NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[matias93 7,535]

Can I be a bad person and reiterate a request from 2 years ago?

On 5/24/2019 at 7:50 PM, matias93 said:

Good NAM folk, would it be possible to add a couple of pedestrian paths to the T intersections, to make this coupling viable? Currently I'm using a one tile street stub to allow sims to enter the pedestrian-only area, but it looks a little awkward.

 

[Tyberius06 12,189]

1 hour ago, matias93 said:

Can I be a bad person and reiterate a request from 2 years ago?

 

Hm... I started patching up the Street and Road paths and did some improvements for NAM 38 when the single tile roundabout developments were on the table, but I think I only did the Street-Road, Road-Street transitions and intersections and I haven't moved forward to the OWR or AVE crossings. Thanks for the reminder @matias93. I think there is a chance that it can make it to v40. I don't promise the AVE however, but I can do the OWR street crossings. I will see!

- Tyberius

(I attached some of the street-road and RA pathing concepts which were done for NAM v38)

[matias93 7,535]

If I'm interpreting the graphs correctly, the only paths that would be needed are the two perpendicular ones that are on the straight segments, which are the ones that match perfectly with the pedmalls centre ones.

[pierrebaptiste 472]

Hello ,

A project of URHW (Underground Real High Way) : link of my proposition : https://community.simtropolis.com/forums/topic/4381-real-highway-rhw-development-and-support/?page=129 , https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=1138.1720

[Simizen 1,098]

I have a couple of requests (and I feel like I've asked for so much across here and reddit already)

1: Not a requirement, but, would be nice: WRC subways. I've honestly never understood why the rail & el-rail networks required them in vanilla, yet, subways are magically able to handle an instant 90* turn. Like, how are the subway cars supposed to work, if they require such a wide radius for the elevated tracks when they go above ground?

2: I honestly cannot remember if I've ever asked this directly to the team at any point or not now: Is/would it be possible to allow for 2 streets to join up with an avenue, in the same area, but, without it forcing an intersection? Like, I'd love to have 2 T connections with a median between them, but, the game defaults to an intersection. Would there be a way to set it up to allow the default to register separate stubs when dragging in from both sides, and then, to make the intersection when dragged all the way through? And, honestly, I'll just be super happy to have a puzzle/starter/TE lot, whichever works. I've just never been fond of a full on intersection with it into an avenue, and adding to some research on road hierarchy, this would be beneficial for cities as well. Plus the fact that this does actually happen in real life naturally, to cut down on accidents/wrecks.

[Tarkus 6,932]

The Subway network was originally designed with a lot of weird quirks, not only because of its underground status, but also because Maxis actually re-used a lot of the guts of the Road network (of all things!) for Subways, rather than the more logical choice of Rail.  That's why there's the sharp turns and some bizarre choices with network pathing (the 4-way junction is egregiously so).  The Subway network has also largely not been touched by the NAM for most of its existence--aside from giving it LHD support in NAM 16, nothing's been done with it until the release of the Subway-based FLUPs in NAM 39.

The base Subway network is starting to get a little more attention in addition to the new Subway-based override networks (which will be expanding in NAM 40), so there will be a gradual drip feed of fixes for Subways to make them be more in line with Rail/Elevated Rail/Monorail going forward.  The one tricky thing, however, is that we've yet to get certain types of code modifications we normally use on the other networks to work on the Subways--namely, some of the ones we typically use for implementing Wide-Radius and Multi-Radius Curves.  I don't expect we'll do much with wider radii curves until those issues are solved.  Expanding the 90° to 2x2 is doable with RUL2 modification, however, so that might be one bit we can fix in the nearer term.

As far as the Avenue x Street Ts, the game's annoying hardcoded "auto-connect" feature that plagues the Street and RHW networks is what is forcing the through +-intersection.  The only workaround I've seen that functions is to switch one or both of the Streets to Road right before the intersection.  It's functionality I'd like to have as well, though I'm trying to think as to what the best implementation may be for it.  The option of allowing left turns off the Avenue into Streets that are restricted like that is something I've considered for the FTLs, so it could be that a FLEX Piece with the base "RIRO" (Right In, Right Out--LILO for LHD users) could be made, and allow FTL overrides to make the left turns off the Avenue possible.

