NAM General Support

[Tarkus 6,932]

3 hours ago, junspud said:

Sometimes if I delete a tile of TiS, or create a tile of it by plopping an el-r piece on top of the street, the surrounding stretches of street tile dissapear. I can demolish them and it seems like they still exist, but I can't see them anymore and have to bulldoze/replop the street to fix it, is this normal?

That's been changed with the NAM 37 Release Candidate.  One of our no-longer-active developers tried to reimplement ToS such that the initial (Elevated) Light Rail overplop would trigger an override that would change stretches of regular Street (without the overplop) over to ToS.  Late in Alpha Build testing for NAM 37, we discovered that the code for that experimental implementation had been pushed into the NAM's main codebase depository during NAM 35 development in early 2016, without any of us realizing it, and a chance discussion I had with another developer, who was interested in seeing this experimental implementation revisited, turned up this fact.

The reason it wasn't showing up was that the experimental implementation, not having Light Rail network actually as part of the definition of the network tiles, required exemplars with the Street-specific GID, rather than the Light Rail-specific GID, in order to show up and (presumably) function.  The testing I immediately did after adding those exemplars also confirmed my suspicion, that this alternate implementation does not actually allow Light Rail traffic, and is effectively non-functional (having the Light Rail network defined on the tile is necessary).  In effect, the semi-draggable ToS does not work with NAM 35 or NAM 36.

The code for the NAM 37 RC version is identical to how the feature functioned when I initially designed it for NAM 34.  Only tiles with the Light Rail plopped over them will convert to ToS.

-Tarkus

[junspud 1,066]

On 5/4/2020 at 9:25 PM, Tarkus said:

That's been changed with the NAM 37 Release Candidate.  One of our no-longer-active developers tried to reimplement ToS such that the initial (Elevated) Light Rail overplop would trigger an override that would change stretches of regular Street (without the overplop) over to ToS.  Late in Alpha Build testing for NAM 37, we discovered that the code for that experimental implementation had been pushed into the NAM's main codebase depository during NAM 35 development in early 2016, without any of us realizing it, and a chance discussion I had with another developer, who was interested in seeing this experimental implementation revisited, turned up this fact.

The reason it wasn't showing up was that the experimental implementation, not having Light Rail network actually as part of the definition of the network tiles, required exemplars with the Street-specific GID, rather than the Light Rail-specific GID, in order to show up and (presumably) function.  The testing I immediately did after adding those exemplars also confirmed my suspicion, that this alternate implementation does not actually allow Light Rail traffic, and is effectively non-functional (having the Light Rail network defined on the tile is necessary).  In effect, the semi-draggable ToS does not work with NAM 35 or NAM 36.

The code for the NAM 37 RC version is identical to how the feature functioned when I initially designed it for NAM 34.  Only tiles with the Light Rail plopped over them will convert to ToS.

-Tarkus

Interesting,  I've updated to 37RC now, didn't even realize it had been released and have been looking forward to it.

Speaking of draggable dual networks and such, I just realized the TiA is somewhat draggable if you place the EL-R pieces over the avenue instead of using puzzle pieces.

I think this initially happened while I was still using 36, but I had no idea it was possible though I could have just missed any references to it. I knew you could turn the avenue into TiA but not that you could do this with it as well.

[rsc204 21,808]

8 minutes ago, junspud said:

I think this initially happened while I was still using 36, but I had no idea it was possible though I could have just missed any references to it. I knew you could turn the avenue into TiA but not that you could do this with it as well.

I think that surfaced in either NAM 34 or 35, it's hard to keep track. The killer feature for me is the ability for RHW to cross TiA and to intersect MIS with TiA, something previously impossible to do, with the exception of the MHO puzzle piece.

Note too, the same applies for roads to make Tram on Road networks, just click over them with the El-Rail tool.

Another huge advantage, you can place a station, drag Ave or Road both sides away from it, then click the El-Rail tool to connect everything up. It's much quicker than having to resort to Puzzle Pieces, especially if you use the shortcuts to build the networks. (R - Road / CTRL+R - Ave / CTRL+T - El-Rail).

[junspud 1,066]

You can even bulldoze the intersecting/crossing network and then re-do it with another network or leave it as regular TiA, pretty amazing actually, I've just been trying to plan it out and/or do it manually with puzzle pieces.

[deanva 70]

When using the curved pieces like the street or road, will any lots like residential for example, develop or will they get the no road connection zot?

[matias93 7,535]

At least with the draggable curves, the pathing is done in a way that allows for routing to work effectively on all the tiles that are actually occupied by the network, even if they only have a little part of the road itself on it. You will notice this by zoning around them: the tiles that show paving are network tiles and will route.

[deanva 70]

Thanks matais93 I will try it hopefuly they will make a more realistic look than the 90 degree turns. Even though in my neighborhood (built in the 1950's) there are 90 degree turns.

