Controller Custom Compilation

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

I am attempting a custom compilation of the NAM 39 controller. Based on what I am seeing, nobody has ever done this before, because I am seeing stuff completely outside the bounds of what has been written here and what is described in the installation text.

For starters, all NAM paths include a user named "Alexa". Both input and output require Alexa. I have no "Alexa" user, and when I substitute my own user in place of "Alexa", I get invalid paths to both input and output.

Please design a compiler that can actually function using only the inputs from the download (e.g. on a system that does not depend on private a priori input from "Alexa".)

For now, NAM 39 cannot be custom compiled. The only possible installation is the full RHW installation included out-of-box. A non-RHW NAM-lite would be nice. If I had that, then I would not be here.

 

[Tarkus 6,932]

@jeffryfisher, it's probably been that way since at least NAM 37, most likely.  There is a settings file in the "resources" subfolder that specifies this stuff ("NAMControllerCompilerSettings.txt")--deleting that will remove the "alexa" references (which is Windows 10's cheeky truncation of my full first name into a username--Microsoft apparently thinks I'm another company's AI, which I find strangely amusing), but will instead just leave you with blank fields for both Input and Output, which won't really leave you any better off. 

The NAM Documentation, including the 0-read-first.html file, covers the Input and Output fields and how to set them.  Basically, the Input can be figured out by adding "\Network Addon Mod\Controller" to the directory in which you currently have the Compiler files, and the Output should be basically what's currently there, swapping in your username in place of the "alexa".  I'm not quite sure why it isn't working on your end with that, aside from it potentially being another Windows quirk, the whole Documents vs. My Documents mess that started with Windows Vista.  You can alternately use the "Browse" button to try to find your NAM installation directory (and the Controller subdirectory) that way.

And thanks for the input on the "NAM Lite" proposal.  That is indeed the most likely scenario of what "NAM Lite" may entail (save for maybe an option for a very minimal RHW installation that adds little more than the RHW-2 network, which is actually needed for some non-RHW content in the Diagonal Bridge Enabler (DBE)).

-Tarkus/Alex

[rsc204 21,805]

15 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

Based on what I am seeing, nobody has ever done this before, because I am seeing stuff completely outside the bounds of what has been written here and what is described in the installation text.

5 hours ago, Tarkus said:

it's probably been that way since at least NAM 37,

Yeah it has been like this since the new installer, as shown in my NAM Installer Tutorial, which covers every part of the NAM Installer download, including how to run them successfully.

15 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

For starters, all NAM paths include a user named "Alexa". Both input and output require Alexa. I have no "Alexa" user, and when I substitute my own user in place of "Alexa", I get invalid paths to both input and output.

Did you look at the path overall after changing the username? Bear in mind too, there was a folder NAM36 and older installers, would add the "input" folder to, which is how the defaults for this app are set. However, due to the new installer package being a .zip file, now they will be wherever you have chosen to unzip them (literally the App can't know). Inside the Controller Compiler folder (where you run the controller), is the path "Network Addon Mod\Controller", this is where you need to set the input. If you just click browse and find it, the entire path would be correct.

The output path is unimportant, it's literally where the file (output) will be saved, so you just need to give it a valid path, again click browse rather than manually typing it in. I mean why make life harder by trying to manually type paths like this?, we're a long way past DOS where you had to. Not to mention, because we don't have to type it in, the paths we use today are vastly more complex, it's not practical to try to do this manually in most cases.

Of course, you do need to remember to replace the Controller file from the original install of NAM with the new one. If you set the Output path to where this is in the "Network Addon Mod" folder, "z_NAM Controller_*HD", where * is either R or L, depending on your install type, it will overwrite it automatically. Personally, I prefer to archive the original controller, in case I need to use it again.

You must also take some caution when running the controller, that all the other settings, especially whether you are building a LHD or RHD installer, are right for you.

15 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

A non-RHW NAM-lite would be nice. If I had that, then I would not be here.

If you mean the full NAM just without RHW, then right now, that's exactly what the controller compiler exists to do. Of course in NAM36 or earlier this all happened automatically, but I'm sure I don't need to reiterate why this is no longer possible.

5 hours ago, Tarkus said:

That is indeed the most likely scenario of what "NAM Lite" may entail

Ultimately, if the NAM "lite" were just NAM minus RHW, I don't think that makes any sense to me, literally I can see no justification for such a package to exist. I always saw this as the equivalent of the Minimal Install from the older system instead. Some people want just the fixes without a load of additional content, the second we try to offer them many of the Full NAM's features, in what sense is this a "lite" version?

For me, those who want more than the basics, should be using the full NAM installer and where desired, reducing the feature set and controller, using the tools available. I wish this were more straightforward than it has become, but again, let's not get into the history of this, the new Installer was the only way to keep the NAM project alive.

