RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Durfsurn]

Fix one bug, forty more appear.....

Well after regenerating the PP's without mirroring (I made sure this time ) I'm back to our friend;



Ya. So you can see I have got this problem again. I don't remember how I/we fixed it last time either. I have probably redone the PP creating process 12 times without getting it right. Grrrrrrr. Any help

BTW still working on the GLR piece and another special side project some may have seen over a Simtropolis...

Thanks
Durfsurn

EDIT:

*Engage Prof. Hubert Farnsworth's voice*
Good News Everyone!
*Disengage*



However I noticed differing path colours - I thought I saw somewhere that they need extra paths for UDI or something though I am not quite sure (Maybe specially edited (el)rail files?)

[jdenm8]

Duplicate the ElRail paths but change the vehicle type to Rail.

As for the RHW piece, that looks like you haven't generated a new Preview Model.

[Durfsurn]

As for the RHW piece, that looks like you haven't generated a new Preview Model.

Doesn't the PP maker do this for me?

[jdenm8]

It does, but it looks like you're still somehow using the old one.

[Kitsune]

here is a question... is it possible to have two controllers work in tandem ? This could reduce workload a bit compared to a giant controller.

[GDO29Anagram]

here is a question... is it possible to have two controllers work in tandem ? This could reduce workload a bit compared to a giant controller.

No; it all has to be one singular Controller; there's no way to divide it up and tell the game to look for rules in Controller A AND Controller B and use both at once; it's only Controller A OR Controller B.

[Tarkus]

Also, from the standpoint of the findings of the BSC's Miramba Experiment (2006, I believe), up to a certain point, single large files will load quicker than multiple medium-sized files.  This is what prompted the creation of wouanagaine's SC4DatPacker.

-Alex

[compdude787]

It's technically a coding issue in that it's gonna take a lot of code and the Controller is already weighing us down, so we either add it and people's computers slow down or even crash (and we've had people bring up issues related to controller size), or we don't and we avoid the problem altogether.

It's also for this reason that the following is likely never gonna happen:

FlexStacking: stacking two different FlexFlys on top of one another. Crosslinkages would be a nightmare, especially when you include other networks above, below, or in between the two different Flyovers.

Well, shoot; that's too bad that you can't overlap FlexFlys without bogging down the controller with a whole bunch of extra code. I was kinda hoping that this would be possible, but I'd rather not increase my risk for CTDs with a bigger controller. That would be worse than not being able to overlap FlexFlys and make a true 3-level T-interchange.

Regardless, simply being able to have FlexFlys at multiple levels as well as having more elevated ramp pieces will mean that NAM 33 will mark the first time where you can build truly realistic elevated freeways through a CBD and not have to use embankments as a workaround for the lack of elevated ramp pieces.

RHW-12S and RHW-10C: Just adding six more networks would call for a 34% increase in controller size.

If I had to choose between which one of those two networks I'd rather have, I'd choose RHW-12S. RHW-10C would just be unnecessary bloat in the controller because it's already possible to build a 10 lane RHW with RHW-10S. OTOH, RHW-12S would actually add a wider RHW network that doesn't exist yet, making it more worthwhile to have IMO.

And besides, I almost never use the C networks except if I want to do FARHW, which you can't currently do with S networks. It's sort of annoying that there's no FA puzzle pieces for the S networks, especially 10S, so I currently have a sharp kink in one of my 10-lane freeways where there's 2 45-degree curves so close to each other that there's not space to plop the smooth 45-degree curves.

[GDO29Anagram]

If I had to choose between which one of those two networks I'd rather have, I'd choose RHW-12S. RHW-10C would just be unnecessary bloat in the controller because it's already possible to build a 10 lane RHW with RHW-10S.

I'm actually on the other end of the spectrum; I'd actually rather have the 10C; this makes it possible to have separable and combined networks for every single width; if you tried to make a diagonal 10S, you'd have a giant gap between the two carriageways, which is expected to be the big argument for including a 10C. Plus, true to the original definition of a C-type network, a 10C would be more compact than a 10S. Including the 12S only makes sense after including a 10C, since having both the 10C and 12S at once represents a consistently increased width cap, analogous to the 10S and 8C.

However, even just adding one of the two is expected to lead to requests for adding the other; regardless of whether we add a 10C or a 12S doesn't help because people will starting wanting more afterwards. It's for that reason that both the 10C and the 12S, no matter which one you add first, or whether you add them as orthogonal-only, or if you add them as cosmetic pieces, or if you only decide to add only one of the two, will never happen.

[memo]

It's for that reason that both the 10C and the 12S [...] will never happen.

Never say never.

[GDO29Anagram]

Never say never.

OK, well there's that; something could always come up that could change everything, but as it stands, I don't know what it is, and probably no one else knows, either.

Also a correction: turns out the original definition of WaveRide also includes INRUL patterns:

WAVERide (or override wave) is a method where, using anchor point tiles OR Individual Network RUL triggers (such as with DRIs) to initiate an override to draw a setup, allow for extremely flexible setups, extensibility, regenerability (usually), and draggable solutions to normally considered impossible to drag setups (barring autoplace puzzlepieces, and we all know what happened with autoplace FAR).

But then certain INRUL patterns can be natively drawn (DRI/EDRI) but others can't (FlexRamps), which means that WaveRide would have to encompass both draggables and Flex Pieces. Things that are beyond RHW, like the Avenue Roundabout and the DSRI, would be WaveRide, but also some things more surprising like even the Roundabouts for Street, Road, and One Way Road, would fit this category, and even the automatic turn lanes and Draggable FAR.

