deathtopumpkins

Thanks, I wouldn't want this to happen to anyone else. I've sorted everything out and have my game running fine with a new custom traffic sim in it, but it was a lot of trouble that I'm sure would discourage someone less determined. I selected "Yes", then it took me to the components page, where I verified that only the relevant files were checked, then hit next. After selecting next it began the installation process, and the log it displays clearly showed it deleting all my files. I have the game running right now, so I can't test it again at the moment, but later tonight after I quit or it crashes I will certainly test that out. Derp! I never even noticed the "Help" menu button in the TSCT! I was looking with the rest of the NAM Documentation, and at the readme html file that pops up when you install the TSCT. I can't believe I didn't think to look in the Help menu! Thank you trying to sort this out!

It appears I'm the only one having these issues, but.... I created a custom traffic simulator after NAM 31 that I was quite fond of. Then when I reinstalled the NAM with version 31.1 I checked the option in the installer to "keep my existing traffic sim". Since then, while I've been playing I began to notice no one was using my RHWs, and if even a single car did they showed as congested (red). From this and the behavior of sims I determined that for some reason they had a capacity of 0. So I went to go look at my traffic sim, only to find that there was no longer one in my plugins! It turns out when I installed 31.1 and checked "keep my existing traffic sim", the installer actually DELETED my traffic sim and didn't install one at all. So I thought "okay, I'll just reinstall the NAM, and select the option to only install a new traffic sim!". In the installer I selected "Traffic Simulator Only". When I clicked next a popup said "You currently have a version of the NAM installed. Would you like to keep your current version? If so, select 'Yes', and you can make changes to your traffic simulator while keeping your current version of the NAM." So I clicked Yes. Then when the installer ran, I saw it go through and delete my entire NAM installation. Sure enough, I pulled up my plugins folder, and my entire NAM installation was gone, apart from the documentation, RAM, cosmetic addons, additional bridges, and diagonal streets folders, plus a few random files. This includes all of the extra custom stuff I had in my NAM folder (i.e. most other cosmetic mods and such that I had that aren't included in the NAM package). So, tl;dr: Selecting the option to keep your existing traffic simulator actually deletes it, and then the option to install just a traffic simulator and keep your NAM actually deletes your entire NAM. This is not okay. I've now had to reinstall the NAM several times, and I'm sure somewhere along the way I've changed some option that is going to mess up my existing cities, and I've spent hours just trying to figure out why. Plus I no longer have my preferred custom traffic sim. If you're going to include an option to keep your existing version of something, why on earth would you have the installer DELETE said thing? A proper readme for the TSCT would also be kinda nice.

I don't see any of these already mentioned, so: L0 RHW-4 x street T intersections are missing paths. if you try to draw an ortho road S-curve, it tries to convert half of it to FAR. L0 RHW-4 x road T intersections deconvert to RHW-2. Interesting glitch with the Pont Alexandre III: https://i.imgur.com/FTaV2Yg.png Those look like old RHW-2 textures.

Another one that I just checked to make sure did not have an open issue: the RHW-4 to Avenue transition is gone. And one more: L1 RHW-4 over avenue doesn't work. Just reverts to L1 RHW-2.

Other things I've found: SPUIs now require at least 5 tiles of plain old RHW-4 coming out of each of the ramp stubs to maintain the SPUI override (this is with the ramps immediately adjacent to the highway, and the SPUI on the ground). If you try to, say, transition the RHW-4 to an RHW-2 in fewer than 5 tiles, it breaks the SPUI override and just shows RHW-4 going up to the avenue. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering things as basic as road overpasses don't work for Symphony, but it doesn't work with SPUIs. I've been informed this has already been reported, but in case it hasn't: the MIS-OWR transition is gone. MIS ramps ending at avenues in a T-intersection are broken - the second tile is AVExRHW2. I understand needing to get this out after setting a release date, but I've found the NAM on the whole to have LESS working functionality now than it did in v30, and I honestly don't think it should have been released in this condition.

