NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Leo -- 186]

How could I make one if I decide to give it a try? Also do you know anyone who's willing to texture it? It would probably look worse then it already looks if I attempt to texture it 

Also did you mange to find the NWM RUL2 or did you just didn't have the chance to find it/is it lost?

 

[matias93 7,535]

On the other hand, now that you mention it, that Golden Gate Bridge would work great with RD-4

[rsc204 21,808]

11 hours ago, Leo -- said:

How could I make one if I decide to give it a try?

There are two kinds of model used for bridges, some use multiple models that are merged into one. So the road/rail or whatever network exists would be a separate group, meaning you can at least change it. Generally speaking in these cases the bridge part is an RKT1 model, which means a pre-rendered non 3D model, typical for SC4. Then the network part is incorporated as an RKT0 model, but using a different group within the same S3D. Either export the S3D and work with it in 3DS Max / gMax or my preferred method, manually edit the S3D, removing all elements of the RTK0 group/(s), then adding the new values from your replacement model. It might be possible to simply link to a different texture created as the roadway for the model. Typically you'll have 20 models for each piece of the bridge to edit, one for each zoom level and rotation the game supports. The number of pieces can vary greatly depending on the bridge, since the pieces can be repeated and used in pre-defined patterns.

Other bridges are made from a series of RKT1 (non 3D models) only, editing those without having access to the original files used to create them, is very difficult. Being Maxis' work, there is no possibility of re-rendering the models, since you won't have access to the source files. The final pre-rendered assets from batted models, simply don't contain everything needed to open them in a 3D modelling app. Long and short you need to be very talented with Image editing, the process would be to extract the 20 (or more) textures for each model first. You must then edit each of them separately to edit the highway part as desired, using the editing ones to create a texture override.

If my memory serves, all the Maxis bridges are of the second type, which will require editing the textures in something like Photoshop.

[rsc204 21,808]

12 hours ago, Leo -- said:

Also did you mange to find the NWM RUL2 or did you just didn't have the chance to find it/is it lost?

These days (I believe starting with 31.2), a controller compiler is included with NAM, that has all the individual RUL sections, such as NWM in their own .txt files. I can't find such amongst the NAM 30 files I have, only the pre-compiled controllers. This is a problem, because passing on the entire RUL2 file, is really not going to be much use, what with the compiled version being one long block of code, without a single gap or comment. You really need uncompiled versions if you want a chance of deciphering and working with the code.

Of course someone in the team (before my time), would have had to have compiled such code, but whether or not those sources still exist, I couldn't personally say. Hopefully @Tarkus may be able to help you further with this.

[Tarkus 6,932]

I've been able to locate an older RUL2 file (precompiled) that had it (right at the very end). The extract is 14,455 lines . . . actually bigger than the entire rest of the NWM RUL2 code at one point, and it only covers some limited situations.  Some of it might not work with NAM 42, as the revamp of the NWM code we did changed the rotations of some intersections, for the sake of consistency and stability, and making it easier for future expansion.

If you start getting into adjacencies (i.e. you have a Rail crossing before the Auto-Road Turn Lanes start, for instance), that's going to require more code, and there's a number of Road-based features added since that aren't at all covered.  If you wanted this thing to play nice with all that . . . I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it exceeded 500,000 lines.  (The current NWM codebase is somewhere in the 1,500,000-line ballpark now.)  Throwing fancy overrides onto one of the most common intersections of a base network is really a recipe for disaster from a file encapsulation standpoint (as evidenced by the 100,000 lines of code I had to throw at the FLEX Height Transitions in order to get the auto-L1 RHW-2 out the top to stop interfering with the other override networks--and it still wasn't foolproof). 

-Tarkus

NWM-Auto-RTL-Compatibility-RUL2-NAM30-r132.zip

[Leo -- 186]

@rsc204 Thanks for your detailed post about making bridges. Can you tell me what work is required to create a MHO to MHY transition piece? I want to weigh my options.

@Tarkus Thanks! I'll be sure to take look at it when I have the time.

 

Also sorry if I'm polluting this thread 

[Leo -- 186]

Okay so now that I had some time to test and compile the plugins and here are the results:

 

All of my basic tests with the NWM and the the custom controller works mostly fine {if you try to break it it will brake just like most of the stuff in NAM }(btw the NAM team has an outdated compiler on GitHub)

Draggable FAR works just fine.

