NAM: Development

[ardecila 124]

Wow.. this is all so complex.

I guess it's just you guys trying to make the best out of an inflexible system that you can't change.

I can follow you guys' discussion, but being without any actual RUL coding experience, I can't really add any thoughts.

t7t: using Method B, how would a GLR drag be initiated? If you freed up the second ElRail RUL, would that enable you to add a new drag tool/icon? I understand that you have two solutions to continue a drag, and then prevents are in place to make it choose a GLR 02000200, but how does it get onto GLR in the first place? Do you simply start the drag from a ramp puzzle piece, like Method A uses?

smoncrie: did you receive my files properly? It's a big job to path them, of course - I don't expect you to finish any time soon. I'd be willing to calculate the points on the curves for you. (I'm in trig right now, so it's fresh in my mind.. hehe)

[the7trumpets 10]

Date: 1/24/2006 10:02:08 PM
Author: ardecila

t7t: using Method B, how would a GLR drag be initiated? If you freed up the second ElRail RUL, would that enable you to add a new drag tool/icon? I understand that you have two solutions to continue a drag, and then prevents are in place to make it choose a GLR 02000200, but how does it get onto GLR in the first place? Do you simply start the drag from a ramp puzzle piece, like Method A uses?

quote>

Yes...unfortunately. As smoncrie said earlier, initiating glr with a network tool from a different network requires a unique piece to begin the domino effect. Essentially you would plop a puzzle piece and then drag from that to the rest of the network. There are a number of interesting ways to accomplish this though where it might appear completely transparent to the end user. The el glr ramp could be one of these 'starter' puzzle pieces, but we might be able to wrangle glr stations into spawning a starter piece, in which case the user just plops a station and starts drawing glr from it.

No guarantees on that method though, I'll have to refresh the little knowledge I once had about the transit enabled lotconfig property (rep 13?) and do some experimenting. I'm all ears to any ideas you guys have . Ultimately glr will have to have some sort of 'starter' puzzle piece before any glr can be drawn from it, regaurdless of which approach is taken.

[ardecila 124]

AFAIK, the LotConfig property only allows for adjacent tile-limiters, RUL connection flags, and custom paths. Nothing about spawning transit tiles next to it, like the interchange RUL uses...

[kirgam 0]

Date: 1/21/2006 11:08:10 AM
Author: qurlix


Buggi: Theoretically, those are all possible. But each one of these systems requires tons of work, not to mention the chances are nil that non-transport stuff gets into the NAM. Oil pipelines and canals sure would be fun, though.


-qurlix

quote>

First of all: congratulations to all who have been pushing this new great approach forward. I guess with the way, the RHW works, it was just a matter of time till someone found out about all these great possibilities. I had the idea myself about two months ago, but since I'm not into coding and didn't have time, I hoped someone would bring it up, and so it happened.
Even using this for canals got brought up, as I see. However, I wouldn't refer to canals as non-transportation. On the contrary, I have given this some thought, but being no coder I can't really tell, if this might work:

1) There should be enough models around from the many canal sets that are available on the STEX (Though I'd prefer the one's from PEG), so not much more work would be necessary here (except for intersections maybe).

2) It seems, all traffic networks have at least one alternative now, except heavy rail and monorail (I didn't look too deeply, so forgive me, if I've missed something). So, my suggestion would be, to use heavy rail for transit enabled canals. I don't know if this would interfere with the GLR, but you could use those little green track testers to simulate ships going on the canals by attaching them to harbors (which would in reality be stations), just like some of them are attached to GLR stations. Of course you'd have to block off normal freight and passenger trains (though only their models, not traffic itself).
Could this work?

I had another idea (about monorails) as well, but that's for my next posting, gotta go to dinner now.

[GoaSkin 2]

Transit-Enabled canals can be done in a tricky way. For example, if we regard Oppies canal set, we can use the pure water tile.