But if we are going to have and support more one than one release, I really feel the priority from a user perspective would be that any NAM Lite was "install and go". If we end up with a (albeit far more palatable), bloated controller by default with the Lite package, to me that's just the wrong way to go about this. Personally, I think such a Lite version, shouldn't need to come with a Controller Compiler at all. Likewise from the development perspective, it should not be NAM ## lite, just NAM lite, i.e. it won't receive updates like the full version.

Why would we save those installing large parts of the NAM from the additional step of making a compact controller (which is still optional), at the expense of keeping the Lite package more simplified?

If our only goal here, is to spare people the Controller Compiler, why don't we offer a RHW and Non-RHW version of the 2 full controllers in the Installer? Or offer the non-RHW ones as a download from someplace? Wouldn't that be a far more elegant solution, with far less support and on-going development being needed?

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

12 hours ago, rsc204 said:

If our only goal here, is to spare people the Controller Compiler, why don't we offer a RHW and Non-RHW version of the 2 full controllers in the Installer?

That's exactly what I was attempting to say; I just didn't know quite how to say it.

I'll do my homework assignments and have another go. Thanks all for the pointers.

Update: My first mistake was trying to compile the controller before installing NAM 39. Silly me, I thought I needed to get my controller ready first.

I have done a dummy installation in my default doc plugins. Since my game runs on a custom plugins folder, it has no effect yet.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

New problems / questions:

I backed up my custom medium Z-simulator file before deprecating my NAM-36 folders. I unchecked the simulator in the NAM-39 installation. Where should I copy in my custom file made by TSCT? I'm guessing the root of NAM.

I saw only one slope-mod check box (for RRW). There's at least one more hiding somewhere, but I didn't see it. Where do I go to delete an unwanted slope exemplar? (I have already incorporated NAM's parameters in my personal custom slope mod).

I left out RHW, but I need to look over my region because I think I might have used RHW bridges in the midst of a Maxis highway network. If I want to compile a small controller (without RHW), should I replace all RHW bridges? Or can the compiler support them without adding too many megabytes?

 

[rsc204 21,805]

10 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

I saw only one slope-mod check box (for RRW). There's at least one more hiding somewhere, but I didn't see it. Where do I go to delete an unwanted slope exemplar? (I have already incorporated NAM's parameters in my personal custom slope mod)

The other one only gets installed if you also install the MHO option. It’s in the Tunnel DAT, but the exemplar is not in its own DAT.

10 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

I backed up my custom medium Z-simulator file before deprecating my NAM-36 folders. I unchecked the simulator in the NAM-39 installation. Where should I copy in my custom file made by TSCT? I'm guessing the root of NAM.

Honestly, I can’t with 100% certainty say this will work, you should install this from your current NAM and make the same changes. Not that I can recall this being changed between versions, but we wouldn’t support users with mid-matched files like this. 

10 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

I left out RHW, but I need to look over my region because I think I might have used RHW bridges in the midst of a Maxis highway network. If I want to compile a small controller (without RHW), should I replace all RHW bridges? Or can the compiler support them without adding too many megabytes?

The compiler only holds the code needed to build things, removing it won’t destroy previously built items. But you do need any models and paths for such content to remain functioning. The only thing using RHW that isn’t RHW, is the DBE as far as I know. You might use MHY to make a RHW bridge, but not the other way around. 

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

4 hours ago, rsc204 said:

you should install this from your current NAM and make the same changes.

Using the same old TSCT that hasn't changed in many years? Okay, I'll try that... I guess I can take a screenshot of my existing TSCT display so I can reproduce all of my custom settings.

However, I would request that NAM team think of an easier way to preserve TSCT settings from version to version when upgrading NAM in the future.

BTW, Has NAM team updated the simulator-Z exemplars outside TSCT?

[rsc204 21,805]

9 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

Using the same old TSCT that hasn't changed in many years?

Well so far as I know, it hasn't... but I can't say with absolute certainty.

10 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

BTW, Has NAM team updated the simulator-Z exemplars outside TSCT?

Again, I can't think of a reason why they would have changed, but I can't say for sure either.

So just to be on the safe side, I've erred towards a process that uses files I can be certain won't be out of date.

10 minutes ago, jeffryfisher said:

However, I would request that NAM team think of an easier way to preserve TSCT settings from version to version when upgrading NAM in the future.

Whilst I can understand your frustration, we're very limited here on many fronts.

The Java installer as it stands, doesn't allow for complex code checking/comparing files and altering the install. It basically works as a set of folders, you can tick or untick which you want to install and which you don't. I can not foresee such capabilities being possible in the near future, but it depends on what can be done with the Java code. Yes, the new Java installer is feature-light, but the old NSIS one was just at a point of complication, that was beyond the team we have to fix. So again, what this comes down to from our side is, do we return to making new NAM releases? Three in 5 months tells me we prioritised this rightly. Because the alternative in all frank reality was pretty much for NAM to stop being a thing.

