poll NAM Packaging Redesign Proposal Poll

[Tarkus 6,934]

Thank you to everyone who took the time to vote in the NAM Feature Usage Poll--because of your efforts, we obtained some great information about the NAM userbase of 2019, especially in relation to the usage rates and general feelings toward various NAM components.  As those of you know, the current configuration of our installer package and file architecture have reached the point where we feel that a new approach is necessary, in order to improve both our ability to make releases at a sustainable pace, some 15 years (!) after the release of NAM Version 1 in April 2004, but also to improve the NAM experience for the general public.

To that end, as promised, we are posting a second poll, to get some feedback on specific proposals that our development team has put together, based off our findings, recent release engineering experiences, and future developmental plans.

Before I dive into those proposals, I did want to sum up the findings from the NAM Feature Usage Poll.  While the poll officially shows 148 members voted, likely counted among these are users who did not vote, but clicked to see the results without voting.  The math with the actual poll data shows we had 137 votes.

First off, here's the results with 137 votes:

Q1/2: Which NAM features do you presently use? (select as many as applicable)

Q3: Which operating system are you using to run the game?

Q4: Are you running the most recent version of the NAM (currently NAM 36 from September 2017)?

Q5: What version of the NAM are you running?

Q6: What is your opinion on the RealRailway (RRW) project at present?

General Findings

With respect to Q1/2 (which had to be divided due to the limit on the number of options for a single question), there are clear "tiers" outlined in terms of feature usage.  About half of the features polled were at 71.53% and above, two features (the RRW version of STR, and the Elevated Rail-over-Road/Avenue Dual Networking) in the 60s, the Maxis Highway Override running at just a tick over half (51.82%), and everything else down below 50%. 

The top-3 ended up being the Additional Bridges (86.86%), Diagonal Streets (86.13%), and the Street Addon Mod (SAM) (also at 86.13%).  The top two were expected (and had the Roundabouts not been accidentally omitted, past data indicates that they'd likely be up there as well).  The SAM tying with Diagonal Streets, however, was a bit of a surprise for us.

Other curious surprises included the situation with viaducts and underpasses--namely the fact that FLUPs are slightly more popular than Elevated Road Viaducts, but Rail Viaducts are wildly more popular than URail (which is effectively FLUPs for Rail--though not explicitly billed as such), to the tune of 37 percentage points.

With respect to the other questions, the operating system responses were also a bit of a surprise.  We were expecting something close to 10% of the userbase to be non-Windows--came close, at about 8%--but the makeup of that non-Windows userbase was a shock.  Based on how frequently we encounter Mac users (especially over on ModDB), the fact that they only made up about 2% of respondents was a real surprise, as was the fact that the Linux contingent was more than twice the size, at around 5%.  We also had one "Other" voter--what operating system they're using to play SC4 remains unknown, and a real source of curiosity.

The adoption rates of the current release seem to be hovering in the 93-95% range (there's a slight discrepancy between the corresponding responses there), with most of the people not running it simply being unaware of NAM 36.

The Rail Question

One of the things we were most curious about with this poll was the feelings about the RealRailway (RRW) system, and how users felt about it compared to Maxis Rail.  We had no real numerical data--only comments accumulated since the feature debuted 5 years ago in NAM 32, and became the specification for all Rail development since.  The expectation, based on those comments, and also the number of Maxis Rail screenshots I still see around, was that we'd be around a 50/50 split.  The poll results for Q1/2, however, show something close to a 75% RRW/25% Maxis Rail split (with at least a couple voters having selected both options).  Maxis Rail actually turned out to have one of the lowest responses of any feature--below that of more specialized plugins like the Bullet Train Mod and Canal Addon Mod.  Less than half of Maxis Rail users are making use of the original Single-Track Rail (STR) plugin, suggesting that many using that spec are likely operating on very lean/specialized installation packages.

The RRW-specific Question 6 also showed considerable support for the RRW--about 58% seem strongly in favor, and another ~25% seem to support whatever spec the NAM Team sees fit to expand Rail functionality.  Most of the non-users (6.57%) responded that they fear of breaking existing cities by switching specs, and only about 3% selected the "prefer Maxis Rail/new textures wouldn't change mind" option.

