NAM RRW

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

Interesting... In my "installed" subfolder of "downloads", I have yet another subfolder for files to be packed. Whenever I add or delete a file to be packed, I revert to the vanilla SimCity_1.dat file, rename plugins, copy my files to be packed alone in a temporary "plugins" folder, and then pack'em all as if for the first time. I can then delete the fake plugins folder and un-rename the real one.

I may burn wasted electrons that way, but I never need worry myself about packing versions. There's only the vanilla dat backup (several read-only copies on multiple physical media) and whatever I just packed.

YMMV.

PS: I should probably be packing more of my files. Is there a thread somewhere discussing what kinds of files benefit from packing?

[rsc204 21,804]

On 15/01/2017 at 3:43 AM, jeffryfisher said:

PS: I should probably be packing more of my files. Is there a thread somewhere discussing what kinds of files benefit from packing?

It's not related to any type of file, moreover packing files helps improve the loading times of the game. Why? Well, it's actually nothing to do with SC4, but a result of how Hard Disks handle data. So if you copy a very large file from one drive to another, that will be much quicker than copying the same amount of data, but in many smaller files. This is because there is much less work for your computer to do. Typical "spinning disk" based drives also need to seek out a space to put/read data, much like a Cassette, it can't read/write just anywhere, it needs to find a given point of the disk before it can do so. With multiple files, they may not be located in the same area of the disk, resulting in more time needed to seek the data. In practise, hard drives are very quick at this, like a CD, you don't notice a delay when skipping a track, but the drive/laser does have to do this in practise. Find your plugins folder, right click it and select properties. Windows will tell you how many files and folders you have for SC4 mods, I suspect it's a lot, many thousands, possibly 10's of thousands. So whilst it's quick to seek out one file, with so many, it creates a lot of work for your hard drive to do.

SC4 needs to index your entire plugins folder the first time you start the application. So it must find each one of those files and read from them. DAT-Packing them makes this operation more efficient, since the drive has to seek less files and can read the data quicker. In the same way, use of an SSD speeds up the process, because they are much quicker at accessing data than regular hard disks are. In fact, sometimes so much so, that most of the benefit of DAT-Packing is made redundant. Especially since how SSDs work can make handling lots of small files almost as efficient as a few larger ones.

The real problem with DAT Packing is load order. If you have things that need to load after each other, but they all get packed into the same file, that can quickly cause problems. When DAT Packing, files with duplicate IDs are overwritten based on the load order of the files you are packing. But if you are not careful, you may find things don't work as expected. This is why it's not recommended to DAT-pack the NAM for example. There is also a limit to the size of a DAT-packed file, after which they tend not to work correctly. I think generally speaking files of between 100-200MB in size are probably optimal.

[RobertLM78 1,597]

I just upgraded from NAM35 to NAM36 and installed the RRW.   I've got a question:

For stations that are Maxis rail, is the rail misalignment just a cosmetic issue?  I also seem to remember seeing some way of editing rail lots in my initial poking around the 'net for RRW....

 

Also, I'm not sure if it's been reported, and while not the best place, I thought I'd mention that the rail textures are still Maxis rail for the orthogonal 15-m avenue viaduct over diagonal rail. 

[Dead_End 1,617]

I'm a relatively new user of the RRW and I've run into a minor cosmetic issue:

I remember the standard Maxis rail having a similar problem albeit not to this extent. Is there possibly a file of some sorts than I can tweak to solve this?

Used mods:
The latest version of the NAM
Rivit's RUM for RRW

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

6 hours ago, Dead_End said:

Is there possibly a file of some sorts than I can tweak to solve this?

It looks as if the bridge might be using its own texture instead of incorporating the game default. If that's the case, then you're looking at tweaking the bridge or maybe replacing a texture file that it uses.

Have you tried other bridges?

[rivit 3,391]

7 hours ago, Dead_End said:

I'm a relatively new user of the RRW and I've run into a minor cosmetic issue:

The rail on the bridge is the RUM override of the original Maxis grey rails - RRW rails on a rusty concrete deck - not brilliant I'll admit but serviceable. This is a baked in texture replacement so no simple replace one texture job.  If you'd rather the original rails there's a file you can remove in RUM/Bridges/    named  K1_B05_RRW Overtruss Green.dat. 

