NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Compdude787 916]

 

I'm sure you could make one, but bridges aren't easy to make and cable-stayed bridges are even harder because they require some RUL code to make the cables work properly.

Cable-stayed bridges don't have any problems showing their cables at all (or at least on my computer), so I don't know what kind of problem you're talking about.

 

What I meant is that it takes a bit more coding to get the cables to work right. In other words, a bit more challenging than something like a truss bridge or a beam bridge.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It would be a double or triple tile bridge.

[DeclanHaselhurst 14]

 

Can you make an elevated highway cable stayed bridge that looks like the ANZAC Bridge in Sydney, Australia?

The Anzac Bridge is an eight-lane bridge. I don't think it's possible to make an eight lane bridge in one span because it would require 3 tiles (for an RHW-8C) at minimum. The EXE doesn't allow bridges to be within one tile of each other, which is why any of the two-tile RHW bridges have to be dragged out using the two-tile Maxis Ground Highway network rather than with the RHW tool.

 

Currently the only way to make an RHW bridge (or any bridge, for that matter) wider than six lanes is to put two bridge spans right next to each other. Then you just come up with an excuse for this like "one of the bridges originally carried traffic in both directions, then got to be over capacity within 15 years, so a parallel bridge was built using the same design to save money on engineering costs."

 

BTW, there is an RHW-10 cable-stayed bridge, so you could place two of those side-by-side for a cable stayed bridge that looks fairly similar to the Anzac Bridge. Unfortunately, there isn't an 8C version of this bridge; you can only do a deck-truss bridge with four lanes in each direction. I'm sure you could make one, but bridges aren't easy to make and cable-stayed bridges are even harder because they require some RUL code to make the cables work properly.

 

Can you please make it an RHW-4 bridge?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Can you please try your best to make a six lane variant? (Not RHW, but elevated Maxis highway)

Anything that's MHW-related is not likely to happen due to how a general pain it is to work with MHW in the first place and due to how underscale it is compared to real-life. It's also under the "This request will not be taken" list.

[Compdude787 916]

 

 

Can you make an elevated highway cable stayed bridge that looks like the ANZAC Bridge in Sydney, Australia?

The Anzac Bridge is an eight-lane bridge. I don't think it's possible to make an eight lane bridge in one span because it would require 3 tiles (for an RHW-8C) at minimum. The EXE doesn't allow bridges to be within one tile of each other, which is why any of the two-tile RHW bridges have to be dragged out using the two-tile Maxis Ground Highway network rather than with the RHW tool.

 

Currently the only way to make an RHW bridge (or any bridge, for that matter) wider than six lanes is to put two bridge spans right next to each other. Then you just come up with an excuse for this like "one of the bridges originally carried traffic in both directions, then got to be over capacity within 15 years, so a parallel bridge was built using the same design to save money on engineering costs."

 

BTW, there is an RHW-10 cable-stayed bridge, so you could place two of those side-by-side for a cable stayed bridge that looks fairly similar to the Anzac Bridge. Unfortunately, there isn't an 8C version of this bridge; you can only do a deck-truss bridge with four lanes in each direction. I'm sure you could make one, but bridges aren't easy to make and cable-stayed bridges are even harder because they require some RUL code to make the cables work properly.

 

Can you please make it an RHW-4 bridge?

 

So now you're saying to make it an RHW-4 bridge? There are actually quite a few RHW-4 bridges available to choose from, some of which were modified Maxis Avenue bridges (for example, the Maxis through-arch bridge, reminiscent of the famous Sydney Harbour Bridge).

 

FYI, please don't expect people on the NAM team to be able to whip out a bridge in one night. Just to be clear, I'm not on the NAM team; I just recently joined the SC4 community. I would love to make some bridges one day, but that would have to wait until I have some extra spare time that I'm willing to devote towards learning how to make bridges.

