Menu

LEX File Exchange EA Support Files
SC4 Wikipedia Network Addon Mod
Dependencies Chat

Author Topic: NAM Unified Traffic Simulator and Data View Help  (Read 124922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pierreh

  • RTMT Team
  • Forums Parliamentarian
  • *
  • Posts: 1594
  • Reputation: 10
  • CL:
    All Aboard
Re: NAM Unified Traffic Simulator and Data View Help
« Reply #240 on: September 26, 2015, 02:50:50 AM »
I'll save you the trouble, Pierre.  I just fired up my old Queens city of Jamaica (pop. 3.5 million) from 2007, which made extensive use of underground rail.  You can see this in the traffic volume view, but no actual volume figures are available.

Thanks a lot, Steve! I'll probably still implement a section or two of undergound rail, in part to see whether it can be more convincing than my earlier attempts, but this removes the urgency of it. I also want to understand better how underground rail is implemented.

Offline Tarkus

  • Administrator
  • Forums Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 11337
  • Reputation: 70
  • NAM Team Tankadillo
    • NAM HQ
  • CL: Dr. PuzzlePiece
Re: NAM Unified Traffic Simulator and Data View Help
« Reply #241 on: September 26, 2015, 03:18:40 AM »
It's been a long time since I've done anything with URail.  Its implementation actually pre-dates FLUPs--URail came in NAM 20, while FLUPs didn't arrive until NAM 24. 

The original URail setups done by GoaSkin were all Dual-Networking, with only URail-under-Road and the transition portal being available.  The RUL0 entries for the FLUPs crossings, oddly enough, involve CheckTypes for LightRail plus another network (even if there is no LightRail-based crossing involved), whereas the URail ones are Rail plus another network.  It may come down to a quirk with how the query tools resolve the particular transit types involved.  If Chrisim were still around, he would be the guy to ask, was the main guy for both FLUPs and URail, and probably did the most experimentation (at least since the early days) with CheckTypes.

-Alex

Offline b22rian

  • RTMT Team
  • Forums Guru
  • *
  • Posts: 3349
  • Reputation: 13
  • CL:
    ...let us ch@t...
Re: NAM Unified Traffic Simulator and Data View Help
« Reply #242 on: September 26, 2015, 05:07:52 AM »
Alex,

thanks much for your explanations as always , especially given your RL time constraints + the Nam 33 release being soon.  :thumbsup:

This was the first time I had ever heard the term "Check Types", and it was quite an interesting learning experience for me to hear how you explained all this with the traffic reporting of our underground networks.

And although this certainly should not be considered anything of a "high priority". I was thinking after we get RTMT version 4 out the door , I may try to look into this at a deeper level. If I follow through with my desire to learn more about Ruls code, I do understand Rul 0 is the logical place to start. And if you think an understanding of these concepts involve Rul 0, than this sounds like it may be fun for me to look into this issue later on..

brian

Offline b22rian

  • RTMT Team
  • Forums Guru
  • *
  • Posts: 3349
  • Reputation: 13
  • CL:
    ...let us ch@t...
Re: NAM Unified Traffic Simulator and Data View Help
« Reply #243 on: September 26, 2015, 06:11:21 AM »
Alex + Steve,

one interesting test experiment i thought i would try but turned out to be a "fail", unless i made some sort of error with my set up here...

I was curious on this rail flup, if i tried substituting the usual U- rail pieces, for  the pedmall/ straight route flup pieces, if than the U rail portion would start reporting its "traffic figures"..

However , attempting to use these flup pieces renders the U-  rail route as non-functional.

So Alex,

 is this part of the reason why we have all these U- rail pieces to use, because you cannot use these  straight underground routing flup pieces with the maxis rail network ?
I thought those were pathed in such a way that they make available all traffic types to the traffic sim ?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 04:23:51 AM by b22rian »