NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[grebe48 27]

Not sure if i ever mentioned this in the past,

 

NWM draggable elevated viaducts!

For example, TLA-3, RD-3, TLA-5, RD-4, RD-6, Ave-6, TLA-7, & NRD-4 bridge over a set of railroad tracks, another road, or a RHW.

[Tarkus 6,933]

7 hours ago, grebe48 said:

NWM draggable elevated viaducts!

For example, TLA-3, RD-3, TLA-5, RD-4, RD-6, Ave-6, TLA-7, & NRD-4 bridge over a set of railroad tracks, another road, or a RHW.

Those have been on the "eventually" list pretty much as long as the NWM has been in development.  That said, they're not going to be entering development for quite awhile still.  The main focus for NWM development in the near term is finally getting diagonal intersection support in place, especially as the coding for NWM viaducts actually requires that be in place first. 

My current plans involve focusing almost exclusively on NWM development for the next few releases--NAM 49 will get the diagonal T-intersections in place for the single-tile networks, and I've already begun the initial work on adding diagonal intersection support for the dual-tile networks.

-Tarkus

[simmering 2,728]

Are RHW diagonal FLEXramps L1 and L2 possible?

[Tarkus 6,933]

6 hours ago, simmering said:

Are RHW diagonal FLEXramps L1 and L2 possible?

They definitely are possible to add, and have been in the plans for a very long time.  The technical side of them (coding, pathing, etc.) is basically a piece of cake (copy-paste-find-replace), and that's generally true of making any elevated content for a given network.  The real barrier is that elevated content generally lags years behind ground-level content because network models are kind of tricky, especially when there's new geometry involved (which would definitely be the case for elevated diagonal ramps).  It's very different than BATing, much more akin to making automata models.

Expanding and improving both diagonal content and elevated content is very high on the priority list for the RHW, but the models are a huge bottleneck in that development process.

-Tarkus

[grebe48 27]

On 6/24/2024 at 9:33 AM, Tarkus said:

They definitely are possible to add, and have been in the plans for a very long time.  The technical side of them (coding, pathing, etc.) is basically a piece of cake (copy-paste-find-replace), and that's generally true of making any elevated content for a given network.  The real barrier is that elevated content generally lags years behind ground-level content because network models are kind of tricky, especially when there's new geometry involved (which would definitely be the case for elevated diagonal ramps).  It's very different than BATing, much more akin to making automata models.

Expanding and improving both diagonal content and elevated content is very high on the priority list for the RHW, but the models are a huge bottleneck in that development process.

-Tarkus

Thanks for the quick reply! I always look forward to your team's work in my game!

[Girafarig 1,410]

This has probably been asked like a million times already, but I didn't see it in the last few replies so here it goes: are there any plans to get monorail-over-road/street/avenue?

[Tarkus 6,933]

3 hours ago, Girafarig said:

This has probably been asked like a million times already, but I didn't see it in the last few replies so here it goes: are there any plans to get monorail-over-road/street/avenue?

It's been discussed periodically, and while it's not off the table by any means, I'd say it's very unlikely to happen anytime soon.  That's mainly due to there being a number of model-making/design-related/implementation things that would have to be worked out, and the existing El-Rail-over-Network content is already languishing developmentally as it is.

-Tarkus

[Simizen 1,100]

is it possible to get an alternate SAM transitional piece?

So, the idea here is to have a T and a + variant so that we can have the other designs meet at angles to them.

I was looking through a city journal and saw that some side streets that were in there had somewhat awkward transitions. Granted some can't be fixed due to the "networks" being used on some lots, but other side streets did have some awkward connections otherwise.

No idea if this would work with multiple transitions (such as 3 or even 4 different street types), but figured it could work with at least 2 like the standard transition piece does. And I figured a good way to access it would be the rotational controls for pieces like we've got with the starter pieces. So like, tapping the Home/End keys to rotate until it moves to T and + transitions.

[Tarkus 6,933]

The basic premise of what you've described involves getting different SAM styles to intersect one another without one of them "taking over".  Possible?  Theoretically, yes.  Practical?  The general thought to date is that it isn't, especially taking into consideration how people use the Street network, swap in alternate SAM Sets, etc., and the fact that the SAM is strictly a cosmetic network addition.  Involving 3-4 different Street types increases the complexity exponentially, even before diagonals become involved, such that we'd be looking at tens of thousands of new intersections.

-Tarkus

[simmering 2,728]

I was trying some things with Three-Level-Crossings and soon realised, they all consist of two diagonals with up to 4 orthogonal lanes but all with the same orientation. Would it be possible to have just 1 diagonal and 2 orthogonal orientations? I am not even sure if this makes sense.

[rsc204 21,864]

The main purpose of the 3 Level pieces is to bypass restrictions on too many overrides occurring within a small footprint. Essentially without special Flex pieces everything would destabilise and never really work. In cases with a single diagonal, the regular code should be sufficient to keep the overrides in place without these pieces.   

