• 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 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Kitsune

Quote from: Tarkus on April 17, 2011, 02:59:01 PM
We tried that with the ERHW-2 On-Slope . . . it didn't work and basically screwed up the rotation ring, so unfortunately, the standard ones will be staying at 3 tiles, the only way to pull off something like that is by using the T OnSlopes.

-Alex

Yes - and the T acts odd too. It works fine for road, but for one way destroying a tile beside it causes the entire thing to be destroyed, and the T for avenue only alloows roads and nothing else.
~ NAM Team Member

jdenm8

There already are two-tile versions, the T pieces.
Why there isn't a normal road stub on the end (ala RHW) is because of technical difficulties. The RHW can do it because there is technically an intersection at both ends, but base networks cannot. RHW-2/ERHW-2 will will have the same problem when it's released.


"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

bladeberkman

Hey, mrtnrln!

The effort you have put into retexturing transit networks and creating euro alternatives is incredible. I was looking at some of your MD pictures and noticed the different sidewalk textures. When the NAM euro cosmetic mod is released will Sithlrd98's asphalt textures be an option as with Andreas' euro road textures?

Also, your GLR/GLR-in-road/GLR-in-avenue puzzle pieces appear to use the chosen sidewalk texture, not the standard Maxis texture. Could this apply to RTMT stations and FLUPS?

Thanks for your hard work! Can't wait for this to be released!

-Blade

werl

I have a mac, and I'm tired of manually adding in addons. I have a NAM mac installer.

werl.me/NAM%20Installer.dmg

I have tested it and works fine. please concider putting this up for mac users.

Twyla

I was experimenting in-game and discovered that RHW-Ground connectivity is *almost* there.  Just as an example:



As you can see, beginning or ending an access road (including NWM-variants) is readily accomplished - it's the connections between existing Ground (RCI-capable) and RHW which is lacking.

I made the second one by dragging RHW to form MIS.  It seems to be functional as-is, though I don't have the knowledge or resources to confirm this (apart from showing as a valid traffic path).

Still, it just goes to show how a little thing can add a *LOAD* of functionality to RHW.

GDO29Anagram

I believe that "messy" Ortho-Diag OWR2xMIS* intersection has been around for, about, forever. No RULs made for them, so the end result are broken overrides and an intersection made from their respective base networks; A RHW2-OWR2 intersection now. Is it worth completing? I'm personally not sure (dragability-wise), but I'd recommend a puzzle-based version. But the broken one works. (It's been "almost there" for years...)

This is exactly why I would consider OWR-MIS ramps to be built: For a proper frontage road connection, and to more or less accompany the AVE-MIS ramps in development.

NWM is about a year old now (but it took three years to develop); I would say it's still taking its first baby steps; RHW? About five times older. That's why no complex NWM-RHW interfacing has been developed (EG, MIS to OWR1); NWM is just too young.

There's one method to get a proper connection with MIS and OWR, with OWR2, at least, but it involves TuLEPs, and something Haljackey and Blue Lightning separately came up with...

Have you ever tried to solve a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle, and found two sky pieces, and desperately tried to slam them, just to get them to fit together? I wouldn't be surprised if that's how people feel about the NWM and RHW. If you're like Ryan or myself, you'll try this, and will sometimes magically get those two sky pieces to fit exactly. Or almost exactly.


* - I was referring to the OWR3's base network: OWR2.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

jdenm8

Actually, back in RHW 3.2, most of those intersections actually worked, but they seem broken in RHW 4.1. I don't know if it's been fixed in RHW 4.2, I don't use them very often.


"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

Tarkus

The only one I ever remember officially working are the ones involving Roads.  OWR/MIS intersections involving diagonals have never been officially enabled, though it's possible I might have accidentally had them in 3.2 (they would have been without paths if that were the case), and they just didn't get included when I did a major revamp of the entire override code for 4.0.

There's been no work on any new diagonal MIS intersections (for OWRs, Avenues, etc.) done so far for Version 4.2.  It's unknown whether or not that'll change . . . I'll have a better idea when I'm back to modding sometime around June or July.  Surprisingly, they haven't been a common request.

I'd also tend to agree with GDO29Anagram on the puzzle piece front . . . the geometry of a straight-up draggable one like that would be not particularly optimal, most likely, though we'll see.

-Alex

jdenm8

#988
Yeah, it was in for roads... sort of.
.

Over on the far left.
I thought I had tried the rest, but I mustn't have.

On the puzzle piece front, not all implementations of that draggable intersection would apply to Frontage roads. A Parclo with a wide median would use that draggable intersection since traffic generally doesn't merge, it stops.

I don't think a ramp interface would go astray, but I don't think the draggable should be neglected either.


"We're making SimCity, not some dopey casual game." -Ocean Quigley

Twyla

If there were FlUP-under-ERHW pieces available, this interchange would be fully functional:

(Used the RHW-2 FlUPs, though the OWR ones would work until there are RHW-4s available)



On a separate note, has anyone else noticed the issue with Maxis Avenues being choked, glorified (and worthless) roads?  Even with the NAM Controller, there's nothing to justify their upkeep expense - the NWM MAVE-4 has twice the capacity at one-fifth the maintenance costs.

Not 100% sure if it's merely a typo in the NAM docs but - even in vanilla SC4 - a pair of OWRs has far fewer traffic problems than a single AVE.  Maybe the next NAM Controller can bump their capacity (and perhaps lower their upkeep) to make them worthwhile?

Tarkus

Quote from: Twyla on May 04, 2011, 07:50:56 PM
Not 100% sure if it's merely a typo in the NAM docs but - even in vanilla SC4 - a pair of OWRs has far fewer traffic problems than a single AVE.  Maybe the next NAM Controller can bump their capacity (and perhaps lower their upkeep) to make them worthwhile?

