NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Durfsurn 539]

This override I believe: Urban Tarsealed Street Modd - Page 2 - Mods & Tools - Simtropolis.

[Wiimeiser 444]

I thought it might have been something like that. I've actually been wanting the Tar Sealed Streets or something similar in the SAM for years now...

[youngwii 74]

rivit has created a Rural Tarseal SAM5 replacement texture pack; here's the link:

[AsimPika3172 1,136]

Double decker highway comes to Malaysia!!!! Still under constructions! Finished on year between 2030 - 2040

This game already have double decker highway, but need to improve it. Also, it was very higher DD ever! More likes elevated L3 or L4, which passed other elevated highway below it.

[Gwyain 95]

On 2/23/2021 at 5:42 PM, Tarkus said:

If you're referring to the attempt to get Rail traffic through a Subway-based override network (i.e. the same premise as the new FLUPs system introduced in NAM 39), here's an image from my test back in September 2018.  Rail traffic will use it, but only if it's the only route, and as soon as any sort of Rail traffic uses it, it turns bright red on the Congestion DataView:

I'll also note that in that same test, Jamil Herd, the transportation adviser, popped up with a "Local Road Reaches Limit" message . . . clicking on it took me to the stretch of Subway-based URail.

The one green tile that appears to be underground is the "false intersection" used to initiate the underground override.  The other network involved is Rail, so the simulator is happy for that one tile.

Weird stuff.

-Tarkus

That is weird... and frustrating for those of us wanting freight rail tunnels. While a clunky solution, would not a freight station disguised to look like a rail piece plus a rhw flup also disguised to look like rail allow for freight to cross a "rail" tunnel? Or even just a u-rail to FLUP piece implemented as a freight station. That too seems like it would work, yes?

[Tarkus 6,932]

17 minutes ago, Gwyain said:

That is weird... and frustrating for those of us wanting freight rail tunnels. While a clunky solution, would not a freight station disguised to look like a rail piece plus a rhw flup also disguised to look like rail allow for freight to cross a "rail" tunnel? Or even just a u-rail to FLUP piece implemented as a freight station. That too seems like it would work, yes?

At that point, you're switching transit types, so you're not really looking at FLUPs so much any more, but an old-style Subway Converter Lot, with a transit switch to turn the Rail traffic into something that can run on a Subway.  There's a few of those around already, though they aren't included in the NAM (since we've strictly followed Maxis' intent of base Subway effectively being an extension of the (Elevated) Light Rail network/transit type, even after the reversal of the long-time "No Lots" policy back with NAM 31), and I don't know if any of them are designed to work with Freight, not Passenger Trains. 

One of the issues with Converter Lots for Rail is very similar to that which one would encounter with the old Road/Highway Subway Converter Lots (i.e. the old Big Dig set), in that the path types associated with the networks are shared across multiple modes of transport (Path Type 3 is used for both Passenger and Freight Rail, while Path Type 1 is used for Cars, Buses, and Freight Trucks), so usually, they end up having to be designed as blockers, too.  If you didn't block one type, you'd be able to get both types of Rail in . . . but the information about which is which would be lost after that initial conversion, so all the trains would get converted to a single type on the way out.  It's kind of a Black Hole Information Paradox sort of situation.

Theoretically, if there were another Subway-based draggable network that had multiple path types on it out of the gate (i.e. the Subway transit types' Path Type 4, and Path Type 1), it might be possible to convert each type of train separately (i.e. Passenger Train (Path Type 3) → Subway (Path Type 4), Freight Train (Path Type 3) → Freight Truck (Path Type 1)), but network speeds/capacities may get a little dicey, and there's no guarantee it'd be any more successful than our previous attempt.

I'll note, Subway-related modding is still in its infancy, some 18 years after the game's release.  We're still learning a lot about what the network and its associated path types can and can't do.  And given that the NAM Team has been staunchly anti-puzzle piece since the mid-2010s (something which I suspect much of our userbase has been for much longer), URail in its current state is not something for which we have a lot of fondness.  It works . . . but it's one of the fiddliest parts of the entire mod, and a lot of people don't bother with it as a result.  We definitely want to find a more "modern" implementation, and will continue experimenting until SC4 finally bends to our will.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

2 hours ago, Tarkus said:

It works . . . but it's one of the fiddliest parts of the entire mod

When it doesn't even have any straight crossing pieces and you have to place useless and ugly cutoff roads to get it to cross empty space... Yeah, that's bad...

 

My guess is that the Subway capacity for rail is exe-hardcoded to be 0, meaning that any non-zero value will trigger congestion, because 1 is bigger than 0. What exactly are the editable statistics for Subway?

