NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[rsc204 21,808]

23 minutes ago, matias93 said:

But in any case, 2x2 45° curves are absolutely unrealistic for normal-sized trains, left alone high speed trains.

I believe the glitch is mostly occurring on WRCs, but you are right, this is a problem of the automata, nothing to do with the NAM. Again, the reason, the cars are too long, shorter cars wouldn't show the issue. That said, the two mods I used that caused this behaviour, Marteen's Intercity 125 and Vester's Bullet Trains both have very long cars in the real world. So you might prevent the bug, but the cars would probably look all wrong as a result.

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Tried to transition to Maxis Road for the connections- doesn't work. Seems like the traffic simulator got confused or something.

Sorry, not wholly sure what you mean by it doesn't work. If sims aren't using it, there could be a number of reasons. Bear in mind a OWR to Road transition piece still effectively limits the road section to One way only. Sims need to be able to get to and from that road connection for the neighbour connection to be used. So if you only have a single OWR in one direction connecting to the road, that'll be your problem.

[fredinno 54]

On 2016-12-10 at 5:19 PM, matias93 said:

To shorten the cars would be the task of an automata mod, which falls outside of the NAM competences (I'm pretty sure there are several dozens of high speed train automatas on the STEX). But in any case, 2x2 45° curves are absolutely unrealistic for normal-sized trains, left alone high speed trains. Sadly, the BTM has only a couple of puzzle-based wide radius curves to solve that, so is somehow stuck on that problem. I don't know if is only an optic illusion, but I remember the HSR paths being softer on the curves, so maybe that could be a better option (in spite of its overly futuristic look).

Lastly, while the aforementioned RHSR is being developed, I think that you can achieve a very good high speed line with the much more flexible RRW, taking special care to avoid at-grade crossings, for which terraforming and short viaduct overpasses will be really useful. Of course, the simulation won't give this line the extra speed, but a clever design and stop arrangement could help a lot!

I was stating that it would be weird to have it as default when it doesn't even fit its tracks properly...

Do you know of an automata mod that fixes that?

 

Also, is there any way to make street, FLUP, and pedmall based networks connect to a neighbouring region?

I'm forced to work on smaller city tiles due to the limitations of my computer.

 

[rsc204 21,808]

49 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Do you know of an automata mod that fixes that?

I think you'll find the default (Maxis) automata don't show this behaviour. The simple answer is that the creator of the automata either didn't know about the issue or they did, but were willing to overlook it to have more-realistic looking models. So is there a mod of the BTM automata that fixes this problem? Very unlikely, because shortening the cars would look terrible in practise. The entire train will just look completely wrong. If you are not happy with it, try another automata mod which doesn't use such long cars.

49 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Also, is there any way to make street, FLUP, and pedmall based networks connect to a neighbouring region?

Streets yes, FLUPs maybe and Pedmalls I don't think you can. There is a useful thread here, but many of the pictures are sadly lost. Not to mention, many of the techniques outlined may not be necessary, use of the RHW Disconnector is probably sufficient in many cases.

[matias93 7,535]

Talking about automatas, I completely missed that maxis monorail cars fit much better! But if you don't like the glossy red livery, michylis did two packs of re textured cars:

 

[fredinno 54]

There are a few minor issues with NAM content you might want to look into....

 

Here are images of these below.

[rsc204 21,808]

Street connections are not supported for the avenue roundabouts.

Running NWM through such a tight situation will almost always result in the network de-stabilising. Adding just an extra straight tile, away from the rail crossing on either side, would probably be enough to make this work.

Lastly, the texture mod (US Cosmetic Retexture) replaces the Ave transitions with Road/Street/OWR. But the three textures nearest the avenue are re-used for SAM, however that means the non-updated 4th texture (SAM) no longer match. Thinking about it, that means my TGN mod doesn't have matching textures either. I may consider fixing that for TGN, if I do I'll update the NAM textures as well. But I can't promise anything.

Update 30/12

I've made the SAM sets compatible with the Ave-Street transitions by VideoSean. Find that fix attached, place the file into the following folder:

z___NAM\Road Textures\Standard Retexture and Cosmetic Mod

 

  Edited October 16, 2017 by rsc204  
Patch Removed - Please upgrade to NAM36 for this fix.

