Sim City 4 Devotion Forums

SimCity 4 Devotion Custom Content Showcase => Network Addon Mod (NAM) => Topic started by: memo on April 29, 2007, 08:33:33 AM

Title: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on April 29, 2007, 08:33:33 AM
Post here if you want to contribute something to the NAM or when you need support for your creations.


Similar to the thread at Simtropolis, I start this thread here at SC4D. This thread is intended for development of the NAM and to showcase it.

More information are added here soon.




I want to show the OnSlope Puzzle Pieces which I've created. There are Highway OnSlope Puzzle Pieces to connect elevated with ground highway. Thus the elevated Highway tool can be used to create overpasses and it can be connected to ground highways like this:

(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9485/capture04292007011109lz8.jpg)

Unfortunately, the shaddow issue which appears on every OnSlope Puzzle Piece stands out much more on highways.

(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4416/capture04292007011121zf2.jpg)

Moreover, there is an OnSlope Puzzle Piece for lightrail to connect GLR with EL-Rail.

(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4633/capture04292007144516ym4.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metasmurf on April 29, 2007, 08:40:24 AM
Finally! On-slope pieces for highway. aleking will love this :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on April 29, 2007, 08:47:42 AM
Not only aleking, I suppose. ;) As I already said at SimForum, this is great news, memo! The next NAM will be the best ever!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Glenni on April 29, 2007, 10:22:11 AM
yep, that's sure to make Aleking drool :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 29, 2007, 10:55:27 AM
memo, nice job on those On-Slope pieces.  It's good to see that we've got NAM Development over here now as well. ;) 

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on April 29, 2007, 11:35:28 AM
These are great news memo  :thumbsup:

I am sure that with euro textures, these shadows wont be a problem  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Fukuda on April 29, 2007, 03:10:06 PM
I already posted this in the team topic, here are some pics of HOV lanes.
They are early development pics, all that I need to model now is the entrance of the lanes to make them functional.
(and maybe diamond marking)

(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7021/hov1kq2.jpg)

(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3898/hov2mr0.jpg)

darn RULs   :bomb:

Well, it took me 1 hour to discover that one of the paths had the wrong number, lol :party:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Antoine on April 29, 2007, 03:13:18 PM
Good job everybody  :o

the HOV is beautiful and impressive  :o
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rooker1 on April 30, 2007, 02:22:22 PM
This is great news.  This thread being here, the highway on slope pieces and the HOV.  All great stuff.  Just when I thought the NAM couldn't get much better, I find out it will.

Robin   :thumbsup: &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yoman on May 01, 2007, 12:09:11 AM
HOV? You are god Fukuda!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sisum on May 01, 2007, 04:39:23 PM
I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention.  Is the Highway OnSlope Puzzle Piece available now?

Additionally, I have the '06 NAM (I believe) which has a Monorail over Elevated Highway bridge.  Has there been modifications to the bridge in '07?  Or, are there a more pleasing bridge elsewhere?

Thanks!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 01, 2007, 06:20:22 PM
@fukuda: As I said elsewhere, you wouldn't find something like this in Germany. ;) On highways, lanes in different directions have to be separated by a barrier (this is even the case in a construction area). Since the highway is still two tiles wide, have you considered moving the barrier in the middle, so the highway gets four "true" lanes in each direction?

@sisum: Yes, the first two pics show a Highway On Slope Puzzle Piece. :) It will be included into the next NAM. As far as I know, the monorail bridges won't be modified, but there are quite a few bridges available already, and more are in the making. Just keep your eyes open. In the future, new bridges won't have to be included into the NAM, but it's possible to download them individually. The only file that needs to be updated (and downloaded again whenever you install a new bridge) is the NAM Bridge Controller file that is already available at the SC4D LEX.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Emperor Stormont on May 01, 2007, 10:14:40 PM
Highway on-slopes and HOV lanes, fantastic work. NAM continues to push SC4 forward, I really don't know why we need SC5

I read somewhere about the possible development of draggable GLR, I use this a lot but as we know it's a pain to lay, is draggable a possibility?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: HabLeUrG on May 01, 2007, 10:22:41 PM
thats an excellent idea and addition to the game...

i think belfastuniguy is right why do we need SC5, lol the only thing that SC4 need is to be in 3d for be perfect  :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 02, 2007, 03:44:34 AM
belfastuniguy, I've got great news for you.  Not only is Draggable GLR possible, it's actually going to be an integral part of the next NAM release. ;)

I also wonder why an SC5 would be needed as well . . . there's still a lot more that can be done with SC4. ;)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 04, 2007, 01:36:44 PM
Hello
My new Rail-Viaduct
left = old Rail; rect = new Rail
(http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4049/eisenbahnbogenvo7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

for more realistic City...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on May 04, 2007, 01:46:12 PM
I like it  :thumbsup: . More European looking imo  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mjig_dudy on May 04, 2007, 02:03:24 PM
Oooooh! those are lovely, one question will both types be available? I don't think i could bare the decision :'(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 04, 2007, 02:21:25 PM
Maybe the concrete supports are a tad too massive now, but definitely an improvement over the "lightweight" supports that were lend from the lightrail tracks. Personally, I'd like to see some old-fashioned brick arches, like in this picture (http://www.fohl.de/bruecken/2000.05.28.lothianbridge1.jpg).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FromTheAshes on May 04, 2007, 03:04:18 PM
Yeah the picture Andreas gave shows exactly that type of architecture I love! Some of these would be pretty cool to sc4.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 04, 2007, 07:06:07 PM
Those overpasses look fantastic, memo! There is so much great stuff going on, I can't wait until the next NAM already!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bwatterud on May 04, 2007, 08:35:41 PM
I think it would be cool to see the elevated heavy rail pieces look like this. (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=18008)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 05, 2007, 01:32:09 AM
better?
Here new screen
left is the Lots, rect is NAM-modell
(http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/5783/eisenbahnbogenmauer1cq8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on May 05, 2007, 02:48:48 AM
The NAM model looks even better now  :thumbsup:

However the other model seems to need some more texturing work  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 05, 2007, 03:05:31 AM
ArkenbergeJoe, the new elevated heavy rail model looks fantastic!  Es ist sehr gut! :thumbsup:

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 05, 2007, 05:11:01 AM
I already posted this in the team topic, here are some pics of HOV lanes.
They are early development pics, all that I need to model now is the entrance of the lanes to make them functional.
(and maybe diamond marking)

(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/7021/hov1kq2.jpg)

(http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3898/hov2mr0.jpg)

darn RULs   :bomb:

Well, it took me 1 hour to discover that one of the paths had the wrong number, lol :party:

Wicked!!!!

Looks just like the Parkway North (I-279) here in Pittsburgh, PA!!

http://maps.google.com/?om=1&ie=UTF8&ll=40.48926,-80.009565&spn=0.001905,0.003616&t=k&z=18
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 08, 2007, 01:40:26 PM
Here is finally Version from
RailxBlankTerrainStraight Puzzle Piece and
Straight Rail OnSlope Puzzle Piece
(http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/5764/bogenviadukt1ef8.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on May 08, 2007, 01:53:55 PM
wunderbar &apls

I love you made them puzzle pieces  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Emperor Stormont on May 08, 2007, 02:27:51 PM
that looks wonderful, so is that elevated rail converting to rail??
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 08, 2007, 02:53:38 PM
That looks absolutely outstanding, ArkenbergeJoe! Great work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 08, 2007, 02:55:17 PM
Yes, those are modified elevated heavy rail puzzle pieces. ArkenbergeJoe changed the rather small supports that were "lend" from the lightrail (el-rail) model to something more suitable. Now imagine a road running below those stone arcs... (where's the "drool" smiley?) :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: snorrelli on May 08, 2007, 02:58:45 PM
Yes... drooling indeed. Looks great.

Good work on the on-slope pieces too. We've been needing those for a long time and I'm thrilled to see them included in the next version.

Keep up the good work, everyone :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 11, 2007, 04:43:11 PM
Here is the better Model from the Rail-viadukt. With street- and GLR-bridge.
The Road-, Avenue-, Rail- and Highwaybridges = another models

(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/1193/bridgevierteloq2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 11, 2007, 04:45:17 PM
I love it!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Zaphod on May 11, 2007, 04:50:28 PM
that is so awesome

whats the chances of a identical version but with a concrete texture?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 12, 2007, 03:51:10 PM
Bridges for Road and Avenue

(http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/4706/blechtrgerbrckenhz2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kwakelaar on May 13, 2007, 02:38:55 PM
This is some fantastic work here, that railbridge is looking very interesting. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 13, 2007, 02:53:06 PM
This is some fantastic work here, that railbridge is looking very interesting. :thumbsup:

I agree! Great work, everyone! I love those underpasses, ArkenbergeJoe!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: glepet on May 13, 2007, 03:27:47 PM
WOW! Other than that I'm speechless.  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: narocos300 on May 14, 2007, 09:44:27 AM
Quote
belfastuniguy, I've got great news for you.  Not only is Draggable GLR possible, it's actually going to be an integral part of the next NAM release

 :thumbsup: All the work that seems to be going into this allways seems to amaze me...
And now I hear Light Rail will be Draggable you've intreeged me and tickled my fancy even more with this exiting thing called nam, keep up the great work for this game   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on May 16, 2007, 03:02:31 PM
Here is the diagonal Puzzle for the GLR-mod...
...and another Bridge for the Highway

(http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5044/eisenbahndiaquerungzq0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yoman on May 16, 2007, 03:24:21 PM
You've outdone yourself now!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mjig_dudy on May 16, 2007, 04:02:56 PM
Wow! that is amazing  &apls

I love these and cannot wait to use them
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bat on May 17, 2007, 04:22:30 AM
That is looking beautiful, ArkenbergeJoe! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Serkanner on May 17, 2007, 05:08:00 AM
I agree with the people posting before me. These look great Arkenbergjoe! I especially like the change to iron sides on the bridge when crossing a road or anything else. Looking forward to use them myself and seeing them in lots of MD's  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sebes on May 17, 2007, 08:03:40 AM
These are amazing... and draggable GLR will be another dream-come-true!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: snorrelli on May 17, 2007, 09:11:11 AM
Yes it will! Will we be able to make diagonal crossings for GLR-road/avenue/one-way/street?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 17, 2007, 09:16:32 AM
Yes it will! Will we be able to make diagonal crossings for GLR-road/avenue/one-way/street?
Yes, this will be possible with the draggable GLR. :) Here's a pic that shows the possibilities:

(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9898/namkz1.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yoder7652 on May 17, 2007, 09:24:59 AM
wow.....so how far away are we from making this available (where is the eager smiley?)...seriously, you guys are making great progress here for the next NAM...it will really be something special.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: praiodan on May 17, 2007, 09:25:39 AM
WOW, this is stunning developement :thumbsup: Resounding applause to everyone involved  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: snorrelli on May 17, 2007, 09:29:37 AM
Wow... :o

You guys are heroes! &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Vario80 on May 17, 2007, 09:34:06 AM
Wonderful work, the NAM gets closer to reality with every update.  :thumbsup: &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sebes on May 17, 2007, 10:18:36 AM
***I am gasping for breath for the next half hour or so***

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 17, 2007, 11:14:09 AM
wow.....so how far away are we from making this available (where is the eager smiley?)

There are still a few things to sort out, but the next version shouldn't be too far away. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 17, 2007, 11:40:23 AM
WOW! Draggable GLR! I'm in awe...I can't wait! Absolutely fantastic work, my friends!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Emperor Stormont on May 18, 2007, 12:11:55 PM
Yay - GLR - Draggable  &apls &apls &apls

The new rail pieces look fantastic also. Awaiting the next NAM with great interest....... :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mapper on May 18, 2007, 07:18:46 PM
ArkenbergeJoe,
I hope this isn't too much to ask, but can you show us what the diagonal elevated heavy rail looks like?
Thanks,
--mapper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Zaphod on May 18, 2007, 07:44:08 PM
Awesome draggable GLR!

just curious, can you do the same thing with the "rural variety" without a sidewalk? I and im sure many others use GLR to put our el rail lines on the ground out in the suburbs where a continous elevated structure isnt entirely necessary.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Fledder200 on May 18, 2007, 08:22:35 PM
Draggable.....GLR...need....to....Breath....Draggable....Draggable...GLR....need....to...have...Draggable GLR!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gaston on May 18, 2007, 10:34:34 PM
This is incredible.   Unbelievable.   Fantastic.    I would go on but I think I am gonna passout from hyperventilation.   LOL


---Gaston
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 18, 2007, 11:21:29 PM
Draggable.....GLR...need....to....Breath....Draggable....Draggable...GLR....need....to...have...Draggable GLR!!!

Actually, Fledder, when I first saw the draggable GLR, you and Liaane were the first thing I thought of!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cameron1991 on May 18, 2007, 11:30:13 PM
The draggable GLR looks great! Although will it still crash the game?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bat on May 19, 2007, 03:51:50 AM
Also need the draggable GLR! Would be a nice addition!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 19, 2007, 08:50:48 AM
ArkenbergeJoe,
I hope this isn't too much to ask, but can you show us what the diagonal elevated heavy rail looks like?

As far as I know, Swamper77 is still working on the diagonal elevated heavy rails, so I don't know if there are screenshots already.

just curious, can you do the same thing with the "rural variety" without a sidewalk? I and im sure many others use GLR to put our el rail lines on the ground out in the suburbs where a continous elevated structure isnt entirely necessary.

Yes, there's also a rural variety available. :)

The draggable GLR looks great! Although will it still crash the game?

We won't be able to fix the crash issue, but since you use the normal el-rail tool for dragging GLR, the game is much less prone to crashes than before. However, you will have to use "starter puzzle pieces" to start a draggable el-rail stretch, and those are still "dangerous". Also, you will have to use puzzle pieces for special intersections, such as el-rail x GLR, because the GLR would convert to el-rail (or the other way round) if you cross those - remember, GLR is still nothing else than el-rail on the ground.

But all in all, it'll be much easier to use; I was able to replace an entire GLR puzzle piece network of a city (which took me several hours to build) in less than 15 minutes with draggable GLR.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rooker1 on May 23, 2007, 02:17:41 PM
This is all great news.  I just spent about two hours last night making a glr network in one of my cities.  This next NAM will be great!!
The bridge pieces look incredible as well
I can't wait.

Robin   :thumbsup: &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: snorrelli on May 23, 2007, 02:33:22 PM
I was able to replace an entire GLR puzzle piece network of a city (which took me several hours to build) in less than 15 minutes with draggable GLR.

That brings me to a question I had about the new draggable version. Will we have to bulldoze all our plopped GLR puzzle pieces before installing the new NAM, or will they be compatible side-by-side?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 23, 2007, 04:45:11 PM
They are compatible side-by-side. I can vouch for that since I have the Developer's copy ;)

-Jan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 23, 2007, 05:54:56 PM
Yes, all existing puzzle pieces are still in place. For some setups, you will still need them anyway (such as el-rail over GLR, and of course the starter puzzle pieces), and even if draggable GLR is much easier to use, I assume not everyone wants to tear down his entire GLR network and replace everything after installing the next NAM. ;) The same goes for the GLR stations - they will have to be updated for the draggable version, but this can be done by installing a simple patch. And the good news is that you don't need to bulldoze the ones that have been built already as well.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: snorrelli on May 23, 2007, 06:13:39 PM
Good news all around - thanks! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: tommiej on May 30, 2007, 02:26:52 PM
diagonal elevated railpieces!! just heard that they will be in the next NAM, even with transition to the pieces that are already in the NAM!!
hoping the release is even sooner than i dare to expect!
GO NAM-TEAM
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Masochist on June 01, 2007, 04:27:24 PM
The chat at ST is a wonderous place... (will edit later)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: callagrafx on June 01, 2007, 04:31:57 PM
The chat at ST is a wonderous place... (will edit later)

it makes my eyes bleed  :D :D :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cogeo on July 15, 2007, 04:04:12 PM
Could someone please reply this:
"What's the capacity (and anticipated traffic) of the new Avenue/GLR dual network"?

This is needed for making roadtop stations for these networks. Here is my thread on ST (http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=124&threadid=67803&STARTPAGE=4&). Roadtop stations count the through traffic as "usage", so the total capacity must be greater than the "target capacity" by the anticipated through traffic, so as to offset the through traffic. The result is not perfect, it's just an approximation, but there's no other way.

Capacity must be such that the stations must not be clogged (due to the through traffic) thus degrading quality of service before the network is congested. On the other hand it must not be too high, because the station will feature excess capacity, not on par with the Maxis standards. I have used this technique in the current RTMT version, getting satisfactory results.

But I need to know the exact capacities to make the same for these networks. It may be easy to say that it's the sum of Avenue + GLR capacities, or the maximum, but I would like to be sure. Several tests I made have not lead to conclusions, only to hypotheses, eg that the congestion dataview shows only the congestion of the avenue component (not the GLR). Road traffic appears to affect the (reported) congestion much more than GLR traffic. Furthermore I don't know if congestion is calculated separately for the avenue and the GLR part or if they somehow interfere. Another problem is that for "double" networks, like avenues, congestion is (definitely) calculated separately for each direction, but what about these specific type of networks? As defined in NAM, each direction contains an avenue branch plus a GLR track. But GLR truck is actually a "mono" network (though it has two tracks) ie congestion is calculated once (so does capacity). So should I add the GLR capacity twice to the station's capacity?

Looking forward to your replies.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: writingliberty on July 17, 2007, 06:42:38 PM
Not sure where to ask the question, but there's a particular type of interchange/ramp system that I've seen many times in real life that doesn't exist in the game yet, and would be quite useful for certain applications. (Namely, as in real life, when adding a highway to an existing city as a "bypass" route.)

What I've seen is an avenue and a highway running at 45 degree angle to each other, but instead of crossing where they meet, they merge. The avenue to highway only has two ramps (not the full four; you can't turn backward) and then the combined highway contines away from the junction, sometimes "straight" from the highway side but more often "straight" from the avenue.

The advantage I can see here too is that it would be the only (or first) way to put ramps on a curved section of highway (using the straight-from-avenue configuration). (And, the highway can be used to route long-range traffic around a congested city center which the avenue serves, then this could be used again to reconnect on the other side.)

Basically, I'm wondering if anyone with the skill to do so is interested in making this....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on July 18, 2007, 05:10:24 AM
cogeo: Unfortunately I don't know the actual capacity of the Avenue/GLR puzzle pieces. I just do know that each of these puzzle pieces consist of an intersection of Avenue and Lightrail. Thus I suppose that the capacity of the station should be greater than twice the capacity of Avenues plus once or twice the capacity of Lightrails. It appears to me that you had the same thoughts, so I can't really help you. Hopefully, further tests of you will be successful.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cogeo on July 19, 2007, 01:17:48 PM
memo, thanks for your reply. Some further tests I made have shown that the Avenue/GLR do not really suffer from congestion, they need to have a failly high usage of both road + GLR traffic, to reach the same congestion levels as avenues (with road traffic alone). So this pretty much suggests that capacities should rather be avenue plus GLR capacity. I've settled with the capacities for my stations, I think they would be OK (though capacities will be seemingly high). The only problem with Avenue/GLR puzzle pieces (concerning capacities) is with the Avenue/GLRxRoad intersections, they look deeply red in the traffic dataview, but this may actually be a graphical-only issue.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: packerfan386 on July 26, 2007, 12:30:41 AM
Would this type of intersection ever be possible in NAM (the second image down) ?
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa247/brewersfan386/fig-3b-11-2.gif)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on July 26, 2007, 12:38:14 AM
@Packerfan386  Yes, it is possible.  In the next version of NAM this will be possible for AVE/AVE intersections.  The way to draw it is by creating an AVE/AVE 4way intersection and then in one of the 4 corners you will need to draw a OWR in a 90 turn fashion around the corner.  I dont have a picture handy but I posted one in the Show Us Your.... Interchanges.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: packerfan386 on July 26, 2007, 12:49:09 AM
Thanks for the reply :)...BTW  what is "OWR"?
Sorry but I have to know if this too will be possible in NAM/ RHW (never mind the signs)? ;)
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa247/brewersfan386/fig-3b-23.gif)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RippleJet on July 26, 2007, 01:14:24 AM
OWR = One-way road :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on July 26, 2007, 01:35:10 AM
It can be done, once the textures/models for the ramps are done. No one can do anything when they don't have access to said textures/models, though :(

-Swamper77
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on July 26, 2007, 12:24:09 PM
These intersections would be great additions to the next NAM! Excellent find, packerfan386!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: packerfan386 on July 26, 2007, 02:19:51 PM
thanks for the responses  :thumbsup:
I have another &idea... Realistic railroad crossing (heavy rail) markings "$Deal"$
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa247/brewersfan386/fig-8b-06.gif)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Zaphod on July 26, 2007, 02:35:04 PM
"dynamic envelope"

 $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on July 26, 2007, 05:06:02 PM
Packer Fan,

There is only one problem with making realistic marking setups like that for the game: You would have to leave a lot of room between the crossing and any curves, intersections, or other roadway alignments for them to appear properly. The game only has one tile ID for each of the railroad crossings involving the railroad and road networks. So, I cannot specify how the markings will appear on the approaching roadways. You would have only one choice: The road would have to be straight and completely FLAT as it approaches the crossings.

I'm not trying to shoot down your ideas. I'm just saying that SimCity 4 is not setup for realism because it is a simulator. Some areas, we can make more realistic and more like the real world. This is not one of them. The best I can do for these railroad crossings, is have an offset rendered round "RXR" sign that faces traffic as they approach the crossings. It would be offset by 8 meters, meaning it would appear in the middle of the tile that is just before the crossing.

-Swamper77
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: xmike1991 on July 30, 2007, 01:34:04 PM
how about an Elevated rail over road 90 degree turn. like the ones in chicago or new york or something. thatd be easier to put them in city centres.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on July 30, 2007, 02:17:57 PM
packerfan386: If you don't mind my asking, where are you getting these intersection images from? Is it a website? I'd be interested in looking at some of them, just for my own curiosity. Thanks!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on July 30, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
I suspect that Packer Fan got them from one of the federal sites, probably this one: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm).

-Swamper77
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on July 30, 2007, 04:36:25 PM
If anyone wants to create a station for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces: I've just posted a detailed tutorial on how to mod these stations: http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1874.msg55398#msg55398 :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on July 30, 2007, 04:54:31 PM
I suspect that Packer Fan got them from one of the federal sites, probably this one: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/index.htm).

-Swamper77

Thanks, Jan!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on July 31, 2007, 10:28:57 AM
If anyone wants to create a station for the GLR-in-Avenue puzzle pieces: I've just posted a detailed tutorial on how to mod these stations: http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1874.msg55398#msg55398 :)

Thanks a lot for this one  :thumbsup:

Is really professional, and very useful. Thanks for making the tutorials section even more interesting  ;D ¡¡¡
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on August 03, 2007, 11:28:28 PM
Can someone tell me what is available now?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on August 03, 2007, 11:30:16 PM
Can someone tell me what is available now?

You're probably going to have to be a bit more specific, my friend. If you mean which version of the NAM, the most current one is June 2007. If you're looking for something more specific, let us know and someone will get you what you need!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 04, 2007, 10:57:34 AM
I am going to (try) make draggable Ground HSR, using the Starter Piece method.  I Am also giong to have a go at making High Speed Rail seperate from Monorail again using the Starter piece method.

As I posted at ST:
I have done the Ground HSR starter piece , the orth RULs, the curves RULs, and nearly finished the diagonal RULs, but I am having trouble getting rid of the shadows and pylons.I have started on the HSR but don't know how to change the pylons.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Emperor Stormont on August 04, 2007, 12:45:45 PM
I would love to have HSR at ground level.

I stopped using HSR a while ago and this would make me use it again, all the vest best of luck with this project.  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gaston on August 04, 2007, 04:33:05 PM
HSR at ground level is a good idea, I suppose.    There is so much new stuff out there right now I'm not sure how much interest it is gonna generate.    I think there is alot of developement going on for existing stuff.    You might wanna start your own thread about it though.   Just so you can get people who are really interested in it.   (Just a suggestion)   I would deffinately check out a thread with the name like:
 "GHSR - Ground High Speed Rail...   FAST and LOW is the way to go.        %confuso


---Gaston
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on August 07, 2007, 09:28:43 AM
I'm just asking if there is anything close to completion/completed for the NAM that i might want to keep an eye out for.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on August 07, 2007, 11:32:47 AM
@Dragonshardz  There is no set release dates for any new features in NAM.  I can tell you though that progress is being made on all fronts and specifically for my projects, SAM is the closest to a "BETA Release"  but that is still about 4 weeks or more away depending on how RLS treats me aswell as other people that are helping me with critical parts to the release.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 08, 2007, 07:50:44 AM
GHSR
I have edited the RULs so GHSR is independant of the main HSR modd, although I still have to modd the maxis monorail to make the GHSR less "fragile".
I need help with removing the plyons and shadows, as far as I can see it's possible, but then I might not be able to see very far. If anyone knows how do this or where to get such infomation, it would speed things up. Also after i have removed the shadows and pylons I will post some images and see what people think.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 03:59:26 AM
GHSR
I Need help with Paths I have put the file in the dat with same IID, and the right GID, but when I go in game the paths don't work. Can someone help me I can post more infomation but I don't what infomation to post.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on August 10, 2007, 07:41:09 AM
@Warrior  Paths are not my speciality, but...  What IIDs have you used?  The IIDs of the original HSRP?  If so then you are changing the IIDs for the El-HSRP and not the G-HSRP.  You need to have the SC4Paths with the same IID as the tile you are pathing.

A little idea here for you.  Take the path of the original HSRP and then lower the Z co-ordinate to 1 or 2m.  This will put the path somewhere around the level of the tracks, Im not sure exactly what that height is.

BTW, it would be nice if you had some pictures, no matter how primitive.  It sounds like your doing good work!  Keep it up!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 08:56:08 AM
The HSR ar the same as monorail. I have got the Paths as the same IID as the tile I'm pathing, I think it might be something to do twith the 3D/2D thing but I don't know. I lowered the paths of the HSR/Monorail to 0 already. I posted the a picture today at ST but I'll put it here as well.
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/1stGHSRshot.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on August 10, 2007, 10:07:27 AM
The height's 0.5m off the ground, by the way. It's the same for all Maxis-made networks - elevated highway's 15.5m, ground's 0.5m (that's why the ground highway model's raised slightly off the ground), el rail's 15.5, HSR's 15.5, based off monorail which is also (surprise - 15.5!).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 11:32:45 AM
Heres the TGI of the pathfile, the TGI of te Straight GHSR exemplar (that refers to the models) and what's in the path file:

Quote
TGI = 296678f7 a96683f 5d2d1100
TGI of staight GHSR exemplar =  6534284a ebe084c2 5d2d1100

SC4PATHS
1.2
2
0
1
-- Mono_3_1
7
1
3
1
0
2
2,-8,0.5
2,8,0.5
-- Mono_1_3
7
1
1
3
0
2
-2,8,0.5
-2,-8,0.5

I just thought do I need to add something to the exemplar file?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Olasz on August 10, 2007, 12:15:13 PM
maybe only a lf/cr at the end
if it does not work, try replacing the 1 to 0 under the 7 (referring to mono path)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 12:25:08 PM
What do ou meanby lf/cr at the end? I the 1 was originally a 0 but I didn't know if 0 was valid, so I changed it to one but nothing happened and I forgot to change it back but I will now.

EDIT: Olasz weren't you working on something to do with HSR at one point?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Olasz on August 10, 2007, 12:30:44 PM
line feed/carriage return - finish the path file with an empty row by pressing enter after the last coordinate. Sounds way too trivial but I've had similar pbs like that.
and yes, I've been working on HSR but have not completed
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 12:49:32 PM
Would you mind telling me what you were doing out of interest?
So if add an empty line it might work?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on August 10, 2007, 12:59:02 PM

daaaaaaaaaang that HSR line is looking really good
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Olasz on August 10, 2007, 01:12:19 PM
Would you mind telling me what you were doing out of interest?
So if add an empty line it might work?
your path file seems to be correct apart from the 1s after the 7s and the empty line I am used to.
according to the sc1.dat the exemplar group should be ok as well. do you have the drawpaths cheat?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 01:13:28 PM
Yes I have the draw paths cheat, I have just made the changes and I'm just checking...Nothing happened, still no paths.

Thanks patfirefghtr the models alright, and thanks Olasz for your time.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gaston on August 10, 2007, 02:33:17 PM
Very nice sig, Warrior.     LOL
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 10, 2007, 02:46:14 PM
It was the best I could do in MS paint. Thanks for the slogan by the way. I still need help with T21s and the paths.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on August 10, 2007, 04:11:46 PM
That's looking good there, Warrior! Do you have anything planned in the future for stations? I know I'm way ahead of everything, but there main reason that I never used the HSR is because of the lack of different stations. Either way, good luck with this project. I'll be following along!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on August 10, 2007, 05:24:44 PM

Warrior love the new sig image that is very sweeeeeeeeeeeet!!!!!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 11, 2007, 02:38:37 AM
Warrior, the GHSR is looking fantastic!  To answer your pathing questions, I've done a little testing with the original Elevated HSR.  At one point, I turned the DrawPaths cheat on for it, and had noticed the arrows were almost impossible to see on it.  Something with the way the original models were made, combined with the color the DrawPaths cheat uses for the Monorail network seems to just make that difficult.  It's a little easier to see on the curves for some reason.

One other possibility--is the GHSR network you're creating model-based (3D) or texture-based (2D)?  If it's 2D, you'll want to change the GID from 0xA966883F to 0x69668828.  Otherwise, the path file looks perfect to me.

Hope that helps!

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 11, 2007, 03:29:02 AM
Tarkus The GHSR is model based. I set the path height to 15.5 so I could see the paths but nothing happened, I also set them to 0.5 and tryed UDI and that also nothing happened.
The starter puzzle piece was really useful thanks.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 13, 2007, 03:46:54 AM
Very bad news - Unfortunately my computer has stopped working, It says the the hard drive has and error and to press control alt delete I do and the process starts again.  I have got linux on my pc running from the cd drive I can access the internet with it so I'm not stuck with the wii, hopefully the computer will be working properly by the end of tomorrow (24 hours from the time this was posted. /wrrd%& :'(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Filasimo on August 13, 2007, 03:48:52 AM
sorry to hear that warrior hope u get it working again
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on August 13, 2007, 02:14:38 PM
Hello
Here is the revised orthogonale and new diagonale Modelle for the el-rail (16m)

(http://img6.myimg.de/Bridges177ef0_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=Bridges177ef0.jpg)

(http://img6.myimg.de/Bridges212cd0_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=Bridges212cd0.jpg)

(http://img6.myimg.de/Bridges30a66e_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=Bridges30a66e.jpg)

(http://img6.myimg.de/Bridges426b73_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=Bridges426b73.jpg)

And here is the Bridge for the future SCS-NAM  %wrd
~Testmodell~
(http://img6.myimg.de/Bridges59317e_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=Bridges59317e.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on August 13, 2007, 03:01:46 PM
looks good!! :thumbsup: &apls

i can see a curve in there, and to my knowledge (limited  ;) ) i dont know if it is in there %confuso

is it in there? or aint it in there? i have never used it, this may be the final psuh :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mikeseith on August 13, 2007, 03:57:00 PM
Those look great...a major improvement over the Maxis el-rail  &apls :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on August 13, 2007, 08:47:01 PM
Meastro: The curve was added in the last NAM.

Now, if we could have curves for roads... These look great, ArkenbergeJoe!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sir Charles of Dunlap on August 13, 2007, 11:28:07 PM
There are curves for roads they are in the latest NAM. I have been wondering however though why there aren't curves/elevated puzzle pieces for streets. Well, the road curves are pretty new anyway, but there are puzzle pieces for every network but the street network (other than the diagonal pieces).

-Charlie
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on August 14, 2007, 12:59:56 AM
looks good!! :thumbsup: &apls

i can see a curve in there, and to my knowledge (limited  ;) ) i dont know if it is in there %confuso

is it in there? or aint it in there? i have never used it, this may be the final psuh :thumbsup:

Meastro: The curve was added in the last NAM.

Now, if we could have curves for roads... These look great, ArkenbergeJoe!
I added that curved elevated heavy rail puzzle piece to the NAM before the June/July release. It's basically a rip-off of the Maxis elevated rail curve models. I created it because I made the diagonal piece for going over blank terrain. There are missing pieces for the diagonals because I ran out of time to make them. Pieces are needed for diagonal elevated heavy rail going over diagonal networks, over orthagonal avenues, and over orthagonal ground highways.
The easy part is getting the models from the game's own files. The hard part is coding the pieces into the RUL files. I will probably never get back to the diagonal elevated heavy rail puzzle pieces since I have other projects, and now a real life job, to do.

-Swamper77
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on August 16, 2007, 09:08:18 PM
i was just wondering (earlier) if there were any, umm... expansion "packs" like the NWM or SAM available now or soon.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on August 16, 2007, 11:49:09 PM
Dragon,

They will be ready when they are ready and not a moment before then. We are reorganizing the entire NAM ID structures for the network textures/models and rewriting the RULs to accommodate these changes. You will just have to wait patiently with everyone else until we are able to release the mods and update the NAM files to accommodate them.

-Swamper77
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on August 17, 2007, 12:30:12 AM
@Dragon.... Please refer to my post less than 48 hours ago in the RHW thread. 
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=990.480http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=990.480 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=990.480)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on August 17, 2007, 09:32:40 PM
By that, I gather that the actual modding's done (which is probably the hard bit); the IIDs just are being reorganized. I really should get around to learning RUL overrides...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 18, 2007, 01:55:42 AM
See if you can get the tutorial on how to make starter puzzle pieces, i think it's by Tarkus and memo, I got it from Jplumbley and was a great help.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on August 18, 2007, 11:20:11 PM
ok... sorry for bothering you guys. i'll shut up now.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on August 20, 2007, 03:37:45 PM
I would like to know if possible how the El-Rail Pylons were removed from the draggable GLR but not from the El-Rail?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 01, 2007, 02:19:37 AM
Here is the Finalversion from the El-Rail-Viaduct.
Is only Modell and FSH-Files, and not Exemplar, SC4-Paths and RUL-Files is necessarily.
The File is in the Testcenter.

Es werden nur die Modell und FSH-Dateien benötigt, aber keine Änderungen an Exemplar, SC4-Paths und RUL's vorgenommen. Zumindest jetzt noch nicht. Es ist sozusagen das Starter-Paket, welche erst einmal nur die vorhandenen Modelle überschreiben sollen.

Impressionen:
(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6938/viaduktfertig1zl3.th.jpg) (http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktfertig1zl3.jpg)

(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/677/viaduktfertig2xa1.th.jpg) (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktfertig2xa1.jpg)

(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2291/viaduktbuddycy8.th.jpg) (http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktbuddycy8.jpg)
The new Viadukt has not Conflikt with the Buddy-Bridge  :)

(http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6830/viaduktbahnhofqi6.th.jpg) (http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktbahnhofqi6.jpg)
 :(

For the RHW-Fans
(http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1838/viaduktrwhkk2.th.jpg) (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktrwhkk2.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bat on September 01, 2007, 04:20:56 AM
That Viadukt is looking very great! Wonderful work on it! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 01, 2007, 06:50:19 AM
Outstanding work, ArkenbergeJoe! It looks at least 1000 times better in an urban development than in any test city. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 01, 2007, 07:07:23 AM
That is just sick ArkenbergeJoe!!!! :thumbsup:  Great job on them. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on September 01, 2007, 07:36:57 AM
but unfortunately i doubt that the viaduct will be compatible with mIncrobals lot based mod as the models will be different shaps...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DFire870 on September 01, 2007, 08:28:54 AM
but unfortunately i doubt that the viaduct will be compatible with mIncrobals lot based mod as the models will be different shaps...

It won't be compatible anyways since mIncrobal's mod is for elevated rail, and this mod is for elevated heavy rail.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 01, 2007, 08:09:41 PM
Quote
but unfortunately i doubt that the viaduct will be compatible with mIncrobals lot based mod as the models will be different shaps...

Actually, if this was for elevated rail, it would be compatible, because he used T21s, which aren't really affected by what shape the models take.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 01, 2007, 08:18:56 PM
Excellent work, ArkenbergeJoe!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 01, 2007, 09:03:38 PM
ArkenbergeJoe's models are designed to be as compatible as possible. The 3D models and textures are separated into two DAT files, so you can easily change the textures to brick or something else. He also made sure that they work well with buddybud's bridges (pictured above) and similar lots. Thanks to the modular NAM, it will be possible to switch the style of those viaducts "on the fly". BATters are encouraged to create new stations for the elevated heavy rail puzzle pieces; the NAM team will provide support how to mod these stations properly. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Virginialand on September 01, 2007, 10:48:56 PM
I like those highways with HOV Lanes
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on September 04, 2007, 07:30:24 AM
Here's screenshot of the Draggable GLR with classic tracks.
(http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9252/draggableclassicglrmg0.th.jpg) (http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=draggableclassicglrmg0.jpg)

Rural Draggable GLR is not completed yet, I need to draw the alphamap for it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 04, 2007, 01:49:42 PM
Klasse. Good Work  &apls
EDIT:
Here is the first Screen from the test with the yellow-stone Textur

(http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7339/viaduktziegelsteineez8.th.jpg) (http://img517.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktziegelsteineez8.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 04, 2007, 02:35:19 PM
Here's screenshot of the Draggable GLR with classic tracks.
(http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9252/draggableclassicglrmg0.th.jpg) (http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=draggableclassicglrmg0.jpg)

Rural Draggable GLR is not completed yet, I need to draw the alphamap for it.

Draw alphamaps?  Man, that's old school. ;)  What program are you using to make the pieces?  I possibly could tell you a way to make the alphamaps in about 30 seconds for each piece. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 05, 2007, 02:22:54 AM
All I did in Photoshop was just separate the layer from the base and just made that layer have a colour map (white) on top using the Layer Effects thingie. And a black base, of course. Worked out very well for me, in fact.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 05, 2007, 05:50:15 AM
All I did in Photoshop was just separate the layer from the base and just made that layer have a colour map (white) on top using the Layer Effects thingie. And a black base, of course. Worked out very well for me, in fact.

Well, what I do in PSP7 (Paint Shop Pro 7) is once I have the piece finished and converted into PNG format, I reload the PNG in PSP7.  Then I do a Ctrl-A to select the whole image.  Then I click on the image to make it float.  Then I go to the create Alpha Channel feature, Create the alpha channel, defloat the image then delete it leaving it a clean 128x128 area.  Then I flood fill it with black (0,0,0).  Then I go back into the Alpha Channel area and select the load feature and load the alpha map that I created earlier.  Then the dancing ants show up and then I flood fill the area inside of them with white (255,255,255).  Then I save it as a different file name and then I'm done. :)

Now, it may sound like it takes a long time, but once you get the hang of it, you can make the alpha image for any SC4 piece in 20-30 seconds per piece. ;) :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on September 05, 2007, 06:52:04 AM
Unfortunately the tool I'm using doesn't have that kind of function &mmm
Anyway, the alpha-map for these are not too hard. Since they are almost copies of the elevated rail, outlines are very simple.
Here's a result of alpha-mapping.
(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/1949/draggableruralglrrr4.th.jpg) (http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?image=draggableruralglrrr4.jpg)

And one more, Grassy GLR. This is just test version created about 3 months ago that replaces the rural GLR.
(http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/520/grassyglryw9.th.jpg) (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grassyglryw9.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 05, 2007, 01:55:16 PM
Here is the brown stone Test-modell

(http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8513/viaduktbraunmp6.th.jpg) (http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktbraunmp6.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 06, 2007, 04:21:41 AM
@ArkenbergeJoe: Still needs some work, obviously, but it's a nice start! (Sieht noch etwas unfertig aus, aber Du hast ja gerade erst angefangen, wie immer gute Arbeit!) :)

@ebina: I like the grassy GLR, however, I think the rails need at least something that fixes them on the ground. Here's a pic of the tram tracks in Leipzig, near the Messe Leipzig (fairground) in the outskirts of the city. Sorry for the blurry quality, is was shot from a tram that went full speed.

(http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/2563/leipziggrassytramyr6.jpg)

As you can see, there are two concrete foundations running beneath the tracks, this should be somehow reflected in your textures. Thumbs up for the quality of your texture work, though, they're looking excellent!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 06, 2007, 11:32:55 AM
Looks pretty good there, ArkenbergeJoe! What if you put the brown stone on the gray parts, too? Just a suggestion! Keep up the fantastic work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 06, 2007, 01:10:20 PM
Looks pretty good there, ArkenbergeJoe! What if you put the brown stone on the gray parts, too? Just a suggestion! Keep up the fantastic work!

ArkenbergeJoe plans to do that, but just started texturing the supports, which are obiously easier to do than the arches.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 06, 2007, 02:01:45 PM
Oops, I get it now! Sorry!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: writingliberty on September 06, 2007, 04:12:02 PM
I've been noticing that my cities have a pervasive "high" traffic noise rating - even at the end of twisty dead end streets with 15 cars on the edge of town next to country clubs... is there something about the NAM that might be causing this? (I'm using the perfect path 5x speed 10x capacity traffic file). And if so, is there any way it could be fixed?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bat on September 07, 2007, 05:13:15 AM
That's looking very nice, ArkenbergeJoe! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on September 08, 2007, 07:34:52 AM
@ebina: I like the grassy GLR, however, I think the rails need at least something that fixes them on the ground. Here's a pic of the tram tracks in Leipzig, near the Messe Leipzig (fairground) in the outskirts of the city. Sorry for the blurry quality, is was shot from a tram that went full speed.

As you can see, there are two concrete foundations running beneath the tracks, this should be somehow reflected in your textures. Thumbs up for the quality of your texture work, though, they're looking excellent!

That is exactly what I was missing. I thought that it is short of something. I will add those to textures.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: flame1396 on September 08, 2007, 09:42:15 AM
I like the elevated heavy rail support mod.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 10, 2007, 02:44:00 PM
Here is the red (Test) Texture for the Viadukt
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6125/viaduktroteroe5.th.jpg) (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktroteroe5.jpg)

and brown Texture updated

(http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/6369/viaduktgelberve6.th.jpg) (http://img67.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viaduktgelberve6.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Madeira aka Constantina on September 10, 2007, 02:50:40 PM
cool. where can i learn to make path files and network models?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Olasz on September 10, 2007, 02:52:06 PM
thanks to ArkenbergeJoe the rail viaduct is getting a shape  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on September 10, 2007, 02:54:03 PM
For making paths download Daeley's Path Creator on the LEX and get the interchange tutorial, link somewhere on Simtropolis for making True3D models(puzzle pieces, interchanges, nework) and a guide on path files

Looks brilliant ArkenbergeJoe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on September 13, 2007, 02:10:15 PM
wow what stunning projects are underway here.... i love that viaducts and the glr texture is looking real nice and congrats to both of you akenbridgejoe and ebina for your hard works - pat
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 13, 2007, 03:31:50 PM
Superb work, ArkenbergeJoe! Truly superb! I was playing earlier and found the perfect place for these! I can't wait to see more development!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 24, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
If the HOV lane idea is put into the NAM then there MUST be a double yellow line down the middle, I think the diamond mark should be a sign just before the ramp to get onto the HOV lanes.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 26, 2007, 02:37:19 PM
the Viaducts with brown Brick is finished..

Impressionen

(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6861/braunerviaduktkurven1ru2.th.jpg) (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=braunerviaduktkurven1ru2.jpg)

(http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/7251/braunerviaduktbruecken1cg0.th.jpg) (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=braunerviaduktbruecken1cg0.jpg)

(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6071/braunerviaduktautobahnngf8.th.jpg) (http://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=braunerviaduktautobahnngf8.jpg)

(http://img8.myimg.de/RosenthalElRail2790d_thumb.jpg) (http://www.myimg.de/?img=RosenthalElRail2790d.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: M4346 on September 26, 2007, 02:38:58 PM
OMG those look really great!!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gaston on September 26, 2007, 04:03:21 PM
ArkenbergeJoe,
     Ist dieses für angehobene schwere Eisenbahnen?   Es schaut sehr gut.    Dieses ist etwas, das ich in meinen Städte verwenden würde.    Ausgezeichnete Arbeit, bis jetzt.    Ich hoffe dich der Unterhalt, der die fabelhafte Arbeit erledigt.
ArkenbergeJoe,
     Is this for elevated heavy railroads?    It looks very good.    This is something I would use in my cities.   Excellent work, so far.   Keep up the fabulous work.


---Gaston
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ssc4k on September 26, 2007, 04:06:26 PM
nice job those look great :p
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on September 27, 2007, 06:54:13 AM
@Gaston: Yes, this is for the elevated heavy rail  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gaston on September 27, 2007, 09:23:06 AM
@Gaston: Yes, this is for the elevated heavy rail  ;)

Thank you for answering so quickly.   I thought that it was but wasn't sure.     Will you also make some stations for elevated heavy railroads as well?


---Gaston
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: toxicpiano on September 27, 2007, 11:08:05 AM
Oh wow! That looks fantastic! Bit light for my tastes, will it be easy to darken?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 27, 2007, 11:25:53 AM
A version with dark (red) brick is also in the works - and of course other developers are welcome to create additional texture sets, and esp. stations for the elevated heavy rail! Up to now, nobody ever made one, maybe because the current elevated heavy rail puzzle pieces look rather ugly and unrealistic. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on September 27, 2007, 01:30:44 PM
ArkenbergeJoe: that looks great. :thumbsup:
i really don't know if i'll use this in my cities, but i'll manage to try at least cause it looks soo good. ;)
only a suggestion/comment: the on ramp seems too steep to me, are you planning to make on slope ramps? (this is the way i manage to get smoother ramps for roads<->el-roads for example)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 27, 2007, 01:35:33 PM
Wow! Stunning job, ArkenbergeJoe! The brown bricks look fantastic! I agree with our friend Andreas, too--this will make the elevated heavy rail no longer such an eyesore! Great job!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 27, 2007, 02:37:55 PM
@figui: The ramp has the same characteristics as the existing puzzle piece ramp for the elevated heavy rail. This mod doesn't change the functionality, but only the graphics. Of course, there's also an update for the on-slope puzzle piece, and the good news is that you can still use third-party addon eyecandy lots, like buddybud's bridges.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on September 27, 2007, 03:09:51 PM
there's also an update for the on-slope puzzle piece, and the good news is that you can still use third-party addon eyecandy lots, like buddybud's bridges.
that's great, thanks. btw, i don't know that lots, i should search for them ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 30, 2007, 05:55:43 AM
I was bored one day and decided to play around with the Road Tuning Parameters.

The end result: it's much easier to make land bridges, but you can't control their height, etc.

(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/bestasicangetit.jpg)

(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/funtastic.jpg)
Something interesting that happened after futzing around with a couple of exemplars.

That's about as far as I can get it, but on the bright side, you no longer need any water. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on September 30, 2007, 06:03:35 AM
Some of thoes results are freaky to say the least... how the **** did you get that road to be raised up in the middle of nowhere lol

All i can say is WOW

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 30, 2007, 07:41:35 AM
The first pic looks very interesting, the second one is probably a bit strange. ;) Making land bridges without the need of using the rain tool or deep gorges could come in very handy, although you still cannot cross the bridges with another network (but then again, there are the puzzle pieces that can do that :) ).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on September 30, 2007, 01:29:37 PM
All i can say is WOW
me too: wow
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on September 30, 2007, 01:45:13 PM
The end result: it's much easier to make land bridges, but you can't control their height, etc.

Ah... But I think you can.  SC4Terraformer allows you to terraform within a city that already has development.  It looks as if the bridges are fromed by going from the top of the lower hill to the tile of the same height across the way.  If this is true you can control the design of your bridges by editing the terrain height in SC4Terraformer before you build the bridge.

This is very interesting indeed.  Good find SA!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RippleJet on September 30, 2007, 01:45:58 PM
WOW again! &apls

There still seem to be endless possibilities with modding this game! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 30, 2007, 08:32:05 PM
For the first picture, I disabled the properties that control when the retaining walls and pylons appear (they appear when the network is raised above a certain point from the terrain). On the other hand, on the second picture, I disabled the properties that control the height adjustment when the network is drawn. These retaining walls won't appear on flat land, but they will appear if there's a 1m slope or more.

This means that mountain passes can literally be built aside the mountain without any changes in terrain...

However, easier to make landbridges won't work with the retaining walls, because in order for this to work, I had to disable the retaining walls. I'll release a mod soon that allows land bridges to be made easily for all networks.


Quote
It looks as if the bridges are fromed by going from the top of the lower hill to the tile of the same height across the way.  If this is true you can control the design of your bridges by editing the terrain height in SC4Terraformer before you build the bridge.

That is indeed true. In the default settings, the margin of error is set to 20m. I readjusted it to 50m to make it easier. You can use SC4T or the inbuilt mayor terraforming tools/God Mode terraforming tools (I prefer the latter in this case, because it's easier to use in this case, since it's highly unlikely that one would edit a whole region just to get a land bridge).

There's no adjustable slider for landbridges for some reason.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that this will conflict with any other slope mod because it edits the very same properties.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on October 01, 2007, 11:23:47 AM
Hi
What is that??  ;)
(http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/2951/braunerviaduktdiarampenek1.th.jpg) (http://img49.imageshack.us/my.php?image=braunerviaduktdiarampenek1.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on October 01, 2007, 11:28:31 AM

WoW SA that is a intresting find indeed and ArkenbergeJoe that pic of that bridge seems a bit messed up?  but the bridge its self looks real cool....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: BigSlark on October 01, 2007, 12:28:43 PM
What is that??  ;)

It seems to be a ground heavy rail to elevated heavy rail transition using the new viaduct models...on the diagonal!

I'm excited and cannot wait to see more.  &apls

Cheers,
Kevin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on October 01, 2007, 08:16:52 PM
Ooh, looks good. But what about the funky viaduct models? Wouldn't new ones need to be built so the transition works?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on October 02, 2007, 11:49:50 AM
Hallo (Sorry for the German-Post)
1.)Die Modelle werden weiter umgebaut. Da ich sie selber gebaut habe, weiß ich, welche Werte geändert werden müssen.
2.)Die RUL-File ist fertig geändert, die Rampe hat die Instancen-ID 53264000 - 532645###!!
3.)SC4-Path existieren überhaupt noch nicht, sie werden erst geschrieben, wenn die Modelle fertig sind. Damit diese mit den Modellgleisen auch übereinstimmen.
Klick here for the English-Translation  ;)
http://www.google.de/language_tools?hl=en
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 02, 2007, 12:00:23 PM
Better use your personal translator. ;)

1.) The models are still being changed. But since I created them myself, I know which values I have to change.
2.) The RUL file has been edited as well, the new ramp uses the IDs 53264000 - 532645###.
3.) There are no SC4Path files at all at the moment. They will be created once the models are ready, so they correspondend properly with the tracks.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on October 02, 2007, 09:41:50 PM
Sounds fun. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on October 03, 2007, 05:06:43 AM
Hello
The Viaduct-Modells (#BETA) is online

(http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/8913/diabrcke1pd4.th.jpg) (http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diabrcke1pd4.jpg)  (http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/6071/braunerviaduktautobahnngf8.th.jpg) (http://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=braunerviaduktautobahnngf8.jpg)
SimCityPlaza_Railviaducte#BETA (http://www.simcityplaza.de/content/view/369/172/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metasmurf on October 03, 2007, 06:51:46 AM
Gutten arbeit ArkenbergeJoe, danke schön (excuse my bad german :P)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: BigSlark on October 03, 2007, 10:48:35 AM
The new viaducts are great, ArkenbergeJoe! Thank you for updating them.

Cheers,
Kevin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jeronij on October 03, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
Excellent work as usual AJ  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dexter on October 03, 2007, 11:34:53 AM
Those viaducts look great! Maybe someone could make some TE shops or warehouses with jobs to fit "under the arches", which is a common sight in the UK.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shiftred on October 03, 2007, 11:38:20 AM
I had to try it out:
(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/VIADUCT.jpg)
Nice!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 03, 2007, 11:55:50 AM
Nice use of the Sam there, although those aren't my intersection textures...  ()what()

is that for heavy rail, or light rail?  I don't like the "high tech" elevated rail the game comes with, doesn't look real.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ArkenbergeJoe on October 04, 2007, 12:20:00 PM
The Viaduct is for the heavy-rail. This is not compatible with the SAM-Mod, and funktions only with the separaty Puzzlepieces.

Die Viadukte sind für die "schwere" Eisenbahn. Sie ist nicht kompatibel mit dem SAM, und funktioniert nur mit separaten Puzzleteilen.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 05, 2007, 07:36:18 AM
Actually it was the intersection with the road I was refering to.  I can send you the files from SAM if you need to add the textures in.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 05, 2007, 07:45:11 AM
Speaking of sending files, I'd still need the SAM road intersection templates, so I can create a plugin for the Euro Road Textures Mod. Of course I could extract the FSH files and edit those, but I figure that editing the templates would save some time. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 05, 2007, 07:49:24 AM
yes it would, however my external hard drive is out of commision at the moment and has all the files on it :'(

I'm pretty sure it's a problem with the chip, and the hard drive is OK, but need to get a new one.  I was going to do up the textures for you once I got the hard drive back up and running.  If you have the textures for the intersections you could email them to me (I think you have my hotmail address) and I'll put it together.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 05, 2007, 07:57:16 AM
Uhh, that's too bad - I hope you get the HD back up and running soon. You could try to put it in your PC case (usually, external HDs are standard IDE or S-ATA drives) and copy the data over to your internal HD. Ok, then I'll have a look which textures are needed and send you some Euro templates instead.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on October 05, 2007, 08:58:01 AM
@Andreas  Do you have an existing template for the Euro Textures?  I can make overlays out of them for use with the SAM and then I can start making the Euro Textures as we go.  That may be a simple way to do it and we can build it into the installer so that it is a selectable choice to have Euro Textures or Regular Textures with a radial button.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 05, 2007, 08:59:24 AM
I've got a laptop, not a PC  :D.  In fact, the harddrive came from my last laptop which died when I threw coffee on it.  &hlp

Jason: I was going to drag the textures out of the Euro Mod to do, but as above, the external drive failed this morning.  Fortunatly I have sent you most of what I have done, so didn't lose too much.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on October 05, 2007, 09:17:06 AM
I've got a laptop, not a PC  :D.  In fact, the harddrive came from my last laptop which died when I threw coffee on it.  &hlp

Jason: I was going to drag the textures out of the Euro Mod to do, but as above, the external drive failed this morning.  Fortunatly I have sent you most of what I have done, so didn't lose too much.

Thats good!!  Do you think it is possible to get the PEGs Dirt Roads and Torolcas Dirt Streets, along with the SAM Euro done by the date quoted to you earlier?  It gives us some time, if not we can get as far as we can on the SAM Euro done by that time and still be ready.  You dont have to worry as much about the SAM Euro, it is easy for me to copy/paste the Euro overlays, but for all the new stuff you make, lets make both Euro and Regular textures for easier implementation.

As I showed in the SAM thread, I do have the Roundabouts ready, for Cobblestone, Herringbone and Aspahlt texture sets.  I can send you the PSD files if you'd like to see if you can get the Gravel and Dirt ones ready.  Later tonight or maybe tomorrow, I will gather everything that I have and send it to you again Diggis.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 05, 2007, 09:38:54 AM
excellent.  I emailed you the PNG overlays for the dirt roads, with AVE, OWR and Road intersections done.  It came from work, so might be in your Junk Mail.

Luckily this is all I had done, before the hard drive stopped, so I have a copy of it.  If you send me Trolcas FSH files again, i can start work in the mean time while I get the hard drive sorted.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 05, 2007, 03:56:35 PM
I asked frimi about templates for the Euro textures, but he said that he doesn't have any - I guess he simply copied the same dashed white lines over and over again when new textures were out. Currently, I'm quite busy since tomorrow the local observatory (where I'm one of the staff members) celebrates the annual astronomy day and the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1. If you want, just extract the Euro textures from the ERTM yourself; I figure that you only need a handful of textures to create some templates for the SAM (straight, T intersection, 4-way intersection etc.). I won't be home for most of the day tomorrow, but if you have any questions, post them here or fire me a mail/PM.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Filasimo on October 05, 2007, 04:13:53 PM
hey Andreas that sounds pretty cool hope ya take some pics to show if something cool comes up during the engagement  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 05, 2007, 04:19:30 PM
Actually, I'm creating something "cool" right now - more of that later, and not in this thread. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Crissa on October 05, 2007, 04:54:00 PM
Sputnik day isn't as fun as the celebrations for Yuri's day.  Less getting drunk and singing songs and more math. ^-^

...At least, that's how it was here.

Also, you promised me some textures to bang on :P

-Crissa
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Palpatine001 on October 05, 2007, 05:34:06 PM
Alright Andreas - now you have me waiting in suspense on the latest offering for NAM

(Will it solve my crap transit problems in Solaria - who knows)

But as for the pass overs at the top of the page - yay, something a little more realistic and seen in NZ  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on October 06, 2007, 02:53:58 AM
I asked frimi about templates for the Euro textures, but he said that he doesn't have any - I guess he simply copied the same dashed white lines over and over again when new textures were out. Currently, I'm quite busy since tomorrow the local observatory (where I'm one of the staff members) celebrates the annual astronomy day and the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik 1. If you want, just extract the Euro textures from the ERTM yourself; I figure that you only need a handful of textures to create some templates for the SAM (straight, T intersection, 4-way intersection etc.). I won't be home for most of the day tomorrow, but if you have any questions, post them here or fire me a mail/PM.

Was it just the roads that were effected by the Mod?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: toxicpiano on October 08, 2007, 05:06:06 AM
Those viaducts look great! Maybe someone could make some TE shops or warehouses with jobs to fit "under the arches", which is a common sight in the UK.
Rather late to be quoting, but that's exactly what I was thinking  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on October 19, 2007, 06:16:40 PM
Some suggestions for puzzle peices (for purely eycandish use):

slow road markings:

(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/95671/2/istockphoto_95671_slow_road.jpg)

(EDIT: OMG, wow its already been done, (damn welsh) (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4156/abbeybus33pz.jpg))

speed camera warnings, and full width rumble strips.

also speed bumps and road width limmiters (a curb that extends over a whole lane to stop traffic flowing one way)

(http://www.hsvcity.com/engineering/TrafficEng/images/speed%20table.jpg)


Another thing that would be marvellous would be a texture rework of some of the puzzle pieces. just because some look odd

and can you have dynamic texturing on puzzle pieces, that follow the textures of the pieces next to them IE the GLR under road doesnt follow the textures of the glr, it has grass around it even in inner city...

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on October 21, 2007, 07:09:19 AM
It should be possible, I'd think. Looks like we'll have to look into it some more.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on October 21, 2007, 07:10:54 AM
Could you possibly divulge what could be possible?? There were more than one ideas in that post  ???... lol

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on October 21, 2007, 07:13:50 AM
The SLOW lots would probably end up being transit-enabled, since they're just 1x1 lots.

The retexturing of the puzzle pieces... that is being considered and will probably be worked on soon.

Dynamic texturing: it may be possible.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on October 21, 2007, 07:20:49 AM
Thanks, about the slow lots, i though the NAM team was dead against TE lots... lol

WOOO re texturing, that's good to here, having OCD doesn't really help

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DFire870 on October 21, 2007, 08:43:06 AM
The SLOW lots probably wouldn't be made as an official part of the NAM, just like the traffic control lots by bigredfish (no trucks, no cars, etc.)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on October 21, 2007, 09:23:33 AM
Quote
Thanks, about the slow lots, i though the NAM team was dead against TE lots... lol
lol, TE lots are only for certain things.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on October 21, 2007, 03:04:02 PM
I'd be more in favor of a puzzle piece myself. ;)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mott on October 22, 2007, 04:22:37 AM
I was just starting to roll together another test plugin for more general testing, and need an opinion:

In a default game, the player is penalized whenever a Sim who prefers transit is forced to drive, and vice-versa.   This is done by adding extra time to their commutes when forced to use alternate transportation.

The thing is, everyone seems to hate this aspect of the game.  The player has no way to know that it is happening, and it is impossible to build healthy car-only or transit-only cities. 

How do people feel about changing this part of the simulation entirely?  Some Sims would still choose to drive and others to take a bus, *first*.  But as long as they could get to work, somehow, they would use it and the player would not be penalized.  Then the "walking-distance-to-train" city becomes possible, and the "what's a bus?" city...

