NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

I have a question regarding the NWM capacities. Referring to FAQ #17, then why is the OWR-1 the same capacity as the default OWR-2, and why are OWR-4 and OWR-5 the same capacities? Sorry if I sound critical; I don't mean to sound angry. If this question has already been answered, I apologize, and it'd be great if you could direct me there.

There are limitations to the technique that allowed us to increase capacities on certain networks.  Essentially, it involves exploiting a feature in the NAM Traffic Simulator, in which the first value of the Intersection & Turn Capacity Effect value is set to 125%.  The capacity of any tile that the game considers an intersection gets multiplied by this value.  I was able to ascertain what modifications were necessary to the path files to make a non-intersection tile be seen as an intersection and gain a capacity increase as a result.  

The technique does not work in reverse, which is why the OWR-1 cannot be affected--there had been talk at one point of switching it from a OneWayRoad-based network to a Street-based network to provide a better functional justification for the network.  If we applied it to the default OWR-2, it would then be indistinguishable from the OWR-3 capacity-wise.

With regards to the OWR-4 and 5, those two networks have a series of "crossover paths" to allow switching between the two tiles, allowing the full width of the network to be used.  The crossover paths are already considered intersections by the traffic simulator.  The intersection effect cannot be "doubled up", meaning the capacity-increasing trick would be useless in increasing the capacity of the OWR-5.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

@skyscraperC3: There's no way to downgrade capacity on the OWR-1, which is why the proposal of an OWR-1 made from Street has been brought up time and time again. This is also why RHW-4 and MIS have the same capacity.

The reason OWR-4 and OWR-5 have the same capacity is because of how they're set up. First of all, they're essentially identical networks, but with different appearances. There's no way around this unless a different network is used for OWR-4, like in the case of OWR-1.

There is also no way to adjust the capacity of OWR-5, due to the crossover paths and DIP effect. The ARD-3, OWR-3, and MAVE-6 have higher capacities due to the DIPs (Distilled Intersection Paths), which trick the game into thinking that they're intersections, giving them a 25% capacity bonus. Note that intersections, as defined by the game, are any network tile whose paths touch three or four sides of the tile. Since the crossover paths of the OWR-4 and OWR-5 also do that, they also exhibit the DIP effect, which gives both of them the same 25% capacity bonus as with the ARD-3, OWR-3, and MAVE-6. You can't just add DIPs to the OWR-5, because they're already DIPped.

This also applies to the RHW-6C/8C/10C and RHW-8S/10S/12S.

And don't beat yourself about it; I had a similar question about adding DIPs to the diagonal two-tile networks.

DIPs get around this by taking advantage of the intersection capacity settings of the traffic simulator.  All intersection tiles (defined by the game as any tile with paths touching 3 or 4 edges) are 25% greater in capacity than non-intersection tiles.

I was actually gonna ask about DIPing the two-tile networks, such as AVE-4. Has it been experimented on the diagonals, especially the shared-tile part? It might alleviate the capacity problems associated with it, but it would still fall short of the full capacity.

[/s] (You beat me to it again, Alex, but remember that it also applies to the RHW as well...  )

@Ivo: Ehh,... Wha...? What you're trying to say, I think, is that the game only counts capacity by tile, not by lane, which is a major drawback to making wider networks. Even if you crammed 3000 lanes into one tile, which is suicidal and silly, it'll still have the same capacity as a two-lane setup.

No, the cutoff is AVE-8. AVE-10 would have to be four tiles, and that would have to be made from OWR-5's unless ultra-wide NWMs are considered.

The only solution is based on what Alex once described: He considered making the AVE-8 made from OWR for the outer parts, and Road for the median. If only that could be applied for the OWRs, but the problem is that it'll be like RHW; There's no Tidal Flow (or whatever it is) to reverse the paths when you want to reverse them. Besides, making an RHW out of two different networks at once sounds farfetched right now...

@Alex: I had a similar question once, and if anyone else asks about this, it's probably best to stick the explanation into the FAQ. Both FAQs.

