poll NAM Feature Usage Poll

[Tarkus 6,932]

The NAM Team is currently in the midst of discussions about how best to structure the mod's installation options, packaging, and file architecture going forward.  While the upcoming NAM 37 release is planned to take the same form as all releases since NAM 31 in 2013, we are evaluating potential changes that would most likely be implemented starting with NAM 38.  Those changes are designed to address the structural issues that exist in the NAM's current packaging system, to produce a more user-friendly end product that streamlines our release process, which has become particularly unwieldy in recent years.

This poll is the first of two that we will be posting, aimed to get a sense of the current userbase's opinion and usage of various NAM features, with the goal of guiding our revamp efforts going forward. The second poll will arrive at a later date, and will deal specific proposed changes.

Thank you to everyone in advance, for providing valuable information to help us keep one of the longest-running continually developed mods going, into its 15th year and beyond.

-Tarkus

Edit: The poll is now closed--thank you for all your feedback.  The second poll is now live.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

Reading the poll reminds me that I need to experiment with (learn to use) Rail Viaduct and U-rail. I think I tried Viaduct once in an earlier NAM version with puzzle pieces, and I went mad trying to build a short diagonal section. Transitions from surface to Viaduct were also tricky for me.

I built my whole region's rail net before starting to populate any of my cities, so I don't build much rail these days. Except for a couple of tunnels made using hole-diggers, all of my rail was left on the surface.

I need to revisit both of these features to see if they're easier to use now. Then I could replace some existing surface rail so more more of my streets / roads can connect across.

Are there any Viaduct and/or U-Rail tutorials for NAM 36?

[Wiimeiser 444]

Technically, I think I have Rural Roads and Can-AM installed, I just never really use them. Rural Roads might get more use from me if they were draggable...

[csq246 20]

I'm with Wiimeiser on this one, rural roads needs to be draggable ,  so does the dashed yellow lines for real highways. As for Canals I've never had time to use can-am more than once and honestly I'm not sure how to make it function-able. I used it as eye candy. I'd love a compact turn lane piece for avenues. It might just be me,  but viaduct rail over network widening road doesn't work. 

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

For # 6, I went with option 3, but I do actually use RRW. I selected that cause I'd personally like to see the rails themselves as shiny metal. The roadbed and ties are excellent as they are. (And I won't quit using it as-is even if the rails are never polished.)

[Cyclone Boom 16,876]

1 hour ago, CorinaMarie said:

I selected that cause I'd personally like to see the rails themselves as shiny metal.

Here's a quick Photoshopping mock-up I've done to add shine on the rails (not editing the textures themselves):

Maybe something similar to that as a concept?

I suspect it'll be a lengthy task for editing the full range of RRW textures, but I agree this would be a useful enhancement for even more realism.

[Eggman121 1,035]

I have made a mockup of what you are thinking of here @Cyclone Boom and @CorinaMarie

However, these developments will not make it into the NAM 37 cycle!

To cover the whole RRW a new set of Model Files would have to be made and in addition the likes of @Simmer2, @rivit and @rsc204 would have to be consulted.

These members have a big sway in term of what happens for the RRW.

The nuts and bolts side of things... I have made these by using a HD texture on a flat plane at 0.1 m above the rail base.

I had to do alot of hard yards to get the Retexturing or Reskin files in place so this would add more complexity to the concept. Not achievable over night.

Alot of work has gone into the RRW by making the whole system a drawn and/or "Flex" system. It all goes into the hierarchy of stuff to work on. I am not oppose to the idea but I would like to lay down the facts before continuing.

-eggman121 (NAM Team member)

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

4 minutes ago, Eggman121 said:

I have made a mockup of what you are thinking of here @Cyclone Boom and @CorinaMarie

Very nice! I like the looks of that.

 

4 minutes ago, Eggman121 said:

However, these developments will not make it into the NAM 37 cycle!

38 or 39 or 87 or whenever if it even can be added would be nice.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Anything that brings in texture/cosmetic variation, no matter how long it takes, I find welcome.

[Tyberius06 12,189]

8 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

Technically, I think I have Rural Roads and Can-AM installed, I just never really use them. Rural Roads might get more use from me if they were draggable...

