NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Razip 153]

23 hours ago, Razip said:

There are too few bridges for RHW-6 and apparently no choice at all for RHW-8 and RHW-10.

 

5 hours ago, Tarkus said:

There are RHW-8S and 10S bridges, but they're built with the Maxis Highway tools.

Tarkus, you did't get my point. I meant that for RHW-6 there are about three bridges (more variety is needed though), but 8S and 10S have just a single bridge each.

[APSMS 1,892]

Just now, Razip said:

 but 8S and 10S have just a single bridge each.

Aye, 'n' we'e lucky to ha'e 't.

Ya didna hae any ere NAM 32 (? o' 31), an' tha' was a stretch.

But you'r welcome t' make some yerself if ya wan' an' seeing 't works 'll be included 'n th' next NAM.

[Razip 153]

1 minute ago, APSMS said:

Aye, 'n' we'e lucky to ha'e 't.

Ya didna hae any ere NAM 32 (? o' 31), an' tha' was a stretch.

But you'r welcome t' make some yerself if ya wan' an' seeing 't works 'll be included 'n th' next NAM.

I cannot read your message lol.

1 minute ago, APSMS said:

Aye, 'n' we'e lucky to ha'e 't.

Ya didna hae any ere NAM 32 (? o' 31), an' tha' was a stretch.

But you'r welcome t' make some yerself if ya wan' an' seeing 't works 'll be included 'n th' next NAM.

I cannot read your message lol.

[APSMS 1,892]

It's late, and I'm tired. Read it in your best Highland Accent (Scottish).

Be glad there's any RHW-8 bridges. Earlier versions had to split the RHW-8S or 10S into two RHW-4 (or 4+6S) to cross rivers. It looked bad; generally it wasn't done.

So really, with the grand total of one variant each, you're spoiled for choice. There was none a few versions ago, and the only bridge modeller for the NAM Team that's active is focused on RRW (which lacks bridges, and will likely be used more). All the other modellers are either inactive or have left the community entirely. Bridge modelling is not terrible (I understand it's better than network modelling), but it's still nontrivial, and most of the NAM Team are not model makers, or at best are certainly not Transit model makers (there are very few who are).

So yeah, if you want to make the bridge, they'll include it if it works, but otherwise, be glad we have something, which is more than I can say for 3 versions ago.

[Razip 153]

11 hours ago, APSMS said:

require 2 bridges,

I thought I could only make just a single RHW-6 bridge. Would you show me a picture of those?

27 minutes ago, matias93 said:

Taking advantage of the recent activity,

I dragged both ramps in identical way, but the incoming one appeared on that strange way. It is a bug or I did something wrong? (I'm using NAM 34)

I've seen something similar recently, try to drag straight the highways first then select a RHW tool and try clicking everywhere on this section of the road because sometimes it helps.

UPD: I didn't notice there are neighbor pieces. You might want to remove those in order to fix.

6 minutes ago, APSMS said:

It's late, and I'm tired. Read it in your best Highland Accent (Scottish).

Be glad there's any RHW-8 bridges. Earlier versions had to split the RHW-8S or 10S into two RHW-4 (or 4+6S) to cross rivers. It looked bad; generally it wasn't done.

So really, with the grand total of one variant each, you're spoiled for choice. There was none a few versions ago, and the only bridge modeller for the NAM Team that's active is focused on RRW (which lacks bridges, and will likely be used more). All the other modellers are either inactive or have left the community entirely. Bridge modelling is not terrible (I understand it's better than network modelling), but it's still nontrivial, and most of the NAM Team are not model makers, or at best are certainly not Transit model makers (there are very few who are).

So yeah, if you want to make the bridge, they'll include it if it works, but otherwise, be glad we have something, which is more than I can say for 3 versions ago.

I see.

[APSMS 1,892]

3 minutes ago, Razip said:

I thought I could only make just a single RHW-6 bridge. Would you show me a picture of those?

All bridges have to be separated by 1 tile minimum. So that's what they did; they spread a RHW-8S across 4 bridges (each RHW-4); two going one way, two going the other, each bridge separated by a one-tile gap, and then reunited the highway after the bridge. It looked bad then, but it worked and maintained capacity.

