NAM General Support

[Haljackey 17,304]

If you're ok with it- why not go over the highway with your avenue instead of under? Puzzle pieces exist for the avenue overpasses to accomplish this- it might even be draggable.

You could also use elevated highway instead to go over the avenue.

[simster007 371]

35 minutes ago, Haljackey said:

If you're ok with it- why not go over the highway with your avenue instead of under? Puzzle pieces exist for the avenue overpasses to accomplish this- it might even be draggable.

You could also use elevated highway instead to go over the avenue.

I think you misunderstood my "target":

The pic shows a functional diagonal maxis highway connection which I built using the "route under diagonal highway" FLUP piece plopped over isolated (with the network eraser tool) connection arrows. I'd like to do same for an avenue, therefore i was searching for this avenue piece. There´s no need for going over or under it. I know that I can convert an avenue to small maxis highway stubs just at the border, but that doesn´t look very nice from my point of view.

I have a possible solution in my mind but that will be a hassle: I think the old Rail Viaduct Puzzle Pieces (before RRW) should work for that.

So: searching for my old NAM backups, downgrading/ building and return to the actual state, not sure if it´s worth giving that a try.....

[Aka 412]

Hello everyone,

This isn't a request for help, just a question that's been bugging me for a long time. For about two years now, DLL mods have been a big part of SC4 modding (thanks to @Null 45 , @simmaster07 , and @memo , by the way), and they've made things possible that were just unimaginable not so long ago. I don't know how .dll files work, but I realize that they can do amazing things, though I don't know to what extent...

I think, like most SC4 players, that the Starter pieces in the networks aren't very practical (NWM, SAM, RHW), nor are the puzzle pieces. For the latter, the NAM team has greatly changed its policy and has now improved the viaduct drag networks, for example, but I think conversion to this system for the TiA (Tram-In-Avenue) network is very complicated. 

Finally, is it possible to create a .dll to actually add more network tools to the game? By that I mean, a bit like the RHW, which used an unused Maxis network (Dirt Road), would it be possible to add more to create new networks that would replace the Starter pieces?

One network tool per network type: TLA-3. TLA-5... TiA, ToR, TiR... RHW-2, RHW-3... SAM1, SAM2... etc... I think you understand what I'm getting at.

In my opinion, this would have enormous advantages. We would be able to create networks very easily without stability issues, as with RHW or certain 3-tile NWM pieces. Network construction would be fluid, especially for 2- and 3-tile widths. It would be possible to know immediately whether or not a network supports a certain layout, without having to try different things and tricks. We could also group networks into submenus, with all SAMs together, all TLAs together, etc., for example.
The work is of course very extensive, but I suppose it would be possible to take the RUL, Path, FSH, and exemplars 21 files from each network without having to recreate them to convert them into full-fledged network tools. Perhaps the biggest task is to create a .dll that allows this, and for files to be created to redirect the files mentioned to a network tool... But I'm probably getting ahead of myself here, especially since this is outside my area of expertise, which is unfortunately quite limited.

Let's just get back to my initial problem: is it possible to create new network tools, or not? 

Aka

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

8 minutes ago, Aka said:

Hello everyone,

This isn't a request for help, just a question that's been bugging me for a long time. For about two years now, DLL mods have been a big part of SC4 modding (thanks to @Null 45 , @simmaster07 , and @memo , by the way), and they've made things possible that were just unimaginable not so long ago. I don't know how .dll files work, but I realize that they can do amazing things, though I don't know to what extent...

I think, like most SC4 players, that the Starter pieces in the networks aren't very practical (NWM, SAM, RHW), nor are the puzzle pieces. For the latter, the NAM team has greatly changed its policy and has now improved the viaduct drag networks, for example, but I think conversion to this system for the TiA (Tram-In-Avenue) network is very complicated. 

Finally, is it possible to create a .dll to actually add more network tools to the game? By that I mean, a bit like the RHW, which used an unused Maxis network (Dirt Road), would it be possible to add more to create new networks that would replace the Starter pieces?

One network tool per network type: TLA-3. TLA-5... TiA, ToR, TiR... RHW-2, RHW-3... SAM1, SAM2... etc... I think you understand what I'm getting at.

In my opinion, this would have enormous advantages. We would be able to create networks very easily without stability issues, as with RHW or certain 3-tile NWM pieces. Network construction would be fluid, especially for 2- and 3-tile widths. It would be possible to know immediately whether or not a network supports a certain layout, without having to try different things and tricks. We could also group networks into submenus, with all SAMs together, all TLAs together, etc., for example.
The work is of course very extensive, but I suppose it would be possible to take the RUL, Path, FSH, and exemplars 21 files from each network without having to recreate them to convert them into full-fledged network tools. Perhaps the biggest task is to create a .dll that allows this, and for files to be created to redirect the files mentioned to a network tool... But I'm probably getting ahead of myself here, especially since this is outside my area of expertise, which is unfortunately quite limited.

Let's just get back to my initial problem: is it possible to create new network tools, or not? 

