Anyone play Cities: Skylines yet?

[jakeroot]

- Fine Road Tool: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=651322972&searchtext=
- Traffic Manager: President's Edition: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=583429740&searchtext=

These links no longer work.  What do those mods do, and are there updated equivalents?

For the first, these two mods: Fine Road Anarchy and Fine Road Tool (both go hand-in-hand).

For the second, the mod became well-known enough to become, simply, "TM:PE" (that is the LABS version of the mod, which should work and is not buggy, although not all users can get it to work properly -- Riiga above, for instance).

For other mods, I would suggest going to the workshop and selecting the "mods" option on the right, and then sorting by "Most Popular" and "Three Months".

As to the rest of your comment, the issues with merges, diverges, converges, turns, and everything else are an obvious issue with the base game. Frankly, the base game is unplayable for anyone interested in traffic control. But luckily, mods make the game much better and you can create, in my own opinion, very realistic interchanges. Here's something I'm building right now:

[jakeroot]

In my bid to basically make my city look as Californian as possible, I've also adopted California-style traffic signals:

[Scott5114]

Well, now we know how many signal heads at one intersection it takes to make jakeroot happy. 

[Ned Weasel]

For the first, these two mods: Fine Road Anarchy and Fine Road Tool (both go hand-in-hand).

For the second, the mod became well-known enough to become, simply, "TM:PE" (that is the LABS version of the mod, which should work and is not buggy, although not all users can get it to work properly -- Riiga above, for instance).

For other mods, I would suggest going to the workshop and selecting the "mods" option on the right, and then sorting by "Most Popular" and "Three Months".

As to the rest of your comment, the issues with merges, diverges, converges, turns, and everything else are an obvious issue with the base game. Frankly, the base game is unplayable for anyone interested in traffic control. But luckily, mods make the game much better and you can create, in my own opinion, very realistic interchanges. Here's something I'm building right now:

Thanks for the links and the insight!  Your interchange/intersection designs look amazing!

Well, now we know how many signal heads at one intersection it takes to make jakeroot happy. 

Maybe he's anticipating eventual adoption of the Vienna Convention in the U.S. or at least California, namely Article 23, Section 3-b.

[Scott5114]

Nah, Jake just really likes supplemental signal heads. He advocates for them a lot in the traffic control subforum. They do have their benefits, but I think his setup maaaay be overkill, just a tad.

[vdeane]

But I hate the way this works for converging roadways.  When you want to widen a ramp, your only choice is to upgrade it to a three-lane expressway* roadway, assuming you still have adequate space.  When a three-lane expressway* roadway merges into a continuing three-lane expressway* roadway, it's treated as an uncontrolled three-lane right turn.  Well, as I probably should have predicted, this leads to accidents, but instead of the accident causing a traffic jam where emergency vehicles have to come respond to the scene, the vehicles just go right through each other, because I guess every Cities: Skyline city is actually Pleasantville, where there are no toilets, because nobody ever has to use one.

Without a better tool for converging expressway* roadways, I guess my best option for achieving more realistic interchange design is to taper the three-lane roadway down to one lane in advance of the convergence.

Didn't they add two lane "highways" at some point?

[Ned Weasel]

Didn't they add two lane "highways" at some point?

Not in the base game.  I don't have any of the expansions (yet), however.

[vdeane]

Didn't they add two lane "highways" at some point?

Not in the base game.  I don't have any of the expansions (yet), however.

It must have been in the Mass Transit DLC, then.

[jakeroot]

Nah, Jake just really likes supplemental signal heads. He advocates for them a lot in the traffic control subforum. They do have their benefits, but I think his setup maaaay be overkill, just a tad.

Correct, yes. Big time advocate.

As far as the placement that I picked, I believe there's been a few intersections in California with this exact setup. But yeah, I designed it to be overkill.

Maybe he's anticipating eventual adoption of the Vienna Convention in the U.S. or at least California, namely Article 23, Section 3-b.

Honestly, California has just as stringent, if not more stringent standards than anything in the Vienna convention.

Denmark seems to have the best signals in Europe, and theirs really aren't that different from places like Chicago.

[Ned Weasel]

It must have been in the Mass Transit DLC, then.

I had to get that expansion after I heard this and looked it up.  I sure hope this game doesn't become a problem for me like some people have with World of Warcraft. 

Honestly, California has just as stringent, if not more stringent standards than anything in the Vienna convention.