 

[rsc204 21,808]

31 minutes ago, deanva said:

When using the curved pieces like the street or road, will any lots like residential for example, develop or will they get the no road connection zot?

If you turn the paths on, or even just observe the automata (cars), some of the WRC pieces have odd looking paths. To avoid the no road connection zot, every tile of the curve needs to have some sort of road path, in the case of the street S-Curve for example, one tile only needs pedestrian paths due to the geometry. These additional paths, a loop coming off the main path are there precisely to avoid this problem.

So yeah, like Matais said, you should have no problems.

[junspud 1,066]

After updating to NAM37RC, something seems to happened to the SFBT simple TiS station. The existing ones turned invisible, and newly plopped ones are missing the station props so indistinguishable from a regular TiS tile. Tried copying over the station dat file from NAM36 but the no change.

[Ramona Brie 121]

42 minutes ago, junspud said:

After updating to NAM37RC, something seems to happened to the SFBT simple TiS station. The existing ones turned invisible, and newly plopped ones are missing the station props so indistinguishable from a regular TiS tile. Tried copying over the station dat file from NAM36 but the no change.

I suspect this is related to this implementation change...

On 5/4/2020 at 7:25 PM, Tarkus said:

That's been changed with the NAM 37 Release Candidate.  One of our no-longer-active developers tried to reimplement ToS such that the initial (Elevated) Light Rail overplop would trigger an override that would change stretches of regular Street (without the overplop) over to ToS.  Late in Alpha Build testing for NAM 37, we discovered that the code for that experimental implementation had been pushed into the NAM's main codebase depository during NAM 35 development in early 2016, without any of us realizing it, and a chance discussion I had with another developer, who was interested in seeing this experimental implementation revisited, turned up this fact.

The reason it wasn't showing up was that the experimental implementation, not having Light Rail network actually as part of the definition of the network tiles, required exemplars with the Street-specific GID, rather than the Light Rail-specific GID, in order to show up and (presumably) function.  The testing I immediately did after adding those exemplars also confirmed my suspicion, that this alternate implementation does not actually allow Light Rail traffic, and is effectively non-functional (having the Light Rail network defined on the tile is necessary).  In effect, the semi-draggable ToS does not work with NAM 35 or NAM 36.

The code for the NAM 37 RC version is identical to how the feature functioned when I initially designed it for NAM 34.  Only tiles with the Light Rail plopped over them will convert to ToS.

-Tarkus

 

[junspud 1,066]

Just realized, I don't think 37RC includes the SFBT tram stations.

[Tarkus 6,932]

I don't think the station-related issues are due to any changes with Tram-on-Street itself (the stations date well back to the days when ToS was only puzzle pieces), but probably more due to something up with the set of station-related files that's in NAM 37 RC.  We've tried to dial the default installation back to the point where we're just providing a base station or two for each network out of the gate, with the remainder available as additional addons.  It's possible somewhere in the file architecture switcheroo that we created a situation in which certain props may not be installed.  Stations are not my expertise, so this will require some research.

-Tarkus

[rsc204 21,808]

3 hours ago, Tarkus said:

It's possible somewhere in the file architecture switcheroo that we created a situation in which certain props may not be installed.  Stations are not my expertise, so this will require some research.

Sounds likely you are missing the props, since the Lots (stations) are clearly still there and those aren't in the SFBT_TramStreet_Stop.dat file that contains the lot. Note how the sign is limited to a Tram Stop sign on either side of the road, some people are there too, but these are Maxis Props.

Find the file (from a NAM 36 install) SFBT_GLR_Station_Resources.dat in z___NAM\z Props and Models and copy that somewhere into your Plugins folder, that will serve as a workaround for the time being.

[junspud 1,066]

On 5/9/2020 at 8:49 AM, rsc204 said:

Find the file (from a NAM 36 install) SFBT_GLR_Station_Resources.dat in z___NAM\z Props and Models and copy that somewhere into your Plugins folder, that will serve as a workaround for the time being.

I think that'd probably do the trick, for now though I ended up just adding in a few sign props myself in PIM-X.

For what it's worth the sign props did indeed show up as missing with NAM37RC and the SFBT Station loaded into PIM-X, so I'm sure that's what it was. I suppose it makes sense seeing as how the station itself isn't included anymore as part of the install.

[tmoore 5]

Hi, I guess it's a first that I've posted here.
I love NAM and RHW btw!
How do I build on-ramp to an elevated RHW?

Thanks
Morebits

[EffTheGrid 3,669]

Hi, is this the appropriate place to post bug reports in relation to the new release candidate?

I've had three distinct issues so far. 

