Wiimeiser, can you give me a specific lot name so I can check?The ones I'm specifically referring to are Peg's Pine Trails, Logging Trails and SPAR roads, each set has a rail crossing lot.
Those textures are amazing.. shame to hear the TTR and QTR have been bumped down the priority list though.
A small question: how about crossing compatibility with other NAM plugins and texture overrides? (Euro Textures hint hint...)
Really nice...
Would it be much work to make european textures, too? Cause they look very american...but really nice work...
I just wanna ask are you going to "convert" single track rail, and did you think about making a 4 track rail (in a single tile) like the ones we see in urban industrial areas? I know there is enough room in one tile for all 4 of them :)
and second, some constructive critics; aren't the textures a bit blurred?
Who is making this mod?
The NAM Team is responsible, but also wishes to recognize the following specific people for their assistance, good advice and support: rooker1, art128, vester, FrankU, Simcoug and vortext.
Nice models, Eggman. I want to see a pic with automata under it.
Cheers
Willy
I am using the Millennium set that is used on the Sydney Cityrail network. It is one of the taller sets created and as such is a perfect model to reference.You also have to consider the overpasses. Tarkus made the L1 RHW models high enough so that the tallest known rail automata will fit under them (I think it's in one of Swamper's sets), but from memory there isn't much space. You'd need to make a special model for it that probably doesn't have the upper support wire so it fits between the top of the car and bottom of the overpass.
Find the new thing. . .
You also have to consider the overpasses. Tarkus made the L1 RHW models high enough so that the tallest known rail automata will fit under them (I think it's in one of Swamper's sets), but from memory there isn't much space. You'd need to make a special model for it that probably doesn't have the upper support wire so it fits between the top of the car and bottom of the overpass.
Regardless, I think they look absolutely fantastic and I think you'd work out a solution, certainly don't give up on it. Most of the trains will probably be overscaled after the RRW is released anyway :thumbsup:
Thank you jdenm8. The models I have created are still under 7.5m or L1.The problem here is that the road surface is at 7.5m, the bridge clearance is actually only about 6.5m.
Eggman, one remark on the overhead wires: I think the wires look a little too bright; could you consider rendering them darker, so they would blend better in with the background? Anyway, nice work!
The problem here is that the road surface is at 7.5m, the bridge clearance is actually only about 6.5m.
Indeed, above all the wires which are too bright/white ;)
eggman121: What is the height of the overheadwires ?
Would love to see how the fit with all my trains.
Have without knowning have done my trains with variating heights of the pantographs:
- Volume 1-2. H=5.68 m
- The last 3 volumes. H=6.55-6.80 m
- The trams in volume 4. H=7.66 m
Not sure if one would be able see the difference, but still....
the tracks on the new textures are 13 pixels wide, which translates to 1.625m, only 19cm off real scale.
The weird mix up with dimensions in the games :P
People are what 4.5 meters tall !?!
Thing the safety clearance in Denmark is 1.75 meters is overhead power lines.
SO: Please duck when going under the wires, so the power don't "jump" you.
5.25 meters is very low. The pantograph would lay all the way down to the roof.
Don't see any reason as to why it get be raised to 6.25 meters.
The top wired (bearing) would just stop at poles next to the bridges and under the bridges the power line would be hanging from the bridges.
Like everything else, loading gauges are considerably different across regions, but with exception of double stacking clearances (5.5-6.15m), most range between 4.3 and 4.8m. This excludes an elevated pantograph, which is not considered part of the gabarit. On the Belgian network the wire hangs between 5.1 and 5.5m from the rails.
Sounds about right Eggman. While your project is not specific to the RRW, we should tune things so they are fully compatible. I'd be willing to help you out on T21'ing. It'll be a considerable job, though, given how. . . er. . . well, you'll see ;D
The new overhead line color is fantastic, eggman!
I only have one concern about this. What happens if you use another style of poles? For example for my Japanese regions I use Uki's HD Japanese catenaries props. If I put your mod as well as uki's, which poles will be ingame? Yours or Uki's?
I don't mind using your mod at all ( which I really will, I so much wanted that overhead line for a looong time now), but if I can use it as well as a better ( imo ) pack of poles, then that would be the best of the best. ;)
Color of the wires in now good. But your poles are still a little bit too bright (above all pic. 2)
keep going the good work :)
You used poles with both long and short arms? And you used them on both the left and right hand side in turns? Nice!
I really hope you find a way to deal with switches and turns, as most catenary mods fail to look good at these points. Good luck with your awesome project! (The wires look much better now!)
These catenaries look gorgeous!
Maybe Girafe is right, but I can perfecly live with the models as they are now. Maybe it's important to make an overview in zoom 1 or 2: if the catenaries are too bright you indeed should dim them a bit.
Man, I'd like to see those overhead setups for Light Rail, since I don't use electric trains for heavy rail.
If you could contact Uki and see if the original gmax files still exist than I could or he could make sets to the specifications above
Find the new thing. . .
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fnew_thing.jpg&hash=d4b72f78304ad6c2d1345f8fbc0dafc6)
Thanks for all the kind words everybody :thumbsup: Although I may need some help with the diagonal T21s. Maybe Memo could help in this matter since it appears that he knows more about T21s than I do. More hands make lighter work as they say.
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...
Oh my god!!!! &apls &apls &apls
Willy,are you planning to work on some 7.5m content for rail too???
cheers
Guglielmo
I love this picture! Do you think we need end stubs for FAR as well?
Swordmaster can tell you how many rail textures there are.
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...
What would be beneficial as well is the IIDs for the Maxis and NAM rail textures. I spend half my time trying to find the correct IIDs and it can be frustrating at times :'(. Reading rul code and looking up s3d files can be quite time consuming...
Check PM ;)
Cheers
Willy
You called me? I'll try to offer my help as best as I can.
The zig-zagging overhead wires definitely have a nice look, but be aware that it will multiply the amount of work. Only few T21s are necessary for orthogonal tracks, but then consider a 45 curve: For the ortho-to-curve tile you will need four different T21s to account for the different offsets of the overhead wire. You will also have to differentiate between flipped and non-flipped tiles. Moreover, you need to differentiate at least between two different rotations of the tile, maybe all four. This makes at least 16 different T21s for a single tile, if I see the problem correctly.
I'd suggest to implement orthogonals, diagonals and a curve piece at first, possibly with prototypes only, and then reconsider this. Don't get me wrong: the zig-zagging is truely a nice detail, and T21 files allow for all the customisation you need for this. On the other hand, Swordmaster can tell you how many rail textures there are.
The Texture Viewer of the Reader comes in handy for this. There is also this database for rail (http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6873.msg218294#msg218294) by Dedgren. Otherwise, reading the RULs is indeed the best strategy.
Wow, looks amazing.. &apls &apls
Is it possible that making a facelift mod that we can change the base tile as we like?
I do have the experience that diagonal props on slopes can look awkward. Try to find out if that works well first. This is what's keeping me from adding steel barriers on the RHW diagonals...
Very nice work shown in here.
Eggman, as a BATter, I'm curious how you went about modelling/exporting the wires to make them work as well as you did on slopes. If I'm viewing them correctly, it looks like they're a collection of smaller (1m long?) models set next to each other via t21. Is it as "simple" as that, or is there a more complex trick to it?
-Matt
1. I've tried to split up the model. Didn't work well, the models still bent to the other sideI do have the experience that diagonal props on slopes can look awkward. Try to find out if that works well first. This is what's keeping me from adding steel barriers on the RHW diagonals...
I'm having the same problem too. The diagonals don't want to play ball. There is a tutorial created by budddybud but some of the images he refers to are missing so it is of limited value at this stage.
The tutorial can be found here http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=3650.0
I would like to know what you have tried Mandelsoft. Maybe we could find a solution.
Cogeo, it's "only" a matter of coming up with the textures. I don't see why we couldn't take a look at how to implement it if a third party modder were to make them. But I don't see anyone in the NAM team doing that at this point. And the further I expand the RRW, the more work it'll be to make those textures and the more code it'll take. Judging from the SAM's 150,000 RUL2 lines, a full RRW override could multiply this easily.Sure, the texture work is considerable, to say the least. But I don't think anyone asked YOU to make all these. And while nobody seems to be interested "at this point", some may be suddenly appear in the near (or mid) future. What we could do now is only reserve the IDs (and assign them to modders, if they are interested). And I will repeat my proposal about puzzle pieces, which require no RULs and are quite simpler to make (actually as soon as the first set is made, the next ones will be mostly copy and in-place replacement. Some modders regard puzzle pieces as "obsolete", considering the few extra clicks required to plop them, not taking into account their simplicity and efficiency (and "economy" in resources and ID-range requirements). We can even make some 2-, 3- or 4-tile long straight sections for those who are easily bored. It would be nice to have ALL the above (and addtional) track types in the same city at the same time. And don't get me wrong, most people will actually still want to use the original rail textures, for a variety of reasons, among others the existence of so many stations and other rail-related lots (eg yards) using the original textures (or similar texture packs like NCD's); many of them even have even the original track texture modelled into the station's model. That is, many players will actually opt to rather stick with the original ones, if they are forced to choose. The only way to make them use the new ones, is let them keep the originals as well.
Not to mention the considerably longer start-up times due to the thereby increased size of the controller. (cough) ;)Haha, indeed! But if we use puzzle pieces instead?...
Regarding the suggestion of using network models for the wires, this could work, but it would be difficult to achieve the same degree of detail like the zigzagging wires.I can't see why. Can you elaborate? Even if eggman used the BAT (Gmax or 3DSmax) to make these, it is still possible to make a 1-Z/R model out of it, if you select the front and back views of the closest zoom and combine them to get a 1-Z/R model, for all zooms and rotations - we may only need to reconsider the LODshell. And just consider the far fewer T21s this implementation will require.
Sure, the texture work is considerable, to say the least. But I don't think anyone asked YOU to make all these. And while nobody seems to be interested "at this point", some may be suddenly appear in the near (or mid) future. What we could do now is only reserve the IDs (and assign them to modders, if they are interested).
And I will repeat my proposal about puzzle pieces, which require no RULs and are quite simpler to make (actually as soon as the first set is made, the next ones will be mostly copy and in-place replacement. Some modders regard puzzle pieces as "obsolete", considering the few extra clicks required to plop them, not taking into account their simplicity and efficiency (and "economy" in resources and ID-range requirements). We can even make some 2-, 3- or 4-tile long straight sections for those who are easily bored. It would be nice to have ALL the above (and addtional) track types in the same city at the same time.Not to mention the considerably longer start-up times due to the thereby increased size of the controller. (cough) ;)Haha, indeed! But if we use puzzle pieces instead?...
