NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[memo]

Out of curiosity... can anyone tell me how it works that the single tile NWM networks (for instance) as the four-lane road (or whatever it is called. I always forget about the hundreds of abbrevations concerning SC4, see the discussion above.) actually have a higher capacity than the two-lane road? I always thought the capacity was a network specific property such as road, OWR, avenue etc and was really surprised when I replaced an over-congested road with four-lane single-tile road and congestion was low again, although the same amount of cars passed. It is like a secret to me. The additional paths are certainly not responsible for that, are they?

EDIT: A closer look at the OWR ARP shows that it converts the OWR-2 tiles into an S3D by using a modified OWR INRUL. Additionally, I'm not finding modified path files, and I'm finding a lot of T21s; Is the OWR ARP a T21?!! (Weird...) This might make is so that the arrows can still be detected, even when there's no zoning adjacent, because an S3D network, when unzoned, won't have any kind of wealthification, not even the zero-wealth (0x######0#) texture.

Few may know the OWR ARP actually is a creation of mine. The RUL file is included for compatibility reasons only. It changes the network tiles' IIDs which ensures you do not need to redrag all your previously existing OWRs. Previous existing OWRs still show the normal texture whereas new ones display the S3D model und thus no arrows (in fact the arrows are below the S3D). If I had not changed the IID, existing OWRs would have displayed without textures until redragging them I think. The many T21s are included only to get the OWR props to show up because the IID of the network tiles was changed.

[noahclem]

Actually it is the paths that increase the capacity (by 25% usually, though it depends on what traffic simulator you are using). "Dummy paths" that don't really connect to anything make the simulator treat those networks as intersections. They're used on almost all the NWM networks, OWR-1, AVE-2 & RD-4 being the only ones missing them if I recall right. Most RHW networks are the same way.

* Technically the networks with more than one tile going in one direction (ie TLA-7, OWR-4, etc) don't have DIPs, as the dummy paths are called, but the paths connecting the tiles also create the intersection capacity effect.

Any chance of you doing a bit more arrow-reduction work? 

[memo]

Thanks for your response, Noah. This is very interesting for me as I have never really investigated the traffic simulators. So did I understand you correctly? The dummy paths let the game think it is an intersection and intersections can be set to higher capacity in the simulator‽ If RD-4 has no dummy paths, I wonder why my 4-lane road was not over-congested anymore. And tiles, which were intersections before, would have the same capacity as before.

Or did you actually mean that the capacity is increased by 25% for each additional path on the tile? So 2 additional paths would make around 50% (or 56.25% to be precise). This would make sense of course, but I would not expect something that realistic from Maxis.

Any chance of you doing a bit more arrow-reduction work? 

I have just started playing the game again. Perhaps, I will look into it when my region gets big enough to make use of OWR-3,4,5. Though what I can say now is that it is far more complicated than for OWR2. Either one simply converts the textures into S3D with the downside you will have to redrag existing OWR-3,4,5 networks (which is IMO acceptable as these are not among the most used networks I think) or one links the models with new IDs, so redragging is not necessary, but one has to update the RUL files on a big scale (especially overrides). None of these is a perfect solution though.

[GDO29Anagram]

DIPs on any single-tile override network increase capacity by 25% as though as on an intersection. An intersection is defined as any tile with paths entering or exiting three or four of the sides. There is no way to double-DIP or un-DIP effect (IE, you can't increase capacity any further or make it decrease).

Networks with either crossover paths or TLA-turn paths will also exhibit the DIP effect because of the nature of their pathing that makes them considered intersections. With the TLAs, it results in somewhat undesirable DIP effects, but it's somewhat justified when you get to TLA-7, a network that has both TLA-turn paths and crossover paths. However, you will not get a double-DIP effect out of that, nor will you get a double-DIP effect if you add the Distilled Intersection Paths onto something on the order of, say, RHW-8S.

-----


So the INRUL modification is simply to spare a tedious redrag, which I see as understandable. Though in my mind, it doesn't take a lot to redrag; One click with the corresponding network tool will affect all tiles within a 4 or 5 tiles from the tile from which you clicked at, so just one tile can affect up to eight more.

Converting OWR tiles into S3D-based items does cover up the arrows, but that entails a tedious redraw. Plus, if you mouse-over, you'll still get to see the arrows. There's already an ARP effect with the OWR-3 diagonals; The overhangs are S3D-dictated.

The alternative idea (suggested by Vince) is to replace the arrow textures with blanks, but the drawback to that is that you can't tell the direction of the OWRs afterwards unless you use the Drawpaths cheat or "test-dragging". This may be the simplest of all solution, since you just need to overwrite just two textures.


