NAM Issues Thread - PLEASE POST YOUR NAM QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS HERE

[markussaage]

@MGB204 Thanks for the reply.  Well, I had to install everything new on this new machine, SC4 and than the NAM right away with nothing else in the Plugins folder. That explains everything! So, problem solved! Thanks a lot!

Kind regards!

[Kitsune]

I dont know if its a unknown mod or something the nam team did, but my AVE-4 by MIS have traffic lights... and its causing an issue:



I guess sc4 needs new smaller traffic lights, but till then if it is nam related, I think just moving the light closer to the intersection will fix it.

[mgb204]

It's one of the problems of RHW-6S being an overhanging network. The crossing doesn't know 6S is next to it, pretty much every other RHW would not cause issues here. So whilst technically you could consider it a bug, altering it will almost certainly look worse in every other potential situation. Not to mention, here the crossing is MIS, but the same would likely occur with all other intersections too that could cross the avenue.

[matias93]

In any case, shorter traffic light poles would resolve this and look much more coherent with the now-dominant L1 viaducts (Mandelsoft please come back!  )

[dyoungyn]

Having a problem with RHW L2 Flex Slopes.  For some reason, no mater how many time I try clicking around and with no avail.  I even plopped RHW8S Starters on each end hoping for solution. 

L1 Flex Slop is working fine and only L2 is having issues.

[APSMS]

If you are running RHW under it, you should be able to plop a RHW-8S starter (L2) in the middle, and still be able to run RHW under it (for tight setups).

I'm not sure what the exact problem is, but often I do that (elevated starter) to give extra stability to complex setups.

[dyoungyn]

Thank you for the advice. 

However, I gave up and lowered it to L1, 7.5m as I really wanted to finish. 

Regardless, there is something fishy going on with L2 15M Flex Slopes for some reason as they do not react the same way as they do at L1, 7.5m . 

[mgb204]

There does appear to be something lacking in terms of stability code for C networks and 8S/10S at L2. In each case, some sort of starter must exist on the elevated sections for it to work. It's probably no coincidence that each of the affected networks are multi-tile ones. Most likely this is an area where these networks have simply not had the same improvements as the L1 / single tile networks in terms of stability. Its not necessarily a bug though, but I guess Tarkus would have the best knowledge of such development.

[Tarkus]

The On-Slopes actually haven't gotten the stability treatment that the Ramp Style transitions did during NAM 35 development, and with the L2 stuff less developed than the L1, it's not surprising to see that.  It took somewhere north of 100,000 lines of adjacency stability code in order to stabilize the Ramp Style ones, so it'd take a similarly large chunk of code to do the same for the On-Slopes.  I have a theory of an alternate way of doing it, but it would require re-implementing the On-Slopes, likely involving the removal of the automatic conversion on the "elevated" end to L1 or L2 RHW-2.  That automatic conversion is largely the reason for this issue.

APSMS' solution also is pretty much surefire, as it makes it so that the game can't even think about having the On-Slope produce an L2 RHW-2 out the other end, and it is possible to have an RHW cross an RHW-based starter piece.

In any case, shorter traffic light poles would resolve this and look much more coherent with the now-dominant L1 viaducts (Mandelsoft please come back!  )

Personally, I'd love to ditch the Maxis signals.  The "true 3D" method that jondor discovered (and MandelSoft used with SRM) provides a ton more flexibility in signal placement than the fiddly ATC/AVP 2D-animated method used with the Maxis signals.  I've actually toyed around with doing my own signals before (more akin to installations in the northwestern US), using some modified versions of props Ryan B. provided me with quite some time ago, which are at a lower height:







Unfortunately, time, other projects, and wondering if ditching the Maxis signals was the right way to go all have gotten in the way of finishing it.

-Alex

[Kitsune]

... if the nam team ever did traffic lights I fear the localization effects that would follow (we want Sideways! Solid colour for the red and yellow on the turn light! And of course ... Quebec style traffic lights!)

[matias93]

Definitely, the only sane way to do newer traffic lights is outside the NAM development, otherwise the craziness would ensue 


In any case, if my messing around with the SRM files was correctly done, I suspect the lights themselves can be subject of texture replacement, something that would ease customization impressively.


In fact, even if is not possible to use the same method than on the automated sidewalk mod or the upcoming customizable RRW textures, something along the lines of the sidewalk mimicking models could work: the user loads a texture pack along with the refeering models, and the textures can be changed to match the custom preferences.

[dyoungyn]

I agree with Alex that the Maxis traffic lights need updating.  I love what Alex has come up with more realistic lights.  Great job and can't wait  to implement. 

IRT the L2 Flex Slope, I did indeed lower it to L1 and just deal with L1 through downtown.  I have tried placing a L2 Start 8S and still the same affect as discussed, it must be stability with the L2 Flex Slope pieces. 