[fredinno 54]

T-shape NWM connections with road or street at one end don't seem to be supported by NWM.

 

Also, neither do BTM-NWM diagonals... In one case, I used RD-6, and the BTM seemed to actually block the traffic, since the 2- lane NWM road would not go fully though, and glitched out.

Also, why is it that Avenue rounabouts cannot connect to streets, nor NRD-3 to RD or OWR roundabout? Technical issues?

[APSMS 1,892]

Diagonal intersections with the NWM single tile networks have limited support. The only way to be sure that they block traffic is to test out the situation, and also to see if the paths are correct using the DrawPaths cheat.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

T-shape NWM connections with road or street at one end don't seem to be supported by NWM.

This is a technical problem, although admittedly the last dev cycles with the SITAPs broke a few of the legitimate T-intersections like where a TLA-3 ended in a road, or a OWR-3 started from a road (ending at a two-lane road is impractical at best: where does the 3rd lane traffic go?). Generally speaking the best advice for those posted situations is to continue the NWM and transition with a draggable transition immediately before the intersection. This should be able to be done at the very least in your 1st picture; the second situation (pic 2) is just something you're going to have to live for now; even if it can be fixed it's going to be a while before it gets worked on, since it probably involves some stability code and that takes time to work out properly.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Also, why is it that Avenue rounabouts cannot connect to streets, nor NRD-3 to RD or OWR roundabout? Technical issues?

No, although we could pretend it's that if we want to (it did save on a bit of work for the NAM Team).

Actually, streets connecting into avenue roundabouts (heavy traffic circles, designed for high usage) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and since it takes zero effort to draw a 2 tile road stub before the avenue, it was never seen as a problem. NRD-3 isn't a network, so I'll assume you mean either NRD-4 or ARD-3 and suggest to you that perhaps lane counting is a useful exercise here. Where does the extra lane go when you run the ARD-3 into the roundabout? Why would you need an ARD-3 on exit? The same goes for the NRD-4 situation, or the TLA-3 situation, or the AVE-2, etc. The transition tiles take up, IIRC, literally 1 tile, and it can be done directly next to the roundabout, so the Team saves on both a whole host of ridiculous stability and adjacency code, but also doesn't have to get stuck making nonsensical intersections that would follow the current advised practice (transition to RD-2 beforehand) IRL anyways, albeit in perhaps a prettier/smoother manner.

Recall that ARD-3 roundabout connections are found in the turbo roundabouts, if that really needs to float your boat (although admittedly they are for intersections with more capacious networks).

[rsc204 21,808]

APSMS pretty much got the problems spot on.

#1 I can't see this ever working. Remember, for override networks, you need a little bit of space before you start adding junctions. Having them both sides of the rail, along with a NWM/NWM transition is simply asking too much of the code to work.

#2 I seriously doubt we'll ever support this setup, but right now it doesn't work.

#3 Is the usual issue with MLs BTM not supporting every possible connection. So the models revert to the base Monorail, because updated ones simply don't exist for this crossing. It's easy enough to fix, I may look into it at some point.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

Can NAM do anything about difficult placement on uneven terrain? In anything but perfectly flat, featureless terrain, it's like pulling teeth to make an avenue or highway to turn 45 deg. If it's within NAM's vision, I wish our various draggable networks would (for a much wider range of lumps) just display the cost and then (if I build it) force a fit (smooth the terrain).

Alternatively, if "forced fit" is tunable with just a few parameters, then please add such to the NAM config app. If a separate mod does what I am suggesting, then maybe a partnership is in order?

[Tarkus 6,932]

Are you trying to build one of the wide-radius curves for those networks, or just the bog-stock 45-degree bend that is default in the game?  If it 's the latter, it's not a NAM issue, but a product of whatever slope mod you may be using.  The NAM does not include a slope mod.

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

22 hours ago, APSMS said:

Diagonal intersections with the NWM single tile networks have limited support. The only way to be sure that they block traffic is to test out the situation, and also to see if the paths are correct using the DrawPaths cheat.

