RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

Tarkus · June 06, 2011, 01:42:55 PM

If the bridge in question were split . . . i.e. along the lines of the existing RHW-4 bridges . . . then there'd be no problem. As I've tested the elusive Double-Decker Tsing Ma quite extensively, the capacity issue is actually a largely visual issue. The networks actually work fine, and the bridge does get used . . . it just shows up bright red on the Congestion View.

Speaking of bridges . . .

Quote from: Terring7 on June 06, 2011, 05:37:45 AM
This technique can be available in other transit systems as well? For example, how about double decker rail roads?

Theoretically, if the two decks were going in opposite directions, that would work. However, as the underlying network would be Rail-based, unlike the situation with the RHW, there'd be no capacity increase. Accordingly, I wouldn't put much priority toward that type of network.

Quote from: Fresh Prince of SC4D on June 06, 2011, 07:42:53 AM
Also, will DDRHW-(4?) have MIS ramps be included in 4.2?

Heh . . . the one question I forgot to answer in my pre-emptive strike.

It's a good possibility, though the ramp interfaces haven't been built yet, and we'll need to put together some additional MIS transitions up to L3 in order to take care of that. As we have models already in place for Type A ramps, that's what they would be.

Oh, and before I conclude this post:

-Alex

ivo_su · June 06, 2011, 02:32:23 PM

Ever since I saw secret weapon number one I can not stop asking myself what if ...
we saw that could create a section of at least 3 tiles, but if you can make more than 5 tiles and break ground launcher, is it possible to presetse of OWR-3 or 4 and to create a great crossroad for OWR without grass island in the environment, as hitherto.

Ivo

banditp61 · June 06, 2011, 03:37:29 PM

Are there plans for slope transitions for the DDRHW4, or ELRHW4 to DDRHW4?

doorknob60 · June 06, 2011, 03:58:34 PM

Holy crap that's awesome, never thought that would happen so soon (if ever)! One quick question though, is it UDI compatible?

GDO29Anagram · June 06, 2011, 04:23:32 PM

Quote from: banditp61 on June 06, 2011, 03:37:29 PM
Are there plans for slope transitions for the DDRHW4, or ELRHW4 to DDRHW4?

jdenm8's L2 to L3 transition should work for transitioning from L2 RHW-4 to DDRHW-4 for one half. For the other half, if it isn't ERHW-4 already, just use the RHW-4 to ERHW-4 transition. As for an on-slope setup, if that's what you're talking about,...

Wouldn't it be as simple as adding the existing On-Slope Transitions?

And yes, doorknob60, all these things ARE transit-enabled (and therefore UDI-compatible), even those slip lanes that one person claimed to be eyecandy

. (Then again, it might be an unpathed bridge you're looking at...

)

Tarkus · June 06, 2011, 04:31:02 PM

Quote from: ivo_su on June 06, 2011, 02:32:23 PM
Ever since I saw secret weapon number one I can not stop asking myself what if ...
we saw that could create a section of at least 3 tiles, but if you can make more than 5 tiles and break ground launcher, is it possible to presetse of OWR-3 or 4 and to create a great crossroad for OWR without grass island in the environment, as hitherto.

I'm not sure I quite get what you're asking about here--a triple-tile OWR? That'd be more NWM territory than RHW, and there aren't any official plans on that front.

Quote from: banditp61 on June 06, 2011, 03:37:29 PM
Are there plans for slope transitions for the DDRHW4, or ELRHW4 to DDRHW4?

Given that there will only be one height for the DDRHW-4 (15m Lower Deck/22.5m Upper Deck), an on-slope would kind of be moot. What GDO29Anagram posted would be the best option for that sort of thing.

-Alex

banditp61 · June 06, 2011, 04:46:11 PM

I see what you mean. It was just with the other pictures it seemed a little confusing to me. Thank you.

njdevil995 · June 06, 2011, 08:30:36 PM

Quote from: Tarkus on June 05, 2011, 11:42:15 PM
In RL, most double-decker highways are elevated substantially and usually pass over any potential obstacles. Setting the bottom deck at 15m (or Level 2/L2 as it will be known when we get closer to RHW 5.0) means that both ground-level and future 7.5m (Level 1/L1) networks can pass under it. 22.5m (Level 3/L3) for the top deck means that in the rarer instances in which a network needs to pass over top, the future 30m (Level 4/L4) networks can do the job.

Will the diffrent heights be used to create multi-level interchanges?

GDO29Anagram · June 06, 2011, 09:02:03 PM

Quote from: njdevil995 on June 06, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
Will the diffrent heights be used to create multi-level interchanges?

Definitely, and I hope to see that day, too.

It's still a long way's off, though; It's predicted that Multi-Height RHW will be fully integrated by version 5.0, and we're barely at 4.2.

There is, however, a bit of preliminary work for it, but don't expect to hear any more about it any time soon.

Gringamuyloca · June 06, 2011, 09:06:26 PM

WOW

Double decker?

TARKUS! ... and you tease us of more secrets to come

...I know there exists a list or two of impossibilities, features that were 'locked' away in the .exe.
.. but somehow this amazing community takes it to the next unbelievable level... and you wonder why we ask for more...

thank you all for all that you share!

jdenm8 · June 06, 2011, 10:40:21 PM

Well, this was less "Locked away in the EXE" and more "Straight out impossible" until this Rail workaround was discovered.

metarvo · June 07, 2011, 06:08:32 AM

So, this is the SecretNetwork!

