NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[rsc204 21,808]

7 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

as if you look at the great inventors like Edison, Fischer or Jobs

If you mean Steve Jobs, he never invented anything. His minions did all that, he was nothing more than a good salesman. Successful, sure, but a role model he is not, unless making money is your only judge of character.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

36 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

If you mean Steve Jobs, he never invented anything. His minions did all that, he was nothing more than a good salesman. Successful, sure, but a role model he is not, unless making money is your only judge of character.

The new york times listed all 313 patents that are registered under his name. But you have to look back, when he invented the NeXT-Workstation which was bought by the CERN and then used by Berners-Lee to invent HTML. How Jobs inventions influenced many other important inventions. He really had a big influence on our world - and that's not because of the i-phone. All that happened in his younger days. And also Arthur Fischer had a lot of engineers working for him.

[rsc204 21,808]

A quick look through those patents shows exactly my point. Steve didn't invent a computer case, he just patented it. Much like Apple patented a rectangle, it doesn't mean he was the genius who thought it up. They might be in his name, but the reality is that he was not an inventor and did very little technical work. That's the myth that he somehow made these things work. Sure he oversaw the process, but he was obsessed with form over function, something which surely made money, but didn't revolutionise the world.

Pretty much all the design ideas from the original iMac through to the iPod, iPad and iPhone were the work of Jonny Ive for example. The Patents may be in Steve's name, but he did not even come up with the designs. The original Mac hardware was all designed and conceived by Steve Wozniac, who got little credit and even less financial reward.

Quote

Re: NeXT computer:

Just as with the Macintosh, Jobs devoted most of his attention to the user interface and physical design of the case, probably because he wasn’t a trained engineer.

Source

Anyway, I agree we're getting way off topic here debating this.

[fredrik001 9]

Moving the discussion back a little bit to barriers. I cant remember ever having seen a real life RHW 8 or 10 without inside barriers. Wouldn't it be possible to have concrete barriers be standard on 8 and 10, while 4 an 6 are left without?

Also, How about some HOV lane markings for the RHW-S? 

One last thing,. Would it be possible to make cosmetic pieces for shoulder merging lanes on the 10, so that you don't have to make it 8 thru lanes to have acceleration/weave lanes?

[rsc204 21,808]

5 minutes ago, fredrik001 said:

Wouldn't it be possible to have concrete barriers be standard on 8 and 10, while 4 an 6 are left without?

Anything is possible. The barriers used for the C networks are part of the model, it's not the hardest piece in the world to add. Where it becomes tricky is that there are a lot of pieces to cover, that means a lot of models or a lot of T21s. Since it's a minor cosmetic thing, it's not really a priority, unless someone wanted it enough to make it happen.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Coincidentally, I happen to live in a state that has quite a few 8-lane stretches where the two carriageways are separated by distance and a cable barrier, rather than a standard concrete jersey barrier.  Part of the reason we didn't do it with the 8S and 10S was because they were separable networks.  Additionally, for quite some time, we didn't have diagonal barrier models (our modeling issues have had a pretty substantial impact on what has and hasn't been developed).

That said, it seems there would be fewer complaints from having barriers than not having them, and since there are now elevated models for the 8S and 10S, it should be possible to simply drop those down to ground-level, add the necessary exemplar and copy the paths to the model-based GID.  I'm going to give it a look.

As far as the HOV side of things, cosmetic piece development has been completely shut down since MandelSoft retired, so I'd say it's unlikely to happen for awhile.

-Tarkus

 

Edit: Here's what dropping the L1 8S models down looks like:

[APSMS 1,892]

While cool, I would definitely want this to remain optional. On my S networks I prefer Steel and Wood barriers instead.

And, maybe finding the T21s for the curves to update Catalyst's RHW T21 mod to include the curves and transitions and such (which honestly is something I would love to learn and simultaneously lack the time for).

[fredrik001 9]

53 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

Coincidentally, I happen to live in a state that has quite a few 8-lane stretches where the two carriageways are separated by distance and a cable barrier, rather than a standard concrete jersey barrier.  Part of the reason we didn't do it with the 8S and 10S was because they were separable networks.  Additionally, for quite some time, we didn't have diagonal barrier models (our modeling issues have had a pretty substantial impact on what has and hasn't been developed).

That said, it seems there would be fewer complaints from having barriers than not having them, and since there are now elevated models for the 8S and 10S, it should be possible to simply drop those down to ground-level, add the necessary exemplar and copy the paths to the model-based GID.  I'm going to give it a look.

As far as the HOV side of things, cosmetic piece development has been completely shut down since MandelSoft retired, so I'd say it's unlikely to happen for awhile.

