the lower zoom levels, the symbols may be harder to tell apart than words  So I would want to establish the existence of a demand for this feature before implementing it.  I'm thinking of the closest analogy to this, which is the road markings.  I have not heard anyone request symbols instead of words for these; have you?  I think there's more demand for having these in other languages, but that's many times the effort of a single set of symbols.

So for the V3.60 release, I think I'm just going to stick with English words, which is what I understand to be most in demand, but this way I can get them implemented for all the stations.  And by using your suggestion about the RKT4, everything will be completely customizable from Day 1.  Meanwhile, depending on demand, we can see about using symbols and other languages for future releases.  (All the standard text that is currently available in multiple languages will be made available in multiple languages for the new stations in time for the V4.0 release.)

Are other people interested in symbols for the station signs as well?  Or additional languages?  Please post if you are, as it would be very helpful to know this for planning purposes.  I will also be adding these choices to The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll once V3.60 has been released.

    I personally prefer the Text over the symbols, although the symbols might be a good alternative to some people... I am definately an english speaker, but it would definately benifit the community to have a few languages implimented, the most common anyhow, unless someone else has suggestions. It is better to have it as an option to choose between the two if it is added, that way each could choose their preference. That is my opinion on the subject at hand.

This is what I was talking about.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg29.imageshack.us%2Fimg29%2F5420%2Frtmthlsymbols.jpg&hash=7609ac557365e0b3c7a23a6901cff64c2227e415)

The icons were separate models, but as RKT4 offsets unfortunately don't work for buildings (only for props), i had to merge them (but they still reference the four images), so changing them is easy.

Haven't yet made all combinations for U-Rail, but you can see its icon at the bottom left (over the bus x2 stop - I know this is wrong, sorry). Btw I don't know which combinatios exist (or will be made) and which not, esp the ones that involve U-Rail plus GLR, though in theory a station with all four transit types could exist (GLR on pedmall, with U-Rail and subway undrneath, placed next - not on top of - to a road, so that it can also service buses). A bit extreme case, but in thery it can exist.

The rail icon could be a bit more green, so that it's easier to ditinguish from bus. Unfortunately, with the green (of the highlight mask) set to the max possible value, the "warmest" colour that can be achieved is yellow, and the "coolest" cyan.

The icons are all displayed by using a Resource Key Type 0 property. There is no point in using RKT3, if all zooms show the same model view, then it's like RKT0. But it might be meaningful to provide (relatvely) enlarged model views for the farthest zooms, for better distinctiveness. And with the S3D tool (SC4 Model Tweaker) recently released, it's easy as well.

Also, someone who knows the properties of S3D files and the blending parameters, could probably achieve to make them looking through buildings, like the UDI automata, but I don't really know, this may be something custom.

Hope you like them.

I think this is an awesome idea...like the icons! Ya'll are incredible!

Jayson

stunning just stunning wow!!!!

While usually more of a 'text' person myself, I must say these look really good and will be very welcome...

Quote from: cogeo on May 21, 2009, 03:47:48 PM
This is what I was talking about.
...

Well, the responses following that message certainly answered my questions about demand.  I will be very happy to put these in as an alternative option to the text signs.  One suggestion:  Would you consider putting the RTMT logo on top of these icons, as I did (see the picture below)?  The NAM people are talking about making signs like this standard for all stations, so I think it would be nice to have our logo on top of our stations.  Also, it immediately lets people know that these are road top stations.

I'm going to be making a few changes to my signs, so you might want to hold off on sending your icons until I've got mine finished.  Then I can also give you the model files with the IDs in them.

QuoteThe icons were separate models, but as RKT4 offsets unfortunately don't work for buildings (only for props), i had to merge them (but they still reference the four images), so changing them is easy.

That's really too bad - being able to use the RKT4 offsets would have allowed this to be completely modular.  I assume that when you say they don't work, they're disregarded, so they might as well be left at zero.  Is this correct?

There is a silver lining to this, though.  Since all the offsets have to be in the S3D files that point to the FSH file, customization can be complete; for example, the icons don't have to be the same size as the text labels.  (FWIW, I'm using 48 pixels as a height for the labels; the S3D file is then set to stretch this by 50%.)

Quote
The icons are all displayed by using a Resource Key Type 0 property. There is no point in using RKT3, if all zooms show the same model view, then it's like RKT0. But it might be meaningful to provide (relatvely) enlarged model views for the farthest zooms, for better distinctiveness. And with the S3D tool (SC4 Model Tweaker) recently released, it's easy as well.

Also, someone who knows the properties of S3D files and the blending parameters, could probably achieve to make them looking through buildings, like the UDI automata, but I don't really know, this may be something custom.

These last two points are very much connected.  First, let me repost my picture with the current labels.  (It's the dual BUS/SUB that are currently each 48 pixels high; all labels will be this height when I switch to the RKT4.  The picture is at Zoom 3.)

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg19.imageshack.us%2Fimg19%2F6863%2Fhighlight.jpg&hash=115688ac7abfc6f1e2742613c0c4679b3aedbfd4)

All the signs are shown; none are hidden behind buildings.  Notice that the ones in front of the picture appear to be at ground level, while amongst the tall buildings, they're as high as they need to be to be seen.   This also makes them fit exactly in the right space in the Traffic Volume View.  (They're just a little bit off center, because this city uses lots with the original building, which I've now centered to make the signs always centered.)  I accomplished this by making the base of these signs 1000m high, which should be high enough to clear just about any building, and then by adjusting the x and y offsets so that the appear directly over the station.  This type of approach may very well be exactly what Maxis has done with both UDI and the Traffic Volume and Congestion Views.  As you can see, it works quite well.  However, you can't use an RKT0 with this, because the game uses one viewing angle for Zooms 4 through 6, and different viewing angles for each of Zooms 1 through 3.  Due to the large height of these signs, different x and y offsets are required for the four different viewing angles, so I am currently using an RKT3; when I switch to the RKT4, I'll use the RKT1 subtype, as I'm only required to specify one rotation.  I think a similar scheme might work well for you.

Quote from: z on May 21, 2009, 11:40:39 PM
Would you consider putting the RTMT logo on top of these icons, as I did (see the picture below)? The NAM people are talking about making signs like this standard for all stations, so I think it would be nice to have our logo on top of our stations. Also, it immediately lets people know that these are road top stations.

Just my two cents... I think the logo would be a nice touch. Particularly if these become the 'norm' for the various sets...

Also, just thinking out loud here... With all the possible stations and their configurations, could there be an issue of over-lapping icons; making it difficult to isolate a single station's icon with the cursor? Just a thought...

Quote from: CaptCity on May 22, 2009, 12:16:00 AM
Also, just thinking out loud here... With all the possible stations and their configurations, could there be an issue of over-lapping icons; making it difficult to isolate a single station's icon with the cursor? Just a thought...

If you look at the colors from the Volume Data View in the picture above, you'll see that the colored roads never overlap; therefore, the station signs (which are generally about the size of a game square) should never overlap either.  But this could be a danger if larger sign sizes were used for the lower zooms.  Cogeo's icons appear bigger than the text signs, though; Cogeo, how big are they?  Also, since you have to combine them anyway, maybe you would want them in rows of two each, so they don't get too far from the station?  I know that the text signs can be read down to Zoom 2 without increasing their size; I'll let Cogeo tell us how far down his icons can be distinguished.

Z and Captcity, here are my answers to the points you raised:

Yes I did consider putting the RTMT logo on these, but I would rather adivse against, for the following reasons:
- In the farthest zooms it's hardly readable (how would 4 letters crammed in the same space as 1 icon be readable, if the icon is not?).
- I would rather like to remove things, not add more and make the whole view more cluttered.
- With the green maxed out to 255, the colour choices are rather limited: green, yellow, cyan, white and maybe two other colours (between yellow and green, and between green and cyan) - additional colours would be easily confused as they would be too close. So I would rather leave that colour for another transit type.
- And what's wrong with the other stations having a similar (or same) icon? To the player whether a station is roadtop or not is of really little importance, so I think it would be best not to overflow the view with unwanted/unneeded information. The usueful information here is the transit types served, I think.

The offsets in RKT4 appear to be ignored for buildings, they only work for props. Most probably another RKT4 bug (like the shadows, rotations etc). So the models I made for multi-transit type stations accordingly have multiple vertex/material groups (I just shifted and appended them), with each one using one of the four icon textures.

I don't understand what you mean with RKT3 and RKT4. Let's make things more clear:
- As said above RKT4 offsets don't work for buildings, only for props (if you have evidence about the opposite, please let us know) - and these have to be displayed through a RKTx property in the building, otherwise they aren't highlighted. So you can only change the height by changing the vertex values.
- So you have made different models for the farthest zooms. The "problem" here is that RKT4 doesn't display models with 5 views (zooms) ie like the ones displayed by RKT3, it can only display models with 1 Z/R (like these ones) and with 20 Z/R, ie the ones displayed by RKT1. These are generated by BAT exporting, and in order to achieve a different height for each zoom, you will have to displace (vertically) each zoom level (4 views) separately.

I'm really questioning this feature, ie having the labels/icons displayed 1000m above ground. It's of little usufulness, I'm afraid. What's the point of having labels/icons that are hard to associate with the stations? The purpose of highlighting is to easily identify related buildings (for each DataView). Maxis does this by highlighting the building model, which is quite correct - you can immediately spot the buildings of interest. And the purpose of adding these to RTMT was to compensate for the lack of a building model (and subsequntly highlighting). So I originally made a "building" (label) with the RTMT logo. But then I thought it would be better to provide some additional information too (the transit types served); these should be helpful and meaningful. But having them 1000m above ground, and with all the big buildings shown in the same view isn't very helpful, I think. Imagine just this: the dataview you sent me (no buildings) with the stations displaying clear and colour-coded transit icons just above them; it will then be very easy to see how the transit system is setup, and information like where buses go, or the routes of your subway lines, ie what is commonly referred to as the "big picture" (of the transit system) at a glance, which is rather not the case with the labels shown 1000m above ground and above all tall buildings. Of course, this is only possibble with the buildings not displayed in the dataview, but you can't have them all. I would jsut pick what makes sense. And with the props being displayed (making it possible to identify the RTMT stations easily), this is meaningful, I think. I'm going to challenge you  :), just show the same part of the city in the pic, but with the icons/stations I'll send you (today), and the dataview without the buildings, and then tell us which one is preferable and more useful.

As for the icons overlapping, I don't think this can be a problem, unless you place your stations just 2 or 3 tiles away, and using stations serving 3 or more transit types, which is rather unlikely; most stations plopped would instead serve 1 or 2 transit types, and be at least 5 or 6 tiles away, even in the most dense arrangements. Putting icons in rows of 2 is possible, and I'm open to suggestions, but it's just a matter of practicality and aesthetics; while it would look good four stations with 4 transit types, it would rather be problematic for 3 types, and indifferent for 2 types. But stations with 4 transit types will most probably be extremely rare, those with 3 quite rare, while most stations should rather serve 1 or 2 types. And for those with 2 types it might be a bit tricky to associate the station with the icons (the middle of the station would be between the two icons, while now they are jsut above). Don't know, I prefer this one but wouldn't rule out the alternative either, you might be right.