Seems like trading a poorly-implemented feature, for another one that people might enjoy more.  And the game would be more intuitive too.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ScottFTL on October 22, 2007, 03:49:10 PM

I think this would be a good change.  I don't like the implementation of transit preference because it seems biased towards cars as the preferred mode of transit - almost no matter what you do.  I'm sure you could have a long debate about how realistic this is or is not - and the answer would depend on what part of the globe you call home.

I do have a question, though.  If you remove the transit preference penalty, would the game ignore transit preference completely?  Or would sims select the most efficient path first, then the preferred mode of transit if multiple paths of equal value are found?

This could add a new twist to the game, for sure.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mott on October 22, 2007, 05:18:57 PM
If you remove the transit preference penalty, would the game ignore transit preference completely?  Or would sims select the most efficient path first, then the preferred mode of transit if multiple paths of equal value are found?

Actually, they'd try to use their "preferred" transit first.  If it gets them to work within their "max commute time," nothing would change from the way that the game works now.  It's just when traffic congestion jams up the roads, so Sims who work far away can't get there any more by car like they wanted to, those Sims would try a mass-transit option instead, without penalty.  Only if that commute also failed, would the "no-job" zot appear.

As for what the initial choice settings should be, that's up for debate.  The initial settings aren't bad.   At least letting them try alternate routes "for free" gives the player some time to work during a "population explosion" before the city collapses on itself (which it will anyway, eventually).

BTW, there are three "preferences" for Sims: Transit, Drive, and whatever's fastest.  For each wealth level, we can set the proportions of how many prefer each.  The problem with a universal "Fastest" strategy is that all the Sims always do the same exact thing, until it gets congested, and then they all do the *other* thing, and so on.  Giving them preferences is a good idea.
   
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mott on October 22, 2007, 06:33:33 PM
Just wanted to let everyone know that I incorporated a lot of the ideas that have been discussed, and there's an alpha "a03" now available in my "Commute Tweking for NWM" thread.

http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2665.msg83692#msg83692

Details there.   "Park-and-Ride" mod is now included as an *option* for those who wanted to try it; I have included a full set of "patched" Maxis Transit buildings needed for proper "Park and Ride" operation.  These are of course optional also.  Testing "Park and Ride" is best done with a SC4 Startup Manager profile and new cities; it's just like the RH expansion in that all those buildings would have to be demolished and rebuilt...

All sorts of nifty stuff in there.  Have fun with it.  Playing on "hard" is actually challenging and fun, rather than frustrating and impossible.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mott on October 24, 2007, 04:49:00 PM
Sorry to triple-post...

While the board was down for maintenance I noticed that a lot of users would prefer not to change the existing path plugins too much.  So I combed over the existing NAM plugins to see which ones that already exist are "good."  That way people who prefer to stay with the familiar behavior of the "legacy" plugins could do so.

And by "good" I mean, they don't make gameplay any harder or more buggy, relative to the default.  "Good" means "no damage" and that's all.  The definition of "improved" is up to the player.

The purpose here, is just to report back, so users and the NAM team can make decisions.  Then I'm going to step off it, and work on something else, because I've taken this issue about as far as it can go. :)

 "$Deal"$ REPORT:

* The "Maxis Default" pathfinding plugin version is neutral.  No problems with it.

* All the "Maxis-Speed, Maxis-Pathfinding" variations are fine too, except that the Maxis pathfinding heuristic isn't as good for gameplay as the one the "Better Pathfinding" version uses.  The Maxis number makes the zone developer very conservative, so R$$$ especially is harder to grow than maybe it should be, and harder to keep from downgrading to R$$.  That's a player's choice issue, though, not a technical problem per se. 

* All the "Better Pathfinding, Default Speed" variations are rather good as they are.  Users should see a more sane job-distance vs. commute time calculation, nothing too radical but it definitely helps compared to the default values.  What's really "Better" is not the pathfinding itself, but the zone developer's estimate of the actual commute times that the pathfinder will eventually discover after Sims move into a new building.  This lets the zone developer make better decisions about what to build and where.  The person who made this plugin, if I understand the old threads correctly, seemed to have an intuitive sense that the solution being sought was around here somewhere. 

* The ones that increase "Max Commute" also expand the "short/medim/long" commute distances that zones see.  As a result, the circle in which Sims see a "short" commute gets bigger, and demand/desirability improves.  The default game is very difficult in this regard, the 2x Commute helps a lot, and the 5x Commute produces the kind of (much easier) game behavior that SC3K exhibited.  At 5x Commute pretty much any Sim on a large map can get anywhere else on it, and most of the map sees a short or medium commute time.  The 10x Commute is pretty radical in this regard, almost everyone's commute is short, and demand/desirablity really can skyrocket.  Some people might like that, and there's nothing technically wrong with doing it - this is real demand, based on how the simulators naturally react.  Player's choice again.

* I looked into Capacity variations also.  The amount of traffic required to annoy residents with noise and please businesses with customers, does not change when you change the capacities.  There's also a limit to how bad/good the noise/customers number can get.  If these variations are working for people, there's no compelling reason to change them.

CONCLUSION:
Therefore, to solve the Commute Time/Abandonment problems, without confusing and angering players with existing regions, just drop the "Radical Custom Special," and all the increased speed and "perfect pathfinding" ones from the next release.  That will greatly reduce the number of plugins to support.  The remainder range from neutral to beneficial in a predictable manner, and existing users will at least see names they recognize to help them migrate. 

Again, just trying to sum up research to users and the Team here, so I can move on to more interesting things. 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on October 24, 2007, 05:39:24 PM
Thanks for the in-depth research, this is certainly much appreciated. :) For my personal use, I modified the "better pathfinding, Maxis speeds and capacities", where I doubled the commute time value, and I tripled the capacity of the Maxis streets. This has greatly improved my gameplay, I rarely have any abandonment anymore, but of course this also requires careful city planning, it's definitely not acting like a cheat. The tripled capacity for streets is a personal preference, since I like to use streets for low and certain mid density developments, such as row houses. It won't prevent overcrowded streets if they are used at inappropriate places, but it surely helps to reduce the overall congestion of the transportation network.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on October 24, 2007, 09:34:29 PM
Include your pathfinding mod too. It'll give people another choice to see which one they would prefer.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kellydale2003 on November 24, 2007, 03:48:43 PM
Ohh. I finally found the place where you can contribute.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on November 24, 2007, 03:58:37 PM
Ohh. I finally found the place where you can contribute.

Do you actually have something to contribute?  Or are you going to show the same waste of time you sent me in PMs?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: toxicpiano on November 27, 2007, 09:13:15 AM
Ohh. I finally found the place where you can contribute.
Superchad? Is that you?  $%Grinno$%
But seriously, show us some proof. You keep mentioning these amazing things you are doing but never show anything.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mr.v on January 04, 2008, 09:15:16 AM
nam suggestion  :)


(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/4816/namsuggestunderbridgesh4.jpg)
there's 2 tile under sydney bridge.
how possible to make avenue under bridge in this 2 tile?


one more request

every bridge has no pedestrain walk way.
it might be good if you have space for people walk on the bridge over the river or canal(real canal, maxis water not plop canal).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Lollo on January 06, 2008, 03:40:14 AM
Just an hypotesis: wouldn't be possible to use the same technology applied for the heavy rail under road puzzle pieces to make road/avenue/anything under something else ones??
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 06, 2008, 03:49:52 AM
t wouldn't be possible to make a road network under a different road network, say Avenue under highway becuase you would either have a low capacity highway and a high speed Avenue or a high capacity avenue and a low speed Highway. but road over road would be possible and monorail over avenue wold be possible
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on January 06, 2008, 04:53:07 AM
Nobody says that the two networks must run in parallel.
Over at the German SimForum, Nardo69 suggested more general road underpasses with NAM puzzle pieces: a Marrast ramp to go underground and NAM puzzle pieces of street/road/avenue/1way/tram-avenue below all networks (and open space).
This approach would overcome the rigidity of the popular Marrast underpasses and would be much better than the present practise of converting car (but no bus) passengers to underground passengers (as e.g., in Buddybuds underpasses and also, I believe, the Big Dig, never tested the latter one).

@Warrior, the restriction (same speed/capacity for both networks on a tile) does also apply for the Marrast underpasses. Nothing we can do about it, and no reason not to use road underpasses ...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Lollo on January 06, 2008, 04:58:59 AM
Quote
a Marrast ramp to go underground and NAM puzzle pieces of street/road/avenue/1way/tram-avenue below all networks

Ta-Dah..... Exactly what I meant ;D... Hope he'll realize them...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 06, 2008, 05:44:34 AM
Right sorry  &ops
So If I understand right exactly like the over passes in the NAM except they go under not over?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on January 06, 2008, 08:21:08 AM
So If I understand right exactly like the over passes in the NAM except they go under not over?
In principle yes. In addition to the equivalents of road overpass puzzle pieces, underpass pieces would also be required below pedestrian zones and tram-in-avenue.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 06, 2008, 09:43:59 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on January 06, 2008, 10:15:21 AM
I am not 100% clear on this.  But I will give my two cents anyways, so forgive my ignorance if I say something that is already said.

First off, it is IMPOSSIBLE to drag or enable a drag under any portion of a bridge.  This is not a possibility.  The only way possible to get "Under Bridge Scenary" is by offsetting lots.

Alrighty, the Marrast underpasses are actually an interesting thought to bring to this topic.  I have never thought about implmenting a Marrast Underpass in this situation.  Depending on how they work, it may just be feasible to make a "ground level" over hanging model that goes under the bridge and give us "functional" under bridge roads.  But, of course this would take much experimenting and time to develope, if it is even possible.
__________________________________________________________________

Now, you guys have also brought up a question about Blahdy's Boston Big Dig and Buddybud's Underpasses.  Currently, they make Road Traffic turn into Subway traffic and you must drag a subway between the two lots.

What if...  What if we enabled Road Traffic to be added to the subway system?

Well, you would have two separate Traffic types on the same system which works within the issues of dual networking.  Subways will never cross a 3rd party network and therefore will only ever have 2 Traffic Types on the system. 

With this we will be able to keep Road traffic from the Boston Big Dig lots separate from the actual subway traffic and control the access with the Station lots.  Subway traffic will only be able to leave Subway Stations, Road Traffic will only be allowed to leave through Boston Big Dig lots.

Also, this will get around the issue of Road traffic having an advantage in speed by taking the under ground "road".  Currently, when converted to subway traffic the cars will be travelling at Subway speeds of 225 km/h, whereas we can set the new speed to 100 km/h equal to that of a highway.

These are the three biggest areas that make underground highways not entirely functional in game.  But, with a simple update and a patch to all the Boston Big Dig and Buddybud Lots we can get under ground traffic more functional.

Now, in the experiments that Warrior and I had worked on we ran into one issue.  An issue the can probably be fixed fairly easily.  When we had a road moving in a parrallel fashion directly above the subway the cars would suddenly jump from underground to above ground.  This would probably have to do with the pathing that we did.  What we did was copy the road network paths into the subway path files and left them alone.  Because the road paths were still set at height 0m then they would technically be "touching" the paths for the actualy road, this may be confusing to some, but the game would essentially see them as intersecting paths and would treat it as an intersection and allow cars to choose which path to take.  We should be able to overcome this issue by setting the paths at a negative height so the paths are set underground and cannot be in contact with other surface paths.

So, technically, in a theoretical aspect.  We should be able to get functional Underground highways.  Which would allow for underbridge traffic... (semi dual networking aswell)...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on January 06, 2008, 11:27:52 AM
I still have this concept in my mind of the game implementing tunnels as a sort of invisible subway for roads, highways and rail.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Lollo on January 06, 2008, 02:30:10 PM
Whoa.... It's nice to see that I've begun an interesting discussion.... I hope to see the results of your works as soon as possible.... again thank you for wht you do for the game and the community.....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on January 06, 2008, 03:03:13 PM
When preparing myself for the work on the recently published Marrast Underpasses Updated SFBT BSC (http://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1401) I spent some time to investigate underpasses in SC4. Underpasses are mainly used for flat area, otherwise you would use tunnels or overpasses (bridges).

In summary, there exist two approaches:
1) pathed connections (the proposed NAM puzzle pieces or TE-Lots - like the updated Marrast underpasses and Jeronij's street underpass (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=117)); and
2) ramps connected by the underground=subway system (Buddybud underpasses (http://www.savefile.com/files/78128) and the Big Dig)

The second system comes with several disadvantages:
a) They convert cars to underground, but not busses, vans and pedestrians
b) They mix normal underground with converted cars
c) Emergency vehicles (fire fighters) cannot pass
d) UDI does not work
e) Rich Sims tend to avoid public transport (the underground) - will influence the game somehow
f) Underground is much faster than road - will influence the game somehow

Due to these disadvantages, I decided myself for approach 1) last autumn and spent some time to work on the Marrast underpasses, together with Andreas and the SFBT, based on previous work by the BSC.

Of course, there are several disadvantages to approach 1 when using pathed TE-Lots:
a) TE-Lots can cause problems in the game simulations as discussed by Mott in this forum.
b) Rigidity. Each pathed TE-Lot is fixed for one certain situation, e.g., straight road under straight dual rail. The set Marrast Underpasses Updated SFBT BSC (http://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1401) contains 13 lots (plus a MML), just for the most common underpasses.
c) The traffic simulation for cars (blue lines), calculated when playing the game, shows strange behavior in few cases. Example: Car traffic (blue lines) can jump from the road (underground) to the highway. The animations are not affected - no animated car will jump (the depth is 8 meters in the Marrast path files).
I hope / believe that pathed NAM underpass puzzle pieces can overcome these disadvantages.

It is, of course, possible to extended the Marrast underpasses for tram-in-avenues (tram=GLR) and to have four path types on one tile (car, pedestrian, tram, train):
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/4112/c1sv6.th.jpg) (http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=c1sv6.jpg)
This is an unpublished functional TE-Lot. It also works for tram-in-avenue under avenue and ground highway and for street or avenue under tram-in-avenue. NAM team members who have access to the SFBT test center can download it from my subdirectory and test it, the one under the highway has a known bug that I will fix).

Being a fan of the recently published Gare du Nord of Xannepan that has twelve tracks, I extended a functional Marrast rail underpass to 8 and 12 tracks widths and posted a picture on the German SimForum
(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5967/garedunordunderpass8fc9.th.jpg) (http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garedunordunderpass8fc9.jpg) (http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7255/garedunordunderpasstg5.th.jpg) (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garedunordunderpasstg5.jpg)
That was the moment when Nardo69 (and now Lollo) suggested more general road underpasses with NAM puzzle pieces:
a Marrast ramp to go underground and NAM puzzle pieces of street/road/avenue/1way/tram-avenue below all networks (and open space).
We may want to build an underpass under the rail tracks behind the station with one ramp parallel to the rail tracks and the other ramp perpendicular - and a non-straight underground road connection.

As Warrior pointed out, this would be quite similar to the road overpasses already existing in the NAM, therefore, I guess it should be possible to make it. A pathed connection. No TE-Lot and no rigidity anymore. :)

Simply connecting two ramps is, of course, the most appealing solution for users. jplumbley, your proposed system of enabled Road Traffic to be added to the subway system, if it works, sounds perfect. However, this is only true if it would allow emergency vehicles and UDI to pass. If not, the puzzle pieces would still be the preferable solution, at least for me. If the fire fighters cannot pass, it's no solution for me ... ;)

Sorry for the length of the posting, but it's a summary.

Please, this is a technical discussion on NAM development. If you wish to comment on the Marrast underpasses, please do so in this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1121.0)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TopCliff on January 06, 2008, 03:18:59 PM
I love those underpasses!!! So much more realistic than the in-game tunnels. I can't wait for this to be released. Later.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SC4BOY on January 06, 2008, 03:35:52 PM
I LOVE!! Crissim's approach!! Go guys.. more super work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on January 06, 2008, 03:38:11 PM
Thank you, but Please, this is a technical discussion on NAM development. If you wish to comment on the Marrast underpasses, please do so in this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1121.0)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on January 06, 2008, 03:59:42 PM

Simply connecting two ramps is, of course, the most appealing solution for users. jplumbley, your proposed system of enabled Road Traffic to be added to the subway system, if it works, sounds perfect. However, this is only true if it would allow emergency vehicles and UDI to pass. If not, the puzzle pieces would still be the preferable solution, at least for me. If the fire fighters cannot pass, it's no solution for me ... ;)

To be totally honest, UDI is the last thing I am worried about.  I care more about the accuracy of the functionality before the UDI.  If it doesnt work properly, we will cause Simulator problems and if we cause Simulator problems thats the worst thing possible.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Mulefisk on January 06, 2008, 04:57:27 PM

Simply connecting two ramps is, of course, the most appealing solution for users. jplumbley, your proposed system of enabled Road Traffic to be added to the subway system, if it works, sounds perfect. However, this is only true if it would allow emergency vehicles and UDI to pass. If not, the puzzle pieces would still be the preferable solution, at least for me. If the fire fighters cannot pass, it's no solution for me ... ;)


Personally, I think that 2 ramps that could be connected by subway would make the underpasses vastly more functional and versatile than any puzzle piece system would allow. You could just base it off the same technology that blahdy uses in his Big Dig set.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 06, 2008, 05:02:56 PM
The technique that me and JPlumbley are experimenting on makes it so that cars travel through the BBD lots enter the Subway as cars travel along the subway as cars and exit as cars.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on January 06, 2008, 05:24:09 PM
I wish to encourage you to proceed with your experiments of car traffic to be added to the subway system. It sounds very appealing because of its simplicity for players. Please, can you clarify whether emergency vehicles will pass?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 06, 2008, 05:39:03 PM
Yes emergency vehicules, busses and frieght trucks will pass,
But this is still highly experimently and does not function 100% correctly as JPlumbley said.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on January 12, 2008, 01:21:44 PM
Hmm this is intresting discussion here for sure and I to would love to see how emergency vehical's can use this... I love to UDI for some strange reason lol... 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 18, 2008, 04:55:53 PM
Yet another random pic... ;)

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4384/glrwithcatenariesav6.jpg)

Unfortunately, I can't center frogface's catenaries properly, since they are rendered off-centered (and the LE won't allow props that overlap the lot more than 50%). But maybe someone can do something about that... :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: BigSlark on January 18, 2008, 05:00:44 PM
Amazing T21 work, Andreas!  :thumbsup:

Keep it up and I look forward to seeing more!

Cheers,
Kevin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TopCliff on January 18, 2008, 05:05:58 PM
Yet another random pic... ;)

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4384/glrwithcatenariesav6.jpg)

Unfortunately, I can't center frogface's catenaries properly, since they are rendered off-centered (and the LE won't allow props that overlap the lot more than 50%). But maybe someone can do something about that... :)

You . . . are . . . a . . . GOD!!! All your work is awesome. Pretty soon, you'll create an add-on that just lets us think of the perfect city and it appears on the screen. I can only wait for your next great leap forward.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 18, 2008, 07:53:24 PM
Hehe, thanks guys! :) And woohoo, another breakthrough - I was able to edit frogface's catenary prop manually, so I was able to place it properly:

(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9403/glrwithcatenaries2bm1.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TopCliff on January 18, 2008, 07:56:06 PM
I . . . I click on the thread, and I start hearing chant, and then . . . then a huge shaft of light that appears to grace your total awesomeness. I have but one thing to add . . .

HALLELUJAH!!!

Oh, and you rock.  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on January 18, 2008, 09:31:30 PM
this is great! i love how it looks. :thumbsup:
a pity the catenaires can't be made &mmm

mauricio.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 18, 2008, 09:57:04 PM
I kind of like the SFBT catenaries better.  ::)

But that's just me. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on January 18, 2008, 10:41:49 PM
i meant the cables can't be made &mmm

mauricio.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bwatterud on January 18, 2008, 10:56:44 PM
Kinda agree with SA there, but this is a great development in any case. 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 19, 2008, 05:29:29 AM
Well, maybe Kenworth can whip up some realistic tram catenaries - so far, I'm only recycling frogface's old ones. The SFBT rail catenaries won't really fit here, since they are too massive for a tram line.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bwatterud on January 19, 2008, 11:23:19 AM
I personally think that the SFBT cantenaries with the pole in the center would look really good on a tram line, but then again, I could be wrong.  It's happened before.   :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CasperVg on January 20, 2008, 05:43:16 AM
Those catenaries looks awesome!
I'm busy translating names of the Puzzlepieces from the NAM into Dutch atm. Boring work  /wrrd%&
Is it okay if do not use 'puzzlepiece' (puzzelstuk) in each name, it's very hard to translate that sometimes

EDIT: Do I need to translate this:
"To me, pavement is a wonderful thing - the hard smooth surface, the extreme heat on a summers day. But it can be costly to create and maintain. If you are looking to save a few simoleons you might consider <a href="#link_id#game.tool_plop_network(network_tool_types.DIRT_ROAD)">ANT Network[/url] as an alternative. There's something special about the bumpy ride and billows of dust that only an unpaved path can provide. And what a boon to our local car wash owners!"

Was this a suggestory message that the Traffic Advisor would give when Dirt Road would've been implemented by Maxis or so?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 20, 2008, 06:54:19 AM
Well, seeing as it refers to the Dirt Road network, rather than the new purpose we've given the ANT... I don't think it needs to be translated.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CasperVg on January 20, 2008, 08:26:33 AM
Whew, I just finished it.

I translated both NetworkAddonMod_locale_english.dat and RuralHighwayMod_locale_english.dat.
I renamed the finished ones to
z_NetworkAddonMod_locale_Dutch.dat and z_RuralHighwayMod_locale_Dutch.dat; this should make them override the default locale.dat's, thus showing the translation, right?

Every entry in both files was translated, except ^^. Some are really fluent Dutch, others lack fluency, because some terms are hard to translate (draggable & overpass, eg.)

EDIT: It works.

EDIT2: Added .zip with the translation. Depends on you what will happen to it
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 20, 2008, 01:02:15 PM
caspervg, thank you so much for the translation!   :thumbsup:  I'm sure the Dutch users will appreciate it. :)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 20, 2008, 01:25:00 PM
This is great news! Having translated the whole NAM myself, I know how tedious the work is - and you started from nothing, while I was able to do it gradually over the time.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on January 20, 2008, 03:42:06 PM
thank you casper, much appreciated, although i reinstallend and went to the Englisch version of the game ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 20, 2008, 04:15:02 PM
Quick question to the NAM team... Everyone is well aware of the unfortunate glitch that results in any on-slope puzzle piece to end up shaded incorrectly. It has been a personal frustration of my own for quite some time.

I've thought about it and was wondering. Is there any way to hack the model file so that you can have the pictures from two seperate models merged into one?

For instance, if we know the precise color modulation that the shadow function in SC4 produces, we can adjust the textures accordingly to produce and end-result that looks identical to the lighted sides. Then, you hack that color-modded piece in with the other pieces to give the whole model an identical texture when placed on the slope. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 20, 2008, 04:25:36 PM
Different models for different rotations?
One normal colour one a brighter texture?
It is possible although it would require at least twice the amount of puzzle pieces.
It's a good idea.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 20, 2008, 08:47:59 PM
Different models for different rotations?
One normal colour one a brighter texture?
It is possible although it would require at least twice the amount of puzzle pieces.
It's a good idea.

Not an entire set of two separate puzzle pieces. I'm talking about dissecting and reassembling the models so that there are two individual renderings in one puzzle set piece. So, for example, you have one puzzle piece for On-Slope Roads. All the various models that reflect normal light (i.e. not shadowed) stay the same. So, lets say that the north, east and south-facing puzzle pieces all appear normal in SC4. The west-facing puzzle piece is shadowed. The shadowed piece is extracted and replaced with the lighter textured model so that the whole set appears non-affected. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 21, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
Yes that does now,
I can not explain it fully as I don't have the time.
There is one main RUL section which defines everything about the puzzle piece. That section defines it without being rotated.
The other rotations are seperate puzzle piece RULs which copy the RUL section I said above but rotate it however many 90 deg is required. (rotate 90 = 1, rotate 180 (90x2) = 2, rotate 270 (90x3) = 3)
Therefore it should be possible to refer different models to different rotations but the models would have to be rotated manually, which shouldn't be a problem.
In other words it's possible and probably hasn't been done because noone has made lighter textures.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vester on January 21, 2008, 11:30:59 AM
Have been thinking of making some tram catenaries myself, I just miss some good pictures of it.
Well Serkanner have provide me some, but could use some more pictures.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 21, 2008, 11:53:13 AM
Yes that does now,
I can not explain it fully as I don't have the time.
There is one main RUL section which defines everything about the puzzle piece. That section defines it without being rotated.
The other rotations are seperate puzzle piece RULs which copy the RUL section I said above but rotate it however many 90 deg is required. (rotate 90 = 1, rotate 180 (90x2) = 2, rotate 270 (90x3) = 3)
Therefore it should be possible to refer different models to different rotations but the models would have to be rotated manually, which shouldn't be a problem.
In other words it's possible and probably hasn't been done because noone has made lighter textures.

Well, all we need for sure is a general idea of how the shadowing affects the color of the texture. It should be a simple formula, only moving the RGB values a bit towards the dark end of the spectrum... I could fiddle around with a picture of the lighted ramp piece to get a good guess of what needs to be done to the values to make it appear shaded.

Then, all we need to do is shift the original textures the opposite way to figure out what they need to be pre-render.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: flame1396 on January 21, 2008, 12:23:22 PM
Yeah but the puzzle pieces all show it, visible only on 2 rotations. So lightening it would cause a problem on the other end... why not just remove the shadows and see if that changes something - I'd be willing to give up the shadows...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 21, 2008, 12:46:51 PM
After actually looking in game haveing different textures would not work as if you rotate the camera the pieces that were previously fine now have that glitch.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 21, 2008, 01:04:01 PM
Have been thinking of making some tram catenaries myself, I just miss some good pictures of it.
Well Serkanner have provide me some, but could use some more pictures.

I will forward your request to SimForum - there are quite a few tram nuts there. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Heblem on January 21, 2008, 01:14:20 PM
Hope is not a problem to announce this new mod i've made...
(http://descargas.capitalsim.net/images/bat/882_2.jpg)
The picture explains it  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 21, 2008, 01:23:38 PM
I would download that in 2 seconds flat (if I could) :thumbsup:
Awesome work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TopCliff on January 21, 2008, 01:26:46 PM
A-W-E-S-O-M-E!!! You really need to be on the NAM Team.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: N1_2888 on January 21, 2008, 01:29:52 PM
@ vester:

The so-called "Florianerbahn" in Upper Austria:
http://xover.mud.at/~tramway/fotokiste/image.php/Florianerbahn3.jpg?group=stadtverkehr-austria-fotos&msg=8574&att=3

1977, Vienna 2nd district:
http://www.bahnforum.info/mkportal/modules/gallery/album/a_8764.jpg

Outskirts of Vienna - 60s:
http://xover.mud.at/~tramway/fotokiste/image.php/Br%26uuml%3Bnner%20Stra%26szlig%3Be.jpg?group=stadtverkehr-austria-fotos&msg=4870&att=1

Vienna, about 1930:
http://xover.mud.at/~tramway/fotokiste/image.php/Mast%201.jpg?group=stadtverkehr-austria-fotos&msg=4871&att=2

About 1905:
http://xover.mud.at/~tramway/fotokiste/image.php/Mast%202.jpg?group=stadtverkehr-austria-fotos&msg=4871&att=1
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on January 21, 2008, 01:35:10 PM
Heblem: Fantastic work!  I have been waiting for something like this for quite a while.

I REALLY like what you have done to the road tool stub (1x1).  Turing it into a parking lot is very useful!

Also, the 90 degree road conner with streets intersecting, up to now, was only included with the Euro-road textures mod, and was something I always wanted with the standard road texture.

This texture fix is a work of art.  All I can say about it is... WOW!

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 21, 2008, 01:41:00 PM
Turning the 1x1 road stub into a parking lot is simply ingenious indeed. Even if it's only eyecandy, I could think of many situations where this comes in handy. Nice work on the transitions as well, the look a whole lot better than the ones by Maxis!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 21, 2008, 01:43:04 PM
You know if you could make a LHD version ( the little stop lines at the + intersections) That would be more than awesome
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on January 21, 2008, 01:45:59 PM
it would indeed be more awesomerer than it already is... thats just brilliant. Thankyou

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nardo69 on January 21, 2008, 01:58:39 PM
Vester, Andreas posted over at simforum.de you need some catenary pics

Here are some more tramway catenaries photos from me:

Istanbul, steel pipes:

(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7477/img1613yn2.th.jpg) (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1613yn2.jpg)

Ettlingen, close to Karlsruhe, Germany, concrete

(http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5605/img1030jx9.th.jpg) (http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1030jx9.jpg)

(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/315/img1027hl6.th.jpg) (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1027hl6.jpg)

(http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/425/img1036po6.th.jpg) (http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1036po6.jpg)

In General modern tramway catenaries are similar to heavy railway catenaries. The biggest difference is that most heavy railways use high voltage AC (15-25 kV) thus have rather large isolators. Tramway catenaries and wires are rather close to housings etc. because of this they use DC with lower voltage (usually 500-1000V). Because of this they have rather small isolators.

In addition to this tramway speed in Germany is limited to 60 km/h, because of this tramway catenaries have more simple mechanical parts.

Hope I could help.

Bernhard  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: N1_2888 on January 21, 2008, 02:00:30 PM
Another link:
http://www.sedlacek-modellstrassenbahnen.at/galerie/details.php?image_id=27&sessionid=4260ff55c232d97a59748f656caa8ece
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on January 21, 2008, 04:35:26 PM
Also, the 90 degree road conner with streets intersecting, up to now, was only included with the Euro-road textures mod, and was something I always wanted with the standard road texture.

I'd also requested that way back in the day on a ST thread. Someone posted a quick file that I'm still using, but it kind of fell off the radar. Having that included (and the rest, which are awesome work) would be great, especially if someone knocks those streetlights off and puts a stop sign on the second street. Definitely need versions for the RTLs, those yellow crosswalks are just ugly!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Heblem on January 21, 2008, 04:41:10 PM
Well if you want that little mod you can download here:
http://descargas.capitalsim.net/?sitio=csc&descarga=882

Probably i could make more texture fixes, including to the RHW textures...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on January 22, 2008, 05:26:44 AM
 &apls

Nice work Heblem... Now do them for the SAM...  :P

I would make one suggestion, and that is to edit the T21's to remove the traffic lights from the intersections where you have edited the crossing.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Heblem on January 22, 2008, 10:06:29 AM
&apls

Nice work Heblem... Now do them for the SAM...  :P

I would make one suggestion, and that is to edit the T21's to remove the traffic lights from the intersections where you have edited the crossing.

Good Idea i'll try that, thanks  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 22, 2008, 12:40:24 PM
After actually looking in game haveing different textures would not work as if you rotate the camera the pieces that were previously fine now have that glitch.

But that's what I'm saying. You take the one piece that looks correct and replace the one that has the glitch in the current mod. That's why I said "hack" the models or whatever, because when you render one set, they are all bunched into one set of four views at five different zooms for a total of 20 images. You take out five from the altered model and replace the ugly ones with them.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on January 22, 2008, 01:46:35 PM
But that's what I'm saying. You take the one piece that looks correct and replace the one that has the glitch in the current mod. That's why I said "hack" the models or whatever, because when you render one set, they are all bunched into one set of four views at five different zooms for a total of 20 images. You take out five from the altered model and replace the ugly ones with them.

I'm going to experiment with your idea a bit, to see if it will work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 22, 2008, 01:56:41 PM
But that's what I'm saying. You take the one piece that looks correct and replace the one that has the glitch in the current mod. That's why I said "hack" the models or whatever, because when you render one set, they are all bunched into one set of four views at five different zooms for a total of 20 images. You take out five from the altered model and replace the ugly ones with them.

What Warrior is alluding to is the fact that there is actually only one model for that piece, used in all rotations and all zoom-levels, so there is, in effect, no way to fix this issue. ;) 

Transit models (aside from bridges) are an entirely different beast than standard BAT models.  Instead of being composed of a composite of isometric faces (which is what happens to BAT models upon render), they are true 3-dimensional models, so the same model is used in all rotations, and sometimes, all zoom levels.  They exist in this form because of the way in which the game handles transit models--otherwise, they will be distorted upon rotation and have missing parts. 

A lot of the pieces in the NAM aren't rendered through standard processes either (they can't be), and some of the pieces are actually generated entirely through mathematical means, from a series of coordinates entered into the "Vert" tab in the Reader. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Godzillaman on January 22, 2008, 04:46:31 PM
Just a question, when you made the elevated rail station into a heavy rail station, did you purposely make the lot on the straight version 2x1?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 22, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
Yes, that was done on purpose. Since the original model does not have viaduct props, plopping the lot would have created a gap in the rail viaduct with the size of the lot. Actually, the gap is still there, but only two tiles long - and hidded by the curved roof. Some custom path files ensure that the train automata doesn't "fall" down on ground level in that area, that's why you have to drag a short stretch of rail inside the station in order to activate the paths.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Godzillaman on January 22, 2008, 05:30:02 PM
Ah...thanks for clearing that up. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 22, 2008, 06:36:51 PM
What Warrior is alluding to is the fact that there is actually only one model for that piece, used in all rotations and all zoom-levels, so there is, in effect, no way to fix this issue. ;) 

Transit models (aside from bridges) are an entirely different beast than standard BAT models.  Instead of being composed of a composite of isometric faces (which is what happens to BAT models upon render), they are true 3-dimensional models, so the same model is used in all rotations, and sometimes, all zoom levels.  They exist in this form because of the way in which the game handles transit models--otherwise, they will be distorted upon rotation and have missing parts. 

A lot of the pieces in the NAM aren't rendered through standard processes either (they can't be), and some of the pieces are actually generated entirely through mathematical means, from a series of coordinates entered into the "Vert" tab in the Reader. 

-Alex (Tarkus)

So the model can only point to one set of textures?

If the NAM transit model is merely a set of vertices that the program uses to define the area and shape of the transit piece, then a separate set of pieces altogether (with a lighter texture) might work, wouldn't it? Such a set would merely consist of on-slope and some ramped (rail to el) pieces.

Sorry, the on-ramp pieces have been a major nuisance of mine and the only true gripe I have ever had with the awesome product that is the NAM.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 22, 2008, 11:12:13 PM
So the model can only point to one set of textures?

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.

Quote
If the NAM transit model is merely a set of vertices that the program uses to define the area and shape of the transit piece, then a separate set of pieces altogether (with a lighter texture) might work, wouldn't it? Such a set would merely consist of on-slope and some ramped (rail to el) pieces.

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. 

Quote
Sorry, the on-ramp pieces have been a major nuisance of mine and the only true gripe I have ever had with the awesome product that is the NAM.

It 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)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 23, 2008, 06:27:26 AM
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?

Quote
It 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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on January 23, 2008, 09:59:11 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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 23, 2008, 11:41:34 AM
how about an over hanging puzzle piece?
It's possible to have a AutoPathBase so the paths could be implemented properly.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 23, 2008, 12:14:07 PM
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.

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!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 23, 2008, 02:14:47 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 (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 (http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 23, 2008, 02:31:22 PM
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpg (http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/newonslope.jpg)

Fixed that link for ya. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 23, 2008, 05:49:58 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 (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 (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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 24, 2008, 06:40:54 AM
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.

(http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8760/orthelnwxorthrdsej6.th.jpg) (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orthelnwxorthrdsej6.jpg) (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9040/orthelnwxdiagrdssn0.th.jpg) (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=orthelnwxdiagrdssn0.jpg) (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/6011/diagelnwxdiagrdswb2.th.jpg) (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diagelnwxdiagrdswb2.jpg) (http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9199/diagelnwxorthrdsnr2.th.jpg) (http://img148.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diagelnwxorthrdsnr2.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 24, 2008, 11:27:26 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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 25, 2008, 07:54:29 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.
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1482/nammodelsaq5.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nammodelsaq5.jpg)
NAM's Diagonal Street and Highway x Avenue Roundabout were done. And I've started tweaking the S3D files in NetworkAddonMod1.dat.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on January 25, 2008, 09:16:07 AM
@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. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 25, 2008, 12:48:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 25, 2008, 01:41:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on January 25, 2008, 03:33:26 PM
Those textures look splendid, ebina! Fantastic job, my friend!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 25, 2008, 11:51:39 PM
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.
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/schm01978/normal_15m_slopes_with_t_section-1.jpg)

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.
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/schm01978/alternative_15m_slopes_over_2_ti-1.jpg)

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... :)


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 26, 2008, 02:08:43 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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 26, 2008, 09:46:02 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 (http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=42&threadid=84518&highlight_key=y&keyword1=slope)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on January 26, 2008, 10:01:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on January 26, 2008, 01:12:15 PM
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!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: beebs on January 26, 2008, 02:18:25 PM
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..

(http://www.exodusforums.com/images/CJ/redriver/hmm.jpg)
This is what I've got so far (meant to be an interchange under construction, somewhat).

(http://www.exodusforums.com/images/ultimately.jpg)
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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on January 26, 2008, 02:37:52 PM
Cool detour, beebs.

I haven't gotten into the MIS/RHW world really deeply yet, but doesn't the RHW-2 have an exit/entrance ramp?  You could replace the stretch of two-lane road under the bridge with RHW-2 and stagger the ramps (I don't recall seeing anything yet where the ramps diverge symmetrically on each side from RHW-2).  Of course, I may just be dreaming about what I want.  Also, alas, we're not quite yet to where RHW can cross over RHW on a bridge, so whatever you do it'll still be a bit kludgy for a while.

Good luck!


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: beebs on January 26, 2008, 03:05:34 PM
Aha, you're a genius.. I can use the RHW-2 to join up the MIS pieces and come together to make just a single intersection on the road. Not quite what I was hoping for, but still looks pretty good. ;) I also played around and discovered that the RHW-2 will connect seamlessly with roads.. so I can keep the interchange setup I have at the moment and switch to the RHW for the secondary highway! Oh happy days! ;D

(http://www.exodusforums.com/images/hmm2.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 26, 2008, 05:34:28 PM
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!

I plan on making a sunken RHW with a three-tile wide barrier on either side to test it out... getting the slopes to look just right is very difficult, though. Without making my own slope mod (which I've thought about doing) I don't think there's an easier way. I'm thinking of making something similar to this, which I found in one of Mulefisk's posts. (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=140.msg8920#msg8920)

I am also thinking about contacting Tarkus to see if it's possible to implement some sloped MIS-looking exit ramps with a sheer wall on one side, so that I can place it directly next to an existing parallel network. The RHW and NAM teams have talked about revamping the Maxis highways, which I really think would help make the NAM complete. A MIS exit ramp module for the Maxis highways would be the ultimate dream for me! :)

I would love to eventually acheive something like this:

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/schm01978/exit_ramp_begin.jpg)

Look like the RHW exit ramp to you? :)

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/schm01978/exit_ramp_merge.jpg)

It's this kind of connection to an existing network that I'm looking for.

(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/schm01978/exit_ramp_whole.jpg)

Here's an overall shot. This is from I-696, a local highway here in the Metro Detroit area. It's probably the fastest stretch of highway in all of metro or urban Detroit, and it's sunken, which I love. 20-30 foot walls line the sides until it pulls out of the more dense areas of the city. Eventually, it turns into something similar to the RHW-6, but it has 5 lanes on each side. :)

If I could realistically recreate that exit ramp, my life would be complete.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on January 26, 2008, 07:41:12 PM
schm0!  Wh0a!

You're a Transit G0d!

Wh0 knew?

This place is s0 great!


david
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on January 26, 2008, 09:02:15 PM
schm0: I think I understand what you're trying to do! I agree with you, too, if a way can be found to make exit ramps for sunken RHW highways, I will be a very happy person! That might actually be the only thing that's stopping me from going 100% RHW in my cities.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 26, 2008, 09:57:24 PM
schm0!  Wh0a!

You're a Transit G0d!

Wh0 knew?

This place is s0 great!


david


W0ah...:)

...all I did was suggest a few ideas and show what it would look like with two tiles on either side of a highway. Credit needs to be given to the NAM team, the RHW team, and most definately ebina and Warrior for their recent developments. Hopefully, Tarkus and the rest of the NAM team are looking to include such techniques in the next version. I haven't even begun developing anything... but hopefully that will soon change.

I'm excited that the texture glitch has been solved in some puzzle pieces, but to do it for all of them would be fantastic. I'll see if there's something I can throw together, but I'll warn everyone beforehand, this is not my forte.

Anyone know where I can find the textures for the RHW MIS exits?

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 26, 2008, 11:10:20 PM
Well, the ramp textures are all in the RuralHighwayMod.dat file, and they can be extracted fairly easily with SC4Tool.  I have the non-broken up ones sitting in around as well, though James (rickmastfan67) is re-working all of my prototypes so they match up better with his fine texture set.  I'm thinking of how best we could implement this sort of thing--it's possible that we could T21 a jersey barrier onto the outside shoulder of the RHW-8S. (That's one way to make an RHW look urban ;)). It can also be "wealth-enabled", such that it will appear when retaining walls are plopped, though you could also have the jersey barrier included in the retaining wall lot as well.

Is there a grade separation between the mainline and (what appears to be) the C/D lanes?  We've had some requests to do a version of Ramp Style A that would have the MIS ramp starting another tile out away from the mainline, and that's something that could be implemented here for that purpose.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 26, 2008, 11:38:33 PM
I haven't gotten into the MIS/RHW world really deeply yet, but doesn't the RHW-2 have an exit/entrance ramp?

Only with the MIS Splitter piece so far.

However, I do plan on getting default RHW-2 MIS Off/On ramps completed and ready for v21. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 27, 2008, 05:03:46 AM
@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. :)
I think so, too. I have edited about 1,000 S3D files. About 700 of those are from the NAM, integrating this to the NAM would be better to avoid a complication.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: schm0 on January 27, 2008, 10:05:15 AM
Well, the ramp textures are all in the RuralHighwayMod.dat file, and they can be extracted fairly easily with SC4Tool.  I have the non-broken up ones sitting in around as well, though James (rickmastfan67) is re-working all of my prototypes so they match up better with his fine texture set.  I'm thinking of how best we could implement this sort of thing--it's possible that we could T21 a jersey barrier onto the outside shoulder of the RHW-8S. (That's one way to make an RHW look urban ;)). It can also be "wealth-enabled", such that it will appear when retaining walls are plopped, though you could also have the jersey barrier included in the retaining wall lot as well.

On the outside shoulder of the RHW-8S? Or the inside shoulder between the two opposing sides?

Is James the one responsible for tidying up the pieces graphically in all previous versions?

And Tarkus: the main question I really had was if it was possible to create a ploppable lot that is ramped and transit enabled, so that not only will it carry traffic off the RHW and onto a parallel network, but also appear in such a way?
Quote
Is there a grade separation between the mainline and (what appears to be) the C/D lanes?  We've had some requests to do a version of Ramp Style A that would have the MIS ramp starting another tile out away from the mainline, and that's something that could be implemented here for that purpose.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Yes. The ramp exits to the left, and slowly inclines to the adjoining service drive. Well, "service drive" is what we call them here in Michigan.

The pictures I posted previously, being overhead shots, do not give the retaining walls of this highway justice... from the side it kinda looks like this:
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/4/45/Conestoga.jpg)

The ramp itself looks something like this:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2322/2215654323_e9a165f4ee.jpg?v=0)

(In this picture, the actual ramp is partially obscured, but the ramp on the left is what I'm aiming for. I searched for about 30 minutes before finding a picture of what I am trying to achieve.)
Something similar to this can be found on the STEX (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=17489) (but these can only be flat), or perhaps an opposite version of  Marrast's M-Tel lots  (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=16688)(going upwards instead of downwards.) What I'm thinking of will most certainly need to be BATed (because it's sloped, not flat) and I don't even know how you'd begin to get cars to appear on the top of it... *sigh*

Does that clear it up?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shiftred on January 27, 2008, 11:31:11 AM
Here are the images from my file on the stex schmO has been linking to. (I am Bluepelican31 on Simtropolis). :satisfied:

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/SC4%20Bridges/viaduct/viaductexample.jpg)

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/SC4%20Bridges/viaduct/viaductexample2.jpg)

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/SC4%20Bridges/viaduct/viaductitworks.jpg)

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/SC4%20Bridges/viaduct/viaductitworks2.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 28, 2008, 07:56:03 AM
Today's is not the Overpass Update Mod. Darkened the avenue curve piece's textures in same way.
(http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3042/namavecurvedarkenedlx9.th.jpg) (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=namavecurvedarkenedlx9.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 28, 2008, 08:49:36 AM
ebina: it's possible that I'll redo those avenue curve pieces so they look better and are of a consistent width. It shouldn't take me too long to do.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: xannepan on January 28, 2008, 09:00:39 AM
ebina: it's possible that I'll redo those avenue curve pieces so they look better and are of a consistent width. It shouldn't take me too long to do.

Great work what I see here!  &apls  &apls One small request: is it possible with to create the curved (avenue/road) pieces in such way that a roundabout can be created with them (connecting to normal road/avenues at 4 corners where the 4 curved pieces (rotated) come together?)


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 28, 2008, 08:44:11 PM
Shadow Assassin: OK. I'll keep this one for my own use until your new one came out.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 29, 2008, 04:45:35 PM
It should be alright for you to release the new darkened pieces, because RL is kind of getting in the way here - which means that it'll probably be a while [even though it'd take me half an hour to do both textures].
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sffc on February 27, 2008, 05:56:45 PM
I am creating alternate textures for the road roundabouts, with the only difference being that I remove the crosswalks, as they make the roundabouts look "boxy."  I have attained the IDs of four of the transit network entries.  However, there are several IDs which I cannot find.

Here are the textures that I have replaced (I may improve them a bit more):
(http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/attachments//finished%2Epng)

And here are the ones that I need the IDs for:
(http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/attachments//needed%2Epng)

Thank you in advance.

Edit: You can not hotlink images from some sites ;)  -jeronij-
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on February 27, 2008, 06:03:24 PM
Pictures did not show up for me.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on February 27, 2008, 06:12:35 PM
neither for me siiiiiiigh...

ok here we go i gotten them figured out....

(http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7669/newroundabout1gv6.jpg)

(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4475/newroundaboutsq2.jpg)

converted to JPG and uploaded to imageshack ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on February 27, 2008, 06:30:44 PM
Thanks pat ... Looking good, sffc.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on February 27, 2008, 06:34:15 PM
I am creating alternate textures for the road roundabouts, with the only difference being that I remove the crosswalks, as they make the roundabouts look "boxy."  I have attained the IDs of four of the transit network entries.  However, there are several IDs which I cannot find.

I think it might be easier to find the IDs if you download the Euro Road Texture Mod, then you don't have to look in various files, but only in the "zzz1_NAM_Euro_Textures_Roundabouts.dat".
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 27, 2008, 06:46:09 PM
Alternately, all of them are also located in the NetworkAddonMod_Roundabouts_Roads_Plugin.dat file, which should be in your Network Addon Mod\Plugins folder. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sffc on February 27, 2008, 07:06:31 PM
Thank you all for your quick responses, and thank you Pat for transferring the images!

Tarkus: I checked "NetworkAddonMod_Roundabouts_Roads_Plugin.dat" to get the IDs for the four I have already completed.  That's why I'm confused of why I can't seem to find the textures that I have pictured (and that Pat has converted; they're on page 17 of this thread).

Andreas: Where do you get "zzz1_NAM_Euro_Textures_Roundabouts.dat"?  And also, would that file contain the IDs for the one-way road entering the roundabout knowing that the regular "NetworkAddonMod_Roundabouts_Roads_Plugin.dat" does not?

Again, thank you for your responses.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on February 28, 2008, 03:07:05 AM
Andreas: Where do you get "zzz1_NAM_Euro_Textures_Roundabouts.dat"?  And also, would that file contain the IDs for the one-way road entering the roundabout knowing that the regular "NetworkAddonMod_Roundabouts_Roads_Plugin.dat" does not?

The file should be contained in this download: http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=93 There are several roundabout plugins that come with the NAM, but for the ERTM, I put them into one DAT, so I thought it might be easier to look up the IDs in that file.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Starmanw402007 on February 28, 2008, 11:54:48 AM
Good Stuff Pat, Keep those updates coming. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on February 28, 2008, 11:57:19 AM
LoL all I did Starman was convert the STpng Img to Jpg and uploaded those pics from SFFC to imageshack thats all I did, but thank you for the compliment Starman...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sffc on February 28, 2008, 06:11:19 PM
Andreas:  Thank you!  I found the IDs I needed! &apls I should be posting the completed textures in the form of a mod fairly soon.  Again, thanks for your advice!  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on March 01, 2008, 11:12:44 PM
sffc I cant wait to see the completed version!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Starmanw402007 on March 02, 2008, 04:05:52 PM
Pat, great work on the round abouts and rails. Those photos look awesome! Keep those updates coming! :) :thumbsup: .
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sffc on March 03, 2008, 08:15:00 PM
<p>I have finished!  Find the Road Roundabout Texture Mod on the STEX.  If you would like me to post it on the LEX, just reply, and I can start my candidacy.  Here are some pictures (the picture server is being a little sluggish, so it might take a while for them to load):</p>
<p>(http://www.stex-server.com/lots/sffc/sffc_road%20roundabout%20texture%20mod/screenshot1%2Ejpg) (http://www.stex-server.com/lots/sffc/sffc_road%20roundabout%20texture%20mod/screenshot2%2Ejpg)</p>
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 09, 2008, 08:24:34 PM
Working on a couple new interchange models.  Please let me know what you guys think.  Also, could someone tell me what the acceptable size for a jpeg is (hosted from imageshack).  I tried uploading these pictures on Simtropolis and they got deleted.  Anyway, your feedback would be highly appreciated.  Realism is the idea here.

First model to report is the lofthouse interchange.  While it doesn't add any functionality to the game, it is my first model and really was just a practice run to get me acquainted with 3dsmax.  However, I would like to eventually make it functional using that intersection guide from Redlotus.
(http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/3789/lofthouseinterchange1bx5.th.jpg) (http://img519.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lofthouseinterchange1bx5.jpg)

The second model was a little easier to model simply because I knew more about what I was doing.  It needs no explanation as you all have been talking about it for ever.  For those who don't know, it is a trumpet interchange.  This one, unlike the lofthouse interchange that I produced, will add functionality to the game as it is a diagonalxorthagonal T (or I guess y) interchange.
(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3897/trumpetinterchangefy5.th.jpg) (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trumpetinterchangefy5.jpg)

Again, please let me know what you guys think.  Constructive criticism is welcomed.  I am done with the trumpet model and ready to cut it into cubes.  The lofthouse interchange needs some work.  Thanks.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on March 09, 2008, 09:48:52 PM
Those are both very interesting.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jonoboo on March 10, 2008, 07:15:19 AM
I have something like that lofthouse interchange near me (from 4 lane to 2 lane though). heres a picture to help you, the slip roads do need to be longer :)
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3042/77548036ne3.th.jpg) (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=77548036ne3.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 10, 2008, 12:34:27 PM
A roundabout over sunken highway was somewhere on my to-do list after I made the roundabout under highway.

Awesome models andreharv, could really use them in the NAM, I think the last picture you showed has been requested since 2004/5
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Crissa on March 10, 2008, 06:34:41 PM
It's awesome to see the interchange work again ^-^

-Crissa
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: carling on March 12, 2008, 01:22:45 PM
The second model was a little easier to model simply because I knew more about what I was doing.  It needs no explanation as you all have been talking about it for ever.  For those who don't know, it is a trumpet interchange.  This one, unlike the lofthouse interchange that I produced, will add functionality to the game as it is a diagonalxorthagonal T (or I guess y) interchange.


(http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3897/trumpetinterchangefy5.th.jpg) (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trumpetinterchangefy5.jpg)

Again, please let me know what you guys think.  Constructive criticism is welcomed.  I am done with the trumpet model and ready to cut it into cubes.  The lofthouse interchange needs some work.  Thanks.


i would like to see this intechange in the mod as i have a city that needs this.

would it be possible to make one on a corner.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 12, 2008, 02:26:01 PM
What do you mean?  Like an orthagonal T intersection?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: carling on March 12, 2008, 03:45:19 PM
What do you mean?  Like an orthagonal T intersection?

yes that is what i mean


edit added picture

(http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4195/interchangehk8.jpg)
By <a target="_new" href="http://profile.imageshack.us/user/graem007">graem007[/url] at 2008-03-12
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on March 12, 2008, 04:21:43 PM
I'd like to see a ground, and evelvated Y intersection. I'm even willing to do the model, if it would help.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 12, 2008, 04:29:46 PM
I don't understand this orth T section (I know what orth means)?
If you mean a highway Y intersection like the avenue Y intersection in the NAM at the moment all it needs is some changes to the avenue Y intersection and it becomes a ground highway Y intersection.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 13, 2008, 12:15:00 AM
RebaLynnTS and Warrior:
I am going to make an elevated lofthouse Y interchange.  I don't know if I can use the files already in the NAM to make a highway ground Y interchange...I guess I should try it.

Carling:
I am a bit confused by your last post.  A orthagonal is simply the opposite of diagonal (it means straight).  The picture that you included simply shows a curve (a junction between diagonal highway and orthagonal highway).  If I can take a guess, it seems as though you want a Y interchange, which would have a highway branching out to the southeast (if we are looking at the picture you attached).


Quick update:  I have cut the model into LODs and I am trying to render them in gmax.  It looks like a few pieces are giving me error code=6.  I know that this is a broad error but I was wondering if someone might have a valid opinion of this.

(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2905/code6cz7.th.jpg) (http://img255.imageshack.us/my.php?image=code6cz7.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: carling on March 13, 2008, 05:17:27 AM

Carling:
I am a bit confused by your last post.  A orthagonal is simply the opposite of diagonal (it means straight).  The picture that you included simply shows a curve (a junction between diagonal highway and orthagonal highway).  If I can take a guess, it seems as though you want a Y interchange, which would have a highway branching out to the southeast (if we are looking at the picture you attached).

yes thats right but with restricted access on and off ramps like the m6 m61 interchange in the uk i have a picture if needed.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 13, 2008, 05:08:18 PM
I see what you are saying now...like a highway merger piece.  Well it sounds like a good idea but I think I would want to reserve that thought until they did more work with the 4 tile wide highway (if they are still working on it).  The interchange you mentioned is a perfect example of this.  The M6 starts out as 8 lanes but divides into the 6 lane M6 and 5 lane M61.  I think the RHW team is developing a functional 8 lane highway now.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 13, 2008, 05:42:12 PM
Quote
I see what you are saying now...
Glad someone does ;)
Just curious to see how a Orth  T intersection is on a diagonal.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on March 23, 2008, 07:25:40 PM
Happy Easter! ;D

Now I want to reveal some of the secretiveness of the last time by showing some of my newest additions that will hopefully be included in the NAM soon. :)

Firstly, I made some bugfixes, such as these annoying visual glitches of diagonal streets. In fact, it was already possible to avoid these issues using the diagonal street puzzle pieces. But regarding several screenshots, it seems that the users often don't make use of them. So I thought it was the time to fix that bug overall. ;)

(http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1301/capture20080131163315blt3.jpg)

Then I also improved some not so good looking (IMO) models of puzzle pieces. On the one hand, the transition between EL-Rail and GLR now has a more uniformly sloped model.

(http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4334/capture20080210000628mo4.jpg)

On the other hand, the EL-Rail over Road pieces got new supports.

(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/952/capture20080319170755od3.jpg)

We noticed that the rail tracks were actually hovering about 3 meters above the supports before. :D
Though, you should know that these were only minor changes and weren't much work.


Finally, I even managed to make a new puzzle piece for a long GroundHighway curve. This one, however, was far more work though. Get the model and paths working etc..

(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7900/capture20080309180526du8.jpg)

I'm sorry, this picture isn't totally up to date, but I think it will do. It's finished by now and works correctly. Now I hope we can compile a new NAM soon so as not to withhold these things from you. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: toxicpiano on March 23, 2008, 08:22:39 PM
It all looks magnificent!  &apls &apls &apls

Will there be an elevated highway curve?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on March 23, 2008, 08:44:21 PM
Magnificent, memo! Absolutely magnificent!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on March 23, 2008, 08:46:08 PM
Wonderful work, keep it up.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on March 23, 2008, 09:04:22 PM
Wow, just awesome stuff memo!  I especially like the ground highway curve!

I have two quick questions about it though, if you don't mind me asking:
1.  Will the asphalt highway texture work on this puzzle piece?  If not, may I request one?
2.  Is this also possible for the elevated highway? 

Thanks for your time.

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tropod on March 23, 2008, 09:39:30 PM
Abandonment Addition Proposal:
After I don't know how long, the abandonment issue has always been a problem for many many players since day 1 of SimCity. And it continues to do so.
I would like to propose a discussion here about the possibility of adding an Abandonment Plugin, most likely integrated within another Plugin/file.
Specifically: Building Development TGI ID: 6534284A / E7E2C2DB / E8DA7677 (file is currently in circulation - if anyone has any sort of list, that'd be great. I know it's currently in circulation from ST, by Ralpaels Abandonment Dilapidation Modd 1.2). And possibly, other additional files.
Despite the NAM docs pointing out that the TrafficPlugins won't remove Abandonment, users are still bent on it supposedly achieving this outcome. It's only because of a lack of understanding on players part, mainly due to the games (intended) design, that people continue to have this problem & continue to perceive that (current) NAM changes/additions is suppose to address this, when they start having abandonment problems.

So I would like to propose that we provide NAM users additional content by way of Abandonment plugin.
Any comments, feedback, pros, cons, thoughts, possible settings etc. Please feel free to fire away.


Myself personally, I use a personally modified version of the file (in conjunction with other, stuff/files). And while my playing style helps, I rarely ever have a problem.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jplumbley on March 23, 2008, 11:12:48 PM
Abandonment Addition Proposal:
After I don't know how long, the abandonment issue has always been a problem for many many players since day 1 of SimCity. And it continues to do so.
I would like to propose a discussion here about the possibility of adding an Abandonment Plugin, most likely integrated within another Plugin/file.
Specifically: Building Development TGI ID: 6534284A / E7E2C2DB / E8DA7677 (file is currently in circulation - if anyone has any sort of list, that'd be great. I know it's currently in circulation from ST, by Ralpaels Abandonment Dilapidation Modd 1.2). And possibly, other additional files.
Despite the NAM docs pointing out that the TrafficPlugins won't remove Abandonment, users are still bent on it supposedly achieving this outcome. It's only because of a lack of understanding on players part, mainly due to the games (intended) design, that people continue to have this problem & continue to perceive that (current) NAM changes/additions is suppose to address this, when they start having abandonment problems.

So I would like to propose that we provide NAM users additional content by way of Abandonment plugin.
Any comments, feedback, pros, cons, thoughts, possible settings etc. Please feel free to fire away.


Myself personally, I use a personally modified version of the file (in conjunction with other, stuff/files). And while my playing style helps, I rarely ever have a problem.


Actually... I dont think this is the greatest idea.  The CAM actually addresses this and uses a modified Ralpaels Abandonment Dilapidation Modd 1.2 if Im not mistaken.  If we were to include a NAM version of this it would cause a conflicting file with the CAM one.  I think Ripplejet should weigh in on this a bit more.

The thing is there is absolutely no way to prevent all abandonment.  Although, if you have the CAM and one of the new Traffic Simulators by myself and Mott installed this *theoretically* should reduce the amount of abandonment in your city.  But, remember alot of abandonment will have to do with the play style of the user and not the simulation of the game.  We have tuned it to be the best we can in both situations.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marcszar on March 23, 2008, 11:56:33 PM
Awesome work Memo!  :thumbsup:

I especially love the new el-rail support pieces! (Should blend in perfectly now with the regular el-rail.) The GLR-El-Rail transition was much needed too!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RippleJet on March 24, 2008, 04:23:01 AM
Actually... I dont think this is the greatest idea.  The CAM actually addresses this and uses a modified Ralpaels Abandonment Dilapidation Modd 1.2 if Im not mistaken.  If we were to include a NAM version of this it would cause a conflicting file with the CAM one.  I think Ripplejet should weigh in on this a bit more.

CAM 1.0 does not include the Building Development Exemplar (0x6534284A, 0xE7E2C2DB, 0xE8DA7677).
However, CAM 1.1 will include it.

The reason for this is the need to increase the max value in the property Construction Resources Min/Max.
For CAM 1.1 we are currently looking at increasing this from 0x5000 to 0x6000.

CAM does not include Ralphael's Abandonment Mod where the Lot Developer Stay New Time property has been given a value ranging between 0x016D (365 days) and 0xFFFF (65,535 days ≈ 180 years).