-Tarkus

 

Edit: Here's what dropping the L1 8S models down looks like:

I think that looks great! Maybe it could be added as an option in the NAM installation?  

[Lost Realist 762]

1 hour ago, fredrik001 said:

I think that looks great! Maybe it could be added as an option in the NAM installation?  

 

I do second that notion.

[Handyman 765]

Since I no longer use streets in my cities I would like to see more choices for Pedmalls and FLUPS underground routes, transparent and Pedmall. The Pedmalls work for my purpose but I would sometimes like to be able to plop a tree on the edges. On the FLUPS pieces I would really like to see the vents disappear and add a Mountain trail set. These would help me a great deal in taking my cities to the next level.

[rsc204 21,808]

6 hours ago, Handyman said:

The Pedmalls work for my purpose but I would sometimes like to be able to plop a tree on the edges.

Doubtful this is possible, if by plop a tree you mean MMPs. This is the behaviour of all transport networks in the game, even if there was no texture/object to be seen, each tile used by transit is exempt from placing MMPs. So if you want trees on PedMalls, you have to use T21s to achieve it. A T21 is basically a lot that is attached to a given network piece, see this mod by Paeng, it maybe what you are after:

You can install as many or as few of these designs as you like. amongst the set is a pedmall with SimFox's Chestnuts and another with one of Porkies Street trees and a bench.

Such mods will never be included in the NAM if they need external dependencies. So unless the Maxis trees were used, it's not going to happen.

6 hours ago, Handyman said:

I would really like to see the vents disappear and add a Mountain trail set

FLUPS vents are all simply part of the textures, it would be quite easy to remove them.

As for the mountain trails, there are 6 FLUPs pieces you can customise with your own textures. Since there are mountain trails for PedMalls already, you could just copy the textures to the IDs for the FLUPs pieces.

[Handyman 765]

15 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Doubtful this is possible, if by plop a tree you mean MMPs. This is the behaviour of all transport networks in the game, even if there was no texture/object to be seen, each tile used by transit is exempt from placing MMPs. So if you want trees on PedMalls, you have to use T21s to achieve it. A T21 is basically a lot that is attached to a given network piece, see this mod by Paeng, it maybe what you are after:

You can install as many or as few of these designs as you like. amongst the set is a pedmall with SimFox's Chestnuts and another with one of Porkies Street trees and a bench.

Such mods will never be included in the NAM if they need external dependencies. So unless the Maxis trees were used, it's not going to happen.

FLUPS vents are all simply part of the textures, it would be quite easy to remove them.

As for the mountain trails, there are 6 FLUPs pieces you can customise with your own textures. Since there are mountain trails for PedMalls already, you could just copy the textures to the IDs for the FLUPs pieces.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate the pointers. I looked at the Paeng link and I think that would really spruce up  my cities. I have been trying to avoid mods that rely on dependencies but I may have to get over that and try it out. As for changing the textures on the FLUPs pieces, I've never done any modding, so I hope it's not too difficult and I can figure that out.

[rsc204 21,808]

Regarding dependencies, it really depends what you want out of the game in the end. I played vanilla whilst learning the game, which took a while. But once you've built so many regions, mods are the next logical step, if nothing else, the same buildings all the time just gets boring. I think Paeng's mod has like 2 or 3, which are very commonly used too. In fact, by and large Paeng was one of the better creators in keeping dependencies sensible. Which I'm certainly not .

If you are willing to give it a go, I'm happy to assist you with altering the FLUPs. It's really not complicated at all, if you've some basic skills with image editing. I've created a new thread containing instructions and resources, to save cluttering up this one:

 

 

[rsc204 21,808]

18 hours ago, rsc204 said:

As for the mountain trails, there are 6 FLUPs pieces you can customise with your own textures. Since there are mountain trails for PedMalls already, you could just copy the textures to the IDs for the FLUPs pieces.

Just to add, I've tried this and realised it doesn't really work in practise. These custom FLUPs are only really designed for crossings in one-direction/orientation. So when you have a straight texture of some kind from top to bottom and the tunnel goes from left to right. The additional coding to alter the direction of the tunnel in relation the path doesn't exist on these pieces. Making that work would take a bit of RUL code, new models and quite a bit of work.

 However, I've attached the test DAT here in case you want to see things for yourself, perhaps you can get some use out of it?

FLUP Mountain Trails.zip

[DavidDHetzel 1,816]

I wouldn't mind a Bridge similar to this

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 10/19/2016 at 11:12 AM, DavidDHetzel said:

I wouldn't mind a Bridge similar to this

If you're looking for alternate overpass models, or some alteration to the existing ones, the most likely scenario for that to happen is a third-party mod.  The NAM Team's modeling focus is on bringing elevated functionality up to the same level as that of ground-level, and have a pretty huge backlog there as it is.  With such a third-party mod, it wouldn't necessarily require full-on new transit models, but possibly a lot with a standard BAT model that can be placed next to the overpass.

