NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

[Simizen 1,098]

Was wondering if it's possible (or more like for future development) to have a OWR mini-roundabout. Just using the same thing as that of the others, with the railroad tapping the center. Would especially be useful for the OWR-1 network and any places that may need a small roundabout like that.

[11241036 5,097]

I would like to request a new type of intersection between streets and wide road curves. I know, most of it can be done with 2x2 roundabouts as well, but I'm frequently creating villages in hilly areas with only minor traffic on the street, where a roundabout would unnecessarily slow down traffic in RL. That would be highly appreciated.

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

On 10/24/2021 at 6:35 AM, kschmidt said:

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

 

As an extension of this request, I'm running some experiments with the Diagonal Bridge Enabler (DBE); and it is indeed possible to also construct viaducts featuring curved and fractional angle alignments! I know of a handful of players, most of them fellow NAMites, who have done so in a similar way. It may be the case that we could open up future functionality in the DBE:

 

So far, this process is really tedious, as players must know the drag patterns to make the FA alignments and the wide radius curves; so we might need to find a more user-friendly way to make this sort of thing happen.

 

 

[Nathangec78 183]

Hey guys! I'd love to see some Road/OWR/NWM/REW-based ramps, equivalents to the concept of those RHW ramps, like the example below: 

And also, smoother curves and new angled ramps for the elevated viaducts, equivalent to the ones available for RHW: 

 

[bdehnwehn 24]

Hey,

For 1-level rail, there seem no orthogonal-over-diagonal pieces, at least not all basic ones. With the amount of networks that were made over the years, it's not so strange that once in a while a combination is not there. Still I hope these pieces will become available with a new NAM. (and secretly I hope these pieces were made, and then just missed when putting together the new NAM).

[Flann 1,709]

1 hour ago, bdehnwehn said:

Hey,

For 1-level rail, there seem no orthogonal-over-diagonal pieces, at least not all basic ones. With the amount of networks that were made over the years, it's not so strange that once in a while a combination is not there. Still I hope these pieces will become available with a new NAM. (and secretly I hope these pieces were made, and then just missed when putting together the new NAM).

Coincidentally, this has come up internally again just recently.  We know about the gap in functionality and are working to address it.  These orthogonal over diagonal (OxD) L1 RRWs are actually in progress and may see light of day sooner rather than later.  Probably sooner than the DxOs and DxDs.

[Flann 1,709]

On 3/26/2022 at 1:54 AM, Nathangec78 said:

Hey guys! I'd love to see some Road/OWR/NWM/REW-based ramps, equivalents to the concept of those RHW ramps, like the example below: 

The first part is underway

They're FLEX pieces as making them purely draggable is much more difficult when two networks are involved.  I would also like to see draggable OWR-1 ramps from avenue and road networks (including maybe road-based NWM) but there is grumbling about backward compatibility and making a draggable OWR-1 ramp would probably mean doing away with the existing OWR-2 connections.  A FLEX piece solution may be possible for that as well.

Double post, sorry mods.

[Wiimeiser 444]

Looking at those transitions, I always thought of AVE-6 with the outer sections as OWR would in fact be AVE-8. Though that's probably not going to happen...

[Nathangec78 183]

18 hours ago, Flann said:

The first part is underway

They're FLEX pieces as making them purely draggable is much more difficult when two networks are involved.  I would also like to see draggable OWR-1 ramps from avenue and road networks (including maybe road-based NWM) but there is grumbling about backward compatibility and making a draggable OWR-1 ramp would probably mean doing away with the existing OWR-2 connections.  A FLEX piece solution may be possible for that as well.

Double post, sorry mods.

Oh, that's really nice and it will be really useful! Thanks! 

[EffTheGrid 3,669]

Hey all. Is there anyone who knows how to make my dream a reality? I want to change the textures to give roads priority over streets

 

[Flann 1,709]

6 hours ago, EffTheGrid said:

Hey all. Is there anyone who knows how to make my dream a reality? I want to change the textures to give roads priority over streets

 

Hi, I think this would be a nice change.  If you're interested in giving it a go, then I would suggest downloading the latest GoFSH from here and reading through some of the manual.  Long story short, you need identify the proper texture (we can help you with this) and then create a modified version along with wealthing alpha layers that can be fed back into the program to create an override of the existing NAM textures.

