NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[GDO29Anagram]

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.

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).

Now that's what I call strange.

1. It's more of a "If we did include it, it would mean that you'd have to wait even longer for a release" kind of case, and if we did manage to include everything we could possibly think of into just one single dev cycle as opposed to the several that we do for a single project, Alex puts it best when he says that it gives the impression that the NAM itself is cancelled (or delayed indefinitely).

So, ask yourself: Would you want to have something presentable "now" or wait so long for it that you think it's never gonna be released?

AVE-8 and TLA-9, for the record, are expected to make a comeback, but I'd anticipate it to be a NAM 32 feature, not a NAM 31 feature.

2. The overhead lights would need a whole new prop, which would need someone to BAT for us.

The puzzle piece, mind you, is easy to make (and it's the easiest form of RULing you'd expect, unless it's 3D). Attaching the props to it is also fairly easy, but only when you have the prop you even need in the first place. Otherwise, that would mean many hours or days of making a whole new prop and attaching it to a second copy of the first puzzle piece when it probably would be easier to use a lot-based solution with an overhanging prop.

It's because of that that, in my opinion, SSTLA pieces are easier to make than REV pieces, unless you exclude the overhead lights altogether.

3. Not really... With a standard TLA network, both sides of traffic can turn left (assuming right-hand drive), but an SSTLA restricts turning on one side. Imagine on one side of a TLA, you have a few stores, but on the other side, you have a river.

These are more in line with NWM pieces that are too specialised to be full-fledged networks, such as asymmetrical AVEs, asymmetrical TLAs, and the ARD-4 Alex proposed. They'll either fall under the category of specialised NWM pieces or (in some cases) TuLEPs.\

Exclude the draggable stuff, and the current NWM scheme (0x513##### to 0x515#####) only accounts for simple items, such as curves, transitions, and NC pieces. There's currently no category for specialised NWM pieces or cosmetic pieces.

[Tarkus]

I'll respond to a few of the ideas proposed here.

First off, I'd say there's a very good chance of seeing a few NWM cosmetic pieces in a future release.  The NWM takes a lot of design cues from the RHW, and vice-versa (in fact, the original plans that jplumbley and I had involved the RHW being swallowed by NWM), and that's a logical addition.  A mock reversible-lane setup would make sense that way.  So far, I haven't found a way to make reversible-lanes functional yet--my experiments have involved One-Way Roads, but the hard-coded tidal flow mechanism has thwarted that thus far.

As far as the TLA-9 and AVE-8, part of the hang-up there is the implementation.  I've been considering changing it from an all-Road-based network to a hybrid approach, with an OWR-Road-OWR "sandwich" coming out of a starter piece.  I'll need to do some further experimentation to really explore the pros and cons of that approach (one thing I know off that bat is that it'll kill functional traffic signals without cosmetic pieces/TuLEPs), and that probably won't happen until the NAM 32 development cycle begins.

With regards to a TuLEP setup for TLA-7/AVE-6 x TLA-7/AVE-6 intersections, that is a small thing that could conceivably be "sneaked into" NAM 31, along with the small offering of transition pieces for which we already have textures.

1. It's more of a "If we did include it, it would mean that you'd have to wait even longer for a release" kind of case, and if we did manage to include everything we could possibly think of into just one single dev cycle as opposed to the several that we do for a single project, Alex puts it best when he says that it gives the impression that the NAM itself is cancelled (or delayed indefinitely).

So, ask yourself: Would you want to have something presentable "now" or wait so long for it that you think it's never gonna be released?

We're already running into that sort of situation already, given that it's been 11 months since the last NAM.  P57 has been an insanely huge undertaking, and when it's all said and done, it'll probably encompass millions (yes, millions) of lines of RUL2 code.  (Full adjacency stability causes exponential growth--fortunately, we've refined the specs further and I've made templates so I don't go completely insane. )

-Alex

[Patricius Maximus]

1. It's more of a "If we did include it, it would mean that you'd have to wait even longer for a release" kind of case, and if we did manage to include everything we could possibly think of into just one single dev cycle as opposed to the several that we do for a single project, Alex puts it best when he says that it gives the impression that the NAM itself is cancelled (or delayed indefinitely).

So, ask yourself: Would you want to have something presentable "now" or wait so long for it that you think it's never gonna be released?

I'd like to have the most that the NAM team can offer as soon as they can offer it. So, if there's a set of features that are complete except for one or two features that are lagging behind, I'd rather have the complete features released now and add in the two laggards later. I support the NAM's current approach.

As for Tarkus's posts, I like what I'm seeing. The status of all of the ideas is about what I expected (you've done a great job of clarifying the NAM Team's plans and attitudes).

[itsacoaster]

I was wondering (apologies if this has been asked before) if diagonal intersections for OWR-3 or any other network are planned for the future.

Thanks!