So, by that definition, what's the first-ever WaveRide feature? 

[dyoungyn]

NAM Team,

I am not sure if I missed it or not, but will flex ramps for the upcoming NAM update have the capability to diagonal interchanges for RHW8S and above?

dyoungyn

[Blue Lightning]

But then certain INRUL patterns can be natively drawn (DRI/EDRI) but others can't (FlexRamps), which means that WaveRide would have to encompass both draggables and Flex Pieces. Things that are beyond RHW, like the Avenue Roundabout and the DSRI, would be WaveRide, but also some things more surprising like even the Roundabouts for Street, Road, and One Way Road, would fit this category, and even the automatic turn lanes and Draggable FAR.

So, by that definition, what's the first-ever WaveRide feature? 

Maybe I made my definition too broad. Oh well it sounded cool at the time

[Tarkus]

NAM Team,

I am not sure if I missed it or not, but will flex ramps for the upcoming NAM update have the capability to diagonal interchanges for RHW8S and above?

dyoungyn

We haven't made any new diagonal ramp interfaces this release cycle.  That's still on the docket for a future release, but probably not NAM 33.

-Alex

[dyoungyn]

NAM Team,

I am not sure if I missed it or not, but will flex ramps for the upcoming NAM update have the capability to diagonal interchanges for RHW8S and above?

dyoungyn

We haven't made any new diagonal ramp interfaces this release cycle.  That's still on the docket for a future release, but probably not NAM 33.

-Alex

Alex,

Thank you for the reply so soon.  I was hoping for some new interchanges for diagnals to give my city a little more character than just straght and as I love the work you all do and great to see the RHWFAR6S and RHW6S interchanges.  However, I am stuck now as one of my maps is RHW8S and jammed all going to one interchange and want to build another but the area is diagonal.  Oh well, so sad, to bad.  Thank you all again for all you hard work and so thankful that people such as the yourself is keeping SC4 alive.

Don

[bnsf611]

Is there any way to make this intersection work? I've tried clicking everywhere to no avail.

[Tarkus]

Having an extra tile in one or both directions between the height transition/on-slope and the intersection might help.  I don't know that there's the stability code in place to do just what you've attempted--the stability code required would be on the Road Viaduct end, rather than the RHW end.  In specific, there'd need to be code to handle an L1 Road-over-L0 RHW-4 next to L1 Road x L1 Road, and vice versa.

-Alex

[Durfsurn]

Hey again,

Big improvements at Durfsurn HQ but a different problem has arisen. Since last time I have:
-Completely reworked the texture from scratch
-Made a completely new PP
-Re-installed a new, clean NAM 32
-Preview Models now work seamlessly



The problem I have is, the rotations of the transposed clone (the exit piece in this case). Here is the code where I assume the problem is, I have experimented with a few things to no avail so any help is appreciated.

Code Select Expand

[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00005FF1]
;Added by Durfsurn 07/17/2014
;RHW-8S F1 Outside Inverted Ramp Entry
Piece = 0.0, 0.0, 0, 0, 0x5FF10005
PreviewEffect = preview_rhw8sf1outsideinverted

CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =....AA....<
CellLayout =....AA.....
CellLayout =....AA.....
CellLayout =....AAA....
CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =....^......

CheckType = A - dirtroad: 0x02000200

ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =....||....<
ConsLayout =....||.....
ConsLayout =....||.....
ConsLayout =....|||....
ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =....^......

AutoTileBase = 0x5FF10000
ReplacementIntersection = 0, 0
PlaceQueryID = 0x5FF10000
Costs       = 410

[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00015FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x5FF1
Rotate = 1
[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00025FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x5FF1
Rotate = 2
[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00035FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x5FF1
Rotate = 3

[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00045FF1]
;Added by Durfsurn 07/17/2014
;RHW-8S F1 Outside Inverted Ramp Exit
Piece = 0.0, 0.0, 0, 0, 0x5FF10505
PreviewEffect = preview_rhw8sf1outsideinverted1

CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =....AA....<
CellLayout =....AA.....
CellLayout =....AA.....
CellLayout =...AAA.....
CellLayout =...........
CellLayout =....^......

CheckType = A - dirtroad: 0x02000200

ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =....||....<
ConsLayout =....||.....
ConsLayout =....||.....
ConsLayout =...|||.....
ConsLayout =...........
ConsLayout =....^......

AutoTileBase = 0x5FF10500
ReplacementIntersection = 0, 0
PlaceQueryID = 0x5FF10500
Costs       = 410

[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00055FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x45FF1
Rotate = 1
Transpose = 1
[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00065FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x45FF1
Rotate = 2
Transpose = 1
[HighwayIntersectionInfo_0x00075FF1]
CopyFrom = 0x45FF1
Rotate = 3
Transpose = 1

Still to do:
-Fix bilinear stuff on s3d models in reader
-possible texture clean up
-redo all paths

[jdenm8]

You're Transposing the already Transposed Clone. Also, you've got no stubs.

[Durfsurn]

What do I add for stubs? Just another "a" and "|" at the required spots (MIS and the RHW-8) or?
I will fix the code. I remember I was trying something with transposing before and forgot to get rid of it afterwards.

Thanks,
Durfsurn