We have to transit-enable the tiles for the monorail system. We have to add monorail paths with a negative Z-value, so the monorail vehicles won't be seen anyhow. Additionally, we have to add train paths on ground levels. Trains won't appear because the tiles are transit-enabled for monorail only. At last, we need a LOT spawning LUA-generated vehicles using train paths (like track-checkers). These vehicles should be looking like a boat. The boats will start on the stations (using a custom Occupant Group) and follow the train paths on the water tiles because it does not matter for them if the tiles are not transit-enabled for that vehicle type. The (hidden) monorail paths are only needed as carrier for the simulated commuting. Each tile should have the paths of a * intersection and can be copied from the GLR intersection.

The same way any custom vehicle can be realized (gondolas, rack railways, funiculars etc.) Just the query tool shows an usage of one existing vehicle type.

[kirgam 0]

Date: 1/29/2006 4:41:18 PM
Author: GoaSkin
Transit-Enabled canals can be done in a tricky way. For example, if we regard Oppies canal set, we can use the pure water tile.


We have to transit-enable the tiles for the monorail system. We have to add monorail paths with a negative Z-value, so the monorail vehicles won't be seen anyhow. Additionally, we have to add train paths on ground levels. Trains won't appear because the tiles are transit-enabled for monorail only. At last, we need a LOT spawning LUA-generated vehicles using train paths (like track-checkers). These vehicles should be looking like a boat. The boats will start on the stations (using a custom Occupant Group) and follow the train paths on the water tiles because it does not matter for them if the tiles are not transit-enabled for that vehicle type. The (hidden) monorail paths are only needed as carrier for the simulated commuting. Each tile should have the paths of a * intersection and can be copied from the GLR intersection.


The same way any custom vehicle can be realized (gondolas, rack railways, funiculars etc.) Just the query tool shows an usage of one existing vehicle type.

quote>

[DE]: Cool, das war's, was ich mit Monorail meinte - Seilbahnen, Standseilbahnen und Aerobusse / Wuppertaler Schwebebahn. Ich nehme an, O-Busse (Stra

[GoaSkin 2]

I will try it out later using the basic and primary version of the oppie canal set. I will create a pathed puzzle piece with the pure water tile (straight only first) and while I have no suitable boat model, I will use a placebo car (or tram or anything else). Later we can create intersections, curves etc.
The unfunctional outer pieces will not be added and be part of the canal set. If Oppie wants to work on this project too, we can create it as a new version of the set. The basic functions must be added to the NAM but we can handle it so that the menu button will be added when the canal set is installed. It should also contain models and textures. Only things what have to be included to the NAM (like RUL entries) should be added.

[Sc4jeeks 35]

Date: 1/30/2006 3:06:49 PM
Author: GoaSkin
I will try it out later using the basic and primary version of the oppie canal set. I will create a pathed puzzle piece with the pure water tile (straight only first) and while I have no suitable boat model, I will use a placebo car (or tram or anything else). Later we can create intersections, curves etc.

The unfunctional outer pieces will not be added and be part of the canal set. If Oppie wants to work on this project too, we can create it as a new version of the set. The basic functions must be added to the NAM but we can handle it so that the menu button will be added when the canal set is installed. It should also contain models and textures. Only things what have to be included to the NAM (like RUL entries) should be added.

quote>

What about SimGoober's canal set? He may be more willing..

[smoncrie 43]

the7trumpets, your second way of doing the GLR dragging sounds best, but it does not help with the problem I have been working on.

One on the main problems is to keep the number of RULs down.  This is a particular problem when you have several intersections with the GLR tracks that are next to each other.   The obvious way of to get GLR to continue on through these intersections is to have RULs for every possible pair of intersections that can be next to each other:

<GLR intersection x><Non GLR intersection y> => <GLR intersection x><GLR intersection y>

Where x and y are intersection tiles.

The number of such RULs would be equal to the number of possible intersections squared!

qurlix and I had worked out another method of doing it where the number of RULs was proportional to the number of intersections (the bouncing marker tiles).  Since then I have being trying to come up with a better version.  However I have found some problems.

One problem is if you drag over existing elevated rail tracks to change them into GLR tracks and you stop the drag part way through a cluster of intersections

The other problem is when you have two intersections separated by a single GLR tile:

       |   |

[qurlix 20]

The following was intended to be posted almost two weeks ago, but my monthly internet service ran out. Apologies if anything is outdated (Couldn't imagine what, though...) And sorry I had to use teletype, I needed the stuff to line up.

