NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[agunter999 200]

Run into a tractor going 50 miles an hour coming around a blind bend

They are the type of roads you see all around britian and the rest of Europe

[Haljackey 17,302]

agunter999: The closest NAM-related mod would be the SAM. It contains a variety of textures for the street network... Only difference is its two lanes. not the one lane that you requested.

[agunter999 200]

Not to be sarcy but I also asked for an improved Sam in the original post I made

Is it actually possible or just too hard

[Tarkus 6,932]

There will be some SAM improvements, but there's no plans to do any of the types of things you've requested.  We also have no plans to extend the SAM concept to Roads, Avenues, etc., as it'd be an insane amount of work for very little new functionality.

 

-Tarkus

[agunter999 200]

Ok

Please do the Sam improvements

Thanks for the constructive reply

[Fresh Prince of Wmbg 44]

Probably not, because they are not even created yet.

 

(About Wuhan Tianxingzhou Bridge and Shanghai Minpu Bridge for NAM Bridge addition)

This is a few months late.... but actually: 

 

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Yeah, found them later, but as it turns out, the way they are modded make them very hard to incorporate into the main NAM (in fact, I didn't get it even working on my end), so I call that one off...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Sometime in the next couple of releases (32,33) how about adding some fresh SAM textures?  I'd like some yellow brick.

[z1 566]

Well, there are two new SAM textures in the current release.  The biggest problem with adding new SAM textures is that there are so many pieces that have to be done for each texture - it's extremely labor intensive.

[aaaling 83]

Will it be possible to create orthogonal rail viaduct pieces with long support, for creating bridges with the DBE method? I’m talking about orthogonal versions of these pieces:

 

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Will it be possible to create orthogonal rail viaduct pieces with long support, for creating bridges with the DBE method?

It's a matter of having to make them, which is not a priority when our job right now it bug extermination.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Forward with the fly tox.  You fellows are doing a great job, and I consider some of the current flaws minor.  They appear to be mostly in RHW, which I haven't yet gotten to in my tests.

[fredrik001 9]

First of all, I'd like to thank you for making SC4 worth playing. RHW has added realism to the game.

 

For the next release i would like RHW-12, RHW-14 and RHW-16 as my enourmous suburban city with it's huge CBD has some bad congestion on it's 4 main RHW-10 (highest capacity).

 

Also I'd like a FlexFly 90 degree RHW-4 if that is even possible, and possibility of creating realistic four level interchanges (with 2 lane ramps).

 

 

Hope this will someday be created, good job so far

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

For the next release i would like RHW-12, RHW-14 and RHW-16 as my enourmous suburban city with it's huge CBD has some bad congestion on it's 4 main RHW-10 (highest capacity).

 

12S and 10C is gonna be the current width cap for RHW. We're currently not considering adding in RHW widths wider than 12S and 10C.

Also, this post here brings up the potential issues and limitations of creating ultra-wides, and why a width cap is enforced. It's not a case of flat-out impossibility, but a case of "How are we gonna do it?".

As for RHW-4 FlexFlys, that's a case of having to make it, and for multi-level stacks, that's a functionality that's yet to be seen in practise, as much of the code to create a 4-level stack is pretty much flat-out broken.

 

Our current concern is (technically still) P57, or rather, ironing out the kinks of P57, so either one of those requests (except maybe the 4-level stack, but I make no guarantees) will not be fulfilled for several more NAM releases, if work any one even begins.

[fredrik001 9]

For the next release i would like RHW-12, RHW-14 and RHW-16 as my enourmous suburban city with it's huge CBD has some bad congestion on it's 4 main RHW-10 (highest capacity).

 

12S and 10C is gonna be the current width cap for RHW. We're currently not considering adding in RHW widths wider than 12S and 10C.

Also, this post here brings up the potential issues and limitations of creating ultra-wides, and why a width cap is enforced. It's not a case of flat-out impossibility, but a case of "How are we gonna do it?".

As for RHW-4 FlexFlys, that's a case of having to make it, and for multi-level stacks, that's a functionality that's yet to be seen in practise, as much of the code to create a 4-level stack is pretty much flat-out broken.

