NAM: Development

[bobek 0]

taimaruko: Good idea with the 30m highway. I think it would definitely help - there's no way how to build something like this:

[ardecila 124]

Tropod - If possible, it'd be very useful if Overpass Pieces A and B had On-Slope versions as well.

I think redoing the Overpasses to conform to the Puzzle-Piece standards of flexibility would be beneficial to all users of the puzzle-piece system, because it would allow interchanges to be integrated into existing puzzle-piece systems.

The opposite could also be useful - puzzle-piece offramps, to simulate highway systems made with the puzzle pieces.

[Tropod 144]

ATTENTION ALL WHO USE NAM:

 

A discovery, & issue, has been brought to my attention, by Swamper, concerning Textures. If you currently have any Texture issue at all with the NAM, with any intersections, including the ATL; These will be rectified in the next NAM Public release.

 

It has been discovered that textures in the whole 0x######S# Range are used in certain cases, thus overriding textures in the lower end of the IID Range, much like Wealths do. As it stands, there is currently an undefined number of junctions in the NAM that make use of InstanceID that span beyond the standard 0x######4# range. It was previously thought that the Network (RUL) files that referenced Textures worked on a base of 0x######0# to 0x######3#, or in other words a range of 0x######4# starting at the base ID that was being referenced by the network files. This appears not to be the case.

Any affected items will be rectified for the next NAM public release.

Many items will need to be changed as a result. RUL coding will need to be changed & updated too, which will also probably involve the ruleoverrides & INI file.

[Swamper77 90]

To provide further proof:



This error with the ATL intersections only shows up when you have medium/high density residential/commercial near the intersection and touching the turning lanes portion. The entry tile for the turn lane has a texture issue with the 5f433440-5f433474 series of images that are used by the NetworkAddonMod_Avenue_Turning_Lane_Plugin_AdditionalTextures&Paths_070205.dat file that Tropod provided as a workaround for ATL draws that occur near highway/avenue interchanges . The turn lane entry tile has instance ID range of 5f433400-5f433434. The error doesn't show up until you zone medium or high density residential or commercial zones near the intersection. The industrial zones don't seem to cause an issue in this regard.

This error has lead to a discovery regarding wealth/density dependent textures. I made a testing file that contains clones of the game's default street textures. I renumbered the wealth digits to the 4-7 range. This is a table of the values of how they are mapped to the higher density zones:

Low Density = Higher Density
######0# = ######7# Overlay version (Farm,Landfill)
######1# = ######4# Low Wealth
######2# = ######5# Medium Wealth
######3# = ######6# High Wealth

The numbers seem to correlate to the property 0x88EDC793 LotConfigPropertyZoneTypes, which is found in the LotConfig Exemplars for lots. There are 16 zone types total: None, Low Density R, Medium Density R, High Density R, Low Density C, Medium Density C, High Density C, Argicultural, Medium Density I, High Density I, Military, Airport, Seaport, Spaceport, Landfill, and Plopped lots. The Non-RC Zones showed no change, except for the Landfill zone. In the Medium/High Density R/C Zones, I had grass strips appear alongside the streets. Here are some pics with my street testing file installed:

The plain looking street is set ######7# while the tar sealed street is replacing the default street.

The zones at the bottom are high density. Normally the tar sealed street would appear in front of these zones, overlayed onto the sidewalk textures.

The landfill also calls the ######7# series of textures instead of the usual ######0# series. The plopped lots still call the low wealth texture of the streets. But if a farm zone is zoned in the area, the street will use the ######7# series instead of the normal street textures. It seems the ######7# series overrides all others. I zoned housing in front a farm with my testing file installed, and regardless of the density, it stayed like it shows in front of the farm zone above. The above pics were taken with my testing file installed. The game normally doesn't have textures with the range of 4-7 as the wealth. The game normally just has 0-3 for the wealth levels. I'll be making some more tests to check the 8-F range...

Another interesting bit of information is the network tiles that display the traffic control devices, street props, street lights, etc. don't need to be changed to use the 4-7 wealth range of textures. The game seems to know how to handle them.

