NAM General Support

[Tarkus 6,932]

I believe the file in question was z2_EU_RHW-Mipmaps.dat.  The most likely reason it affects the RHW-6S is because it's a model-based network (due to the overhang).  Having very long, RL-interrupted development cycles makes it very easy to forget things like this, unfortunately.  I've just pulled it out of my build folder, however, so it shouldn't be in NAM 37.

-Tarkus

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

I am having trouble with hole diggers. It is my first time using them (uh-oh!). My NAM is 36, and I have zero experience with earlier versions. My current aim is to blow an orthogonal (N-S) avenue tunnel under a perpendicular (E-W) TLA-7. I'm stumped.

I just finished searching the entire NAM 36 "Documentation" folder (and subfolders) for the word "digger". I turned up exactly three hits, and each only mentioned existence or was a broken link that took me back to the root of NAM documentation. As far as I can tell, there is no actual how-to-use documentation for hole diggers & raisers (and no, I am not going to read all 103 megabytes of NAM text to see if there's a digger & raiser explanation that happened to avoid the words "digger" and "raiser").

In game, I've tried a variety of road and digger combinations at various distances from my "obstacle" (the TLA-7), including placing the digger on empty terrain not adjacent to or pointing at anything. Most plops simply place a road cell with a back-hoe on it without digging down at all. Many attempts are rejected (illegal placement). Once in a blue moon, something depresses 15' (or 14'), but often not what I want or expect.

I spent an hour trying to discern the "rule" (RUL) through experimentation, but none of my hypotheses bear out. I give up. There are too many variables (digger lot arrow, proximity to network along, network perpendicular, etc) for me to decode the secret handshake known only to the shadowy elite NAM illuminati. I tried what I thought was every reasonable (to me) paradigm, but nothing is repeatable.

Can somebody please explain NAM-36 hole-digger logic and usage? Plus, you'd do the world a favor if you could paste your explanation into the NAM 36/37 docs, being sure to include the keyword "digger" so that future ignorati need not suffer as I have.

Many thinks!  

[APSMS 1,892]

Jeffry, assuming that you're using the diggers found in the Road menu (the automatic ones), these are based on RUL code, meaning of course that you can use the TAB key to cycle through the options. It also means that they auto-raise or lower the terrain, with the caveat that they will tend to destroy lower-ranked networks in the area (typically referring to RHW, their most common usage purpose).

The catch with all digger lots (including the draggable ones) is that they're restricted by the minimum terrain, typically 250m, meaning that they won't work properly, or at all, if you're trying to lower the ground below the water table. Part of this problem is related to the fact that the water table in SC4 is not dynamic (alas, another feature cut before release), the other problem is that typically due to the way that the game runs the code, if it can't fulfill the parameters in the code, it won't change the terrain at all.

I strongly suspect that you aren't having any issues using the network raisers are you? Those seem to work just fine?

The lot diggers/raisers that you have to drag the road network through will also fail to work if the terrain is too low (or won't let you drag through them). Either way, the ones in the Misc. Transportation Menu are TE LOTs and require that you drag through them for them to do the raising/lowering as indicated, but probably won't function properly within 1 or 2 tiles of a previously built network due to how the game renders terrain and network slopes.

[amrodkun 0]

On 7/16/2017 at 5:05 PM, dogabone said:

Hello everyone. I am facing a strange problem with NAM installation on Linux. As shown in the attached image (and webm video), the installer gets stuck at some point and presents that graphical glitch.

The text in portuguese reads "Extract: 0100_CanNAM.txt"

I am using Arch Linux, fully up to date. My SC4 is the Steam Version, and I have checked that it is running correctly by creating a new region and playing 2 cities in it, averaging 6 hours without crashes or bugs. The NAM installer is the latest one, 35.

I am playing using WINE, latest version: 2.12. Arch Linux has two wine packages, the standard one and the staging version. Both are compiled with 64bit support. To troubleshoot my problem I have tried using 32bit and 64bit prefixes, with wine and wine-staging (at least 4 tests). After each failed test, I completely removed the wine prefix, thus removing the windows registry and all game installation files. I also cleaned the SC4 folder that goes into My Documents, where the plugins are installed. Before each test I checked that SC4 alone was running correctly. I also tried some variation of NAM options (first, second and complete install options, didn't try the custom one) with each wine prefix, before deleting them.

I also tested that same NAM package with Windows 8.1, and it installed perfectly.

The installer was able to run the cleanitool and the Large Address patch, before getting stuck in that condition.

I know that probably this isn't a NAM problem, but I would like some help or at least know if someone else encountered the same behavior for the installer.

Thanks in advance.

