[GDO29Anagram]

I still think that to date, you are far enough from the phase of freezing. Right?

We haven't declared a feature freeze just yet. Besides, what good is RHW without a few essential toys?

[ivo_su]

Can you tell what these toys or that is kept secret for now?

[mike3775]

Can you tell what these toys or that is kept secret for now?

I hope they not say and leave it as a surprise when the next version comes out.

[jdenm8]

No, we are not at feature Freeze, but we also haven't planned them for this build. This build is focussed on the RHW and making massive improvements to it.

The build after the next one is going to be focussed on the NWM and your turn lanes may be included then.

[Tarkus]

I'll second JD's response and expound upon it.  Typically, before "freezes" happen, we actually try to whittle down the feature list.  Sometimes new stuff will sneak in, but that's something we've become quite careful to avoid, as it creates a mess.  Usually, before a "freeze", we're trying to fine tune things to what is reasonable, with respect to our workload, and when we feel it's getting to be time for a release.

The NWM diagonal intersection functionality was taken off the feature list last release cycle just before the freeze.  At this point, given how development has been headed, we already know there's not going to be much new NWM/TuLEPs stuff going on this release.  But for NAM Version 32, it's happening, and I'm looking forward to getting back to it.

-Alex

[metarvo]

I don't know if it's on the list or not, but I remember that the diagonal OWR-5 was incompatible with the NAM's OWR arrow reduction plugin.  It would always revert back to twin OWR-2s on the diagonal sections, forcing me to disable the OWR arrow reduction plugin even though I had grown to like it.  Is a fix for this in the works?

[sithlrd98]

Just out of curiosity...has anyone "De-Grassed" the NWM? I know the MAVE has been. Just wondering before I continue going through the MANY textures in that .dat! 

Jayson

[Diamond]

There's currently no OWR Arrow Reduction for any of the NWM's OWRs.

Is this still the case?

[noahclem]

Just out of curiosity...has anyone "De-Grassed" the NWM? I know the MAVE has been. Just wondering before I continue going through the MANY textures in that .dat! 

Jayson

There might be someone from Asia that's done something like that, there's been at least some T21 mods for NWM coming from there--though I'm definitely not sure and I don't have it. RD-4 would be especially nice.

There's currently no OWR Arrow Reduction for any of the NWM's OWRs.

Is this still the case?

Yeah, that's still the case. It should be a pretty easy project though, just replacing all the orthogonal textures with arrowless versions. I've been wanting to give it a try but won't have time any time soon.

[GDO29Anagram]

Just out of curiosity...has anyone "De-Grassed" the NWM?

Like a zero-wealthification mod? RD-4 and RD-6 were the only two networks that received such a treatment. I'll give you a hint: Other than the two RD networks, AVE-2, OWR-1, OWR-3 (to an extent; might be wrong though), TLA-5, the AVE-6 median, and the AVE-6 outer use wealthification. TLA-3, ARD-3, and NRD-4 are too narrow to receive wealthification, and most OWRs don't have wealthification to begin with.

Yeah, that's still the case. It should be a pretty easy project though, just replacing all the orthogonal textures with arrowless versions. I've been wanting to give it a try but won't have time any time soon.

That actually ain't the case. The OWR textures and the OWR arrows are separate from each other. The OWR ARP converts the OWR-2 network from being a texture-based network to being a model-based network which covers up all the arrows.

When dealing with model-based networks, the two main things you have to deal with are having to darken the textures so that they won't look too bright (S3Ds always make textures brighter, so darkening has to be done to counteract it), and having to convert the paths to a different group ID (path files for S3D-based network tiles use a different group ID than non-S3D-based network tiles).

Otherwise, you'll end up with network tiles that are too bright, are too laggy to draw out, and don't carry traffic at all. The alternative is to remove the arrow itself, but then you wouldn't be able to tell the direction unless you try to redraw the OWR.

Did you know that model-based networks will highlight blue if you hover your cursor over it, but non-model-based network will highlight gold? Such is the case with the TLA-3, AVE-2, ARD-3, NRD-4, OWR-3, RHW-6S, and later on, the RHW-4.

