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

[Kitsune]

The textures I'm using though are from the installer - they are the Ontario textures, so I'm not sure who created them.

[Velocity264C]

This El-Rail looks like it should connect to the el-rail over ave/rd-4, but it isn't. Is this functionality ready or planned for the future?

Can't even do this

This is most likely to be related to Moonlinght's elevated rail reskin mod. The Tram 3-way intersections are showing unusual textures in El over AVE-4/RD-4 intersections meeting El over Road.

This is also visible in the preview model for the earlier El over Road intersection pieces, but are fixed when plopped.



The FARR stub pieces seem missing from the RealRailway pieces as well. Is it in the FARR menu?

or this

[Jimmyson]

Been trying to build the Diamond Interchange with RHW FA ramps.
Using L1 Road on-slope and overpass. But putting in the TuLEP between the on-slope and the junction has issues. NAM 31.2 had a similar issue when I used a T-junction on-slope.

[Apple Delight]

Can't even do this

This is most likely to be related to Moonlinght's elevated rail reskin mod. The Tram 3-way intersections are showing unusual textures in El over AVE-4/RD-4 intersections meeting El over Road.

This is also visible in the preview model for the earlier El over Road intersection pieces, but are fixed when plopped.



The FARR stub pieces seem missing from the RealRailway pieces as well. Is it in the FARR menu?

or this

This video explains how to use the flex pieces http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ1D_Cm_gGM

[HappyDays]

Background: I'm part of the under 1% who uses almost nothing from the NAM outside of the traffic simulator fixes and items/fixes directly related to the Maxis networks (To be exact: The improved data views, the rearranged buttons, and the updated Maxis stations). NAM 31.2 was a painful transition for me, and now I'm eagerly testing out the "compile your own control file!" feature in hopes of the lightest possible controller file for my needs. Now that you know I'm sorta weird, my queries:

1: Why do I get NetworkAddonMod_BridgeSupport.dat and NetworkAddonMod_Bridges_Plugin_Controller.dat installed when didn't select to install anything related to bridges? Do they contain fixes/tweaks related to Maxis bridges? If not, are they safe to remove manually?

2: Inside NetworkAddonMod_IndividualNetworkRULs.dat there are two instances, 00000013 and 00000014, containing information related to the DirtRoad. As I recall that is the original name of the RHW. Do they serve any purpose in an installation that doesn't actually use RHW?

This file also contains an instance (0000000D) related to roundabouts, which I don't use. Safe to remove?

3: NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat contains dozens of data chunks for RHW, TuLEPs, NWM, GLR, RAM, and many more when I have none of them installed. Do they serve any purpose at all in an installation where none of their components are installed?

In other words, if I go in with a hatchet and cut out every section starting with, say, RHW, will there be any impact in my game?

If the answer is "no", why are these pieces of data added by the controller file compiler in the first place?

This pedantic line of questioning may seem silly to you guys, but load times are drastically impacted with a big controller file. With a 60+ meg controller file, load times balloon by 10-15 seconds. Certainly, less of an issue with a 4.5 meg file, but considering most of that is still filled with stuff I don't use or care about, it can be better. I hope.

I'll provide more information if it's requested of me.

Finally, a big congratulations to the NAM team for coming up with the controller file compiler in the first place. It has made things significantly better.

[memo]

1: Why do I get NetworkAddonMod_BridgeSupport.dat and NetworkAddonMod_Bridges_Plugin_Controller.dat installed when didn't select to install anything related to bridges? Do they contain fixes/tweaks related to Maxis bridges? If not, are they safe to remove manually?

As far as I know, the BridgeSupport file contains files needed for the DBE plugin which can be installed separately, so that the installer has to install this file always. The bridges controller might contain fixes for Maxis bridges (I don't know; these would be very old), but most importantly, it contains the Network INI file, which not only lists all the bridges (including custom ones), but among other things, it also is a strict requirement for shadow remapping, LHD paths, as well as some RUL related stuff. Therefore, I would highly recommend to keep the bridges controller file.

2: Inside NetworkAddonMod_IndividualNetworkRULs.dat there are two instances, 00000013 and 00000014, containing information related to the DirtRoad. As I recall that is the original name of the RHW. Do they serve any purpose in an installation that doesn't actually use RHW?

This file also contains an instance (0000000D) related to roundabouts, which I don't use. Safe to remove?

The RHW RULs don't serve any purpose in an installation without RHW. The Avenue RUL file however, although it contains some code related to Avenue roundabouts, might contain other additions or fixes of the Avenue network. The NAM adds a lot of extra intersection capability to the Avenue network (e.g. 8-way intersection, to name one, but also more useful ones), so I'd consider it a requirement.