However, CAM does include the abandonment reduction mod by bones1 that increases the Desirability Threshold Growth property for §§ and §§§ in the RCI Developer Exemplars (0x6534284A, 0x67CD5FA1, 0x0000____). This won't stop abandonment, but will keep higher wealth buildings from appearing in areas where the desirability only barely would support them, and thus leads to fewer abandonded or dilapidated buildings.

Since dilapidation and abandonment is the only way for a higher wealth lot to redevelop as a lower wealth lot, and since both CAM and NAM today aim at improving the simulation of real cities, I don't think Ralphael's Abandonment Mod should be included as such. At least not the 180 year version... If a version of it were to be included, it would have to be included in CAM.

However, I really don't see the need for not allowing a building to abandon if e.g. all roads to work have been cut off. In such a case abandonment is a good way of alerting the player that something is wrong, and needs the attention of the mayor...

Since Ralphael's No Dilapidation Mod (included in the Abandonment Mod) is listed as inCAMpatible, I would say the use of Ralphael's Abandonment Mod has diminished, at least among players having CAM. And so far there have been no complaints about excessive abandonment with the CAM.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tropod on March 24, 2008, 05:59:30 AM
Thanks for the replies guys.

After having a bit more of a think about it, yeah perhaps a Reduced Abandonment Modd (RAM/RAD) (& separate thread) ought to be made in its own right. One with ^Default/NAM/CAM/Others etc settings as applicable. Only reason I suggested adding it to NAM, was because of perceived expectations I guess :/. People still complain about it (abandonment due commute) though, here, there and everywhere :D.
^By default: here I mean non-Maxis default settings for use by players. A default version aimed solely for addressing abandonment, for those without NAM/CAM/etc.

From what *I am aware*, as it stands none of the abandonment related modds actually have both the Building Development Exemplar & the Individual R/C/I Developer Exemplars: Such a (default) modd ought to have both really, to deal with the (players) issues more appropriately. Something that players can use that is not attached to an existing modd? Again, perhaps separate thread may be more appropriate, if warranted/necessary.

I wouldn't necessarily be looking at using any of the changes as those in ADM 1.2, since it doesn't actually adjust one of the more critical aspects: The Lot Developer Occupancy Thresholds 0x47E2C401. Personally, I think the values used here are to high & to close to each other, though I guess that's open to interpretation/viewpoint. I will say though, that it's interesting the causes/affects adjustments to this can make, especially if to high. I've been using an adjusted version for some time, and as earlier mentioned, I rarely ever have a problem.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on March 24, 2008, 08:54:00 AM
My only problem with abandonment is plopables, because even after you fix the thing that made them abandon, you sill have to replop them.

In my opinion, if you are going to take away all the challenges of the game, you might as well just paint a picture of a city on your screen. The best part of any game, is over coming the challenges, not circumventing them.

NOW .. back to our regularly scheduled program :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tropod on March 24, 2008, 04:37:48 PM
My only problem with abandonment is plopables, because even after you fix the thing that made them abandon, you sill have to replop them.

In my opinion, if you are going to take away all the challenges of the game, you might as well just paint a picture of a city on your screen. The best part of any game, is over coming the challenges, not circumventing them.

NOW .. back to our regularly scheduled program :)

I would agree with that generally, however the problem is, not everyone agrees with the design on the game. That's why plugins exist for things like the commute & (especially) pathing algorithm & other various things. The game does have its inherent faults.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RippleJet on March 25, 2008, 07:43:30 AM
I wouldn't necessarily be looking at using any of the changes as those in ADM 1.2, since it doesn't actually adjust one of the more critical aspects: The Lot Developer Occupancy Thresholds 0x47E2C401. Personally, I think the values used here are to high & to close to each other, though I guess that's open to interpretation/viewpoint. I will say though, that it's interesting the causes/affects adjustments to this can make, especially if to high. I've been using an adjusted version for some time, and as earlier mentioned, I rarely ever have a problem.

I can agree with you on that! :)

Even if this property (as most Building Development properties in Ralphael's ADM) is missing in simcity_1.dat, its default values are obviously still used in the game.

The threshold for abandonment is set at an occupancy of 0.3 (30%), both in the game and by ADM.
If a building's desirability falls so low that only 30% of the maximum capacity is available, it will abandon.

The threshold for distress is set at an occupancy of 0.5 (50%) in the game and 0.45 (45%) by ADM.
If a building's desirability falls so low that only 45-50% of the maximum capacity is available, it will dilapidate.

I am a bit uncertain about what the third threshold, "renew", does though.
In the game is set at 0.68 (68%) and reduced to 0.5 (50%) in ADM.

What thresholds have you used in your adjusted version?
I could very well include reduced thresholds (even several optional ones if needed) with CAM 1.1... ::)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on March 25, 2008, 08:08:27 AM
The Smooth Highway curve is looking good, but will there be a OWR smooth curve?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bat on March 25, 2008, 09:32:12 AM
Great new work there, Memo! Looks wonderful! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pilotdaryl on March 26, 2008, 05:45:34 PM
Withhold this from us any longer and I am going to blow. :P

 :o OH NO, I'VE BLOWN! :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on March 28, 2008, 06:17:14 AM
Stoplight-controlled avenue intersections for the LHD version...
(http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2594/lhdaveintersectionsfp1.th.jpg) (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lhdaveintersectionsfp1.jpg)

Please ignore the stoplights that are facing to road. Those are single prop(stoplights are built-in to the pole), and there's no LHD version of it... &mmm
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on March 28, 2008, 06:29:35 AM
I'm sure all LHD players will love this. :)

(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5098/rotlichtverstoui3.jpg)

And that car in the red circle clearly ran across the red lights.  ???
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on March 28, 2008, 06:37:47 AM
maybe that car was going REALLY slow? L:D

thats great, thanks ebina
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on March 28, 2008, 06:38:01 AM
And that car in the red circle clearly ran across the red lights.  ???
Actually, that car came from the right side of the picture, and turned to the right. Cars stop on the red light properly.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cammo2003 on April 18, 2008, 09:33:46 AM
LOL, great catch Andreas.  :D

And I'm looking forward to this tweak. I recently converted to LHD and the light poles being on the wrong side is nothing short of frustrating.  :angrymore:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FireSka on April 21, 2008, 12:37:47 PM
I'm really glad to see this mod is still being worked on, for I am still addicted to SC4!  I'm really hoping for another release soon!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on April 21, 2008, 12:39:33 PM
LoL FireSka one thing we have all come to learn from NAM that a release will come when it comes lol.... Btw Welcome to Devotions!!!



ps belive I cant wait either lol  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on April 21, 2008, 04:05:20 PM
I'm really glad to see this mod is still being worked on, for I am still addicted to SC4!  I'm really hoping for another release soon!

I think we will always be working on this Mod.  It's one of those things we keep adding to.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on April 21, 2008, 10:12:52 PM
I'm really glad to see this mod is still being worked on, for I am still addicted to SC4!  I'm really hoping for another release soon!

The NAM is the only reason why I still play SC4.  If it wasn't for this mod (more like an expansion pack), I would have stopped playing this game years ago.

A BIG thanks once again to everyone that has made this brilliant mod possible!  Give yourselves a pat on the back, you deserve it!  &apls

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on April 22, 2008, 07:13:04 PM
The NAM is the way Rush Hour should have been.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 24, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
yap, NAM is adictive and a must have it in the plugins folder.. without it, i would stop play SC4.. maybe  :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 24, 2008, 04:43:43 AM
I agree. The NAM is a must have for a SC4 player. Keep on going!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow on April 24, 2008, 07:17:41 PM
The new NAM is super !!!!!  :thumbsup: &apls &apls &apls &apls &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on April 24, 2008, 11:49:32 PM
Ok, I just finished texturing the trumpet interchange.  I need to make the exemplar, the path files, and I need someone to help me with the RUL.  If it is indeed something I can do on my own, I would need some assistance as to how I could.  Anyone's help would be much appreciated.

@Tripod:  When the time comes, can I forward you the necessary info for the RUL file?  If not, do you know who I could ask?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: BigSlark on April 28, 2008, 04:31:52 PM
I have a request for the next NAM. Basically, could a straight ending for the EL over Road be made? What I mean is have the elevated rail simply end with the road continuing straight beyond the support structure. Ideally this would exist immediately following a station, as though the elevated rail was intended to go further but the project was never funded. There were several historical examples of this in the US, I'm not sure if any places still exist like this on the Chicago or New York elevated systems. Basically there were just large bumpers at the end of the track and crossovers to move trains from what track to the other.

If anyone interested in this needs photos I'll be more than happy to dig some up.

Thanks for all you do!

Cheers,
Kevin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on April 28, 2008, 06:57:40 PM
I am forwarding a suggestion from the German Simforum:
There are orthogonal and diagonal puzzle pieces for the elevated road, 1way and avenue, but we miss 45 deg curves to connect orthogonal with diagonal.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on April 28, 2008, 06:59:42 PM
I was just speaking to Alex about that.  Definitely something that's needed.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on April 29, 2008, 05:33:39 AM
...and something that should've been added long ago.

It might need a complete overhaul of the puzzle pieces though [with better models, like the viaduct project done by ArkenbergeJoe recently].
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: miggoycor on May 06, 2008, 08:40:21 AM
I have a request for NAM, can you make a road under EL-Highway puzzle pieces? These structures do exist in real life such as the above and ground highway that connects the distant but fast-growing Ayala district area with the rest of Taguig.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on May 06, 2008, 08:51:54 AM
you can drag road under the highway.  You don't need a puzzle piece for this.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on May 06, 2008, 10:12:33 AM
I think miggoycor was requesting road/el-highway double-decker puzzle pieces (where both the road and the highway have the same direction).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on May 06, 2008, 10:16:25 AM
Ahhh, ok. I apologise.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Cosmic on May 06, 2008, 11:48:07 AM
I think a Double-Height El-highway set of pieces would be nice.
Maybe also an el-rail/road double network piece T/+ intersection that only has a straight road going under it, that would be nice, too...

Unfortunately, I can't model or texture for the life of me yet, but I'm willing to try. (I don't really have Photoshop, so I'll probably have to stick with MS Paint.. maybe..) But for now I wouldn't be of much help on making pieces for them.  :-\
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on May 06, 2008, 12:22:41 PM
BTw, it is not possible to havea road network under a different road network, at the moment at least.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on May 09, 2008, 08:04:11 AM
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/diagorthosliplane_built.jpg)

(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/diagorthosliplane.jpg)

Diagonal/orthogonal slip lanes, SC3K style.

Remember how those sorts of intersections automatically created a slip lane in some situations? Well, this is done in SC4... and didn't take me long to do - dipping my toe in the RULs and all.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RickD on May 09, 2008, 10:02:48 AM
Wow, SA that's great!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on May 09, 2008, 10:50:01 AM
Ooooh, it's reminds me of SC3K! Great, SA :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on May 09, 2008, 10:50:55 AM
you sir, are a GOD!! of RULife... LOL

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on May 09, 2008, 10:53:55 AM
Yeah, you would think something better in 3 would have been in 4, but no. Why would they skip out on features in a previous game? (ahem, SimCity Societies) Now if only something could be done about having the right amount of signals for these intersections.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on May 09, 2008, 02:12:11 PM
MORE TURNING LANES!! Jeez, whaddya tryin' to do, make the game PERFECT???  I like it, can't wait for it to be released!  &apls :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 09, 2008, 02:52:47 PM
Those look incredible, SA! Absolutely incredible! Is it possible to make them for perpendicular intersections, too?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Cosmic on May 09, 2008, 04:53:17 PM
Awesome! I remember those from SC3k, and IMHO it would make it more realistic (no cars doing a sort of "inverted √" turns where it's like a 225 degree-angle turns [I forget which one it is, obtuse or acute angle, one of those I think]), if y'know what I mean... :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on May 09, 2008, 05:59:45 PM
They're doing turns which are <90 degrees, which is acute. In fact, I'm pretty sure that turn angle (w/o the slip lanes) is around 45 degrees, which is a hell of a turn to make. Trust me, 90 degree turns are hard enough to get right as it is!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on May 09, 2008, 06:09:09 PM
Ooooh, it's reminds me of SC3K! Great, SA :thumbsup:

Yes, I agree.  Nice work once again, SA!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on May 09, 2008, 07:38:27 PM
Daniel that is just wicked cool!!!! OMG WOW!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: girlfromverona on May 09, 2008, 10:20:20 PM
Wow! That new turning lane looks fantastic!!! &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Starmanw402007 on May 09, 2008, 10:56:20 PM
I agree with everyone here, the new turning lanes are indeed fantastic SA! Keep Up The Great Work with the project!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on May 09, 2008, 11:13:16 PM
Quote
Is it possible to make them for perpendicular intersections, too?

Of course it is! In fact, Jason's working on them. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 09, 2008, 11:21:40 PM
Of course it is! In fact, Jason's working on them. :P

Outstanding! You guys think of everything around here!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 09, 2008, 11:46:02 PM
Diagonal/orthogonal slip lanes, SC3K style.
Remember how those sorts of intersections automatically created a slip lane in some situations? Well, this is done in SC4... and didn't take me long to do - dipping my toe in the RULs and all.

Excellent! Now if we could get a texture and prop redo for those Vanilla intersections, it would be perfect!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 10, 2008, 12:11:49 AM
Kassarc

Care to exlaborate on that, as to what you have in mind?

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 10, 2008, 02:37:37 AM
To be specific, the fact that the intersections Maxis designed for those particular ones just seem wrong. Missing crosswalks and/or stop lines, and most importantly, stoplights. Not really a biggie, but I avoid using those two intersections in my game.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 10, 2008, 02:47:13 AM
Texture artistry is not my strong point, so someone else will have to make the textures for the intersections.

I could fix up the intersections to include the missing stoplights, but the fix will probably end up in the NAM. I'll see if I can make the files standalone, if it is possible.

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on May 10, 2008, 06:42:03 AM
SA, great great work. better than great, fantastic!- that's one word SC4Devotion doesn't get every day! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on May 11, 2008, 05:54:57 PM
Good point kassarc16, I couldn't agree more. There was no reason for the developers to skip out on properly signaling and marking alot of the intersections they did, I could understand if they lost the time to correct that with the release date, but its good to hear you'll correct the acute ones Swamper, especially with the new slip lanes.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 11, 2008, 08:30:41 PM
Mostly they seemed to have skimped on the diagonal intersections (though from what I've seen and heard, those seem to have lots of technical quirks.) Not just roads, but most other networks too. Swamper, I know you ran into problems back when you were attempting to put new signals on the avenue rail crossings. Those diagonals seemed to cause no small amount of grief with prop mirroring.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 11, 2008, 11:26:45 PM
Kassarc,

Is this closer to what you were suggesting?

(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8112/kassarcrequestkp0.jpg)
This is one of the intersections you mentioned. I have done both the normal and the mirrored version of this intersection. However, the game only makes one pointed at the side road function when the tile is flipped.  &mmm The flipped version is on the left side of the image. I tried various options, but the game absolutely refused to make the other two work when the tile was mirrored. It just may be a problem with the EXE and it's handling of mirrored tiles.

I'll work on the other intersection you pointed out another night....

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 12, 2008, 12:04:09 AM
That's indeed quite adequate on the prop side of things! Too bad the core of SC4 just refuses to allow some things to correctly work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 12, 2008, 12:17:32 AM
Good to hear that I am doing okay with the props. I wasn't sure when I started if I was doing the right thing with the props. Now I know what you're expecting and I will do the other intersection in a similar manner. I'll do it another night as it is getting rather late and I have to get up early for work. *wishes it would take less than an hour to get to work during rush hour*

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 13, 2008, 01:45:48 AM
I'm double posting, but I don't care. $%Grinno$%

Kassarc,

I fixed the other intersection that you indicated in your posts:

(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/6704/kassarcrequest2fl9.jpg)
The only one stoplight doesn't work in each, but you said you could live with that as long as the props were in the right locations. For the mirrored instance of the intersection, there is a stoplight on the near side for the orthagonal road that is connecting to the diagonal road. It wouldn't work if it was placed across the intersection.

The props exhibit a bit of weird behavior on the mirrored tile. The diagonal and orthagonal signals are both in the same state, but the traffic behaviors as if they are in different cycles.

I also updated the path file for the tile. The Sims will no longer cross diagonally across the intersection and the quirky left turn from the orthagonal road onto the diagonal road has been fixed. Maxis didn't line up their coordinates up properly. The left turn finished 1.2 meters closer to the centerline compared to the traffic that was traveling on the diagonal road. The left turn now ends inline with the traffic on the diagonal road. I fixed the pathing by manually plotting the points of the paths in GMAX using lines. Then I manually copied the points back to the SC4Path file via the Reader. I have a habit of using programs for uses other than they were intended for :P

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on May 13, 2008, 09:46:12 AM
Thank you Swampper! Do you think the one way intersection lights are fixable?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Xyloxadoria on May 13, 2008, 10:38:09 AM
I had an idea of making a Avenue GLR to Subway transition. The avenue would turn to normal avenue and the glr would go underground. Would making such an item violate the two network per tile rule? Where could i get the texture or FSH file that is used in the Avenue GLR transition to Avenue, and a texture for a straight tile of Avenue GLR if it is possible to make such a transistion?

Also while on the subject of Avenue GLR, would it be realistic to have a GLR station in the middle of the Avenue GLR roundabout? I tried modifying one that was alredy on the lex by making a relot with overlapping overlay textures, but the top overlay texture would disappear and show the avenue through again.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 13, 2008, 02:19:37 PM
Thank you Swampper! Do you think the one way intersection lights are fixable?

The stoplights that face roads and avenues that are intersecting the one-way roads work fine for the most part (mirrored/flipped tiles being problematic, of course). Stoplights facing one-way roads will never work due to how Maxis coded the one-way roads. The main problem is the functionality of the stop points in the path files for the one-way roads. For whatever reason, they do not work on one-way roads so cars on the one-way roads don't stop at intersections or railroad crossings. This is something that Maxis/EA would have to fix, as it is an issue with the EXE.

The ANT/RHW road traffic also has the same problem as the one-way roads in regards to the stop points. It behaves like a highway by not allowing development along it, so it is probably reasonable that the traffic wouldn't stop on it. Then again, it was an unfinished network, which may also explain why traffic on the ANT/RHW doesn't use the stop points properly.

Xyloxadoria,

Such a transfer/connection will require a transit-enabled lot, much like the NDEX Rail <-> Sub connector lot and it's GLR variant. There are puzzle pieces for the Avenue GLR so you can split the Avenue and the GLR tracks apart, and you can use those to split the avenue to place a GLR <-> Subway connector lot and then rejoin the avenue on the other side with one-way roads. The split will expand the Avenue GLR to 3 tiles, so I can see your point about trying to keep it within a 2 tile wide space.

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on May 13, 2008, 02:53:49 PM
I had an idea of making a Avenue GLR to Subway transition. The avenue would turn to normal avenue and the glr would go underground. Would making such an item violate the two network per tile rule? Where could i get the texture or FSH file that is used in the Avenue GLR transition to Avenue, and a texture for a straight tile of Avenue GLR if it is possible to make such a transistion?
Such a tram-avenue transition to avenue and subway would be great!  :) It should not violate the two network per tile rule if the transition from GLR to subway is modded to be at the border from one tile to the next tile. I could help with the modding.
The texture for the Avenue GLR transition to Avenue is attached below. It's from the NAM puzzle piece GLR-avenue to avenue and GLR turning left/right that I created.
EDIT: it's a NAM traffic (dark) texture, for a lot it would have to be a bit lighter. I could do this, after your confirmation that this is what you are looking for ...
The normal tram-avenue texture (light version for lots) is also attached, also as png file. I can easily extract or prepare more textures of this type.
A tram-avenue transition to an avenue and an elevated light railway left or right of the avenue would be great too.  ;)
Also while on the subject of Avenue GLR, would it be realistic to have a GLR station in the middle of the Avenue GLR roundabout? I tried modifying one that was alredy on the lex by making a relot with overlapping overlay textures, but the top overlay texture would disappear and show the avenue through again.
We designed the NAM GLR-avenue roundabout in such a way that a station in the middle is possible. The first station that we used for testing the NAM, shown in this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4623.msg146667#msg146667), is ready for publication as soon as the BSC will provide me with a texture range. So hopefully, you'll find it on the LEX soon. Then you can easily copy or reference the texture and path files and prepare more stations.
It is also possible to prepare a roundabout GLR station with underpasses for pedestrians. A second lot with steps to be placed next to the tram-avenue (outside the roundabout) would be necessary. I can prepare the pathing that would connect the two lots (Sims would walk down the stairs outside the roundabout and walk up the stairs inside the roundabout or vice versa).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on May 13, 2008, 02:58:49 PM
@ Swamper77:  WH0A, those traffic lights look a lot better!  Too bad about the one-way roads though...  The only way to get the OWR traffic lights that I can think of that may or may not work is ... dare I mention it? ... no, that probably wouldn't work ... oh, what the heck:  a transit-enabled lot? (that you could rotate as needed)

I expect a lot of  :o 's...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on May 13, 2008, 02:59:37 PM
Heres an AVE GLR (or Streetcar ROW as we call them in Toronto) to subway example (again, in this case its just an underground streetcar loop.)

Example (http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=r863ft8cjnsz&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=28308357&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&where1=Toronto&encType=1)

Thats pretty much exactly what we need. If any other pictures are required I'll be glad to get them as its only a couple minutes walk from my place.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on May 13, 2008, 03:27:16 PM
I had an idea of making a Avenue GLR to Subway transition. The avenue would turn to normal avenue and the glr would go underground. Would making such an item violate the two network per tile rule? Where could i get the texture or FSH file that is used in the Avenue GLR transition to Avenue, and a texture for a straight tile of Avenue GLR if it is possible to make such a transistion?

Also while on the subject of Avenue GLR, would it be realistic to have a GLR station in the middle of the Avenue GLR roundabout? I tried modifying one that was alredy on the lex by making a relot with overlapping overlay textures, but the top overlay texture would disappear and show the avenue through again.

If possible, I think this would be an absolutely fantastic idea, Xyloxadoria!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on May 13, 2008, 03:47:36 PM
while we're on the subject of GLR/El/Subway, i've been experimenting with subways and elrail to try to create express tracks (much like the ones that exist in NYC). so far the express works, even when running the 2 subway lines through a transit enabled lot which tend to mess with the pathings...i am in need of some modding help on an elrail station with 2 tracks running through it both transit enabled, and one that has 2 tracks running through it, but only one would stop...would the second station have to use overhanging lots?

also tarkus, i was wondering if the old RHW technology could be applied to the el system to create a 3 or 4 lane track structure?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 13, 2008, 04:25:53 PM
also tarkus, i was wondering if the old RHW technology could be applied to the el system to create a 3 or 4 lane track structure?

It is completely possible.  It'd probably be best to do it as some sort of puzzle drag, though, similar to how the RHW-4 and RHW-6 are set up now.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Xyloxadoria on May 13, 2008, 06:21:51 PM
Such a tram-avenue transition to avenue and subway would be great!  :) It should not violate the two network per tile rule if the transition from GLR to subway is modded to be at the border from one tile to the next tile. I could help with the modding.
The texture for the Avenue GLR transition to Avenue is attached below. It's from the NAM puzzle piece GLR-avenue to avenue and GLR turning left/right that I created.
EDIT: it's a NAM traffic (dark) texture, for a lot it would have to be a bit lighter. I could do this, after your confirmation that this is what you are looking for ...
The normal tram-avenue texture (light version for lots) is also attached, also as png file. I can easily extract or prepare more textures of this type.
A tram-avenue transition to an avenue and an elevated light railway left or right of the avenue would be great too.  ;)We designed the NAM GLR-avenue roundabout in such a way that a station in the middle is possible. The first station that we used for testing the NAM, shown in this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4623.msg146667#msg146667), is ready for publication as soon as the BSC will provide me with a texture range. So hopefully, you'll find it on the LEX soon. Then you can easily copy or reference the texture and path files and prepare more stations.
It is also possible to prepare a roundabout GLR station with underpasses for pedestrians. A second lot with steps to be placed next to the tram-avenue (outside the roundabout) would be necessary. I can prepare the pathing that would connect the two lots (Sims would walk down the stairs outside the roundabout and walk up the stairs inside the roundabout or vice versa).

Thoose are exactly what i needed. With a little bit of phtoshop work and color correction i could get the texture to work. I will make the transistion be lot based. I am planning to make a 3x1 lot and have two tiles that are avenue GLR and have the last tile just be avenue. To make the station, do i use the same networking, but change the inside to outside el rail el rail to el rail subway?

Also, does there have to be custom pats or could i just make a station without them
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 13, 2008, 07:23:49 PM
Ouch, Swamper... with the mirrored intersection acting that way, I think I'd stick with the Maxis one. I wonder, would overlapping props make a difference? Instead of having on light per pole, position the props so it looks like there are two lights on each?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 13, 2008, 08:27:53 PM
Kassarc,

I can try that and see how it looks in the game. I'll attempt that this weekend instead of using my week nights to do my modding. I have to get up at 5:30 am to be at work by 7:30 am, Monday through Friday.

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on May 14, 2008, 02:23:31 PM
Oh dude, getting up at 5:30 AM is very :thumbsdown: ... I'll try to let you do your own thing, if I got up that early to do modding before I went to work the mods would SUCK and also I would be very /wrrd%& when I get to work...  Hope you can get enough sleep! &mmm
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on May 14, 2008, 02:31:45 PM
I do my modding in the evenings, usually. I get up that early because it takes me an hour or so to get to work from where I live. I play with real rush hour traffic every morning and evening when I commute. Thanks for warm wishes of me getting enough sleep, though. Very much appreciated. ;)

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on May 23, 2008, 08:38:16 PM
Umm, if you don't mind my asking...what is that?? (I know what it is, don't answer)  It looks very strange and, umm, cobbled together... I think the NAM team should give you an answer, that's just One of Those Questions that A) I cant answer or B) I don't want to think hard enough to give you a straight honest true answer for.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Xyloxadoria on May 25, 2008, 03:42:25 PM
I finished making the model for the avenue glr to subway transition. I made special LOD's for it so that cars and trains would appear on it. I originally made the model in max, but i couldn't get the render to work. The render in gmax doesn't look as good. I don't know how to mod it to get it to work correctly, or how to make paths so that it looks like the train goes into the tunnel. anyway here is a render form max, i can attach the gmax rendered  model file for you to mod if you want me to. (it doesn't look as good) Here (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4720.0) is the thread i stated for my max problem, if you can help with that.
(http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/ChrisLSimpson/avegrltosubway.jpg)

Also in the game, the tunnel is blocked by the ground when i use no (transparent) base textures. What do i have to use so that doesn't happen.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on May 25, 2008, 04:02:01 PM
now thatsm something great!!! hope you can put it run ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on May 25, 2008, 04:05:04 PM
:o omg that is BEAUTIFUL, i love it!  I hope u can get it working!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: debutterfly on May 25, 2008, 04:06:56 PM
nice... &apls now which side of the avenue will have the subway underneath... ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on May 25, 2008, 05:43:33 PM
That model looks fantastic!  :)
Although your rendered model is possibly not final yet, please email it and I will forward it to the NAM team for modding. If/When you will have an updated version of the model, it will be easy to insert it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jonoboo on May 25, 2008, 07:37:16 PM
That looks excellent, but I have one thing that bugs me a little bit. The normal avenue and the GLR avenue are different widths. Could you perhaps make the change from each gauge more subtle, perhaps over 2 tiles instead of one. Only if it isn't too much bother, if it means totally redoing huge sections of it, don't change it. Sorry for being a nuisance.

Jono.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Xyloxadoria on May 25, 2008, 09:11:59 PM
nice... &apls now which side of the avenue will have the subway underneath... ;)

I don't know which side it will end up on. The game kind of randomly places the subway station block under one of the lot tiles. Ive even seen it on different places on the same lot before.

That looks excellent, but I have one thing that bugs me a little bit. The normal avenue and the GLR avenue are different widths. Could you perhaps make the change from each gauge more subtle, perhaps over 2 tiles instead of one. Only if it isn't too much bother, if it means totally redoing huge sections of it, don't change it. Sorry for being a nuisance.
Jono.

I used a one tile transition because that is the texture that currently exists in the NAM. it would be easy to change if there was a two tile transition, but i didn;t find a texture for it when i searched though the nam file. (see post above, the transition is attached.) I still havent figured out my max problem yet so i could send the model file if needed (as the fence and the lampposts will have to be a t21 prop if it is part of the nam,but i think it would be better if it was a lot based station) I still have some final touches to add to the model (I need to change the lampposts they seem kind of short/small) I have a gmax file a max file and a rendered model so just pm me with a address and what you want. (if you use max i need to know which version to avoid issues)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cogeo on June 03, 2008, 03:47:56 PM
Are you sure that this can act as a real GLR-to-subway connection, if implemented as a puzzle piece? (I mean really convert GLR<->subway traffic).

GLR (el) and subway are actually different forms of traffic (though they are both coloured the same), and as far as I know network puzzle pieces cannot perform traffic conversions (Maxis does this using a TE lot). I attempted making my RTMT set puzzle pieces; this would solve the TL textures problem as well as the no-access zots, but the game seems to ignore most properties specifying a "transport station" -only some specific properties like the park/landmark effects and the Occupant Groups appear to really work. Most importantly, I couldn't make it perform any transit switchings.

If instead, this is implemented as a TE-lot, it is quaranteed that conversions will work, but it will block access to the RCI lots facing it (and this one is quite long).

As for aesthetics, I think the network textures shouldn't be modelled, as it's very hard to make them looking the same. For network textures, as well as overlay textures for lots, this IS feasible.
Also I'm not sure if nightlighting really works for props used on networks. Look at Maxis networks, all props are unlit (the lightcones shown in streetlights are actually separate models - technically they aren't "lit" eihter).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Cliff794 on June 04, 2008, 06:20:04 AM
I've got a request involving GLR over one way roads. As in street car type approach. Is there a way to overlap road and GLR(El-R) textures and mapping? I wouldn't know where to begin, or how to start.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: klaascornelis on June 04, 2008, 06:51:15 AM
That looks really nice Xyloxadoria
I hope it will work what with all the problems cogeo mentions

Greetings
KC
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: videosean on June 04, 2008, 08:22:32 PM
Post here if you want to contribute something to the NAM...
I never knew about this thread!
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6988/20080603183404vz6.th.jpg) (http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6988/20080603183404vz6.jpg)
Project thread:
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4777.msg154526#msg154526
Can be downloaded here:
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4847.0
You can include it in NAM if you want... I'd rather see it in NAM than as a standalone but it works fine all by itself.
:)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SimsReporter on June 08, 2008, 03:51:17 PM
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/diagorthosliplane_built.jpg)

(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/diagorthosliplane.jpg)

Diagonal/orthogonal slip lanes, SC3K style.

Remember how those sorts of intersections automatically created a slip lane in some situations? Well, this is done in SC4... and didn't take me long to do - dipping my toe in the RULs and all.


This would be awsome to have... :D :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on June 09, 2008, 02:24:31 AM
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/full_set_of_SLs.jpg)

And here's the full set done. :P

Avenue/Avenue, Road/Road, Road/Ave, Ave/Road intersections are in there. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: M4346 on June 09, 2008, 02:53:07 AM
And for Euro? :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on June 09, 2008, 02:53:38 AM
I'm working on the Euro textures right now.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: M4346 on June 09, 2008, 02:54:12 AM
Dude, you are too fast for me :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on June 09, 2008, 03:17:10 AM
What can I say?  ;D

(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/EuroTextureVersion.jpg)

I'm only as fast as I can get the pictures uploaded, though... :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: M4346 on June 09, 2008, 03:31:23 AM
Yay!

 &hlp

:P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on June 09, 2008, 03:55:44 AM
you guys are INSANE!!!!!!!!!! in the nicest possible way...

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: toxicpiano on June 09, 2008, 04:48:35 AM
Well it all looks marvelous sa!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on June 09, 2008, 07:04:46 AM
aweseome!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CasperVg on June 09, 2008, 07:14:16 AM
Nice, are they puzzle-pieces, so that you can chose when you would like them to be used?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rooker1 on June 09, 2008, 07:25:11 AM
That looks so nice. 
What will you guys think of next?
Robin  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on June 09, 2008, 08:38:30 AM
Flip that's fast.

Caspervg: No they are draggable, but you can still choose where you want them
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: debutterfly on June 09, 2008, 11:02:57 AM
WOW  :o Nice work... what will these turn lanes be included with (released with)? And I'm not asking when they will be released.  :P We all know that answer by now.  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: godjcjk12 on June 09, 2008, 11:09:59 AM
don't know if this is the right place to request but will it be possible 4 for a glr in avenue bridge?  &idea
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on June 09, 2008, 11:11:14 AM
It'll be more than likely the main NAM, unless SA makes up some extra modd :)

EDIT: Double decker bridges aren't possilbe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rhythmandjays on June 09, 2008, 11:18:51 AM
Simple, yet elegant  &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on June 09, 2008, 11:21:42 AM
Quote
EDIT: Double decker bridges aren't possilbe

They are... They just don't work properly. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on June 09, 2008, 11:27:40 AM
OMG... INSANE!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on June 09, 2008, 11:45:18 AM
Quote
Quote
EDIT: Double decker bridges aren't possilbe

They are... They just don't work properly. Tongue

Well you could go into details.;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on June 09, 2008, 11:49:30 AM
The details are (i believe) that having two networks on the same bridge (or tile) make for constant high volume of traffic, or that the volumes are added together so that you get unfair congestion

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on June 09, 2008, 12:19:57 PM
@SA: Now THAT is beautiful!! Both the American and the Euro textures, that is... ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on June 10, 2008, 02:35:58 AM
Awesome, SA!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pagenotfound on June 19, 2008, 04:35:44 PM
One word: whoa!! :o
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Simpson on June 20, 2008, 10:13:23 AM
Very good SA  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: hconline on June 20, 2008, 06:50:26 PM
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff288/foxteltv/diagorthosliplane_built.jpg)


The diagonal coming into the orthogonal road should be totally diagonal, and not make  short turn, otherwise it makes it look like you can make a left turn onto it. 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on June 20, 2008, 06:57:26 PM
The diagonal coming into the orthogonal road should be totally diagonal, and not make  short turn, otherwise it makes it look like you can make a left turn onto it. 

That would be Maxis' fault.  SA didn't modify that part, just added the slip lane in for the tile next to the Orthogonal-Diagonal Road-T-Intersection.

I do see your point though--the texture Maxis did for that intersection has always bothered me a little.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on June 21, 2008, 10:50:16 PM
Is there gonna be any double height pieces develop for road, avenue etc etc ?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on June 21, 2008, 11:21:14 PM
Is there gonna be any double height pieces develop for road, avenue etc etc ?

That would be a nice thing to have.  I could certainly use them in a few places, and they'll come even more in handy once there's more RHW/MIS stuff out there. ;)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on June 23, 2008, 04:06:30 AM
Hmm... that calls for a whole new draggable high ELR system =P

Anyway, I do have a problem with the current GLR curves... they're too tight! It'd be of best interest to develop some puzzle pieces with smooth curves so that it doesn't appear that some of our subway trains are jackknifing trying to traverse them. I know the NAM has this already for roads, railways, and avenues, but GLR pieces seem nonexistent = (

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on July 03, 2008, 10:50:17 AM
well what have I been upto?

(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm50/bighead99999/deadend.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on July 03, 2008, 10:56:37 AM
Great, a draggable road cul-de-sac?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on July 03, 2008, 11:22:36 AM
sorta. really just a texture replacement with pathing. hope to do diag next.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on July 03, 2008, 12:29:52 PM
Road cul-de-sac! I'd love that with American lines!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on July 03, 2008, 10:33:30 PM
A cul-de-sac is just a cul-de-sac, and I didn't think they had lines. To compromise the Euro versus American thing, isn't this just a cul-de-sac in a seperate replacement dat file that doesn't require the Euro road mod?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on July 04, 2008, 06:26:19 AM
nerdly_dood, in fact i did the maxis/American version before this euro texture. i just didn't find time for a screenie.

(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm50/bighead99999/s2.jpg)

j-dub your quite right. it will function like MAS 's turning lanes-texture plugin.
unless it's combined into the nam?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on July 04, 2008, 09:10:11 AM
That looks great.

It can be a stand-alone file, since it doesn't require anything special [eg. addition into controller files, etc].
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: EDGE4194 on July 04, 2008, 10:01:19 AM
a road cul-de-sac??   yay  &hlp
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on July 04, 2008, 10:28:42 AM
Looks nice, Bighead99  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on July 04, 2008, 12:09:16 PM
nerdly_dood, in fact i did the maxis/American version before this euro texture. i just didn't find time for a screenie.
Oh ok, cool! I did use the Euro road mod for about a month and a half but then I got bored with it... The release of RHW v.20 may have been a contributing factor - there was no Euro texture set for it then, and now I have DTP's set which I'd say gets a 9/10 on the coolness scale-it doesn't have any RHW-2 textures, and it was based on the Euro RHW texture mod which means that road intersection textures don't look quite right, but overall it's great and I'm getting off-topic!

I should stop typing irrelevant crap...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jayster on July 09, 2008, 03:00:15 PM
Is anyone working on 5-laned one-way roads, and 3 laned avenues. ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on July 09, 2008, 08:31:21 PM
Yes, that would be the NWM project, though only 3-lane OWR's (of the 2 types of OWR you are asking about) have been finished enough to show in the sticky post.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on July 17, 2008, 10:56:38 AM
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm50/bighead99999/deadendd.jpg)

added wealth textures.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on July 17, 2008, 11:12:09 AM
Great, this will be of use later.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Alfred.Jones on July 17, 2008, 11:14:45 PM
That looks awesome!

Great work
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on July 18, 2008, 12:04:49 AM
Very nice work there, bighead99!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on July 22, 2008, 05:27:10 AM
I have a request for the next NAM. Basically, could a straight ending for the EL over Road be made? What I mean is have the elevated rail simply end with the road continuing straight beyond the support structure. Ideally this would exist immediately following a station, as though the elevated rail was intended to go further but the project was never funded. There were several historical examples of this in the US, I'm not sure if any places still exist like this on the Chicago or New York elevated systems. Basically there were just large bumpers at the end of the track and crossovers to move trains from what track to the other.

If anyone interested in this needs photos I'll be more than happy to dig some up.

Thanks for all you do!

Cheers,
Kevin
You can already do this - it just takes a little work.  Here's what you do:

Plop an el over road puzzle piece, using the Corner 1 puzzle piece.  Point the road under the track to the side where you want your station.
Plop the el over road station next to the puzzle piece.  The road pieces should now connect up.
Bulldoze the overhanging el piece.  This will also destroy the el piece adjoining the station, leaving just the truncated T piece of road.
Buldoze the last square of the road.  The curved road is now just a regular road, and you have what you want.  You can also do this without a station, again using the Corner 1 puzzle piece.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JBalls_2008_SC4 on July 31, 2008, 08:24:12 PM
Hey, I suggested a good new nam idea over at simtropolis forums about intersections, the current nam junctions are great but i want something more creative and different in my city and i thought if it was possible is this: for example say you have a regular road t junction, instead of just lanes we could have a right turn lane (or 2) and a cut off piece of road for turning left with a ped island in the middle of the regular road and the cut off, it would have traffic lights too, obv! Also, to improve traffic congestion that can be caused by buses; a cut off small lane for buses at bus stops, which buses can use which crs cant, using the sma technology as sc4 bus lanes and traffic controller mods. thats all i have for now, soz for no pics but i lack photoshop and paint is useless so.....

(PS)Intersections - The Same Would Apply For 4 ways and could probably even be used in one way roads and especially avenues, too!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on July 31, 2008, 09:27:04 PM
From what I hear you asking, some of that stuff is getting worked on. The road with the island you mentioned is part of the NWM. Right turn lanes for right hand drive for multiple networks are already in the works. The term used for the right turn lane with the island in the middle is called slip lane. I noticed traffic lights do work over the slip lanes, just as you would see in real life, but wether if those are put on slip lanes if they get released in the future is beyond me. After toying around with the current NAM, it was possible for me to split a avenue up, and due a 3 tile avenue, with the middle, not being used, and potentially a oneway as a double left turn lane. However the avenue crossing the 3 tile, I'm not so sure about. What you said about buses in that situation may be difficult. Bus stops are usally another story.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on July 31, 2008, 10:59:50 PM
bighead99:
is there any further progress on the cul-de-sacs?

I also find the roundabout-like large street corner, present in the NAM, to have very odd-looking textures. Perhaps someone can look into redoing that texture? My redesign is below. Maybe someone can tweak it a bit before it enters the game.

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on August 06, 2008, 04:47:46 AM
allan, in due time.
ive got a couple of batting projects going on at the moment and i have to work out the T21's so that they are working properly (so that street lights don't turn up in the middle of the culdersac).
if any one is able to help with this, it would be nice. -reader on my computer works fine, until it comes to props on network tiles.   
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: den52 on August 06, 2008, 05:30:49 PM
Hi this was I have been trying to find, a highway onslope puzzle piece which is not found in the existing NAM onslope puzzle pieces. Where can I download this one. Thanks great work! Den52
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on August 06, 2008, 11:29:58 PM
Really!? The most recent one, NAM April 2008, had onslope for highway, and diagonal onslope for highway. They appear in custom interchanges from the highway menu.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on August 27, 2008, 11:20:15 PM
I have now resumed work on my orthogonal x diagonal highway trumpet interchange.  Is there anyone who is in charge of modifying the intersection RUL file?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 28, 2008, 12:07:23 AM
I have now resumed work on my orthogonal x diagonal highway trumpet interchange.  Is there anyone who is in charge of modifying the intersection RUL file?

Well, yes and no.  The structure of the NAM Team has changed a great deal since redlotus' tutorial was written in 2004.  There is no longer a "team leader", and there are actually several people now who modify the intersection RUL file (or, by "NAM slang", RUL 0x10000000).  However, by and large, those folks (including myself) are either already heavily entrenched in other large projects, or are away due to RL.

If you would like to learn more about the RUL yourself, though, I would check the NAM Inner Workings (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=5560.0) thread out.  Attached to the bottom of the thread is a Network Specs document that Tropod wrote up, which describes all the RUL files, along with other transit-related files.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on August 28, 2008, 11:58:03 AM
Why, thank you.  I am currently working on paths and it would be nice to do the rul myself.  I'll keep you guys posted.  If I can get this interchange done in a reasonable amount of time, I will make more.  Thanks for the quick reply. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on August 28, 2008, 05:21:56 PM
I am currently working on paths
I guess that you already know Daeley's SC4 Path Creator at http://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=546 (http://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=546) - saves much time when creating paths.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on August 29, 2008, 12:24:54 AM
No...I never heard of it.  I just downloaded it and already found a few bugs with my paths.  Thanks a million!  It's unfortunate that the program won't allow me to input all the paths at once (it crashes after I add about 15 of them).  No worries though.  This program will definitely help. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on August 29, 2008, 12:08:57 PM
Thanks a million! 
Yes, thanks a million to Daeley for this most useful modding tool.  :)
There are two ways how I use the tool. Either I generate new paths inside the tool by clicking (then, it never crashes) or I copy / paste paths from the Reader and click update (then, it may crash if a path is seriously wrong; e.g., when the number of coordinates or total number of paths is wrong)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 31, 2008, 08:39:30 PM
A little side project I started on.  A Road-Avenue Long Transition piece.

(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5250/nam083120081ht6.jpg)

The colors still need a little adjusting, but it's just about there. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on August 31, 2008, 09:13:05 PM
That would be much appreciated! Someone (was it Videosean?) made a different texture for the avenue/road transition, and it looks much better than the standard one, but it is still made for the too-short 2x2 transition; I'd be much appreciative of a longer one.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on August 31, 2008, 09:24:08 PM
Alex, that's something I've been looking for for a long time!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 31, 2008, 09:30:52 PM
Alex that is awesome! This will definately get some use. One suggestion though: Would it be possible to do a version with a median, to match the game avenues?
Oh and if you get to it, this could also serve as an excellent transition between the TLA-5 and road.

PS: nerdly, that was in fact videosean.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shiftred on August 31, 2008, 10:47:13 PM
Tarkus, while you are visiting avenue to road transitions have you considered an avenue to one-way smooth transition?  I have found some instances recently that I need to make such a transition.  The non-continuing lane could u-turn back the opposite direction.  See my novice photoshop:

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t216/Bluepelican31/onewaytoavenuetest.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 01, 2008, 03:38:14 PM
Hey Tarkus quick question regarding RUL.  If I am making an interchange, which RULs should I modify?  I know I am going to have to do something with the Intersectionordering RUL.  Speaking of which, what are those 4 digit values for the rotationring and addtype?  I am going to put this interchange in the custom interchange menu button and I located that in the RUL but I am not sure what those 4 digit numbers are for.  Thanx.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 01, 2008, 04:14:01 PM
Shiftred, that's an interesting idea there.  That looks like it may make the most sense to do as a draggable thing, judging by the layout.

andreharv, to answer your question, the file you'll be looking for has an Instance ID (IID) of 0x10000000.  The most recent public build of the file (from the April 2008 NAM) can be found in the NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat file, which will be in your NAM folder.  The Reader actually has a character limit, so in order to add to the file, you'll have to export it (right-click the file and select "Save decoded file" from the menu that appears) and edit it in Wordpad or Notepad. 

(To import it back in with the Reader, simply right click in the area where the internal files are shown and select "Insert & compress file")

The 4-digit values are internal reference points in the file, which associate the pieces and their rotations/mirrors with the TAB Loops and Rotation Rings.  The first RotationRing in a TAB Loop is always marked "RotationRing", while further ones are marked "AddTypes".  I'd recommend using the range IntersectionInfo range E8A0-E8AF for your interchange, as the E8##-EB## has been designated for use for Custom Interchanges, and the E8## range still has room left and is where the existing NAM custom interchanges are, while E9## has been used for other non-interchange highway puzzle pieces (On-Slopes, etc.).

Hope that helps!

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 01, 2008, 04:54:40 PM
@ Shiftred: I'm absolutely certain that what you mentioned is already available with the current version of the NAM...but only as a diagonal. As an orthogonal, I'm reasonably sure that unless someone makes what you asked you will just ahve to improvise and have crosswalks and a square intersection where you don't necessarily want it. But I agree with you, and it is a great idea.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shiftred on September 01, 2008, 07:03:01 PM
Nerdly,
I am aware that the junction of one-way and avenue functions but it looks bad so I have requested a smooth or merging lanes version. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 02, 2008, 05:06:00 PM
I decided to postpone modifying the RUL file until the end (if possible).  Other than the 0x10000000, is there anything else that is supposed to be altered in the RUL?  My other question is if you know the whereabouts of the EffDir_Trans_Template.txt file?  Redlotus said that it was attached to the zip but it is nowhere to be found and I got this version of the tutorial from his yahoo briefcase.  If you do not know the whereabouts, do you know of any other way that I could otherwise make the effects dir?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 02, 2008, 05:17:45 PM
andreharv, that's probably a good idea with the RULs--they're usually the last thing I do when assembling a puzzle piece, though that varies from time to time.  The only RUL you'll need to alter is 0x10000000, as its the only one that deals with ploppable network items (all the others deal with draggable ones). 

As far as the EffDir stuff, it disappeared some time ago--the only place it is available at the moment is the private NAM exchange.  However, it's quite outdated, and there are far easier ways to do it now.  I've been meaning to write up a tutorial on it for some time now, since there's pretty much no documentation out there publicly right now, so this may be a good time to do it.  Keep an eye on the NAM How-tos and Tutorials board. ;)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 02, 2008, 05:26:40 PM
Thanks Tarkus.  I am really anxious since I already spent roughly 300-500 hours working on this project and am seeing light at the end of the tunnel.  This is my first bat project that I have intended to bring to completion and if it works, I am gonna be mega thrilled.  With that being said, I will be looking forward to this tutorial.  With this being said, is there anything else that you can think of in Redlotus's tutorial which is obsolete or otherwise would interfere with the game or the NAM?  The only thing that I did differently from the tutorial was render my pieces in gmax rather than bat.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 03, 2008, 01:43:58 AM
No problem, andreharv.  I've also finished an EffDir Tutorial, and you can find it here (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=70a930a637a84dc3c1530cbe296b0224&topic=5599.0).

As far as redlotus' tutorial goes, there are a few things that could be explained a little better.  I have been working on trying to get an updated tutorial on RUL 0x10000000 done as well--that's probably the biggest thing missing from the tutorial.

With regards to rendering the pieces, when you're ultimately ready to get them all into a game-readable format, you'll want to export them using the BAT, but with the replacement BuildingMill.ms script, which you can find attached to the bottom of my Transit Model Guideline thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=70a930a637a84dc3c1530cbe296b0224&topic=3917.0). It'll render the pieces in Full-3D as opposed to reducing them to isometric faces like the normal BAT export.  When you export the actual preview model, though, it won't matter if you use the script or just use normal BAT export.

Hope that helps!

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 04, 2008, 01:53:24 PM
Hey thanks for everything, Tarkus!  I will soon reward you with a fully functional interchange lol.  Well it's almost done.  I plopped it yesterday for the first time and so far, I have gotten 3 of the 4 ramps to work.  One of the ramps was under z=0.842 so it is essentially underground and must be redone from scratch...well almost from scratch.  My last (or second to last) question is, is there any way to improve the texture quality of the pieces so that they fit more uniformly with the rest of the highway?  Again thanks for your help and timely responses   &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on September 04, 2008, 02:27:43 PM
andreharv- wow!  It would be so great to have someone back into creating interchanges for the "game" highways.  I presume the one that you are completing work on now is the interchange you showed us in this post [linkie] (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1138.msg128262#msg128262).

(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2246/trumpetinterchangeoq6.jpg)

This one, eh?  A karma point for you up front, and there's many more where that one came from.

Thanks again.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 04, 2008, 03:31:33 PM
I definitely think taht a new intersection like that is worth a karma point - it can be made one way or another with RHW/MIS, but the current setup with the Maxis highways is very rigid and doesn't allow for much flexibility - this interchange will definitely add some much-desired flexibility.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 04, 2008, 03:59:25 PM
Hey, thanks guys.  It was a long time in the making.  Once I get this last onramp working, I'll humor you guys with a couple pics.  Be warned, it needs to be reskinned.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 04, 2008, 04:01:03 PM
Be warned, it needs to be reskinned.

Hey, that's perfectly fine.  :)  You've done an amazing job here, and I'm glad I could help out.

As far as the texture quality, I think it's mostly just a matter of being careful with the UV Mapping on it.  It can take awhile to get that adjusted just right.

Oh, and another Karma point.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 04, 2008, 06:32:22 PM
Thought I might show you my current progress before taking a much needed break (about 40 of the past 48 hours were spent working on this).  To the left is a second interchange that was flipped 180...just so you know.
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7894/demarcodec1201122057033kv0.th.png) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=demarcodec1201122057033kv0.png)

Here is the trouble spot.  Suggestions would be highly welcomed.  Please don't tell me it has something to do with the mirror tool.  That is probably the problem though.  If that is the problem, it will take me a few more days to fix.
(http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2826/demarcoapr1000122053290xi2.th.png) (http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=demarcoapr1000122053290xi2.png)
Otherwise, the paths are good.  Even on the broken ramp, the automata will drive through mid air to get to the other side of the ramp.  Obviously UDI can't drive across it but it has no problem traversing the rest of the interchange.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on September 04, 2008, 07:02:49 PM
andreharv, looks FANTASTIC

wow, cant wait to use this in game

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 04, 2008, 07:33:19 PM
That's AMAZING dude! It may not quite be release quality, but you sure are getting it done!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: wes.janson on September 04, 2008, 08:28:46 PM
First I see the RHW-8 and I decide that I will soon have to toss maxis highways out the window and now I see this interchange.

Thanks for changing my mind!

Tyerel (wes.janson)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Godzillaman on September 04, 2008, 08:29:32 PM
That looks sexy even with the gap on the ramp...:P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dsrwhat316 on September 04, 2008, 08:38:43 PM
I must say that look awesome  :thumbsup: &apls. I wish I could help you with your problem, but I know nothing about modding and things like that. Hopefully some of our more astute members will be able to help!

~ Dan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 04, 2008, 09:04:43 PM
andreharv, that's looking fantastic!  40 of 48 hours . . . I know that feeling myself.  :D

As far as the Mirror tool in the BAT goes, unfortunately, it can have cause issues on occasion--I believe redlotus recommended against using it.

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 05, 2008, 08:59:46 AM
OMG! That's ... AWESOME!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on September 05, 2008, 09:24:44 AM
Wow!  There hasn't been a full highway interchange made in quite some time, and this new one looks like a wonderful addition!

Good luck andreharv!  It is looking wonderful!

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on September 05, 2008, 11:35:06 AM
this interchange is very great  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on September 05, 2008, 12:49:37 PM
Wow, andreharv- I was beginning to think I'd never see another new NAM interchange.  You've made my day.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 05, 2008, 01:16:19 PM
Wonderful, wonderful work, andreharv! I've been praying for just that interchange for such a long time! I can't wait to see more of your work!

Dustin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sheep49 on September 05, 2008, 01:28:00 PM
Andreharv, that interchange is wonderful! I don't have an idea how to solve a problem, though. &mmm I'm new to BATting, so I can't help.

Anyway, from the perspective of an ordinary SC4 player (like me), it's absolutely fabulous. I can't wait to see it in the NAM. ;) ;D

Hope you'll find a way to get rid of that ugly break in the middle of the road. :)
Piotr
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 05, 2008, 10:51:39 PM
Thanks guys.  My head is getting big from the praises  ()stsfd(). 
(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5545/demarcoaug1801122072392op5.th.png) (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=demarcoaug1801122072392op5.png)

Well, I fixed the problem.  Soon my work will be complete grmwahahahahaha!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SimsReporter on September 07, 2008, 08:06:27 AM
......Holy Crap somebody actually did this   ;D, Great Job


I'm almost crying  :'(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sheep49 on September 07, 2008, 09:27:16 AM
Great job indeed! Can't wait for the release! :D

BTW, I hope that the final version will be compatible with some HW texture mods. ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 07, 2008, 10:02:54 AM
Oooooh fewer imperfections, nice!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 07, 2008, 11:13:52 AM
Extremely nice! WOW!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on September 08, 2008, 04:54:06 AM
well I was randomly surfing, (ST infact) and found this pic:

(http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/london_08_29/london5.jpg)

its a MAN curve! (also what about a RHW exit piece like that? :D)

So I went and looked for more

(http://i1.drr.net/15095709/3/a1.l550.m1.t1,q90/9E980F41089C3EE5D3E6EA3BCB9003D0/15095709-550px.jpg)

RHW-able?

(http://i1.drr.net/12858492/3/a1.l550.m1.t1,q90/0EAB80159BB4435AEDFB349617800461/12858492-550px.jpg)

Next project for andreharv? ;D

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 08, 2008, 03:35:45 PM
Well JoeST, I don't know if you had seen my other model, the lofthouse or roundabout interchange.  It is similar to the last interchange that you mentioned.  From the looks of it, it closest resembles a circle interchange.  I can start on another interchange but the interchange must meet two criteria:  1: It has to be an interchange that doesn't already exist in the game and 2: it must add some kind of functionality to the game.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 08, 2008, 03:48:15 PM
That last interchange is also the type used at the intersections of the Kennedy, Dan Ryan, and Eisenhower expressways in Chicago, among other places.  I think it would be a very useful addition.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on September 08, 2008, 03:49:55 PM
Looking fantastic there, andreharv! As has been said, already--I'm so glad you're taking this project on!

Keep up the good work!

Dustin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on September 08, 2008, 03:50:36 PM
Anderhav, I was not implying that you should make it ;), and I also agree and understand your criteria. Was just an interesting interchange. :) I didnt particularly want it anyway heh

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on September 08, 2008, 04:07:25 PM
andreharv- One of these would make you the Interchange God for the foreseeable future.

I-294 and the East-West Tollway west. (IL)

(http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/6020/i294andewtollwaybs0.jpg)

I-88 and IL-56 (IL)

(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6985/i88andil56dz4.jpg)

I-65 and I-865 (IN)

(http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/707/i65andi865hz9.jpg)

US-41 and US-52 (IN)

(http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1879/us41andus52pe8.jpg)

I can't think of a NAM interchange that I'd want any worse.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on September 08, 2008, 04:21:40 PM
andreharv:  Looking great!  Glad you fixed the ramp!   :thumbsup:

David (dedgren): Maybe something like this? 

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8319/ave-kruizing1.jpg)

I remember the NAM Team was working on that years ago, back when it was at ST. 

If you want to see more stuff that is/was in the works, check out my archives page.  Its a fun read.  You can find it here:
http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4575.0 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4575.0)

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on September 08, 2008, 04:42:39 PM
I remember the NAM Team was working on that years ago, back when it was at ST.

No, they were never working on that - it's only a photoshopped screenshot that someone posted. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on September 08, 2008, 04:54:59 PM
No, they were never working on that - it's only a photoshopped screenshot that someone posted. ;)

I stand corrected.  :P

Still, its a neat concept.  If I want to make a junction like that I just join the diagonal highway with a T-interchange or use the OWR-ground highway custom interchanges in the NAM.  It would be much more realistic to have something like this in-game.

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on September 08, 2008, 05:01:23 PM
I am constantly amazed at the talent that you all have! Andreharv , that is one sexxxy interchange!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 09, 2008, 01:40:49 AM
andreharv- One of these would make you the Interchange God for the foreseeable future.

Well I don't think it should be too hard of an interchange to make.  Here's what I have so far.  Will this do?
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2167/onesidedyinterchangeux5.th.jpg) (http://img87.imageshack.us/my.php?image=onesidedyinterchangeux5.jpg)    (http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6355/onesidedyinterchange2qw2.th.jpg) (http://img176.imageshack.us/my.php?image=onesidedyinterchange2qw2.jpg)    (http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/5757/onesidedyinterchange3cz5.th.jpg) (http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=onesidedyinterchange3cz5.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on September 09, 2008, 01:58:56 AM
WOOPS!

(http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/25/snotbombdo9.png)

...sorry, andreharv-  just snot-bombed my monitor with the coffee I was drinking when I saw your post...

My goodness, folks- we got us a gen-yoo-wine prodigy- right here at SC4D.

Those are amazing!

EDITIf I could presume on perfection, I'd extend the onramp merge area an extra two gridsquares or so in length one lane wide, but only if that was feasible and wouldn't hold things up too long.  Again, just wow! -DE


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 09, 2008, 02:11:10 AM
It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee, or there'd be another splat on the screen here.  Those interchanges are beautiful!  So realistic looking, and so needed in this game.  I'd also second dedgren's minor request, again with the same proviso he added.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 09, 2008, 03:54:22 AM
You are really a interchange god, andreharv! The Y-interchange looks nice, and as far as I know, this is a common interchange. I used this as a workaround:
(http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5618/hopa2a5interchangegl3.jpg)

Best,
Maarten 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 09, 2008, 11:30:10 AM
WOOPS!

...sorry, andreharv-  just snot-bombed my monitor with the coffee I was drinking when I saw your post...

My goodness, folks- we got us a gen-yoo-wine prodigy- right here at SC4D.

Those are amazing!

EDITIf I could presume on perfection, I'd extend the onramp merge area an extra two gridsquares or so in length one lane wide, but only if that was feasible and wouldn't hold things up too long.  Again, just wow! -DE


David


Well, if you would prefer the onramp to be in line with the offramp, that should be fine.  Not a problem.  My only caveat is that the on/offramps are already two lanes wide.  Would you rather them be 3?  If that be the case, it would make for a fork in the highway rather than two(which would be a very nice touch coming to think of it).  You decide  ;).  I guess I was trying to make the interchange as compact as possible but I would prefer to make it the interchange larger so that I can properly add the provisions that you were speaking of...I think it will make it look better.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on September 09, 2008, 12:55:46 PM
Never try to make a line drawing with a mouse on the third cup of coffee.

(http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9109/mergeareapu1.png)

...note to self, buy pen input tablet...

The two lane ramps are great.  There just needs to be an extended merge area located in the oval I've drawn.

Again, great work, andreharv!


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on September 09, 2008, 01:14:55 PM
WOW :jaw drops: you are amazing andreharv!!! Just...WOW!!!

I haven't seen many Maxis type highways like this in RL so forgive if this is wrong but,

I don't see why the slip lane that doesn't cross over the highway has to up and then down? Just wondering why...


Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on September 09, 2008, 01:52:31 PM
great work Maarten  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 09, 2008, 03:47:48 PM
WOW :jaw drops: you are amazing andreharv!!! Just...WOW!!!

I haven't seen many Maxis type highways like this in RL so forgive if this is wrong but,

I don't see why the slip lane that doesn't cross over the highway has to up and then down? Just wondering why...


Jonathan

Well to be totally honest with you, I cannot say that such a technique is widely used.  Here is where I got the idea:
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/9379/59950272uh5.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/59950272uh5.jpg/1/w1024.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img352/59950272uh5.jpg/1/)

This is the entrance to the central artery tunnel in Boston, MA.  I have traversed this onramp many times and it is by far my favorite.  In this picture, the onramp starts at the mouth of a tunnel and travels clockwise until it hits the artery.  The artery itself, is transitioning between the Zakim Bridge and the artery tunnel.  Because of the limited space, you will notice that the onramp must merge before the artery hits level ground.  Once merged, the driver descends into the tunnel with all other drivers from the bridge.  To make a long story short, the sooner/higher I connect the onramp, the less space/tiles the onramp takes up. 

When it's all said and done, though, I will enlarge the interchange (adding more lanes) so there is no need to raise it.  Since I posted that picture, I have lowered the onramp considerably in order to lengthen it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 09, 2008, 09:55:56 PM
Sorry for the double post.  TMI I guess.  Here are the revised models.  I think these are a lot more realistic.  Good idea Dedren.  And don't be so hard on yourself...Your drawing is marvelous :P.
(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/9104/partialyinterchange1hd8.th.jpg) (http://img160.imageshack.us/my.php?image=partialyinterchange1hd8.jpg)   (http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4755/partialyinterchange2vd0.th.jpg) (http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?image=partialyinterchange2vd0.jpg)   (http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1918/partialyinterchange3au0.th.jpg) (http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=partialyinterchange3au0.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: shadd0w09 on September 12, 2008, 02:49:21 PM
thiss is my contribution to NAM its a site that list all the interchanges for you in a top down form
http://xkcd.com/253/
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 12, 2008, 03:19:22 PM
@ Andreharv: When/if you release the limited-access Y-split, I will do my best to find a way to use it for a full-access 4-way interchange with the same purpose as a cloverleaf. Great job with the model!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 12, 2008, 08:31:03 PM
@shadd0w09:  I thought you were for real when you said that you had a contribution.  I looked at that first picture and it said the same exact thing as I was thinking:  Inescapable...I lost it  :D.

@nerdly_dood:  I pondered in my head what such a compilation of partial y interchanges  would look like and it would look something like a ninja star (can't really explain any better than that).  It would be a huge interchange that would span a half a mile (50 tiles) in length and width each (50 tiles).  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 12, 2008, 08:40:01 PM
I don't care. I successfully made a 4-way interchange with the standard Maxis T interchanges, and I'll make one with your trumpets, and I'll figure out a way to make one with your y split. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kj3400 on September 15, 2008, 10:23:53 PM
What about this interchange? Is this possible? It's like a four way stack, but the ramps meet at the top.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/interchanges/spui.html#stacked_diamond (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/interchanges/spui.html#stacked_diamond)
Or this one? It's a SPUI/ Parclo combo.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/interchanges/oddities.html (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/interchanges/oddities.html)

Edit: instead of pictures I put links.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pagenotfound on September 15, 2008, 10:39:27 PM
I do believe someone has made a spui model (not sure who), but there is a pathing issue (namely the stop points) ;)
and a 4 way stack has already been made
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on September 15, 2008, 10:40:59 PM
Sorry KJ3400, those image links are broken. You have to use a web host like imageshack or something, rather than trying to host from your own hard drive. That may not be so safe as well, if you need to keep your identity secret. As for SPUI's, since I have achieved that with the RHWxOWRxAvenue intersection building, it can be done that way.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on September 22, 2008, 08:40:27 PM
Beside the highway talk  :D, let's talk about the other transportation tools, such as, subway and elevated rail....

Is it possible to make multi-track elevated rail lines, like the ones in the NYC Subway system??

Something like this (click on the link!!):
http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbronx.png

And no, it's not a picture of the tracks, but instead, it's a track map of the Bronx part of the subway system in NYC

;) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on September 22, 2008, 09:37:17 PM
Oh, the infamous third rail. Why wouldn't this be possible. Thing is, this has been talked about eyons ago, but for this game, IF this is ever taken into consideration, could be a possible RAM team related project()what() Either way, this could still take up two tiles, unless it is possible to path 3 trains conjoined on one tile, but I have been using subs for tunnel/underpass advantages.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on September 23, 2008, 02:36:21 AM
Beside the highway talk  :D, let's talk about the other transportation tools, such as, subway and elevated rail....

Is it possible to make multi-track elevated rail lines, like the ones in the NYC Subway system??

Something like this (click on the link!!):
http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbronx.png

And no, it's not a picture of the tracks, but instead, it's a track map of the Bronx part of the subway system in NYC

;) Mass

yes and no...the functionality is still debatable. from my testing, to get a true express track, the whole setup would simply have to be eyecandy...that is, v^v^ would be the functionality rather than the vv^^ setup that NYC uses. (i'm not sure if seperate stop points can be implemented in the same station [alex or jonathan want to weigh in here?]) if it is not possible, then there would have to be stations created that simply have overhanging props for the second line...so it looks the way we want, even if it really isn't functioning that way. based on my testing, if the stop points are possible, then it is a very doable mod. it would likely use a side by side override. seems like a lot of extra work to me...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on September 23, 2008, 02:45:48 PM
Of course ;), it would take 2 tiles to do the third track. But it would allow an increase in capacity by 1.5x for elevated rail (or for heavy rail  :D) and lower congestion on the tracks.
In addition, this 3-track (or four) mod would allow people to be able to build almost-realistic megalopolis.

:) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on September 24, 2008, 07:18:38 AM
Hey, ya'll.  I am moving to MA today and because I will be pretty busy (looking for a job, applying to schools, etc), I am going to have to put the highway interchange project on hiatus until further notice.  Sorry for the short notice.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on September 24, 2008, 07:27:52 AM
That's gonna suck... :(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gardenwong on September 25, 2008, 02:18:20 AM
will it be possible to create the tunnel exit of EL-rail and GLR?
because the subway<->el-rail/glr can not go though when playing UDI and the inside game tunnel of el-rail ang glr are just a "black area".
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on September 25, 2008, 01:04:14 PM
Hey, wong...  :-[

A EL-Rail <-> subway is already available in Rush Hour, but a GLR <-> sub is not available (though heavy rail <-> subway transition is already available in ST http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=4174&v=1 (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=4174&v=1))

Also, it is not possible to do UDI for transitions because Equinox already wrote in his updated transition, saying that "you can't have one network's cars on another network".

:) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on September 25, 2008, 02:14:59 PM
actually there is a GLR to subway transition...it looks exactly the same as the heavy rail to subway...and while they technically are the same type of network and pathing, they are completely different at the same time. thus the transition lots are not transitions as the el-rail to glr transition is...they are actually transit enabled lots that convert from subway to el-rail (as el and glr are the same.) that said, the difference in the way the game handles subway vs elrail, it is impossible to be able to udi subway...there is no way around it...as far as eyecandy making express tracks on subway and on elrail and glr, it would function somewhat similar to the original rhw4 overrides.

i believe (correct me if i'm wrong) one might note though that heavy rail under road works with udi...this is because they are puzzle pieces....again it still wouldn't be possible for subways again because of the way the game handles them.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on September 25, 2008, 02:23:15 PM
Subways and ELR (Elevated Light Rail) are not the same
Subways and GLR are not the same
ELR and GLR are the same
Heavy Rail and GLR are not the same
Heavy Rail under Road and Subway are not the same.

All networks use different paths.

"Override Networks" (GLR, RHW, SAM, GHSR, HSR and NWM) are all extensions of the networks they use to draw.

UDI is not possible on Subways, and is only possible on GLR and ELR because of the NAM.


Transitions (Like ELR to Subway) are when the sims get off the ELR Train (Tram) and get on a subway train. No matter what the model looks like. The ELR train does not use the subway lines.

Hopfully that clears things up

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 25, 2008, 03:06:09 PM
Quote
The ELR train does not use the subway lines.

Actually, if I recall correctly, ELR and subway use the same models for their trains. But you can't UDI from ELR to sub on the other hand.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on September 25, 2008, 03:08:49 PM
True about that  ;)... I tried driving an ELR train down the sub transition in UDI and it did not work  ()sad().

;) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on September 25, 2008, 03:12:08 PM
They might look the same, but they are different and run on seperate paths, which is why you can't UDI between them.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on September 25, 2008, 07:23:18 PM
but elrail and grl are essentially the same...glr is simply elrail dropped to ground level. true that they are different, but at the same time they are the same...kind of like how one way roads are essentially half of an avenue, yet they aren't half of an avenue...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on September 25, 2008, 07:33:03 PM
Plus, GLR has more complex T21s for the intersection props - like the signs at road crossings and whatnot.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on September 25, 2008, 09:51:20 PM
Quote
but elrail and grl are essentially the same

They are the same. The only difference is one's elevated above ground and the other runs on the ground. You can UDI between both modes of transport since they're derived from the same network (El Rail)... actually, a more correct way of saying things is that they are the same network, the GLR is just a RUL override of the El Rail - they can co-exist with each other peacefully.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tropod on September 26, 2008, 05:35:49 PM
They might look the same, but they are different and run on seperate paths......


Yep, and the only way to get UDI to work on subway (for trains), is to add rail or Elrail paths to it. But, I tried this, and I don't see the point, since you can't actually see anything :/.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on October 02, 2008, 10:12:48 AM
Have you guys ever thought about making triple track for elevated rail???

This would be an example:
http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=124&threadid=89836&highlight_key=y&keyword1=express%20track (http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=124&threadid=89836&highlight_key=y&keyword1=express%20track)

;) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on October 02, 2008, 10:32:54 AM
how would it work?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on October 02, 2008, 02:26:32 PM
i believe that project died out due to not being able to add true express service or capacity to the rails...i have talked with a couple of people about the feasibility and realism of possibly doing a side by side override for el-rail...the only question would be stations and stop points within. sims do like the express concept though...in my cities, i have been running a test where i place 2 stations adjoining, and then run one line express local (with stops) and one express (bypasses several local stops) and the sims seem to love the idea...the express line is heavily used as is the local line. it started when i had the local line becoming way over congested. i just built a parallel line and matched up a couple of stations and bypassed the rest. a texture override and a specially batted station and a batted overhang to match on the other side would give the appearance even if the true express lines are indeed impossible or at the very least impractical to achieve...

i'll edit this post later with some pictures if anyone wishes
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on October 02, 2008, 04:01:17 PM
Show us some pics..

TY
;) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on October 02, 2008, 04:45:00 PM
Having a triple track on a single tile would be nice, even if the capacity is not to par, it would look real, and in reality no one usually knows what capacities are of transit networks in RL.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on October 02, 2008, 09:49:10 PM
True to that...

:) Mass
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: darraghf on October 16, 2008, 04:30:25 PM
Is this development thread still active?

Well if it is, I have a question, well a request (if i am posting in the wrong thread please excuse me) buit would it be possible to create  double height road, avenue, one-way road etc. puzzle pieces for making road over road over road or just dual networking like double height road over elevated road. If you get what I mean
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: redraider147 on October 16, 2008, 09:25:26 PM
Having a triple track on a single tile would be nice, even if the capacity is not to par, it would look real, and in reality no one usually knows what capacities are of transit networks in RL.

yeah...i have no doubt that the third track override is completely feasible visually...the problem lies within the actually getting express service...can a tile have stop points on only some of the paths and not the others? more specifically can one transit type have a stop point for one path and not for another? if so, then the express lines are completely doable...but then we would have to test and see if passing through the station even without stop points would cause the track to use the station...i'm pretty sure true express service is impossible, but a faux express by use of an overhang is definitely a possibility...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on October 20, 2008, 02:00:36 PM
Ok back in business...After some armtwisting, I have come up with a (very) rough draft.
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8528/demarcojan1803122452885go7.th.png) (http://img222.imageshack.us/my.php?image=demarcojan1803122452885go7.png)(http://img222.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif) (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on October 20, 2008, 02:10:18 PM
Yay, it's great to see you back,

If it's just a small corner, you can have a model that just goes outside the 16x16 limit. It is easier and it means trees and lots don't have to be a tile away from the interchange.

So far it looks great, seeing as it's just a rough draft, and far better than anything I could do.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: papab2000 on October 20, 2008, 02:11:38 PM
Quote
Ok back in business...After some arm-twisting, I have come up with a (very) rough draft.

Oh yes, that is going to be very nice.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on October 20, 2008, 05:50:23 PM
I've always wanted one of these!  Great work andreharv!

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on October 20, 2008, 06:39:24 PM
Not bad! (But of course it's imperfect... but the imperfections will fade I'm sure, as you continue to refine the model etc.) That is a much more aesthetically pleasing alternative to this one I used in a tutorial I made on how to make and use a collector/distributor highway:
(http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd138/nerdly_dood/NewCity-Mar2.jpg)
Once you've finished the interchange you're working on now, I can use it for a more complicated and improved version of the above interchange. (Yes I know that's an incomplete interchange: that's intentional)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on October 20, 2008, 07:27:11 PM
andreharv, I like what I see for a rough draft. Looks like you put alot of your time into this. I know its rough, but my one issue is the 3 lanes immediately merging with 3 lanes, I have seen 2 merge to 3 in reality, but even that is risky alone.

Nerdly, there is another way to this type of highway interchange I use with elevated to straight oneway, but I'll post that in the intersection thread some other time.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on October 20, 2008, 09:28:40 PM
Thanks for your comments.  I should be able to perfect the textures in the coming days.  Unfortunately, I am most likely going to refrain from making any changes to the model itself as this will essentially cause me to redo much of the interchange altogether. 

@ j-dub: I guess what you are seeing is not too common.  However, such merges/splits exist.  There are several in the western suburbs of Toronto.   ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MassHelper on November 03, 2008, 03:23:05 PM
J-Dub, andreharv is right about the highway because I live in Toronto (Yes, I do) myself and the express lanes on the 401 in Toronto goes for about 60 kilometres, somewhere from Lester P. Int'l airport to the eastern townline of Toronto and at each end of the express lane sections, there is always a merge of three lanes (express) to two (or three) lanes (collector) of the highway.

:) Mass

P.S. If I misunderstood either one of you, I am so sorry.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on November 13, 2008, 03:05:45 PM
almost 2 weeks, so i appologize for diggin this up.  I was browsing the wiki and  came across something that caught my interest.  I had already expressed some interest in this thru PM to a couple folks, but the answer still eludes me.

from the wiki:

"The function of the RUL File is defined by its IID. It is not possible to add new RUL Files, though it is possible to define new Bridge RULs for networks that do not already have them."

i guess my question is: how can one "define" a new bridge RUL?  is the Instance ID of the RUL already designated for a particular network, or does one have to define the ID for said RUL somewhere else in the NAM?


i have tried many different ID values to get another RUL working, but I have no inside knowledge of the NAM other than what ive been able to learn by reading.  instead of spinning my wheels and possibly missing something simple, i thought i would pose the question to publicly, hopefully someone may know how this is done.

i'd greatly appreciate any info or hints in the right direction.  i'll gladly do the work if it means i get to see a bridge reach fruition.

thanks all!   :thumbsup:   
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on November 13, 2008, 06:24:01 PM
choco, to answer your question, with the Bridge RULs, there are a number of networks for which Maxis did not include RULs for.  However, as Tropod figured out awhile ago with One-Way Roads (and as smoncrie and I re-discovered with the RHW), it is possible to add the missing files in.  They always follow the pattern 0x0000100X, where X is the "Network ID".  The Network ID corresponds to the Network IDs used for adding Transit-Enabling to Lots:

0=Road
1=Rail
2=Elevated Highway
3=Street
4=Pipe
5=Powerline
6=Avenue
7=Subway
8=Light Rail
9=Monorail
A=One-Way Road
B=RHW
C=Ground Highway

Of course, I'm not sure that making a Pipe or Powerline Bridge RUL will actually do anything worthwhile, but there's network keys for them. 

It's not possible to add any other RULs, though, aside from the "missing" Bridge RULs.

Hope that clarifies it for you--an excellent question, I must say. :)

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on November 13, 2008, 07:14:15 PM
Oh, I think some people would consider the possibility of doing custom Powerline Bridges worthwhile, instead of only having Maxis Power able to cross the waves.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on November 13, 2008, 07:18:54 PM
Oh, I think some people would consider the possibility of doing custom Powerline Bridges worthwhile, instead of only having Maxis Power able to cross the waves.

Of course, there's also the question of whether or not they'll actually do anything at all. :D

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on November 13, 2008, 07:24:25 PM
True, but as always, why did they leave the door open?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on November 14, 2008, 05:56:45 AM
They probably left an open hole in the wall, but there certainly never was a door in the first place. ;)

But why would we need a "powerline bridge" anyway? The in-game bridges can transmit power as well, so you don't have to use the powerlines, if you don't want to.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on November 14, 2008, 08:55:31 PM
@Tarkus:  fantastic!!  i cannot thank you enough.....ooooooh, the possibilities! :thumbsup: 

i suppose a powerline bridge could be used in 3rr, as metavaro(?) has been making new models for high tension lines, i believe.  not sure how to 'path' a powerline bridge, but there could be some use....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on November 14, 2008, 09:46:34 PM
Well... Don't ALL bridges carry power? If a power line bridge could be made, I don't think it would be necessary to figure out how to make ir carry power, just to make it a bridge for power lines is all.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on November 15, 2008, 07:40:19 AM
You know, one time I wondered, "How am I going to get this line over the water?"  I did manage to BAT a (still unreleased) transition [linkie] (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2105.msg193533#msg193533) from my metal pole set to the default Maxis set, which could be used for this purpose, but now I read this.  In the NAM Development thread, of all places. :D  Although we don't have to use the power lines to cross the water, this discovery is great for those who do want to cross the water with their lines.  Thanks, Alex, for bringing this possibility into the light. :)  I'll definitely keep a closer eye on this thread to see if there are any developments, and I'll try to help where I can, although the closest thing to MODding that I've done with any success is opening the Reader to remove the base texture from a lot.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on November 15, 2008, 09:15:01 AM
well, i can help with the modding if ya like.  the only thing we'd need is an exemplar ID and the model ID's....but as far as i know, those have not been defined in the bridge controller .ini file. 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on November 15, 2008, 09:16:01 AM
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/rURALPOWERLINEBRIDGE.jpg)
This something something like you wanted? I used existing SFBT rural powerline models. It replaces the HSR bridge so you use monorail to create it(but any network could be used) and only looks right in this rotation (Because I haven't got the hang of Resouce Key properties) but it works and proves it can be done. Also I made puzzle piece that "hides" the end monorail stubs, and then used the Street crossing lot to overhang the lines over the puzzle piece.
And to prove it carries power:
(http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa230/warriorST/rpbOVERALL.jpg)

Obviously this is not going to be released as someone (such as choco can do it better but it is just prove-of-concept)

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on November 15, 2008, 09:46:07 AM
Oh, my.  What if custom power line bridges are released as part of the new NAM?  That I just couldn't get over. $%Grinno$%  Anyway, that looks good, Jonathan, even though there's an odd shadow. :thumbsup:  I believe that we are one step closer to a "SAM" for power lines, at least over water.  Since land bridges can be built with a little effort, it may be that these lines can be dragged over land.  Of course, there are no diagonal bridges  :'(, but it's a great idea otherwise.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on November 15, 2008, 06:25:50 PM
@warrior: thanks....but i dont know much about the powerlines yet... ::)  i suppose all one would need is the exemplar group ID....then anything should be possible.  i may need to pick your brain a bit later though... ;D

other good news....i have a working 1008 RUL file going.  not all lengths are correct, but proof of concept.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r70/choco_028/NS.jpg)

should have the 1009 working soon as well.....
 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pilotdaryl on November 16, 2008, 03:46:29 PM
Is that the Vancouver skybridge!? :o
I go over that bridge at least 3 times a week!
Should be taller though... approx. 123 metres tall. in real-life.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on November 20, 2008, 04:30:46 AM
supposed to be...

i put it together rather quickly to start testing the RUL necessary to build that bridge correctly.  i didn't invest too much time on the model as i wasn't sure (at the time) if it would be possible or not.  now that i got it working, on to the actual models.  unfortunately, its like #7 on the to-do list.

 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on December 25, 2008, 03:20:33 PM
Is it possible if someone can create extra raised bridges for GLR and Rail?

I've had problems trying to bridge bodies of water when the land between the bridges is low and the waterway happens to be one of those ship-carrying ones. =O

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on December 29, 2008, 06:06:14 PM
Hey guys. A request if you will, I'm recently back and want to complete my el-rail project. I would like to avoid conflicts and be able to integrate this as seamless as possible with nam and possibly sam. What i need to know is what ranges are ok to use for the following, textures, transit textures, s3d models, props,   etc. I'll have a fair  amount of all so i want to keep it organized and safe so to speak. I figured this would be the place to ask.

second can i control textures on an el-rail 3ds models like other network tiles. For intersections i would like the appropriate texture to appear for sidewalk and road texture. Where should i start to look for this? I am now using 3ds models as base plates under the el. They are used as props with an orient to slope property added. Can i control the texture on these also?......
I just answered that question my self...LOL...if i'm using them as props i can easily control them. x sidewalk model underlays each with a default maxis texture id's for each zone /wealth. Make each a prop and assign each prop make a t21 exemplar for the appropriate zone and wealth. Any overides for textures should then overwrite and be used on the model/prop. and the t21 exemplar will detect the wealth :) If it works i'll do the same for the intersection road surfaces.  I'll experiment over the next day.

Cheers and thanx for any help.
Bud

Edit

well that worked. It was really easy. We can now have sidewalks that can be effected by wealth and texture mods. Here's an example. With Jrj's mod.....

(http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/3303/stupidlyeasy01vw5.jpg)

With out mod.
(http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/6926/stupidlyeasy02my9.jpg)

Basically for the intersection you need a t21 exemplar for each wealth level. On each exemplar layout you have a 3ds model with the appropriate sidewalk texture id attached to it. This model is used as a prop. The t21 detects the surrounding wealth and as long as the texture mod is loaded first the appropriate texture appears. The same for the roads as before.

Its all good except the textures are slightly lighter when used on prop models for some reason. Quite annoying. I would go so far as to suggest creating a new range of id's for these sidewalk textures since there are only a few and make appropriate variations for this use and expect others to make these new ranges for their sidewalk mod since only a couple textures are used. Anyways.....

Pm me if you need any more details.

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack Bauer on December 31, 2008, 01:27:28 AM
It os well realistic!! will is there a version with roads underneath?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on January 02, 2009, 04:35:20 PM
What Jack said. I also think this would be an awesome replacement to El-Rail over Road as well. I don't think you have to worry about overwriting something, since the DAT for this would replace the El-Rail, and existing NAM EL-Rail over Road pieces anyway. At the moment, SAM is just going to have to end before this, as people have done different not yet released replacements to some SAM networks. Not all things stay continuous for real, anyway. Looks like you'll have to discover what ranges are needed to be replaced for what crossing. I know you want to integrate as much as possible, but if you mean doing something like crossing this over a RHW 10, which is a custom network or something, then yeah that will need major discussion with Tarkus for example.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on January 02, 2009, 09:44:58 PM
Hi j-Dub  ;D

Actually i'm aware of all you mention. And you misunderstand me. But thats to be expected!!!.... First as for the el-rail mod, i'm fully aware of how to implement it and am only concerned with NEW id's i create because there will be so many. I contacted tarkus over this but have yet to here back. So no issues there. Go to my thread to check out the work. I just returned but was actually a member of nam for all of a day at one point.....then rl kicked me in the head. So the modding part isn't an issue.

Second as for the sidewalks.......ignore the el-mod. Whats done for the sidewalks could easily be done for all raised network
intersection's.....Thats right.. have functional sidewalks underneath. This could be done on elevated nam road ways or road/street under nam pieces.

Take care and nice to meet you.

cheers
bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on January 02, 2009, 10:13:56 PM
Hey BuddyBud,
I am curious to exactly what you have done on the sidewalk wealths , mainly since it was suggested to me for my avenue curve sidewalk mods...I just could'nt wrap my head around what needed to happen.

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on January 02, 2009, 11:10:01 PM
No prob.

First you have to create 4 s3d files each like below but with the appropriate default sidewalk texture iid's attached. One for each wealth level. I'm not sure how to do it the Right Way, So i just used an existing model and adjusted it in the reader. If you do it that way make sure you don't invert your triangles cause the textures will be wonky.

(http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1792/whereistandpresently02tc4.jpg)

Next you need to make a s3d prop. I used the one found in Marrasts el/sub-hill side transition lot found on the stex. Be careful since this file is unstable in reader for some reason. I had to use text edit to change the instance that points to the model and the decoded hex editor to change the name. Do not reconfig the prop file itself after manually editing it, otherwise it will become corrupted.

After making the four models you then have to make four t21 exemplars for each intersection you want to use your new sidewalks on. One exemplar for each wealth lvl.

compile your dat.
Of course these models can be reused for any orth road under an elevated or whatever. The only problem is the sheer number of intersections.

If you need more details or don't understand any of that i'll put together a simple dat minus all my other garbage. Let me know if you need more info.

Take Care  :thumbsup:
bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on January 02, 2009, 11:19:21 PM
Yeah,I thought as much. I was pretty sure I would have to make props for all wealths , just needed some idea of how. A template .dat would definitely be great , and of course I would give credit for the help!

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on January 04, 2009, 03:10:53 PM
Hey guys.
 a little more info. It seems i was doing something i was unaware of. It turns out the 3sd prop piece i used as a template has a non standard resource key type the reader doesn't recognise. its this. "Network Model Resource Key 3" The reason i bring this up is because i've had problems implementing digaonal mirrors for this. I can get my model to show up on orth and the diagonal but on the diagonal mirror i can not get it to recogonise the wealth via a t21 like the orth and standard diagonal. No wealth do flip though(i was wrong there but fixed it)???? Any help would be appreciated since i am so close to getting this to work.
(http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/448/borkeddiags01mt3.jpg)
above you can see how the non mirror diags respond to high wealth but the mirrored ones only show my No wealth.(filler lots are there to trigger the high wealth sidewalks) The roads and sidewalks are 3sd props, no overhanging props were used. The t21's do all the work....well almost. And for further reference, i know how to mirror standard bat props on flipped t21's. but that aint working here. Ive tried using that method and the kSC4BuildingModelRotationProperty to flip it. They work but just won't acknowledge wealth......arg. Why do the No wealth road/sidewalk props work but not the others.....so close but yet so far......again i have orth and standard diag's working but not the mirror diag's. I think it's because of the "network model resource key 3" but am a bit stumped. Is there a "network meodel resource key 3xm"?????

cheers and hope to get a response to this.


edit.....   I got it working. I had to do some heavy hex editing to got the 3ds props to work with the t21 exemplars.  Here's a picture and i'll upload a proof of concept dat in a day or so. It does'nt rely on nam or rul's so it should work fine with both i think.

(http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/1151/borkeddiags02zs1.jpg)



2nd edit..... After sharing my information with goa i was informed of potential problems with my excessive hacking of the exemplar file. Thankfully he shared with me the proper method for implementing this....and of coarse it works...Thanks Goa!!! But i have to redo the exemplars i created. I have great confidence in this and hope to produce some viable results that will further enhance both my mod and potentially any elevated intersection found in sc4. (with do time of course). The method seems not to be intrusive and can be easily implemented with small patches that would in theory come out over a period of time. But lets first see where this goes.  I'll Post any further updates in my thread found here. http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2913.0 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2913.0).


3rd edit.   Beta found here..... http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2913.msg212945#msg212945 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2913.msg212945#msg212945)
Cheers.

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: b22rian on January 06, 2009, 05:56:42 AM
i Had a question on the 2 semi- used ,non- transit networks that have slots in the illive reader for
"capacity" and "speed".. namely the "water - pipes" and "power line" networks...

Is there any hope or chance of one day converting those into some form of a "transport network"
in the game.. Possibly by using some form of "over -ride" with them ?

Or has this already been looked into and not much you can do with them ?

Thanks Brian
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 07, 2009, 12:58:05 PM
Brian, good question.  As far as the Water Pipes, they work kind of like the Subway network.  It is possible to do some overrides on them, but there's some significant limits.  Powerlines are set up kind of unusually--they're not controlled through any of the RULs, but by a small section in the Network INI file.  The Powerline section in the INI is rather restrictive in what it allows, so it's not likely much can be done there. 

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on January 08, 2009, 12:27:00 AM
Well, so much for fixing the traffic simulator to allow Sims to walk to work over the power lines. ::)

But I'm really curious about the pipe network.  Is it possible to use empty pipes as vehicular tunnels?  The traffic simulator certainly permits any travel type in the pipe network.  But I don't know if the other necessary support is there, or could be added.  If so, you could have a system something like FLUPS, but with a draggable network that could also run diagonally.  And you could build anything you wanted on top of it, or build your tunnels under pre-existing buildings.  So, is this something that is at all possible?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on January 08, 2009, 01:35:42 AM
We've tried making cars go on subway (actual cars not converting it Subway traffic) but they jump up or just don't work a lot. We haven't tried pipes becuase we haven't found which IID the paths should be. (Subway models IIDs begin with 06 and the paths begin with 07, pipe models begin with 07) Also overriding subway/pipes also overrides pipes/subway and the road network. It's all a bit of a mess really.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on January 08, 2009, 01:54:28 AM
Yeah, I figured there was probably a reason no one had done this, but I had to ask.  Too bad - you could have had tunnels with speed limits between roads and highways, and capacities in between as well.  I guess it's just not to be. :-[
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on January 08, 2009, 04:03:12 AM
Yeah, I figured there was probably a reason no one had done this, but I had to ask.  Too bad - you could have had tunnels with speed limits between roads and highways, and capacities in between as well.  I guess it's just not to be. :-[

I have noted recently a "under ground railroad" which can be used with a Brussels station or something. Could a underpass, much like the ones i made using subways,  be bated to then be joined by the under ground railroad. Thus being able to convert truck bus and car traffic and allow it through.

I know it's not what your looking for but sometimes the illusion is just as useful for the average user????

Just a thought.

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on January 08, 2009, 04:36:06 AM
The underground rail is implemented entirely in puzzle pieces.  That, along with the fact that it can't go underwater, means that it has fewer capabilities than FLUPS, even if you were somehow able to get cars onto it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: KrigarN on January 08, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
I'm new here to the forums (, and this is my first post). I would like to make a request for the NAM (, but I'm not sure if this is the right topic). I was very impressed and amazed over the El-Rail facelift mod and I wonder if it's possible to make a similair facelift for the monorail. I don't like it when there is grass under elevated networks running through Downtown. And even more disturbing: when it even isn't any sidewalk texture where the networks cross eachother. Could you please fix this ?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on January 08, 2009, 09:42:59 PM
Well if your talking about my mod i'm working on, first it's not really a nam mod. More like a Nam Cosmetic mod. It really only changes it visually. Also many of the techniques i'm developing are somewhat new so are not fully or even close to being tested. I would expect this to take no less than 3 months to do and thats with alot of time available on my part. It's even quite possible that issues could occur that would force a whole new approach.

In short can it be done....Yes. The real question is can you find people with the know how and time to actually complete it.

As for the sidewalk issue. After 4 long years i have a working beta just put up a couple of days ago. Its a small attachment on page six of my thread. It's a test proof only and has random network props show up in the wrong place, textures don't match and still causes issues with other elrail pieces. I'm confident i can resolve it, but if your curious give it a try. There is hope.

Bud.

Don't ask "WHEN IS THIS......"etc.... or my fragile cranium shall implode from frustration.... :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: shadd0w09 on January 08, 2009, 11:50:17 PM
i think thiss sight will be usefull for you NAM gyes http://www.nc3d.com/ (http://www.nc3d.com/) click on transportation and broue it itg got lots of pics and image's that you might ues for ideas
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on January 09, 2009, 01:02:32 AM
That is really creepy how lifelike, realistically detailed those animations all are. Looks like it took awhile. Keep in mind this game has limitations to its shape of road surfaces, great reference, and also there is stuff in those flybys that have been already done.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on January 09, 2009, 08:34:40 PM
Nice link there indeed and about what has been done IE HSR lol.... Now that is just creepy!!! I agree with you JD!!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on January 09, 2009, 09:23:41 PM
Wow those pictures look great.  Great for Cities XL that is! &idea...Also, I am still working on those interchanges if anyone was wondering.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on January 09, 2009, 09:45:43 PM
Wondering?

Wondering???

My friend, we were getting ready to send out the bloodhounds.

Great to have you confirm that.  We'll be watching...intently...for more.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 09, 2009, 10:44:55 PM
shadd0w09, thanks for that link.  Funny thing is, I recognize a few of those images under their Transportation Demo Reel (http://www.nc3d.com/transportation)--probably because the company is based in Oregon, and I actually witnessed a couple of those projects being built (#20 and #21 in particular).

And back on-topic, andreharv, that's fantastic news!  I can't wait to see what you come up with. :thumbsup:

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: thundercrack83 on January 09, 2009, 11:44:23 PM
Wow those pictures look great.  Great for Cities XL that is! &idea...Also, I am still working on those interchanges if anyone was wondering.

Best news I've heard all day!

Can't wait to see what you've come up with, andreharv!

Dustin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on January 10, 2009, 02:06:43 PM
Wow those pictures look great.  Great for Cities XL that is! &idea...Also, I am still working on those interchanges if anyone was wondering.
What interchanges? Anyway, anything with "I'm working on it" and "Interchanges" in one sentence can't be anything but good news!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: blackedemon on January 13, 2009, 09:39:40 AM
Considering powerlines are technically a network, is it possible to add paths to them at all?

This is a question coming from someone with no experience in modding what-so-ever, so please bear with me. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nique on January 23, 2009, 10:26:27 AM
Hi,

Is it possible to split the RHW2 and the RHW4(and further) in the menu? So puzzle pieces for RHW2 roads will be separated from 'highway' roads. I want to extend and beautify the RHW2 roads (see this topic (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6828.0)). As i'm making progress this idea plopped up in my head. This will give an very organized look & feeling.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pilotdaryl on January 24, 2009, 04:52:21 PM
Just an idea... GLR-in-avenue and EL-rail-over-road and GLR-in-road have been created, why not do an el-rail over avenue?  Maybe, complete with transitions to its other counterparts...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on January 24, 2009, 05:19:43 PM
it was started by someone (was it mightygoose?), but never got very far, as he went AWOL soon after and no attempt has been made to resurect it.

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on January 24, 2009, 05:35:31 PM
Well for the record, if it were mightygoose, he's back, on ST at least. I remember seeing it too, though I can't remember who started it either.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on January 24, 2009, 05:38:00 PM
It would be nice to see/hear the goose again, his podcast was awesome and his mod looked interesting
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nique on January 30, 2009, 06:42:53 PM
Are there any plans for diagonal bridges?

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Ne0que/simcity%204/2009-01-31_013637.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sim-al2 on January 30, 2009, 06:59:50 PM
That's a mess of paths there. ::) I can't actually figure out what you were doing. Did you just drag across?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nique on January 30, 2009, 07:06:57 PM
That's a mess of paths there. ::) I can't actually figure out what you were doing. Did you just drag across?

Yup, diagonal
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 30, 2009, 07:21:40 PM
Eventually, yes.  It's on the list. 

-Alex (Tarkus)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: LE0 on February 03, 2009, 10:48:17 AM
I was wondering if its possible to get rid of a million puzzle pieces by making the Elevated OWR, Avenue, and Road, and Rail draggable? I figured its possible if the RHW MIS is draggable, so can the NAM elevated networks?  ???
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on February 03, 2009, 12:24:50 PM
Making the Rail Viaducts draggable is on the table for the RAM, team but don't expect it any time soon,
The Draggable Road and OWR will be more difficult and the an Avenue override is a lot more complex.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on February 08, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
Couldnt the straight over blank terrian elevated network pieces be made draggable so we can build bridges and hence have networks under bridge (finally)?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on February 08, 2009, 11:34:01 PM
You mean like this?
(http://www.picvalley.net/u/1045/1807980877.JPG)
Daeley made this draggable rail viaduct bridge to match and attach to rail viaduct pieces so there can finally be at least a rail bridge going over the road (or other crossing network) and water. You would still need to use the rail puzzle pieces next to the bridge for the road, or whatever crossing underneath, but it will look like its a bridge crossing over everything. I didn't need to build it over any network crossing right by the water, but I have the elevated heavy rail viaduct bridge used so the line gets across the highway you can't see on the left further, where the rail curves again. This bridge seemed to function fine, look how close I put the curves at the ends, it may be part of the RAM or something, which is why we don't hear of it. Otherwise, I don't see why not to release it. Eventually like Warrior said, the idea is for full drag-ability, but that will be a very long time.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on February 09, 2009, 07:44:59 PM
Here's the latest little something I've been cooking up.  The ramps will be one lane each as usual.  Questions/comments are highly encouraged.  Don't be bashful. :-[

(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2143/yinterchangedoneog2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/yinterchangedoneog2.jpg/1/w1024.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img10/yinterchangedoneog2.jpg/1/)

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7759/yinterchangedone2vk0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/yinterchangedone2vk0.jpg/1/w1024.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img7/yinterchangedone2vk0.jpg/1/)

(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/5886/yinterchangedone3fr4.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/yinterchangedone3fr4.jpg/1/w1024.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img160/yinterchangedone3fr4.jpg/1/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on February 09, 2009, 07:56:41 PM
Hey that looks awesome....love it so far.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on February 09, 2009, 08:01:39 PM
looks good, but It looks like the ave junction we already have.

1 lane, 3 ways... The exact same, just for highways.  I'd suggest widening it to 2 lanes per ramp if possible. 

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 09, 2009, 08:39:12 PM
Wow, that looks amazing!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on February 09, 2009, 08:51:08 PM
It does look like the ave direction, but it looks a lot better imo.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on February 09, 2009, 09:42:48 PM
Two lane ramps shouldn't be a problem.  I didn't really like using the avenue Y in place of a true highway Y.  I am making a new model in an attempt to make a more realistic look with better pathing...I was originally going to make it a Y lofthouse (or roundabout) interchange but I thought that was a little extensive.  Thus, it will be a little of the same but I'm sure you guys will enjoy it if I can get it released.  As always, if you have any requests, just ask.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on February 09, 2009, 09:45:24 PM
 &apls looking awesome!


Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on February 10, 2009, 10:12:33 AM
Two lane ramps shouldn't be a problem.  I didn't really like using the avenue Y in place of a true highway Y.  I am making a new model in an attempt to make a more realistic look with better pathing...

Exactly, you can use the ave Y-interchange for your highways, but it looks odd.  Even though this one is for highways and looks a lot better than the ave-Y, it is essentially the same concept.  Adding another lane will make it different and look more realistic for big city commuting.  If you only want one lane per ramp, then you can always use the ave-Y.

Just my two cents.  You asked for feedback :P.  Other than that it looks fantastic!   :thumbsup:

Best,
-Haljackey

EDIT: Perhaps a visual may help.  This was taken from my archives page, and was not made by me.
(http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii281/haljackey/AbovewithGrass.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on February 10, 2009, 01:11:44 PM
Exactly, you can use the ave Y-interchange for your highways, but it looks odd.

It doesn't look that odd to me.  I think I've seen a few of these in rural areas.  But you're right, for big city commuting, another lane would make it look more realistic.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: BigSlark on February 10, 2009, 01:27:58 PM
It doesn't look that odd to me.  I think I've seen a few of these in rural areas.  But you're right, for big city commuting, another lane would make it look more realistic.

And all the lane textures would match to boot...

Cheers,
Kevin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on February 12, 2009, 12:04:43 AM
Here's the early result of the Y interchange modded for 2 lane ramps.  As you can see, I had to employ a slight incline for the outer northbound ramp as this lane widening constricts the available space for a proper split.  Long story short, there was no way around it without redoing the whole thing.

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/2415/yinterchangedraftbd7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/yinterchangedraftbd7.jpg/1/w1024.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img25/yinterchangedraftbd7.jpg/1/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Pat on February 12, 2009, 12:20:08 AM
WoW that is amazing there andreharv!!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on February 12, 2009, 07:25:43 AM
yummy!!   &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: LE0 on February 12, 2009, 08:13:16 AM
 :thumbsup: wow keep up the good work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on February 12, 2009, 08:25:05 AM
Not bad, andreharv!  Is there a way to gradualize the slight incline for the outer northbound ramp, or does it have to be a sharp 'bump', if you will?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on February 16, 2009, 06:19:37 AM
Many thanks to Chrisim for giving a hint about how to do this. As I said in my showcase I expanded Replaceable Sidewalk System to elevated rail dual networking pieces.

The first picture is what you will get by default.
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/378/dualppsidewalkstandardsd8.jpg)

By installing a small optional file that contains only one set of textures.
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5777/dualppsidewalkjeronijhwzi1.jpg)

You can give different sidewalk for ElRailxRoads, ElRailxStreets and U-RailxRoads if you want.
(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/486/dualppsidewalkmixedea0.jpg)

I'll ask members to test this when I finished models for all zoom levels and previews.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on February 16, 2009, 06:43:32 AM
wow...great idea. i never would have though of doing that.  :P

bud

edit...looks good by the way and let me know if you want to try to make these into wealth responding sidewalks...I'll share that with you if you want. You know where to find me....hehe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on February 16, 2009, 07:12:09 AM
This looks like it would fit really well into RTMT.  I'll look forward to trying it out when you have it finished.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GoaSkin on February 23, 2009, 06:51:05 PM
So... the final and last version of the NAM tool for the January NAM has been released for Windows:

http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1914

The Mac version is online since last week.


The TODO list for the next version (already discussed with some users):

- making the tool compatible to the latest NAM bugfixes, enhancements and side-projects released after the Jan NAM
- creating a configuration template to load by analizing the NAM folder contents at the first start

and for near future but not the next version:

- individualization of the tunnel and slope MOD

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Leeway on March 01, 2009, 10:14:55 AM
Hi all, first time posting on this forum (And site). I am a big fan of the work that the NAM team is doing, keep up the good work.
I have had a look in this thread and I haven't seen any posts on this suggestion, if there is I apologize.

I would like to suggest a new type of roundabout design where the size is 3x4 to connect a avenue on two sides and roads on the other two side (as seen below).

(http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Leeway2010/3x4roundabout.jpg)

thanks.
Leeway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 03, 2009, 05:52:39 AM
OK people.  Here is the rough draft of my ground highway Y interchange.  I still have to make the paths and tweak skins and preview file  :-[ this is what I have so far.

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6851/tennisnov18031236080346bp9.png)

(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2681/tennisfeb2041236080586ht8.png)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Alfred.Jones on March 03, 2009, 06:12:44 AM
That is amazing! And very useful!
Great work Andreharv :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 03, 2009, 06:57:05 AM
Very realistic looking!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dino007 on March 03, 2009, 07:49:19 AM
Hi all, first time posting on this forum (And site). I am a big fan of the work that the NAM team is doing, keep up the good work.
I have had a look in this thread and I haven't seen any posts on this suggestion, if there is I apologize.

I would like to suggest a new type of roundabout design where the size is 3x4 to connect a avenue on two sides and roads on the other two side (as seen below).
http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Leeway2010/3x4roundabout.jpg

thanks.
Leeway.

Great idea!
And it should be turbo roundabout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on March 03, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Very nice!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on March 03, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
Awesome  &apls Awesome  &apls Awesome  &apls andreharv!   Excellent work, looks awesome!   :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on March 03, 2009, 10:16:13 AM
Great idea!
And it should be turbo roundabout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts)
You mean this design?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Turborotonde.svg/437px-Turborotonde.svg.png)
I've seen several of those roundabouts nearby my home, although some of them have a quite chaotic set-up(I haven no Google Maps picture of one of those, because it looks like the sattelite pictures aren't updated for at least 2 years  :P)

Still it is an good idea for the next NAM.

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Leeway on March 03, 2009, 01:51:20 PM
You can expand the designs by adding flyovers. Traffic going straght can go over the flyover and the traffic turning off can go down the sliproad to the roundabout.

One I made in the game.
(http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Leeway2010/Flyover.jpg)

A flyover and underpass roundabout near were I work in Cardiff (Wales, UK).
(http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Leeway2010/Roundabout.jpg)

Leeway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on March 03, 2009, 02:49:25 PM
andreharv, that's great work.  You truly are the new 'interchange creation master' of SC4.

Heck . . . . you make 'em, I sign 'em.  How's that sound?  ;) :D  :thumbsup:

Could I suggest some stack interchange variants be made?  Being a Texan, I love me some stacks.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 03, 2009, 02:53:01 PM
You can expand the designs by adding flyovers. Traffic going straght can go over the flyover and the traffic turning off can go down the sliproad to the roundabout.

One I made in the game.

That looks almost exactly like the Boston University Bridge - Memorial Drive intersection, even more than your Cardiff picture.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Leeway on March 03, 2009, 03:01:56 PM
Quote
That looks almost exactly like the Boston University Bridge - Memorial Drive intersection, even more than your Cardiff picture.

I should have said that the top image is not based on the bottom image, the bottom image was just to show what a real world flyover looks like. The reason I picked that one is that I drive over it every day going to work, and it was the first one that came to mind.

Leeway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 03, 2009, 03:05:29 PM
2 NAMs ago I made it so if you drag Highway over Avenue Roundabout it will be a flyover, there's also a puzzle piece version in the Avenue Roundabouts TAB Ring.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Leeway on March 03, 2009, 03:19:13 PM
I'm aware of the highway over avenue (Good job on that by the way, I use them a lot in my city's). I'm talking about avenue over avenue flyovers. I use a lot of avenues to link parts of my city's together. It's cheaper than using highways, and it takes up less room to make the juctions becoase I use a lot of roundabouts.

Leeway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dedgren on March 03, 2009, 03:25:38 PM
The Mother of All Turbo Interchanges, of course, is the I-90/I-94/I-290 "Mixing Bowl" just west of the Chicago Loop.

(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4681/chicagomixingbowl.jpg)

Yes, it does almost completely fit within one city block.  I'd hate to see the waiver of Interstate standards IDOT would have to get today from the feds if it still needed to be built.  My recollection- haven't been on it for years- is that the ramp speed is 15 mph/25 kph.  It was completed in the 1960s, so it will be hitting its 50 anniversary in the next couple of years.


David
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Leeway on March 03, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
You think that's bad, take a look at spaghetti junction on the M6 near Birmingham. Driver's have got completly lose, including me.

(http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/Leeway2010/spaghettijunction.jpg)

Leeway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on March 03, 2009, 04:13:58 PM
Well, there are lots of crazy interchanges, like the Sonnborner Kreuz (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnborner_Kreuz) in Wuppertal - probably the most crazy one in Germany. It cuts the town into two halfs, and when they built it in the late 1960's, they tore down 65 buildings, including the church, and resettled more than 2000 residents. The Wupper river had to be lowered over a distance of almost 2 km, the Wuppertal Schwebebahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuppertal_Schwebebahn) had to be raised by 2 meters over a lenght of almost 500 meters, and the complety city infrastructure (streets, pipes, cables) had to be rebuilt. For some relations, you have to do weird turns, even leave the Autobahn and use several intersections with traffic lights to get onto the desired onramp again. The construction was resposible for 50% of the overall costs of the complete autobahn A46 in Wuppertal.

(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2403/sonnbornerkreuz.jpg) (http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sonnbornerkreuz.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: wes.janson on March 03, 2009, 04:19:44 PM
You think that's bad, take a look at spaghetti junction on the M6 near Birmingham. Driver's have got completly lose, including me.

Leeway.

I think Neil Gaimen and Terry Prachett allude to the M6 being built in accordance to some mark of the beast in 'Good Omens'.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: LE0 on March 03, 2009, 04:31:31 PM
Are any of these requests possible to make please?  $%Grinno$%

A. Smooth curves for OWR
B. 45 curve for Elevated Road, Ave, and OWR
C. Diagonal T On-SLope pices
D. FAR Intersections

 &Thk/(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dino007 on March 04, 2009, 12:21:07 AM
You mean this design?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Turborotonde.svg/437px-Turborotonde.svg.png
I've seen several of those roundabouts nearby my home, although some of them have a quite chaotic set-up(I haven no Google Maps picture of one of those, because it looks like the sattelite pictures aren't updated for at least 2 years  :P)

Still it is an good idea for the next NAM.

Best,
Maarten

Yes, this is what I mean.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on March 04, 2009, 12:55:53 AM
For some time now I've had the desire of being able to drive El-Rail across rivers and also send ships down the same route.

However, that's not entirely possible to do right now. For one, the El-Rail elevated bridge is somewhat low for ferries, especially at low ground levels. Even worse, the pillars aren't widely spaced apart and it requires almost exact precision just to get under if you can.

Therefore, I'm wondering if someone can take the task of making a bridge for El-Rail that would meet these requirements and let me do UDI with ease. =) This may involve two options:

- conversion of High-El-Rail to draggable technology and create a bridge with the new height.
- employ something similar to the raised road bridge and have a small section at the bridge approaches to raise the elevated rail.

As well, rail bridges tend to be good obstacles too, although the Rail FLUPs have mitigated that issue somewhat. Which also reminds me... if someone can develop GLR FLUPs that would also be a good solution to the situation that we have right now.

Thanks,

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 04, 2009, 01:55:20 AM
As well, rail bridges tend to be good obstacles too, although the Rail FLUPs have mitigated that issue somewhat.

Rail FLUPS?  Did I miss something?  ???
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on March 04, 2009, 02:06:27 AM
or... as it's usually called... underground rail puzzle pieses xD

Technically it's still a FLUP-type network even though it predated the road FLUPs by 6 or so months.

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 04, 2009, 04:25:23 AM
Actually, underground rail has been around a lot longer than that - at least a couple of years.  But it's never been able to go under water... until now.  ;D  Watch for the ESURE package, coming to this NAM board very soon.

As for GLR FLUPS, there's already a GLR-to-subway transition piece, so that should really be all you need.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on March 04, 2009, 07:33:24 AM
I think Neil Gaimen and Terry Prachett allude to the M6 being built in accordance to some mark of the beast in 'Good Omens'.

Aye, although both the demon and the angel claim credit for it I think.  :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: choco on March 04, 2009, 08:08:41 AM
allan: im currently working on addressing those issues.....

since most of my monorail network stuff is done, im working on ELR/GLR now.  my threads a cluttered mess, but there's pics of most of them in there.....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on March 04, 2009, 08:27:20 AM
Are any of these requests possible to make please?  $%Grinno$%

A. Smooth curves for OWR
B. 45 curve for Elevated Road, Ave, and OWR
C. Diagonal T On-SLope pices
D. FAR Intersections

 &Thk/(

I agree with the first two.  If these were made, the connectivity of the NAM would greatly improve, because we have raised rail curves but not curves for any raised road networks.  Avenue could be the exception since it is two tiles.  As for OWR smooth curves, we have road and avenue, so I don't see why not have OWR as well!  :P

Your other requests are useful, but I don't think they are as "urgent" as others.

Best,
-Haljackey
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on March 04, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
Hmm... i doubt that the transition is UDI-able... which is why I'm requesting that something be tried for my particular situation... who knows... it might help many others too.

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swamper77 on March 04, 2009, 08:28:34 PM
The transition lots that convert traffic to subways are indeed not UDI-able. The player's vehicle will disappear upon entering the lot or reaching the end away from the connecting network.

-Swamper
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: andreharv on March 06, 2009, 11:21:15 AM
Just a status update.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6096/testesjun3021236340375.th.png) (http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=testesjun3021236340375.png)
Pathing is now 50% complete!  This interchange may be out of the oven by as early as the end of the week.  Stay tuned...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on March 06, 2009, 04:41:07 PM
yay... although the other half is a complete mess... =O

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sdragon3000 on March 09, 2009, 12:19:19 PM
Hey guys,

So far, so good.  I am finally getting the hang of the GLR System.  My city has around 80,000...hehe, and I am replacing the whole system with GLR.  One thing I did notice, tho, was that only a coulple of the GRL Stattions have lights, and not many.  I would like to see a station or stations that are well lit!  I mean, wouldn't that be better for safety, etc.?   If there is someone up to the challange, that would be great!   (I would show part of my city, but I there is no way I see to upload a pic...)

TTFN  :satisfied:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 09, 2009, 02:44:49 PM
Which GLR stations are you using or have you tried?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sdragon3000 on March 09, 2009, 02:54:18 PM
Which GLR stations are you using or have you tried?

Hi, thanks for asking.  I started with shmails GRL.  But the trains went up an invisible hill when entering the station, lol. So..I switched to the SFBT Tram Mod.  It got confusing with red, green, etc, and they do not light up.  I next got the Cogeo Semi transparent set.  They look very industrial-like, but, no lights.  I know, I keep looking for the "right" look for my city.  I also got the cercanias, SCS, and  tonkso sets.  Only those 2 have a couple of light on them.

So you see...I think they all look neat, and I don't mind mixing and matching.  If I knew what I was doing, I would add lights myself, lol.   Does that help?

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on March 09, 2009, 07:18:03 PM
Are any of these requests possible to make please?  $%Grinno$%
A. Smooth curves for OWR
 &Thk/(

I also would love to see this , as I have asked around and was told that if someone made the textures , everything else is copy/paste. I have tried to do the texture , but since I am not that good (matching or making curves ), I have hit a brick wall! It would definitely make off-ramps more realistic!

On a side note , since so many projects are constantly going on , and many people are all doing something different , is there a way for those of us who are not directly associated with the NAM team and are dabbling in the NAM , RAM etc. to know if anyone else is doing the same as others? That way , we would know if anyone else was doing the same thing? I know that this is NAM Development , but it would be useful to have a "roster" or something.

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 10, 2009, 01:35:10 AM
So you see...I think they all look neat, and I don't mind mixing and matching.  If I knew what I was doing, I would add lights myself, lol.   Does that help?

Yes, it does.  I'm considering adding street lights as an option for RTMT stations, and so I need to know if that's something that people really want.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sdragon3000 on March 10, 2009, 02:08:24 AM
Yes, it does.  I'm considering adding street lights as an option for RTMT stations, and so I need to know if that's something that people really want.

Thank you.  I think that would be a very cool feature.  I bet you'll get alot of requests for custom lighted stations, lol.  Can I put in my order now, please?    :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cogeo on March 11, 2009, 03:36:54 PM
I next got the Cogeo Semi transparent set.  They look very industrial-like, but, no lights.  I know, I keep looking for the "right" look for my city.

Hey, virtually ALL my models so far do have nightlighting (with the exception of some ones that shouldn't anyway, like fences). And of course, train/GLR shelter models couldn't be an exception in any case. The semitransparent models do have nightlights at the exterior, the roof, the revolving door and the platforms. Don't you see them? Are you sure you have installed the nightlighting update for BATs? Not to mention that the lots do have lampposts at the front and the parking areas at the back.

What exactly are you looking for? If you want the automata to be lit, just like the cars passing under streetlights, this is something different, and requires special modelling and modding. It's essentially making something like a lightcone, only it shouldn't have the shape of a cone, it should be like a sheet or plane, placed above the automata routes, to imitate a lighting effect. But afaik such models (ie illuminating automata) haven't been made yet. It's quite a challenge. Not that they are especially hard to make, but they must be carefully matched with BATs, and unfortunately they will be custom to models, ie they will almost certainly have to be redone for every new model. I hope someone will take the challenge and make them anyway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Sdragon3000 on March 11, 2009, 04:36:10 PM
Hey, virtually ALL my models so far do have nightlighting (with the exception of some ones that shouldn't anyway, like fences). And of course, train/GLR shelter models couldn't be an exception in any case. The semitransparent models do have nightlights at the exterior, the roof, the revolving door and the platforms. Don't you see them? Are you sure you have installed the nightlighting update for BATs? Not to mention that the lots do have lampposts at the front and the parking areas at the back.

What exactly are you looking for? If you want the automata to be lit, just like the cars passing under streetlights, this is something different, and requires special modelling and modding. It's essentially making something like a lightcone, only it shouldn't have the shape of a cone, it should be like a sheet or plane, placed above the automata routes, to imitate a lighting effect. But afaik such models (ie illuminating automata) haven't been made yet. It's quite a challenge. Not that they are especially hard to make, but they must be carefully matched with BATs, and unfortunately they will be custom to models, ie they will almost certainly have to be redone for every new model. I hope someone will take the challenge and make them anyway.

Hey....

Good to hear from you!   I am experimenting with new transportation now, and am using yours.  :)  I had to look closley, but I do see some lighting. I may have been tired or not looking at it right, so, I apologise, I did not meant to instult or say something negative.   :-[

I don't know how hard it is, as I am not a modder or batter, but I can imagine all the hard work that goes into all these add ons, etc, so thank you for all that!

I guess what I am looking for is a station (or set) that has INTERIOR lighting, or more lights.  There were some stops in Tacoma, WA, a few years ago, bus tranfers lots, I guess they where, and I was impressed by how much they were lit up...also, in Olympia, WA, the Main Transit center was like that too.  Anyways, Is that possible?  Or should I experiment with the lot program? 

Thanks again....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on March 11, 2009, 09:20:41 PM
You know, a roster of current projects and who is working on each project is a good idea....make it sticky and people can check it before they request something. You could even add in each request as it comes and whether it will be worked on, is being worked on, or is canceled.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on March 11, 2009, 09:33:01 PM
...You could even add in each request as it comes and whether it will be worked on, is being worked on, or is canceled.
...or is not possible due to constraints of the game, perhaps? Such as RHW showing up in region view...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on March 11, 2009, 09:34:29 PM
Yeah, that too.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rusummer1 on March 21, 2009, 05:09:35 PM
Is it possible to have curved Oo/Off one-way overpass pieces?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on March 21, 2009, 05:14:07 PM
they were already curved I think. =O

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 22, 2009, 11:57:31 AM
Hey folks i have a question for you all....

I've been playing with making new elroad nam pieces that match the default system more closely....heres what i got so far....i essentially borrowed the walls from the highways and added a bit...also made an onslope piece. These are regular 3ds network models by the way.

(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7631/newelroad01.jpg)

heres the problem...when i rotate the view to look at the onslope piece i get this....

(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7631/newelroad01.jpg)

Any idea as to the cause....any help would be appreciated.

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on March 22, 2009, 12:07:54 PM
Those are looking great buddybud! Just add some support pillars and they'd be perfect!

That darkening there is a known bug, I don't think there's any way to fix it. &mmm
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 22, 2009, 12:17:18 PM
thanks nerdly.....ya supports and shadow....agreed

I'll try using 3ds network props for the onslope piece....i can do that easily enough....now i won't go crazy looking for an unknown solution!!  &hlp.

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 22, 2009, 12:22:35 PM
There is a way of fixing this, I'm not sure on the details.
But I think it involves, using a different Resource Key number in the model's exemplar, and setting a different model for each rotation of the camera.

Then in some rotations the textures is lighter than the others, so it balances out.

Smoncrie developed this, and used it for the highway Onslope pieces, so take a look at those.

I'd use 3D network models (not props and the boxes generated by BAT, as much as possible on networks as there is more detail in the closest zoom on them, as they don't go all pixelated.

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 22, 2009, 12:28:10 PM
thanks warrior...i saw that on the onslope highway pieces...i can just study those...thanx for the info...and thanks for smoncrie paving the way.  :thumbsup:

Edit...oh goody resource key 2...i always wondered what that was for....i shall report back!

Bud

by the way the props i suggested would be 3ds props not bat props....they are identical in resolution......cheers.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on March 22, 2009, 12:31:19 PM
Buddybud . . . . . Now THAT's a highway overpass piece!

Nice work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on March 22, 2009, 04:51:46 PM
buddybud, those pieces look fantastic!  I like what you've done there.   :thumbsup:

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 22, 2009, 08:37:12 PM
thanks Tarkus !

just to illustrate the potential of 3ds props for warrior i'd like to show the same thing but with a combination of network props and network model.

(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/8605/newelroad03.jpg)

the road in the above on slope piece is a network model as before...but now the structure for the on slope piece is a prop....as you can see the resolution is the same.....however...

(http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/127/newelroad04.jpg)

you can see when we rotate it....it becomes brighter!!!!.....argh.

the prop is made using the rarely used "Network Model Resource Key"....info and an example can be found here. http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6956.0 (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6956.0)


Anyways...if anyone has knowledge of resource key 2 or how smoncrie did the highway pieces i would be happy (already messaged him).... or even just the location of the rul files for the on slope highway pieces.....any thing would help....