 

Our current concern is (technically still) P57, or rather, ironing out the kinks of P57, so either one of those requests (except maybe the 4-level stack, but I make no guarantees) will not be fulfilled for several more NAM releases, if work any one even begins.

Ok, I understood some (far from all) of that

 

RHW-4 FlexFly is possible but not made so far, and the multilevel stack should already be possible to make using what exists?

What is P57?

 

Is 12S/10C supposed to be included in NAM 31, because I don't have it.

Could you explain to an idiot why it isn't possible to just add a third tile in width?

 

Follow up question: Is it possible to create wider one way roads and could the TLA-7 get dual turning lanes?

 

Sorry for all the questions

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

Is it possible to have elevated roadway overpasses for tram in avenue lots?

[Tarkus 6,932]

RHW-4 FlexFly is possible but not made so far, and the multilevel stack should already be possible to make using what exists?

What is P57?

 

Is 12S/10C supposed to be included in NAM 31, because I don't have it.

Could you explain to an idiot why it isn't possible to just add a third tile in width?

 

Follow up question: Is it possible to create wider one way roads and could the TLA-7 get dual turning lanes?

 

Sorry for all the questions

 

1) The stack issue is a bit complicated to explain, especially with things in their current state.

 

2) P57 is an abbreviation for "Project 57", the codename for the total refactoring of the RealHighway system that was done for NAM 31.

 

3) As far as the 12S/10C, they aren't yet available, and won't be until a later release.

 

4) The coding becomes incredibly complex and prone to instability.  There might be very limited functionality on that front (I stress--very limited), but it's not a priority.

 

5)  You can already build wider One-Way Roads, up to 5 lanes.  Check the NWM TAB Rings.  Dual left turns for the TLA-7 are planned for future expansion to the TuLEP system.

 

-Tarkus

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Personally, I wish you guys would have stopped at 8S and 8C.  That way there could be more focus on stability and functionality of a more limited number of networks.  Super-wide highways are uncommon enough that I wouldn't have thought them worthy of your project; it's easy enough to put a second stretch in where necessary.  But, what's done is done.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Personally, I wish you guys would have stopped at 8S and 8C.  That way there could be more focus on stability and functionality of a more limited number of networks.  Super-wide highways are uncommon enough that I wouldn't have thought them worthy of your project; it's easy enough to put a second stretch in where necessary.  But, what's done is done.

People are always gonna ask for wider and wider highways (and we're well aware of the RL examples in Georgia and California), so sooner or later, they'll have to be accommodated.

Oh, and guess how many lines of new RUL-2 code has to be written to create a new network. Not all that much, save for adjacency stabilisation. Because of how well-structured RHW is now, to add in a new network, we simply copy and paste an already-existing network's code, then change the network ID from, for example 0x5705#### (RHW-8S) to 0x5707#### (RHW-12S). What P57 did was make it easier, not harder, to add in new networks whenever we need to. Each network is essentially a clone of one master network, and it's especially the case with the elevated networks (all elevated networks are derived from the L1 RHW-2).

And actually, much of the stuff for a 12S and 10C is already there, just as the stuff for an AVE-8 and TLA-9 are already there, but like the AVE-8 and TLA-9, there isn't anything for intersections, and the overrides aren't well-refined, and the starters for all four networks are currently deactivated.

  Edited March 12, 2013 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Interesting.  It's a bummer that despite all that optimization, the controller still came out to be too big.  I guess we'll just have to live without that L4 RHW4 over diagonal L1 MIS right next to diagonal L2 6S.....bummer indeed 

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Interesting.  It's a bummer that despite all that optimization, the controller still came out to be too big.

Actually, all that optimisation turned out to be redundant setups, particularly, setups that no one was ever gonna build (but RHW-RHW setups are always gonna come first).

