NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[APSMS 1,892]

@Lost Realist I happened to be lucky enough to join and discover the NAM during the lull of the v30 hotfix.

I had been playing the game, first at a friend's house, and later on my el-cheapo laptop for about 5 years (2 years on my own computer with no mods). Seeing the difference between where the NAM was at the v30 marker, and how game-changing RHW 5.0 and later NAM 31 have been in terms of capabilities is incredible. I wish I better understood the systems (and had the time) to contribute to the NAM, but it is indeed incredible what was just a few years ago considered impossible.

I mean, we have what, 4 different types of FLEXFly at 3 different heights? (!) (I think?). There are, I think, 3 RHW ramps that are not draggable. Willy popped his head back in a few months ago and came up with a way to implement draggable Tram-in-Street (very much at the alpha stage, but also very possible), with potential for more. Heck, we can even run TIA under RHW! How amazing is that?

 

And Alex and co. seem to be, as you said, far more patient than I would ever be. I think the only reason I put up with some stuff is because I don't do any of the work, they do, and still end up being more willing to help than I am, which says a lot when most complainers bash the NAM and never even bother to look on the forums for the appropriate place to post their questions (dumping it in things like SC4 General Discussion).

[rsc204 21,808]

15 hours ago, fredinno said:

Because using the MHW and MHO in tandem never works, as designed.  It's not a deal breaker, but still. RHW would be even more versatile if MHO exclusive lots and interchanges were copied to RHW as well.

 

Not going to happen, never going to happen, will not happen, is not happening.

Hopefully that's now clear. As for why, I'm not going to continually explain that to you, I feel I and others have done that, if you don't accept or understand the answer, well, I won't be loosing any sleep over it.

If you don't want to make intersections with MIS as you need to with MHO, then use MHY. MHO was never intended to be MHY, it is something different.

@Lost Realist has hit the nail on the head here. NAM development isn't some process where we go "oooh I want to do X" then ten minutes later we've made it. Mostly its a lot of ruddy hard work to accomplish anything. You can ask for all the features in the world, reality is, there are maybe 10 people maximum with the skills and dedication to make it happen. Possibly only 5 who understand RUL and the other coding necessary to make it work, which does not include myself. We all work on what we want to work on, we won't be swayed nor badgered into making things others want. We may find inspiration in the ideas that are brought up in threads, such as this one, that's really it's purpose. But people who simply are perceived to be asking too much, will ultimately be ignored. We have only so much time to work on our hobby. Whilst as a team, we'd love to do so much more, there are always many times more plans afoot, than actual working projects.

NAM development never stops, but new releases might. It's taken from Christmas last year to put together an update we feel as a team is ready for the light of day. We'd all love for the team of NAM developers to be larger and more active. Just as we'd all love to see new users come to SC4 and enjoy the game enough, to want to learn how to make things for it. The cycle produces more creators and increases activity that leads to improvements for all. But, there is a limit to what we can accomplish. People need to be grateful the NAM team exists and sometimes, less demanding of us as developers. We're not working for EA or another company, we're hobbyists that do this for the love of the game. So perhaps, lower your expectations a little. Not to mention, every hour we spend having to explain things or provide support, is an hour we can't spend developing. We're nice people, or at least I'd like to think so. So we take the time to communicate with the community and assist them where possible. But we're not able to perform miracles either and won't be beholden to the wants of individuals.

[metasmurf 705]

19 hours ago, fredinno said:

couldn't there at least be a median in RHW-2, 4, etc to make it more obvious? Most 2-lane highways sections I know that are 2-direction (wonder why there is no 1 direction 2-lane section) have a median in between. But I'm a city guy, so I don't have the experiences as you do, but still. Even suburban 2-lane highways use medians.

You can find grade separated undivided highways in many countries in Europe, but also in North America and elsewhere. Here are two examples. Norway to the left and Sweden to the right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hafiz173 9]

High elevated rail/monorail over RHW will be really appreciated. I really needed those for my already built city with sunken highway in it

[Tarkus 6,932]

10 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Whilst as a team, we'd love to do so much more, there are always many times more plans afoot, than actual working projects.

Just to give a case in point, I've been working on both the RHW and NWM projects for about 10 years now.  My own personal list of things I'd like to see added to those mods would probably take another 10 years to fully complete, at least, and there's still some ideas I had back when I started that I've yet to realize.

