Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JasonMel]

Here's what I'm referring to, from the dev diary on the download page (from April -- sorry, I'm just getting into DF now).



This looks amazing. It looks like a really good attempt to create old-world cities that grew up gradually, rather than the rigid, rectilinear look of a city planned and created overnight like most new-world cities. However, here's the thing: After looking at it a bit longer, it begins to look like a regular, rectilinear grid which has been put through some kind of metamorphism algorithm that introduces some jitter to the grid node coordinates. The rivers may look blocky in this preliminary image, but at least they violate the grid.

I guess the reason I decided to post about this is that I'm a big fan of geography -- in particular, looking at different city layouts from around the world in Google Maps and marveling at how different they are, even when looking at nothing but street layouts. And what I've noticed, relevant to the above image, is that often old-world cities have major crisscrossing roads that meander in ways more similar to the river in the image than to its roads.

Here's my suggestion for making town layouts even more realistic: Use the geometry algorithm for rivers (or even the one for the interior walls, which also look amazing) to create maybe two to ten random "major" river-like roads through the city limits. (Maybe even make those lead out of town to other places.) Then, once the city has been carved up by the "major" roads, divvy up the remaining chunks using your morphed grids. That seems to be the one universal pattern in real cities. If possible, rotate the grid to align with the intersections of the major roads (or just pick a random rotation for each chunk).

The only other suggestion I have is to make the city limits a little more more amoebic and blob-shaped, and less obviously circular. I would suggest having them peter out gradually at the outskirts, but that presumes a lot of land-use diversity, and may be more ambitious than you need.

[counting]

I don't know if you notice that, even in the old worlds the city street and layout, are also two kinds of mash up structure on kind is "grown out" through time look like spider web or mycetozoa (a kind of slime mold), like


And Romans, like they grid city plan, (ironically since Rome is old, so itself look like grown out city), and they often build the square like city either on top the old one, or attached them on the out skirt, making them looks weird in the center (old town), and grid like in the new town area. We Chinese people like to do the same thing as well, old city like this

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

More modern city are hybrid (18 century Beijing)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[JasonMel]

Exactly! It's funny, because even in your Beijing maps, they still look strongly old-world to me, with streets that meander and curve. But now that you point it out, they curve somewhat less strongly than streets in the very old city in your other image. They also seem to have a preference, more or less, for the cardinal directions, even if they wiggle a bit.

It's interesting you mention Rome, because I was looking at the Indian city of New Dheli just recently. New Dheli was created by the British, I believe, and its layout struck me as strongly reminiscent of Washington, D.C., which was created in a consciously neo-classical style, imitating the old Roman empire.

I wonder what makes really old streets curve so much? I've thought about this before. They must have started out as footpaths or cart roads. But if you travel by foot over foot-crossable terrain, interested in getting from point A to point B, wouldn't you walk in a straight line? So what makes long footpaths curve when there's nothing else around yet? Is it just a matter of going around hills? One way to test that would be to find an ancient city on absolutely flat land (with no rivers, because then the paths would obviously have to respect the winding course of the water). Somewhere like, say, Midland, Texas. But I suppose that, in order to have water nearby, you need rivers and hills around, because hills imply valleys, which is where you'll find water, barring technology for pumping deep aquifers.

Maybe they just grew like a mycetozoa fungus.

I guess I should say at least one thing that's on-topic in this post, so while we're on the subject of topology, wouldn't it be amazing if the streets actually reflected topological features? Now that would be simulation!

[Vercingetorix]

I think part of the meandering is due to the changes in the size and shape of land plots, building sizes, and the combination/subdivision of plots in to new shapes and sizes depending on the owner at the time.

You can see this kind of road layout in Boston here in the US; it's one of the oldest major cities in the country and the road layout in the oldest part looks quite like those others.

[JasonMel]

I see that Boston has some winding major roads, which is cool (I live in Tampa which has approximately zero, aside from coastal roads and roads to other towns). Changing plot sizes, eh? Interesting notion.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that hills must be a major factor. The only reason to create a road at all is if you have to move a cart. Pedestrians don't need paved roads, so maybe footpaths didn't have much influence on road layouts after all. Crucially, however, it's next to impossible to push a loaded cart up a hill, even one that's easily climbable on foot. (I've had occasion to push a small car up a tiny hill, and it was a major undertaking.) So ancient roads probably had to respect elevation change and stay perpendicular to the elevation gradient as much as possible, which means things like switchbacks.

After automobiles arrive, we got carts that climb a hill even more easily than a pedestrian, and topology can take a flying leap.

[counting]

It very hard to find an ancient China city on a plain which is old. It's either being rebuild, or completely covered up by modern city. Also, due to ancient Chinese structures are often made of wood (expect for tombs), many cities has be destroyed by fire/war many times before to look anything alike in old time.

The one do survived are like somewhere hard to reach, raining, in difficult terrains, like the old city I post. Or its a capital city, like Beijing, so it mostly not rebuild completely and officials always keep old records of them. (like the 18 century maps), Modern Beijing looks not that organic anymore, only shadows.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

opposite to another ancient capital city, about 1200 years ago, but still big city today. The two red squares are where the old cities were. Northern one older, destroyed in war, rebuild again in another dynasty at the south, and modern city almost engulfs them both.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(Another problems with China, too many people, can't find anywhere in a plain that did not have people lived on them now. And they often tear down old walls and make houses on top, so you will see road circling like ancient walls and newer roads follows their directions.

P.S I think I'll go to the library to see if its possible to find the old records. I believe I used to see some books about ancient cities/ruins some can date back to 4000~5000 years, that should be a good reference whether people building cities differently on uneven ground and plains. But another possible reason, why hills are so important, is military purpose. Those cities/towns on defensive positions are chosen early as strongholds, so they started small on the top, and later when it was extended, people built houses around the old walls, so they will shoot out in all kind of directions from the old city gates, and no planing at all. After time after time of rebuilding walls, and expanding, the streets will connected the old gate to new gate on defense opening, and they will follow the shape of the hills.

[JasonMel]

But another possible reason, why hills are so important, is military purpose. Those cities/towns on defensive positions are chosen early as strongholds, so they started small on the top[...].

Good point. I've read about this in a book discussing archaeology.

[sockless]

One of the problems with the current city maps is that they lack structure.

In real life towns would've probably started with no structure, but as they got bigger they would start to get more structure. Like in the last map that Counting shows, where there are definite rings of main roads.

Another thing is that all the cities are in the same style, but I guess that's because there's no racial difference in the game, only different cultures with different species.

[counting]

One of the problems with the current city maps is that they lack structure.

In real life towns would've probably started with no structure, but as they got bigger they would start to get more structure. Like in the last map that Counting shows, where there are definite rings of main roads.

Another thing is that all the cities are in the same style, but I guess that's because there's no racial difference in the game, only different cultures with different species.

In modern cities, these outer circle of roads (外環路), are mostly used and built for traffic reason. Since it's crowd already down town, it's better to drive around if you are going from one part to another, it will be faster. (outer roads often have a higher speed limit, since less traffic, bigger road). however the most inner ring, are most likely 'evolved' from the old roads that used to surround the old city walls. But latter when the wall is teared down, it's width becomes a road. Providing vital traffic follow control role down town. Super high way are connected to these high speed road as well to provide inter-city travel.

The grid part in the center are actually old city. Chinese, like the Roman, prefers building grid street pattern. Most city planned on a new city sight are predetermined it's city wall, grid streets and exits. But it's hard for some ancient city cite like this one.