-Tarkus

[Simizen 1,098]

I figured the subways had some weird quirks with them. Didn't know they had built it off of the road network though. Good to know it's getting some attention soon. And, honestly, I figured it wasn't really touched, simply because it's underground, so, it's typically not seen by people most times. I mean, what's it matter how it looks, so long as it functions? XD

And, I had a feeling the avenue thing was going to be tricky.

[Wiimeiser 444]

On the subject of subway quirks, what exactly happens when rail traffic tries to use them? CTD? It just doesn't work?

[Whte_rbt 1,431]

IIRC, the passenger traffic gets converted and makes it through the subway, freight gets dropped like the proverbial hot potato.

[Tarkus 6,932]

53 minutes ago, Wiimeiser said:

On the subject of subway quirks, what exactly happens when rail traffic tries to use them? CTD? It just doesn't work?

If you're referring to the attempt to get Rail traffic through a Subway-based override network (i.e. the same premise as the new FLUPs system introduced in NAM 39), here's an image from my test back in September 2018.  Rail traffic will use it, but only if it's the only route, and as soon as any sort of Rail traffic uses it, it turns bright red on the Congestion DataView:

I'll also note that in that same test, Jamil Herd, the transportation adviser, popped up with a "Local Road Reaches Limit" message . . . clicking on it took me to the stretch of Subway-based URail.

The one green tile that appears to be underground is the "false intersection" used to initiate the underground override.  The other network involved is Rail, so the simulator is happy for that one tile.

Weird stuff.

-Tarkus

[Propfam 2,288]

My original suggestion is to integrate a transpiler to the NAM workflow. This is not only makes feature making easier and faster but also to prevent some errors associated with syntax. I really surprised that the NAM Team still code (mostly) by hand while in other industry like web development, some people are using transpiler like Babel or Typescript already. Sure, this requires a new programming language to be invented (Typescript is also a language). But once invented and implemented by the transpiler, features will be easier to add and higher quality especially from the code standpoint.

[Wiimeiser 444]

So based on that, it appears the subway is hardcoded to assume a rail capacity of 0 at all times. Strange given how subways and rail are the same IRL yet this is never the case in city simulators (in fact, it took until about only a year ago for a simulator to have official above-ground metro) so no I wonder if the New York and Paris metro networks even have above ground sections...

[Propfam 2,288]

27 minutes ago, Wiimeiser said:

So based on that, it appears the subway is hardcoded to assume a rail capacity of 0 at all times. Strange given how subways and rail are the same IRL yet this is never the case in city simulators (in fact, it took until about only a year ago for a simulator to have official above-ground metro) so no I wonder if the New York and Paris metro networks even have above ground sections...

Ah yes, the famous NY subway. Never below the ground, or is it? (with Vsauce tone)

[Wiimeiser 444]

I looked it up, and the NY Subway doesn't appear to have any above ground sections except for maybe the bridges. I wonder if 'Cisco has a subway like in NY.

 

Also, the road congestion message popping up suggests to me that the subway network has infinite capacity for its own traffic...

[Tarkus 6,932]

The Subway network does have a catalog capacity property just like all the other networks, and has its "Travel Type Affected By Traffic" property value set to "True" (0x01), so it would not have an infinite capacity for its own type, albeit it is tied for highest capacity with the NAM's simulator settings (even on Low, it's 10000).

In general, things can get weird when you start applying path types to networks other than the ones they were originally intended to support.  Path Types 1 (Cars/Buses/Freight Trucks, green in DrawPaths) and 2 (Pedestrians, blue in DrawPaths) tend to be the most flexible, though if applied to a network that doesn't normally support them, Type 1 defaults to Road speed/capacity.  The only exception, IIRC, is Monorail, which they can't use.  Path Type 3 (Passenger/Freight Trains, kind of a dark pink in DrawPaths) are perhaps the next most pliable.  Subway uses Path Type 4 (yellow in DrawPaths)--I haven't done that much experimentation with that type to really say what it can/can't do.