1 hour ago, Hafiz173 said:

High elevated rail/monorail over RHW will be really appreciated. I really needed those for my already built city with sunken highway in it

All further additions to the High Elevated Rail and Monorail have been on hold for a long time--almost as long as there's been High Elevated content.  Adding additional crossing support would most likely require changing them from being fully puzzle piece-based to draggable, so we don't clog up the menus.  If we were to continue in the existing puzzle piece vein--even if limited to exclude any diagonal support--it would require about 60 puzzle pieces to fulfill.  If diagonals are involved, there's some additional asymmetry, and we're talking (rough estimate) 400 pieces.

It's proven difficult to get developmental momentum behind draggable High Elevated networks, however.  Almost as soon as the idea is brought up again, advocates for a lower elevated height (equivalent to the RHW's "L1") emerge.  (High Elevated is equivalent to "L4".)

-Tarkus

[f3cs 1,063]

How about L1 pedestrian overpasses and more compatibility for RHW overpasses? You guys did an excellent work with pedmalls, I think if you do this will be in the same level.

[tigerbuilder 131]

I'm sure I'm speaking for many of us "quiet people" around here, that the NAM team is very appreciated. The new stuff, the old stuff...it all transforms the game like nothing else ever created. I totally understand the amount of knowledge and effort that goes into the works. Many people wish they could help, but like was said, it takes a rare breed to have the skills. 

To all the current members and past, thank you very much for sharing your time and efforts.

cheers, Tiger

[rsc204 21,808]

40 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

It's proven difficult to get developmental momentum behind draggable High Elevated networks, however.  Almost as soon as the idea is brought up again, advocates for a lower elevated height (equivalent to the RHW's "L1") emerge.  (High Elevated is equivalent to "L4".)

Speaking of which, that's totally my own viewpoint. Maxis used L2/L4 crossings, the L4 stuff was limited only to Monorail and Elevated rail networks. Pretty much to solve the problem of how two elevated networks would be able to cross.

Since then, the NAM has brought about the L1/L2 standard, which provides the exact same functionality, whilst keeping the transitions to only 7.5m between then, which makes for nicer height transitions and more realistic looking setups. Personally, I'd do away with L4 and switch to L1 instead, something I'd like to make a reality one day. For RHW, perhaps having 5 levels makes sense, but for everything else, such stack-like networks are not widely used, if at all. So keeping L0-L2 in my mind is a much better approach.

2 hours ago, Hafiz173 said:

High elevated rail/monorail over RHW will be really appreciated. I really needed those for my already built city with sunken highway in it

One work-around is to utilise the Maxis Highway Override (MHO), although that limits you to RHW-4 only. Being an override of the MHY, these crossings are supported, but again it's ortho only.

19 minutes ago, f3cs said:

How about L1 pedestrian overpasses and more compatibility for RHW overpasses? You guys did an excellent work with pedmalls, I think if you do this will be in the same level.

L1 pedestrian overpasses actually ties into the whole level debate here. I'm not saying we won't add new puzzle pieces, but that's really not a big part of development. How does modifying the ped bridges to L1 or 7.5m elevations sound? It'd be an optional override and wouldn't take all that long for me to make happen.

As for RHW overpasses, compatibility is improving all the time. But don't expect that to occur in the sphere of puzzle pieces, there will be no more, for the reasons stated by Alex in his last post. For RHW, you really want to be using the draggable elevated overpasses, they already eclipse the functionality of the old puzzle pieces. In future, hopefully that will expand to diagonal options, then I think we can call the puzzle pieces obsolete.

To add some clarity here, why do we not want to make puzzle pieces any more? You might think the number of models and paths etc. would be identical between puzzle pieces and draggable. Whilst that might be true, puzzle pieces actually take a lot more work to make. Whereas the draggable stuff can be done with a small amount of base RUL code for a given setup. With just a little bit of copy/replace operations, that code can be expanded to cover many different networks. Then tack on the fact that over the years, the #1 NAM complaint was puzzle pieces and how to find them. The simplification of flex has many benefits, just some of them are transnational state right now. When fully realised, puzzle pieces will in all likelihood be dead weight inside the NAM, barring a few exceptions.

