RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[noahclem]

If FlUPs were to be assigned an exact "L" it'd be something like L-1.3 as the paths run 10m underground (somebody correct me if I'm off by a meter or two). And tunnels would be L-greater than or equal to 1 

EDIT--You were too quick Maarten 

[dyoungyn]

Tarkus,

Something that I/we really, really, really, really, really need are traffic lights in all four/3 directions for exit/entrance ramps onto Avenues/roads. 

I really hate using One-Way roads as one is unable to create a turning left lane into the opposite entrance ramp.  HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are traffic lights in the works or whould this comment belong in the TLUP section.  I am not sure as the traffic lights are coming from RHW exit ramps (2 lanes)/leading to entrance ramps. 

dyoungyn

[Tarkus]

Yes, FLUPs are indeed pathed at 10 meters underground.  I'd just use "U" at that point instead of an L designation . . . kind of like a basement. 

Tarkus,

Something that I/we really, really, really, really, really need are traffic lights in all four/3 directions for exit/entrance ramps onto Avenues/roads. 

I really hate using One-Way roads as one is unable to create a turning left lane into the opposite entrance ramp.  HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are traffic lights in the works or whould this comment belong in the TLUP section.  I am not sure as the traffic lights are coming from RHW exit ramps (2 lanes)/leading to entrance ramps. 

The issue is that the RHW does not natively/draggably support (without very awkward trickery) stop points, so the signals won't work (at least in the standard sense of synchronization).  We can, however, do something like I've experimented with for OWRs--Signalized Intersection Pieces (SIPs), which are special cosmetic puzzle pieces that have been given a trick CheckType in order to convince the game to allow the stop points to work.  This works better than the "awkward trickery" I mentioned, but still occasionally has quirks.

This is, however, a very low priority at this point.

-Alex

[rstarks]

Firstly forgive me if i use any wrong terminology. I am very new to the modeling of transit networks and i get terms confused easily. I would however like to learn more

I have found that every addition you guys create is absolutely essential and a life saver when building highway networks. but one thing constantly gets left out of each update---- Ramp meters. If I'm not mistaken Blue was working on a set of Ramp meters for the R.H.W but I'm not sure if he had made any progress. I think these are considered T21's [ my understanding of a T21 is basically a plop which is automatically installed onto a transit network when it faces a certain "situation"-- similar to the traffic signals or streetlights that come on the road/avenue. (Correct me if I'm wrong) ]. Would you guys happen to know if he has made any progress with this?

[Tarkus]

There hasn't been any work on that for awhile.  They'd basically constitute a "SIP" like I described above.  Though because of the way stop points work, it won't be possible to turn the signals on/off during peak/non-peak hours, so they'd be on all the time and the cars would be stopping regardless of the time of day.

-Alex

[Gugu3]

There has been a lot of new stuff going on in the NAM thread these days
just a few questions...would you consider creating 45degrees flexy-fly for EMIS?
and another question...are curved transitions for multi height networks been considered?
I really don't want to bother you...but sometimes some ideas might stimulate your creativity
anyway thank you namite for your incredible work!

[jdenm8]

would you consider creating 45degrees flexy-fly for EMIS?

Not planed for NAM 31.

and another question...are curved transitions for multi height networks been considered?

Not planned for NAM 31.

[noahclem]

...would you consider creating 45degrees flexy-fly for EMIS?

It would be an awesome thing to have, huh? The NAM team is aware that lots of people would love a piece like that--I remember it being asked almost instantly with BlueLightning blew our minds with the original public display of FLEX-Fly years ago--and they would certainly like it too. The problem is that such a piece combines "WAVERide" technical difficulty with the difficulty of elevated (model-based) wide-radius curves. Given the tremendous amount of interest I would think that such a piece will be created eventually, assuming the continued activity of the NAM's greatest minds.

and another question...are curved transitions for multi height networks been considered?

