RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[noahclem]

Yes, YES, YEESSS!!!! It's beautiful 

7m/23' is plenty of clearance (even with SC4's ~10% distorted scale).  Truly a major contribution and if it's modular and multi-rhw-network even better!

As a passionate (and attempted non-outspoken) advocate of aforementioned realistic scale you've truly, truly made my day. Like Alex (Tarkus) my hat is off to you, but I went ahead and took the time to actually grab a hat, put it on, and then take it off again.

Hyvaa jatkuu (good luck continuing in the future) 

[MandelSoft]

Hi everyone, just thought I'd share the progress I've made this afternoon:









-Matt

Wow! Just wow! These look awesome!

However, the last ramp (which looks like a RHW-3 tunnel) should have broken white lines (so cars from that direction can pass).

[SeanSC4]

Not necessarily on the white lines going into the tunnel. It would be common here in Boston to have it be a solid white line inside the tunnel to prevent lane changes.

[toja]

Matt, these ramps do look really fantastic!   

Regarding the depth: I've used 10m for the RHW2-ramp that is already implemented, since the network-paths for the FLUP-pieces are 10m below the surface. As far as I can see the ramps are five tiles (80m) long? For the RHW2-ramp I've decided to use only four tiles, because I think it gives more flexibility when you're building interchanges like parclos or trumpets etc. - and it looks still satisfying in my opinion...   

To implement the ramps as FLUPs, the LODs for the models should look like here:



toja

[metarvo]

Wow, Matt, I felt a chill go through me when I saw those!  When that happens, you know it must be good!  With lower ERHW on the horizon, the 7 m FLUP seems like a real winner to me.  70 mph is a rather common speed limit on this side of the pond as well, so I completely agree with the less steep slope.

[drjumbajookiba]

GOOD news

[Chrisim]

Dexter, I hope you are aware that you have to adapted the LOD such that it is a thin box (plate) just above the surface, and the underground part is projected onto this LOD. Otherwise, the surface (green grass or whatever) will shine though when using the model for a puzzle piece. This is different from models for Lots.
If you don't understand, please have a close look with the Reader at the S3D models in NetworkAddonMod_FLUPs_Props.dat

[Dexter]

Hi again everyone, thanks for the feedback - I'm not sure if I should start a new thread for these, because this one is really for the NAM team to post updates 

@ivo_su, noahclem: Glad you like it, I'm glad I took the time to rework the scaling now 

@mrtnrln, SeanSC4:  The reason I decided to use a solid white line was because of the restricted width of the tunnel.  Lane changing is often prohibited under such circumstances to prevent accidents, but it's just a prototype really anyway.

@toja: I decided on a 5 tile length mainly because at the original 15m depth I was using anything shorter would have been too steep, but TBH it's a bit late to change the length of the ramp.


However, I've hit a bit of a snag.  You see, correct me if I'm wrong, but puzzle piece models need to be saved as S3D files, rather than rendered like those used on lots.  Now, here's the problem - the polygon count for the RHW-4 transition is currently at 10545, (mainly due to using the loft function)  .  I remember reading there's a limit somewhere, but I can't remember what exactly it is.


Anyway, here's something else I've been working on:



PS.  I don't seem to be able to access anyone's profile (You do not have permission), and so it doesn't seem possible to send PM's, unless I'm missing something?

-Matt

[Jayster]

Anyway, here's something else I've been working on:



-Matt

YES! I really like these

[ps2owner]

Hi again everyone, thanks for the feedback - I'm not sure if I should start a new thread for these, because this one is really for the NAM team to post updates 

@ivo_su, noahclem: Glad you like it, I'm glad I took the time to rework the scaling now 

@mrtnrln, SeanSC4:  The reason I decided to use a solid white line was because of the restricted width of the tunnel.  Lane changing is often prohibited under such circumstances to prevent accidents, but it's just a prototype really anyway.

@toja: I decided on a 5 tile length mainly because at the original 15m depth I was using anything shorter would have been too steep, but TBH it's a bit late to change the length of the ramp.


However, I've hit a bit of a snag.  You see, correct me if I'm wrong, but puzzle piece models need to be saved as S3D files, rather than rendered like those used on lots.  Now, here's the problem - the polygon count for the RHW-4 transition is currently at 10545, (mainly due to using the loft function)  .  I remember reading there's a limit somewhere, but I can't remember what exactly it is.


Anyway, here's something else I've been working on:



PS.  I don't seem to be able to access anyone's profile (You do not have permission), and so it doesn't seem possible to send PM's, unless I'm missing something?

-Matt

You can send PMs by clicking on messages at the top and going to messages>new message I think.
Oh, and BTW those look awesome (though it is mainly the functionality it provides that I am interested in I think)

[canyonjumper]

I've gotta say there Matt, those FLuPs look amazing. Great work on them!

                Your friend,
                               Jordan

[jdenm8]

However, I've hit a bit of a snag.  You see, correct me if I'm wrong, but puzzle piece models need to be saved as S3D files, rather than rendered like those used on lots.  Now, here's the problem - the polygon count for the RHW-4 transition is currently at 10545, (mainly due to using the loft function)  .  I remember reading there's a limit somewhere, but I can't remember what exactly it is.

I am going to correct you 

Puzzle Pieces can use rendered props (That's what absolutely every other FLUPs ramps use) as we can't pierce the ground with a Puzzle Piece model.

Just ensure to use the special LOD that Toja demonstrated (Not a conventional one with a cutout as they don't work as they do on LOTs).

[Dexter]

@jdenm8:  That's great news then!  The special LODs must explain why the previews always look really weird from all but one angle  .  I'll redo the LODs tomorrow and go from there.

I still need to darken the textures properly though, so if anyone has any tips on how to get a decent match i'd be much appreciated 

[jdenm8]

That's exactly why the preview looks weird from all bar one rotation. The previewer can't handle the rotations properly TMK.

As for the darkening, I think it's a -20 brightness layer in Photoshop on PPs for the difference between draggable and PPs

[Tarkus]

The setup I used on the V5-Spec textures for the RHW puzzle pieces in Photoshop involved putting a Hue/Saturation layer over the texture, and setting the Brightness to -15.  Works quite well.

-Alex

[toja]

Well it depends... the default lightning rig of gmax change colors as well as SC4 does. You have to adjust the colors for both cases. And maybe there's a difference for 3dsMax, too.

Anyway, if you are working with Photoshop, I've attached my color adjustments that I've made with PS 5.5, but I don't know if newer versions do support them...

[Shadow Assassin]

Well it depends... the default lightning rig of gmax change colors as well as SC4 does. You have to adjust the colors for both cases. And maybe there's a difference for 3dsMax, too.

Anyway, if you are working with Photoshop, I've attached my color adjustments that I've made with PS 5.5, but I don't know if newer versions do support them...

Newer versions should support them. But if it doesn't work, visit here for more info on how to calibrate Photoshop for gmax.


Dexter, looks wonderful.

[MandelSoft]

Oooh! Love those on-slope tunnel entrances

[Nanami]

Wow,those are nice work! I can't wait for RHW version 5.0 to came out! 
Also is it possible to create multi level MIS? I mean there's MIS on 7.5m, 15m and 22.5m to allow each MIS to pass each other?

Oh yeah thanks for the help before, now MIS is working in my cities. 

[jdenm8]

No, Multi-height networks (aside from the most basic DDRHW-4 connection elements) are not available in RHW 5.0. They are a feature set aside for RHW 6.0.