Same as here. I have the Rural Road installed, but I haven't even realized that those are not dragable. I haven't really used too much rural stuffs so far. As for CAN-AM. I have installed the CAL Remastered version, but only use the bridge/overpass above canal pieces (mostly for rail and El-Rail/GLR - but for GLR the FLUP under the canals is working fine too) or the FLUPs under canal pieces. Haven't made actual routes for boats/ferries with stations on canals, mostly because I mixing the different canal types in my cities. But in the future that might be changing. (By the way, how many CAN-AM compatible canal do we have out there? I know about 3-ish: CAL Remaster, SG original, and ML Japanese canals and maybe something with Diggis stuffs, but I'm not sure about this later one. Obviously PEG one can not be done, because I don't think we have model files for them.)

- Tyberius

[Lucario Boricua 7,028]

If I were to be specific for my desired features of NAM releases I would like more development of either monorail re-texture (Bullet Train or High Speed Rail). More specifically:

* Wider radius curves (these systems use the biggest curve radii of any land-based transportation networks, often reaching from 2 to 5 kilometers). At least reaching something equivalent to the R5 curves for road and Real Highway would be appreciated. Ideally a large radius anywhere from R7 to R10 would add a lot of realism.

* Fractional angle, support of at least one of 2:1 or 3:1 would be a priority for me.

* L1 (7.5m elevation) viaducts.

 

As for road components, I'd like to see puzzle pieces for unconventional intersection designs:

* Continuous green T / seagull intersections

* Michigan left turns

* Superstreets

* Displaced left left turns

 

Finally, I wonder how feasible would it be to incorporate other street textures from other authors into the Street Addon Mod. They look wonderful but I don't want them to replace those already included in the NAM.

[cydonianmystery 96]

Speaking as someone who's just gotten back into the game after a long absence, the components I probably use the most, or at least are the most fond of, would be Project Symphony, RRW, and the new L1 ERRW network. I find the latter extremely useful for making compact underpasses for roads and avenues without using FLUPs, and I also get a lot of mileage out of Mattb325's L1 stations on the LEX.

I feel like the draggable L1 stuff is by far the most useful overall, and I hope it could get expanded in the future. L1 ELR would be amazing, as would improved L1 under L2 functionality. Right now, most L1 networks can't run under an L2 properly, they just revert to L0. But if that's some engine limitation or really hard to implement, I understand why it can't be done.

I did say I use Moonlight's ELR 'alternate interpretation' in the poll, but I don't actually have it currently installed, and I feel like Maxis ELR actually looks fine as it is. I also make extensive use of draggable GLR, with the Original GLR Track Textures installed. ELR-over-Road is also something I use; and could benefit from draggable functionality one day, IMO.

Tram-in-Road and Tram-in-Avenue aren't things I use, mainly due to personal preference. This is because I'm trying to make things look like a light metro network instead of trams for my current region. I say this fully understanding that it's not what the average NAM user is going for.

[eaglesong 108]

It would make perfect sense to me to have sets like the RRW and canals in seperate installers. The installer right now is a real beast.

[Wiimeiser 444]

20 hours ago, csq246 said:

I'm with Wiimeiser on this one, rural roads needs to be draggable ,  so does the dashed yellow lines for real highways

This. Don't we have unused override networks reserved?

[csq246 20]

36 minutes ago, Wiimeiser said:

This. Don't we have unused override networks reserved?

I know nothing about modding that. I just only modded tunnel placements, and cheats to make my recycle centers, police stations, and casinos 2 hundred times more efficient.

It's not important, but diagonal avenue intersections with turn lanes and parclos, but I'll just be grateful for whatever version 37 we get.

[Tarkus 6,932]

First off, I just want to thank everyone who has taken the time to vote in the poll, and offer additional feedback here in the thread.  It's already proven to be very useful information for us as we evaluate how best to improve the NAM's logistics going forward.  I have to admit I had a bit of a "d'oh" moment when I realized I forgot one particular feature (roundabouts), though our last poll like this (from 2013) showed a particularly high adoption rate (in fact, the highest adoption rate) for that feature.

I won't reveal too much about our analysis of the results so far, as I don't want to unduly influence the results with subsequent voters, but I did want to respond to a few comments/suggestions in the meanwhile, before we post the second poll on specific proposals.

5 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

This. Don't we have unused override networks reserved?