[Eggman121 1,035]

3 hours ago, rsc204 said:

L1 pedestrian overpasses actually ties into the whole level debate here. I'm not saying we won't add new puzzle pieces, but that's really not a big part of development. How does modifying the ped bridges to L1 or 7.5m elevations sound? It'd be an optional override and wouldn't take all that long for me to make happen.

I have toyed with this idea for a while now. I would love to see functional pedestrian overpasses and given a range I could probably be able to make a draggable format of the Elevated Ped Malls for NAM. It could hinge off the Drag road viaducts. rsc204, You could adapt the MIS elevated geometry and add custom textures for the draggable form if you are thinking what I am thinking than the models already exist. All we need is custom textures. You have curves in R1 already set to go but I would start with orthogonal geometry first.

-eggman121 (NAM Team Member)

[Tarkus 6,932]

4 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Speaking of which, that's totally my own viewpoint. Maxis used L2/L4 crossings, the L4 stuff was limited only to Monorail and Elevated rail networks. Pretty much to solve the problem of how two elevated networks would be able to cross.

Since then, the NAM has brought about the L1/L2 standard, which provides the exact same functionality, whilst keeping the transitions to only 7.5m between then, which makes for nicer height transitions and more realistic looking setups. Personally, I'd do away with L4 and switch to L1 instead, something I'd like to make a reality one day. For RHW, perhaps having 5 levels makes sense, but for everything else, such stack-like networks are not widely used, if at all. So keeping L0-L2 in my mind is a much better approach.

I tend to side on the L1 side myself as well, though ultimately, my preference is for the solution that's going to add the most functionality and minimize requests.  If having L1 would minimize the demand for L4 "High Elevated" content, then I'd be all on board with it. 

The L4 "High Elevated" stuff actually has a pretty interesting history . . . it was actually developed originally for NAM 20, a release that almost didn't happen.  In the latter part of 2005, many of the NAM Team's founders and other early members started retiring or disappearing due to RL.  smoncrie was one of the last NAM pioneers who was still around after NAM 19, and had started development on a few new features, including the High Elevated items.  (Side note: he also invented the starter piece, making the "draggable revolution" possible.)  At that point, the discussions about having an additional elevated height had begun, and the inclination then was to double the standard height of 15m (modern L2) up to 30m (modern L4).

smoncrie, however, disappeared due to RL, and as there wasn't really a central repository or anything for NAM content at that time, many of his would-be contributions to NAM 20 went with him.  The whole project actually went silent for several months in 2006, due to a lack of transit modders.  The SFBT, however, basically saved it, and managed to assemble a new batch of content to release as NAM 20.  smoncrie later reappeared in early 2008, with the High Elevated content in tow.  As it was all ready to go, we added it in NAM 23 (April 2008).  The momentum to change the height standards had also started taking hold around this time, and it was most likely a musing by dedgren in Three Rivers Region, back in 2009, that really solidified it.  Shortly thereafter, we stalled all the 30m plans (aside from with the RHW) and started working with 7.5m/15m in mind as the new standard.

 

1 hour ago, Eggman121 said:

I have toyed with this idea for a while now. I would love to see functional pedestrian overpasses and given a range I could probably be able to make a draggable format of the Elevated Ped Malls for NAM. It could hinge off the Drag road viaducts. rsc204, You could adapt the MIS elevated geometry and add custom textures for the draggable form if you are thinking what I am thinking than the models already exist. All we need is custom textures. You have curves in R1 already set to go but I would start with orthogonal geometry first.

I'm game for it as well.  Fixing up the Ped Malls and the Ped Overpasses has been something that's been in the back of my mind, too.  I've been thinking about the latter more since doing some more work on the Elevated Road/OWR/Avenue Viaducts for NAM 35.  Texture-wise, we might be able to link it up with the sidewalks.  The existing L2 puzzle piece overpasses have a custom texture of some sort that isn't used elsewhere.  They're also limited to ortho-only, so it'd be easy to surpass their original functionality with the draggable implementation.

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

On 10/26/2016 at 5:43 AM, rsc204 said:

Not going to happen, never going to happen, will not happen, is not happening.

Hopefully that's now clear. As for why, I'm not going to continually explain that to you, I feel I and others have done that, if you don't accept or understand the answer, well, I won't be loosing any sleep over it.

