NAM: Development

[Shadow Assassin 336]

I agree.

In fact, I would love to see them appear in the next version.

[Casper3141 60]

Those were posted over a month ago and when they were made public the Creator, said they were fully functional, so whats the problem?

[Ryan B 35]

It's RLS, my friend.  Real life syndrome.  It gets into SC4 players' system and tears them away.  Issues such as school, family life, etc. are the main causes.

 

Sucks, don't it?

[ardecila 125]

Okay: some more actual development for this thread.

I've made a toll booth for puzzle pieces. It's not UDI or civic-compatible, tho. But now I'm gonna work on making Chicago-style stations that plop onto the double-network puzzle pieces.

[smoncrie 44]

I have discovered a way to improve the appearance of some of the NAM puzzle pieces. The game does not render some S3D models very well at some zooms, particularly those with rail, like the rail overpass.  For puzzle pieces one usually uses 1 FSH, one S3D and RESORCE KEY TYPE 0 in its exemplar.   Instead, I suggest one use 5 FSH files (one for each zoom) to make 5 S3D models, and use RESOURCE KEY TYPE 3 to point to those five models.  This technique is used fairly often by Maxis.

Below are some pictures using my new Ground Light Rail puzzle pieces to show the difference.  The track on the left uses 5 models, the one on the right only one.

 

             Zoom 5




https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//Track4.jpg align=baseline>

            Zoom 4




https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//Track3.jpg align=baseline>

         Zoom 3



https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//Track2.jpg align=baseline>

        Zoom 2



https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//Track1.jpg align=baseline>

       Zoom 1




smoncrie

[pansarkatt 2]

Wow smoncrie, that's a great discovery that would really improve the look of the rail puzzle pieces! I hope someone will have a go at it.

[smoncrie 44]

I have discovered a variant in transit enabling lots that seems to be able to connect to NAM puzzle pieces without the danger of crashing the game!!!.  I have not tested it much but it looks very promising.  There may be other uses like NAM-top mass transit lots.

The change is in the tiles at the edge of the lots.  The transit enabled tile will have a rep 15 LotConfigPropertyLotObjectData value something like 0x02000200.  This is a RUL value, and the bytes in it specify connections for the 4 cardinal directions.  My technique is to change the value for the byte for the direction that points outside of the lot to a value of zero (it is usually 02), and to rely on custom paths (IID in rep 16) to direct vehicles across the edge of the lot.  You may need to drag a road (or whatever) back and forth over the internal transit enabled tiles inside the lot to get things working.

Smoncrie

[ardecila 125]

Sweet!

(Technically, it's not your discovery, but rather cjmarshall's)

A Chicago El-Rail station will come out soon, as will a Puzzle-Piece tollbooth!

[smoncrie 44]

ardecila,  I was not thinking of cjmarshall's discovery when I discovered this, and his discovery was about connections inside a lot, not external connections.  I was thinking how connections between puzzle pieces work.

How about this: two lots configured like this and placeed back to back allow automata and UDI through but the game does not consider it a connection!!!   On the other hand, a single lot does work, even if all the rep 15 values in the lot are zeroed (custom paths are needed though).

Unfortunatly, it seems crashes still happen but less often.

smoncrie

[ardecila 125]

Pretty cool coincidence, then, that you didn't even have cjmarshall's discovery in mind.

Another cool coincidence: 5 minutes after I read your post, the idea for back-to-back TE lots popped into my head! I didn't test it, though, so the credit goes to you. Great minds think alike, I suppose.


BTW: Does anyone know the flip of a type-32 RUL connection?

For anyone curious, rail switches take up two tiles. The edge in the middle has type-32 connections on a left switch. I don't know the equivalent value for a right switch.

[Arabia 0]

When will the trumpet interchange be done.

[Mayor_Rose 0]

Just so as the people who should be here don't have to tell you - this isnt the NAM reqests thread: This is.

[Chris M 406]

 I can't wait to the Light rail mod is included in the NAM, it will make everything a little bit less confusing.