The models are 16m wide by 20m tall (this is to offset the game's "squashing" effect). They don't look very good in zooms 1 and 2, but for these ones I could enlarge them a little. However, this has a drawback too, it requires using RKT3, and this is incompatible to RKT4 (which other creators could use to combine these with a normal BAT building model and have them both displayed - and highlighted).

A first version is attaced in this post.

Installation:
- Copy the ZZ folder under the RTMTV3 folder.
- And remember, these are not for playing the game, only for evaluating the highlight feature - remove them after testing.

The icons can be improved further, eg the thin outlines/items thickened so that they don't disappear at the farthest zooms, this is just version 1. Maybe height can be reduced to 18 or 19m instead of 20, they currently look a bit tall.

Quote from: cogeo on May 22, 2009, 01:33:37 PM
I don't understand what you mean with RKT3 and RKT4. Let's make things more clear:
- So you have made different models for the farthest zooms. The "problem" here is that RKT4 doesn't display models with 5 views (zooms) ie like the ones displayed by RKT3, it can only display models with 1 Z/R (like these ones) and with 20 Z/R, ie the ones displayed by RKT1. These are generated by BAT exporting, and in order to achieve a different height for each zoom, you will have to displace (vertically) each zoom level (4 views) separately.

The current signs I am using were all made with "handmade" RKT3's, which all happen to point to the same FSH file.  It's very simple and effective.  It's clear that I could do the same thing for RKT1's as well, although it would be nice not to have 20 S3D files.  Supposedly, there are shortcuts that can be used here so that only one set of zooms need be specified.  Could someone point me to some complete documentation on RKT1's and RKT3's?

Quote
I'm really questioning this feature, ie having the labels/icons displayed 1000m above ground. It's of little usufulness, I'm afraid.

Ah, but they're the very heart of this feature, as you'll see.

QuoteWhat's the point of having labels/icons that are hard to associate with the stations?

Agreed.  That's why the fact that the labels fit into the ghost streets of the Traffic Volume View so nicely (as shown again below, in a slightly different context) makes them so useful.  And they actually are directly above the actual stations, as I'll show below.

QuoteImagine just this: the dataview you sent me (no buildings) with the stations displaying clear and colour-coded transit icons just above them; it will then be very easy to see how the transit system is setup, and information like where buses go, or the routes of your subway lines, ie what is commonly referred to as the "big picture" (of the transit system) at a glance, which is rather not the case with the labels shown 1000m above ground and above all tall buildings. Of course, this is only possibble with the buildings not displayed in the dataview, but you can't have them all. I would jsut pick what makes sense. And with the props being displayed (making it possible to identify the RTMT stations easily), this is meaningful, I think. I'm going to challenge you  :), just show the same part of the city in the pic, but with the icons/stations I'll send you (today), and the dataview without the buildings, and then tell us which one is preferable and more useful.

OK, I'm always up for a good challenge. :)  First, I'd like to show some preliminary pictures that may be helpful.  In RL, if you were to take a sign the size of the RTMT signs and move them 1000m toward you, given how close you must be to see a Zoom 5, for example, the sign would obscure much more of your view then when it was at ground level.  This simply the way perspective works.  Except it doesn't work that way at all in SC4 - an object's perceived size does not vary at all depending on its height.  This is how I could get the whole 1000m thing to work, and as I said earlier, how I suspect Maxis got things such as UDI to work.  To illustrate, here is the basic view of the SAM types, with their signs illuminated.  The height of some is 16m; the height of the others is 1000m.  Can you tell which is which?

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg193.imageshack.us%2Fimg193%2F7915%2Fheight1tn.jpg&hash=ee9c1b4f095a0db75822931e0503424d15aa7f1e)

Now I'll rotate the view 90°.  Can you tell now?

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg193.imageshack.us%2Fimg193%2F7855%2Fheight2tn.jpg&hash=0fafdf8f1bc6106d2f79ffbb92489d8c1251c6e8)

Next, I'll take us to Downtown Chicago, in the standard building view, using your icons.  I know this isn't the view you designed them for, but I think it's useful when comparing to the following views:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg265.imageshack.us%2Fimg265%2F540%2Fcogeohighlightingtn.jpg&hash=7afb99eb22201e7ae5d30d205ca4ea0651cb3f61)

They are mostly hidden by the buildings, as expected.  Now, here I repeat the same view with my signs as before, except I have held the bulldoze tool over a sign in the lower middle of the picture.  (You can't see the bulldozer because it's actually a cursor, which doesn't get captured.)  You can tell which sign I'm referring to because it's got the bulldoze cost to the left of it, and a red square directly beneath it.  The red square is the actual station in its proper location.  If you were to tear down the buildings in front of the square, you would find the station directly where the square is.  And the square (and therefore the stations) is always directly underneath the sign.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg193.imageshack.us%2Fimg193%2F1897%2Fhighlisghtbulldozetn.jpg&hash=4027b39847986ce0fea99f174eb8f50993649057)

In your challenge, I'm not sure what you mean by "the dataview without the buildings," and I'm fairly sure I didn't send you anything.  Maybe you mean my new Network View (which shows the identical data as my new Zones view)?

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.imageshack.us%2Fimg32%2F2512%2Fnetworkviewtn.jpg&hash=74959924e97fc64cf55da87b1a34e869d07ee978)

Not all the signs show up here, simply because I haven't finished putting them all together.  But there's one major problem that doesn't show up in this particular area, but does in others.  Here's an area where it shows up:

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F9625%2Fzonestn.jpg&hash=9f99ee4eb6fcaeec4005eca2b5dce0a1681b5e91)

First of all, to answer your question, I personally find the signs far preferable and far more useful.  And of course the signs look like they're right over the stations here, even though they're really 1000m high.  But there's a major problem with this view that cannot be overcome and that makes it unsuitable for use as a general transit station view.  When I moved into modding last summer, I no longer had time to build cities, so all my cities date from then or earlier.  Specifically, they all predate Simulator Z, and as a result, I loaded them with subways to get decent performance.  In the underground views, you can only get buildings highlighted if they contain a subway station.  There's no way to do something like turn off RCI buildings but display transit buildings.  Almost all my stations in this city are combo bus/subway stations, so you see lots of your icons.  But if you look on the left, along the lower and left edges, you can see a couple of bus stations without subway.  (One is directly above the word "question.")  There are no icons over these, nor can there be.  And in more normal cities (and my future ones, if I ever get time to build again  ::)), there are far fewer subway lines, and most transit stations would not contain subway stations.  This means that most transit stations would not show any icons (or signs either, for that matter).  This is why the 1000m tall signs are so necessary.  It is only in a view that shows all buildings that you can see all transit stations.  So I would ask you to reconsider your position about the 1000m height, since right now, there is no view that is guaranteed to show all your icons.

This is just a suggestion, but how about RTMT stations on intersections??

This was considered, but ultimately rejected (at least for the foreseeable future) because they'd just be eye candy.  Whenever you put an RTMT station next to an intersection, that station automatically serves both sides of both roads in that intersection.  This applies to streets and avenues as well.

About the signs vs symbols thing, all I wanted to do was an easy to the eye transit view. Check the city views on Google Earth. They are right to use transit symbols, and I really find them very informative. That's what I wanted for RTMT too. But this is my personal preference.

I think your idea was well received, and I really would like to include it.  I think some people prefer text and some prefer graphics, so we might as well include both.  My biggest objection to the icons is what I stated at the end of my last post in this thread, namely that there is no view that is guaranteed to show all your icons.  And in large downtown areas that don't have a lot of subway stations, many of the icons will never be seen.  This is easily overcome by using the 1000m elevation; due to the way I use it, it doesn't really raise the signs above the stations at all.  This is partially because, taking your original suggestion, I moved the signs forward as well as up, and the result is that they look like they haven't moved.  The y offset is roughly comparable to the z offset.  Also, by centering the building in the lot exemplar, it became possible to have the signs perfectly centered for all rotations.

The only other thing I was thinking was that your icons look very similar, and it would be nice if you could tell them apart a little easier.  For example, if you were to give side views of the vehicles, that might be clearer, and the space is such that rectangular icons should fit well, especially once the building is centered.  Now that the development work on the El Road over Rail stations is finished, I'm going to be finishing up the signs for all the stations, and centering the buildings for all the lots.  I'll be getting the signs to work with RKT4 one way or another.  When I finish this, it will all be posted as Part 3 of the beta test (it's the last part); this should make it easier for you if you want to use a similar system for your icons.

Quote from: cogeo on May 22, 2009, 01:33:37 PM
RKT4 offsets don't work for buildings, only for props (if you have evidence about the opposite, please let us know)

I have done some experiments that confirm this - the RKT4 offset is completely ignored for buildings.  But what's even worse is that in my experiments, I found that if you use an RKT4 to specify multiple models for a building, all but the last model are ignored.  This eliminates the usefulness of RKT4 for highlighting completely.  If anyone knows how to make RKT4 work for multiple building models, please let me know.

I have finally got the station highlighting finished the way I originally envisioned it.  Here's an example; remember that this only shows up when you're using the Traffic Volume View.


One of the keys to this system is that the station types themselves never appear in green, which is reserved for describing other attributes of the station.  The "RTMT" is always present and indicates that this is a road top station.  The "==EL==", like "RTMT", is green and in slightly smaller letters than the station type; this indicates that the station has an el rail running over it.  (The equals signs represent the el tracks.)  If there were actually an el station here, the "EL" would be yellow and the same size as BUS and SUB, and there would be no equals signs.

The BUS and SUB names indicate the types of station stops.  Finally, the smaller "STREET" indicates that this station is located on a street.  So a quick glance at this sign tells you that this is a Bus and Subway station for el rail over street.  In this case, that's rather obvious without the sign; where this is most useful is in cases like the pictures of high-rise buildings above, where it is impossible to see the stations themselves.  With a number of station signs like this, it is even possible to see what your road network looks like, even though you can't see the roads themselves.

This feature is planned to be fully implemented in RTMT V3.60, which is approaching completion.  Comments are welcome, as always.

   I like that idea. The additions to what was before, defininately would be even more helpful at a glance as you said. I can see myself using this to locate what and where in my networks. I'll definately being looking forward to the finished version.  :thumbsup:

Me too. Can't wait to have it! :) Hope you'll post it here the download link when it shall be finished.

Hello everybody. Sorry if I'm next to make a stupid question, but I would like to know what shall it happen when I'll replace the actual files with the new RTMT ones. Shall I have to bulldoze & rebuild my stations? Or the game shall automatically update all new informations, as the passenger switchin from bus to subway?

Actually I'm building cities without buss-subway stations because I'm unsecure about the future!

It's not a stupid question at all - there are some properties in plopped stations that can be changed simply by changing the station's exemplar, and other properties that are stored with the station in the city file (such as the station capacity) and cannot be changed globally.  There's no simple way to know which type a given property is, except through experience.  Unfortunately, the transit switch points are like the station capacities; they are stored with the station and can't be changed for stations that are already plopped.