[Tarkus 6,932]

Actually, there's a whole menu button of pieces to allow URail under PedMalls and grass, plus the old blank terrain FLUPs puzzle pieces have Rail pathing on them, so that can be done as well.  I think my comment still stands, though, even considering that.

Regarding the capacity thing, it's more likely a speed issue.  Setting a network's speed to 0 will instantly cause it to turn blood red in the Congestion DataView upon receiving any traffic, regardless of the overall volume or the catalog capacity (see those who have tried to run the RHW with non-NAM Traffic Simulator Plugins, like hailman's Variable Route Buses or the SPAM Traffic Plugin, which both have the RHW/DirtRoad speed set to 0). 

Attempting to set the speed to a non-zero value for Passenger Trains and Freight Trains on the Subway network seemed to have no effect, so there is presumably a hardcoded constant/final zero value at play.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

Does this only apply to rail paths, or to all non-road paths except subway?

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 6/8/2021 at 5:09 AM, Wiimeiser said:

Does this only apply to rail paths, or to all non-road paths except subway?

Unknown at this point.  We've only tried stuffing Car (Path Type 1) and Rail (Path Type 3) paths onto Subway.  Past experience suggests Path Type 7 and its endemic network (Monorail) are very exclusive (Path Type 7 generally doesn't like to go onto other networks, and Monorail really does not like other path types--Hybrid Railway is a workaround for this), and there's not been any real reason to try to push Path Type 6 (Light Rail) down a Subway.  I don't expect Path Type 2 (Pedestrians/"Sims") would be an issue, and of course, Path Type 5 is an oddity (it gets used for nothing more than the reverse paths for the construction vehicles on Avenues and Maxis Highways).

-Tarkus

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

This post is about a way to enhance one of the features of the TSCT.

The Use new Zones View option is great because of the two choices it has (Show Subway Lines and Show Props). However, I personally feel leaving the trees (flora) visible (as it does) partially defeats the purpose of that view when zoning in forested areas.

I have discovered a simple solution and I believe it would be a nice additional configuration option during NAM installation. If there could be a choice which would install the original C:\Program Files (x86)\Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool\resources\templates\NetworkAddonMod_Zone_Data_View.template or a revised file then peeps could have a choice for whether or not the trees, bushes, and such are hidden when using the Zones DataView in the game. (Ideally a checkbox option in the TSCT itself would be better, but that would require changes in the source code.)

Here's the alternate file: NetworkAddonMod_Zone_Data_View.template

[Cyclone Boom 16,875]

Just to show Cori's above enhancement with a before/after comparison:

(Click and flick between these to compare.)

This is with the props toggled off via the TSCT option. The key difference is how the subways appear much more clearly now with the flora no longer showing. For areas like my city here which has a subway system running out of the main city, it then shows up easily to view them along with the zones.

I believe this would be excellent to offer people the choice as a preference.

[BartonThinks 3,416]

1 hour ago, Cyclone Boom said:

Just to show Cori's above enhancement with a before/after comparison:

(Click and flick between these to compare.)

This is with the props toggled off via the TSCT option. The key difference is how the subways appear much more clearly now with the flora no longer showing. For areas like my city here which has a subway system running out of the main city, it then shows up easily to view them along with the zones.

I believe this would be excellent to offer people the choice as a preference.

As someone who trees cities heavily, I've always hoped that I'd find something like this. Thank you so much!

[Leo -- 186]

Better documentation of the entire mod . (Yes I know that's quite a bit to ask with just how much stuff there is)

[matias93 7,535]

1 hour ago, Leo -- said:

Better documentation of the entire mod . (Yes I know that's quite a bit to ask with just how much stuff there is)

there is people working on it

[Tarkus 6,932]

Indeed, as part of our big team expansion (which, I might add, Matias is part of!), we actually have a documentation group now.  Before, the documentation was largely just me, and I was having to redo everything from scratch after the PDF debacle, usually in the bit of time I had after finishing my developmental/pre-release bugfixing tasks.  I don't anticipate there will be much change for NAM 42, especially as that development cycle is near the end, and we've just started laying the new infrastructure for the expansion on the documentation end.  But there's some exciting things in the works on that front.  Stay tuned.

Since NAM 37's release a little over a year ago, by my last count, we've added 10 members to the overall NAM umbrella, and a few of our past contributors have returned to activity.  Overall, the active NAM Team/Associates is somewhere between double and triple the size it was just prior to NAM 37's release, and massively up from where it was in the second half of the 2010s. 