[memo 1,472]

11 hours ago, simmering said:

I was trying some things with Three-Level-Crossings and soon realised, they all consist of two diagonals with up to 4 orthogonal lanes but all with the same orientation. Would it be possible to have just 1 diagonal and 2 orthogonal orientations? I am not even sure if this makes sense.

There's code for crossings with a single diagonal and two orthogonals, but only for specific orientations of the networks. These crossings just never required the use of puzzle pieces, but can be dragged directly. The supported orientations were chosen based on the possible configurations of symmetric stack interchanges. However, the code is old and may not be fully functional anymore in the current NAM.

 

[simmering 2,728]

5 hours ago, memo said:

However, the code is old and may not be fully functional anymore in the current NAM.

This might explain why I struggled with it and thought of it as a potentially new feature. Thanks for the explanation!

[Terring 6,476]

This may look more like a general request and not something specific for NAM, but I'd like to suggest it anyway. Hopefully somebody would like to give it a try, and maybe that somebody could be me too.

We all know that ordinary asphalt absorb heat, making cities hotter and more unbearable. So here is an idea. How about a cosmetic mod that re-textures the road from black to blue? That's right, blue-coated asphalt roads! By adding a 1mm of blue coating with special heat-reflecting pigment and hollow ceramic microspheres, blue roads can reduce the so-called Urban Heat Island Effect by reflecting the heat instead of absorbing it, and can even enhance nighttime visibility too. And yes, they actually exist in Quatar!

And you know what? Blue roads in real life look awesome!

So, how about in SC4 too?

[superhighway_410 90]

Are there any barriers that would prevent the creation of starter pieces for the draggable RRW viaducts (7.5 and 15m)?. Came across a couple situations where they would come in handy on short sections where the transition pieces are not useful.

[rsc204 21,864]

Such starters have been present since the mod was created. 

[superhighway_410 90]

That's weird. I'm looking in the ERRW menu and all I can find are the Transition pieces. Can't seem to find the ERRW starters in any of the other rail menus either.

[Tyberius06 12,246]

6 hours ago, superhighway_410 said:

That's weird. I'm looking in the ERRW menu and all I can find are the Transition pieces. Can't seem to find the ERRW starters in any of the other rail menus either.

Yeah there is not any direkt ERRW starter piece. The shortest that you can use is the OST, then draw out the elevated line and remove the OST itself.

[superhighway_410 90]

That's what I normally do. Problem is I had a specific case where I needed to connect an L1 ERRW bridge to one of Mattb's Elevated Stations, but the segment was too short for the line to remain as an L1 Viaduct (read: it would switch back to L0). That's why I asked if there were any barriers from including direct L1 & L2 RRW Starters in a future NAM release, as they would really come in handy for those tight spots.

[Tyberius06 12,246]

1 hour ago, superhighway_410 said:

I needed to connect an L1 ERRW bridge to one of Mattb's Elevated Stations, but the segment was too short for the line to remain as an L1 Viaduct (read: it would switch back to L0)

Draw an L1 segment from the bridge well over where the station is supposed to be, then make a gap with the Network Eraser tool (former RHW Disconnector). Bear in mind that currently none of Mattb's elevated stations actually has elevated (L1 or L2) custom paths so which can lead to visual glitches with automata and UDI. This is one of the reasons that they haven't been rehosted yet. We want to fix these stuff before rehost them on SC4Evermore.

[superhighway_410 90]

Ahh, that's good to know. Thanks! (Who knew the Net eraser could be THAT versatile)

[st_match 0]

hi, new to here. Will add shadow under EL RHW?

[Tarkus 6,933]

On 10/18/2024 at 10:02 PM, st_match said:

hi, new to here. Will add shadow under EL RHW?

First off, welcome to Simtropolis!

To answer your question . . . the elevated RHW networks did at one point have shadows, back when there was only a few of them, but appear to have lost them during the Project 57 revamp over a decade ago.  It's on our radar to re-shadow the elevated networks, but no idea at this point when that will happen.

-Tarkus

[st_match 0]

On 2024/10/22 at 2:03 PM, Tarkus said:

First off, welcome to Simtropolis!

To answer your question . . . the elevated RHW networks did at one point have shadows, back when there was only a few of them, but appear to have lost them during the Project 57 revamp over a decade ago.  It's on our radar to re-shadow the elevated networks, but no idea at this point when that will happen.

-Tarkus

Thank you for your reply. Hope NAM will continue to keep SC4 vibrant!

[RoddyUK 22]

I think I mentioned this in a private thread somewhere, but something I would really *love* would be road humps on streets to make them unappealing to drivers - the level crossings in the fantastic pedestrian add-on mod, which has been an absolute godsend in terms of distracting motor traffic and increasing pedestrian traffic, is superb.

So to make roads and avenues "slower” I plave a pedestrian crossing at (maximum) 12 tiles along an avenue, let's say.