Aka

There are several problems that prevent you from getting what you want, and you may find yourself in a corner with OpenSC4 that currently makes it impossible.

The first problem is Pathfinder, which prevents us from making many changes to networks such as GLR, HRW, FLUPS, and in general all hybrid networks involving multiple types of paths (Car, Rail, Monorail, Subway & El Rail). If these issues are not resolved, it will be difficult to move forward.

Another issue is the restructuring of the RUL0 Engine, which may be easy, but if you don't solve the Pathfinder issues, it doesn't make much sense.

You would also have to modify the entire save section because there are subfiles such as Network Subfiles that determine the type of networks, and this is where we enter the realm of OpenSC4.

With the current development, things are far from achieving what you want, and almost everything depends on Pathfinder. As you well know, without the source code, studying Pathfinder is slow compared to other things such as Find-It or reversible changes to the terrain.

[Tarkus 6,932]

The data structure the savegame file format uses to store network data on each tile/cell is the real killer.  The Construction States part of the Network Subfile uses the first 13 bits (Bits 0 through 12) of the 32-bit/4-byte (DWORD) value to store the actual network designations of the tile.  Initially, that might led one to believe the other 19 bits are free for the taking, but unfortunately, they're not, as they're used to describe other network properties. i.e., if the network tile has a valid path file, if it is part of a bridge, aspects of how it is rendered, etc.

That aspect right there caps the number of true networks at 13.  There's quite a few other places in the game that also enforce that 13-network cap, but that part of the savegame format is perhaps the most prominent limitation.  A lot of other spots use 4 bits to represent the network type . . . this would theoretically allow 16, but the Construction States property and likely other spots in the game's code and file formats place additional constraints by consuming those otherwise seemingly open spaces for other purposes.

That does not mean that it's impossible, but it makes things several orders of magnitude more difficult.

-Tarkus

[Propfam 2,288]

On 25/2/2026 at 6:17 PM, Tarkus said:

That does not mean that it's impossible,

How about if we reallocate pipe and power line to be a catch-all for all other new networks, while keeping the (arguable) functionality intact)? I mean arguable at least for power poles since we don't really need it anymore since it doesn't come with other varieties. While water is still definitely needed since water can't travel alone, we can reimplement the functions with another layering.

In the end, what we really need more is better multi-tile network dragging, since it's kind of prerequisite of true new networks.

We thought killing dozens of RULs are nearly impossible, until further development of exemplar patching etc proves the otherwise.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

56 minutes ago, Propfam said:

How about if we reallocate pipe and power line to be a catch-all for all other new networks, while keeping the (arguable) functionality intact)? I mean arguable at least for power poles since we don't really need it anymore since it doesn't come with other varieties. While water is still definitely needed since water can't travel alone, we can reimplement the functions with another layering.

It probably requires rewriting the entire system that manages utilities, and it is certainly impossible under the current conditions. The source code or the entire debug symbols are needed to do these things.

[Lab Rat 13]

Automated Notice Message

All posts after 1 March, 2026 @ 01:37 GMT were lost in the site crash.

We've added this message thread divider in every topic across all forums for what were then active threads. (We decided active is if the most recent extant post (from the backup) was on or after 1 January, 2026.)

This divider serves as notice that the conversation was interrupted. Answers and further discussion which used to be here have been lost. Keep this in mind when replying. Our hope is to rebuild what is missing.

[Morgana 1]

Is it possible to make an intersection with a diagonal road connecting to the middle of a large 90° curve, on the outside? 

I'm only using streets at the moment but if it can be done with any kind of road at all I'll be happy to wait until I upgrade to avenues 

[Propfam 2,288]

2 hours ago, Morgana said:

Is it possible to make an intersection with a diagonal road connecting to the middle of a large 90° curve, on the outside? 

According to this doc*, it's possible to have a diagonal road intersecting with a curve. But, there's a problem. I don't know if wide-radius curves (WRCs) are supported. It could mean a small (I mean, 1x1). I do know that WRCs, especially ones made of streets, are a bit fragile. You can screw the curve if you're trying to intersect the wrong way.

*https://www.sc4nam.com/docs/feature-guides/base-network-additions/#additional-intersections--junctions

[Morgana 1]

2 hours ago, Propfam said:

According to this doc*, it's possible to have a diagonal road intersecting with a curve. But, there's a problem. I don't know if wide-radius curves (WRCs) are supported. It could mean a small (I mean, 1x1). I do know that WRCs, especially ones made of streets, are a bit fragile. You can screw the curve if you're trying to intersect the wrong way.

*https://www.sc4nam.com/docs/feature-guides/base-network-additions/#additional-intersections--junctions

I've just tested that, you can drag a street from a 1x1 curve - it doesn't look nice because it doesn't centre, but it can be done. 

Can't drag streets from any tile of WRCs though, I was hoping somebody who isn't as overwhelmed by the selections as I am would know if there's a puzzle piece I miseed, but I guess not. 

Thank you