NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

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

 

I have to say, this seems like a pretty ignorant post. It's not helpful in any way. Neither is it a request. If anything it's a bit downgrading towards people who actually come here to make requests. That's what this page is for. If you don't like it, no need to come here. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

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

 

I have to say, this seems like a pretty ignorant post. It's not helpful in any way. Neither is it a request. If anything it's a bit downgrading towards people who actually come here to make requests. That's what this page is for. If you don't like it, no need to come here. 

 

You know, I backed up an entire page looking for the context.  Before you say pejorative stuff like that, I'd like to suggest that more context is needed.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

You know, I backed up an entire page looking for the context.  Before you say pejorative stuff like that, I'd like to suggest that more context is needed.

 

I don't think I was being very pejorative. If you ask me, if anything is pejorative it's gathering a whole page worth of context for a comment that doesn't seem to fulfill much. Then again, I'm only an immature sixteen-year-old. 

[IBBubba 2]

My request seems trivial comparied to the majority of requests.  I would like to see rail crossovers for diagional and far.

[rsc204 21,808]

https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=16606.msg486467#msg486467

I hope the Sam 7 will be a option for the Nam mod.

What a fantastic texture

 

Firstly thank you for your kind words, I feel much the same hence I wanted to help Catalyst to ensure this project could be completed and these wonderful textures could be available to all.

 

However, this isn't really a request for the NAM team, any decisions regarding this would come down to Catalyst and Myself as the developers of the Mod. Some brief exchanges in this regard have taken place, though nothing has be agreed, in principle though this is something that we hope could happen eventually.

[JessiLaurn 183]

Request:  smooth-curve monorail switches (orthogonal and diagonal).  It's the one thing that is really missing from the monorail system at this time.

[JessiLaurn 183]

While we're at it, another request:  more of the various rail bridges available as 15m versions.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Request: olive green base textures for RRW- similar to those in SFBT's rail texture mod. And also if possible similar textures for wide radius and FAR pieces, or the RRW equivalent of Biraili's Wide Railway Curves Textured mod-

[Empowered One 41]

I'm curious: Any chance there will be a NAM for Cities: Skylines in the near future?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I'm curious: Any chance there will be a NAM for Cities: Skylines in the near future?

 

By name, no. It'd be like Stater Brothers soda being called Pepsi.

 

Conceptually, not by us. Not all of us have looked at C:S or have considered modding C:S in that regard. Besides, it wouldn't be fair for SC4 devotees to watch the NAM Team jump ship when we're on another developmental breakthrough.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Besides, does C:S have a buggy transportation system?  Very strange for a new build.  Remember all that fancy highway stuff was not the purpose of the original NAM.

[digitized.abyss 0]

Are there any ideas about possibly creating overpasses/underpasses/bridges for the Network Widening Mod? Going from one of the NWM networks to an avenue to pass under an RHW seems to cause congestion within the game in heavily traveled networks. I also thought I would ask to see if underground routes for the RHWs were possible. I have no clue how the programming of the game works so I have no idea how capable these ideas are. There has been some great work on NAM and I am thoroughly impressed. Wish I had the capability to help out...

[APSMS 1,892]

Are there any ideas about possibly creating overpasses/underpasses/bridges for the Network Widening Mod? Going from one of the NWM networks to an avenue to pass under an RHW seems to cause congestion within the game in heavily traveled networks. I also thought I would ask to see if underground routes for the RHWs were possible. I have no clue how the programming of the game works so I have no idea how capable these ideas are. There has been some great work on NAM and I am thoroughly impressed. Wish I had the capability to help out...

Have you tried dragging out the NWM under Elevated RHW? I think almost all the NWM can pass under RHW fluidly. For things like the AVE-6/TLA-7, you can always drag out RHW from the end to pass under (or over!) a RHW. The RHW auto-converts, so there is no need for a starter.

 

Viaducts (elevated) for NWM are scheduled but incomplete, with no planned release schedule.

[cmdp123789 710]

Just a quick one... FAR for NWM?

[Indiana Joe 1,750]

Just a quick one... FAR for NWM?

