NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[Kuewr665]

Elevated network pieces need modeling to be created. Though there may just be copying over models, these are networks of different widths; the lanes can't exactly fit in between one tile gaps.

Also, I think there should be generic crosswalk pieces that can be used for any ped mall, not just the trails.

[Swordmaster]

also something I'd love to see is diagonal Tuleps- For some reason they've been left out many times.

Diagonal TULEPs are just very hard to make. Diagonal crossings in themselves are tricky, and there's very little functionality in that regard in the NWM. That'll be the first priority going forward, and it'll be a big enough challenge already.


Cheers
Willy

[XL2007]

Just watched this video of how the Dutch dealt with bicycle lanes through standard traffic intersections:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA

More to the point, I was wondering if it's possible to incorporate dedicated bike lanes and intersections as a cosmetic feature. It'd be a great complement to the separate bike paths I have planned for my city.

[MandelSoft]

It is possible, but practically it would mean a heck of a lot of work to code in new networks (because what you do is basically coding in a new network). Other solutions are complete re-textures of existing networks that include bike paths (though, I'm not in the mood of making those).

And if there's someone who wants bike paths in game, it's me (since I'm dutch ). But realistically, I don't see it happen soon.

Best,
Maarten

[Kuewr665]

As a Tucsonan, I did at one point think that having bike lanes would be a useful addition. I actually do not think the addition would be useful or noticeable, given how bikes are not a separate mode of transport in the game.

[Dino007]

I haven't played SC since april because of lack of time but I notice somewhere turbo roundabouts for SC4 but can't remember where.
Is this part of NWM?

[Indiana Joe]

I haven't played SC since april because of lack of time but I notice somewhere turbo roundabouts for SC4 but can't remember where.
Is this part of NWM?

They will be included in an upcoming release.

[itsacoaster]

Just wondering if you have looked into this at all.  In case you haven't, I did a couple of simple tests to see whether the OWR-4 and OWR-5 crossover paths were working.  As you can see from the following links, the OWR-5 works correctly but the OWR-4 does not.

OWR-4: http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a113/itsacoaster/sc4/owr4test.jpg~original
OWR-5: http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a113/itsacoaster/sc4/owr5test.jpg~original

I haven't had a chance to really look at it further--that's really pretty strange.  My guess is it may have to do with how the crossover paths are built between the two.

It's been several months so I thought I'd check in on this issue with OWR-4 crossover paths.  I hope someone else can at least duplicate the bug--last time I checked the bug still exists with a clean NAM installation.  The network is very difficult if not impractical to use in its current state.  Even though the setup pictured in the quote above is unusual for testing purposes, it behaves similarly in pretty normal setups, as detailed in this post.

If there has been a patch or further discussion that I missed, please let me know; in which case I apologize for the frivolous post.

[memo]

It's been several months so I thought I'd check in on this issue with OWR-4 crossover paths.  I hope someone else can at least duplicate the bug--last time I checked the bug still exists with a clean NAM installation.  The network is very difficult if not impractical to use in its current state.  Even though the setup pictured in the quote above is unusual for testing purposes, it behaves similarly in pretty normal setups, as detailed in this post.

If there has been a patch or further discussion that I missed, please let me know; in which case I apologize for the frivolous post.

I have just investigated this issue and it looks like the cross-over paths are insufficient. I fixed it in our files, in that the OWR4 paths now show the same properties as the OWR5 paths, but the OWR network has certain limitations. Specifically, you may occasionally observe reverse traffic in particular setups (This seems to have been the case for OWR5 before).





I don't have a patch for you, but the way things are developing, I am confident you won't have to wait several more months.

[itsacoaster]

I have just investigated this issue and it looks like the cross-over paths are insufficient. I fixed it in our files, in that the OWR4 paths now show the same properties as the OWR5 paths, but the OWR network has certain limitations. Specifically, you may occasionally observe reverse traffic in particular setups (This seems to have been the case for OWR5 before).

I don't have a patch for you, but the way things are developing, I am confident you won't have to wait several more months.

Hey, thanks a bunch for taking a look.  Good to hear, and best wishes to you and the team on future development.

They just didn't want to take the long way around.  I've seen it in real life unfortunately. 

[gn_leugim]

They just didn't want to take the long way around.  I've seen it in real life unfortunately. 

A normal day in Portugal XD

[titanicbuff]

Boy your sims are drunk!!!!! 

[lfb]

I have a question: Is there any chance of one way roads getting more realistic interchange, with stop lights and crosswalks? I don't want functionality. Even a eye candy is ok. Because, in real live, I've never seen this kind of interchange, without stoplights. 

PS: If you are asking who i am, I'm just regular simcity player.

[cmdp123789]

I second that!!! We need stoplights for on way roads... I mean, its ok for streets to not have them... but one way roads... specially big avenues, well... I second that !!

[noahclem]

If there has been a patch or further discussion that I missed, please let me know; in which case I apologize for the frivolous post.