And don't get me wrong, most people will actually still want to use the original rail textures, for a variety of reasons, among others the existence of so many stations and other rail-related lots (eg yards) using the original textures (or similar texture packs like NCD's); many of them even have even the original track texture modelled into the station's model. That is, many players will actually opt to rather stick with the original ones, if they are forced to choose. The only way to make them use the new ones, is let them keep the originals as well.
Regarding the suggestion of using network models for the wires, this could work, but it would be difficult to achieve the same degree of detail like the zigzagging wires.I can't see why. Can you elaborate? Even if eggman used the BAT (Gmax or 3DSmax) to make these, it is still possible to make a 1-Z/R model out of it, if you select the front and back views of the closest zoom and combine them to get a 1-Z/R model, for all zooms and rotations - we may only need to reconsider the LODshell. And just consider the far fewer T21s this implementation will require.
Some modders regard puzzle pieces as "obsolete", considering the few extra clicks required to plop them, not taking into account their simplicity and efficiency (and "economy" in resources and ID-range requirements).
But I am interested in the model Idea for the slopes of the rail however if true 3d models can be t21ed onto a network or if they can be spaced out with models reoccurring every 4th tile on a diagonal run. crossing with other networks can be still t21ed normally thought since they are all flat so they can use the normal gmax rendered models.
Even if eggman used the BAT (Gmax or 3DSmax) to make these, it is still possible to make a 1-Z/R model out of it, if you select the front and back views of the closest zoom and combine them to get a 1-Z/R model, for all zooms and rotations - we may only need to reconsider the LODshell.
The RRW in many ways is like the Project Symphony effort. Thus, by virtue of that, it makes the most sense as an "all-or-nothing" conversion.
This happy family of draggable switches, for instance.
Again I'll mention Peg's three path systems and their respective crossings.
I imagine that the mod will not overwrite LE texture (which is an overlay 0x03031500).
But most of all, this is a forward-looking mod. I'm not gonna sit with my head in my hands because I feel tied by ten years worth of subdued rail modding. Large efforts have been undertaken to create realistic road networks, flora, terrain, BATs and so forth, so unless we concede that the realism-oriented SC4 player eschews rails, we have to go through a bit of trouble to improve the situation on this front. It will mostly be up to the rest of the community to either embrace this or reject it.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fdtr-a1-switches.jpg&hash=52db33418912e11920dc7e3efbd3b3ca)
I would be glad to use the future textures and here comes my questions. I imagine that the mod will not overwrite LE texture (which is an overlay 0x03031500). So will the texture be available under LE and a polemic question when?
I take it those single tracks are bidirectional?
Sidenote: if you're not following memo's explanation of IID conservation above, they consist of only 13 different tiles.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fdtr-a1-textures.jpg&hash=594be321a78b221adc615f48d0719c32)
Can you already tell what else is in store, in terms of new functionality?
Are X's finally going to be possible between two side by side dtr's?
So technically using a crossover piece it would be possible to have a DTR to 2 STR transition?Like the RHW2 to 2MIS puzzle piece?
cheers
Guglielmo
Love what you have done with the paths, keep up the good work. :D
Hi Eggman,
I hope you found your sanity back? If not: take a look under your bed. It's probably hiding there. ?=mad)=
Willy, one remark on the FARR pieces (sorry to be nitpicking here; they look great): in the screen shots the rails appear to be just a liiittle off the centre line... Is it something only I notice? Then forget it of course ;)
I think it's an optical illusion. That's because these textures are actually flat, but the eye wants to see them as three-dimensional.This is absolutely stunning. &apls &apls I see the facelift illustration and that's what I want most from all kinds of the old textured railway Mod.
Oh, and the reason why I put in the trees is that the attentive visitor might notice the trees are on the same tile as the rails, which also explains how this setup is possible without any new coding or textures. It's a long-standing public request to reduce waste of tiles.
Like this
Which also means this is possible:
Cheers
Willy
I will be downloading these rails when there finished, Keep up the great work guys!!! :D
No offence, just fair and I believe constructive criticism.
But...
Let's not forget that Cogeo is a capable member of our community an I think it is completely OK if he gives criticism or advice without making his own examples. If that would be a requirement for everyone it would make me totally out of order in this respect, because I have never ever made one BAT or texture. Does that make me incapable of giving cirticisms?
Are those S-switches (as I do not know the official term) split for each straight track or is it all one piece?
. . . make one of this two textures in a way like the SAM. I think to make an transition isn't as hard, is it?
Will you include any texture variations as additional overrides (i.e. a SAM-like approach?)
Current policy is that there will be no additional overrides until the basic network is fully compatible and flexible to the standards the developers aspire.
Cosmetics are, well, cosmetics. One should take it as a pinch of salt :)
I'd also like to cite an interesting statistic--in the roughly 2 weeks since this thread has opened, it has surpassed the post count of the nearly 5-year-old Rail Addon Mod development thread, and is approaching 10,000 views. Congrats to Willy on getting rail modding "on track", so to speak. :thumbsup:
Would a mod on the scale of light rail (elevated and ground) be on the scope of this project, after enough work on the heavy rail is done?
My point is that, the balast is always made as a kind of a hill, it has slopes on either side. So what I mean is, that they should only have the shadowy part on one side of the track, whilst the other is usually even lighter, because of the light it gets more directly.
Here's another suggestion.
Is it possible to make some soundbarriers that would work like the wealth sidewalks? So if the rail wouldn't have RES or COM zoned beside it, it also wouldn't have sound barriers, otherwise it would. Maybe even (I'm just brainstorming here) have the possibility to make soundbarriers raelated to wealth and or (this one is omre essential) density. How are the possibilities here?
We don't exactly serve pizza. (We typically only ever serve one topping.)
That should be in there. That's probably something Maxis would do...
nope, the brown colour is because of rust from the rails and trains.
asfarasIknow, the RAM is included in the NAM...
a track that is in use usually has brown ballast, whereas underutilized/new tracks have clean, grey ballast...
Think Willy has more experience with rails in the real world than most people around here :P
I have a technical question: Will there be double (ie. quad-track) curves? Because nowadays, a four-track-railway can only go straight or diagonal, but smooth curves are impossible...
Well, I was not talking about four tracks on one tile, but about placing two 45° curves adjacent to each other in a way that makes it possible to run 2 double track lines parallel and directly next to each other. just like the 45° curves that are possible with the RHW.
So, any news for us Willy?
We don't want to lose this great project since we've been going this far. ::)
it is all draggable?? even the trees?? :O great work! &apls
Great stuff Eggman!
On straight tracks the wires must zig-zag, because otherwise the wire would cut into the pantograph (is it called that way in English?); I mean the thing that is used by the train to make contact with the wire.
On straight tracks the wires must zig-zag, because otherwise the wire would cut into the pantograph (is it called that way in English?); I mean the thing that is used by the train to make contact with the wire.
In real life, yes.
In simcity you don't need it because you won't notice it, and requires hard modding, useless for what it gives.
On straight tracks the wires must zig-zag, because otherwise the wire would cut into the pantograph (is it called that way in English?); I mean the thing that is used by the train to make contact with the wire.
I'm not really sure what is meant by zig-zagging wires...? Is it about the shape of the wire on the curve?
I'm not really sure what is meant by zig-zagging wires...? Is it about the shape of the wire on the curve?
Agreed.
This is possibly more of a RAM thing, but will there be a line crossover for this piece or does this function without one?
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbJT3sKf.jpg&hash=5f4180b5fceea8111915ee8fbfae1c40)
As for the RRW, it's quite impressive to see the difference in realism just by re-pathing the same curves/diagonals. Even though they wouldn't be much fun to ride on in real life (velocity on those curves would not be much more then 40km/h !! ) those curves look a lot more pleasing then MAXIS'.
Like Ganaram, I have my doubts that the notorious zigzag in the wire would be noticeable at the scale we're working with. In fact I even hardly notice it in real life. Implementing it would be a hassle not worth it, I think.
The basic draggable network (my current focus and probably the first part of the mod that will be released) represents a network with speeds between 20 and 40 km/h that you'd use to build lines in industrial areas or ports. But of course people can use it wherever they want.
Cheers
Willy
started the STR Minicurves textures and did some RULing ;D
Cheers
Willy
The curves are so smooth, and the colours are realistic. I have the feeling though that the blockings (what do we call these things that avoid trains from driving over the end of the rails?) are a bit blurred. Maybe you can use the Maxis ones? Or is it just the images?
I think what you're saying about the rail ends is actually one of the flaws of rendering a small HD model. It is a known fact that these props will look a bit blurry but there's no real way to fix it as it's due to the the procedure implemented by SimFox with the BAT4MAX.
It's a compromise.
started the STR Minicurves textures and did some RULing ;D
Cheers
Willy
Seems pretty awesome. I'm sure there's quite a lot to be said about the process of actually turning this into a reality but I'm sure it's a lot easier to mod the STR as it was completely done by the NAM (am I wrong? ()what() )The curves are so smooth, and the colours are realistic. I have the feeling though that the blockings (what do we call these things that avoid trains from driving over the end of the rails?) are a bit blurred. Maybe you can use the Maxis ones? Or is it just the images?
I think what you're saying about the rail ends is actually one of the flaws of rendering a small HD model. It is a known fact that these props will look a bit blurry but there's no real way to fix it as it's due to the the procedure implemented by SimFox with the BAT4MAX.
It's a compromise.
STR is looking smooth! :thumbsup:
Something I just thought of, are you planning on making these available as overlays textures for the LE crowd?
Affirmative. Read the FAQ. :thumbsup:Oh man, reading is so... hard! $%Grinno$%
The curves are so smooth, and the colours are realistic. I have the feeling though that the blockings (what do we call these things that avoid trains from driving over the end of the rails?) are a bit blurred. Maybe you can use the Maxis ones? Or is it just the images?
And another: are you going to provide a small set of textures for lots, so that we can edit our station lots to fit in with the dragged rails?
Seems pretty awesome. I'm sure there's quite a lot to be said about the process of actually turning this into a reality but I'm sure it's a lot easier to mod the STR as it was completely done by the NAM (am I wrong? ()what() )
If anything, I think modding STR would be harder because it's an override network. But that's not a huge factor in the work Willy's doing, and because he's already done it with DTR, I'm sure it's going a bit faster.
