NAM General Support

[Tarkus 6,932]

It does exist with NAM 32-PR1.  As I reported on SC4D, it's confirmed and fixed for NAM 32 Final.

 

-Tarkus

[Linksz 1]

Hello everyone.

I'm having an issue with the NAM 31.2 installed train/el train stations. When I put them down and try to connect it to the existing railway network, the game instantly crashes. To be honest I'm not even sure how to use some of the stations (Madison-Wells+Morgan Lake stations look great, I just can't connect them )
So my question is, why does the game crash, what can I do to fix this? And is there a tutorial topic about all these NAM included stations (BriPizza, Victorian, Modern etc...) ? I would take the time to figure them out on my own but tbh with the crashing it's pretty impossible, and annoying, plus I had no idea how to use the RHW pieces either, till I found the guide topic for it (managed to finish my first RHW today, it's awesome).
The game doesn't crash from anything else, I have the processor affinity settings.

Another question is, how can I manage my currently installed stations, because I pretty much ticked in everything at the installer as I did not want to miss anything fun, but it would be a lot easier if I could remove some of the stuff I know I won't be using anytime soon as it is too complicated.

Thanks

[Tarkus 6,932]

It might be that you are placing the stations near a puzzle piece-based NAM item.  Transit-Enabled Lots like stations have been known to do this near puzzle pieces based on the same network--it's a game coding issue we've known about as long as there's been a NAM, and it's unfortunately something that we can't fix.

 

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Try placing your station first then running the network through it.  If you get the station placed take an immediate save (CTRL+ALT+s).

[z1 566]

Another question is, how can I manage my currently installed stations, because I pretty much ticked in everything at the installer as I did not want to miss anything fun, but it would be a lot easier if I could remove some of the stuff I know I won't be using anytime soon as it is too complicated.

 

Just rerun the installer and uncheck anything you don't want anymore.  Be sure that if you uncheck anything, you don't have any instances of it installed in your city.  If you do, you need to bulldoze them first.

[Linksz 1]

Thanks for the answers.

 

I tried a lot of different placing options. It doesn't crash if I have two ends placed down, or at least one.
Is this supposed to work? It's not crashing with the proper placing order, but there's that gap circled in blue. If I try to place a "connecting" piece on the station itself to make the gap disappear it crashes immediately, also the rail on the station looks different from the rail on the viaduct pieces.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A puzzle piece over a TE lot will always crash.  I think you have to have the tracks existing before you try to place the station.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Is this supposed to work? It's not crashing with the proper placing order, but there's that gap circled in blue. If I try to place a "connecting" piece on the station itself to make the gap disappear it crashes immediately, also the rail on the station looks different from the rail on the viaduct pieces.

I believe that's one of the stations that has a 2×1 footprint, but has an overhang that makes it look like it's 5×1, so you're essentially putting a larger-than-needed gap between the tracks and the actual lot; you actually need a 2-tile gap in the rail line, not a 5-tile gap. Plus, there's a strategy to placing these kinds of stations down: lay down the tracks before you lay down the station. There's an instruction manual on this very thing located in the Documentation folder in the NAM folder.

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

Will there be a full instruction manual released for NAM 32?

[Linksz 1]

 

Is this supposed to work? It's not crashing with the proper placing order, but there's that gap circled in blue. If I try to place a "connecting" piece on the station itself to make the gap disappear it crashes immediately, also the rail on the station looks different from the rail on the viaduct pieces.

I believe that's one of the stations that has a 2×1 footprint, but has an overhang that makes it look like it's 5×1, so you're essentially putting a larger-than-needed gap between the tracks and the actual lot; you actually need a 2-tile gap in the rail line, not a 5-tile gap. Plus, there's a strategy to placing these kinds of stations down: lay down the tracks before you lay down the station. There's an instruction manual on this very thing located in the Documentation folder in the NAM folder.

 

Well crap, I was looking for those read-me files in the plugins folder...

Thanks I'm sure to check all those out.