So 2 bridges would already be separated by the 1-tile gap since the symmetrical transition only maintains symmetry by separating the carriageways by the aforementioned gap. It better justifies the random barrier in the AVE-6 transition, and doesn't include a random tile-shift to accommodate either.

Or, of course, there's the MHW-based RHW-6 bridge that you draw using the Maxis Highway Tool. There shows the option for a Dual RHW-6 bridge (like a normal, two-way traffic type). There is at least one such bridge, though there may be two. I haven't made a RHW bridge in a while.

[rsc204 21,808]

2 hours ago, APSMS said:

It's late, and I'm tired. Read it in your best Highland Accent (Scottish).

Really, I was getting West Country or possibly Northerner

[APSMS 1,892]

@rsc204 I'm American, OK? It's all the same to me.

[fredinno 54]

Is it possible for T-style RHW pieces to be built?
 

Also, how about an underground monorail/highway/RHW?

 

And combine the diagonal NWM networks to its straight counterparts, simplifying the puzzle piece network enormously?

 

And an alternate 'realistic ferry network' and 'realistic airport network' - a ferry that actually goes from point A to point B instead of being a teleporter, and/or a ferry with actual capacity levels...

The 'realistic airport' would be capable of actually sending people from part A of city to Part B.

[rsc204 21,808]

28 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Is it possible for T-style RHW pieces to be built?

Yes, using the MHO there is a pre-fab which transitions smoothly into RHW-4. A quick look a the development hell Marteen had making it should tell you why no others exist. However, with QuickChange, who knows, it could happen. The whole point of RHW though, it to have more control, and modular pieces give you far more flexibility than simple pre-fabs ever could.

30 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Also, how about an underground monorail/highway/RHW?

Seriously doubtful, it's another of those things that would probably require modification of the games code. However, FLUPs for making underpasses is a lot more likely, at least for RHW. Monorail can transition to subway, although you loose the speed advantage.

32 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And combine the diagonal NWM networks to its straight counterparts, simplifying the puzzle piece network enormously?

Not entirely sure what you mean. I don't get all the puzzle piece hate, I really don't. They aren't that bad, once you take the time to learn what exists and where to find them.

33 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And an alternate 'realistic ferry network' and 'realistic airport network' - a ferry that actually goes from point A to point B instead of being a teleporter, and/or a ferry with actual capacity levels...

Again, this would need totally new code so is probably a non-starter.

[APSMS 1,892]

Although this is a request thread and not a question thread...

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Is it possible for T-style RHW pieces to be built?

Yes. Manually, or with MHW using the supplied interchanges, or with PS using the directional T-interchange provided. See this thread for ideas:

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Also, how about an underground monorail/highway/RHW?

Not sure what you mean by this. If you are referring to tunnels, monorail and MHW can already make these, and the MHW tunnel functionality was ported over to PS for that purpose. Tunnels cannot be made for RHW. This is a hardcoded game limitation (meaning that it cannot be changed).

If that's not what you're referring to, I am confused. You can easily make sunken (inset into the ground) versions of these mods very easily with a bit of terraforming and liberal use of the hole digger lots. Subway transitions for all of these networks also exist; a quick STEX search will pull them up for you, though remember that subways can't transport freight, nor will bus travelers remain in their buses (they get switched to cars) when they reemerge on the other side.

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And combine the diagonal NWM networks to its straight counterparts, simplifying the puzzle piece network enormously?

I'm not sure what you mean here. The only puzzle pieces for the NWM are the static transition pieces. All the rest are starter pieces, from which you drag road or OWR where appropriate. Diagonal intersection capability is not currently available for any NWM network that I'm aware of, though all NWM do support the ability to travel/be dragged diagonally, and this information is available in the NAM documentation, which, at least in this case, is still mostly up to date.

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And an alternate 'realistic ferry network' and 'realistic airport network' - a ferry that actually goes from point A to point B instead of being a teleporter, and/or a ferry with actual capacity levels...

There is nothing wrong with the way the ferry network operates currently. Although it is infinitely fast, the biggest issue with a teleporting ferry network is the proneness of the system to create infinite commuter loops, but this can happen with any system, and the ferry network doesn't necessary make this strictly worse, since the pathing for the network also allows it to send Sims directly to whatever jobs happen to be closest.

