NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[k808j]

We would suggest to use both version. This would give individuals a choice. (Ironic coming from us    )

[Fabian93]

[...]

Are you talking about getting rid of OWR arrows on the NWM One-Way networks?  Tropod's old OWR Arrow Removal plugin on the STEX, which can be found here should do the trick.  Make sure it's loading after the NWM and NAM, though.

-Alex

I already installed the mentioned Mod - however: the arrows still appear.
Sorry if this has been asked so often before (?) but I've already used the search bar which only gave me the above hint - it still doesn't work though...

So: How should I continue? Any way to remove all arrows on the NWM networks?

Any help would be appreciated

Fabian

[z]

I already installed the mentioned Mod - however: the arrows still appear.

Did you install it in a folder under Plugins that starts with my name?

[Fabian93]

Of course I did :
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ_NoOneWayRoadArrows

Yet it doesn'T seem to work?!

Fabian

[j-dub]

From my experience, cosmetic plugins such as arrow removal have required redrawing networks. However, if two OWR removal plugins exist in the same folder, that should cause some undesired results.

[Twinsfan14]

Heck no is all I have to say!    I love the OWR-1.   As a matter of fact, I wish it could be expanded to have one lane of traffic and parking on either side of the one lane.  I think that would look sick and be very realistic (at least for those of us who love to model cities after NY)

Somethin like this


And a request. I know that Avenue / MIS exits are coming soon, but how about Avenue / OWR-1 exits?
Like this.

[firefighter57]

Somethin like this


And a request. I know that Avenue / MIS exits are coming soon, but how about Avenue / OWR-1 exits?
Like this.

Yeah like that or even have parallel spots on either side like (P R P)  [P is parking and R is road].

[RickD]

The one way road with parking spots is an awesome idea. I'd love to have this.

I really don't see the benefit of one way streets. 

[z]

I really don't see the benefit of one way streets. 

On one hand, they're very common in dense urban centers.  But also, as ScottFTL pointed out earlier, an OWR-1 has the same capacity (and speed limit) as an OWR-3; this means that an OWR-1 carries 50% more traffic at a 50% higher speed than a standard two-way road that has twice the lanes.  This doesn't really make much sense, but the Sims will take advantage of this, and may create unexpected (and otherwise unexplainable) traffic patterns.  On the other hand, one-way streets would have the same capacity and speed as two-way streets, so anomalous traffic patterns won't arise in that case.

[travismking]

TBH, i like OWR1 the way it is now but thats just my opinion. To me it seems like streets are ... annoying, especially to get good diagonals and especially diagonal intersections (which the NWM doesnt support at all (yet??))

[Fresh Prince of SC4D]

I did something you may like folks.....



Can you tell me what different about this "OWR-5"?   

[GDO29Anagram]

I did that once before, but not with traffic on it; I don't think you should do that... I honestly don't know what'll happen if you do that...

You just turned an OWR-5 into two conjoined OWR 2 ¹/₂ 's going in opposing directions.

EDIT: Or are you pointing out the arrows, cuz those are different from what I have...

[Fresh Prince of SC4D]

You just turned an OWR-5 into two conjoined OWR 2 1/2 's going in opposing directions.

Kinda, I was trying to create a avenue with a reversible lane (ave-r).

For anyone who doesn't know what a reversible lane is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_lane

What i did was:
1) drag a section of owr-5; destroy the inner lanes (outer lanes for LHD)
2) drag another owr-5 in the opposite direction on the same rows of tile as the first; destroy the inner lanes this section (outer lanes for LHD)
3) drag the two sections in the direction of their traffic flow, joining them together creating a "reversible lane" in the center

As for any problems, I didn't have any that I could observe. I try to build commercial/residential zone on each end and the sims used it like any other road. But I never checked the pathing....

[riiga]

It's really a cool feature, being able to combine the NWM networks like this. I haven't thought much about doing like this, but I had to check the pathing when I saw this.

Result below:


EDIT:
I checked pathing for intersections as well, and thru-traffic and right turns are allowed and functions. No left turns though.

- riiga

[Tarkus]

Kinda, I was trying to create a avenue with a reversible lane (ave-r).

Interesting . . . we had actually considered the idea of reversible lanes at one point for the NWM . . . a "REV-3", but on a single-tile setup, which there wasn't really any way to get quite right.  I knew the tidal flow could allow something like this from jplumbley's experiments back in 2006 when we were starting the project . . . I'm curious to mess around with this a little more with respect to reversible lane functionality to see how feasible a 2-tiler would be.  The one potential issue I see with the current situation is that the way the OWR-5s are pathed, they'll still technically have traffic in both directions in the middle, and I don't know if there's really a way around doing something like that.  I'll see what I can do, though.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

Kinda, I was trying to create a avenue with a reversible lane (ave-r).

Interesting. I once wondered about how those would work in SC4, and I thought it would be a mess...

Interesting . . . we had actually considered the idea of reversible lanes at one point for the NWM . . . a "REV-3", but on a single-tile setup, which there wasn't really any way to get quite right.

Yep. Just as I thought. A mess.

I knew the tidal flow could allow something like this from jplumbley's experiments back in 2006 when we were starting the project . . . I'm curious to mess around with this a little more with respect to reversible lane functionality to see how feasible a 2-tiler would be.

I wonder how that would look like... 

[Tarkus]

Speaking of the issue of capacity differentiation with regards to NWM networks, I have something interesting to share here . . .

Here's a MAVE-4 transitioning into a MAVE-6 with the Congestion DataView on.  I'm using the "Medium" version of the NAM simulator here, in which Road (and thus, per-tile capacity for MAVEs) is 4000.  As you'll notice, the MAVE-4 shows up orange, while the MAVE-6 is merely yellow.

The Morning Commute volume the MAVE-4 tile is 9139.


And the volume on the MAVE-6 is just a tiny bit smaller.


Why then, is the MAVE-6 appear to be so much less congested than the MAVE-4?  They're supposed to have the same capacity, right? 

Well . . . suffice to say, I've managed to trick the game into giving the MAVE-6 a higher capacity/speed, without really altering how it works.  And the even better news is that the technique I used can be applied to the ARD-3 and OWR-3--and in the near future, will.  It also works for the RHW-6S and can be used on TuLEPs, making them all more useful from a functional gameplay perspective.

-Alex

[jgehrts]

Will it require redrawing the roads in question, or will it work retroactively?

[j-dub]

It shouldn't, because its a simulator edit, I have changed my simulators many times before, and any change in speed, traffic capacity and commute time, were all delt with from the simulator.

[travismking]

thats awesome... can the OWR-1 be "downgraded" so that you dont have to make it OWS instead? cuz that would be even more awesome ;p