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

On 10/7/2016 at 0:33 AM, rsc204 said:

Seriously, we all make mistakes, say things the wrong way or get frustrated, we're all human. Case in point, I did loose my own temper a little back there, for which I apologise.

But I would say that sometimes you might consider what and how you write something before clicking post. Reviewing what you type before putting in on a public forum can help to avoid coming off in a way that might annoy others. Try to put yourself in the shoes of those people helping you out. We don't mind helping, but understand that we're not paid employees and we can pick and choose to help or not. Sometimes how you ask for things can make the difference between getting it or not.

Thing is, the NAM is simply a mod for the transit networks of the game. Some cosmetic mods and stations have been incorporated into the game over the years, although you don't have to go back too far to a time when this was an absolute no-no.

However, bundling the entire SC4 content into one package simply could never work. As such, the NAM has to be kept a sensible size, primarily for hosting/bandwidth considerations, but also for more practical ones too.

Not to mention, many mods simply aren't made by the NAM team and contains assets we don't even have rights to distribute. No one around these parts will deny that getting started with modding is difficult. Learning the NAM and how it works is difficult too, it's a complex mod. But, there are no easy fixes to these problems, those that persevere will ultimately be rewarded. I might be a NAM developer now, but just 2 years ago I could barely get this stuff together myself. Don't try to rush building a plugins folder by just stuffing everything you like in there. Take your time, build it slowly piece by piece, in the long run, it will be quicker if you do things this way.

Same with the NAM, rather than trying to build the city of your dreams, why not just mess about with it a little. Open a blank region, go through and plop every piece in every menu, taking the time to work out how everything works. If you take 30m a week to go through small chucks of the NAM in this way, you'll learn a lot.

Otherwise, take some time to look through the various tutorials and information out there. Again I realise it's not always easy to find or in a logical order. But you could do worse than click the link to my NAM Tutorials. Unlike many such videos, I've aimed them directly at beginners and those who may not find this stuff so easy. That does mean they are a bit slow, but it also means that you get to see things step by step with full explanations. 2 Hours of your time going through them and you'll be amazed at what you can do. By comparison, that was probably nearer 50 hours of mine to make them.

 

Thanks for the help so far.

 

I'm not bothering to ever use RHW due to not having a T-intersection, and I don't want to use MHO, because I'm lazy and don't want to redesign the highways for MHO.

I honestly wonder why a RHW T-intersection is so hard. You don't have to answer.

 

 

So, let's go back to the original discussion- I guess a RealAirport is impossible (aside from a 'supersize' airport, which I have yet to find- though I only did a brief search and only found an eye candy airport lot- plus, it's not useful since I don't suppose there is any way to stimulate commerical demand to neighboring cities as well as the city with the airport lot) and RealFerry is impossible due to being unable to mod the EXE... is there a way to make it so there is an artificial time lag to make the ferry lot more realistic?

 

 

When I was playing simcity 4 more, I noticed a lot of things left undone in NAM, mostly in NWM, which I know was abandoned, but still. No NWM roundabouts or Overpasses of any kind?

 

Personally, I would rather see more NWM extensions than multi-radius curves (you can sort of make them with diagonal roads anyways), but still.

 

Also, I find STR unusable personally- the 90* diverging connectors that connect STR to DTR in RAM (not sure in RRW) are way too big to be practical (5x6? really?). I know there is the STR to DTR lot, but I find it impossible to use properly for some reason. Probably not a glitch, just I suck at dealing with it. Just a personal note. I understand 'realism' is the priority, but still, the current curve sizes are excessively large.

 

Also, is there a way to make a BRT/HOV network? Either by using a NWM 4-lane base with 2-3x the speed for buses specifically, or a Bus-only NWM-style road that is 2 lane and is 2-3x the speed of the normal bus on road. I already have a 'HOV' lotblocker, but it doesn't add incentive for the buses to use it more, making BRT unable to compete with LRT/tram, like it would IRL.

 

Maybe also a hyperloop network? That would be epic, but probably OP. XD

 

<I have a few more things, but these are just those from the top of my head>

[fredinno 54]

On 10/9/2016 at 7:56 AM, Handyman said:

Since I no longer use streets in my cities I would like to see more choices for Pedmalls and FLUPS underground routes, transparent and Pedmall. The Pedmalls work for my purpose but I would sometimes like to be able to plop a tree on the edges. On the FLUPS pieces I would really like to see the vents disappear and add a Mountain trail set. These would help me a great deal in taking my cities to the next level.