General Thoughts on Potential Changes

The biggest things we've been looking at are how to combat the "beastliness" (as one commenter described it) of the installer.  It's proven to be difficult for us in the assembly process (and also resulted in internal rancor at times), it's a maze for our users, and it's also demonstrated a mind of its own in recent years, capriciously deciding to install or not install various features, creating a tech support liability. 

The general feedback we've gotten--including internally--is that the "Monolithic NAM" paradigm we adopted with NAM 31 in 2013 is a real improvement over the so-called "Modular NAM" that existed for the 10 releases (and 6 years) prior.  The implementation/presentation of it, particularly on the installer side, leaves room to be desired, however--mainly that there's too many options, and they aren't always laid out in the most consistent or navigable manner. 

The other big issue on that side has been trying to manage different specs/skins for various networks, which present a chain of EITHER/OR situations (i.e. RRW vs. Maxis Rail, MHO/Symphony vs. Maxis Highway, Monorail vs. BTM, etc.), and all crosslink with one another in various ways, creating numerous headaches in recent years during release engineering, and a number of lingering tech support issues that are all tangled up with one another.  Fixing one has often resulted in another resulting somewhere else.  A number of these more cosmetic features have also fallen behind in terms of support for newer features, due to our much smaller (and busier outside of SC4) development team, which has lost many of the folks who originally developed/advocated for those features.

The general thinking among the NAM Team at present is that the approach we should go for is a "Modified Monolithic NAM"--one which maintains the convenience factor of the current package to the largest extent possible, but does so in a different manner.  Here are a few key points of what we're considering with this "Modified Monolith" approach:

• The NAM's current NSIS-based installer would be replaced by a cross-platform installer/configuration utility.  The system presently under consideration is one that was designed by daeley (of DAMN fame) some time ago.  This would allow Windows, Mac, and Linux users to use the same download, without the need for Wineskin/WINE workarounds for the latter two platforms (especially considering Apple's seeming commitment to breaking Wineskin).
• The overall number of checkboxes would be greatly reduced, down to a number that would allow most options the average user would select/deselect to appear without a scrollbar, and
  also minimize the potential for broken installations and upgrades.
• Some NAM features that are particularly popular and compact--such as the Roundabouts, Diagonal Streets, and the Wide-Radius/Multi-Radius Curves--would become built-in features for all but the most basic installations.
• The current ability to "micromanage" exactly which override networks in the RHW, NWM, SAM, etc. (i.e. install the L3 RHW-4, but not the L2 RHW-6S) would be installed would also be removed from the installer.  (Advanced users who still wished to have this level of control could still do so manually, by removing files and running the Controller Compiler.)
• Network additions would be grouped by their base network, rather than by the existing NAM plugin that contains them.
• Changes to the menu systems to reflect this new layout are also being evaluated, with the goal of minimizing the need to switch buttons in many cases.
• As a result of these changes, the Network Widening Mod (NWM) may be split into two mods--Additional Road (and "Pseudo-Avenues") Widths (NWM-Road), and Additional One-Way Road Widths (NWM-OWR).
• Since the RealRailway (RRW) has been designated by the NAM Team's Rail Department to be the official specification going forward, and usage statistics indicate that a sizable majority of NAM users are already using the RRW, the RRW would become the default setting for Rail.
• The Legacy Maxis Rail content would either be available as a non-default option, or potentially even spun off into a separate download.  More documentation would also be provided on the process of converting Maxis Rail to RRW in existing cities.
• In order to ease concerns from users who have retained Maxis Rail, due to finding the RRW's brown look to be "not their style", the RRW Re-Skin Package will receive a proper release.  The prospect of using an alternate texture as the default, spinning the current brown default into the RRW Re-Skin Package, is under consideration.
• With the exception of Euro/International Textures, and updated US/North American textures (which would non-optional for US/NA texture users), all other cosmetic/re-skin mods, including the Maxis Highway Override, El-Rail Alternate Implementation and the Bullet Train Mod, would also potentially be spun off into separate downloads.  File architecture changes are also planned to mitigate the current "bloat" of Euro/International Texture-based installations, where many users end up with an extra 100-200MB worth of texture files.
• Network features that had previously been separate downloads in the so-called "Modular NAM" era (NAM 21-30), such as the RealHighways (RHW), Street Addon Mod (SAM), and Network Widening Mod (NWM), would still remain in the NAM itself, and would not be spun back out of it, keeping the core of the "Monolithic NAM" mostly in tact.
• Special/experimental projects, like RealHighway Xtreme (RHWx) would still be released as separate downloads.
• The Traffic Simulator Configuration Tool (TSCT) may potentially be built into the new installer/configuration utility, replacing the existing simulator option selection routine.