3: NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat contains dozens of data chunks for RHW, TuLEPs, NWM, GLR, RAM, and many more when I have none of them installed. Do they serve any purpose at all in an installation where none of their components are installed?

In other words, if I go in with a hatchet and cut out every section starting with, say, RHW, will there be any impact in my game?

If the answer is "no", why are these pieces of data added by the controller file compiler in the first place?

Only the file 0x10000000 should be affected by this. Probably, those data chunks are not required in your case. They are still in there because it is extremely non-trivial to get them out in a user-specific way. However, it's easier in your case: go to "Documents/SimCity 4/NAM Auxiliary Files/Tools/Controller Compiler/Network Addon Mod/Controller/RUL0/" and delete everything from that folder that contains puzzle pieces/interchanges you don't need; then run the compiler manually. Most likely, you would get rid of some Maxis-ish content, though (e.g. the autoplaced lightrail-highway overpass). There is nothing you can delete from RUL1, and RUL2 is the compiler's business.

This pedantic line of questioning may seem silly to you guys, but load times are drastically impacted with a big controller file. With a 60+ meg controller file, load times balloon by 10-15 seconds. Certainly, less of an issue with a 4.5 meg file,...

Yes, indeed. Be warned that you have to be very careful with all this; you should know exactly what you do if you modify the internals; and we cannot provide any support for such a modified installation of the NAM.

That said, I highly doubt that the discussed modifications would give any significant performance boost. Much less than the time you invest to get rid of all the redundancies. The disproportionally increased loading times that became apparent with 31.x were quite obviously caused by the large RUL2 file of the controller – this is exactly what the controller compiler optimizes, now.

[Tarkus]

Checking in on a report from page 2.

1.  I don't get any paths with the HSR.  They're there on the GHSR, but not the elevated version:

They are there, actually, but the models hide them.

2.  The re-skinned monorail networks revert to default monorail when crossing the RHW:

That's Issue #111, reported back upon NAM 31.0's release.  It's something we've worked toward, but have not fixed, because it's an extremely daunting task.  The existing RHW compatibility for that plugin is essentially useless, as it was built for the old RHW specs, and it's going to take assembling thousands of models and T21s in order to fully support everything.  Pretty much any item designed (or redesigned) since NAM 30 won't be properly supported by those plugins, unfortunately.

I haven't done much with the RHW yet so the only bug i have here is one that jumped out on loading a tile.  There's texture missing on a tile on the RHW-8C FAR-Diag curve puzzle piece.

Left is the pre-existing highway from NAM31.2, which was fine.  Right is a freshly plopped piece.

I've replicated that one, and reported it as Issue #192.  Only occurs when the Single Barrier plugin is installed.

-Alex

[j-dub]

Been trying to build the Diamond Interchange with RHW FA ramps.
Using L1 Road on-slope and overpass. But putting in the TuLEP between the on-slope and the junction has issues. NAM 31.2 had a similar issue when I used a T-junction on-slope.

Disregarding that RHW crossing right after, but still regarding the TuLEP, in previous builds, I have gotten the turn lane immediately after the slope facing proper, it's just your stuck having to use the T slope piece, but it can only be done in such a specific order. However, I have not built a FARR road crossing that close to the slope, because I didn't want to chance doing something too close to comfort.

I mean in some cases, provided the slope elevation is just right, I am able to build the T slope, and I can just put the TuLEP on top of that right after, not doing the RHW based TuLEP junction until last.

[epicblunder]

That's Issue #111, reported back upon NAM 31.0's release.  It's something we've worked toward, but have not fixed, because it's an extremely daunting task.  The existing RHW compatibility for that plugin is essentially useless, as it was built for the old RHW specs, and it's going to take assembling thousands of models and T21s in order to fully support everything.  Pretty much any item designed (or redesigned) since NAM 30 won't be properly supported by those plugins, unfortunately.

Well shoot.  At least for now there's always the limited workaround with NWM.

[titanicbuff]

hmmm- i had made custom tuleps for NAM 31 and want to use them with 32, yet I can't seem to get those to work- its still giving me the standard tuleps dispite replasing the file with my custom made ones.

[spot]

1. the rhw-10S ramp seems to not fit with fit with the FAR rhw-4 piece by a pixel.

2. green lazers shooting out from the curve and RHW-10S split. Also, 2 holes on on the curve.

3. It's impossible to drag RHW over RHW-6S starter piece. Not sure if bug, or intended.

[Tarkus]

1. the rhw-10S ramp seems to not fit with fit with the FAR rhw-4 piece by a pixel.

Looks like at least a couple pixels off, actually.  It's now Issue #193.  It's a DEFCON 5 cosmetic issue, so it'll be lower priority.

2. green lazers shooting out from the curve and RHW-10S split. Also, 2 holes on on the curve.