 

Indeed, a Pedmall FLUPS and Monorail FLUPS would be nice to see. It's not once that I wish I had that function more monorail...

 

Also, it would be nice to see narrow pedmalls that only are half a lot, and the rest is grass or trees- those kind of paths are a lot more realistic looking. Or Pedmall diagonals/curves.

[Lost Realist 762]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

 I understand 'realism' is the priority, but still, the current curve sizes are excessively large.

I would really not say that they are as long as realism is the main concern. And as you aptly noted, it is.

On another note and in my personal opinion, expanding the functionality and flexibility of existing content is the wiser choice considering the point the NAM's currently at, rather than adding on more. Focusing on existing pieces tends to allow better workflow, especially in light of the whole FLEXification that I can honestly not imagine would benefit from new network options in the NWM or any such addition. Keep in mind that's an outsider's idea.

[metasmurf 705]

@fredinno Beggars can't be choosers.

[Tarkus 6,932]

14 hours ago, fredinno said:

I'm not bothering to ever use RHW due to not having a T-intersection, and I don't want to use MHO, because I'm lazy and don't want to redesign the highways for MHO.

I honestly wonder why a RHW T-intersection is so hard. You don't have to answer.

First off, the priority for the RHW has historically been modular interchange creation, rather than pre-fabricated plop interchanges like the Maxis Highways.  It is possible to use all those pieces to assemble a T-interchange yourself in-game, but you're not going to find a full one you can just plop down.  Additionally, there are over 30 different RHW override networks, which also complicates things.  If we set up the RHW interchange functionality like the MHW--with static plops--it'd require 30+ interchange pieces just to cover simple RHW x Road diamond interchanges.  That's not feasible.

We are at the point where the FLEX piece technology where we can actually accommodate some pre-assembled setups that can be overridden and used by multiple networks--that's the QuickChange Xpress (QCX) concept, planned for the not-too-distant future.  However, but in order to get a tight pre-assembled T-interchange setup in QCX form, we're likely going to have to add  support for complex overlaying of some FLEX pieces that currently don't allow it.  That's going to take awhile.

It's taken us 11 years to get to this point with the RHW (the first release was November 16, 2005).  All I can advise is patience.

As far as the NWM goes, it is not abandoned, and will be getting a few improvements for NAM 35, namely, some new draggable transitions.  The RD-4 and RD-6 do actually have roundabout support in the form of puzzle pieces.  Adding overpasses means adding new override networks, and there's already a lot of missing crosslinks we haven't filled in with the ground-level NWM networks.  NWM development has historically relied on RHW development, which acts as the research-and-development engine of the NAM.

With BRT, it's actually possible to do it, but it requires the RHW--specifically, the RHW-2 network.

-Tarkus

[Fantozzi 4,067]

12 hours ago, Tarkus said:

We are at the point where the FLEX piece technology where we can actually accommodate some pre-assembled setups that can be overridden and used by multiple networks--that's the QuickChange Xpress (QCX) concept, planned for the not-too-distant future. 

The problem arises, I think, because me, the user, wants to have the possibility to create an individual intersection that fits the special needs the situation creates, but I don't want to do the work puzzling it together and have this highly individualized intersection with one click.  It's a dream, me, I have too, but I must be aware this can only be a dream as long as NAM can't read my mind.

Me, I'd like to build networks from the inside to the outside - from the centers of the citytile and the cities - thinking of the main connections first, how industrial zone and residential zone will be connected. That's even the basic sense of the word 'networks' - this doesn't mean a bunch of wires but the interweaving  of this wires.

Therefore - I must confess - to start those wires with 'starting pieces' never convinced me. I wouldn't weave from nowhere towards the knot but from the knot toward a new place. You weave networks from knot to knot. And therefore I was thinking about starting pieces as multiple plug pieces, like a simple intersection with four ends and on every end you have a different override - so rotate them for the desired override and when the road was built you might delete it if didn't want to use it as a connection/intersection of different roads. So you wouldn't need a single starter piece for every override but every piece would serve as a starter piece for 4 or 2 different road types at once and even, if you like to, as a connection piece.

Don't know if this is understandable. Perhaps I should paint it ...? 

[matias93 7,535]

14 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

The problem arises, I think, because me, the user, wants to have the possibility to create an individual intersection that fits the special needs the situation creates, but I don't want to do the work puzzling it together and have this highly individualized intersection with one click.  It's a dream, me, I have too, but I must be aware this can only be a dream as long as NAM can't read my mind.