But one knock-on seems to be that streets become used as ratruns when a player has an absolute necessity to connect them between two main roads (bus routes in particular)

This is (I guess) mostly because the tendency is (as the traffic sim dictates) to use streets if they can navigate faster.

I want to make my streets so unnapealing to traffic and yet so nice to live that I can avoid having to turn them into roads.

I can make them attractive enough to residents: until they get jammed.

I wonder if street speedbumps could be considered, please?

Meanwhile Happy New Year etc

Roddy x

 

PS I don't think the NAM team gets anywhere near as much credit or thanks as it should do: I am, personally, incredibly thankful to each and every member who spends a lot of uncredited time on all aspects of the NAM project.

[Simizen 1,100]

so would it basically be a modified traffic blocker? Basically, it would block other vehicles besides busses?

Or would it be a way to add congestion to an area to force traffic to go around? And if so, I wonder how that would work out for busses.

Cause this seems like a good idea imo. Uh, but do check out the Road Medians Islets, the One Way Median Islets, and the Avenue Median Islets for slowing down traffic a bit. Granted these are also doing double duty with being Police stations, but if nothing else, you can get an idea of whether or not this is doing what you want initially for traffic. Alternatively, check out @Swamper77's Crosswalks to see if those fit what you're looking for.

And, actually, I can completely get behind having this added, cause near me there's a greenway, and it crosses various neighborhood streets out here, and there's a speed hump/table where they cross. So it would actually be beneficial for anyone who's looking to add something like this to their cities if they've got greenways they're looking to make/replicate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though, I'm wondering if maybe we could get away with incorporating those into the NAM alongside the other crosswalk types that have been added.

 

Also, in my trek to finding those links, I've found this Christmas Avenue mod, and now I'm wondering if it's possible to get seasonal avenues (and maybe streets and roads)? I know that would take quite a bit of work for sure, but I think that would be interesting for sure.

Spoiler

additionally, being able to couple this with the any of the street light mods would be incredible. Cause then we could have the Christmas decorations on light poles and such light up at night when the holidays come rolling around. Though, I'm pretty sure this would be beyond the scope of the NAM, but having seasonal lights would be pretty cool.

 

[RoddyUK 22]

Buses are, to me, a part of the problem, but I only used them as an example.

(I think there's a strange way buses don't cause traffic jams, so they wouldn't be a problem in themselves? I might have got this wrong, so forgive me if so.)

I was more hoping that the pedestrian crossings mod (pedestrian revolution) could be used to slow regular traffic down in another form for streets without zebra crossings.

If they were placed strategically in a street grid, I don't think Sims would have a long commute complaint - less so, I guess, than if their street was jammed with traffic (the only solution the game seems to require is being to turn streets into roads.

Having a red mark on a street to road junction is about as bad as it can get in terms of suburban desirability, in my experience.

The smaller number of exits and entrances to streets seems better.

I don't see why. In the UK there is a system called "20's Plenty" which means teaffic can only travel at 20mph on streets.

Right now, a single entrance to a suburb is the only sensible option; and that makes suburban plots pretty restrictive.

Even within a super-block you find pollution because while trying to calm traffic using pedestrian crossings on the outside, traffic just decides to use the streets as throughways and before you know it the only option is to make all the streets into roads, which rather ruins the reason to make a nice suburban area in the first place.

Then slamming down pededtrian crossings within the block just means suburban sims leave, because they are generally surrounded by roads they might as well go downtown and become poorer, unless you basically turn every other house into a park.

[RoddyUK 22]

Oh, I stupidly forgot to say why I think road humps could be so versatile.

Each could just have a tiny "hump" graphic (maybe just a simple white stripe in the middle of a piece) so you could see where traffic was slowing (or not) and if cars carried on speeding through, you could remove the original and slap down another one - or two - or five - strategically.

I think that's the sort of mechanism I'd *love*  to see for streets, and I would welcome it! :-)

[11241036 5,114]

@RoddyUK It is partly possible to block (or slow down) traffic (also only a certain type of traffic) through a lot-based solution. About 11 years ago, I released a set of traffic blockers that can be placed on various road-based networks. I'm planning on making this mod submenu-compatible, so it is a bit outdated, but by cleverly using them, you should be able to prevent traffic from passing through a street.

Currently, this mod always only blocks one type of traffic per lot (car, bus, or freight truck), but it is entirely possible to modify it to block all or several types of traffic (car, bus, freight truck, pedestrians), or to slow traffic down. The main drawback: It is lot-based, thus, its direct effect is limited to the 1x1 street tile you are placing it. And it may cause adjacent zones to lose road access and consequently dilapitate. Also, making the graphics for street humps is beyond my abilities.

If you can live with all of this, you may want to download the traffic blockers here:

 

[acdrisk 73]

I have always thought an additional SAM type with parallel parking spaces along each side would make sense. Similar to SAM-1's parking spaces, they wouldn't be functional. But it would allow more realistic looking downtown areas. I know there was a mod from years ago that did something similar, but it wasn't quite right.