-Tarkus

[Leo -- 186]

I just realized another thing that I would like in NAM and that is draggable EL/over road with a station to with it.

[rsc204 21,808]

I don't know how well a draggable solution would work, the original El-Rail over Road/Street was puzzle-based and although I can't say when, like all legacy NAM content the intention is to update them to more modern standards eventually. I suspect something more like the El-Rail over Avenue/RD-4's FLEX-based implementation would be preferable to draggable, but since no one is working on it at present, it's hard to say.

Draggable aside though, you can already create El over Road networks and stations exist for use with them too.

[Tarkus 6,932]

There's a decent chance we look at the Light Rail Dual-Networking again in the near future, and the prospect of some sort of FLEX setup and/or Starter/Semi-Draggable hybrid is likely going to be the solution.  The latter kind of works like a normal starter piece, just that you end up doing the Light Rail overplops on it much like the existing Semi-Draggable Tram-in-Road and the like works.  I did actually make a prototype for a new Light Rail Dual-Networking option recently (can't say what it is . . . *yet*) but it looks like this approach is viable.

-Tarkus

[grebe48 27]

I would like to see a Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Station for the RHW-2/4 Networks 😁 Unless there is one already.

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

5 hours ago, grebe48 said:

I would like to see a Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) Station for the RHW-2/4 Networks 😁 Unless there is one already.

I think this could be done with transit lotting (functional, in case you want to detour truck traffic from the through lanes) or overhanging models (cosmetic only). I will note that there's existing eye candy truck weight stations, like the ones included in Paeng's Modular Truckstop lots:
 

 

[youngwii 74]

Lately, I have been desiring pieces that place an underground loop connector for setups with Rail/GLR/Elevated Light Rail in RHW medians. Here are three sample scenarios for this kind of situation:

[Wiimeiser 444]

Apparently FLUPS works for that last one. Don't know about the other two though...

[youngwii 74]

I meant for the neighbor connector pieces; without the underground loop connectors to connect the two halves of the highway, it is not possible to have a functioning RHW neighbor connection with Rail/Elevated Light Rail/Monorail in the middle of the highway.

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 8/29/2021 at 5:52 PM, youngwii said:

Lately, I have been desiring pieces that place an underground loop connector for setups with Rail/GLR/Elevated Light Rail in RHW medians. Here are three sample scenarios for this kind of situation:

FLEXing the Loop Connector itself would allow for such a thing, and that is in the plans.

-Tarkus

[Leo -- 186]

After switching to the MHO there's this one puzzle piece that I really existed and that is MHO to Maxis Highway transition for both ground and elevated versions it its purpose is to allow the MHO to be used with the Maxis Highway based bridges and the elevated tunnel.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Given that MHO and MHW are designed to be mutually exclusive of one another (MHO's base network tiles all use the same IIDs, acting as a direct replacement), there are no plans for such a feature.  I'd say it's more likely that the aforementioned MHW content would be retrofitted to match MHO.  Some of that may be tricky, because of baked-in MHW aspects, but something along those lines would be more in line with the intent of the MHO.

-Tarkus

[rsc204 21,808]

Bridges are really one area that wasn’t considered when making MHO, but there are some good reasons for this. First the idea is to have a network that easily transitions to RHW, so a good argument is to use the RHW-4 bridges, a special connector/transition piece exists for this too. In NAM 35 I Updated the level bridges to be MHO compliant too. These are easy since it’s basically a copy of the Ortho pieces with some pillars and T21 changes. But converting the other bridges doesn’t really work, because MHO is wider than MHY and between solving that and actually converting the bridge models, it’s no small job. I genuinely think it’d be quicker to make a new bridge than convert one. Which would make more sense to add as a RHW-4 bridge, so it was more flexible. 

[Leo -- 186]

9 hours ago, Tarkus said:

There are no plans for such a feature.  I'd say it's more likely that the aforementioned MHW content would be retrofitted to match MHO.

Its not meant for retrofitting per se but too allow more bridges to used with the HWO because in its current form it only one bridge is suited for MHO. 

4 hours ago, rsc204 said:

But converting the other bridges doesn’t really work, because MHO is wider than MHY and between solving that and actually converting the bridge models, it’s no small job. I genuinely think it’d be quicker to make a new bridge than convert one. Which would make more sense to add as a RHW-4 bridge, so it was more flexible. 

This idea is a transition piece not converting bridges. Here's a terrible concept photo of what I mean: 

[rsc204 21,808]

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I figured you wanted. But given the switch from 2 to 3 lanes along with the width changes, such a transition would be very messy.

As mentioned, you can use RHW-4 bridges and it just makes more sense to target any additions there from a development perspective.