The Avenue capacities listed are per-tile, while the NWM capacities are for the full width of the network, so to compare, you'd either need to double the Avenue capacity or halve the NWM capacity.  The MAVE-4 has the same capacity as the default Avenue.  MAVE-6 and TLA-5 have a slightly higher capacity.

-Alex

Twyla

Quote from: Tarkus on May 04, 2011, 08:01:40 PM
The Avenue capacities listed are per-tile, while the NWM capacities are for the full width of the network, so to compare, you'd either need to double the Avenue capacity or halve the NWM capacity.  The MAVE-4 has the same capacity as the default Avenue.  MAVE-6 and TLA-5 have a slightly higher capacity.

-Alex

Might consider revising that - ALL other NAM traffic stats (NWM, RHW, etc) in the documentation are listed for the networks rather than per-tile.  RHW docs even specifically state that the figures are for the network:
Quote(note that these are for full double carriageways on all networks except the RHW-2 and MIS Ramps)
(The 'exceptions' listed are somewhat redundant - RHW-2 has both carriageways on the same tile, and MIS is essentially a OWR.)

GDO29Anagram

#992
Quote from: Twyla on May 04, 2011, 09:30:03 PM
(The 'exceptions' listed are somewhat redundant - RHW-2 has both carriageways on the same tile, and MIS is essentially a OWR.)

Try to think of the capacity numbers in the readme this way: Total capacity for both directions of traffic. If you're measuring by just one direction of traffic as if it were a one-way road, you'd have to cut the numbers in half, assuming you could do the same for RHW2. Remember: Just because network "X" has "Y" amount of capacity, doesn't mean it's all in one direction; If the amount of traffic in each direction is the same (on either RHW2, Road, or Street), you could completely cut the numbers in the readme in half, to simulate a by-lane capacity system. (If only the game would allow that... ::) One could dream, though... Or at least do some math...)

MIS and OWR1 can't have their capacities downgraded, unless it's made from another low-capacity network, so considering the game's by-tile capacity system, it wouldn't make much mathematical sense to go from RHW2C (RHW2) to RHW2S (MIS). Besides, MIS's job is to bring traffic from one highway to another; It's probably uncommon to use it like an "RHW2S" setup for long stretches of highway, though it was tried once as a primitive AVE2. Unless you DO want the RHW equivalent to an AVE2. (Wide RHW2; Actually in development, as a puzzle-based setup.)

MIS is like a one-way road - and you could say the same for all the S-type RHWs - , but it's functionally different (It's all controlled-access, after all...). The C-type RHWs could then be considered as oversized variants of the RHW2 in the sense that in order to determine full capacity of one direction of a 6C, for example, you'd have to cut the number given in the readme in half.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Nanami

Quote from: Ciuu96 on April 15, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
Actually, one could just make a T21 mod, something similar to this, but just replace the fences with that kind of barrier. No need to create a new network this way ;)

EDIT: The barriers couldn't still be very big, obviously.
how it work and who would create it?

nick96st

i saw the underground way.... but i find it very difficult to create one ...i can only do rail underways..... so i thought that if it possible to make lots that are used like a metro(subway) to create underground way without taking ground level  tiles.... this could save a lot of plopable things for each kind of road and it probably make problems if create connection to real subway but the subway is very easy to maneuver

but i think it would be super hard to create  that stuff soon (probably not until next summer at least)....


in conclusion  : it would be easy for use but very hard to be created.


------------sorry about the poor dictionary i have any the many repetitions of the words ----------------------

kassarc16

Ran across this on Youtube. Have I been missing something, or have these not been implemented yet?

GDO29Anagram

Quote from: kassarc16 on May 31, 2011, 06:53:31 PM
Ran across this on Youtube. Have I been missing something, or have these not been implemented yet?

The current version of the NAM just has the Draggable FAR and Draggable GLR in Road (And a few Draggable Rail items). Though with the Draggable GLR in Road, you don't need to plop the GLR starter; Just click on a stretch of Road using El Rail.
<INACTIVE>
-----
Simtropolis | YouTube | MLP Forums

Tarkus

Actually, Draggable FAR was (at least in large part) taken out in Version 29 due to the discovery that it was the culprit behind the Maxis Car Ferry CTDs. Draggable FARR I think is still in, though I've heard there were also some similar issues there, so it will probably be removed.  I think the best potential with that technology going forward would be a "FlexFAR" system.

The draggable T-RAM involves the same setup as the draggable ElRail-over-Road Dual Network, so the two conflict, and only one was able to be implemented.

As all the development on that front was done before the Car Ferry issue, we've been quite cautious about implementing more AutoPlace puzzle piece setups like that.

-Alex

Ramona Brie

Quote from: Tarkus on May 31, 2011, 07:16:47 PM
Actually, Draggable FAR was (at least in large part) taken out in Version 29 due to the discovery that it was the culprit behind the Maxis Car Ferry CTDs. Draggable FARR I think is still in, though I've heard there were also some similar issues there, so it will probably be removed.  I think the best potential with that technology going forward would be a "FlexFAR" system.

-Alex

You're correct, Draggable FARR is still in the game. I just used it the other night while building a stretch of FARR, and I have the most recent public releases of everything.

Wiimeiser

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a puzzle piece cannot touch a TE lot of the same network under any circumstances. This was due to a lack of testing on EA's behalf, since TE lots were added at the last second (Rush Hour has three, one of which is physically impossible to access without cheats)
Pink horse, pink horse, she rides across the nation...