Me, I'd like to build networks from the inside to the outside - from the centers of the citytile and the cities - thinking of the main connections first, how industrial zone and residential zone will be connected. That's even the basic sense of the word 'networks' - this doesn't mean a bunch of wires but the interweaving  of this wires.

Therefore - I must confess - to start those wires with 'starting pieces' never convinced me. I wouldn't weave from nowhere towards the knot but from the knot toward a new place. You weave networks from knot to knot. And therefore I was thinking about starting pieces as multiple plug pieces, like a simple intersection with four ends and on every end you have a different override - so rotate them for the desired override and when the road was built you might delete it if didn't want to use it as a connection/intersection of different roads. So you wouldn't need a single starter piece for every override but every piece would serve as a starter piece for 4 or 2 different road types at once and even, if you like to, as a connection piece.

Don't know if this is understandable. Perhaps I should paint it ...? 

Sounds somehow logical for networks that intersect (like the NWM), but is too complicated for the ones that doesn't, as the RHW. And to achieve a minimal ease of use, the ideal is that all networks could be tended in the most similar possible fashion. Also, changing the starters now would imply to modify all existent advances on that field, and force all current adopters to re learn. Finally, by sheer combinatory, to use intersections as starters, you'll need much more pieces that using orthogonal fragments.

[rsc204 21,808]

One of the key benefits of Flex pieces is that is simplifies building. So you plop/drag out a ramp on a RHW-4, update that to RHW-6S later and the ramp just converts, less pieces, more support, easier building.

But starting at the centre and working outwards if definitely the right approach for RHW. Get the basic networks in place first, then work out the connections. It's a steep learning curve, not how to build, that's been improved so much since NAM 32. But just knowing or having a feel for how it's going to turn out and where things need to fit into that.

When I was learning the basics of RHW, I'd be in a test city building something to get the concept down, before moving to the city it would eventually be placed into. Another great idea is to have an actual plan, blueprints if you will. Knowing how things should look helps immensely to get things right.

QCX setups can never be totally customisable, the code would just get out of hand to do it that way. But it should ease people into using RHW. In the meantime, MHO (the Maxis Highway Override) is a great way to get a handle on it. At it's heart is the simplicity of the draggable network, but with the flexibility to interface with MIS from RHW for vastly more complex setups.

If you are looking to re-create German-style autobahn junctions, the RHW has everything you need to do them justice. I guess what it comes down to is what are you really hoping to achieve with highways. If you simply want the functionality of a highway, Maxis Highway, whilst a little dated, is the best way to go. But if you value realism and detail, even if not always so functional, RHW is the way to go.

[fredinno 54]

20 hours ago, Lost Realist said:

I would really not say that they are as long as realism is the main concern. And as you aptly noted, it is.

On another note and in my personal opinion, expanding the functionality and flexibility of existing content is the wiser choice considering the point the NAM's currently at, rather than adding on more. Focusing on existing pieces tends to allow better workflow, especially in light of the whole FLEXification that I can honestly not imagine would benefit from new network options in the NWM or any such addition. Keep in mind that's an outsider's idea.

But adding NWM roundabouts IS expanding functionality of existing systems...

19 hours ago, metasmurf said:

@fredinno Beggars can't be choosers.

shit

17 hours ago, Tarkus said:

First off, the priority for the RHW has historically been modular interchange creation, rather than pre-fabricated plop interchanges like the Maxis Highways.  It is possible to use all those pieces to assemble a T-interchange yourself in-game, but you're not going to find a full one you can just plop down.  Additionally, there are over 30 different RHW override networks, which also complicates things.  If we set up the RHW interchange functionality like the MHW--with static plops--it'd require 30+ interchange pieces just to cover simple RHW x Road diamond interchanges.  That's not feasible.

We are at the point where the FLEX piece technology where we can actually accommodate some pre-assembled setups that can be overridden and used by multiple networks--that's the QuickChange Xpress (QCX) concept, planned for the not-too-distant future.  However, but in order to get a tight pre-assembled T-interchange setup in QCX form, we're likely going to have to add  support for complex overlaying of some FLEX pieces that currently don't allow it.  That's going to take awhile.

It's taken us 11 years to get to this point with the RHW (the first release was November 16, 2005).  All I can advise is patience.

As far as the NWM goes, it is not abandoned, and will be getting a few improvements for NAM 35, namely, some new draggable transitions.  The RD-4 and RD-6 do actually have roundabout support in the form of puzzle pieces.  Adding overpasses means adding new override networks, and there's already a lot of missing crosslinks we haven't filled in with the ground-level NWM networks.  NWM development has historically relied on RHW development, which acts as the research-and-development engine of the NAM.

With BRT, it's actually possible to do it, but it requires the RHW--specifically, the RHW-2 network.