There are indeed a handful of unused starters that already exist.  Shortly after finishing up SAM Version 3 over a decade ago (!), jplumbley requested I prepare starters for a Version 4 release (which did eventually materialize as part of NAM 31).  5 of those still remain unused.  A few other presently unused starters exist as well--some for networks that have been seen and were shelved, but there's a few . . . interesting ones . . . hidden in there, too.  Starters are actually pretty easy to make, however, so it's pretty trivial to add one as needed.

 

11 hours ago, eaglesong said:

It would make perfect sense to me to have sets like the RRW and canals in seperate installers. The installer right now is a real beast.

The beastliness of the installer (the last appearance of which will be NAM 37) is something that has been a topic of internal discussion within the team for a very long time now, and that's been especially true of late.  It's hard on the end user, and it's hard on us on the release engineering end.  Both "spinning off" and "folding in" of features are being considered, as a way to cut down on the "checkbox pox" and capricious brokenness that have become hallmarks of our current installer.  The feedback from this poll has proven quite useful in that regard, and the next poll will deal with some concrete proposals on that end. 

Thanks again to everyone who has provided input here.  And if you're reading this thread and haven't yet voted on the poll, I encourage you to do so--your feedback is still very much welcome.  I'll have more to add here shortly as well.

-Tarkus

[Androgeos 73]

The NAM is like a toy shop to me. Lots of stuff, but not much time and interest to explore all of it.

I generally use a derivative of the baseline installation that includes the additional/custom bridges, diagonal streets and wide radius curves. On my last install of SC4, however, I started experimenting with the SAM and liked what I saw.

[RipRap 4,400]

Thanks for the poll, much appreciated for the team still taking everyone's feedback. I wasn't a fan of real highway when it first came out, but now with the help of the new FlexFly system and Project Symphony, my highways look a lot better and even more complicated than I had ever imagined.

I'd like to add that maybe it's time to give the el-rail network some love, even if it's just adding a couple of wide radius curves that would suffice. I love using the el-rail network because of its more modern look for the city journal but the lack of wide radius curves force me to use it on a straight line. 

[Wustmann 174]

Very interested to see where the future of NAM goes!

[olddan123456 4]

Like most people I probably have several NAM features installed that I don't use. For instance I don't use the RHM much but I have it installed because if I don't then I get brown boxes on some NWM pieces. Or at least I did. When I reinstall NAM I still install both out of  habit. About the only suggestion I would make about the install program is to make the window resizable, especially the feature picker.

I also checked 'other' for RRW. I like it but in some cities it doesn't look as good. If you are thinking of dropping on or the other I hope you don't because both have their place.

thanks!

[Tarkus 6,932]

Thanks, everyone, for the continued feedback and input--we're well over 100 votes now, giving us a pretty solid sample size, as we refine our potential options for the second poll.  Plans for now are to post that one up this weekend or early next week.  In the meanwhile, however, additional feedback here is definitely very welcome, so please do vote on the poll if you haven't done so already--we'd love to hear from you!

15 hours ago, olddan123456 said:

I also checked 'other' for RRW. I like it but in some cities it doesn't look as good. If you are thinking of dropping on or the other I hope you don't because both have their place.

One of the biggest complications with our current installer/packaging system is the matter of crosslinking between different components that are mutually exclusive of one another--as the RRW and Maxis Rail are.  It's not too much of an issue when there's just one case like that, but when there's multiple (i.e. Maxis Rail vs. RRW, Maxis Highway vs. MHO, Monorail vs. BTM, El-Rail vs. Alternate El-Rail, etc.), which all interact with one another, things can get dicey, especially when you also add drive side and various cosmetic options into the mix.  We've had quite a number of quirky installation-related tech support cases in recent years as a result--some of which we still haven't been able to solve to date, or our attempts to solve them have resulted in new problems springing up in their place.

Dropping features is something we always try very, very hard to avoid.  The farthest we usually go is to move things into "legacy support".  The only feature to date that's actually been dropped (for reasons other than being irreparably broken) was the original version of the Road Turning Lanes (RTL). 

We're not going to make any side of the aforementioned "versus" cases become completely unavailable (as happened with the old RTL).  That said, the prospect of one side of each of this "conflicts" being spun off of the main NAM download, into a separate (and readily available) download, is an option that is presently on the table, and there will be some questions on the second poll relating to that.  As far as just what (if anything) may be a "spinoff", the decisions there will depend on the data we get from these polls, the level of complexity of crosslink interaction, and ease of development. 

