Jump to content

Tarkus

Member
  • Content Count

    3,217
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    14

Tarkus last won the day on
May 31

Tarkus had the most liked content!
View Past Leaders

About Tarkus

  • Rank
    Corporate Climber

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oregon
  • Interests
    SimCity 4
    Music
    Retro Gaming
    Land Use and Transportation Planning
  • City-building game(s)
    SimCity 4

Recent Profile Visitors

198,900 Profile Views
  1. Show Us What You're Working On

    I'm working on maybe breaking the game . . . Check out the line count on this RUL2 file . . . And the number it does on the NAM Controller size . . . For comparison, the NAM Controller for NAM 36 was 103MB. @scotttbarry, that is some seriously impressive infrastructure there--nice work! -Tarkus
  2. NAM General Support Topic

    The answer is yes, there are a series of four (two TAB Loop entries, which each house two versions via Home/End rotation) located at the end of the GHSR button's TAB Loop. Hitting "Shift-TAB" will take you right to them. FLUPs support is also under there. -Tarkus
  3. NAM General Support Topic

    The RHW-6S actually was a dual-tile (per direction/carriageway) network when it was first introduced in 2008. The conversion to an overhanging, model-based single-tile (per direction/carriageway) implementation for the base RHW-6S draggable network didn't happen until 2010, which was around the same time that the CPs were being developed. Per the comments in the RUL0 entries, it looks like the 6S CPs remained dual-tile until July 2012, which would have been during the latter stages of NAM 31 development. My guess is that the decision to split the CPs into multiple buttons based on tile-width (and the transitions button) occurred before the 6S CPs were converted, and as CP development more or less stopped after that point, their placement wasn't changed after the fact. Changing the placement isn't too hard, though it will require re-IIDing the menu button for the dual-tile CPs, as the current IID is dependent on the 6S CPs being at the beginning of that TAB Loop. -Tarkus
  4. My own testing with the TLA-5 NC in one of my regions showed that it seemed to suppress the amount of traffic using the congestion, when compared to a standard Avenue, and as described above, the TLA-7/AVE-6 seemed to exhibit center-tile crowding to at least some extent. The issues are actually covered in the NWM Feature Guide in the latest version of the NAM Documentation. The RHW ones do not seem to suffer from the same problems (though they are not without their quirks--to be expected, given what we're having to work around), and my working hypothesis is that this is related to network speed. To get into the technical aspects of the NC pieces, they are designed to get around the game's limitation that traffic in both commute cycles must enter and exit on the same network tile (or same two tiles, in the case of networks that carry the 04 median flag by default--Avenues and the Maxis Highways). Essentially, they use a series of extra paths to (a) establish bi-direction flow, thereby allowing commute traffic to exit/enter on any of the tiles on the network to satisfy the game's limitations, and (b) ferry the traffic laterally to the correct side of the network, upon reaching the destination city tile. The contraflow and lateral paths actually exist 50 meters below the surface, thereby hiding what in NAM parlance of a decade ago, was known as the "Nicole Richie Effect" (this was in the news at the time), which existed with the previous (and unsightly) "Loop Connector" method of establishing RHW NCs. (In fact, the code name for the NC pieces was "NREEs"--"Nicole Richie Effect Eliminators".) One will still see some remnants of "spider cars" on the rocky crust at the edge of the city tile, an effect we considered much less problematic than the NRE. The pathing for the NWM NCs was