RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[roadgeek]

Too much cross linkage would occur and the controller size would be bigger than the request for new networks to cross underneath. RHW/ Dirtroad network only!

-eggman121

Got it...now the curve is actually crossing both networks, and not just the ortho extension coming out of the curve, correct?

[eggman121]

Got it...now the curve is actually crossing both networks, and not just the ortho extension coming out of the curve, correct?

The new flexfly will operate like the old flexfly, so yes. The new flexfly system will allow multiple crossings as long as the networks are orthogonal and operating on separate tiles. Hope that clears up some confusion.

-eggman121

[roadgeek]

Got it...now the curve is actually crossing both networks, and not just the ortho extension coming out of the curve, correct?

The new flexfly will operate like the old flexfly, so yes. The new flexfly system will allow multiple crossings as long as the networks are orthogonal and operating on separate tiles. Hope that clears up some confusion.

-eggman121

I guess I wasn't aware this functionality was already available.

[Tarkus]

I can't believe I didn't notice this till now, but it seems that we do have a L1 flexfly now! Awesome!! And Tarkus, you said awhile back that the revamped FlexfFlys weren't going to be in NAM 33--but luckily, you were wrong.
x9006

Also, something else I'm wondering about: is there going to be an L0 45-degree FlexFly piece (both MIS and RHW-4)? This would be useful for the same reason that the elevated 45-degree flexfly is used in Tarkus' interchange example above. Also, what about a 90-degree RHW-4 L0 FlexFly piece?

I was happy to be wrong on those counts, too. You have eggman121 and memo (Edit: and Ganaram--thanks for the correction) to thank.  We were going to hold off on showing them altogether until release, but with the radio silence we've had of late on NAM development, we figured it was the best way to demonstrate that the project is still alive and kicking.  Believe it or not, this November will mark the 10th anniversary of the first RHW release.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

I was happy to be wrong on those counts, too. You have eggman121 and memo to thank.

HEY!!! I was the one who figured out you can geometrically modularise the thing in the first place; am I really THAT irrelevant?!!

If L1, L3, and L4 4×4 90deg FlexFlys are called for, I don't know how much code they'll require, even if they're limited to just the single-tile networks, but I think the L0 and L2 FlexFlys would have to be redone for the sake of consistency. There are still a lot of people who are too attached to the 4×4 curve... In which case, the 4×4 FlexFlys will be reserved for the MIS, all five height levels, but get this, because of how the 2×4 45deg curve overlapping yields the 5×5 curve, what if the 5×5 90deg FlexFly was instead two 2×4 45deg FlexFlys with an overlap tile in the middle? We've more or less determined that a 5×5 curve, with the right geometry, can be subdivided into two 2×4 curves.

There was even an initial test to see if the 5×5 FlexFlys can be cut up into two smaller 45deg curves that merged at the middle, but the geometry of the curve wasn't the same.

What has just occured to me is, is it possible to arrange the models such that the 45 curve only differs in the 5/5' tile? That would allow for sharing of RUL2 code, on a large scale.

I looked into that when I made my MIS 45 model, as it would be very handy.  Unfortunately, truncating 90 curve right at the 4/6' or 5/5' caused it not to line up with the network's diagonals.  I've been able to test this with my 5x5 90 curve prototype, by placing MIS Diagonal Fillers in the middle.  Here's what happened when I placed the filler over the 6/4' tile:

Gah, it means that all of Jondor's modelling work would have to be scrapped and redone to fit the modular FlexFly scheme... I can see why FlexFlys are so fiendishly hard to develop; it's not just the code, but the models; you'd need to have several hundred of them... (Markus, I think you mentioned taking elevated RHW decks and turning them into T21 props...)

It also means that, in the long run, FlexFlys have to follow the <CENSORED> model of modularising 90deg curves; instead of just having a 5×5 90deg FlexFly and who knows what for the 45deg FlexFly, we could kill two stones with one bird by turning the 5×5 FlexFly into a 2×4 45deg FlexFly; the only thing different with the 5×5 is that it would need to have a third anchor tile, one in the middle where the blend tile is. We'd have to take whatever Alex has developed for the 5×5 FlexFly and toss it aside... 0_x (Then again, I've kinda done the same with FlexRamps/EDRI already...)

[roadgeek]

[/quote]

Wow! What an awful looking curve! Might be a little fun for UDIs though. 

[Tarkus]

You have that awful looking curve to thank for the nice ones you've been seeing.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

So basically what I've done to help is basically irrelevant that the others deserve credit and I don't? That's how it goes? Well...

That's just really upsetting to me.

[Tarkus]

So basically what I've done to help is basically irrelevant that the others deserve credit and I don't? That's how it goes? Well...

That's just really upsetting to me.

I edited my original post after your correction, and apologize for inadvertently omitting you initially.

-Alex

[cmdp123789]

The mistake has been recognize.. =) lets not argue anymore.. right now, the NAM team is keeping the game alive.. wouldnt want to see this team go to bleh because of something like this.