However, you don't need to hold off building new stations because of the subway bug.  Simply use the workaround to this bug when building new stations containing subway switches.  The bug only affects stations not at subway intersections or within one square of them.  Simply creating a one-square stub from the station going perpendicular to the subway line passing through the station is enough to ensure that the station will not be affected by the bug.

As for the station highlighting signs, these will automatically appear on all plopped stations.  However, for stations prior to the V3.60 release, these signs will not be exactly centered on the station, though they will be very close to the center in all zoom views.  If you don't like the way they look, you can always bulldoze the station and replace it with a new one.  But I would guess that for most people, the signs will be close enough to the station's center so that they will not feel that it is necessary to do this.

I've decided that the UI queries could use a bit of modifying.  Here's a sample of one of the new ones:


This is from a combination bus and GLR stop on a GLR-in_Avenue.  There wasn't a really good tram icon anywhere in the game for these queries, so I found one and stuck it in here.  And as you can see, the queries will now all have the NAM Team Certified and RTMT logos.

IMHO, the logos are just a little bit too big: I would resize each of them to 85% of the original size, but I like them a lot anyway

Yeah, it looks a tad too cluttered indeed. ;) You probably could try to omit the background of the RTMT logo as well - it looks good as your avatar, but next to the NAM Certified logo, something more minimalistic might be worth a try. I do like the blue tram icon, though. :)

Quote from: Andreas on June 18, 2009, 07:28:47 AM
Yeah, it looks a tad too cluttered indeed. ;)

I'm afraid I have to agree.  :(   Unfortunately, the logos are at their limit of readability; shrinking them doesn't work.

QuoteYou probably could try to omit the background of the RTMT logo as well - it looks good as your avatar, but next to the NAM Certified logo, something more minimalistic might be worth a try.

That's one possibility, though personally I like the full logo.  Another possibility is simply to stretch the query box a little bit to space things out some more.  What do people think of these two alternatives?

Yeah, making the UI window a bit larger could work, I guess. :) What you could do is to get rid of the Maxis lightrail (subway) icon completeley and use one that represents mass transit in general, i. e. a combination of the logos from this picture (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9625/zonestn.jpg).

Maybe you could do something radically different (non-standard). For example the purple title bar could go completely, as could the semitransparent border (with the curved corners) too. Some lots have such custom query dialogs.

The RTMT logo could instead be used as a soft background (watermark-style), covering the whole surface of the dialog box (and in this case the colors could be turned to BW, and then "colorizeed" to a pale gray-green or gray-brownish tint.

Also the NAM-certified logo could be removed completely, as it serves no purpose, and it's so hard to integrate well in the query. It's visually disruptive (as is the colorful RTMT logo), and I think this is what caused the complaints, not that it's "big". The right places to put the NAM logo is on the image in the LEX upload and the "Welcome" screen of the installer, and this is enough, I think.

In V3 the "Service Quality" icons for the bus-only and subway-only stations were the standard Maxis ones, while for the combo a combined icon was made. The benefit of this was using icons familiar to players. The "light rail" icon in simcity is the same as the subway one, so it was possible to cover all combinations with only three queries). Of course, the GLR (tram) has the same icon as the subway, but this is also the case in simcity too, so no complaints here. Now, if you make a custom icon for GLR, this looks unfamiliar, and I would like to see how this would look in the Bus+Sub+GLR case (not to mention combinations with U-Rail). So I would propose using the old technique here, maybe with redesigning the combo icon (making it as tall as the others, and placing the two parts diagonally, not horizontally).

Quote from: cogeo on June 18, 2009, 03:28:44 PM
The RTMT logo could instead be used as a soft background (watermark-style), covering the whole surface of the dialog box (and in this case the colors could be turned to BW, and then "colorizeed" to a pale gray-green or gray-brownish tint.

I like the sound of that and it would give the RTMT UI Window a very distinct look, you could still have the NAM-certified logo but as a small stamp at the bottom in one of the corners like some of the CAM queries  :)

I could very well live with the query box as shown in z's earlier message above. After all, bringing up the display of these boxes is only for verification, checking that things run well - or not, etc; after the checking the box is closed. Also, logo sizes and shapes are a matter of taste, it would be difficult to satisfy everyone anyway. What matters most is the information in the box. I favor functionality over cosmetics.

It appears that we have as many opinions as users here.  I haven't seen this much enthusiasm since the menu button discussion.   &hlp

Anyway, my job is to try to satisfy as many people as possible here.  And I'll be the first to admit that I'm no graphics artist.  So let's see what we can do...

Quote from: cogeo on June 18, 2009, 03:28:44 PM
Maybe you could do something radically different (non-standard). For example the purple title bar could go completely, as could the semitransparent border (with the curved corners) too. Some lots have such custom query dialogs.

This is certainly possible at some point, but it would have to be done by someone with more skills (and time) than I.

Quote
The RTMT logo could instead be used as a soft background (watermark-style), covering the whole surface of the dialog box (and in this case the colors could be turned to BW, and then "colorizeed" to a pale gray-green or gray-brownish tint.

I was originally thinking of something along these lines myself, although I was thinking of simply lightening the colors.  Something like this:


First, I should say that for someone whose talents do not lie in this area, this is enormously time consuming.  And I didn't even get it right.  The most obvious thing is the way the title overflows the title box, but in fact, all the corners are the wrong shape.  I stared at the part Daeley's tutorial that deals with making these custom backgrounds for quite a while, and I had no idea what he was talking about.  But as it says in the old Beatles song, I found out, I found out...

So I know how to fix this, but that makes these things even messier to make.  And I think the background is a bit on the light side, but if I make it darker, the foreground print becomes harder to read.  I know this has been done successfully plenty of times, but I don't think I'm the one to do this.

As for the colorized version, I really like the way those were done for the RTMT installers.  But again, I do have some concerns about the readability of the foreground print with that type of approach.  If someone wants to do this, I'd be happy to look at some samples (and furnish the needed files), but I don't think it would be wise to try to get this into the V3.60 release.

QuoteAlso the NAM-certified logo could be removed completely, as it serves no purpose, and it's so hard to integrate well in the query. It's visually disruptive (as is the colorful RTMT logo), and I think this is what caused the complaints, not that it's "big". The right places to put the NAM logo is on the image in the LEX upload and the "Welcome" screen of the installer, and this is enough, I think.

As for the location of the NAM logo, I left it right where the NAM Team put it.  I agree that it's most important for the uploaded files and the installer, but I actually like it on the queries as well.  In any case, I shall abide by the wishes of the users here (so people need to let me know their views).

QuoteIn V3 the "Service Quality" icons for the bus-only and subway-only stations were the standard Maxis ones, while for the combo a combined icon was made. The benefit of this was using icons familiar to players. The "light rail" icon in simcity is the same as the subway one, so it was possible to cover all combinations with only three queries). Of course, the GLR (tram) has the same icon as the subway, but this is also the case in simcity too, so no complaints here. Now, if you make a custom icon for GLR, this looks unfamiliar, and I would like to see how this would look in the Bus+Sub+GLR case (not to mention combinations with U-Rail). So I would propose using the old technique here, maybe with redesigning the combo icon (making it as tall as the others, and placing the two parts diagonally, not horizontally).

This is one place where you surprised me - I was sure you were going to like the tram icons!  They're so cute.  ;D  Actually I was impressed by how much detail it was possible to squeeze into a 24x17 icon.

This is the only vehicle icon that I changed, and the only one I planned to change.  One problem with the trams is that too much of the game treats them as el trains that have somehow lost their way.  ()sad()  By creating a separate icon for them in the query, one that is so obviously a tram, this problem is addressed at least here, as it's easy to see at glance what kind of station this is.  This is especially helpful considering that the names of some of these stations run off the end of the title bar.  I think that this would reduce confusion, not increase it, and I would hope that other station builders might consider this icon as well.  And URail and GLR are never used in the same station, nor is anything planned where they would be.  So unless there's a really negative reaction to this from others, I'd like to stick with the tram icon.

Meanwhile, I've already conceded that things were a bit cluttered in my initial design, so I've come up with an easily implemented alternative, which spaces things out more in various ways:


The symmetry here appeals to me, and I think that moving the two icons apart helps.  I've also made the "Close" button smaller, as it didn't have to be so big.  What do people think of this query?  Personally, I'd be happy with this as a permanent solution.  But as I mentioned earlier, I'm also open to other alternatives; they'd just have to wait until the V4 release.  (And someone else would have to do them.)  So I'd appreciate it if people would let me know what they think of this query, either temporarily or permanently.  And further minor adjustments can be easily made, of course.

They are both better than the first one and I like the last one more than all the others  &apls

Quote from: 0rion79 on June 19, 2009, 02:31:07 AM
They are both better than the first one and I like the last one more than all the others  &apls

I agree the last one looks nice  :thumbsup:

maybe the one with the watermark background could be looked at again for V4  :)

The symmetry in the last pic is definitely appealing, but you should be careful with resizing the in-game buttons - in other languages, the word "Close" might be longer, and will be either cut off or overflowing the button. I also like the version with the RTMT logo in the background; with some filetuning, this could work very nicely. Just be careful that the embedded PNG doesn't get too large, in order to keep it resource-friendly. I'd say the "NAM Certified" logo isn't mandatory, but on the other hand, it's some kind of quality badge, so I'd vote for keeping it. ;)

Quote from: Andreas on June 19, 2009, 03:51:46 AM
...you should be careful with resizing the in-game buttons - in other languages, the word "Close" might be longer, and will be either cut off or overflowing the button.

Good point, although I would expect in this case that the word "Close" is basic enough that it shouldn't be too long in any language.  Does anyone know of an exception?

QuoteI also like the version with the RTMT logo in the background; with some filetuning, this could work very nicely. Just be careful that the embedded PNG doesn't get too large, in order to keep it resource-friendly.

As you might expect, the background logo takes up a lot more space than the tiny logos at the bottom.  But we're still talking a fraction of a megabyte, and I would assume that there would be only one copy of such a PNG in memory for a given query UI layout.

QuoteI'd say the "NAM Certified" logo isn't mandatory, but on the other hand, it's some kind of quality badge, so I'd vote for keeping it. ;)

Yes, I like it too.  ;)

Quote from: z on June 19, 2009, 02:26:20 AM
I was originally thinking of something along these lines myself, although I was thinking of simply lightening the colors.  Something like this:

Not bad as a first attempt (apart from the stretching problems). The reason I proposed a watermark rather than a color version is because it would look more "serious" that way, the colors (esp that pink on the M) make it looking a bit "cheapo" imo. RTMT is a great pack, and it only deserves the best of the best. Also, making a custom dialog frame bitmap isn't hard at all, and I'm going to make one within the weekend, or even today night.

Quote from: z on June 19, 2009, 02:26:20 AM
As for the location of the NAM logo, I left it right where the NAM Team put it.  I agree that it's most important for the uploaded files and the installer, but I actually like it on the queries as well.  In any case, I shall abide by the wishes of the users here (so people need to let me know their views).