 

Particularly, I'd like to make some more realistic-looking through-truss bridges and cantilever bridges to replace the the ugly, overscaled Maxis truss and cantilever bridges. The Maxis truss bridge has way too much clearance to be realistic; it almost looks like two trucks could be stacked on top of each other and still pass underneath. Also I'd like to make an arch bridge in the style of the 1964 Port Mann Bridge in Vancouver, Canada, a beautiful bridge which is currently being disassembled and sent to a scrap heap in favor of an ugly cable-stayed monstrosity (should have twinned it, IMO). I want it to stand forever in SC4, if not in RL.

[JessiLaurn 183]

The issue with the old Port Mann Bridge seems to have been the planned cost of seismic upgrades that were necessary, as well as some concern about a lack of redundancy in the girderwork (there was a penchant during bridgework in the 1960s to neglect redundancy in favour of single components of supposedly sufficient strength).

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

They might.  But making bridges is a lot of work.  Do not hold breath.

I'd be happier to see the current NAM bridges made fully compliant with ferry routes.

 

 

I'm guessing it's probably one simple setting in the exemplar pertaining to obstructions, but I'm not entirely sure.  Might need to make sure the bridge is built high enough (which can be hard with a slope mod).  I don't do much bridge modding at all, and I very rarely use ferries.  Being one of the less talked-about features, they often don't get tested.

 

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Strange.  Doesn't the NAM team have a complete test schema?

[Tarkus 6,932]

Strange.  Doesn't the NAM team have a complete test schema?

 

A lot of the custom bridges out there had been produced semi-independently.  While their creators were sometimes card-carrying NAMites, until we went monolithic, they generally arranged their own testing and released the bridges under their own accounts, usually, and we just maintained a registry to prevent ID conflicts.  Most of the bridges out there are in the 4-to-7-year-old vintage, so these issues have likely existed a very long time, and are only now being reported.

 

Regression testing has also been difficult.  The nature of NAM development requires a very technically-proficient set of testers, limiting our pool before release substantially.

 

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If you need guidance, there is the ISO 9000 series.  One of them (9002 I think) is the software testing one.  I worked on editing that stuff when I was still working.  Now I've been retired for some dozen years and no longer have any interest in it.

[JessiLaurn 183]

In the "for what it's worth" department, I've made very, very certain that all attempts are well in excess of the minimum height for ferry passage (test height was generally 30 meters).

 

[ChromeNine 1]

It's not likely for FLUPs to be in draggable form, would it?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Considering what's involved, no.

[Compdude787 916]

It's not likely for FLUPs to be in draggable form, would it?

 

Considering what's involved, no.

Well, you never know. The NAM team likes to surprise us all, but I'm sure that they might have this on their bucket list. It would make it much easier to use FLUPs, just as the draggable viaducts have made building road viaducts a whole lot easier. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Think about the vast number of pieces that would have to be generated for the actual crossing.  Thousands if not millions of combinations.  Feeling like doing all that artwork?  And then you have to write the code as well.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Think about the vast number of pieces that would have to be generated for the actual crossing.  Thousands if not millions of combinations.  Feeling like doing all that artwork?  And then you have to write the code as well.

Assuming that due to RHW and NWM combined, plus Maxis networks, SAM, HSR, and RRW, that there are about 100 networks, times 4 to account for O×O, O×D, D×O, and D×D crossings, there need only be about a couple hundred crossing combinations, assuming that you have a system that overrides a suitable base network, for example, Elevated Rail or RHW. With that regard, it's actually far easier to code an override network that's underground because no one can ever see what it looks like underground; therefore, we can get away with using the path setup for something like the Road network for every single possible network that can be FLUPped; you'd only ever need ONE master underground network, not a dedicated underground network for every single network. This is why a one-size-fits-all FLUP underground piece can be used interchangeably with Street, Road, One Way Road, Avenue, and even Tram-in-Avenue.

