NAM General Support

[Haljackey 17,304]

You can build that ramp at ground level, and then elevated it with a transition.The end result does look a little subpar however which is why that setup does not exist.

Example- I just built this- see how the shoulder of the 6S is being eaten into by the left barrier of the elevated MIS ramp?

If I rotate the camera you can see it more. Shoulder is cannibalized

-

You got me thinking however... I did not consider this and I might be able to build this connection with a 1 tile gap... just pushes the loop a tile south.

 

[jonnboy1976 218]

Thank you @Tarkus.  I will try to fix it when I get back from a trip. 

[xBlaze89x 66]

Does the FHT diagonal only work with L0 to L1? No matter how I try, I can't override it to convert RHW-6S L1 to RHW-6S L2.

[Eggman121 1,035]

38 minutes ago, xBlaze89x said:

Does the FHT diagonal only work with L0 to L1? No matter how I try, I can't override it to convert RHW-6S L1 to RHW-6S L2.

The diagonal FlexHT support for RHW 6s only is L0 to L1. RHW 4s and MIS support incrementally higher levels (L1-L2, L2-L3 and L3-L4) However.

-eggman121 (NAM team member)

[Haljackey 17,304]

On 6/6/2023 at 12:25 AM, Haljackey said:

You can build that ramp at ground level, and then elevated it with a transition.The end result does look a little subpar however which is why that setup does not exist.

Example- I just built this- see how the shoulder of the 6S is being eaten into by the left barrier of the elevated MIS ramp?

If I rotate the camera you can see it more. Shoulder is cannibalized

-

You got me thinking however... I did not consider this and I might be able to build this connection with a 1 tile gap... just pushes the loop a tile south.

 

Yep fixed this up now after having this conversation.

[xBlaze89x 66]

Looks Great!

I can't get smooth ramp transitions to road networks, also no signalized intersections. Also working on diagonals is tough\\\\\\\\\\

 

[Tarkus 6,932]

17 hours ago, xBlaze89x said:

I can't get smooth ramp transitions to road networks, also no signalized intersections. Also working on diagonals is tough\\\\\\\\\\

Diagonal T-intersections are kind of wonky, and that particular configuration (Ortho Road x Diagonal MIS) is probably among the wonkiest.  Diagonal Ts involving NWM networks aren't supported at all, so that's why the OWR-1 fix you attempted on the other side came out wonky.  The +-intersections for both will work, however.  The simple fact is that T-intersections are actually quite a bit more difficult from the modding end.  I'm getting the stuff in place to finally do them properly, but it might take a little while still before they're all ironed out properly.

As far as why there's no signalization, base intersections involving RHW networks or OWRs don't have signals (at least, not on all directions) because those networks don't natively support stop points.  The signals are permanently stuck on green on RHW and OWR approaches as a result, and the OWR network has the added difficulty of the game's RUL system not actually knowing which direction the OWR is headed, so there's a 50% chance the signals would end up on the wrong side.

The SITAP (Signalized Intersection and Turn Arrow Project) system uses FLEX and draggable items to get around this, on both the RHW and OWR fronts, but its scope is still limited, and it doesn't cover diagonals at all at present (and probably won't for some time still).

-Tarkus

[xBlaze89x 66]

Gotcha, the intersections will function though? I can live with it if it's cosmetic only.

[xBlaze89x 66]

Are Diagonal neighbor connections possible? I can't get the flex NC to click over the highway. I'm too close to the edge of the map to add a curve to transition to straight.

[rivit 3,391]

Just had this bug report come in from TheOlympics

In NAM47 it appears some diagonal crossings of extended RoadNetworks - ARD3, RD3, AVE2 and possibly others have the RRW crossing tiles reversed - possibly RUL related. Pathing is correct. Fault was reported in US mode, I can repeat this in Reskin, EU Mode. Also where did the garish Orange Islands come from?

From my test setup:

 

[Tarkus 6,932]

Our internal look at it with both NAM 47 and the current build of NAM 48 show that it's actually working fine.  The issue is most likely with the reskin mod and also with jondor's Railroad Crossing Gate mod (which is where the islands originate). 

Those particular crossings were sort of unofficially added back in NAM 30/NWM 2.0 in 2011.  jondor and I attempted and then abandoned our attempt to add diagonal intersection/crossing support to the NWM back then, after realizing the insane amount of pathing work that was involved, but to curb the requests for that functionality, we left them in place in an unfinished, as-is state, with warnings that they weren't officially supported, and that using them was at one's own risk.  There were a lot of inconsistencies and quirks with how they were designed, especially as they weren't actually finished. 

We finally revisited diagonal NWM intersections/crossings with NAM 46 (January 2023) and finished the single-tile networks' +-intersections and crossings, after @memo managed to automate the pesky pathing tasks.  We did end up changing the orientation of the crossings, to add that needed consistency, and also such that we could easily reuse bits of code from the Road Viaducts and the RHW.  The IID scheme, which wasn't finalized with the 2011 version of the crossings, also changed slightly.

jondor's mod is from 2011, so it's definitely not up-to-date with the NAM 46 version of the crossings.

