RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[mike3775]

Whats funny is in some of my cities, I have two RHW-10's side by side(making 10 lanes in each direction) and in one Residential city, both are blood red and I am considering making another 10 lanes in each direction to handle the traffic

[Wthrwyz]

Whats funny is in some of my cities, I have two RHW-10's side by side(making 10 lanes in each direction) and in one Residential city, both are blood red and I am considering making another 10 lanes in each direction to handle the traffic

I swear I must be doing it wrong...I've never succeeded in getting even a RHW-6S to max out in capacity, much less two RHW-10's. Too many of my sims must take the train, I guess.

BTW, even though I don't post much I do lurk quite a bit. I must say I've been enjoying all the development work being posted and I am definitely looking forward to the stability P57 is going to bring to the table. Like Ivo_su, I must admit I am a bit anxious for those underpass ramps — Dexter's work was absolutely outstanding there — and it's too bad they won't be making it in this time around, but I am confident there will be enough other new toys to more than make up for it. 

[GDO29Anagram]

I have a question about the RHW-10C. I assume that it is still a 3-tile network, since 4 tiles would make it redundant with the 10S.

Yes the 10C will be an overhanging network like the current 6S. The 12S will as well.

I can only guess that you inferred that from current dev or just from the sizes of the shoulders (mentioned somewhere). Ironically, the 12S was slated to not have an overhang, but I personally found the shoulder obnoxiously narrow. If you ask Jondor about it, he'd probably have a similar comment and the actual models.

I for one could use such high-capacity ramps in my own regions. You can have such ramps now, but there are no Type X3 splitter pieces yet, rightly so because only the RHW-12S can support them, barring "inverted" ramp splitters.

. . .

For one, Type X3 ramps and the RHW-12S will be prerequisites. Secondly, to intersect with a surface street (presumably an avenue or wider NWM network), it would have to transition to a OWR-3, and the transition between the RHW-6S and the OWR-3 is rather clunky and just looks weird intersecting with an avenue.

I suppose so. Since you can't make intersections beyond RHW-4 (which itself is rather restricted) you would need to transition to another network in order to make a 3-laned connection. A TuLEP that makes two lanes turn left and one turn right or transition to a slip lane would work best in my mind.

For the record, a 12S isn't even necessary to have a type-(X)3 ramp. A few people have requested a 10S ramp that splits into two RHW-6S's: The 10S A3 Ramp. And there are examples of this in Arizona, too.

What's required to construct a 4-lane diamond interchange or a 4-lane SPUI (where two lanes feed into the single intersection and two lanes feed out) is even more nightmarish. As a matter of fact if you run down the list of components needed to build such an interchange in SC4, virtually none of them even exist yet, nor do they come close to existing. In theory the components required would be a surface street at least as wide as a TLA-9, a RHW-8S/OWR-4 transition, cosmetic pieces/advanced TuLEPs for the ramps and surface street, a ERHW-8 to overpass the surface street, a RHW-16S network, and a RHW-16S Type E4 splitter. For a SPUI you could dispense with the TuLEPs, but another FlexSPUI piece would have to be created.

To be honest here, why would you ever need a 4-lane interchange? Isn't 3 lanes enough in SC4 to recreate real life designs? Making 4 lanes would mean an additional tile and a lot of additional work as a result. You could use a RHW-8S or OWR-4 splitter piece to separate right and left turning traffic to make the design less complex. RHW-16S remains a 'ultra-wide' network, which is possible with the use of filler pieces but isn't planned at this point. These filler pieces could create very wide RHW networks taking up multiple tiles. Remember the RHW-52S Tarkus posted a long while back? (26 lanes on each side )

Wasn't the 26S just two 13-lane halves? For the record, the El Toro-Y is that wide, but it's subdivided so that there's no real 26S.

Anyway, I had intentionally capped off my Periodic Table at type-X3 ramps because the RHW-6S (or MIS-3) is the widest single-tile single-direction network there is. Any more than that is overkill.

Even when I came along right after Version 4 of RHW, there's still something about the MIS networks that caught my eye: The fact that it was called MIS-1. That implies that at least three different MIS widths were planned: MIS-2 and MIS-3. That's now RHW-4 and 6S. To me, I imagined that the MIS (the system, not the network) would include different widths of MIS network as a turn-lane system.