Cheers.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on March 22, 2009, 08:54:01 PM
0x523ff000 
0x5a131000
 
are the auto tile base   

i think they are the id's for the onslope (just had a look at the controller) find the exemplar then that will give the id's of the model. not sure if it's t21?¿

hope this helps

looking good. is this a new project by any chance? :)


edit: reading the comments  'so a different autotile base is used for each rotation' well i'm not 100% sure at all &Thk/( which way this is done.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 22, 2009, 08:59:58 PM
thanks for the info bighead  :thumbsup:

new project no....just wanted something special for the challenge and had the idea bouncing around in my head for awhile!!!
but who knows....lol

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jonathan on March 23, 2009, 02:40:06 AM
No I don't think it is a different AutoTileBase for each rotation.
Because each rotation is actually a separate puzzle piece, so when you rotate the camera, it does not use the AutoTileBase from the RUL file, but if you rotate the puzzle piece before plopping then it does (Hopefully you understand my rubbish explaination)

When you make a BAT then there is a model for each rotation of the camera, (and zoom but that doesn't matter) So you need to make 4 models, identical is shape and size, but 4 textures some lighter than others. Then apply the lightest texture to the rotation with the darkest shadow problem and etc.

Then using the right Model Res Key you set each model(with different lighteness of texture) to each rotation.

I think that is what you wanted?

And for got to post before, the models look great :thumbsup:

Jonathan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on March 23, 2009, 04:40:34 AM
so is there no elegant solution to this problem, or is there only this brute force fix???
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on March 23, 2009, 07:06:07 AM
warrior....hey thanks...i understand all that

my question is that the on slope piece for the elroad has one exemplar where as the highway on slope has four seperate for each rotation.....when i make the three additional exemplars how are they referenced...ie how does the game know how to use them. But i'll give it a shot regardless....

mighty goose.... hopefully not...lol

Bud
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: miggoycor on March 27, 2009, 08:16:22 AM
I have a request for NAM: Double height puzzle pieces for the el h-rail and el road and probably ploppable el light rail/monorail so that one could make dynamic and complex systems on water.

(http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3394/undresspassagejan103512.png)
^ The reason for double height puzzle pieces.
(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/1969/undresspassagejan835123.png)
^ And it would be cool if monorail and light rail could make complex routes like turns on water (complex compared to just strait) and diagonal bridges.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on April 04, 2009, 10:05:28 AM
Well... if you used the raised road bridge it'd work... although there is no diagonal usage allowed (such as what you need in your case).

Now... for the rail... I think some extra rail FLUPs will help (UDI capability is needed and ESURE does not allow that).

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on April 04, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
Now... for the rail... I think some extra rail FLUPs will help (UDI capability is needed and ESURE does not allow that).

We are working on that very issue.  The plan is to convert underwater crossings to puzzle pieces, FLUPS-style, which will allow UDI compatibility.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: onlycoop on April 09, 2009, 12:04:55 AM
             hello all, just started playing a month or so ago. i noticed that i could not find any over tunnel peices so i decided to try and make some as a good way to start making things. i'm going to try and make the rest of the transit, but don't know if i should post them on stex or not. but here pics of what i got so far.     
                       
i don't know who to ask if i should post these as lots or if NAM wants to makes these into puzzle peices would be cool. But if someone from NAM pm me about about this that would be great.

      four 1x3 lots for roads going over single tile tunnel

(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/6084/newcityjul1001239247377.jpg)                                                                                                      
four 1x4 lots for roads going over double tile tunnel

(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2636/newcityaug1800123924559.jpg)
      i want to make up lots for the rest of the transit for over tunnels,but right now i'm stuck on how to get a new SC4path file to work with the lot. for like GHSR and GLR
      just like other games i have played i try to figure it all out cuase well thats the fun part for me lol thanks
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FlyHigh on April 10, 2009, 11:03:17 AM
Hello everyone.

I've started working with NAMs el-rail over road however I noticed there are some very useful puzzle pieces that are missing. The pieces are Elevated rail T over straight road and Elevated rail L over + road. Here's what they should look like in-game:


(http://i483.photobucket.com/albums/rr194/Rings_of_Saturn/BATsuggestions.jpg)

I really apreciated if someone could make them or teach me how to it so I can do them myself. ;)

Thanks :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Korot on April 10, 2009, 12:57:51 PM
Since you have ingame pictures, doesn't that mean that you haven't already created them? I can understand that you made the T piece by potoshoping, but how have you made that pic of the L-Curve across road?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 12, 2009, 08:32:47 AM
Hello there.. since a long time I don't request nothing ^^

I've being wondering, and as we know there are some mods to allow people to have sidewalks on the gentle curves for avenues and roads (specially made by Sithlord)

the issue is that those models (is what they are after all right?) don't fit places where we don't have development. a road with a large sidewalk and trees in a no man land? don't fit! By now you should be saing "then remove the mod! duh!  /wrrd%&" but the issue is when you want both things on one city at the same time! in the middle of the city\town curves with sidewalks, in the wilds with no sidewalk.. &Thk/(

so? what I sugest\request? two models, or better, the same model(for each piece) but twice. so one would be free to be targeted by mods (like Sithlord's) to have sidewalks while the other remain untouched.  ;D

Hope you get the point   %confuso "$Deal"$

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 12, 2009, 11:22:02 AM

I've being wondering, and as we know there are some mods to allow people to have sidewalks on the gentle curves for avenues and roads (specially made by Sithlord)

the issue is that those models (is what they are after all right?) don't fit places where we don't have development. a road with a large sidewalk and trees in a no man land? don't fit! By now you should be saing "then remove the mod! duh!  /wrrd%&" but the issue is when you want both things on one city at the same time! in the middle of the city\town curves with sidewalks, in the wilds with no sidewalk.. &Thk/(

so? what I sugest\request? two models, or better, the same model(for each piece) but twice. so one would be free to be targeted by mods (like Sithlord's) to have sidewalks while the other remain untouched.  ;D

Hope you get the point   %confuso "$Deal"$


Agreed. I use smooth curves at rural area's, but not in cities, because they don't fit in cities, because they are missing sidewalks. It would be nice to have both options available.

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 12, 2009, 04:09:30 PM
Hi!

I got tired of the standard ugly Maxis avenue/road transition, so I've made some textures for a avenue-to-road-puzzle piece. Since I'm not very good at making puzzle pieces I thought it would be best to share it here. It's 2x4, Euro style and I think it looks pretty good, but it might need some finishing touches.

The NAM Team or anyone willing to make the puzzle piece are free to use and modify the texture :)
If anyone wants the PSD file, PM me and I'll post it!
(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag.png)


-riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metasmurf on April 12, 2009, 04:47:27 PM
riiga: I like that texture. Please do not hesitate to make more :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on April 12, 2009, 04:52:45 PM
I believe Tarkus has made an American style one, hasn't he?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 12, 2009, 05:49:48 PM
Yeah, Alex started an American version of that as a puzzle-piece a little while ago. Haven't heard anything about it in a few weeks though.

But those are nice textures!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 13, 2009, 12:03:36 PM
That piece could be NWM development. If I recall, I think the avenue to road piece is 4 tiles long, so that should be the right scale, but we will have to wait for confirmation.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 13, 2009, 02:24:46 PM
Well, I've had some spare time today and made a North American one too. I made two, with different arrows, so please tell me wich one you like best :)

(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us1.png)(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us2.png)

- riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dino007 on April 13, 2009, 02:51:24 PM
That's beautiful, riiga  :thumbsup: &apls &apls &apls
I hope that you will succeed to make that piece.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 13, 2009, 03:53:39 PM
I have a few suggestions I would make about that, but the textures are really nice! The arrows on the left look good, but the line on the inside of each direction should be yellow. Just some tips on making them look more North American.  ;)

But those are still some really good textures.  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on April 13, 2009, 05:23:54 PM
Around here the center chevrons are only V-shaped for diverging/merging traffic going in the same direction; otherwise (like here) they're straight. But they're pointing the wrong way - just reverse them and they'll be perfect. (Maybe make them wider, too?)

The arrows on the left are best IMO.

One last suggestion: If the three short-dashed lines where the dashed line ends on either side were removed I think that would be another improvement but it's not necessary.

Still though, don't mind me, i'm just a bit picky about stuff like this :D so it's no big deal. Great work overall though!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 13, 2009, 05:26:32 PM
Sorry, nerdly's right about the chevrons... I knew that...  :D The lines are supposed to guide traffic, pointing in the proper direction.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 14, 2009, 01:35:49 AM
I've edited the texture now. How'd you like this version?

(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us3.png) vs. (http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us1.png)

- riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on April 14, 2009, 02:30:43 AM
The first version looks more like what I'm used to seeing.  Of course, that's in the U.S...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dino007 on April 14, 2009, 05:08:57 AM
Since I'm from Europe I like the european version.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on April 14, 2009, 05:47:57 AM
Yeah, first version.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 14, 2009, 09:12:22 AM
Riiga, I have driven on this!
(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/6263/riigatextureedit.jpg) (http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=riigatextureedit.jpg)
 (http://g.imageshack.us/img123/riigatextureedit.jpg/1/)
This one is your US merging texture I have seen in reality. I would go with this if you were going to go US. Nice texture work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on April 14, 2009, 11:18:39 AM
Right idea with the arrows, but not the right ones.  Let me find those for you.

Here:  http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1r2/ch3.pdf 

Page 40 of 72, designated Page 3B-32 - Part F (Lane Reduction Arrow).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 14, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
I've now edited the texture according to what j-dub and burgsabre87 said. The result is below:

(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us4.png)

Looking better?

- riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TEG24601 on April 14, 2009, 02:35:51 PM
You still need to make the lines along the median yellow (yellow on left, white on right), and I think the center lines need to be angled up a little more, other than that, it is looking good.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on April 14, 2009, 02:50:29 PM
I think the lines' angle is fine, but the shorter lines are usually restricted to protected turn lanes, rather than a lane ending or beginning. The standard dashed line stops cold usually, without ending in a different set of lines to show that the lane ends or that another begins. This one below from your post at the top of this page shows that perfectly - that would be perfect once you turn the inside shoulder line yellow. (Our lane-ends arrow is like how you have it in your latest version, but I think the one in the image below looks better)
(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us3.png)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 14, 2009, 03:26:33 PM
Ok, now I've made the inner line yellow and removed the short lines. Results below:

(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us5.png) vs. (http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-till-vag-us6-pil.png)

- riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nerdly_dood on April 14, 2009, 03:29:52 PM
Perfection!

 &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 14, 2009, 03:48:12 PM
For those of you wondering, yes, I did indeed do a smooth Road/Avenue transition about 7 months ago.  Had it mostly working except it didn't have pedestrian pathing yet and the CheckTypes in the RUL were acting up a little.

(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9297/nam083120081.jpg)

The dimensions are the exact same as riiga has done above . . . which, I should add, look fantastic!  The only suggestion I have is to actually take the arrows off the texture. 

Arrows/stop lines, unless they're clearly denoting some sort of special functionality (turn lanes) can become problematic in mirroring the piece or making LHD versions, so I'd recommend adding them on using a flat model with a T21 exemplar, rather than building them into the actual texture.

Otherwise, excellent work!

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 14, 2009, 04:16:47 PM
To summarize this, these are final textures I came up with :)

(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-final-euro.png)(http://roxazer.homelinux.com/shells/riiga/pics/Aveny-final-us.png)

As Alex stated, it would probably be better to add the arrows some other way. Then you'll be able to chose what type of arrow you'd like.

- riiga
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: wes.janson on April 14, 2009, 04:25:39 PM
Am I glad I decided to check this thread.

Great job on those textures, they look superb.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: lf420 on April 14, 2009, 06:04:08 PM
Very well done on those textures!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on April 14, 2009, 07:37:48 PM
Riiga, that's perfection.

Alex, good point about the arrows. 

Well done all around.  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 14, 2009, 09:36:18 PM
Good.  &apls I would say Alex's texture still is necessary for road to TLA, and Riiga's final texture result is looking good for the Avenues, especially with that mod that makes the avenue median lines yellow.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: delta9 on April 16, 2009, 12:07:02 AM
Agreed. I use smooth curves at rural area's, but not in cities, because they don't fit in cities, because they are missing sidewalks. It would be nice to have both options available.

Best,
Maarten

If I didn't have Vista and could use the Reader I would teach myself T21's and do the wealth levels myself, because I feel the same way. I absolutely love the smooth curve and FAR T21's by sithlrd but it's inflexible with just an on or off option. I would also remove a few of the trees, it's a little busy for me. Then again, you can't intersect it so I kind of like the extreme level of foliage, it looks nice in dense or suburban areas. Can you T21 by density? Hell, I can't do it anyway, right?

Is there anything a Vista user can do?  &mmm
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on April 16, 2009, 01:20:51 AM
If I didn't have Vista and could use the Reader I would teach myself T21's and do the wealth levels myself, because I feel the same way. I absolutely love the smooth curve and FAR T21's by sithlrd but it's inflexible with just an on or off option. I would also remove a few of the trees, it's a little busy for me. Then again, you can't intersect it so I kind of like the extreme level of foliage, it looks nice in dense or suburban areas. Can you T21 by density? Hell, I can't do it anyway, right?

Is there anything a Vista user can do?  &mmm

Strange... I use Vista and the Reader works flawlessly.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: delta9 on April 16, 2009, 01:55:08 AM
Strange... I use Vista and the Reader works flawlessly.

Oops... I got it mixed up with another program or two... SC4Tool I think, and the terrain programs. Yeah, oops. I never seriously considered modding stuff until very recently so you'll have to forgive me for not knowing my stuff  ()stsfd()

Well then, what's stopping me? Those tutorials looked easy enough, if I could learn C++ and Java in high school I can do this... right?  :D... hmm sounds fun  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metasmurf on April 16, 2009, 05:00:01 AM
If we had high res props with these arrows, arrows on asphalt wouldn't be necessary.

(http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Lokaliseringsmarken_for_vagvisning/F16/F16-1/F16-1.jpg) (http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/Vagmarken/Lokaliseringsmarken_for_vagvisning/F17/F17-1/F17-1.jpg)

These are taken from the Swedish road department's website. There's some good stuff that could do for textures at http://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/Vag/Trafikregler-vagmarken/Vagmarken/ (in Swedish though)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 16, 2009, 02:22:59 PM
If I didn't have Vista and could use the Reader I would teach myself T21's and do the wealth levels myself, because I feel the same way. I absolutely love the smooth curve and FAR T21's by sithlrd but it's inflexible with just an on or off option. I would also remove a few of the trees, it's a little busy for me. Then again, you can't intersect it so I kind of like the extreme level of foliage, it looks nice in dense or suburban areas. Can you T21 by density? Hell, I can't do it anyway, right?

Is there anything a Vista user can do?  &mmm

the point is not the t21.. although they don't look good on the wilds\rural areas, I meant to add a alternative to the sidewalks! one model be able to have custom sidewalks and other don't
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on April 16, 2009, 06:06:43 PM
If I didn't have Vista and could use the Reader I would teach myself T21's and do the wealth levels myself, because I feel the same way. I absolutely love the smooth curve and FAR T21's by sithlrd but it's inflexible with just an on or off option. I would also remove a few of the trees, it's a little busy for me. Then again, you can't intersect it so I kind of like the extreme level of foliage, it looks nice in dense or suburban areas. Can you T21 by density? Hell, I can't do it anyway, right?

Is there anything a Vista user can do?  &mmm
Quote
Quote from: mrtnrln on April 12, 2009, 12:22:02 PM
Agreed. I use smooth curves at rural area's, but not in cities, because they don't fit in cities, because they are missing sidewalks. It would be nice to have both options available.

Best,
Maarten
If I had more time to re-do them , I would as I agree that I went a little prop happy , but at the same time I can't stand blank sidewalks!
To modify the curves , whether it be the avenue or the road curves , I kinda had a small pattern....if there was a big spot of blank,it got more props! ;D

To help anyone who is trying to figure out what is what , since I had to change the IIds of the props ,
[tabular type=3]
[row][head]Maxis Prop IID[/head][head]Prop[/head][head]New IID[/head][/row]
[row][data]2b1a0000[/data][data]Flora 10x10x15_$$$ no-tp-tree7 [/data][data]56884d9f[/data][/row]
[row][data]2a8a0000[/data][data]Street2x2x1_Dirt circle [/data][data]b68498dc[/data][/row]
[row][data]2a590000[/data][data]Streetlight1x1x11_$$$Streetlight[/data][data]56884db7[/data][/row]
[row][data]2a5a0000[/data][data]Streetlight 1x1x11_$$$Streetlightbanner1[/data][data]76885191[/data][/row]
[row][data]2abb0000[/data][data]Streetlight 1x1x11_$$$Streetlightdiag[/data][data]56885184[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

Maybe this will help , maybe not....

Jayson

Edit
I have started writing a tutorial for anyone who wants to make their own T-21 curve mods  How to T-21 the Avenue and Road curves (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=7600.msg239528#msg239528)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on May 10, 2009, 04:46:10 AM
now that I think better, is it possible to make the sidewalks as props, so we would have it changeing acourding to the welath\zone on that piece of road? :)  &idea
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on May 10, 2009, 08:07:33 AM
Short answer, yes.T-21 ing textured props is what Buddybud is doing on his EL rail project. I keep thinking about trying to see if I could do it , I just don't have enough time right now.


Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: buddybud on May 17, 2009, 05:50:01 AM
now that I think better, is it possible to make the sidewalks as props, so we would have it changeing acourding to the welath\zone on that piece of road? :)  &idea


http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2913.msg215805#msg215805

thats a link to my sidewalk beta at the bottom of that post... it uses 3ds props and models that are textured with iid's.  It's quite promising. As sithlrd98 said i am also incorporating those methods into my elrail mod also.

Cheers.

edit... Also Ebina seems to be doing much the same thing though i'm not sure of how they have implemented their solution. I have yet to try their beta or see how it works. But it seems closer to completion then mine.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on June 05, 2009, 04:24:38 PM
those are good news :)

thank you for your work :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on June 06, 2009, 03:42:49 PM
Might as well let this cat out of the bag . . . some of you may have already seen these . . .

(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1092/nam051820091.jpg)

They still need a little tweaking before they're ready, though.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Korot on June 06, 2009, 04:09:35 PM
Wide radius OWR? I bet haljackey will be pretty happy with these.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on June 06, 2009, 04:42:19 PM
These are great and will be really useful! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on June 06, 2009, 05:22:03 PM
Teasing, yet pleasing!  ()stsfd()  I'm positive that I will use this when it's ready.  Good job, Alex!

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on June 06, 2009, 07:19:58 PM
Very nice.   &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on June 06, 2009, 11:11:24 PM
*drool*

Where's that drooling smiley? Ah, found one!

(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh245/RebaLynnTS/Drool.jpg)

(It's too big, could someone who knows how to resize it to a better size please do so?)

EDIT: Thanks Becca, though not exactly what I was asking for....there's this funky code you can put in your image tags to resize images, but I've never gotten the hang of it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RebaLynnTS on June 07, 2009, 01:10:55 AM
How's this?

(http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh245/RebaLynnTS/Drool.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on June 07, 2009, 03:12:27 AM
A real NAM-feature that was missing all the time.

Great work, Alex!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on June 07, 2009, 11:11:45 AM
Very nice Alex! These will be very handy...  &apls

dragonshardz:
Code: [Select]
[IMG width=xxx height=xxx]URL[/IMG]
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on June 07, 2009, 01:53:24 PM
Thanks DTP.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on June 08, 2009, 12:06:19 AM
I bet haljackey will be pretty happy with these.

Indeed I am.  I have been waiting a long time for these.  They look great!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Mad_genius on June 30, 2009, 05:36:14 AM
Hi everyone!

I was wondering if it would be possible to do a facelift mod for monorail, elevated roads and avenues e rail viaducts. Like the El-Rail facelift mod.

Would it be possible. Or would it involve to much work to be done in the near future?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on June 30, 2009, 11:34:34 AM
Mad_genius:

Yes it is possible, but the work is advanced, and time consuming, for some, sometimes frustrating.

Actually Marrten (mrtnrln) is in the middle of doing a facelift mod for just that. He is working on a major facelift mod for the El/El-Over Road. He also changed alot of Maxis elevated network viaducts to have the sidewalk, and median props for avenues to actually stay under the viaduct. Marrten's mod is a High Def texture replacement mod that replaces the track, but so far does not work with a the el-rail facelift mod, which adds city props underneath.

As for monorail, if you were looking for a similar el-rail facelift ground package for that, I don't recall something like that existing currently.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on July 01, 2009, 02:59:56 AM
Mad_genius:

Yes it is possible, but the work is advanced, and time consuming, for some, sometimes frustrating.

Actually Marrten (mrtnrln) is in the middle of doing a facelift mod for just that. He is working on a major facelift mod for the El/El-Over Road. He also changed alot of Maxis elevated network viaducts to have the sidewalk, and median props for avenues to actually stay under the viaduct. Marrten's mod is a High Def texture replacement mod that replaces the track, but so far does not work with a the el-rail facelift mod, which adds city props underneath.

As for monorail, if you were looking for a similar el-rail facelift ground package for that, I don't recall something like that existing currently.
Really? I was only doing the Highways and I just started a project to make a new Avenue network (which is in a very early stage). The rest, unfortunately, isn't true, I believe. There must be some kind of missunderstanding.

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on July 01, 2009, 05:52:17 AM
Yeah,I thought that looked odd! I believe he meant BuddyBud.

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on July 01, 2009, 09:41:17 AM
Do'h!  Whoops, yeah my by bad, I meant BuddyBud was doing a texture replacement for the El. Thats what I get for staying up to 1 in the morning.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vershner on July 01, 2009, 06:20:41 PM
I updated the NAM 2x2 roundabout textures so that they will now work with sidewalk mods. Basically I just made a proper alpha for them. I uploaded the fix to the Stex [Link (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=21972)]. Feel free to include this in the next NAM if you like.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: KoV Liberty on July 01, 2009, 07:51:08 PM
They look great in my city! Thanks!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 16, 2009, 02:40:56 AM
More progress on the Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue model facelift, using Jan (Swamper77)'s models with some modifications:

(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9894/nam081520091.jpg)

Yes, I know I need to remove the streetlight T21 out of the middle there. :D

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on August 16, 2009, 03:45:49 AM
that is awesome Tarkus...now is it going to be draggable? LOL
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SC4BOY on August 16, 2009, 05:48:34 AM
Do you know if there is a puzzle piece for RAIL over AVENUE with GLR? This piece may not be possible? This is for the old fashioned "underpass" method made with sunken Ave + rail pieces. Rail seems to go over/under most everything except the GLR items (with the exception of straight rail over GLR (the narrow "rural" GLR)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on August 16, 2009, 06:01:31 AM
Wow! These pieces are great! &apls
Do you know if there is a puzzle piece for RAIL over AVENUE with GLR?
There's already one in the GLR on Avenue menu ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: simmaster07 on August 16, 2009, 08:36:05 AM
Instead of a lot/BAT, I made a script for installing the Network Addon Mod on a Macintosh.
ST thread (http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=105&threadid=109000&enterthread=y)
STEX (http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=22278)
MediaFire (http://www.mediafire.com/file/iwnbzyk5ti2/NAM-Mac-Install-Script.zip)

It is a terminal script and should be run from the terminal. I don't own a Mac, but since Macs and Linux both support bash scripting, it was tested on Fedora 11. No, GUI support is not expected any time in the future (unless you download Zenity (http://zenity.darwinports.com/) and DarwinPorts (http://darwinports.com), but I won't do that to you unless you really want me to). Download the NAM for Mac (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=852) archive and put it in the same folder as the installer.

Open up a terminal and run these commands:
Code: [Select]
cd ~/Downloads [assuming it's in your Downloads folder]
chmod 777 NAM-Install
./NAM-Install

Feel free to redistribute it as long as credit is given (CC-BY-NC-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/)). The last found error is stored in the install.log files scattered in each folder the installer works in for some odd reason.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on August 16, 2009, 09:08:41 AM
Love the new look of the overpass! That looks much more appealing.

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Dexter on August 16, 2009, 04:23:44 PM
I really like the overpass, and it matches the ones in the RHW, which has to be a good thing :). Are these going to replace the overpass puzzle-pieces, or be draggable like the ones in the RHW mod.

I prefer the puzzle-piece method myself, as the problem with the draggable ones is that they require a 1 tile gap between the on-slope piece and the ground network, which the puzzle piece based ones do not. Is this something that can't be fixed, or is it already on the cards  ;)?

I seem to remember that the current overpass pieces were made by Redlotus around 5 years ago, and were supposed to be temporary until better ones were made. What happened to Redlotus and The7Trumpets anyway? They used to be very involved with the NAM a few years back.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on August 16, 2009, 04:44:59 PM
More progress on the Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue model facelift, using Jan (Swamper77)'s models with some modifications

Two words: Awe Some! Holding my breath for more!  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 16, 2009, 04:55:54 PM
Thanks for the kind words, guys!

Are these going to replace the overpass puzzle-pieces, or be draggable like the ones in the RHW mod.

Right now, I'm just replacing the existing puzzle piece models with new ones.  I did work up a crude prototype for a draggable Elevated Road setup awhile back, and probably down the road, both systems will exist.

the problem with the draggable ones is that they require a 1 tile gap between the on-slope piece and the ground network, which the puzzle piece based ones do not. Is this something that can't be fixed, or is it already on the cards  ;)?

All I can say on that front is that it's being looked into.

I seem to remember that the current overpass pieces were made by Redlotus around 5 years ago, and were supposed to be temporary until better ones were made. What happened to Redlotus and The7Trumpets anyway? They used to be very involved with the NAM a few years back.

redlotus and the7trumpets seem to have more or less vanished.  the7trumpets was kind of still around when I first showed up in the community, in early 2006, but hasn't been heard from since.  redlotus' well-known Yahoo Briefcase, containing the old Interchange Tutorial, has also gone missing as of late.  I know Tropod was involved in making those models as well.  He's relatively inactive these days, but I've bumped into him in ST Chat a few times in the past couple months.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: allan_kuan1992 on August 16, 2009, 10:07:25 PM
actually... Alex, you could just put a small concrete base around that streetlight... and maybe a single row of concrete barrier in the middle too.

- Allan Kuan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: carkid1998 on August 17, 2009, 02:29:07 AM

There are diagonal-orthogonal transitions for these models, aren't there? So does that mean... 45 degree curves!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: joelyboy911 on August 17, 2009, 03:34:08 AM
On the topic of the elevated roads - personally, I prefer the model with the round pillar - any chance this could be left as an option?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: smoncrie on August 17, 2009, 07:35:09 PM
I had forgotten that Alex (Tarkus) had said that he was going to work on some of the old elevated puzzle piece models, and I started to work on my own version.   When I saw his pictures, I decided to finish mine.  They still do need a few finishing touches, but here they are:

(http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll299/smoncrie/RoadViaduct.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: KoV Liberty on August 17, 2009, 07:48:06 PM
:o I LOVE THOSE!!!! When your finished can you send them to me?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sithlrd98 on August 17, 2009, 08:05:41 PM
We really need a drool smiley! Those are amazing! I like both Jans props and yours, but I think yours are better suited for commercial areas where as Jans would fit a more rural/highway type of usage.I think it would be great if somehow both could be used , but I am sure that would prove to be a pain to implement.

Jayson
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SC4BOY on August 18, 2009, 12:04:23 AM
Wow! These pieces are great! &aplsThere's already one in the GLR on Avenue menu ;)

Hmm.. well it was a bit of a pain to get it to work.. I assume you mean the one labeled "GLR under VIADUCT"? I did make the underpass and it worked ok.. thanks.. :)

I've moved a message to here.. I think I put it on the wrong forum.. sorry.. anyway here it is:

I would like to request one added puzzle piece for tram-in-avenue. This piece is rather awkward to program around without it. That is the simple case of the AVENUE taking a turn (right or left, right angled) while the GLR continues straight. I realize that it CAN be done by using a "crossing" piece T or X intersection, then going from that, but it looks pretty bad that way and introduces an intersection where one should not be needed... I know this is a rather minor detail, but I thought I'd bring it up.. I hope this is an ok place to post this.. if not feel free to move it.. Thanks. The "GLR on ROAD" has these pieces, but not the Avenue (unless I've missed it again )

Here's the idea:
(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/4197/tramcurve.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on August 19, 2009, 10:37:53 PM
That doesn't look safe...there'd have to be a VERY sharp s-curve in the middle of the turn for the GLR to be sitting on one tile. Wouldn't it work just as well to have the GLR split from the curve before the curve?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: tamorr on August 19, 2009, 11:57:43 PM
I don't think it would be sharp if it were created like a diagonal transition Shifting slightly that way then lining up. Then again I am not that keen on dinamics, but at least it would look nice in game done that way. :)

So in a way it would start to separate from the avenue before the turn. It is an idea to go about it, but I am not sure if it can be programed to do something like that, pathing-wise. Don't know much about the subject personally. Just a thought, but an interesting idea for an addition.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on August 20, 2009, 12:09:48 AM
Quote from: dragonshardz
there'd have to be a VERY sharp s-curve in the middle of the turn for the GLR to be sitting on one tile.

@SC4BOY:
Not that this is real, this is not a real piece, but just the fact that there is the amount of room to do it in the SC4 world, the tracks could be straight on the curve, but to go all directions, the switch would have to be in the middle of the road, and signals would be needed, then the rails would have to cross curved over the asphalt. See attachment below
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DJPTiger on August 20, 2009, 08:27:51 AM
Good day,

I'm from the German form www.simforum.de (http://www.simforum.de) .

I also had some time ago "Chrisim" these textures as PNG files are available:

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/ouiNuhxCQ/img/225KreuztT-RAM.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/BXKPJISl/img/Allee45Kurve-DiogonaleTram-DiagonaleTramaufahrt.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/dlCOKI4r/img/Allee45Kurve-DiogonaleTram-GradeTramaufahrt.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/c0hsgUnH7J/img/Allee45Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version1.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/1I0JugAs/img/Allee45Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version2.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/SJzKbCm2/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version1.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/ASM1qKpkAei/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version2.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/aWtttWjr/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version3.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/FLgCF4Av/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version4.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/2T1ZAQ018/img/DiagonaleAllee-DiagonaleTram-GradeTramausfahrt.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/g63DGddCCP/img/DiagonaleAllee-DiagonaleTram-WeichenausfahrtGrade.PNG)

I hope you like the textures.


Greeting DJPTiger

Google-English
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on August 20, 2009, 09:17:41 AM
Those are very good.  I especially like the FAR-GLR crossing.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SC4BOY on August 20, 2009, 02:44:52 PM
That doesn't look safe...there'd have to be a VERY sharp s-curve in the middle of the turn for the GLR to be sitting on one tile. Wouldn't it work just as well to have the GLR split from the curve before the curve?

No less safe than any of the other dozen or so "intersections" .. recall that the El-RAIL (GLR) and the avenue traffic don't really intersect at all. ;) To split it out before the intersection certainly works (and is one of the ways I "solved" the issue) But of course it blocks all C,R,I access in that stretch, plus it either takes significant space or involves considerable demolition of buildings in the area .. and after all one of the STRONG motivations of GLR at all is space-conserving construction.

@SC4BOY:
Not that this is real, this is not a real piece, but just the fact that there is the amount of room to do it in the SC4 world, the tracks could be straight on the curve, but to go all directions, the switch would have to be in the middle of the road, and signals would be needed, then the rails would have to cross curved over the asphalt. See attachment below

hehe.. well while the statement is true, it wasn't a problem on the other 15 or 20 GLR on AVE puzzle pieces.. I mean its easy to get tied up in details that are only visible from the closest views.. I mean the very GLR in AVE is "wrong" because the cars and the GLR (which really is elevated rail, remember? :) ) don't interact at all..

Good day,

I'm from the German form www.simforum.de (http://www.simforum.de) .

I also had some time ago "Chrisim" these textures as PNG files are available:

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/SJzKbCm2/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version1.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/ASM1qKpkAei/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version2.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/aWtttWjr/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version3.PNG)

(http://www1.picfront.org/picture/FLgCF4Av/img/Allee90Kurve-GradeTram-GradeTramaufahrt-Version4.PNG)

That's perfect IMO.. those aren't available pieces on the released NAM items that I have available.. thanks for the pics. That illustrates just what I was talking about.. in fact I don't even care if all 4 aren't available .. any one would be workable to me
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: citymax on September 13, 2009, 03:59:29 PM
Greatttttttttt ! &apls :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SimNation on December 26, 2009, 04:43:06 PM
I have  a question that may or may not have been asked by some after STR first came out. Are plans for Single Track GLR in the works for the NAM in the future? I was looking at some interesting pictures of some Grass GLR lines in Europe and saw some wonder single track GLR lines that ran through woodsey areas that looked almost like parks. So I thought about how wonderful it would look if we were able to recreate that look via Single Track GLR.

Moved over to NAM: Development, as this is more related to new features than tech support. -Alex/Tarkus, Admin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 26, 2009, 04:50:19 PM
SimNation, to answer your question, at the moment, there are no plans for a Single-Track GLR, though we've had a few people request it recently.  The main issue is textures.  The existing GLR RULs could be ported over without much difficulty, and the paths could be borrowed from STR with only slight modification, so if someone were to supply textures, it would be a relatively feasible undertaking.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: WC_EEND on December 26, 2009, 05:09:19 PM
sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't you just use the existing GLR textures and cut away one track? (ofcourse additional textures need to be made, but I mean as a basis)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 26, 2009, 05:15:15 PM
sorry if this is a dumb question, but couldn't you just use the existing GLR textures and cut away one track? (ofcourse additional textures need to be made, but I mean as a basis)

You could sort of get away with that on the orthogonal end, but diagonals, curves, junctions and intersections would require a fair amount of work.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ophiuchus14 on January 14, 2010, 08:39:28 PM
I dunno if this question has been asked before but is anyone able to develop raised road lots for curved roads, one way roads and avenues (i.e. orthogonal to diagonal or FAR))
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on January 16, 2010, 09:45:40 AM
To answer your question, JBSimio has been working on what's called "FAB", short for "Fractional Angle Buildings".

Any questions should be directed his way.
Title: hey everybody
Post by: doctor25 on January 16, 2010, 02:53:53 PM
plz visit my new project
i made a new road layout
i need help to finish it

tnx :)

http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=9966.msg302888#msg302888
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 22, 2010, 06:24:07 AM
First prototypes of Asymmetrical Dual Networking Avenue, U-RailxAvenue and ElRailxAvenue.
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1874/adna1i.jpg)

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8554/adna2.jpg)

Some people would prefer symmetrical versions but I wanted to have asymmetrical version which allows two kinds of trains to run on the same width.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Monorail Master on January 22, 2010, 05:11:18 PM
Thank God that EL above Ave is a prototype. I spy with my eyes a traffic light problem with the ped-crossing! Why not placing 2 single pole traffic lights on both sides of the side the El-Track is above?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Battlecat on January 22, 2010, 05:29:27 PM
 ??? :o  &apls

Congratulations on this achievement, it adds an amazing new layer of possibility to the game.  I really like the idea of this asymmetrical network!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 23, 2010, 12:39:26 AM
@Monorail Master and Battlecat: Thank you.

I spy with my eyes a traffic light problem with the ped-crossing! Why not placing 2 single pole traffic lights on both sides of the side the El-Track is above?

I simply imported the prop layout from Swamper's lot. I'll take your suggestion into account next time I edit the T21.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on January 23, 2010, 10:35:41 AM
@Monorail Master and Battlecat: Thank you.

I simply imported the prop layout from Swamper's lot. I'll take your suggestion into account next time I edit the T21.

Ebina, if you'd like, I can send you my HAWK (High Awareness Crosswalk) model to use there.

(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9133/11710hawk.png)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on January 25, 2010, 04:32:36 AM
Ebina, if you'd like, I can send you my HAWK (High Awareness Crosswalk) model to use there.

Thank you for your offer. Since stoplights won't be animated on railway based networks I was going to remove them. Your sign will be very nice replacement.

May I request some additional models?
- LHD version. Not every LHD user likes to install pillars onto medians (using rotated RHD prop), I guess.
- Signs without pillar that can be attached to bottom of el-rail floor.
If you need to see the height of el-rail floor please take a look at S3D of IID 0x5326380x or 0x532CF70x in the NetworkAddonMod_Light_URail_Puzzle_Plugin.dat. ElRailxAvenue piece uses the same model but different roadway texture.
 
By the way, when I'll edit T21 where should I install the signs? Right above the pedestrian crossing, or a few meters before?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on January 25, 2010, 01:36:07 PM
Thank you for your offer. Since stoplights won't be animated on railway based networks I was going to remove them. Your sign will be very nice replacement.

May I request some additional models?
- LHD version. Not every LHD user likes to install pillars onto medians (using rotated RHD prop), I guess.
- Signs without pillar that can be attached to bottom of el-rail floor.
If you need to see the height of el-rail floor please take a look at S3D of IID 0x5326380x or 0x532CF70x in the NetworkAddonMod_Light_URail_Puzzle_Plugin.dat. ElRailxAvenue piece uses the same model but different roadway texture.
 
By the way, when I'll edit T21 where should I install the signs? Right above the pedestrian crossing, or a few meters before?

In the picture I showed, I have the assemblies mounted a few meters on the "far" side of the crosswalk.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Mysteryous on April 06, 2010, 04:20:27 PM
I am curious though... It has been such a long time since I have heard of any updates (messages, uploads, or otherwise) about the NAM.  I know that the NAM has no release schedule, but it seems that development is becoming sort of... stale as of late.  I mean it's been almost a year since the last release.  Perhaps I'm coming off as impatient, but having to wait this long is starting to get to me in a bad way.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on April 06, 2010, 04:25:07 PM
Don't worry, a new version is definitely in the works. Please keep in mind that we're all doing this in our free time, and transit modding definitely is one of the more advanced modding types, so some things might take quite a bit of time until they are ready.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: crocodileguy on April 21, 2010, 07:21:11 PM
I hope this is the right thread, but I was wondering if it wouldn't be too much trouble to include a one-way version of the Euro-style RIRO freeway ramps in a future NAM update, similar to the image below:

(http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad38/crocodileguy/idea.png)

This design is really space efficient, and I like to make my freeways as compact as possible.  This would really help for quick 90-degree freeway access, and is a design frequently found in California.



ETA: I just screencapped the standard 2-way ramp and edited it quickly in MS Paint.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on April 22, 2010, 09:52:05 AM
Interesting crocodileguy... could be a very useful addition.

Welcome to SC4D by the way!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: crocodileguy on April 25, 2010, 11:44:25 PM
Thanks, I've been a registered member on here for forever, just never posted anything.  Love the NAM, and the great work everyone has done here...really amped up the quality of my cities.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Opkl on April 28, 2010, 04:37:52 PM
I don't know if this has been asked yet, but how about a cloverleaf interchange for Ground/Elevated Highway and Avenue?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ShultzCity on April 28, 2010, 05:18:01 PM
I'm not sure if this is in the works for V4.0, but I would personally love to see RHW FAR (maybe FARHW?) - using FAR in suburban areas usually hampers the ability to create tightly packed houses and businesses, but RHW doesn't have these restrictions.... What do you think?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 28, 2010, 05:54:04 PM
I'm not sure if this is in the works for V4.0, but I would personally love to see RHW FAR (maybe FARHW?) - using FAR in suburban areas usually hampers the ability to create tightly packed houses and businesses, but RHW doesn't have these restrictions.... What do you think?

It is indeed in the works for Version 4.0 . . . the RHW-2, RHW-4, RHW-6S and MIS Ramps will all have some form of Fractional Angle pieces.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Glazert on April 29, 2010, 03:11:17 AM
It is indeed in the works for Version 4.0 . . . the RHW-2, RHW-4, RHW-6S and MIS Ramps will all have some form of Fractional Angle pieces.

That really is good news. It will make it possible to create highways which conform to the landscape and where the road system at highway intersections doesn't have to be contorted to fit it with orthogonal or diagonal limitations.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on May 01, 2010, 10:51:36 AM
It is indeed in the works for Version 4.0 . . . the RHW-2, RHW-4, RHW-6S and MIS Ramps will all have some form of Fractional Angle pieces.

-Alex

excellent news!!

mauricio.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: komekazee on May 17, 2010, 04:16:07 PM
Why can i not download the file?  There is no link for download

http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=853

http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=851

Neither of those pages have a link for a download..  I really want this.. can anyone  please help me?????
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: deathtopumpkins on May 17, 2010, 04:18:16 PM
You have to register on the LEX to download.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jpj_starfleet on May 23, 2010, 12:25:39 AM
I was wondering if there will ever be any wide radius curves for the one-way roads? I have a situation were I want them for my harbor tunnel exit/entrance, simple left or right curves on the one ways just don't look good especially for real life traffic situations, this is a test area with the wide radius road curves and FLUP's that I created to show you what why I think there would be good for the game...
(http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/20235/2221187940053958490S600x600Q85.jpg) (http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2221187940053958490QhaapF)

Thank You   ;D

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 23, 2010, 03:04:31 PM
I was wondering if there will ever be any wide radius curves for the one-way roads?

Yes, eventually.  I had been working on some awhile ago but ran into some issues with the OneWayDir commands in the RUL and had a bunch of other stuff going on, so I shelved them for awhile (and similarly shelved the OWR-1 and OWR-3 Wide-Radius Curves for the NWM).  I plan on getting back to them relatively soon, however.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RogerRon91 on May 24, 2010, 11:01:15 AM
Hmm.. well it was a bit of a pain to get it to work.. I assume you mean the one labeled "GLR under VIADUCT"? I did make the underpass and it worked ok.. thanks.. :)

I've moved a message to here.. I think I put it on the wrong forum.. sorry.. anyway here it is:

I would like to request one added puzzle piece for tram-in-avenue. This piece is rather awkward to program around without it. That is the simple case of the AVENUE taking a turn (right or left, right angled) while the GLR continues straight. I realize that it CAN be done by using a "crossing" piece T or X intersection, then going from that, but it looks pretty bad that way and introduces an intersection where one should not be needed... I know this is a rather minor detail, but I thought I'd bring it up.. I hope this is an ok place to post this.. if not feel free to move it.. Thanks. The "GLR on ROAD" has these pieces, but not the Avenue (unless I've missed it again )

Here's the idea:
...example...

On the whole, this is a great idea! :thumbsup: Once, I create such a puzzle piece.
How do you like that? :)
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/cbef2ec915151fc6d058bd87936d424f.png) (http://www.ld-host.de/)

It is an example.... ;)


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: SC4BOY on May 24, 2010, 02:56:36 PM
On the whole, this is a great idea! :thumbsup: Once, I create such a puzzle piece.
How do you like that? :)
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/cbef2ec915151fc6d058bd87936d424f.png) (http://www.ld-host.de/)

Looks fine to me. I'm not very hard to please. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on June 26, 2010, 09:51:32 PM
Any chance of a 30m El Rail to Subway conversion in a future version?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Fluggi on July 13, 2010, 01:14:51 PM
Hello guys, I just have a short question.

In case of the pedmall pieces, all the different pedmall puzzle pieces use just one path file.
I looked for the piece's ID in the puzzle piece Exemplar files, but i couldn't find it.
How does a puzzle piece know which path file it has to use?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Chrisim on July 13, 2010, 02:49:46 PM
The Path ID is defined in the controller. The ID of the pedmall pieces is 0x55267100
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Fluggi on July 13, 2010, 04:05:38 PM
Okay, thank you.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JayStimson on August 05, 2010, 01:23:52 PM
I could use some geometry help from the NAM folks.
I'm developing some new props for use with sunken highways (an old project recently revived) and I can't seem to get a handle on the geometry specifics for the ortho to diag transition pieces.

(http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5613/jsortho2diaghelp.jpg)

I've got the distances to the edge of the highway pretty close so the width of the concrete drainage area covers the ground terrain but I'm not sure about the curvature section. It looks like the ortho section extends a bit (the width of the ortho drainage area) before it begins to arc into the diagonal but I'm not sure how much and I don't know the radius of the arc once the curvature starts.
I would guess the NAM developers have this information and I would really appreciate it if someone could share it. I'd really like to make these pieces fit perfectly.
Also, my best estimate for width drainage areas is 4.7 meters for ortho and 6.627 meters for the diag. Could someone confirm these values or provide the correct ones ? The correct values would give me two points the arc would need to intersect but three points are needed to uniquely define the circle arc or two points and the radius.
Help would be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MutantPlatypus on August 07, 2010, 09:57:04 PM
So read elsewhere (NWM) there was some trick learned about road capacities.  Does this mean that Overpasses will now have no network effect and the double-layer tile (the part where both networks are crossing) won't have volume and congestion issues anymore?  Was this a known issue?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on August 07, 2010, 11:02:58 PM
So read elsewhere (NWM) there was some trick learned about road capacities.  Does this mean that Overpasses will now have no network effect and the double-layer tile (the part where both networks are crossing) won't have volume and congestion issues anymore?  Was this a known issue?

These are known issues, but unfortunately they're built deep into the game, and the new flexibility with road capacities won't have an on them.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vil on August 10, 2010, 06:50:48 AM
Hello there NAM team, my heroes!  ;)

I have a small wish/suggestion/reminder/contribution/correction to make.

Maxis in their eternal wisdom chose to forget to add night lights to el trains, even though the required textures and models are present in the game. The Nam team then UDI enabled el trains and corrected some minor maxis errors, but did not add the lights.

Since this absence of lights is easily corrected (and because it carries over to trams) I would like to propose to do so in the next NAM release, whenever that may be.

Meanwhile I attach the exemplars from NetworkAddonMod1.dat that have the el train lights enabled (this file also works as a standalone el train light fix if you dont use the NAM, but then why are you reading this thread?).

Alternatively you can download NetworkAddonMod1_vil.dat (http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/19/793716/NetworkAddonMod1_vil.dat) which you can then simply use to replace NetworkAddonMod1.dat in your NAM folder.

(http://a.imageshack.us/img16/7665/vilel.th.jpg) (http://img16.imageshack.us/i/vilel.jpg/)



Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vil on August 10, 2010, 08:49:18 AM
Possible doublepost warning!

 ::)

The other thing I wanted to mention is this: when you place NAM pieces, previews often get hidden by terrain or buildings. Disabling the "depth test" in the materials setting of the preview models´ S3Ds like so:

(http://a.imageshack.us/img517/439/vilwendeschleife.th.jpg) (http://img517.imageshack.us/i/vilwendeschleife.jpg/)

does this:

(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/2502/vilprw1.th.jpg) (http://img714.imageshack.us/i/vilprw1.jpg/)

(http://a.imageshack.us/img132/6314/vilprw2.th.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/vilprw2.jpg/)

(http://a.imageshack.us/img228/3566/vilprw3.th.jpg) (http://img228.imageshack.us/i/vilprw3.jpg/)

I like the effect of that, however I am not sure it will work for everybody, if you want to try it out, I made the changes for the wide radius road curves plugin and the Ground Light Rail Plugin only (files replace those in your NAM/Plugins folder that have the same name) vil NAM Plugins.zip (http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/19/793716/vil%20NAM%20Plugins.zip)

Try tabbing through the GLR pieces over a city.
 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 10, 2010, 07:45:46 PM
vil, thanks for sharing!  The Depth Test thing will prove very useful--certainly more so than raising the model, which has been the practice for awhile now. :thumbsup:  And with your permission, I can incorporate the El-Rail lighting into this upcoming release.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vil on August 11, 2010, 01:56:02 AM
thank you :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: darraghf on August 30, 2010, 05:25:02 AM
I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but, would it be possible to make a el-railXelevated heavy rail piece. I could do with it :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: travismking on August 30, 2010, 08:24:29 AM
this wouldnt be a NAM thing,someone would have to make a TE lot that would allow it, since it would have to convert traffic from el-rail to rail and back again, its probably already existing somewhere on the stex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on August 30, 2010, 11:32:59 AM
I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but, would it be possible to make a el-railXelevated heavy rail piece. I could do with it :)

It is actually already possible by using el-rail on-slope pieces and just the standard heavy rail viaduct pieces. The same way you can also make GLRxheavy rail connections. Works at least for me. Can't right now remeber how it is specifically done, but you could just try plopping and bulldozing certain sections of the on-slope piece and then plop the heavy rail viaduct piece next to it like it would be just the viaduct.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gamma4815 on August 30, 2010, 07:09:48 PM
I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but, would it be possible to make a el-railXelevated heavy rail piece. I could do with it :)

Do you mean Elevated Heavy Rail perpendicular to Elevated Rail?

         ll
      =   =      Like This?     or did you mean  Like This?  Heavy Elevated Rail => Elevated Rail
         ll

A Perpendicular Puzzle piece would be useful.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on August 31, 2010, 06:16:20 AM
I meant like Heavy Elevated rail => Elevated rail:

===----

=== El Heavy Rail
--- Normal El Rail

I guess i could look into how i did it and post here, when i have more time.



I also have an request or a question:

Would it be possible to make a 90 degrees (and 45 degrees also) flexfly Elevated heavy rail piece for some NAM release. I would find this very useful as it would take much less space to build if some roads are blocking the way for normal turns.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jayster on September 01, 2010, 02:46:16 PM
I had a thought earlier today, have you guys thought of creating FlexFly for every elevated network? Like instead of having the normal puzzle pieces, you just plop down a straight FlexFly piece to cross rail and other ground netowkrs. These pieces could come in 1x1 and 1x2 maybe. I know there would be a lot of coding and stuff but it would drastically reduce the number of puzzle pieces and thus make it quicker and easier to build elevated networks.

Just an idea.  :thumbsup:

Jayster
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: darraghf on September 01, 2010, 03:25:20 PM
Do you mean Elevated Heavy Rail perpendicular to Elevated Rail?

         ll
      =   =      Like This?     or did you mean  Like This?  Heavy Elevated Rail => Elevated Rail
         ll

A Perpendicular Puzzle piece would be useful.
        ll
      =  =   I mean this instance
        ll
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on September 01, 2010, 04:12:03 PM
        ll
      =  =   I mean this instance
        ll

Oh, i misunderstood you, sorry. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on September 02, 2010, 01:50:44 AM
I had a thought earlier today, have you guys thought of creating FlexFly for every elevated network? Like instead of having the normal puzzle pieces, you just plop down a straight FlexFly piece to cross rail and other ground netowkrs. These pieces could come in 1x1 and 1x2 maybe. I know there would be a lot of coding and stuff but it would drastically reduce the number of puzzle pieces and thus make it quicker and easier to build elevated networks.

I had this idea a while ago and bought it up in the RHW thread only to be spectacularly shot down and come crashing down in a fireball thanks to a NAM member who shall remain unnamed.
 FLEXfly is planned for many of the RHW wide curves, but I'm not aware of any plans to adapt any other pieces (like the wide 45 degree Heavy Rail viaduct) for FLEXfly.
The way it was worded it is that it's either not possible, too much work, or no.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jayster on September 02, 2010, 02:08:38 AM
Darn, I thought it would make life so much easier. But yah, all the coding would be killer. Oh well.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 02, 2010, 02:32:57 AM
Actually, at that point, it would probably make more sense just to make the elevated networks draggable, which has been under discussion for probably about 3 years or so, and probably will happen . . . eventually (I swear that's becoming my new "catchphrase" :D).

The main problem with the Rail curves is that they're just so huge.  The 90-degree curve is a 9x9 behemoth.  The number of moving (overrideable) parts that would be required is quite staggering--and would number in the hundreds.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Blue Lightning on September 02, 2010, 03:38:08 PM
Somewhere around 11 positions (and 11 mirrors, total of 22 positions - that already overwhelms the IID addressing system that I can use that makes sense), with... lets see:
Road
Avenue 1
Avenue 2
OWR
Street
Rail-2
Rail-1
GLR Urban
GLR Rural
All the RHW networks
All the NWM networks
All the SAM networks
GHSR

There's just too much, a the amount of RUL for that one single piece would be somewhere around 18000 lines, a little less than than 3 times the amount that FLEXFly sits at right now (6904 lines)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: meister1235 on September 13, 2010, 01:16:54 PM
hi,

i think this is the best place to make an idea public:
i have a small theory about the path files and the tunnels at SC4.  &idea
i think the lots give the path files only a offset where to place the paths files.
eg: if a lot is at location 100/ 50 than the path file start at the offset 100/50/(height of the terrain where the lot(puzzle piece is placed).
But at the tunnels it make a direct path connection between the tunnel entrances and this explain why the RHW tunnels don't work.
this explain also why the cars appear in UDI when a deeper location is between the entrance from the tunnel.

meister

EDIT: i want to show a picture to show what i mean:

(http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz180/meister1235/PATHTEST-8Jan111284406633.png)

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 13, 2010, 05:08:39 PM
The reason the RHW tunnel paths are not showing up is not because they aren't there--it's because there isn't a proper exemplar to refer to the tunnel for that network (which is also why no model appears).  Adding an exemplar at the proper Network Specific Group ID (NSGID), 0x6BE08658, at the same IID as the Road tunnel (0x0AD00000) causes it to appear and like the other tunnels that do work, the paths will show up "stretched out".  I've attached the appropriate exemplar below so you can see for yourself.

(http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3803/rhw091320101.jpg)

However, even with the paths and the proper model in place and everything looking like it should actually work, the game is unable to recognize it as a viable path for traffic, and as such, it will go completely unused.  UDI vehicles can go through it, but actual traffic cannot, unfortunately.  I've experimented with it off-and-on for the past 2-3 years to no avail, as have several other NAMites--everything seems to point to the .exe controlling the viability of the tunnel.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: hhf_05 on September 14, 2010, 02:13:47 AM
First prototypes of Asymmetrical Dual Networking Avenue, U-RailxAvenue and ElRailxAvenue.
(http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1874/adna1i.jpg)

(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8554/adna2.jpg)

Some people would prefer symmetrical versions but I wanted to have asymmetrical version which allows two kinds of trains to run on the same width.
Just wanna ask how is this project going? I am very interested in it lol
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ebina on September 14, 2010, 04:49:17 AM
Just wanna ask how is this project going? I am very interested in it lol

ADNA pieces will be very very delayed. I was focusing on basic interface pieces for Underground Rail than ADNA recently. And this. (http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6679/pseudohwyxave.jpg)

Quote
URail x Elevated highway pieces, added into URail x Maxis Roadways button. I disabled the backface culling option to take the screenshots. URail base texture is replaced with Jeronij's high wealth sidewalk.

(http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/4751/urailxelhwy.th.jpg) (http://img682.imageshack.us/i/urailxelhwy.jpg/)

Interface pieces for DTR, DTR viaduct, STR, ELR, High ELR, Monorail, High Monorail, GHSR and HSR. Can be selected from a new URail x Railways button.

(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5741/urailxrail.th.jpg) (http://img243.imageshack.us/i/urailxrail.jpg/) (http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4282/urailxelrail.th.jpg) (http://img715.imageshack.us/i/urailxelrail.jpg/) (http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/7052/urailxmonorail.th.jpg) (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/urailxmonorail.jpg/) (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2123/urailxhsr.th.jpg) (http://img844.imageshack.us/i/urailxhsr.jpg/)

Interface pieces for urban GLR, rural GLR, Tram-on-Street and Tram-in-Avenue. These are separated from railways button and added into URail x Tramways button.

(http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/285/urailxtram1.th.jpg) (http://img820.imageshack.us/i/urailxtram1.jpg/) (http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2773/urailxtram2.th.jpg) (http://img820.imageshack.us/i/urailxtram2.jpg/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on September 14, 2010, 07:16:21 AM
And this. (http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6679/pseudohwyxave.jpg)

Oh my god, are my eyes lying?? That is so awesome!

I also like the Underground Rail, it is very useful in many places as it can act as a subway, shame that it hasn't got many stations around. ADNA also looks very nice!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 15, 2010, 11:33:55 PM
Oh my god, are my eyes lying?? That is so awesome!

Yes, Ebina san has been very busy.  ;D  And that's not even all the pieces.  $%Grinno$%  There are a few more that have been added since those pictures were made.

Quote
I also like the Underground Rail, it is very useful in many places as it can act as a subway, shame that it hasn't got many stations around.

I agree, which is why the next release of RTMT, currently in beta testing and due out this fall, will have more than 50 new stations that support Underground Rail intersections.  The release after that will have a few dozen more stations for Underground Rail; these will be inline stations for the network itself.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jmyers2043 on October 02, 2010, 01:58:17 PM
Hello NAM experts ...

Who knows the exact width of the Maxis Highway road surface? And what is the width of the road barriers? I can probably figure it out but am hoping that someone has that information and I'll be saved some trial and error time.

Thanks in advance.
 
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s26/jmyers2043/BridgeElement.jpg)

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Aaron Graham on October 02, 2010, 02:52:34 PM
jmyers2043- That highway look good, I hope to see them soon to replace the maxis highways. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on October 02, 2010, 03:49:29 PM
Hello NAM experts ...

Who knows the exact width of the Maxis Highway road surface? And what is the width of the road barriers? I can probably figure it out but am hoping that someone has that information and I'll be saved some trial and error time.

Thanks in advance.
 
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s26/jmyers2043/BridgeElement.jpg)


To answer your question:
Barrier width: 0.7m
Barrier height: 2.8m
Surface width: 9,7m (3,23m per lane)
Surface height: 0.783m

Your Maxis Freeway model is looking very good  :thumbsup:

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Opkl on October 02, 2010, 08:21:31 PM
Hello NAM experts ...

Who knows the exact width of the Maxis Highway road surface? And what is the width of the road barriers? I can probably figure it out but am hoping that someone has that information and I'll be saved some trial and error time.

Thanks in advance.
 
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s26/jmyers2043/BridgeElement.jpg)



Very nice! Will it be used for a MOD?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on October 02, 2010, 10:30:25 PM
Well, I'd use that very real looking viaduct. My only concern is the drop in the number of bridges it would cause. But, that comes with using a realistic thing like that.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: hhf_05 on October 03, 2010, 03:49:16 AM
ADNA pieces will be very very delayed. I was focusing on basic interface pieces for Underground Rail than ADNA recently. And this. (http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6679/pseudohwyxave.jpg)

you are so cool! Great work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jmyers2043 on October 03, 2010, 08:59:34 AM
Hey Maarten

Thank you for the information. Let's see if I understand correctly. The maxis highway has three lanes. Each lane is 3.23 meters. So (3.23)(6) = 19.38 meters wide.

Adding in the two outside barrier walls is 19.38 + .7 + .7 = 20.78 total width of the outside dimensions of this highway bridge segment.

My question is ... Why is road thickenss important? Is that the TOTAL dimension from top to bottom e.g. tip top of the barrier to the underside of the road?


- Jim


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on October 03, 2010, 09:11:22 AM
Well, the road thickness is the distance between the ground and the road surface. The surface of the Maxis Freeways are "floating" above the ground, 0.783m to be exact. Some Maxis Freeway Bridges don't connect that well, because they forgot the 0.783m road thickness of the Maxis Freeways. The dimensions of the barriers are also measured from the ground.

And by the way, don't you forget to add the dimensions of the inner barriers? (.7m x 2) Just mentioning it ;)

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on October 28, 2010, 04:07:23 PM
The Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue model revamp has been going well . . . and along the way, I've added a piece or two--including a proper Orthogonal-to-Diagonal transition for the Elevated Avenue.  (The Road has one as of NAM Version 28 last year, which has been revamped to match the new models . . . the OWR will be getting one in short order.)

(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5591/nam102820101.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Opkl on October 28, 2010, 04:41:11 PM
The Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue model revamp has been going well . . . and along the way, I've added a piece or two--including a proper Orthogonal-to-Diagonal transition for the Elevated Avenue.  (The Road has one as of NAM Version 28 last year, which has been revamped to match the new models . . . the OWR will be getting one in short order.)