[rsc204 21,804]

9 hours ago, rivit said:

The rail on the bridge is the RUM override of the original Maxis grey rails - RRW rails on a rusty concrete deck - not brilliant I'll admit but serviceable. This is a baked in texture replacement so no simple replace one texture job.  If you'd rather the original rails there's a file you can remove in RUM/Bridges/    named  K1_B05_RRW Overtruss Green.dat. 

Which is precisely why this offset height for the bridge is nothing to do with the RRW textures, but something inherent to the bridge as placed in game. I'd try to terraform the embankments where the bridge starts, ideally those should be at the same level. If you can achieve that, then the bridge should be level where it connects with the first tile from the bridge. This problem occurs usually because the game doesn't do a great job of auto-terraforming bridges. Instead it sets the height based on the side it's dragged from, but without intervention, often bridges will be slightly off on the opposite side.

[Dead_End 1,617]

51 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Which is precisely why this offset height for the bridge is nothing to do with the RRW textures, but something inherent to the bridge as placed in game. I'd try to terraform the embankments where the bridge starts, ideally those should be at the same level. If you can achieve that, then the bridge should be level where it connects with the first tile from the bridge. This problem occurs usually because the game doesn't do a great job of auto-terraforming bridges. Instead it sets the height based on the side it's dragged from, but without intervention, often bridges will be slightly off on the opposite side.

As far as I can tell both sides of the embankment are the exact same height and the problem occurs in both spots. The entire map is flat, with the only changes being the fact that I lowered the height everywhere uniformly through the digger-lots that came with the NAM. I used those same lots to increase the height of the embankment by 7.5m.

The problem does seem to be related to the height, because it doesn't occur when I slightly increase the height of the bridge through the slider. The dilemma with that of course is that the concrete base of the bridge will appear to be in the ground. Choices, choices..

[rsc204 21,804]

Exactly level is something that's much harder to achieve in SC4 than many realise. Bridges are also real finicky and there are plenty of ways your perfectly created heights can be interferred with. See this tutorial for a 15.5m Viaduct Rail bridge, although the techniques here apply for regular bridges too.

Hopefully that helps to get things more even.

[Dead_End 1,617]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Exactly level is something that's much harder to achieve in SC4 than many realise. Bridges are also real finicky and there are plenty of ways you're perfectly created heights can be interferred with. See this tutorial for a 15.5m Viaduct Rail bridge, although the techniques here apply for regular bridges too.

Hopefully that helps to get things more even.

Absolutely brilliant mate. That completely solved my problem!

[kschmidt 6,150]

On 12/20/2016 at 9:05 AM, jeffryfisher said:

I recently installed NAM 35. I am trying to figure out where to find the real railway; I'm not even sure if it installed. In what subfolder would I find it? I see a RAM subfolder inside my NAM35 folder under plugins, but that's supposed to be the precursor to RRW. In-game, the rail menu doesn't offer anything labeled as RRW.

If I somehow missed RRW during the install, is there a way to add it without repeating the whole installation?

NAM instalation 35 it did install RRW, curiously NAM 36 instalation twice omited to put the RRW pieces instalation forward ? Little shortcut I opted to copy the NAM 35 RRW pieces to the 36 UserDir without any problem, as there wouldn´t be very much difference inbetween ! NAM instalation gives me some headaches as simple choose your destination installation won´t work, installation path in registry decides where to put things. NAM 37-39 as this way NAM installation work will obviously have similair problems with installation and customization or it´s a program script or java it remains a script. Cleanatol should be optional as it sometimes removes  too much breaking SimCity 4 installations, not working anymore !

[JessiLaurn 183]

So, about RRW slopes.....

I recently upgraded my ancient NAM36 install to NAM39. It's all working splendidly, and the new slope restrictions of RRW are a mostly welcome change. Mostly. Long story short, the behavior of this particular slope mod is peculiar...and at times, annoying.

In the real world, a railway "seeks the level". The tracks are laid as level as possible, with no more than a 4% (1-in-25) grade.

The RRW slope mod does not seek the level. Indeed, it seems to actively avoid seeking the level at times, and fight against attempts to do so. When descending a hill -- even on a gentle decline -- the laid rail will dig a trench into flat lowlands rather than smoothly move to the level (using fill to make the smooth transition from slope to level grade); drawn long enough, and it will "pop up" from that trench to rise above the level plain with fill. When rising to a plateau -- again, even with a gentle incline -- it will pop up above the plateau with fill in an arc, coming back down to dig a trench before eventually meeting the level. And in the process, while certainly providing a smooth effect, the railway can exceed the prototypicial 4% grade by a considerable margin...at time approaching even 30% grade. While I understand the need to exceed the restrictions of 4% in a sandbox environment such as SC4, it should probably be kept to a limit of 10%

If there is any way to adjust this behavior in NAM40, it would be appreciated. I know it's something of a nitpick, but it would certainly be more realistic in appearance and make use of the various "rail pass through" stations a good deal easier.