I should also mention that it's theoretically possible to RUL in a second copy of every OWR network that is S3D-based (or just S3D-based versions of the ortho and diag tiles; That's just two tiles), but, once again, that entails RULing, plus activating and deactivating it will also entail two different copies of the Controller, and you know how big the Controller is... Not exactly desirable, since there normally should ever be two different Controllers: Left and Right. OWR-2 ARP is dictated by a simple INRUL, which is small in comparison to RUL-2, which dictates the placement of all override networks.

So we have three different approaches:

- Blank arrow textures. Pros: Easiest to implement. Cons: Requires DrawPaths to differentiate direction.
- S3D the existing instances. Pros: Also easy. Cons: Requires successive redrawing.
- S3D new instances. Pros: Can theoretically be activated and deactivated without successive redrawing. Cons: Requires an additional copy of the Controller.

[noahclem]

I apologize, I should have clarified the difference between one-tile 4-lane roads (NRD-2?). The two-tile network doesn't include DIPs but the one-tile network does.

I don't think having to re-drag OWRs is a real problem for an optional mod.

Glad to hear you're back in the game! Thanks again for all the great stuff you did with diagonal bridges 

[memo]

Thank you both for your explanations. I think i got it now with the DIP effect. Still very interesting.

So the INRUL modification is simply to spare a tedious redrag, which I see as understandable. Though in my mind, it doesn't take a lot to redrag; One click with the corresponding network tool will affect all tiles within a 4 or 5 tiles from the tile from which you clicked at, so just one tile can affect up to eight more.

Today I would perhaps indeed implement it with simple replacement and need to redrag, in order to avoid conflicts with the NWM. But the NWM did not exist at that time. But then i was just happy with it because existing OWRs did not have to be redragged and possible future conflicts were not that foreseeable. Of course, in that situation one chooses the approach without redrag.

So we have three different approaches:

- Blank arrow textures. Pros: Easiest to implement. Cons: Requires DrawPaths to differentiate direction.
- S3D the existing instances. Pros: Also easy. Cons: Requires successive redrawing.
- S3D new instances. Pros: Can theoretically be activated and deactivated without successive redrawing. Cons: Requires an additional copy of the Controller.

Well, I would add another approach. If you add S3Ds with new instances, you could duplicate every line of overrides concerning the existing instances and have one copy of the old and one of the new instances at a time. This would eliminate the need for an additional controller. Though I do not prefer this approach. However, this should be done for the two OWR tiles, as someone stated problems with the arrow reduction several posts above which certainly result from this fact.

As for your first approach, IIRC there already is such a mod at Simtropolis since very long before the arrows reduction plugin existed (or at least there once was). But I was not comfortable with using it, so I created my own approach back then. But as you said replacing two textures is no great deal anyway.

BTW, I am happy some of you actually started to like the OWR ARP. I always considerd it to be a plugin rarely used.

Noah, I am glad you like the diagonal bridges. They are a project which has slept on my hard drive for a very long time until I decided to eventually return to SimCity to make them useable. I felt a bit guilty to Lars (Praiodan) who had BATted the first diagonal bridge for me.

Edit: Something to think about is removing the new IIDs of the OWR-2 ARP from the RULs. You could add the S3Ds to the old instances, but keep the other S3Ds with the new instances, too. However, RUL conflicts are completely ruled out, and as most people who install the plugin had it previously installed, they will not even notice the change. So no need to redrag then.

[Tarkus]

Here's a more specific look at how the DIPs (Distilled Intersection Paths) work, from the ARD-3 orthogonal path (0x51020000):

Code Select Expand


SC4PATHS
1.2
7
0
0
-- car_1_3
1
1
1
3
0
2
-4.5,8,0
-4.5,-8,0
-- car_3_1_a
1
1
3
1
0
2
0,-8,0
0,8,0
-- car_3_1_b
1
2
3
1
0
2
4.5,-8,0
4.5,8,0
-- sim_1_3
2
1
1
3
0
2
-7.5,8,0
-7.5,-8,0
-- sim_3_1
2
1
3
1
0
2
7.5,-8,0
7.5,8,0
--Invalid Paths
-- car_3_0
1
0
3
0
0
1
-7.9,-8,-20
-- car_1_2
1
0
1
2
0
1
7.9,8,-20


It's those last two that trick the game into applying the Intersection Effect to the network tile.  I've since come to avoid single-point paths, so they'll be changed into dual-point dummy paths with the next release.