Do you mean curved height transitions or curved transitions from, for example, MIS to RHW-4? Either way there's the same obstacle of the model-based puzzle piece. If it was something based on the existing L0-L2 90-degree transition that would certainly make it more feasible. And personally I'd really like to see a version of that without such a steep ramp (L0-L1).

I really don't want to bother you...but sometimes some ideas might stimulate your creativity
anyway thank you namite for your incredible work!

Thanks for asking in such a nice way--and I think comments, idea, and suggestions are appreciated here much as MD authors appreciate them. For me at least, knowing that people are excited about something I'm doing makes me more excited about doing it 

[Gugu3]

Thank you Noah!!!
I was exactly thinking about curved height transitions(just like the current L0 MIS to L2 MIS curved transition)...
what do you think???wouldn't that be nice to have such puzzle pieces?

[noahclem]

You're welcome Gugu3 

Something like that could be really nice. I don't really use the existing transition we're talking about because it's so steep and such a sharp turn--doesn't fit well with my playing style though I've seen it be of real benefit to others. Something like L0-L1, L1-L2, etc could be pretty useful, especially in really tight, urban environments. In a perfect world I would love to see FLEX-Fly 90-degree pieces that transition from one level to another--it's a bit wider of a turn and being able to have networks go under would be great--though I won't be expecting that anytime soon 

One thing that would make these pieces a bit less important is that when multi-height RHW comes out there will be so many levels available that in most cases it won't be necessary for one ramp to switch between levels.

[GDO29Anagram]

I hate to break up your discussion, but the main thing that's limiting the development of almost all elevated transitions are the models. Until those are made or until someone can develop them, don't expect them anytime soon.

[noahclem]

The problem is that such a piece combines "WAVERide" technical difficulty with the difficulty of elevated (model-based) wide-radius curves.

Sorry if I failed to emphasize that enough.

[lrb]

I have a problem.


It's missing a path, don't you think?

-lrb

EDIT: Now that I study it, are some other paths off? 

[Will12]

Are they ped paths as well?

[GDO29Anagram]

The paths are off, but they still connect; There shouldn't be a problem there.

Additionally, none of the ramps, as far as I can tell, have ped paths; It wouldn't be limited-access any more if there were.

[lrb]

The paths are off, but they still connect; There shouldn't be a problem there.

Additionally, none of the ramps, as far as I can tell, have ped paths; It wouldn't be limited-access any more if there were.

On the entrance ramp, there is a gap. 

-lrb

[dragonshardz]

The paths are off, but they still connect; There shouldn't be a problem there.

Additionally, none of the ramps, as far as I can tell, have ped paths; It wouldn't be limited-access any more if there were.

On the entrance ramp, there is a gap. 

-lrb

The paths might go "under" the surface. Not seeing the paths doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.

[GDO29Anagram]

On the entrance ramp, there is a gap. 

I'm well-aware of that, and I can confirm that on my end.

Wherever you see the lane paths being off (Near the ped paths), however, is no cause of concern.

The paths might go "under" the surface. Not seeing the paths doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.

Since when do cars drive BELOW the asphalt?

I checked; There are no working paths there.

[lrb]

On the entrance ramp, there is a gap. 

I'm well-aware of that, and I can confirm that on my end.

Wherever you see the lane paths being off (Near the ped paths), however, is no cause of concern.

The paths might go "under" the surface. Not seeing the paths doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.

Since when do cars drive BELOW the asphalt?

I checked; There are no working paths there.

Hope a patch comes out soon. 

-lrb

[Tarkus]

I've found out why that path wasn't showing up.  It was there (at IID 0x5CE70A10), but there appears to have been a little copy-paste glitch when it was generated:

Code Select Expand


SSC4PATHS
1.2
1
0
0
-- car_3_0_a
1
0
3
0
0
2
-3,-8,0
-8,5,0


I've fixed it--just drop the file below into your Real Highway Mod folder (Plugins\Network Addon Mod\RealHighway).

-Alex