-Swamper77

[GoaSkin 2]

About higher elevated highways:

The usual elevated highways have an height around 20 meters. If we need puzzle pieces to build highway viaducts, they should have an height around 50 to 200 meters. Viaducts can also be built by dragging a network bethween to mountains. If there is no water beyond, it is very difficult because both ends need to have nearly the same height and to be flat. The best way to get the ends flat is to plop a building there and to buldoze it again - to abuse them as terrain tool.

Mountain bridges have the same limits like water bridges. No kind of street or railway must be beyond. Viaduct puzzle pieces with special onslope puzzle pieces may be a solution to build landbridges with streets and railways beyond.

[+Guest]

Regarding Commute Times, Graphs, and the Commute Multipliers

I

[Tropod 144]

GoaSkin:

Highway viaduct puzzlepieces like you're suggesting is not really a practical idea. You would have to make 100's of puzzlepieces for the different height variations, it just wouldn't be plausible really. I personally no problem with using the highway tool to make bridges across land. Despite being harder to make bridges across land compared to bridges across water, it is not that difficult really.

 

thetorpedodog

That property you refer to in the Traffic Exemplar, is actually hardcoded & changing it results in, well nothing. Hence the reason why the Graph Exemplar is adjusted & included with certain Traffic plugins.

 

[GoaSkin 2]

@Tropod: I still don't know why the junction-switches do not appear if using the railroad Y-stack with the latest NAM developer release. It works fine when I use it with the latest public release. Can you please try it out? I sent you the file yesterday.

By the way if you bulldoze the railway stack or the avenue stack, the puzzle piece will be replaced with regular ground railway (or avenue) textures. What has to be changed if the whole puzzle piece shall result in blank terrain when bulldozing one tile? Shall |-/\ be changed to + in the cons layout?

[Tropod 144]

Date: 7/19/2005 6:56:20 PM Author: GoaSkin......By the way if you bulldoze the railway stack or the avenue stack, the puzzle piece will be replaced with regular ground railway (or avenue) textures. What has to be changed if the whole puzzle piece shall result in blank terrain when bulldozing one tile? Shall |-/ be changed to + in the cons layout?

quote>

 

It is the network CheckType flags that have a bearing on this. For items in the IntersectionOrdering RUL file: the CheckType flags revert to the specific network RUL checktype flags &/or the IntersectionSolutions Checktype flags in the case of a default, for example like bulldozing the Rail-Y Stack, & also in the case of validating placement of an interchange item on or over existing network tiles. This is quite normal & is the correct behaviour of the game.

If you wanted to change it though, you would firstly have to comment out a piece of code that I added long time ago in the Rail RUL (there's a reason I added it). You would then have to change the Rail-Y Stack CheckType flags to 0x00000000. Because of the size of this though, I would leave it as is. I do not really see a problem with leaving it the way it is, users would simply just have to manually bulldoze the remaining pieces of network. If you change it, it may cause behavioural issues with other existing items.

Regarding the junction-switches; can you please provide specific InstanceIDs of the files in question.

 

[GoaSkin 2]

The three instance IDs with the not-working switches are:

5399D120
5399D8C0
5399DD10

[Tropod 144]

EDIT: I must of been looking at the wrong files  

EDIT: I should add; the original set-up that was provided (the IntersectionOrdering set-up), did not allow for a transposed version of the rail-y stack. This is something I did change, & may have an impact on the transposed version (which I'll have a look at), but the normal (or non-transposed) version should still show Junction Switches.

 

[GoaSkin 2]

Does this mean that a transposed version using the transpose-switch in the RUL file is not really possible or are there changes on the Cell- and Cons-Layout to do?

[Tropod 144]

Celllayout & Conslayout have nothing to do with it. The Transpose function allows an extra way of being able to place the item, but it also impacts on the paths. EDIT: Using the Transpose function in this particular case for this item will not actually affect or change the functionality of the actual paths themselves. They will still work & commuters can still come & go, even using the transposed version.

Basically, because the rail-y stack contains split tracks in the way that it does, it may be necessary to create an extra set of paths for it to overcome the UDI aspect for the transposed version (which should easily be able to deal with the item), or perhaps modify certain existing paths of the Rail-Y stack (which may not necessarily overcome the UDI problem, I don't know). The Transpose function could be removed, & the UDI aspect wouldn't be a problem but obviously you wouldn't have a transposed version of the item.