(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5591/nam102820101.jpg)

-Alex

Nice work. ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on October 28, 2010, 06:43:33 PM
still waiting for 7.5m elevated networks XDXDXD
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on October 28, 2010, 08:51:15 PM
The Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue model revamp has been going well . . . and along the way, I've added a piece or two--including a proper Orthogonal-to-Diagonal transition for the Elevated Avenue.  (The Road has one as of NAM Version 28 last year, which has been revamped to match the new models . . . the OWR will be getting one in short order.)
-Alex

Great as always, Alex! Can't wait to see what the next round of NAM updates bring!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on November 02, 2010, 07:09:36 AM
in addition (post copied from interchange guide)

well i wanted to have ago at a diverging windmill and a diverging stack ( you don't list this but its incredible, it only requires two bridges (opposing carriageways of one of the highways) (four if you grade separate the weave) but i didnt realise that there was not a carriageway weave that doesnt have those ramps attached.

however since they are i managed to build a diverging cloverleaf..... can you tell me whats wrong with this picture :D

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mightygoose/NAM/diverging_cloverleaf.jpg)

anyway more experimentation later.

so pieces i now wish to request.

an avenue at grade lane weave (no ramps)
an RHW4 grade separated lane weave (one elevated)(no ramps)
OWR wide radius curves.... (to be honest i am sure they are in there i just couldnt find them.)
a RHW4/RHW2 SPUI

done.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on November 02, 2010, 05:27:26 PM
You should of used RHW-4 instead of OWR, because it don't look pathed right, but that's just me.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on November 07, 2010, 09:01:43 PM
still waiting for 7.5m elevated networks XDXDXD

Join the club.

And that DDI makes no sense. :P



One thing future NAMs should consider:

OK more legitimate threadomancy here....

NAM facelift mod!

[linkie] (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhide-inoki.com%2Fbbs%2Fphpbb2%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D818)

(http://hide-inoki.com/bbs/phpbb2/files/soverpass_ss02.jpg)

(http://hide-inoki.com/bbs/phpbb2/files/soverpass_ss01.jpg)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mightygoose/NAM/overpass_ss03.jpg)


(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mightygoose/NAM/overpass_ss04.jpg)


(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mightygoose/NAM/overpass_ss05.jpg)

OK this mod basically tweaks the new NAM overpasses, i do not know how extensive it is or which networks it covers but it was released today and looks superb.

DOWNLOAD: [liNKIE] (http://hide-inoki.com/bbs/phpbb2/download.php?id=1339&sid=770839efe35c23b7a170d8ef73efaf79)


original description.

and the readme translation

hope this helps.

Tried it out myself and it's simply amazing. Still a few hicks with it, which is why I think it should be included in the NAM. That way all the dings can be hammered out and compatibility issues solved before each release.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: travismking on November 07, 2010, 09:14:46 PM
indeed, I am using it as well and its freakin fantastic,i havent noticed a single overpass piece that hasnt been updated
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on November 07, 2010, 09:42:29 PM
Coincidentally, I've finished up the set I did (as shown on the last page) as well.  Good things come in twos, I suppose--NekoPanch always does fine work. :)

i havent noticed a single overpass piece that hasnt been updated

That won't be true for much longer, however. :D

(http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5996/nam110720102.jpg)

Note what that's going under . . . ::)
It's also draggable . . .
-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on November 07, 2010, 10:32:08 PM
still waiting for 7.5m elevated networks XDXDXD

Join the club.

Make that three, Hal... Goose... XD

Hmm,... It always seems that our friends over in Japan always seem to make some incredible aesthetic mods and such. I'm gonna give the recent mod a try... It's clear to say that all the puzzle pieces and elevated networks (El Rail and Monorail/BTM/HSR) blatantly leave the land bare on the bottom. NAM functionality: Amazing. But default aesthetics,... Not so great...

And, Tarkus,... Unless my eyes and/or glasses are installed wrong, I think that right there is the half-height piece that the Half-Height Network Club is looking for...
 :thumbsup: &apls ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on November 08, 2010, 01:38:34 AM
Note what that's going under . . . ::)
It's also draggable . . .

Wait, what.... how did.... that doesn't seem... wow!

I can't wait to see the updated El-roads. Though, will we ever see base "textures" underneath? I'd choose a medium-wealth grass meself.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on November 08, 2010, 02:15:50 AM
Wow dude! Those japanese remodded overpasses look awesome!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: el_cozu on November 15, 2010, 11:08:57 AM
I've been recently working with maxis highways... and there are some custom interchanges that could be useful...

- Ground Highway Parclos (adjacent and opposite)
- Elevated Highway wide curves
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on November 15, 2010, 01:02:49 PM
- Elevated Highway wide curves

Given that there's already some ground ones, there's a chance of this one, as it'd just require raising the models and stretching the supports.

- Ground Highway Parclos (adjacent and opposite)

Making any sort of interchange for Maxis Highways is a very time-consuming task, and the one person who had the interest and skills to do it, andreharv, has been inactive for a long time.  The likelihood of this request (or any other request involving Maxis Highway interchanges) coming to fruition is pretty much nil at this point.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on November 15, 2010, 02:55:36 PM
Wow that (draggable) 7.5m elevated road looks great!!!  &apls Can't wait to see more. The elevated road/OWR/ave facelift project is looking awesome too  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pepsibottle1 on November 17, 2010, 09:09:20 AM
Just wanted to make a request. First off, wonderful mod and each of you guys deserve a round of applause. Thanks!

Alright, I just wanted to make a note about On-Off ramps. Here in the U.S, our ramps are connected to roads and streets more often than individual highways. In the game, however, in order to make a connecting ramp, I have to create a whole new highway. Could it be possible to integrate roads, streets, avenues and such into MIS ramps? For example, instead of having to create a whole new RH2 highway, I'd simply like to be able to have an off-ramp or on-ramp connect to one of my roads. Right now, the whole ramp system is super complicated.

To help explain what I mean, let's look at Norfolk, VA; my hometown.

http://maps.google.com/maps?um=1&hl=en&q=map+norfolk&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Norfolk,+VA&gl=us&ei=mPDjTITFD8OAlAeQkpG6Dg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ8gEwAA

The on and off ramps all lead to streets and roads, not seperate individual highways. Say I have a interstate running through my city over a crowed avenue. I want to be able to make a on and off ramp on both sides of the highway allowing traffic to easily merge onto and off of the highway. Currently, however, I can't do that with the RealHighway pieces; well, I could, but it would take me countless hours and frustration. Then I could use the Maxis pieces; but I really do like the RealHighway interstates and I want to be able to use various types of transitions and overpasses. Right now, the only thing I can do is create something like over in Suffolk (if you browse to there on the map) on Route 58 and 460 (after I-264 and I-664 merge).

Hopefully, you can see what I mean here. I really love this mod and I applaud you on a job well done, but I really wish I could have those ramps transition with my current side streets, roads and avenues. Thanks again on a wonderful mod.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: riiga on November 17, 2010, 10:46:09 AM
For connection to road, if you want real on- and off-ramps, you'll have to transition to RHW-2, which doesn't take up that much space. As for avenue/OWR, this is in development:
(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww55/anonymson/coola_grejer.jpg)

 ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on November 17, 2010, 11:50:11 AM
Nice work, riiga!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on November 17, 2010, 11:57:20 AM
Both the 7.5 m overpasses and the ramps for avenue are great work! Well done!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on November 17, 2010, 12:08:12 PM
Nice work, riiga!
Erm, actually I made those pieces, along with some other pieces:
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/6277/piecesnorm.jpg)

Riiga is just showing them to the public. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mtg on November 17, 2010, 03:44:05 PM
A little teaser for all you guys who are desperately waiting for more elevations in RHW

(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/4371/99057974.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: carkid1998 on November 17, 2010, 03:52:14 PM
Half height and double height... wow.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on November 17, 2010, 03:53:35 PM
Looks absolutely awesome! Except for the lack of pillars on some places $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on November 17, 2010, 03:55:51 PM
Half height and double height... wow.

And one-and-a-half height. ;)  It's going to be a 5-level system: Ground, 7.5m, 15m, 22.5m and 30m.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mtg on November 17, 2010, 03:58:25 PM
it's still in development that's why there are still pillars missing. But I wanted to show it to you guys anyway  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on November 17, 2010, 04:55:47 PM
Looks like one of those impossible shapes without pylons to say where the ground stops  :P

Looks great so far!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on November 17, 2010, 05:15:56 PM
Once again,... Surprised.

No-height, Half-height, Full-height, Three-halves Height, and Double Height MIS... That'd make some even more realistic interchanges (And multi-level stacks); Currently I'm appalled by the 15M system... I'm saying it right now: Half-height is better than the full-height, especially for the Puzzle pieces and Viaduct pieces. Unless you're going over something else that's also half-height. (But we're still missing half-height ground lifters, but that's a task for later...)

I'm just scared now, since how are we gonna implement specialised ramps and transitions? Many transitions (from one height to a higher height) would have to be WAVERide, by my predictions... Wait,... If we have Diagonal Street that can be placed the same way like the FLEXFly, why not elevated diagonal one-tile RHW networks (ERHW-4 and EMIS)? Another alternative to using those diagonal fillers, and would theoretically work for crossing elevated diagonal stuff over two-tile and three-tile orthogonal ground RHW networks. (This is something for the RHW thread; I just know it... I KNOW I'm gonna have to draw this out also...)

I also wanted to ask about half-height Elevated Rail and Monorail, but I thought it'd be unnecessary...

How much further 'til we can achieve something like the High Five Interchange...?

Maarten, I remember your set of curves and ramps and transitions... The parallel curves (I call them PARACurves) gave me one other idea: To do the same for FARHW Curves. (Once again,... RHW Thread...)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ryan B. on November 17, 2010, 05:31:41 PM
Whoops . . . . . . sorry, Maarten!   :thumbsup:

All that stuff looks really, really great!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on November 17, 2010, 07:38:34 PM
A little teaser for all you guys who are desperately waiting for more elevations in RHW

(http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/4371/99057974.jpg)

And one-and-a-half height. ;)  It's going to be a 5-level system: Ground, 7.5m, 15m, 22.5m and 30m.

-Alex

But the ultimate question is can we "stack" these on top of eachother? Right now in the picture I only see them pass over one network. Maybe in a future release?

Perhaps puzzle pieces can fix this issue? Only time will tell. Great work guys!  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on November 17, 2010, 07:57:48 PM
A W E S O M E !

mauricio.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mtg on November 18, 2010, 10:24:32 AM
Quote
But the ultimate question is can we "stack" these on top of eachother? Right now in the picture I only see them pass over one network. Maybe in a future release

It will be done with pp I think didn't got that far jet  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: el_cozu on November 18, 2010, 12:33:28 PM
Is it gonna be only puzzle pieces, or would it be a draggable system
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on November 18, 2010, 12:59:21 PM
I'm guessing they'll be draggable, like all other RHW networks.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mtg on November 18, 2010, 01:07:58 PM
it is dragable 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on November 18, 2010, 06:06:52 PM
This looks great  &apls  Multi-level elevated pieces are going to rock! Especially the 7.5m

Thanks for all your hard work  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on November 19, 2010, 02:54:59 AM
as tarkus will tell you i have been badgering him for half elevated bits for maybe 3.5 years now... ( basically since buddybud used half height (well 8m) for his onslope underpasses. please tell me now the 7.5 will get expanded to include other networks... it means we can have more realistic bridges all around.

i would like to point out however i got up and did a little dance around my room when i saw that picture...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RickD on November 19, 2010, 06:19:02 AM
Awesome work with the different height levels. But also a bit confusing in the pic.  :P

I remember early discussions from a few years ago about half height puzzle pieces. I always thought those would be much better for overpasses. 15 meters is just too high and always looks strange to me.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sim-al2 on November 22, 2010, 07:32:41 PM
I'm under the impression that horizontal distance in the game is in meters but vertical is in feet...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on November 22, 2010, 08:31:42 PM
I'm under the impression that horizontal distance in the game is in meters but vertical is in feet...

If so, there wouldn't be enough clearance for cars going under half-height networks!!! (7.5 feet?!!)  :D

Seriously though, there's far too much clearance for cars going under the 15M networks. (That's about 49 feet.) The current elevated networks are far too tall, and the need for half-height networks is pretty apparent. It's hard to tell by just looking at a 15M elevated network with respect to the ground network, but if you compare them with cars, you'll see that another level could comfortably fit between the ground level and the 15M level.

Plus, the road deck itself is rather thick in real life. Getting a little more elaborate here,... Five-level stack interchanges (EG, the High Five Interchange) are more than 100 feet high (120 feet, to be exact for the High Five), and the double height MIS is about 30M high, which is about 98 feet. That's as close to realistic as the NAM team can get for elevated networks (And I got some RL data to back it up, too.).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nardo69 on November 23, 2010, 02:24:31 AM
GDO29Anagram is right about the clearance.
The standard clearance in German (and Europe I think) is 4,50m (even street, no slopes, no change in slopes) plus 0,20m additional height for repairing the streets by just putting new asphalt on the old surfaces, prolongs the lifespan of asphalt street and decreases the maintenance costs significantly by only small increase in the construction costs). Usual reinforced concrete beams have a hight of appr. 1,50m so we get an overall height difference between the two road surfaces of 4,50+0,20+1,50 = 6,20m.
I am not a BATter but AFAIK height are always increases by 30% with would resulr in a "SC4 height" of 8,06m.

So the half-height network's height of 7,50m is lying perfectly between 100% and 130% of "RL height". :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mightygoose on November 23, 2010, 03:51:30 AM
benard, i love you a little bit right now. it is nice to see others on the bandwagon.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on November 23, 2010, 05:40:56 AM
as long as we don't forget the shadows  :P    7.5m sounds interesting
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on January 05, 2011, 09:50:03 PM
So I was tinkering around until I did this:

(http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7933/haltonhillsfeb920129403.jpg)

Are road-avenue roundabout connectors possible?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 05, 2011, 10:04:52 PM
Are road-avenue roundabout connectors possible?

If coding and textures were in place, yes, it would be possible to connect a Road directly into the center of an Avenue Roundabout.  Ditto with OWRs and RHWs.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on January 05, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
Hmm, wonder how the finished result of that would look, because using those old road to avenue textures for this RHW situation looks like it makes sense, I like how that slant works here, the direct road to center avenue. How exactly would a straight connection work, because even now it seems kind of sharp, but in my RL, I have only seen the road get divided just like what Haljackey showed before touching the avenue roundabout.

Oh, and to the public, if you have not done what Haljackey just did, just try it, and see what happens as of now.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 05, 2011, 11:11:22 PM
Quote
(But we're still missing half-height ground lifters, but that's a task for later...)

8m ground lifters work very well for 7.5m pieces - my ground lifter and sinker lots have a 8m piece. Modding a 7.5m, due to the nature of the ground lifter lots, is sadly impossible because it only uses a hexadecimal integer value. Besides, 7.5m, 8m, what's the difference? It's not obvious at all.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on January 05, 2011, 11:35:08 PM
So I was tinkering around until I did this:

(http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7933/haltonhillsfeb920129403.jpg)

Are road-avenue roundabout connectors possible?

Hmm, wonder how the finished result of that would look, because using those old road to avenue textures for this RHW situation looks like it makes sense, I like how that slant works here, the direct road to center avenue. How exactly would a straight connection work, because even now it seems kind of sharp]

Having the extra tile for the road-avenue transition allows the straight connection to be smoother.
If a piece were to be made without this tile, the curve would indeed be sharp.

Perhaps a puzzle piece could be made for this transition. We already have an additional avenue roundabout piece for avenues junctioning with it at odd angles, so why not make another one allowing for easier turns to and/or from a road?

Just thinking out loud here. If you fiddle around with networks enough in SC4, the results can make you wonder.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 05, 2011, 11:37:43 PM
Heh, looks like I answered a completely different question. ::) :D  That one I'll have to take a look into.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on January 13, 2011, 01:56:39 PM
Awesome work guys, fantastic stuff even though I dont play anymore >.<
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Blue Lightning on January 13, 2011, 02:21:24 PM
Quote
8m ground lifters work very well for 7.5m pieces - my ground lifter and sinker lots have a 8m piece. Modding a 7.5m, due to the nature of the ground lifter lots, is sadly impossible because it only uses a hexadecimal integer value. Besides, 7.5m, 8m, what's the difference? It's not obvious at all.

Haven't tried 0x00078000 (7 ~8/16 -> 7.5)? Positions are handled rather literally in LotConfig XYZ lines, as 0x00080000 is 8.0m, or center of the lot.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on January 27, 2011, 07:05:06 PM
Are double-deck bridges possible? I.e. el-rail over road bridge, 2-deck avenue bridge, rail/road 2-deck bridge, etc. (although with the bridges you would have to make double-deck roads and avenues)

That would be awesome.
Also GLR/road bridges (both tram-in and tram-on road)?

-Gooper1
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on January 27, 2011, 07:19:47 PM
Gooper1:

Look at this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4879.msg304076#msg304076). Choco has been incommunicado for a while, so I advise against demanding for release or making requests.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on January 29, 2011, 08:17:35 PM
Gooper1:

Look at this thread (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=4879.msg304076#msg304076). Choco has been incommunicado for a while, so I advise against demanding for release or making requests.
Thanks!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 04, 2011, 03:40:20 PM
We are pleased to announce the long-awaited release of the NAM Retexture and Cosmetic Mod (North American Version 1) on the LEX.

(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm50/bighead99999/namretexturecosmeticmod.jpg)

You can pick it up here:

Windows (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2589)
MacOS (http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2590)

Enjoy!

-Alex

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gringamuyloca on February 04, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
 :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  &apls  &apls

Thank you all!!!  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Girafe on February 04, 2011, 03:54:19 PM
thanks to you and the NAM Team  ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on February 04, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
Great! Going to try it out now, although I'm a Euro-texture user ;D Speaking of Euro textures, will there be any for this mod?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on February 04, 2011, 04:00:03 PM
Can't wait the euro one !  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 04, 2011, 04:10:40 PM
Great! Going to try it out now, although I'm a Euro-texture user ;D Speaking of Euro textures, will there be any for this mod?

Short answer: yes. :)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on February 04, 2011, 04:13:35 PM
Thanks guys -NAMTeam, its all good  :thumbsup: really appreciated  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: superhands on February 04, 2011, 09:41:20 PM
Thanks guys -NAMTeam, its all good  :thumbsup: really appreciated  :)

no, thank you ()stsfd()


-dave
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 04, 2011, 09:50:30 PM
no, thank you ()stsfd()


-dave

Actually, thank you, Dave, for again working your textural magic and making this mod possible! :thumbsup: 

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: travismking on February 04, 2011, 10:01:28 PM
Fantastic, although I think I will wait for the Euro textures to come out (if they do) as I prefer them :)

Going to install it for a test run and see how they look at least, maybe ill like them. Nevertheless, personal preferences aside, The textures look fantastic and you guys did a GREAT job
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JeffCoyote on February 06, 2011, 09:22:16 AM
Great! Going to try it out now, although I'm a Euro-texture user ;D Speaking of Euro textures, will there be any for this mod?
Short answer: yes. :)

-Alex

keep on waiting for Euro mod ...

Why Europe is still the last in Development progress ?  :'(  :angrymore:
[ joking , not complaining ]
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on February 06, 2011, 09:43:40 AM
I believe some things aren't ready for the Euro version, like the Readme, installers and maybe some testing. But trust me, most stuff is done. I've done the Euro version of this mod, which is a bit different compared to SFBT's Euro Textures. Here are some teaser shots and note the differences:
(http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/4277/rtl01.jpg)

(http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/7193/nieuwestad22jan00128811.png)

(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8253/guilliano29jul138128811.png)

(http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7755/rtl05.jpg)

(http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/2589/rtl03.jpg)

(http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4017/eurotextures02.jpg)

(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6469/eurotextures01.jpg)

(http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7145/felixruhevonalphainplat.jpg)

Just giving you the idea ;)

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on February 06, 2011, 10:02:37 AM
Awesome! I just love those rounded corners, something I (used to) hate in the original SC4 :P
So, we can expect this mod out pretty soon, right? ::)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on February 06, 2011, 10:08:59 AM
As far as I know: yes, quite soon!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JeffCoyote on February 06, 2011, 10:18:47 AM
( Euro Mod )
As far as I know: yes, quite soon!

Very good news !!!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ramona Brie on February 06, 2011, 10:31:37 AM
Very beautiful indeed! (Are the Euro road curves made using the same technique as Dedgren's RealRoads markers?)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mave94 on February 06, 2011, 02:57:49 PM
Looks very good, Maarten!
As said above, nice rounded corners.
Can't wait to use this :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on February 06, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
Very beautiful indeed! (Are the Euro road curves made using the same technique as Dedgren's RealRoads markers?)

Nope. It's just some basic texture modding. No tricky RUL-modding involved as in case of the RealRoads...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on February 06, 2011, 04:04:28 PM
really neat stuff Maarten  :thumbsup:

it makes want to use it for awhile for something different... :P ::) :D my straight faces aren't so  &mmm  -just teasing...

I like the road line work particularly and brick texture choice... I think some anticipated LEX watching will be in order

Jack
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Death50 on February 26, 2011, 03:28:41 PM
I'm waiting for some pictures of these multi level RHW's I keep hearing about it.  ()what()
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on February 26, 2011, 03:31:55 PM
You're more likely to see RHW pictures in the RHW development tread ::)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 26, 2011, 06:45:28 PM
Additionally, as it's one of those "in progress" things that is not going to be included in the next RHW version, we're probably going to refrain from showing any multi-level ERHW progress until we're beginning to work on the release in which it'll be included.

-Alex
Title: Need 4-tile-on-a-side FAR blocks, willing to hack it myself if possible
Post by: CascadiaTinker on March 13, 2011, 01:01:30 AM
First of all I want to thank the NAM team for the cornerstone mod of SC4.

I have a problem encountered while modelling the real city of Portland, Oregon on a scale region map. The central business district of Portland is tilted on an angle which is quite close to the FAR street tiles, close enough that the FAR angles will work for modelling. However, the city blocks in Portland are quite small compared to almost every other city. In SC4 they come to exactly 4 tiles on an orthogonal grid. This means that using FAR intersection tiles to produce a realistic reproduction of the downtown (SW) Portland grid is not possible, since the smallest possible FAR grid which matches the model is closer to 6 tiles on a side. The backstory is that the original city planners of Portland decided they didn't like alleyways, and laid the CBD out without them (many downtown sidewalks still contain lifts to basements for freight delivery, in the past coal delivery as well).

Has this problem been addressed in the past? I realize it's almost unique to this project, and that there are limitations due to the 2x3 tile size for ploppable straight FAR sections, etc. Anyway, I am comfortable using mod tools to solve the problem myself for my project with customized NAM content, if the NAM architects think it's possible. Seems like a solution might involve larger ploppables, perhaps of an L shaped configuration spanning half a (Portland) block.

Any and all clues welcome, as without a solution I may end up having to fudge an entire area of the model in a highly non accurate fashion. (The only other accuracy issue that has come up is Diagonal Bridges, hehe). If you need pictures I'd be happy to post them.

Thanks in advance!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on March 13, 2011, 03:18:08 AM
I think you're asking for a 2x2 FAR piece that's still on the same angle as current.

2x2 FAR pieces have been shown previously, but they're on a different angle.

Why this is is because for the road to match properly (and easily) between each piece, a 2x3 area is required. If it's either shorter or longer, then it becomes a real headache.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on March 13, 2011, 03:42:01 AM
First of all I want to thank the NAM team for the cornerstone mod of SC4.

On behalf of the team, you're most welcome. :)

I've actually toyed around with the idea of "semi-recreating" Portland as well myself, being quite familiar with it (grew up in Washington County and went to PSU my junior year of undergrad), and I kind of was torn with how to deal with the angles on southwest part of downtown as well.  The angle on the streets is just about 21 degrees, which is indeed quite close to the 18.4-degree angle of the FAR pieces.  

The current FAR/FAR intersection pieces allow for intersections with a 2-tile spacing and a 3-tile spacing, but not a 4-tile spacing.  I've been examining the existing pieces since seeing this post and taking some measurements, and am trying to figure out the geometry that would be needed.  Looking over things, a 4x4 setup might be possible if a couple more pieces were made--a partial FAR piece and a FAR/FAR intersection that has been shifted one tile over toward the edge.  

We've also discussed going to a FLEXFly-style helper piece setup or some sort of draggable system, which also might make this sort of thing a bit more feasible, though with as much as is going on developmentally at the moment, I don't anticipate it'll be for awhile.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CascadiaTinker on March 13, 2011, 04:32:24 AM
"Looking over things, a 4x4 setup might be possible if a couple more pieces were made--a partial FAR piece and a FAR/FAR intersection that has been shifted one tile over toward the edge."

Can you elaborate on this? Is this something that you or other NAM team members are already interested in taking on, or is it limited interest for projects such as mine? Without modesty, I have 20 years of experience hacking various software systems and would be happy to contribute for this small portion to make my project happen.

Thanks so much for your prompt response. It's amazing to me that the exact problem has already been encountered for modeling this particular locale - what an amazing and universal tool we have here at our disposal.

eta: I'm reading http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=11023.0 which I assume is the relevant tutorial.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nanami on April 15, 2011, 02:57:25 PM
Hi..
I have a suggestion for next NAM (maybe NWM):
A typical avenue with narrow barrier like this:
(http://i25.servimg.com/u/f25/15/75/40/01/dsc04915.jpg)
it's should be different with either MAVE 4 or AVE 4 so I hope someone create network like this..
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ciuu96 on April 15, 2011, 03:19:58 PM
Actually, one could just make a T21 mod, something similar to this (http://www.simcity.cn/viewthread.php?tid=83513&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D11), 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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 15, 2011, 04:00:57 PM
Well, if the T21 object was about 4 pixel spaces, no more then 6, I don't see why that would not work out.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nanami on April 15, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
which network should it be??
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 16, 2011, 12:35:20 PM
I would say Mave-4, because motor bikes can pass around cars on that.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on April 17, 2011, 01:43:49 PM
Are there plans to make the straight ave, one way and road on slope pieces two tiles instead of the current three?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 17, 2011, 04:59:01 PM
Are there plans to make the straight ave, one way and road on slope pieces two tiles instead of the current three?

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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on April 17, 2011, 06:54:37 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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on April 17, 2011, 07:43:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: bladeberkman on May 02, 2011, 05:08:05 PM
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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: werl on May 03, 2011, 06:16:24 PM
I have a mac, and I'm tired of manually adding in addons. I have a NAM mac installer.

werl.me/NAM%20Installer.dmg (http://werl.me/NAM%20Installer.dmg)

I have tested it and works fine. please concider putting this up for mac users.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Twyla on May 04, 2011, 04:28:39 PM
I was experimenting in-game and discovered that RHW-Ground connectivity is *almost* there.  Just as an example:

(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q103/Twyla_Naythias/ARtest02.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on May 04, 2011, 05:50:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on May 04, 2011, 07:11:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 04, 2011, 07:31:30 PM
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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on May 04, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
Yeah, it was in for roads... sort of.
(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/820/mosiacfinal03.jpg).

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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Twyla on May 04, 2011, 09:50:56 PM
If there were FlUP-under-ERHW pieces available, this interchange would be fully functional:
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q103/Twyla_Naythias/Intersection027.jpg)
(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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 04, 2011, 10:01:40 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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Twyla on May 04, 2011, 11:30:03 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.)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on May 05, 2011, 12:56:42 AM
(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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nanami on May 08, 2011, 12:17:01 AM
Actually, one could just make a T21 mod, something similar to this (http://www.simcity.cn/viewthread.php?tid=83513&extra=page%3D1%26amp%3Bfilter%3Dtype%26amp%3Btypeid%3D11), 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?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nick96st on May 17, 2011, 01:23:20 PM
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 ----------------------
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on May 31, 2011, 08:53:31 PM
Ran across this (http://www.youtube.com/user/jjborms#g/a) on Youtube. Have I been missing something, or have these not been implemented yet?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on May 31, 2011, 09:04:27 PM
Ran across this (http://www.youtube.com/user/jjborms#g/a) 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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on May 31, 2011, 09:16:47 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.

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
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ramona Brie on May 31, 2011, 11:17:08 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.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on June 01, 2011, 01:51:03 AM
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)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on June 01, 2011, 01:53:49 AM
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)

In almost all cases, yes.  There are a few that Maxis/EA designed that don't suffer this issue, but any custom one will.

The "AutoPlace"-implemented Draggable FAR system triggered this glitch, as the underlying TE setup underneath the Car Ferry matched the CheckType setup of the FAR puzzle piece.  When one would place the Car Ferry, the game would then try to initiate the AutoPlace on the FAR puzzle piece, triggering the TE CTD.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on June 01, 2011, 04:05:18 AM
Which ones don't suffer the issue?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on June 15, 2011, 03:24:25 PM
Why don't you just change the TE setup of FAR?

As double-decker RHW is in development; why don't you make double-decker roads (more specifically, 2 OWRs-1 per deck-going in opposite directions), and El Hwy over Avenue pieces? Is it possible?

-Gooper1

Merged two posts.  There's no need to double-post with two questions in a 4 minute timeframe. -Admin


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on June 15, 2011, 03:58:04 PM
Why don't you just change the TE setup of FAR?

If we changed the RUL CheckType setup underlaying FAR, its usefulness in producing this draggable AutoPlace system would be eliminated.  It would effectively be moot.

As double-decker RHW is in development; why don't you make double-decker roads (more specifically, 2 OWRs-1 per deck-going in opposite directions), and El Hwy over Avenue pieces? Is it possible?

Those items are more specialized--there's not as much utility for them as there is for just a general double-decker highway, so I'd say the chances there are much slimmer.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on June 15, 2011, 04:11:03 PM
@gooper1 About Maxis default networks and double deck possibility: Not too long ago, shortly before double-decker RHW was displayed, someone who was in the NAM team, had experimented with that last part you mentioned, exploring the Elevated Maxis Highway over Avenues. I have seen nothing else found of that, I don't even know if it was draggable like double-decker RHW is. Car paths the same direction at different height, would not stop the cars jumping between levels, and that is not exactly pleasant to watch. You may know that it took a long time for double-decker RHW. The whole thing is with RHW, the Maxis highway has no more development that I know of.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 15, 2011, 04:23:51 PM
About Maxis default networks and double decks: Not too long ago, shortly before double-decker RHW was displayed, someone who was in the NAM team, had experimented with that last part you mentioned, exploring the Elevated Maxis Highway over Avenues.

That was Ebina; He retired from transit modding, if I remember correctly. I don't know much about MHW over AVE-4, either, but I believe it was puzzle-based (and would make better sense if it were, too).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 15, 2011, 10:38:46 PM
Yeah, those were made by Ebina. The NAM team has some very early prototypes, but Ebina never gave anybody what he was working on when he left, so all the work has been lost.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on June 16, 2011, 06:31:40 PM
Those items are more specialized--there's not as much utility for them as there is for just a general double-decker highway, so I'd say the chances there are much slimmer.
What do you mean, "there's not as much utility for them"? Downtown Chicago has multilevel streets all over the place!
And with the double-decker MHY (i.e. GMHY over L1 EMHY, or L2 and L3 EMHY), is it possible?

-Gooper1
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 16, 2011, 07:00:33 PM
What do you mean, "there's not as much utility for them"? Downtown Chicago has multilevel streets all over the place!
And with the double-decker MHY (i.e. GMHY over L1 EMHY, or L2 and L3 EMHY), is it possible?

-Gooper1

Where are they other than Chicago?
This is also my argument for not making OWR-8, because it only exists in Moscow.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 16, 2011, 07:10:19 PM
It should be noted that additional development involving MHW is strictly limited to "gap-filling" (EG, EMHW diamond interchanges with AVE-6).

Quote from: Tarkus
http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/topic/42711-is-there-going-to-be-any-more-development-of-the-maxis-highways/page__view__findpost__p__1143390

Unless andreharv reappears or someone new steps up who has the time and energy to devote to the long-term, highly-intensive process of creating new Maxis Highway interchanges and the like, the most you'll really see coming out of the transit modding community is some smaller "gap-fill" Maxis Highway items along the lines of what Chrisim created. The Ground and Elevated Highways are basically in a state close to what the software development world would call "maintenance mode".

It takes a long time to work with MHW, due to their complicated models, and even if someone took the time to create an MHW equivalent of DDRHW,...

Why 15m and 22.5m for the two decks?  Will there be additional heights?

In RL, most double-decker highways are elevated substantially and usually pass over any potential obstacles.  Setting the bottom deck at 15m (or Level 2/L2 as it will be known when we get closer to RHW 5.0) means that both ground-level and future 7.5m (Level 1/L1) networks can pass under it.  22.5m (Level 3/L3) for the top deck means that in the rarer instances in which a network needs to pass over top, the future 30m (Level 4/L4) networks can do the job.

Thus, this deck arrangement appears to be the most practical and realistic.

It's locked to L3 over L2.

Plus, Gooper1, can you provide a link about the multi-level streets you're talking about? Just saying they exist somewhere doesn't provide enough information (especially when you're desperately combing through Google Maps).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on June 16, 2011, 07:42:27 PM
Plus, Gooper1, can you provide a link about the multi-level streets you're talking about? Just saying they exist somewhere doesn't provide enough information (especially when you're desperately combing through Google Maps).

As a native Chicagoan, I can testify to the profusion of multi-level streets throughout downtown.  Many streets, including Wacker Drive, have three levels.  Better yet, I can give you the link you're looking for - it's the Multilevel streets in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_streets_in_Chicago) article in Wikipedia.  It comes complete with a history of how these streets developed, and even a color-coded map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_top_down_view.png), as well as various external references.  Many of these streets, such as Wacker Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacker_Drive_%28Chicago%29), have articles of their own, which are referenced in the main article.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on June 16, 2011, 08:08:27 PM
Wow, I never actually realized there were streets like that in Chicago... that's kinda awesome...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 16, 2011, 08:30:12 PM
Wow, I never actually realized there were streets like that in Chicago... that's kinda awesome...

I never thought there would be such streets, either, but the lower decks feel like they're underground. I thought the decks would be thoroughly exposed, but when you cover them up with the sides of tall buildings, it starts to feel more like an underground parking garage.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on June 16, 2011, 08:45:43 PM
I never thought there would be such streets, either, but the lower decks feel like they're underground.

They are now, although they weren't originally.

Quote
I thought the decks would be thoroughly exposed, but when you cover them up with the sides of tall buildings, it starts to feel more like an underground parking garage.

Not when you drive through them.  There's actually an underground city down there.  Many of the main buildings downtown have entrances at all street levels.  Some buildings use the lower level(s) for shipping and receiving entrances.  But there are also whole streets of shops that exist only underground.  For example, the famous Billy Goat Tavern exists on the lower level of Michigan Avenue.

And then there are the double decker streets that cross the Chicago River as double decker bridges.  Some of the multi-level streets then continue on the north side of the river; these aren't shown in the picture I referenced.

Oh yes - there are also the little underground trains that used to run under the lowest level of every downtown street - even the single level ones.  But you don't really want to know about those, do you?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jibjohn on June 17, 2011, 09:43:54 AM
Might I just add that there is a section of the M4 in Brentford, West London which is built on top of the A4 (Great West Road), a photo:

(http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/74/19/741937_a08be250.jpg)

(and yes I also think it's odd that both the motorway and duel carrageway have a 40mph speed limit),

John
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 17, 2011, 09:46:45 AM
That one's technically Motorway over Road, which doesn't really count because it's not possible.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jibjohn on June 17, 2011, 10:26:43 AM
That one's technically Motorway over Road
?

but there are two paved two-lane-wide carrageways in each direction physically separated, isn't it more like avenue?

the planners of the Great West road, who also designed London parts of the A40, A12, A1 and A10 in the late 1920s, made something of much more resemblance to the maxis avenue in sc4
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 17, 2011, 10:45:53 AM
Ack, more of my RL speech leaking over (unless it's a Motorway, it's generally referred to as a Road here :P )

The issue is that two levels of traffic are flowing in the same direction. That confuses the pathfinder because it only looks at distances left and right, not up and down, meaning that a jump 7.5m into the air is not illegal (It sees it as another lane exiting on the same side).

DDERHW-4 works by devoting one deck to one direction and the other deck to the opposite direction. This does not confuse the pathfinder as it does see the other lane, but it writes it off as going in the wrong direction.

Every picture of the Highway-Over-Avenue I've seen has a very suspicious row of plazas next to it. My conclusion is that the Highway over 'Avenue' is puzzle-piece based highway, but with the paths and models shifted 16m toward the centre of the Avenue to make it look like it's on top of the Avenue. As the pathfinder thinks it's in the tile beside the avenue +19m (for argument's sake) in one direction, it doesn't see the paths on the Avenue as the traffic isn't actually travelling through the same tiles as the Avenue.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jibjohn on June 17, 2011, 11:09:23 AM
sorry for the misunderstanding, i also saw the photos, and tbh i was a little supprised given that i had read so much about it not being possible, it looks an interesting concept, however i personally doubt i would ever be in need of such a network, so not really botherd about any development, but thanks for the replies!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ramona Brie on June 17, 2011, 02:18:38 PM
Minutia question: are the revamped elevated road and avenue overpasses part of NAM 30?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 17, 2011, 02:37:11 PM
Minutia question: are the revamped elevated road and avenue overpasses part of NAM 30?

To sum it up in one word, yes. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on June 19, 2011, 12:41:32 PM
Another example of Highway-Over-Avenue: Gardiner Expressway through parts of downtown Toronto. It runs over Lake Shore Blvd., and frequently uses it like a "service road" (although Lake Shore is a major thoroughfare)-providng ramps to and from the Lake Shore to access nearby streets. Creates a bit of congestion on Lake Shore, though.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: woodb3kmaster on June 20, 2011, 06:22:51 PM
All the same, MHW-over-Avenue can't be made properly in SC4. As others have said, the traffic simulator doesn't know that the paths are at different heights, so you'll always end up with unrealistic jumps between levels where there ought not to be any. Therefore, the NAM Team isn't going to make it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ps2owner on June 24, 2011, 09:50:02 PM
Can RHW transmit power, like power lines? If not all, then how about just elevated RHW. This would make lighting up RHW out of town much easier. (RHW with USL looks amazing)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 24, 2011, 09:56:20 PM
I think this has been gone over a lot before and the answer was no.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on June 24, 2011, 10:47:02 PM
The easiest way I know of to accomplish what you want is to put a little strip of park squares alongside your RHW.  Subways may not transmit electricity (after all, they're steam powered), but park squares do.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on June 25, 2011, 12:23:25 PM
I thought when you hold control down, and drag the industrial zoning parallel into RHW, but pull it into the RHW, there will be invisible zoning alongside the RHW. I may be wrong, but I thought this works if the invisible zones go back for miles, and touch a development back a distance that does have power. All I know is, I have been using a No-Road required battery shed, that blends in, and generates power for quite a radius.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: da4gotten on June 25, 2011, 01:48:10 PM
I would like to see double-decker highways in the future regardless of the way the game reacts to it. In some cities that I have built I've needed some double decker highways even if its just for eye-candy purpose, I usually build better alternate routes to counterattack the situation. And honestly the cities I build are merely for eye-candy purposes I hardly worry about traffic flow, residents, commercial, I just worry that It looks like the city im trying to recreate. And in many cases the city I try to recreate haa double-decker highways, just do it for eye-candy, worry later how the simulator reacts to it, It actually looks uglier how I have to deal with the non double decker puzzle pieces.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 25, 2011, 02:34:12 PM
I would like to see double-decker highways in the future regardless of the way the game reacts to it.

It's already a work in progress (Have you not visited the RHW Development Thread recently?), and they're 100% functional, not eyecandy. You just can't have the decks in the same direction, though; Only in opposite directions.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on June 27, 2011, 01:39:01 PM
I just had a quick question. Why are street/road roundabout's not wealth Dependant? SAM roundabouts, however, are. (Seems a little backwards :P)Those bright grasses in all of my zones, even unzoned bugs me. Any chance of getting to this?

,marsh
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on June 27, 2011, 01:54:56 PM
Why are street/road roundabout's not wealth Dependant?

I guess the best way to describe that is that the grass and sidewalk textures are pretty much baked right in. For the Street RA, it may be a bit redundant, but for the Road RA, it's probably so that if you have a "Magic RA", you don't have chunks of bare ground that can't touch any zoning. Probably not something that would be rectified any time soon...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on June 27, 2011, 07:11:39 PM
Moonlight made a mod over at his website that remedied that I think.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ja&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://blog.livedoor.jp/moonlinght/archives/cat_59226.html&usg=ALkJrhj8yb2J1y0SpF8Wxh-q0OeOWePesA

I think it also makes them compliant with Sidewalk mods.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gooper1 on July 10, 2011, 11:43:37 AM
Well, if you can't have MHW-over-Avenue, why not have ERHW (or DDRHW)-over-Avenue/OWR?
(I know this kinda belongs in the RHW development thread, but...)

-Gooper1
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jondor on July 10, 2011, 12:06:32 PM
Well, if you can't have MHW-over-Avenue, why not have ERHW (or DDRHW)-over-Avenue/OWR?
(I know this kinda belongs in the RHW development thread, but...)

-Gooper1

Let me spell this concept out one more time.  The game CANNOT distinguish between parallel paths of the same travel type at different heights.  It is hardcoded into the game and we CANNOT change it.  There will NEVER be MHW over Avenue, ERHW over Avenue or any other sort of car network parallel over other car network.  It CANNOT function properly in game.  PLEASE STOP ASKING.
/rant
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ramona Brie on July 12, 2011, 08:18:10 PM
Will this (http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/topic/4458-show-us-your-suburbs/page__view__findpost__p__1168745) be in NAM 30? (Almost nobody at SC4D has seen it, but it must be true...)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 12, 2011, 08:29:58 PM
Fractional Angle Avenues will indeed be in NAM Version 30.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on July 15, 2011, 09:39:56 PM
Noticed a texture bug today.

Anyone else see this before?

(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/6758/img0057so.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on July 15, 2011, 10:29:39 PM
Does it occur only at that zoom?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on July 15, 2011, 10:46:13 PM
It only appears in zoom 2, and I think zoom 1. It appears at every rotation. I'm guessing it's just a mistake made while editing the fsh.'s
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on July 15, 2011, 11:04:19 PM
Actually, it's probably a MAT issue with the S3Ds (referencing the wrong FSH).

It was most likely picked up and fixed on the lower rotations, but not the upper ones.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 15, 2011, 11:15:54 PM
Actually, I've found it, and it is a UV-mapping issue on the Zoom 2 S3D--0x5046A021.  Try the following attached below and see if it works for you.  I've already gotten it fixed in the NAM Version 30 working files.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on July 15, 2011, 11:49:55 PM
Thank you tarkus. Glad you got it fixed so fast. :)

,marsh
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: pimmapman on July 19, 2011, 11:24:34 AM
Wouldn't it be possible to have a puzzle piece based highway over avenue with puzzle pieces, where the upper deck is actually converted to another transit type when it's up there? That way you can still have intersections at the bottom, and the top would never really have many anyway, and the ones that it does have, you could make out of basic puzzle pieces. I've never done any of this before, but from what I know, I think that could work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 19, 2011, 12:06:58 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to have a puzzle piece based highway over avenue with puzzle pieces, where the upper deck is actually converted to another transit type when it's up there? That way you can still have intersections at the bottom, and the top would never really have many anyway, and the ones that it does have, you could make out of basic puzzle pieces. I've never done any of this before, but from what I know, I think that could work.

Both of the decks would still have car paths.  It's not a matter of what network they're based on, but what transit type is using them that affects deck-jumping.  Sorry, but same-direction double-decks just aren't going to happen.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on July 24, 2011, 12:33:32 PM
Not really an issue but a question. Why are puzzle pieces different then draggable textures? Probably have already answered this before but I'm just curious. :P

,marsh
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 24, 2011, 01:32:39 PM
Not really an issue but a question. Why are puzzle pieces different then draggable textures? Probably have already answered this before but I'm just curious. :P

,marsh

Are you referring to the difference between textures used on puzzle piece and those on draggable items?  That has to do with the fact that puzzle pieces have to be model-based items, and the game's lighting engine handles models differently.  Actually, the game slightly darkens textures on draggable network items, and renders them identically to the source on models.  Typically, though, the procedure is to darken textures applied to models so they match with the draggables.

If you're referring to their implementation, puzzle pieces are handled entirely by RUL0, while all other non-bridge RUL file (RUL1, RUL2, all IndRULs) deal with draggable networks.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ivo_su on July 24, 2011, 01:54:53 PM
Hello all here.
I want to ask a question interesting to me and I will be happy if someone tell me in detail. I always wondered how who gathered the NAM team, who gave the idea, what were the original objectives, what improvements have been made in version 1 of NAM? How do you understand the mechanisms for working with networks and so on. I would be interested to be told this exciting story of the most popular Sim City team.

Regards,
Ivo
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on July 24, 2011, 01:58:23 PM
Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining that. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Andreas on July 24, 2011, 03:18:16 PM
I want to ask a question interesting to me and I will be happy if someone tell me in detail. I always wondered how who gathered the NAM team, who gave the idea, what were the original objectives, what improvements have been made in version 1 of NAM? How do you understand the mechanisms for working with networks and so on. I would be interested to be told this exciting story of the most popular Sim City team.

Have a look at the "Credits" and "History" files of the NAM Readme. They tell you who the founders of the NAM were, and which were the first additions to this mod. Over the years, the NAM Team has recruited a lot of talented people who were interested in transit modding and posted their works in one of the popular SC4 forums. In some cases, they offered to include their works into the NAM, in other cases, the NAM Team asked if they may include their work. Any SC4 modding is based on in-depth research and lots of trial & error, for which people spent countless hours, days, months, or even years, looking at existing files (with the Reader mostly), trying to understand the file structure, and how the individual files are set up.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DamienM23 on July 25, 2011, 01:18:14 AM
I found this on Tout SimCites. It was part of a readme for the file in the link. I have no idea where to find the darkened puzzle piece. Is it from NAM? If not, is there any idea where it can be found?
(http://i54.tinypic.com/23scca9.jpg)
http://www.toutsimcities.com/downloads.php?view=1713
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 25, 2011, 01:53:05 AM
It was a puzzle piece that manchou (who is a NAM Team member) developed some time ago.  The piece does work and we have the RUL entries and everything, but it currently doesn't have any North American textures, which it'd need before release.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DamienM23 on July 25, 2011, 03:37:15 AM
Thank you!  &apls It's great to know the answer now. Is it known whether it will be included in NAM v. 30?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on July 25, 2011, 07:51:20 AM
Quote
Is it known whether it will be included in NAM v. 30?

Even if it isn't included now, it's a very simple matter to reactivate the piece (as we have everything we need, it just needs textures and these are easy to do!).

So, chances are, it could be included in NAM v.30.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kbieniu7 on July 31, 2011, 07:35:39 AM
Last time, I was building roads, I got an idea. I'm not sure, where to ask, so I'm wirting here.
Wouldn't it be possible to make Euro textures for roads, but with double solid line, instead of single solid line dividing opposite directions? Just like in maxis US version, but white instead of yellow?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on August 02, 2011, 01:21:43 AM
Quote
Wouldn't it be possible to make Euro textures for roads, but with double solid line, instead of single solid line dividing opposite directions? Just like in maxis US version, but white instead of yellow?

What, like Australian style? :P

Yeah, it's possible, but someone actually has to do it. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kbieniu7 on August 03, 2011, 06:18:09 AM
Like Australian and like Polish also  :P

It was an idea, if texture mods would be edited, or some new ones would be make.
Well, I could offer myself just to edit graphics - I don't have any knowlege about modding - but I guess that making them with high quality needs something else than simple photoshop edition.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on August 04, 2011, 11:00:42 PM
Really, all you need is Photoshop and a FSH export/import plugin, the latter of which is available on the LEX.

You also need to know the IDs you're editing.

It's a fairly simple job, but it is quite tedious.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DaveN on August 17, 2011, 02:13:29 PM
Hello.

I hope to write a good topic. NAM is a great addition to SC4, but I have a few questions and suggestions.

1st.
Is it possible to create such smooth corners, etc. for one-way roads. The entire set as all two-way for roads. It would be a great diversion, and certainly it would be a lot of takers. Gave to this game even more realistic.

2nd.
The next question is which rises from me, or on gentle curves would be able to create intersections? For example, road 3x3 arc turns. Is it possible to go away from that path. Something like the picture shown below?

(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/3843/foto123.png)

And in both cases that such one-way or two-way roads could also create an intersection of the street?

3rd.
Another question. Whose would be able to vary the texture of the GLR tracks, in addition to the standard, you can lay tracks on a substrate such as grass, as is the alley? And to make it possible to change, depending on your needs, or would the game have several choices of ground tracks.

4th.
Another issue also relates GLR track. It is possible to lay the tracks, without widening the roadway on one type of cobblestones. Can I create the same opportunity to other textures of the streets.

5th.
One last thing associated with the GLR tracks. In Poland, though perhaps in other countries also, quite often you can meet single GLR track, running one lane, the direction of the right-hand or left hand. Would such a possibility, such a solution would also add to the puzzles NAM?

In addition, if is technically feasible, to diversify the intersection of roads, streets and avenues of different variant of the GLR track.

I hope that such solutions are feasible and will meet all the normal functions of the game. It would be a lot more possibilities.

Yours sincerely. And I hope that for some time to live to see such an addition to upgrade NAM.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on August 17, 2011, 06:57:24 PM
Hello.

I hope to write a good topic. NAM is a great addition to SC4, but I have a few questions and suggestions.

1st.
Is it possible to create such smooth corners, etc. for one-way roads. The entire set as all two-way for roads. It would be a great diversion, and certainly it would be a lot of takers. Gave to this game even more realistic.
I think OWR doesn't have pieces like the other networks due to the complexity of OWR puzzle pieces (At present, I think there's only about 9 in the developmental build, all to do with Trams.

2nd.
The next question is which rises from me, or on gentle curves would be able to create intersections? For example, road 3x3 arc turns. Is it possible to go away from that path. Something like the picture shown below?

And in both cases that such one-way or two-way roads could also create an intersection of the street?
If the curves are converted over the WaveRIDE, then it's likley. Until then (if it does happen) it won't.

3rd.
Another question. Whose would be able to vary the texture of the GLR tracks, in addition to the standard, you can lay tracks on a substrate such as grass, as is the alley? And to make it possible to change, depending on your needs, or would the game have several choices of ground tracks.
We may have something up our sleeves for this one... :D

4th.
Another issue also relates GLR track. It is possible to lay the tracks, without widening the roadway on one type of cobblestones. Can I create the same opportunity to other textures of the streets.
It's a good idea and something I've tried before (Changing them to asphalt), but it's difficult as I don't have the original PSDs (or vectors) and those that do tend to be more interested in expansion than diversification.

5th.
One last thing associated with the GLR tracks. In Poland, though perhaps in other countries also, quite often you can meet single GLR track, running one lane, the direction of the right-hand or left hand. Would such a possibility, such a solution would also add to the puzzles NAM?
I think it was discussed a while ago but I can't remember the outcome. I think it was 'maybe but not soon'.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 17, 2011, 07:01:54 PM
I started working on some OWR curves a couple years ago, but I didn't have the paths working quite the way I wanted, and kind of got lost in the shuffle over time, so they've never been finished.  They'll come to fruition eventually.  When "eventually" is, I'm not certain.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on September 09, 2011, 04:53:16 PM
With the 'i-word' -imminent, release of NAM 30, RHW 5,0. NWM 2.0 on the horizon...  %confuso  I have a wondering to share concerning "NAM-Day"... Will it be "NAM Day" on the soft release of these versions or will the Official NAM-Day be a later date after the soft-release  ()what() its just a wondering, I recon that you guys got it all figured out... ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 09, 2011, 08:17:47 PM
There's never a "soft release" planned for the NAM; there's a single release, at which point the new NAM has been thoroughly tested and the NAM Team thinks it's quite solid.  Occasionally, in the general release a problem or two may turn up that did not show up in earlier testing.  In this case, a patched release may be issued.  But these cases are not very common, and the NAM is never released containing bugs that we know will need to be fixed shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on September 10, 2011, 05:27:02 PM
There's never a "soft release" planned for the NAM; there's a single release,

Pardon me "Z", as I used the term incorrectly then... my meaning was concerning "NAM Day" as in a certain day "set aside" to 'celebrate' the new 2011 NAM releases... as in -officially speaking, 'nam day' would be the day of release or would there be a time period [the time period I was calling a 'soft release'], between release and the official day to be recognized as the official "NAM-Day"... that is all, it was never my intent to accuse NAM of releasing anything less than thoroughly tested and solid to go... sorry about using the term incorrectly...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on September 11, 2011, 10:57:05 PM
Jack i get what u meant. But in order to be loud requires a megaphone and making your ears ring. Its not like we can scream in a forum. Thus the softening of texting. As always NAM core NWM and RHW will be done when its done a piece each for free and as individual DLC.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 17, 2011, 01:25:31 PM
People often ask me the question: "Where did you get your GLR catenaries?"  Well, I have developed them my own and now I release a testing version of what I've got now (see attachment). It contains T21'd catenaries for the following pieces:

- Draggable GLR straight sections (orthogonal and diagonal)
- Draggable GLR curves (90 degree and 45 degree)
- Draggable GLR intersections (OxO X-ing and T-intersection)
- T-RAM straight sections (Orthogonal Only, Regular and Grass)
- Tram-In-Avenue straight sections (Orthogonal Only, Regular and Grass)
- GLR Loop pieces.

Note that this is only a test version. Most pieces are not T21'd.

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: marsh on October 01, 2011, 11:56:50 AM
People often ask me the question: "Where did you get your GLR catenaries?"  Well, I have developed them my own and now I release a testing version of what I've got now (see attachment). It contains T21'd catenaries for the following pieces:

Lol. I tried to make this a small while ago but gave up. :P Thank you so much. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cityracer on November 20, 2011, 06:55:39 PM
The Nam Intersections are nice alternatives to the cloverleaf, however they are not the most space efficient. I was on youtube and found an awesome, space saving, Urban Intersection. It's called the Pinavia 70. There is also just the Pinavia. Watch both videos at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDDmE4qoCns&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDDmE4qoCns&feature=related) and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mEuxZnvAA&feature=related. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mEuxZnvAA&feature=related.). Also go to the website pinavia.com (http://pinavia.com) So, Nam Team, what do you think.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on November 20, 2011, 07:02:02 PM
We've seen the Pinavia videos before and people have made RHW versions of it.

Now, I think you're asking for a Maxis Highway version. That won't happen due to the amount of time needed to create one, it just isn't worth the effort.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 22, 2012, 05:17:24 AM
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/2f6c18a4404a6436131b738631d3e442.jpg)

Thoughts?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on January 22, 2012, 05:18:44 AM
What about.... awesome ?  Was about time to replace these 45°-like overpass!  $%Grinno$% $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: exi123 on January 22, 2012, 05:19:42 AM
Looks amazing SA!  :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on January 22, 2012, 05:35:28 AM
fantabulous :o
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Will12 on January 22, 2012, 06:51:23 AM
What in the world?
Wow SA that's amazing. Never liked those steep slopes and in the RHW forum there was talk of even the ramps to elevated RHW too steep so that really good
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Paul 999 on January 22, 2012, 07:14:43 AM
Wow that smooth ramp! I don't use the current ramps because i don't find it realistic. That new one look so cool i saw deferential use them  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on January 22, 2012, 07:42:40 AM
Awesome! Can we expect the same for rail, too? The current rail -> el (heavy) rail transition is way too steep.
It would also be nice if there were smoother wide road curves :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FrankU on January 22, 2012, 07:44:41 AM
Hi, this is a beautiful ramp.  &apls

I have just one comment: I think the first three tiles on both sides should not look like a bridge in the air, but like a massive concrete block or a grass ramp. This is maybe just because of my Dutch background, but a bridge is more expensive than a ramp, so when the elevation is not yet much it's cheaper to do it by an earth ramp or a massive block.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: rooker1 on January 22, 2012, 08:04:33 AM
That is absolutely awesome.  I have wanted something like that for a long time....much more realistic. 
I must agree with FrankU, it would be nice if several of the tile under the over pass had a concrete base, maybe all except for the center three tiles.

My two cents,
Robin
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on January 22, 2012, 08:19:42 AM
Very nice!  &apls

Those super-steep transitions have always driven me crazy! Ultimately L1, 7.5m roads would be more realistic though.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 22, 2012, 08:25:23 AM
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/5fdaf75c264dd491288eaf9c037e60d0.jpg)

And with that, time to call it a night.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Will12 on January 22, 2012, 09:21:24 AM
Awwwwww
Please just one more hour! /wrrd%&
Lol :D  $%Grinno$%
Anyway that lookes AWESOME!!!
Gotta get round to doin those FAR pieces eh? ;)
Edit
Welcome to page 55
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on January 22, 2012, 10:30:14 AM
That's truly incredible!!!I always found those ramp too steep...these one are much more realistic!having such kid of ramps for RHW would be fantastic...even for heavy rail it would be nice and very realistic...I would use more the rail/e-rail transition than I do at moment because I find the current one very unrealistic(if you have a slope mod it looks evident that the ramp is too steep)
Good job SA &apls
Gugu3
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on January 22, 2012, 11:01:50 AM
Awesome!

No more meticulously sloping bridge approaches to get them to look good! This addition will save a whole wack of time! Great job SA!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on January 22, 2012, 11:56:29 AM
Wow that smooth ramp! I don't use the current ramps because i don't find it realistic. That new one look so cool i saw deferential use them  :thumbsup:

Believe it or not, I have bridges in my area that have a steep incline like what is in SC4

In fact, one bridge, the highest point of the bridge, isn't even the actual bridge itself, but part of the road.  They had to build it that way to save money and also because the state tried to steal a farmers land adjacent to the bridge, and a state court found that the state's appraisers deliberately under valued the land in an attempt to steal it, thus the state refused to pay fair market value of the land needed to build thew bridge they way they intended, thus came up with the steep incline design they ended up using.

It replaced a wooden one lane bridge that had plagued traffic flow in the area for decades(which I do miss driving that old rickety thing, it was a right of passage when learning to drive if the parents trusted you enough to drive over it  lol)

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: DAB_City on January 22, 2012, 02:23:36 PM
Is that FlexSPUI-XL or something? I'm loving the new ramps!  &apls &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 22, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
Is that FlexSPUI-XL or something?

No. Just an elongated L2 EAVE-4 transition ramp, and that's the only new piece.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 22, 2012, 07:47:57 PM
Basically, it's the first step towards expanding the flexibility of the existing Elevated viaduct models. One will be done for rail later, but the model is more complex and as I'm not familiar with the Rail models (compared to the RHW/el-road ones anyway). RHW will get the same treatment, it's a quick and painless process. The avenue model on the previous page actually still needs further model tweaks (such as removing extra triangles not needed).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ZenMonster on January 23, 2012, 06:28:49 PM
Those ramps are great SA!  &apls  Can't wait to see what else is in the works.

I have just one comment: I think the first three tiles on both sides should not look like a bridge in the air, but like a massive concrete block or a grass ramp. This is maybe just because of my Dutch background, but a bridge is more expensive than a ramp, so when the elevation is not yet much it's cheaper to do it by an earth ramp or a massive block.

I would say no more than two or three tiles of concrete block. I don't like the look of enormous blocks of concrete, and you can do an earthen embankment with a slope mod. Here in the southern US they often use viaducts from close to the ground, but in the north, where it snows, they tend to use earthworks and concrete abutments more. I'm sure there are a lot of factors, but I know that elevated viaducts get icy much easier than surface pavement and I believe that's why you see more viaducts down here. And since it never snows in Sim City...  ;)

Anyway, I like the look of the elevated viaducts, but in the real world there is usually pavement or gravel below them, not grass. I don't know how that would look in the game though, especially with different terrain mods.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 23, 2012, 06:40:54 PM
I would say no more than two or three tiles of concrete block. I don't like the look of enormous blocks of concrete, and you can do an earthen embankment with a slope mod. Here in the southern US they often use viaducts from close to the ground, but in the north, where it snows, they tend to use earthworks and concrete abutments more. I'm sure there are a lot of factors, but I know that elevated viaducts get icy much easier than surface pavement and I believe that's why you see more viaducts down here. And since it never snows in Sim City...  ;)

Anyway, I like the look of the elevated viaducts, but in the real world there is usually pavement or gravel below them, not grass. I don't know how that would look in the game though, especially with different terrain mods.

Aesthetics, aesthetics,... Functionality ALWAYS comes first.

Also, that's L2, or 15 meters. L1, or 7.5 meters, is planned later on, and it's not as tall, so you can imagine what its ramps would look like.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 23, 2012, 08:50:35 PM
Yup, they are functional. Plus, the viaduct models are designed such that they can have additional T21 models to decorate them. The NAM team hasn't really done anything along those lines (except for BL's RHW viaduct mod, which proves that it can be done) because there are more important things (like gap-filling with various networks) to do.