-Alex

[ssquicci]

Hello everyone:

I am not sure if I've missed it, but is there a NMAV to Ave 4 transition piece?  I have a couple of places where I want to go from a narrow avenue to a traditional avenue, mainly so that I can utilize the NAM overpasses.  I can't seem to find it or figure out if there is one.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you all. 

[io_bg]

That piece doesn't exist unfortunately... I hope it'll be available in the next NAM.

[noahclem]

I believe textures for such a piece were created some time ago and last I heard it's on the "likely to be included in the next NAM" category. A possible workaround for now is the tram-on-road to tram-in-avenue piece.

[ssquicci]

Thank you for the information and help.

[Tarkus]

I'll confirm that we do indeed have some nice textures for that particular transition.  The tentative plans are to sneak those in once we have the RHW Project 57 (P57) effort in hand for NAM 31. 

We've already begun initial planning on an effort similar to P57 for the NWM (involving an IID shift and a RUL2 rewrite).  That'll be one of our major projects for NAM 32.

-Alex

[cmdp123789]

Will the nwm include FAR pieces?

[Tarkus]

Fractional Angle NWM networks are indeed planned.  They're under consideration for NAM 32.

-Alex

[cmdp123789]

Great tarkus.. I know there is no release date planned yet... but I always look at the project 57 thing in your sig an always wonder... are you guys really doing it? cause it feels like you just released something and the next day you guys already start something new... this team is basically the reason why people keep coming back to simcity 4... keep it up... nice work!

[Haljackey]

One thing that's bugged me is that the AVE-6/TLA-7 and avenue T-intersection has some textural misalignment.

Here's a pic of one next to a avenue + intersection to show the difference.

[Patricius Maximus]

One thing that I'd really like is for the TuLEP functionality to be extended to the ultra-wide NWM networks, i.e. the AVE-6 and TLA-7. An additional turning lane would still be useful there, and it's kind of silly that a TLA-7 intersecting an AVE-4 can have TuLEPs but a TLA-7 intersecting another TLA-7 cannot.

This is re-posted from my latest post in the RHW thread:

I've always had a special itch for a reversible lane setup. I realize that the pathing and functionality is very difficult to impossible for a reversible road, but I think it would be possible to make the eyecandy, such as the lane markings and the overhead setups, like a retextured OWR or ARD-3. I understand completely if the NAM team doesn't want to waste time on non-functional transit systems, but I just thought I would mention it. Perhaps some modder might like the idea. Seeing as I have no modding skills myself, I'll settle for "photoshopping". Something like this really adds an urban and "real" feel to a city.

Additional note: I found these two old conversations in the NWM thread about reversible lanes (one from 2008 and one from 2010). The idea I posted 4 years ago seemed to be workable, albeit as a retextured ARD-3. It would certainly be possible to create cosmetic puzzle pieces in that regard like the RHW. As for the ARD-3 switch that I mentioned, that piece could have a cosmetic version that had reversible lane textures. In addition to that usage, a lot of people would find it useful for the regular ARD-3's.

Shadow Assassin and a few others thought it was a nice idea. Since aside form the ARD-3 switch (which is useful to have anyway) no new under-the-hood functionality would be needed, I don't think a cosmetic puzzle piece set would be all that difficult to make for some future release. I leave it up to you modders to decide what to do with the idea.

[noahclem]

Reversible lanes sound nice, though they wouldn't be at the top of my personal priority list.

But I was actually posting because I was wondering if AVE-8 and TLA-9 are planned for inclusion in NAM 32. I'd really love to see development restart on those 

EDIT: I forgot to ask about OWR splitters. OWR-5 to OWR-3 + OWR-2 would be especially nice. OWR-3 to OWR-2 + OWR-1, OWR-3 to 2xOWR-2, and OWR-5 to 2x OWR-3 could also be useful.

[GDO29Anagram]

One thing that I'd really like is for the TuLEP functionality to be extended to the ultra-wide NWM networks, i.e. the AVE-6 and TLA-7. An additional turning lane would still be useful there, and it's kind of silly that a TLA-7 intersecting an AVE-4 can have TuLEPs but a TLA-7 intersecting another TLA-7 cannot.

That's more of a "We didn't include it because it didn't make the cut" kind of thing, and surprisingly, it happens a lot. TLA-9 and AVE-8 were supposed to be included along with TLA-7 and AVE-8, but it would mean double the work, so it was dropped out. Look at the NWM's DAT file(s), and you'll find textures for that, and even AVE-6/AVE-4 B-TuLEPs.