 

EDIT:

Forgot to add that I was also checking my operating system during the install. When it gets stuck, no disk operation is getting done, so it is not copying anything in the background. Also, that file 0100_CanAM.txt is created, but stays with 0 bytes. The installer task goes close to 95% CPU use. I tried to check the task with strace, but that proved to be too much for me, it seems to be looping at the same thing over and over, but I do not have the knowledge to interpret what is going on.

SC4.webm

I found a workaround for this, go back to Wine 1.8.x installation, install NAM and then go to 2.12+ if you're using Steam installation.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

4 hours ago, APSMS said:

assuming that you're using the diggers found in the Road menu

Aha, that's interesting... The diggers I found are on the misc transport menu, just above the RTMT stations. Maybe they're not even NAM things (so maybe their coverage/linkage in the NAM doc isn't an immediate concern).

I'll look in the road menu to see if there's something intuitive that I can use without documentation. Failing that, I'll be trying to figure out where my benighted diggers came from so I might hunt down the doc on them.

And no, I haven't tried any raisers. I'm trying to punch under some Maxis highways and RRW rails.

[rsc204 21,808]

For clarity there are two sets of such lots, the "Standard" set, which can be found in the Misc. Transit menu. These require you to drag through them with a network to raise/lower the terrain. There is a additional "Auto-Destruct" set, which is found in the road menu, use TAB/Pg Up/Pg Down to select the desired option and plop to alter the terrain.

Personally I prefer the auto-destruct versions, but whichever you have will have been selected during NAM installation. If one set is missing, re-run the NAM installer with a custom install to select them. Find the options under "Additional Features and Customizations" / "Hole Diggers and Ground Raisers".

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

13 hours ago, rsc204 said:

the "Standard" set, which can be found in the Misc. Transit menu. These require you to drag through them with a network to raise/lower the terrain.

Wow, I never would have guessed that. Which way should the drag-digger's arrow face?

The paradigm would be really useful info to have in the NAM doc at a place labeled "Raisers" and "Diggers" and linked from the places that mention them.

I wonder if side-by-side drag-diggers would enable tunneling a TLA-5. I'll try a few permutations to see what happens.

 

13 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Personally I prefer the auto-destruct versions

I found those and was able to make a my tunnel after some blown attempts.

Note to future self: It's important to do one's digging at more than minimum distance. I think I had to dig at the third or fourth cell away from the object to be undercut, otherwise the tunnel would ghost but fail. Also, if tunneling double-wide, one should dig one lane back far enough to lay road, and then use a parallel street to bring the adjacent lane down to the same level.

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 10/22/2017 at 4:01 PM, jeffryfisher said:

The paradigm would be really useful info to have in the NAM doc at a place labeled "Raisers" and "Diggers" and linked from the places that mention them.

Originally, at one point during the documentation revamp, one such document/section was planned, but in the interest of time, and with the feature set for NAM 36 basically wrapped up, it never went beyond that.  There were a few other planned sections that didn't end up coming together,  but we hope to cover those in the near future.

-Tarkus

[olegario39 52]

how do you do that small turning lane thingy that's encircled in green (or whatever it is called)?

 

[rsc204 21,808]

This requires that you are using the new FTL feature of NAM 36. Use the OWR tool to drag one part and the Road tool to connect them up. Which goes where depends on your use of either LHD or RHD in-game, follow the diagram below:

[citycowboy 183]

I have a question. In the NAM36 literature, it reads that the traffic simulator has been fixed. Is this the same as the old simulator, or is there anything new regarding traffic and traffic patterns? Is the continuous loop still there? Has there been any changes to the distance a sim will travel? anything helps. thanks. 

[Tarkus 6,932]

The NAM Traffic Simulator has undergone virtually no change since the introduction of the Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool (TSCT) in 2011 (NAM 30), and even those were small changes from the initial Simulator Z model of 2009.  It's "fixed" compared to the Maxis simulator, but it hasn't been fixed anymore than it had been in the past several years.  The Eternal Commuter Loop would require a fair bit of .exe modification to solve, so it's out of our purview. 

The only real recent development with the simulator is another capacity boost trick that was discovered earlier this month, which may find its way to the NWM or FLEX Turn Lanes (FTLs).

-Tarkus

[Propfam 2,288]

On 10/29/2017 at 11:25 PM, rsc204 said:

This requires that you are using the new FTL feature of NAM 36. Use the OWR tool to drag one part and the Road tool to connect them up. Which goes where depends on your use of either LHD or RHD in-game, follow the diagram below:

This is called a slip lane.

Nice documentation!

[monkeywater 910]

This is perhaps  silly question, I'm looking for what should be a simple puzzle piece

elevated highway (15m, maxis) to ground highway on 15m embankment.  Not a slopey trasition from ground to elevated highway, but a flat piece to have a elevated highway attach to a ground highway raised 15 m up using terrain.