This is a technical problem, although admittedly the last dev cycles with the SITAPs broke a few of the legitimate T-intersections like where a TLA-3 ended in a road, or a OWR-3 started from a road (ending at a two-lane road is impractical at best: where does the 3rd lane traffic go?). Generally speaking the best advice for those posted situations is to continue the NWM and transition with a draggable transition immediately before the intersection. This should be able to be done at the very least in your 1st picture; the second situation (pic 2) is just something you're going to have to live for now; even if it can be fixed it's going to be a while before it gets worked on, since it probably involves some stability code and that takes time to work out properly.

No, although we could pretend it's that if we want to (it did save on a bit of work for the NAM Team).

Actually, streets connecting into avenue roundabouts (heavy traffic circles, designed for high usage) doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and since it takes zero effort to draw a 2 tile road stub before the avenue, it was never seen as a problem. NRD-3 isn't a network, so I'll assume you mean either NRD-4 or ARD-3 and suggest to you that perhaps lane counting is a useful exercise here. Where does the extra lane go when you run the ARD-3 into the roundabout? Why would you need an ARD-3 on exit? The same goes for the NRD-4 situation, or the TLA-3 situation, or the AVE-2, etc. The transition tiles take up, IIRC, literally 1 tile, and it can be done directly next to the roundabout, so the Team saves on both a whole host of ridiculous stability and adjacency code, but also doesn't have to get stuck making nonsensical intersections that would follow the current advised practice (transition to RD-2 beforehand) IRL anyways, albeit in perhaps a prettier/smoother manner.

Recall that ARD-3 roundabout connections are found in the turbo roundabouts, if that really needs to float your boat (although admittedly they are for intersections with more capacious networks).

I tested it out in the game, I wanted to turn it into RD-6 to increase capacity on a congested route, only for the traffic to be forced around the diagonal BTM.

 

Eh, I guess that's a problem with a limited selection of NWM roundabouts. Not much that can be done for now.

 

And Streets connecting to large, high capacity roundabouts? https://www.google.ca/maps/place/48°59'51.9"N+122°45'06.7"W/@48.9977384,-122.7533516,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d48.997736!4d-122.751848

Not really an avenue, but still.

If not, oh well.

 

I'm trying to help with this stuff, you know?

[APSMS 1,892]

23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

And Streets connecting to large, high capacity roundabouts?

Those are one-lane roundabouts, which you can readily replicate with the OWR roundabouts.

Besides, roundabout-highway-intersections/offramps don't really count. Given the proximity to the international border, and the nature of the surrounding streets/neighborhood, is it really used that much? I suspect if high-usage were the case, those would be "roads" rather than "streets" connecting to that roundabout intersection.

A two-lane roundabout would be the better indicator of an exception to the rule, but tbh the designation of "road" and "street" is pretty abstract to begin with. Roads are wider and theoretically higher speed and capacity than Streets, but I still don't see why you couldn't transition immediately to road just before the Avenue [2-lane] Roundabout, or transition to avenue directly from road from street.

And, as I said earlier, NWM has problems with diagonal intersections. Given what I can tell in the BTM situation, it should be a cinch to transition back to RD-2 before the BTM diagonals and the intersection. I know you are asking for more NWM support, but the NAM Team has been asking for more NWM support for years. Resources are limited and the time was better spent working on long neglected parts of the transit network, like Rail and GLR and the gaps in BTM/HSRP compatibility (largely rsc204's domain these past months).

You're asking for something the NAM Team has been thinking about since the conception of the NWM over 7 years ago; it's scheduled, but since you're unlikely to get it anytime soon, I'm proposing alternatives to keep your game functioning in the meantime.

[rsc204 21,808]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

I'm trying to help with this stuff, you know?

I understand where you are coming from. But I think perhaps you are neglecting the other side of this. It's one thing to point out those situations that may not appear to be functioning. Such information is something few users report, so we are always greatful when someone takes the time to provide feedback. No one thinks the NAM is perfect, it's a product that's constantly evolving. But whilst some of the things you pointed out may indeed be considered bugs, many of them are not.