ported over almost rock, stock, and barrel from the RHW NCs, but yet, they've never worked as effectively, and the only variable seems to be the underlying base network (RHW vs. Road). Because the RHW network has a much higher speed than the Road network (the base of all of the NWM NCs), the lateral "ferrying" seems to come at minimal cost for the RHW NCs, but at a great enough cost with the NWM ones that it attenuates usage, particularly when there may be other surface street neighbor connections nearby that aren't saddled with the requirement for that lateral motion. The solution, most likely, entails somehow changing the underlying CheckType structure of the NWM NCs, to add an additional faster network, to speed up the lateral motion, but still allow them to be plopped directly over top of the stock draggable connection for the NWM network. A FLEX piece solution is also very likely, since it would minimize the number of required menu items. I'll also add that, theoretically, OWR NCs should be possible using similar techniques to what is already in place, though such connections would likely require reserving a strip of land at the city tile's edge to make the hidden loop connection. This has yet to be tested, however. -Tarkus
  5. You're most welcome, and if you're wanting to narrow everything down to nothing but the traffic simulator plugin itself, everything pertaining to it is contained in a single .dat file, which will carry a name such as "NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_Classic.dat" (the last bit of the filename will vary depending on which capacity level you chose to install). It's all of 2.19KB. The most recent version of the NAM documentation, in addition to being installed locally (in the NAM Auxiliary Files folder, which, on Windows machines, is placed in My Documents\SimCity 4), is also directly accessible online here. The part covering the traffic simulator is here. -Tarkus
  6. First off, welcome to Simtropolis! As far as limiting the installation down to that level, it does indeed look like you can get pretty close to just having the simulator plugin (which contains the pathfinding improvements). Select "Custom Installation", then in the drop down box at the top, select "Traffic Simulator and Maxis Fixes Only", and then uncheck the few non-simulator related boxes that remain checked. There are one or two that can't be unchecked (the Automata Plugin being one, as well as the "Maxis Rail Textures" option, which actually wouldn't install anything in that thin of an installation), and the fixes to some network items that were broken in the base game would be included. But otherwise, that'd be it--probably 3 or 4 files at the max, and scarcely more than 8 or 9MB. If you want the closest approximation of the actual Maxis simulator with the pathfinding improvements, I'd select the "Classic" option on the capacity list, which is actually lower than "Low". Hope that helps! -Tarkus
  7. Neighbor connections with multi-tile NWM networks are a bit . . . odd still. Doing TLA-7 on one side and AVE-6 on the other should work, though with both the normally drawn Neighbor Connection and with the NWM Neighbor Connection pieces (which don't fully work), traffic will tend to crowd the middle tile no matter what. If you run into a situation where you're trying to use one of the dual-tile NWM networks to make a Neighbor Connection, I'd recommend converting to Avenue before the edge of the tile instead of using an NC piece. -Tarkus
  8. Apple has announced the next macOS, Mojave (10.14), expected to release this fall, and it appears 32-bit apps are getting a little bit of a reprieve and should still work, albeit with stronger warnings. The word now is that the version after Mojave will apparently kill 32-bit support once and for all. There's no new news on Aspyr's plans regarding conversion of their 32-bit ports to 64-bit, however. -Tarkus
  9. Show Us Your Interchanges - The Sequel