I challenge you to learn rail INRULs. ;D Just to give you a teaser: road layouts use seven different flags: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 13. Rail layouts, on the other hand, use 0, 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, 21, 22, 23, 32, 42, 52, 62, and 72.
[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00005334]
;Added by Tarkus 09.23.2012
;RHW FlexHT-L0-to-L2 Ortho
Piece = 0.0, 16.0, 0, 0, 0x5caee405
PreviewEffect = preview_flexhtrans_l2___000
CellLayout=....
CellLayout=..b<
CellLayout=..a.
CellLayout=..c.
CellLayout=..c.
CellLayout=..d.
CellLayout=..c.
CellLayout=..c.
CellLayout=..d.
CellLayout=..^.
CheckType = a - rail: 0x00000400 dirtroad: 0x02000200, 0xFFFFFFFF optional
CheckType = b - dirtroad: 0x00000000
CheckType = c - dirtroad: 0x02000200, 0xFF00FF00 optional
CheckType = d - rail: 0x00040404 dirtroad: 0x02000200, 0xFFFFFFFF optionalMore important to note by far is that Willy is the one and only person out there who really knows the rail flags! :thumbsup: It's rather like he's doing magic tricks than maths.
I've actually never encountered the furry creature…
There's a problem with props this small in that their shadows not always show (at least not on my system).
We'd also need 18.5°, -18.5°, 26.5° and -26.5°.
Well, I was not talking about four tracks on one tile, but about placing two 45° curves adjacent to each other in a way that makes it possible to run 2 double track lines parallel and directly next to each other. just like the 45° curves that are possible with the RHW.
The consequences are that the conversion to RRW in your cities will be less than trivial. There will be quite a bunch of your curves and switches that if you click on them, they'll show red drag and they won't convert. You'll need to bulldoze them and redraw them. This is not a perfect solution, but it is a solution. Additionally, you may need some time adjusting to the tool, but in the long term it will be beneficial to the uniformity of the above mentioned network flags.
Most of all, this has saved me a great deal of coding so that I can actually work towards covering more setups instead of making sure I have every variation of every setup covered. (And these variations are, if you're following, exponential. Every curve next to a curve, switch next to a switch, switch next to a curve, wye next to a curve, etc. would require coding in two flag sets for every element.)
Does it matter that it is double yellow before and after the crossings?
Quad track rail is not planned for this release...it's a long term plan...don't even know if it's gonna be released or not...there has been some work on TTR but due to some issues and Dedgren being not active lately the TTR is on hiatus...let's enjor the RRW for the moment :thumbsup:okay. :'(
Just a curiosity Willy...you've shown a picture of a 7.5m rail overpass at the beginning on my request...don't want to put any pressure as we're absolutely not in a rush and we just want to enjoy the game...is there some work going on thsat front for the first release or is it a long term plan?and speaking of elevated rail...are you planning to do something for elevated STR?i remember seeing pictures of elevated STR in the past but that project havs been on hiatus for a while now...
Thanks for your precious work and the amazing stuff you're preparing for us!
and thanks for your kindness when replying all the different questions... &apls
Cheers
Guglielmo
I would go with an "if traffic can approach the crossing in that lane, it gets a stop bar" approach. The real world seems to have a lot of variety on what lanes get bars and which don't anyway.
I love all the bits about the RUL flags too. In case you're interested, the Wiki desperately needs a knowledgeable person to expand upon the rail Network Flags. $%Grinno$%
Quad track rail is not planned for this release...it's a long term plan...don't even know if it's gonna be released or not...there has been some work on TTR but due to some issues and Dedgren being not active lately the TTR is on hiatus...let's enjor the RRW for the moment :thumbsup:
Just a curiosity Willy...you've shown a picture of a 7.5m rail overpass at the beginning on my request...don't want to put any pressure as we're absolutely not in a rush and we just want to enjoy the game...is there some work going on thsat front for the first release or is it a long term plan?and speaking of elevated rail...are you planning to do something for elevated STR?i remember seeing pictures of elevated STR in the past but that project havs been on hiatus for a while now...
Thanks for your precious work and the amazing stuff you're preparing for us!
and thanks for your kindness when replying all the different questions... &apls
Thanks for those ideas on the crossings everyone. I'm working on a potentially neat fix.nice mod! after RAM. the RealRailway replace the old Railroad Addon Mod! &aplsI would go with an "if traffic can approach the crossing in that lane, it gets a stop bar" approach. The real world seems to have a lot of variety on what lanes get bars and which don't anyway.
I love all the bits about the RUL flags too. In case you're interested, the Wiki desperately needs a knowledgeable person to expand upon the rail Network Flags. $%Grinno$%
Yes, I have that planned for after the release. So that's still a really, really long way off.
Maybe. $%#Ninj2Quad track rail is not planned for this release...it's a long term plan...don't even know if it's gonna be released or not...there has been some work on TTR but due to some issues and Dedgren being not active lately the TTR is on hiatus...let's enjor the RRW for the moment :thumbsup:
Just a curiosity Willy...you've shown a picture of a 7.5m rail overpass at the beginning on my request...don't want to put any pressure as we're absolutely not in a rush and we just want to enjoy the game...is there some work going on thsat front for the first release or is it a long term plan?and speaking of elevated rail...are you planning to do something for elevated STR?i remember seeing pictures of elevated STR in the past but that project havs been on hiatus for a while now...
Thanks for your precious work and the amazing stuff you're preparing for us!
and thanks for your kindness when replying all the different questions... &apls
It's the other way round--my gratitude goes to all the people who've shown their support so far, especially my NAM team colleagues and my little private club of testers :thumbsup:
As for QTR, it is included in the IID scheme, so consider it "planned". I even made a quick orthogonal mockup to assess the potential geometrical hurdles. Same with TTR, on my part at least. David's material is sitting on my HD but there are other priorities now. My greatly increased comfort with overhanging networks has made both of these a real possibility, though.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fttr-preview.jpg&hash=7f3d0b61d87118c569d5dc80e080bc25) (https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fqtr_preview.jpg&hash=f7f090363e735b8ff6d16025f6661f55)
As for what you guys can most likely expect regarding the upcoming release, the next two or three NAMs will be "rollouts" for the RRW, so don't expect full functionality from the go. I've spent most of my time prepping the DTR network, which as of now involves the following tiles (probably a few more after today):
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.majhost.com%2Fgallery%2Fswm666%2FRRW%2Fdtr-textures.jpg&hash=fe80d09a2a3320bc00e4cc4eeb44447a)
Spot the differences ;D
As these take up quite some time RULing, pathing and modeling, this'll be the core of what'll be in NAM 32 on my end. There's also testing and documentation to be kept in mind of course. Everything else is "bonus" at this point. As shown I'm working on crossings, but not every single one of them will be covered yet. There's also been a serious effort to convert STR to the minicurve specs, but likewise, there will be gaps (as there are in the current RAM-STR network). Of course, the existing WRC and FARR puzzle pieces have been retextured and repathed. But most certainly, don't hold your breath for any other features.
The reason for that is more than just time constraints: the secondary features (STR, draggable elevated networks, draggable FARR & switches and so on) will be built on top of the base DTR network. Therefore, I have deliberately postponed these items because I need the base network to be released and tested by all of you folks first. This is to avoid duplicate work--changes to the DTR network to fix bugs would potentially disrupt any other coded material--and it is known that despite the great effort put in by the team and associates, the first bug usually pops up a few minutes after release.
I have a rough schedule of things to come but as per usual policy there are no announcements or promises of this kind.
Cheers
Willy
Excellent work Willy &apls I really appreciate the attention to detail--to the point that one needs a trained eye to play the "spot the differences" game :Dyep. the RealRailway is GREAT! &apls :thumbsup: &hlp
The RAM was a jump in realism and versatility. This is a jump of at least the same size. We jumped over SC2013....!
yes. you are right. also. i read this on SC4D wiki: "There is not a game with the title SimCity 5 (SC5), although the name has been used for years to denote the potential sequel to SimCity 4." :thumbsup:The RAM was a jump in realism and versatility. This is a jump of at least the same size. We jumped over SC2013....!
Over? I'd argue that SC2013 never surpassed us, especially with the amount of modifications that exist for SC4. The RRW is looking really great, Swordmaster, and even though I had my doubts about the colour scheme you picked, it has grown on me quite a bit and I really like it now.
The RAM was a jump in realism and versatility. This is a jump of at least the same size. We jumped over SC2013....!
Over? I'd argue that SC2013 never surpassed us, especially with the amount of modifications that exist for SC4.....
you see what i said: there's NO SC5. SC13 is just a reboot of the SimCity series. not a sequel of SC4. :thumbsup: NOTE: this is a RRW topic. not a SC13 topic.The RAM was a jump in realism and versatility. This is a jump of at least the same size. We jumped over SC2013....!
Over? I'd argue that SC2013 never surpassed us, especially with the amount of modifications that exist for SC4.....
Yeah, indeed. After I sent the reply I realised that it was quite a stupid remark. Comparing SC2013 and SC4 is something like comparing pliers with a pig, or a box of tomatoes with ... I don't know. No real reference to compare them. Just not.
OK, let's cut the crap.
RRW RULs!
This is amazing! Truly stunning and innovative work here. Great job!yep. RealRailway is amazing. :P
RRW RULs!
we don't know when the next NAM to be release.RRW RULs!
I see what you did there. ::) :D
It's getting boring but it can't be said enough: fantastic work Willy! &apls
Also, I'm really hoping elevated STR (be it pp or draggable) will become reality someday! :thumbsup:
Meeston, do you have to reply on every single posts on the NAM board? This comes off as spamming...no. /wrrd%&
Fine with me.
The current viaduct looked too historic for my preferences. I know this would require a lot of model creation, but concrete viaducts would fit better for modern or industrial railroads.
The last RAM piece is on the drawing board. . .
Could we have a piece where the track split into 2 separate STR bits,
Like Agunter i'm interested in the idea of having a STR to 2STR puzzle piece...think many others are actually interested...probably you too Willy :D I'm just wondering if that is possible...think I've seen a piece like that somewhere on the RAM thread or maybe in 3RR posted by Dedgren...any ideas about it Willy?of course it is not a priority and might just be just an idea for future development...even though i think you've already taken such a puzzle piece into consideration ;)
Guglielmo
So the terms like STR and DTR are still used. I figured they would have newer terms as it is with roads.