So let's take the Avenue-SAM transitions as a good example. Someone decided they didn't like the original Ave-Road connection textures. So they went to the effort of creating a new set. Of the four textures used for such transitions, three are re-used for the OWR (no longer functional), Street and SAM setups also. Whilst the 4th texture was re-made for Roads and I believe also streets, for whatever reason, the SAM transitions were simply never made. Is this a bug? I'd argue it's not, because it's not something missing that was intended to be there. The creator of the new textures either overlooked it or decided against making further textures. Why did I fix it? Simply because it alerted me to a problem with my own mods, I'm picky and wanted to correct it. So I made about 20 textures yesterday (a similar mis-match exists with the Euro variants too). As a by-product, I might as well include such fixes into the NAM, since it's about 5minutes work to pass the improvements to all.

Why am I telling you all this? Because for every one of the problems you show here, someone has to actually take the time to fix them. When errors get into the code or other files, those fixes are a priority, because it's unintended behaviour. Not being able to make certain setups with NWM for example, was never intended in the first place. We know the code simply doesn't cover all situations, NWM has limitations. The same applies for BTM crossings, Moonlight must have put countless hours into making the BTM mod in the NAM. But most such mods reach a point where the creator has had enough, or simply considers their work finished. There are a number of situations where the BTM models simply don't exist and so you see the original monorail. As an end user, you must decide if you can live with such things or find a work-around to avoid it. Again is this a bug? Once more the answer is far from certain, it's almost inevitable such situations would exist. Should the NAM team prioritise fixing such minor annoyances? I don't think that's a realistic expectation.

If we were paid developers, working for a company, we would have to work on what we were told to work on. But we aren't, we're just hobbyists enjoying our spare time creating stuff for a game we enjoy. The NAM team wouldn't work if we had such a hierarchy and people were told you need to fix X because user Y reported this problem. So perhaps consider what it is you are asking of us, when throwing out all these suggestions for things to fix.

For example, no one made extra code/textures for street connections to avenue roundabouts. But the reason is because it's redundant. Dragging a road one tile from the roundabout and then transitioning to street, simply does exactly the same job more efficiently. Over the years, many things have not been done because of technical reasons or practical ones. This is one of those cases, we don't consider it a bug and have no plans to add this functionality. That said, if I (or anyone else for that matter), decided one day I wanted to add it. Provided I was able to create the code and other resources to make it function, I don't think anyone in the NAM team would prevent it being included.

So to sum up here, anyone is free to point out things they think could be better or errors they find. That's really useful and helps us out immensely, it's a large mod, we don't always see the problems and the larger community is much more likely to spot them. But perhaps you should keep your expectations in check, not everything will be considered a bug and not everything will be fixed. We're trying our best, but if making the NAM turns into work and not a hobby, it would quickly turn into a burden and not an enjoyable privilege.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

15 hours ago, Tarkus said:

The NAM does not include a slope mod.

Thanks for the explanation. Is that absence part of NAM's strategic vision?

If not, then my request (the subject line for this thread) is that a future NAM release incorporate a "slope mod" whose settings can be added to the control panel (TSCT). Not only would it be nice to alleviate the finicky placement, but it would be convenient to collect the adjustment controls in one place for which I already have a shortcut.  

In the mean time, where might I be able to comparison-shop slope mods? Is there a discussion near here that isn't too necrotic to permit a new post if I have a question?

Thanks! 

[Tarkus 6,932]

You're welcome.  We discussed the matter of slope mods when we decided to go to the "monolithic" packaging approach for NAM 31, but the ultimate conclusion was that there wasn't any reason for us to assume the mantle in place of the existing third-party support.  Given that the team is probably the smallest it's ever been right now (and those of us who are left have spurts of really heavy RL), I'd say it's unlikely that will change.  Right now, our primary objective is to keep the project (and the community) going by setting up a "drip feed" of  incremental additions to major NAM projects, like the RHW, RRW, and NWM.

As far as a comparison shop, the only really thorough research I'm aware of was the work Ennedi did in assembling his own slope mod back in 2008 (a mod which I recommend and use myself).  Unfortunately, a lot of that was done on private threads, some of which no longer exist, and a good bit of what's left has been destroyed by ImageShack's policy change.  There's also been a few slope mods released since.  What is left of Ennedi's work is included in the actual download for his mod, which includes a fairly technical 9-page PDF readme. 