The poll questions are largely intended to gauge which potential changes are widely supported or disliked, allowing us to fine-tune the potential changes and address any potential concerns.  Regarding the potential "spinoff" of features, it is possible we may be able to retain one EITHER/OR situation, but no more. 

I'll also again note that these proposals would be phased in sometime after the release of NAM 37, which is already in alpha testing, and will retain the existing paradigm.  The plan is to roll out the new system for NAM 38.

Thank you all for your consideration, and continued support of the NAM!

-Tarkus

[Handyman 791]

I realize I am a bit of a unicorn when it comes to the NAM because of the small number of features I actually use but those few features make my cities possible. I did make a couple of choices in the survey above but again very little of it applies to me and honestly, because of my limited use, it's not absolutely clear to me how, or if they would ultimately effect my game play. If it ends up I have to install too much by default, I would be forced to stay with an old NAM version.

[Wiimeiser 452]

Regarding the spinning off Maxis Highway Override, is it even still in development? And are any of the Maxis Highway interchanges even salvageable? I feel the Trumpet and Partial Y could be converted to avenue but that's about it...

[Tarkus 6,934]

Thanks to everyone who has already taken the time to vote, and to Handyman and Wiimeiser for the more detailed feedback!

13 hours ago, Handyman said:

I realize I am a bit of a unicorn when it comes to the NAM because of the small number of features I actually use but those few features make my cities possible. I did make a couple of choices in the survey above but again very little of it applies to me and honestly, because of my limited use, it's not absolutely clear to me how, or if they would ultimately effect my game play. If it ends up I have to install too much by default, I would be forced to stay with an old NAM version.

There is a small contingent of our userbase (I'd estimate somewhere around 10%) that does tend to go the "lean and mean" route--which sounds like what you've described. 

The things that have been proposed for potential "fold-in" are the base Roundabouts, Diagonal Streets, Wide-Radius/Multi-Radius Curves (WRCs/MRCs), and Fractional Angle (FA) Networking. 

The main reasons for folding these in are that they have high usage rates (in the case of the former two, among the highest), and doing so would also solve a number of messy file architecture issues that exist in the current NAM.  The Road versions of the Roundabouts and the modern versions of the WRCs/MRCs/FA all involve modifications to the Road Advanced Individual Network RUL (better known to NAMites as "INRUL-8"), forcing us to coordinate four separate versions of the file.  The "fold-in" proposal described would allow us to get away with just one, and it would potentially allow us to eliminate the "INRUL Overrides" folder entirely.

The overall menu load of the fold-in would be relatively minimal--the base Roundabout plugins and Diagonal Streets entail only a single menu button apiece (both with very short TAB Loops).  The WRCs/MRCs/FA would probably be the heaviest addition there--much as has been done with the RRW this go around, the likely plan there is a FLEX/Draggable combination, with an option to install a menu button for the "Legacy" Puzzle Piece versions.  The proposed FLEX button would also likely be safe for advanced users to manually remove.

In terms of file size, Diagonal Streets are just a tick over 2MB, the base Roundabouts are less than 1MB, and those features are largely considered "complete" at this point.  The WRCs/MRCs/FA would again be the heavy add here, and the functionality there is planned to expand, with more intersection/crossing possibilities, and eventual support for One-Way Roads, Avenues, and (pending models--which are always a holdup) Elevated Rail.  Right now, a full setup with both FLEX/Draggable and "Legacy" Puzzle Pieces would run around 13MB.