I think I'm more familiar with Tarkus' pronunciation and always thought that NAM rhymed with Ma'am. I never really thought about it as "nom". STR to me was always ess-tee-arr, since I didn't see any vowels or other indicators to how to say it.
From the manual:
Do we really care how it's pronounced?
NAM: Nahm
RHW: Are-ach-double-u
RRW: Are-Are-double-u
NWM-Enn-double-u-emm
STR: Ess-Tee-Are
MIS: Miss
That's how I say them.
Do we really care how it's pronounced?
It shouldn't be the case, otherwise it'd be a whole 'nother can of worms to deal with, and even if it is, there's no way to limit to just one way to pronounce it.
You already doing the manual?that made me think you have enough material for the first release... $%Grinno$%
Guglielmo
Is this gonna be where instead of saying "double three double six", I say "three three six six" and others say "thirty-three sixty-six?" Because I say "are are double-yew".
This thread needs less nerdiness, slightly more evil.
...pic...
This actually means I'm more or less done with pathing.
now that's one of those rare cases where trignometry cames in hand :D (/sarcasm out) :D :D
now that's one of those rare cases where trignometry cames in hand :D (/sarcasm out) :D :D
Nanh. AutoCAD did the trick for me ;D
NAM: Nahm
RHW: Are-ach-double-u
RRW: Are-Are-double-u
NWM-Enn-double-u-emm
STR: Ess-Tee-Are
MIS: Miss
That's how I say them.
Sweet! Who do we thank for the modeling? It looks awesome. &apls
Is no one else going to give Willy a K-point
Is no one else going to give Willy a K-point
K-points from me for sure....
Is no one else going to give Willy a K-point for two days of work on such an amazing conversion of the best maxis rail bridge? ::)
@FlyHigh, I think the reason that the ballast is there is because Willy only did S3d editing, which would have probably caused issues trying to introduce transparency into the textures that are displayed under the bridge (if the under-bridge pieces even have textures to display).
Also, anyone know the purpose of the apparent guide rail that both bridges and tunnels/underpasses have?
@FlyHigh, I think the reason that the ballast is there is because Willy only did S3d editing, which would have probably caused issues trying to introduce transparency into the textures that are displayed under the bridge (if the under-bridge pieces even have textures to display).
Yes, it seems to make sense!
oh I am sorry. I tried to avoid posting big pictures since I don't know how to resize them but here it goes:
[img width=600]http://i.imgur.com/XhbW21Gh.jpg[/img]
[img height=450]http://i.imgur.com/XhbW21Gh.jpg[/img]Seems like I've missed your post eggman!
The catenaries just look wonderful!sooo real!
Willy any progress so far?have you ever thought about making a "secret weapon" video for the RRW?
Cheers
Guglielmo
Will be there EL-RRW too? &apls
I think Moonlight's mod is all that will be done for a while, though eggman has shown interest in eventually porting the caternaries over to the EL-Rail network. I'd say it won't be for a while, esp. since all of his most recent work on curves is for the modified radius RRW ones, while the El-Rail retain the standard Maxis radii curvature (whole new set of T21 parameters for some of the trickiest parts of the network).
Because of the nature of the base network and the modding team responsible for GLR/ELR being mostly inactive, I'd suggest that reason as being the primary difference between the two potential projects; Heavy Rail is probably much simpler to mod.
(I've been advocating to rename the thing ELR or E-Lightrail)
:o How long will we have been waiting for all these wonderful gems?
I meant, when will it be available to download?
On standard Maxis rail i never saw a sort of "in good place" signals, but in this RRW mod there are signals that are in the spots they should be or it remain another mod?
This is a good idea. :thumbsup: GLR could be referred to as GLR (or L0 LR-2), standard Rail could be GHDTR (or L0 HR-2), STR could be GHSTR (or L0 HR-1), El-Rail could be ELR (or L2 LR-2), and so on, in a nod to the RHW nomenclature. The sidings and the like that branch off could be named similarly to the RHW ramps. Just an idea. :)
Willy has T21'd signals on all track switches, so yes, they will be more realistic.
Willy has T21'd signals on all track switches, so yes, they will be more realistic.
Eh, I have not. I assume these would be an optional and customizable feature, but I haven't really thought about it yet. I know there are several signal prop packs available; I need to take a look at those.
:o How long will we have been waiting for all these wonderful gems?
I meant, when will it be available to download?
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FMiniCurves_zps996483dd.jpg&hash=b5ffc3a3afc8de5ac90911fb1666f5e7)
If i am right, it could be possible to make double-deck RRW - bridges with rail on the ground and above the rail a RHW like the DDRHW
Awesome! Interesting comparison; your poles are quite well scaled I think. It's maybe a pity in this view the wire overlaps exactly the outer rail. Not sure it can or needs to be fixed though.
Wow this is indeed something all of us detail seekers are wishing for. And it looks of course stunning. The catenaries themselves looked great, but this is just getting to perfection.
But does this mod work? Of course the straight lines are not problematic, but what about slopes and curves? There were issues with those as I am aware, are those issue overcome now?
Both styles of centenaries look excellent and so much nicer with the wires &apls &apls I'm actually not sure which I like more. I'm also curious about the slope functionality, particularly with diagonals.
Both look great, though I like my consistency. Nice job!
Only one set of wires? Does that mean the L2 top wires would still be higher than others?
Eggman,
I am creating some railway signals that will conform to your standards. I wondered if you had the exact distance for the question mark in the image below. Thanks in advance!
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrQ4TzZDs.jpg&hash=87f0e3fe698f9a6c1e740c7e12a23e59) (http://i.imgur.com/rQ4TzZD.jpg)
To answer you question the distance is 2.5 m. I did not include that dimension initially since It can vary. Maybe a bit close But poles are the easier parts to make so I can modify them if needed as opposed to wires.
To ask another question. If you are making railway signals are you planning to place them on a transit enabled lot or are you going to t21 them onto switches? If you are going the transport enabled lot version I will be making some props soon for stations and TE Lots and I will make them available to you. If you are going to t21 them we will have to work together since the t21s will conflict with each other. Same goes for level crossing cross-bucks and other related T21 props.
-eggman121
My original idea was to simply have an offset lot with the signals overhead. I am thinking of making an end piece for 1 track then a 2 track extender, 3 track etc. The end piece would go on one end of the rails and the other 2, 3, 4 or more rail piece would go on the other to complete the tower. Here is a quick screenie of what I currently have. If you have any suggestions I am more than open to them as I am not very familiar with T21s yet and how they can be used, spaced etc.
The pic is a WIP I started this morning so it doesn't have the lights or any texturing yet (Just a vraydirt map). The picture would be of the 1 track half piece. The framing is pretty close to completed but I might make adjustments once I start exporting and checking in game. It's so hard to tell which details will be visible in game because of the alpha blending. When I BAT i almost always use transparency on the model because the alpha mask is blended against the background and gives a better appearance.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfcLke4r.png&hash=dd0e441ec67efe0444eb9aab720cc41c)
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAGdqxaF.png&hash=ede9ea4eae834b1b7ee41b962146c024)
Hi, I posted some problems with the elevated pieces on the NAM forum... are those fixed yet? will you be posting an update with the fixes or will we have to wait until the pre release 2?
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1085.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj424%2Fcmdp123789%2F1_zps5e94a6dd.png&hash=189c021800fc564abb255fd8a63a9838)
See in pic 1... the textures are blurry... so as in the avenue textures...
Here's hoping PEG updates now (3+ lots)
I don't know exactly what's going on here. Do you have a texture mod installed? It seems your Viaduct textures are overriden by another file.
Oh my. These are very sexy (insofar as catenaries can be :p).
How are you going to deal with the issue of transit-enabled lots?
Will you be providing a guide as to how to use these catenaries on lots properly for a seamless appearance?
Can't wait to try these catenaries, it's something that's always been missing from SC4... Until now.
It looks a bit to heavy, the members are way to thick for grid construction.
The four corner members together has about the right size for a solid column.
Regarding the signals, just to let you know a frenchie did a pack with really interesting models:
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toutsimcities.com%2Fimg%2Fdownloads%2Fthumb%2Fimage_1969.jpg&hash=7c422590501ff8af571a9656a7e2e32b) (http://www.toutsimcities.com/downloads/view/1969)
Great work guys &apls! I love the new textures :satisfied:. Just one thing though ;D - In UDI mode, the arrows for the track switches do not show up ()what(). Just thought I'd let you guys know ::).
WB Northcountrydude. I use many of your rail items you created.
I had a question for Willy or Eggman. I am about ready to release the models/lots for the signals i created but was wondering if there was a way to prevent the wealthing from occurring on the RRW tiles. The tiles get a dirt base texture when I place my lot next to it using high wealth. I also tried no wealth same result.
Hello Droric. The Railway Upgrade Mod created by Rivit has an option to remove wealth from the RRW tiles. I have just tested it and it works. Not specific to the RRW and only the wealthication options in the Installer needs to be checked but this may suffice until a specific mod to remove the wealth from the RRW is presented.
You can get it from simtropolis here: http://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/25809-railway-upgrade-mod/
-eggman121
I heard or saw that these rails are model based? If so, then this is excellent news. I read in this topic that this newer concept allows you to place flora and other objects closer to the track-line? Awesome! No more "blocky" wasted tiles! With the current high definition mayor mode flora that is available, making grungy industrial lines could never be easier!
I also read that this design uses a narrower gauge? Will that cause problems for the custom content lots that matched up to the Maxis gauge? Is there a transition tile available? Just curious.
Just to clarify, RRW has LHD paths, right?
(the RRW base texture has some awful orientation problems that need sorting)
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some code that will make the process of adding LHD support that much harder.
The RRW doesn't appear to support LHD paths yet. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some code that will make the process of adding LHD support that much harder.
After adding the file from memo the lag disappears for me. Although I redrew my tacks again after adding it, so that could be why some people still get lag.
For upgrading stations, is it just a case of using the lot editor to replace the texture with RRW's?
Strange, I keep hearing this from people. I'd like it if folks who have installed this mod could report whether or not they experience any lag or pause laying down rails, either RHD or LHD.
Cheers
Willy
PS: Thanks Markus for taking care of that.
Somethings not right I have some textures not showing up not sure what the problem is.
Somethings not right I have some textures not showing up not sure what the problem is.
Seems you have Rivit's Rail Upgrade Mod installed; uninstall it, since it and every other Rail texture mod confilcts with the RRW.
Somethings not right I have some textures not showing up not sure what the problem is.