If either Rail spec were to get the "spinoff" treatment, the ability to go back and forth between the two would still be there.  It would likely end up being more reliable than the current situation of re-running the current installer, and hoping the installer is not having a bad day.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 444]

The only things I'd say are truly a loss due to being mutually exclusive are the Maxis Highway and Maxis Highway Override. And all you're missing there in either case is three interchanges (I swear, the MHW Ortho/Diag, Trumpet and Partial Y could theoretically work for Avenue... The Partial Y should, at least...)

[hammysonata 172]

On 4/7/2019 at 10:43 AM, Lucario Boricua said:

If I were to be specific for my desired features of NAM releases I would like more development of either monorail re-texture (Bullet Train or High Speed Rail). More specifically:

* Wider radius curves (these systems use the biggest curve radii of any land-based transportation networks, often reaching from 2 to 5 kilometers). At least reaching something equivalent to the R5 curves for road and Real Highway would be appreciated. Ideally a large radius anywhere from R7 to R10 would add a lot of realism.

* Fractional angle, support of at least one of 2:1 or 3:1 would be a priority for me.

* L1 (7.5m elevation) viaducts.

 

As for road components, I'd like to see puzzle pieces for unconventional intersection designs:

* Continuous green T / seagull intersections

* Michigan left turns

* Superstreets

* Displaced left left turns

 

Finally, I wonder how feasible would it be to incorporate other street textures from other authors into the Street Addon Mod. They look wonderful but I don't want them to replace those already included in the NAM.

Adding onto this, specifically regarding curves and SAM-- would love to see the SAM textures incorporated into the wide radius curves for streets. 

Ah, and @Tarkus et al--incredible work on the NAM in general btw.   

[youngwii 74]

I think street WRCs already support SAM textures (at least for the asphalt streets).

[rsc204 21,808]

2 hours ago, hammysonata said:

Adding onto this, specifically regarding curves and SAM-- would love to see the SAM textures incorporated into the wide radius curves for streets. 

1 hour ago, youngwii said:

I think street WRCs already support SAM textures (at least for the asphalt streets).

Indeed this was added in NAM 36, just use the same patterns as for the streets and you can make them for all SAM networks.

[hammysonata 172]

1 hour ago, rsc204 said:

Indeed this was added in NAM 36, just use the same patterns as for the streets and you can make them for all SAM networks.

ooh-- I hadn't been aware.  Thanks youngwii and rsc204!

[RobertLM78 1,597]

I'm sorry to have missed this poll.....

I may not use every feature of NAM 36, but I use enough of them to say that I like the direction the project is going, and I'd hate to see part of it go away.   There are really just a few puzzle pieces (or made draggable) that I'd like to see for both the TiA and Elevated RRW .....  heheh looking to you @rsc204  .

[Tarkus 6,932]

Thanks for the kind words, @hammysonata!

4 hours ago, RobertLM78 said:

I may not use every feature of NAM 36, but I use enough of them to say that I like the direction the project is going, and I'd hate to see part of it go away.   There are really just a few puzzle pieces (or made draggable) that I'd like to see for both the TiA and Elevated RRW .....  heheh looking to you @rsc204  .

We do have another poll dealing with specific proposals here, which is still open, and also includes an image of the proposed new installer.  There won't be any parts of the mod that are truly going away.  Some (mostly cosmetic/reskin-type plugins) may be spun off into separate downloads, mainly as their current inclusion in the main NAM download is currently causing complications with the installer and file architecture, but they'll still be available.  Doing so might add an extra step for those who use the spun-off plugins, but the end result should be a more stable NAM experience for those who use them.

TiA and RRW are not being spun off, so you're good there.  Draggable/FLEX Piece implementation is more likely what you're looking at here.  Unless there's a really good underlying reason for it (i.e. there isn't a way to feasibly do a Draggable/FLEX implementation and/or there's little expected interaction with override networks), traditional puzzle pieces are generally a no-go.  The menu re-design that's anticipated to be part of this rethink of the file architecture will finally show off the method behind our madness in ditching a one-time NAM staple.

-Tarkus