That first part is now Issue #194.  Would have to investigate the path files for the "lazers"--the term we use is "commute arrow cascade", and most likely, it's caused by a path having one of its end points too close to the edge of the tile.  The "holes" were reported twice, the initial report being Issue #171.  That's already fixed on our end.

3. It's impossible to drag RHW over RHW-6S starter piece. Not sure if bug, or intended.

Are you talking about dragging an intersecting/perpendicular RHW over the starter?  That indeed appears to be not doable at the moment--simple omission, most likely.  Easy fix.

Edit: And that is now fixed.

-Alex

[titanicbuff]

ok I had someone ask me on ST about round abouts- he found an interesting issue and asked me to bring attention to it- given I use round about's a lot I figured I'd do it-


He noticed upon placing the flubs that the path appears missing.

[j-dub]

But why do the paths appear missing on that avenue curve up top?

Also, the avenue the paths are missing on, because it's a model file, that kind of questions what's going on down there, since you can't see it above ground, but I think the only way you know is let the game run for a little bit, and see if the commute query demonstrates traffic proceeding below there or not.

[Tarkus]

ok I had someone ask me on ST about round abouts- he found an interesting issue and asked me to bring attention to it- given I use round about's a lot I figured I'd do it-

He noticed upon placing the flubs that the path appears missing.

That's normal, because of the quirks with displaying paths that go below ground level.

-Alex

[titanicbuff]

ya i ran a few tests myself on my end of things- seemed to be in tact as far as route query was conserned

[HappyDays]

As far as I know, the BridgeSupport file contains files needed for the DBE plugin which can be installed separately, so that the installer has to install this file always. The bridges controller might contain fixes for Maxis bridges (I don't know; these would be very old), but most importantly, it contains the Network INI file, which not only lists all the bridges (including custom ones), but among other things, it also is a strict requirement for shadow remapping, LHD paths, as well as some RUL related stuff. Therefore, I would highly recommend to keep the bridges controller file.

Roger. Oh well, I might as well use a few of the additional bridges.

The RHW RULs don't serve any purpose in an installation without RHW. The Avenue RUL file however, although it contains some code related to Avenue roundabouts, might contain other additions or fixes of the Avenue network. The NAM adds a lot of extra intersection capability to the Avenue network (e.g. 8-way intersection, to name one, but also more useful ones), so I'd consider it a requirement.

I be leaving it alone, then.

Only the file 0x10000000 should be affected by this. Probably, those data chunks are not required in your case. They are still in there because it is extremely non-trivial to get them out in a user-specific way. However, it's easier in your case: go to "Documents/SimCity 4/NAM Auxiliary Files/Tools/Controller Compiler/Network Addon Mod/Controller/RUL0/" and delete everything from that folder that contains puzzle pieces/interchanges you don't need; then run the compiler manually. Most likely, you would get rid of some Maxis-ish content, though (e.g. the autoplaced lightrail-highway overpass). There is nothing you can delete from RUL1, and RUL2 is the compiler's business.

Done and done. Thank you very much! This information, the tool, all of it has been a big boon to my SC4 OCD.

Yes, indeed. Be warned that you have to be very careful with all this; you should know exactly what you do if you modify the internals; and we cannot provide any support for such a modified installation of the NAM.

Obviously. A screwed up NAM installation isn't the worst thing that can happen to a city, anyway. All it costs is time in fixing problems.

That said, I highly doubt that the discussed modifications would give any significant performance boost. Much less than the time you invest to get rid of all the redundancies. The disproportionally increased loading times that became apparent with 31.x were quite obviously caused by the large RUL2 file of the controller – this is exactly what the controller compiler optimizes, now.

No, I doubt I gain much on the loading times, but it's the principle of the matter. I'm very obsessive about having the leanest possible plugins folder that still contains the content I want to see ingame, and until now the NAM has been something I've been unable to do much about because somewhat crude hack jobs.

Again, thank you very much for your help. I wish you and the rest of the NAM team further success.

[Tarkus]

Been trying to build the Diamond Interchange with RHW FA ramps.
Using L1 Road on-slope and overpass. But putting in the TuLEP between the on-slope and the junction has issues. NAM 31.2 had a similar issue when I used a T-junction on-slope.

Just tested that as well.  It appears there is, in fact, no way to put the TuLEP that close in at this point, even with the new draggable/FLEX system, and there won't be a solution until TuLEPs are revisited sometime down the line, unfortunately (or when NWM networks come in elevated forms).  You'll need an extra tile after the onslope at present.

And spot, you'll be pleased to know I've added some additional stability to the FLEX onslopes . . .



Merry Christmas to everyone here.

-Alex

[sembrincadeira]

I spotted this issue...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[metarvo]

I spotted this issue...

This is Issue #171.  It's fixed on our end.