NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[Durfsurn]

I don't see why we don't just use road? I am confused was this and still is the original idea? I thought the geniuses at NAM HQ can up the capacity of roads using some trick to make it equal to two OWR-4's.

[Kuewr665]

Ganaram's post seems to indicate that road would make more sense.

Also for the capacity increase I do not see why the popular method for increasing capacity would not work here.

[GDO29Anagram]

I thought the geniuses at NAM HQ can up the capacity of roads using some trick to make it equal to two OWR-4's.

The original idea was to use an all-Road implementation for AVE-8 and TLA-9, but a hybrid approach was brought up far later. The only way to increase capacity of any network without tampering with the Traffic Simulator is to give it distilled intersection paths (DIPing), but that only works if the network in question doesn't already have crossover paths or TLA pathing, both of which constitute as DIPing. You can only dip a network once; there's no way to double-dip. If both the AVE-6 and AVE-8 were made using just Road, both networks will have the same exact capacity, period. This is the same situation that has always happened with the 8S and 10S, and 6C and 8C; each pair of networks has the same exact capacity.

The thing about OWRs is that, in real-life, they exhibit greater advantages than that of just regular two-way roads, and to reflect that, the OWRs in the NAM have greater speed and capacity than that of Road. In the past, Avenues, OWRs, and Roads were completely equalised, so back then, it wouldn't be a problem, but since everything in the NAM is based off of realism, there's no way to get around it unless you wanna be unrealistic.

Back to DIPing. DIPped networks have a 25% increase in networks, so an AVE-6/8 made of three Roads would have the same capacity as 3.75 individual roads. OWRs have capacities 1.5 times that of Road. OWR-4 is two of those OWRs, times two for two OWR-4's, times 1.25 per OWR-4 for the DIP effect, so a dual OWR-4 would have the capacity as 7.5 Roads. At that point, it be more of an intermediary network between RHW and non-RHW. This is all due to not only the DIP effect and the higher capacity of OWR, but also due to the fact that a dual OWR-4 takes up one more tile than a single AVE-6/8. No amount of DIPing can ever get Roads on par with OWRs in terms of capacity, unless you break the Traffic Simulator, which is ill-advised unless you absolutely wanna test something out.

Ganaram's post seems to indicate that road would make more sense.

Also for the capacity increase I do not see why the popular method for increasing capacity would not work here.

We've blindly used a different network for a capacity boost before. DDRHW-4 was originally a Rail-based network because its capacity was greatly higher than that of RHW, up to twice as much, but then it was later (waaaaaaay later) discovered that if you force a Rail-based network to accept Road-type traffic, its capacity falls back to that of Road, thereby rendering the entire network useless.

Since this was an unforeseen issue, every single instance of rail-based DDRHW not only doesn't work, but is no longer supported by the current NAM. We've long since done away with Rail-based RHWs and were forced back to retreat to using regular RHW. The drawback is decreased capacity, but it works. (The other solution was to create MHW-based DDRHW, which would still have a somewhat greater capacity, but it wasn't well-explored as of now.)

[Kuewr665]

So, if a network has paths that go off more than two edges of the tile, that increases the capacity. I think I understand it better.

[GDO29Anagram]

So, if a network has paths that go off more than two edges of the tile, that increases the capacity. I think I understand it better.

It can also decrease the capacity. There's a value in the Traffic Simulator that increases (or decreases) the capacity on intersections. Depending on the traffic simulator (NAM-depreciated, NAM-approved, or third-party), this can either do nothing, do something good, or make everything useless.

As I said before, there was a time when OWR, Avenue, and Road capacities were all equalised, but so were the capacities on intersections. If that aforementioned value is just 1, the DIP effect won't activate. This is with older versions of the NAM Traffic Simulator, like the ones from about 3-4 years ago.

The current Traffic Simulator has a multiplier of 1.25, so the DIP effect will work as intended (so long as you have the current Traffic Simulator installed at all times), but third-party Traffic Simulators may assign that multiplier to be less than one, thereby decreasing the capacities of any network that has DIPs, crossover paths, or TLA paths (in other words, nearly all of the NWM and the RHW). This is why it's always recommended to use the NAM Traffic Simulator; you're never sure if anything else works the same way. Not even the original Traffic Simulator works the same way. (Spoiler alert, it works terribly.)

[Geometry123]

Regarding NC'ing OWRs, isn't there a workaround somewhere to NC an OWR? Something similar to the trick that I've found a few days ago about a trick how to NC a street. For sure, there maybe a workaround somewhere...

[GDO29Anagram]

Regarding NC'ing OWRs, isn't there a workaround somewhere to NC an OWR? Something similar to the trick that I've found a few days ago about a trick how to NC a street. For sure, there maybe a workaround somewhere...

Having tried that millions of years ago already, I can say it doesn't work.

[strucka]

Hi! What is up with medians for AVE-2 and 6? Are these in NAM team domain, or a seperate thing?

[jdenm8]

Filling them is the job of T21 mods, so it's outside the NAM's domain. There are a few good sets on the STEX.

[H2Odk]

Regarding NC'ing OWRs, isn't there a workaround somewhere to NC an OWR? Something similar to the trick that I've found a few days ago about a trick how to NC a street. For sure, there maybe a workaround somewhere...

Having tried that millions of years ago already, I can say it doesn't work.

I almost had this working.. but it had some problems..

I needed to make a neighbourhood connection with OWR, so I edited the path of one of the Flup OWR pieces to allow me to use Flups to make this work. (Adding a new puzzle piece is beyond my skills)



But as you can see, some traffic (~1000 busses) are using the new neighbourhood connection path as a shortcut.

Since a RHW neighbourhood connection has the same problem/feature I wondered if anyone has found a solution to this?

[Wiimeiser]

Assuming they have no other way to go, just take it as them using roads in the other city.

[strucka]

Has there been any ideas or sugestions about adding in some crosswalks with traffic lights?
It would essentially be a normal crossroads but with only pedestrain paths and maybe possible to stack them together  one next to the other to get  wider crosswalks. All regulated by traffic lights, or even not.

[APSMS]

I believe that the PedMall plugin is designed specifically for this, though it uses pedestrian bridges. I'm not sure if Ped Malls over NWM networks exist, but that might be a more viable request. It's unlikely that crosswalks would be released, since the same functionality can be serviced by a street (for multi-tile networks) and cosmetically with a TE-lot for all of the other situations.

[titanicbuff]

I believe that the PedMall plugin is designed specifically for this, though it uses pedestrian bridges. I'm not sure if Ped Malls over NWM networks exist, but that might be a more viable request. It's unlikely that crosswalks would be released, since the same functionality can be serviced by a street (for multi-tile networks) and cosmetically with a TE-lot for all of the other situations.

Nope- I use a lot of Pedestrian malls and I've yet to see NWM pedestrian bridges-

[Kuewr665]

riiga made some two years ago. I do not know the status of the paths now.

This post also makes a suggestion for NWM crosswalks, which received a reply from Tarkus that he has an interest in making them.

[riiga]

I still have the files, but they aren't really finished, and I'd probably need to redo some of them.

[Gugu3]

That would be nice Riiga!

[titanicbuff]

either that or someone needs to make pedestrian bridges for NWM.

[Kuewr665]

Ah, I was wondering what happened to the trails.

I would prefer crosswalks. They are more common and realistic.

[titanicbuff]

In Colorado Springs there are 5 wide roads with ped bridges- one I know in particular is at the state school fo the deaf and blind. bridging over the road below- i love using the pedestrian malls and over the NWM would complete the look. also something I'd love to see is diagonal Tuleps- For some reason they've been left out many times.