I think I know to what you're referring, with respect to the rotational aspect. But given that we have the vanishing construction lot now, there's no need for double-ended pieces--they'd appreciably increase the footprint, which is why the old setup was eliminated. When you place it, while the network one tile in front of/behind (depending on rotation) goes away, but it can be dragged immediately back through without bulldozing. I can see about the rotation thing--it would entail a little modification to the RUL0 entries. Yes and that works in some cases, but only some. Take for example trying to place a starter against a FAMIS transition piece that leaves a RHW-2 stub. If you plopped the starter one tile away from the FAMIS piece, like you suggest, it would then erase the RHW-2 stub, meaning you can no longer drag straight into the FAMIS transition, and would need to use a filler piece or something, because there is no eastbound stub that does not have another tile to the east of it. The specific situation I first encountered this annoyance in is building a Type A Symphony ramp. The westbound offramp only needed 5 tiles adjacent to the highway (3 for the ramp and 2 for the curve away) but the eastbound onramp needed 6 tiles (2 for the curve, one blank tile, and 3 for the ramp) because you can't place an eastbound stub directly adjacent to the ramp anymore. Also, another thing that may have been mentioned - there are no ramp transitions from ground to 7.5m for road or avenue - only on-slope transitions. This renders the 7.5m height essentially useless in the majority of cases.

Apologies if this has been addressed already, but making starter pieces now only have a stub on one end was, to be perfectly blunt, a terribly stupid idea. Ramps that don't have stubs (like some of the elevated MIS ones, and the new Symphony ramps) Need several extra tiles of space along the ramp just to fit a starter in, because where previously you could just place a starter on the next tile, so it sticks a stub on the tile immediately adjacent to the ramp, you now can only do that for one direction (westbound or nothbound) but not the other (eastbound or southbound). Eastbound or southbound ramps have to have a full 2 blank tiles dedicated just to the starter, because if you plop it with the starter itself on the tile immediately adjacent to the ramp, it removes the base network stub, meaning you can no longer drag from your next-tile stub into the ramp. This means that you have to place your starter 2 tiles away from the ramp, and thus your stub 3 tiles away, which is terribly annoying in tight, urban situations. This could be very simply remedied by either making the stub rotatable, i.e. when you rotate it it changes which direction it is oriented, or restoring the double-ended stubs. I know I've done a terrible job explaining this, so if pictures would help I can easily supply them.

We don't have 100% control over the ads that appear on the site, but ads like that shouldn't appear, because they're supposed to be filtered.

That freeway! It's unnecessarily beautifully sunken! <3

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. Just that it's completely pointless and your reasoning behind it is ...questionable. I'd like to make clear, for the record, that that is my personal opinion, not my opinion as site staff, so there is no authority behind it. Finally, please stop telling me to lighten up. Just because I think something like this is stupid doesn't make me some mean old grouch who ruins all the fun. I'm a fun guy. I just don't think of things like this as fun. Then again I think setting records just to set a record in any field is pointless.

How is trying to reach the limit of people in chat (aka maybe 3 more people than last time) progress? How is that an improvement? How does that help society progress? Setting goals of curing disease, or finding new energy sources, those are the kinds of goals that help world progress. Cramming as many people into an internet chatroom as possible even when we already know the limit and have gotten extremely close before does not help world progress. Why do we have to in the first place?

Just pointing this out... you realize the chat software maxes out at either 99 or 100 people and we a few years ago got into the upper 90s, so you can't really go more than a few people higher than last time. Also... I have to ask... WHY!? What is the obsession with chat record breakings?

Oh hey, this was a surprise! I figured everyone would resent my trying to reorganize the help desk haha. Thanks a lot! And congrats to Vince and ganaram as well, the site wouldn't be the same without either of you!

That's because it doesn't? Anyone, mod or not, can open a room that is needed. Note the emphasis, however. If a new room is not needed, I strongly discourage you from opening it, as it is usually unnecessary. The social lounge is typically able to handle many simultaneous conversations, and it helps to keep people there so they can help any new members who come in with questions.

Very nice update Kenneh! Love the roadgeekery, of course especially how all of your interchanges are organic and fit the very specific space, i.e. none of them have full access or fit traditional designs.