[GDO29Anagram]

I was wondering (apologies if this has been asked before) if diagonal intersections for OWR-3 or any other network are planned for the future.

Not until well after NAM 31.

[Tarkus]

There already are some diagonal intersections in the NWM (none for OWR-3, as I recall), but they're offered "as-is" and are unsupported.  The TLA-3 has the most.  We won't really be touching the draggable side of the NWM again until NAM 32.  The NWM is due to get a total back-end coding revamp like the RHW has with P57, and that sort of functionality will be explored in-depth then.

In the meanwhile, I had a boot-sector fail on my laptop HD yesterday morning.  I fortunately retrieved all my important files (including the NAM stuff I had in development), but I'm still running off an Ubuntu disc I burnt on a whim last year, and am in "computational limbo" at the moment.

-Alex

[Ol.S / Benoit]

Hi Tarkus & others,
First, thanks a lot for the amazing work on the NWM !

A friend has an issue with the smooth curves from the NWM, a red/white ugly texture appear on each side of the road...
So he does have latest NAM, NWM etc... I guess this is probably not related to the NWM itself, but from an other mod ? Does anyone have an idea ? Here is a picture :



Thanks a lot,
Benoit.

[Magneto]

^ The mod that triggers the appearance of sidewalks for curves is Cat Punch jpn sidewalk mod. The folder name if unchanged should be something like "z_NAM_FARpieces_FaceLift_Mod"

But the red texture in itself come from another mod, maybe JRJ street side mod or more probably a japanese facelift mod... Most likely there is a "z" at the beginning of the name too

[Uzil]

Hi everyone, I have few problems with the MAVE 6 (I supposed that it's his name)



Connexion with the nearby town = Bug with work path



No connexion = no bug

How to fix that without erase the MAVE connexion ?

[kassarc16]

Actually, that looks like a normal AVE6. I swore that the "C" type networks still had a functional center connection, but I guess not in this case.

Next to the NWM icon there should be one for NWM Neighbor Connections. Tab through it until you find the one for AVE6 (if it has one), and plop it down over the connection. That should hopefully fix it.

You may need to move your street intersection for that fix.

[Uzil]

Not working sorry, there is always abandonment with connexion.

[Wiimeiser]

What's in the other city? Sounds like sims are commuting to a city tile with no jobs.

[Tarkus]

Are you using the neighbor connector piece?  I have an AVE-6 neighbor connection in one of my cities that works without significant issue (though commuters do tend to crowd the center tile).

-Alex

[Uzil]

What's in the other city? Sounds like sims are commuting to a city tile with no jobs.

The nearby city is residential, but if I place a avenue or road (or others NWM ways) there is no abandonment.

Are you using the neighbor connector piece?  I have an AVE-6 neighbor connection in one of my cities that works without significant issue (though commuters do tend to crowd the center tile).

-Alex

Of course and for any ways of the NWM and the RHW, but only the AVE 6, the TLA 7, and the RHW 6C makes bugs with the work path, and in all of my cities.

[MandelSoft]

Have you checked if you have installed the right driving side of all NAM related plugins? Each plugin (RHW, NWM, etc.) has it's own LHD-patch. Maybe that causes the problem...

[Uzil]

Have you checked if you have installed the right driving side of all NAM related plugins? Each plugin (RHW, NWM, etc.) has it's own LHD-patch. Maybe that causes the problem...

All plugins are in RHD versions (I have fully reinstalled the NAM this afternoon) but the problem persist. 

[gn_leugim]

I am having the same/similar issue with MAVE6.

I make the neighbour connection to city A, plop the connector piece and the traffic goes well into city A. but when I load city A, from the neighbour connection only ped and bus traffic flows and just a small amount. I had to change into RHW6 to have a functional neighbour connection

[ivo_su]

Hello, NAM-team!
I have not written, but now I think of interesting questions. In NAM 31 will have a T-intersection on AVE-4/AVE-6 because it is very necessary, but so far, no one? The other thing that interests me is whether you are still in the third phase and line rulers who have reached? However, this time phase will be nearly 20 and the lines - over a million. I'd love to see some photos and development, if any.

[Tarkus]

In NAM 31 will have a T-intersection on AVE-4/AVE-6 because it is very necessary, but so far, no one?

I thought there was one already . . . it's hard to keep track of all those T-intersections sometimes.

The other thing that interests me is whether you are still in the third phase and line rulers who have reached? However, this time phase will be nearly 20 and the lines - over a million. I'd love to see some photos and development, if any.

I'm guessing you're referring to P57 on the RHW side--with that, we're still working out some logistics of getting the code in there (mainly as there's so much), and re-assembling the models to meet with the revised specs.  There's not really much to look at right now, aside from a ton of code.

-Alex

[ivo_su]

I thought there was one already . . . it's hard to keep track of all those T-intersections sometimes.

I meant this intersection.