The RRW default option would also potentially be a bigger add--the current RRW sits at about 55MB installed.  The proposed "spin-off" Legacy Maxis Rail package, however, would remove the RRW components as part of its installation process.  The new installer package we're looking at using has a Cleanitol feature natively built into it.

I have, at various points, internally floated the idea of a potential "NAM Lite" package, and that's also still on the table.  Feedback from users like yourself, and others in the "lean and mean" contingent would be quite useful in determining if creating such a package would be a feasible idea, and also, what all would go into it.

1 hour ago, Wiimeiser said:

Regarding the spinning off Maxis Highway Override, is it even still in development? And are any of the Maxis Highway interchanges even salvageable? I feel the Trumpet and Partial Y could be converted to avenue but that's about it...

The Maxis Highway Override's main developers all went inactive during the marathon NAM 33 cycle in 2014-2015.  It's effectively been on "maintenance mode" since then.  Most of what's been done since then is gap-filling/bugfixing efforts (courtesy of rsc204), and the Draggable Ramp Interface (DRI) addition I worked up for NAM 37. There's been intermittent discussion about potentially doing things with it--including occasional proposals to turn it into 6-lane configuration (still essentially RHW-scaled, but with narrower shoulders)--but those haven't gone anywhere of yet.

The base Maxis Highway hasn't gotten any additions since the Tram-in-Avenue interchange that Chrisim did back with NAM 30.  I'm not sure that there's really much interest internally in re-purposing the existing Maxis Highway interchanges for other networks.  It's more likely that we'd do something QCX-ish with newer FLEX components, if we were to develop surface-to-surface interchanges more.

The proposal for an MHW-based "DDRHW-8" has also existed for some time now, and it's still technically planned, though when, if ever, it would come to fruition remains a big question mark.

-Tarkus

[eaglesong 108]

I have not been a user of RRW, because the original textures just didn't fit the kind of cities I build. However, these polls have gotten me thinking, and I re-installed my NAM to play with it some more. I also found rivit and mgb's reskins (which I love!), and have read through a couple of their threads. I don't remember how I voted, but I am now in favor of the RRW as default with the option for alternate textures.

What alternate textures are being considered for being packaged in the RRW/NAM installer?

[Tarkus 6,934]

Thanks for the feedback, @eaglesong!  To answer your question, the texture situation is still being evaluated, partly based on the data and feedback we get from this poll (and the previous one), but we would likely end up soliciting feedback in some capacity, to help determine which texture option would be the new default.  Even if the default doesn't end up being changed, the RRW Reskin efforts are likely to get a more formal release between now and NAM 38.  rivit has been a very active and extremely helpful part of our internal packaging discussions that led to these polls, and I know both he and eggman121 are watching the RRW-related feedback closely.

On another note, the one trend that I've noticed emerging from the results on this poll is that the "Spin-off of Maxis Highway Override/Project Symphony, Bullet Train Mod, etc." option seems to be by far the most controversial proposal--almost a dead heat between "support" and "do not support". 

In retrospect, that option should have been broken out further on the poll.  My educated guess, based on the Feature Usage Poll data, is that the Maxis Highway Override (MHO)'s inclusion in that "spin-off" proposal is the reason for this "dead heat", but without having to redo the poll, or potentially make an incorrect assumption there, I thought I would ask directly--is the MHO "spin-off" the main source of concern there, or is it something else?

-Tarkus

 

 

[CorinaMarie 29,899]

2 hours ago, Tarkus said:

In retrospect, that option should have been broken out further on the poll.

/me hands Tarkus a full bag of new pixels in case he wants to create another poll.

[matias93 7,535]

In my case, at least, it is. I regard MHO as an essential part of the RHW, particularly because is sometimes the only way to make a centric interchange without demolishing half a city, and because there is no alternative way to make highway tunnels without missed models.

[eaglesong 108]

Thanks for your answer Tarkus!