I have just investigated this issue and it looks like the cross-over paths are insufficient. I fixed it in our files, in that the OWR4 paths now show the same properties as the OWR5 paths, but the OWR network has certain limitations. Specifically, you may occasionally observe reverse traffic in particular setups (This seems to have been the case for OWR5 before).
[/quote]

Would there be any sense to switching NWM OWRs from OWR-based to road-based? I'm not as familiar as I wish I was with the networks limitations but we all know RHW works fine in "one-way" setups despite being a native 2-way network

[Tarkus]

Regarding the One-Way Road (OWR) signalization, it's an implementation matter.  We can't have signals on there by default because they won't actually work.  The OWR networks don't natively support the stop points that are necessary for the signals to function properly, and the NAM Team places pride in functionality above all else.  There have been some alternate implementations examined, some with promise, but they're going to take some time to put together.

Would there be any sense to switching NWM OWRs from OWR-based to road-based? I'm not as familiar as I wish I was with the networks limitations but we all know RHW works fine in "one-way" setups despite being a native 2-way network

The issue one runs into is capacity.  The NAM Traffic Simulator gives the OWR network a higher capacity than the Road network.  I suppose the OWR-4 could be converted, leaving the OWR-5 as an OWR-based network, which would functionally differentiate the two (a big plus), and fits with the old OWS-1 proposal.  Controlling the directionality is going to be the trick, however--one can't simply drag the network tool the other direction like on an OWR-based network.

-Alex

[lfb]

If I understood, it would be impossible to make functional due the engeneering of the game. But in the end it's a bit crazy, having a large OWR-5 crossing an avenue without any stoplights. I know that NAM TEAM prefers functionality than appearance, but I think the main objective of the game is to creat a city based on real life. And I don't imagine the fifth avenue (NY) without traffic control. It's a self-destrution bomb. And that is why the existence of eye candys, they doesn't have any function, but it makes more realistic.

Anyway, thanks for answering me.

Ops, I almost forgot, I have 2 questions: Some pony denied the possibility of OWR-6, why not? This kind of OWR is realy common where I live, is it possible to make it?

[jdenm8]

The problem with adding eye-candy signals is that some people will expect them to work. There's also the matter of the game not being able to know which direction traffic flows along the OWR network. Traffic lights will have to face in both directions to cover both cases. It's easier to leave the off and never have the idea enter those people's minds.

[Tarkus]

If I understood, it would be impossible to make functional due the engeneering of the game. But in the end it's a bit crazy, having a large OWR-5 crossing an avenue without any stoplights. I know that NAM TEAM prefers functionality than appearance, but I think the main objective of the game is to creat a city based on real life. And I don't imagine the fifth avenue (NY) without traffic control. It's a self-destrution bomb. And that is why the existence of eye candys, they doesn't have any function, but it makes more realistic.

Anyway, thanks for answering me.

Ops, I almost forgot, I have 2 questions: Some pony denied the possibility of OWR-6, why not? This kind of OWR is realy common where I live, is it possible to make it?

To further what jdenm8 said, having traffic signals facing in both directions (or the wrong way) on a one-way road, and those signals being permanently stuck on green to boot, is equally unrealistic and would cause just every bit as much of a "self-destruction bomb" as not having the signals in the first place.

There are no plans at present to add any additional NWM networks.  The OWR-6 was discussed at one point in a very cursory fashion, but the fact is that we can't functionally differentiate it from the OWR-4 or OWR-5 at present, and it'd create a crosslinking nightmare.  The AVE-8/TLA-9 has effectively been cancelled for the time being as well, ditto with the RHW-12S and 10C on the RHW side, all for the same reasons.

-Alex

[APSMS]

Ops, I almost forgot, I have 2 questions: Some pony denied the possibility of OWR-6, why not? This kind of OWR is realy common where I live, is it possible to make it?

Boy, these bronies!

The reason for a lack of possibility as regards introduction of new NWM networks is because of the crosslinking involved. All of the networks have to be compatible in terms of crossing other networks, including El-Rail/GLR, Rail/Viaduct Rail/STR, Monorail/BTM/HSRP, RHW(all widths/orientations), MHW/EMHW, and all of the NWM networks, and the base networks. In short, it's a lot of crosslinking, coding, and textures that, generally speaking, have already been made for the existing networks.

The problem is that a new network would have to be compatible with all of these networks pretty much from the start, and it would offer little in the way of functionality, a primary goal of the NAM (Cosmetics always come second, and generally if it's non-functional, you didn't get it here). Besides the texture work, which may or may not be that difficult depending on the modder, there is a vast amount of coding work to be done, all of dubious necessity since the demand for such a network is comparatively low compared to the amount of work required, as well as the increase in file size and city loading times that result from a larger controller file.

So the advantages are substantially reduced in comparison to the work involved. A similar reason is why the RHW-12s and RHW-10c have been postponed indefinitely, despite the fact that proper groundwork (e.g. textures, overrides, etc.) has already been laid for both these fictional networks (a quick perusal of the NAM files in the Reader will tell you this).

EDIT: Alex got here first; I think you get the idea, though.