[matias93 7,535]

24 minutes ago, monkeywater said:

This is perhaps  silly question, I'm looking for what should be a simple puzzle piece

elevated highway (15m, maxis) to ground highway on 15m embankment.  Not a slopey trasition from ground to elevated highway, but a flat piece to have a elevated highway attach to a ground highway raised 15 m up using terrain.

Given you installed the NAM and the extra pieces for the Maxis Highway, there are two on-slope ramps (so they are called), orthogonal and diagonal, on the ramps tab-ring IIRC.

[monkeywater 910]

14 hours ago, matias93 said:

Given you installed the NAM and the extra pieces for the Maxis Highway, there are two on-slope ramps (so they are called), orthogonal and diagonal, on the ramps tab-ring IIRC.

Found it! thanks!  it was longer than the avenue version, so I missed it initially.  thansk!

[Wiimeiser 444]

Also, there's a bug with the slip lane where they become unstable on single-tile networks for some reason.

On 22/10/2017 at 2:15 PM, APSMS said:

minimum terrain, typically 250m, meaning that they won't work properly, or at all, if you're trying to lower the ground below the water table. Part of this problem is related to the fact that the water table in SC4 is not dynamic

AFAIK only the terrain modification tools (Either God Mode or the paid Mayor Mode tools) can affect terrain below 250/251 in any way whatsoever, the Sinkhole bug is the sole exception either way.

[rsc204 21,808]

8 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

Also, there's a bug with the slip lane where they become unstable on single-tile networks for some reason.

Not so much a bug, but a lack of stability code when too many are used on a single intersection. This is because the ID of the slip lane entry/exit pieces is different from the regular pieces. So when they surround the intersection tile, it will take a lot of extra code to prevent destabilisation. Given NAM36 saw the introduction of these pieces, I'm sure in future this will be improved upon.

[matias93 7,535]

9 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

Also, there's a bug with the slip lane where they become unstable on single-tile networks for some reason.

AFAIK only the terrain modification tools (Either God Mode or the paid Mayor Mode tools) can affect terrain below 250/251 in any way whatsoever, the Sinkhole bug is the sole exception either way.

In fact, I've been able to use the self-destructing digger lots to make underwater terraforming, but I'm also pretty sure than the normal digger lots (the ones in the misc transportation menu) don't work as well

[monkeywater 910]

Does a 90 degree turn tram on pedmall puzzle piece exist?

[Tarkus 6,932]

On 1/2/2018 at 11:54 AM, monkeywater said:

Does a 90 degree turn tram on pedmall puzzle piece exist?

No, only straight orthogonal tracks presently have a Pedmall variant.  There are no plans to make such a piece, mainly due to the fact that, for the past few years, the NAM Team has had a policy of avoiding the creation of static puzzle pieces whenever possible.  It is possible that such functionality could be incorporated if/when the Pedmalls get a draggable treatment, however (that's long been on the list, though it has yet to happen).

On another note, it was recently discovered that there was a pathing issue with the Type 120 FTL intersections with the Street network (thanks yddot).  This issue has now been fixed on our end, and a patch can be downloaded below.  Simply place the .dat file contained in the .zip into your My Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins\z___NAM folder, thereby ensuring it loads after the base FTL file.

-Tarkus 

Type 120 x Street Fix_06Jan18.zip

[monkeywater 910]

9 hours ago, Tarkus said:

No, only straight orthogonal tracks presently have a Pedmall variant.  There are no plans to make such a piece, mainly due to the fact that, for the past few years, the NAM Team has had a policy of avoiding the creation of static puzzle pieces whenever possible.  It is possible that such functionality could be incorporated if/when the Pedmalls get a draggable treatment, however (that's long been on the list, though it has yet to happen).

On another note, it was recently discovered that there was a pathing issue with the Type 120 FTL intersections with the Street network (thanks yddot).  This issue has now been fixed on our end, and a patch can be downloaded below.  Simply place the .dat file contained in the .zip into your My Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins\z___NAM folder, thereby ensuring it loads after the base FTL file.

-Tarkus 

Type 120 x Street Fix_06Jan18.zip

Ah, that is unfortunate!  I presume the same answer for the lack of 90 degree turning FLUP under pedmall puzzle pieces as well

[Handyman 765]

18 hours ago, monkeywater said:

Ah, that is unfortunate!  I presume the same answer for the lack of 90 degree turning FLUP under pedmall puzzle pieces as well

@monkeywater The 90 degree pieces are on the same selection as the straight pieces, you have to rotate through the pieces with the 'Home/End' keys.

