NAM 32 Pre-Release -- Discussion, Support, and Bug Report Thread

[vortext]

Also, the diagonal street stub is still orientated wrongly half the time.

[spot]

- missing paths ~Issue #187 -Tarkus
- T on slopes not possible ~This is more in request territory, but I'll look into it. -T
- rail on slope transition still uses the old rail textures ~Issue #188 -Tarkus

Is it too much to ask for 7.5 road/owr/avenue puzzle pieces over RHW? Just like the 15m ones.

[fefenc]

I found that draggable ave 7.5 doesn't goes well over RWH 10S. Issue #189 -Tarkus


----------------------------------
Even when a puzzle piece is plopped at another side of RHW 10S, the both right sides of the RHW 10S is converted to RHW 6S.

[APSMS]

I do agree the ramps are very unrealistic. However, will they be replaced by longer ramps? Or do we have to build earthen ramps and use on-slope pieces instead?

Earthen ramps should be preferred, though I will most likely try to construct a L0-L1 transition piece in case there are space restrictions.

Cheers
Willy

I don't want to put a hamper on realism; it should always be preferred. I do think, however, that the ramps should be retained despite their absurd slopes. There will always be people who prefer them, and wider adoption of the RRW will be possible this way. (also, does it cause any problems to retain it?) I do think getting rid of the Y-stack was appropriate, though. Never found that piece useful considering slopes and size compared to a simple ground intersection.

Seeing as the RRW is replacing the RAM, it would probably be wise from a tech support standpoint to leave it in, to simplify bug fixing. Forced realism always leaves a bad taste in ones mouth (even if it can be fun to learn).

[Kitsune]

I found that draggable ave 7.5 doesn't goes well over RWH 10S.


----------------------------------
Even when a puzzle piece is plopped at another side of RHW 10S, the both right sides of the RHW 10S is converted to RHW 6S.

It also has problems going over 8s.

[Kitsune]

a double post ... but here is a whole batch of problems I've found:



A piece of the diag to far mis is missing.



This happens whenever you connect a street to 90 degree bend in RHW-2. I remember this being supported in past versions.



The 6S S curve is using the default textures.



Stop signs are suddenly in the the road, as are the street sign.



Something odd happening when you do a 90 degree bend in the street with having a connecting street on eithier side of the curve. Admittedly - I found this NAM 31 too.




And this odd roundabout I found by accident. You can only connect two streets to it on a matching corner. Connecting a street to another corner results in the roundabout degrading to standard streets. I found this in NAM 31 as well.

[jdenm8]

A piece of the diag to far mis is missing.

Looks like it's just a missing overhanging tile. Confirmed, added as Issue #184

This happens whenever you connect a street to 90 degree bend in RHW-2. I remember this being supported in past versions.

Confirmed, added as Issue #185

The 6S S curve is using the default textures.

You'll have to talk to whoever it was that made that texture pack and get them to update it.

Stop signs are suddenly in the the road, as are the street sign.

Intended functionality, T21s weren't updated in the Road-retexture.

Something odd happening when you do a 90 degree bend in the street with having a connecting street on eithier side of the curve. Admittedly - I found this NAM 31 too.

That's old INRUL weirdness. We can't do much to fix it. Best to use one of the curve pieces.

And this odd roundabout I found by accident. You can only connect two streets to it on a matching corner. Connecting a street to another corner results in the roundabout degrading to standard streets. I found this in NAM 31 as well.

Intended.

[Tarkus]

The draggable road viaducts have pylons every other tile and the draggable OWR viaducts have pylons every tile. Draggable avenue viaducts have pylons every tile, but on only one side of the viaduct. Is this supposed to happen?

Looks like the Pylon Police will be pressing charges.

The OWR one is like that because even directly copying the Road ones over and making the necessary changes, the darn things wouldn't show up at all, so I had to go to the all-on approach.  Avenue is just derping out.  Definitely something we'll be taking a look at, but a very low priority.

Is it too much to ask for 7.5 road/owr/avenue puzzle pieces over RHW? Just like the 15m ones.

The draggable system does still have a few kinks to work out, which is to be expected given that this is a pre-release.  In the long run, however, it's going to be a better use of resources for us to fix that than to cave and make 7.5m-over-RHW puzzle pieces.

This happens whenever you connect a street to 90 degree bend in RHW-2. I remember this being supported in past versions.

It may be an issue with the alternate texture set that you are using.  I suspect if you turn DrawPaths on, you'll see that it's pathed properly.

-Alex

[jdenm8]

This happens whenever you connect a street to 90 degree bend in RHW-2. I remember this being supported in past versions.

It may be an issue with the alternate texture set that you are using.  I suspect if you turn DrawPaths on, you'll see that it's pathed properly.

Nope, confirmed in my vanilla RHW install. It's a RUL error.

[Tarkus]

Nope, confirmed in my vanilla RHW install. It's a RUL error.

And upon further inspection just now, seems that most of those weird T-intersection combos beyond that one suffer the same issue.  As that part of the code wasn't touched for NAM 32, this issue has most likely been present since NAM 31.

