NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

so that we dont have to use 3 tiles

 

No, slope physics of the game don't like this sort of thing.  It would be very unstable (every time you demolished part of such a network, that tricks the slope, it would probably dig a a big hole).

 

I think Alex answered this same question somewhere on the last page or so.  You really need the 3-tile width.  1-tile sunken networks would have to be eyecandy ploppables.

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

so that we dont have to use 3 tiles

 

No, slope physics of the game don't like this sort of thing.  It would be very unstable (every time you demolished part of such a network, that tricks the slope, it would probably dig a a big hole).

 

I think Alex answered this same question somewhere on the last page or so.  You really need the 3-tile width.  1-tile sunken networks would have to be eyecandy ploppables.

 

 

Indeed, I answered it at the top of the last page (), when cmdp123789 requested it for the first time two months ago ().

Two months later, the answer is still no.

 

-Tarkus

[cmdp123789 710]

OMG.. you are right.. Im really sorry.. =(

 

Its just that everytime I get into the game and I want to build different level interchanges including some sunken lanes, I get the 3 tiles thing.. even more when doing more than just the MIS.. But I got it =)

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

Hi there, I have a smal request, in my cities my style of sprawl includes 1 railway for each 3 roads as in the next picture 1, But in the very heavy dense areas, rail is not enough for moving people away and subway may be a bit expensive for digging, I also know that elevated rail is a bit cheaper than subway and I also know that there in the NAM there is an elevated rail over road puzzle pieces, My request if for puzzle pieces of Elevated rail over standard rail, so you can have metro lines runing above Passenger train or freight trains so both systems can work in paralel in the same lane but in independent systems

 

 

The new system could be a set of Puzzle pieces:

 

 

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

My request if for puzzle pieces of Elevated rail over standard rail

We generally don't accept dual networking requests that involve networks of the same transit type because we know what'll go wrong, hence why requests such as Road over Road or Avenue over Avenue (or even Road over Avenue) are undoable. What happens with two different Rail-type networks is probably never been tested and, possibly with running NAM Traffic Simulator Ultra or High, you could bottleneck both rail lines and have no overall benefit.

Plus, we have a minimal puzzle piece developmental mindset, so even if such a plan goes forward, it won't be puzzle pieces.

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

 

My request if for puzzle pieces of Elevated rail over standard rail

We generally don't accept dual networking requests that involve networks of the same transit type because we know what'll go wrong, hence why requests such as Road over Road or Avenue over Avenue (or even Road over Avenue) are undoable. What happens with two different Rail-type networks is probably never been tested and, possibly with running NAM Traffic Simulator Ultra or High, you could bottleneck both rail lines and have no overall benefit.

Plus, we have a minimal puzzle piece developmental mindset, so even if such a plan goes forward, it won't be puzzle pieces.

 

 

 

 

The thing is that now you can put even 3 systems one over the other in the same lane, to say Subway, Underground Rail, and GLR, the idea is to make two systems to work above surface:

 

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

The thing is that now you can put even 3 systems one over the other in the same lane, to say Subway, Underground Rail, and GLR, the idea is to make two systems to work above surface:

I know; the thing is that combining two different rail-type networks might not work as intended, and could decrease capacity of the two networks being combined overall. That's not practical by NAM standards, and we're not in the department for making things that don't work.

Let me explain it like this: If you managed to combine Rail with Elevated Rail (Elevated Rail over Rail) and assuming we're using Simulator Medium (capacity of both Elevated Rail and Rail have a capacity of 16K), it's possible that merging both networks into one tile would result in the combined network still having a capacity of 16K, and not the 32K that one would expect. There is a trick to boost capacity by 25%, but even then, 20K is still far from 32K. Network capacities don't stack; they're a fixed value, even if you combined two different networks together. It's basically 1+1=1.

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

 

The thing is that now you can put even 3 systems one over the other in the same lane, to say Subway, Underground Rail, and GLR, the idea is to make two systems to work above surface:

I know; the thing is that combining two different rail-type networks might not work as intended, and could decrease capacity of the two networks being combined overall. That's not practical by NAM standards, and we're not in the department for making things that don't work.

