Jump to content

Tarkus

Member
  • Content Count

    3,190
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    13

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

198,643 Profile Views
  1. As of about an hour ago, with some trial and error, I managed to disable the outdated reCAPTCHA V1 references on my own, and LEX registration should once again be functional. Thank you for your patience, and as always, should you have any issues with registration or login, please let us know either here or on our LEX Access thread over on the SC4 Devotion Forums, and our staff will do our best to help you promptly. The related reCAPTCHA issues with the standard forum registration have also been resolved, and the forum now runs reCAPTCHA V2. Our forum's Social Login feature, unfortunately, will stop accepting new unique users for the foreseeable future, as we have hit the cap for the free plan for the year since install. -Tarkus
  2. As has been reported by several users, the registration system for the SC4 Devotion Lot Exchange (LEX) has recently become non-operational. The version of the CAPTCHA verification system that has been in use on the LEX was apparently discontinued within recent weeks, and unfortunately this change has effectively prevented new members from creating accounts and accessing the downloads. Due to the fact that the LEX operates on custom software, removing and/or replacing the current broken CAPTCHA system will actually require a re-write of the software, a task that will require the assistance of our sole LEX developer. Due to the demands of our developer's schedule outside of SC4 Devotion, we cannot give any estimate as to when the registration will re-open. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope to be able to serve the download needs of new members again very soon. -Tarkus
  3. NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

    Indeed, capacity is inherited on the underlying network, multiplied by the number of tiles. The game can't count lanes. Crossover paths and the "Distilled Intersection Paths" (DIPs) trick the game into thinking the tile is an intersection, which, with the NAM Simulator's settings for the Intersection and Capacity Effect, results in a 25% boost over the normal capacity. (The default Maxis settings actually give networks with crossovers/DIPs a 30% decrease, which is why we stopped supporting some of the old simulator options that used it as a base. jplumbley's old "Simulator A" plugin actually gave an even larger boost--50%.) The OWR-4 and OWR-5 both have crossover paths, and there's no way to "Double DIP", so they have the same capacity, as would any potential OWR-6. Theoretically, we could re-implement the OWR-4 as a Road-based (or even Avenue-based) network to drop its capacity below that of the OWR-5, thereby functionally differentiating them. That's actually been discussed over the years. It opens up a HUGE can of worms, however. -Tarkus
  4. NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

    OWR-6 is not being made. It's been considered, but never very seriously, as it doesn't really add anything functionally over the OWR-4 and 5. Closest we may get is some sort of turn lane setup for the OWR-4/5, but that's not really an OWR-6. In terms of 6-lane carriageways, the most likely possibility there is an RHW-12C, once we get to dealing with ultra-wide networks. That's unlikely to happen until we get more functionality built onto the existing networks. The once-planned RHW-12S (which got shelved during NAM 31 development, prior to the infamous decision to have a release date) is in limbo. -Tarkus
  5. Thanks, Cori! And thanks, spiritualfire, for bringing it to my attention--the previous comment on there from 2017 hadn't surfaced on the forums, and unfortunately got lost in the shuffle. As I noted on the LEX page, Norton has been known to false flag files based on statistics heuristics, though usually, the flags it uses are things like WS.Reputation.1 and Trojan.GEN.2, which Symantec (Norton's parent company) admits are not actual viruses. W32.Rontonkbro@mm is a real thing, but given that the file date on the installer does indeed seem to match the original (it's from 2009), and Norton's known about W32.Rotonkbro@mm since 2005, it seems a bit strange that it would suddenly start getting flagged as a virus. In any case, however, given long-going discussions about ditching executable installers due other issues, and wanting to offer some piece of mind, in cerulean's absence (he hasn't logged on in 5 years), I have repackaged the file without the installer for at least the time being, which should eliminate even the chance of it being flagged. -Tarkus
  6. Network Addon Mod (NAM) for Windows INSTALLER

    First off, they are actually still around, but they are no longer installed by default. You'd need to do a Custom Installation and check the "Legacy Deprecated Height Transitions" box in order to install them. This is covered in the RHW Feature Guide, included as part of the NAM documentation (see the My Documents\SimCity 4\NAM Auxiliary Files\Documentation folder). These pieces have been installed via that checkbox since NAM 33 in 2015. Secondly, the new FLEX items actually support many more possible configurations that were never supported by the old puzzle pieces (and never will be), including the new height levels and all possible widths, and will continue to have their feature set expanded.
  7. Aspyr has now commented on the situation, as Apple has now added "warnings" whenever one opens up a 32-bit app. Apparently, Aspyr is looking at bringing at least some of their 32-bit games over to 64-bit, but they also caution that they don't know yet just what those will be, or when that will happen. -Tarkus
  8. NAM General Support Topic

    The NAM does not have any external dependencies, but things like this can happen as a result of an installation error. As rsc204 mentioned above, from context, is that you somehow ended up with the INRUL file for the RealRailway (RRW) system, without the actual RRW plugin itself, giving you a mismatch, of two incompatible systems. If you're wanting Maxis Rail, the easiest solution would be to look in your My Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins\Network Addon Mod\INRUL Overrides folder for a file called RealRailway_Core_INRULs.dat and remove it. If you're wanting RealRailway, re-install the NAM as described above--I'd advise doing so right over top of your existing installation, so as to ensure your existing choice of options with the rest of the mod remains in place. -Tarkus
  9. NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

