NAM OSITM November 2016

[Tarkus]

First off, thanks to everyone for the kind words on the L1 Type 120 FlexSPUI.  Construction continues . . .





Now to answer a few questions:

Something like this, but not exactly. What I wish that is this kind of intersection, but not as a SPUI or half SPUI. An AVE-RHW 4-6/MIS intersection with these turning lane solutions (marking/islands etc). We have similiar ones among the FAR RHW Intersection Puzzle Pieces. (see the attached picture. I would like something like that, but not FAR. Among the FAR PPs this is the only one which is a full intersection and don't need an other half, I could use more from these let's call "closed"/half intersections anyway, for the other FAR PPs as well - I mean for the three lane ramp and for the MIS pieces, even if I know the NAM Team is not interested in Puzzle Pieces anymore).

The FLEX Turn Lanes (FTL) system is planned to be extended to cover RHW on/offramp solutions with varying numbers of lanes.  It sounds like what you're describing lines up to at least some degree with what we plan to do there.  This is what an early proof-of-concept of that system, linked up as part of a QuickChange Xpress prototype looks like:



Adding slip lane support for that would get you the island setups.

Would it be possible to make the ends on slope tolerant ? This would be a nice feature for sunken highways.

Are you thinking of the end tiles being OnSlopes?  Presently, this is as close as one can get (FTL overrides on the OnSlope are still needed to fully hook this up properly).

The L1 version, as it currently exists, is built by hooking an L1 RHW into the on/offramp ends on the ground/L0 version, so it would require a slightly different tactic to implement.

There are many additions to NAM would lead to chaos and collapse of the system. Many crossing highways do not give anything new to SC4. A lot of people want from NAM different ideas. Very often it's just a simple desire. I think that the strong reaction to these wishes must be real.
Can be to think about the order in NAM and logical construction icons in menu.

Example - someone saw some road junctions around him house and want it in NAM, Fine, but it will make NAM program with endless options.
NAM - for All.
NAM - should be a handy tool.

One of the biggest challenges we face as NAM developers is the pressure of being tasked to add new content and improving the ease-of-use of the mod.  Users want both, despite the fact that they appear to be conflicting ideals.  All of this FLEX stuff we have been doing is intended to reach that goal, as it allows us to reduce menu space, while actually adding more functionality than existed with the previous puzzle piece regime.  With things like the RHW, it's even allowing us to produce a simpler way of engaging with that infamously complex system, in the form in the QuickChange Xpress system.

I don't really see an issue with "endless options"--new transit content keeps the game moving forward.  There's still plenty of seemingly "basic" situations (namely with diagonals) that we haven't covered.  The NAM has always included a variety of different options as well, such that if a user isn't interested in having the RHW or FlexSPUI, they can simply choose not to install it, and have a more basic installation of the mod. 

-Alex

[Gugu3]

Some great stuff Alex! Keep it coming

[Silur]

One of the biggest challenges we face as NAM developers is the pressure of being tasked to add new content and improving the ease-of-use of the mod.  Users want both, despite the fact that they appear to be conflicting ideals.  All of this FLEX stuff we have been doing is intended to reach that goal, as it allows us to reduce menu space, while actually adding more functionality than existed with the previous puzzle piece regime.  With things like the RHW, it's even allowing us to produce a simpler way of engaging with that infamously complex system, in the form in the QuickChange Xpress system.

I don't really see an issue with "endless options"--new transit content keeps the game moving forward.  There's still plenty of seemingly "basic" situations (namely with diagonals) that we haven't covered.  The NAM has always included a variety of different options as well, such that if a user isn't interested in having the RHW or FlexSPUI, they can simply choose not to install it, and have a more basic installation of the mod. 

-Alex

I agree with every word.
NAM is a Brilliant Tool. Thank You. Good luck for all Authors.

Maybe this is the wrong place for my comments.

[dyoungyn]

As always we are all very thankful for all the great stuff the entire NAM creates.  Keep em coming as any new content is a blessing.   Without the entire NAM team imaginative creations, NAM would not be what it is today for that a warm and HUGE thank you

[Kitsune]

Would it be possible to make the ends on slope tolerant ? This would be a nice feature for sunken highways.

Are you thinking of the end tiles being OnSlopes?  Presently, this is as close as one can get (FTL overrides on the OnSlope are still needed to fully hook this up properly).

The L1 version, as it currently exists, is built by hooking an L1 RHW into the on/offramp ends on the ground/L0 version, so it would require a slightly different tactic to implement.

-Alex

Hi, what i meant is the slip lane portion being part of the on slope. And that last picture is fantastic and a much needed feature.

[Tarkus]

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words and likes on the L1 work.  Now to a question:

Hi, what i meant is the slip lane portion being part of the on slope.

Thanks for the clarification--I'm starting to picture what would be required for the implementation now.  It appears to be doable as best I can tell, and while there's no guarantees that functionality will be available out of the gate, I do plan to look into it further.

Now, for a little more SPUI action . . . meeting some future FTL action . . .



I don't know that this one (a Type 230) will make it into the next release, though I'm tempted to put it at a higher priority than the previous Type 130 that was showcased for the AVE-6/TLA-7 (or even shelve the Type 130), as this is a much more common setup.

-Alex

[Seaman]

It surely looks even more spectacular than the 130. Quite massive! I'm curious how it will blend in the cities when it's complete with overpasses... 

[compdude787]

Ohh...now we're talking!!! That looks awesome!!

[dyoungyn]

Wow and looks totally amazing.  I hope and pray you would be so kind to include this in the next NAM release or even much better, earlier. 

You do amazing work and I just cannot  wait to start using this as I have always been fond of SPUIs.

Sorry, one more thing.  I see that in your AVE6/7 with double turning lanes into double ramps, are the paths reflected as such?

I love the feasibility with double  turning lanes, but I am discovering that when intersecting with AVE6/7 right now, there are no paths for AVE4/6 intersection.

Oh boy, I now see double turning lanes for AVE6/7, AMAZING

[threestooges]

Really ia amazing how far this mod has come from the beginning, isn't it? Y'all keep surpassing yourselves.
-Matt

[APSMS]

Hey Matt,

Glad to see you stop by. The wizards in the NAM Team are pretty amazing these days.

Don't be a stranger.
-Absalom