[ivo_su]

Alex I want to ask if Version 2.0 of NWM did you decide priblemat with "crossover paths"  of OWR -4 and 5 and the fact that  vehicles are being turned  against the direction of movement?

[ivo_su]

@Ivo: Ehh,... Wha...? What you're trying to say, I think, is that the game only counts capacity by tile, not by lane, which is a major drawback to making wider networks. Even if you crammed 3000 lanes into one tile, which is suicidal and silly, it'll still have the same capacity as a two-lane setup.

No, the cutoff is AVE-8. AVE-10 would have to be four tiles, and that would have to be made from OWR-5's unless ultra-wide NWMs are considered.

The only solution is based on what Alex once described: He considered making the AVE-8 made from OWR for the outer parts, and Road for the median. If only that could be applied for the OWRs, but the problem is that it'll be like RHW; There's no Tidal Flow (or whatever it is) to reverse the paths when you want to reverse them. Besides, making an RHW out of two different networks at once sounds farfetched right now...

I am proud that I managed to overtake a reply to you and even Lord Alex. I think that happens to me first. But what I said about the AVE-6 and AVE- 10 was just a hypothetical to explain more easily otherwise you yourself said that 1 million bands have a tile that does not matter to traffic.
About which you talk about AVE - 8 it will wait a long time but I think it would be very difficult to combine Road with OWR.
I can release it to you a little secret, because I already have  path's  for all  current  and future networks of  NWM and imagine how it is based AVE - 8. And if I'm right there will be  2 types of textures like the RHW-6c with the middle part  and two identical mirrored Outer plot.

Ivo

[skyscraperC3]

I think I know the answer. The main problem is that Tarkus and NAM team did not participate in the construction of Sim Sity 4. Maybe if they were helped least EA and MAXIS this and many other illogical problems would not exist.
So the reason is that the game into account the capacity of the tile area and not counting lanes. As you put your question OWR -1 and OWR-2 are a tile and that capacity is the same. Similarly with OWR - 4 and 5 that are 2 tiles.
Just the game itself is an important area which is occupied on the map, therefore, even if we AVE-10 which is 3 tiles it will be more useful than AVE-6 if it takes three tiles.
Yes it is bad for everyone but Alex and others have shown that fathers excel Sim Sity and hope that it someday may come up with a solution.
Just out of Maxsi's were not sufficiently aware of what they do.
I hope I was helpful ....

Ivo

Thank you for your answer. What you described is how it used to be with the tiles/lanes. Lanes did not matter, only tiles. Now, though, there is some type of pathfinding fix, which is described some in FAQ #17. Due to this, I don't know why other network capacities were not adjusted with this fix. That's what I'm wondering. I don't really care though, just wondering. Thanks for your quick reply!

[GDO29Anagram]

Alex I want to ask if Version 2.0 of NWM did you decide priblemat with "crossover paths" ()  of OWR -4 and 5 and the fact that  vehicles are being turned  against the direction of movement?

Ivo, I asked that issue to be added to the FAQ a long time ago... There's no way to fix that issue.

How come cars on TLA-3/5 networks are making left turns and disappearing and cars on OWR-4/5 are going in circles in the middle of the road?

In the case of the TLA networks, that's how the paths are designed. For two-tile OWR networks, there are crossover paths, similar to those on RHW networks, which may result in cars doing donuts in the middle of two tile OWR networks. Due to some oddities with the default OWR network's "tidal flow system" (the system allowing simple drag conversions to flip the direction of an OWR), the crossover paths end up being bidirectional, and there appears to be no viable way to fix this at this time.

You can't remove the crossover paths either, because then the two-tile OWRs will cease to function properly. (They would be treated as two separate networks.)

About which you talk about AVE - 8 it will wait a long time but I think it would be very difficult to combine Road with OWR.

No, not really; You just simply draw a Road between two OWRs.

imagine how it is based AVE - 8. And if I'm right there will be  2 types of textures like the RHW-6c with the middle part  and two identical mirrored Outer plot.

I can tell you that you're right about that; It's just two pieces, one of which is copied twice. Unless it's an asymmetrical network (then in that case, then it needs three different parts to it), every triple-tile network, NWM or RHW, works this way.