[RaccoonFox 1]

I'm not sure if anyone else requested it in this long thread.... but i'd love to see some sort of below-grade freeway network option, if possible... something like an inverted 7.5m L1 freeway with retaining walls so you could have parallel roads next to it and bridges going directly over the freeways, much like Interstate 75 in downtown Atlanta... or... well, most of the freeways in Detroit, Michigan, especially the Davidson Freeway.  I've always been fascinated by those and would love to be able to implement them without needing a square for sloping first...

 

either that or somehow allow roads to be built perpendicular to the slope, but i figured that might be infinitely harder to do...

[Tarkus 6,932]

7 hours ago, RaccoonFox said:

I'm not sure if anyone else requested it in this long thread.... but i'd love to see some sort of below-grade freeway network option, if possible... something like an inverted 7.5m L1 freeway with retaining walls so you could have parallel roads next to it and bridges going directly over the freeways, much like Interstate 75 in downtown Atlanta... or... well, most of the freeways in Detroit, Michigan, especially the Davidson Freeway.  I've always been fascinated by those and would love to be able to implement them without needing a square for sloping first...

 

either that or somehow allow roads to be built perpendicular to the slope, but i figured that might be infinitely harder to do...

There's been some discussion about that . . . some sort of sunken network or "side-slope" functionality.  There's interest within the team, but the issue is that we haven't found a satisfactory implementation as of yet, as the game's terrain engine poses a number of difficulties.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

The issue is that networks can't go under the terrain. The best implementation I can think of would be underground RHW (which still needs slope support BTW) with lots on top.

[rsc204 21,808]

On 18/07/2022 at 6:36 AM, RaccoonFox said:

but i'd love to see some sort of below-grade freeway network option, if possible... something like an inverted 7.5m L1 freeway with retaining walls so you could have parallel roads next to it and bridges going directly over the freeways,

If you can live with a one-tile gap between the highway and the parallel roads, with a bit of terraforming and use of some special lots, these sunken highway walls come instantly to mind, then it's possible to get the general effect you are looking for:

Found a nice tutorial here too.

[RaccoonFox 1]

i can live with that... it's very pretty, too!

I've been experimenting with Highway bridges lately, and I've gotten to the Diagonal Bridge Enabler mod... what i find confusing is that it seems to insist upon using the old maxis six-lane freeway textures, instead of the modern NAM Real Highway textures... I wonder if this is an issue with NAM or the Diagonal Bridge Enabler...

I'm also curious about what happened to all the various regional road textures that the NAM used to support, like USA, Europe, Ontario...  those were very interesting!

I'd also love to see support, if possible, for some sort of simultaneous exits for double-decker roadways and maybe even regular 4-lane RHW, 6S and 8S networks too... I've been trying to do a recreation of Pittsburgh and the Fort Pitt Bridge was just a massive headache (being a double-decker was actually a saving grace this time!), since i had to space out the diverging lanes (instead of having lanes breaking off to the left and right simultaneously, i had to make them depart one after the other)

 

Another of my questions regarding the potential of the Network Addon Mod was my post in the Real Highway Development and support thread about the possibility of trains in streets/roads:

I would love to have an industrial area or neighbourhood near one where trains have to travel down the middle of a street or road to get to a factory along a branch line... I was told i could likely do that by linking the trams to it... i just wish there was a way to have dual-network U-Drive-It missions...  I mean, we've already modded and extended this game far beyond what anyone else thought was possible when it was first released in 2003...

[rsc204 21,808]

On 31/07/2022 at 4:17 AM, RaccoonFox said:

i can live with that... it's very pretty, too!

I've been experimenting with Highway bridges lately, and I've gotten to the Diagonal Bridge Enabler mod... what i find confusing is that it seems to insist upon using the old maxis six-lane freeway textures, instead of the modern NAM Real Highway textures... I wonder if this is an issue with NAM or the Diagonal Bridge Enabler...

