NWM (Network Widening Mod) - Development and Support

[superjugy]

Just as a follow up. I tried several combinations after some thought. I no longer used TLA5 for the interchange since you would not use the center lane anyway. instead I used the NRD4 to keep the extra capacity without the center lane. The combinations I tried where:

• RHW2 -> NRD4
• RHW2 -> OWR -> NRD4
• MIS -> NRD4

Here some screenshoots:

RHW2 -> NRD4



I am not sure if there will be issues with this one since you can see the cars in NRD4 trying to turn left when its a right only turn.

RHW2 -> OWR -> NRD4



This was a complete failure. not only the paths are wrong and the OWR its trying to U-Turn, it breaks the NRD4 beneath the RHW and transforms back into regular road.

MIS -> NRD4



This looks to be the only one working both in looks and paths. I prefer the looks of the RHW2 -> NRD4 but if the path is going to give me issues, I guess I'll have to stick with the MIS. One thing though. do I lose capacity when using the MIS? according to the manual, it should have the same capacity as a RHW2, but I am not sure. This is the extract from the manual:



If anyone can confirm both the asumptions, so that I know which one to keep, that would be great.

[Tarkus]

You won't be losing actual capacity by using MIS here.  The MIS and RHW-4 have the same per-tile capacity (the MIS listing is for a single-tile width, whereas the RHW-4 is for a dual-tile width).

Hmm... Maybe this setup needs some unique FTLs...

The proposed QuickChange Xpress (QCX) setup I showed awhile back features exactly that.



-Alex

[Wiimeiser]

I completely forgot about that piece... Yeah, that's gonna be a really useful piece, especially for a Melbourne-style city.

[superjugy]

You won't be losing actual capacity by using MIS here.  The MIS and RHW-4 have the same per-tile capacity (the MIS listing is for a single-tile width, whereas the RHW-4 is for a dual-tile width).

Hmm... Maybe this setup needs some unique FTLs...

The proposed QuickChange Xpress (QCX) setup I showed awhile back features exactly that.



-Alex

That is one sexy interchange. is there a similar one for TLA5 instead of AVE6?

If you don't lose capacity then the MIS is the best approach unless there is a sexy interchange for TLA5 like the one you posted.

If only you could have an A1 ramp in L1 RHW6 so you don't lose capacity in the main highway...

[Tarkus]

That is one sexy interchange. is there a similar one for TLA5 instead of AVE6?

. . .

If only you could have an A1 ramp in L1 RHW6 so you don't lose capacity in the main highway...

There are a couple other variants I've been playing around with for narrower networks.  An Avenue/TLA-5 version is among them.  As far as the L1 RHW-6S, the reason it doesn't have a Type A1 ramp (and isn't planned to receive one) is because of the overhang on the L1 RHW-6S actually collides with the MIS, producing a rather visually displeasing result.

-Alex

[superjugy]

Yeah, I saw the in-game comment about the overhang. It's a shame though. What about TLA3?

[Tarkus]

Here's the other two designs:





As of right now, those are the only way these are set up . . . they're FLEX-based pre-fab interchanges . . . but eventually, there will be some additional override code added to the ramp turn lanes to allow their use elsewhere.

They had been planned for NAM 37 originally, but there's been some really weird quirks in my testing that I haven't gotten to the bottom of as of yet, so right now, they're off the list, as much as I'd like them to be on there.

-Alex

-Alex

[superjugy]

Here's the other two designs:

OMG those are really sexy!!!

I see that the MIS converts to 2 lanes before the intersection. Does that mean that if you are using RHW as the ramp instead of MIS (for example using a A2 ramp on a RHW6S) you will see a similar interchange?

And is the bottom one an ARD5, NRD6 or a TLA7? can't figure it out.

[superjugy]

Another experiment I did:

RHW2 with AVE4 from a TLA5. I believe I also tried the MIS and it worked fine too, but I forgot to take screenshots. but since the RHW2 also works and looks better. I stayed with that one.

[Wiimeiser]

They had been planned for NAM 37 originally, but there's been some really weird quirks in my testing that I haven't gotten to the bottom of as of yet, so right now, they're off the list, as much as I'd like them to be on there.