[Lucario Boricua 7,026]

There's an easy way to do this. Without changing the RRW tunnel and slope mod included, do these steps:

• Place a long row of rail squares along the area where you want the railway to descend or ascend to
• Anchor with more rail squares the place where you're starting the railway
• Drag the railway from the anchor squares to the long row
• Demolish any remaining rail squares around the placement area

 

You can see an example of this as part of this video, from 1:55 to 3:00. And you'll also see other techniques to shape the terrain for road and rail transportation networks taking advantage of more elaborate slope mods.

 

 

[JessiLaurn 183]

That's a workable workaround, but only that: a workaround.

[rsc204 21,804]

When it comes down to it, the RRW slope mod is just another slope mod, it can be overridden or modified just like any other to alter its behaviour. One of the key reasons for it's inclusion in NAM is that the new RRW-compatible tunnel portals, need different properties from the default Maxis ones. So if you do decide to go down the path of changing to another slope mod, you'd ideally need to modify those properties in the new mod so the tunnels still work properly.

But if you are waiting for the NAM slope mod to be "fixed", I have to point out it's not broken. Ultimately slope mods are very much a user-preference thing and finding a set of settings that everyone would be happy with, is a futile endeavour. So if you don't like how it works, installing another or modifying it is going to be necessary.

[Lucario Boricua 7,026]

On 3/9/2021 at 3:03 PM, JessiLaurn said:

That's a workable workaround, but only that: a workaround.

If you want the rail slopes to work like the Maxis defaults, you'll have to search your NAM installation folder for the rail tunnel and slope parameters. There's a file which controls the tunnel portal dimensions and the slopes, you'll have to remove that one from your NAM installation.

I honestly consider the curvatures and some level of digging/raising the terrain past the reference plane to be features, not flaws. I use them extensively to model realistic slopes on my networks, especially along hilly and mountainous terrain, or when using embankments for overpasses, trenches for underpasses and sunken networks, or both for interchanges and junctions.

[rsc204 21,804]

Having just remembered, here is a post from last year where you can find a file that only alters the tunnel properties for rail, which can only be used if no custom slope mod (for rail) is installed. A couple posts below that, I've outlined the Properties you'd need to manually change to have the right settings for RRW with a custom Slope Mod.

[JessiLaurn 183]

It would appear that there is a miscommunication happening here. Allow me to rephrase.

The RRW slope mod is a very good start, inasmuch as it gets rid of the "bumpy rail" problem that has been a problem in SC4 since its inception. Indeed, I've taking to using the RRW slope mod to help with "bumpy" diagonal roads (by first laying diagonal rail, removing it, then putting down the road in its place).

My problem with it is that it fails to "seek the level", as explained above...and all too often will go through a series of ascents and descents on a level plain once it has reached said plain from a slope. That's the issue I have with it. The workaround noted by Lucario does work, but it's annoying that the mod doesn't seek the level in the first place. That's all.

[APSMS 1,892]

This is mostly related to the max slope between tiles parameter. It's a result of this value being set very low, which causes the game to create smooth slope transitions, at the expense of the behavior you've described for extreme slope changes. As a work around, and because of the way that I use networks, I leave the bullet train mod with this behavior turned off, and a more restrictive slope in the traditional slope mod sense, while I have my rail network with a more permissive slope setting but with the smoothing behavior turned on.

So for the most realism in those areas that I want it, I just pre-lay down monorail/BTM, and then delete and drag out the normal rail networks, 99% of the time this works just fine, and gives more freedom in trying to use FARRW and curves, which can be notoriously difficult to get to work  on a slope of any sort if you're not careful. It probably helps that I'm not an ultra-realistic builder.

Is this a workaround? Yes, but it seems to do the trick for me, and unfortunately the slope parameters that would allow the game to build a ramp instead of the weird  digging behavior seem to be incompatible with the smooth slope transition settings.

Of course, you could play around with these values in the reader tool and let us know what you find. IIRC the smooth slope mod (with the behavior you describe) is a feature/bug of Ennedi's slope mod and I think he was the first to document (if not discover) this behavior.