If you don't want to make intersections with MIS as you need to with MHO, then use MHY. MHO was never intended to be MHY, it is something different.

@Lost Realist has hit the nail on the head here. NAM development isn't some process where we go "oooh I want to do X" then ten minutes later we've made it. Mostly its a lot of ruddy hard work to accomplish anything. You can ask for all the features in the world, reality is, there are maybe 10 people maximum with the skills and dedication to make it happen. Possibly only 5 who understand RUL and the other coding necessary to make it work, which does not include myself. We all work on what we want to work on, we won't be swayed nor badgered into making things others want. We may find inspiration in the ideas that are brought up in threads, such as this one, that's really it's purpose. But people who simply are perceived to be asking too much, will ultimately be ignored. We have only so much time to work on our hobby. Whilst as a team, we'd love to do so much more, there are always many times more plans afoot, than actual working projects.

NAM development never stops, but new releases might. It's taken from Christmas last year to put together an update we feel as a team is ready for the light of day. We'd all love for the team of NAM developers to be larger and more active. Just as we'd all love to see new users come to SC4 and enjoy the game enough, to want to learn how to make things for it. The cycle produces more creators and increases activity that leads to improvements for all. But, there is a limit to what we can accomplish. People need to be grateful the NAM team exists and sometimes, less demanding of us as developers. We're not working for EA or another company, we're hobbyists that do this for the love of the game. So perhaps, lower your expectations a little. Not to mention, every hour we spend having to explain things or provide support, is an hour we can't spend developing. We're nice people, or at least I'd like to think so. So we take the time to communicate with the community and assist them where possible. But we're not able to perform miracles either and won't be beholden to the wants of individuals.

 

 

sorry. I guess it's not considered high priority since it technically is possible.

[fredinno 54]

On 10/26/2016 at 8:34 AM, metasmurf said:

You can find grade separated undivided highways in many countries in Europe, but also in North America and elsewhere. Here are two examples. Norway to the left and Sweden to the right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know. It was just a suggestion for an optional cosmetic mod since you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between RHW-2 and MRD by just looking at it. Which was why I never used it.

Plus, BRT- high speed lines would probably need an HOV symbol for the same reason.

[APSMS 1,892]

44 minutes ago, fredinno said:

sorry. I guess it's not considered high priority since it technically is possible.

What about RHW development gives you that idea?

Those interchanges & pieces, of which there are a grand total of 3, 4 if you could the T-interchange's different height levels, 5 (6?) if you count the roundabout variants, are built on a MHW base, meaning that a whole new section of code needs to be written for them.

Plus, aside from the 270 deg loop, they are all wholly in conflict with the vision of the RHW. The T-stack is nice, but would be useless in RHW where I can have something like 28 different T-interchange possible connections between two RHW, and that stack accounts for exactly 1 of them. No one in their right minds puts a roundabout on the high-speed freeway that the RHW is supposed to be, though this does fit the vision of the MHO as a lower-speed urban expressway, where, although I would still be nuts to drive through it, it does make more logical sense.

Basically it's not considered at all. If you want those features, you use the MHO, and RHW, together. If not, then just stick to MHW. or use MHW and RHW together; aside from the 270 deg loop, I can't see any of these prefab interchanges making their way into the RHW at all.

37 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I know. It was just a suggestion for an optional cosmetic mod since you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between RHW-2 and MRD by just looking at it. Which was why I never used it.

If you are using Euro Textures, I think there's still an option to leave Yellow lines in the center of RHW-2 networks for a Norway style design. This would make the difference very obvious compared to Euro road textures. Otherwise, you're just going to have to pay attention to the soft shoulder, the sidewalks (which don't exist on the RHW-2), and get used to using the query tools, since these methods all tell you right away which one it is. Honestly, in the many years I've seen RHW questions come up, I've never seen concern about distinguishing between the two.

What you are suggesting would require third party mod support anyways. See this STEX file: community.simtropolis.com/files/file/30851-catalysts-t-21-for-real-highway/

[fredinno 54]

32 minutes ago, APSMS said:

What about RHW development gives you that idea?

Those interchanges & pieces, of which there are a grand total of 3, 4 if you could the T-interchange's different height levels, 5 (6?) if you count the roundabout variants, are built on a MHW base, meaning that a whole new section of code needs to be written for them.