Oh, really? That's a shame. What seems to be the problem with them?

[APSMS]

I keep getting confused by your terminology @superjugy, but just to be clear, when you say RHW2 are you sure you aren't mistaking it for the RHW-4 network? Network widths are determined by total lane count, not the number of lanes in a specific direction?

[superjugy]

I keep getting confused by your terminology @superjugy, but just to be clear, when you say RHW2 are you sure you aren't mistaking it for the RHW-4 network? Network widths are determined by total lane count, not the number of lanes in a specific direction?

You are absolutely right, its RHW4, but just one half. My bad.

[mgb204]

RHW2 with AVE4 from a TLA5. I believe I also tried the MIS and it worked fine too, but I forgot to take screenshots. but since the RHW2 also works and looks better. I stayed with that one.

Bear in mind that Road, OWR & Avenue networks are "Core" or Base networks in SC4, whereas NWM / TuLEPs are override networks. The upshot of which is that the latter will always be less stable and requires much additional code to even work. So yes, for maximum odds in any given situation, use Road or Avenue to cross/intersect with RHW, it will pretty much always work.

Tip2: The problems here are mostly due to something called adjacency code, the way SC4 RUL code works, it looks at pieces next to each other. However, when lots of networks intersect without any gaps, those adjacencies must "chain" together, meaning lots of code is required to keep overrides in place/stable. The chain can be broken, by giving a single tile of space where an override network can remain stable. This means even with less adjacency code, more configurations will remain stable, without literally millions of extra lines of code. I.e., bring the On/Off ramps one tile further away from the main RHW, leaving a one-tile gap between them, suddenly many more configurations work.

Speaking of those millions of lines of code... Tarkus did mention we've a special NAM controller we're testing, it takes the total lines of RUL from about 1.5 to 4 million. Using it allows for some seriously amazing setups, like the 3-level stacks I showed here, but asking SC4 to load 4 million lines of code takes its toll. It works for me on some modern Core i systems, but takes my Core2Duo systems out, literally the game won't load. This is the problem, technically we can add all the code to make everything work, but there are more practical limitations at some point. Not to mention, code doesn't write itself and there's only a few coders left to write anything.

They had been planned for NAM 37 originally, but there's been some really weird quirks in my testing that I haven't gotten to the bottom of as of yet, so right now, they're off the list, as much as I'd like them to be on there.

Oh, really? That's a shame. What seems to be the problem with them?

There are some issues with these advanced quick-change/FTL setups which still need to be ironed out, but it's not usual for us to disclose such technical issues in full for in-progress works.

[Mochigai]

Hi there! New forum user, but long time SC4 player. One thing I've noticed through using this mod is that some 'T' intersections are not able to be built with some of the NWM networks, an example of which I've included in a hyperlink (I couldn't figure out how to resize an image in a forum post). The "draw paths" command also appears to show some abrupt disconnections of paths in the NWM intersections. I wonder if this is an oversight, or simply left as is while other projects are being worked on? The main thing I want to know is why the RD6/RD4 'T' interchange does not want to be built?

https://imgur.com/xp0iyqN

Apologies if I misidentified the networks pictured.

[Tarkus]

Welcome to SC4D, Mochigai!  You have indeed identified the networks correctly, and to answer your question about the image embedding with resizing (since this is probably useful information for many users here), the "width=" and "height=" modifiers can be added inside the initial "img" tag to control the size--the width one is probably the most useful, and this one would be what would get you the resized version of your image to a 1024px width:

Code Select Expand

[img width=1024]https://i.imgur.com/xp0iyqN.png[/img]

Now, onto the NWM question, it does indeed appear there's some funny stuff happening with the RD-4 and RD-6 intersections, and I also do not appear to be able to build that T-intersection, though the particular failure state I'm encountering is different.  It did work at one time, and I'm not sure what all changed--particularly as there have been very few NWM-related changes recently--though my best guess is that it may somehow entail some of the work done to combat the interference with the Road Roundabouts plugin. 

I'll take a closer look into that issue, and see what I can find.  Since the solution will require RUL code modification, it would normally not be something that could be fixed until the next NAM release--unless, of course, you're up for a manual controller compile.