1) CTD when connecting any el-rail over road pieces to the Beaux-Arts el-rail station

2) missing RHW-6S dual span bridge (I've never used MHO)

3) Drawing FLEX slip lanes has breaks more easily in unconventional situations, namely (RHD) right turn slip lanes connecting orthogonal to diagonal networks. Is there a new way to draw these lanes in relation to real expressway support? Are these connections no longer possible? I will capture a screenshot to clarify next time I'm in-game.

I've been having a blast with the update. Thanks for many years of innovation and support. 

[rsc204 21,808]

On 18/05/2020 at 10:34 AM, Sloppyjoemess said:

1) CTD when connecting any el-rail over road pieces to the Beaux-Arts el-rail station

Are you using this file:

If not, SC4 (not the NAM), contains a bug that causes a CTD when a Puzzle/Starter piece is hovered over a TE lot. Since the El over Road uses Puzzle Pieces and all stations must be TE Lots, you have to be very careful when using such pieces. Or, much better, install SC4Fix and never worry about the issue again.

On 18/05/2020 at 10:34 AM, Sloppyjoemess said:

2) missing RHW-6S dual span bridge (I've never used MHO)

I believe this has been reported already. Note that MHO is just a reskin of the MHY, the point being whether you have MHO installed or not, you must use the Highway tool to create these bidirectional bridges.

Update: added link
So far as I know, the only dedicated support thread for the NAM Preview is over on SC4D. I've give you a direct link, but the site seems to be down at this moment in time.

[junspud 1,066]

Hopefully this isn't too dumb a question, but how do you lay out the ARD-3 for turn lanes, or even just in general so that it doesn't flip around like this?;

 

When I try to line up the turn lanes, either the yellow lines are flipped around, or the turn lanes are facing the opposite side.

This also happens to me when I try to transition from ARD-3 into something else sometimes.

Thanks.

[rsc204 21,808]

20 hours ago, junspud said:

Hopefully this isn't too dumb a question, but how do you lay out the ARD-3 for turn lanes, or even just in general so that it doesn't flip around like this?;

 

When I try to line up the turn lanes, either the yellow lines are flipped around, or the turn lanes are facing the opposite side.

This also happens to me when I try to transition from ARD-3 into something else sometimes.

Thanks.

It’s an issue with the current RUL code, coincidentally something I fixed for use with turn lanes recently. I’ll go back and check the other situation too, hopefully we can get this into the final NAM37 build. 

Ignore this post and see my next one instead:

[rsc204 21,808]

Firstly apologies, I was in the garden replying on my mobile and my previous answer is not quite correct. Shows what happens when I try to access my mind's hard drive, it's more of a crumby 3.5" disk that's got bit rot!

In fact it was the ARD-3 to NRD-4 transitions I had actually fixed, an RUL error meant the ARD-3 could only ever transition in one of the two possible directions.

For the situation in your first screenshot, along with the issue in the second, this occurs because you are trying to do something unsupported. There is no code for dragging two "opposite" facing ARD-3's together like this, the second screenshot simply shows what happens when you try to force things.

Thinking about this, it's of course possible to use RUL2 to make this a draggable transition, as you are trying to use, but I wonder if the existing Puzzle Piece isn't a better solution. Not least because adding such code could potentially lead to unintended stability issues elsewhere. I'll have a play with that and see what I find, code-wise it's little work and wouldn't you know it, we have textures/paths we can reuse from said Puzzle Piece, bonus! 

As mentioned, the original TuLEP implementation contains just such a transition and placed between two FTLs as shown below, the ARD-3 networks should automatically correct themselves. This is because no stability code (or starters) exist either side of this Puzzle Piece, so the direction re-orients based on the stable part of the network, the FTLs. If for some reason that doesn't just happen, simply remove road tiles at least one tile away from the Puzzle Piece (not adjacent), using the RHW Disconnector until the correct overrides are in place and redraw and removed parts.

[junspud 1,066]

Ah I see, didn't realize using the puzzle piece for it was necessary, thanks.

Apologies if this has been mentioned somewhere already, but does the traffic config tool from NAM36 still work with the 37RC? I ask because I thought it was supposed to, but the zones view still displays subway lines even though I have it unchecked in the configuration tool.

 

Edit; NVM my bad, the traffic config tool was pointing to \documents\ instead of the NAM folder for some reason.

[junspud 1,066]

Edit; apologies for this double post, I thought the traffic config was loading the correct file but it was still loading the files from \documents\. After deleting those files the traffic config prompted me to choose the traffic simulator folder and now it seems to have loaded the correct values. For some reason using the 'load' menu and doing it manually and then saving it wasn't working for me.

[RLope 14]

Building in uneven terrain is a lot more difficult with RRW it seems. It's a lot more demanding in terms of keeping a level terrain - which I think is nice dash of realism. 

 

 

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

12 hours ago, RLope said:

Building in uneven terrain is a lot more difficult with RRW it seems. It's a lot more demanding in terms of keeping a level terrain - which I think is nice dash of realism.

