NAM General Support

[rsc204 21,808]

2 hours ago, Matrim Cauthon said:

Are you using software rendering? HD content requires Hardware rendering to be used as it will generally crash the game in software mode. Sometimes it just doesn't display right, but the typical result is a CTD when the texture is used.

Bear in mind that the specific limitation here is that any textures over 256x256px in size can not be rendered by the Software Renderer. Since BAT's/Models are limited to the 256x256px textures, it's impossible for a (BAT) model to trigger this problem - note that RKT0 or true 3D models can use higher res textures.

More typically this will only be an issue when trying to use things like Water, Rock, Beach and Terrain mods, but that will cause an instant CTD before any city tile opens. It is possible to create game/network textures higher than this limit, but the only ones I know of are Gobias' HD Sidewalks, which use 512x512px textures, but again I'd expect an instant CTD if you tried to load the game with them under software rendering.

4 hours ago, Lazarou Monkey Terror said:

in fact it soon stood out like a sore thumb in my plugins folder 

That's a really old mod as pointed out, but the original certainly didn't use anything HD, simply the light and tree props that came with the game. It could be that you have a mod that overrides the Maxis lights, such as the USL or LRM, whilst I believe Hardware Rendering is necessary for the later, if you are using the non-Maxis light cones, again it's hard to reconcile that with random crashes. Either the unsupported content is present or it's not, if this specific mod were behind the CTDs, you'd expect to get them only when plopping the NAM puzzle pieces that the T21s are applied too.

In any case, that file name doesn't look right to me, is that the original mod or some update/tweak? Would you mind sending me a link to where you got it (or passing me the file), it would allow me to take a peek and see what, if anything, might be problematic.

1 hour ago, ulisse said:

Also many mods pre NAM 37 do not work well with current NAM

Could you give me an example?

I don't know where this information is coming from, but I've heard it a few times recently and with one exception, RHW mods made before NAM 30, this is total bunk. Sure, a cosmetic mod that hasn't been updated to reflect all the new content, won't be complete, but there is no technical reason why they won't work just as they always did.

The problem with RHW is related to the P57 update, when the ID scheme of the RHW mod was changed, so any mods made using the old ID scheme, simply can't work any more. It's not as simple as just re-IDing the content either, because as part of P57, a standardised rotation was implemented, so any S3D models, T21 mods and the like would need serious modifications to be compatible. That said, I believe there are like 4 or 5 T21 mods that land in this category, so it's really not a common issue. But aside from that, as a rule of thumb the NAM takes legacy support very seriously, ensuring existing cities for the most part, won't have problems after upgrading to a newer NAM version.

[Tarkus 6,932]

15 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

In any case, that file name doesn't look right to me, is that the original mod or some update/tweak? Would you mind sending me a link to where you got it (or passing me the file), it would allow me to take a peek and see what, if anything, might be problematic.

I just did a little search out of curiosity, and found it.  It's an optional "bonus pack" included in the Maxis Tree HD Replacement Mod by @T Wrecks, from 2017.

In general, we don't recommend using any of sithlrd98's old mods anymore, in large part because they're not really necessary.  Those mods were created back when the Wide Radius Curves and Fractional Angle items were all puzzle pieces, and as such, didn't properly support wealth textures/sidewalks.  Most of those items have since been converted to draggable or FLEX forms, which do support wealth textures/sidewalks.  The ones that haven't yet are planned to get converted at some point in the near future.

-Tarkus

[Lazarou Monkey Terror 1,819]

58 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

I just did a little search out of curiosity, and found it.  It's an optional "bonus pack" included in the Maxis Tree HD Replacement Mod by @T Wrecks, from 2017.

In general, we don't recommend using any of sithlrd98's old mods anymore, in large part because they're not really necessary.  Those mods were created back when the Wide Radius Curves and Fractional Angle items were all puzzle pieces, and as such, didn't properly support wealth textures/sidewalks.  Most of those items have since been converted to draggable or FLEX forms, which do support wealth textures/sidewalks.  The ones that haven't yet are planned to get converted at some point in the near future.

-Tarkus

I can testify to that, I've deleted that file and NAM is working like a dream! 
Thrilled at all the things you guys have done with it. 

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

Currently, one of the highest priorities for the NAM team is the complete phase-out of puzzle piece content. Be assured that during the next versions we'll continue adding full FLEX implementations of numerous types of puzzle piece content; and some of the newer team members are specifically interested in updating and expanding the functionality of these through FLEX and draggable counterparts.

[rsc204 21,808]

42 minutes ago, Lazarou Monkey Terror said:

I can testify to that, I've deleted that file and NAM is working like a dream! 