I should add that these pieces were designed for use with the original Maxis Highway, although the dark asphalt retexture works fine, if you are using the Maxis Highway Override, they are somewhat less useful. This is because each model/lot needs to be designed to fill a specific sized gap or fit a specific NAM/Highway piece. For example the on/off ramp pieces have a matching wall piece, but those won't fit any of the RHW-spec pieces that exist.

On 31/07/2022 at 4:17 AM, RaccoonFox said:

I'm also curious about what happened to all the various regional road textures that the NAM used to support, like USA, Europe, Ontario...  those were very interesting!

Simply put their entire development was the work of just one user, Mandelsoft, who's no longer active in the SC4 modding world. As they've not been updated since NAM 35/36, they are missing support for many of the newer RHW features. It was also considered better to simplify the NAM installer from a development perspective, such that cosmetic options like this are not something that we wanted to distribute with the NAM itself.

[bdehnwehn 24]

Canals blueish on transportation map (region view)

Hey, it kinda bothered me that the canals appeared green on the transportation map. Of coarse this is because they are situated in de parks menu. Also, in my opinion it would make more sense if they were in the water transportation menu: canal = water. So I manually moved them to water transportation and, ta-da: blue(ish) canals on my map (well, I first had to replace every canal with the new water menu canal pieces, but for new cities the result is instant).

So here's my NAM-request: maybe this is reason enough to put canal stuff in the water transportation menu by standard?

Note that I use the Edmonton Transportation Map mod, but I believe this works also in standard maxis map because parks are green there too and harbors grayish blue or something.

[matias93 7,535]

13 hours ago, bdehnwehn said:

Canals blueish on transportation map (region view)

Hey, it kinda bothered me that the canals appeared green on the transportation map. Of coarse this is because they are situated in de parks menu. Also, in my opinion it would make more sense if they were in the water transportation menu: canal = water. So I manually moved them to water transportation and, ta-da: blue(ish) canals on my map (well, I first had to replace every canal with the new water menu canal pieces, but for new cities the result is instant).

So here's my NAM-request: maybe this is reason enough to put canal stuff in the water transportation menu by standard?

Note that I use the Edmonton Transportation Map mod, but I believe this works also in standard maxis map because parks are green there too and harbors grayish blue or something.

It's a great idea, but the canal elements included with the NAM are only a few, and located on the misc. transportation menu. Moving the canal pieces would be responsibility of their original creators, or the custodians in charge of their work. Given the shrinking of the active modders' numbers on the last years, it might be possible that some of the people in charge are also in the NAM, but it's not a NAM thing per se.

[tez 37]

Admittedly, the following is more of a bug report than a request:
Pedestrian paths (or whatever the technical term is) on diagonal streets are missing. Pedestrians currently can't walk from most diagonal street tiles to Pedmalls.
In the screenshot none of these tiles offer a pedestrian path, so the sims take the car the long way around (it really is a long way to the other end of the city tile and back)


But add one more Pedmall to a street tile with functioning pedestrian paths and suddenly the sims can walk to work.

 

Using this method of plopping and bulldozing pedmalls, I came to the conclusion that the following diagonal street tiles don't work:
1: the diagonal tiles, the diagonal ending tiles, and the orthogonal-to-diagonal transitions (except the one I marked with the red arrows, that one actually works)

2: All T-intersections involving at least one diagonal road

3: these fancy draggable curves

there are probably more diagonal street tiles but ofc I don't know all of them. Surprisingly, the draggable 2x2 roundabouts seemed to work. This bug is not present if the workplace is touching the street tiles, then they don't need any paths and can just enter from the street directly.

Pedestrian paths on SAM:
SAM is even worse, not even the normal orthogonal curve has working paths (I think this is the case for all SAM variations). It shouldn't be too difficult to fix though I think, just copy the paths from the normal streets to all of the SAM variants (assuming the corresponding tiles exist). Pictured below: Pedestrian living on a SAM street can't use the curve to enter a Pedmall

[tez 37]

In general I think there are many different networks in the Network Addon Mod, however they aren't really compatible with each other. This makes the whole NAM feel less like one mod and more like a collection of many smaller mods (which it indeed was). Some examples of combinations that the NAM currently doesn't allow yet afaik:

