NAM: Development

[DavidB_ 83]

^ Maybe I am ultra dense this morning, but what's your point?

Extended ramp transitions? Nice!

[DavidB_ 83]

^ Maybe I am ultra dense this morning, but what's your point?

Necromancy: the supposed practice of communicating with the dead, esp. in order to predict the future. The extended ramps look good though, will be a useful addition.

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

[Tarkus 6,933]

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

Those pieces go waaay back to when the NAM was first developed--and probably even a little before that. I think I've used them maybe once when I was first trying out the NAM, but I don't think they're used very much by anyone nowadays, and I think a lot of people have, at one point or another, completely forgotten they exist. There's been discussion of what to do with them intermittently, but nothing was ever really conclusively decided, as far as I remember.

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

Those pieces go waaay back to when the NAM was first developed--and probably even a little before that. I think I've used them maybe once when I was first trying out the NAM, but I don't think they're used very much by anyone nowadays, and I think a lot of people have, at one point or another, completely forgotten they exist. There's been discussion of what to do with them intermittently, but nothing was ever really conclusively decided, as far as I remember.

-Tarkus

If you decide to make them "unavailable" be sure to continue to support them. I use them all over the place. They are good for tight spots.

  Edited January 22, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Shadow Assassin 336]

If you decide to make them "unavailable" be sure to continue to support them. I use them all over the place. They are good for tight spots.

They'll always be available, probably just not able to be plopped in one piece.

Also, my point?

Extended ramps. Like so:

[DavidB_ 83]

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

Those pieces go waaay back to when the NAM was first developed--and probably even a little before that. I think I've used them maybe once when I was first trying out the NAM, but I don't think they're used very much by anyone nowadays, and I think a lot of people have, at one point or another, completely forgotten they exist. There's been discussion of what to do with them intermittently, but nothing was ever really conclusively decided, as far as I remember.

-Tarkus

At the very least, please merge them into one icon! I assume that you will be sorting out Menu icons and such as part of 0E the Monolithic NAM...

@ Nonny: That's what the 'legacy support' files are there for

  Edited January 23, 2012 by DAB_City  

[Tarkus 6,933]

At the very least, please merge them into one icon! I assume that you will be sorting out Menu icons and such as part of 0E...

Project 0E deals strictly with the RHW side of things, so it won't be affecting that. We will be re-evaluating them as part of going to the Monolithic NAM, however.

-Tarkus

[DavidB_ 83]

Whoops, that's what I meant. Sorry, I hope it's all going well

[Shadow Assassin 336]

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting. I always wondered what I would ever need some of those road puzzle pieces for. Thanks.

[mcarch 15]

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

Those pieces go waaay back to when the NAM was first developed--and probably even a little before that. I think I've used them maybe once when I was first trying out the NAM, but I don't think they're used very much by anyone nowadays, and I think a lot of people have, at one point or another, completely forgotten they exist. There's been discussion of what to do with them intermittently, but nothing was ever really conclusively decided, as far as I remember.

-Tarkus

You could include them in the next NAM along with the current ones. For example, in the Game Menu you could have Option A and Option B. that way we could use both options in game. Just a thought.

[DavidB_ 83]

P.S. Do we still need the one-piece overpass bridges, or is it for ease of use/newbies to the NAM? It would be better to merge the three menu icons into one, I think.

Those pieces go waaay back to when the NAM was first developed--and probably even a little before that. I think I've used them maybe once when I was first trying out the NAM, but I don't think they're used very much by anyone nowadays, and I think a lot of people have, at one point or another, completely forgotten they exist. There's been discussion of what to do with them intermittently, but nothing was ever really conclusively decided, as far as I remember.

-Tarkus

You could include them in the next NAM along with the current ones. For example, in the Game Menu you could have Option A and Option B. that way we could use both options in game. Just a thought.

Erm, OK? Please elaborate, I don't understand.

[jacksunny 741]

What is Project 0E, or is it a secret...

[MandelSoft 2,774]

^^ Ahum... https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/topic/4381-real-highway-rhw-development-and-support-thread/page__view__findpost__p__1211253

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Avenue counterpart is done:

[Durfsurn 539]

Blah, blah, blah, diagonal avenue ramps on slope, blah, blah. WAIT a second, diagonal avenue ramps on slope that's awesome SA!

[Jazzmaster 716]

Wow!! Those ramps look amazing when they're much less aggressive. The current ones seem like some sort of roller coaster...I can't imagine a bus or truck taking on those things, really.

[simlink 1,098]

Great ramps for both on slope and those extended ones. Those will be handy.

[alvinheriadi 2]

@Shadow Assasin: Extended ramps are realistic. Thanks for sharing.

  Edited April 7, 2012 by alvinheriadi  

[pahs1994 6]

Avenue counterpart is done:

WOW JUST NOTICED THIS. hate to always be asking for more with such great stuff already on the way, but is OWR diagonal slope going to be in the next nam also?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Has another NAM Team Member ever shown this here yet? I don't think so... Anyway, new FAR stuff.

Just some new transit tiles and transit crossings for FAR-2.

Now, as you all know, wealthification of puzzle pieces is extremely tricky to do, unless an advanced T21 is used instead, which is a drag, of course, but hopefully, this will be enough that will draw people into using these pieces.

