Network Widening Mod (NWM) - Development and Support

[jdenm8 362]

RAM networks (an anticipated three networks)

Four actually. STR, TTR, ElSTR and ElDTR. According to Dedgren's Spec, QTR was not going to be allowed to have level crossings.

  Edited October 5, 2012 by jdenm8  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thanks for the little explanation. This really is too bad when you get locked in to something like that. I understand it fully. I once worked on a general ledger project that had only three digits for the account number, and did that ever make some of the accountants scramble. I changed it to add six more discriminator characters and absorbed the high order digit that had been previously used for this purpose. One division of the company used to worship the ground I walked on after that, but it was a simple change. Going from 1,000 accounts to 10,000 accounts per business unit made quite a difference considering there were over 3600 business units using a common accounting system. (Yes, it is a big company!)

[Hellken 1,658]

Here's the problem with NWM: Its current structure isn't well accommodated for diagonal crossings, so that when we do get to diagonal crossings, the current range may become exhausted, and adding overflow ranges may result in some rather confusing schemes.

Right now, there are only a small handful of diagonal crossings for single-tile NWMs, but not a single diag crossing for anything bigger.

Here's a small look at how the NWM scheme works out to be:

0x51N₁N₂PPWZ

0x51 is the project range for NWM, N1 is the width ID, N2 is the network ID, PP is the piece ID, and WZ is wealth and zoom.

Let's take TLA-3, for example. Its base tiles (Ortho, diag, basic curves, no intersections at all) take up the 00-0F range for the piece ID. Crossings and transitions take up everything else: 10 to FF.

This is where the problem comes in. There are eight types of crossings that are possible: OxO +, OxD +, DxO +, DxD +, OxO T, OxD T, DxO T, and DxD T. There are actually more T crossings than + (thru) crossings, because you have to account for T Thru (TLA-3 forms the top part of the T) and T End (TLA-3 is the terminating network), but a bit of 7th digit overloading can be done to consolidate it all, so there are really 12 different types of crossings.

Each crossing type (OxO + for example) takes up an average of 32 piece IDs, because it has to intersect through all of the base networks and all of the override networks. Here's some numbers: There are eight base networks that every NWM network has to intersect (eight), plus GLR (that's technically three networks), HSR (one if you only count elevated), and RAM networks (an anticipated three networks). Some of those can be consolidated so that it all takes only 10 or 12 slots, but the ones that can't are the at-grade crossings. On top of that, you also need to intersect the NWM network in question with itself AND every other NWM network, and when you total all of the other NWM networks up, that number is about 14 networks (It's not 13; AVE-6 and TLA-7 is actually three different networks), plus another three expected to be added.

All in all, that number is far greater than 16 (it's about 24 or 26, depending on how well non-at-grade crossings can be consolidated), and therefore, just jamming additional diagonal crossings is a no-go.

What's being done with the RHW scheme (and for the record, the reason I didn't mention any RHW crossings in the NWM is because the RHW scheme is handling all of the NWM crossings) is there is a separation between + crossings and T-crossings.

For the networks that are valid for making T-crossings (RHW-2, MIS, RHW-4, RHW-3), there is a dedicated range for T-crossings that is separate from all of the base tiles and + crossings. For example, the + crossings and base tiles for L0 RHW-2 would take up 0x51000000 to 0x5100FF00, whereas its T crossings (and funny-looking crossings) take up a range in the 0x5160#### range.

One of the things I recommended for the NWM rewrite is to do the same thing that's being done for RHW, but it isn't an absolute rewrite. The puzzle pieces in the current NWM range can be left as is, and I can argue that the base tiles (not the crossings) can also stay where they are (but it'd probably not make much of a difference). Even though it's the NWM that gave inspiration to the RHW's new scheme, I think the RHW's scheme is so much more refined than the NWM's that it needs to take some of that inspiration back.

Legacy support would be the same as with RHW: Use the previous version's files. There's no corresponding core, so there's no need to disassemble your current installation.

Since an NWM revamp is still miles ahead down the proverbial road, there's no telling what will really happen once we get there, though it's likely it will be a bunch of copy-and-paste.

And for those playing at home, the RHW rewrite is happening right now; That's the purpose of Project 57. NWM's rewrite will be Project 51, 56, or 5C, depending on which range is most viable.

There is a problem with RHW T21 and textural modifications, though: Even though they will work on legacy tiles for RHW, they will NOT work with P57 instances. It is then up to the creator of the T21/texture mod to keep up with the changes. However, a number of the T21 and texture mods have been made by NAM Team Members, so the one advantage they (and myself) will have is that we can make changes ahead of time: Maarten and Riiga's Euro Textures and my AVE-6 medians, for example. For those T21 modifications made by people outside the NAM Team, you may be out of luck.