And as far as San Francisco goes, their Light Rail system, Muni Metro, has both Subway-like and above-ground segments.

-Tarkus

[matias93 7,535]

23 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

I wonder if the New York and Paris metro networks even have above ground sections...

Paris has them, several kilometres in fact, both as elevated rail lines over boulevards, and in surface, amidst other rail lines, particularly in Nanterre.

[youngwii 74]

New York City has above-ground sections, mostly outside of Manhattan.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

22 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

I looked it up, and the NY Subway doesn't appear to have any above ground sections except for maybe the bridges. I wonder if 'Cisco has a subway like in NY.

 

Also, the road congestion message popping up suggests to me that the subway network has infinite capacity for its own traffic...

About half of NYC's subway is above ground. Off the top of my head most of the US's and Canada's metro systems are a mix of above and below ground sections.

The issue is that the people who make city sim games don't know anything about transit or cities so all of the mass transit implementations in games make no sense.

[kschmidt 6,164]

16 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

About half of NYC's subway is above ground. Off the top of my head most of the US's and Canada's metro systems are a mix of above and below ground sections.

The issue is that the people who make city sim games don't know anything about transit or cities so all of the mass transit implementations in games make no sense.

Maxis did a great job, design the transit networks, some refinement there by the community, make it work ! Some design flaws, if you look out of a perspective european and asian urban transport unmatched, american public transport except for the great cities has since the 70´s degraded only to painstakely recorvering to something usefull. SimCity 4 isn´t a difficult city builder, only the NAM makes a little bit more complicated to understan how to as there a hole bunch of transit networks added. City Skylines and SimCity 2013 Mod based game too make the game more complicated and less reliable, Cities XXL only use out of the box road based transport so no complications !

[Jasoncw 11,840]

4 hours ago, kschmidt said:

Maxis did a great job, design the transit networks, some refinement there by the community, make it work ! Some design flaws, if you look out of a perspective european and asian urban transport unmatched, american public transport except for the great cities has since the 70´s degraded only to painstakely recorvering to something usefull. SimCity 4 isn´t a difficult city builder, only the NAM makes a little bit more complicated to understan how to as there a hole bunch of transit networks added. City Skylines and SimCity 2013 Mod based game too make the game more complicated and less reliable, Cities XXL only use out of the box road based transport so no complications !

You can't even recreate most American transit systems in SC4. In real life there's a combination of underground, surface level, and elevated for all of the different types of systems.

For example, the Chicago L has sections has subway sections, elevated sections, and surface sections (they even intersect with streets), all on the same lines. You can't do that in SC4. Many passenger rail systems have underground sections, and many of them share stations with subways (for example, Grand Central Station in SC4 would be modded as both a subway and a passenger rail station).

Ironically, the main thing that makes different transit systems incompatible is whether or not the tracks are electrified. Freight trains don't like sharing the same track as electrified passenger or metro tracks. And ironically freight and passenger trains are the only trains in SC4 that get to share the same track.

What SC4 probably should have done is had the rail network all be one network (like roads), and then had different types of trains/traffic that can run freely on all tracks but can only stop at stations for each of that type. So for example, if you built a metro system, the tracks would be the same as any other train tracks, but since you would be placing metro stations on it, it would function as a metro line.

[nycsc4 5,250]

^ Yep.  Even in St. Louis this is the case.  All the same infrastructure and rolling stock.  But the downtown lines run in historic subway tunnels, the central city lines run at grade, the Blue Line runs in newly constructed tunnels, grade, and elevated tracks.  The red line is mostly ground level...but is elevated for the airport terminal stations.  The Illinois ROW is mostly at grade with some mixing, etc.

With the NAM and various transition pieces it’s a bit easier to build a system like this in SC4 though it’s not perfect.