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that, like the RHW/street tunnels, this behavior is hardcoded and cannot be modified by anyone per the EA/Maxis EULA for people living in most western nations.

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The 'realistic airport' would be capable of actually sending people from part A of city to Part B.

That would require teleporting Sims. I thought you didn't like this behavior?

I suppose that we could [try to] manipulate the ferry behavior to think that all areas were water, and then re-mod airports as ferries, and then airports would be able to be used for actual transport and send Sims to the airport of their choice (ferries can, IIRC, move more than one city at a time to get to their destination, but are probably limited by nearest destination attractiveness, which means that potential for commuter loops would be high, but also airports, even large ones, would be woefully regional only, and even then, perhaps, only next-city regional, which is patently pointless for something that takes up as much space as an airport.

EDIT: I was ninja'd by @rsc204

  Edited October 7, 2016 by APSMS  

[rsc204 21,808]

33 minutes ago, APSMS said:

I suppose that we could [try to] manipulate the ferry behavior to think that all areas were water, and then re-mod airports as ferries, and then airports would be able to be used for actual transport and send Sims to the airport of their choice

That's really not a bad idea in theory.

But given the speed of travel, I can see potential problems, because sims would prefer air-travel over other means if you have enough airports. Also, I think this would lead to ships leaving water and sailing driving on land too.

However, seeing as how even with huge maps, distances over 50km would still be really unlikely, it's all a bit unnecessary really. What I'd love to be possible is for such things like an airport to affect an entire region with it's presence. After all, it would take one hell of a region to justify more than one commercial airport. Not to mention, who flys to work?

[fredinno 54]

54 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

And combine the diagonal NWM networks to its straight counterparts, simplifying the puzzle piece network enormously?

Not entirely sure what you mean. I don't get all the puzzle piece hate, I really don't. They aren't that bad, once you take the time to learn what exists and where to find them.

No, I mean simplify the puzzle -piece network-instead of different lots for diagonal versions of a NWM to road transitions, keep every single diagonal transition merged into its stright counterpart in the transitions category. Because they are currently taking up extra space on the lot.

 

[APSMS 1,892]

@rsc204 Yeah, it would kinda preclude the ferry network (or somehow work as an override?)

But airports are giant monsters now that they didn't used to be. Maybe it was the FAA getting smart about airplane safety, but i suspect it was more due to rules and regulations that favored the rich and well-connected over the little guy.

Municipal airports aren't exactly commercial venues, but consider that San Diego has 1 Int'l airport, 3 military airports (I'm not counting helicopter ports), and about a half-dozen (off the top of my head) municipal and commuter airports scattered about the county. Consider, though, that since 1950, 9 airports have since closed down. Their land was used for development or park space, but geez, 9 airports? This was when the population of San Diego County was 1/8 of what it is today (3 000 000+, currently)!

Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that there is a 500 yd dirt airport/landing strip about a mile from my house, but I think you get the idea.

2 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Because they are currently taking up extra space on the lot.

Is your road menu really that crowded? I'm all for efficiency but with all the stuff the NAM Team works on (and of which I am but a marginal part), this is what irks you?

[rsc204 21,808]

I think I'm with you, but FYI transport pieces are not lots, it's simply a puzzle piece.

I can see the merit in your suggestion, but I'm sure not everyone would agree. Some may prefer to have them as separate items in the Tab-Ring to find them more easily. I agree with the principle of reduce clutter where possible. It's not a huge change, but because it ties into the RUL code, it's not something that's easily handled by a patch/mod.

2 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Municipal airports aren't exactly commercial venues, but consider that San Diego has 1 Int'l airport, 3 military airports (I'm not counting helicopter ports), and about a half-dozen (off the top of my head) municipal and commuter airports scattered about the county.

Well I don't know about the US, but the legacy of air fields in the UK came from WWII. Actually, this is what kick-started the sports-car industry in the UK post war. So many places to drive fast and test cars gave the UK an edge over the rest of the world, then came the hackback and Mazda MX-5 (Miata/Roadster).

My home city, Bristol has two airports, but only one is used for commercial flights. The other is at the factory where they built/serviced Concorde and has a simply huge runway as a result. There are lots of smaller private airports in the surrounding area, but these tend to be suited to very small planes only.

[fredinno 54]

1 minute ago, APSMS said:

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Because they are currently taking up extra space on the lot.