  Edited September 16, 2012 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[Wiimeiser 452]

Now make a FAR2 intersecting a regular FAR. Just to see if you can.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Now make a FAR2 intersecting a regular FAR. Just to see if you can.

That depends on how may combinations can be permitted. There's about 10 or 14 different ways FAR-3 can cross FAR-2 (both + and T crossings, and excluding rotations and mirrorings), and that would be too much stuff for the end user to consider, and even the RUL files.

I can't make any guarantees that such crossings could be added.

  Edited September 17, 2012 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am sure the number of possible combinations is getting out of hand when it comes to all the NAM pieces. Perhaps a study is in order with a view to simplification? Things always get very complex before someone has the flash of brilliance that leads to a reduction of effort both on the part of the implementer and the user.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

There have already been considerations on just that, keeping things simple, but the thing is, the implementation is not that simple, either. Even the two most basic crossings, the "lesser" FAR-3XFAR-2 + crossing and "greater" FAR-3XFAR-2 + crossing, still require 4-6 path files and 4-6 textures each, then you need to rotate and reflect each one. Sure, every reflection and rotation can reference the same texture and path, but coding them in is the tricky part.

Possible, but it really does get outlandish after some time, so there will likely be limits imposed, for two reasons:

- There's just too many possible crossings to consider.

- (This was brought up during our discussions) There wouldn't be much use for them, anyway.

At best (and I quote Z on this), it's best to expand FAR-2 so that it's on par with FAR-3.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just a side note. 

 

The addition of bus capability to the default maxis rail stations now provokes the advisor remark about a new bus system.  This pretty much forces a bus system into a small town that may not really need one since everything is in walking distance just because you have a rail station.  I suppose this can be ignored, but there is still chatter about the "single bus station" etc. 

 

I am not sure that this doesn't violate the spirit of the original game in that the bus system was supposed to be supplementary and not integrated with other stations but I think it is a good idea overall.  These "improvements" in 32-pr1 are intriguing, and I look forward to the full release.

 

Keep up the good work.

[z1 566]

The addition of bus capability to the default maxis rail stations...

 

Bus capability has not been added to the default Maxis rail stations, nor to any other Maxis stations.  I have just verified that this was not done inadvertently.  Only the capacities and transit switch entry costs of these stations were modified.

 

What you may be seeing is the effect of the SLURP.  If you have any of SimGoober's rail stations installed in your city, or Marrast's, or a few others, the SLURP upgrades these to NAM standards when you upgrade your NAM, or check the box labeled "Run Cleanitol and the Station Updater" when you run the installer.  If you don't want bus service added to your stations and optional subway service added to the larger ones, you should uncheck the box in the bottom section labeled "NAM Standard Station Features".  The SLURP will still bring transit switching and various other properties up to NAM standards, although this will essentially be done invisibly.

 

Right now, only a handful of stations have been SLURPed.  Eventually, the SLURP is designed to be extended to essentially all transit stations in SC4.  If you want to know whether or not a particular station has been SLURPed, just query it.  If you get the new extended NAM query, it has; otherwise, it hasn't.  There should also be a list of currently SLURPed stations in the documentation.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting.  Now, for those of us who are members of DAN (Delete Acronyms Now), please translate SLURP.

[NCGAIO 562]

I can not see a reason to make as default installing things that could be optional except of course to influence their use.

Certainly the effort spending in all development should be rewarded by the use of its results but think in this case it should still be a User option.

Not exist much difference between what most do nowadays and how the new releases have been made ​​although it is a radical change from the initial philosophy .

But when appear the problems and the solution given is to make a new custom installation by unchecking the option that creates the problem, to me it seems obvious that normal it would be have the option initially unchecked... or not?

[z1 566]

Interesting.  Now, for those of us who are members of DAN (Delete Acronyms Now), please translate SLURP.

 

It's the Station Locator, Updater, and Reconstruction Project.

 

I can not see a reason to make as default installing things that could be optional except of course to influence their use.

 

There's a very obvious reason - convenience to the user.  Imagine if everything in the NAM were optional (which could easily be done), and you had to check off boxes for everything you wanted.  This would turn installation into a tedious chore.

 

Influencing the use of an option plays no part in the NAM Team's decision of whether or not to make an option on by default.  The one question we ask before setting the default state of an option is:  Would most players want this?  In most cases where the option is set on by default, including the SLURP, there was no one on the NAM Team who thought that the option should not be on by default.

 

Certainly the effort spending in all development should be rewarded by the use of its results...

 

Again, this is not a factor in our decision-making process.  For example, a large amount of work went into the option entitled "Enable Decoupling of Networks and Rules",  but it was always intended that this option be off by default, as it is not something that is generally used by the majority of players.

 

but think in this case it should still be a User option.

 

Well, it is.  Not everyone is going to want it, but based on the reaction within the NAM Team, it appeared that the vast majority of people would.  Features like this exist as options because not everyone wants the same thing, but we have to choose a default state for the option, and we choose what we think most players would prefer.

 

But when appear the problems and the solution given is to make a new custom installation by unchecking the option that creates the problem, to me it seems obvious that normal it would be have the option initially unchecked... or not?

 

If most people saw this as a problem, then I would agree with you.  But the evidence we have is just the opposite - most people seem to see this as a benefit.  That's why the option is initially checked.