Seems you have Rivit's Rail Upgrade Mod installed; uninstall it, since it and every other Rail texture mod confilcts with the RRW.
The fact that the tiles are model-based is relatively inconsequential on the user-end of things; they're certainly no 3D models but just flat planes.
... the reason why I put in the trees is that the attentive visitor might notice the trees are on the same tile as the rails, which also explains how this setup is possible without any new coding or textures. It's a long-standing public request to reduce waste of tiles.
Somethings not right I have some textures not showing up not sure what the problem is.
Seems you have Rivit's Rail Upgrade Mod installed; uninstall it, since it and every other Rail texture mod confilcts with the RRW.
Nevermind I found it and uninstalled it, however does this effect why I can't get the STR diagnol crossings to appear properly
Hello, I am having some trouble with the RRW. I have NAM 32 installed and no other mods are installed. I am seeing maxis textures or no textures at all on all my rail x road crossings. Are there any options in NAM 32 that conflict or override the RRW crossing textures?
Hello, I am having some trouble with the RRW. I have NAM 32 installed and no other mods are installed. I am seeing maxis textures or no textures at all on all my rail x road crossings. Are there any options in NAM 32 that conflict or override the RRW crossing textures?
RRW crossings are not supported at this time.
While I realize the RRW is still in progress, could you guys please make sure that the pathfiles for the switches are set correctly. I found myself unable to switch tracks at junctions in UDI with the current iteration of RRW.
Also, are more features planned for the STR? A friend of mine likes to use STR for the main railways in rural and lesser populated areas and was rather unhappy with how limited the STR is in comparison to the DTR.
Thanks.
Heya Kids :)
I'm not really sure if I should post this here or at the NAM thread but, since this is mainly a texture thing, I thought of doing it here.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi483.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr194%2FRings_of_Saturn%2FSimCity%25204%2Fth_textures.png&hash=48ae1a4aac1a9080547c9651bdc8da36) (http://s483.photobucket.com/user/Rings_of_Saturn/media/SimCity%204/textures.png.html)
I noticed that the ground rail to overhead pp (straight) was not textured yet but the same piece for diagonal was updated already. Thought it weird...
Also in the diagonal piece, a bit of the old texture is either protruding or reverting back. Could it be because of the slope and the implementation of the RRW texture?
Can anyone confirm it's not only me or that it's in your 'to-do list', Willy?
PS: Also that are some rail conflicting mods that should be included in the cleanitol, in the next iteration of the NAM. I had to 'search and destroy' two of them by hand. It'd have been a pretty laborious job if my plug-ins folder was a mess.
Willy never intended those transitions to be RRW supported as it would be impossible for a train to climb a grade anywhere near that steep. I'm guessing the diagonal textures that do appear only do so because they share a texture with the regular elevated diagonal pieces. I'd be extremely surprised if he changed his mind on the matter.
So, if those transitions aren't officially supported, which ones are? There is a distinct lack of any other ground-to-viaduct transition piece, at least in my installation. I can't believe that the RRW paradigm is for viaduct rail to exist in isolation from ground level rail. Am I missing something? ()what()
So, if those transitions aren't officially supported, which ones are?
So, if those transitions aren't officially supported, which ones are?
None of the existing ones. The RRW is in a Pre-Alpha state and is largely unfinished.
I thought to return from a short break around this period, but my trusty old machine finally succumbed to old age and left me stranded. And that's a month after I passed on my laptop to a friend %wrd
I thought to return from a short break around this period, but my trusty old machine finally succumbed to old age and left me stranded. And that's a month after I passed on my laptop to a friend %wrd
Hmmm... wonder what kind of websites this friend has been visiting.
I thought to return from a short break around this period, but my trusty old machine finally succumbed to old age and left me stranded. And that's a month after I passed on my laptop to a friend %wrd
Hmmm... wonder what kind of websites this friend has been visiting.
What's your point?
Cheers
Willy
Fantastic work! &apls
Just curious, how many T21s are required for FAR pieces, taking orientation, flipping, mirroring and all that into account? &Thk/(
Wires have come FAR3 way :D
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FFAR3Wires1_zps2d010eb1.jpg&hash=827f1e4449ac82b55e0a33637fe627f1) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/FAR3Wires1_zps2d010eb1.jpg.html)
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FFAR3Wires2_zpsc3a169b6.jpg&hash=7ddea483475592145417b7dea83ae9a1) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/FAR3Wires2_zpsc3a169b6.jpg.html)
Yep that is the orthogonal, Diagonal and Partial FARRW Straight Sections done. It was no easy task. I had to find the corresponding SC4path Files to T21 the catenaries props onto the puzzle pieces. What is more, the calculations where zorked to say the least with many attempts to correctly place the wires. The wires themselves where easy enough to make. So while the straights are almost done the next task will be to put catenaries on the WRC and FAR3 turnouts and curves which will be well... Fun
-eggman121
Willy, I know you like to surprise people but could you give us just an idea of what you're planning to do with RRW?the basic RAM and STR set has been almost completed...
I like the bridge itself, but I dont see why should the bridge have a lighter texture than the actual rail... In my opinion, the texture should follow a uniform path tranition, that way, you cant really tell when the bridge startsAgreed. If bridge and non-bridge textures are going to be the same, it should have a seamless look.
The texture probably hasn't been colour corrected yet. Perhaps it'd be better to have the surface as a flat plane - that way it's also compatible with Maxis rail.
Hi eggman,
The bridges are really nice. I won't bother you with remarks on the textures, because that is not my cup of tea.
I will bother you with construction instead. ;D
From a construction point of view the pylons are way too thin. This will especially show when the valleys become ravines and get deeper. Also in the last image I think the span of the bridge is too long. Either there should be a pylon somewhere, or the heigth of the construction should be higher. A construction of this kind usually can span about ten times its heigth. And of course you may stretch that a bit in SC4, but not too much in my opinion.
But... if you decide to ignore my remarks I will use your bridge anyway. Because I like it.
Lovely bridges eggman!whatever you're gonna do with them (change the texture,the distance between pylons,ecc.) i'll certainly use these bridges as they are really nice!excellent work
Even with color correction the textures could use some more attention but the modelling is very nice, especially on the arched bridge. &apls
Request for STR versions is hereby seconded. ;)
Keep it up! :thumbsup:
Your bridges have come a fair way in a short period of time. With the time and attention you've already devoted to the catenary models, I believe these bridges will make fine additions to the game when all is said and done. Were you able to sort out the issue with the overhead wire and the pylon piece?
-Matt
Lovely bridges!like the STR one! &apls
Anyway you were after STR... well here is the first bridge.
-eggman121
I'm loving the progress that is being made with the RRW! I'm looking forward to the next Public Iteration of RRW to implement into my cities!
I'm also loving some of the new catenaries. They have that design similar of those used in Melbourne! AWESOME WORK eggman!
Just a quick question, are there any plans to build a L1 (7.5m) Elevated Heavy Rail, or is that apart of a seperate NAM Project?
Am I really the only one who thinks the textures could use some more work....?
I mean, sure it's nice to have RRW textured bridge, but.... you need to work a bit more on a bridge before going to create a new one..
Still a good initiative. ;)
Just a quick question, are there any plans to build a L1 (7.5m) Elevated Heavy Rail, or is that apart of a seperate NAM Project?
&dance &dance ()what() WHA??? ()what() &dance &dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTSIQPxA
I've never seen this project before, are their any plans for it?
Eggman: you do realize that Willy has already released color-corrected textures for lots? Also, I think art might have meant the textures on the bridge models themselves. I agree that they could use some more detail and weathering, but if you upload what you have so far so that other NAM members and associates can look, we would be happy to help you work on these. :thumbsup:
Hey guys, I have one railway bridge model that I would like to finish and release soon. I really don't know anything about bridge modelling and I know you've gone way forward since that tutorial available here. SO my question would be, is there a possibility of me having your support in planning how to and what to do with this model so that it can finally see the light of game?
How should I divide it? Should the span be central part? I have no idea.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1115x532q90/713/prv3jpg.jpg (https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1115x532q90/713/prv3jpg.jpg)
......
Here is another STR or RRW1 bridge I have made in my limited free time this week.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FSteelBeamBridge_zps52f88f97.jpg&hash=c2ff20bd76562065e80196620b15e4b0) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/SteelBeamBridge_zps52f88f97.jpg.html)
I think I'm getting the hang of this.
-eggman121
Just a curiosity regarding your wires...are you planning to "wirifying" also RRW1?Thanks Gugu3. Yes wires will come to the STR or RRW-1. It's just a matter of when.
This bridge is nice ;)
Just be careful about the repetition of the textures
Nice bridge buddy!! :thumbsup:
But the parapet or curb must continue to the edge of the slope. ;)
Lovely progress. I feel like the light outside the tunnel is not so far anymore. ;)
Have not forgotten about wireing the Long 45 degree Long curve. More fun :D
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2F45CurveLeft_zps8c205b6e.jpg&hash=750e9fcf7d0c1199ab3586abd8026abb) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/45CurveLeft_zps8c205b6e.jpg.html)
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2F45CurveWye_zpsd279cbb7.jpg&hash=101bc52b41817de4c01e6f7215e03eca) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/45CurveWye_zpsd279cbb7.jpg.html)
Lucky I can use these models and the exemplar template to wire up the orthogonal and Diagonal Turnouts. It took all 16 unique exemplars to wire this curve apart from the middle which only takes two which is the flipped and non-flipped.
enjoy!
-eggman121
Thank you for this mod!
I like the textures.
Now I want to create a bigger freight rail yard. Can I use the base textures of the RRW to create a texture pack for lotting purposes (similar to the NCD railyard textures)?
Greetings
Fantozzi
I think that just using the minicurves to make your railyard switches will be good enough but if you want to make these into textures for lotting I would ask Willy / Swordmaster first. They are his textures after all.
QuoteI think that just using the minicurves to make your railyard switches will be good enough but if you want to make these into textures for lotting I would ask Willy / Swordmaster first. They are his textures after all.
If I remember correctly the intent was to build new lot textures as needed - so it would be left mostly up to other people if they felt the need to fill in gaps if Willy wasn't able to. I think there's a style guide kicking about somewhere.