Let me explain it like this: If you managed to combine Rail with Elevated Rail (Elevated Rail over Rail) and assuming we're using Simulator Medium (capacity of both Elevated Rail and Rail have a capacity of 16K), it's possible that merging both networks into one tile would result in the combined network still having a capacity of 16K, and not the 32K that one would expect. There is a trick to boost capacity by 25%, but even then, 20K is still far from 32K. Network capacities don't stack; they're a fixed value, even if you combined two different networks together. It's basically 1+1=1.

 

 

 

Have you made the experiment with rails and elevated rail? or you just guess what might happen? because ¿Can we say that cossing point of Rail and Elevated rail decrees the capacity of  both systems? if so we shouldn't cross elevated rails wit rails, but I guess that doesn't happen,  we are not talking of two roads or two Avenues, but of two different systems that work independently.

 

any case I don't know if you are the only filter to receive this ideas but if you say that it might not work in stead of proving that it doesn't work we are stoping the posibility for doing things that we think that such might work or might not. I only can say that many of the features of the NAM were created independently of the Things that the NAM Team though that might work until they did and then they included such indepndent creations in the new versions of the Mod

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Have you made the experiment with rails and elevated rail? or you just guess what might happen?

A number of us already know what will happen. In fact, this quote from should be relevant:

 

- Dual/Double-decker networks: Often requested, but hard to realize. Not only do they require a lot of modeling work, but they are often suffering from capacity issues and huge complexity at things like intersections (huge number of possible setups) and the large number of possible network combinations (even when ruling out all network types from the same class). Due to this complexity, development of these items would be slow if this actually is going to happen.

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

 

Have you made the experiment with rails and elevated rail? or you just guess what might happen?

A number of us already know what will happen. In fact, this quote from should be relevant:

 

- Dual/Double-decker networks: Often requested, but hard to realize. Not only do they require a lot of modeling work, but they are often suffering from capacity issues and huge complexity at things like intersections (huge number of possible setups) and the large number of possible network combinations (even when ruling out all network types from the same class). Due to this complexity, development of these items would be slow if this actually is going to happen.

 

 

 

Quite different discurse than plainly saying that "We only do things that will Work" it is far more humble and correct to say "Complexity, large numbers, slow happening"

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Quite different discurse than plainly saying that "We only do things that will Work" it is far more humble and correct to say "Complexity, large numbers, slow happening"

I apologise if I sound harsh but I needed to be sure that you understood why it isn't possible; you'd be actually surprised how many times people virulently request things from the NAM Team despite being already told why their idea isn't workable. Aside from real life, we're already busy with other projects, and being asked to produce something that isn't easy to make is a pretty tall order from a group that essentially does this kind of thing off of free time.

[Tarkus 6,932]

The other issue is the fact it's been long standing practice to include Rail paths on Light Rail-type networks (including the default Elevated (Light) Rail and the NAM's longstanding Ground Light Rail/Tram system), in order to allow U-Drive-It functionality for Light Rail trains.  Thus, Elevated (Light) Rail-over-default Heavy Rail dual-networking would cause path jumping with the Heavy Rail trains, between the two levels, which is a dealbreaker.

 

-Tarkus

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

The other issue is the fact it's been long standing practice to include Rail paths on Light Rail-type networks (including the default Elevated (Light) Rail and the NAM's longstanding Ground Light Rail/Tram system), in order to allow U-Drive-It functionality for Light Rail trains.  Thus, Elevated (Light) Rail-over-default Heavy Rail dual-networking would cause path jumping with the Heavy Rail trains, between the two levels, which is a dealbreaker.

 

-Tarkus

 

As I sid before it is acceptable to argue Complexity, lots of combinations, low happening, but Technical imposibility or lack of technical viability is at least debatable.

 

Let us imagine that a twisted mind creates a twisted ELR,  and under it he places "n" number of Heavy Rail lines, ¿Would that crash both systems?,  I think not and we can make the trial in our current systems

 

 

Being the gray the ELR and the Brown the Heavy Rail lines the stars mark the crossing points with the ELR passing over the HR, ¿what is the limit of this Crossing points before systems colapse? If illimited then the new propousal is possible though meaning heavy load of work beacuse of the large number of combinations, which mean low happening. But Technically speaking seams Viable.

