Problem with draggable NAM road curves

[Matrim Cauthon 344]

I've been running into this issue for a while now where the draggable road curve has a broken tile. Here are some videos of the behavior:

Speaking of draggable network tricks...

WHY!?
https://streamable.com/0uu1mz
https://streamable.com/amisf3

This has been plaguing me.

The ploppables in the curves menu are slightly different in degree and don't always work. I've been just smoothing half of the curve like at the 8 second mark in the first video, but a solution would be lovely.

 

Edit: actually this should probably be in the NAM section.

[Daeris 1,116]

14 minutes ago, Matrim Cauthon said:

This has been plaguing me.

Hi @Matrim, I'm not really using roads in my region yet, but I've experienced this same issue sometimes. I recall seeing a NAM draggable tutorial mentioning that if you're having problems dragging from one side, try the drag from the other side, and hopefully the curve will render better. That's all I can really offer up right now.

[Matrim Cauthon 344]

2 minutes ago, Daeris said:

Hi @Matrim, I'm not really using roads in my region yet, but I've experienced this same issue sometimes. I recall seeing a NAM draggable tutorial mentioning that if you're having problems dragging from one side, try the drag from the other side, and hopefully the curve will render better. That's all I can really offer up right now.

I'll give that a shot. God knows I know how finicky SC4 can be about drag directions. <recalls trying to build my RHW-4 bridge last week>

Edit: seems to be both drag directions.

[Cyclone Boom 16,938]

27 minutes ago, Matrim Cauthon said:

Edit: actually this should probably be in the NAM section.

No worries. I'll move it over for you into a new topic over there. Stand (or sit) by...

Update: And done!

@Matrim Cauthon @Daeris

To receive notifications, just be sure to re-follow this thread using the option in the top right corner up there.

  Edited November 29, 2020 by Cyclone Boom  

[Daeris 1,116]

Oh oh @Matrim Cauthon, also, I've noticed that sometimes if I don't have ample "lead-up" road on either side of the curve, there are strange texture misalignments. So also perhaps try giving yourself more of a road runway on each side.

[Flann 1,709]

I'm working on getting this fixed.

[CaptCity 4,789]

 

On 11/29/2020 at 12:42 PM, Matrim Cauthon said:

I've been running into this issue for a while now where the draggable road curve has a broken tile. Here are some videos of the behavior:

Speaking of draggable network tricks...

WHY!?
https://streamable.com/0uu1mz
https://streamable.com/amisf3

This has been plaguing me.

The ploppables in the curves menu are slightly different in degree and don't always work. I've been just smoothing half of the curve like at the 8 second mark in the first video, but a solution would be lovely.

 

Edit: actually this should probably be in the NAM section.

Hi @Matrim Cauthon

I believe the missing texture square is the result of the way you are dragging the road to 'smooth' out the curve. Instead of dragging each side separately, drag all the way from one side to the other in front of the curve.

 

  Edited December 1, 2020 by CaptCity  

[Flann 1,709]

30 minutes ago, CaptCity said:

 

Hi @Matrim Cauthon

I believe the missing texture square is the result of the way you are dragging the road to 'smooth' out the curve. Instead of dragging each side separately, drag all the way from one side to the other in front of the curve.

 

This is indeed a valid option, but the curve with the missing piece actually occupies a smaller footprint (3x3 vs 4x4) and can be zoned tighter:

[CaptCity 4,789]

1 hour ago, Flann said:

This is indeed a valid option, but the curve with the missing piece actually occupies a smaller footprint (3x3 vs 4x4) and can be zoned tighter:

 

True enough. Just don't know if it would be supported with the way the current draggable patterns function. 

  Edited December 1, 2020 by CaptCity  

[Tarkus 6,932]

I'll note that @Flann's fix will be in NAM 39, which is very close to completion.  I can't give a release date (as always, per standard NAM Team policy--that one time we did give a release date was . . . disastrous), but I'd dare say it's . . . imminent.  There's a few minor things to clean up, and a bit of documentation to write.

-Tarkus

[Propfam 2,289]

6 minutes ago, Tarkus said:

I'll note that @Flann's fix will be in NAM 39, which is very close to completion.  I can't give a release date (as always, per standard NAM Team policy--that one time we did give a release date was . . . disastrous), but I'd dare say it's . . . imminent.  There's a few minor things to clean up, and a bit of documentation to write.

-Tarkus

Or, should we announce the release date for NAM 40 or 41? Since, it marks the (maybe) 10th anniversary of modern NAM.

[rsc204 21,815]

On 29/11/2020 at 9:58 PM, Daeris said:

I recall seeing a NAM draggable tutorial mentioning that if you're having problems dragging from one side, try the drag from the other side, and hopefully the curve will render better

Probably one of mine, but that only applies to the much smaller 90° Road curve with a 2x2 footprint.

6 hours ago, CaptCity said:

I believe the missing texture square is the result of the way you are dragging the road to 'smooth' out the curve. Instead of dragging each side separately, drag all the way from one side to the other in front of the curve.

Spot on...

4 hours ago, CaptCity said:

True enough. Just don't know if it would be supported with the way the current draggable patterns function. 

Using two R1 45° curves together to form a 90° curve, was previously unsupported. I had myself done some RUL2 to add this, but it turned out to be harder than I first envisioned, I never had a chance to revisit it. So in case it wasn't already clear, Flann has basically had to add this, it wasn't a bug/error, but a missing feature.

5 hours ago, Flann said:

This is indeed a valid option, but the curve with the missing piece actually occupies a smaller footprint (3x3 vs 4x4) and can be zoned tighter:

Glad you managed to work this one out, this will be a useful additional possibility.

[Tarkus 6,932]

4 hours ago, chfzdn said:

Or, should we announce the release date for NAM 40 or 41? Since, it marks the (maybe) 10th anniversary of modern NAM.

We're not going to announce release dates, period. 

After having that policy of not announcing release dates since pretty much the beginning, we made an exception with NAM 31 (the return to the "Monolithic" NAM) in March 2013.  That was in large part because we wanted to assure the SC4 users out there that we weren't going anywhere with SC2013 about to release, and were trying a new way of doing things.  SC2013's release date was March 6th, 2013, so we announced that NAM 31 was going to be released on March 1st, 2013.  Even had a snazzy little GIF with the "31" turning into "3/1" (the US date format for March 1st).

What ended up happening was: (a) the release ended up actually coming out on March 2nd, which upset people, and (b) worse yet, it was a bug-riddled mess that quickly got nicknamed "NAM Vista" (after Windows Vista).  NAM development basically stopped, and we spent about 3 months doing nothing but bugfixing, stopping to release two embarrassing "point releases" (NAM 31.1 and 31.2) along the way.  It was a complete and utter disaster, but it seems few people remember just how bad that whole situation was . . . either they blocked it out, weren't around, or the even bigger disaster that was the SC2013 launch made everyone forget.

Never again. (Phew.)

I'll note that NAM version numbers, save for those obnoxious little "point releases", have always simply referred to it being the Nth release.  NAM 39 is simply the 39th NAM release, NAM 40 will be the 40th, etc.  I'd argue the first "modern NAM" of the current type is NAM 37--which isn't even five months old (but is already about to be superseded twice over).

-Tarkus