-Tarkus

[fredinno 54]

20 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I understand where you are coming from. But I think perhaps you are neglecting the other side of this. It's one thing to point out those situations that may not appear to be functioning. Such information is something few users report, so we are always greatful when someone takes the time to provide feedback. No one thinks the NAM is perfect, it's a product that's constantly evolving. But whilst some of the things you pointed out may indeed be considered bugs, many of them are not.

So let's take the Avenue-SAM transitions as a good example. Someone decided they didn't like the original Ave-Road connection textures. So they went to the effort of creating a new set. Of the four textures used for such transitions, three are re-used for the OWR (no longer functional), Street and SAM setups also. Whilst the 4th texture was re-made for Roads and I believe also streets, for whatever reason, the SAM transitions were simply never made. Is this a bug? I'd argue it's not, because it's not something missing that was intended to be there. The creator of the new textures either overlooked it or decided against making further textures. Why did I fix it? Simply because it alerted me to a problem with my own mods, I'm picky and wanted to correct it. So I made about 20 textures yesterday (a similar mis-match exists with the Euro variants too). As a by-product, I might as well include such fixes into the NAM, since it's about 5minutes work to pass the improvements to all.

Why am I telling you all this? Because for every one of the problems you show here, someone has to actually take the time to fix them. When errors get into the code or other files, those fixes are a priority, because it's unintended behaviour. Not being able to make certain setups with NWM for example, was never intended in the first place. We know the code simply doesn't cover all situations, NWM has limitations. The same applies for BTM crossings, Moonlight must have put countless hours into making the BTM mod in the NAM. But most such mods reach a point where the creator has had enough, or simply considers their work finished. There are a number of situations where the BTM models simply don't exist and so you see the original monorail. As an end user, you must decide if you can live with such things or find a work-around to avoid it. Again is this a bug? Once more the answer is far from certain, it's almost inevitable such situations would exist. Should the NAM team prioritise fixing such minor annoyances? I don't think that's a realistic expectation.

If we were paid developers, working for a company, we would have to work on what we were told to work on. But we aren't, we're just hobbyists enjoying our spare time creating stuff for a game we enjoy. The NAM team wouldn't work if we had such a hierarchy and people were told you need to fix X because user Y reported this problem. So perhaps consider what it is you are asking of us, when throwing out all these suggestions for things to fix.

For example, no one made extra code/textures for street connections to avenue roundabouts. But the reason is because it's redundant. Dragging a road one tile from the roundabout and then transitioning to street, simply does exactly the same job more efficiently. Over the years, many things have not been done because of technical reasons or practical ones. This is one of those cases, we don't consider it a bug and have no plans to add this functionality. That said, if I (or anyone else for that matter), decided one day I wanted to add it. Provided I was able to create the code and other resources to make it function, I don't think anyone in the NAM team would prevent it being included.

So to sum up here, anyone is free to point out things they think could be better or errors they find. That's really useful and helps us out immensely, it's a large mod, we don't always see the problems and the larger community is much more likely to spot them. But perhaps you should keep your expectations in check, not everything will be considered a bug and not everything will be fixed. We're trying our best, but if making the NAM turns into work and not a hobby, it would quickly turn into a burden and not an enjoyable privilege.

If you can't fix it, I would at least like to know it's being on the board as a fix...

That's why I do this/

[APSMS 1,892]

56 minutes ago, fredinno said:

If you can't fix it, I would at least like to know it's being on the board as a fix...

To what do you refer? You realize you can quote selections of the text by highlighting them and clicking on the hover-over "Quote This," right? If you mean the avenue-SAM transitions, you realize he specifically answered this question right here:

21 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Why did I fix it? Simply because it alerted me to a problem with my own mods, I'm picky and wanted to correct it. So I made about 20 textures yesterday (a similar mis-match exists with the Euro variants too). As a by-product, I might as well include such fixes into the NAM, since it's about 5minutes work to pass the improvements to all.