All the ' T ' and ' X ' pieces are on a separate selection that includes the under Pedmall and under RRW pieces, again you have to use the 'Home/End' keys to see them all. The only downside is these pieces only come in the off white cement color.

[towerpower123 1]

I love the NAM and have used it at least since the 29th version. However, this time it is having all kinds of problems with default Maxis surface rail tool. All other forms work well, except the Real Railway or any other rail texture disappears. It just looks like a plain green space. Rail from the existing cities before NAM still show regularly as well as any single tile cross of rail. Draggable rail disappears. I downloaded several dependencies and none have fixed the problem and tried several installation options including using the default Maxis rail. I am still missing a dependency? I attempted an install on a fresh folder with no background images and it still has the same problem.

[rsc204 21,808]

The default Maxis Rail, along with any NAM addons for it use one system. Whereas RealRailway (RRW) uses another entirely, the two are not inter-operable, you must choose one or the other. It looks like what has happened is that the RRW code/files are installed, but the textures are not. The bulk of the RRW textures use unique IDs, so in such a scenario, the rail textures appear missing.

You can easily verify this (NAM 36), by checking the folder z___NAM\y_RealRailway\Textures, that should contain many files. If it doesn't or the folder is missing, it would explain what you are seeing.

To fix it, re-run the NAM installer, choosing a custom installation and ensuring the box "Run Cleanitol and the Station Updater" is ticked. Also make sure no Maxis Rail options are selected and that the RRW is selected (it shouldn't be possible to select both). This process should ensure you end up with the correct set of files for RRW to work without issue. Alternately, if you want to stick with Maxis Rail, just ensure that box is ticked instead of RRW.

[Tarkus 6,932]

The NAM does not have any external dependencies, but things like this can happen as a result of an installation error.  As rsc204 mentioned above, from context, is that you somehow ended up with the INRUL file for the RealRailway (RRW) system, without the actual RRW plugin itself, giving you a mismatch, of two incompatible systems.

If you're wanting Maxis Rail, the easiest solution would be to look in your My Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins\Network Addon Mod\INRUL Overrides folder for a file called RealRailway_Core_INRULs.dat and remove it.  If you're wanting RealRailway, re-install the NAM as described above--I'd advise doing so right over top of your existing installation, so as to ensure your existing choice of options with the rest of the mod remains in place.

-Tarkus

[APSMS 1,892]

This problem was solved in chat. It was indeed an installation error, but the cause was that the NAM was installing to the right folder for the wrong installation, namely that his Steam installation was reading plugins from the installation folder in Program Files and the generic (public) Documents folder instead of the "My Documents" folder. Somehow this installation error wasn't complete which is why it wasn't clear initially what the problem was.

Transferring the NAM files to the right plugins folder solved the problem.

[AlexandrosB13 184]

Hi, i have a question. When i install NAM with avenue turning lanes, the sidewalks act like shown in the picture. These are medium-high wealth residential areas, yet they have that industrial sidewalk. This happens when that avenue goes through an industrial area too. I think this should not happen?? Because i tried installing NAM without turning lanes, and it looks normal. Take a look at the pictures.

With turning lanes (ugly looking sidewalks and no trees:(  )

 

Without (sidewalk for high wealth residential as it should be)

 

I hope i explained this well hehe, also sorry if it's supposed to be like this and this is stupid question. Thanks for the help.

[matias93 7,535]

What happens if you try to isolate the intersection by replacing small stretches of avenue with a couple of one-way roads?

[Tarkus 6,932]

For whatever reason, Maxis designed the Avenue network to work on a "uni-zone/uni-wealth" system, rather than localized zones like the other surface street networks.  The game seems to look at the zone and wealth types fronting all the base orthogonal Avenue tiles on a connected stretch, then counts up which one has the most, and then assigns a zone/wealth type for the whole stretch according to that.

My guess is that the turn lanes reduce the number of tiles of medium/high-wealth, medium/high-density residential frontage enough that the industrial zone type eclipses it and takes over as the prevailing zone/wealth type.

This behavior is almost certainly hardcoded in the executable, making further control over it more or less off-limits (save for DLL modding, which is the province of exactly one person).  There's two possible workarounds, however.

If you were amenable to shrinking the industrial frontage on the Avenue by a few tiles, or increasing the particular residential zone frontage, that should allow the desired zone/wealth combo to "win", even with the turn lanes.

The other workaround would be to actually do some Type 21 Exemplar ("T21") and texture modding, to overwrite the industrial zone setup with the desired one, though this would replace all instances of the former with the latter.  The texture side of things has actually been handled--Swamper77's old Sidewalk Avenue Mod from 2004 will do the trick there.  The median props would require some work, however.  There are some alternate median prop mods out there on the STEX, however (do a Google search for Avenue median site:community.simtropolis.com/files).

-Tarkus