[Tarkus]

Thank you for your answer. What you described is how it used to be with the tiles/lanes. Lanes did not matter, only tiles. Now, though, there is some type of pathfinding fix, which is described some in FAQ #17. Due to this, I don't know why other network capacities were not adjusted with this fix. That's what I'm wondering. I don't really care though, just wondering. Thanks for your quick reply!

Actually, my reply above Ivo's (on this same page), should explain things in better detail.  I've also written FAQ #21 to clarify things with the same information.  Also in response to your question in the NAM Traffic Simulator thread regarding the relationship between Road and Avenue capacities relating to the NWM, I've added FAQ #22.

Ivo, I asked that issue to be added to the FAQ a long time ago... There's no way to fix that issue.

It's been there awhile, actually, as FAQ #19.

-Alex

[Opkl]

How will TuLEPS work for the NMAVE-4? From the pictures you showed, it looks very compact. Will one of the lanes be turned into a turning lane like for the ARD-3 to left turn piece? Or will it spread onto the next tile?

Tarkus, I think you forgot my question.    ^^^ (in quote)

[GDO29Anagram]

@Opkl: I wouldn't expect NMAVE TuLEPs any time soon, but I am bringing it up on the TuLEPs thread, or at least in the process of doing so.

Hold on, are you asking for an NMAVE TuLEP setup where the NMAVE loses a lane and becomes an ARD-3?

[Opkl]

@Opkl: I wouldn't expect NMAVE TuLEPs any time soon, but I am bringing it up on the TuLEPs thread, or at least in the process of doing so.

Hold on, are you asking for an NMAVE TuLEP setup where the NMAVE loses a lane and becomes an ARD-3?

No. I was just wondering what the plan for TULep's for this network were since its so compact.

[GDO29Anagram]

No. I was just wondering what the plan for TULep's for this network were since its so compact.

Well, to be frank about it, none right now.

[skyscraperC3]

Actually, my reply above Ivo's (on this same page), should explain things in better detail.  I've also written FAQ #21 to clarify things with the same information.  Also in response to your question in the NAM Traffic Simulator thread regarding the relationship between Road and Avenue capacities relating to the NWM, I've added FAQ #22.

It's been there awhile, actually, as FAQ #19.

-Alex

wow, thank you! thank you for all of your great work!

(I didn't realize there were new posts before I responded the first time.)

thanks all of you helping with my question!

[jacksunny]

I just thought I'd mention that the NWM video tutorial you have listed is no longer available due to "copyright claims"  so it can be removed.

[legoman786]

I don't think it was specifically that video, but more like he/she had other videos up that infringed on copyrights.

[GDO29Anagram]

Jack and Lego, I made the same remark many pages ago, and I asked if anyone knew if they could get ahold of that video. I haven't heard from Ryan about that; If he were successful, that video should be restored (and on Haljackey's channel). Otherwise, a new NWM video would have to be made...

Any takers?

[j-dub]

The dumbest thing is, I did an unrelated video with audioswap, and despite music being from YT's audioswap, guess what even that did!?
Anyway, I managed to find some NWM how-to's out there.

RHW and NWM in one, NWM is not up until 2:44 of the video
http://www.youtube.com/v/INEY6a4bmzQ&feature=fvwrel

This NWM tutorial is in another language, but the person put ten minutes into it, uploaded in HD, and they linked back to this website.
http://www.youtube.com/v/tBafKVX362M

[Tarkus]

Thanks, j-dub!   I've added that into the sticky post . . . with a note that it's in French, though you can still glean a lot from it visually.

-Alex

[ivo_su]

The second video I do not leave
writes that there are any copyright and can not be seen in this country
I guess it is very interesting. Too bad that I can see it.

[kings_niners]

Has there been any progress on the NWM going over the larger RHW's such as the RHW 8 or 10? Great work on everything guys and gals!

[Uzil]

Hey, i am the creator of the second video, and i can add subtitles if you want  
For the copyright, i can upload this video on dailymotion.