• any elevated RHW over Tram/GLR, let alone Tram in Street/Road/Avenue
• Ped Footbridge over RHW, STR, SAM
• elevated HSR over Tram/GLR and STR
• DDRHW over STR (perhaps this is a remnant of when DDRHW was rail based?)
• High elevated light rail and High elevated monorail over RHW, STR
• almost everything in over CAN-AM

On another note I think it would be neat if:

• transitions from overground network to underground network (rail, RHW, GLR/Tram) had slope versions
• draggable roundabouts would also work on draggable road viaducts
• the 4x4 avenue roundabout with EMHW had a version for elevated RHW
• RHW flex height transitions on slopes had more versions besides the L0->L1 and L0->L2, for example L1->L2, L0->L4, etc., perhaps even 4 different flex slope height transitions, one for each possible height difference? The same for the diagonal versions

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

6 hours ago, tez said:

Admittedly, the following is more of a bug report than a request:
Pedestrian paths (or whatever the technical term is) on diagonal streets are missing. Pedestrians currently can't walk from most diagonal street tiles to Pedmalls.
In the screenshot none of these tiles offer a pedestrian path, so the sims take the car the long way around (it really is a long way to the other end of the city tile and back)

But add one more Pedmall to a street tile with functioning pedestrian paths and suddenly the sims can walk to work.

Using this method of plopping and bulldozing pedmalls, I came to the conclusion that the following diagonal street tiles don't work:
1: the diagonal tiles, the diagonal ending tiles, and the orthogonal-to-diagonal transitions (except the one I marked with the red arrows, that one actually works)
 

2: All T-intersections involving at least one diagonal road
 

3: these fancy draggable curves

there are probably more diagonal street tiles but ofc I don't know all of them. Surprisingly, the draggable 2x2 roundabouts seemed to work. This bug is not present if the workplace is touching the street tiles, then they don't need any paths and can just enter from the street directly.

Pedestrian paths on SAM:
SAM is even worse, not even the normal orthogonal curve has working paths (I think this is the case for all SAM variations). It shouldn't be too difficult to fix though I think, just copy the paths from the normal streets to all of the SAM variants (assuming the corresponding tiles exist). Pictured below: Pedestrian living on a SAM street can't use the curve to enter a Pedmall

 

That's a project I originally intended to work on for NAM 46, but had several personal difficulties keeping me from doing it. The amount of additional pedestrian paths we'd need to add would certainly take more than one NAM version to upgrade, and I expect to start this work for NAM 47.

The pedmall-connecting paths were originally created in NAM 33 for orthogonal surface road network segments, at the time including the Base Network roadways (Street, Road, One-way Avenue), the Network Widening Mod and the Street Addon Mod. My own testing also indicates we need it in all T intersections, base diagonal segments, wide radius curves, and fractional angle network segments.

I've also found missing crossing paths on the Avenue roundabouts, which strangely are present in the Tram-in-Avenue roundabouts. These are also a short-term priority for me.

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 13/01/2023 at 3:05 PM, tez said:

• any elevated RHW over Tram/GLR, let alone Tram in Street/Road/Avenue

Elevated RHW-over-Tram/GLR support has been in place since NAM 31 (March 2013), and the support for crossing the various Tram-in/on-Network setups (with the technical exception of Tram-on-Road) has been there since NAM 34 (December 2015).  The caveat here is that it doesn't work with puzzle pieces--the Tram/GLR must be draggable, and the Tram-in/on-Network stuff must be built using the "semi-draggable" method (i.e. overclicking the Road-type network with the Elevated Rail tool, then dragging the RHW up to the edge of the semi-draggable Tram-in/on-Network).

On 13/01/2023 at 3:05 PM, tez said:

• High elevated light rail and High elevated monorail over RHW, STR

High Elevated Light Rail and Monorail exist in a very awkward space within NAM development, and that's why they've never received any further work since their debut in NAM 23 (April 2008).  They were originally developed in 2005-2006 sometime, and their developer (smoncrie, one of the all-time greats) went on a long RL-related hiatus, returning with the files in March 2008, at which point they were incorporated into the first NAM release after that. 

However, between the time they were developed and the time they made it into the NAM, the "Draggable Revolution" was well underway, and shortly thereafter, the discussions about a second height level for elevated networks (beyond the 15 meters-ish* that was standard at the time, present-day "L2") shifted from going to double that height (present-day "L4"), to instead prioritizing going lower, to half-height (now "L1").

