ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา











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.