And these are the mods that has issues:

Draggable Road Viaducts (only in some cases[not crossing another road is fine])
Alternate Viaducts (only in some cases[not crossing another road is fine])
FLEX Turn Lanes (100% broken)
Roundabouts (only in some cases)

I also made a dedicated thread for my experiments with updating it.

 

Also why did NAM change its logo?

[Tarkus 6,932]

You're welcome, and thanks for your report on your progress.  The Controller Compiler itself hasn't really undergone any substantial changes since its initial iteration (the one that's on GitHub), just the Controller itself.

As far as the logo change, we had been using the same logo by @MadSimsince about 2005, after the release of NAM 18, and in preparation for launching a short-lived NAM website.  One strange bit of history--it was an entry in a "Design the NAM Logo" contest, but was not the winning entry (or even part of the final voting).  If anyone wants some history--albeit, unfortunately with many of the images lost to time and image sharing service closures and changes--see here and here.

While we had no official plans to change it after 16 years, and had declined previous pushes to change it, there had been a team discussion about getting a cleaner, vector copy of the existing logo, for use in team promotional and documentation-related efforts, which led to some mention of some of the discrepancies in the current version we have of the original (which was reconstituted for higher resolutions later).  Our own @Ramona Brie started experimenting with it while working on a cleaner version, and came up with what you now see.  We all were absolutely enamored with what she did with it, and decided to adopt it going forward.

-Tarkus

[Leo -- 186]

6 hours ago, Tarkus said:

You're welcome, and thanks for your report on your progress.  The Controller Compiler itself hasn't really undergone any substantial changes since its initial iteration (the one that's on GitHub), just the Controller itself.

It has gone under enough changes where it can't compile FTLs even though it said it compiled everything successfully.

Banged my head quite a few times trying to figure out what was wrong.

 

Quite surprised how much history was involved with the NAM Logo itself.

[smurfN 26]

Hi, got two questions/requests

1) Flex-curve (R1-R5) for RHW-3, is that a possibility?

2) Diagonal transitions pieces/flex sollutions for the various RHW widths, is that something that the NAM team has looked at?

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

3 hours ago, smurfN said:

Hi, got two questions/requests

1) Flex-curve (R1-R5) for RHW-3, is that a possibility?

2) Diagonal transitions pieces/flex sollutions for the various RHW widths, is that something that the NAM team has looked at?

 

1) FLEX wide radius curves for RHW-3 are actually planned for NAM 43, they were supposed to be added earlier in NAM 40, but there were other big projects in that release which didn't leave us with enough time to actually get them ready. I'll be taking care of these, actually.

2) While I do agree that these are really necessary and desirable, I don't think we're quite there yet. Those would have to wait a bit longer, unfortunately.

[Max4k 721]

On 9/3/2021 at 4:02 PM, Lucario Boricua said:

 

1) FLEX wide radius curves for RHW-3 are actually planned for NAM 43, they were supposed to be added earlier in NAM 40, but there were other big projects in that release which didn't leave us with enough time to actually get them ready. I'll be taking care of these, actually.

2) While I do agree that these are really necessary and desirable, I don't think we're quite there yet. Those would have to wait a bit longer, unfortunately.

 

Lot of new exiting stuff coming out.  I saw the video you and Rob did, and you mentioned more Bridges and features down the road though NAM 44

I don't know anything about Highways yet and have not made any RHW stuff but have a few concerns.  Are there any more puzzle pieces that will be disabled in future versions ?

Like this new update - > The "Compact" RHW-6C-to-4 Transition Puzzle Piece has been disabled from the Legacy Width Transitions menu, due to conflict with other items.

For a newbie, would it be suggested to Remove "legacy" RHW menu buttons from the Highways menu  ?

 

[Tarkus 6,932]

1 hour ago, Max4k said:

I don't know anything about Highways yet and have not made any RHW stuff but have a few concerns.  Are there any more puzzle pieces that will be disabled in future versions ?

Like this new update - > The "Compact" RHW-6C-to-4 Transition Puzzle Piece has been disabled from the Legacy Width Transitions menu, due to conflict with other items.

For a newbie, would it be suggested to Remove "legacy" RHW menu buttons from the Highways menu  ?

That particular piece was a one-off issue--it was one of the only non-cosmetic old-style puzzle pieces that got placed into the new (largely post-puzzle) IID range.  Its location was actually blocking where the FLEX Width Transition (FLEX-WT) version was supposed to go (and the FLEX-WT version needed to use the whole block), and there was no clean way to fix it that wouldn't have caused any existing instances of the puzzle piece to go missing in cities where it had already been built.  Since the base version of the corresponding FLEX-WT is essentially identical to the puzzle piece that it replaced (with a few extra bells and whistles on the FLEX version, to boot), and anyone with the old one would have to rebuild it anyway, it seemed like the least objectionable compromise.