Is your road menu really that crowded? I'm all for efficiency but with all the stuff the NAM Team works on (and of which I am but a marginal part), this is what irks you?

 

No, it's just that when NWM is expanded (eventually), it will need to be made more concise... I know it's not huge in priority, but it should eventually be adressed. Just saying.

2 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Municipal airports aren't exactly commercial venues, but consider that San Diego has 1 Int'l airport, 3 military airports (I'm not counting helicopter ports), and about a half-dozen (off the top of my head) municipal and commuter airports scattered about the county. Consider, though, that since 1950, 9 airports have since closed down. Their land was used for development or park space, but geez, 9 airports? This was when the population of San Diego County was 1/8 of what it is today (3 000 000+, currently)!

I'm pretty sure most of the smaller ones would have just merged with larger ones, especially since airports aren't the nicest things to live by. Or at least that's what I would think.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

There is nothing wrong with the way the ferry network operates currently. Although it is infinitely fast, the biggest issue with a teleporting ferry network is the proneness of the system to create infinite commuter loops, but this can happen with any system, and the ferry network doesn't necessary make this strictly worse, since the pathing for the network also allows it to send Sims directly to whatever jobs happen to be closest.

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that, like the RHW/street tunnels, this behavior is hardcoded and cannot be modified by anyone per the EA/Maxis EULA for people living in most western nations.

It also makes commuting unrealistic, since commuters in my cities seem to always prefer the ferry, when in real life, people tend to avoid ferries due to higher wait times.

That's why I proposed a different ferry lot entirely, like what RHW and HSR did.

On the other hand, a simpler solution to this problem would be to add artificial wait times. Or so I would think.

 

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

That would require teleporting Sims. I thought you didn't like this behavior?

I suppose that we could [try to] manipulate the ferry behavior to think that all areas were water, and then re-mod airports as ferries, and then airports would be able to be used for actual transport and send Sims to the airport of their choice (ferries can, IIRC, move more than one city at a time to get to their destination, but are probably limited by nearest destination attractiveness, which means that potential for commuter loops would be high, but also airports, even large ones, would be woefully regional only, and even then, perhaps, only next-city regional, which is patently pointless for something that takes up as much space as an airport.

EDIT: I was ninja'd by @rsc204

I don't like it because it's unrealistic, but if you need to... I guess we don't have a choice, huh. Potentially add artificial wait times for the airport lot. If that can even work.

I guess we should keep the commerical boost airports provide...

 

 

[APSMS 1,892]

Well, San Diego is a WWII/Military town. And the San Diego Int'l airport doesn't have that big of a runway anyways. MCAS Miramar is bigger, and I think North Island NAS is bigger as well (or about the same size). Of course, they built the B-24 Liberator here; I suspect aviation was a big deal, but if you look at old maps of SD, the amount of airports interspersed in what is a rather sparsely populated city (back in 1950) is...well mind boggling. Some were never commercially viable, and they were all small airports, but the sheer number of them (and then, when you see where they were compared with what is there now) is what is crazy. One of them was right next to a marsh that became Mission Bay, and all that's left of it is a model-plane landing strip run by a private club. Another was smack north of downtown, about two miles from Lindbergh Field (SD Int'l).

They are big compared to the game's scale, but I'm just impressed at where they squeezed them in. It would look totally off to build them this way in-game, even though some of them were like that IRL.

[fredinno 54]

39 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

That's really not a bad idea in theory.

But given the speed of travel, I can see potential problems, because sims would prefer air-travel over other means if you have enough airports. Also, I think this would lead to ships leaving water and sailing driving on land too.

However, seeing as how even with huge maps, distances over 50km would still be really unlikely, it's all a bit unnecessary really. What I'd love to be possible is for such things like an airport to affect an entire region with it's presence. After all, it would take one hell of a region to justify more than one commercial airport. Not to mention, who flys to work?

Actually, that's a better idea in hindsight. Just have a lot with a huge international airport, and make it hugely expensive, but be able to service an entire region.  Also, increase the cost of the other maxis airports drastically to balance things out. The only problem would be funding the giant thing. You can't move money from city to city...

 

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

 

Again, this would need totally new code so is probably a non-starter.