The NAM logo (although NAM itself is glorious) admittedly isn't exactly an example of logo design. The black area occupies a relatively large portion of the logo; it tends to somehow overtake or dominate the dialog visually, and this is what caused the comments. And in this example the "Service Quality" icon is a little "big" too, somehow "balancing" the whole thing; with normal-height icons it would look even worse, I guess. Maybe a quite smaller logo - with the black area somewhat "eased" - would look better, if you insist keeping it. But it would still clutter the whole thing, without providing any useful information (players would already know that the pack is NAM-certified, from the LEX image and the installer), and that's why I recommend against it. It's not the same as CAM, in that case it informs the player that it's a CAMelot.

Quote from: z on June 19, 2009, 02:26:20 AM
This is one place where you surprised me - I was sure you were going to like the tram icons!  They're so cute.  ;D  Actually I was impressed by how much detail it was possible to squeeze into a 24x17 icon.

I didn't say that I don't like the icon, but that you will need an awful lot of queries to cover all combinations, if you are going to use different icons for each transit type. Seven queries will be needed for the bus, subway and GLR stations and the Bus/Sub/GLR icon is almost impossible to be nice-looking. Actually I think the Bus/Sub icon in V3.xx isn't quite good either (too "tall", disrupting the labels' spacing). And in V4 you are about to include El-Rail too; are you going to make another icon for this? You said you won't, but for the sake of consistency you should, if you go this way.

Quote from: z on June 19, 2009, 02:26:20 AM
One problem with the trams is that too much of the game treats them as el trains that have somehow lost their way.  ()sad()  By creating a separate icon for them in the query, one that is so obviously a tram, this problem is addressed at least here, as it's easy to see at glance what kind of station this is.

GLR doesn't necessarily mean trams. In many cases the "light rail" and "subway" networks are essentially the same, and the very same trains run underground in the city centre and emerge to ground level in the suburbs. In simcity they are both idntified by the same colour (yellow), and share the same icon in the queries. From many players' perspective they are similar, or at least complementary.

Quote from: z on June 19, 2009, 02:26:20 AM
This is especially helpful considering that the names of some of these stations run off the end of the title bar.

The transit types remain in view, it's the network type that run off the end of the title bar.

I'm gonna showcase my proposal here, but not insist in it.

I like the second query much better and you should keep the NAM certification so people won't ask the question "can this be used with NAM".(Even though they will ;))

I think the second query is the best I have seen.

Theres this old logo i made for RTMT that never got used. I could change the colors or add text if its needed. It would match the NAM logo more than the current one, and i think its a better logo for the query since its more simplistic.
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.tinypic.com%2F24mf3td.jpg&hash=1fb0a72469542cf67d586d8243cf434d64e35051)

@Xyloxadoria
No disrespect, but this logo looks too busy.

heres another version
(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi43.tinypic.com%2F2ym838w.png&hash=4d94b67381c39f9ed1192b821dd209adaf5716ed)

Here is my proposal (fast-made, not the final one).

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg146.imageshack.us%2Fimg146%2F7060%2Fquery2.jpg&hash=a8561f81c60f239c179cf4bf31ceeb856af368a6)

Some notes:
- As you can see, a custom dialog frame has been made.
- The "combo" icon is 24x26, instead of the standard 24x22. It was extended by 1 pixel to the bottom and  3 pixels to the top. This way it is possible to use it without having to change the spacing of the label, and still being aligned with it, and without interfering with the field value under it. The icon contains a part of the standard subway/lightrail icon and the bus one (this one was shrinked a little to make it fit) - this way it was possible to cramp them in a 24x26 rectangle. The obvious advantage of this is familiarity to the players.
- The background image is the RTMT logo (modified to be watermark-like). Instead, it can be changed to something more "artistic", or even the "background" of the RTMT logo (without the RTMT letters - these could be added as an ovelray).
- The button is the standard queries button (hasn't been changed yet). It can be changed to a non-standard one (similar to the dialog's frame) or become transparent (showing only the outline) if I get it to work.
- There is enough space to add logos like "The RTMT Team" or comments and additional information.
- And something I noticed just now (and this is also the case with the "standard" queries as well), the "Service Quality" bitmap can be moved a little to the right, to be aligned with the title and the field values, it will be looking better, I think.

Comments please!

I like z's better.  Cogeo's has a more pleasing aesthetic effect, but there is a lot of wasted space.

Cogeo: Very nice!
The watermark effect is beautiful and it gives information without distracting from the main info. There is indeed a bit much waste of space. Maybe the spacing could be altered?
I think addition of NAM logo's has no real use. It makes the image too full. Of course I understand that being NAM certified is something to be proud of (would we still be playing this game without NAM?), but showing the certificate is not really inforamtion that is usefull at the moment I open this query. My point is: make the query as empty aspossible, but show everything that is really needed the moment the query is openend. But of course everyeone can have their own thoughts...
Furthermore: I like the use of different logos for the service quality info.

Just a quick note:  Cogeo's example has "wasted space" simply because he doesn't currently have access to all of the original logo files.  I'll be correcting this later today.  In the mean time, in judging his example, please ignore the spacing issue.

I must say, I love cogeo's custom dialog frame. Using a custom frame makes the RTMT-queries stand out from the rest (eg. like PEG's stuff). Also, the colours used are nice and relaxing to the eye.  ;)

Just got an idea, how about using some real photos (preferably vintage) as the background instead of the RTMT logo? There are going to be more than one queries anyway, at least three, so for bus-only stops, for example, the pic could show a bus. And as the photos are most probably going to be landscape-picture-proportioned (width>height) there is going to be less empty space in the query too (the RTMT logo is square).

The problem here is that there is needed one query per station type, ie 7 images will be needed to make all Bus/Sub/GLR combinations (otherwise there would be needed only 3). Another problem is the combo station types. It's quite unlikely to find photos showing more than one transit types, eg a bus running on a road with a subway entrance at the sidewalk (this is RTMT, lol), but a "collage" can be made for these ones.

We like the real photo idea ()borg()

Quote from: cogeo on June 19, 2009, 12:55:18 PM
There is enough space to add logos like "The RTMT Team" or comments and additional information.

Just two comments at this point:

The letters "RTMT" are not necessary in their standard logo size on the watermark graphic, but if they are absent there, I think they should be present in some form in or the graphic.

The "additional information" part sounds fascinating.  I have been able to determine that this is yanked out of the EXE with special hex code numbers, but nowhere can I find a list of these numbers and the data that they convey (other than the standard ones used in the standard UIs).  Is anyone aware of the existence of such a list?

The only on-line tutorials I can find on this are

http://simvision.net/simcyclopedia.php?p=view&id=28

or this one

http://simvision.net/hostedpictures/Simcyclopedia/UI_Specifications.txt

and finally this one

http://simvision.net/hostedpictures/Simcyclopedia/LUA_Constants.txt

:)

Thanks, catty!  Before you updated your posted, I had located your third reference myself, and it's got all the goodies I was looking for.  I think some of them may be very useful for the queries, especially as they contain information not available elsewhere to the players; I'll be demonstrating them later.

In the mean time, Cogeo and I have been try to hammer out a query upon which we can both agree.  We have a few minor disagreements at this point, but I think they can be easily resolved.  The one issue upon which we hold fairly different views is the appropriateness of the tram icon.  As he wanted to see what a three-icon query (bus+subway+tram) would look like, I am posting it here, so everyone can see.  I am using my general query form simply because I don't have access to Cogeo's right now, but the main question is how the Service Quality icons look:


This is basically the same query I displayed before, although there's a little more vertical space around the bottom icons.  I've moved the Service Quality icons to the right, as suggested by Cogeo, so they're exactly in line with everything else.  I like this change, as it does add to the symmetry of the whole layout.

In Cogeo's picture, he shrank the bus icon slightly, in order to make the spacing of the labels on the left more uniform.  Such uniformity has gone out the window here, which is one of his major objections to anything using three icons (which would be the maximum).  But from my point of view, as the whole purpose of the query boxes (as opposed to the actual stations, for example) is to provide information, I have made that the first priority.  The bus icon is the standard size, which I find less susceptible to confusion with other vehicles.  (Especially for those of us with aging eyes.)  Just a quick glimpse at this query tells you that this station serves three types of vehicles, and not much more than that glimpse tells you exactly what they are.

Right now, this is the only released RTMT station that would require three icons. Currently, there is no difference between the icons displayed for GLR stations for a subway station or tram station, or a bus station plus subway station vs. a bus station plus tram station.  Introducing the tram icon removes all the ambiguity here.

Coming up in the V4 release are the URail stations, which also have one three-icon station: bus, subway, and underground rail.  I think Ebina has come up with an excellent icon there (and for the other underground rail stations), which I plan to use unchanged.  Once again, it seems to me that it comes down to how important it is to display the complete information vs. how important it is to maintain consistent formatting.

Then there are the newly-introduced T-RAM on street stations.  These actually have more room for RTMT stations that the T-RAM in/on road.  However, streets are narrow enough and their character is such that the large shelters used for GLR stations up until now in RTMT would look rather out of place.  Add in the bus and subway stations, and things would definitely get cluttered.  So my tentative plan at this point would be to have a T-RAM on street station be very much like a typical RTMT bus station; after all, trams function very much like buses in the real world.  I'll elaborate on these plans in a later post.  In this case, it would be even more important to have the queries indicate the type of station, since they will look fairly similar.  It's true that the title of the station will specify this information, but it's much easier to pick it up at a glance from the icons.

Finally, it's useful to know that the icons don't represent service quality at all, despite the label!  $%Grinno$%  A station showing one fully colored icon delivers service that is exactly equal to a station showing all five colored icons.  Instead, at some indeterminate point after all the icons go light grey, service falls off a cliff.  So a better title for the icons instead of "Service Quality" would be something like "Capacity Reserve."  If label symmetry is really important to people, additional explanation of this could be included in additional lines for stations with more than one icon.

So as these stations are designed for the players, I ask you, dear user, what do you prefer?  Right now, I'm only asking about the icons; the background of the query will most likely be looking much as Cogeo displayed in his example.  But if you have feelings about how Cogeo's style of query could be combined with mine, please feel free to express them.

I really like the bus icons as you can tell at a glance what they are, less sure about the lightrail/subway icons as my brain keeps trying to see it as one image and is getting confused or it could just be its really late at night and I should be going to bed  :sleeping:

Just a thought rather than three lines of icons can you have just one line of six icons or is the five icons set in the query? if its not then one line and six icons mean you could have these kind of combinations

bus only = six icons
bus/sub = 3 bus icons / 3 sub icons
light/bus/sub = 2 light icons / 2 bus icons / 2 sub icons

:)

@z

We like the query you posted.

I like the query box as shown above, and I especially like the tram icon. The fact that the icons don't have the same size (the bus is the largest, the partial subway car is the smallest) does not bother me. I think that the 3 means of transportation are clearly depicted.

Regarding T-RAM on street stations, I agree with having very minimal sidewalk shelters like for bus stops, rather than the large GLR shelters between the tracks.

