• Welcome to SC4 Devotion Forum Archives.

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

Started by jahu, June 03, 2007, 10:15:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

SimCity V6

Quote from: mgb204 on June 15, 2017, 07:36:25 AM
No that's working as intended. With the RHW on-slopes you can drag through them. But for the Road/OWR/Ave on-slopes you should never drag through them. As I showed in the video, drag away from the on-slope on either side with the correct network, without going through the tile containing the on-slope. Do that and it will work just fine without altering to the terrain.

Well, that finally works!  :D Thanks for the advice, but still I wonder if this will or needs to be fixed anytime soon. Otherwise on my project, I do seem to have some minor stability issues at the moment.

Kitsune

Quote from: mgb204 on June 14, 2017, 07:08:02 PM
RHW can convert to Ave for a segment to allow such connections. At full highway speed, it's not overly common to see full on intersections of that kind, it's way too dangerous.

Wasnt the RHW-4 thought meant to also to be a lower speed 4 lane highway? It can currently connect to every Base network in the game... the street connection almost mimics the MIS:

.

For background on this interchange: its a converted trumpet, and to match the neighbouring trumpet that was not converted I wanted the exact same dimensions and dual overpasses.
~ NAM Team Member

APSMS

Quote from: Kitsune on June 20, 2017, 10:15:49 AM

Wasnt the RHW-4 thought meant to also to be a lower speed 4 lane highway? It can currently connect to every Base network in the game... the street connection almost mimics the MIS:
As I understand it the RHW-4 was meant to mimic the highways common throughout Europe and the US, which are full-speed. Greater lane counts are typically found in urban areas, though 4 lane highways are not uncommon still. Given that probably over 70% of the highway mileage in the US is in rural areas, and is generally of the 2 or 4 lane variety, it's probably safe to assume that the RHW-4 is meant to be a full-speed grade separated road.

The Real Expressway project should satisfy low-speed applications, and the street connection functionality was meant to mimic the rare situations where a freeway access road would connect across the highway, similar to what you see in the rural stretches of CA-99 in the central valley, which is an otherwise full-speed freeway.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

My Mayor Diary San Diego: A Reinterpretation

Wiimeiser

Another example of a full-speed 4-land highway: Mornington Peninsula Freeway. And the Hume Freeway still has some intersections.

Here's hoping the REW is done soon. The lack of activity suggests the next release could be sooner rather than later, but I wouldn't know...
Pink horse, pink horse, she rides across the nation...

eggman121

Quote from: Wiimeiser on June 20, 2017, 09:13:57 PM
Another example of a full-speed 4-land highway: Mornington Peninsula Freeway. And the Hume Freeway still has some intersections.

Here's hoping the REW is done soon. The lack of activity suggests the next release could be sooner rather than later, but I wouldn't know...

Yes "Freeways" in Victoria are notorious for having Intersections when they should be fully grade separated (e.g Calder Freeway at Kyneton) &sly

Anyway the Real Expressway unfortunately won't be ready for NAM 36. We a banking on making it available for NAM 37 however.

-eggman121

Tarkus

Not counting the initial RHW-2/ANT, the RHW-4 was really the first network in the whole RHW series, back when the "R" still stood for "rural".  Its identity at that point was kind of multifarious, as there was a bit of the "rural" influence in terms of some at-grade intersection possibilities (Streets, Rails, GLR), some grade-separated possibilities as well (Road Viaducts, El-Rail), but no true interchange possibilities, in part because they hadn't been coded or really designed yet.  The "rural" name itself was chosen somewhat in haste, and qurlix later regretted it (and suggested the current "RealHighway" moniker back in 2006).

The things that really started pushing the mod farther in the freeway direction were the incredible pent-up demand for new interchange types (created by the difficulty of working with Maxis Highways), and qurlix teasing an early prototype of what eventually would be realized as the RHW-8S.

As it stands, the RHW-4 is going to remain the largest network in the system that has at-grade options, and it's going to have a somewhat more limited repertoire compared to the MIS (which can't intersect itself at-grade, aside from Y-splits and ramp interfaces), the RHW-3, and the RHW-2 (which has the most options on that front).  There are actually some ideas that have been in the works for awhile to actually have better rural at-grade intersections for it--there was a TuLEP prototype, and I'm hoping to one day turn that into an FTL version.

I did, after years of resistance, finally allow at-grade RHW-4 x Avenue crossings to go into NAM 35, but that wasn't so much intended for people to start using the RHW-4 like a surface street (which was the main thing that kept me from doing it before).  Rather, it was in recognition of the fact that the network had long had a second de facto status as a 2-lane ramp, similar to the MIS in function.  People had just been converting to OWR at some point before reaching the surface street, which created a capacity drop compared to the direct single-lane MIS connection, and the addition of those intersections was designed to rectify that.

I'm not really on board with the idea of adding the RHW-4 x MIS full +-intersection and the "Long-T", as they're a little bit too surface-y.  The closest thing I've seen to that is the CA-299 interchange with I-5 in Redding, California, but CalTrans clearly doesn't consider CA-299 to be a freeway there (see the "Begin Freeway" signage just to the east).

The farthest I'd consider going with respect to MIS x RHW-4 at-grade intersections is a RIRO/LILO "Short-T" intersection, but that would potentially lead to folks kludging that in there in place of proper ramp interfaces to build interchanges, which I'm not particularly keen to see.  Perhaps the advent of QuickChange Xpress would curb that sort of abuse, but I'm still not all that in favor of MIS x RHW-4 intersections.