I wouldn't rule out a MIS-4 just yet (though I ironically won't RUL one in, either), but I will rule out any associated type-X4 ramps for being overkill. My thought on this is that a MIS-4 system (if necessitated) can be used as a type of MIS TuLEP.

The long-term plans have, for years, excluded at-grade functionality for the RHW-6S, and limited it for the RHW-4 (no One-Way Road, Avenue or NWM intersections).  We most likely would have had the RHW-4 intersections in place already if they were on the plans.  However, that part of the plans has been under re-evaluation, and the case you've made about the 6S is intriguing.  The possibility of restricting them to TuLEP situations and not doing draggables also merits consideration, though coupling them with draggables would ease construction. 

Perhaps a "MITuLEP System" (Modular Interchange Turn-Lane Extension Piece System) would need to be in order...? Some means to transition the would-be MIS-1, 2, and 3 networks to some sort of turn-lane system with pieces of equal or wider width.

In short, the idea of going beyond type-X3 ramps is not necessary and a lot of work, but just transitioning from 6S to OWR-3 to OWR-4 turn lanes isn't really sufficient.

Perhaps if one would turn their attention to Arizona for a moment https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=33.436171,-112.036823&spn=0.001915,0.002642&t=h&z=19 , one can find an application of this MIS-TuLEP hybrid.

[jondor]

To quote the figures from the actual models, the 12S has a 1.5m overhang on the orthogonal and just over 0.5m on the diagonal.

The 8C has a 0.25m overhang on the orthogonal and no overhang on the diagonal.  The 10C has a whopping 4.625m overhang on the orthogonal and just over 0.33m on the diagonal.

That orthogonal 10C overhang seems excessive and in fact is just slightly larger than the 6S (4.375m), but it is still mostly shoulder and the paths stay inside the actual tile.  If we were to try and make it a five tile setup, the outer paths would have to be pushed very nearly onto the white line to even be in that outer tile and completely off the road to maintain the same capacity on the diagonal (which very nearly completely fits within the 2.5√2 tile width available; diagonals are complicated beasts).

[memo]

If I may just ask on a different matter, are there any plans for revisiting the onslope-transitions? What is slightly bothering me, is the false intersection for the L2-RHW as it prevents other networks like road or rail from crossing directly next to the onslope piece. This makes an L2-RHW-4 overpass above railroad look unneccessary large. There aren't any L2-RHW puzzle pieces to circumvent this any more, are there?

I was hoping for something like Flex maybe. I know the actual 1x1 onslope piece will always be needed (unless making use of a radical slope mod), which makes it very hard to accomplish in this setup, as there basically is only one tile available for a possible Flex-Setup. Certainly the flags are very rare. Suddenly having felt over-enthusiastic, I have even tried to use rail flags (21–71) which did not work, of course, not even after changing the dirtroad INRULs from RoadRules to RailRules (which seemed to have no effect, at all).

Considering that it is already possible to cross RHW networks below the current onslope transistions, there are probably sufficiently many flags for another onslope transistion neglecting RHW crossings. The false intersection could than be an INRULed one, while intersections with other networks are still possible and could easily be implemented.

[Tarkus]

Now that's a very interesting thought . . .

Sadly, the tests we've done with trying "exotic" INRUL flags (or flat-out bogus ones like 05) haven't panned out for that sort of thing . . . RUL0 and RUL1 don't seem to like them.  That said, I remember smoncrie toyed with some similar stuff long time ago.  He was using 04 (Median) flags, as I recall, though he was using them for the starter rather than the actual on-slope part.  It is worth noting, however, that 04 flags are slope tolerant in many circumstances, so theoretically, it might be possible to use one as the actual on-slope part itself.  As I just assembled the L0-to-L1 RHW-2 Onslope a couple nights ago, it'll make a nice guinea pig.

-Alex

[Patricius Maximus]

Yes, I can confirm that the 10C and 12S are set up exactly that way.  Their current state is that there's textures, models and RULs assembled for the base network, but no paths, and the starter pieces haven't been built.  X3 ramps are on the docket for the 12S.