Generally speaking, we try to avoid removing or disabling already existing features, to maximize backwards compatibility to the greatest extent possible.  We want people to enjoy the results of our latest efforts, rather than cling to old versions of the mod.  There are sometimes cases, however, where an old feature proves to be too much of a roadblock for us to try to salvage it.  This one puzzle piece was one such case.  The Auto Road Turning Lanes were another.

With regards to "legacy" puzzle pieces, it's no secret that we've been steadily moving away from them and toward FLEX and draggable items.  That process has actually been going on in some form or another for close to 15 years now, and there hasn't been a true new puzzle piece added to the NAM since NAM 33 in 2015.  The FLEX items, where available, are the superior option--they provide more functionality with less menu/TAB ring overhead, and in general, are just less fiddly.  The 5 FLEX items under the FLEX-WT button cover what would have otherwise taken a couple hundred old-style puzzle pieces to replicate.  (And in fact, as of NAM 42, aside from some Wide Radius-Curves, the Fractional Angle functionality, the Cosmetic Pieces, some specialized ramp interfaces, and the Volleyball and Diverging Diamond pieces, the RHW is otherwise all-FLEX.  And yes, FLEXing those areas is in the cards.)

If you're not a long time NAM user, for whom the habit of using the old puzzle pieces is hard to kick (and even then, we'd encourage those users to try to kick it), I'd recommend avoiding the puzzle pieces except in the rare instances they're still necessary.  As of right now, there's not a way of disabling/removing the "legacy" RHW buttons without manually doing so--we took a lot of flak for making the RHW Legacy Height Transitions button be disabled by default with NAM 33 (particularly as it turned out it included one transition--the curved one--that hadn't gotten a FLEX version yet, and didn't until NAM 42), so we've erred on the side of caution, though disabling the truly "legacy" buttons will be an official (but still non-default) option in future releases.

-Tarkus

[Max4k 721]

I noticed over last few updates more Flex options being added and also something about Symphony.   There a few city tiles  in Region where I plan to use the RHW system but not there yet and still doing Rural/Farm stuff and getting more into Medium Residential and Commercial w/ PED tiles.

[Wiimeiser 444]

On the subject of legacy puzzle pieces, I was wondering this about the old overpasses. What's going to happen to those?

 

It appears cosmetics and WRHW-2 will be getting the FLEX treatment next, if I'm not mistaken. Cosmetic pieces will probably be a part of that. I see the WRCs being the next after that. Hopefully FLEX Volleyballs can be more compact (as in, placed right next to each other) and can support wider (or narrower) networks.

 

I've been using the NAM since I think the last or second-last "modular" version, and I haven't been relying too much on the old puzzle pieces. I'd generally only use them as filler pieces.

[Tarkus 6,932]

4 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

On the subject of legacy puzzle pieces, I was wondering this about the old overpasses. What's going to happen to those?

 

It appears cosmetics and WRHW-2 will be getting the FLEX treatment next, if I'm not mistaken. Cosmetic pieces will probably be a part of that. I see the WRCs being the next after that. Hopefully FLEX Volleyballs can be more compact (as in, placed right next to each other) and can support wider (or narrower) networks.

If you're talking about the puzzle piece versions of the Road/OWR/Avenue Viaducts, once the L2 Draggables receive full OxD/DxO/DxD support (NAM 38 only covered L1), those will be effectively obsolete (and for those who still try to use them to manipulate pylon/support/pillar placement . . . I think there can be a non-puzzle solution to that).

As far as the full-on pre-fab Overpasses that were broken into bits to make the old Road/OWR/Avenue Viaduct puzzle pieces, we already have all the ingredients to replace them with QuickChange-style FLEX versions, that would allow the user to cross under them with draggable networks.  That functionality is indeed planned for a future release.

BTW, for those of you curious about NAM history--some of you may notice that I mention that the full Overpasses being broken into bits.  Yes, the Overpasses actually came first--they were added in NAM 2 back on May 9th, 2004, and expanded in the NAM 3 release on June 4th, 2004.  The puzzle pieces were added in NAM 4, released a mere 8 days later (June 12th, 2004), and in fact, this order of development is actually where the term "puzzle piece" derives--in effect, the larger Overpasses were broken into smaller bits, which could be assembled to create the full setup, much like a puzzle.