That would be the case, to the best of my knowledge at least. Anyone creating RRW-based textures for lots would be more than welcome to do so w/o needing to ask for permission and would very much reduce Willy's headache levels whenever he gets back around on a more regular basis ;)
Simply stunning :o This has to be one of the most eagerly awaited custom content projects of this time :thumbsup:
Simply stunning :o This has to be one of the most eagerly awaited custom content projects of this time :thumbsup:
I can't wait to finish it off and present it to the Simcity4 Community ;D. But it is going to take a while. We are talking about placing hundreds or thousands of props and exemplars here for the finished product.
Here is some pictures of the switches with trains running underneath.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FTrainMiniTurnout_1_zpsa9695228.jpg&hash=fee14724f39ebba1ad6c72a8fd4202dd) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/TrainMiniTurnout_1_zpsa9695228.jpg.html)
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi245.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fgg72%2FEggman121%2FTrainMiniTurnout_2_zpse48ebf8d.jpg&hash=e7abb09ed5ded539c09e30da47ed024f) (http://s245.photobucket.com/user/Eggman121/media/TrainMiniTurnout_2_zpse48ebf8d.jpg.html)
Many thanks to Vester for his AE Skyliner Train.
-eggman121
eggman121, You are a true artist when it comes to bridges. &apls I need to get these for my cities. I wonder what one would look like with Vester's new passenger train mods on it. :thumbsup:
This is Vester's AE Skyliner Train that I'm using.
Maybe it's not as exciting as 3D stuff, but here's what I've been working on this week.
Doing something similar with Willy's original textures shouldn't be a problem.
*snip*
Maybe it's not as exciting as 3D stuff, but here's what I've been working on this week.
Doing something similar with Willy's original textures shouldn't be a problem.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft398osd.jpg&hash=a72f473f415fa9d0ddb03ece859a2bc9)
Even more ooooh's and aaaahhhhh's!
This thread is becoming very repetitive: you show us an image, we all go ooohhh and aaaahhhh!
But because we all like a moment of awe once in a while I'd say: at all means continue! ()flower()
Maybe it's not as exciting as 3D stuff, but here's what I've been working on this week.
Doing something similar with Willy's original textures shouldn't be a problem.
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Ft398osd.jpg&hash=a72f473f415fa9d0ddb03ece859a2bc9)
Apologies for my absence, dear friends. I've been dividing up my time between music and a girl ;D
Awesome progress! Any word on those bridges you were working on earlier eggman?
Apologies for my absence, dear friends. I've been dividing up my time between music and a girl ;D
3 tracks per tile
Will this be replacing the existing ncd textures? If so, awesome, we have instant RRW-compatible rail yards now!
Will this be replacing the existing ncd textures? If so, awesome, we have instant RRW-compatible rail yards now!
That's a negative. NCD made a butt load of textures that I don't want to re-create. The change in track spacing and curve radius would mess it up too. I am creating an entirely new pack of modular lots, which will support multiple RRW texture packs.
EDIT: keep going on those bridges Stephen!
Still looks too pristine though it is an improvement.
I think you've got it about right for the texture... but it needs a bit more weathering.
I just had an idea today...
[…]but making models to fit RRW minicurves, in addition to everything else, makes that a pretty big project.[…]
Personally, I wouldn't need viaduct curves, as I use viaducts (both road and rail) almost exclusively for overpasses, and my impression is that most people use them that way, too. It would be a pity if such projects fail because of advanced models (and the lack thereof) in preference to basic functionality.
I had another problem with LHD paths not showing up. This problem applied to STR as the paths are missing in "RealRailway_LHD.dat". There is an easy fix though:
Open RealRailway_Networks_STR.dat in ilives Reader and select all path files (this can be done by the filter tool). Then clone these files incrementing the first digit of the Instance by 2. Save the file and you're done.
----------
And for something completely different:
Is there an ID range I could use for this QTR project? I don't want it conflicting with any other things.
There was a patch for that too floating around somewhere.
Those catenaries, are they made automatically when you drag rail with the RRW? Or is this some downloaded version the modder is using in the pictures?
Those catenaries, are they made automatically when you drag rail with the RRW? Or is this some downloaded version the modder is using in the pictures?
The catenaries are an extra to the RRW but are still under development. There is no release package available nor is there a timeline for completion.
I'm just using pictures to keep people in the loop of current development.
Thanks for your interest in my work.
-eggman121
I gotta say, your work looks very good!
And then I get this weird result
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fthumbnails%2F7322f6e1b2811a25a7d3a5d4b6cedab8.png&hash=b6640400b19542e2124792e800a6e1ab) (http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/7322f6e1b2811a25a7d3a5d4b6cedab8.png)
So, if I understand correctly, you've created a texture override using INRULs (?) and basically created a new kind of pseudo express network with express lines in the middle and branch/local lines on the side?!?
Other than that I started creating textures for some smooth curves:
Actually, looking a page back, it's a starter based off of a "true" intersection? If so, that's unheard of; the false ones are based off of and unconventional flag configurations, but I've not heard of a starter made from a true intersection, testing or otherwise.
Also, I've never heard of a NAM newcomer tackling RUL2 right from the very beginning.
It was believed at that time that there needed to be a physical connection between the tiles in order to get the game to read a multi-tile network built from a composite of smaller networks (which actually rendered these early prototypes completely intolerant to slopes), though memo fortunately disproved it. This whole discussion can actually be seen in the old RHW development thread at ST.
It was believed at that time that there needed to be a physical connection between the tiles in order to get the game to read a multi-tile network built from a composite of smaller networks (which actually rendered these early prototypes completely intolerant to slopes), though memo fortunately disproved it. This whole discussion can actually be seen in the old RHW development thread at ST.
Really? I can't even remember that. $%Grinno$% I should browse through the old threads more often.
So, if I understand correctly, you've created a texture override using INRULs (?) and basically created a new kind of pseudo express network with express lines in the middle and branch/local lines on the side?!?
There are ways to implement these in-game, using either puzzle pieces (not recommended long-term, but worth trying) or using INRUL patterns; thing is, one method has a tutorial and the other does not. However, there'd be a problem with implementing the 45-degree curve: RealRailway disables shared-tile overlapping Dual Track Rail, and you've designed it to use a shared-tile diagonal, so you may wanna rethink that.
(I don't know yet, though, how dragging multiple adjacent shared-tile diagonals could be prevented, RUL2 with a 0,0,0,0,0,0 override I suppose?)
yup.. the shared tile.. also the intersection.. just everything lol
Also, using a T-intersection to induce an override for an override network is just too impractical; you'd be getting networks you don't want in all of the wrong places. This is why we use starters: to get the network you want in all the right places.
Very nice work Isabella :thumbsup: . I'm quite impressed that you have been able to dive into RUL2 code so quickly. The only suggestion I could make about the texture is that the rails should be at equidistant spacing at 4.5m from the centre of the track.
Since I'm making some catenaries for the RRW I would be delighted to make some poles and wires for your work once you have finalised the design.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. Keep it up, you are doing a fantastic job. $%Grinno$%
-eggman121
So you're saying that I should change the whole thing to be based on one tile?
I actually had RHW 4 in mind when thinking about that project and the transition from RHW 2 to RHW 4 also includes a lane shift (which could be smoothed out more on the railway network)
A question about the Quad Track Rail System -
If you were to put say (i don't know a default SC4 passenger train station) next to the quad tracks, would the station only be able to server on one side of the two tiles like with other systems (such as default bus stops to some NWM roads/aves?) or would the stations be able to sever both sides of the track even though to track sits on two tiles?
And a status update: Right now I'm getting a major headache creating my first puzzle piece...
As the RRW is in Alpha/Beta stage, you'll need to select it as an option under custom installation. Be sure to also select the Rail WRC and other rail stuff (but NOT any texture overrides) from further down in the menu.Thanks APSMS :thumbsup:
BTW, this question is better asked in the NAM Support thread. This is mostly a development forum, especially since the main support provider/developer Swordmaster is on hiatus.
How about lot textures and lot support? Will there be compatible railyard textures?
Supporting existing content has always been a primary concern for the developers, and full compatibility is aimed for. Maxis lot textures are included in the mod. Third-party textures are not covered; their conversion to RRW is the responsibility of their respective creators. This can be done in cooperation with the RRW developers if so desired. It is likely that there will be a compatible railyard project coming up from the mod's developers.
Not to worry folks - I'm still on this. Moreover, RRW-compatible railyards are still in the works, but TTR and QTR are a bit of a precursor to that (not to mention finishing STR and DTR).
Cheers
Willy
Very nice work Isabella :thumbsup: . I'm quite impressed that you have been able to dive into RUL2 code so quickly. The only suggestion I could make about the texture is that the rails should be at equidistant spacing at 4.5m from the centre of the track.
Since I'm making some catenaries for the RRW I would be delighted to make some poles and wires for your work once you have finalised the design.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. Keep it up, you are doing a fantastic job. $%Grinno$%
-eggman121
Thanks :) (INRUL was actually harder to understand than RUL2...)
The distance between the central rails is in fact 4.5m. There are some reasons why I'd actually like to keep the distance between the fast and slow tracks greater than 4.5m:
- It will be easier to create switch textures as existing STR textures can be reused
- There's enough space for signalling the fast tracks without automata cutting through the models
- It looks less like a waste of space at the edge of the tile $%Grinno$%
Just as an FYI, the quadruple track rail project (as well as TTR) has already been started as a part of the RealRailway mod by Willy (Swordmaster). He's been away from development for several months, and it's hard to tell what's been done already been done and whatnot.
I think I'll mostly stick to INRUL patterns as you just need textures and a few lines of code for them (and a lot of paper for drawing tiles and writing down flags, as well as a lot of gestures for all the rotations). There are of course a few exceptions like crossover switches that can't be drawn.
Does this sound weird for someone who has just started transit modding?
<snip>There's already a first release (the beta/alpha). However, may I amend thebagleboy's statement to say draggable viaducts?
Any chance of an elevated RRW at some point, maybe 7.5m?
Nice work, Isabella. I seem to be slowly marching over to the two-tile camp as well, though as Willy said, some single-tile QTR would be really nice, too.
QTR would make more sense to do as a single-tile setup because you can already do dual-tile quad-track rail by just dragging out two parallel lines of DTR.
I'd actually like to have some single tile stuff, too. However, I'd use this only for short stretches like sidings or stations with rails for overtaking. This means most of that would be better represented as lot textures and some cosmetic pieces.QTR would make more sense to do as a single-tile setup because you can already do dual-tile quad-track rail by just dragging out two parallel lines of DTR.
So why don't you just drag two adjacent stretches of RHW 2 when you want to have 4 lanes?
