• pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I haven’t played Cities: Skylines in years, this looks great but hopefully they fixed the stupid traffic AI. I hated that when you built a wider road to decrease congestion half of the cars would ignore the opened lanes and still pile up in the original ones.

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is one of the areas of the game they specifically worked on to improve. There’s dev diaries about how they improved it.

        • Psythik@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You could fix it somewhat with mods, by forcing cars to take specific lanes. Didn’t solve the problem, but it helped. Can’t wait to try the new traffic AI in the sequel.

    • Goodtoknow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Widening roads is never a good answer in game or real life, it induces new demand and will eventually become more congested. Need to build a train line instead

      • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand what you’re getting at, but even cities with lots of public transit get choked with traffic in CS1. The traffic AI is abysmal.

      • stankmut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It does increase the capacity of roads. Two lanes holds twice as many cars as one lane. Four lanes hold twice as many cars as two lanes.

        You’re probably thinking of induced demand, but that’s related to traffic congestion and not capacity. More lanes ultimately means more cars are getting places, but any individual car will see that congestion is just as bad as it used to be.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah see what’s happening here is that you’re completely ignoring junctions: even in the ideal case of a completely straight road you still need junctions to get on and off the road, which will put a hard limit on throughput.

          This is why traffic in america is miserable, the traffic engineers fail to recognize that you can’t just put businesses right next to roads as that will cause stupendous amounts of choking every time someone wants to pop in for some mcdonalds.

          3 lanes in each direction is about the most you’ll ever need, which is what you’ll tend to see on big highways in europe. And really most of the time you’ll do just fine with 2 lanes.

          • stankmut@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I actually had a whole paragraph about junctions being a limit and then deleted it since i didn’t feel like it added to my point. I also was going to add a point about how much space the lanes take up and that even if more lanes added capacity, it didn’t necessarily mean they were the right option.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah… That’s how these things work ya know. A 4 lane road has higher capacity than a 2 lane road assuming there arent any choke points.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah uh, i think you’ll find that you need junctions, which create chokepoints?

          even with highways you get chokepoints at the ramps, and they are extremely absurdly costly.