 

A messy can of code worms.  I promise there's no secret work on this behind the scenes; I wouldn't count on it for now.  You'll see FA other networks first.

[cmdp123789 710]

 

Just a quick one... FAR for NWM?

 

A messy can of code worms.  I promise there's no secret work on this behind the scenes; I wouldn't count on it for now.  You'll see FA other networks first.

 

Alright! Not a positive one, but at least an honest answer =)

[digitized.abyss 0]

Are there any ideas about possibly creating overpasses/underpasses/bridges for the Network Widening Mod? Going from one of the NWM networks to an avenue to pass under an RHW seems to cause congestion within the game in heavily traveled networks. I also thought I would ask to see if underground routes for the RHWs were possible. I have no clue how the programming of the game works so I have no idea how capable these ideas are. There has been some great work on NAM and I am thoroughly impressed. Wish I had the capability to help out...

Have you tried dragging out the NWM under Elevated RHW? I think almost all the NWM can pass under RHW fluidly. For things like the AVE-6/TLA-7, you can always drag out RHW from the end to pass under (or over!) a RHW. The RHW auto-converts, so there is no need for a starter.

Viaducts (elevated) for NWM are scheduled but incomplete, with no planned release schedule.

I haven't tried that but will definitely give it a try out in the future. Thanks for the tips!

[APSMS 1,892]

Just a quick one... FAR for NWM?

 

A messy can of code worms.  I promise there's no secret work on this behind the scenes; I wouldn't count on it for now.  You'll see FA other networks first.

I will take diagonal intersections for NWM long before I seek FA networks. IIRC diagonal networks were actually being thought about, if not actually being worked on, no?

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

Just a quick one... FAR for NWM?

 

A messy can of code worms.  I promise there's no secret work on this behind the scenes; I wouldn't count on it for now.  You'll see FA other networks first.

I will take diagonal intersections for NWM long before I seek FA networks. IIRC diagonal networks were actually being thought about, if not actually being worked on, no?

 

 

We actually started doing some work on them back in the NWM 2.0 cycle (NAM 30), and there's a few implemented, but not many.  After NAM 31,we started investigating the possibilities, as part of a larger plan to implement a Project 57-type revamp of the NWM, but the problem is that there's just so many intersections (we're talking over a thousand), and T-intersections involving diagonals are extremely convoluted, especially when the multi-tile NWM networks are involved. 

 

It's also far more difficult to path NWM intersections than it is to path RHW overpasses, as we have to account for all the turning motions.  We were able to automate good chunks of the RHW base expansion process, but we haven't found a way to really do that with the NWM yet, so it's a lot of manual work.

 

-Tarkus

[cmdp123789 710]

I dont know anything about coding, so, based on your experience, saying that it is hard... well I totally believe you.. and I can only imagine the amount of work that it would require knowing the amount of intersections.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I can only agree with Tarkus.  If you take all the possible NWM roads then the orthogonal intersections that exist, think of deforming the intersection by 45 degrees in each of four directions, then think about all the paths that can occur, and you start to see a huge sheaf of things that have to be individually coded.  This becomes a nuclear reactor calandria full of radioactive worms.

[Nevermore2797 112]

Any possibilities of a 6-lane OWR, 8 to 10 lane Avenue and more NWM networks?

[Tarkus 6,932]

There were plans for an AVE-8 and a TLA-9 for the NWM, and there's actually some code and texture work in place for them in the NAM currently.  But they were excluded from NWM 2.0 because of the pathing work required, plus the sense that it didn't have any real functional differentiation from the TLA-7 and AVE-6.  The chances of them becoming available became even more unlikely when we ran into the controller size issues in NAM 31.0.  While were able to address some of the inherent issues there, we're still getting murdered by crosslinks that haven't yet been provided between different NAM components that already exist (for instance, the Tram-in-Avenue networks can't interface with any of the RHW or NWM content), and adding more networks would just compound that.  Same reason we iced the RHW-12S and 10C.  There never were any serious OWR-6 plans.

 

You can kind of create an AVE-8 and 10 by using pairs of OWR-4s or 5s, and that's probably going to be as far as we'll go on that front.