Also, regarding some of the missing street/road transitions/intersection capabilities that you ask be "fixed":

21 hours ago, rsc204 said:

For example, no one made extra code/textures for street connections to avenue roundabouts. But the reason is because it's redundant. Dragging a road one tile from the roundabout and then transitioning to street, simply does exactly the same job more efficiently. Over the years, many things have not been done because of technical reasons or practical ones. This is one of those cases, we don't consider it a bug and have no plans to add this functionality.

The point here is that a lot of these posts seem to be without consideration of alternative solutions or even a basic search for options that might work, but rather a "this didn't work out immediately, let me post it as a bug because the team must obviously be totally unaware that these issues exist" which may be a valid thought the first time you post the question, but not really viable after the 3rd or 4th post on that discussion point.

RSC204 is right; the devs often miss stuff, either because they are so busy writing the code that testing in realistic use situations is hard to do, or because their familiarity with the product makes very complicated setups second nature and they may not realize that certain combos either don't work in certain circumstances (because they are set in their ways) or because a lot of the NAM team make very aesthetic cities and certain "ugly" setups get less use and attention by the devs because of unconscious bias that determines their priorities.

Also, a lot of the stuff you post or ask questions about is well-documented in the documentation and FAQ and other places on the forum. I don't mind answering questions, but the insistence on how stuff is "supposed to work" is perhaps not the best way to go about presenting your concerns or problems to the NAM devs, who are acutely aware with the limitations on their work.

[fredinno 54]

2 hours ago, APSMS said:

To what do you refer? You realize you can quote selections of the text by highlighting them and clicking on the hover-over "Quote This," right? If you mean the avenue-SAM transitions, you realize he specifically answered this question right here:

Also, regarding some of the missing street/road transitions/intersection capabilities that you ask be "fixed":

The point here is that a lot of these posts seem to be without consideration of alternative solutions or even a basic search for options that might work, but rather a "this didn't work out immediately, let me post it as a bug because the team must obviously be totally unaware that these issues exist" which may be a valid thought the first time you post the question, but not really viable after the 3rd or 4th post on that discussion point.

RSC204 is right; the devs often miss stuff, either because they are so busy writing the code that testing in realistic use situations is hard to do, or because their familiarity with the product makes very complicated setups second nature and they may not realize that certain combos either don't work in certain circumstances (because they are set in their ways) or because a lot of the NAM team make very aesthetic cities and certain "ugly" setups get less use and attention by the devs because of unconscious bias that determines their priorities.

Also, a lot of the stuff you post or ask questions about is well-documented in the documentation and FAQ and other places on the forum. I don't mind answering questions, but the insistence on how stuff is "supposed to work" is perhaps not the best way to go about presenting your concerns or problems to the NAM devs, who are acutely aware with the limitations on their work.

I quoted the entire thing because it was to the entire thing in particular.

 

[rsc204 21,808]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

I quoted the entire thing because it was to the entire thing in particular.

Just a thought, but how about simply starting such a post with "Re: Your last post @rsc204..." This way you can comment an entire post, but it keeps threads looking tidy and easier to follow for all.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

Turns out that I already had a slope mod (Ennedi Medium). I "upgraded" to Mountain (and indeed have been building in hilly terrain) and tweaked it further to allow more excursion from baseline. Now everything is so easy! I can finally place the winding avenue through my hills like I envisioned, yet it remains reasonably smooth and good looking.

[Compdude787 916]

@fredinno, when you have issues with things not working properly or the way you expect them to, you should try other workarounds. That's what I do. Yes, it can be frustrating to be hitting the limits of the NAM, but most problems won't be solved unless you're willing to fix them. I get that it takes far more effort and know-how to actually fix things as opposed to merely report problems in this requests thread (which you do seem to spend a lot of time in), but that's why many NAM team members became members. 

[fredinno 54]

Is it possible that RTMT, would be merged with NAM- considering it's one of the last major transit mods not in NAM- and that an installer would make it much easier to install overall.

[APSMS 1,892]

40 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Is it possible that RTMT, would be merged with NAM

No.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

I stumbled upon this in the SC4 wiki:

A never finished project by buddybud.

 

I'd like to name them 'One tile FLUPs' and not to go down the ground level, but to pass embankments. And I'd say: something like this would make a fine addition to the NAM.