Aside from some changes with how ploppable OWR-based items' directionality was handled in NAM 16 a year later (June 8th, 2005), and the fact that the revamp of the Viaduct models in NAM 30 (September 15, 2011) also affected the Overpasses (they actually share some of the same IIDs), the Overpasses have otherwise essentially remain untouched for 17 years.

With regards to the WRHW-2, presently, what's been shown is part of the RHW-2 FLEX Turn Lanes (FTL) functionality in development.  Technically, it's an RHW-2 Type 110-Median FTL.  That'll provide more functionality over time than the present WRHW-2 has (including, at some point, overcrossing support), though it's being handled as a localized FTL override, which is effectively a "mini-network".  FLEX Cosmetic Pieces (FLEX-CPs) are a little farther off, I'd say--neither the FLEX-CPs or the FLEX Volleyballs haven't entered development yet, though I'd peg the Volleyballs as getting FLEX treatment first (those and the specialized ramp "shift" ramp interfaces would be enough to deprecate the non-FA Ramp Interfaces button for good).  The big priority with the FLEX-WRCs/MRCs is going to be adding wider network support, along with more S-Curve support (which NAM 42 finally added in some capacity).

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

So once the "QC Xpress" versions of the old overpasses are done, they'll be marked as "legacy" and deprecated? Makes sense.

For the S-Curve support, I assume this will allow for more functionality with the Basketweave piece, too.

The only reason to manipulate pylon placement would be for, say, extender lots.

15 hours ago, Tarkus said:

they were added in NAM 2

Now I wonder what was even in NAM 1...

[Tarkus 6,932]

8 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

For the S-Curve support, I assume this will allow for more functionality with the Basketweave piece, too.

---

Now I wonder what was even in NAM 1...

The Basketweave and S-Curve are separate FLEX Pieces, though they do use many of the same models.

As far as NAM 1 goes, the official notes for it are literally nothing more than this:

• NetworkAddonMod Beta Version released. Please consult this file in conjunction with the Contents file for a list of Transit related items added for this mod to date.

However, there's a whole list of "Pre-NAM Features (2003-2004, incorporated in NAM Version 1)", which is quite extensive. 

