• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

NAM: Development

Started by memo, April 29, 2007, 06:33:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

schm0

Quote from: Tarkus on January 22, 2008, 09:12:13 PM
Well, the model can actually point to an infinite number of textures, but it can't change textures or where they are applied on rotation.

Since there'd only be one model for each one of these separate sets, you'd basically just be having a different issue.  If you made a version of it with a lighter texture, it would look too light on some rotations.  You are correct that the pieces are a set of vertices (all models are sets of vertices), but they're sets of vertices with specific textures applied to them.

Of course, the lighter-textured pieces would only be used to replace the on-slope pieces that have the shading glitch. Thus, they would not be used in normal operation, but only after you build your bridge. You'd find the shadowed piece, then replace it with the lighter-textured piece. If I recall correctly, the piece stays shadowed at any angle. In other words, the same piece does not appear shaded in one camera view, and not in another. Right?

QuoteIt seems to be something with the game's rendering engine (an .exe issue), caused by the rather peculiar nature of the piece.  If you've seen the actual model, it's just a really steep incline.  When placed on-slope such that it's level, as the piece is intended, the game still thinks it's at an incline and renders shadows on it.  I wish I could give you a better answer, but unfortunately, it appears there's nothing that can really be done to avoid the issue.  &mmm  Glad to hear everything else is "awesome", though. ;)

-Alex (Tarkus)

Another work-around would be to create an on-slope puzzle piece with no textures (and thus no shading) associated with it. Then, on the ground level 15m below the slope a 3-tile long puzzle piece (such as buddybud's underbridge scenery) is placed but with an "eye-candy" road along it's top, simulating the texture that would be there normally. You'd have to make sure that the top texture poked it's head just above the surface of the ground level. Would something like that work?
schm0

memo

Actually, all rotations and camera views display the same model. And the piece that appears shaded in one camera view, appears correctly in another camera view, or even to bright in another one. So it is nearly impossible to fix this issue.
However, I just had the idea to use the "ResourceKeyType2"-Property in order to specify one model for each zoom and rotation. Unfortunately, it also turned out not to work because the assigning the models to different rotations depends on the rotation of the piece itself, but not on the rotation of the camera. The Property "ResourceKeyType1" works in a similar way. So I'm afraid, my idea is not feasible.
The only possible solution, I can think of, is indeed using props as you suggested, but that will involve certain other limitations, consequently, such as always having to use the 15-meters hole digger, and not digging 14 meters deep, for instance, so as to create a little arch, since the road surface would not be in line. &mmm

Jonathan

#302
how about an over hanging puzzle piece?
It's possible to have a AutoPathBase so the paths could be implemented properly.

schm0

#303
Quote from: memo on January 23, 2008, 07:59:11 AM
Actually, all rotations and camera views display the same model. And the piece that appears shaded in one camera view, appears correctly in another camera view, or even to bright in another one. So it is nearly impossible to fix this issue.
However, I just had the idea to use the "ResourceKeyType2"-Property in order to specify one model for each zoom and rotation. Unfortunately, it also turned out not to work because the assigning the models to different rotations depends on the rotation of the piece itself, but not on the rotation of the camera. The Property "ResourceKeyType1" works in a similar way. So I'm afraid, my idea is not feasible.
The only possible solution, I can think of, is indeed using props as you suggested, but that will involve certain other limitations, consequently, such as always having to use the 15-meters hole digger, and not digging 14 meters deep, for instance, so as to create a little arch, since the road surface would not be in line. &mmm

The on-slope puzzle pieces already demand a 15m raised slope to acheive an even surface. Unless you want to recreate Hazard County or you're making a stuntcar city, then the user already knows that 15m is the standard.

I'm wondering how long it would take me to make such a prop as you suggested in the BAT. I'm not what you would call an expert, but I might be able to whip something up really quick. All you need is a polygon 15.1 meters tall, 16 meters wide and 48 meters long to test it, really.

Quote from: Warrior on January 23, 2008, 09:41:34 AM
how about an over hanging puzzle piece?
It's possible to have a PathTileBase so the paths could be implemented properly.

This is beyond my limited scope of knowledge?

NAM gods, I summon thee!
schm0

Jonathan

#304
I have run a few tests on an overhanging Onslope puzzle piece and it does eliminate the shadows although the humped bridge (where the sunk area was less than 15m) does not work now.

EDIT: This method cant be used with the T junction type because the way puzzle pieces are RULed
Here is a picture comparing the old (T-junction) with the new version (don't worry about about the wierd overlaps and sizes with the end road it can be fixed easily) I have not yet got the paths to work, but thats only because I havent tried to yet.)

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpgLink due to Image size

EDIT: thanks Rickmastfan!
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpg

rickmastfan67

-- James Mast, aka: rickmastfan67
Painter/Public Relations at: Masgrafx Racing.

Check out the 9/11/01 Car Set Checklist.

Take a look @ the JPG Compression tutorial.  A must read to help cut away unnecessary file size from 500k+ images to help dial-up users out.

schm0

#306
Quote from: Warrior on January 23, 2008, 12:14:47 PM
I have run a few tests on an overhanging Onslope puzzle piece and it does eliminate the shadows although the humped bridge (where the sunk area was less than 15m) does not work now.

EDIT: This method cant be used with the T junction type because the way puzzle pieces are RULed
Here is a picture comparing the old (T-junction) with the new version (don't worry about about the wierd overlaps and sizes with the end road it can be fixed easily) I have not yet got the paths to work, but thats only because I havent tried to yet.)

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpgLink due to Image size

EDIT: thanks Rickmastfan!
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpg

About the RULs for the T-sections, is that because the T-sections can also turn into four-way intersections?

Keep us updated.