Thank you  to the entire NAM team to even come up the options we have today makes me want to re-do all my maps.  I like re-doing them as I get the traffic from the old maps with Plop Pox in them util I get around to re-doing the maps.   

[mgb204]

I have tried placing a L2 Start 8S and still the same affect as discussed, it must be stability with the L2 Flex Slope pieces. 

Are you sure you did this properly? Because that's the only missing link here. I tested this and with the L2 starter everything was flawless.

[j.snowpr]

Hello, first time posting but longtime lurker and learner from all the info available here. I have spent the last hour searching everywhere and couldn't find anything resembling my issue. I'm running NAM35 on an OG SC4 Deluxe Ed without any problems at all, until 2 days ago when I reinstalled NAM to add the Bullet Train Mod, and also added a lot of soundwalls and slopes walls for decorating. After that, I lost the ability to drag GLR and STR on RealRailWay. Now whenever I plop a GLR starter piece and use the EL rail as usual to drag it, it no longer drags as GLR but as EL, same for single track on standard rail, see pic screenshot attached. (it shows draggable GLR and how the EL won't change, also when bulldozing a piece of standard rail you can see how the GLR changes back to EL) I've disabled all the last mods added (soundwalls etc) with no success, also reinstalled NAM35 a couple of times with the "decouple network option" both checked and unchecked, issue remains. Could this issue be easily resolved, or I must nuke my SC install and begin anew?

Thanks for the time and any help you can give!

[Tarkus]

It sounds like some of the RUL information got wiped out of your controller after reinstalling to add the Bullet Train Mod.  RULs are what allow NAM features to work, and it sounds as if the RULs for GLR and STR didn't end up in your plugins after the first reinstall.  Did you do the reinstall over top of your existing install, or wipe the old install before the reinstall?  If it's the latter, that might be part of the issue.  The NAM installer can read existing installs and select the boxes to correspond to your existing set of options automatically, but if you have a clean plugins folder, it doesn't have that information to go on, and it's easy to forget which options you previously had installed.

I don't think you're going to have to reinstall the game, as this is a mod installation issue, but you are going to have to reinstall the NAM again.  I'd strongly advise against having the "Decouple" option selected, as that's only intended for advanced users, and may result in the model/texture resources being installed, without the RULs to allow those features to be built in your cities.  Absolutely make sure that the Single-Track Rail and Draggable Ground Light Rail options are selected in custom installation, and that they are not shown with an "SR" or "NR" near them.

-Alex

[j.snowpr]

@Tarkus Thanks for the fast reply, deeply appreciated!! Yes, I did reinstall on top of the existing install. Only settings I tweaked were on the traffic controller per se, but I see what you mean. I'll follow your instructions tonight since I'm off to work now and today I have a 14hr shift and of course will be arriving home late. I'll let you know how it goes, again, thanks for the fast response!!   

[AsimPika3172]

LHD = Traffic light on right side, RHD = Traffic light on left side.... I hope this one will fixed soon! I am using this plugin right now.

http://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/27739-stoplight-replacement-mod-srm/

We need many more LHD and RHD (depend on countries) because some road designs (depend on NAM) was invalid traffic lights.

[woodb3kmaster]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you post a screenshot of the issue you're reporting?

In my experience (using only the default NAM traffic lights in RHD), the NAM puts traffic lights on the correct side of the road (which is the same side traffic drives on, and on the other side of the intersection). I can't comment on how that compares to traffic light placement in other countries, but since it's a purely cosmetic issue, it's pretty low on our priorities. "Form follows function" is our MO, as it always has been.

[mgb204]

LHD = Traffic light on right side, RHD = Traffic light on left side.... I hope this one will fixed soon! I am using this plugin right now.

The behaviour of 3rd party mods is not something that has anything to do with the NAM. So if your problem lies with the SRM by Mandelsoft, we are not responsible for maintaining or fixing problems with it. Sadly the creator is no longer active in the community, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for updates.

[Wiimeiser]

I think I've described this before, and I'm not sure if this is something that can be fixed, but is there any particular reason zones will face underground rail under pedmalls but not GLR in a road network? I believe it might have something to do with pathtype/networktype restrictions like how IIRC the Monorail network can only have monorail paths; specifically, it appears that the network must be El-Rail for it to allow El-Rail paths (basically an inverse of the Monorail), or else it won't be valid. Try seeing what path/network combinations are possible. Which ones aren't?



For the record, the Route Query tool calls GLR in Road "Road" but the regular Query tool calls it El-Rail, like the puzzle pieces are technically programmed as road but the game is reading them as El-Rail due to some hardcoded script. The Transport View also marks it as Tram, albeit with what appears to be some black. This appears to be the only instance of this discrepancy in the NAM.