[z1 566]

I believe that's one of the stations that has a 2×1 footprint, but has an overhang that makes it look like it's 5×1, so you're essentially putting a larger-than-needed gap between the tracks and the actual lot; you actually need a 2-tile gap in the rail line, not a 5-tile gap.

 

That's correct.  Actually, this station is a bit of an odd beast.  When ArkenbergeJoe created it by modifying Morifari's El Rail version of this station, he used a 2x1 lot, such as used in diagonal stations, instead of the standard 4x1 lot that Morifari had used.  The station works fine, but you do need to be aware of this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just a quick note of appreciation on the release of NAM 32.  Good going, fellows.

[Harry's Place 918]

I have a $%&^! qwuestion sorry and i apologize for this i'm pretty much ashamed to ask this cause i'm playing SC for a long time, after i install the new NAM should i replop all the roads/highways/streets/rail? 

[Sabretooth78 808]

I'm getting some weird behavior out of the NWM starter pieces.  When I attempt to plop...

 

• TLA-5 or TLA-7, I get a TLA-3
• OWR-4 or OWR-5, I get a OWR-3
• RD-4 or RD-6, I get an ARD-3
• AVE-6, I get an AVE-2

 

Furthermore, when I drag through many of these (with a road) it does not "take" and the starter in many cases will change to a TLA-3 or ARD-3.

 

I did a full, custom installation so perhaps I installed a conflict.  I'm going to back out and install the "complete standard" and see if I encounter any different behavior.  Has anybody else experienced this?

 

Edit:  SAM starter pieces won't drag through, either.

 

Edit2:  Evidently it was some kind of conflict; seems to be working now.  Would be curious to find out what exactly was causing it but I'm not sure I have the mental capacity for it tonight.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Not to load up in this forum, but I'm wondering if the prospect of adding more "elegant" support for multi-leg road intersections (T or X), where one of the legs is a MIS or RHW.  This was all done last night using 31.2 but a quick recheck using 32 seems to be showing all the same behavior.  For instance (I apologize for the lengthiness):

 

 

or

 

 

or

 

 

It seems the only way to accomplish this (as I've done in the examples here) is to connect the RHW to an appropriately-aligned OWR stub, which sometimes results in some textural inconsistencies (in particular the first picture).

 

Additionally, there are pathing issues when the RHW segment exits (i.e. heads away from) the road, due to the way the game (by default) handles such intersections (unless the OWR is dragged completely through the intersection).  See below:

 

 

 

 

 

MIS is similar.  I'm not sure such issues can be fixed with the TULEPs, at least I wasn't able to find a quick way.

 

 

 

Avenues do not experience this particular phenomenon...

 

 

...although it is not possible to drag an RWH across an Avenue in any configuration without getting a degenerate intersection.  In which case it needs to be handled using a OWR, which has the following quirk:

 

 

Therefore to rectify this and provide for full two-way access on the opposing leg you need to construct one of these monstrosities (ignore the fact that the directionality of the one-way is not consistent between these pictures):

 

 

As you can see, I've been able to develop some suitable workarounds to this limitation, but I was just wondering if something more elegant was in the pipeline. Great job!  

[APSMS 1,892]

Not sure about the last situation. It will likely always be so messy.

 

For the penultimate condition, however, transitioning to road (from RHW-2) should be easy as pie and allow TuLEPs as well (if so desired).

 

Many of the pathing quirks you list are strange, but I think they have no impact on capacity and therefore complete conversion from their base network counterpart is unlikely to occur. I guess the only thing to remember is to try to avoid using snap-to on UDI when traveling on those roads. Unfortunate thing with the texture bug in img 1, but again the minimal nature of it and the large amount of work that is likely necessary to fix it mean that it will probably stay that way for a while. That particular bug bugs me too, but there are bigger fish to fry (I'd prefer more work on the features of the RRW)

[Magneto 316]

(...)

Furthermore, when I drag through many of these (with a road) it does not "take" and the starter in many cases will change to a TLA-3 or ARD-3.

 

I did a full, custom installation so perhaps I installed a conflict.  I'm going to back out and install the "complete standard" and see if I encounter any different behavior.  Has anybody else experienced this?