-Alex

[veikanttu]

Trying to build a city with no traffic lights and this construct seems to be missing paths? Otherwise it looks
good...

https://ibb.co/SRKYDc9
https://ibb.co/yFdFMZW

[Tarkus]

Moved this over to the NWM thread, since the intersection here is between two NWM networks and doesn't involve the RHW.  I was able to verify the issue existed here on my end, though due to the complications presented by the One-Way Road network's hardcoded "tidal flow" direction system, and some inadequacies in the base path, it's not going to be a particularly quick path fix.  In the meanwhile, if you drag the OWR-3 all the way through the OWR-5 to create the "Long T", the paths are at least somewhat functional at the moment (though only one lane on the OWR-3 will carry traffic).  I would consider trying that in the interim. 

The whole matter of T-intersections involving One-Way Road-type networks (Maxis or NWM) ending at the OWR-4 or OWR-5 is a bit suboptimal with how the NWM is presently designed, in any case.  The ones where the OWR-3 is flowing into the OWR-5 really ought to be signalized, though that can't be done with the base draggable network (OWRs don't support stop points natively), and will require a SITAP solution.

-Alex

[deanva]

Tarkus, I have the latest NAM downloaded, but the NWM Curve pieces, Transitions, Starter Pieces and the Triple Tile TULep's  will not work in game. All I get is the red arrow. Am I missing something?

[Tarkus]

If clicking on an icon gets you the dreaded red arrow, that's a sign that while you have the icon installed, the RUL0 code that is designed to make the content under that icon work is either (a) not present in your Controller file, or (b) is being blocked by an old Controller file that is loading after your NAM Controller (only one copy of RUL0 can be loaded by the game--whatever one comes latest in the load order).  Based on some of the recent issues I've seen, I'd lean toward option (a). 

First, I'd recommend running the Controller Compiler manually--it's in the My Documents\SimCity 4\NAM Auxiliary Files\Tools\Controller Compiler folder by default--and try the icons again in-game after doing so.  If you're still getting the red arrow, dive further into the Controller Compiler's folder--down to My Documents\SimCity 4\NAM Auxiliary Files\Tools\Controller Compiler\Network Addon Mod\Controller\RUL0\7000_Road\7A00_NWM.  This is the folder that is supposed to contain the RUL0 code for the NWM Starters, Transitions, and Curves.  The code for the old TuLEPs is in My Documents\SimCity 4\NAM Auxiliary Files\Tools\Controller Compiler\Network Addon Mod\Controller\RUL0\0000_TuLEPs_CanAM (specifically, a file called "0600_NWMTuLEPs.txt").

If those folders don't exist, or are empty/missing key files, then I would recommend re-installing the NAM at that point.  If they are there, however, that would suggest there's either something up with the Controller Compiler's settings (check to make sure the "Network Widening Mod" box is indeed checked), or that there's an older (pre-NAM 28) copy of the RUL0 file (possibly an old NAM Controller, or an ancient pre-NAM file that modified RUL0).  The NAM is supposed to seek-and-destroy such files (routines in the installer script and the built-in Cleanitol), but if the file was introduced post-NAM install, or the seek-and-destroy routine failed (which is possible), it would still be there.

The easiest way to locate a conflicting RUL0 file would be to load up ilive's Reader, open the NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat file in Plugins\Network Addon Mod (actually, any file will work), go to Tools > Plugins Analyzer on the menu, find "NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat" on the list, and look at the results in the right pane of the window.  If the RUL file with the IID 0x10000000 (this is the RUL0 file) shows up in some shade of blue/teal/cyan, this indicates there is a conflict somewhere, and it will list all places where RUL file 0x10000000 exists in your Plugins folder.  You can then easily find and remove the conflict. 

ebina's thread here (sadly missing its images) describes this process in more detail.

Hope that helps!

-Alex

[deanva]

Tarkus, what I did was uninstalled the NAM completely and reinstalled a new copy everything seems to work plus a couple new icons that were not in my road menu. Might have downloaded the NAM more than once without uninstalling the old copies. Thanks for your reply everything I did check and was still getting the dreaded red arrow. That's when I uninstalled the NAM.