• Textures changed for Street to Avenue intersections for better visual look.
• Made it possible to have double-wide diagonal rail transition into double wide orthogonal rail and vice-versa
• Created a work-around for a bug that prevented one-way roads from intersecting at a road-avenue t-intersection. In order to build this intersection, draw the one-way road last and draw it only to/from the tile next to the road/avenue intersection
• Made street intersections with road/avenue t-intersections easier. Draw the street last and draw it only to/from the tile next to the road/avenue intersection
• Made it possible for a orth 1-way road to intersect with a diag road/ave t-intersection
• Made it possible for a diag 1-way road to intersect with a orth road/ave t-intersection
• Fixed a visual bug that caused traffic to drive on the wrong side of the road on a diag ave-diag ave T-intersection.
• Fixed a bug that prevented U-turns on diagonal avenues that intersected or T-intersected with a diagonal road.
• Fixed a bug that prevented U-turns on orthagonal avenues that intersected with a diagonal avenue.
• Fixed a U-Drive-It bug for a ground rail intersection that previously did not allow you to switch the track while driving a train in U-Drive-It.
• On Avenue intersections between a straight (orthogonal) avenue and a diagonal avenue, Sims coming from the diagonal avenue could not turn left onto the straight avenue. This is fixed.
• The ability to dead end straight (orthogonal) roads or oneways into a diagonal avenue has been added. Thanks to Teirusu for the textures. Enjoy!
• Diagonal T interchanges have improved graphics.
• Sims could not drive straight through the road in a parallel road onramp to a ground highway when driving so the highway is on their right. This is fixed.
• One of the bugs causing cars to jump to different ramps on diagonal T ground highway interchanges was fixed.
• Avenue/oneway transitions now have custom graphics so they look better, textures compliments of Teirusu.
• When entering a ferry terminal in U-Drive it, your mission could fail instead of being redirected back onto the road. This is fixed, thanks to Karybdis.
• When driving over a ground level highway on an avenue overpass with onramps in the left lane, a U-Drive-it mission would fail. This is fixed.
• U turns immediately bordering avenue onramps on an avenue crossing a ground level highway could not be used by people just leaving or about to enter the highway. This is fixed.
• U turns immediately bordering avenue onramps on an avenue crossing an elevated highway could not be used by people just leaving or about to enter the highway. This is fixed.
• Half of the time Sims went underneath a diagonal elevated highway on a road with onramps, they could not turn left on the onramp. This has been fixed in Rush Hour.
• Half of the time Sims exited a diagonal elevated highway onto a diagonal road with offramps, they could not turn left on the road. This has been fixed in Rush Hour.
• Added the ability to end diagonal Oneways in a T-intersection with a perpendicular diagonal avenue.
• When Sims approached a diagonal avenue from a diagonal oneway, they could not turn left on the avenue. This is fixed.
• When Sims were driving on a diagonal avenue, they could not make a U-turn at half of the intersections with a perpendicular oneway road. This is fixed.
• Added the ability to end diagonal roads in a T-intersection with a perpendicular diagonal avenue.
• Fixed another avenue/oneway transition bug. It should be out of beta now, and fully operational with no further issues.
• Fixed avenue/oneway transitions so that U-Drive-it works in both lanes.
• Transitioning avenues to one way roads without an intersection.
• Previously, cars could not make some left turns onto a diagonal road when approaching from a straight one way road. This is now fixed.
• In three way monorail junctions, you could not change the switch's direction. Driving the monorail over the switch would end your U-Drive-It mission instantly. This has been fixed.
• 3 Bugs fixed which prohibited cars from turning in various directions when a diagonal road crossed a straight avenue.
• Avenues dead ending into streets were completely impassable by any form of transit.
• Perpendicular road to one way intersections oriented on the diagonal did not allow left turns from the one way.
• The rest of the perpendicular road to road intersections oriented on the diagonal were fixed. Sims could not turn left from one of the roads coming from either direction.
• Updated some intersections between avenues and one way roads to show better automata.
• Diagonal Avenues with grid aligned (non-diagonal) ground train tracks crossing the avenue would not allow any cars to pass.
• A road to road diagonal T intersection was not allowing Sims to turn left onto one of the roads.
• Continuing an avenue with one way streets from an avenue/one way intersection did not allow any cars to pass through the avenue/one way intersection.
• Sims could not turn left at some diagonal avenues when approaching from a diagonal road.
• Elevated rail lines crossing ground highways prevented cars from travelling on the ground highway below.
• North or Southbound one way roads could not create T intersections with Westward avenues.
• Some intersections between avenues and one way roads did not allow correct turns.
• Avenues dead ending into one way roads did not allow any Sims to pass through the intersection.
• On half of the perpendicular road to road intersections oriented on the diagonal, Sims could not turn left from one of the roads coming from either direction.

NAM 1 pretty much just merged and cleaned up a whole bunch of other separate transit-related mods and fixes, thereby cementing the cooperative, quasi-governmental way we've worked with the transit network content since.

The whole list of what each version added can be found in the NAM Documentation's History section.  Note that the various "separate download plugins" that were around in the Modular Era don't have their histories listed as part of that (though I'm looking to potentially add that).

-Tarkus

[Max4k 721]

I have not built any Highways yet and looking at what puzzle pieces are available.

 

The AVE-4 has enter/exit pieces to merge with RHW -  AVE-4 Type A,B,C

Is there any plans to have pieces like this for the wider AVE-6 or limitations you can't ?    Looking at the overview of things AVE-4 having a capacity of only 6000  looks like major bottleneck issues merging highway traffic to AVE-4, while AVE-6 has capacity of 22500

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

35 minutes ago, Max4k said:

I have not built any Highways yet and looking at what puzzle pieces are available.

 

The AVE-4 has enter/exit pieces to merge with RHW -  AVE-4 Type A,B,C

Is there any plans to have pieces like this for the wider AVE-6 or limitations you can't ?    Looking at the overview of things AVE-4 having a capacity of only 6000  looks like major bottleneck issues merging highway traffic to AVE-4, while AVE-6 has capacity of 22500

AVE 4 has the pieces to be able to create connections with MIS (RHW component with only one lane). AVE 6 is compatible with RHW 6C while AVE 6 and MIS there is no implementation system for ramps because it has not been planned as the team has different priorities. Anyway it's an idea we like and so thank you for suggesting this idea

[Wiimeiser 444]

I personally think AVE-6 should have the REW's OWR-1 ramps, but that's just me...

[Evane 61]

Hi,

I was wondering if there will be an on-slope version of the RHW flexible underpass portal? I suppose if you want to make this FLEX based, you'll need brand new tunnel models as well?

Also, I'm curious about the RHW FLEX Height Transitions (FLEX-HT) 1-Level 90° Curved version being 4x4 instead of 5x5 to match FLEXFly and the FLEX-based 90° R2 curve.