Plus, aside from the 270 deg loop, they are all wholly in conflict with the vision of the RHW. The T-stack is nice, but would be useless in RHW where I can have something like 28 different T-interchange possible connections between two RHW, and that stack accounts for exactly 1 of them. No one in their right minds puts a roundabout on the high-speed freeway that the RHW is supposed to be, though this does fit the vision of the MHO as a lower-speed urban expressway, where, although I would still be nuts to drive through it, it does make more logical sense.

Basically it's not considered at all. If you want those features, you use the MHO, and RHW, together. If not, then just stick to MHW. or use MHW and RHW together; aside from the 270 deg loop, I can't see any of these prefab interchanges making their way into the RHW at all.

If you are using Euro Textures, I think there's still an option to leave Yellow lines in the center of RHW-2 networks for a Norway style design. This would make the difference very obvious compared to Euro road textures. Otherwise, you're just going to have to pay attention to the soft shoulder, the sidewalks (which don't exist on the RHW-2), and get used to using the query tools, since these methods all tell you right away which one it is. Honestly, in the many years I've seen RHW questions come up, I've never seen concern about distinguishing between the two.

What you are suggesting would require third party mod support anyways. See this STEX file: community.simtropolis.com/files/file/30851-catalysts-t-21-for-real-highway/

 

 

 

 

5

I meant technically "not worth it", as I thought you implied. Sorry about that.

I'm used to a completely different community (spaceflight) where "technically" possible means anything within the realms of physics- I'm probably expecting too much here, lol silly mistake on my part.

 

Ohh, thanks. I suppose these kinds of things (along with lotblockers and RTMT) aren't included in NAM because they would be too much added stuff for it? Or because they aren't in the NAM team?

 

[fredinno 54]

thanks for this anyways.

[APSMS 1,892]

12 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Ohh, thanks. I suppose these kinds of things (along with lotblockers and RTMT) aren't included in NAM because they would be too much added stuff for it? Or because they aren't in the NAM team?

Mostly, because they're optional.

If you want them, there they are. If Catalyst isn't a NAM Team member, rsc204, who helps him package some of his mods, is. It's much easier to fix a mod that isn't in the NAM.

Plus, the fundamental motto of the NAM is that form follows function. Most of this stuff has no function, or very little, so it makes sense to leave it outside the NAM in case problems arise. If things like this were packaged in the NAM, then bugfixes would need to wait until the next NAM was released, which would be excruciatingly long given that the last NAM came out on Christmas. Last year. That's a long time to wait for a fix. So the general policy is that NAM works on the networks, and 3rd parties can work on sprucing it up. If it's really looks you're interested in, I recommend a slope mod.

The only reason stations are included at all in the NAM is that a lot of the more popular stations were picked, and then their stats updated to NAM standards so that new users wouldn't continue to use broken/out-of-date stations from the STEX/LEX. RTMT is run by a bunch of NAM team members anyways, essentially. Some of the other mods included in the NAM (like the BTM and Moonlightn's El-Rail reskin) have only been included with permission so that keeping them functional would be easier, as these reskins are made by Japanese BATters/Modders who are no longer active.

[fredinno 54]

3 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Mostly, because they're optional.

If you want them, there they are. If Catalyst isn't a NAM Team member, rsc204, who helps him package some of his mods, is. It's much easier to fix a mod that isn't in the NAM.

Plus, the fundamental motto of the NAM is that form follows function. Most of this stuff has no function, or very little, so it makes sense to leave it outside the NAM in case problems arise. If things like this were packaged in the NAM, then bugfixes would need to wait until the next NAM was released, which would be excruciatingly long given that the last NAM came out on Christmas. Last year. That's a long time to wait for a fix. So the general policy is that NAM works on the networks, and 3rd parties can work on sprucing it up. If it's really looks you're interested in, I recommend a slope mod.

The only reason stations are included at all in the NAM is that a lot of the more popular stations were picked, and then their stats updated to NAM standards so that new users wouldn't continue to use broken/out-of-date stations from the STEX/LEX. RTMT is run by a bunch of NAM team members anyways, essentially. Some of the other mods included in the NAM (like the BTM and Moonlightn's El-Rail reskin) have only been included with permission so that keeping them functional would be easier, as these reskins are made by Japanese BATters/Modders who are no longer active.

