Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
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.