I personally use both the MHO and the bullet train - I would prefer they be included in an initial install, but I don't mind having a seperate installer as long as the NAM download page included links to the spinoffs. I use the MHO as a baseline, but sometimes integrate pieces of the RHW, in places where the MHO is unsupported. I build primarily very dense and compact cities. We all have such different playstyles, that this kind of question may be a hard one to find a definitive answer to.

I do wonder if a spinoff would make it easier for new users to understand the differences between RHW,  MHO and Maxis highway. I've seen quite a few new user posts that show confusion on that front.

[carlosmarcelo 982]

On 18/04/2019 at 10:05 PM, Tarkus said:

I have, at various points, internally floated the idea of a potential "NAM Lite" package, and that's also still on the table.  Feedback from users like yourself, and others in the "lean and mean" contingent would be quite useful in determining if creating such a package would be a feasible idea, and also, what all would go into it.

Hi! I thanks this big work to improve NAM installation. This shows us how much you care about doing something cooler for everyone.

I don't like RRW: I use a lot of "roundabouts rails" (see imagem attach) that I can't do in RRW; changing these connections in my many cities would make me spend a lot of time. However I'am minor and democracy is this. In spite of that, I agree that skin need some thing better.

Nevertheless, I would like a NAM lite version with just basic improvements, traffic capacity level and automata level (with less levels): practical and direct for begginers users; and this would be start point to advanced users add other elements, like pedmalls and FLUPs, holers and raisers, others levels automata and capacity etc.
 

[Wiimeiser 452]

Not much discussion here, huh? I'll add some more.

-The best part of the MHO in my opinion is the new interchanges. If we had Avenue/RHW based versions... (Tunnels too but those are hardcoded and I doubt even a dll would solve that... though the saving/loading system got a patch, so who knows...)

-Splitting up the NWM might work if you roll the One Way Roads into the upcoming REW...

[Tarkus 6,934]

Thanks for the further feedback, everyone--it's definitely proved helpful in getting an idea of which proposals are going to enjoy wide support, and which may prove a bit more problematic.  I'd say that, based on what I've seen (and especially considering the whole tunnel issue, per @matias93's comment) that the Maxis Highway Override might end up being our one "radio button" case that we keep.  I agree quite strongly with @eaglesong's observation regarding the confusion between the two Maxis Highway specs and the RHW.  I don't know how many newer users I've encountered who are some combination of confused and disgruntled, who think the MHO is part of the RHW, and/or that the NAM forces everyone to use RHW (and MHO), which has never been the case.

@carlosmarcelo, thanks for the feedback on the NAM Lite side of things--that's basically the kind of feature set that has been under consideration there.  My feelings, based on what I've seen, is that most of the Maxis Rail users nowadays tend to be minimal installation types.  There had been some resistance in the team to having to support more than one package, and there was the idea that perhaps the minimal users may decide to expand their feature set after, but I don't know that NAM Lite really would have a negative impact there, and the amount of support we'd have to provide for it would be also quite minimal.

@Wiimeiser, the way the REW's initial builds are set up, it requires the NWM's OWR networks in order to function, so I would say that folding them together is a very likely possibility, if we were to do that split.  The other way we could potentially do the new arrangement would be "by menu" rather than "by network", which wouldn't necessary require the NWM split, though that might be a little less transparent.

As far as the tunnels, the DLL question is something I've had on the mind as well.  The one network-related thing that has been addressed with SC4Fix.dll is the granddaddy of them all--the TE Lot/Puzzle Piece CTD.  Theoretically, the RHW can already support tunnels, but it's just that traffic can't use them at all, rendering them non-functional.  I don't know the specifics of the network implementation on that end, but my guess is that there's simply a property with a boolean that determines whether or not the network can have functioning tunnels.

-Tarkus

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

13 hours ago, Tarkus said:

my guess is that there's simply a property with a boolean that determines whether or not the network can have functioning tunnels.

Look in your "slope mod" exemplars -- There's more than just slope there; I recall seeing some tunnel parameters for each network. If RHW is built on "dirt road", look at the exemplar for dirt road.

[Tarkus 6,934]

4 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

Look in your "slope mod" exemplars -- There's more than just slope there; I recall seeing some tunnel parameters for each network. If RHW is built on "dirt road", look at the exemplar for dirt road.