 

I get with the cosmetic (maintaining the cosmetic mods would be more work). But lotblockers and RTMT still don't make much sense- I mean 

and the 'no truck' lotblocker I can never find  are pretty useful to force more rail usage (since freight always seems to prefer roads), along with RTMT for bus stops. I know NAM has a policy of not working on lots to concentrate on networks, but it seems a bit stranger when those lots already exist. 

 

I use a slope mod sometimes, though my cities are generally on slopes, so it's more difficult for that.

[APSMS 1,892]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

I know NAM has a policy of not working on lots to concentrate on networks, but it seems a bit stranger when those lots already exist.

It doesn't make any sense to include them for precisely this reason.

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

I use a slope mod sometimes, though my cities are generally on slopes, so it's more difficult for that.

If you build on slopes, a slope mod is even more necessary. No car in the world can run up a 45 degree slope the way they do in-game. I play on hilly terrain a lot. My cities would look awful without it (you can see some of my stuff in my Signature).

[fredinno 54]

23 hours ago, APSMS said:

It doesn't make any sense to include them for precisely this reason.

If you build on slopes, a slope mod is even more necessary. No car in the world can run up a 45 degree slope the way they do in-game. I play on hilly terrain a lot. My cities would look awful without it (you can see some of my stuff in my Signature).

...so it's not worth even maintaining RTMT or lotblockers in NAM for capability?

 

I know, but if you looked at my other thread, you would know what I'm trying to do (scale model of 1/6 of fu*king Antarctica), it's a little more reasonable. I would normally have a slope mod, but my map style doesn't allow for it.

[APSMS 1,892]

@fredinno When Tanks have trouble climbing 45 degree slopes (they are rated for 60, but it's not something you're supposed to do very often) it seems a bit unreasonable.

I am familiar with your other thread, if you remember .

As any model builder, particularly model railroads, knows, when stuff gets small, it gets small. It doesn't mean you compromise on slope or detail. It just means that: you scale down. Thus, if anything, not only would 1/6 of Antarctica be crazy small, but then your cities should scale to match. SC4 is already undersized in building size and oversized in roads, cars, and Sims. So then your cities should be very small, since, per your words, it's to "scale". This would be appropriately scaled down. 1/6th of Antarctica is about 900 000 sq miles, which is roughly the size of Argentina (IIRC). Your biggest cities would be hamlets.

[Tarkus 6,932]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

...so it's not worth even maintaining RTMT or lotblockers in NAM for capability?

RTMT is a large package with a ton of different options, and it already has its own team to maintain it--the RTMT Team.  The most recent version of the NAM installer (used since NAM 31) is built off the same code base as the installer for the next RTMT version, if that gives you any idea as to the complexity.  The blockers are also a pretty complex setup, mainly just due to the sheer number.  If you cover all the potential combinations to block, and include all the NAM's Road/Highway-type override networks, you're looking at several hundred.

We also already have more than enough former third-party addons that we're having to maintain, and it's more likely that we'd spin things back off than take on more.  We already had to drop support for some alternate texture sets, simply because we don't have the manpower.  The one superhuman teammate we had who handled all of it got burnt out and retired.

-Tarkus

[rsc204 21,808]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

fu*king Antarctica

Is that city twined with it's namesake in Austria? In all seriousness though, such language is not appropriate here, minors use this site and it's against the rules.

[fredinno 54]

On 2016-11-02 at 3:44 PM, Tarkus said:

RTMT is a large package with a ton of different options, and it already has its own team to maintain it--the RTMT Team.  The most recent version of the NAM installer (used since NAM 31) is built off the same code base as the installer for the next RTMT version, if that gives you any idea as to the complexity.  The blockers are also a pretty complex setup, mainly just due to the sheer number.  If you cover all the potential combinations to block, and include all the NAM's Road/Highway-type override networks, you're looking at several hundred.

We also already have more than enough former third-party addons that we're having to maintain, and it's more likely that we'd spin things back off than take on more.  We already had to drop support for some alternate texture sets, simply because we don't have the manpower.  The one superhuman teammate we had who handled all of it got burnt out and retired.

-Tarkus

Oh. That's probably not possible then.