Ease or difficulty building transit networks is a function of your "slope mod". I don't think RRW touches it, but if it does, then a lot of players would like to know (because it could be overriding some of our slope settings).

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

That's one thing I've noticed from NAM 37 RC. There's some files which modify tunnel properties for the Maxis Highway Override and the RealRailway, and those do include slope mod settings. I haven't yet notified it to the NAM team members because I want to be very clear in my case, especially since I'm in the process of developing some slope mood goodies (Slope Mod Shoppe and my set of slope mods for publication) and that actually caused me a headache because the default location of my slope mod meant that it was overriden by the NAM 37 RC tunnel files.

[rsc204 21,808]

9 hours ago, Lucario Boricua said:

There's some files which modify tunnel properties for the Maxis Highway Override and the RealRailway, and those do include slope mod settings. I haven't yet notified it to the NAM team members because I want to be very clear in my case...

We are aware that both such sets of Properties exist in the NAM, since we developed them, their inclusion isn't some accident.

In the case of MHO, this has always existed and is necessary for the altered tunnel portals to display correctly. I believe something similar came up during NAM 37 development for RRW, necessitating including this exemplar, but it is new in NAM 37.

The problem for me, is that duplicate Network Tuning properties (the Exemplars that contains Slope, Tunnel, Bridge and other properties by network), can lead to CTDs. Therefore, if you are using a Slope Mod that covers either Rail or MHY, you should do one of the following:

• Remove those parts of your existing slope mod
• Remove the NAM exemplars and edit your slope mod to support the NAM changes
  This of course requires you to remember to remove them for every subsequent NAM install.

I get why such Exemplars have been included, even if it's not really ideal, the alternative being expecting every user to adjust their slope mod manually.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

I get why such Exemplars have been included, even if it's not really ideal, the alternative being expecting every user to adjust their slope mod manually.

We're getting closer to the day when TSCT adds a tab for slope-parameter tuning, locking down the handful of settings required by tunnel display and empowering users to fiddle with all the other things we understand.

I've just been laid off by Boeing, so after July 31 I could take a swing at TSCT... If somebody can figure out how to export it from its proprietary code-management repo (I tried and failed).

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

9 hours ago, rsc204 said:

We are aware that both such sets of Properties exist in the NAM, since we developed them, their inclusion isn't some accident.

In the case of MHO, this has always existed and is necessary for the altered tunnel portals to display correctly. I believe something similar came up during NAM 37 development for RRW, necessitating including this exemplar, but it is new in NAM 37.

The problem for me, is that duplicate Network Tuning properties (the Exemplars that contains Slope, Tunnel, Bridge and other properties by network), can lead to CTDs. Therefore, if you are using a Slope Mod that covers either Rail or MHY, you should do one of the following:

• Remove those parts of your existing slope mod
• Remove the NAM exemplars and edit your slope mod to support the NAM changes
  This of course requires you to remember to remove them for every subsequent NAM install.

I get why such Exemplars have been included, even if it's not really ideal, the alternative being expecting every user to adjust their slope mod manually.

What I did was modify the NAM tunnel exemplars to match my slope mod settings, so far I haven't experienced any issues to date with this set-up.

[rsc204 21,808]

9 hours ago, Lucario Boricua said:

What I did was modify the NAM tunnel exemplars to match my slope mod settings, so far I haven't experienced any issues to date with this set-up.

Which way round you do it doesn't really matter, just so long as you don't keep both sets of settings in Plugins.

I personally would reconfigure your own slope mod files, that way the changes won't get lost when you install NAM again. If you modify the NAM files, then those changes will be wiped out upon re-running the installer. That may not be a problem for you, but I install the NAM a lot and sometimes even I forget to do this, then wonder why I'm getting CTDs suddenly until I remember about this.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

6 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I install the NAM a lot and sometimes even I forget to do this, then wonder why I'm getting CTDs suddenly until I remember about this.

It sounds like such an important safety tip, and slope mods are so popular, that the new NAM installer should probably have a step that tells us not to go further until... and then gives or (points to the explanation) exactly what we need to do.

I don't use dirt roads, so I can probably dump their exemplar out of my personal slope mod in favor of RHW's. But I am fussy about railroads, and I really like having extra smoothing steps in all of my slope exemplars, so I'll have a decision to make (and I'll probably kick the RRW slope exemplar out of NAM). Come to think of it, if the new RHW interchanges make RHW usable, I may do likewise for HRW's exemplar so I get my smoothing steps there too.

I don't suppose the new installer's check-boxes can facilitate those choices and remember them so frequent re-installs aren't a problem?

And just so we who love our slope mods can prepare, can someone tell us here what tunnel setting(s) need what value(s)? I'll happily get to work on mine right now so they're compatible long before NAM 37 hits my plugins folder.