When NWM's rewrite comes into play, it will be the same exact problem, except for the fact that the NWM has its own set of T21s for stoplights and streetlights, so saying the the NAM Team doesn't "keep up" with T21s is really a completely untrue statement. We just don't do any sort of over-the-top beautification; The pillars on all elevated RHW networks and the 6C barrier are dictated by T21 exemplars; Clearly, we don't wanna have floating highways and unsafe medians (and for NWM, we don't wanna have unlit roads and unsafe crossings), but at this point in regard to RHW dev, that's really a task for later in development.

Thanks for that excellent explanation.

I suggest not adding any new networks to the NWM. It's now just a matter of filling in all the missing pieces and crossings.

Is it possible to get rid of the transition pieces and just use the technique here for ALL transitions? Might free up some space.

The draggable transition functionality is new to NWM Version 2.0, and these transitions can be generated in one of two ways--"Double Stub" or "Direct Connect". "Double Stub" transitions are built by placing the stubs of two networks back-to-back (shown below), and this technique is used for transitions between two networks of the same base (Road or One-Way Road). The following transitions are built in this manner:

  Edited October 6, 2012 by Hellken  

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Is it possible to get rid of the transition pieces and just use the technique here for ALL transitions? Might free up some space.

Theoretically, yes.

However, that's currently undecided, since some of those pieces HAVE to be puzzle-based (AVE-6 to AVE-4, AVE-4 to AVE-2) and there are still cases of having to use a puzzle piece where there's no overrides to sustain a draggable equivalent. So in a developmental sense, no.

[danthaman4671 133]

This is what i'm getting

OK, that's clearly completely wrong. Here's a detailed picture on what the setup should look like:

To the left is the proper footprint needed for the AVE-6. (TLA-7, same thing.) Yes, it HAS to take up all of that space.

In the middle is the same thing, but only the sides overridden.

To the right is the same thing, but with the median is overridden.

Why is that? The AVE-6 is actually TWO networks: The median and the outer lanes, and when you draw an AVE-6, you're actually drawing out two networks, the median and two copies of the outer lanes sandwiching the median. There's an even bigger reason why it's like that: So that the AVE-8 can also use the same median as AVE-6 without us having to create a second copy of the same exact median piece for the AVE-8. Same principle with RHW's C-networks.

Try this: First, draw out the median, treating it as a single network, THEN draw the outer lanes out to the sides.

I can almost get it.

[Tarkus 6,932]

There's no almost about it--you've got it working correctly. There are no special AVE-6 diagonal end stubs yet, so they show up as Road diagonal end stubs.

-Tarkus

[Hellken 1,658]

I have an intersection problem with the AVE-6 MAVE-6:

Any known fixes for this? (Ignore the traffic lights).

  Edited October 21, 2012 by Hellken  

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Both errors are my bad. No need to worry, it's just a sign that we need to update the Euro Textures. I need to revise them when I have the time (already planning to revise the NWM euro textures)

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I have an intersection problem with the AVE-6:

RD-6, not AVE-6 or MAVE-6.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Might be better to hold off on the nomenclature change until the release documents are available?

[jdenm8 362]

Might be better to hold off on the nomenclature change until the release documents are available?

We've been calling it RD-6 for months, probably two months after the release of NAM30 and as far as I know, it has been changed in all the online documentation.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Additionally, the existing name of that network is MAVE-6, not AVE-6, so it's incorrect either way.

-Tarkus

[Haljackey 17,302]

While it may not be the most correct abbreviation, many of us still use the older terminologies for NAM components. I'm still having a hard time switching to the new system (especially for RHW ramps) but many of us who have used the NAM for a long time still know what we are describing, new or old.

I think this guy from Star Wars says it best:

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

While it may not be the most correct abbreviation, many of us still use the older terminologies for NAM components. I'm still having a hard time switching to the new system (especially for RHW ramps) but many of us who have used the NAM for a long time still know what we are describing, new or old.

The problem is when is causes confusion, and with the AVE/MAVE/RD debate, people have been calling networks by the wrong name. For example, there's the AVE-6, which you call "Triple-Tile NWM" (which is technically incorrect when you consider the AVE-8 and TLA-9), and the MAVE-6. People like the previous poster above have called the AVE-6, simply because it had six lanes, when in actuality, the "MAVE"-6 has no median at all. Quoted directly from the NAM Glossary:

MAVE: Medianless Avenue (deprecated)

• A Medianless Avenue is a network that maintains a lane count of 4 or greater (equaling or exceeding that of the game's default Avenue), but has a narrow, painted division between opposing directions of traffic. Two MAVEs exist the Network Widening Mod, a 4-lane version (MAVE-4), and a 6-lane version (MAVE-6), the latter of which has a higher capacity. Despite their name, MAVEs are Road-based override networks built from starter pieces. The term MAVE is being phased out in the next NAM release, to avoid confusion between the triple-tile AVE-6 and the dual-tile MAVE-6, and these networks will be considered wider versions of Road network (RD-4 and RD-6).
  