On 2016-11-02 at 2:10 PM, APSMS said:

@fredinno When Tanks have trouble climbing 45 degree slopes (they are rated for 60, but it's not something you're supposed to do very often) it seems a bit unreasonable.

I am familiar with your other thread, if you remember .

As any model builder, particularly model railroads, knows, when stuff gets small, it gets small. It doesn't mean you compromise on slope or detail. It just means that: you scale down. Thus, if anything, not only would 1/6 of Antarctica be crazy small, but then your cities should scale to match. SC4 is already undersized in building size and oversized in roads, cars, and Sims. So then your cities should be very small, since, per your words, it's to "scale". This would be appropriately scaled down. 1/6th of Antarctica is about 900 000 sq miles, which is roughly the size of Argentina (IIRC). Your biggest cities would be hamlets.

I know. Haven't we been over this? It's not to scale...

On 2016-11-02 at 3:46 PM, rsc204 said:

Is that city twined with it's namesake in Austria? In all seriousness though, such language is not appropriate here, minors use this site and it's against the rules.

I censored myself...

[rsc204 21,808]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

I censored myself...

Yes and no. Anyone would know in an instant what you were saying but not saying. So you didn't succeed in censoring anything. Since you feel the need to question it, let me help familiarise you with the site rules:

Quote

6. Personal Member Safety and General Site Conduct
Simtropolis is a PG-13 site. It recommended that members do not give out personally identifiable information to anyone else on the site or the internet.

There is zero tolerance for the following behavior:

a) Any material that is the work of another individual but is being represented as original. Permission must be obtained from the original creator, and due credit must be given, before including any element of that creator's work in custom content upload.

b) Any offensive, pornographic, or obscene material.
c) Overt sexually loaded comments or content.
d) Discrimination against the age, race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual orientation of another member.
e) Excessive swearing, offensive, or profane language (especially directed towards another member).

The personal safety of our members is a primary concern. Any inappropriate or unwelcome attention, harassment, solicitation, or sexually orientated comments or behavior directed towards another member, either publicly or privately, should be immediately reported to a Simtropolis Staff member.

Note the part in orange is my emphasis. Now, I'm not a moderator here, but if I were, I would already have taken action against your post. I couldn't care less about swearing personally, but I, like everyone else need to be careful not to do it here. I pointed it out in the hope you might consider censoring the comment properly with an edit.

[APSMS 1,892]

On 11/2/2016 at 2:10 PM, APSMS said:

As any model builder, particularly model railroads, knows, when stuff gets small, it gets small. It doesn't mean you compromise on slope or detail. It just means that: you scale down.

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

I know. Haven't we been over this? It's not to scale...

On 11/2/2016 at 0:30 PM, fredinno said:

what I'm trying to do (scale model of 1/6 of [redacted] Antarctica)

QED.

[Tarkus 6,932]

By the way, NAM 35 is now available.  More details here.  It will be coming to the STEX as well, per our normal modus operandi, but there have been some technical difficulties with the FTP upload that have delayed its arrival here.

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

19 hours ago, APSMS said:

QED.

whoops.  darn

9 hours ago, Tarkus said:

By the way, NAM 35 is now available.  More details here.  It will be coming to the STEX as well, per our normal modus operandi, but there have been some technical difficulties with the FTP upload that have delayed its arrival here.

-Tarkus

hey, double post buddy.

 

Also, holy yes!!!

[Lost Realist 762]

Oh dang that's sweet! I had this feeling it was going to happen any day now...

[Wiimeiser 444]

Out of curiosity, about how many alternate texture sets have been made with the new formula? Just the one?

[APSMS 1,892]

1 minute ago, Wiimeiser said:

Out of curiosity, about how many alternate texture sets have been made with the new formula? Just the one?

If you want to do all the heavy lifting (which isn't that much), I'm sure someone from the NAM team could source you the files so that you can make your own Pink and Yellow road mod via Ilive's Reader and GoFSH, which is how the current alternate textures have been created. You're about as likely to get support for that request as you have been in times past but the steps to create your own mod have been made significantly easier if I understand correctly.

Same goes for RRW once the pieces have been fully compiled. That particular work has been planned since at least the last version; again the heavy lifting is up to you, but the "heavy" part is significantly lighter thanks to future-proofing work by MGB/@rsc204 and @Eggman121.