Although I haven't encountered too many double decker roads IRL, I appreciate the effort nonetheless. I can see how this could be a major space saver in those urban environments for which the RHW is increasingly being marketed.

The mention of the different levels of RHW (7.5 m/L1, 15 m/L2, etc.) reminded me of something. The current assortment of hole-digging lots has gone a long way with the current network setup. However, I notice that it lacks 7.5 m hole diggers and the like. How are we going to get around that when on-slopes for these new levels come out? I guess I could try to use ye olde manual terraforming if it came to it.

I congratulate all of your hard work, Alex.

jibjohn · June 07, 2011, 07:00:52 AM

Quote from: metarvo on June 07, 2011, 06:08:32 AM
it lacks 7.5 m hole diggers and the like.

That also came into my mind, 7.5 metre hole diggers and ground lifters would also be useful at the moment, it would mean that an overpass would only have to rise 7.5m and underpass drop the same amount at a junction on flat terrain (instead the the current situation with one carrageway having to rise or drop 15m), there would also be the benefit of an easy convertion to different height overpasses for long-term planners.

John

p.s- excellent work alex, I'll have to have a go at the UK's only double-deck motorway in Newcastle

noahclem · June 07, 2011, 07:22:45 AM

Quote from: jibjohn on June 07, 2011, 07:00:52 AM
That also came into my mind, 7.5 metre hole diggers and ground lifters would also be useful at the moment, it would mean that an overpass would only have to rise 7.5m and underpass drop the same amount at a junction on flat terrain (instead the the current situation with one carrageway having to rise or drop 15m), there would also be the benefit of an easy convertion to different height overpasses for long-term planners.

John

p.s- excellent work alex, I'll have to have a go at the UK's only double-deck motorway in Newcastle

Instead of using 7.5m hole-diggers/raisers the most likely solution will be to approximate the elevation by using the 8m ones or by using 15m-8m=7m rise/drop. A half meter rise or drop over a 16 meter horizontal stretch is pretty negligible and there is always the option of hand-terraforming when exactly 7.5m is desired.

I'm right there with you guys hoping for 7.5m overpasses--if I could add one thing to the game at this point that would definitely be it--but these things take time. For now FLUPs, avenue tunnels, and kazuki's underbridge (functionally subway) lots are all ways to achieve realistic clearances.

And congratulations on graduating GDO29Anagram!

Shadow Assassin · June 07, 2011, 08:02:22 AM

Quote
The mention of the different levels of RHW (7.5 m/L0, 15 m/L1, etc.) reminded me of something. The current assortment of hole-digging lots has gone a long way with the current network setup. However, I notice that it lacks 7.5 m hole diggers and the like. How are we going to get around that when on-slopes for these new levels come out? I guess I could try to use ye olde manual terraforming if it came to it.

My 8m hole digger lots don't look too bad when they're used for the 7.5m stuff.

22.5m = 23m hole digger

30m = 2x 15m hole digger

No worries there

j-dub · June 07, 2011, 10:55:31 AM

Better question, how about a new graphic for when this stuff comes out? Or how about this:

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/926/familiarsc4.jpg

gooper1 · June 07, 2011, 03:23:10 PM

I think that there should be 2 types of DDRHWs:
1. Both decks travel in the same direction.
2. The 2 decks travel in different directions.
Each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think you should put in both networks.
Great work on the ERHW-6, but what about ERHW-2 and RHW-3?
Concept: DDRHW-6, and DDRHW Type-C and D ramps. It would be nice to see that.
Keep up the good work.

-Gooper1

legoman786 · June 07, 2011, 03:38:11 PM

#1 is impossible because of "level jumping." The cars would 'jump' from the upper level to the lower level and vice versa. That's why a double decker is impossible at this time, or maybe forever.

Tarkus · June 07, 2011, 04:01:59 PM

Hehe . . . good one, j-dub.

Though shouldn't everyone regardless of age be picking up Rush Hour and the NAM?

Quote from: gooper1 on June 07, 2011, 03:23:10 PM
I think that there should be 2 types of DDRHWs:
1. Both decks travel in the same direction.
2. The 2 decks travel in different directions.
Each have their advantages and disadvantages, but I think you should put in both networks.
Great work on the ERHW-6, but what about ERHW-2 and RHW-3?
Concept: DDRHW-6, and DDRHW Type-C and D ramps. It would be nice to see that.
Keep up the good work.

-Gooper1

Suffice to say, same-direction DDRHWs are not on the docket--because of the issues legoman786 brought up and general practicality. While we are considering additional widths going forward, I wouldn't expect those for quite some time. ERHW-2 and RHW-3 have already been shown in this thread and will be in the release.

-Alex

GDO29Anagram · June 07, 2011, 10:24:20 PM

@gooper1: C/D type ramps for DDRHW-4 would require a DDRHW-6, and considering the current ramp logic, how would you manage a DDRHW-5? Two lanes on the upper deck and three lanes on the lower deck, then the other way around, then you have to consider how to align the RHW-6S and its overhangs for proper transitioning to DDRHW, then you have to do the same for 6C if need be, then subtract one lane from one of the decks for modelling the ramp itself, unless it's a dual C/D ramp.

I have never seen a B/D ramp for any ERHW before. All there is is an A and C ramp for ERHW-4 (with a single and dual A-Ramp planned for ERHW-2), and I have that nagging feeling in my head that people will call the ERHW-4 C-Ramp a ERHW-6S ramp instead.