[Magneto 316]

Okay, with the welcomed apparition of L1 roads and avenue, I was wondering if further releases may include:

 

-L0 to L1 ramps

-L1 to L2 transitions

-L1/L2 crossings

 

Furthermore, I noticed there is a long and smooth L0 to L2 ramp for roads... Will there be any for avenues and rails? That would be neat.

 

And lastly: I'd love to have a 90° curve for El rail on a 2x2 space (just like the 90° corner from the double decker pieces)

 

So, what do you think?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I suspect an abrupt 90 degree turn for any rail is pushing reality too far.  I don't think it is reasonable to run any rail system (including the subways and even GLR through a sudden right angle.  Derailment at any speed.

[z1 566]

I suspect an abrupt 90 degree turn for any rail is pushing reality too far.  I don't think it is reasonable to run any rail system (including the subways and even GLR through a sudden right angle.  Derailment at any speed.

 

I gather you haven't been to Chicago's Loop.  Those trains sure are noisy making those tight turns, though.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I'll just bet.  And no, I've never been beyond O'Hare at Chicago.  The trains must have to slow down to a crawl and I'll bet track maintenance is ultra costly.  Sounds like they need to revise the loop to get a better set of turns.  A real screecher.

[agunter999 200]

Would it be possible to have some more GLR textures like these

http://www.simforum.de/showthread.php?t=162402

[Metalpuritan 160]

I am totally with Magneto on this.  I would very much like to see on/off ramps for Elevated RHW L1.  I built my first real interchange today and used a stretch of elevated L1 RHW 4S and I am probably going to get rid of it as it serves absolutely no purpose except for eye candy.  I am stressing my brain to come up with a reason to use elevated L1 at all really, and I cannot think of one, not without the on/off ramps anyway.  Now if there were on/off ramps then it would be entirely useful.

 

Something that is not so pressing is the ability to link on/off ramps to other on/off ramps to other elevated networks no more than 1 level higher or lower than the one you are trying to exit from or enter to.

 

The lack of on/off ramps is the biggest deal breaker of all for me about NAM 31.1.  It completely eliminates the need of a whole function you put into it.  The only thing that would offset the ability to exit and enter L1 is if our elevated road/avenues would be able to go over the L1 RHW stretches, but we cannot do that either.  So there is no flexability in the L1 making it virtually unusable except as eyecandy.

 

That is actually my only real complaint.  I am pretty sure you are working right now on the bugs, so I won't even bother to mention them.

[Tarkus 6,932]

There already are ramp interfaces for L1.  They're just not standard puzzle pieces that you'll find under the ramp interfaces TAB ring.  See

 

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

Would be nice to have

 

Refer to this.

 

 

Something to sort out this bottleneck would be nice(You can use OWR-2 instead of RHW-4, I can drag the RHW to the stubs anyway)

 

 

Not shown but traffic islands, raised intersections and Road/MIS ramps(like we have for avenues)would be nice, are you still thinking of the OWR ones? And maybe some versions for OWR/S-1 coming off instead of MIS

 

 

 

I have a whole list of stuff that's both NAM and non-NAM. It's a WIP but I'll publish it eventually

[medit84truth 70]

We've been told before there is nothing that can be done about the lack of fully functional stop lights at intersections with one-way roads. I was messing around a bit and wanted to see what would happen if I placed OWR starter pieces on each side of the road turning lane intersection puzzle piece, and then dragging the starters out in their respective directions. Of course the intersection was only partially functional because it’s pathed for road intersection purposes. The only problem is the north bound network has one active lane ounce it reaches the intersection (far right) and the east bound network only has 2 active lanes ounce reaching the intersection (middle and far right). But the lights still worked…both sets. 

 

 

I know the activity at avenue/road intersections with fully functional stop lights isn't perfect and are still just visualizations, but at the one-way intersections I find it strange watching two massive streams of vehicles collide together like demolition derby with no traffic control device.

 

My questions is, is there any way a puzzle piece that already exists for avenue/road intersection use that have functioning stop lights can be re-pathed/re-purposed to accommodate the paths that feature 2 one-way roads intersecting with one-another, like the paths on the intersection to the right? Or better yet, intersecting with other networks?