I like Z's latest one.

   I like the triple icons, as you said it would make it easier to recognize at a glance. Well for me anyway... And adding cogeo's stuff as you said would definately make it look feasible. So it's a  :thumbsup: for all three icons for me.

Quote from: catty on June 22, 2009, 05:10:03 AM
Just a thought rather than three lines of icons can you have just one line of six icons or is the five icons set in the query? if its not then one line and six icons mean you could have these kind of combinations

bus only = six icons
bus/sub = 3 bus icons / 3 sub icons
light/bus/sub = 2 light icons / 2 bus icons / 2 sub icons

:)

This must be possible, I guess. When making the query you don't specify how many icons to display, instead you specify which icon to display and the area in which it will be displayed. Normal-size icons are 24x22, and the area 120x22 pixels large, ie there's space for 5 icons. That is the game tiles images, if the area they are displayed on is larger than their size.
So if you make an icon 120x22 pixels large (or 144x22, if you want to have 6 icons instead of 5), this should work. I had made a query for HSR some time ago, using a (new) elecric engine icon. I considered displaying an icon with 1 engine and 4 cars, but finally I followed the beaten path.

Quote from: cogeo on June 19, 2009, 12:55:18 PM
- There is enough space to add logos like "The RTMT Team" or comments and additional information.

There sure is...


Once again, this is not necessarily the final form of the query, but it shows what can be done.  I've gone through the different variables related to traffic and displayed the ones that I think are most useful for the query.  A few notes:

• I've changed the inaccurate (though standard) label "Service Quality" to "Reserve Capacity," for reasons mentioned near the end of my previous post.  The icons will still lose their color with usage over 100% as before, but the players will no longer be deceived into thinking that the station's quality of service is declining.  Instead, "Reserve Capacity" is the best label I could think of (in two words or less) that indicates that the actual service quality will not decline at all until sometime after all the reserve capacity is gone.
• Each travel type gets its own five-line descriptor, separated from the others by a horizontal line.  Since almost all RTMT stations contain one or two travel types, this is the largest size the user will see almost all the time.  For stations with only one travel type, the last divider and the bottom five lines would not be present.  In terms of a watermark background, there would need to be three, corresponding to the three sizes of the query, which in turn corresponds to the number of travel types at the station.
• Each travel type section displays the same type of information, starting with the number of stops or stations for that travel type in the current city.  (BTW, the "Jamaica" here is the neighborhood of Queens, not the island.)  Following this is the average usage for stations for this travel type.  Note that for stations that service multiple travel types (such as this one), there is a single usage figure that is used in this average.
• Next is the number of network tiles used by this travel type.  For buses, this is further subdivided into street, road, or avenue, depending on the location of the queried station.  Since this query reports a road tile count, this station is located on a road.  Notice that the actual road tile count is half the reported number.  I originally thought that this might be due to the fact that there are two lanes per road tile, but this doesn't apply to subways, which have two tracks per subway tile.  And the reported number is sometimes odd (as in this case); I haven't been able to figure out what that means.
• The last two lines in each section are pretty much self-explanatory.  The average road utilization is the percentage of network road capacity in use, averaged over the city.  The number of congested road tiles is the number of road tiles whose utilization is over 100%.

Now there are other interesting traffic statistics, and you might want to see all networks or travel types at once, including those not currently supported by RTMT (such as monorail).  So I suggest the creation of an RTMT Mass Transit Authority (MTA) building, which would have a purpose similar to RippleJet's Census Repository Facility, except that the MTA building would show all traffic statistics in its query.

So what do people think of these ideas?  Would these extra statistics be helpful?

While I admit to being the last person to give any advice on aesthetics, I do love numbers. Don't know about others, but I think this is a super idea. And the RTMT Mass Transit Authority (MTA) building sounds like a great idea. I was thinking of just such a thing as I was reading through the post (before getting to the last paragraph).

Now a couple questions just to be sure I'm understanding the info presented (and forgive any questions of the 'stupid' variety  ;) )...

Since this is an example of a Combo Bus/Subway station, are the values given for 'Bus Stops...' and 'Subway Stations...' for just the Combo stations or does it include the solo bus and subway stops. If I'm understanding the description correctly, they include the usage of both types... correct?

And when you say "...this is further subdivided into street, road, or avenue...", does that mean that the information is only for the stations or stops on similar transportation types? For instance, the query in the example is showing a Road (2X1) combo station. So the values given are only for other Road (2X1) stations, not avenue and streets... again, correct?

Again, sorry if I'm asking the obvious...

Quote from: CaptCity on June 23, 2009, 07:28:59 PM
Since this is an example of a Combo Bus/Subway station, are the values given for 'Bus Stops...' and 'Subway Stations...' for just the Combo stations or does it include the solo bus and subway stops. If I'm understanding the description correctly, they include the usage of both types... correct?

Correct.  For example, for the bus station statistics, a combo bus/subway station is identical to a standalone bus station.  It all comes down to how the game keeps its internal statistics.

Quote
And when you say "...this is further subdivided into street, road, or avenue...", does that mean that the information is only for the stations or stops on similar transportation types? For instance, the query in the example is showing a Road (2X1) combo station. So the values given are only for other Road (2X1) stations, not avenue and streets... again, correct?

Almost.  The size of the station doesn't enter into this at all; only the roadway type.  So if you have a large 5x5 bus terminal, it's counted in here as well.  Also, this counts all stations, not just RTMT ones.  So for example, if you have one of Ralphaelninja's five-way stations, they count too.

Quote from: cogeo on June 23, 2009, 05:36:20 AM
This must be possible, I guess. When making the query you don't specify how many icons to display, instead you specify which icon to display and the area in which it will be displayed. Normal-size icons are 24x22, and the area 120x22 pixels large, ie there's space for 5 icons. That is the game tiles images, if the area they are displayed on is larger than their size.
So if you make an icon 120x22 pixels large (or 144x22, if you want to have 6 icons instead of 5), this should work. I had made a query for HSR some time ago, using a (new) elecric engine icon. I considered displaying an icon with 1 engine and 4 cars, but finally I followed the beaten path.

cogeo

Thank you for the information if I ever get my nerve back from the last time I had a go at creating a query I will give this a try  :)

z

As to the new query I'm of the same opinion as CaptCity

QuoteDon't know about others, but I think this is a super idea. And the RTMT Mass Transit Authority (MTA) building sounds like a great idea

my only concern as such is how big would the query be if it was for (bus+subway+tram) station or would you want to do something different for these?

I agree with CaptCity: the numbers in the query would be very useful, and a MTA building to show more stats about mass transit would be excellent. In order for it to be of reasonable size, it could be built as the administration building for the city's MTA.

Quote from: catty on June 24, 2009, 12:39:52 AM
my only concern as such is how big would the query be if it was for (bus+subway+tram) station or would you want to do something different for these?

I planned to put the information for the third icon just below the other two, so it would be about 30% larger than the one I showed.  I've measured, and this would fit on an 800x600 screen, which is the smallest supported by SC4.  Such a query would be a little large, but it's also relatively rare.

Quote from: Douzerouge on June 24, 2009, 01:11:45 AM
I agree with CaptCity: the numbers in the query would be very useful, and a MTA building to show more stats about mass transit would be excellent. In order for it to be of reasonable size, it could be built as the administration building for the city's MTA.

Exactly.  :)

Quote from: z on June 24, 2009, 01:15:13 AM
I planned to put the information for the third icon just below the other two, so it would be about 30% larger than the one I showed.  I've measured, and this would fit on an 800x600 screen, which is the smallest supported by SC4.  Such a query would be a little large, but it's also relatively rare.

Exactly.  :)

My monitor is 15" so this is what I see when I change it to 800 x 600 screen

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2483%2F3657760578_4132d89f59_o.jpg&hash=4b1e6b3e28616b24cf91cf8a0c461c827e8f6456)

I would think tho that 15" monitors are also relatively rare these days as well  :D

I agree that city statistics should rather be used in a Ministry of Transport -type lot, rather than in queries for individual stations. It clutters the whole thing, displaying information not concerning each station. So they should rather be separated.

Combo stations (eg bus+subway) are indeed "double-counted", but this isn't actually wrong. A "combo" station is indeed a busstop plus a subway station at the same place, not a different type of station (no matter how it is modded), so this is very acceptable. Otherwise we should have separate stats for all transit type combinations, not to mention that this wouldn't work.

I remember some discussions with Orion (he wanted to mod all stations as busstops). Well, this wouldn't work in such a case.

Steve, have you checked if these counters really count the stations? In some cases (like the el-to-subway transition) they actually count the tiles occupied by the stations, so for 1x2, 2x1 and 2x2 stations these may be multiple-counted.

We could also try catty's idea for combo icons.

Also the term "Reserve Capacity" might be technically more accurate, but we may be getting questions like "What Reserve Capacity means?", so I think we should revert to the standard one. If you insist in "Reserve Capacity", you should also add an LTEXT (and point to it in the query), so that it can be translated.

And something else, the query I designed is taller than the normal, however this wasn't intentional, it came out that way in order to accomodate the RTMT-logo in the background. But as long as we use photos, this is not necessary (we can resize and/or crop the photos), so it can be normal-sized again.

Quote from: cogeo on June 24, 2009, 11:37:47 AM
I agree that city statistics should rather be used in a Ministry of Transport -type lot, rather than in queries for individual stations. It clutters the whole thing, displaying information not concerning each station. So they should rather be separated.

I think that what I have suggested, and what people like, is a combination of the two approaches.  I tried hard to strike a balance here, separating the query into sections and making things easy to find.  The information I added to the query, though global in nature, is information that I thought would be most useful for people building their transportation system, or who want to see how it's doing.  For example, "Average Bus Stop Usage" may be a global figure, but I think it's very convenient to be able to compare it against the usage of the bus stop you're currently querying.  It's my understanding that all of the responses up until now have agreed with this dual approach.  On the other hand, questions such as, "What is the highest road congestion in the city?" and "Where is this maximum road congestion located?" are very useful questions to have answered, but are not really relevant to building stations, and are best answered by the Mass Transit Authority.  (BTW, I chose the name "Mass Transit Authority" because "Department of Transportation" sounds way too American, whereas ministries don't exist in the US.  And it's a complete coincidence that "MTA" is also the old acronym for the mass transit system in Boston, where I spent most of my life.  $%Grinno$%)  If I continue to get a unanimous response supporting the expansion of the queries, I will keep them; if a fair number of people think that they're too cluttered like this, but others still want them, I'll make them an installation option.  In any case, everyone seems to agree that an MTA building (by whatever name) is a good idea.  I think what we would want here is something that's not too modern, but would look good in any type of city.  I'm thinking of the buildings in Washington, D.C., which by and large aren't very new, but have an elegant look with their classical Greek architecture.  Hmm, classical Greek architecture - could we interest you in designing such a building, Cogeo?

Quote
I remember some discussions with Orion (he wanted to mod all stations as busstops). Well, this wouldn't work in such a case.