Tarkus, have you guys tried something like this before?
schm0

ebina

Replaced brighter road textures with darkened ones by using the same technique as the Alternate Railway Mod Expansion Pack for Overpasses. At the moment, only the Maxis' elevated networks were done except on/offramps.


Jonathan

#308
I have now added paths to the piece and it all works correctly and just like the old one did except for there are no shadow glitches. ;D

Now for someone else to work how to get rid of the shadows on the T Onslope pieces. ;)

EDIT: Ebina: Nice work looks much better,  :thumbsup: , is it compatible with the US road textures?

ebina

Quote from: Warrior on January 24, 2008, 09:27:26 AM
Ebina: Nice work looks much better,  :thumbsup: , is it compatible with the US road textures?
Thanks. Of course I'll make US version as well, some of it is here.

NAM's Diagonal Street and Highway x Avenue Roundabout were done. And I've started tweaking the S3D files in NetworkAddonMod1.dat.

Andreas

@Warrior: Heh, who would have thought of that? Great work!

@ebina: That looks a whole lot better indeed! I'd say the mod should be integrated into the NAM, both the standard Maxis intersections and the NAM ones. :)
Andreas

schm0

Quote from: Warrior on January 24, 2008, 09:27:26 AM
I have now added paths to the piece and it all works correctly and just like the old one did except for there are no shadow glitches. ;D

Now for someone else to work how to get rid of the shadows on the T Onslope pieces. ;)

EDIT: Ebina: Nice work looks much better,  :thumbsup: , is it compatible with the US road textures?

NAM Gods, once again, I summon thee! :)

If I understand, the only difference between these puzzle pieces and the current NAM ones is that they must be off a 15m slope? Or do they merely show the same behavior as the current pieces do, where the slope of the network is ramped upwards or downwards?
schm0

Jonathan

#312
To get the "humped" (the not 15m ditch) overpass you'll have to use the T Onslope piece, but this will have the shadow glitch.

The new OnSlope piece can only be used at 15m any difference and there will be a visible gap between the roads.
But the path will join up as they used to (overhanging paths are not possible, but this shouldn't effect the "normal" player) .

You know how to get rid of the T section, extend the T section one tile in both directions then delete the Stubs.?

EDIT: The new pieces have no changes to the RULs, it's just a model changed, so there is no need for a new essentials to be made.

thundercrack83

Those textures look splendid, ebina! Fantastic job, my friend!

schm0

#314
Quote from: Warrior on January 25, 2008, 11:41:31 AM
To get the "humped" (the not 15m ditch) overpass you'll have to use the T Onslope piece, but this will have the shadow glitch.

The new OnSlope piece can only be used at 15m any difference and there will be a visible gap between the roads.
But the path will join up as they used to (overhanging paths are not possible, but this shouldn't effect the "normal" player) .

You know how to get rid of the T section, extend the T section one tile in both directions then delete the Stubs.?

EDIT: The new pieces have no changes to the RULs, it's just a model changed, so there is no need for a new essentials to be made.

The T-section onslope piece was useful for those who wished to have roads directly next to the bridges, but extending the 15m rise over two tiles should actually look quite nice.... Hmm.

Here's the old method, with 15m slopes, two roads along the side of the highway, and the t-section on-slope pieces.


Here's what the 15m slopes look like stretched over two tiles, with two roads along the side of the highway, and straight on-slope pieces.


I hardly ever used the T-Intersection On-Slope pieces, anyways... and this shows a great example for an alternative to that. That is, until someone figures out how to pull off the T's.

I kinda like the double 7.5m sloped tiles better. A bit more realistic, I might add. Looks perfect for the underbridge scenery I have planned. :) (Frankie, where are you by the way?) The only thing that sucked was actually creating the slopes in the first place. The SC4 mayor mode terrain tools even on their lightest setting are so darn touchy. Which brings me to ask...

Anyone know how to create a slope-defining puzzle piece? I guess all I'd need to do is check out smoncrie's hole-digging lots. Just mod them and  set them to 7.5 meters, then plop two of them. Has anyone created a multi-tile, multi-depth slope-defining puzzle peice? That would be great for defining a specific grade for any type of network... :)


schm0

Jonathan

Only 1 tile hole digging lots are possible.
I know what the T Onslope pieces are for, I'm just saying if you want a humped bridge effect then you'll have to use T Onslope pieces and remove the T section.

schm0

#316
Quote from: Warrior on January 26, 2008, 12:08:43 AM
Only 1 tile hole digging lots are possible.
I know what the T Onslope pieces are for, I'm just saying if you want a humped bridge effect then you'll have to use T Onslope pieces and remove the T section.

Well, I just wanted to see what the slopes would look like... more out of my own curiosity than anything else.

As far as the hole-digging lots,  that sucks. Anyone have that link to the slope mods and their various values for each transit type?

Never mind, found it
schm0

RebaLynnTS

Personally, the shadow has never bothered me. I recommend that an optional patch be used, so users can decide if they want it or not.
Becca

Look for me at ... Becca At Bat

thundercrack83

Interesting use of the on-slopes pieces, schm0. It does give the walls on the sunken highway a more gradual grade. I'm curious to see how you'd connect on ramps, though! Keep up the good work, my friend!

beebs

Hoping this is the place to throw this.. ;)

I'm trying to make a lovely new cloverleaf with the new MIS, but I'm running into a few (aesthetic) issues. I'll let pictures describe..


This is what I've got so far (meant to be an interchange under construction, somewhat).


Ultimately, this is what I'm gunning for, smooth flowing from all roads. Now, as far as I know there's no way to have the MIS flow smoothly onto roads.. and having the two offramps connecting to the road beside each other would look horribly unrealistic. ;) I'm wondering if you guys have any ideas for how to make this thing work? My brain is getting drained by this.  :P