Whereas on the flip side, I've just installed said mod and it's giving me no problems whatsoever, so it would be unfair to suggest there is something wrong with the mod in question. I've ran the file through DataNode, which didn't report any problems, I've also opened it with my T21 tools and could not find issue with the data there either. Perhaps something else in your setup, causes problems when you try to use it in conjunction with this file/mod. Frankly, I'm running on a very lean test setup here right now, but that's rather the point. Short of spending hours plopping these pieces over and over, there isn't really a lot of doubt in my mind that this mod both works and is not in any way faulty.

Whilst I get, and support, the NAM team transitioning away from these legacy pieces, I wish to be very clear, there is nothing technically wrong with any of them.

[polargipsy 0]

MAC  - crashes of large cities. Hi, after installing NAM I began having random crashes during networks development, hovering around (0 issues before that). Do I need to start a brand new region, can't work on top of existing cities? Are there any additional steps? I use hardware rendering, NAM is the only plugin I have. Thanks.

[rsc204 21,808]

There is an issue with the Mac version, where if you go beyond a certain number of folders/files in Plugins, it leads to much instability in-game. The solution is to DATPack the NAM, which should be mentioned in the included documentation, because by itself it will push you over this limit. However, DATPacking is generally mandatory for Mac users as a result of this problem.

[samisu84 2]

MAC - I have an issue with SC4 running NAM v43 , how in the hell I can change the NAM ugly brown rail texture  to the default Maxis blue modern look texture , I been trying for a while now nothing worked?? any suggestions ??

[rsc204 21,808]

24 minutes ago, samisu84 said:

how in the hell I can change the NAM ugly brown rail texture  to the default Maxis blue modern look texture

Well the short answer is, you can't.

The default RRW textures replace those by Maxis and when it became the NAM standard, matching textures simply don't exist to handle all of the new Rail content, mainly because the entire specification of Rail has been transformed.

A lot of hard work went into the RRW ReSkin project, this provides an automated set of tools that can be used to alter the appearance of the RRW Textures, in effect allowing for infinite customisations to be made with very little effort. I'm not suggesting you do that, but a number of ready to go alternatives exist that have come from that process. I for example have one set you can find here, a handful of others have also been released, including a Maxis 'Look-a-like' texture by Rivit and a whole bunch of options by TheCouncill0r.

Hopefully there will at least be a alternative option you do like.

[EffTheGrid 3,669]

Hey NAM team. Does this intersection exist? // Does this BAT fit anywhere? Thanks

[rsc204 21,808]

FA-Road T-Intersections for FA3 is a thing, + intersections too, but if your lot it TEd, that might explain the issue on the top, then again it could just be it's proximity to the broken connection two tiles down also. You can't drag FAR3 into the lower intersection like that for sure, which is definitely why the lower part is glitching.

Are you looking to line things up in SC4BAT?, for tasks like this I make ground planes of 16x16m and add the relevant network textures, which helps to line everything up perfectly with the intended placement in-game.

[gbdias 6]

I'm currently running both the Shinkansen Bullet Train Mod and El Rail Alternate Implementation from NAM 36 on NAM 43, I've read that these projects would get a separate release eventually, will this happen in the near future?

Besides that, when I try to make a simply interchange with either one of these mods, I get these texture "errors":

Is there any available fix for this? 

[Tarkus 6,932]

1 hour ago, gbdias said:

I'm currently running both the Shinkansen Bullet Train Mod and El Rail Alternate Implementation from NAM 36 on NAM 43, I've read that these projects would get a separate release eventually, will this happen in the near future?

Besides that, when I try to make a simply interchange with either one of these mods, I get these texture "errors":

Is there any available fix for this? 

That's still planned.  There's been some attempts at assembling new installers/builds for them behind the scenes, and they've even been tested a little bit, but have not been greenlit for release. 

That particular issue is also applicable to the base networks (not just the Shinkansen/BTM and Alt El-Rail), and is tied to the remnants of a "realism" effort to get rid of the Maxis "rail roundabout" setups by the NAM's Rail developers in 2009-2010. The "realism" effort works fine for a single Y-branch, but not for dual-sided W-branches on all sides.  It's a RUL-related issue, and there is no fix at present.

-Tarkus

[rsc204 21,808]

3 hours ago, Tarkus said:

There's been some attempts at assembling new installers/builds for them behind the scenes, and they've even been tested a little bit, but have not been greenlit for release. 

I'd like to take those under my wing, since I've pretty much single-handedly been updating both mods for some while. At the time these first popped up (as cosmetic addons), I simply didn't have the time to get into it, but given my knowledge of the inner-workings of both, I am confident I could get things straight in a realistic time-frame. Not least ensuring the RHW updates I have are finally pushed to end users, after the mods got pulled from NAM 37, they've been languishing on my Hard Drive.

[gbdias 6]

15 hours ago, Tarkus said:

he "realism" effort works fine for a single Y-branch, but not for dual-sided W-branches on all sides.  It's a RUL-related issue, and there is no fix at present.