Also, it's no longer necessary, as the new NAM automatically installs the subway building view that I wrote, and that satisfies Orion's needs.

Quote
Steve, have you checked if these counters really count the stations? In some cases (like the el-to-subway transition) they actually count the tiles occupied by the stations, so for 1x2, 2x1 and 2x2 stations these may be multiple-counted.

Foolish me!  I actually believed that a variable named "game.g_bus_station_count" would be a count of the number of bus stations.  But you're right, I just checked it out, and it actually counts the number of bus station tiles.  I just need to fix the query here to change "Bus Stations" to "Bus Station Tiles," and similarly for other stations.  Thanks for pointing this out.

Quote
We could also try catty's idea for combo icons.

I see two problems with this.  First of all, it gives the impression that stations keep track of the different travel types separately, when they only remember the total number of Sims passing through.  Secondly, it's yet another departure from the standard interface, and I think that this combined with its design would reinforce the confusion I mentioned in my first point.

Quote
Also the term "Reserve Capacity" might be technically more accurate, but we may be getting questions like "What Reserve Capacity means?", so I think we should revert to the standard one.

It's not merely that it's more accurate, but that "Service Quality" is completely inaccurate; a change in the state of the icons never results in a change in the service quality.  I think you're right that we may very well get questions such as "What does Reserve Capacity mean?", but I would rather answer that question accurately and let users know what they're actually being shown.  In fact, it would be good to put a detailed answer to that question in the FAQ.

QuoteIf you insist in "Reserve Capacity", you should also add an LTEXT (and point to it in the query), so that it can be translated.

I did this when I first implemented it, and it's in the new locales.dat file.  All strings that I have added have been implemented with translation in mind, and Brian is going to be getting this done once things settle down.

QuoteAnd something else, the query I designed is taller than the normal, however this wasn't intentional, it came out that way in order to accomodate the RTMT-logo in the background. But as long as we use photos, this is not necessary (we can resize and/or crop the photos), so it can be normal-sized again.

Understood, and I agree that there's no need for those giant "RTMT" letters on the watermark.

BTW, I've been playing around with PSP myself here, seeing some possibilities for the watermarks.  I gather that you used an inner bevel for the upper text box.  As I mentioned before, I really liked what you came up with.  Could you tell me the PSP setting you used to get this particular shape?  Also, what settings did you use to get the edge effects around the box?  These are very distinctive effects, and I would find it helpful to know how to make them.  I'm sure some others reading this would appreciate that as well.

Quote from: catty on June 24, 2009, 10:41:47 AM
I would think tho that 15" monitors are also relatively rare these days as well  :D

It maybe a rariety, but my 13" is even more rare, although I can technically get it up to 1280,1024 resolution. I don't know if that is the correct number but I do know it is 12## and 10##. Anyway....


  I'd have to say the more information to help with building mass transit the better, and besides having that relevant information in the query would help quite a bit especailly if you don't want or feel like looking for the MTA building. I know the building would be useful as a whole, but when you are in a certain part of a city far from the building it is beter to have a quicky glance look at some basics rather than scroling to get to the building. So I say it would be a good idea for both the combo query and the MTA. To me it doesn't truly matter if it is part of the default install or an option made for, as long there is at least a choice. I would definately use it to the best of my ability, if I can't reach the potential of the information being there.
  Both are great ideas and I await in patience. :thumbsup:

QuoteIf I continue to get a unanimous response supporting the expansion of the queries, I will keep them

Definitely would like to have, its just getting the balance right

QuoteIn any case, everyone seems to agree that an MTA building (by whatever name) is a good idea.  I think what we would want here is something that's not too modern, but would look good in any type of city.  I'm thinking of the buildings in Washington, D.C., which by and large aren't very new, but have an elegant look with their classical Greek architecture.

Deadwood created a Ministry of Garbage found here

http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=442

It was done using marcszar's McCormick and Co Spice building model which is also on the LEX, its a nice looking building as are the rest of marcszar's buildings  :)

Yesterday, I posted this entry (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6361.msg256020#msg256020) in the main T-RAM thread, announcing that RTMT stations for T-RAM in Streets would be included in the V3.60 release coming up, and asking for input on what type of stations people would like.  I thought that the T-RAM thread would be a good place to post this, as currently there are no tram stations for this new network.  It's been only a day since I've posted, but so far, I've had no responses.  As a result, I thought I should bring the post to the attention of the larger RTMT community.  What types of stations would people here like to see?  In my original post, I mentioned three alternatives; if there is no further feedback, I will go with the first, at least for now.

   I personally don't have much a preferance on which stations are used as I know you'll come up with some good ones, but I know I like the style of SGs bus shelter ones and SFBTs shelters for bus/sub.... I really haven't looked much into the GLR ones, however I don't mind the lengthy stations like the Marrast ones as they can be useful at times. As far as design goes it is quite a tough decision for me, since I see a whole lot of sets out there, but a simple stop would suffice. So having smaller ones eventually would be a good idea as well for space concerns, and the longer ones for bigger cities with little room for additions.... This is my oppinion, as for me as long as the variety in usage and style is there, like the regular Road Top stuff. I definately like the variety i them as they are so versitile.... Either way as long as it will fit to look nice among the buildings... :)

Having had a look thru the T-RAM thread, I would agree that your first suggestion

QuoteTrams are much like buses, and you would expect to shorter (i.e., single-car) ones on streets, although that's not essential to this option.  But in any case, you could simply use the standard bus stop as a tram stop.  If you had both a bus stop and a tram stop, they could share the same shelter.

is how I would see a Tram stop  :thumbsup:

I think tho that if I had a choice of using a Tram stop or Bus/Tram Stop combination, I would only ever use the Bus/Tram Stop, as it makes it alot easier to tie your transport network together and I think its something that would happen in real life as well  :)

My two cents... For what it's worth...

Since we are dealing with streets, I'm thinking that the keep-it-simple variety would be more suited. I've done a bit of re-touching of the Tram-in-Road stops and have come up with these.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi448.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq206%2FCaptCity%2FT-RamStreetStops.jpg&hash=b04d3fe7ab118d9bb22aa5da0b49b7d198c0bc06)

Would a bench, a lamp, maybe a phone, and a simple shelter (used the one from the SFBT set) - or not - be good for a street stop?

As for the type of stops, I feel that having all available (Tram, Tram/Bus) would be a good thing, but I'll defer to those who have more experience in areas that use this type of transportation.

Just some thoughts...

CaptCity, you can do the stop on the left right now using RTMT's customization feature.  Just remove the props you don't want from the Props folder, and you can end up with a stop as you showed.

As for the stop on the right, that's an interesting idea - benches instead of shelters.  (That would probably work best in sunnier climates, such as Southern California. :))  There's no reason that couldn't be a bus stop option as well - would people be interested in that?

As for the street lights, that's an option that's being considered for V4 for RTMT stops in general.

Quote from: z on June 29, 2009, 04:06:14 PM
CaptCity, you can do the stop on the left right now using RTMT's customization feature.  Just remove the props you don't want from the Props folder, and you can end up with a stop as you showed.

Yes, but wouldn't that affect all RTMT stations? Either that, or doing the whole save-change props-reenter-plop anew procedures? I guess I was thinking of a more permanent difference in the street stops.

Quote...that's an interesting idea - benches instead of shelters.  (That would probably work best in sunnier climates, such as Southern California. :)) 

Touche (accent on the 'e')... I usually do play with the clouds turned off, so it's always sunny in my cities  ;)

Quote from: CaptCity on June 29, 2009, 09:06:17 PM
Yes, but wouldn't that affect all RTMT stations? Either that, or doing the whole save-change props-reenter-plop anew procedures? I guess I was thinking of a more permanent difference in the street stops.

GLR-in-Street stations are being implemented as a separate category of stations, so the answer to that is 'no.'  However, currently all bus stations are the same, including those for GLR-in-Street, unless you do the customization procedure you so succinctly describe.  But you've put your finger on the major reason for the customization redesign coming in V4, which will automate this process significantly.

  Actually I kinda' like the SFBT shelter for the stop, and the bench only one in the pic above. Both to me are good ideas, and wouldn't mind either for the combo stop, or regular bus stop. I think it would be a good option to add. I've mainly lived in central Cali.... and mostly have seen both kinds with and without. Like in Stockton near I believe the courthouse is a stop that has a small shelter and a few benches along the street aside that shelter, not to mention that there is a small plaza behind it with stone benches surrounding a square area with a few steps down into a flat area in the center of that plaza. Wish I had a pic of it... Anyways I'd be all for the option of a couple bench versions, maybe one wooden, and another one with stone bench without a backing.

Quote from: z on June 29, 2009, 04:06:14 PM
As for the stop on the right, that's an interesting idea - benches instead of shelters.  (That would probably work best in sunnier climates, such as Southern California. :))  There's no reason that couldn't be a bus stop option as well - would people be interested in that?

Checking out the bus stops around the neighbourhood, about half of them consist of a pole next to the road with a bus stop sign attached to it, I don't know if that's the norm for New Zealand or just my bit of it, but as its the middle of winter here and the temperature has been down as low as -3.8c with a wind chill of -6.6c its pretty amazing no one ends up in hospital with hypothermia.

I did like the bench tho, if it was part of the normal RTMT bus stop, you might have to plop the stop a few times before you got the bench appearing, but equally if you got the bench and you wanted a shelter just delete and replop.

:)

For GLR-in-street stations I think that a short shelter with bench, on each side of the street, is a basic requirement - at least, in recent implementations of GLR in Europe, or in revamping of old tram lines, this is quite common. The implied statement is, here runs a tram (or GLR, or light rail, or whatever), and here it stops, and you can wait for it sitting under shelter. CaptCity's proposal (left side) a few posts above, is quite suitable.

Quote from: z on June 24, 2009, 02:21:54 PM
In any case, everyone seems to agree that an MTA building (by whatever name) is a good idea.
- could we interest you in designing such a building, Cogeo?

Sorry, but as I have announced long ago I have ceased developing custom content. And I may have been involved "a little" in making things like the buttons, or these queries, however this does not compare to making lots or BATs.

Quote from: z on June 24, 2009, 02:21:54 PM
I gather that you used an inner bevel for the upper text box.  As I mentioned before, I really liked what you came up with.  Could you tell me the PSP setting you used to get this particular shape?  Also, what settings did you use to get the edge effects around the box?  These are very distinctive effects, and I would find it helpful to know how to make them.  I'm sure some others reading this would appreciate that as well.

Steve, I have just sent you the needed files, check your email.

As for the shelter vs bench debate, this works even as RTMT is now! Using the prop-family feature you can configure the "bus" prop to be a shelter, a "thin" shelter, a bench, or nothing! And I don't really see why GLR-in-Street stations should be any different to, say, GLR-in-Road ones (a GLR shelter should not be used here, of course - unlike in the GLR-on-Road ones), GLR-in-Street networks have much wider sidewalks, after all, so someone could even use full-sized busstop shelters. My advice would be to not make RTMT having some specific system in mind (though this would be appealing to many - they would of course "propose" to make RTMT like the MT system in their own city), just attempt to devise a customisation scheme flexible enough to accomodate as many cases as possible.