-Alex

[spot]

Is it too much to ask for 7.5 road/owr/avenue puzzle pieces over RHW? Just like the 15m ones.

The draggable system does still have a few kinks to work out, which is to be expected given that this is a pre-release.  In the long run, however, it's going to be a better use of resources for us to fix that than to cave and make 7.5m-over-RHW puzzle pieces.

-Alex

The way i see it is, you already have the bulk of work done by having the 15m ones. How hard it would be to cut their height by a half? Plus, they add that fancy median pylon and can be squeezed in tight spots without needing additional starting pieces to keep it stable.

Also, RHW-2 over rhw-8C is not working properly.

[Tarkus]

The way i see it is, you already have the bulk of work done by having the 15m ones. How hard it would be to cut their height by a half? Plus, they add that fancy median pylon and can be squeezed in tight spots without needing additional starting pieces to keep it stable.

Much of the process of lowering has to be done manually.  It's more tedious than anything, especially when you consider that there's quite a number of pieces involved--and if we make those, people are going to request more (esp. the dreaded diagonals).  The idea behind going draggable was so we don't have to make more static X-over-Y pieces.

I suspect you're not the only one who wants to request these items, mainly due to familiarity with the old static puzzle pieces, and the not-quite-there state of some of the draggable functionality (including the fact that we haven't T21ed the fancy median pylon in place yet--which we can do with the draggable).  The goal, however, is to satisfy one of the major dilemmas we've faced for some time now.  People request more functionality, and at the same time, complain about long menus and long TAB rings.  Continuing to proliferate static puzzle pieces isn't going to solve that dilemma, and will only make it worse.

-Alex

[spot]

The way i see it is, you already have the bulk of work done by having the 15m ones. How hard it would be to cut their height by a half? Plus, they add that fancy median pylon and can be squeezed in tight spots without needing additional starting pieces to keep it stable.

Much of the process of lowering has to be done manually.  It's more tedious than anything, especially when you consider that there's quite a number of pieces involved--and if we make those, people are going to request more (esp. the dreaded diagonals).  The idea behind going draggable was so we don't have to make more static X-over-Y pieces.

I suspect you're not the only one who wants to request these items, mainly due to familiarity with the old static puzzle pieces, and the not-quite-there state of some of the draggable functionality (including the fact that we haven't T21ed the fancy median pylon in place yet--which we can do with the draggable).  The goal, however, is to satisfy one of the major dilemmas we've faced for some time now.  People request more functionality, and at the same time, complain about long menus and long TAB rings.  Continuing to proliferate static puzzle pieces isn't going to solve that dilemma, and will only make it worse.

-Alex

I agree with everything you said. I understand that all draggable networks need more work. My concern is, is all that's possible with static puzzle pieces, possible with draggable ones?  Namely, T-road,avenue,owr On slope; diagonal On slope; etc.  These are all possible with 15m puzzle pieces. 

[Swordmaster]

Something odd happening when you do a 90 degree bend in the street with having a connecting street on eithier side of the curve. Admittedly - I found this NAM 31 too.

That's old INRUL weirdness. We can't do much to fix it. Best to use one of the curve pieces.

In fact I have fixed this in an upcoming street texture remastering (which still needs a couple RULs and SAM compatibility to be included). In the meantime, you can follow JD's suggestion and use a small WRC + intersections setup, if you don't mind sacrificing a tile.


Cheers
Willy

[vinlabsc3k]

Theres a grafic bugs with El-Rail over Ave:

If you make a 3-way with a normal El-Rail there are a dark gray concrete texture under the rails (the 4-way too) and the switches are inverted (no in the 4-way, but even in the 3-way with the El-Rail over Road). I've the cosmetic mod for El-Rail.

Sorry no images, I've unistalled it.

Already posted!!

As this is a pre-release, why do you change the supports of El-Rail over Ave with Y pillarsin the straight section?

[Tarkus]

I agree with everything you said. I understand that all draggable networks need more work. My concern is, is all that's possible with static puzzle pieces, possible with draggable ones?  Namely, T-road,avenue,owr On slope; diagonal On slope; etc.  These are all possible with 15m puzzle pieces.

All of that is indeed possible with some combination of draggable and FLEX items.  Might take us a little bit of time, but it is possible.

-Alex

[memo]

As this is a pre-release, why do you change the supports of El-Rail over Ave with Y pillarsin the straight section?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean. The support props can be easily replaced by anyone who BATs any.

[jdenm8]

I think what he means is that we go from having the pylons on the sides of the road with RD-4 to in the median on AVE-4.

My answer would be that it's more realistic as construction costs would be far lower.

[Swordmaster]

Other than that I'm loving the new controller compilation, current installation is just 60.4 mb (streets only  ).   

You're talking about the entire NAM package, right? The controller itself should be significantly smaller if you have only the SAM code compiled.


Cheers
Willy

[vortext]

Yes, you're right Willy - I got the terms a little mixed up because of my excitement!  The actual controller is 6.8 mb.