[edit]

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/a77bd268ed2c47781d7ecb3b21007322.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on January 24, 2012, 01:13:35 AM
Ooh, that's nice!  &apls  A very, very useful piece!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 24, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
A night's work has led to this:
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/f94e18b0b9a5b81981d002395b89014e.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on January 24, 2012, 09:38:32 AM
Woo! Can't wait to get my hands on those myself.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on January 24, 2012, 09:57:06 AM
Is that what I think it is? No, it can't be....  Woo indeed  &dance
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on January 24, 2012, 10:21:35 AM
Are my eyes seeing the L1 overpasses? :o
(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/2/0/4/6/9/a3212205-145-drool.big.gif?d=1272478541)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on January 24, 2012, 04:33:45 PM
Wow, nice to see some developments here :)

Just an idea. there is a Japonese Mod that fills the space bellow the viaducts, acording to the wealth/zone of the adjacent cells. Could that be done by the NAM team itself, so all (old and new) pieces would be restyled that way?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 24, 2012, 04:54:45 PM
Could that be done by the NAM team itself, so all (old and new) pieces would be restyled that way?

Not likely; Functionality is higher priority than aesthetics. A NAMite could theoretically do just that, but it would need to be separate and, in this case, one would need permission from the mod maker to do that.

Otherwise, you'd need to somehow consult the maker of that specific mod to see if they're catching up.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on January 26, 2012, 08:12:20 AM
I see smoke.  SA must be on fire with all of that development!  There will be real diagonal on-slopes and L1 overpasses at last.  Way to go!

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 26, 2012, 11:45:20 PM
I see smoke.  SA must be on fire with all of that development!  There will be real diagonal on-slopes and L1 overpasses at last.  Way to go!

 :thumbsup:

Nope, just a lot of time on my hands and a very efficient workflow. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on January 27, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Wow, nice to see some developments here :)

Just an idea. there is a Japonese Mod that fills the space bellow the viaducts, acording to the wealth/zone of the adjacent cells. Could that be done by the NAM team itself, so all (old and new) pieces would be restyled that way?
ok, ty for the reply :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sepen77 on January 27, 2012, 04:12:06 PM
Bravo &apls
Great job. When these come out, I'll sure be using them alot more than the L2 15m ones. They're too tall and don't always look good. Can't wait for L3 and L4 although I would wonder why anyone would need 30m tall roads...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 27, 2012, 04:38:35 PM
I think the current plan is to only have L3 and L4 for the MIS, RHW-4 and RHW-6S on the RealHighway side . . . and maybe slightly expand the existing L4 ("High Elevated") El-Rail/Monorail stuff.  Everything else will be kept to just L1 and L2.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on January 27, 2012, 04:52:49 PM
Bravo &apls
Great job. When these come out, I'll sure be using them alot more than the L2 15m ones. They're too tall and don't always look good. Can't wait for L3 and L4 although I would wonder why anyone would need 30m tall roads...

Because in some cities, they have bridges over bridges where multiple highways intersect each other
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Paul 999 on January 28, 2012, 06:55:43 AM
And making off 3- and 4 level stack junctions ;) That will be so cool  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 28, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
There won't be 22.5m and 30m roads.

However, there will be RHW equivalents, so it should still be quite adequate for our interchange needs.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Will12 on January 30, 2012, 11:03:18 PM
Nice job SA! Now even avenue stacks will be easy!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on January 31, 2012, 03:31:59 AM
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/abd51e795024075b529e3fe2b7f0f80c.jpg)

Diagonal avenue on-slope is done.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on January 31, 2012, 03:47:47 AM
Awesome work  &apls &apls  That'll be very useful!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RickD on January 31, 2012, 05:22:30 AM
Great job. This is one of my most anticipated puzzle pieces.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on February 02, 2012, 12:46:15 PM
I suspect I know the answer to this, but you know you can draw road over existing rail/street/oneway(?)/etc, is there any way of modifying what this does? and is there any way of adding a `draw x over y` functionality? Or is all that stuff locked in the EXE?

If that stuff is mod-able, how likely is it that you could add a drag-able el-rail/glr on/in road?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 02, 2012, 04:57:22 PM
I suspect I know the answer to this, but you know you can draw road over existing rail/street/oneway(?)/etc, is there any way of modifying what this does? and is there any way of adding a `draw x over y` functionality? Or is all that stuff locked in the EXE?

If that stuff is mod-able, how likely is it that you could add a drag-able el-rail/glr on/in road?

Technically, you can define a setup like that in RUL1, which defines intersections between two different base networks.  However, specifying dual-network orthogonal setups like that has generally proven fruitless in all the experiments that we've done with it.  daeley did manage a setup to sort of drag them, but it involved the same AutoPlace technique that caused the infamous Maxis Car Ferry CTD (and could cause issues with stations instantly CTDing in the same way), and it's also unable to distinguish between Tram-in-Road, Tram-on-Road and El-Rail-over-Road, as it's effectively placing puzzle pieces by dragging, and isn't overrideable as such, making its utility somewhat limited (particularly with intersections involving any sort of "crosslink".

There are other possibilities, all of which have drawbacks:

In short, it's not particularly likely at this juncture.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on February 03, 2012, 12:56:25 AM
Aye I thought as much, just wanted clarification. Thanks :D

Joe
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: auandi@gmail.com on February 08, 2012, 10:09:10 PM
I'm so excited to hear about adding more levels to RHW, it should make intersections so much easier. Keep up the great work.

I don't know if this was mentioned before but I was just wondering if there were any plans to make it possible for double-decked highways to have exits and entrances all on one side (like for example the Alaskan Way Viaduct) rather than the traditional always enter/exit from the right side of travel. I'm sure there's going to be all kinds of changes but I really like the idea of  double-decked highways going through downtown cores to minimize disturbance but I am finding them a bit annoying to work with (I also can't find a way to let GLR travel under them without it converting to a subway temporarily). Maybe these can by thing you incorporate into your reboot of sorts for the RHW mod?

Keep up the good work!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 09, 2012, 04:44:07 PM
I don't know if this was mentioned before but I was just wondering if there were any plans to make it possible for double-decked highways to have exits and entrances all on one side (like for example the Alaskan Way Viaduct) rather than the traditional always enter/exit from the right side of travel.

You're in luck.  Left exits (right exits for the LHD users among us) are indeed planned for the DDRHW system.

I'm sure there's going to be all kinds of changes but I really like the idea of  double-decked highways going through downtown cores to minimize disturbance but I am finding them a bit annoying to work with (I also can't find a way to let GLR travel under them without it converting to a subway temporarily). Maybe these can by thing you incorporate into your reboot of sorts for the RHW mod?

Are you talking about a situation like this?

(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/4130/rhw020920121.jpg)

You need to be using Draggable GLR and not the GLR Puzzle Pieces.  The GLR Puzzle Pieces are essentially a "deprecated" feature since Draggable GLR was introduced in June 2007, and as such, will generally not be gaining any new functionality.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TEG24601 on February 09, 2012, 06:33:04 PM
I for one am hoping for some more Monorail/HSR capabilities in the Monolithic NAM, like High Monorail over RHW and some way for the monorail to interact with the DDRHW, as I love using
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on February 09, 2012, 07:41:17 PM
the high monorail / el rail should be able over to go over ddrhw as both are 30m vs 22.5m for ddrhw...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 09, 2012, 09:11:39 PM
the high monorail / el rail should be able over to go over ddrhw as both are 30m vs 22.5m for ddrhw...

Technically, the High Monorail/El-Rail are at 30.5m. 

The main reason we haven't really done much with the High Monorail/El-Rail systems is that they we haven't really decided the future of that functionality, whether to keep making puzzle pieces or bite the bullet and go draggable.  There's some potential issues with draggability that would need to be sorted due to how those base networks work.

The DDRHW does, if I'm not mistaken, support GHSR underneath it, however.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: auandi@gmail.com on February 09, 2012, 11:29:13 PM
Are you talking about a situation like this?

You need to be using Draggable GLR and not the GLR Puzzle Pieces.  The GLR Puzzle Pieces are essentially a "deprecated" feature since Draggable GLR was introduced in June 2007, and as such, will generally not be gaining any new functionality.

-Alex
[/quote]

I didn't (though it is good to know about Draggable GLR) I actually mis-typed and meant to say Tram-in-Avenue and Tram-in-road. Unless I'm missing something that isn't draggable is it? It's about all I use so I just think of it as glr in my mixed up mind.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on February 10, 2012, 07:25:53 AM
I'm liking the improved stability that I see in the latest development pic.  I have to wonder about that L2-RHW x Monorail at-grade crossing, though.  $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on February 10, 2012, 03:10:56 PM
I didn't (though it is good to know about Draggable GLR) I actually mis-typed and meant to say Tram-in-Avenue and Tram-in-road. Unless I'm missing something that isn't draggable is it? It's about all I use so I just think of it as glr in my mixed up mind.

You're correct that neither Tram-in-Avenue or Tram-in-Road are draggable (and due to the logistics of implementation, most likely won't be), and that neither currently has any RHW crosslinks.  That is planned to be corrected with the next release, however.

I'm liking the improved stability that I see in the latest development pic.  I have to wonder about that L2-RHW x Monorail at-grade crossing, though.  $%Grinno$%

Actually that pic is pretty old . . . June 2, 2011, a little over 3 months before RHW 5.0 was released. ;)  The L2 RHW x Monorail crossing, if you look closely, is basically kind of a dead-end, with the RHW interrupting the Monorail line.  The reason that crossing has to exist is because it's a crossing involving a base network, and it eases the job of allowing GHSR-under-L2 RHW.  The same thing exists with Elevated Light Rail, too, to allow GLR under L2 RHW.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on February 11, 2012, 06:02:21 AM
In a little spree I'm having on the wiki lately, I added an article which might be useful to some people: The NAM glossary (http://wiki.sc4devotion.com/index.php?title=NAM/glossary).

It basically lists all the acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations that the NAM use.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on February 21, 2012, 07:55:48 AM
Part of the upcoming 7.5m content for Maxis-over-other-networks includes Maxis-over-RHW:

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/fe41207ad33d473b97ef77834d61eedb.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on February 21, 2012, 08:41:57 AM
ohhh I love those exit ramps
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: xannepan on February 21, 2012, 09:23:06 AM
Wow! I love the surprises you guys keep giving us!  &apls &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on February 21, 2012, 10:04:49 AM
Awesome!!!!  &apls  And a perfectly-constructed interchange I may add  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: JoeST on February 21, 2012, 10:22:07 AM
gorgeous!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: nathkel on March 09, 2012, 11:48:25 AM
My only criticism is that this and far too many other interchanges use a LOT of real estate. Too many times i hafta wipe out entire neighborhoods just to set up a simple but cramped ramp system for a new interchange in an already developed area. I hope the next version of NAM has smaller and more complete ramp curves to allow for new urban interchanges...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on March 09, 2012, 12:41:17 PM
Deal with it! Interchanges in real life are also big. In fact, the standard interchanges from the Maxis Highway are way to small (factor 2 to 4)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on March 09, 2012, 01:13:38 PM
My only criticism is that this and far too many other interchanges use a LOT of real estate. Too many times i hafta wipe out entire neighborhoods just to set up a simple but cramped ramp system for a new interchange in an already developed area. I hope the next version of NAM has smaller and more complete ramp curves to allow for new urban interchanges...
I think a lot of people have that reaction at first--if you're used to the Maxis interchanges, which as Maarten stated are very, very under-scaled, then RHW will seem very big. The reality though is that in real life when you try to send a freeway through an already developed area is does require a LOT of demolition--and that's why it doesn't really happen anymore. RHW is about realism and flexibility and realistic sized interchanges take up a lot of space. Don't resist it, embrace it  ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on March 09, 2012, 02:29:59 PM
My only criticism is that this and far too many other interchanges use a LOT of real estate. Too many times i hafta wipe out entire neighborhoods just to set up a simple but cramped ramp system for a new interchange in an already developed area. I hope the next version of NAM has smaller and more complete ramp curves to allow for new urban interchanges...

When they add new interchanges to already existing highways, 90% of the time they already have development around.  Indiana recently added a new exit to crown point off of I-65, and that took up a lot of space for it.  They want to put another one in Merrillville just south of US-30 to try and funnel traffic off of US-30, but both roads that are proposed for a new interchange have development around them, thus need to be demolished(which the owners are fighting).

Also remember, most interstate highway off ramps are designed to keep the flow of traffic moving at speeds relative to the roads they leading to(unless they have stop signals at the end), and if going from interstate to interstate, they are designed to get the vehicle entering up to highway speed prior to merging onto the highway, something that cannot be done if they have a 90 degree turn on the off ramp(which they will use to slow down traffic in some parts)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on March 09, 2012, 02:41:18 PM
I should add--going to a 7.5m (Level 1, or L1) setup like that is making it more compact.  There's not as much altitude gain involved, and thus, a small scale is achieved while maintaining realism.

There already are ways to make some pretty compact things with the RHW, and it'll get more so as we add more L1 content.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on March 09, 2012, 06:53:31 PM
Regarding the space in terms of real world design, the only other option, if you don't want to knock residences down, (which IDK why this exists in my surroundings) is that side streets immediately are used as conjoining highway on and off ramps in front of people's houses. This brings all sorts of congestion into your neighborhood, and guarentees your street in front of your house is not a safe street no more, can't forget the truck traffic now, that will wear the street down a lot faster. I have noticed in terms of reality, that the wealth of the residences in one area can alter the outcome of certain road/highway proposals. I have seen a new highway knock out all the rural residence around it. The other issue is, if those ramps were closer though, it restricts the turn lane distance, and my real life also has those traffic nightmares, because the turn lane distance was too short.

Now if there is a criticism, mine will be that I have not seen this new setup in action, to see how vehicles behave on it, don't know if there will be a YT demo for that.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on March 09, 2012, 08:20:55 PM
The Demolition aspect is why Melbourne's ring road still isn't finished. The original route would've cut right through "downtown" Greensborough and the current Bulleen link isn't really any better. It would honestly be cheaper to build through Kangaroo Ground and link it up to the Healesville Freeway at Coldstream. There would still need to be a tunnel here (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.68146,145.146089&spn=0.012889,0.01929&t=h&z=16), (though the space above would suggest otherwise), It would, for the most part, follow the power lines. Where it crosses the main road at Kangaroo Ground is a small gully (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&ll=-37.693414,145.215268&spn=0.012887,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-37.693498,145.215261&panoid=pLzi5iZyO08qGTnHwuiWSg&cbp=12,288.32,,0,38.04), which could be exploited for an interchange.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: figui on March 11, 2012, 07:49:08 AM
imo, the problem with interchanges in sc4+rhw is not the scale of them, but the fact that you have to fit it in a city tile, when sometimes one would prefer to split the interchange to build it just over the neighbor limit, which is not possible.

mauricio.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on March 11, 2012, 09:07:57 AM
imo, the problem with interchanges in sc4+rhw is not the scale of them, but the fact that you have to fit it in a city tile, when sometimes one would prefer to split the interchange to build it just over the neighbor limit, which is not possible.

mauricio.

There are neighbor connection mis connectors that you can use to build neighbor connections with to make interchanges go into other cities.  I one had a city where a cloverleaf was split between two cities and I didn't intend for it to happen that way, but the usage demanded an upgrade.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on May 31, 2012, 08:21:02 PM
I've finally returned after a long, long hiatus. Been hearing about "Monolithic NAM" and "Project 0E".

Can someone please tell me what these are, or where to go to find out more about them?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on May 31, 2012, 08:29:24 PM
I've finally returned after a long, long hiatus. Been hearing about "Monolithic NAM" and "Project 0E".

Monolithic NAM: Essentially the NAM and all of its plugins (RHW, NWM, SAM, etc) combined into one package. Will go into place starting with NAM 31.

Project 0E, renamed P57: Essentially reorganising and moving the RHW RUL scheme to be more organised, as well as adding additional stability. Also allows easy addition of more RHW heights; See the RHW Dev thread for more.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Shadow Assassin on June 30, 2012, 11:20:53 AM
After several months' hiatus, I've done more viaduct-related work.

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/6a002f894ac5e10d9855bc2e550b7aa8.jpg)

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/11fd7d559270da3c44be890788e1ce9d.jpg)

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/119760b17211843bf2d133f29d0d88cb.jpg)

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/793d534cd3c806ba02527832d69ccd07.jpg)

MIS, 6C, 8S, 8C and 10S will come shortly.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on June 30, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
That's what we need. And it shouldn't be hard to tweak the models to use OWR or Avenue
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on September 05, 2012, 03:30:45 AM
Maxis' offerings on the new SimCity bored me. So I did this.

Basses are much cooler than guitars.

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/jdenm8/other/FASTStuff/2012-09-05_00004.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on September 05, 2012, 02:02:17 PM
Shadow: That is awesome news :D

jdenm8: Omg! that is just amazing :DD "rock an' roll babe!" :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on September 05, 2012, 02:17:06 PM
Maxis' offerings on the new SimCity bored me. So I did this.

Basses are much cooler than guitars.

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/jdenm8/other/FASTStuff/2012-09-05_00004.jpg)

Hilarious!!!


Awesome overpasses SA, I can't believe I missed those before  &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on September 05, 2012, 07:20:10 PM
I don't see anything new, unless I'm missing something? Was that diagonal avenue terminus/four way intersection always in SC4?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 05, 2012, 07:26:53 PM
I don't see anything new, unless I'm missing something? Was that diagonal avenue terminus/four way intersection always in SC4?

Yeah, you're missing something, as always.

In fact, everyone's is overlooking something quite obvious about the guitar, and it's not because it's a guitar. It's what the guitar is made from...

Look closer...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: woodb3kmaster on September 05, 2012, 07:34:29 PM
I see what jdenm8 did there...

But now, whom do I have to thank for this new FAR2? And is this our fist look at the previously foreshadowed (pun very much intended) WaveFAR?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on September 05, 2012, 08:23:30 PM
And is this our fist look at the previously foreshadowed (pun very much intended) WaveFAR?

You're about 22.5° off there :P

No, it isn't, but it's similar. We're currently assessing the feasibility and expandability of this very new implementation in favour of WaveFAR. If this one doesn't work out for some reason, WaveFAR wouldn't be that FAR off.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on September 05, 2012, 11:10:19 PM
Did you DRIve FAr to come to the new idea? Or is that idea dead for good? Or is it an incredible diag/FA sidewalk mod?

Mind if I crop this pic into a FB profile pic?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 05, 2012, 11:30:04 PM
Somepony didn't receive the memo, didn't they?

I should mention, though, that DRI is specific to RHW: Draggable Ramp Interface. Unless it's a pattern for the C1 ramp, it wouldn't have anything to do with Fractional-Angle Roads, or Fractional-Angle anything.

Here's a math question riddle for you guys: What's the arctangent of 1/2?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 06, 2012, 12:23:25 AM
Ah, teasing season, how I've missed thee.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 06, 2012, 02:36:32 AM
In fact, everyone's is overlooking something quite obvious about the guitar, and it's not because it's a guitar. It's what the guitar is made from...

In fact, it's not a guitar, as jdenm8 has said. :P

arctan 1/2 = arctan 1 - arctan 1/3.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 06, 2012, 03:25:56 AM
I'll keep quiet here... :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on September 06, 2012, 03:40:44 AM
I think I spotted a diagonal smooth 90° road curve just next to the guitar... ::)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 06, 2012, 04:17:02 AM
And I thought that memo's equation had given it away completely.

OK, I'll keep quiet for good now.  :-X
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on September 06, 2012, 04:54:08 AM
I think I spotted a diagonal smooth 90° road curve just next to the guitar... ::)

only that? XD All I see is smooth curves :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: NorthStarDC4M on September 12, 2012, 10:52:09 AM
I haven't seen this mentioned but if it has I apologize...
Is there a FLUP set to go under DDRHW coming? I mean something to allow a FLUP to extend under a DDRHW? I know the DDRHW sets have special considerations and all but is it possible?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 12, 2012, 02:38:47 PM
I know the DDRHW sets have special considerations and all but is it possible?

Yes and no.

Yes, it's possible. No, because the current DDRHW's going away and being replaced with a different implementation and there's a different master plan behind FLUPs that would make it redundant in the end.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: shadd0w09 on September 12, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
gyes iv just got sim city4 on steam any alt-tab is linket to steam chat so pleasr try no to hid any nam stuff in an alt+tab link please
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on September 12, 2012, 04:42:57 PM
gyes iv just got sim city4 on steam any alt-tab is linket to steam chat so pleasr try no to hid any nam stuff in an alt+tab link please

Please use a proper English. ;)

Also I have the game via steam and everything works fine for the alt tab maneuvers.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on September 12, 2012, 04:49:18 PM
Translation:

Hi guys, I recently purchased SimCity 4 on Steam. I have however noticed that the key combination to move backwards through a tab loop, Shift-Tab, is also used by the Steam Overlay. Could you please see if you could assign a different combination?

Any key combinations we use are completely static. We have absolutely no control over them, they're all statically defined in the Executable. You will need to change the key combination that you use to open the Steam overlay.

I use Left Control-Tab in lieu of Shift-Tab for example.

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: NorthStarDC4M on September 12, 2012, 05:09:32 PM
I know the DDRHW sets have special considerations and all but is it possible?

Yes and no.

Yes, it's possible. No, because the current DDRHW's going away and being replaced with a different implementation and there's a different master plan behind FLUPs that would make it redundant in the end.

Nice to know, thank you, looking forward to it, I'll just continue working around it for now :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 16, 2012, 11:05:44 AM
Perhaps it's time that I've spilled the beans...

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4241/capturefa2dev.jpg)

Here are the transit tiles involved in the creation of last week's bass guitar.

Now, as you all know, wealthification of puzzle pieces is extremely tricky to do, unless an advanced T21 is used instead, which is a drag, of course, but hopefully, this will be enough that will draw people into using these pieces.

These are FAR-2 pieces, in case you were wondering, and no, Daniel wasn't involved this time (Shadow Assassin). Mostly Memo with the implementation, and myself with testing its scrutiny. Since the creation of said guitar, a few other intersections have been coded in, with similar crossings being added for FAR-3.

(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2306/capturefa2stuff.jpg)

May the droolfest begin.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on September 16, 2012, 12:01:21 PM
I knew it! Those look pretty awesome.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on September 17, 2012, 03:41:14 AM
off the grid we go :D &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 22, 2012, 02:25:49 PM
I am currently working on correcting the road-onslope-puzzle-pieces' colour bug that would occur in one of their rotations. This was a problem with every onslope puzzle piece, until smoncrie came up with a way to fix it. The uncorrected version of the highway onslope piece can still be seen at the first page of this thread. I simply adopted smoncrie's method, and thanks to BarbyW's/gascooker's colour calibrating tutorial, I was able to create this:

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/0b153859ae1937d7bc9cbabebb81d680.jpg) (http://www.ld-host.de/)
The left piece has been placed prior to the fix.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on September 22, 2012, 02:31:17 PM
It's still not the exact same white, but still fantastic!   &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on September 22, 2012, 02:36:29 PM
Awesome work memo  &apls

And great work to you and Ganaram on the new FA stuff  &apls &apls &apls  Really great to have and I meant to say something before.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 22, 2012, 02:39:42 PM
You are right. Unfortunately, it is not possible to get the exact white. This is because, as you can see, the onslope puzzle piece is considerably darkened in the game. To circumvent this, the puzzle piece's texture must be brightened a lot. However, those parts of the texture which had already been white before, cannot be brightened, but are darkened in the game.

This is the actual texture I used:
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/79e0f4cb20f767fcab7c8e97228af100.png) (http://www.ld-host.de/)
As opposed to the usual one:
(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/39a4748d730e5074010df6fb1a5511ec.png) (http://www.ld-host.de/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wthrwyz on September 22, 2012, 10:39:21 PM
Even though it can't be made perfect, this makes the darkening effect much less noticeable. In fact, I don't think most people would see it unless they knew what to look for or were comparing the textures side-by-side. Great job!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on September 23, 2012, 12:09:12 AM
Even though it can't be made perfect, this makes the darkening effect much less noticeable. In fact, I don't think most people would see it unless they knew what to look for or were comparing the textures side-by-side.

Some of us can't see it even when we look for it. $%Grinno$% ::) :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mike3775 on September 23, 2012, 04:57:17 AM
Even though it can't be made perfect, this makes the darkening effect much less noticeable. In fact, I don't think most people would see it unless they knew what to look for or were comparing the textures side-by-side.

Some of us can't see it even when we look for it. $%Grinno$% ::) :thumbsup:

Exactly.  I honestly would never have noticed it if it had not been pointed out 
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on September 23, 2012, 05:07:15 AM
What surprises me is the lack of alternate texture packs. Just the Euro textures? I understand they're one of the hardest things to make (Esp. MHW) But you'd think more people would be trying to make them. We need more fantasy texture packs. How about pink asphalt, purple concrete, blue inner(yellow in US) lines, green outer/middle(white in US) lines and gold sidewalks?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 23, 2012, 05:55:48 AM
Well, the thing is that it's not so hard to make, but there are just so many textures involved. We are speaking about thousands of individual textures. It's a daunting task to tackle them all (and I have my experience: I've done it myself too with Eurofying the textures). You really need to invest the time and effort in these packs...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on September 23, 2012, 06:30:31 AM
very good job, very hard to tell apart :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 23, 2012, 02:19:50 PM
The avenue and one-way road onslope pieces are done now, too.

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/a5e011892e84f4eea51680254361830b.jpg) (http://www.ld-host.de/)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ivo_su on September 23, 2012, 03:18:35 PM
Well, that's more than good memo, you really did a chudestna work and I admire this, but I mourn the old models of EAVE-4, maybe I'm conservative and difficult getting used to the new, but I do not like no barrier between the boards.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vortext on September 23, 2012, 03:29:48 PM
That's really nice memo! Just last week I noticed the same effect for the onlope el-rail and heavy rail pieces and figured it must be the shadows or something. Good to know that isn't the case and a solution is being worked on!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on September 23, 2012, 04:08:19 PM
Ah very nice!

Anyway the issue with the straight on-slope pieces can be resolved? (Can't drag from the first tile, but you can on the on-slope T-intersection if you drag and remove the stubs from said intersection.)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 23, 2012, 04:28:20 PM
but I mourn the old models of EAVE-4, maybe I'm conservative and difficult getting used to the new, but I do not like no barrier between the boards.

If you're wanting a barrier, Maarten's NAM Euro Cosmetic and Retexture Mod includes the proper textures for that.  The old models pre-NAM 30 weren't even really designed for Avenues--they were basically two ERoad models glued together with a different Road texture.

Anyway the issue with the straight on-slope pieces can be resolved? (Can't drag from the first tile, but you can on the on-slope T-intersection if you drag and remove the stubs from said intersection.)

We have . . . interesting . . . things planned for the On-Slopes. ;)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 23, 2012, 04:33:00 PM
Well, as with the on-slope pieces, I can still see a difference between the modified onslope piece and the elevated piece, but it's really subtle, so it pretty much gets the job done.

As of the change of models, the old ones really were archaic and would have been visually incompatible with future developments, such as elevated NWM networks, and I honestly like the new ones anyway.

Still want a separation? The Euro Cosmetic & Retexture Mod does the same, but if you still want a physical barrier and not just concrete, just sandwich two OWRs together, because that's how the old EAVE pieces were, anyway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ivo_su on September 23, 2012, 04:38:50 PM
Woo this is amazing Alex, all networks will have you on-slope/FlexFlay pieces?
As models of Maxis's network, and I liked the structure of OWR and AVE and their cylindrical columns (you told me that this mod is T21) but anyway memo had done a magnificent job, unfortunately you overshadowed it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 23, 2012, 06:07:28 PM
Just last week I noticed the same effect for the onlope el-rail and heavy rail pieces and figured it must be the shadows or something. Good to know that isn't the case and a solution is being worked on!  :thumbsup:

Actually, the el-rail onslope piece has been colour corrected since 2007. ;) It is one of smoncrie's pieces. Essentially, almost all onslope puzzle pieces had initially been created by smoncrie, but the ones I have been working on this day are from 2004 and 2005. I did not even know how to spell "SimCity" back then. :D And indeed, it really is the shadows causing the glitch.

So, last but not least.

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/ec87e106b116c4099d71f2b562b95fc4.jpg) (http://www.ld-host.de/)

I am somewhat surprised myself that all the colour-correction worked out that well.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: vortext on September 23, 2012, 06:55:05 PM
Actually, the el-rail onslope piece has been colour corrected since 2007.

Yeah, been messing with bridges & slopes these days and couldn't remember which of the two it actually was.   ::)  :D

Anyhow, pretty neat this is taken care off.  ()stsfd()
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on September 23, 2012, 09:01:20 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is, we need more unrealistic stuff in the game. As said before:
Quote
pink asphalt, purple concrete, blue inner(yellow in US) lines, green outer/middle(white in US) lines and gold sidewalks?
There's not a lot of "fantasy" stuff that isn't "medieval Tolkein fantasy". Car Jumps, Loop-the-Loop and a candy rock mod are about all I can think of...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 23, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is, we need more unrealistic stuff in the game.

Realistic or not, you STILL have to create a bajillion textures to pull it off.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wthrwyz on September 24, 2012, 08:51:34 PM
Realistic or not, you STILL have to create a bajillion textures to pull it off.
Indeed. I started working on US-style textures for the T-RAM pieces a while ago and pretty much gave up before I even started once I realized just how many textures there are...and that's just a small subset of what would be needed for a complete re-texture. :o
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on October 13, 2012, 10:19:35 PM
Question: Are alternate FlexSPUI sizes, 1-ramp FlexSPUI and additional DDI pieces(like FlexDDI) planned? Not necessarily for this version, but do you have them in mind?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on October 14, 2012, 01:10:12 AM
Different FlexSPUI variants are planned . . . not this release, and I don't know about 1-ramp versions.  Any future DDIs are probably going to be tied in with TuLEPs, so I don't see much being gained by making a Flex version, but we'll see when those get revisited further.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Piteri on December 23, 2012, 04:25:00 AM
Why isn't there any road textures that show road improvements, we've all driven on roads and seen new asphalt laid down and the patchwork of grey black and something In between. Why doesn't anyone make something like this? It could be like the avenue tree mod but with various road maintenance features. It would make for a very realistic experience! (I don't see any perfect roads where I live unless they are under 3 years old)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on December 23, 2012, 05:06:00 AM
That's because:
1. For the NAM, it's functionality first. Cosmetics should be done by third party modders
2. It's hard to implement such feature, especially because it's based upon the age of the road, of which there are no properties available in the game coding.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on December 23, 2012, 05:53:43 AM
Why isn't there any road textures that show road improvements, we've all driven on roads and seen new asphalt laid down and the patchwork of grey black and something In between. Why doesn't anyone make something like this? It could be like the avenue tree mod but with various road maintenance features. It would make for a very realistic experience! (I don't see any perfect roads where I live unless they are under 3 years old).

There are such construction lots available on the STEX.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: AngryBirdsFan436 on January 07, 2013, 03:21:18 AM
Will the Road/Avenue/OWR viaducts be draggable next release or NAM 32? :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on January 07, 2013, 03:49:45 AM
The honest answer is that we don't know that at this point. You can plan a lot of things, but the realisation often shows that things turn out differently than expected...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 09, 2013, 01:23:43 PM
And for those who haven't seen yet . . . we can officially confirm this functionality for NAM 31.

Thanks to memo for another huge modding breakthrough, and to MandelSoft for the video.

https://www.youtube.com/v/YJIhHF7mwoc

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: M4346 on January 09, 2013, 01:35:36 PM
And for those who haven't seen yet . . . we can officially confirm this functionality for NAM 31.

Thanks to memo for another huge modding breakthrough, and to MandelSoft for the video.

OMG. I just died. FINALLY! YAY! ;D

Although I can't wait for the Euro Texture Mod for the new dragable FAR :P

Great job everyone! I love it!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kj3400 on January 09, 2013, 01:43:06 PM
Just when I think the NAM Team's played its entire hand, they pull an ace out their sleeve...
I might just be inclined to use FAR a lot more often now. :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Girafe on January 09, 2013, 01:51:59 PM
That's awesome  &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on January 09, 2013, 01:54:46 PM
Wow wow wow! I now cannot wait for the new NAM ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: NCGAIO on January 09, 2013, 02:02:42 PM

 ??? was in ST before but anyway a big joke on top of the guitar (6:00) ... curious to see what will be commented in the official site about it!


If there is no censorship (EA) of course!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mave94 on January 09, 2013, 02:13:40 PM
Great work there! Making FAR-roads is so much easier now. :)

-Matthijs
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FrankU on January 09, 2013, 02:16:11 PM
 &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jmyers2043 on January 09, 2013, 02:24:19 PM
 :o  I watched the video and the first thing that came to my mind is the old Steppenwolf Song "Get your motor runnin' .. Head out on the highway"   :)   I'm ready for adventure with the new NAM.

Thanks for sharing - Jim

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MTT9 on January 09, 2013, 02:36:10 PM
This is just amazing!!! No need for SimCity2013, the NAM Team has made SimCity5 posible ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on January 09, 2013, 03:04:26 PM
I use FAR a lot, not it will be easier :O

will streers get the same treatment? :p it would be a shame only roads to be like this.. image old downtowns or rural areas with dragfar streets :o
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 09, 2013, 03:35:18 PM
will streers get the same treatment?

Problem with Streets is something called Autoconnect, so the footprints chosen for draggable FAR (or INRUL-based FAR) won't be very helpful. However, a similar development related to this, in case you weren't paying close attention to Maarten's farming zones in the vid...

A few months ago, I had announced a few new FAR pieces involving Street connections...

Perhaps it's time that I've spilled the beans...

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4241/capturefa2dev.jpg)

Here are the transit tiles involved in the creation of last week's bass guitar.

Now, as you all know, wealthification of puzzle pieces is extremely tricky to do, unless an advanced T21 is used instead, which is a drag, of course, but hopefully, this will be enough that will draw people into using these pieces.

These are FAR-2 pieces, in case you were wondering, and no, Daniel wasn't involved this time (Shadow Assassin). Mostly Memo with the implementation, and myself with testing its scrutiny. Since the creation of said guitar, a few other intersections have been coded in, with similar crossings being added for FAR-3.

(http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2306/capturefa2stuff.jpg)

May the droolfest begin.

I "lied". They're also draggable. (Note that I never said puzzle piece, and also take note the choice of words I used.)

For the record, Autoconnect is also a problem with FARHW.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: sunv123 on January 09, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
With this, FAR will finally get the use it deserves. Thanks so much for this. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: wouanagaine on January 09, 2013, 03:55:07 PM
You guys are crazy !
Thanks for the hard work and sharing


Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Glazert on January 09, 2013, 04:11:19 PM
This really is impressive. It is going to be well worth learning to use. I will be able to draw roads without having to think about about any real limits on direction. I know that there is still a grid somewhere in the game, and that will still shape lots, but no longer the road layout.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on January 09, 2013, 05:25:57 PM
kudos to memo and the entire NAM Team for such a invaluable functional improvement...  :thumbsup:   &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on January 09, 2013, 05:36:34 PM
I am glad the idea of draggable FAR goes down that well. ;D But be warned, I imagine, if you have not dragged as many fractionally angled roads as I have, getting used to it may take some time at the beginning.

Fractional Streets are currently not planned. However, there will be 45° and 90° curves.

Also, special thanks to Ganaram and the rest of the team for constant feedback and testing.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: teddyrised on January 09, 2013, 05:38:03 PM
Brilliant work with the draggable FAR-2 and FAR-3 &apls I can imagine the amount of work going into this - and more importantly, we can be somewhat independent of filler pieces for FARs as weathification is supported.

Out of curiousity, how does this version of draggable FAR avoid the Maxis Car Ferry crash that beleaguered the previous incarnation of draggable FAR? I'm a little interested in the mechanics behind it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on January 09, 2013, 05:45:27 PM
I'm not sure what you mean, but I can affirm that you will still be able to use the Maxis Car Ferry without any impacts.

It pretty much works similar to diagonal streets. For diagonal streets, you drag a zig-zag pattern which then converts to diagonal streets. For FAR, it is the same technique, just with a different pattern.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 09, 2013, 05:45:44 PM
The old version, which caused the Car Ferry crash, basically just added an AutoPlace line to the existing FAR puzzle pieces.  The puzzle piece would get automatically placed whenever that particular setup was built with the Road network.  Because the underlying TE setup under the Car Ferry matched the setup that triggered the puzzle piece to be placed, the game would try to place the puzzle piece over the ferry terminal (a TE Lot), instantly causing a CTD.

The new version is based entirely from INRULs and RUL2 overrides.  Rather than being a puzzle piece that is placed through draggable means, it's a full-on draggable network item.  That also means it's overrideable.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on January 09, 2013, 06:25:52 PM
that is amazing... making far more user friendly .. great !
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: teddyrised on January 09, 2013, 06:53:59 PM
I'm not sure what you mean, but I can affirm that you will still be able to use the Maxis Car Ferry without any impacts.

It pretty much works similar to diagonal streets. For diagonal streets, you drag a zig-zag pattern which then converts to diagonal streets. For FAR, it is the same technique, just with a different pattern.

I'm sorry if I didn't make my question clearer - actually I got a little confused the second time reading it, too :P I get the diagonal street analogy, like what Tarkus has mentioned (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1138.msg444984#msg444984) :) so basically it's no longer a puzzle piece (which I suppose why weathification is possible... no?)

Nonetheless, amazing work again :) You guys have to pop a bottle of champagne, or something! ()stsfd()
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Simcoug on January 09, 2013, 06:55:36 PM
WOW!  You have just made SC13 irrelevant.   &apls

One question regarding the wealth textures... will they be compatible with the current wealth textures?  In other words, will Paengs sandstone override work with these FAR textures?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 09, 2013, 06:57:51 PM
The wealthification is designed to use either the default or whatever sidewalk mod you might have, and will change based on the type of zoning adjacent to it, just like the default orthogonal and diagonal networks.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Simcoug on January 09, 2013, 07:01:52 PM
You've just added 10 more years onto SC4s shelf life.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on January 09, 2013, 07:51:02 PM
??? was in ST before but anyway a big joke on top of the guitar (6:00) ... curious to see what will be commented in the official site about it!

I was actually the one who made the guitar (I was kinda sick of them posting robots and crap) and there was no official recognition from what I can tell. Though, they did stop posting novelty cities for a while.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jmdude1 on January 09, 2013, 10:45:49 PM
this is a great addition to the game! it's great that wealthification or whatever you call it is included. i always enjoy using FAR pieces but having so many open spaces next to them took away from the effect. it's also great to see the ability to connect streets and roads. well done!
will there be any FAR upgrades for avenues?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 09, 2013, 11:08:18 PM
will there be any FAR upgrades for avenues?

There are a few problems with using the Avenue network, and it goes beyond its funny zoning property that wealthifies the entire AVE and not the adjacent tiles. It would  entail dragging AVEs into one another in an awkward way, and demolishing it would demolish more than it's supposed to.

Oh, and the proper name is FA-3 AVE-4, not FAAVE-4.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: fifteenrocket on January 09, 2013, 11:38:04 PM
Will the Draggable FAR pieces have the ability to intergrate to the SAM and The single railroad mod? Will it also have the capability to work with the NWM and the RHW? IM just as curious to know what will happen with the great work you guys do.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 10, 2013, 12:03:32 AM
Will the Draggable FAR pieces have the ability to intergrate to the SAM and The single railroad mod? Will it also have the capability to work with the NWM and the RHW? IM just as curious to know what will happen with the great work you guys do.

I had already answered two of those questions a page ago: No for Street (that also means SAM) and RHW. The reason is Autoconnect, and a lot of experimentation still needs to see if it can be safe to even port the code over for both networks.

RAM and NWM is quite possible, but there aren't any plans for either. Either way, there aren't any concrete plans for all of them yet.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on January 10, 2013, 04:15:46 AM
Adding SAM support should be as simple as adding textures for the networks and writing code to override the base Street intersection. It's perfectly possible, but whether it'll be done by release is uncertain. The same goes for STR, although I think that textures for the STR intersections have already been made, which would increase the chances of their inclusion.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ivo_su on January 10, 2013, 04:59:11 AM
Impressive video of Maarten and I mean great return memo. He definitely came in with a bang and fired NAM to new heights. Thanks to him we have a very simple method for creating FAR textures. I wonder whether there will be NAM 31 full FANWM or will be delayed for expansive NWM 3.0(NAM32)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 10, 2013, 05:16:30 AM
I wonder whether there will be NAM 31 full FANWM or will be delayed for expansive NWM 3.0(NAM32)

I'll only give you this:

The new version is based entirely from INRULs and RUL2 overrides.  Rather than being a puzzle piece that is placed through draggable means, it's a full-on draggable network item.  That also means it's overrideable.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: ivo_su on January 10, 2013, 05:27:57 AM
Does that mean that now compiling these pieces will be twice as easy? However, Rule-2 was considered a blight on the team and only Alex, Vince and memo could work with him. Now with INRULs this process should be available to the team and FANWM compilation of songs is much easier and attainable. And the question is surely not whether but when it will happen.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on January 10, 2013, 05:38:11 AM
I don't believe that RUL2 is a blight. It's a hard concept to wrap your head around, but it's proven incredibly useful so far.

As for FANWM, while the base overrides that we would override are largely in place, FANWM is not on the roadmap for NAM31. It's possible that it may be included in NAM32 or NAM33 however.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on January 10, 2013, 07:20:34 PM
So, according to what I saw in the video, there will be draggable FAR intersections.  On top of that, it looks like the intersections can be dragged across any tile of the FAR segment (as opposed to the fixed FAR intersections currently available on the center tiles).  For that matter, there don't seem to be any FAR segments anymore, as the stretch of FAR can now end abruptly.

As far as the Streets go, I've already grown accustomed to using Roads when I feel the need for FAR segments, so it's not that big of a deal for now.  For the RHW, I'm more than willing to continue using the FARHW puzzle pieces that are currently available if they remain available.

Good work, NAM Team!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on January 11, 2013, 02:27:21 AM
So, according to what I saw in the video, there will be draggable FAR intersections.  On top of that, it looks like the intersections can be dragged across any tile of the FAR segment (as opposed to the fixed FAR intersections currently available on the center tiles).

This is true. At least for intersections with orthogonal roads or streets. For the time being, there will be only one FAR-3 x FAR-3 intersection, which has the same footprint as its puzzle piece counterpart.

For that matter, there don't seem to be any FAR segments anymore, as the stretch of FAR can now end abruptly.

Note sure, if I got exactly what you mean. You still need to think of the underlying 2x3 segments (or for FAR-2 it would be 2x2), for instance the FAR-3 short curve can only be built on one out of three tiles (two respectively). It is however indeed possible, to end FAR in a blended T-intersection on any tile.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Paul 999 on January 11, 2013, 04:10:41 AM
What a great innovation guy's! The new NAM will be spectacular.

Keep up the work  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on January 11, 2013, 04:58:34 AM
On top of that, it looks like the intersections can be dragged across any tile of the FAR segment (as opposed to the fixed FAR intersections currently available on the center tiles).

Orthogonal sections, yes. Other FAR intersections, no. They're basically limited to the existing puzzle piece, like Markus said, so you still need to "calculate" where to let two FARs intersect. Complete freedom isn't there yet - you'll still need to use the footprint sheet as reference in the beginning to learn its usage.

If I'm right, however, there is ample room for future expansion on that front to eleminate or at least severely reduce that kind of thing.


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kassarc16 on January 11, 2013, 05:45:02 AM
If anyone can refresh my memory on draggable viaducts, that would be awesome. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RickD on January 11, 2013, 07:04:51 AM
I had to watch the video twice because I could not believe what I saw.  &apls &apls &apls &apls &apls
And now I am going to watch it a third time.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Acid Rain on March 01, 2013, 02:36:13 AM
I "lied". They're also draggable. (Note that I never said puzzle piece, and also take note the choice of words I used.)

Trickster! Scoundrel! No, that is actually pretty funny. Of course, from here on out we're all going to read into your posts far deeper than you ever intended.

The new version is based entirely from INRULs and RUL2 overrides.  Rather than being a puzzle piece that is placed through draggable means, it's a full-on draggable network item.  That also means it's overrideable.

-Alex

Overrideable? I'm... I think I'm humping the air. That sounds a lot like FANWM.

You guys are ridiculous, and I mean that in the best way possible. The hard work, dedication, but most of all, the ingenuity. Great googley moogley.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: solovinodelmal on March 04, 2013, 03:37:47 PM
So did the draggable FAR make it to the NAM 31 release? I can't find anything but puzzle pieces.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kj3400 on March 04, 2013, 03:49:43 PM
It did for roads, as far as I know. You have to, er, drag it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on March 04, 2013, 03:52:28 PM
Are you sure you installed the component? It's a separate checkbox that normally is checked by default, but maybe you missed it.


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on March 04, 2013, 04:11:06 PM
So did the draggable FAR make it to the NAM 31 release? I can't find anything but puzzle pieces.

You may want to have a look at the Documentation's ContentsFile, Section 11, in order to find out how to use it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: solovinodelmal on March 06, 2013, 08:55:25 AM
So did the draggable FAR make it to the NAM 31 release? I can't find anything but puzzle pieces.

You may want to have a look at the Documentation's ContentsFile, Section 11, in order to find out how to use it.

Thanks, I found it, it's really cool, kinda tricky at first but I'm getting there, so technically you could make a 16-sided polygon between orthogonal, diagonal and the new FAR-2 and FAR-3 right? That is awesome!  $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on March 06, 2013, 09:35:42 AM
…so technically you could make a 16-sided polygon between orthogonal, diagonal and the new FAR-2 and FAR-3 right?…

Actually, you can even make a 24-sided polygon. ;) Here is another picture showing the different angles.

(http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/e98796b57e1717b7bf19cf2dcdb7ee97.jpg)

I cannot believe it is already 6 months old.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 07, 2013, 09:37:48 AM
I finally got around to downloading this wonderfully huge file (although I had to do it during the night to compensate for connection speed).  Despite all of the bug reports, I must say I haven't found anything that wrong with it, other than the lack of RHW fillers (the only decrease in functionality I've found so far, but still only a minor one).  You should have heard the gasp I made when I first saw street lights show up on the draggable FAR.  I just about leapt out of my skin!  :shocked2:  One nice bonus about the draggable FAR is the fact that FAR neighbor connections are now draggable as well, no longer requiring my favorite workaround.  I have had to consult the trusty Readme to figure out the draggable FAR curves, but I've caught on to the point that I only have to check back for some of them now.  Additionally, it's so nice to see wealth textures on FAR and WC segments.  I won't have to waste as much space on transparent filler lots now.

Great job NAM Team!  You've earned four thumbs up (and I supposedly only have two)!

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on March 08, 2013, 12:37:00 AM
Quote from: Metarvo
Great job NAM Team!  You've earned four thumbs up (and I supposedly only have two)!
Yeah sure, uh-huh. All of SC4D knows how the two big guys up front can pop up alone without the others following after. (or what is known as toe thumb)
And thus is the reason why you have 4 thumbs up on your part! &dd

But I'm glad I got to hear such praise coming from you. The one thing I now hear in the backroom from them good ol' boys is: "dear princess celestia, today I learned why NAM originally did not have a release date"  ()what() I have no clue what to make of that statement, but my guess is the decission is final to no longer pick a due date anymore after this, which is why, it's So nice to hear such praise to the team about the good ol' 31st.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on March 08, 2013, 12:41:07 AM
I just wish I can get Camstudio to work for me again. The only issue is that I can't record sound at the moment, so instead, I tried a different recorder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TXByD0XOe8
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on March 08, 2013, 01:03:57 AM
Here's the thing, Fraps is the only one it seems that everyone can confirm gets the sound, but it takes too much memory, the higher the quality, which is vital for the viewer reading what the user is reading when their playing SC4, IDK how these other guys do it, CS has been known about that sound thing.

After seeing some YT accounts starting to get content notices, since now EA added SC4 content to the YT detection library system, my personal attitude is maybe don't record sound, and especially maybe not even SC4's soundtrack now, so maybe just stick to what you know and continue use of Camstudio, and just audioswap for a soundtrack, or talk over the video?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on March 08, 2013, 02:07:08 AM
I use FFSplit to record my videos. FFSplit has the following very useful functions:
- Separate control over game volume and mic volume.
- Pretty fast and good compression. No lagging during recordings (that was different when using Fraps or Hypercam).
- Ability to only record a part of the screen.
- Ability to stream via Twitch.tv (but recording things to hard drive is also OK).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on March 08, 2013, 03:15:15 AM
After seeing some YT accounts starting to get content notices, since now EA added SC4 content to the YT detection library system, my personal attitude is maybe don't record sound, and especially maybe not even SC4's soundtrack now, so maybe just stick to what you know and continue use of Camstudio, and just audioswap for a soundtrack, or talk over the video?
They're trying to block all the previous Simcity games so everyone has to play the current disasterpiece? I swear, I can smell The Simpsons Game 2 coming from my studio...
If I had one...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 08, 2013, 08:08:03 AM
I'm pretty sure EA is afraid of the NAM and the NAM Team.  Although I never really wanted a release date, I think it was worth releasing it during SC2013's release and early days just to remind them that SimCity belongs to the players.  Without the players, games wouldn't sell and the developers would go out of business.  When I look at some of the positively dazzling content that has been released in the past few days (draggable FAR and WC sections, and MHW that actually resembles what it should have been in the beginning), I can see why they would be scared into trying to stop SC4 from being showcased.  What will this do to the MD's that use YT videos?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Haljackey on March 08, 2013, 10:17:00 AM
I'm pretty sure EA is afraid of the NAM and the NAM Team.  Although I never really wanted a release date, I think it was worth releasing it during SC2013's release and early days just to remind them that SimCity belongs to the players.  Without the players, games wouldn't sell and the developers would go out of business.  When I look at some of the positively dazzling content that has been released in the past few days (draggable FAR and WC sections, and MHW that actually resembles what it should have been in the beginning), I can see why they would be scared into trying to stop SC4 from being showcased.  What will this do to the MD's that use YT videos?

Many developers have a huge amount of respect for the NAM. I had a chat with a lot of Maxis staff during SC13's development beta and they are extremely impressed with this mod (among others, like SimMars and SPAM). I recall after telling Ocean Quigley that I'm on the NAM Team, he wanted the team to weigh my transportation suggestions more heavily. He called the NAM Team "Freaking intimidating"  :D.



I use Xsplit, Fraps and Sony Vegas to do my video/streaming work.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on March 08, 2013, 04:25:08 PM
@Wiimeiser, IDK what EA was trying to say exactly with the last Simpson's game on the mainline consoles, during the level where you had to defeat "Will Wright" creator of "Sim Sandwich" which is a parady, because it looks like the SimCity 4 box, but in reality, that sandwich title in itself, EA holds the rights to, but they never took use to it. These day's it's just Spore, My Sims, the Sims, and SimCity, in the past you had other Sim TM'ed titles like Sim Ant or Sim Copter, but that was then, this is now. The only other reference about SimCity on the Simpsons was the use of T21 in that episode where the bots sacrifice themselves when Homer is crossing the road, but considering the circumstance, I guess this is popular enough to be reference to that show, but I still don't get the motive where you had to fight Will.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Nexis4Jersey on March 08, 2013, 08:33:40 PM
Here's the thing, Fraps is the only one it seems that everyone can confirm gets the sound, but it takes too much memory, the higher the quality, which is vital for the viewer reading what the user is reading when their playing SC4, IDK how these other guys do it, CS has been known about that sound thing.

After seeing some YT accounts starting to get content notices, since now EA added SC4 content to the YT detection library system, my personal attitude is maybe don't record sound, and especially maybe not even SC4's soundtrack now, so maybe just stick to what you know and continue use of Camstudio, and just audioswap for a soundtrack, or talk over the video?

There doing that to all the EA games , and I think its due to people remembering a time when EA actually made good games and choosing to stay away from the current crap they put out.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 10, 2013, 09:08:30 AM
I'm past the stage of test driving the new NAM and I've incorporated it into my normal Plugin folder in place of the old NAM.  It has dawned on me that the street lights on FAR segments of roads are separate from those on orthogonal and diagonal roads, as evidenced by using the USL.  FAR-2 and FAR-3 lights had the Maxis light cones, while ortho and diag §§ lights carried the USL cones that I had selected.

So, does this mean what I think it does?  In theory, could existing streetlight mods (Cogeo's mod, LRM, USL, etc.) or new mods include FAR lights to provide different light cones (or at least light cones matching ortho and diag lights for said mods) for those segments?  It looks promising.  ;D  Even if the answer is no, it's nice nonetheless to have the Maxis light cones reincorporated into a Plugins folder which might not use them otherwise.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on March 10, 2013, 09:32:04 AM
The street lights used on FAR-2 and -3 are copies of the corresponding Maxis street light props. They have a new IID so as to avoid prop pox, because I had modded them in a way such that they can be flipped. This was not necessary for the flora, so the trees that appear are actually those of your tree replacement mod.

Since only draggable FAR makes use of these new props, it is indeed possible to replace them by ones that are specifically for FAR-2 and FAR-3. At least this would make sense for the lamp posts – not so much for the light cones.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on March 10, 2013, 07:03:41 PM
Regarding Prop Pox, do you only need the affected prop in your plugins for it to occur or do you actually need to plop a lot into the city? And how are the folks at SimPeg handling it? Still same old same old?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on March 10, 2013, 07:59:21 PM
Regarding Prop Pox, do you only need the affected prop in your plugins for it to occur or do you actually need to plop a lot into the city?

It has to be plopped in the city in at least one place.

Quote
And how are the folks at SimPeg handling it? Still same old same old?

I haven't heard anything new on this issue from them.  But that's just me.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on March 11, 2013, 02:27:43 AM
Regarding Prop Pox, do you only need the affected prop in your plugins for it to occur or do you actually need to plop a lot into the city?

It has to be plopped in the city in at least one place.

Quote
And how are the folks at SimPeg handling it? Still same old same old?

I haven't heard anything new on this issue from them.  But that's just me.

IIRC Peg's stance that it's a conspiracy to discredit him and his refusal to do anything to fix it hasn't changed. What's more, I believe he's out of the modding scene entirely and just keeping the site running.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Diggis on March 11, 2013, 05:11:54 AM
Regarding Prop Pox, do you only need the affected prop in your plugins for it to occur or do you actually need to plop a lot into the city? And how are the folks at SimPeg handling it? Still same old same old?

The prop has to appear in your city and also be removed from your city at least once. The issue with the modded umbrella prop is that the prop is used on many of the default Maxis low wealth residential lots. These will have been grown early is a cities life and replaced early on in almost every city.  I think that is why it was the first (and only confirmed) prop to cause issues, because of it's heavy use by Maxis.

Theoretically, if you have a prop in the plugins right from the start of the city it shouldn't be an issue, but I'm not sure that's been confirmed.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on March 30, 2013, 07:31:54 PM
Happy draggable Easter everyone ;)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/Various2/easter_streets.jpg)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on March 30, 2013, 07:45:46 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/7PF4g8e.jpg)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on March 31, 2013, 03:52:07 AM
Nice work, Willy! Smooth curved streets will be very useful indeed.

As a matter of fact, it's also my 21st Birthday today
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on March 31, 2013, 05:06:13 AM
Happy Easter to you too Willy! Outstanding work  &apls

Ganaram, you're far too funny :p

Happy birthday Maarten  :party:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on March 31, 2013, 05:27:19 AM
awesome XD  &apls &apls

happy Easter all of you :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 31, 2013, 06:54:24 AM
Happy birthday, Maarten, and happy Easter to all.  :)

Nice Easter card, Willy.  Are those street S-Curves?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: shanghai kid on March 31, 2013, 09:09:28 AM
Happy Easter everyone  ;D

Happy birthday, Maarten :) Best wishes from Norway &dance :party:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on March 31, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Gelukkige verjaardag Maarten!

---

I'd better let the cat out of the bag and show some new street functionality. Indeed Metarvo, an s-curve:

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_s-curve2.jpg)


But there's more. I've tentatively called these curve intersections.

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_short_curve_intersections.jpg)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_long_curve_inner_intersections.jpg)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_long_curve_outer_intersections.jpg)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_long_curve_outer-inner_intersections.jpg)

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_s-curve_intersections.jpg)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Ramona Brie on March 31, 2013, 02:30:59 PM
If only you could sneak these into 31.1 — these are awesome!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on March 31, 2013, 03:06:36 PM
MandelSoft: Happy birthday  &apls &apls (sorry only now I noticed it)

SwordMaster: please, and please say it:

"these are dragable"   %BUd% %BUd% %BUd%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Glazert on March 31, 2013, 04:08:18 PM
I really like the way the sidewalks follow the curve in the picture of the S-Curve.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on March 31, 2013, 04:11:06 PM
MandelSoft: Happy birthday  &apls &apls (sorry only now I noticed it)

SwordMaster: please, and please say it:

"these are dragable"   %BUd% %BUd% %BUd%

They are ;)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Grneyes on March 31, 2013, 07:01:09 PM
The curves are dragable? Or the intersections?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on March 31, 2013, 07:14:28 PM
Everything is draggable.

(The large and small 90° curves were already included with NAM 31 as draggable features. This is an expansion of it.)


(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/curve_intersections_sidewalks.jpg)


Cheers
Willy

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on March 31, 2013, 07:39:31 PM
Kicking the new SimCity's butt all day!  That looks awesome!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 31, 2013, 07:44:57 PM
So, this means no more hard choices between intersections or wide curves.  Good work!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on March 31, 2013, 09:41:16 PM
Great work on those curves.

Would they work with the old SAM ?

I'm curious, because with the current, it is not possible to create driveways like with the old one.
If you don't know what I mean, it's the way u can use a SAM starter piece and delete half of it to get this:
(http://i.imgur.com/DEojhigl.jpg) (http://imgur.com/DEojhig)

Please make it possible again. :)

Here are some neat examples of its usage:
(http://i.imgur.com/2NKzVRGl.jpg?1) (http://imgur.com/2NKzVRG)(http://i.imgur.com/ADMlt4Cl.jpg) (http://imgur.com/ADMlt4C)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on March 31, 2013, 10:10:27 PM
It is still possible, but the method is different.  Spot, try dragging a 2-tile stretch of Street with one end one tile in from where you want the driveway (it would be directly over the zoning arrow in your first picture).  Place the blank tile of the SAM starter over one of the resulting Street ends to delete it.  You may have to replace some zones, though.

Alternately, you can use the method of creating a single, open-ended Street tile found in Steps 1.05-1.07 of this tutorial (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=7350.0).  You can use it as-is for two driveways across from each other, or you can drag and bulldoze a Street from one end to turn it into a single driveway.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on April 01, 2013, 12:47:38 AM
Thanks metarvo, but the problem with these methods is that you can't cross right over the remaining street. :(
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 01, 2013, 08:09:08 AM
Well, well, well, what do we have here?

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborab_02.png)

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on April 01, 2013, 08:23:52 AM
(http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9421/drivewayt.jpg)

Spot, you should still be able to do so following this four-step quick tutorial I threw together.  Once you create a street stub, you should be able to drag a road or street through it with no problem.



 :shocked2:

A multi-lane roundabout?  On top of that, it looks like it works with AVE-4 and ARD-3.  Nice.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Meastro444 on April 01, 2013, 11:58:16 AM
Turboroundabout! It only lacks cycle lanes! :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: threestooges on April 01, 2013, 12:51:33 PM
Well, well, well, what do we have here?

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborab_02.png)

An accident waiting to happen? (Sorry, I live in Southern CA. People drive poorly enough around here without having to attempt to negotiates a roundabout with other drivers)

Looks fun though, and would be a very nice feature in the game.
-Matt
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: teddyrised on April 01, 2013, 01:20:53 PM
Well, well, well, what do we have here?
An accident waiting to happen? (Sorry, I live in Southern CA. People drive poorly enough around here without having to attempt to negotiates a roundabout with other drivers)

Looks fun though, and would be a very nice feature in the game.
-Matt

No way ;D a roundabout that allows symmetrical interfacing between single and dual-tiled networks &apls

You just made my Easter Holiday.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: TEG24601 on April 01, 2013, 04:20:14 PM
Looks good, now if we also had the option to not have the cut-outs, so it was circular (which is how they have done similar roundabouts in Washington) that would be great.

TEG

Well, well, well, what do we have here?