 

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

As I sid before it is acceptable to argue Complexity, lots of combinations, low happening, but Technical imposibility or lack of technical viability is at least debatable.

We've already proven the technical impossibility involving the same transit type on both decks going in the same direction. If it can happen with one transit type, it can happen with every transit type. Since Elevated Rail has Rail paths, something I overlooked, you'd have a situation where you could end up with freight trains riding on top of Elevated Rail, and this is seen as an undesirable feature by a number of players.

There've been plenty of technical impossibilities already that have forced us to rethink or even condemn a number of plans (same-direction DDRHWs, rail-based DDRHW, the size of the Controller correlating to the chances of a crash thereby reducing the chance of an RHW-12S and RHW-10C ever being added), and in worse cases, even forced us to undo certain NAM features. Unless we have the source code or can come up with something that's revolutionary and still legal, this is something we're gonna have to accept because we have no way of fixing them.

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

 

Let us imagine that a twisted mind creates a twisted ELR,  and under it he places "n" number of Heavy Rail lines, ¿Would that crash both systems?,  I think not and we can make the trial in our current systems

 

Being the gray the ELR and the Brown the Heavy Rail lines the stars mark the crossing points with the ELR passing over the HR, ¿what is the limit of this Crossing points before systems colapse? If illimited then the new propousal is possible though meaning heavy load of work beacuse of the large number of combinations, which mean low happening. But Technically speaking seams Viable.

 

 

If you have the ELR twisting around like that, you won't be seeing the jumping, because the ELR and the HR will be perpendicular, not directly on top of one another.  It'd be the same thing if one were to zigzag Road viaducts over ground-level Roads.  Depending on how you set that up, you could already do that, though it wouldn't exactly be realistic--and more to the point, it's not what you had requested.

 

If you have a double deck network in which there are paths of the same transit type going in the same direction on both decks, you will get deck jumping (even if you separate them by some distance), which defeats the entire purpose of the network, and makes it, in effect, non-viable.  The heavy rail trains will randomly jump onto the light rail deck, and we're not going to go through the effort of creating a "eyecandy dual-network", especially when the resultant visuals and traffic simulator behavior screw up the "eyecandy", as they would here.

 

And indeed, it's also not viable because of the large number of combinations.  But to say that our dismissing something as being not technically viable isn't a "valid" reason for not fulfilling a request makes no sense, as by definition, that's a bigger dealbreaker.  Even if we were to undertake that "large number of combinations", it would be a fruitless effort because it's not technically viable.

 

Suffice to say, for quite a number of reasons that Ganaram and I have given, requests for ELR-over-Heavy Rail dual-networking will not be considered.

 

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think there is some misapprehension here.  In spite of the excellent work being done, this is a 2D game, at best 2.5D.  The 3D models are reduced by projection into five POVs from each of four angles that are orthogonal to each other.  No matter what you do, the road layout is strictly for Mr. Asquare of Flatland.  The rest is optical illusion and clever programming.

 

Seeing double decker things is fraught with the problem that the program can't really see them.  An illusion is the best one can get.  Computers don't get illusions.
 

[APSMS 1,892]

Yes, it should be remembered that the game sees all networks as flat, and so adding two networks to one tile either above or below doesn't add capacity, it just complicates transit options. Technically from the NAM viewpoint, this isn't a valid option, as the primary MO is form follows function.

 

In fact, iirc the issue with the rail-based DDRHW-4 was that even though the rail network had a higher capacity (which is what the base of the DDRHW-4 was), whenever cars drove on that network the capacity reverted back to the standards for roads, which was actually far less than intended and certainly game-breaking in terms of added functionality.

[Jorge_carrillo 140]

I would like to ask for a High Spead Train Station with the effects of a Maxis International Airport at full capacity. It happens that many of my cities don't have airports and thus they don't have the benefits in the $$$ office desirability effect of an International Airport. So if in my whole region I have one Medium and one Huge Airports conected by High Speed Rail to all the cities of the urban area then I would like that the benefit of the real scale Aiports could spread to the whole region as long as the High Spead Rail reach those cities.