I know this is the Road Top Mass Transit mod but I felt it far better to ask here since the creator made it for RTMT. What I wanted to ask is..would it be possible that this could be done for regular subway,rail and elevated rail as well? I personally think it would be one of the most useful additions to the game going along side the RTMT version of it. Also I know it a few pages late but great job even coming up with the idea.

(https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.imageshack.us%2Fimg12%2F9625%2Fzonestn.jpg&hash=9f99ee4eb6fcaeec4005eca2b5dce0a1681b5e91)

Quote from: z on June 24, 2009, 02:21:54 PM
In any case, everyone seems to agree that an MTA building (by whatever name) is a good idea.
- could we interest you in designing such a building, Cogeo?

Quote from: cogeo on June 30, 2009, 01:34:27 PM
Sorry, but as I have announced long ago I have ceased developing custom content. And I may have been involved "a little" in making things like the buttons, or these queries, however this does not compare to making lots or BATs.

I understand, but I just had to ask... :)

Quote from: SimNation on July 01, 2009, 09:57:02 AM
I know this is the Road Top Mass Transit mod but I felt it far better to ask here since the creator made it for RTMT. What I wanted to ask is..would it be possible that this [referring to the station icons] could be done for regular subway,rail and elevated rail as well? I personally think it would be one of the most useful additions to the game going along side the RTMT version of it. Also I know it a few pages late but great job even coming up with the idea.

It was my intention to release the highlight signs for general use once this version of RTMT was out.  However, you are referring to Cogeo's icons.  These have one big advantage over the signs in that they work for all languages.  For normal text, translating into other languages is not a big deal (assuming you have the translators).  But for the highlighted signs, much more work is required.  So I think Cogeo and I just need to work out the details of how to get the icons implemented here, and then I would think they could be released for standard use as well.

---

As people have been asking about various features and different RTMT releases, I thought I'd summarize here what the current plans are.  In the near future (hopefully, later this month) RTMT V3.60 will be released; it will be in the form of an add-on pack.  This is the last release before RTMT V4.0.  (Really!)  RTMT V3.60 will contain the following features:

• Stations for SAM streets.  (Completely done.)
• Stations for el rail over road/street.  (Essentially done.)
• Highlighting signs and possibly icons for RTMT stations in the Traffic Volume and Subway Views.  (Signs completely done.)
• Enhanced station queries (Partially done.)
• Stations for GLR-in-Street.  (To be done.)
• Additional shelters for GLR-in-Avenue, all in HD.  (Completely done.)

The dividing line for new features has been set here, as it will be easier to implement further changes once the internal changes for RTMT V4 have been made.  The initial release of RTMT V4 will be a full release, replacing RTMT V3.50; however, it will support stations built with RTMT V3.50 (and with V3.60 as well).  RTMT V4.0 will include the following:

• Significantly automated installation and customization options, as detailed earlier.
• Full integration of the T-RAM in/on Road stations.
• A complete set of stations for Underground Rail, including ped mall stations.  There will even be stations for Underground Rail for Avenue, assuming I can get someone to build Underground Rail for Avenue.
• A completely hierarchical set of DAMN menus for everything.

It will be some time after the release of RTMT V3.60 before RTMT V4.0 is released.  Additional RTMT features will be packaged as point releases of RTMT V4, and will be completely self-contained; i.e., they will have all of RTMT within them, and each will replace the previous RTMT release.

I don't know if someone mentioned this idea, but ever wondered how maxis' tollbooths work? They automaticly switch to the street/road/avenue you're putting them on, and only have 1 icon. Do you think it's possible make RTMT lots that could do the same? This could solve lots of menu problems.

Yeah, you're right! I have also been thinking about something like this. It would be really space saving.

It certainly would.  Unfortunately, Maxis pulls this off with the tollbooths by hardwiring code into the executable for them, and we don't have that option.  So RTMT will have to wait for the DAMN menus, which will help things significantly.  (Oops, I forgot to put them into the list I recently posted.  I'll fix that now...)

The station highlighting feature is now finished, and I have made a long post (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=7845.msg261085#msg261085) in the "Highlighting and Queries" thread describing it, complete with lots of pictures.  This feature will appear in the RTMT V3.60 Add-on Pack.

I've also been thinking more about the DAMN menus.  A year ago, RTMT had 27 stations; with the release of V3.60, there will be at least 60 stations.  The DAMN menus are one feature that are just as easy to implement now as they would be after the changes for RTMT V4 are implemented.  Due to the large increase in the number of stations, I am now leaning toward implementing the DAMN menus for the V3.60 release.  I would expect that this would push the V3.60 release date into the first half of next month.  I would prefer to do things this way, as I'm going to need to take a break between V3.60 and V4.

Comments on any of the above are welcome.

So does that mean you won't be doing a MML for em' for those that don't use DAMN?

I really don't mind either way, but personally I don't mind scrolling the menus through Icons. For the most part everything looks good to me.. :)

There are no plans to get rid of the current menu system, which will exist side-by-side with the DAMN menus.  As the additional stations have been added into the V3.60 betas, I've been adding them into the MML as well.  However, there will continue to be only one MML for all the stations.  In the V4 release, which will contain a new installer, there will be options for installing each group of stations, much like the options for installing different networks in the NAM.  This way, the list of icons need not be unbearably long.

Also, I have managed to pry open some of the secrets about the way the news pop-ups work.  It looks like it should be possible to have two versions of the DAMN menus:  one that works with the regular amount of news ticker pop-ups, and one that suppresses almost all of the pop-ups, especially the less urgent ones.  Theoretically, intermediate versions should be possible as well; if this all works out, they may all be present in V4.0.  I will try to get at least the first two versions I mentioned operational for V3.60.

   That's good to hear... I was definately wondering... :) I don't mind the long lists as I've been in the process of making my own cutsom MMLs to cut down the menus dividing them into their respective groups. I still have a long ways to go with all the content I have, like any other person. No biggy though as I enjoy making them until I reach an oddity which greuls through but gets somewhat done. Anyways thank you it is good to hear of the option still being put in. :thumbsup:

The DAMN menus are coming...



These are fully functional; I've used them to plop stations.

More details soon.  It also appears that it is possible to use the DAMN menus without having the regular assortment of popups come up.  Again, details to follow...

The intended purpose of the RTMT family prop and single prop system is/was to customize and standardize various bus stop designs over a given area. This is done using either the option of a single-prop or prop-family system.

Although there are many bus stop models that can be used with the system, there are a few bus stop designs out there that may not have been considered for inclusion yet. I'm sort of wondering if it's possible to request their addition.

The main design in question at the moment is this modern bus stop in lower left preview picture:
BLaM Transportation Utilities (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=18190)

These models were recently released as well but their quality could be improved:
Sao Paulo Bus Stops (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=22202)

Thanks.

Quote from: allan_kuan1992 on August 15, 2009, 04:34:21 AM
Although there are many bus stop models that can be used with the system, there are a few bus stop designs out there that may not have been considered for inclusion yet. I'm sort of wondering if it's possible to request their addition.

It most certainly is.  Those do look like interesting designs, and we'll definitely consider them.  They would appear in RTMT V4 if we decide to include them.

If you want, you could speed up the process of our including them and the likelihood that they would be included by obtaining permission from the creators to distribute their models with RTMT, and better yet, additionally getting copies of the gmax or 3ds max files and sending them to me.

Umm... for the BLaM set the creator hasn't been on since July 2, 2007. = \

As for the other set... hmm... is it possible if the RTMT can negotiate the release of the files? I think it'd be better if someone from the RTMT handle that simply because I don't want misunderstandings to occur during the communication process, and I'm often known to (umm) confuse the people around me. =O  Also, I assume that you have a SimTrop account?

- Allan Kuan

We can certainly handle it - my suggestions were merely for speeding up the process, especially since "we" in this regard so often means "I".  :)

Great job on this projects guys. Just another great example of talented transit teams on SCD4.

A quick question, and I might have missed the answer somewhere along the lines, but what prop file (if available) get me just a simple bench for bus stops?

Quote from: kassarc16 on August 17, 2009, 02:39:04 PM
A quick question, and I might have missed the answer somewhere along the lines, but what prop file (if available) get me just a simple bench for bus stops?

Currently "a simple bench" as a option for a bus stop is not available, but it was under discussion previously in this topic

Quote from: z on June 29, 2009, 04:06:14 PM
As for the stop on the right, that's an interesting idea - benches instead of shelters.  (That would probably work best in sunnier climates, such as Southern California. :))  There's no reason that couldn't be a bus stop option as well - would people be interested in that?

:)

I love the idea of a simple bus stop with a sign only and a bus "shelter" stop as two seperate menu items.  Currently i use a mix for different road volumes and have to use 1x1 tiles for shelters. 

Also along the same lines a single-sided stop would be a nice addition for quiet streets and rural roads, and if u wanted it both sides u could just stagger it like the current 2x1 removing the need for that menu item.

I think these are both very reasonable requests; they would be best implemented in the upgrade of the RTMT customization system that's coming in RTMT V4.0.  A stop with signs only is actually easiest to implement; a bus stop with just a single shelter would be more work, as it would be an entirely new station, but if enough people wanted it, we could certainly put it in.  The SAM stations that are due out imminently use single-shelter stations for the dirt and gravel roads; it will be useful to see how people react to these.

Your idea about using these to replace the 1x2 station wouldn't work, however.  Transit stations cannot be placed directly adjacent to each other; if they are, no traffic flows between them.  This is a fundamental limitation of the game.

Just a question... are there any pictures anywhere of the UK and DE textures for the RTMT stations? There weren't any pictures included with the 3.6 download, so I don't know what the UK and DE textures look like.

Hi, erstmal good job. But I seek the stops for the Undergound Rail, I can only find subway stops.

Quote from: Shadow Assassin on October 22, 2009, 04:10:49 AM
Just a question... are there any pictures anywhere of the UK and DE textures for the RTMT stations? There weren't any pictures included with the 3.6 download, so I don't know what the UK and DE textures look like.

Not right now - that's another thing I should do.  I'll have to get some screenshots made.  RTMT V3.70 will come with a full installer, which will simply be an extension of the current installer, so you'll be able to see the textures when you select them.

Meanwhile, the best thing to do is just try them out.  All your existing textures will change, and this way, you can see how they work in your city.  You can just replace them if you don't like them.

---

Quote from: DJPTiger on October 22, 2009, 05:57:03 AM
Hi, erstmal good job. But I seek the stops for the Undergound Rail, I can only find subway stops.

Yes, the long-awaited Underground Rail stations will finally make their appearance in RTMT V3.70.

And RTMT V4.0 is still on its way - we just want to get some things out in V3.70 first.  Fortunately, V3.70 is going to be a smaller release than V3.60.  Here's what's currently planned:

• A full installer, making installation much easier.
• Stations for underground rail.
• Stations for NWM
• Pedestrian bus and subway stations for the GLR transitions
• Support for all the standard RTMT languages in the DAMN menus

   I was wondering about that.... the underground stations.....