From what I've seen so far, there are basically two types of QTR. You can either have up-up-down-down or up-down-up-down, like RHW 4 or 2xRHW 2. For the up-down-up-down you can indeed use two parallel DTR lines (or even swap one with GHSR), but for up-up-down-down a new type of override network is required.
There is? I didn't know that.<snip>There's already a first release (the beta/alpha).
Any chance of an elevated RRW at some point, maybe 7.5m?
There is? I didn't know that.<snip>There's already a first release (the beta/alpha).
Any chance of an elevated RRW at some point, maybe 7.5m?
Thankyou ;D
Who gets it?
Will there be a way to get from one track to another on the next tile over with the Viaduct-RRW? Because I have some Viaduct-Rail stations with more than one set of tracks, and if I can't run the lines next to each other, the station is basically useless.
So you somehow managed to get the curve created by placing two ortho-diag transitions next to each other a lot smoother? Awesome!
I'm gonna throw things off, but what's a puzzle piece?
(Also testing my new tablet.) :P
Haven't been active for a while and I'm catching up now with all these amazing progresses...Willy was that a sort of FAR2 and FAR3 draggable stuff??
Haven't been active for a while and I'm catching up now with all these amazing progresses...Willy was that a sort of FAR2 and FAR3 draggable stuff??
We have a winner! Finally someone mentioning FA2 ;)
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ld-host.de%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2Fb59626753610cb447d0b3fc4ea7e22c6.jpg&hash=a7f43e5146fb15244ece3685b4db8241)
Cheers
Willy
&apls
So awesome Willy!
Will the draggable FAR work for STR as well?
The Y-Splitter doesn't have paths. In addition, while I cannot confirm this 100% having one in my city causes the game to lag when dragging or demolishing rail.
Have I won something??? :P ;D ;D ;D ;D
Awesome :thumbsup:
One mind-boggling thing I see here is the ortho-to-FA2 and ortho-to-diagonal overlap onto the same tile. Will it really be possible to drag these curves so close together? ()what()
Looks excellent &apls Is it 0.5m elevated? Seems like ground level might be optimal but that should be fine too, especially if changing requires much effort.
Awesome!! &apls &apls &apls
I hope that the final release will be included in the new NAM!! :thumbsup:
If I recall correctly, they (the NAM team) said it would be added to the NAM in two versions as the focus of the next one wasn't on the RRW stuff yet.
I'd say I agree with that though. It's best to have a good, thoughtfully tested version of a mod before making it public. I'd personally hate to see this mod rushed so that it meets the next NAM release date. (not that there is one, "It will be released when it is ready" )
snip...
If I recall correctly, they (the NAM team) said it would be added to the NAM in two versions as the focus of the next one wasn't on the RRW stuff yet.
I'd say I agree with that though. It's best to have a good, thoughtfully tested version of a mod before making it public. I'd personally hate to see this mod rushed so that it meets the next NAM release date. (not that there is one, "It will be released when it is ready" )
I would be happy to see the catenaries for RRW
When I drag and build I would like to CHOOSE the rrw WITH catenaries or WITHOUT catenaries......Is that possible?
Looks fantastic &apls The smooth ortho to ortho switch will be great to have back!
Is there any way to keep the functionality of rrw but modify the skin and texture?
For example, the rail catenary mod doesn't seem to work except on puzzle-pieces at the moment. Neither is it possible to change the underlying texture it seems.
Just to be sure... I downloaded Modular Railroad Crossing Props by jondor and try to use them with the Real Railway mod... then discovered that the real railway doesnt have compatibility with road street etc crossings? and also Modular Railroad Crossing Props by jondor CANNOT be used along Real Rail way? So, we need to build Rail apart from anything to avoid crossings?
Just to be sure... I downloaded Modular Railroad Crossing Props by jondor and try to use them with the Real Railway mod... then discovered that the real railway doesnt have compatibility with road street etc crossings? and also Modular Railroad Crossing Props by jondor CANNOT be used along Real Rail way? So, we need to build Rail apart from anything to avoid crossings?
The at grade level crossings have not been fully updated to RRW standards and thus have limited support for these crossings. The RRW uses a new dedicated base thus the T21 props are not compatible with the current RRW since the T21s are all IID based.
If you would like me to fix the problem I guess I could re-base the T21s and make it compatible with the RRW.
Although the RRW was released in NAM32 the RRW is still considered to be in its early stages. With the lead developer away there won't be much change in the near future for now.
-eggman121
If you would like me to fix the problem I guess I could re-base the T21s and make it compatible with the RRW.
Hello everyone and thank you for keeping SC4 alive :)
I seem to have a problem with the new RRW texture from Rivit not showing up in game.
I removed any and all rail texture mods I had but that did not work.
I then removed all the plugins but the NAM 32 folders and Rivit's RUM 2 and still no new texture showing, only the original Maxis.
Also none of the wide radius and FAAR pieces have the new texture, also some of the elevated pieces still show the Maxis rail texture.
Any solutions would be greatly appreciated.
Sim
Hello everyone and thank you for keeping SC4 alive :)
I seem to have a problem with the new RRW texture from Rivit not showing up in game.
I removed any and all rail texture mods I had but that did not work.
I then removed all the plugins but the NAM 32 folders and Rivit's RUM 2 and still no new texture showing, only the original Maxis.
Also none of the wide radius and FAAR pieces have the new texture, also some of the elevated pieces still show the Maxis rail texture.
Any solutions would be greatly appreciated.
Sim
You have to do a Custom Install from the NAM installer and select the RRW to be installed. It does not come in the standard package.
That looks absolutely fantastic!! Fabulous work so far, very impressive.
Do you think there will be an option for a different base colour by the time it's available for NAM 34 release?
I was under the impression the original base set came from Willy, so I've no idea how those will fit into this process. That said if we can automate creation of such a set of D0s, that opens the doors to simple custom batch replacements of the ballast for all to customise as they like, which could be a boon to RRW adoption.
Is it really just the ballast that some of you don't like about the RRW textures? It took a while for RRW to win me over but I find I really like the textures the more I use them, it wasn't an instant thing.
Sadly the additional code required for the switches has yet to be added to allow this functionality with RRW. I can't say if or when this will happen sadly, I suspect it's not the highest priorty though.
When could we expect the catenaries in RRW?
All your work on the RRW is much appreciated eggman121! NAM 33 just fell from the heavens, but seeing some of your work makes me already anticipating 34 ;D
I don't know how Karma points work, but just picture me lobbing karma grenades in your general direction :D
Does this mean draggable RRW pieces will have that low wealth grass texture?
Great work eggman121.
Well am still waiting for some viaduct ;)
Guess what this may be used for!
If that's the case, then the "piece" is a transit enabled lot. It's really more of a station - the elevated light rail passengers get off the station and then take a heavy rail train (and vice versa) - and not really a connection between the two networks.
You all are really hitting the nail on the head. I have been wanting this piece for years as the game is more and more realistic, the need is greater.
Anyways here is my latest work ;D
Guess what this may be used for!
Will the heavy rail paths remain on the Light Rail tracks? UDI isn't that big for me, per se, but part of the region I am "reinterpreting" for my MD has Light Rail trains run on heavy rail track, and I'd like to be able to present the illusion of this occurring without resorting to Photoshop/GIMP (I can use the Light Rail track for the heavy rail paths, or a Light Rail automata generator near Heavy Rail to simulate this currently due to the way the automata seems to be handled by the game)
Great work, but... what happened to the overhead wire? Has it been ditched? I remember some pics I had seen in the past, and I really liked them.
Just for clarity, my intention was merely to state that such a model exists and could be made into a prop to create such a lot/transit switch.
I wouldn't really be interested in making such a thing personally, I consider the two networks very separate entities. If you want to elevate your rail why switch to light-rail to do it, wouldn't it simply be easier to use the NAM Rail Viaducts which were designed for this purpose?
Yes, NAM Rail Viaducts are GREAT,&apls, HOWEVER,&idea, one cannot make a neighbor connection with the viaducts unless&idea someone could post a tutorial:bnn: to such a thing then the transition piece would be a thing of the past
I am wondering if L1 RRW will be draggable. I have seen a picture of L1 RRW early in the thread, but it is a piece and not draggable.
Don't get too ahead of yourself. Rail mixing is not supposed to be even a feature, but it's an unwanted side effect of making Light Rail UDIable...
Edit, I downloaded the textures but the zip file has no content inside of it.
Will this be included in the NAM 33?
Damn you Belfastsocrates, ever since you mentioned the bloody sleepers being wood I've come round to the idea that indeed concrete sleepers would make more sense in urban environments :P.
Looks nice! If I understand correctly you made two Definition Alpha for the sleepers and ballast by hand? I'm wondering if that too could be automated. Maybe I could run the original RRW textures through some highpass / edge detection filters. . &Thk/(
edit: just tried quickly and the issue is the ballast is too noisy to properly isolate the sleepers, i.e. still would need cleaning up by hand. Best I could do for now:
In essence what I had to do was 1st take the normal alpha channel. Then I removed the rails (straight is easy, 3px wide) and created a second alpha. Then I removed the sleepers and created a third alpha channel. These three channels can then be combined to make the Definition alphas required for the automation to work thusly:
...
Just to show you some possibilities, I've knocked up an animated GIF:
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi991.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf39%2FMGB204%2FRRW-Original_zpsksda3lmv.gif%7Eoriginal&hash=5d571236a90df3e9eed1f7dcfc45ed57)
It would be ideal a starter, as the SAM, for different texture! ;)
Yep, it's certainly nice to have all the templates right there. Easy enough to plug in some color scripts and you can get all the colors of the rainbow.
However, as many NAMites have found out over the years with RHW textures, simple re-color mods leave much to be desired when it comes to balance and detail. Many attempts to create concrete highway textures through a script have been trashed because...it just doesn't look as good.
Different materials have different textures to them. That's why wood or pavement doesn't convert to concrete very well. I could never get satisfactory results in my experiments just by recoloring Willy's textures. Each textural set needs its own shadows and details.
With the right balance of shading and textural noise, you get that 3D effect.
So many things are still missing with the current RRW textures but it s only my opinion ::)
Feel free to comment ;)
Is that the standard Maxis Large Rail Station (forget the exact name)?
The main station you used is using a custom texture pack not yet supported by the RRW. You can manually edit all the textures.. Or wait a bit since work is in progress. ;)
The flextrack just keeps getting better! Who needs a model railroad when we have SC4?
