NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Sabretooth78 808]

Nice Florida Tee!  I also like the concrete textures, or a more "faded asphalt" alternative.

 

Something I only just thought of myself (forgive me if it's been requested before) which would probably be very simple - has anybody ever developed a 3.75m hole digger/raiser lot?  I'm thinking for those situations where say you have two RHWs crossing, it would be a good alternative for minimizing the grades on all approaches and perhaps allow for the flattest system.  Of course you could just approximate that with terraforming a small depression and then using a 7.5m raiser, but I was just wondering if it had ever been considered.

[JessiLaurn 183]

Alrighty, here's my request for sometime down the road (and if it happens to already be in 32, please let me know):  

 

A long-span monorail bridge.  Right now, the longest span available is the cable-stayed bridge...which while quite nice still requires lengthy pier-and-girder approaches.  What would be really nice is a long suspension bridge, something that can handle bloody huge spans with towers reasonably close to shore.

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

A FAR-NWM fusion? Was looking at Broadway in NYC when the idea struck

[APSMS 1,892]

Something I only just thought of myself (forgive me if it's been requested before) which would probably be very simple - has anybody ever developed a 3.75m hole digger/raiser lot?  I'm thinking for those situations where say you have two RHWs crossing, it would be a good alternative for minimizing the grades on all approaches and perhaps allow for the flattest system.  Of course you could just approximate that with terraforming a small depression and then using a 7.5m raiser, but I was just wondering if it had ever been considered.

This would be functionally useless, since there are no 3.75m networks. All of the current height levels differ by 7.5m factors. L1 is 7.5m, L2 is 15m, L3 is 22.5m, and L4 is 30m. The closest approach would be 7.5m, and a 3.75m onslope transition would just result in an unsightly bump as the network corrected itself to the standard height.

 

7.5m raiser/diggers have been available generally for about 3-4 years now, and have been in the NAM since version 31.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

7.5m raiser/diggers have been available generally for about 3-4 years now, and have been in the NAM since version 31.

7.5m diggers haven't been around for that long; they only became a big thing when NAM 31 came out (2013). The only set of diggers that even came with a 7.5m digger before NAM 31 was Rivit's set of hole diggers, which was around only since June 2012. So even with Rivit's hole diggers, 7.5m diggers have only been around for barely two years.

Especially given the long-standing belief that diggers couldn't handle decimal points, it was thought that the only way to get a 7.5m embankment or hole is to settle for just 7 or 8 meters.

[Magneto 316]

 

Something I only just thought of myself (forgive me if it's been requested before) which would probably be very simple - has anybody ever developed a 3.75m hole digger/raiser lot?  I'm thinking for those situations where say you have two RHWs crossing, it would be a good alternative for minimizing the grades on all approaches and perhaps allow for the flattest system.  Of course you could just approximate that with terraforming a small depression and then using a 7.5m raiser, but I was just wondering if it had ever been considered.

This would be functionally useless, since there are no 3.75m networks. All of the current height levels differ by 7.5m factors. L1 is 7.5m, L2 is 15m, L3 is 22.5m, and L4 is 30m. The closest approach would be 7.5m, and a 3.75m onslope transition would just result in an unsightly bump as the network corrected itself to the standard height.

 

 

The way I understand sargeant cm request: imagine you need to make 2 networks cross at separate grades but you want to minimize the height variation for each of them. Instead of increasing (or decreasing) one network height of 7.5 to make them intersect, one would gain 3.75 while the other lose 3.75 hence making slope changes at its minimal.

[NielsC007 499]

Nice Florida Tee!  I also like the concrete textures, or a more "faded asphalt" alternative.

 

Something I only just thought of myself (forgive me if it's been requested before) which would probably be very simple - has anybody ever developed a 3.75m hole digger/raiser lot?  I'm thinking for those situations where say you have two RHWs crossing, it would be a good alternative for minimizing the grades on all approaches and perhaps allow for the flattest system.  Of course you could just approximate that with terraforming a small depression and then using a 7.5m raiser, but I was just wondering if it had ever been considered.

 

What I would is raise the land by 12 meters and then lower it by 8 meters.

[Sabretooth78 808]

The way I understand sargeant cm request: imagine you need to make 2 networks cross at separate grades but you want to minimize the height variation for each of them. Instead of increasing (or decreasing) one network height of 7.5 to make them intersect, one would gain 3.75 while the other lose 3.75 hence making slope changes at its minimal.

 

 

Exactly.  I basically did that on a RHW/AVE interchange I posted over in the "Show Us Your Interchanges" thread.  Given your slope constraints, it might be a preferable option.

 

What I would is raise the land by 12 meters and then lower it by 8 meters.

 

 

Yes, and then you would quick level to that elevation and then lower by another 7.5 in order to achieve the sunken elevation.  Either that, or approximate one of the grades with the terrain tools and achieve the other by raising or lowering as appropriate.

 

However, I realize it would probably be a point of confusion with users using the 3.75s and wondering why nothing worked properly and then bombarding the NAM team with questions.

