Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan











1 Sprawl - zoneable space forfeit
2 Some Head On Crossings, just merges, neither head-ons nor merges
3 Lane mathematics or not
4 Some sharp corners or all sweeping bends
5 Lanes*length and Lanes*Levels*Length. I've never calculated them, though, as it gets hard. But they help comparatively.
If I get to it, #6, making it smooth and pretty boosts #4 as well.
There are definite trade-offs between 1 and 4, although 2 and 3 are solvable in pretty much every space constraint where an interchange fits.
I looked at your collection and I was and am troubled by your statement "Intersections are Big". "Some Intersections are Big", that is true, but not all. I couldn't see where to comment on the collection, so I hope you'll see this, and I can chop it down or delete it after you get a chance to ponder.
Things you might want in your collection for performance and variety:
+a No-Weave Double Y (low-merge, TM:PE can force no merge)
+a Compact stacked interchange that fits mostly within the rights-of-way, minimizing or even (almost) eliminating sprawl.
+a reasonably compact stacked interchange that takes Pinavia and Turbine off the table, unless someone wants to build a replica stadium and can spare the space and the concrete,
+a reasonably compact service interchange that can start as a simple diamond, and grow with the needs
I love this intersection because of its minimal "sprawl", the occupied spaces outside the right-of-way for the highways. The number of zoneable squares lost to an intersection is a key criteria (or should be) for intersection selection.
In three quadrants the sprawl is nil. In the fourth it's not bad, but remember to divide it by 4 when comparing, and then the bonus is only one quadrant is impacted.
I got frustrated by the weaving (like in cloverleafs) that could mess-up traffic. So I made a non-weaving variant.