Ok. Flag tiles...uh, time to resort to text diagrams!

Here is my key:

. = Irrelevant Tiles
g = GLR
e = El-Rail
r = Road (or any network other than El-Rail)
G = GLR Intersection
E = El-Rail Intersection
1 = Forward Flag
2 = Backward Flag

Also note that this is my method. smoncrie's is a little bit different, as will be explained.
Now lets say we already have this:

. . . . r . . .
g g . . r . . .
. . . . r . . .

And we just dragged this; the overrides have not been run yet:

. . . . r . . .
g g e e E e e .
. . . . r . . .

So naturally the next two tiles convert to GLR. Then we check the bold tiles:

. . . . r . . .
g g g g E e e .
. . . . r . . .

Now instead of modifying them directly like so:
(Which shall be referred to as the Factorial Method for reasons I will explain shortly)

. . . . r . . .
g g g g G e e .
. . . . r . . .

Instead, we change them in this process (Marker/Flag Method):

. . . . r . . .
g g g E 1 e e .
. . . . r . . .

. . . . r . . .
g g g E 2 g e .
. . . . r . . .

. . . . r . . .
g g g 2 G g e .
. . . . r . . .

. . . . r . . .
g g g g G g e .
. . . . r . . .

And, of course...

. . . . r . . .
g g g g G g g .
. . . . r . . .

Now why do we do use many steps when we can use just one?
Let us look at a different scenario...

. . . r r . . .
g g g E E e e .
. . . r r . . .

This time we have two adjacent intersections. By the factorial method:

. . . r r . . .
g g g G E e e .
. . . r r . . .

. . . r r . . .
g g g G G e e .
. . . r r . . .

. . . r r . . .
g g g G G g e .
. . . r r . . .

et cetera, but figure out how many lines of RUL code this would require. There would have to be, somewhat as you demonstrated previously, one between each and every type of intersection. Thus, if we have X intersection types, there are X! rul codes required for orthogonal alone.

If we go about the marker method:

. . . r r . . .
g g E 1 E e e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g E E 1 e e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g E E 2 g e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g E 2 G g e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g 2 G G g e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g g G G g e .
. . . r r . . .


. . . r r . . .
g g g G G g g .
. . . r r . . .

Now this, despite taking longer, requires only three ruls per intersection type. The one to start it (g-E >> E-1), the one to continue it (1-E >> E-1), and the one to switch on the return (E-2 >> 2-G). It also requires static ruls (1-e >> 2-g), (1-g >> 2-g), (1-1rotation2 2-2rotation2), and (g-2 >> g-g).

As for variations, in the modular part of smoncrie's system, it goes (bold are repeated for each intersection, italics are differences)

(g-E >> G-1)
(1-E >> E-1)
(1-e >> 2-g)
(1-g >> 2-g)
(1-1rotation2 2-2rotation2)
(E-2 >> 2-G)
(G-2 >> g-G)

Which takes one more rul (4x)...I can't see any other major differences. Though it should be noted that if P, the number of spawning tiles (tiles that can start a marker...in our example only orth glr, but in reality glr bends, and all GLR-GLR intersections) is greater than X, the number of GLR-other network intersections, my method ends up using more. I haven't gone about and calculated if P > X, so I don't know, but my educated guess is that P is less.

I don't have time to get into the variations for GLR-GLR intersections. Either way, you probably need to gaze at that for a while, anyway...it certainly is hard for me to get my brain thinking from the right angles.

Especially after a day of exams... (That's outdated!)

Hmmmm. I wonder if any part of this approach would be useful for the prevent method? Something more to ponder.

Ciao,
-qurlix

PS: Dream in RULs? I think I'd have a #Transmogrify# nightmare!

smoncrie: 1st Problem - Most El-Other T Intersection won't natuarally draw, and El-El could be another bouncer. Problem 2 - Is it really that horrible for the general public to redrag the GLR over the intersections?

[GoaSkin 2]

some news related to two small NAM experiments by myself:

I managed to realize a GLR neighbor connecting just by changing one string in the Intersection RUL file. On the straight GLR piece I changed Checktype 0x00000000 to 0x02000200. This allows you to place the straight GLR piece over a straight el-rail piece. You may build an el-rail connection to another city and to replace it with GLR pieces.