 

I have similar problem; starters don't trigger any override when dragged through (tried SAM, draggable elevated roads & GLR). Partial custom install btw

[NAM Team 866]

Out of curiosity, where/when did you download it?  If you picked it up before about 12:30am US Pacific Standard Time (UTC-, it had some outdated RULs in it.  We quickly pulled it and re-uploaded it, but a few people managed to get it before we caught that.

 

-Tarkus (under the NAM Team account)

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

(...)

Furthermore, when I drag through many of these (with a road) it does not "take" and the starter in many cases will change to a TLA-3 or ARD-3.

 

I did a full, custom installation so perhaps I installed a conflict.  I'm going to back out and install the "complete standard" and see if I encounter any different behavior.  Has anybody else experienced this?

 

I have similar problem; starters don't trigger any override when dragged through (tried SAM, draggable elevated roads & GLR). Partial custom install btw

 

 

I went back and did another custom install (after achieving success with the "complete standard" option) and this one seems to work now.

 

Of course, it's difficult to tell what was causing it as I'm not able to directly see what "complete standard" installs.  What I can say is with the initial (not working) install, I had selected everything except which I knew would be outright in conflict (i.e. Maxis Highway Override vs. Maxis custom interchanges, etc.).

 

Some of the more major components I did not install this time around include the Bullet Train Mod, Alternate El-Rail, and RRW.  There really wasn't much else so unless it was one of those, it's probably some fairly innocuous optional component.

 

 

Out of curiosity, where/when did you download it?  If you picked it up before about 12:30am US Pacific Standard Time (UTC- , it had some outdated RULs in it.  We quickly pulled it and re-uploaded it, but a few people managed to get it before we caught that.

 

-Tarkus (under the NAM Team account)

 

For me, just a few hours ago when I got home from work.  I noticed it had been released and already retracted when I got in to work in the morning.

 

 

Not sure about the last situation. It will likely always be so messy.

 

For the penultimate condition, however, transitioning to road (from RHW-2) should be easy as pie and allow TuLEPs as well (if so desired).

 

Many of the pathing quirks you list are strange, but I think they have no impact on capacity and therefore complete conversion from their base network counterpart is unlikely to occur. I guess the only thing to remember is to try to avoid using snap-to on UDI when traveling on those roads. Unfortunate thing with the texture bug in img 1, but again the minimal nature of it and the large amount of work that is likely necessary to fix it mean that it will probably stay that way for a while. That particular bug bugs me too, but there are bigger fish to fry (I'd prefer more work on the features of the RRW)

 

That's what I would have figured.  Still wanted to ask and until a few months ago I had been away from the game for years, so I'm a bit behind on the agenda.  It was just as likely that the solution was there and I just wasn't able to find it.

 

I agree on the RRW.  I love the look of it but I have to pass for the moment due to the incompleteness.  I need roadway network crossing textures and some updated custom lots wouldn't hurt, either.     I wonder, will the NAM team perhaps plan on releasing some kind of "development pack" to enable the end users to update "3rd party" lots on their own?  I'd be all over that in a heartbeat.

[z1 566]

I have a $%&^! qwuestion sorry and i apologize for this i'm pretty much ashamed to ask this cause i'm playing SC for a long time, after i install the new NAM should i replop all the roads/highways/streets/rail? 

 

It's not necessary to replop anything, either when installing the NAM for the first time or when upgrading from a previous version of the NAM.  However, if you have versions of the transit stations that come with the NAM (and this includes all Maxis stations), the NAM automatically replaces these with its own versions that have improved modding (though they look the same).  Replopping these stations with the NAM version will give you a higher capacity on the station.  Save your city before doing this, though, as sometimes it's hard to get everything back together in a highly-developed portion of your city when you remove something and try to replop it.

[Joe 90 358]

Nevermind - solved my issue myself

[Crowbarr 1]

I'm having a slight problem, I'm missing the intersection texture for an avenue crossing through 2 R3 or higher pieces.

 

Basically I line two R4 lanes up next to each other (two tiles wide, just like an avenue) but if I try to cross it THROUGH an avenue, I get a missing intersection texture.