Thanks for the info. I never doubted that the 12S would have 3-lane ramps. Given the existence of ramp splitters and the fact that the 12S neatly splits into two even 6S networks, it's almost mandatory.

The long-term plans have, for years, excluded at-grade functionality for the RHW-6S, and limited it for the RHW-4 (no One-Way Road, Avenue or NWM intersections).  We most likely would have had the RHW-4 intersections in place already if they were on the plans.  However, that part of the plans has been under re-evaluation, and the case you've made about the 6S is intriguing.  The possibility of restricting them to TuLEP situations and not doing draggables also merits consideration, though coupling them with draggables would ease construction. 

The TuLEPs bit is intriguing. There is also the solution of converting 6S ramps to OWR-3 (and RHW-4 ramps to OWR-2), but the transitions would have to be streamlined. It is also possible to let RHW-4 and 6S interact directly with surface streets. But I still think the TuLEPs present the best bet, because with TuLEPs you could get rid of the hard shoulder (which would be realistic on a ramp transitioning to a surface street), but with normal RHW-6S it would continue all the way to the avenue (which would be a little weird).

Then, there's also things like this [link]--is that an AVE-6, or is it an RHW-6S expressway?  It basically was a semi-rural RHW-4 expressway that, as the town around it grew exponentially in the late-90s, kind of turned into a weird hybrid.

It looks more like an AVE-6 to me.

I'd also be really interested in seeing the RL X3 ramp you recently ran across, to study it some. 

I would direct you to the location, but it would be rather pointless because none of the satellite pictures nor Google Street View feature it. I'm not privy to that general area's freeway history, but apparently it was just expanded a few months ago.

Whats funny is in some of my cities, I have two RHW-10's side by side(making 10 lanes in each direction) and in one Residential city, both are blood red and I am considering making another 10 lanes in each direction to handle the traffic

You need a collector/express system, if only because wider RHW networks don't exist yet. The amount of traffic needed to turn a RHW-10S blood red is enough to boggle even my mind. RHW-6S is usually the widest one that I see turn red under any circumstance, though I have a 10S in one city that is some shade of orange on the map.

For the record, a 12S isn't even necessary to have a type-(X)3 ramp. A few people have requested a 10S ramp that splits into two RHW-6S's: The 10S A3 Ramp. And there are examples of this in Arizona, too.

That is true, and that works very well for exit ramps, but for entrance ramps I strongly prefer all the entering traffic to have its own lane and not have to merge immediately.

Anyway, I had intentionally capped off my Periodic Table at type-X3 ramps because the RHW-6S (or MIS-3) is the widest single-tile single-direction network there is. Any more than that is overkill.

Well, I'd say that almost every ramp you'd need in real-life and SC4 would come in at 3 lanes or less. A 3-lane ramp is already very high capacity when it comes to car traffic. Also, a full complement of x4 ramps would run into the ultra-wide RHW networks, and that combined with the fact that even x3's don't exist yet makes a strong case for capping off your table at x3 ramps.

In short, the idea of going beyond type-X3 ramps is not necessary and a lot of work, but just transitioning from 6S to OWR-3 to OWR-4 turn lanes isn't really sufficient.

That's what I think. I was laying out some hypothetical situations. However, I could see in the far future of the RHW, when just about every real-world interchange is possible to create (well after P57), that 4-lane ramps could come into the picture.

Hypothetically, if you had a stack interchange that was very heavily trafficked (let's say a huge amount of cars straight through on one road plus two entrance ramps also heavily trafficked), you might want to make the through route an RHW-8, and make all of the ramps on the interchange 2 lanes (RHW-4 in the Multi-Height System). When those two heavily-trafficked ramps come together, they will make an RHW-8 (because instant merging is not advisable for heavy traffic). When it recombines with the main road, which is also an RHW-8, it would make an RHW-16, and would combine with it via a RHW-16 Type D4 ramp.