 

-Tarkus

[El Argentino 170]

Hi, there are some things that i would like to have in the next NAM. Like there are things that would have that remove (this 'cause i think that not contributes to do things realistic, like the  overpasses of the first versions, that rises too much) There are things that are impressives, and really sirven too much, the diggis, the NWM and everything! I dont have any complaints for you, this mod, gives life to SC4

My request, is that you profundice in the 7 mts. I think that give look very real, for example, the flexfly on 7 mts, would give more possibilities, at same that new ramps for this height or for 15 mts too. Not new ramps, the same that there with ground RHW, but also in this heights. Have ramps and curves on 7 and 15 mts, would be genial.

 

A little bat that ever i had idea was this: a transition from EL to subway, nothing new, but that the subway have to stay in a slope ground in 15 mts. I don't know if i mean. This is a possiblitie, not are request.

 

Ahh, i remember, this piece, not it and i would like that it: Orthogonal elevated pieces, em rail, elevated roads over diag RHW. That also, there not are much possibilities in diagonal RHW.

 

After, i do not know That more. Perhaps, the EL over Avenue, its so good! But I could not use it too much,  maybe i not explored  well, but not has any puzzle pieces like the EL over Road (transition from EL to ELoverRoad and other)

 

Sorry for be too demanding. I do believe that your creation was the better that the Sim City could have, like i say, if not for this, would be tooooo boring. I remember that i played one month and i bored, just after i discovered the NAM.

 

If you need a image or some type of help, please, tell me.

 

So nothing, if all you can achieve my request with the RHW, i would be happy. Regards!

[Tarkus 6,932]

7.5m FLEXFly: Confirmed for NAM 33.  We've completely redone the specifications for FLEXFly for the new release, and that means a ton of new functionality.  The old FLEXFly will be relegated to legacy support, and won't receive any additional improvements.

 

"OnSlope" El-Rail to Subway: There's a few of these around.  I don't know that we've included any, but they exist on the STEX.

 

Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue Viaducts over Diagonal RHW: It's been on the drawing board a long time, but won't happen for NAM 33.  It'll be draggable functionality when we do add it, as we have no plans to add any more viaduct puzzle pieces.  Likely, it'll come when we add the rest of the diagonal viaduct overpass support.

 

El-Rail-over-Avenue Content: There's a couple new pieces that have been made since NAM 32.  The plan is to include them in NAM 33, but our development process has been scattered and a marathon, so I'd have to verify that it is in our NAM 33 depository.

 

-Tarkus

[Nevermore2797 112]

There were plans for an AVE-8 and a TLA-9 for the NWM, and there's actually some code and texture work in place for them in the NAM currently.  But they were excluded from NWM 2.0 because of the pathing work required, plus the sense that it didn't have any real functional differentiation from the TLA-7 and AVE-6.  The chances of them becoming available became even more unlikely when we ran into the controller size issues in NAM 31.0.  While were able to address some of the inherent issues there, we're still getting murdered by crosslinks that haven't yet been provided between different NAM components that already exist (for instance, the Tram-in-Avenue networks can't interface with any of the RHW or NWM content), and adding more networks would just compound that.  Same reason we iced the RHW-12S and 10C.  There never were any serious OWR-6 plans.

 

You can kind of create an AVE-8 and 10 by using pairs of OWR-4s or 5s, and that's probably going to be as far as we'll go on that front.

 

-Tarkus

I'm hoping to see those very wide avenues, so I can't use placeholders that waste space IF AND ONLY IF possible . Also, are NWM Overpasses will be ready soon so we won't use RHW to create one?

[CCXXII 79]

I'd like to see more roundabouts. And one thing I've always been missing is a cosmetic piece for RHW that has exit arrows on both sides of the through arrows. I'm currently using two, a right and a left before my highway roundabouts, and it looks like wierd.