Thanks for all the enthusiasm and excitement about the new workings ;D
Here is a video That I made which showcases the FlexTrack in a City Environment. This is to make up for the inaction on my part for the OSITM this year.
https://www.youtube.com/v/XcCTIddGNW4
Thanks for all the kind words :)
-eggman121
Thanks for all the enthusiasm and excitement about the new workings ;D
Here is a video That I made which showcases the FlexTrack in a City Environment. This is to make up for the inaction on my part for the OSITM this year.
[snip]
Thanks for all the kind words :)
-eggman121
Oh my goobers. I feel an old addiction of mine rearing its head &apls &apls &apls
Will need to check this thread in detail!! Thank you Stephen.
Cheers
Willy
Wow, good to see you back, Willy!
3 and 4 track dragable? Has this been done? Or has the ability to place diagonal tracks immediately next to each other been solved?
That's Right ;D . Realistic Railroads for SC4 is fantastic on many levels since it saves space and your pocket. I mean. Who really has space for a large scale HO railroad and who has the money to make the tracks that are replicate able in SC4.
Willy are you back on RRW and Sim City? :)
Brilliant! TULEP/RRW crossings are something I have not seen before.
Brilliant! TULEP/RRW crossings are something I have not seen before.
Looks nice, but on some of the avenue RR crossing TuLEPs, stop lines are missing in the direction heading away from the intersection. Might be nice to add those.
From what I know, stop lights can be integrated with the crossing signals. So if the crossing is closed, the light will remain red, meaning there's no cars cueing up there.
- The crossing signals created by Jondor were at least initially incompatible (at least not consistently compatible across the board) because of some of the internal coding related to how they were initially created versus the internal coding associated with the RRW project?
While Willy is at work with the crossings I have ventured into a FARR away land :DFARR out man!
<snip>
Still a bit loose with the RUL2 code but we are getting there. There is more coming to FARR land ;D
-eggman121
STR users everywhere are jumping up and down right now ;D
For me FlexTrack really started me off with this network, the usefulness of draggable overrides direct from DTR cannot be understated, not to mention how stable it makes STR in practice. Maybe needs some improvement in terms of intersecting with other networks though.
The RRW development looks amazing! Thanks for all your hard work. I was wondering, is there's any way to get the RRW to cooperate with the Diagonal Bridge Enabler?
Is there a reason why RRW doesn't currently work with the DBE?
Is it the model based network, or is there some hidden slope coding preventing it from working?
Is there a reason why RRW doesn't currently work with the DBE?
Is it the model based network, or is there some hidden slope coding preventing it from working?
None of those. It is actually because the RRW uses a different IID base. So the DBE is referencing the Maxis Rail Base while the RRW Diagonal Base is different. We should put it on the list of things to fix up for NAM 35.
-eggman121
That is great Willy! &apls
Just curiosity other than a request...Any news on the ERRW front?What's the plan for it?
Sorry for asking but this project is just amazing and makes me think of all the different possibilities... ::)
A little T21 magic, perhaps?
Viaducts, anyone?
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8PVAsYg.jpg&hash=e54598d37d4385466c2483904932fda4)
Very cool, I suspect I'll be using a lot more rail viaducts in the near future.
Are these new ones going to remain compatible with existing texture overrides, such as those in RUM for RRW/NAM? I hope so, but either way with Willy and Stephen both at full steam on RRW, we are being very spoiled by the amount of new developments recently. Thanks for all the hard work :thumbsup:.
Are these new ones going to remain compatible with existing texture overrides, such as those in RUM for RRW/NAM?
All of NCD and I belive some oh PEG's legacy tracks will be color matched to the RRW standard.
Eggman121 is overseeing the transition.
I could easily make the transition points between the legacy textures and RRW standards but then every lot ever made with those textures would have to be put through LE and re-uploaded.
Getting draggable viaducts is another feature that was long overdue, and thus the latest development is very exciting alright! I take the viaduct ramp will be kept as "legacy" item, but it won't be included in the draggable RRW approach due to the nature of realistic railways? Granted, main lines usually don't have slopes larger than 2-4%, with the occasional 8% in some mountainous regions; that actually means a realistic transition could be about 10-12 tiles long, but obviously, that's still a bit impractical. For the sake of usuability in the game, I'd say the existing ramp isn't that bad, though. ;)
Awesome :bnn: :bnn:
Lol at the Minions reference!
Will catch that Willy - I had put that colour on a long time back to mark how much was actually used in the UV mapping on the originals for some experiments I tried. I've already done the pieces you mentioned earlier for the diagonal bridges and I'll track back for this (sorry) - as you say not difficult.
BTW have you settled the configurations and IIDs of the SAM crossings you will include. An example set or picture list for say SAM2 would be extremely useful as I've 5 SAMS of my own to adjust. Also if there are any new ones for normal streets. Do you need any production texture work for the official ones?
Given the progress you've made recently, in the new RUM for RRW I will be removing content that concerns all crossings not of my texture sets, all previous pathing fixes and texture fixes. That leaves my under textures, crossings, viaduct textures, bridge textures, FLUPS and interim Catenary T21s. Does that gel with your expectations of NAM35 content?
I also have defined 4 new bridges that need to be included in various RUL and INI files so cannot include those in my mod...
cheers Ron
Noahclem already started the WMP textures. In fact the few done were uploaded as an additional, optional file in mu Japanese Train Station pack on the LEX. I'd advise to talk to him about it and about taking over the development of them etc.
If ERRW has such ability for neighbor connections, then the connector piece is not necessary.I think it already has, actually. Already now, straight viaduct puzzle pieces can be placed on top of straight ground heavy rail neighbour connections. For diagonals, I think this can be achieved by using the RHW disconnector tool.
Getting draggable viaducts is another feature that was long overdue, and thus the latest development is very exciting alright! I take the viaduct ramp will be kept as "legacy" item, but it won't be included in the draggable RRW approach due to the nature of realistic railways? Granted, main lines usually don't have slopes larger than 2-4%, with the occasional 8% in some mountainous regions; that actually means a realistic transition could be about 10-12 tiles long, but obviously, that's still a bit impractical. For the sake of usuability in the game, I'd say the existing ramp isn't that bad, though. ;)
Hi Andreas, thanks for the endorsement!
We can talk about the gradients for ever, though. I don't think we should bother with what we're doing--any of us--if we're gonna keep placing the viaduct ramp. It may seem innocent to the untrained eye, but it's easily the most unrealistic thing that has ever been made for this game. Probably beats Maxis Highway with a factor of 872. All the RHW interchanges, wide curves, diagonal bridges, terrain mods, fantastic BATs and custom lots in the world can't save a city or picture that has this piece in it.
Will the new draggable viaducts, maybe, in the future, be overridable for STR? That would be just even more great! ;D
... and who speaks about minions, it's a Baloo reference of course! :P[/size]
It would be nice to at least retain the original viaduct ramp for compatibility. Perhaps remove it from all the puzzle piece tab rings, but don't remove the actual piece, so that it will keep working in existing cities?
STR viaducts require a completely new set of models, which is undoubtedly no problem for Arne, but I also have to find time to implement them and write the code for it.
STR viaducts require a completely new set of models, which is undoubtedly no problem for Arne, but I also have to find time to implement them and write the code for it.
https://www.youtube.com/v/iTSIQPxAzfY
I'll have a look around on my PC and see if I still have the files.
That would be amazing!jdenm8 are you back on track too??
Lets play a game. Who would like to guess what new angles are in this curve ;D
However, major point: there will be no height transitions.
I will be clear on this:
(https://sc4devotion.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEkkm7zV.jpg&hash=ee047042f60b32222df90d4193f931c4)
I do worry, whilst a focus on realism is something many crave, the more casual user might be put off RRW by such inflexibility. I agree using them generally ruins a scene and that on-slopes are a better solution. But, many players aren't interested in making everything realistic, they are just playing a game. As such, they just want an easy way to make crossing with other networks. I guarantee if you don't include them, TE versions will inevitably pop up to fill the void. If the models already exist, wouldn't it be better to keep the whole system network based too?
...That's assuming there'd be any interest in it.
Now, I've rewritten Part 1 of the STR crosslinks code; all orthogonal adjacencies should now be in good shape. Next up are the diagonals.
Meanwhile I've taken the chance to add the DxO SAM crossings. This code should form a good basis for the ERRW SAM overpasses.
Also some additions to the SAM stability while I was at it.
I'm not entirely sure how to implement it in the NAM, if at all.
So who did the original model of the bridge ?
Looks like one of the original DBE bridges to me, just with reworked tracks?
The issue I'm still contemplating is how to get the L1 models. I can easily use the L2 models and squash them in half--after which it only requires a texture stretched in height, if that makes sense to you. It's not ideal, but it's acceptable for the time being.
Yeah, L1 viaducts of course. What did you think? Not in the current NAM of course; probably not even in the following NAM. But definitely in the dev stage. . . I need to add hundreds (100s) of models, exemplars, paths for it to be in the game. Only for then to add the overrides of course, which counts up to a good many hour of work. But eventually, you'll get them. We might even add a ramp Waaaah, good jokes willy!! :laugh:
Call it a can opener-bridge if you want but the clearance of those viaducts is still 6.5 meters or over 20 feet--plenty of room for the average overpass. As far off as they are, good to see more of them Willy.Can't wait for that ramp!
Call it a can opener-bridge if you want but the clearance of those viaducts is still 6.5 meters or over 20 feet--plenty of room for the average overpass. As far off as they are, good to see more of them Willy.Can't wait for that ramp!
True, but those 3m tall sims probably dive extra tall trucks :P
My good god that is looking excellent! Now, this question has nothing to do with that, but I was wondering.. based on the parallel rail lines, will we ever see a 4 track without the spacing in between? kind of a rail avenue I would say.. will we?
Willy this is seriously getting incredible!Who would have thought we could get so far???
Thanks!
Still mulling a prettier solution for the TLA-7.
fantastic! Your fingers must be melting the keyboard typing all that code :D
Will you be able to 'recycle' some of this work to create the L1 overpasses, or does that require starting again from scratch?
(says the completely clueless dude when it comes to transit modding) %confuso
WOW, absolutely WOW ;D If this is possible that could it be possible to make a neighbor connection like with Maxis Elevated Rails. I know there is work around, but to me it is just not the same as a traditional connection. Finally, what about a connection piece from Rail Viaduct to Maxis Elevated Rail?
This is really cool. Hope it'll be compatible with the different overpass mods. :)
If you mean anything else, I'm afraid. . .