[WannGLondon 2,239]

Hey incredible NAM developers - I have always wondered if there was a work-around for ferries to “pass through” low bridges?

I enjoy creating European cities that lie on rivers, and high bridges are simply not realistic (nor aesthetically pleasing for Euro-inspired city centers) but are required for boats to pass under.

Apologies if this has been brought up before or if this is already in the works.

[Nathangec78 183]

I'd like to politely request some little things, mostly transitions/intersections.

Is there any chance of creating smoother curves or ramps? (like the OWR-OWR1 depicted in the bottom right)

I didn't link the two one-way roads in the center because it would create a ramp leading to a OWR-1 but the idea is making a smoother exit to another One-Way road. The same goes to that intersection in the top right, a road-OWR (or even OWR-1) smoother exit/entrance. The Avenue-OWR in the top left is an example of how it could be

Could you guys make a Road and an One-Way Road version of AVE-4 Type A1 Entrance/Exit (left bottom of the image)

There are some roundabout transitions that would be very useful, like those below:

 

The other thing I would like to request is the upcoming REW (Real ExpresswayMod) but I know it's coming up soon.

 

 

 

[Wiimeiser 444]

On 26/02/2021 at 11:27 AM, Jasoncw said:

What SC4 probably should have done is had the rail network all be one network (like roads), and then had different types of trains/traffic that can run freely on all tracks but can only stop at stations for each of that type. So for example, if you built a metro system, the tracks would be the same as any other train tracks, but since you would be placing metro stations on it, it would function as a metro line.

The earliest you could do that without unwieldly game-breaking mods like the MOM is Cities Skylines 2...

[Flann 1,709]

On 2/3/2021 at 5:15 PM, matias93 said:

Can I be a bad person and reiterate a request from 2 years ago?

Resolved this one.  If there are others like this please let me know.

[Eggman121 1,035]

On 2/26/2021 at 11:27 AM, Jasoncw said:

What SC4 probably should have done is had the rail network all be one network (like roads), and then had different types of trains/traffic that can run freely on all tracks but can only stop at stations for each of that type. So for example, if you built a metro system, the tracks would be the same as any other train tracks, but since you would be placing metro stations on it, it would function as a metro line.

That's the aim of the Hybrid Railway or HRW. Abe-it with just two transit types supported. That is heavy Rail and Monorail/ HSR. More will be done in this space post NAM 40 so NAM 4x post NAM 40 should have some new pieces for the expansion of the HRW. For all who are following, I do plan to make more HRW content. One of the limiting factors are stations for the new network. Once I have made a bit more content I will be reaching out to Loters and BATers to see if anyone is interested.

In the meantime If anyone would like to make and/or Lot some BATs for HRW I would be more that happy to facilitate that. We (The NAM team) have our specs handy and are ready to assist. @Tyberius06 Has the details thus far for Loting a station for the HRW.

-eggman121 (NAM Team member)

[matias93 7,535]

20 hours ago, Flann said:

Resolved this one.  If there are others like this please let me know.

Cool!! I think all the T intersections suffer from the same issue, but I haven't checked thoroughly

[JessiLaurn 183]

On 2/25/2021 at 10:29 PM, WannGLondon said:

Hey incredible NAM developers - I have always wondered if there was a work-around for ferries to “pass through” low bridges?

I enjoy creating European cities that lie on rivers, and high bridges are simply not realistic (nor aesthetically pleasing for Euro-inspired city centers) but are required for boats to pass under.

Apologies if this has been brought up before or if this is already in the works.

I've seen this one requested numerous times (and have requested it myself). From what I recall from back in the day, bridge height for ferry passage is hardcoded in SC4, and has proven resistant to modification. But if it can be done, it would certainly be appreciated.

[Wiimeiser 444]

What about Contraflow interchanges? For the actual Contraflow sections you could just use ARD-3 or RHW-3, at least for initial tests...

[JessiLaurn 183]

Request:  stations for 7.5-meter viaduct rail.