    FA Avenues are definitely on the list. Part of the reason they haven't gone as far, however, is simply the fact that they're more complex than the single-tile networks when getting into grid-breaking territory, as well as the implementation. The big thing that drove the Road and Rail expansions was finding drag patterns that worked . . . the attempt at a draggable version for the Avenue network (attempted during the NAM 31 cycle) met with failure. The plan, once we get to that point, is a FLEX-based implementation. -Tarkus
  10. First off, SSDT, welcome to ST and to the world of SC4 custom content! To answer your question regarding the RHW, the system was designed to be modular--rather than focusing on pre-built interchanges like one would see with the Maxis Highways, it was intended to fill the gap for users who wanted control over where the ramps went. In effect, the RHW includes a series of "Ramp Interfaces", which start the exit/entrance ramp branches off of the main highway, and it's then up to the user to hook those into the surface street. First off, I think your time with the RHW would be a lot easier if you weren't using the Fractional Angle RHW (FARHW) Ramp Interfaces to try to build your first interchange, as those are a more advanced feature that still adheres to the older puzzle piece paradigm, and will be more difficult to hook into that Avenue. I would instead recommend using the newer FLEXRamps or the Draggable Ramp Interfaces (DRIs) instead, which would also be a bit more forgiving considering your very rough terrain (which will probably prevent you from even using some of the older puzzle pieces, as they're notoriously slope-intolerant). In short, find the appropriate FLEXRamp, plop it down in the area, and then out of the ramp branch end, drag the RHW network tool--it'll continue the ramp. Just continue dragging it until it meets the Avenue. That's all there is to it. The RHW Feature Guide in the NAM Documentation (see your My Documents\SimCity 4\NAM Auxiliary Files\Documentation\feature-guides\realhighway folder) also has some very useful information. My NAM Team colleague rsc204 (AKA mgb204) also has a rather handy series of YouTube tutorials, which you can check out here. I also have a tutorial on building a T-interchange with the RHW here, once you get a little more comfortable with the system. Ganaram Inukshuk (AKA GDO29Anagram) also has some videos on the Draggable Ramp Interfaces--this one is a good start. I will add that, some 11 years after the RHW ended up going all-in on modular construction, we are developing some pre-built interchanges, known as "QuickChange Xpress" (QCX), which will include quite a few bells and whistles built in as well. The exact timeline for when QCX will arrive is indefinite (the NAM doesn't announce release dates--the one time we did went quite badly), but that functionality is indeed in the works, to provide an additional option. Hope that helps! -Tarkus
  11. NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

    The RHW NC pieces will cover all levels once we've converted them over to a FLEX setup. Doing so will actually bring the total number of NC pieces down to a grand total of . . . 2. Those would be the proposed FLEX multi-network NC, and the existing Invisible Loop Connector, which will be one of the few remaining old-style static puzzle pieces in active service--though granted, should we ever wish to expand support for median runnings of rail-type networks, it'd probably have to be FLEXed as well. As far as the dual-networking crossing NWM, that's definitely on the list. I'm considering some further optimization of the implementation there (more on the in/on variants than the over). On the subject of the diagonal variants, since you mentioned them, the FLEX solutions we did with the more complex FTL setups might provide a way forward. The pathing is still . . . incredibly mind-boggling . . . but I'd say it's not completely relegated to dream territory. Might take quite awhile, however. -Tarkus
  12. Sharing Plugins Folders - Discussion

    Personally, I feel that this particular thread is actually the perfect venue to continue discussing all of these matters, which are strongly interconnected. I don't see any need to redirect it to one of those other threads, and break up the valuable context. While there are some disagreements here about how to proceed, I don't see anything "undemocratic" about this thread--and in fact, quite the opposite. This thread may have initially started regarding the discussion of folder sharing, but those folder shares that have occurred to date have been "marketed" by their distributors and the resultant userbase as "modpacks". -Tarkus
  13. Network Addon Mod (NAM) for Windows INSTALLER

    How specifically won't it install? Are you running into issues with the installer itself? The GOG version does indeed work with the NAM, so that wouldn't be the source of your problem.
  14. NAM: Requests - 2nd Edition

    The GLR/Tram-in-Network setups, IIRC, did get PedMall hook-in paths in NAM 34, along with many other networks, so the functionality for the crossing may already be in place. I've been meaning to undertake a project to make the PedMalls more useful (and possibly draggable) for some time now, and if that ever got off the ground, then something like this would get covered. -Tarkus
  15. NAM: Development

    Thanks, Tyberius, velrox, Living In The Past and everyone for the support! A little cosmetic update on it . . . got rid of the through arrows on the overpass, after looking at some rather nifty examples in Arizona. The paths are there just on the very edge, and do seem to fit onto the sidewalk, though I agree it's a bit tighter than I'd like. The most likely solution is a slight overhang . . . since this overpass isn't going to be next to a bunch of zones or other roads, the impact of doing so should be minimal. The RealExpressway (REW) project that eggman121 is presently developing will add ramps to the OWRs. It should be possible to get some frontage road configurations that mix RHW and OWR that way. -Tarkus
×