 

The one thing that bloats the code a lot is if you're crossing a multi-lane RHW over an underground multi-lane RHW.

Also, FLUP is a bit of a misnomer now that Flex pieces have now set the standard for what Flex really is.

 

Also, no, we don't have FLUPs on our planning docket.

[Compdude787 916]

FLUPs aren't so hard to use as long as you know where all the puzzle pieces are. Same with when you're trying to make an overpass over an RHW using the puzzle piece method. Draggable viaducts are so awesome, but I bet they were complicated to do and FLUPs would be even more complicated.

  Edited June 23, 2014 by Compdude787  

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

FLUPs aren't so hard to use as long as you know where all the puzzle pieces are. Same with when you're trying to make an overpass over an RHW using the puzzle piece method. Draggable viaducts are so awesome, but I bet they were complicated to do and FLUPs would be even more complicated.

The thing is, a lot of future development is gonna avoid making puzzle pieces altogether. Plus, if you have the code for over 20 different elevated networks already (AKA, RHW), do you expect us to rewrite the same code from scratch for the draggable viaducts? No; a lot of the code from RHW formed the basis for making the draggable viaducts, and in fact, it shares a similar IID scheme, making it even easier to code; in fact, I shouldn't even call it that, it should be copy-paste-find-replace. Remember what I said back at SC4D? Once the code for one thing has been made, it becomes easier write the code for all the other networks because you have a template to work off of. Back when RHW was still in development, development was actually focused on one single network. Once that was done, the code for that was copied for all the other networks.

[Compdude787 916]

 

FLUPs aren't so hard to use as long as you know where all the puzzle pieces are. Same with when you're trying to make an overpass over an RHW using the puzzle piece method. Draggable viaducts are so awesome, but I bet they were complicated to do and FLUPs would be even more complicated.

The thing is, a lot of future development is gonna avoid making puzzle pieces altogether. Plus, if you have the code for over 20 different elevated networks already (AKA, RHW), do you expect us to rewrite the same code from scratch for the draggable viaducts? No; a lot of the code from RHW formed the basis for making the draggable viaducts, and in fact, it shares a similar IID scheme, making it even easier to code; in fact, I shouldn't even call it that, it should be copy-paste-find-replace. Remember what I said back at SC4D? Once the code for one thing has been made, it becomes easier write the code for all the other networks because you have a template to work off of. Back when RHW was still in development, development was actually focused on one single network. Once that was done, the code for that was copied for all the other networks.

 

Right. I see, it isn't so hard to expand draggable functionality when you just copy-paste it from another element of the NAM.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Except, of course, adding additional RHW networks with the extra RULs make the whole thing bigger and requires more interpretation which results in slower and slower response in some areas.  It is unfortunate that there hasn't been a breakthrough in this area by these young active minds.  Best thing so far is the custom compiler.

 

Too bad the NAM Team can't find a way to have these RUL strings changed into executable rather than interpretable code.

[Tarkus 6,932]

The ideal solution would be to be able to access the constructor method for the transit networks, and put together a DLL that references it to make true new networks.  If they were true new networks, we could ditch a lot of overrides.  There'd be no need for adjacency stability, and the crossings themselves could be implemented in several hundred lines of RUL1 code and some new Individual Network RULs (INRULs), rather than millions of lines of RUL2 code.  The problem then is that each network needs its own button--using Ganaram's figure, that'd be about 100 buttons.

 

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

AFAIK there's three unused IDs for networks; if that's the absolute limit, those could be used for L1, L2 and Double Decker RHW, or FLUPS if it's possible to make draggable...

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

AFAIK there's three unused IDs for networks; if that's the absolute limit, those could be used for L1, L2 and Double Decker RHW, or FLUPS if it's possible to make draggable...

If you're talking about height IDs 3, 4, and 5, which is unused for RHW-2, 3, and RHW-6C and above, those IDs are unusable. There's a crossing scheme that makes it impossible to use those IDs, and even if that weren't the case, it also defies current convention as it makes memorising the IIDs a lot more unintuitive, making it more troublesome than it's worth.