Maybe I should have clarified, but I was specifically referring to the requirement that signals be placed either on the near side of the intersection, or, in the midpoint if placed overhead.  The North American custom of placing them on the far side of the intersection is merely an option in the Vienna Convention, and that placement alone doesn't fulfill the near-side or overhead-and-midpoint requirement.  Does California have such a requirement?  If so, there are probably a lot of signals that don't live up to it.

Denmark seems to have the best signals in Europe, and theirs really aren't that different from places like Chicago.

This is the first time I've heard "best signals" and "Chicago" in the same sentence.  How do you feel about that repeated MUTCD violation, where they use a permissive-protected configuration for left turns and then tack on a regulatory sign making it protected-only?

[jakeroot]

Honestly, California has just as stringent, if not more stringent standards than anything in the Vienna convention.

Maybe I should have clarified, but I was specifically referring to the requirement that signals be placed either on the near side of the intersection, or, in the midpoint if placed overhead.  The North American custom of placing them on the far side of the intersection is merely an option in the Vienna Convention, and that placement alone doesn't fulfill the near-side or overhead-and-midpoint requirement.  Does California have such a requirement?  If so, there are probably a lot of signals that don't live up to it.

As far the near-side requirement: they're a de facto add on for most traffic signals in California. The use of near-side left turn signals seems to have died out, but they do exist (usually, as is the case here, in conjunction with near-side through signals).

When I draw up fake signals, I tend to pull different standards from different areas: overall, I'm a fan of California placement, so most of what I do duplicates that, but I also like the eye-level near-side left turn signals that prevail throughout BC, although BC tends to use 8-inch arrows for these installations so they are less bulky than my example above (I don't have any non-backplate signals).

[jakeroot]

(this was originally part of the above reply, but I moved it here because it kept growing)

Denmark seems to have the best signals in Europe, and theirs really aren't that different from places like Chicago.

This is the first time I've heard "best signals" and "Chicago" in the same sentence.  How do you feel about that repeated MUTCD violation, where they use a permissive-protected configuration for left turns and then tack on a regulatory sign making it protected-only?

It's not that Chicago's signals are perfect. Those examples of "...ON GREEN ARROW ONLY" at 5-section left turn signals are pretty unfortunate, but seem to have been used to satisfy requirements for a certain number of green orbs without using overhead signals, as is not desirable along a street like that where overhead signals might clutter the skyline (a strange point but something I've learned from urban design courses). Nowadays, you'd simply cram two 3-section signals next to each other (one for left turns, another for through traffic) but I guess that didn't occur to them at the time.

What I specifically like about Chicago's signals is that they are a combination of my two favorite things: signals without backplates (allow me to explain), and excellent placement. Chicago does not use backplates which would seem like a negative, but the decision to not use backplates means that even those intersections with many signals tend to feel more..."light weight"; backplates can add significantly to the horizontal and vertical dimension of a traffic light. Multiply that by, say, 16 (assuming four signals per approach), and the overall "surface area" dedicated to traffic signals does grow significantly (perhaps by about 80%). This is an odd point, I know, and by no means do I dislike backplates (if Chicago decided tomorrow to install backplates city-wide, I would live with it), but signals without backplates do tend to feel less imposing than those with backplates. This viewpoint is entirely from an urban design perspective: I prefer design decisions that are less physically intrusive on the landscape: signals with backplates, especially when used at intersections with many post-mounted signals, can make the signals very large and very imposing.

One thing to mention: my distaste for backplates extends only to post-mounted signals. Overhead, I prefer them due to issues with bright skies (this is the only qualm I have with Chicago standards). But I find that 12-inch post mounted signals, especially when back-to-back with other signals or even a pole, are usually easy enough to spot that a backplate is an unnecessary addition. Modern LED signals are also quite bright, so it's not like they'd be difficult to spot in visually-busy areas.

If you look at Europe, most countries do not use backplates for their signals. Europe is by no means the gold-standard when it comes to traffic signal placement (although near-side signals make sense when you don't allow turns on red), but they are certainly the gold-standard when it comes to urban design, and I think their signals fit into the urban design landscape better than American traffic signals which are very large and imposing in comparison.

[Ned Weasel]

You probably shouldn't have told me where to find a tool for restricting turns at intersections, because you probably could have guessed what I'd do with it....