    Nice work, @Razip and @clonedclone87! And thanks to everyone for all the likes on my last one. It's something that's been on the table as a future area of investigation, though it's seen as being a potentially very tricky thing to develop, which means it hasn't really gone much beyond the drawing board. Back to interchanges, I have some more in the same subgenre, with different orientations . . . And a refinement of my last one (which required some additional code) . . . And yes, further extension of the draggable version of the Elevated Road Viaducts is something that is on the table as a potential by-product of this. -Tarkus
  10. NAM 36 Now Available

    Unfortunately, the Mac version is only up at ModDB, due to its filesize (almost twice that of the Windows version), so SC4 Devotion isn't an option here. No one currently on the NAM Team actively runs the game on a Mac (it's actually a miracle that we can even still have a Mac version), so our ability to provide support for the Mac version of the NAM borders on nonexistent. We pretty much have to rely on what the actual Mac users tell us, without really being able to investigate things any further. The advice I've heard from other Mac users is that one should run the wrapper/app thing outside of the .dmg file (i.e. copied onto the desktop or HD). Some have also reported on High Sierra that unchecking "Auto Detect CPU Info for Direct 3D" under the "Screen Options" in the Wineskin dialog that pops up when running wrapper/app thing is also necessary. -Tarkus Edit: This post from a Mac user might be useful.
  11. The reason that intersection is not supported is due to the number of lanes on the ending roadway vs. the number on the thru roadway. The RD-6 has 3 lanes approaching the intersection, whereas the Street has only 2 lanes total, so traffic on 1 of the 3 lanes on the RD-6 approach has nowhere to go. There's just too many lanes on the approach of the ending network for the intersection to make sense. The reason the base Avenue network supports ending at Street is because the Avenue would only have 2 lanes approaching the intersection, thereby making the math work out (2 lanes on thru network, 2 lanes on approach of ending network). In general, we don't support T-intersections in which the lane math doesn't work (save for a few essentially non-functional "placeholders" that are necessary to provide support for override networks where the math does work). Some guidance on the lane math with NWM intersections (and general NWM network capabilities) can be found in the "Network Capabilities" section of the NWM Feature Guide in the NAM Documentation, which is located here. The "T-End Min" and "T-In Max" are the values to watch. T-End Min: If the given network is to end at a T-intersection, this value is the minimum number of total lanes that needs to be on the cross network. For instance, while an RD-6 (T-End Min = 3) can end at an ARD-3 (3 total thru lanes), it cannot end at a Road (2 total thru lanes). Center lanes on TLA networks do not count toward the overall figure (i.e. the TLA-5 would be considered to have 4 lanes total in this instance). T-In Max: If a cross network ends at the given network in a T-intersection, this value is the maximum number of lanes on the cross network heading inbound to the T-intersection (half the network, in the case of a two-way network, the full network if one-way). For instance, an AVE-2 can have an Avenue or RD-4 end at it (AVE-2 T-In Max = 2, while the Avenue and RD-4 have 4 lanes total, 2 heading inbound to the intersection), but an OWR-1 cannot (T-In Max = 1). Center lanes on TLA networks do not count toward the overall figure (i.e. the TLA-5 would be considered to have 4 lanes total in this instance). In short, you'll either need to convert the RD-6 to something narrower, or convert the Street to something wider in order to make the T-intersection. It's worth noting that while the math does work for RD-4 ending at Street, there currently is no support for any multi-tile NWM network ending at a Street--mostly as such intersections were deemed a lower priority, considering that there's only two such networks (RD-4, and TLA-5 if you don't use the center lane) that would make sense with the lane math. (They would not be difficult to add, however.) Converting the RD-6 to a RD-4 and the Street to a Road would work, as would RD-6 to Avenue. The RD-6 does have draggable transitions available to both the RD-4 and the Avenue--the former is a "stub-to-stub" setup, while the latter is a "direct connection" transition. Widening the Street to an ARD-3 or NRD-4 would allow the T-intersection to be made with the RD-6, though you'd then have to transition ARD-3/NRD-4 -> Road -> Street (and the NRD-4 (Thru) x RD-6 (End) T-intersection isn't the most stable on the overrides--it requires starters on both sides to stabilize). -Tarkus
  12. NAM 36 - On Slope Puzzle Pieces

    NAM development is cumulative, so except for some very rare cases, the answer is yes. Legacy support is an important part of what we do. NAM development is also continual, however, so the location of some items may change over time, usually as a result of further development and/or user feedback. As far as tutorials go, the NAM's documentation can be a good starting point. It's readily accessible online here for quick reference. I'd also recommend rsc204's videos linked above as well. -Tarkus
  13. First off, welcome to Simtropolis! There is a way to transition from OWR-4 to two OWR-2s, but there is no puzzle piece for it--it's fully draggable. Just end the OWR-4 at a stub, then start dragging two OWRs out from a stub just on the other side, similar to what's shown here. It'll convert to the desired transition. -Tarkus
  14. Show Us Your Interchanges - The Sequel

    Always great to see some classic Haljackey action ("Haljack-tion"?) here!That parclo's a beauty. Speaking of parclos . . . here's a work-in-progress: Fully functioning, too. -Tarkus
  15. It would probably help to see the video in question, if you can locate it. As Cori mentioned above, there's a decent chance it wasn't SC4--it also could have been SimCity 2013. -Tarkus
×