Was HSR made as a completely new lot or as a modification of old stuff?

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

A quick look a the development hell Marteen had making it should tell you why no others exist.

?

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Monorail can transition to subway

never seen it.

FLUPs would still be OK though. Monorail is so neglected in NAM it seems...

 

 

[fredinno 54]

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

or with PS using the directional T-interchange provided.

?

[rsc204 21,808]

20 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Actually, that's a better idea in hindsight. Just have a lot with a huge international airport, and make it hugely expensive, but be able to service an entire region.  Also, increase the cost of the other maxis airports drastically to balance things out. The only problem would be funding the giant thing. You can't move money from city to city...

Thinking about it, a mod like RIMP pretty much does this. The airport is built with a huge set of modular lots, none of which act like airports. Then you plop simple 1x1 lots that give airport effects to the city. So you could plop these lots in more than one city to simulate the presence of an airport, even thought it's elsewhere.

Funding could then be distributed because that can be tied to the airport effect lots rather than the airport complex itself.

20 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Was HSR made as a completely new lot or as a modification of old stuff?

HSR is an override network. You can't override either Ferries or Airports, since they aren't truly networks.

To explain an override network, you need a basic understanding of RUL2 Code. Which works something like this:

When Piece A is next to Piece B, change Piece A to C and Piece B to D

Actually, writing RUL2 is not that complex, here's an example:

0x5D540500,3,0,0x08dd0300,2,0=0x5D540500,3,0,0x5D54FF00,2,0

So in this case, A doesn't change, but B (blue) will be replaced by D (Red). When A and B meet. Obviously this is greatly simplified, the hard part is working out the adjacency code. That means figuring out all the possible pieces that may meet and providing code to cover every potential setup. The single digits after the piece ID relate to the rotation and mirroring of the pieces in question. For example a T-Junction needs to know which way to orient the T part.

So for a network like HSR, you just need one starter piece which sets the whole thing in motion. Then the RUL2 code will know when the new network appears to replace the subsequent pieces that are connected to it. That why you sometimes get instability where an override "reverts" to the base network. Either because the piece is simply unsupported as part of the override network, or because the setup is too complex for the RUL code to resolve. In the latter case, clicking around is saying to the game "think again", which is often useful with RHW. But a very simple single piece can run into many lines of code. For example, for the FlexFly (RHW curves) to support two RHW networks crossing the same piece, an estimate of around 500,000 lines of such code would be needed. Obviously no one is manually typing so many lines, but a it still takes a lot of work to make seemingly simple things work.

15 minutes ago, fredinno said:

or with PS using the directional T-interchange provided.

PS = (Project Symphony), the development name for MHO (Maxis Highway Override). Many prefer the PS moniker, so it kinda stuck.

[APSMS 1,892]

23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Was HSR made as a completely new lot or as a modification of old stuff?

Again, transit pieces are not LOTs. A lot is fundamentally different than a puzzle piece or RUL code. They are not interchangeable terms, and doing so fails to understand why the work of the NAM Team is vital and exclusive (that is, you can't have more than one traffic simulator).

PS is the code name for Maxis Highway Override, which is the RHW-ification of the MHW network. Maarten (Mandlesoft, the bobbing head brony avatar) was the principal developer, with I believe 2 codevs, @Shadow Assassin and @jdenm8. The T-interchange piece was hell to make. For reference, the additional MHW interchange pieces took literally months to make (one piece took 11 months, IIRC) and so exhausted the developer that he stopped doing NAM work shortly afterward and later left the community because burned him out on SC4. After that no more MHW pieces were developed or planned, to spare the loss due to burnout.

As for not seeing the Monorail to subway lots, let me quote myself:

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

Subway transitions for all of these networks also exist; a quick STEX search will pull them up for you,

So the leg work needs to be done, and is very simple to do. Only Lots included in the NAM are the station lots, which are an optional installation.

[rsc204 21,808]

46 minutes ago, fredinno said:

never seen it.

Try these for HSR.

Quote

FLUPs would still be OK though. Monorail is so neglected in NAM it seems...

Not sure I understand your argument really. What exactly makes it neglected? It pretty much does everything it needs too. Additional functionality is added as and when it's needed. For example, Monorail interfaces with RHW/NWM and many of the other NAM networks. Monorail even supports proper tunnels, which many networks don't.