[paulthemapguy]

How do you get freeway ramps to join the freeway at anything less than a 45-degree angle?  If it's the Prop & Tree Anarchy Mod, that mod prevents my games from loading.

[X99]

How do you get freeway ramps to join the freeway at anything less than a 45-degree angle?  If it's the Prop & Tree Anarchy Mod, that mod prevents my games from loading.

Fine Road Anarchy, Move It, and Node Controller (this last one is optional)

[vtk]

With Fine Road Anarchy, you have to turn off bending (ctrl+B) which is on by default, and in most cases turn on anarchy (ctrl+A) which is of course off by default.

[rickmastfan67]

If anybody wants a free copy of this game, Epic Games has it on sale for free right now!
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/free-games

However, the catch is you only have till 11AM EST today (12/18/20) to claim it! (which is just over 10 hours from the time of this post)

[CapeCodder]

If anybody wants a free copy of this game, Epic Games has it on sale for free right now!
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/free-games

However, the catch is you only have till 11AM EST today (12/18/20) to claim it! (which is just over 10 hours from the time of this post)

Just downloaded it

[SoDakInterstateEnthusiast]

How does one not make their interchanges... lumpy?

That's a horrible way of describing it, but I'm constantly having problems grading my ramps properly. Especially whenever I'm trying to make a SPUI. If you went through all my CSL worlds you'd find about 5 or 6 ones with failed (and ugly) SPUIs.

I use that one mod that allows you to pick when you want to have your road elevated or ground level or tunnel regardless of its height and its supposed to let you automatically create a smooth grade between nodes of different elevations but it seems to just cause my road to bend in strange ways.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all so if I can get a picture later I will.

[Ned Weasel]

How does one not make their interchanges... lumpy?

That's a horrible way of describing it, but I'm constantly having problems grading my ramps properly. Especially whenever I'm trying to make a SPUI. If you went through all my CSL worlds you'd find about 5 or 6 ones with failed (and ugly) SPUIs.

I use that one mod that allows you to pick when you want to have your road elevated or ground level or tunnel regardless of its height and its supposed to let you automatically create a smooth grade between nodes of different elevations but it seems to just cause my road to bend in strange ways.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all so if I can get a picture later I will.

Verisimilitude isn't one of the game's strong points.

[paulthemapguy]

How does one not make their interchanges... lumpy?

The "Move it!" mod is great for this.  It's wonderful for precisely tweaking the elevation of points along your road.  It creates much smaller increments than the 1 overpass, 1/2 an overpass, and 1/4 overpass increments (which amount to maybe 16ft, 8ft, and 4ft in real life, respectively).

[SoDakInterstateEnthusiast]

How does one not make their interchanges... lumpy?

The "Move it!" mod is great for this.  It's wonderful for precisely tweaking the elevation of points along your road.  It creates much smaller increments than the 1 overpass, 1/2 an overpass, and 1/4 overpass increments (which amount to maybe 16ft, 8ft, and 4ft in real life, respectively).

How does one not make their interchanges... lumpy?

That's a horrible way of describing it, but I'm constantly having problems grading my ramps properly. Especially whenever I'm trying to make a SPUI. If you went through all my CSL worlds you'd find about 5 or 6 ones with failed (and ugly) SPUIs.

I use that one mod that allows you to pick when you want to have your road elevated or ground level or tunnel regardless of its height and its supposed to let you automatically create a smooth grade between nodes of different elevations but it seems to just cause my road to bend in strange ways.

I'm probably not explaining this well at all so if I can get a picture later I will.

Verisimilitude isn't one of the game's strong points.

I should have specified what mods I already am using. Move-It!, Precision Engineering, stuff like that I'm utilizing, but I'm still having problems. I really need to take a pic.

I am aware it's appearance is not the most realistic but something as basic as a smooth road slope should be a given if you ask me.

[jakeroot]

The game naturally makes intersections flat. These intersections exist any time two roads intersect, including when one road becomes a bridge (and then becomes a road again). The prior way of preventing these weird bumps was to use very long roads where the bumps weren't as obvious; now, just use node controller and set the intersection to "slope" (or whatever the option is).

[MikeTheActuary]

If you missed the free copy offer last week, it looks like Cities:Skylines is part of Steam's winter sale.  $7.49 for the base game through 5 January.

[I-55]

There are two types of CS players: There are people who actually want to build a functioning city, and then there's RTGame, the player who constantly destroys cities and proved that a 1 road city is actually not as bad as it sounds.