[kassarc16 4]

Date: 3/29/2005 9:11:47 AM Author: GoaSkin That may not be really part of this project, but does somebody like to have the PED bridge elevators in the NAM replaced with those? Spocky (simforum.de) created better elevators for the PED bridge pieces but since they're finished, he got no reactions from the NAM developers.

quote>

 

Just wanted to bring this into the development thread, since this would qualify. It'd be nice for some follw-up from the NAM modders.

[the7trumpets 10]

Pasted from the general thread, since it should probably belong here:

Date: 4/3/2005 1:37:27 PM
Author: GoaSkin

Hello,

I began to create mountain trail puzzle pieces and started with a straight one piece. There is a bug to be solved: Commercial buildings may grow up along the trail and provide jobs. But if you use the transportation query tool, it shows 0 commuters. It shows the trail as completely unused while animated pedestrians still walk on the trail.

quote>

Unless I'm really not understanding the question, this is more by design than a bug. The existing puzzle pieces are 'road' puzzle pieces, treated by the simulator as a road tile which just happens to only have paths for pedestrians. This means that they eliminate the no connection zot which appears until the simulator detects a road, street, oneway, or avenue next to the building.

If you wanted these tiles to not allow growth of buildings, I would make them heavy rail puzzle pieces, which would in turn not allow growth unless another side of the lot bordered a street/road/oneway/avenue tile.

The phoenomenon of the buildings growing and seeing sims walking when there are no sims commuting to the building is just a function of the automata simulator trying to approximate where different vehicles are going, but not being 100% accurate in order to save processor cycles.


Please ask if I have created more confusion than answers by my post


Also, goaskin, I LOVE that elevator much better than the existing one. Could you attatch the applicable file in a post and once we get the NAM updated we can get it in there?

thanks!

[the7trumpets 10]

Date: 2/8/2005 5:36:16 AM
Author: smoncrie

I have discovered a way to improve the appearance of some of the NAM puzzle pieces. The game does not render some S3D models very well at some zooms, particularly those with rail, like the rail overpass. For puzzle pieces one usually uses 1 FSH, one S3D and RESORCE KEY TYPE 0 in its exemplar. Instead, I suggest one use 5 FSH files (one for each zoom) to make 5 S3D models, and use RESOURCE KEY TYPE 3 to point to those five models. This technique is used fairly often by Maxis.

smoncrie

quote>


Good point. I should mention that this technique is probably also used to save on memory and improve responsiveness at zooms further away than zoom 5, since different textures and models are loaded which consume less memory. Curiously though, not all interchange tiles use this methodology. So it's a little unclear whether they deemed it unnecessary or whether they just got tired of doing it

[GoaSkin 2]

@The7Trumpets: This was not really my question. I created these trail tiles but they're unused. The commuter query tool does not show any activity as if it's unused. On the other ped mall tiles it shows that pedestrians are using the tiles but commercial tiles grow also up if the connection is unused. I can see people walking there on the stream but the pieces seem to be unused by the pathfinding-engine.

[smoncrie 44]

@The7Trumpets, Welcome back!

 

I think that the Resource Key Type 3 is used when necessary to improve the appearance of the piece.  As far as I can tell, Maxis always uses it for a piece that contains any type of track (e.g. Elevated highway over rail.)  This is probably because the software that re-sizes a model for different zooms does a poor job when the textures contain small repeated patterns, like rail ties.

I have a partially completed mod that replaces NAM rail puzzle piece models with models that use this technique, and it makes them look much better at lower zooms.

smoncrie

[samoyed1958 0]

nice rail over street would it be possible for a link to this please thanks

[Guinnessmonkey 0]

Date: 4/4/2005 1:59:46 AM
Author: smoncrie

I have a partially completed mod that replaces NAM rail puzzle piece models with models that use this technique, and it makes them look much better at lower zooms.

smoncrie

quote>
*drools*

Uh... Feel free to upload a beta ASAP.