[Pioneer 140]

I would like to request a FARHW Ramp for Project Symphony

[Markus J 242]

Ia it just me or are RHW Height 4 pieces only showing support columns and sometimes nothing at all.

 

Also, no network access at all.

[cp702 2]

I'd like to request Road over STR overpasses and FLUPs under STR underpasses. Also, FLUPs under diagonal rail intersections (so I can have roads crossing while passing under a diagonal rail line), and T under orthogonal rail with the stem of the T going off to the side (i.e. an underpass is running under and parallel to the rail, and a road branches off to the side).

  Edited February 5, 2014 by cp702  

[Prophet42 1,501]

I seem to have in several of my cities a need for orthogonal MIS over diagonal RHW4.  Do such tiles exist in NAM?  If not, is there any plan to add them in the future?

[Tarkus 6,932]

I'd like to request Road over STR overpasses and FLUPs under STR underpasses. Also, FLUPs under diagonal rail intersections (so I can have roads crossing while passing under a diagonal rail line), and T under orthogonal rail with the stem of the T going off to the side (i.e. an underpass is running under and parallel to the rail, and a road branches off to the side).

 

Road-over-STR exists with the draggable viaducts, but not in puzzle piece form (which is now officially deprecated).  I believe most of the FLUPs items you've described already exist, though with FLUPs, you have to use the Home/End Rotation in addition to simply TABing through in order to see every possibility available to the FLUPs system.

 

I seem to have in several of my cities a need for orthogonal MIS over diagonal RHW4.  Do such tiles exist in NAM?  If not, is there any plan to add them in the future?

 

They already exist in draggable form.  Just drag the MIS over the RHW-4, or the RHW-4 under the MIS.

 

-Tarkus

[Prophet42 1,501]

I already tried that.  It does not work over diagonal RHW-4.  It only works for orthogonal RHW-4.

[Tarkus 6,932]

I already tried that.  It does not work over diagonal RHW-4.  It only works for orthogonal RHW-4.

 

The functionality is there.  The height of your MIS might have some effect--L1 is the most stable.  You might also want to check to see if you have any sort of intersection or special setup directly adjacent to the overpass--that'll destabilize it.  There have been plans to revamp the RHW's code, with Project 57-Mark 4, but it's going to take quite a bit of time for that to happen, mainly due to the sheer scale.

 

-Tarkus

[Durfsurn 539]

On the digger issue. Is it just a iLives reader change of number or is it more complicated than that to get 3.75?

[Mr Saturn64 742]

I think I'd like to see more draggablility (draggable things). Particularly for HSR and most roads and highways.

 

That, and smoother connections between Maxis roads and NAM roads.

[APSMS 1,892]

I think I'd like to see more draggablility (draggable things). Particularly for HSR and most roads and highways.

 

That, and smoother connections between Maxis roads and NAM roads.

For HSR, are you referring to the WRC (wide radius curves)? Or something else? The network itself is based on monorail so you just drag that out of the starter.

 

Draggable WRC are, if I understand correctly, not possible for starter-based override networks like the NWM, RHW, SAM, or HSRP, as it would be unclear which override among the many available that would replace the base network. Hence why draggable FAR is only possible with the road tool, and why draggable WRC for streets only work if you're using the standard textures.

 

Also, connections between Maxis and NAM roads (I assume you're referring to the NWM here) are generally pretty smooth already, given the limitations. If you use the alternate texture mod (US or Euro) that comes with the NAM, most of the transitions are seamless, since the textures have been matched for consistency. There are also a number of puzzle pieces available that make the transition much smoother, although sometimes the method isn't obvious.

[CahosRahneVeloza 385]

I don't know if this has been asked already but I'd like a 10S to two 6S splitter & ramp interface pieces equivalent of the one that splits 6S into two 4Ses.

[Harry's Place 918]

I think that there a couple of things that in my opinion could add more realism to the NAM:

 

-pedestrian rail overpass

-a couple of more SAM textures:

       -granit pavement

 

 

       -sandstone pavement

 

       -klinker pavement

 

       -natural stone pavement

 

 

also i would like if there were some more bridges 

 

-Siduhe River Bridge in Hubei, China

-Puente de la Mujer in Buenos Aires, Argentina

-Putra Bridge in Putrajaya, Malaysia

-Adolphe Bridge in Luxemburg City, Luxemburg

-Erasmusbrug

-Pont Notre Dame in Paris, France

-Pont de Bir-Hakeim in Paris, France

-Anghel Saligny Bridge in Cernavoda, Romania

-Alcantara Bridge in Spain

-Charles Bridge in Prague, Czech Republic

-Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, UK

 

Also is there a posibility to make 3 lanes functional roundabouts?

[APSMS 1,892]

I don't know if this has been asked already but I'd like a 10S to two 6S splitter & ramp interface pieces equivalent of the one that splits 6S into two 4Ses.

This is already available. Check under the FARHW Ramps tab.

 

 

I think that there a couple of things that in my opinion could add more realism to the NAM:

 

<snip>

 

-a couple of more SAM textures:

       -klinker pavement

 

<snip>

 

Also is there a posibility to make 3 lanes functional roundabouts?