[roadgeek]

Got it...now the curve is actually crossing both networks, and not just the ortho extension coming out of the curve, correct?

The new flexfly will operate like the old flexfly, so yes. The new flexfly system will allow multiple crossings as long as the networks are orthogonal and operating on separate tiles. Hope that clears up some confusion.

-eggman121

I guess I wasn't aware this functionality was already available.

I played around with it and found I could in fact intersect an L0 and L1 RHW-4 under a level 2 Flex-Fly in NAM 32, provided a left a tile space between the RHW and the MIS on both ends of the Flex-Fly. I tried a number of others as well: Adjacent L0 RHW 4 under a single L1 RHW-4, L1 RHW-4 intersecting an L2 RHW-4 over Level 0 Flex-Fly, and IIRC, adjacent RHW-4 L1 under adjecent RHW-4 L2 worked fine over Level 0 Flex-Fly.

[dyoungyn]

NAM Team,

I would like to start off by saying thank you for all your creativity and work.  I had posted this in "NAM Issues" with no hits or replies.  I am hoping for a hoot or whisper of possible error.

I am not sure if the attached have been reported.  The first of the cloverleaf interchange, this started about a month ago.  I use to be able to do this with ease, but now, no joy.

The second is so close for this type of interchange.  Now sure why it is doing this. 

dyoungyn

[compdude787]

Have you tried clicking around with the RHW tool all over the place? If you click enough, it will hopefully override correctly and resolve these problems.

[dyoungyn]

compudude787,

Yes, I have tried clicking everywhere and even moving it up to 15M and still no joy.  My work around is to have to ERHW6S.  Again, I use to be able to do this, but the problem appears to be dragging three or four rows of either road or RHW above or below. 

As for the diagonal MIS, yes again I tied all difference combinations and even tried using filler pieces and when I plop the filler piece, the pieces before reverts back.

dyoungyn

[mgb204]

For the first picture I'd recommend two things, fistly stick some starters in either side of the elevated RHW bridges, it looks like you have space for them, otherwise move everything back one tile, it will be more stable this way. Also draw the network under the bridge after the bridge is in place, sometimes it helps the networks to show correctly if done this way.

In the second picture I'd move the bridge another tile from the MIS lane if necessary, diagonals are a pain to get stable I find, not sure if there are diagonal MIS starters (think they exist), so once again try adding them if you can either side of the bridge.

[compdude787]

...not sure if there are diagonal MIS starters (think they exist), so once again try adding them if you can either side of the bridge.

AFAIK, there are no standalone diagonal MIS starters. There might be some in certain ramp pieces, but I have no idea which ones do have those.

[dyoungyn]

All,

I do not have room as this is a 7.5M and I needed the Flex 7.5 cliff to Elevated starter piece to make this work.  Again, I even tried 15M and still no joy.  I have done this before and I am not sure what happened between two months ago and today as I did not download anything in fears of prop plox.  My solution was to result to no merge lanes and instead only have RHW6S going across as it is only two lines of RHW and not four.

As for the diagonal piece, "compdude 787"is correct, there is not starter piece for diagonal starter piece.  I truly believe this may be an issue with NAM 32 that may or may not have been reported.  I resulted into a Trumpet interchange instead. 

Don

[roadgeek]

NAM Team,

I would like to start off by saying thank you for all your creativity and work.  I had posted this in "NAM Issues" with no hits or replies.  I am hoping for a hoot or whisper of possible error.

I am not sure if the attached have been reported.  The first of the cloverleaf interchange, this started about a month ago.  I use to be able to do this with ease, but now, no joy.

The second is so close for this type of interchange.  Now sure why it is doing this. 

dyoungyn

For your first image, there is a spot on the upper RHW-6C near the flex transition, that if you click it, seems to resolve that issue.

For the second image, there have been known issues with diagonals. It works much better with RHW-4 than it does with the wider networks.

Dan

[dyoungyn]

roadgeek,

Thank you for the reply.  I have tried it again and this time I did as you suggested and even plopped the 7.5M flex piece and a RHW8S before and still no joy.  I honestly believe it is the dragging 4 lines of RHW over 3 lines of RHW.

As for the diagonal, I agree this may be an issue to RHW.

dyoungyn

NAM Team,

I would like to start off by saying thank you for all your creativity and work.  I had posted this in "NAM Issues" with no hits or replies.  I am hoping for a hoot or whisper of possible error.

I am not sure if the attached have been reported.  The first of the cloverleaf interchange, this started about a month ago.  I use to be able to do this with ease, but now, no joy.

The second is so close for this type of interchange.  Now sure why it is doing this. 

dyoungyn

For your first image, there is a spot on the upper RHW-6C near the flex transition, that if you click it, seems to resolve that issue.

For the second image, there have been known issues with diagonals. It works much better with RHW-4 than it does with the wider networks.

Dan

[Tarkus]

As the plan is to jettison a large part of the existing base RHW code after NAM 33, it's unlikely we'll be able to address that until then.

-Alex