[GoaSkin 2]

AktenbergerJoe (simforum.de) re-modded the NAM bridges with el-railway and monorail over elevated highway.

If there is anybody who can integrate it into the NAM, please contact ne because he does not speak any english!

[kassarc16 4]

Date: 5/9/2005 12:24:34 PM Author: GoaSkin

quote>

 

Ah... ouch. The effort was nice... but I can't see using those in my game... I think an underpass would've been better.

[smoncrie 44]

Here is the elevated rail over elevated highway overpass from my NAM Cosmetic mod.  This mod makes tracked puzzle pieces look better at all zooms.  It is about 3/4 done.

 

[Swamper77 90]

Smoncrie that looks much better than the existing el rail over elevated highway overpass.

-Swamper77

[Tunafish 48]

I think you should re do the suppots, they just don't look that great.

[kassarc16 4]

My thoughts exactly. We need it to be more similar to the normal supports. It just looks out of place with something different. BUT... the tracks deffinetly look better, and it sounds like the right way to go.

[smoncrie 44]

I am sorry you do not like the supports.  They are the same as the supports used in used in the elevated rail (water) bridge.

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//El-Hw2.jpg align=baseline>

Why don

[Guinnessmonkey 0]

Must... Have... NAM... Cosmetic Mod.....

Must... Have... Now.....


Great work... This looks to fix the biggest problem with NAM for good. Now get to work!

[kassarc16 4]

Date: 5/10/2005 11:05:54 PM Author: smoncrie

I am sorry you do not like the supports.  They are the same as the supports used in used in the elevated rail (water) bridge.

Why don

[jglei701 8]

One idea for that rail over elevated highway might be a similar approach to what the guy from simforum.de did.  If you think about rail overpasses in real life, (and I'm thinking mostly of rural overpasses instead of urban, because you can see them from farther away as there isn't as much stuff (that's a technical term) around to block your view) the rail isn't supported on a bunch of slim posts (relative to the span that the bridge crosses).  Actually, I don't know how realistic making ANYTHING (short of another elevated highway) traverse over an elevated highway...

But, as far as a rail over highway looks in reality, look here:

http://www.bnsffoamer.com/images/mice/i5rrbridge1c720.jpg

http://www.bnsffoamer.com/images/mice/i5rrbridge2c720.jpg

 

Notice how the rail didn't have to suddenly raise way up above... it was at ground level, and the ground (so to speak) was taken away where the highway runs underneath, and that's the only part that's up on supports.  I don't know how clear I'm making myself here... but, IMO, even elevated rail would do the same (in other words, it would become a ground level rail for the crossing... and it would probably appear to those riding on the train that the ground was coming up to meet them, probably.

 

What I'm basically saying is that the rail overpass should be very similar to a real life road overpass on a highway (though with marked differences).  With the road, the ground next to the highway is gradually built up so that it brings the cars to a height high enough to pass over the highway.  Rail is much more gradual... perhaps, even the ground underneath is cut away (because it's much easier for a car to go down and up than for a 100 car train to travel up and over the bump of the bridge). 

Note here how the cars travel under the rail... and the rail stays level.

 

Here's another example of a bridge under construction... notice how built up the ground is NEXT to the highway:

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//2330con2.jpg align=baseline>

 

To me, this is what the rail over highway overpasses should look like.  I'm not sure if this is possible to model, but you asked for suggestions... so here ya go!!

 

One last one, maybe the best depiction of what I mean:

https://www.simtropolis.com/idealbb/files//us50_1.jpg align=baseline>

 

EDIT: In addition to these, I have seen some overpasses that bring the rail-overpass to the height they need to be to cross over a road by a viaduct-like land bridge.  However, the overarching parallel that I've seen throughout is that these viaducts don't have small supports, but rather they have pretty substantial supports (usuall arches, to support the weight of the train).  This might not be necessariy in elevated rail, but it might add to the visual presentation of the crossing.