-Tarkus

I generally don't care much for FLEX, since I'm more about functionality than form.

But yeah, that makes sense. I just assumed the MHW and RHW worked the same way- probably since I never read the tutorials/documentation.

 

It's more confusing because some interchanges have puzzle pieces in RHW, while others (like T-style bone) do not.

 

It's just that I read NWM development had more or less stopped for a while, but it's nice to see more NWM stuff coming in!

 

I could be wrong (AGAIN, lol), but I've never seen a RHW (functional) Roundabout, though admittedly it would be a very specialized lot, since they usually aren't made in highways.

 

One problem with RHW is that when you connect RHW-2 to Road, it's very difficult to tell the difference between the two. It's a cosmetic change, but making the difference more obvious so it would be easy to tell the two from a glance would be a massive plus. If you could get to that.

 

Using a lotblocker and RHW-2 allows for me to build a true bus lane- though a roundabout (lol) solution, it works. Kind of. But again, it's impossible to tell the difference between that, and a normal road, or even RHW-2.

It would at least be nice to include the HOV and no Truck lotblocker (excellent for forcing rail and seaport usage- which somehow doesn't relieve industrial cap demand) from here:

or  

Which is why I proposed the seperate BRT network- basically a lotblocker with draggable RHW-2, and is actually distinguishable from RHW-2, or Road.

Potentially with also a special BRT bus vehicle type to fit the BRT network.

[APSMS 1,892]

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But adding NWM roundabouts IS expanding functionality of existing systems...

18 hours ago, Tarkus said:

The RD-4 and RD-6 do actually have roundabout support in the form of puzzle pieces.

See the Avenue Roundabouts. Tab through the ring; the ones you're looking for are called Turbo Roundabouts. They're as close as you're going to get to NWM roundabouts, since everything else (barring the AVE-6/TLA-7) can be simplified to the current Road, OWR, and Avenue roundabouts with a simple transition.

22 hours ago, fredinno said:

Also, is there a way to make a BRT/HOV network? Either by using a NWM 4-lane base with 2-3x the speed for buses specifically, or a Bus-only NWM-style road that is 2 lane and is 2-3x the speed of the normal bus on road. I already have a 'HOV' lotblocker, but it doesn't add incentive for the buses to use it more, making BRT unable to compete with LRT/tram, like it would IRL

BRT via RHW-2 does weight the bus speed favorably. You can use the TSCT, where there is a setting to encourage Bus Highway usage. This raises the speed of buses on highways. Then the BRT lots in the NAM will allow BRT to use the speed of the RHW network (150km/h) in your city center, which is significantly faster than the 30km/h of normal roads, minus traffic delays. More important is that only buses will be using the network, so there is no extra traffic on the network to slow them down. And the difference between RHW-2 and RD is immediately obvious at the ends (RHW-2 just stops, whereas RD-2 is either rounded, or ends in a small cul-de-sac), and noticeable if you use it enough in the normal stretches. Most differences will become apparent if you try to zone next to them, but keep in mind the point of RHW-2 is to mimic rural highways, which really are basically 2-lane roads with inappropriately high speed limits (IRL around 95km/h or 55mph; this is what they are by my house, and I should know).

51 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I could be wrong (AGAIN, lol), but I've never seen a RHW (functional) Roundabout, though admittedly it would be a very specialized lot, since they usually aren't made in highways.

See the 3 prefab MHO interchanges. This is the only place where they are available.

52 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It's more confusing because some interchanges have puzzle pieces in RHW, while others (like T-style bone) do not

To which interchanges are you referring? QC pieces are not puzzle pieces, they are FLEX implementations of existing ploppable or FLEX-based RHW pieces that are designed for easy placement. Notice that essentially all QC pieces deal primarly with RHW interfacing with surface networks; the amount of RHW/RHW connections would be insane and inappropriately  sized for the mod, and would suck a lot of time for functionality that is already available.

55 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Beggars can't be choosers. [Expletive]

If you want it, you can make it. This is the way most poor souls get sapped into NAM Team work, and thus inducted into the NAM Team. Be a sucker and make the stuff you want to see included. It's the only way to fly.

6 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

herefore - I must confess - to start those wires with 'starting pieces' never convinced me. I wouldn't weave from nowhere towards the knot but from the knot toward a new place. You weave networks from knot to knot. And therefore I was thinking about starting pieces as multiple plug pieces, like a simple intersection with four ends and on every end you have a different override - so rotate them for the desired override and when the road was built you might delete it if didn't want to use it as a connection/intersection of different roads. So you wouldn't need a single starter piece for every override but every piece would serve as a starter piece for 4 or 2 different road types at once and even, if you like to, as a connection piece.