Just for the record, a simple Y-branch will also display the same error, on both mods.

[Tarkus 6,932]

16 hours ago, gbdias said:

Just for the record, a simple Y-branch will also display the same error, on both mods.

Thanks for the further report--I've begun looking into the situation in further detail, and it's . . . quite the mess.  It looks like (based off what I'm seeing in the RUL2 code) that the code for the realism effort was added in 2009 (likely for NAM 25), and pulled in NAM 32 because of these sorts of issues, but they still exist somehow,  likely due to some model replacements in one of the core files.

-Tarkus

Edit (8:08am UTC-8:00): I've investigated both the NAM's core files and the Shinkansen/BTM files.  I've been able to restore the base El-Rail and Monorail to their Maxis configurations by removing some modified/re-IIDed models, but the Shinkansen/BTM (and likely Alt El-Rail) models were designed to align with the unstable/unfinished NAM 25 realism effort, not the Maxis defaults.  Fixing this would mean fixing the realism initiative, rather than restoring the Maxis default configuration.  The way RUL2 works, it's generally an all-or-nothing sort of thing, aside from some spots we can easily cut out via the Controller Compiler (a few lines of code in the Maxis base section isn't one of those spots).  My attempts to try to fix the realism initiative have . . . not gone well, due to lots of weird placeholder IIDs and other opaque things that Maxis and the early NAMites did with the networks, which also stymied the very capable NAMites who were involved with the NAM 25 effort in the first place.

[atsf189 460]

I am trying my first mod of a Hybrid Railway Station.

Why is the train attempting to climb onto the mono rail at the beginning and end of the lot .

I noticed that HRW Union station does not do this. I used the same props. The only difference

I can see is my lot is 8 tiles wide see below:

[rsc204 21,808]

1 hour ago, atsf189 said:

Why is the train attempting to climb onto the mono rail at the beginning and end of the lot .

I noticed that HRW Union station does not do this. I used the same props. The only difference

When you use a default TE transit type in SC4 Tool, it assigns the default paths for that network. Monorail being by default at 15 or 15.5m, means the paths too will be at 15 or 15.5m, hence the automata 'jumping', because the HRW is a monorail-based override.

Check the current stations using SC4 Tool, by right clicking on a tile, then selecting the option 'Edit Reps (Expert)', they will have defined a custom path instead (Rep 16), which is likely just the NAM straight piece:

You need to add this path ID - 0x5DA40001F for every tile of the TEing manually, then adjust the other TE settings to account for any differences in rotation that may require. I'd also advise you speak with @Tyberius06 and @ulisse for some help, because HRW requires special switches to work properly and they are the most familiar with such setups.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

41 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

When you use a default TE transit type in SC4 Tool, it assigns the default paths for that network. Monorail being by default at 15 or 15.5m, means the paths too will be at 15 or 15.5m, hence the automata 'jumping', because the HRW is a monorail-based override.

Check the current stations using SC4 Tool, by right clicking on a tile, then selecting the option 'Edit Reps (Expert)', they will have defined a custom path instead (Rep 16), which is likely just the NAM straight piece:

You need to add this path ID - 0x5DA40001F for every tile of the TEing manually, then adjust the other TE settings to account for any differences in rotation that may require. I'd also advise you speak with @Tyberius06 and @ulisse for some help, because HRW requires special switches to work properly and they are the most familiar with such setups.

Follow rsc204's advice on the issue of HRW station paths.

In addition, HRW is a delicate transport network that requires special switches positioned in the right way to have the functional lot. (With NAM 44 I release the first HRW<->Subway converters which are the most delicate thing SC4 has seen). If you want more information you can also come and visit me on Discord (ST and SC4Devotion) as it is a very long discussion for HRW (In addition to creating a station compatible with NAM standards)

Also I advise you at the end of the work to run the patch for REP BUG which is easily solved using pim-x

[atsf189 460]

Thank You

I would have never figured that out on my own.

It sure is simple when you know how to work the program

[franyer 305]

I return to the topic of wanting to incorporate some improvements from NAM 43 to NAM 36, copying the RUL of said improvements (such as the FLEX NWM WRC or the REW). My question is:
Would this work? Would adding the RULs and the folders of said improvements work in NAM 36? I just have to experiment but if it doesn't work, am I doing something wrong? I await your answers and thank you...

[Flann 1,709]

22 minutes ago, franyer said:

I return to the topic of wanting to incorporate some improvements from NAM 43 to NAM 36, copying the RUL of said improvements (such as the FLEX NWM WRC or the REW). My question is:
Would this work? Would adding the RULs and the folders of said improvements work in NAM 36? I just have to experiment but if it doesn't work, am I doing something wrong? I await your answers and thank you...