Additionally, if anyone had versions of these crossings built between NAM 30 and NAM 46, they'd need to be rebuilt by clicking on them, which would correct the rotation to what it currently is.

My original plan for my NAM 48 activities was to expand to cover the single-tile networks' diagonal T-intersections, and then work toward finally giving the multi-tile NWM networks diagonal intersection/crossing coverage, but I needed to deal with some complications with the base Maxis intersections--which also had the side effect of creating complications with the SAM, and meant going down a rabbit hole of fixing Maxis and SAM stuff this cycle.  Then I became occupied with the LEX salvage operations, and have not been able to have much involvement in NAM 48 development.

-Tarkus

[Propfam 2,288]

On 6/9/2023 at 8:46 AM, xBlaze89x said:

Are Diagonal neighbor connections possible?

For RHW, especially not RHW-2, nope. If it's indeed possible, it just comes up very wonky. Won't recommend it.

[rivit 3,391]

@Tarkus - thanks for going into that - I can confirm too that naked (as it were) NAM47 works fine. 

This implies the textures are swapped in the Reskin which means that the FSH numbering is wrong. Given I haven't touched them for several years, had no previous bug reports and I wasn't aware of any changes in this area,  I'm both surprised and confused,  but will add that to the next revision. A bit of work to pin down the IDs then. As for the props - indeed I have Jondors set set, but don't usually make at grade rail crossings, so I've never seen those islands. 

I dont know if TheOlympics was using the Reskin as their screenshot showed standard RRW textures, but I will backtrack with them.

A bit later: 

I've found a number of those textures in the NAM files and they have been rotated 180 relative to their 2017 orientations which confirms the glitch is in the Reskin. Numbering is the same for those. I see there are also some new ones that I haven't got in the Reskin.  Fixes will come up in a next revision probably to go with NAM48. 

  Edited August 29, 2023 by rivit  
further confirmation

[JessiLaurn 183]

Installed NAM v47, and am having an issue I'd not experience with previous NAM versions (mind, I think my previous version was v40 or so). Long story short, diagonal monorail crossing orthogonal heavy rail winds up with the textures of both vanishing...but only when coming at the diagonal monorail from one of two orthogonal orientations, as shown here. It's not just a texture issue, either; it breaks transit on both networks. I've tried this with and without Hybrid Rail installed, with the same effect. What gives, folks?

[Flann 1,709]

15 minutes ago, JessiLaurn said:

Installed NAM v47, and am having an issue I'd not experience with previous NAM versions (mind, I think my previous version was v40 or so). Long story short, diagonal monorail crossing orthogonal heavy rail winds up with the textures of both vanishing...but only when coming at the diagonal monorail from one of two orthogonal orientations, as shown here. It's not just a texture issue, either; it breaks transit on both networks. I've tried this with and without Hybrid Rail installed, with the same effect. What gives, folks?

This is a bug introduced in NAM46, we discovered it shortly after NAM47 was released. It will be fixed in NAM48.

[JessiLaurn 183]

Thank you, Flann. I'll look forward to the next release (and until then, will just hold off on developing those cities where this would be an issue).

[Propfam 2,288]

I don't how do I place this one, but why are we sticking to the old disclaimers on every NAM documentation intros? I mean, I'm not a lawyer, as 99% of people here are. But it doesn't mean we have to stick with it. I get it, it's historic. But it's also pretty much misleading. Simcityscape doesn't exist anymore and I don't think Maxis has legal obligation and even right to release newer expansion packs for SimCity 4. So, I suggest that the next NAM (dunno which version. It's the team perogative) that the disclaimer would be changed to something like @simmaster07 put on some of his works:

Quote

This project is not affiliated nor endorsed by Electronic Arts.

We could add something like

Quote

This mod is provided as is. The NAM Team assumes no responsibility for losses using this mod. Users should post their complaints on the NAM topic on official forums. NAM Team does not provide any support for users using older versions. It is the responsibility of the user to update the mod once newer version is released.

 

[mojogojo 4]

Is it possible for the NAM to be used with Daeleys Advanced Menu Navigator (DAMN) in part or in full? 

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

53 minutes ago, mojogojo said:

Is it possible for the NAM to be used with Daeleys Advanced Menu Navigator (DAMN) in part or in full? 

Unfortunately, no and we will most likely not provide DAMN support as it is considered a legacy mod

[mojogojo 4]

2 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Unfortunately, no and we will most likely not provide DAMN support as it is considered a legacy mod

Ah too bad. One day, the source code will be freed! NAM is awesome though ty.