1. I think Klinker textures are already included in the SAM, under set #6. The label is wrong, but that's what they're supposed to be, if I understand it correctly.

 

2. Some are already possible in NAM 32. Check under the roundabouts tab. They exist for the RD-6 networks/crossings. On a functional level, they wouldn't add anything for Maxis avenues due to the way capacity in handled in the game and the fact that going across two lanes into a third in a roundabout may be difficult in heavy traffic (Not to mention getting out!). A fake version was made by BarbyW over at the SC4D LEX, along with variations. They are non-functional, of course, bu they look excellent, and blend seamlessly.

[Harry's Place 918]

^^I have the fake ones

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

I apologize for being a little late to the punch, but as great as they look there's something missing from these that most PCC highway segments I've seen have - black pavement marking "shadows" (lengths seem to vary) on the downstream side of the white stripes.  They tend to add contrast to the lane lines for drivers seeing as white stripes on nearly white pavement isn't always the best configuration (especially on a sunny day).  Here's are some examples:

 

https://goo.gl/maps/Bz83x

https://goo.gl/maps/I5U0i

 

The first example is I-90 outside Buffalo, where the black stripes are about equal to the white stripes in length.

The second example is I-77 outside Columbia, where the black stripes are about half the length of the white stripes.

 

Justification for these markings is provided in the MUTCD, Section 3A.05 paragraphs 08 and 09.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I apologize for being a little late to the punch, but as great as they look there's something missing from these that most PCC highway segments I've seen have - black pavement marking "shadows" (lengths seem to vary) on the downstream side of the white stripes.  They tend to add contrast to the lane lines for drivers seeing as white stripes on nearly white pavement isn't always the best configuration (especially on a sunny day).

Sadly, I can't add that exact feature as it would make the texture "directionally biased". It's actually one of the many rules of texture-making: make sure the textures work with LHD and RHD, and having something directionally biased makes that especially difficult with network bends. Watch what happens if I tried:

Not to mention the fact that the Maxis Highway Override displays these textures backwards, the same network bend is used for everything; it'll end up mirrored or not mirrored. The same thing goes for RHW overpasses; the textures will also end up mirrored. This is what I have to avoid.

Fun fact: Early builds of the RHW featured directionally biased textures in the way of reflectors, but they were omitted because the amount of support for them required about twice as much RUL-2 code for just the network bends alone.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Sadly, I can't add that exact feature as it would make the texture "directionally biased". It's actually one of the many rules of texture-making: make sure the textures work with LHD and RHD, and having something directionally biased makes that especially difficult with network bends. Watch what happens if I tried:

 

 

Yikes!  Yeah, that's bad.  Well, at least it's not really a "mandatory" feature seeing as there are also many areas that don't seem to do it.  That, and it looks a little awkward anyway - errors notwithstanding.  Of course I'm sure those wouldn't be final textures, either.

[ChromeNine 1]

Hi, i'd like to suggest the following:

 

Network Widening Mod

• AVE-8 and AVE-10: I've seen a few avenues in real life that have 8-10 lanes.

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

Hi, i'd like to suggest the following:

 

Network Widening Mod

• AVE-8 and AVE-10: I've seen a few avenues in real life that have 8-10 lanes.

 

 

There was a dedicated AVE-8 network (3 tiles like the AVE-6) planned, and a number of textures in place for it, but it's indefinitely on hold.  You can actually make 8 and 10 lane Avenue-type roadways by using adjacent pairs of OWR-4 or OWR-5.  There have been plans for those networks to get turn lanes, specifically for those sorts of AVE-type setups, and those plans are still on the books.

 

-Tarkus

[Sleeping Politician 32]

There should be a BRTS for avenues. Maybe also underpasses for RHW and NWM.

 

 

My 100th Post!

[APSMS 1,892]

There should be a BRTS for avenues. Maybe also underpasses for RHW and NWM.

 

 

My 100th Post!

You can achieve this using a road in the middle of two OWRs. Just use a car-blocking bus-allowed transit-enabled lot (there are some on the STEX) to block all traffic except buses, and then perhaps use Pedmalls to get pedestrians to the stops. A large number of things can be created in game with the use of existing tools. That is what makes modularity so wonderful (like the RHW).

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

There should be a BRTS for avenues.

You can achieve this using a road in the middle of two OWRs. Just use a car-blocking bus-allowed transit-enabled lot (there are some on the STEX) to block all traffic except buses, and then perhaps use Pedmalls to get pedestrians to the stops. A large number of things can be created in game with the use of existing tools. That is what makes modularity so wonderful (like the RHW).

I wouldn't recommend using traffic blockers from the STEX, since they could potentially block bus traffic itself. Additionally, it's not necessary to even go to the STEX for bus-only traffic blockers; the NAM has its own bus-only traffic blockers for the exact purpose of bus rapid transit.

Yes, NAM has its own BRT system now; it's RHW-based and works primarily with RHW-2. The process of setting it up, however, is still the same: sandwiching the bus lanes between two One Way Roads. (This can't be done with a singular Avenue because traffic would otherwise intermix and it's impossible to separate bus, car, and freight traffic on the same tile of the same network.)