If you get really good with the DRIs, you don't need the starters. Just start with RHW-2 and slowly add lanes via DRIs, and you will eventually end up with a 10-lane mega-freeway stretching between cities. DRI is really revolutionary in this sense, to the point that I'm still not used to the idea of no starters on an entire network. The really neat thing is that current developments in RRW FlexTrack work the same way, with no need for dedicated starters for STR (though they are obviously still included).

[fredinno 54]

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

See the Avenue Roundabouts. Tab through the ring; the ones you're looking for are called Turbo Roundabouts. They're as close as you're going to get to NWM roundabouts, since everything else (barring the AVE-6/TLA-7) can be simplified to the current Road, OWR, and Avenue roundabouts with a simple transition.

On 10/24/2016 at 11:41 AM, fredinno said:

Not really- the NWM-(narrow) 4-lane  would go into 2 lanes for the roundabout, then come back to 4 lanes, causing congestion and destroying the point of a roundabout in the first place.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

BRT via RHW-2 does weight the bus speed favorably. You can use the TSCT, where there is a setting to encourage Bus Highway usage. This raises the speed of buses on highways. Then the BRT lots in the NAM will allow BRT to use the speed of the RHW network (150km/h) in your city center, which is significantly faster than the 30km/h of normal roads, minus traffic delays. More important is that only buses will be using the network, so there is no extra traffic on the network to slow them down. And the difference between RHW-2 and RD is immediately obvious at the ends (RHW-2 just stops, whereas RD-2 is either rounded, or ends in a small cul-de-sac), and noticeable if you use it enough in the normal stretches. Most differences will become apparent if you try to zone next to them, but keep in mind the point of RHW-2 is to mimic rural highways, which really are basically 2-lane roads with inappropriately high speed limits (IRL around 95km/h or 55mph; this is what they are by my house, and I should know).

couldn't there at least be a median in RHW-2, 4, etc to make it more obvious? Most 2-lane highways sections I know that are 2-direction (wonder why there is no 1 direction 2-lane section) have a median in between. But I'm a city guy, so I don't have the experiences as you do, but still. Even suburban 2-lane highways use medians.

Or maybe visible signs at their ends and every once in a while to distinguish it from a road.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

If you want it, you can make it. This is the way most poor souls get sapped into NAM Team work, and thus inducted into the NAM Team. Be a sucker and make the stuff you want to see included. It's the only way to fly.

lol not happening, I have enough projects on my hand as it is, sorry

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

See the 3 prefab MHO interchanges. This is the only place where they are available.

There is no way to add them to RHW? Just wondering.

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

BRT via RHW-2 does weight the bus speed favorably. You can use the TSCT, where there is a setting to encourage Bus Highway usage. This raises the speed of buses on highways. Then the BRT lots in the NAM will allow BRT to use the speed of the RHW network (150km/h) in your city center, which is significantly faster than the 30km/h of normal roads, minus traffic delays. More important is that only buses will be using the network, so there is no extra traffic on the network to slow them down. And the difference between RHW-2 and RD is immediately obvious at the ends (RHW-2 just stops, whereas RD-2 is either rounded, or ends in a small cul-de-sac), and noticeable if you use it enough in the normal stretches. Most differences will become apparent if you try to zone next to them, but keep in mind the point of RHW-2 is to mimic rural highways, which really are basically 2-lane roads with inappropriately high speed limits (IRL around 95km/h or 55mph; this is what they are by my house, and I should know).

I guess you could add in the HOV RHW lotblocker- and have a cosmetic starter for HOV- most HOV lanes I know have the HOV triangle well visible to make it obvious to everyone on the road.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

To which interchanges are you referring? QC pieces are not puzzle pieces, they are FLEX implementations of existing ploppable or FLEX-based RHW pieces that are designed for easy placement. Notice that essentially all QC pieces deal primarly with RHW interfacing with surface networks; the amount of RHW/RHW connections would be insane and inappropriately  sized for the mod, and would suck a lot of time for functionality that is already available.

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Sorry, was referring to MHO. Which is a great mod, just not my style

[MushyMushy 3,617]

21 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Not really- the NWM-(narrow) 4-lane  would go into 2 lanes for the roundabout, then come back to 4 lanes, causing congestion and destroying the point of a roundabout in the first place.

I know for sure there are ARD-3 Turbo Roundabouts so I wouldn't be surprised if there were NRD-4 ones. Of course, I don't know that for sure because I personally use the Turbos very rarely. In the event there aren't, NAM 35 will let you drop NRD-4 down to ARD-3 if there aren't any NRD-4 ones (which while I think there are some I also wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any because NRD-4 was a much-debated concept originally).