 

would it be so hard to do it?

 

PD, It could even be a Elevated Light Rail or a heavy Rail Station, but  the idea is that such station could transmit the effects of connection to the airport.

 

 

[APSMS 1,892]

While there is current efforts within the NAM team to try and update as many stations as possible to NAM standards, and indeed stations have been included in the latest NAM releases, the fact remains that the focus of the NAM remains on network items andnot lots, wwhich is what stations are. You can easily make your request with the LE and the Reader tool. 

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

There's already a bunch of 1x1 airport effect lots on the STEX.  Just plop one of those next to your stations (or wherever you want) and you're good to go.

[MTYland 35]

I don't know if is the correct place for make this question, but is about the next NAM. Could we see in the next edition of the NAM flups for RHW-4 and 6?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Give 'em an inch and they'll ask for a mile.

[Ernestmaxis 218]

Request: Is it possible to remove the low wealth under all Highways from NAM as a option. I always use the Dutch highway version but wen placing a sign I getting a dirt wealth under the highway.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

It is not possible to do that conveniently. The grass textures are there to prevent something worse from happening: making sidewalks appear instead of  grass. This is hard-coded in the game and grass is the only convenient remedy.

 

Another option is to convert all RHW instances to 3D models and remove the base texture and wealth textures, but as a countereffect, the preview models break with this method, which is really annoying during construction (especially when it comes to the RHW). I've done it before, and it's quite a picky, complex and labour-intensive job (which also requires to remove the base textures of all the texture overrides you use for the RHW).

[Compdude787 916]

It is not possible to do that conveniently. The grass textures are there to prevent something worse from happening: making sidewalks appear instead of  grass. This is hard-coded in the game and grass is the only convenient remedy.

Do you think you could make it so that grass appears on the FlexRamps too instead of the ugly sidewalk texture? That would really be nice.

[mrsmartman 200]

Hi there, I have a smal request, in my cities my style of sprawl includes 1 railway for each 3 roads as in the next picture 1, But in the very heavy dense areas, rail is not enough for moving people away and subway may be a bit expensive for digging, I also know that elevated rail is a bit cheaper than subway and I also know that there in the NAM there is an elevated rail over road puzzle pieces, My request if for puzzle pieces of Elevated rail over standard rail, so you can have metro lines runing above Passenger train or freight trains so both systems can work in paralel in the same lane but in independent systems

 

 

The new system could be a set of Puzzle pieces:

 

 

I am not good at the technical but these sorts of double-decker networks are definitely great eye-candy.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Do you think you could make it so that grass appears on the FlexRamps too instead of the ugly sidewalk texture? That would really be nice.

That'd be insanely difficult because the wealth ID that's normally used is being used as the height ID. If you tried to assign wealth textures, you'd have a situation where you would have wealth textures displaying below the L1-L4 ramps, and that'd give the wrong impression that we're developing double decker content when we simply flat-out don't (except for TRAM and ELR over Road).

There is one way to trick the system and it would only work if you converted the L0 ramps into being a model-based system, but then you'd be locked to only one wealth texture instead of the usual six.

[Compdude787 916]

Do you think you could make it so that grass appears on the FlexRamps too instead of the ugly sidewalk texture? That would really be nice.

There is one way to trick the system and it would only work if you converted the L0 ramps into being a model-based system, but then you'd be locked to only one wealth texture instead of the usual six.

I don't care about wealth textures for the RHW; this is the one network where I'd prefer not to see sidewalk wealth textures. I'd be fine with it being model-based, but I bet that would take a whole lot more work to make, right?

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

It would be so cool to place (draggable or puzzle piece) avenues underneath elevated avenues in a parallel fashion, and the same for roads and one-way roads.

 

But avenue over avenues would be cool-

 

 

-as I could then complete this!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You are looking for a 3D situation.  Not available in SC4 which is only 2D with projections.  You might get an image of the ground level stuff but it would not operate.