You can't add them for HSR. Actually you could, but when you add a tunnel for an override network, it would replace the tunnel of the base network too. You can't have both, tunnels are one of the least flexible parts of the game's code, we're simply not in a position to do anything about it. Hence the subway converters exist as a workaround.

[fredinno 54]

36 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Thinking about it, a mod like RIMP pretty much does this. The airport is built with a huge set of modular lots, none of which act like airports. Then you plop simple 1x1 lots that give airport effects to the city. So you could plop these lots in more than one city to simulate the presence of an airport, even thought it's elsewhere.

Funding could then be distributed because that can be tied to the airport effect lots rather than the airport complex itself.

HSR is an override network. You can't override either Ferries or Airports, since they aren't truly networks.

To explain an override network, you need a basic understanding of RUL2 Code. Which works something like this:

When Piece A is next to Piece B, change Piece A to C and Piece B to D

Actually, writing RUL2 is not that complex, here's an example:

0x5D540500,3,0,0x08dd0300,2,0=0x5D540500,3,0,0x5D54FF00,2,0

So in this case, A doesn't change, but B (blue) will be replaced by D (Red). When A and B meet. Obviously this is greatly simplified, the hard part is working out the adjacency code. That means figuring out all the possible pieces that may meet and providing code to cover every potential setup. The single digits after the piece ID relate to the rotation and mirroring of the pieces in question. For example a T-Junction needs to know which way to orient the T part.

So for a network like HSR, you just need one starter piece which sets the whole thing in motion. Then the RUL2 code will know when the new network appears to replace the subsequent pieces that are connected to it. That why you sometimes get instability where an override "reverts" to the base network. Either because the piece is simply unsupported as part of the override network, or because the setup is too complex for the RUL code to resolve. In the latter case, clicking around is saying to the game "think again", which is often useful with RHW. But a very simple single piece can run into many lines of code. For example, for the FlexFly (RHW curves) to support two RHW networks crossing the same piece, an estimate of around 500,000 lines of such code would be needed. Obviously no one is manually typing so many lines, but a it still takes a lot of work to make seemingly simple things work.

PS = (Project Symphony), the development name for MHO (Maxis Highway Override). Many prefer the PS moniker, so it kinda stuck.

I tried MHO. There was no T-style interchange, which is why I quit it. All the T-styles are Maxis T-style.

 

36 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Again, transit pieces are not LOTs. A lot is fundamentally different than a puzzle piece or RUL code. They are not interchangeable terms, and doing so fails to understand why the work of the NAM Team is vital and exclusive (that is, you can't have more than one traffic simulator).

PS is the code name for Maxis Highway Override, which is the RHW-ification of the MHW network. Maarten (Mandlesoft, the bobbing head brony avatar) was the principal developer, with I believe 2 codevs, @Shadow Assassin and @jdenm8. The T-interchange piece was hell to make. For reference, the additional MHW interchange pieces took literally months to make (one piece took 11 months, IIRC) and so exhausted the developer that he stopped doing NAM work shortly afterward and later left the community because burned him out on SC4. After that no more MHW pieces were developed or planned, to spare the loss due to burnout.

As for not seeing the Monorail to subway lots, let me quote myself:

So the leg work needs to be done, and is very simple to do. Only Lots included in the NAM are the station lots, which are an optional installation.

Is it really that hard to add/override maxis networks?

And the thing is, I always used google search...lol. I'm dumb.

6 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Not sure I understand your argument really. What exactly makes it neglected? It pretty much does everything it needs too. Additional functionality is added as and when it's needed. For example, Monorail interfaces with RHW/NWM and many of the other NAM networks. Monorail even supports proper tunnels, which many networks don't.

You can't add them for HSR. Actually you could, but when you add a tunnel for an override network, it would replace the tunnel of the base network too. You can't have both, tunnels are one of the least flexible parts of the game's code, we're simply not in a position to do anything about it. Hence the subway converters exist as a workaround.

I meant that nothing monorail-esque or monorail has been added for a LONG time.

 

I suppose an artifical time lag for transportation in ferries is  not possible?

[rsc204 21,808]

Just now, fredinno said:

I tried MHO. There was no T-style interchange, which is why I quit it. All the T-styles are Maxis T-style.