The new term for MAVE should be RD, and its definition should become this: A two-directional network with two lanes or greater (not four) with a set of double yellow lines separating the two directions of traffic. The name is based off of the default Road, and the NWM networks of NRD-4, RD-4, RD-6 (formerly NMAVE-4, MAVE-4, and MAVE-6) are considered wider versions of the Road network. There is also a three-lane variation of this network, called the ARD-3, meaning "asymmetrical road", though wider asymmetrical versions of the RD network (for example, RD-5) are still considered to be named RD, not ARD, unless there is a greater level of asymmetry, such as the ARD-4 (3 lanes on one side, one lane on the other). (See "MAVE", "NRD/NMAVE", and "ARD")

• 
  
  

[Morlow 23]

I don't think it's possible but I'll ask anyway. Is there a way to take RHW over NWM pieces? I have been trying with no luck. I can get one side of the RHW to overpass normally but not the other.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Is there a way to take RHW over NWM pieces? I have been trying with no luck. I can get one side of the RHW to overpass normally but not the other.

Wait for NAM 31. By then, most of that problem should be mitigated.

[Hellken 1,658]

Did I do anything wrong?

[Hellken 1,658]

Minor bugs:

BTW, covers a LOT of intersection combinations. It's only these 2 (so far).

[jdenm8 362]

As stated in the Readme, while you can drag most diagonal intersections, they are incomplete, probably will not work, and we do not offer support for them because of that.

That one's a collision with the RTL Preventer. Only way to fix the problem is to move the parallel road away from the NWM network, convert it to a different network or uninstall the RTL Plugin.

That one's a Stability issue. Just click on the intersection or the approach roads a few times and the RULs should place the correct network tile there eventually.

[Hellken 1,658]

As stated in the Readme, while you can drag most diagonal intersections, they are incomplete, probably will not work, and we do not offer support for them because of that.

Will there be any support in future releases?

That one's a collision with the RTL Preventer. Only way to fix the problem is to move the parallel road away from the NWM network, convert it to a different network or uninstall the RTL Plugin.

Thanks.

That one's a Stability issue. Just click on the intersection or the approach roads a few times and the RULs should place the correct network tile there eventually.

I actually tried a lot of different combinations with the NWM. And the RULs work OK for most of them. MAVE-6 x MAVE-6 (RD-6) intersection has a minor bug.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Will there be any support in future releases?

Yes. In fact, it's one of the main priorities going forward with NWM development, but due to the sheer number of intersections that are entailed in full build-out, that support won't come until NAM 32 (the release after next).

I actually tried a lot of different combinations with the NWM. And the RULs work OK for most of them. MAVE-6 x MAVE-6 (RD-6) intersection has a minor bug.

I'll take a look at it.

-Tarkus

[Dawg2012 0]

Hey I'm new here and just wanted to give a huge THANK YOU to all the developers that make this game a truly enjoyable hobby.

I've been playing SC for years and just recently discovered all the mods. All I can say is WOW!

... and Thank You. Greatly appreciated!

[Morlow 23]

Hey I'm new here and just wanted to give a huge THANK YOU to all the developers that make this game a truly enjoyable hobby.

I've been playing SC for years and just recently discovered all the mods. All I can say is WOW!

... and Thank You. Greatly appreciated!

QFT. The fact that there is still an active community of modders is amazing. They really keep the game alive by making it a constantly evolving and improving game.

[nic49548 15]

How do you change capacities of this specific NWM networks, or make transit-enabled lots (like Bus Stops) with a NWM network?

[danthaman4671 133]

RAM networks (an anticipated three networks)

Four actually. STR, TTR, ElSTR and ElDTR. According to Dedgren's Spec, QTR was not going to be allowed to have level crossings.

What do all of those abbreviations stand for?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

How do you change capacities of this specific NWM networks

You can't change the capacity of an individual NWM network without affecting the capacity of everything else. This is because all of the NWM networks are based off of either Road of OWR, and therefore inherit the capacities of each. In other words, you can't change the capacity of AVE-2 without changing the capacity or RD-4; They share the same values, or rather, the capacity of Road. (Yes, there's a way to trick things into having a higher capacity, but it's only a single increase that only works for certain single-tile networks.)

What do all of those abbreviations stand for?

Single-Track Rail, Triple-Track Rail, Elevated Single-Track Rail, Elevated Dual-Track Rail (or draggable viaduct rail), and Quadruple-Track Rail. These are also in the NAM Glossary.

[nic49548 15]

What about making bus stops on a transit-enabled NWM network tile that functions like the correct NWM network?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

NWM is transit enabled. Were to trying to suggest bus stops for NWM as part of RTMT?

[Tarkus 6,932]

z1 and the rest of the RTMT Team are hard at work on RTMT stations for the NWM. Because of just how exhaustive the set needs to be, with all those networks, it's been a huge undertaking.

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Go, team, Go!