I know, there are tunnels. But tunnels - how to say - they look like tunnels - but those, covering the entire tile, they look like underpasses.

 

On 31.12.2016 at 0:13 PM, rsc204 said:

No one thinks the NAM is perfect, it's a product that's constantly evolving.

False. I do.

Sorry - you know what happens now - a small philosophical intervention.

 

'Perfection' is a sheer subjective term. Somebody you love always seems 'perfect' even if others think you became crazy. Without a subjective judgement - all things are as they are - and therefore perfect. One could do a brief reading on Leibnitz's argument on 'the best of all possible worlds" on this.

As the same it's with the NAM. It's always the best of all possible NAMs that exists (as only one NAM can exist - and the NAM dreamt off isn't existing and therefore it isn't the better one, regarding it's objective state).

And therefore - people complaining about the NAM are unhappy. It's something happening on the user, not the NAM. It's your needs that drive you unhappy not the NAM. It's always your needs that drives you unhappy, never the world. As the world is as it is. Same with NAM.

So NAM is always perfect but ...

me, I have needs, wishes, desires.

[rsc204 21,808]

55 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

A never finished project by buddybud.

I never got that myself, because I've used them and they seem to work just fine? So I'm not sure what part was still in development, I think they were just labelled unfinished because BuddyBud hadn't completely tested the set. BTW, they can be downloaded from here.

58 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

And I'd say: something like this would make a fine addition to the NAM.

Perhaps, but we don't have permission to use them in the NAM and BuddyBud is no longer around to give it. FLUPs development is also highly unlikely until a new implementation can be worked out. Hint: that's been many years without progress.

1 hour ago, Fantozzi said:

So NAM is always perfect but ...

Well that's nice of you to think that way. But speaking as a developer, I think we see things differently. There is always so much more we can do, be that adding new content or fixing things up. If we all thought it was perfect, where would we find a need to keep going?

But I agree that those who bemoan the NAM often misunderstand how it works from a development perspective. That or they have a vision of what they want the NAM to be/include, which isn't realistic. Since we're not developing the NAM one individual wants to see. But the NAM we as developers want to see. That's not to say we don't create things for the benefit of the wider community sometimes. But if we aren't motivated to put in the work to make a thing, chances are, it won't happen.

 

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

Is it possible that RTMT, would be merged with NAM- considering it's one of the last major transit mods not in NAM- and that an installer would make it much easier to install overall.

7 hours ago, APSMS said:

No.

Whilst the NAM Team and RTMT team do collaborate, we are still separate teams. The goal of the NAM is not to have all transit mods in one place. Actually, the reason for the NAM is mostly that anything requiring code (RUL), must all work together. You can't install two mods with conflicting RUL code, or even merge two sets together from separate mods. So if something needs code to make it work, typically that must be included in the NAM controller.

RTMT doesn't need such code, the product is basically lots or stations. By your rationale, all stations would be included in the NAM. Well that's not practical, because we don't have the resources to handle the upkeep of all these additional mods.

v3.5 does have an installer, but the patches in v3.6 do not. v4, which has been in development for a very long time, will come with one when it eventually gets released. In the meantime, follow the readme very carefully when installing and you should be fine.

[Fantozzi 4,067]

5 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

BTW, they can be downloaded from here.

Thanks, didn't know that. If they are available my request is obsolete. Included with the installer or separate, that's not the thing. 

 

[matias93 7,535]

Just a warning about those underpasses: as transit enabled lots, they spill traffic to the overpassing network If the overpassing piece is not used. I've test this using them to underpass a RHW-6C and the cars jumped as it were an intersection

[rsc204 21,808]

52 minutes ago, matias93 said:

Just a warning about those underpasses: as transit enabled lots, they spill traffic to the overpassing network If the overpassing piece is not used. I've test this using them to underpass a RHW-6C and the cars jumped as it were an intersection

Indeed, I think that's what BuddyBud was trying to avoid. But this a bug in SC4, not anything he did wrong. I've seen this behaviour with a number of TE pieces, it's just something you have to accept.

[fredinno 54]

It would be nice for RTMT to at least have a exe installer, if nothing else.