[Tarkus 6,932]

3 hours ago, Evane said:

I was wondering if there will be an on-slope version of the RHW flexible underpass portal? I suppose if you want to make this FLEX based, you'll need brand new tunnel models as well?

Also, I'm curious about the RHW FLEX Height Transitions (FLEX-HT) 1-Level 90° Curved version being 4x4 instead of 5x5 to match FLEXFly and the FLEX-based 90° R2 curve.

On-Slope is on the list for future RHW (and other networks) FLUPs portal functionality, though it requires making some rather tricky model work to do On-Slope FLUPs portals--that's the reason there's only one (the old Street puzzle piece portal).  FLUPs development is on hold at the moment as well.

As far as the Curved FLEX-HT goes, I don't actually know the exact reason, but I suspect it had to do with being less of an adjustment for people used to the old 3x3 2-Level Curved-HT puzzle piece.

-Tarkus

[Eggman121 1,035]

6 hours ago, Evane said:

Also, I'm curious about the RHW FLEX Height Transitions (FLEX-HT) 1-Level 90° Curved version being 4x4 instead of 5x5 to match FLEXFly and the FLEX-based 90° R2 curve.

The reason for the 4x4 footprint was to fit the old FLEX Fly foot print watermarking to when the original models were made if that makes any sense.

I am open to the idea of wider Curved FLEX Heights when I finish up with some in progress projects. The planned variant are both R2 and R3 MRC geometry with the former being 90 and 45 degrees while the latter being 45 only.

-eggman121 (NAM Team member)

[Max4k 721]

The Street Roundabout changes look weird. The new garden looks nice but those racing stripes are gone and gaps look weird  for low or high zoning.

It appears the 1 way Roundabout has the walkway stripes still

 

[rsc204 21,808]

The lack of zebra crossings is simply a design choice, I personally would like to have options for crosswalks or zebras, something if I have time, I’ll make for my TGN/NGN mods at some point.

One of the problems with the old textures, they lacked any wealthing, so regardless of their surroundings, they always looked the same. The only slight negative is that now you must have zoning touching each tile for sidewalks/grasses (wealthing) to appear. I often use the ‘fake’ zoning trick, just hold CTRL whilst zoning from the edge ‘through’ the tile(s) you want zoned.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

I often use the ‘fake’ zoning trick, just hold CTRL whilst zoning from the edge ‘through’ the tile(s) you want zoned.

More details with pics here: Control Zoning Adjacent to Streets or Roads for Sidewalks and Power Transmission

[kschmidt 6,164]

FAR plopabel or dragable viaducts posible ?

Something, maybe not posible or forgotten, FAR offers the ultimate way to go off grid with ordianary road and ground rail. Ommited, another set be accomidated. Romantic hilly customized FAR viaducts might be little ambitious, but little option inbetween straight and 45 dgr would be welcome. Non grid more natural flowing FAR rail offer so much. Would be great if this coul be implemented into viaduct rail pieces !

Sincerely yours,

Kschmidt

[Tarkus 6,932]

There was actually very limited FLEX/Draggable Fractional Angle (FA) support added for the Elevated RealRailway (ERRW) Viaducts, back with NAM 37 last year.  It's at the FA2 angle.  Adding it for other networks--including the Road Viaducts--is planned, though there are some implementation things (I've been working intermittently with an experimental new approach that would dramatically cut down on the required RUL2 override code) that are currently hampering the base ground-level FLEX version of FA Roads, as well as the long-awaited FLEX FA RHW.

-Tarkus

[kschmidt 6,164]

46 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

There was actually very limited FLEX/Draggable Fractional Angle (FA) support added for the Elevated RealRailway (ERRW) Viaducts, back with NAM 37 last year.  It's at the FA2 angle.  Adding it for other networks--including the Road Viaducts--is planned, though there are some implementation things (I've been working intermittently with an experimental new approach that would dramatically cut down on the required RUL2 override code) that are currently hampering the base ground-level FLEX version of FA Roads, as well as the long-awaited FLEX FA RHW.

-Tarkus

Thank uou, old plopable FA2RD Road  translating into EFA2RRW rail or EFA2RD road or EFA2RHW2 I refer for most, second dragabe RHW most likely. Lastu have the issue implementing any network wich might crossing beneath straight or diagonal. SimCity 4 overide of the old maxis highway stretch to it¨s limits !

Sincerely yours,

Kschmidt