[Tarkus 6,932]

 

There were plans for an AVE-8 and a TLA-9 for the NWM, and there's actually some code and texture work in place for them in the NAM currently.  But they were excluded from NWM 2.0 because of the pathing work required, plus the sense that it didn't have any real functional differentiation from the TLA-7 and AVE-6.  The chances of them becoming available became even more unlikely when we ran into the controller size issues in NAM 31.0.  While were able to address some of the inherent issues there, we're still getting murdered by crosslinks that haven't yet been provided between different NAM components that already exist (for instance, the Tram-in-Avenue networks can't interface with any of the RHW or NWM content), and adding more networks would just compound that.  Same reason we iced the RHW-12S and 10C.  There never were any serious OWR-6 plans.

 

You can kind of create an AVE-8 and 10 by using pairs of OWR-4s or 5s, and that's probably going to be as far as we'll go on that front.

 

-Tarkus

I'm hoping to see those very wide avenues, so I can't use placeholders that waste space IF AND ONLY IF possible . Also, are NWM Overpasses will be ready soon so we won't use RHW to create one?

 

 

The 4-tile solution with the dual OWRs is probably going to be the only solution, and if we were to make an actual AVE-10, it'd end up being 4 tiles wide anyway, so there's nothing to lose there.  If the TuLEPs side of things ever gets going again, the plan *eventually* is to create some turn lane setups specifically designed to take advantage of the Dual OWR-4/5-as-wide-Avenue idea.

 

As far as NWM viaducts, Indiana Joe already answered that question a few posts up.  It's on the drawing board, but it's going to be quite awhile before we get to it.  Probably not until we get the standard Road/OWR/Avenue draggable viaduct system built up.

 

I'd like to see more roundabouts. And one thing I've always been missing is a cosmetic piece for RHW that has exit arrows on both sides of the through arrows. I'm currently using two, a right and a left before my highway roundabouts, and it looks like wierd.

 

Roundabout development has been stalled since the RABETs project shut down, and our cosmetic piece developer has mostly moved onto other (non-city-building) games.

 

In case anyone is wondering where we are overall, right now, we're in the midst of a lengthy process of restructuring our workflow and depository system, which has had some growing pains and a lot of heavy-duty RL (including on my end).  We've also moved to mostly just focusing on single areas of focus for our releases.  NAM 33 is going to be largely about improving the functionality of the elevated RHWs (esp. L1 and L2), including the new FLEXFly work.  I have no idea where we're headed after that, but provided the development process restructuring falls into place, barring any more RL, the hope is that we can actually get to smaller releases more often.

 

-Tarkus

[drpfaff 54]

7.5m FLEXFly: Confirmed for NAM 33.  We've completely redone the specifications for FLEXFly for the new release, and that means a ton of new functionality.  The old FLEXFly will be relegated to legacy support, and won't receive any additional improvements.

-Tarkus

Excellent! Certainly increases the diversity available for spaghetti changes and places where you need all 3 levels of FlexFly.

 

I was wondering also from your previous post whether there will be any advancement in the nearer future regarding TuLEPs (assuming they become un-shelved). Are TuLEPs happening for OWR-2 by NAM 33/34? Will there be any advancement in additional right turn lanes (similar to the A2 for roads and aves) that would provide something like a B2 or a right turn only T-intersection for avenues?

[Tarkus 6,932]

I was wondering also from your previous post whether there will be any advancement in the nearer future regarding TuLEPs (assuming they become un-shelved). Are TuLEPs happening for OWR-2 by

NAM

33/34? Will there be any advancement in additional right turn lanes (similar to the A2 for roads and aves) that would provide something like a B2 or a right turn only T-intersection for avenues?

TuLEPs will be taken back off the shelf at some point--some preliminary work was done on a new implementation between NAM 31.2 and 32.0, and we'll pick up where we left off there.  It won't be for NAM 33, however, as we're currently in the last stage of alpha testing, before we do a public pre-release.  It may not happen until the NAM 35 cycle, as there's already a stockpile of content ready for NAM 34, and we're aiming to get out of these murderously long gaps between releases.  It'll partially depend on the logistics of getting the new FlexSPUI implementation in place, as that'll ultimately require a new TuLEP implementation.  Right turn lanes and OWR-related TuLEP situations are on our radar (and have been since the project started), but the right turn lanes are more complicated, and probably won't happen until later.

-Tarkus