Why do you have to say it doesn't exist? What's wrong with saying you couldn't find it and asking for help?

Seriously, two NAM team members have explained just how much work it was to create, how is it not going to exist?

See "Prefabs" Tab Ring - 3rd Item. If you give up on everything, rather than persevere, no wonder you end up in trouble all the time.

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Is it really that hard to add/override maxis networks?

No, I just took the time to write all that to see if you'd fall for it

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And the thing is, I always used google search...lol. I'm dumb.

I think every long term member appreciates the difficulty in finding content. That's why people are so willing to help. But the number of times I find what someone is looking for as the very first hit on Google is frankly depressing. In the case of the HSR-Subway lots I linked, those aren't so easy to find.

4 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I meant that nothing monorail-esque or monorail has been added for a LONG time.

Yes, but as I said, what should we add? I only ask, because your comment seemed like a complaint? I mean, many things haven't changed in ages, but then there are only so many ways of explaining that people work on what they want, not what the community or single users want them to. I really don't know what else I can say to expand upon this?

6 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I suppose an artifical time lag for transportation in ferries is  not possible?

Actually you probably could adjust the TSEC for the ferry terminals to do this. But this will not be something the NAM team would do.

[Tarkus 6,932]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

No, I mean simplify the puzzle -piece network-instead of different lots for diagonal versions of a NWM to road transitions, keep every single diagonal transition merged into its stright counterpart in the transitions category. Because they are currently taking up extra space on the lot.

 

Actually, just about every single one of those transition puzzle pieces can be ignored.  Most of them were given draggable counterparts 5 years ago, with the NAM 30/NWM 2.0 release of September 2011, as seen in the reveal video I did then:

Although our documentation is quite out of sorts, the NWM hasn't changed much since NAM 31, so most of the advice there is still good.  This particular feature is covered on page 10.

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

 

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Yes, but as I said, what should we add? I only ask, because your comment seemed like a complaint? I mean, many things haven't changed in ages, but then there are only so many ways of explaining that people work on what they want, not what the community or single users want them to. I really don't know what else I can say to expand upon this?

 

I originally wrote that without any of the knowledge that a lot of the lots I wanted were already made- I thought NAM was a 'monolithic' system and had basically anything... so... It's mostly my fault.

 

The primary thing I really want out of monorail is for this kind of stuff to be more prominent or added to NAM already. If it could ever work like that. I came into here not knowing those things existed.

 

Surface monorail is not a thing it seems either. I guess that's the point of HSR, but there is surface monorail proposals IRL... though I guess that's being solved too in a sense. I guess I don't have much to say here.

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

I think every long term member appreciates the difficulty in finding content. That's why people are so willing to help. But the number of times I find what someone is looking for as the very first hit on Google is frankly depressing. In the case of the HSR-Subway lots I linked, those aren't so easy to find.

thanks.

 

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Why do you have to say it doesn't exist? What's wrong with saying you couldn't find it and asking for help?

Seriously, two NAM team members have explained just how much work it was to create, how is it not going to exist?

See "Prefabs" Tab Ring - 3rd Item. If you give up on everything, rather than persevere, no wonder you end up in trouble all the time.

OK, you know what, you're right. I am an idiot for this shit. I should leave until I can cool down and get more used to everything in NAM before coming back.

I realise I've acted like an idiot and an $%&^! here. I'm sorry.

[rsc204 21,808]

5 minutes ago, fredinno said:

OK, you know what, you're right. I am an idiot for this shit. I should leave until I can cool down and get more used to everything in NAM before coming back.

I realise I've acted like an idiot and an $%&^! here. I'm sorry.

Seriously, we all make mistakes, say things the wrong way or get frustrated, we're all human. Case in point, I did loose my own temper a little back there, for which I apologise.

But I would say that sometimes you might consider what and how you write something before clicking post. Reviewing what you type before putting in on a public forum can help to avoid coming off in a way that might annoy others. Try to put yourself in the shoes of those people helping you out. We don't mind helping, but understand that we're not paid employees and we can pick and choose to help or not. Sometimes how you ask for things can make the difference between getting it or not.

9 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The primary thing I really want out of monorail is for this kind of stuff to be more prominent or added to NAM already.