[AsimPika3172 1,136]

On 9/4/2023 at 10:18 PM, JessiLaurn said:

Installed NAM v47, and am having an issue I'd not experience with previous NAM versions (mind, I think my previous version was v40 or so). Long story short, diagonal monorail crossing orthogonal heavy rail winds up with the textures of both vanishing...but only when coming at the diagonal monorail from one of two orthogonal orientations, as shown here. It's not just a texture issue, either; it breaks transit on both networks. I've tried this with and without Hybrid Rail installed, with the same effect. What gives, folks?

Waiting for next version of NAM for this bug Plus another new bugs for RHW! Yellow lines (USA) with White lines (Europe), I am using Europe one!

 

[MacBex 26]

Are elevated FlexSPUIs one of the "presently limited" features in NAM 47?

If not, can someone tell me how to elevate them?  If they are then I will wait and do something else for now. 

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

Hello @MacBex!

Thank you for asking. The way you elevate the SPUIs is by using elevated turning lanes and height transitions.

As of NAM 44, you can use FTL-120 with the FLEX on-slope height transitions (same ones you use for Road, Avenue and One-way, in the Elevated Roadways menu), and with a special ramp-style height transition found in the FLEX turning lanes menu, supporting both L1 and L2 heights. You can also use the RHW ramp style height transitions (L1 and L2) for the freeway ramps connecting to the SPUI pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

[MacBex 26]

Thank you!  I never thought to try elevating from the avenue side, I had been trying with highway ramps as with the old puzzle pieces, but both the FTL height transition and FlexOST work perfectly.

[Handyman 765]

@Tarkus I have had a chance to look at the problem for Linux users of the NetworkAddonMod_Setup_Version47.jar, which requires the use of sudo to run the file. I now believe the problem is with the default path assigned by the program,  /root/SimCity 4/Plugins/Network Addon Mod. On a Linux system /root is only accessed with administrative privileges. If that default could be replaced with ~/Documents/SimCity 4/Plugins/Network Addon Mod or just ~/ , anything that moves it into the users domain.

 

[memo 1,445]

5 hours ago, Handyman said:

@Tarkus I have had a chance to look at the problem for Linux users of the NetworkAddonMod_Setup_Version47.jar, which requires the use of sudo to run the file. I now believe the problem is with the default path assigned by the program,  /root/SimCity 4/Plugins/Network Addon Mod. On a Linux system /root is only accessed with administrative privileges. If that default could be replaced with ~/Documents/SimCity 4/Plugins/Network Addon Mod or just ~/ , anything that moves it into the users domain.

Let me stress again that using sudo on the NAM installer is a bad idea and generally shouldn't be given as advice, especially not for people who do not have a full understanding of what sudo does. Using sudo tells the system to execute a command as the root user, so with what you describe you got exactly what you asked for. It's not what you would want, though. All the file permissions would be wrong on the installed files as well.

For clarity: ~/ of the root user is /root/.

[Handyman 765]

@memo My suggestions are meant to avoid the use of sudo, which is currently required to run the NetworkAddonMod_Setup_Version47.jar. I have to disagree with your description of ~/ as being equal to /root/.
~/ is actually the same as /home/user/. If I am using the cli I can enter cd ~/ at any time to return to my home directory. cd /root would take me to /root/.

[memo 1,445]

6 hours ago, Handyman said:

@memo I have to disagree with your description of ~/ as being equal to /root/.
~/ is actually the same as /home/user/. If I am using the cli I can enter cd ~/ at any time to return to my home directory. cd /root would take me to /root/.

You aren't the root user though, are you? In bash, ~ is shorthand for $HOME, which is the home directory of the current user (which may be the root user). Compare:

$ sh -c 'echo ~'
/home/memo

$ sudo sh -c 'echo ~'
/root

 

The actual problem of the installer has nothing to do with root or sudo, but we need to fix the source code of the installer. It's a bit of guess work for us who don't experience the issue, but attached to this post is an attempt at a fix. It's just an empty installer without the actual NAM files for testing purposes. Could you check if this installer works for you? @Handyman

empty-installer-version47.0.1.jar

[Handyman 765]

@memo  We agree that a normal users root directory is /home/user and if you invoke sudo you are now a root user so your root directory is /root, and we both agree, we do not want to use sudo to run the NAM .jar file. We also agree that a portion of the code needs to be changed. However I am currently convinced that the default install path, generated by the program, is the only thing that needs to change. As you can see in the picture, in my post above, it is pointing to the /root directory (/root/SimCity 4/Plugins/Network Addon Mod). Since this is literally staring us in the face, can we agree, this would be the first thing to try?

[Handyman 765]

@memo  I got a chance to try your "empty-installer-version47.0.1.jar". It still required sudo for me to run it. I did just notice this statement in your last post:

On 12/4/2023 at 2:17 PM, memo said:

It's a bit of guess work for us who don't experience the issue,

Are you signed in as root?