Hello, your interest in the NAM 43 improvements is appreciated.  However, what you are attempting to do is not advised.  While you could technically move the RUL files back to the NAM 36 installation and compile the controller there, you would be missing all of the files the game needs to actually make these networks function, like models, textures and paths.  Furthermore, it's very likely that the new RUL contains reference to elements which have been re-ID'd since NAM 36, meaning that instead of adding functionality, you'd more likely be breaking a lot of it.

May I ask what is your reason for not simply upgrading to NAM 43?

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

36 minutes ago, franyer said:

I return to the topic of wanting to incorporate some improvements from NAM 43 to NAM 36, copying the RUL of said improvements (such as the FLEX NWM WRC or the REW). My question is:
Would this work? Would adding the RULs and the folders of said improvements work in NAM 36? I just have to experiment but if it doesn't work, am I doing something wrong? I await your answers and thank you...

I do not advise you to do because:

1 NAM 43 has a completely different system with NAM 36. Then copying NAM 43 RUL code and copying it into NAM 36 RUL code can cause you problems with the game and therefore it is more difficult to diagnose the problem if CTD occurs.

2 TEAM NAM does not provide support for older versions of NAM (Old NAM versions are rubbish)

3 If you have a computer with a RAM of 4GB I recommend you install NAM 43 with the LOW RAM /NO RHW controller (Use the compiler to insert a basic set for RHW)

4 If you have a computer with a minimum of 8 GB of RAM can install NAM 43 with running bat files that automatically install you the 4GB patch

[franyer 305]

@Flann and @ulisse thanks for you answers, I cannot install NAM 43 because I've 2GB of RAM and I want to use RHW

[rsc204 21,808]

Right, but adding more RUL code, eventually you'll run into the same problem, because if you push things much further than a full NAM 36 controller, SC4 will run out of RAM. Bear in mind, the 2GB your system has needs to run both the operating system in the background as well as the game. Using the much lighter NAM 36 controller, you are probably already close the limits of what your system could handle. The NAM installer actually was including the 4GB Patch (on compatible systems), all the way back as far as v31.2, because we already knew it made the game more stable for players able to utilise it.

As with the previous answers given, there is also the problem that it's not as simple as just copying the RUL and re-building a new controller. It is much more complicated than this in practise to get any new code to work, because you need the resources for said code. Pulling it all apart in this way and stitching it together as some sort of hybrid, that's very complicated to do even when you are very familiar with the inner-workings of NAM. Doing that otherwise, you are more likely to introduce problems than improve things.

The simple answer here is, we (the NAM team) are not going to be able to help you through this process. If you can make it work by yourself, go ahead, we aren't going to stop you. But we neither support old versions of the NAM, nor can we support such customisations in any way. In other words, you are on your own.

[Paulo S.M. 321]

Hi guys, Need some help please!!
I'm trying to create some portals for a avenue or roads, but all I got is subway lines.
I totally forgot how it was used, but I remember that you had to place the portals, connect them to the main road, and then put them together using subway lines.
But know, all i'm getting is subway lines, no road.
M I doing something wrong?
Is there a step by step guide for it?
Thank you <3
 

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

24 minutes ago, Paulo S.M. said:

Hi guys, Need some help please!!
I'm trying to create some portals for a avenue or roads, but all I got is subway lines.
I totally forgot how it was used, but I remember that you had to place the portals, connect them to the main road, and then put them together using subway lines.
But know, all i'm getting is subway lines, no road.
M I doing something wrong?
Is there a step by step guide for it?
Thank you <3
 

Starting with NAM 41, the Subway FLUPs for U-Road (underground RHW) changed to using separate starter pieces. They no longer drag out of the portals, as that prevented direct side-by-side placement of the dual tile networks (U-Road 4 = RHW-4, and U-Road 6 = RHW-6S). To use these place the portals, build your underground system using the subway, then plop a subway FLUP starter over the Subway. It's strongly advised to use the traffic volume view to see the subway lines while on the surface whenever you place the portals or the starters.

[Tarkus 6,932]

1 hour ago, Paulo S.M. said:

Is there a step by step guide for it?

Yes, the NAM Documentation's FLUPs Feature Guide covers the current implementation of it with the starter pieces.  It was updated back with NAM 41, when the changes were made.

-Tarkus

[atsf189 460]

I just got around to installing NAM 44 and after getting over the shock of the texture change of the Hybrid railway and thinking it messed up my new station lot I noticed this problem with overpasses and level crossing.

Can this be fixed? Do I just need to remake all the overpasses and level crossing?

[Tyberius06 12,189]

6 minutes ago, atsf189 said:

I just got around to installing NAM 44 and after getting over the shock of the texture change of the Hybrid railway and thinking it messed up my new station lot I noticed this problem with overpasses and level crossing.

Can this be fixed? Do I just need to remake all the overpasses and level crossing?

HM... Does this show up with existing cities or freshly plopped overpasses have the same issue too?