EDIT: I'll just add; that the Transpose function isn't necessary for the Avenue Y-Stack (from where the Rail-Y stack set-up was taken from?) because it's a two-tiled network. So there would be no point in having a transposed version for it.

 

[GoaSkin 2]

Thats right. The Y-stacks are a symetric interchange. If you mirror it on the Y-axis, the result is the same like before. If you mirror it on the X-axis, it is the same like if you turn it by 180

[ArkenbergeJoe 35]

It is finished

[Ryan B 35]

ArkenbergeJoe - That looks amazing!  You've got me drooling now.  Well done!

[the Monkeys Uncle 35]

lol! A rail stack... you'll never find one of those in the real world.

[GoaSkin 2]

You'll find them on highspeed railway lines because trains can change the lines using them without going down with the speed. The advantage is that no other rails must be crossed.

[smoncrie 43]

I have been working on the Avenue OnSlope puzzle pieces.   While I was able to use wealth textures to get the sidewalks for the straight One-way OnSlope pieces, I have so far not been able to do the same for the Avenue OnSlope pieces.  Other than this the Avenue OnSlope pieces seem to work fine (I have not finished testing) and there are no major problems.

The textures are fine; they just don't work for avenues. When I changed the transit type to road they worked.  And this test also showed me that the wealth textures can apply to more than one tile:  They seem to apply to all the tiles in the same column (at least in the 2x2 puzzle piece I have tested.)  The tiles in a column differ in the value of the second to last digit, the same digit that changes with wealth in the wealth textures.

On a separate issue.  I was trying to use the parallel one-way on-ramps and I could not put them right next to the OnSlope pieces.  I tried changing the one-way portion of the on-ramps in the Intersection ordering RUL to use optional in place of check.   This allowed me to make the intersection shown below using a test T Avenue Onslope.

 

Perhaps Tropod can say if this change to the on-ramps is a good idea.

 

 

[Cjah 15]

Excellent job!

I can't wait for these slope peices!

[prince_of_sims 0]

Date: 7/22/2005 2:19:03 AM Author: smoncrie

On a separate issue.  I was trying to use the parallel one-way on-ramps and I could not put them right next to the OnSlope pieces.  I tried changing the one-way portion of the on-ramps in the Intersection ordering RUL to use 'optional' in place of 'check'.  This allowed me to make the intersection shown below using a test 'T' Avenue Onslope.

Perhaps Tropod can say if this change to the on-ramps is a good idea.

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//smoncrie%20Avenue%20OnSlope%20Test.jpg align=baseline>

quote>

i like this type of intersection..... this way i can use my retaining walls in a much more aesthetic way..... please, if possible, do this for ALL onslope pieces

[overlordr1 0]

The Monkey's Uncle said:

 

lol!  A rail stack... you'll never find one of those in the real world.

 

 

One multi-level interlocking even exists in the U.S., in Philadelphia, PA, on the Pennsylvania Railroad (trackage now owned by Norfolk Southern), at Zoo Interlocking, built 1903. This joined what was for 150 years the busiest East-West mainline (four tracks, electrified) in America, with the beyond-busy Northeast Corridor (also four tracks and electrified). It was more like a flat wye, with two legs straight, not at all how the proposed rail Y-stack looks. But the type of junction exists. Using them sparingly would not afffect realism too much. An elevated rail version would probably be helpful and more used, especially by anyone modeling New York City. Sorry to butt in, but rail matters always pique my interest.

[Tropod 144]

Date: 7/22/2005 2:19:03 AM Author: smoncrie

On a separate issue.  I was trying to use the parallel one-way on-ramps and I could not put them right next to the OnSlope pieces.  I tried changing the one-way portion of the on-ramps in the Intersection ordering RUL to use 'optional' in place of 'check'.  This allowed me to make the intersection shown below using a test 'T' Avenue Onslope.

Perhaps Tropod can say if this change to the on-ramps is a good idea.