EDIT: A closer look at the OWR ARP shows that it converts the OWR-2 tiles into an S3D by using a modified OWR INRUL. Additionally, I'm not finding modified path files, and I'm finding a lot of T21s; Is the OWR ARP a T21?!! (Weird...) This might make is so that the arrows can still be detected, even when there's no zoning adjacent, because an S3D network, when unzoned, won't have any kind of wealthification, not even the zero-wealth (0x######0#) texture.

Also worth noting that the diag OWR-3 already has an inherent ARP effect due to it being an S3D network. The OWR arrows appear under the same conditions wealthification appears; If it's on an S3D network, they won't appear until there's zoning, and even still, they won't be visible until you cursor over the network itself.

In short, you just need to convert the OWR network tiles into S3Ds to get the OWR ARP effect.

[Blue Lightning]

You should be able to hide all arrows by making the arrow texture transparent... but that makes determining orientation impossible without drawpaths or test-dragging OWR.

[GDO29Anagram]

Don't ask why but I feel inclined to recommended changing the name of TLA to TLR or TLN. It's to make each classification of network (Road, One-way Road, Avenue, Turn-Lane Network) completely unique.

Original name of TLA-3 was actually TLR-3 because it was based off the RD-2 network and it also had two lanes, and TLA-5's name came about because it had the same number of lanes as AVE-4 and its structure was based off of it. TLA makes it sound like MAVE all over again..

Thoughts?

[Wiimeiser]

TLN sounds good But let's see what the others think.

[Tarkus]

TLR spells out what the base network is, too, which, in theory, should deter folks from trying to drag default Avenues out from the starters.  If you're going to go that far, then you might as well consider killing off the AVE-2/6/8 designation as well, since all of those networks are Road-based.

-Alex

[jondor]

Of course then we get into the Median vs. Medianless confusion again.  Despite the base network thing, I think Road makes perfect sense for the medianless networks: RD-4, RD-6 and Avenue for the median networks AVE-2, AVE-6, AVE-8.

TLA vs. TLR, eh I could go either way.  Both have their merits.  My brain will probably always call it a TLA whatever happens, heck I still read RHW as Rural Highway most of the time even though it's getting to be more and more Real with each passing day.

[riiga]

Since I usally dislike change, I say we keep the names TLA/MAVE. People still know what we mean. Also, when are we changing standard road to MAVE-2? 

[GDO29Anagram]

Since I usally dislike change, I say we keep the names TLA/MAVE. People still know what we mean. Also, when are we changing standard road to MAVE-2? 

Except when people confuse MAVE-6 with AVE-6. I've seen it happen, and honestly, I'm beginning to regret my idea of namechanging TLA to TLR... I thought it'd be better to further separate the AVE networks from non-AVE networks, and, well, the current naming (AVE, TLA, MAVE) makes everything sound like it revolves around the AVE network, when AVE has nothing to do with anything. TLA is more of a subset of RD, whereas AVE is in its own category altogether (I'd call it DRD, Divided Road, but that'd take everything too far)...

[noahclem]

Since I usally dislike change, I say we keep the names TLA/MAVE. People still know what we mean. Also, when are we changing standard road to MAVE-2? 

I thought the "MAVE" designation had been replaced with "RD", meaning Maxis roads could be called RD-2. I'd suggest sticking with the "TLA" designation for the turning lane networks but realistically I don't think anyone will be confused as long as the name starts with "TL". If it was going to change I guess simply "TL" would be my vote.

[metarvo]

Actually, I like the change from MAVE to RD very much.  It makes sense for the medianless networks to have a separate designation from the median ones.  I guess the TLA networks could be switched to TLR sensibly since they don't have medians and are Road-based.  I'm not as thrilled about switching the NWM AVE networks because of their resemblance to the AVE-4, but I do realize Road is the base network, and DRD seems like a logical alternative to AVE in that case.  If such a change were made, AVE-4 would go back to being the only network with the AVE designation, since I gather that the AVE is too unwieldy to use as a base network for anything.

On another note, I notice a little graphical glitch with the OWR-4 diagonals.  Small orange dots are appearing in the ROW in Zooms 5 and 6.

[AngryBirdsFan436]

Besides, if you really want an AVE-10, just take two OWR-5s in opposite directions and place them adjacent to one another.

The problem is that you can't neighbor connect OWRs.