It is indeed possible to build RHW/"DirtRoad" tunnels by setting those values appropriately, but the issue is that the resultant tunnels are completely non-functional, incapable of carrying any traffic.  There's a hardcoded value that seems to prevent it.  It's not the only network that runs into that issue, either.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 452]

Perhaps tunnels are actually a network piece that's not stored in the network data? Try editing default paths for tunnel capable networks and see if anything changes. What happens if you add El-Rail paths to Roads? Because IIRC adding El-Rail paths changes the base network to El-Rail, which is the only other surface network (besides power lines) that doesn't have tunnels. From there, binary searching might determine if tunnels just pull a specific hardcoded tile from that network.

[Tarkus 6,934]

3 hours ago, Wiimeiser said:

Perhaps tunnels are actually a network piece that's not stored in the network data? Try editing default paths for tunnel capable networks and see if anything changes. What happens if you add El-Rail paths to Roads? Because IIRC adding El-Rail paths changes the base network to El-Rail, which is the only other surface network (besides power lines) that doesn't have tunnels. From there, binary searching might determine if tunnels just pull a specific hardcoded tile from that network.

Tunnels are bizarre entities in the grand scheme of transportation networks--they basically operate like a wormhole, from what I know.  Changing path types doesn't change the actual base network, however.  If you get rid of the car paths on a Road and replace them with El-Rail paths, and hover over the Road with the query tool, it'll still say "Road", as paths are not tied to the network at all, just the IID of the network tile. 

One can actually set it up such that the same IID can be built with multiple networks, and while capacity, speed, etc. may be altered depending on which network one uses, the actual ability of those transit types to use the tile will remain unaltered (except in the case of Monorail, which, strangely, has some hardcoded functionality that blocks other path types from working on pure Monorail tiles).

I'll also add--it's looking increasingly as if we be moving the installer/packaging/architecture changes forward for NAM 37, rather than waiting until NAM 38.  The existing installer seems to be trying to go all GLaDOS on us in NAM 37 alpha testing. 

-Tarkus

[Lucario Boricua 7,053]

Could any of the leading NAM developers direct us to the corresponding discussions in other SimCity 4 websites where input for the mod's overhaul is being gathered? I'd like to check which other discussions are taking place and which opinions and recommendations have been given beyond those of Simtropolis.

[Tarkus 6,934]

35 minutes ago, Lucario Boricua said:

Could any of the leading NAM developers direct us to the corresponding discussions in other SimCity 4 websites where input for the mod's overhaul is being gathered? I'd like to check which other discussions are taking place and which opinions and recommendations have been given beyond those of Simtropolis.

Actually, pretty much all the recent public discussion has been routed here, to this thread and the previous Feature Usage Poll.  ST has the best polling system, so it was a natural choice.  The only other discussion going on is the one going on behind the scenes right now, involving the NAM Team and NAM Associates.  There's a small amount of chatter on the /r/SimCity 4 post that linked the Reddit users over here, but that's about it.

There were some posts back in October 2018 in the NAM: Development thread at SC4D, regarding discussion of the arduous process of NAM 37's development cycle, that were somewhat formative in getting us to start thinking about a revamp as well.

-Tarkus

 

[Tarkus 6,934]

In case anyone's wondering what this newfangled installer might look like, here's a prototype.  And yes, the panes are resizable, unlike the current installer.  Credit again goes to daeley for providing the underlying system.

-Tarkus

[matias93 7,535]

The list of components is certainly much more coherent now... and that is a T21 improvement of the AVE6? Cool!

[Androgeos 73]

*polls*

Mostly neutral on all the options, but I would support the new installer based on Tarkus' screenshot above, which looks like it has more space to describe stuff. And not putting diagonal streets and related puzzle pieces as a NAM default seems, for want of a better phrase, "a bit strange".

 

[youngwii 74]

The new installer looks more user-friendly; but would it still be possible to simply install the NAM on top of a previous installation?