 

The road exists, there's just not an intersection. Anyone else getting this?

-----

I removed everything from plugins, installed NAM 3.2 and still get this same problem. I cannot connect an avenue THROUGH a RHW larger than R2.

 

It just gives me the grass underneath, but RHW is visible if I hover over the missing intersection area.

 

Ah its weird.

-----

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ug08xg&s=5#.UtlwhxB9Lcs

  Edited January 17, 2014 by Ganaram Inukshuk  
Merged posts together, moved posts to appropriate topic

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I'm having a slight problem, I'm missing the intersection texture for an avenue crossing through 2 R3 or higher pieces.

That's because the only two RealHighway networks designed to cross with Avenue at-grade is RHW-2 and MIS. Anything higher than that will result in the blank crossings. The reason for the blank crossings is not to create at-grade crossings, but to create overpasses with much of the new functionality that NAM version thirty-two (not three-point-two) brings and to help create a specific type of diamond interchange.

[Crowbarr 1]

Ah okay. Thank you very much for the quick reply. Now to try to get my head around building highways and overpasses, underpasses, man there's so much to this game.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Ah okay. Thank you very much for the quick reply. Now to try to get my head around building highways and overpasses, underpasses, man there's so much to this game.

The traditional method of building overpasses using the NAM is, at best, archaic and unflexible, so a lot of new setups won't be even supported using just basic puzzle pieces. NAM version thirty-two uses a new method that adds draggable versions of these overpasses and viaducts; I suggest you familiarise yourself with that rather than the puzzle-based counterpart.

[Joe 90 358]

New rails in NAM32 look the biz, but the pathing is doing funny things:

Everything is normal for puzzle pieces (curves, switches etc.) but straight rails have no paths at all, rendering the railway useless. Can't drive on it in UDI or anything. Any ideas?

[Wiimeiser 444]

I don't think RRW had LHD paths properly implemented. Thus, you confirm my problem isn't an installer issue.

[Kjarbarey 12]

New rails in NAM32 look the biz, but the pathing is doing funny things:

Everything is normal for puzzle pieces (curves, switches etc.) but straight rails have no paths at all, rendering the railway useless. Can't drive on it in UDI or anything. Any ideas?

 

Memo posted lht paths on SC4D and I'm yet to try them out; I've been having the same problems as Wiimeiser with much of NAM 32 in lht.

 

Edit: Those paths do work, although I'm getting RHT paths on RRW under some road viaducts, but that might have something to do with my NAM install seemingly being borked. The rest of my problems seem to be related to getting the alternative texture sets working.

  Edited January 19, 2014 by Kjarbarey  

[Sabretooth78 808]

(I apologize in advance for another picture-laden question. )

 

Is there a FAR-2 to orthogonal "long curve"?  I've built a FAR-2 which hugs a river perfectly in one of my cities (through hilly terrain, no less), before I realized I didn't know how to terminate it.  Therefore, to the sandbox I went, and this is where it took me.

 

I can drag out a FAR-3 long curve, no problem.  It looks alright, I guess, on the FAR-2, but seeing as I can make FAR-2 to orthogonal and diagonal short curves, I find it odd that I can't do the long curve:

 

 

I can almost get there by sticking in a short segment of FAR-2 on the orthogonal side, but using the FAR-3 curve is definitely better looking.  No manner of clicking all over the place seems to resolve this one properly:

 

Taking that and adding a small diagonal stretch to the middle and we're finally onto something, albeit the footprint of the curve is growing and we are beginning to violate Occam's Razor:

 

Another alternative is a small stretch of FAR-3 on the FAR-2 end:

 

Or we can just go ultra-basic and forget the curve altogether - perhaps not a bad option for a country road hugging terrain:

 

Any suggestions as to what I might be doing wrong?  Or does the piece just simply not exist?

 

 

 

Also, on a related note, is there any way to connect a dragged FAR-3 to a puzzle piece FAR-3?  Just curious.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Is there a FAR-2 to orthogonal "long curve"?

There's currently no FAR-2 long curve.