This is a hypothetical situation where there would be a "legitimate" use for an X4 ramp, without going overkill on the actual ramps themselves (after they split off). Of course in such a situation you could make do just fine with X2 ramps, having one entrance ramp enter via a RHW-12S Type D2 and the next one enter via a RHW-16S Type D2. However, there are legitimate theoretical uses for a 4-lane ramp piece. A 4-lane diamond interchange is overkill and unrealistic, but other uses are possible. It isn't necessary and it's in the realm of far-off speculation, but I'd just like to point that out.

[Tarkus]

Still needs stability all around, but it's a start . . .



-Alex

[ivo_su]

Oh Alex, it looks embarrassing! I believe, however, that you will fix this bug and stability will be really Ultra.

[memo]

ivo_su, there is nothing embarrassing about it. In fact, Alex can be proud of what he is doing. Probably you have no clue of what is involved. You could be grateful, Alex is keeping you up with his current development as much as he is doing, including incompleted pieces.

[ivo_su]

ivo_su, there is nothing embarrassing about it. In fact, Alex can be proud of what he is doing. Probably you have no clue of what is involved. You could be grateful, Alex is keeping you up with his current development as much as he is doing, including incompleted pieces.

Okay, I've said what's wrong. Just comment on the photo. Especially Alex knows how much I enjoy when a visualization of development. Comment on what I see and I say that I know that this is a temporary setback. Such things are inevitable in life there are always unforeseen difficulties. I'm glad to see something new every day and do not intend to be rude, but please do not be rude to you and me.

[Swordmaster]

ivo_su, there is nothing embarrassing about it. In fact, Alex can be proud of what he is doing. Probably you have no clue of what is involved. You could be grateful, Alex is keeping you up with his current development as much as he is doing, including incompleted pieces.

Yes, I'm also quite interested in seeing these developments, completed or not. Looks like whatever is going to be put out (and whenever), it'll probably top everything else we've gotten so far.

Cheers
Willy

[noahclem]

Awesome again Alex 

And I'll agree with Willy. The scale of this version is just massive but having the additional stability and long-term preparation that will come with it as well is beyond impressive. Cheers to the whole team for all they've done and are doing and a big tip 'o' the hat to your vision and leadership Alex.

A wag of the finger to those translator hopefully got the best of them 

[wschmrdr]

Still needs stability all around, but it's a start . . .



-Alex

Alex, are those dragged RHWs, or do you have puzzle pieces involved? Is the intention to be able to drag more than two levels?

[gn_leugim]

Awesome again Alex 

And I'll agree with Willy. The scale of this version is just massive but having the additional stability and long-term preparation that will come with it as well is beyond impressive. Cheers to the whole team for all they've done and are doing and a big tip 'o' the hat to your vision and leadership Alex.

A wag of the finger to those translator hopefully got the best of them 

+1 

Still needs stability all around, but it's a start . . .



-Alex

Alex, are those dragged RHWs, or do you have puzzle pieces involved? Is the intention to be able to drag more than two levels?

Nop, I guess it is all dragged

[jdenm8]

Everything that Tarkus has shown is completely draggable.

[Reece202]

How are the different height levels done? I know L0 and L2 have the starter pieces, but will L1/3/4 be draggable from starter pieces as well or will they be puzzle piece only (like the high level networks are now)?

[GDO29Anagram]

How are the different height levels done? I know L0 and L2 have the starter pieces, but will L1/3/4 be draggable from starter pieces as well or will they be puzzle piece only (like the high level networks are now)?

All draggable.

-----

Since height is an illusion in transit-network-land, you can currently turn the current L2 networks into an L30 network (insanely high) if you wanted to, simply by moving the models up by an additional 435 meters. Since height is irrelevant, so are the support pillars.

Conversely, L1 RHW-2 is the only network that's currently being given the most stability, so from a model standpoint, you just need to copy the models and move it up 7.5 meters, and from a RUL-ing standpoint, it's mostly copy and paste... To all 43 other networks, assuming you count the inner 8S and 6C median as separate networks.

[Wiimeiser]

I'd actually like to see how high L30 would be in game. a BAT or something...

[Tarkus]

Well, each level is 7.5m apart, so 7.5 x Level No. would get you the figure.  L30 would actually be 225m.  In other words, it'd be in between the Washington Monument and the Eiffel Tower.  It'd also get you up about to the 63rd floor of the Burj Khalifa.

-Alex