15 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

I backed up my custom medium Z-simulator file before deprecating my NAM-36 folders. I unchecked the simulator in the NAM-39 installation. Where should I copy in my custom file made by TSCT? I'm guessing the root of NAM.

This is all advanced user stuff, you want to do it, thats fine, why should anyone care. But, the moment you ask us to provide support, the simplest answer and most expedient use of my time is to respond, why don't you just let the new installer handle it for you?

Open the old TSCT with your old NAM file, take a screenshot of the settings. After installing the newer NAM version, run the new (or possibly old) TSCT, set the same settings to the new file, save and you are done. I just think that's gotta be the quickest, easiest and from my point of view supported, method of handling this.

For example, you ask for us to take the time to tell you where to put the simulator. Had you not deselected this option from the installer, the folder would already exist and you could just replace the file inside, knowing it's in the right place and that nothing else that should be there, might now be missing.

Of course, I do know exactly where it should go, well sort-of, I have to look it up myself frankly, by checking my NAM install. Sure, that's just checking a folder, but couldn't you also do this? BTW it's named "8_Traffic Simulator". I'm also pretty sure it doesn't matter a jot where you put it, since it's overriding the original Maxis files, anywhere in Plugins would work, but of course we try to have an organised install, keeping the mod in one folder.

I just don't understand why you think your way is faster or better, why not make your life easier and just do it the way it was intended? Maybe one or more of my colleagues who knows for certain will pop in and be able to give you a concrete answer on these things. But, again the quickest guaranteed working solution I can give you, will take but a minute or two and you don't have to wait. Seems to me, that's the best advice I can give here.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

8 hours ago, rsc204 said:

I just don't understand why you think your way is faster or better...

Okay... I've tried custom installation (failed), and I've tried custom compilation (failed), so I will stay with NAM-36.

Someday NAM will allow TSCT settings from earlier NAM installations to be carried forward into currrent NAM versions. Until then, those of us who used TSCT will be stuck at NAM-36.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Stepping in to see if I can help save you from having to stick with musty, rotten ol' NAM 36 . . .

I went ahead and did my own Controller compilation . . . here is an RHD Controller with no RHW RUL2 content (full everything else).  Try that out and see if it does the trick--just replace the "NetworkAddonMod_Controller.dat" file in the "z_NAM_Controller_RHD" subfolder of a NAM 39 installation with this one.  I'll see about including something similar as an option in NAM 40.  I'm sure others will find that file handy as well.  If it is successfully installed, the time/date stamp when you hover over the dummy "NAM" icon at the bottom of the Highways menu should say "Version: RHD - 2020 Dec 03 - 07:50:06 (UTC)".

As far as the Traffic Simulator and TSCT situation goes, the Traffic Simulator's guts haven't really changed since late 2013-early 2014, when Simulator Z (the current NAM Simulator core developed by z1) was updated to Version 2.6--concurrent with the release of NAM 32.  Having just checked things over now, if you try to load up the TSCT initially with NAM 39, it will indeed tell you that it can't find a copy of the simulator, but if you click "OK" instead of "Cancel", and navigate to the current location of the simulator in NAM 37 and later (Plugins\Network Addon Mod\8_Traffic Simulator), it will find the file and let you adjust it--and save that location for future usage.

As far as upgrading to future NAM versions beyond NAM 39 with a TSCT-built custom simulator, it's worth noting that if you've changed any of the settings from the default in the TSCT, that the TSCT will actually change the file name, adding "_Custom" onto the end of the file name (i.e. "NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_Medium_Custom.dat").  If you've made it a "Park and Ride" simulator, it'll also change the "Plugin_Z" part to "Plugin_ZP" (i.e. "NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_ZP_Medium_Custom.dat"). 

The base versions that are included with NAM 39 don't have the "Custom" or a "ZP" in them, so they'll have different file names, and won't overwrite your custom file.  You'll just have to make sure to go in and manually delete the default/base version that comes as part of the base install.  At least on Windows, the "_Custom" bit should cause it to come later in load order, though the "ZP" will actually make it earlier (since "P" comes before "_").

When upgrading to future versions beyond NAM 39, make sure you're using the same copy of TSCT (unless otherwise instructed), or that you copy the appropriate settings file over.  The settings file that contains the install directory settings is called "TSCT.conf", and is located in the "data" subfolder of the TSCT.  This file can, of course, be opened up in Notepad, Notepad++, etc. and modified manually that way, too (it doesn't exist until you've run that copy of the TSCT and saved a simulator).

We didn't include an option to not install some form of the Traffic Simulator with the new installer, since, as @rsc204 correctly pointed out, we don't have the ability to do a check on it with the new system, and we also wanted to prevent the possibility of someone not getting a NAM Simulator. 

-Tarkus