I made a small experiment on realizing watercrafts. I used Oppies canal set and a tram for my tests (because I did not find any small boat models).
It is possible to create a canal as usual and then, you can set ferry routes over them by placing an invisible puzzle piece over the LOT what works on any ploppable water.It is transit-enabled for el-rail with paths so far beyond the ground that no el-train will appear. Additionally I added the same paths for the rail networks on ground level to be used by a LUA-generated vehicle. Trains won't appear because it is not transit-enabled for them, so el-rail traffic is simulated but a custom vehicle shown only.

[smoncrie 43]

I am testing a new shape for the High Elevated Rail and High Monorail ramps (and possibly other ramps too).  The following picture shows the new High Elevated Rail ramp and several other puzzle pieces.   Please tell me if the shape of the new ramp is OK.

 

qurlix, I have found that, if it is not handled correctly, dragging another network over drag able GLR tracks can make all the tracks and intersections down stream of the new intersection revert to elevated rail.  I far as I can tell, this change continues to the end of the tracks.  A lot of re-dragging would be needed to fix the intersections.  In fact this kind of re-dragging makes the first problem quite likely.  Using the7trumpets method may prevent the GLR tracks from reverting, but not the intersections.

I have decided to focus on getting the next NAM out, so it may be a while before I do more drag able GLR testing.

 

[Swamper77 90]

Smoncrie,

I like the looks of that ramp and appears to be a nice and smooth transition. In fact, it looks much smoother than some of the other elevated rail ramps, such as the ones for the elevated rail over elevated highway overpass.

-Swamper77

[Shadow Assassin 336]

An excellent idea, though, I'd prefer if they looked similar in some way to the existing el rail tracks.

[GoaSkin 2]

Is there still interest on

invisible ferry route puzzle pieces for ploppable water

road/ underground/ rail dual-networking

???

[qurlix 20]

GoaSkin: Wow, interesting developments. I still don't understand why all of the checktypes are 0x00000000. Is there some advantage to it?

Great job with the canal stuff. If we are going to realize it, I think we should use monorail as the puzzle piece type because we already have three lightrail/subway networks. Though we do have to consider capacity and speed...

EDIT: Didn't see that last post! I don't think the public looks at this thread, otherwise there'd be a lot of excitement around functioning canals. You should certainly continue with those. We should see how things are going to play out with this release before dealing with the underground system. Though it definitely is a cool idea.

smoncrie: Well that depends on how much protection you have and what order it is arranged in...but yeah stuff that doesn't require research is certainly a priority. I have some puzzle pieces and drag intersections that are finished I ought to send you.

And can you call a team meeting? I think there should be one, as there are a lot of things to talk about...

-qurlix

[lakeyboy 12]

The reason why the public doesn't reply to this thread because they will get blasted by people working on the NAM with comments like Unless you have something to say about the development of the NAM, please reply in the discussion thread.

But those designated ferry routes and underground rail under road puzzle pieces are fantastic. Is there any way we can have an update on the overall progress on the NAM such as pieces which have been finished and maybe a couple of teaser pics please? It's been since the end of september 2005.

[JDRCRASH 53]

I know this question is late, but what the heck is NAM

And how do you get real running canal water

[Keiran Halcyon 0]

Smoncrie, that ramp looks a lot better than the current ones with the sharp angles at the transitions. You should use that for the el rail/GLR transition, and create something similar for the monorail/double-high monorail transition as well (which I presume will be coming into existance sometime soon, for the same reasons that we're looking at a new double-high elevated transition).

[organicsabre 1]

Firstly can I say what an excellent job you guys and gals are doing with the Nam.

1. The elevated rail over bridge posted above looks fine, its nice and smooth with a more believable grade, maybe some of the other lots like this could be re-looked at and given a more smoother believable grade.

2. The transit enabled canals would be an excellent addition to the Nam. You may have noticed quite a lot of CJ

[qurlix 20]

lakeyboy: Well I've certainly never said that. I feel this thread is almost more a showcase for developing technology, rather than a technical discussion (ignoring the RUL talk we just had). I think that's what it should be as we can't really talk about proposed contents too much anyway...otherwise there is a big frenzy over release. As for an update on progress, I'll get all my stuff together. I don't know about the other members...