[Tarkus 6,932]

I think Wiimeiser is actually referring to one of the ways Maxis referenced networks, by number.  There is one odd cheat in the game (can't remember its name) that allows one to build networks between pairs of coordinates by referencing that number.  The highest network number it uses is 13, IIRC, so figuring a full hexadecimal spread of 16, there would indeed be "three empty".  (Of course, if its a full byte allocated, there'd be 243 empty).  The numbers happen to correspond to the last digit (translated to decimal) of the Bridge RUL for that network.  That said, the same problem still exists--you'd have to have some way to create and define those networks, probably through a DLL, which requires knowng the methods that the .exe used to instantiate the networks. 

 

-Tarkus

[ChromeNine 1]

I think Wiimeiser is actually referring to one of the ways Maxis referenced networks, by number.  There is one odd cheat in the game (can't remember its name) that allows one to build networks between pairs of coordinates by referencing that number.  The highest network number it uses is 13, IIRC, so figuring a full hexadecimal spread of 16, there would indeed be "three empty".  (Of course, if its a full byte allocated, there'd be 243 empty).  The numbers happen to correspond to the last digit (translated to decimal) of the Bridge RUL for that network.  That said, the same problem still exists--you'd have to have some way to create and define those networks, probably through a DLL, which requires knowng the methods that the .exe used to instantiate the networks. 

 

-Tarkus

So the cheat kind of makes the player able to place (eg. a Road) from one place to another with XYZ coordinates?

[Tarkus 6,932]

Well, X and Y coordinates.  Z doesn't come into play.

 

-Tarkus

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

How about some pieces for elevated tram in roadways? It would make crossing over sunken highways and train tracks so much easier. Also some tram in roadways pieces that can go under viaducts.

[Tarkus 6,932]

How about some pieces for elevated tram in roadways? It would make crossing over sunken highways and train tracks so much easier. Also some tram in roadways pieces that can go under viaducts.

 

I'd say the under viaduct side of things is probably at the top of the priority list for the Tram-in-X items.  The latter has been proposed, and will most likely happen at some point.  I don't know that either will happen all that soon, however.  Tram development is in kind of an odd spot right now.  The original development team, which was basically an extension of SFBT and was headed up by Chrisim, has been inactive since the beginning of last year.  Additionally, there's a high probability that all the Tram-in-X stuff will get re-implemented as some sort of partially draggable or FLEX system, rather than adding hundreds more puzzle pieces to one of the NAM's most puzzle piece-centric plugins.  There's actually been a little bit of ground work for that hidden in the NAM since Version 31.0.

 

-Tarkus

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

 

How about some pieces for elevated tram in roadways? It would make crossing over sunken highways and train tracks so much easier. Also some tram in roadways pieces that can go under viaducts.

 

I'd say the under viaduct side of things is probably at the top of the priority list for the Tram-in-X items.  The latter has been proposed, and will most likely happen at some point.  I don't know that either will happen all that soon, however.  Tram development is in kind of an odd spot right now.  The original development team, which was basically an extension of SFBT and was headed up by Chrisim, has been inactive since the beginning of last year.  Additionally, there's a high probability that all the Tram-in-X stuff will get re-implemented as some sort of partially draggable or FLEX system, rather than adding hundreds more puzzle pieces to one of the NAM's most puzzle piece-centric plugins.  There's actually been a little bit of ground work for that hidden in the NAM since Version 31.0.

 

-Tarkus

 

 

That is excellent news! Thanks Tarkus.

[cmdp123789 710]

I dont know if this is possible, but has any of you considered a way to making underground networks, but without having to actually lose to tiles as walls next to the network? ie, instead of having to lower the terrain, create a network that doesnt require you to lower the terrain, kinda like a canal but with roads... is that thing possible?