 

I'll have to take a look at that. There may be a specific reason why it was done that way, couldn't say for sure off-hand. Considering the amount of code there is, some things obviously fall through the cracks . Now I know how all those bugs got into SC4 to begin with

 

 

ArkenbergeJoe;

If you adopt more changes, please send the file thanks. Looks good .

[GoaSkin 2]

I am currently making an interchange-based experiment:

I try to create puzzle pieces for tunneling railroad networks. My goal is to have (simulated) railway tunnels which support railway stations (railway stations on slope tunnels do not work) and to make river-tunnels easier with puzzle pieces for tunnels with fixed length.

My first experiment is a railway tunnel puzzle piece with a length of 1x16. Only the exemplars for tile one and tile 16 use models. The other ones just an exemplar and a path file. Trains go in a depth of -20 meters.

On the cell layout, all tiles use CheckType: railroad 0x00000000. On the cons layout, the two outer tiles + and the other ones .

The tunnel does act like an invisible railroad-line, UDI compatible but it's not possible to build anything above it. Neither zones, nor streets, nor trees. May it be possible to allow the player to build zones and streets above puzzle pieces without eleminating the paths?

[Shadow Assassin 336]

It should.

BTW, would it be possible to have some of the elevated interchanges carried over to ground, especially the One Way Road Straight one sided elevated highway exit, and the One Way Road Straight (other one), that way, you've got some for both ground and elevated.

[Keiran Halcyon 0]

Shadow_Assassin, as I pointed out in the requests thread, that interchange requires a new model. The ones we have are just modifications of the elevated highway perpendicular on/offramp model. Once we have a new model, the junction should be doable.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

A small modification of the Parallel one is needed where it intersects with the one way road, that's all.

[Tropod 144]

Date: 7/22/2005 8:25:11 AM Author: GoaSkin I am currently making an interchange-based experiment: I try to create puzzle pieces for tunneling railroad networks. My goal is to have (simulated) railway tunnels which support railway stations (railway stations on slope tunnels do not work) and to make river-tunnels easier with puzzle pieces for tunnels with fixed length. My first experiment is a railway tunnel puzzle piece with a length of 1x16. Only the exemplars for tile one and tile 16 use models. The other ones just an exemplar and a path file. Trains go in a depth of -20 meters. On the cell layout, all tiles use CheckType: railroad 0x00000000. On the cons layout, the two outer tiles + and the other ones . The tunnel does act like an invisible railroad-line, UDI compatible but it's not possible to build anything above it. Neither zones, nor streets, nor trees. May it be possible to allow the player to build zones and streets above puzzle pieces without eleminating the paths?

quote>

 

No, no, & no. This has nothing to do with the Paths.

Anything defined by the IntersectionOrderingRUL file, that is not optional &/or does not fall back on the specific network RUL or IntersectionSolutions RUL for a tile, the tile is effectively Reserved & hence can not be directly built on or over, with anything (Overhanging Lots is a different story). The same goes for the proper bridges in the game; when bridges are built the tiles they are on are defined or classified as being Reserved. You can not simply just include the Exemplar & Path file, & not the model file, & expect it to work as you're suggesting here. It does not matter if the Path, Model, or Exemplar files are there or not. The RUL files define the network tiles & how they interact with each other & the game in general, not the existance or lack of model/path/exemplar file(s).

 

[Tropod 144]

Date: 7/22/2005 2:19:03 AM Author: smoncrie

 

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//smoncrie%20Avenue%20OnSlope%20Test.jpg align=baseline>

 

 

I hadn't managed to take a thoroughly look at this, but I dare say the reason I'd used the check mechanism was because of the OneWayDir function, & the item needing to ensure the adjoining tiles are flowing/going in the same direction when placed. The Avenue Onslope puzzlepiece here contains avenue as part of the portion where onewayroad is. So that'd be why the onewayroad ramps can't be placed there. However, I was able to make this without needing to do any changes. You just have to place the Ramps first, & then the Avenue Onslope puzzlepiece.

 

[Keiran Halcyon 0]

Tropod, I was able to get that with the latest NAM, however, I wasn't able to build an equivalent version of that with roads or oneways. Is it possible to make those possible?