Also, you're using incorrect terminology. Ultra-wides, in RHW-land (Area 57, anypony?), refer to a network that exceeds the standard limit of draggability, that is, it's either bigger than a two-tile wide S-network or bigger than a 3-tile wide C-network. Take that to NWM, and the only possible Ultra-Wides are probably a 4-tile AVE-10 and maybe a three-tile OWR-8. TLA-7 and AVE-6 are, therefore, standard-wide.

And you left this:

This is sort of off-topic and belongs more in the NWM thread, but I've always had a special itch for a reversible lane setup.

Additional note: I found these two old conversations in the NWM thread about reversible lanes (one from 2008 and one from 2010).

One of those conversations occurred when I was still a NAM Team Associate, with which I replied with:

It wouldn't work, since individual paths cannot be reversed at regular intervals. The closest thing to making such a network functional is to have two paths in the middle lane, each in two different directions.

Then again, it was from someone who questioned the usefulness of even the simplest of all NWM functionalities, and even (blatantly) pushed us into making an impractically narrow network.

There was even a third proposal by someone who created a REV-5 by dragging two halves of an OWR-5 in two different directions. (I honestly didn't know what he was doing until he explained it.)

Personally, my reply still stands, but you could either go with bidrectional pathing in the middle or nothing in the middle but with DIPing to compensate (which you technically would need either way).

REV-3 has the same priority as, say, a single-sided TLA (which, for the record, I have actually seen), or an AVE-2 whose barrier is replaced with double double yellow lines (prototypical equivalent was seen as a TuLEP piece). All of which fall under the category of NWM Cosmetic pieces (and those don't even exist!!!), and would need to wait until NAM 32 dev even begins. (I make no guarantees that such pieces would even make it in.)

[Patricius Maximus]

One thing that I'd really like is for the TuLEP functionality to be extended to the ultra-wide NWM networks, i.e. the AVE-6 and TLA-7. An additional turning lane would still be useful there, and it's kind of silly that a TLA-7 intersecting an AVE-4 can have TuLEPs but a TLA-7 intersecting another TLA-7 cannot.

That's more of a "We didn't include it because it didn't make the cut" kind of thing, and surprisingly, it happens a lot. TLA-9 and AVE-8 were supposed to be included along with TLA-7 and AVE-8, but it would mean double the work, so it was dropped out. Look at the NWM's DAT file(s), and you'll find textures for that, and even AVE-6/AVE-4 B-TuLEPs.

Not making the cut does happen a lot, though from my experience it's more of a case of putting off something to another release than cancelling the feature entirely. If I'm not mistaken TLA-9's and AVE-8's are still slated to appear at some future date.

Also, you're using incorrect terminology. Ultra-wides, in RHW-land (Area 57, anypony?), refer to a network that exceeds the standard limit of draggability, that is, it's either bigger than a two-tile wide S-network or bigger than a 3-tile wide C-network. Take that to NWM, and the only possible Ultra-Wides are probably a 4-tile AVE-10 and maybe a three-tile OWR-8. TLA-7 and AVE-6 are, therefore, standard-wide.

I see.


And you left this:

One of those conversations occurred when I was still a NAM Team Associate, with which I replied with:

It wouldn't work, since individual paths cannot be reversed at regular intervals. The closest thing to making such a network functional is to have two paths in the middle lane, each in two different directions.

Then again, it was from someone who questioned the usefulness of even the simplest of all NWM functionalities, and even (blatantly) pushed us into making an impractically narrow network.

There was even a third proposal by someone who created a REV-5 by dragging two halves of an OWR-5 in two different directions. (I honestly didn't know what he was doing until he explained it.)

I learned all of that 4 years ago. A functional reversible road would be nearly impossible (given the miracles that have occurred over the years I'm now reluctant to say anything is straight-up impossible). I was referring more to a cosmetic piece set for an ARD-3 or a OWR-2, preferably combined with props (the lane control lights).

REV-3 has the same priority as, say, a single-sided TLA (which, for the record, I have actually seen)

Now that's what I call strange.

[...]or an AVE-2 whose barrier is replaced with double double yellow lines (prototypical equivalent was seen as a TuLEP piece).

I see. However, it's worth noting that something similar to that is seen in the current WRHW-2 cosmetic pieces.

All of which fall under the category of NWM Cosmetic pieces (and those don't even exist!!!), and would need to wait until NAM 32 dev even begins. (I make no guarantees that such pieces would even make it in.)

I figure it's low priority, but I thought I would raise the issue. When NAM 32 begins development, I don't think cosmetic pieces would present much of a problem, and I'm pretty sure that natural progress will lead to NWM cosmetic pieces being made at some point. Whether that's months or years away (or many NAM versions away) remains to be seen. For the record, I'm not in any hurry.