Whenever the discussion of updating them comes up, it usually starts off with discussion of making them draggable, and then there's usually an immediate interjection of "why aren't we making L1 Monorail and Elevated Rail instead, since L4 is ridiculously high?", along with the matter of adding both L1 and L4 creating demand to also add L3 (meaning we'd then have three networks to develop, instead of just one).  That said, there's also a lot of ongoing talks within the NAM Team about the future of Elevated Rail, Monorail, and GLR/Tram, and I suspect there may finally be some sort of resolution here within the not-too-distant future. 

On 13/01/2023 at 3:05 PM, tez said:

• RHW flex height transitions on slopes had more versions besides the L0->L1 and L0->L2, for example L1->L2, L0->L4, etc., perhaps even 4 different flex slope height transitions, one for each possible height difference? The same for the diagonal versions

This already exists, actually, and is the reason why the "L0-L1" transitions are actually labeled instead as "1-Level", and "L0-L2" as "2-Level".  They're designed to be used for any 1-Level or 2-Level height difference--provided the network has the height levels that would be required.  Hooking an L1 RHW-4 into the lower end of the "1-Level", or an L2 RHW-4 into its upper end will convert it into an L1-L2 transition. 

With the orthogonal transitions (diagonals are limited to 1-Level only at present), one can also generate an L0-L3, L1-L4, or L0-L4 transition by overlapping successive 1-Level or 2-Level transitions, wherein the lower tile of one transition lands where the upper tile of the previous one is located.  We didn't produce a dedicated 3-Level or 4-Level transition due to their specialized nature, the awkward situation with the base RHW-2 network not having an L3 or L4 form (nor are there plans to add L3 or L4 RHW-2), and the confusion we anticipated that may cause when people tried to use such transitions.

I'll note, that's the real goal with a lot of this FLEX stuff--fewer pieces (and less menu footprint) to do more things.  We have had to try to strike a balance, because going too multi-purpose can cause users to think certain features don't exist--hence why the 2-Level transition exists (it's buildable by stacking two 1-Levels, too).  We figured that was a common enough transition that we'd spare the user having to figure out the stacking technique, whereas 3-Level and 4-Level were things that were pretty much restricted to RHW power users.

-Tarkus

[gweed123 33]

I've been laying out a farming community with the intent of the urbanized area eventually stretching out into it, which involves laying out rural roads that will eventually be widened and urbanized. One of the challenges I've been having is when I go from a one-tile to a two-tile network, everything on one side of the road gets blown out (sometimes including the farm houses or random residential I've added).

What would be great is if as part of the NWM there was an option to place a standard road such that it straddled two tiles instead of one. Basically, building in a two-tile right-of-way for a standard two-lane, one-tile road. This would ensure that all development is set far enough back from the road that when I do go to widen it out to its urban configuration, nothing gets demolished to do that. I would imagine it would be similar to how the current two-tile networks work, where after placing the starter piece, dragging the left side builds half the road, and dragging the right side builds the other half.

Any chance this could make it into a future NAM cycle? Thanks so much!

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

@gweed123 Interestingly enough, this is something I'm actually planning, not for the near future (do not expect it for NAM 47 or 48), but definitely in my plans.

One of my fellow NAM team members, @Ryuu Tenno , is thinking of revisiting the Rural Roads Plugin, to convert it to proper draggable networks. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of doing additional urban road cross-sections to provide multimodal transportation features, like wide sidewalks, parking, or larger rail transit corridors. Your request would actually fall in line with these ideas.

In the meantime, there are ways you can reserve right-of-way for road expansions:

• Frontage streets: along a 2-tile corridor, you can place a street occupying 1 tile, and your Road or single tile NWM (TLA-3, ARD-3, AVE-2 or NRD-4) occupying the other. Then, once the time to widen to Avenue, RD-4, TLA-5 or RD-6
• Reserve the vacant right-of-way and avoid zoning against one side: using mayor mode props (MMPs), grass lots, pedmalls or any other small tiles, you can set a side a portion of the road's right-of-way for future widening. Pedmalls do have the benefit of supporting pedestrian access for commercial, industrial and civic jobs.