I did have a question though.... Does this mean I'd have to install 3.51 with the patch and then 3.6 and when 3.7 comes out install that onto the current?

No; V3.51 is officially obsolete, and is even locked on the LEX.  All you need now is V3.50 and V3.60, although it doesn't hut if you've already installed V3.51.  When V3.70 comes out, it will replace everything that has gone before it (in a completely compatible way, of course).

Quote from: z on October 22, 2009, 01:03:51 PM
Not right now - that's another thing I should do.  I'll have to get some screenshots made.  RTMT V3.70 will come with a full installer, which will simply be an extension of the current installer, so you'll be able to see the textures when you select them.

Meanwhile, the best thing to do is just try them out.  All your existing textures will change, and this way, you can see how they work in your city.  You can just replace them if you don't like them.

Cool, cool. I'm just taking a look through them. I may actually make custom textures, though.

   Thanks that clears it up a bit.... Actually I have many version of the RTMT, well 3 versions... Not installed of course, as I haven't got that far in my re-instalation... V2.0 which is useless, the 3.5 & 3.51 patch.... I haven't had a chance to DL the 3.6 but will when I have more time... Unless 3.7 comes out... then it wouldn't matter.

   I think I fully understand now, and thanks again... :)

Just to clarify - When V3.70 comes out, it will superseded all the previous V3 releases.  But the V2 release is a completely independent plugin, and will be unaffected.  Personally, I'd recommend upgrading V2 stations to V3; this has to be done manually.

  Really I didn't know v2 was independant.... Not sure how I would update those stations, as I would be more liable to use the v3 series... I haven't used v2 in quite some time... and don't even remember what that version actually looks like it's been so long, but I have the download anyhow. I like to back-up things, even if it is older version, at least it would be in an historical arhive per say.. :)

   Yeah and that is what I figured you meant by 3.7 in your last post, but thanks for the conformation. :)

Do you have to use DAMN ?   I have been trying for some time now to get DAMN to work but no such luck.   I'd like to use the new stuff (RTMT) but don't wanna use DAMN. 


---Gaston

Quote from: Gaston on October 24, 2009, 02:06:01 PM
Do you have to use DAMN ?   I have been trying for some time now to get DAMN to work but no such luck.   I'd like to use the new stuff (RTMT) but don't wanna use DAMN. 

No, the old menu structure is completely intact, with the new stations added in appropriate places.

However, if you could explain your DAMN problems, chances are good that we could solve them quickly for you.  And such a solution would be helpful for others in your situation as well.

z,
   I guess my main problem is that I don't understand any of it.     I have read the readme several times and each time I become more confused.    I think what I need is a "DAMN for Dummies" tutorial.     I basically need to be walked thru everything after downloading.    LOL    For some reason my tiny little brain just will not wrap itself around this program.   I thought everything was installed correctly but it still would not work.   So I removed it all and went about my merry little way.     Now suddenly RTMT DAMN shows up and I find myself trying to get it all to work again.     Very depressing indeed.    As long as I can still use it with out DAMN it won't be so bad.   Maybe someone will write the "DAMN for Dummies" then I will try again.     Thanks for reading this.


---Gaston

I'm also having problems with the RTMT DAMN menus. After I installed the newest RTMT version, the DAMN menus cannot be used as pop-up windows, I can only use them in the News window which is annoying and harder to use. Any ideas? ()what()

I just double-checked, and it turns out that there's an error in the distribution.  Take the customMenu.dat file from the attached zip file, and replace the one in your DAMN\Support folder with it.  That should solve your problem.

Meanwhile, it looks like I need to update the distribution...

Just a quick update...  Due to the release and popularity of NWM, I'll be adding NWM stations for RTMT in the v3.70 release.  To compensate, and so that the release gets out in a reasonable time, I'll be deferring the tram-on-street stations for a later release.  Our friends at SFBT have released a basic tram-on-street station, so this functionality is available in the game, whereas the NWM stations will be introducing new functionality.

Sounds good.  :thumbsup: I can use those NWM stations.

Quote from: z on July 09, 2010, 01:54:30 AM
Just a quick update...  Due to the release and popularity of NWM, I'll be adding NWM stations for RTMT in the v3.70 release ...

Better go and download the NWM I've got some building to do   ;)

Any possibility of Elevated Road/OneWay/Avenue Bus Stations? It'd be nice to have for my busways.

Hello westamastaflash

The Elevated Rail over Road or Street Bus stops can be found in the RTMT update (RTMT Add-On Pack V3.60), the rest should be available in the base file, see links to either the LEX or STEX files.

Install the base file

http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=17670  or  http://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1057

then the update RTMT Add-On Pack V3.60

http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=22713  or  http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2247

if you want GLR transitions

http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=22714  or  http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2248

and finally T-RAM in road or Avenue stations

http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=21158  or  http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1986

hope that helps

:)

Thanks catty, I've used those in the past.

What I'm looking for is specifically a bus station that works with the elevated roads from the NAM (the road puzzle pieces)

I want to build a dedicated busway (using the HOV TE lots to block non-bus traffic), and it would be nice to have a station that would be elevated.

For a real life example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBWH_busway_station

More pictures/examples:
http://www.transportphoto.net/cmt.aspx?l=cn&cmtc=xiamen&cmtt=1800

Quote from: westamastaflash on February 19, 2011, 06:53:59 PM
For a real life example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBWH_busway_station

More pictures/examples:
http://www.transportphoto.net/cmt.aspx?l=cn&cmtc=xiamen&cmtt=1800

Nice looking bus stops, not something we have done or is on our current to-do-list

  :(

Actually, they are something that's eventually planned for RTMT; they're the first item listed in The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5681.0).  However, they are fairly low down on the priority list, so you shouldn't expect to see them anytime soon.

How about this (http://www.bripizza.net/sc4/2106_busstop/2106_koukabustop.html)?

That would certainly seem to fulfill westamastaflash's needs.  However, technically that's not an RTMT station, as it requires additional tiles besides the roadway.  It works well enough as a bus station, though, that it probably reduces the priority of the RTMT version, if anything.  ::)

Quote from: westamastaflash on February 19, 2011, 06:53:59 PM
Thanks catty, I've used those in the past.

What I'm looking for is specifically a bus station that works with the elevated roads from the NAM (the road puzzle pieces)

I want to build a dedicated busway (using the HOV TE lots to block non-bus traffic), and it would be nice to have a station that would be elevated.

For a real life example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBWH_busway_station

More pictures/examples:
http://www.transportphoto.net/cmt.aspx?l=cn&cmtc=xiamen&cmtt=1800

Cool idea. All you'd need is the blocker lots at the entrance/exit, say a special Ave TE'd lot that only allows buses through, and then some stops along the elevated sections. Hmmmm... I did make those GLHwy bus stops, so this wouldn't be much of a stretch on that.... might add it to the "if I ever get back into BAT'ing" list.

Thanks TiFlo!

I found another cool stop on that site too.
http://www.bripizza.net/sc4/2906GSta/2906GSta.html

One thing about dedicated busways is that they don't really reduce traffic much since each the capacity is the same for buses as it is for cars on roads, but it's nice to be able to have something for sims that want to take mass transit over driving.

These will work for now :-). I added my vote to the poll too. Thanks!

Quote from: z on February 19, 2011, 09:45:51 PM
Actually, they are something that's eventually planned for RTMT; they're the first item listed in The Eternal RTMT New Features Poll (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5681.0).  However, they are fairly low down on the priority list, so you shouldn't expect to see them anytime soon.

I should really memorize that list   ;)

Due to the great demand for RTMT NWM stations, they are being moved forward into the coming release, which is being renumbered as RTMT v3.70.  The release that was formerly going to be RTMT v3.70 is being renumbered as RTMT v4.0.

Great! we just waiting for that. BTW i just modified your MTRT__Road_Sub_Bus_Cross into MTRT_Oneway_Road_Sub_Bus_Cross for my 1Billion Inhabitant Project. Everything work the same as ori. TQ

That's great news.  :thumbsup:

Quote from: richboyz on May 13, 2011, 04:17:09 AM
BTW i just modified your MTRT__Road_Sub_Bus_Cross into MTRT_Oneway_Road_Sub_Bus_Cross for my 1Billion Inhabitant Project. Everything work the same as ori. TQ

RTMT already has a full set of stations for standard one-way roads.  What exactly did you do?

Quote from: z on May 13, 2011, 02:08:00 AM
Due to the great demand for RTMT NWM stations, they are being moved forward into the coming release, which is being renumbered as RTMT v3.70.  The release that was formerly going to be RTMT v3.70 is being renumbered as RTMT v4.0.

If you are in need of a beta tester for these, I would be happy to do this. I just started a new tile, and nwm bus and subway stops would be really nice.

PM me if you are interested.

Josh

Quote from: joshua43214 on August 24, 2011, 09:15:12 PM
If you are in need of a beta tester for these, I would be happy to do this. I just started a new tile, and nwm bus and subway stops would be really nice.

PM me if you are interested.

Josh

Hi Josh

We aren't at the testing stage as yet, currently we are looking for

Quote from: z on June 22, 2011, 08:31:17 PM
As you may have read elsewhere, the RTMT Team is going to be including RTMT stations for all the NWM networks in the next RTMT release.  Due to the number of NWM networks (including those in the next release) and the various features of RTMT stations, this means adding hundreds of new stations to RTMT.  (The current total number of RTMT stations is 53.)  For this reason, we need people to join the RTMT Team and help us build these stations.

People who are interested in helping us should have at least basic familiarity with the Reader and the Lot Editor.  Some familiarity with SC4Tool would also be helpful, but isn't necessary.  A full tutorial for building these stations is being completed, so all the steps will be laid out clearly.

One of the most important qualifications for joining the RTMT Team is to be able to put in at least several hours per week on this project, on average.  RL always takes precedence, of course.  But it is important that if you want to join the RTMT Team, you are willing to put in a reasonable amount of time on the project.

If this sounds like something you want to do, then please send me a PM with a little information about your background.  Thanks! :)

We will keep you in mind once we start testing, but its a serious commitment, testing involves checking every station and all the transit paths and pedestrians that uses that station and then repeating all the tests when the next beta comes out and the next beta and so on ... written reports are essential and expected part of each test that you do, if that's something you or anyone else who reads this would enjoy doing then please let us know by PM.

:thumbsup:

Well I read some pages and haven't found any infos about what I want to suggest.

First I want to say that RTMT is really cool and have great options. Anyway there's one thing that annoy me: The stations props.

They can be fixed to always use one prop, or have lot of props and the game randomly choose one. This is the best way to have different options of stations. Here's where my suggestion/request comes: Ask in the installer which station type the user wants (shmails, Antonies TSC, SimFox, etc). And use the TAB feature, like the other NAM components. So you can cycle between the stations options.

Well, I have no idea if this is possible with RTMT, sorry if no.

First post!

It is already possible to do what you want, although on a manual basis.  Please see the Readme file from RTMT v3.50 for full details.  A fully automated prop configuration manager is planned for a future release of RTMT.