[Tarkus 6,934]

Thanks for all the feedback, everyone--it's great to know the prototype is on the right track.  I've begun sketching out what the resultant menu changes (particularly on the NWM/FTL, Viaduct/FLUPs, and RHW) would end up looking like, and--particularly with the adoption of so many FLEX items of late, it's surprisingly efficient.  Excluding the legacy items and existing cosmetic pieces, the RHW shrinks down to just 5 core buttons--one being the network tool itself.  The other four all contain fewer items than the old RHW Ramp Interface Puzzle Piece button, and are designed such that one won't have to change buttons with any regularity.

On 5/1/2019 at 5:59 AM, matias93 said:

The list of components is certainly much more coherent now... and that is a T21 improvement of the AVE6? Cool!

Thanks!  And to my knowledge, that's just a combination of existing external T21 mods--likely MandelSoft's LRM and Ganaram's AVE-6 mod, IIRC.

14 hours ago, Androgeos said:

*polls*

Mostly neutral on all the options, but I would support the new installer based on Tarkus' screenshot above, which looks like it has more space to describe stuff. And not putting diagonal streets and related puzzle pieces as a NAM default seems, for want of a better phrase, "a bit strange".

Thanks for the feedback!  And definitely based on both the impact on file architecture, and all the feedback we've gotten in polls, not having Diagonal Streets be part of the core feature set is indeed a bit strange.

9 hours ago, youngwii said:

The new installer looks more user-friendly; but would it still be possible to simply install the NAM on top of a previous installation?

Thanks, and to answer your question, we're still working out exactly how the new system will cover the old one.  The previous installer was basically supposed to look for existing components installed, and pre-select options off of that, though that function started to get more and more broken as time went on, and things with the file architecture changed.  This new system is actually scriptless, so things won't work exactly the same way--it does, however, have a built-in file cleanup system, and does appear we can use this to at least remove the old installation.  We're looking at how best to save the data of what the user previously had installed.  It might initially be a little bit of a bump going from old to new, but after that point, it should be easier.

It's possible that we'll do a "preview release" before the official/final NAM 37 release, to ensure we've got everything worked out with a big change like this, with a bigger userbase, but it hasn't been officially decided there yet.

-Tarkus

[Jack_wilds 550]

really like it... it simplifies, it makes clearier the associated items... the hierarchy established also makes good sense and is easy to follow...

hopefully doing teh RHW NNW will work out just as easy... great progress it does have promise in making it simpler

[Wiimeiser 452]

On 03/05/2019 at 9:24 AM, Tarkus said:

It's possible that we'll do a "preview release" before the official/final NAM 37 release, to ensure we've got everything worked out with a big change like this, with a bigger userbase, but it hasn't been officially decided there yet.

A small scale pre-release sounds like a good idea, just releasing a new installer out of the blue and not fully testing it has the potential to end in disaster.

[Zeratai 84]

This is insanely beautiful, I hope Tarkus never dies and long live Prog. Ill go back to building my city with just roads.

Im the one that thinks that having ELRail and BTM is redundant, they actually look the same.

[Wiimeiser 452]

Any updates on the NAM lately? It's been really quiet...

[Tyberius06 12,267]

42 minutes ago, Wiimeiser said:

Any updates on the NAM lately? It's been really quiet...

Nope...

[Tarkus 6,934]

9 hours ago, Zeratai said:

This is insanely beautiful, I hope Tarkus never dies and long live Prog. Ill go back to building my city with just roads.

Im the one that thinks that having ELRail and BTM is redundant, they actually look the same.

Long live prog indeed, and thanks for the kind words!

1 hour ago, Wiimeiser said:

Any updates on the NAM lately? It's been really quiet...

NAM development has effectively been on an indefinite hiatus since the end of April--there are effectively zero people working on it.  RL's super heavy right now on my end, and all my SC4 time has been spent handling the SC4D situation, which is still ongoing.  RL is also busy for everyone else on the team, AFAIK.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 452]

I really wish I could help speed things up, but everything I can do will either slow you down or require a release anyway (On the other hand, I've reported quite a few bugs already, and I play in LHD and often use unorthodox RHW setups. That might help.)