 

Here's a very rough concept of your idea, done by aligning single tile NWM networks with the centerlines of double tile NWM networks:

[gweed123 33]

15 hours ago, Lucario Boricua said:

@gweed123 Interestingly enough, this is something I'm actually planning, not for the near future (do not expect it for NAM 47 or 48), but definitely in my plans.

One of my fellow NAM team members, @Ryuu Tenno , is thinking of revisiting the Rural Roads Plugin, to convert it to proper draggable networks. Meanwhile, I'm thinking of doing additional urban road cross-sections to provide multimodal transportation features, like wide sidewalks, parking, or larger rail transit corridors. Your request would actually fall in line with these ideas.

Thanks for the reply! And that would be awesome! Grouping the "rural two-tile cross-section" in with a revamped Rural Roads Plugin would be great, because I think that's probably the most useful application of it. Chances are if an area is urbanized you've already widened the road out to its desired width.

The pedmall idea is a great interim solution though. I think there are a few textures that look pretty rural in nature, so they would blend in pretty well with the neighbouring farm fields. It just looks off when I put down 4-lane roads through what is mostly farm fields, just to avoid having to demolish everything on one side of the road later on.

[deanva 70]

Not sure if this has been requested on here before, but can someone put street lights on the L3 and L4 elevated RHW's and the bridges that cross water?

[Girafarig 1,379]

Could we have funiculars?

I mean, I know there are funiculars, I currently have several in my city (see below). But this particular one, which I believe it's Paeng's SHOKing Funicular, relies on cosmetic pieces and placing a subway line underneath, which is mostly fine but it's actually pretty expensive to implement, especially for a piece of network that doesn't have the best of carrying capacities (as it should – funiculars aren't very capacitous). There's also no moving automata, which I find mildly displeasing.

There are already several base textures for the Ground Light Rail, and a funicular is essentially a fancy GLR. And I know that some GLR stations come with custom automata (like the SFBT tram). So wouldn't there be a relatively easy way to implement funiculars, with a station that only produces a specific, custom funicular automata, and a custom base texture? A base texture would also enable a road crossing, which is impossible with this eyecandy solution, like you see in Valparaíso and other cities (final image, below).

In a possibly related note, it would be pretty nice to see a slope GLR-to-ElRail connector, like all the viaduct ones.

Finally, I would also love to see gondolas, but I guess that one's pretty hard to do since there's no network that can readily be used to emulate them.

 

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

7 minutes ago, Girafarig said:

Could we have funiculars?

I mean, I know there are funiculars, I currently have several in my city (see below). But this particular one, which I believe it's Paeng's SHOKing Funicular, relies on cosmetic pieces and placing a subway line underneath, which is mostly fine but it's actually pretty expensive to implement, especially for a piece of network that doesn't have the best of carrying capacities (as it should – funiculars aren't very capacitous). There's also no moving automata, which I find mildly displeasing.

There are already several base textures for the Ground Light Rail, and a funicular is essentially a fancy GLR. And I know that some GLR stations come with custom automata (like the SFBT tram). So wouldn't there be a relatively easy way to implement funiculars, with a station that only produces a specific, custom funicular automata, and a custom base texture? A base texture would also enable a road crossing, which is impossible with this eyecandy solution, like you see in Valparaíso and other cities (final image, below).

In a possibly related note, it would be pretty nice to see a slope GLR-to-ElRail connector, like all the viaduct ones.

Finally, I would also love to see gondolas, but I guess that one's pretty hard to do since there's no network that can readily be used to emulate them.

 

Funiculars along with cable cars are possible but there is a problem. It first requires immense preparation work that completely overturns the concept of RUL Maxis. Also before creating the funiculars and cable car we have to restructure the entire code related to EL Rail and GLR so it will be difficult to realize in a short time but it will be a feature in the future when these preparation works will be completed

[rsc204 21,808]

8 hours ago, Girafarig said:

In a possibly related note, it would be pretty nice to see a slope GLR-to-ElRail connector, like all the viaduct ones.

This already exists, somewhere in the GLR Puzzle Piece menu, there are on-slope transitions too.