-Alex

Andreas

Quote from: Tarkus on June 20, 2017, 11:50:58 PM
Not counting the initial RHW-2/ANT, the RHW-4 was really the first network in the whole RHW series, back when the "R" still stood for "rural".
Well, for RHW-2, the "rural" makes sense alright, since it was intended for using as road link between rural towns (avoiding the usual Roads, which, coincidentially, are called "Landstraße" in the German version, implying that they should be used for this purpose, and some German players were unsure if they were suitable for using in their cities ;) ). Anything beyond that surely isn't that "rural" anymore, so finding the expression "Real HighWay" was quite ingenious. :)
Andreas

eagle74

Need help with the TSCT.  It allows changes to be saved only when it is first installed.  On all subsequent attempts, the save button gives the message "Error deleting files SC4 is probably running."  I have tried rebooting the PC & reinstalling TSCT twice but with no luck. 
Update:  The log file shows "access is denied" when it tries to create a backup save.  So, I changed the permissions for the backup folder & it appears to be working.  However, backups cannot be turned off. Turn them off, save, & restart the program & they are turned back on automatically.

eagle74

Commenting on your RHW-4 discussion from yesterday:  The RHW-4 is like the default interstate in the southeastern U.S. with higher lane versions found in & around bigger cities.  I use it in game most of the time usually with the classic interchanges (not with at-grade intersections).

Tyberius06

Hi!

Am I missing something, or really there is no any kind of support for the diagonal EHSR and other networks crossings?

- Tyberius
You may find updates about my ongoing projects into my development thread here at SimCity 4 Devotion: Tyberius Lotting Experiments
or over there on Simtropolis into the Tyberius (Heretic Projects) Lotting and Modding Experiments.
I'm also member of the STEX Custodian and working on different restoration projects on behalf of non-anymore-active custom content creators.
Current projects: WMP Restoration and SimCity Polska Restoration.
Member of the NAM Team and RTMT Team.

Tarkus

Aside from RHW networks, there is no draggable diagonal crossing functionality in the current version of HSRP.  Aside from the new texture option, HSRP has remained largely the same since its initial release in 2008.  Over/underpasses with Maxis base networks and some other NAM items are supported via static puzzle pieces, but that's the extent of it.  The NWM dual-tile networks also do not support any sort of crossing involving one or more diagonal networks, either (a few single-tile NWM networks have limited diagonal crossing functionality, but it's offered "as-is" and is unsupported).

-Alex

Wiimeiser

I think something needs fixing, but I'm not 100% sure it's possible to fix, at least not without breaking something...
Pink horse, pink horse, she rides across the nation...

mgb204

If this is a L1 crossing using a complete set of draggable components, it should work with some clicking around. There is a bit of instability here, but I recently showed an example of this here, as you can see it just needs a little push to get it stable.

Tarkus

And in any case, there's nothing that would get broken further if that particular setup were to receive some additional adjacency stability.  I'll look at adding some more code there.

-Alex

eagle74

When I have the same issue, clicking with the road tool on the road ramp next to the MIS/road intersection (not over the RHW) reconstructs the overpass.  But, check draw paths especially for the RHW-4 running under the overpass as it sometimes reverts to RHW-2 (or road?).

I have also noticed similar issues if too many items are constructed in close proximity.  For example, building two road overpasses on both sides of El Rail over RHW-4 sometimes causes the RHW-4 underneath to revert to RHW-2 (or road?). 

But, NAM 35 is still awesome!

stickinc

I don't know if this is a bug or how it is intended to appear in game. I tested with an empty plug in folder. Is this the normal appearance for el rail over RHW, 6S?

mgb204

The reason for this problem is down to a combination of the Overhanging textures used with RHW-6S and the way the models for Moonlights El-Rail work. This issue will not be present for example if you use the regular El-Rail skin. The crossing pieces are only one tile in size, but the part of the model that's on the highway lane is actually half from the adjacent piece, which is just a regular straight section. In short, because the straight sections of ML's Alternate El-Rail have the concrete supports on the edge of the model, there is no simple fix to this problem. Eventually I do plan to add some new code that can alter the crossing, but this would effect all El-Rail styles and potentially cause problems, but it should be addressed eventually.

stickinc

Quote from: mgb204 on June 28, 2017, 05:46:02 PM
The reason for this problem is down to a combination of the Overhanging textures used with RHW-6S and the way the models for Moonlights El-Rail work. This issue will not be present for example if you use the regular El-Rail skin. The crossing pieces are only one tile in size, but the part of the model that's on the highway lane is actually half from the adjacent piece, which is just a regular straight section. In short, because the straight sections of ML's Alternate El-Rail have the concrete supports on the edge of the model, there is no simple fix to this problem. Eventually I do plan to add some new code that can alter the crossing, but this would effect all El-Rail styles and potentially cause problems, but it should be addressed eventually.

OK, thank you for that info.  :)

eagle74

I am not able to make a RHW-2 L1 over RHW-4 diamond interchange.  Dragging MIS ramp through the RHW-2 overpass to make the first RHW-2/MIS intersection works great for one side.  But, the second side always highlights red with the message "unsuitable area to build network."  Have tried both the short & long flex heights with & without leaving an extra space.  Same interchange works great with road over RHW-4 with both long & short on slopes & with or without leaving an extra space.

mgb204

Sounds like the terrain might not be flat, which is often necessary when many networks converge in a small space. Be aware the slightest undetectable bump here can make all the difference.