27 minutes ago, fredinno said:

couldn't there at least be a median in RHW-2, 4, etc to make it more obvious? Most 2-lane highways sections I know that are 2-direction (wonder why there is no 1 direction 2-lane section) have a median in between. But I'm a city guy, so I don't have the experiences as you do, but still. Even suburban 2-lane highways use medians.

Or maybe visible signs at their ends and every once in a while to distinguish it from a road.

Lots of smaller highways across the country in the US look like that (and from stuff I've seen are quite common across the globe actually). Personally I've seen a lot like that out West and in the rural South.

As for telling RHW-2 and Maxis road apart, RHW-2 does have shoulders with white lines which the Maxis road network does not have. Frankly they're easier to tell apart in the Euro texture version because the center lines look also different.

32 minutes ago, fredinno said:

There is no way to add them to RHW? Just wondering.

I'm sure it's possible but I'd imagine there would be more work than it's worth to do that. I say that because (from my perspective) MHO was designed to compliment the RHW mod, though it can be used separately simply for the sake of replacing the MHW. Because of this it's designed to work quite well with the RHW in most cases and even uses the same textures from it, so basically if you have dual elevated RHW-4 networks running side-by-side you can connect it to MHO seamlessly and then take advantage of the specific things MHO has that RHW doesn't have.

[fredinno 54]

50 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

 

As for telling RHW-2 and Maxis road apart, RHW-2 does have shoulders with white lines which the Maxis road network does not have. Frankly they're easier to tell apart in the Euro texture version because the center lines look also different.

I find it difficult to tell. I might sound like I'm whining here, but still. It would be nice if there was an option to make the RHW look more obviously different. for example, a side barrier like on https://i.ytimg.com/vi/S3nfTbZRPIk/maxresdefault.jpg

which are very often used in rural areas in BC due to the slopes. It also makes sense, they rarely have homes attaching to them- and so homes/buisnesses with arrows to the RHW-2 would be blocked from use (except maybe pedestrian), like IRL.

It would also make the RHW lots look more pretty (in my opinion) and be still fairly realistic.

 

What do you think?

1 hour ago, MushyMushy said:

I'm sure it's possible but I'd imagine there would be more work than it's worth to do that. I say that because (from my perspective) MHO was designed to compliment the RHW mod, though it can be used separately simply for the sake of replacing the MHW. Because of this it's designed to work quite well with the RHW in most cases and even uses the same textures from it, so basically if you have dual elevated RHW-4 networks running side-by-side you can connect it to MHO seamlessly and then take advantage of the specific things MHO has that RHW doesn't have.

Because using the MHW and MHO in tandem never works, as designed.  It's not a deal breaker, but still. RHW would be even more versatile if MHO exclusive lots and interchanges were copied to RHW as well.

 

1 hour ago, MushyMushy said:

I know for sure there are ARD-3 Turbo Roundabouts so I wouldn't be surprised if there were NRD-4 ones. Of course, I don't know that for sure because I personally use the Turbos very rarely. In the event there aren't, NAM 35 will let you drop NRD-4 down to ARD-3 if there aren't any NRD-4 ones (which while I think there are some I also wouldn't be surprised if there weren't any because NRD-4 was a much-debated concept originally).

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

There are also no 3-lane road roundabouts either... which is the primary reason I was talking about this problem. It's limiting because you have to go down to road for roundabouts- at that point, just use interchanges.

[Lost Realist 762]

7 hours ago, rsc204 said:

 If you simply want the functionality of a highway, Maxis Highway, whilst a little dated, is the best way to go. But if you value realism and detail, even if not always so functional, RHW is the way to go.
 

There it is. I couldn't have said it any better. You get a tremendous amount of choices with the NAM and this is one of them.

Also concerning all the requests (demands?) that are getting thrown around here, I think a new generation of players that was not here to see the NAM grow to what it currently is, that doesn't know how restricted the possibilities used to be does not quite see the level of appreciation this community has for the NAM team's work. To see the way the mod has come when you compare it to where it was when you used it ten years ago is just amazing, but this amazingness doesn't reveal itself all that well to people who did not witness the evolution, didn't follow the development to see all the sweat, blood and tears being poured into it the way that many of us did. The limitations that apply are not so apparent to them either, but I for one find it remarkable and absolutely very due for pointing out how professional the NAM team represents itself within the community and with what amount of patience they will seem to always listen. YMMV but from what I've seen, this is not really the norm and really deserves gratitude of its own.

Maybe none of that's news to anyone but I just felt like spelling it out after catching up on the last few pages of this thread, if only so maybe both sides of the little "misunderstandings", let's say, can gain a little perspective.