Thing is, the NAM is simply a mod for the transit networks of the game. Some cosmetic mods and stations have been incorporated into the game over the years, although you don't have to go back too far to a time when this was an absolute no-no.

However, bundling the entire SC4 content into one package simply could never work. As such, the NAM has to be kept a sensible size, primarily for hosting/bandwidth considerations, but also for more practical ones too.

Not to mention, many mods simply aren't made by the NAM team and contains assets we don't even have rights to distribute. No one around these parts will deny that getting started with modding is difficult. Learning the NAM and how it works is difficult too, it's a complex mod. But, there are no easy fixes to these problems, those that persevere will ultimately be rewarded. I might be a NAM developer now, but just 2 years ago I could barely get this stuff together myself. Don't try to rush building a plugins folder by just stuffing everything you like in there. Take your time, build it slowly piece by piece, in the long run, it will be quicker if you do things this way.

Same with the NAM, rather than trying to build the city of your dreams, why not just mess about with it a little. Open a blank region, go through and plop every piece in every menu, taking the time to work out how everything works. If you take 30m a week to go through small chucks of the NAM in this way, you'll learn a lot.

Otherwise, take some time to look through the various tutorials and information out there. Again I realise it's not always easy to find or in a logical order. But you could do worse than click the link to my NAM Tutorials. Unlike many such videos, I've aimed them directly at beginners and those who may not find this stuff so easy. That does mean they are a bit slow, but it also means that you get to see things step by step with full explanations. 2 Hours of your time going through them and you'll be amazed at what you can do. By comparison, that was probably nearer 50 hours of mine to make them.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

[Another 'philosophical' intervention]

Well, on a game like sc4 it's easy to become a fanatic. And to fail as a major on things others tell you 'don't work' or 'impossible' - that's too much 'real life' for a gamer, of course. The circumstances and limitations of the reality of computer programming breaks into the fictional world of perfection. That's never nice. It's all about an illusion of a better world,  heaving a 8-lane RHW but no air polution. Having everyone a place to work and earn money, all best educated and in best health. And then this: CTD.

Sometimes there is no other solution than this - to regard those technical limitations of the software as a part of the 'game world' - to regard a CTD as a 'desaster' like a vulcan erruption or to not be able to connect certain networks as one of those failures of your city planner office.

To sweep all limitations away can mean to sweep all challenges away. But then - what's a game without challenges?

[rsc204 21,808]

Agreed, I derive much more pleasure form building transport networks and figuring out how to connect things up in a visually interesting way. I'm less into the actual city-building part of the game. This is why I spend more time modding than playing, because fixing things that irk me or improving cross-compatibility of networks is something I get pleasure out of.

CTD's though, there's no need for those, that's simply a technical problem. One that with a little tweaking should simply not be necessary in my experience.

 

[Fantozzi 4,067]

55 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Agreed, I derive much more pleasure form building transport networks and figuring out how to connect things up in a visually interesting way. I'm less into the actual city-building part of the game. This is why I spend more time modding than playing, because fixing things that irk me or improving cross-compatibility of networks is something I get pleasure out of.

 

Others they don't 'play' either, they set up beautiful scenerys to take a snapshot and maybe they even tell comic like storys with those pictures. The interesting thing about sc4 is, that during the years there's not been only one 'usage' or maybe 'direction' of the game, Me, f.e. many years I was avoiding the lot editor. Just to fire it up and seeing the GUI made me think "Why -for heavens shake - I should ever use this? I ain't a masochist" But now this turned into another challenge for me.

Sometimes I think - 'fun' thats all about picking up challenges. And the bestial thruth about war and soldiers is - there are people who found this to be their challenge and their fun. So maybe we're doing good to find us new challenges closer around sc4 when we got tired of the old ones and not dragging our desires to far. Finding challenges - maybe that's even the central point of beeing creative - as if you look at the great inventors like Edison, Fischer or Jobs, that's what they did. 

As the french philosopher Albert Camus wrote: "We have to regard Sisyphus (wo spent his life rolling a stone on the top of a hill) as a lucky person."

It's really not the worst case in life to have such a stone you roll it up the hill and it drops down on the other side. Much worser it is to wake up one morning and to realize there is no stone left in my world I could try to move.

 

[I'll stop here. Don't want to hijack this thread]