JDRCRASH: The NAM (Network Addon Mod) is a modification for SimCity that adds new transportation and network tools to the game. If you want details on what's inside, it's kind of a really long list...so download it and try it out. There is a link to it a ways down on the front page.

-qurlix

[GoaSkin 2]

qurlix: I used el-rail as shadow network instead of monorail because bethween canal ferry terminals usually not so many tiles are used as space. The monorail is designed as long-distance service and is not used well if the stations are to close together.

0x00000000 as checktype is very often used but (except for pedmall tiles) no good way. If this checktype is used the only advantage is that the pieces are always usable on unused tiles without looking for suitable transit properties. I think one modder copied 0x00000000 from the other because so you may not learn what this property does. 0x00000000 works anytime but is not suitable for replacing other pieces.

[bloo 0]

Date: 2/16/2006 7:41:48 PM
Author: GoaSkin
Is there still interest on

invisible ferry route puzzle pieces for ploppable water

road/ underground/ rail dual-networking


???

quote>

I expect there would definitely be interest in such features. Perhaps the best thing to do is work on the one more easily realised.

Thanks for all your hard work... even though you have helped to make a dangerously addictive game even more addictive.

[Dexter 40]

These look great! I can now have dirt roads only in areas where I want them. This could open up some road types such as brick roads, and sandy roads.

That high el rail looks much better than the elpass we have now.

[smoncrie 43]

I have finished making the new OnSlope puzzle pieces for highway and GLR.

The new OnSlopes are:  GLR "T", GLR Straight, GLR under GLR, Highway "T", Highway Straight, GLR under Highway.


I have mostly finished the High Elevated Rail and High Monorail puzzle pieces.  There are the following pieces for both elevated rail and monorail:

Ramp, Straight, Straight-No Pylon, over Rail, over Street, over Road, over One Way Road, over Avenue, over Ground Highway, over GLR, over Elevated Highway, over Elevated Rail, over Monorail, over Rail Viaduct, over Road Viaduct, over One Way Road Viaduct, over Avenue viaduct, "T" OnSlope, and Straight OnSlope.

The High Elevated Rail puzzle pieces are accessed by a new button in the Miscellaneous Transportation menu, and the High Monorail Puzzle pieces are accessed by a new button in the Rail menu.

I am not sure where to position these new buttons.  Should they be at the top?   Should they be next to the button for the tracks?  Should both the new button and the button for the tracks be at the top?  I would like to hear what people think about this.

Dexter, I have decided not to add any new drag able networks, such as dirt roads, to the next version of the NAM.   They may be released later.

[Andreas Roth 607]

Originally posted by: smoncrie

I am not sure where to position these new buttons.  Should they be at the top?   Should they be next to the button for the tracks?  Should both the new button and the button for the tracks be at the top?  I would like to hear what people think about this. quote>

I think it's a good idea to place all network buttons at the top of the menu (either the NAM-related ones and the in-game ones). It's kinda annoying to scroll halfway down the misc. transportation menu for building el-rail tracks, and it's even more annoying to build monorail tracks, since my rail menu is quite full...

[demerson 42]

hello, i was just wondering when a new version is set to be released.  Sorry, i bet u all been asked a million times

[Andreas Roth 607]

Originally posted by: swordstalker2008

hello, i was just wondering when a new version is set to be released.  Sorry, i bet u all been asked a million timesquote>

When it's ready, obviously.

[GoaSkin 2]

The watertram project makes advantages.


It actually works on the Oppie Canal set but is usable on other ploppable water too with the limit that it is only usable if the water texture isn't a base texture. I have to make modifications on the preview model (is actually not shown if the water tile is a model virtually below ground level) and other things than a straight puzzle piece (90 degree curve, + and T-intersections, not more).

[Xyloxadoria 1,099]

I am developing a new type of interchange, but due to the need for a poll it is in a seprate post. It is still revelant to this topic, it just needed a new one, so go check out my intechange proposal here:

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=124&threadid=75697&enterthread=y