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborab_02.png)

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 01, 2013, 05:30:14 PM
 :o :o :o :o I?m looking for something soft where I can faint into...  &apls &apls &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: APSMS on April 01, 2013, 08:10:33 PM
I'd have to agree with Matt. While these look incredible--no doubt when they are released I will use them--I would say that roundabouts in Southern California are generally a pain to drive through (We're used to slip lanes, not yielding). The only one I can think of that's not antagonizing is one in Orange, CA, and I think it's because it's in a relatively low-traffic city. This design at least allows for driver destination indicators by having the designated turn lanes, so that problem is solve. What is the base network for this roundabout, anyway?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on April 01, 2013, 08:32:37 PM
(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborab_02.png)

The only issue I have is the hard angle on the inner part - maybe it could do with a more gradual transition?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 01, 2013, 11:23:07 PM
That's actually part of the design.  It's a Dutch Turbo Roundabout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts).

(http://i1.tinypic.com/xm8k1w.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on April 01, 2013, 11:28:58 PM
Great and Powerful Mandel, I hope this is not an April Fools joke. EA did the worst thing today by confirming their trolling attitude on facebook, but I won't go there.

That exists in the US, with half those arrows like the European original, I've been on one, and I still am a little confused. Without the arrows may have been better, IDK.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on April 02, 2013, 12:23:08 AM
The big question, of course, is how do you drive on it? I'm quite certain I'd end up in the wrong lane.

And some people think driving a train is complicated :D


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on April 02, 2013, 12:37:02 AM
While we don't have such roundabouts here, this looks pretty cool!
The only issue I have is the hard angle on the inner part - maybe it could do with a more gradual transition?
My thoughts exactly! The inner lane starts too "abruptly".
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 02, 2013, 03:20:08 AM
Look man, I've had a lecture from the man who came up with the whole design concept and he explained his whole concept. Some things came out of research:
- There are slightly raised kerbs between the lanes on the roundabout, low enough for long trucks to go over them them slowly, but high enough to prevent the rest of the traffic from switching lanes. This is not only safer for car traffic (no weaving), but also safer for motorcyclists.
- The center is partioally paved to allow long trucks with large turn radii to use the roundabout
- Arrow markings on the roundabout had no significant effect. Arrows in advance of the roundabout are very important on the contrary, and so is clear signage in advance of the roundabout.
- You need large signs in the center on eye-height to "block off the horizon". This way, people notice the roundabout earlier.
- The first designs had more gradual lane entrances, like the one Tarkus showed. The problem of those was that some people driving on the roundabout thought their  lane continued on the left instead of the right. Therefore, new designs have a more right angle, so you can clearly see a discontinuity of a starting lane.

Personally, I've had no problems driving on these roundabouts, and all of them seem to work very smoothly. Trust me, they look more confusing when you view them from up above than when you're actually drive on one. It's just like those Spaghetti-interchanges, which are harder to comprehend their design than actually using them.

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FrankU on April 02, 2013, 03:57:58 AM
Hey Maarten,

Don't get angry! You did a fantastic job on this roundabout (and on the streetstuff on the previous pages by the way).
On the other hand I can understand the crityicizm, because the thing looks confusing and I must admit that I find them indeed confusing in real life. I drive them regularly, but often enough I fear that I am doing something wrong. Somehow they are intended so that more drivers can use them at the same time, but I fear often enought that I overlook someone and then we all end up in a crash. But let's face it: that is not the issue here. As long as someone makes the pathing for this SC4 roundabout we will have the experience of cars disappearing just in time so that they won't crash.

A big  &apls

Frank

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on April 02, 2013, 04:13:37 AM
That's actually part of the design.  It's a Dutch Turbo Roundabout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_roundabout#Turbo_roundabouts).

(http://i1.tinypic.com/xm8k1w.jpg)

-Alex

Even so, comparing the RL version to the ingame one makes it clear - to me, at least - that those transitions to where it is 2 lanes are abominably sharp for a turbo roundabout, which I assume is to be used at a relatively high speed.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 02, 2013, 04:15:33 AM
On the contrary, the are intended to be used at speeds of about 40 km/h
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: kbieniu7 on April 02, 2013, 04:30:29 AM
Wow, great work Maarten. I also wish it wasn't just a joke  :)
In my opinion such roundabouts are very good solution. For me it's easier to drive on such one than on the traditional ones, where many drivers use outer lane ever (in order to turn right, left, or to go straight on), while inner one stays empty. On turbine roundabout you are able to choose the correct lane before entering the intersection (instead of changing it later).

Additionally the more "complicated" and "unusual" road is, the safer it is, because drivers slow down and pay bigger attention.
Moreover roundabouts are great, because they physically force to drive with lower speed.

Thanks for showing it  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Flatron on April 02, 2013, 04:46:56 AM
That's great, finally a roundabout that interferes between a two- and a four-lane road  &apls  Imho, the sharp edge is OK, because it forces you to realize that you have to yield and that your lane does not simply continue...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on April 02, 2013, 06:38:32 AM
I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. I meant that the inner curve where the new lane starts is a bit sharp (and Patrick probably meant the same as well) as encircled here:

(http://i.imgur.com/KX4gCCI.jpg)

It just could be smoothed (is this the correct form of the verb? ;D) a tad.
It's great either way though and I look forward to seing more roundabouts from you guys :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on April 02, 2013, 06:48:48 AM
As neat as they look, there are precious few roundabouts in my area.  It's been noted that some of the drivers here don't know what Yield signs mean, and therefore they would be hopeless in roundabouts.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on April 02, 2013, 10:02:24 AM
I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. I meant that the inner curve where the new lane starts is a bit sharp (and Patrick probably meant the same as well) as encircled here:

(http://i.imgur.com/KX4gCCI.jpg)

It just could be smoothed (is this the correct form of the verb? ;D) a tad.
It's great either way though and I look forward to seing more roundabouts from you guys :thumbsup:

This. Those curbs are awfully sharp even for a corner being taken at 25mph (~40kmh) and could really do with some smoothing out.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Flatron on April 02, 2013, 10:24:43 AM
Well, nothing hinders drivers from driving in a more fluent curve. But look at this image from the Netherlands:
 (http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/3378913dd67c141abf6b8cdd47024cbd.jpg) (http://www.ld-host.de/)
Source: Google Earth, Street View.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on April 02, 2013, 10:29:07 AM
@io_bg: No, this is not a misunderstanding. I've stated the reason for this already in my elaborate post above:

- The first designs had more gradual lane entrances, like the one Tarkus showed. The problem of those was that some people driving on the roundabout thought their  lane continued on the left instead of the right. Therefore, new designs have a more right angle, so you can clearly see a discontinuity of a starting lane.
I've done a bit of research and came across this dutch publication of ir. L.G.H. Fortuijn (http://www.turbotrafficsolutions.nl/dissertatie/turborotonde_en_turboplein.pdf) about the whole development process of the turbo roundabout. This image explains the possible confusion:
(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborotonde_fout.jpg)
Fig.3.5-7 Aknowledged misunderstanding when entering the roundabout on the right lane.
"The driver at this location expects the other driver on the roundabout to follow the inner lane (a wrong assumption).
"

With a right angle, chances for this type of confusion are way less. Compare these two images from the same publication as above:
(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/mrtnrln/SimCity4-Stuff/turborotonde_goed.jpg)

Some professional examples showing the right angles:
(http://www.dirkdebaan.nl/uploads/1/0/0/5/10059444/6711542_orig.jpg?286)

(http://www.dirkdebaan.nl/uploads/1/0/0/5/10059444/9532903_orig.jpg?401)

(http://www.dirkdebaan.nl/uploads/1/0/0/5/10059444/3637900.jpg?257)

(http://www.tcnijlan.nl/j15/nijlan/images/foto%20rotonde%20tennisclub.jpg)

And Flatron, that's a very good example of a newer design ;)

For those who are curious, here are all locations of currently realized turbo roundabouts: http://www.dirkdebaan.nl/locaties.html

Best,
Maarten
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on April 02, 2013, 11:38:56 AM
Perhaps the problem isn't so much the hard angle in the curb than it is the hard angle in the weathering line?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 02, 2013, 02:11:03 PM
just for curiosity, have you made the same* for roads or plan to do so? :p

*the whirly curves with intersections
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on April 02, 2013, 02:14:17 PM
I haven't. It's complicated by the NWM mod, so I'll see if I can tackle it while that part of the NAM is overhauled sometime in the future. It's certainly planned.


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Paul 999 on April 02, 2013, 02:28:22 PM
Maarten that turborotonde is just asom!

Thanks for this dutch addition at the game!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FrankU on April 03, 2013, 03:28:49 AM
Hi Maarten and all others,

Maybe a bit late to add my comment here, but yesterday afternoon I checked some turbo roundabouts and they looked exactly like Maarten has made for us.
They do not show up in Googel maps yet (too new), so I cannot give an image.

Only one picky remark maybe: the pavement in the inner circle looks like sidewalks and that is not accurate. I guess in most cases there is some kind of pavement that is different and that is a bit bumpy in order to discourage drivers to use this pavement. The pavement is still there in order to give long trucks the opportunity to take the roundabout without damaging the greenery.

Again:  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: io_bg on April 03, 2013, 06:27:28 AM
@io_bg: No, this is not a misunderstanding. I've stated the reason for this already in my elaborate post above:

- The first designs had more gradual lane entrances, like the one Tarkus showed. The problem of those was that some people driving on the roundabout thought their  lane continued on the left instead of the right. Therefore, new designs have a more right angle, so you can clearly see a discontinuity of a starting lane.
Well, okay then. I guess it's just me liking smoothness everywhere in SC4 $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 03, 2013, 06:29:17 AM
I haven't. It's complicated by the NWM mod, so I'll see if I can tackle it while that part of the NAM is overhauled sometime in the future. It's certainly planned.


Cheers
Willy

I'll be looking forward for  it :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 16, 2013, 01:58:23 AM
It's that time again . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/xq54KAc.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 16, 2013, 04:02:16 PM
question: are the street S curves available in nam 31.1 and if yes, how do you lay them?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on April 16, 2013, 04:24:50 PM
I tried to edit the readme file but ran out of time before we went live. So the picture is in the folder, but not in the readme. It's in Documentation -> images -> street s-curve_footprint.jpg.


(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/street_s-curve_footprint.jpg)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on April 16, 2013, 04:32:50 PM
We can't build intersections with the curves in this version, can we?  I remember seeing a teaser pic recently.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on April 16, 2013, 04:42:29 PM
Why don't you try it? ;)

I'm not much of a teasing person; I only show stuff that has been added ;)  So yes, you can. Apologies for lack of documentation again. I haven't had access to Maarten's stuff to add anything.


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on April 16, 2013, 04:45:52 PM
I can't try it because Alex locked it.  Only a handful of people have it right now.  (If someone maybe wants to send me the current, slightly bugged version, that would be great.  PM me)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on April 16, 2013, 05:21:16 PM
ahhhh I missed that combo. I tried so many I was like "maybe not this time, it's for the next release" XD

thanks for your info and work :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on July 28, 2013, 08:22:55 PM
So yeah, this happened. 

(http://i.imgur.com/l7SWVAk.jpg)

Took a bit of finagling and trickery (with some input from my good friend and colleague memo), but it looks like draggable viaducts with FLEX-OST are a go.  And before the Pylon Police show up to cite me, we're still a long way from T21s.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on July 29, 2013, 12:37:15 AM
That's great. Can an intersection on the single road tile before the transition be made? Just wondering.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on July 29, 2013, 03:47:34 AM
Amazing stuff Alex!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on July 29, 2013, 07:40:03 AM
all draggable? great job ;D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on August 06, 2013, 02:56:29 AM
all draggable? great job ;D
It also looks like it's 7.5m high.   &hlp
Is 7.5m road/avenue overpasses for RHW going to be available any time soon?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 07, 2013, 08:14:13 PM
all draggable? great job ;D
It also looks like it's 7.5m high.   &hlp
Is 7.5m road/avenue overpasses for RHW going to be available any time soon?

It is indeed 7.5m high, and yes, it means 7.5m content will have a lot more options in terms of crossing.  All this new stuff will be added in draggable form.  There will be no new puzzle pieces, aside from FLEX pieces to start the drag.

For those of you thinking "oh, but FLEXTrans pieces like to deconvert, and we're going to need fillers", you're not going to need fillers.  The FLEXTrans pieces were still in a bit of an unstable state for the NAM 31.x releases, but that was mostly just so there was at least some method to transition between all the different RHW heights on our deadline-crunched release.  There's been improvements, and there will continue to be improvements, so it doesn't make much sense to make the (literally) hundreds of pieces that would be required.  Additionally, fewer overrides are involved with Road, AVE and OWR FLEXTrans, being base networks (see the relative stability of RHW-2 FLEXTrans vs. those of other RHW networks), so there's less work involved.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on August 07, 2013, 09:09:55 PM
I'd like to see Road FlexRamps and the MIS-Road transitions I mentioned earlier sometime soon. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on August 08, 2013, 04:17:42 AM
such good news Tarkus! great work all of you! :)  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on August 08, 2013, 11:28:10 AM
Good work!  :thumbsup:  This will save a little space, and it will be good to have overpasses over the NWM.  Maybe there should be no release date of any kind this time, since it caused a rush last time.  Just my §0.02.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RepublicMaster on August 09, 2013, 12:40:17 AM
Great work to finally have NWM overpasses! :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 09, 2013, 01:27:24 AM
Maybe there should be no release date of any kind this time, since it caused a rush last time.

The release date was a one-time thing under special circumstances, and I think it definitively proved why you don't do release dates for the NAM.  We're not going there again. :D

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 10, 2013, 03:32:34 AM
Somewhere we are going, however . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/ZfP7GB8.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: RepublicMaster on August 10, 2013, 05:52:16 AM
Great work! Good to finally see NWM compatibility. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 13, 2013, 02:42:31 AM
Thanks, RepublicMaster! :thumbsup:

And now that the NWM stuff's in place, it's time for the RHW side of things:

(http://i.imgur.com/u9XUQEV.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on August 13, 2013, 03:55:43 AM
Now looking forward to the FlexRamps...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on August 13, 2013, 10:46:59 AM
This is so cool!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on August 13, 2013, 01:11:22 PM
you are working fast ein? maybe too fast, you should take some time to sleep aswell ;)  :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 14, 2013, 03:23:58 AM
Thanks, everyone, for the support! :thumbsup:

you are working fast ein? maybe too fast, you should take some time to sleep aswell ;)  :P

Actually, I'm working what seems to be a bit slower than usual, but "slow" might be relative, particularly after the breakneck pace of the NAM 31.x releases.

Taking things to a new level . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/z6qNeM5.jpg)

With the exception of situations involving dual-networking, the entire ortho over/under setup is basically in place for the L1 Road Viaducts.  I'm trying to decide which direction to go next, either toward the other L1 networks (OWR and AVE--Rail is RRW territory), up to L2 Road, or to covering select diagonal situations.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on August 14, 2013, 04:54:21 AM
Do a few of the diagonals first, to further complete the template for later. Then focus on L1 AVE and OWR, that way we have support for NWM crossings next version. Then do L2 last, the current ploppable pieces, though a bit limited, aren't really broken in any way.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on August 14, 2013, 08:49:40 AM
well, as an outsider I dont know how much work that takes to do, I only judge by the speed you post these (awesome) pics.

I agree with Wiimeiser, I would go for all the L1 road cases, from where I would have a base to move into other networks and then L2 netws.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 20, 2013, 01:48:43 AM
Well, development continues on the viaducts.  I got the OXO L1 Road really solid, then got the same amount on the L2 Road solid, and now . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/HsqUIPS.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on August 20, 2013, 02:17:30 AM
Awesome work.

Are you planning on creating NWM overpasses too ?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: FrankU on August 20, 2013, 02:24:57 AM
Gorgeous!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 20, 2013, 02:25:24 AM
Awesome work.

Are you planning on creating NWM overpasses too ?

Thanks!  :thumbsup:  And to answer your question, yes, absolutely.  That's actually part of the method behind the madness of going draggable.  But the Elevated NWM side of things probably won't happen until after NAM 32. 

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on August 20, 2013, 02:47:45 AM
Awesome work.

Are you planning on creating NWM overpasses too ?

Thanks!  :thumbsup:  And to answer your question, yes, absolutely.  That's actually part of the method behind the madness of going draggable.  But the Elevated NWM side of things probably won't happen until after NAM 32. 

-Alex
Sounds good. I'd rather have what you have made so far than wait for the entire NWM to be ready before releasing everything at once.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 23, 2013, 03:16:09 AM
Sounds good. I'd rather have what you have made so far than wait for the entire NWM to be ready before releasing everything at once.

And having just gone through the marathon 31.x series, the idea of a more modest project is quite appealing right now. :)

This was a particular pain, as I ran into interference from the Avenue Turning Lanes.  They put up less of a fight than the old automatic Road Turning Lanes, but it still took me awhile to get the two to stop clashing.

(http://i.imgur.com/7ESody5.jpg)

And the over-NWM setups are going into place:

(http://i.imgur.com/bNFN6iu.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on August 23, 2013, 03:38:22 AM
that in't modest project, is usefull and very good :D and your work so far looks good :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on August 23, 2013, 03:44:08 AM
Well done Alex!this is gonna be nice!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on August 24, 2013, 04:05:24 PM
But wait, there's more . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/VkWXHfZ.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on August 24, 2013, 04:39:35 PM
But wait, there's more . . .



-Alex
(http://xs-sniper.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/billymays2.png)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kitsune on August 25, 2013, 12:08:04 PM
Are there any plans for ortho bridges using the DBE technology? It would allow for neighbour connection bridges...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: noahclem on August 25, 2013, 01:33:38 PM
Absolutely outstanding work Alex  &apls &apls  These L1 draggable viaducts will be of huge utility.

@ Kitsune: I'm a bit out of the loop at the moment but there's been talk for some time of at least having basic ortho DBE-based stuff where the bridge would be the same look as a viaduct.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: metarvo on August 25, 2013, 02:47:56 PM
Is that what I think it is?  It looks like a draggable L1 AVE-4 curve, similar to the draggable L1 RHW-8S and RHW-10 curves.  Nice job!

&apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on August 26, 2013, 06:37:37 PM
Such ability would also make useful land bridges over valleys and canyons.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 07, 2013, 02:33:20 PM
Yes, you can drag an L1 MIS directly through one of these things . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/MTpYZms.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on September 07, 2013, 04:07:26 PM
 ??? I dunno... can ya  ()what()  ...  :P  :thumbsup:   :)

 :satisfied:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: MandelSoft on September 07, 2013, 04:14:27 PM
Ooh, that will be incredibly useful!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: spot on September 07, 2013, 05:16:14 PM
Useful indeed. I just wonder since its all draggable, would u be able to drag the road thru an MIS starting piece ?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 07, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
would u be able to drag the road thru an MIS starting piece ?

The MIS starter piece has a false intersection on it, so you'd need to be able to have three networks on one tile, which isn't possible.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on September 08, 2013, 01:07:37 PM
Amazing! This is one of the intersections needed for interchanges.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on September 08, 2013, 04:48:39 PM
Amazing stuff Alex! &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 14, 2013, 03:18:53 AM
Thanks, guys!  And I'm back with its Avenue brethren . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/da0YM0r.jpg)

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: droric on September 14, 2013, 09:12:48 AM
Thanks, guys!  And I'm back with its Avenue brethren . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/da0YM0r.jpg)

-Alex

O.o
This will make things so much easier

&apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on September 14, 2013, 11:32:19 AM
Not bad, not bad.  But where are the diagonals?  $%Grinno$%
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on September 28, 2013, 08:22:41 PM
I remember reading that the 45 degree Avenue FLEXCurves had a secret ability months ago. What is that ability? I've used them all the time and I still do not know it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 29, 2013, 03:04:03 AM
I created that puzzle piece, but don't know about the secret ability either. Maybe it's that it allows for wealthified sidewalks? Maybe, what you mean is that you can demolish the two tiles of the inner curve that are almost void, without breaking the curve apart from the pedestrian paths?

There really isn't anything else I can think of that is secret about it. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: novak253 on September 29, 2013, 03:08:28 PM
I would love to see flux underpasses for Monorail and Elevated rail. I understand they are meant for underpasses, but many people use them for underground roads, so it is impossible to make them go under these pieces.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on September 29, 2013, 11:55:18 PM
The post I remembered is this one (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=15481.msg452798#msg452798). It merely refers to a goody with avenue curves. I guess I mistakenly remembered that there was something special about the curve when the goody is the curve itself.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on September 30, 2013, 03:22:18 AM
Yes, indeed, I was just referring to the new 45° curve itself. ;)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on December 03, 2013, 10:42:00 AM
Coming up. . .

(http://www.majhost.com/gallery/swm666/NAM/fa-dia-ave.jpg)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on December 03, 2013, 10:57:42 AM
What's new Willy? ()what()
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: art128 on December 03, 2013, 11:06:37 AM
What's new Willy? ()what()

Diagonal to FA-Avenue

If I'm not mistaking.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on December 03, 2013, 11:57:06 AM
Oh yeah you might be right Arthur!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Swordmaster on December 03, 2013, 12:06:54 PM
Exactly ;)


Cheers
Willy
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Kuewr665 on December 03, 2013, 12:21:12 PM
 Oh my gosh there were plenty of times I needed that piece so badly. I love it!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on December 04, 2013, 06:26:41 AM
nice!!  :thumbsup:

I wonder, is there any possibility that ave-far will ever be draggable? :p like roads are now
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eugenelavery on December 07, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
I have heard that as part of the next NAM Moonlights ELR and Monorail Mod is being completed; meaning that ELR and Monorail will be able to cross RHW etc and keep its texturing.  Is this correct?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on December 07, 2013, 01:46:10 PM
nice!!  :thumbsup:

I wonder, is there any possibility that ave-far will ever be draggable? :p like roads are now

Hard to do because of the double-tile nature.  It's more likely that all the pieces will eventually be FLEXed.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 07, 2013, 01:50:25 PM
I have heard that as part of the next NAM Moonlights ELR and Monorail Mod is being completed; meaning that ELR and Monorail will be able to cross RHW etc and keep its texturing.  Is this correct?

We've been working on it (I started on it, droric has taken over), but it's a surprisingly insane amount of work, and we can't make any guarantees.  If we assemble things the way Moonlinght did, we're talking about thousands of models.  The over-RHW models in the existing mods are pretty much useless as far as building compatibility with the newer RHW specs.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eugenelavery on December 07, 2013, 01:59:37 PM
I have heard that as part of the next NAM Moonlights ELR and Monorail Mod is being completed; meaning that ELR and Monorail will be able to cross RHW etc and keep its texturing.  Is this correct?

We've been working on it (I started on it, droric has taken over), but it's a surprisingly insane amount of work, and we can't make any guarantees.  If we assemble things the way Moonlinght did, we're talking about thousands of models.  The over-RHW models in the existing mods are pretty much useless as far as building compatibility with the newer RHW specs.

-Alex



Thanks for the update and all of yours and droric's work. I never would have imagined it would be thousands of models!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on December 09, 2013, 05:11:33 AM
nice!!  :thumbsup:

I wonder, is there any possibility that ave-far will ever be draggable? :p like roads are now

Hard to do because of the double-tile nature.  It's more likely that all the pieces will eventually be FLEXed.

and therefore will have wealth textures right?  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 09, 2013, 07:17:52 PM
nice!!  :thumbsup:

I wonder, is there any possibility that ave-far will ever be draggable? :p like roads are now

Hard to do because of the double-tile nature.  It's more likely that all the pieces will eventually be FLEXed.

and therefore will have wealth textures right?  :thumbsup:

If it's FLEXed, then the game sees it at least partially as a draggable item once it's placed, so yes.  Another benefit to getting away from static PPs.  There was an attempt awhile ago to actually make FA-AVE draggable, but it was quite awkward to use (and the AVE Turning Lanes were playing interrupting cow with it).

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Wiimeiser on December 09, 2013, 11:51:39 PM
Do you have anything you could put into a new "secret weapon" video? Because it's about time, unless you plan to release before Christmas...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 10, 2013, 01:26:43 AM
That's not a question we can answer. $%#Ninj2

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on December 10, 2013, 04:55:02 AM
Do you have anything you could put into a new "secret weapon" video? Because it's about time, unless you plan to release before Christmas...

lol  :D don't ask, just wait  :thumbsup:


If it's FLEXed, then the game sees it at least partially as a draggable item once it's placed, so yes.  Another benefit to getting away from static PPs.  There was an attempt awhile ago to actually make FA-AVE draggable, but it was quite awkward to use (and the AVE Turning Lanes were playing interrupting cow with it).

-Alex

Nice to know :)  :thumbsup: what are the other benefits by the way?  :-[
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jmdude1 on December 10, 2013, 07:31:35 AM
just curious, if FA AVEs are FLEXed, would we be able to intersect/cross them with other networks like streets, roads, and aves?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on December 11, 2013, 08:34:56 AM
what are the other benefits by the way?  :-[

and

just curious, if FA AVEs are FLEXed, would we be able to intersect/cross them with other networks like streets, roads, and aves?

If they are FLEXed or draggable, another advantage over static puzzle pieces is exactly this. You could build your FAAVEs first and later connect other intersecting networks (that is, eventually, when it gets implemented). If they were puzzle pieces, you would always have to demolish the previous puzzle piece, if you decide to build an intersection at some later point. It's similar as with draggable FAR. When it was introduced, it immediately supported everything that was possible with FAR puzzle pieces, and beyond that a variety of other intersections between FAR and Road or Street.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: gn_leugim on December 11, 2013, 02:58:17 PM
roger roger! understood  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CahosRahneVeloza on April 13, 2014, 04:18:47 AM
I know it's already been months since anyone posted any comment or reaction on this thread but I just wanted to ask something regarding the "Transit stations" part of the NAM package. I was wondering why this El-R on Road Station...

http://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/12345-nam-elevated-rail-station/

... didn't make the cut? I know according to most of the comments on the download page that it causes CTDs, but can't you guys SLURP it up?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on April 13, 2014, 06:51:55 AM
I was wondering why this El-R on Road Station...

http://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/12345-nam-elevated-rail-station/

... didn't make the cut?

No particular reason; there are just a lot of stations out there.  Eventually, we'll SLURP them all.  But right now, there's only one SLURPer; that's me, and I've got to get an RTMT release out before I can get back to SLURPing.

Quote
I know according to most of the comments on the download page that it causes CTDs, but can't you guys SLURP it up?

Certainly.  Since there are so many stations that need SLURPing. when I get going again in this department, I'll probably set up a request thread for stations that people want to have SLURPed, and those will have the highest priority.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CahosRahneVeloza on April 13, 2014, 07:14:01 AM
Certainly.  Since there are so many stations that need SLURPing. when I get going again in this department, I'll probably set up a request thread for stations that people want to have SLURPed, and those will have the highest priority.

That'd be fantastic. I'll definitely be watching out for such a thread then  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: CT14 on April 13, 2014, 10:38:46 AM
Thanks for the FAR-2 system and the new intersections for all FAR, in update 31 - they solved one of the last problems remaining for modeling some cities.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yild on April 18, 2014, 01:55:29 PM
Can someone point me location (file) and TGI of exemplars for puzzle pieces from rul0:

0x0504 to 0x0516 (advanced tuleps)
0x0B00 to 0x0B0F (glr in road)
0x1000 to 0x3030 (elevated highway-road)
0x1010 to 0x3130 (ground highway-road)
0x4023 to 0x4033 (str fa3 orthogonal rail)
(there are more but I will just stick for this list for the moment)

I don't know if correct is assumption that every puzzle piece listed in rul0 can be placed in game, I'm trying to add NAM support in my program (damn manager) but I was unable to locate some exemplars for entries above - I was trying to find exemplars in all files within NAM installation folder by ID 0x6a470000+value, by Piece ID, AutoTileBase - no luck, it is like there was entry but element to place is missing.

Can someone help ?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on April 18, 2014, 10:10:31 PM
Any RUL0 entry preceded by a ; is commented out and generally only present for H3ID reservation purposes. Generally the files for these pieces, if they exist, are not in the public release of the NAM.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yild on April 18, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
Any RUL0 entry preceded by a ; is commented out and generally only present for H3ID reservation purposes. Generally the files for these pieces, if they exist, are not in the public release of the NAM.

I'm not talking about obvious things, entries above are not commented (disabled).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on April 18, 2014, 10:35:39 PM
Right sorry :-[

The 0500 Tab Ring's files aren't in the Public NAM. It's skipped by the game because the Button Exemplar files are missing.

Same goes for the 0B00 Ring, but I don't know if these exist at all. Looks like something that should be revisited.

I don't know what's up with those Highway Ramps in the 1000 Range. If you have Project Symphony installed, the ring may be disabled.

The 4023 Ring is in the same state as the 0500 ring. The files for these do exist, but are incomplete.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Yild on April 18, 2014, 10:52:20 PM
Ok, thanks, any branch for which exemplar 0x6A470000 + value doesn't exist is 'hidden' from the users and shouldn't be available for use.

I might have some questions later ;)


Edit: THAT WOULD BE TO EASY TO BE TRUE!!!  :'(

ok, just one example: 0x400 branch (basic tuleps):
if we assume as above this branch is invisible... but if we look closer we will find that exemplar 0x6534284a, 0x2a3858e4, 0x6a4704e0 is one holding 'item button id' prop with value 0x6a470400
04e0 is not even in rotationring :P

so now... now to retrieve all branches visible for 'public' I must search for any exemplar within 0x6a47000 and 0x6a47fff range, check if it holds 'item button id' property...  damn... this will increase scanning time significantly :/

Edit2: ok... its not that time consuming than I anticipated ;)

found 79 exemplars within 0x6a47000-0x6a47fff range
of which 77 items have 'button id property'
0x6a472000 and 0x6a472010 overrides T intersections buttons from simcity_1.dat
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Brockist on April 27, 2014, 01:50:25 AM
Have we heard anything about smooth curves for El-Rail / GLR?
Would go great with a new El-Rail car design that I'm working on, it's one longer car that doesn't work well with the sharp curves :/ Also, the unrealistic sharp curves for the 90 degree puzzle pieces are.... unrealistic!  :D
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on April 27, 2014, 02:24:15 AM
Are you talking about the curves on the new ElRail over Avenue/RD-4 pieces? Because they're exactly the same diameter as the tight curves on Chicago's El Network.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: z on April 27, 2014, 02:45:24 AM
Are you talking about the curves on the new ElRail over Avenue/RD-4 pieces? Because they're exactly the same diameter as the tight curves on Chicago's El Network.

Yes, I can still hear that screeching now... ::)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: APSMS on April 27, 2014, 02:52:30 AM
Are you talking about the curves on the new ElRail over Avenue/RD-4 pieces? Because they're exactly the same diameter as the tight curves on Chicago's El Network.

Possibly. I'd have been referring to the actual GLR 90o puzzle piece, though (if it was me), since that piece is very sharp, the dual 45o method is generally unsatisfactory, and it's be kind of nice to even have a 2x2 smooth curve piece as that would at least present some uniformity among the various rail networks. From what I understand it's easier to implement this with the GLR, though certainly now that the 3d files have been made (for el-rail) maybe it would make a RRW-like effort on the 90o curves much easier...maybe a simple porting of the model, and a shift of the path files (those are referenced by x,y,z coords, right?) would be all that's necessary? I'm not sure of the coding necessary to replace the 45o curves by a new reference for two of them together, though...
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Brockist on April 27, 2014, 02:57:34 AM
I was thinking more of like a puzzle piece for the normal El-Rail / GLR. Not in street / avenue or over street / avenue.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Brockist on April 27, 2014, 03:02:54 AM
Are you talking about the curves on the new ElRail over Avenue/RD-4 pieces? Because they're exactly the same diameter as the tight curves on Chicago's El Network.

Possibly. I'd have been referring to the actual GLR 90o puzzle piece, though (if it was me), since that piece is very sharp, the dual 45o method is generally unsatisfactory, and it's be kind of nice to even have a 2x2 smooth curve piece as that would at least present some uniformity among the various rail networks. From what I understand it's easier to implement this with the GLR, though certainly now that the 3d files have been made (for el-rail) maybe it would make a RRW-like effort on the 90o curves much easier...maybe a simple porting of the model, and a shift of the path files (those are referenced by x,y,z coords, right?) would be all that's necessary? I'm not sure of the coding necessary to replace the 45o curves by a new reference for two of them together, though...
Yes almost exactly, kinda like the smooth curves for Rail except a bit more compact for use in cities.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: memo on April 27, 2014, 05:01:01 AM
Possibly. I'd have been referring to the actual GLR 90o puzzle piece, though (if it was me), since that piece is very sharp, the dual 45o method is generally unsatisfactory, and it's be kind of nice to even have a 2x2 smooth curve piece as that would at least present some uniformity among the various rail networks. From what I understand it's easier to implement this with the GLR, though certainly now that the 3d files have been made (for el-rail) maybe it would make a RRW-like effort on the 90o curves much easier...maybe a simple porting of the model, and a shift of the path files (those are referenced by x,y,z coords, right?) would be all that's necessary? I'm not sure of the coding necessary to replace the 45o curves by a new reference for two of them together, though...

This has been planned – however, ensuring compatibility with draggable GLR makes this a not at all that trivial project. If this gets implemented at some point, it is likely that the entire lightrail network needs to be given an overhaul, like what the RRW is doing for the rail network.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cirocirociro on September 03, 2014, 06:12:05 AM
You did a great job with new NAM but, in my opinion, it have a "problem" if we can call like that:

May I suggest to drop down the brightness of euro textures?they appear too much clean and bright than American's ones
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dragonshardz on September 14, 2014, 03:15:58 AM


No particular reason; there are just a lot of stations out there.  Eventually, we'll SLURP them all.  But right now, there's only one SLURPer; that's me, and I've got to get an RTMT release out before I can get back to SLURPing.

Quote
I know according to most of the comments on the download page that it causes CTDs, but can't you guys SLURP it up?

Certainly.  Since there are so many stations that need SLURPing. when I get going again in this department, I'll probably set up a request thread for stations that people want to have SLURPed, and those will have the highest priority.

What the deuce is SLURP?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on September 14, 2014, 03:23:35 AM
SLURP is the Station Locator, Updater, and Reconstruction Project.  The term is used to refer to modified settings for third-party transit stations, designed to meet with NAM standards, as produced by the NAM Team's Mass Transit Authority (MTA) group.  Since NAM 32, the NAM installer will detect third-party stations in your plugins folder, and, if a SLURP update is available, it'll install it for you.

Our process of upgrading a station to these new standards is referred to in verb form as "SLURPing".

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: packersfan on September 23, 2014, 12:44:26 AM
Any plans to expand FAR and FARR in the future to include more and more angles?  Is there a limitation?  Am I hoping for too much?

Currently there is FAR 2 which shifts 1 tile every 2 tiles and FAR 3 which shifts 1 tile every 3 tiles.  I extensively use the step method in my cities and it would be great to someday be able to shift to FAR for these roads but often my steps are not FAR 2 or FAR 3, but more like FAR 4, FAR 5, FAR 10.  Is it possible?  Could a new FAR angle be introduced each version?

I ask only because I know you guys are SUPER AMAZING and it seems like every day more and more is possible.

Anyway, that is one thing I would love to see in the future of FAR.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 23, 2014, 01:15:04 AM
Currently there is FAR 2 which shifts 1 tile every 2 tiles and FAR 3 which shifts 1 tile every 3 tiles.  I extensively use the step method in my cities and it would be great to someday be able to shift to FAR for these roads but often my steps are not FAR 2 or FAR 3, but more like FAR 4, FAR 5, FAR 10.  Is it possible?  Could a new FAR angle be introduced each version?

There's a bit of math involved with what FA2 and FA3 even mean.

First of all, the bigger the number in FA(x) is, the longer each successive FA straight piece needs to be. On the other hand, the closer the number in FA(x) is to 1, the smaller each section is, but also, the closer each section is to 45 degrees. Plus, we can't do anything like FAR-5 because not only the angles would be too obscure but the pieces are just too big to make.

Second, we already have a plan on long-term FANdev: it's called the Nine Degree Plan. All Fractionally Angled Networks shall be limited to the following angles:

FA6 - Representative of 9 and 81 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 1/6 and 6/1
FA3 - Representative of 18 and 72 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 1/3 and 3/1
FA2 - Representative of 27 and 63 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 1/2 and 2/1
FA1.5 - Representative of 36 and 54 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 2/3 and 3/2

In addition to that, you have FA1 and FA0

FA1 - Representative of 45 degrees; section have a rise/run of 1/1 and 1/1; also known as diagonal.
FA0 - Representative of 0 and 90 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 0 and undefined; also known as orthogonal.

If you plotted all of those onto a graph and put a circle in the middle, you'd get a circle with 36 slices, each one being ~9 degrees. This is the Nine Degree Plan, or rather the full extent of the 9 Degree Plan.

I apologise for the hasty reply; I had a diagram for this but it turns out I lost it.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: packersfan on September 23, 2014, 09:45:46 AM
Bummer.  Can't wait to see FAR-6 and FAR-1.5, though.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: belfastsocrates on September 23, 2014, 09:58:10 AM
If this gets implemented at some point, it is likely that the entire lightrail network needs to be given an overhaul, like what the RRW is doing for the rail network.

That would be very exciting!

It would be fantastic to see light rail enhanced and developed with features such as overhead cables. The work being done on RRW is magnificent.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: woodb3kmaster on September 24, 2014, 08:36:33 PM
FA1.5 - Representative of 36 and 54 degrees; sections have a rise/run of 2/3 and 3/2
Pardon the nitpicking, but technically, FA1.5 would be closer to 34° and 56°, going by the arctangents of those rise/run figures. To get closer to the intended 36° and 54°, the rise/runs would have to be 3/4 and 4/3, which would really make it FA1.333... (or perhaps FA1.3 for brevity's sake).

Of course, given that the difference between FA1.5 and FA1.333 is very small, it might just be acceptable, especially when the more accurate pieces would have to be larger.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on September 24, 2014, 08:43:12 PM
Pardon the nitpicking, but technically, FA1.5 would be closer to 34° and 56°, going by the arctangents of those rise/run figures. To get closer to the intended 36° and 54°, the rise/runs would have to be 3/4 and 4/3, which would really make it FA1.333... (or perhaps FA1.3 for brevity's sake).

Of course, given that the difference between FA1.5 and FA1.333 is very small, it might just be acceptable, especially when the more accurate pieces would have to be larger.

Yeah, I know; I brought it up with the others ages ago that FA1.3 would be more accurate, but the consensus was to stick with FA1.5.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: fefenc on December 09, 2014, 08:46:21 PM
I wished that some NWM road pieces got a bit of attention on the NAM release after finishing up the RHW development because there are some bugs on it that breaks my heart, making impossible to use some nice roads styles in a nice way in some ocasions (I'm not talking about the elevated roads, I'm talking about some NWM roads tile reverting back to the odd maxis road style, mainly at crossroads) T_T

At least the researches that the NAM team is doing with RHW may help developing NWM draggable pieces in the future :)

EDIT: I'm pumped for the NAM 33.0, nice job NAM team, may the new RHW-2 draggable pieces reduces the mental fatigue that I get everytime I need to build a cloverleaf interchange :D  &apls  &apls  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Indiana Joe on December 09, 2014, 11:11:36 PM
I wished that some NWM road pieces got a bit of attention on the NAM release after finishing up the RHW development because there are some bugs on it that breaks my heart, making impossible to use some nice roads styles in a nice way in some ocasions (I'm not talking about the elevated roads, I'm talking about some NWM roads tile reverting back to the odd maxis road style, mainly at crossroads) T_T

At least the researches that the NAM team is doing with RHW may help developing NWM draggable pieces in the future :)

EDIT: I'm pumped for the NAM 33.0, nice job NAM team, may the new RHW-2 draggable pieces reduces the mental fatigue that I get everytime I need to build a cloverleaf interchange :D  &apls  &apls  &apls

NWM intersections saw some work a few months back.  There might be some things that make it into v33.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jdenm8 on December 09, 2014, 11:21:31 PM
I wished that some NWM road pieces got a bit of attention on the NAM release after finishing up the RHW development

We don't go "That's the RHW done, time to release!"

We work on what we want to work on. That generally involves improving the RHW's stability and ease of use. Most of the time we just pick a date then try to get the bugs out of whatever we've made by that date. The little attention the NWM has received is mostly because Tarkus has been busy with IRL stuff.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on December 09, 2014, 11:56:54 PM
I wished that some NWM road pieces got a bit of attention on the NAM release after finishing up the RHW development because there are some bugs on it that breaks my heart
We work on what we want to work on. That generally involves improving the RHW's stability and ease of use. Most of the time we just pick a date then try to get the bugs out of whatever we've made by that date. The little attention the NWM has received is mostly because Tarkus has been busy with IRL stuff.

You've to also add to the fact that there's a massive rebasing of a lot of the main NWM networks, so practically all of the NWM bugs you're seeing now will not be fixed without remaking the entire NWM from scratch, and that's not an easy task since, not only many of us are busy, but we haven't come to a consensus on what the future NWM plans will be, and with a lot of us being busy, it's gonna be even harder to come to a consensus.

Also, that's also dependent, as mentioned, on what we want to work on. My priorities are still very high on decomissioning nearly all of the RHW puzzle pieces, and that's a task that can't be completed within one dev cycle, but would take many dev cycles, and I don't wanna just switch projects and leave something unfinished.

Yeah, there's a bajillion more projects in the NAM that deserve attention, but not only are they projects that would deserve to be redone entirely in the Flex paradigm, there's simply no physical way to do so without it running into our own personal lives.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 10, 2014, 03:02:31 AM
Also, RHW development will never really be "finished", per se.  Of course, neither will NWM development or any other NAM project that we haven't officially ceased.

As Ganaram mentioned, there's some major structural stuff we have to figure out with the NWM before we return to activity on it, as far as the IID scheme and implementation.  When you're referring to NWM networks "reverting back to the odd maxis road style, mainly at crossroads", to which crossroads do you refer?  From our discussions, the big thing the NWM lacks presently is intersections involving diagonals, and those are going to be very difficult, and pose a lot of issues,  They become extremely difficult when one starts discussing T-intersections involving diagonal NWM networks.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: fefenc on December 10, 2014, 07:12:30 AM
Well, a orthogonal NWM crossroads that involves 1 road piece and 1 street piece making a crossroad "+" and some roads like ave-6 reverting back to the maxis road when I cross 3 railroads on it (only the pieces at the second railroad reverts back to the maxis road).

I can understand all your points, since the members are saying that they would need to redo all entire NWM from scratch, it would be a ton of work that would require a lot of planning to do at only one release. RHW is being dev'd for years and we can feel that it has things to improve like the easily draggable pieces feature that someone here is already doing.

I enjoy the organization of the NAM team :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 10, 2014, 06:03:33 PM
Well, a orthogonal NWM crossroads that involves 1 road piece and 1 street piece making a crossroad "+" and some roads like ave-6 reverting back to the maxis road when I cross 3 railroads on it (only the pieces at the second railroad reverts back to the maxis road).

We never really included those types of intersections in the NWM plans, thinking that people would just extend the normal Road out another tile (which often happens with such roads in widening projects).

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: roadgeek on January 08, 2015, 10:50:36 PM
NWM intersections saw some work a few months back.  There might be some things that make it into v33.

Oh this is incredible news!!!!  &apls &apls &apls :bnn: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: roadgeek on January 08, 2015, 10:52:18 PM
Also, that's also dependent, as mentioned, on what we want to work on. My priorities are still very high on decomissioning nearly all of the RHW puzzle pieces, and that's a task that can't be completed within one dev cycle, but would take many dev cycles, and I don't wanna just switch projects and leave something unfinished.

I would love to help...Can you post a tutorial on decomissioning on YouTube?

Thanks,
Dan
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: GDO29Anagram on January 08, 2015, 11:04:13 PM
I would love to help...Can you post a tutorial on decomissioning on YouTube?

 
There's not much to explain about it: remove the entries for the puzzle pieces from the tab rings so to stop people from seeing them, possibly reassign those entries for new pieces so as to discourage people from reassigning them to the old pieces or even remove the button entirely, and if possible, wait a few years and reuse the old IIDs for new projects.

Decommissioning's happened before with the RHW overpass puzzle pieces and the old SPUI piece, and user education should be able to teach people why we want to decommission those features.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: roadgeek on April 20, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
NWM intersections saw some work a few months back.  There might be some things that make it into v33.

Would like to see some pics. I cleaned up the last slobber, and I am ready to drool some more.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 20, 2015, 08:37:37 PM
There was only a little bit, and it was way back in July of last year . . . it's going to remain under wraps mainly as we don't want to falsely raise anyone's hopes at this point, especially as none of it will make it into NAM 33.

The main focus right now is getting NAM 33 up to pre-release state.  There's been a lot of RL, a lot of minor technical things, and a few hurdles with our file depository systems.  The only real big thing I'm interested in doing RHW-wise going forward is getting the FLEXWidth Transitions and a few minor things in place, and I'll be pivoting more toward the NWM, Draggable Road Viaducts, and (the successor to) TuLEPs.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: compdude787 on April 22, 2015, 01:53:57 PM
Do you think that we can expect the pre-release to be ready in a month or so? I won't really hold you to it, but I just want to get a general idea of how close NAM 33 is to being ready.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 22, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
It's been a really weird development cycle, especially as much RL as there has been on the team since NAM 32, which makes it hard to really say (perhaps even more so than usual).  There's one little file architecture thing to figure out, pertaining to the INRUL compilation, we're looking to nuke the 32-bit boot.ini prompts that are in the installer, and there was the hope that we'd be able to do a little internal testing once the installer was buildable, to knock out any last obvious stupid things (to avoid the 5-minutes-after buzzkill).

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on October 26, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
Long time no post here.

These will make it into a future NAM!

(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg72/Eggman121/MRC%20Road%20Better_zpsbuoyxmqj.jpg) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/MRC%20Road%20Better_zpsbuoyxmqj.jpg.html)

They are FlexCurves for the Road tool which will form the basis of new NWM curves. By nature they will have the capacity to be overridden so the NWM networks will be able to take advantage of the new curves.

Keen to see what people make of these  ;D

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: compdude787 on October 26, 2015, 11:31:13 PM
Whoa!  :o Awesome!!! :D  I could really use these because I often like having really smooth 45-degree curves. I usually have the road transition from ortho to FA-2 to diagonal to achieve a wider curve radius.

Two thumbs up!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: And...  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on October 27, 2015, 07:14:46 AM
Wow!Eggman that is fantastic!it will be a grwat addition...did you get inspired making those wide radius curves for RRW? :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on October 28, 2015, 04:44:48 AM
Thanks for the compliments!  :thumbsup:

Well the textures are not final but I was able to whip this up in less than an hour  ;D

(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg72/Eggman121/Ave4%20to%20Road%20Transition_zps5n8p6at6.jpg) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/Ave4%20to%20Road%20Transition_zps5n8p6at6.jpg.html)

NWM Transtions from single to dual tile anyone  ::)

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: APSMS on October 28, 2015, 10:39:15 AM
Ooooh! Like, maybe NRD-4 to Avenue?  :popcorn:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: compdude787 on October 28, 2015, 11:34:51 AM
Nice new piece here! I'm sure we could all make good use of such a thing!

Ooooh! Like, maybe NRD-4 to Avenue?  :popcorn:

Yes, I second that! Currently, that really is a missing feature IMO. Also, a TLA-3 to TLA-5 transition would be nice as well.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dyoungyn on October 28, 2015, 02:59:49 PM
Eggman121,

FANTASTIC and GREAT to see further development.  Thank you for all you creativity and hard contribution.  Something I have ALWAYS been wishing for is AVE6/7 Gentle Curves so we do not have to use RHW6C FAR pieces.  My point is would be nice to show on the Transit Mode the same color for ALL Avenues (WHITE) even with the curves.

dyoungyn
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: j-dub on October 28, 2015, 09:37:19 PM
Is that built from the one Tarkus made before? Also, a NRD-4 to Ave would be great as previously stated.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on October 28, 2015, 11:13:28 PM
Is that built from the one Tarkus made before? Also, a NRD-4 to Ave would be great as previously stated.

Nah, I made the textures from scratch  ;D

With Rivit's Texture bender, GIMP and Paint.net (The tools I use) I can pretty much make any transit texture. So the sky is the limit for me!  :D

There will be more on this front so I will keep everyone posted.  :thumbsup:

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on October 29, 2015, 04:42:19 AM
You are so talented!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dyoungyn on October 29, 2015, 10:31:41 AM
WOW!!!  So is it possible to make FAR/Curves for AVE 6/7 gentle curves that will show up as Avenues in the transit mode?

Is that built from the one Tarkus made before? Also, a NRD-4 to Ave would be great as previously stated.

Nah, I made the textures from scratch  ;D

With Rivit's Texture bender, GIMP and Paint.net (The tools I use) I can pretty much make any transit texture. So the sky is the limit for me!  :D

There will be more on this front so I will keep everyone posted.  :thumbsup:

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on December 06, 2015, 02:50:55 AM
The recent developments in the RHW thread have infiltrated the Elevated Road Viaducts . . .

(https://simtarkus.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/via-12062015-1.jpg)

-Alex

Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on December 06, 2015, 05:18:33 AM
Getting better and better... :P
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jessilaurn on December 09, 2015, 10:06:32 AM
Is anyone working on an equivalent to the B2 and A2 turnout puzzle pieces for viaduct rail?  They're the one real shortfallings in the viaduct rail offerings....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on December 09, 2015, 04:43:25 PM
Hi jessilaurn!
Think they are going to be taken care of at some point!I remember seeing a post in the RRW thread a while ago...
For this kind of questions on RRW I suggest you write in that thread which is specifically focused on rails :thumbsup:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mgb204 on December 09, 2015, 11:12:31 PM
Is anyone working on an equivalent to the B2 and A2 turnout puzzle pieces for viaduct rail?  They're the one real shortfallings in the viaduct rail offerings....

These pieces will be altered to adjust the turning radius. In the interim, replacement RRW textures are included in Rivit's RUM for RRW package.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jessilaurn on December 10, 2015, 12:40:50 PM
Thank you both, Gugu3 and mgb204. :)
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jessilaurn on January 18, 2016, 08:36:45 AM
Next query:  bridges, HSR, and BTM.

There's a plethora of HSR bridges... rather nice ones, in fact.  But it's also understood that HSR is developmentally dead, in favour of BTM (a bit of a shame that, for a variety of reasons, but that's another matter).  Is there any possibility that the NAM Team would be willing to retexture some of these bridges for BTM? 

As a side note:  the Putrajaya Monorail Bridge does retexture for BTM... except for a 10-meter segment at the anchorage, which remains stubbornly monorail.  Just a note for the developers.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on January 18, 2016, 03:03:20 PM
BTM development is mostly limited to compensating for the liability of it being designed to pre-P57 specs with its RHW crossings.  I don't think there's much planned for it besides that.  The whole Monorail/HSRP/BTM situation is still unsettled, though there had been recent plans for an RRW-spec HSRP, called RHSR (Real High Speed Rail).

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on January 18, 2016, 03:29:53 PM
I should probably have a word here.

There are plans to make the monorail network a higher speed rail network.

As with most of the NAM I think what we are trying to implement is some form of simplification of standards so new members can make content with available resources.

The Real High Speed Rail will basically be a higher speed version of the RRW and will be cross compatible in the future since monorail traffic can run on the rail network but not the other way around.

The textures and turnouts will be easy but many users would like catenaries but they are hard to make and T21. In short I can't do it alone. I don't have that much time.

The RHSR will be defaulted to L0 and overrides will be implemented for L1 and L2 networks.

Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion with the whole monorail/BTM/RHSR network.

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: mgb204 on January 18, 2016, 03:46:02 PM
As with most of the NAM I think what we are trying to implement is some form of simplification of standards so new members can make content with available resources.

The Real High Speed Rail will basically be a higher speed version of the RRW and will be cross compatible in the future since monorail traffic can run on the rail network but not the other way around.

The textures and turnouts will be easy but many users would like catenaries but they are hard to make and T21. In short I can't do it alone. I don't have that much time.

Since it's still in the planning stages, there is an obvious solution to many of these problems. If you look at the ID scheme for SAM for example, each of the SAM networks use the same IDs with one digit defining the particular SAM network. Should a similar thing occur for any RRW based monorail implementation, crossover of T21s and the like would be a breeze, little more than re-numbering the IDs from RRW in a logical fashion. How possible this would be, I can't say, especially considering that required overhauling the original IDs in use.

However, I do like the idea of Monorail being able to run alongside rail, with similar textures and the option to share stations with regular lines. Such crossover would finally enable the monorail/HSR to work in tandem with rail, whilst having dedicated high speed lines for the faster trains only. This would be much more similar to how these things work in the real world.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: jessilaurn on January 20, 2016, 12:45:23 PM
And then, of course there's Tokyo... where you can find conventional rail, high-speed rail, *and* monorail.  Funny old world....
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on March 21, 2016, 05:00:35 PM
Just a few things I am working on  ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/eeG9LQI.jpg)

OWR Cloverleaf Interchange

(http://i.imgur.com/Ft8hH6i.jpg)

Road to Avenue Extended Transition

(http://i.imgur.com/Gh76Gg4.jpg)

NWM FlexCurves

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dyoungyn on March 21, 2016, 08:36:40 PM
Eggman121,

Simply WOW :thumbsup:  Is the first image truly One Way Roads?  Even so, then are are the ramps just the same, one way roads?  For the "FlexCurves", is it possible the same for AVE6/7?  Finally what about making the AVE6/7 look better in region view and growable on both sides for diagonals with AVE4/5.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on March 21, 2016, 08:39:20 PM
The region view stuff can't be adjusted.  We're really limited on what we can do with it.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Simcoug on March 21, 2016, 08:43:19 PM
Nice 4 leaf clover Eggman!
You must have St. Pattys day on the mind  :party:
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: compdude787 on March 22, 2016, 12:17:25 AM
Wow, that's awesome!!!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: omgitskosc on March 22, 2016, 07:59:45 PM
I'm running out of words to describe these updates. NAM 35 is going to be phenomenal.  &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Gugu3 on March 23, 2016, 11:50:01 AM
Incredible stuff! &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dyoungyn on March 23, 2016, 12:47:12 PM
Eggman 121,

What will you one way road cloverleaf interchange look like in the region view?  Will it be white as with one way roads?  My main concern is the ramps! ()what()

Just a few things I am working on  ;D

(http://i.imgur.com/eeG9LQI.jpg)

OWR Cloverleaf Interchange

(http://i.imgur.com/Ft8hH6i.jpg)

Road to Avenue Extended Transition

(http://i.imgur.com/Gh76Gg4.jpg)

NWM FlexCurves

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on March 23, 2016, 06:29:27 PM
Hi dyoungyn

The Ramps should look fine in the Region view IIRC

But as Alex alluded too earlier there is not much we can do with the Region view. Most of it is hard coded. The only main thing that we achieved was Jondor's work on the RHW transport view. Apart from that I don't see much on the horizon in that space.

Hope that clarifies things.

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: dyoungyn on March 23, 2016, 06:53:43 PM
Eggman121,

Thank you for the reply.  I do understand the limitations with additions to the HARD CODED game that is over 12 years young and getting older. 

So far, thanks so heartily to the entire NAM Team, everything is working as it should with some minor hiccups.  I feel pretty confident that your marvelous one way road cloverleaf interchange with as thus far one way roads identified, as white will lead to more possibilities; which is something that  I have been wishing for years as I use AVE4 (white) as my state highways and FINALLY with possible one way road interchange possibilities that far exceeds what Cities Skylines could every do. 

Thank you again and I and sure all of us hard card players so dearly appreciate.

dyounyn
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: cmdp123789 on March 23, 2016, 08:48:57 PM
I love the new stuff shown.. my only question for now would be.. what things will be included in NAM 35 out of all these great examples?
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on March 23, 2016, 11:22:35 PM
We haven't quite reached feature freeze yet, so it's not certain what all will make this release.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: roadgeek on April 30, 2016, 12:05:16 PM
We haven't quite reached feature freeze yet, so it's not certain what all will make this release.

-Alex

Ooohh!!! I can hardly wait!
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Tarkus on April 30, 2016, 02:42:26 PM
You'll probably have quite awhile to wait, unfortunately.  Most of the development team (myself included) has been occupied with RL for the past couple months, and that's going to be the case for awhile still.

-Alex
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Jack_wilds on April 30, 2016, 09:30:18 PM
I for one am also looking forward to NAM v35... it ought to some sort of milestone when its released...

I hope U Tarkus and the fellow NAM Team and even RRW will somehow inspite of, or despite RL can and will make things work... towards finding ways to getting this out, at the very least, this will be released for Christmas '16...

here's hoping and watching

 :popcorn:

like the progress a great deal very promising on many fronts  :thumbsup:

the SC4D players owe so much to the NAM Team and the RRW team now for doing all they have done here... it has done a wonder to a tired old game for frustrated model railroaders and civil techs -engineers to, a place to sand box stuff... 

NAM Day will be a big deal   :thumbsup:    &apls
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: APSMS on May 02, 2016, 12:06:42 AM
I am not ken on the NAM Team plans (or RL schedule), but even with that I think I can safely say that the NAM team would very much like to push out v35 well before Christmas.

Ideally the end of summer at the latest, even with everyone's RL schedule. I doubt Alex and Stephen want to hold on to their goodies that long, and some field testing of Willy and Stephen's work on draggable ERRW should be immensely helpful as well. I can't recall is Robin has been working on anything in particular, but he always seems to fill in the gaps, which is just as useful anyways when it comes to NAM releases and the inevitable bugs that accompany new versions.

But again, I don't actually know what they have going on, and speak with absolutely no authority when I say this. Remember that the NAM team likes to surprise people, and I expect to be fully surprised when they announce it (ok, maybe only partially since I'm a NAM associate, but you get the idea).
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: eggman121 on May 02, 2016, 12:54:53 AM
I am not ken on the NAM Team plans (or RL schedule), but even with that I think I can safely say that the NAM team would very much like to push out v35 well before Christmas.

Ideally the end of summer at the latest, even with everyone's RL schedule. I doubt Alex and Stephen want to hold on to their goodies that long, and some field testing of Willy and Stephen's work on draggable ERRW should be immensely helpful as well. I can't recall is Robin has been working on anything in particular, but he always seems to fill in the gaps, which is just as useful anyways when it comes to NAM releases and the inevitable bugs that accompany new versions.

But again, I don't actually know what they have going on, and speak with absolutely no authority when I say this. Remember that the NAM team likes to surprise people, and I expect to be fully surprised when they announce it (ok, maybe only partially since I'm a NAM associate, but you get the idea).

Yeah there are not really that many people that have spare time at the moment. We definitely want to release sooner but time is a limiting factor. We have to contend with RL because that is what pays the bills. Working on the NAM and all the associated parts can be tedious at times as well. Really we are a collection of people from literally around the globe trying to co ordinate a program. Chuck in RL and there will be down periods. I can't say at the moment what will make it into NAM 35 but it will be worth the wait.

One idea that has crossed my mind is placing tutorials in the public space on how new content is made these days. The old way was churning out puzzle pieces but that became impractical when you consider all the functionality that has to be incorporated. One person that has been my mentor, inspiration and has led the way in the tools he has created is Memo who sadly has been inactive for quite a while. I have picked up many skills and would like to pass down his teachings in the NAM world. I wonder if that is an Idea that would interest anyone?

So all I can say is hold tight for the moment. We do want to release but RL has to take precedence. That is all I can say for now.

-eggman121
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: Themistokles on May 02, 2016, 04:21:12 AM
[...]
One idea that has crossed my mind is placing tutorials in the public space on how new content is made these days. The old way was churning out puzzle pieces but that became impractical when you consider all the functionality that has to be incorporated. One person that has been my mentor, inspiration and has led the way in the tools he has created is Memo who sadly has been inactive for quite a while. I have picked up many skills and would like to pass down his teachings in the NAM world. I wonder if that is an Idea that would interest anyone?
[...]

I for one would love to have some modding tutorials to learn how to make draggables. There are good puzzle piece tutorials out there, but they are really limited since many of the online tools have gone down. I can't promise any great products, but I'd love to use some tutorials to try out making draggable things.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: titanicbuff on May 02, 2016, 08:34:34 AM
Haven't checked in while in the NAM stuff- odd when your an associate- looking forward to my part- the testing.
Title: Re: NAM: Development
Post by: roadgeek on May 02, 2016, 09:24:59 AM
[...]
One idea that has crossed my mind is placing tutorials in the public space on how new content is made these days. The old way was churning out puzzle pieces but that became impractical when you consider all the functionality that has to be incorporated. One person that has been my mentor, inspiration and has led the way in the tools he has created is Memo who sadly has been inactive for quite a while. I have picked up many skills and would like to pass down his teachings in the NAM world. I wonder if that is an Idea that would interest anyone?
[...]

I for one would