RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Kuewr665]

Oh. I can't read. 

[Wiimeiser]

We had a string of users in the past couple years coming to the NAM Team, asking us to fix transportation-related "bugs" that were actually fixed by Maxis in the EP1 patch, and that prompted the installer functionality.

Wasn't I one of those?

EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the RHW-3 one:

Something like that would be more of a transition than a ramp interface. In fact, RHW-2 D1, E1, and F1 ramps would technically be RHW-2 to MIS transitions by that standard, but they bear the hallmarks of ramp interfaces and are treated as ramp interfaces and not transitions.

Conversely, it would mean that the RHW-6S to 6C transition (one of them at least) would be considered an RHW-6C D3 ramp and the RHW-8S to 8C transition an RHW-8C D4 ramp, neither of which don't even fit on the PToRI and are therefore considered transitions.

So... How feasible would it be to make a piece so I don't need that single tile of RHW-4?

[Kuewr665]

Does this feature still work?

[APSMS]

Not sure if this has been reported, but there's a missing rotation for the RHW4 to 2 MIS orth + diag piece. Screenshot below:




EDIT: I just realized what I was expecting: an inside RHW 4 E1, and I was getting an outside E1; I'll file this under requests instead now... Boy, sometimes my own comments come back to bite me, though this at least, considering the wide number of users of RHW4, seems like it ought to be a reasonable feature request. Textures seem to be made already: just repath the exit piece (and of course assign new RULs) and Bam! new piece.

Another question: Is it possible to demolish the starters on some of the ramp puzzle pieces? I know how to remove the stubs of the transitions and such, but I don't know how to remove starters...Is this even possible? (I'm asking specifically about everything except MIS starters)

EDIT3: Anyone know how to get rid of RHW2 stubs on puzzle pieces?

[Wiimeiser]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'll say it again, the RHW-4 bit there is out of place and unnecessary

[APSMS]

I'm confused. There's a lot of RHW-4 in that picture. Which of it is unnecessary?

Also, if you'd embedded you idea images instead of attach them (like with your ramp ideas a few pages back), it makes them much more visible, and people are less likely to miss what you're trying to say.

Does this feature still work?

Which part of that page are you referring to? (You can link to specific posts by clicking on the heading above each reply.) It's not really clear what you're asking, and unclear questions are easily ignored.

[Tarkus]

I think I get what you're after, Wiimeiser.  You're trying to transition the one-lane side of the RHW-3 directly to an MIS, rather than adding a lane to it and going to an RHW-4.  That said, it's going to need textures in order to come to fruition.

Does this feature still work?

Are you referring to the GLR-in-Ave bit?  It got a little messed up when I changed the implementation of it in one of the NAM 31.x releases.  I don't know that you'll see that addressed any further in NAM 32. 

EDIT: I just realized what I was expecting: an inside RHW 4 E1, and I was getting an outside E1; I'll file this under requests instead now... Boy, sometimes my own comments come back to bite me, though this at least, considering the wide number of users of RHW4, seems like it ought to be a reasonable feature request. Textures seem to be made already: just repath the exit piece (and of course assign new RULs) and Bam! new piece.

Because of the yellow line/diagonal alignment side of things, you'd actually need different textures for an inside E1.

Another question: Is it possible to demolish the starters on some of the ramp puzzle pieces? I know how to remove the stubs of the transitions and such, but I don't know how to remove starters...Is this even possible? (I'm asking specifically about everything except MIS starters)

A lot of ramp interfaces will be FLEXed for NAM 32, so the starter/stub issue will be largely moot for many extant pieces.  (The thing I'm having to deal with right now on that front is where these FLEXRamps will fit within an IID scheme that takes all reasonably expected possibilities into account.)

-Alex

[Kuewr665]

I mean dragging stubs of another network next to the Tram-AVE to create an intersection, yes.

re starter stub removal: I think it would also be a good idea to make it possible to place wide radius curves right next to starters. That is possible with FARHW curves, but not the other ones.

[Geometry123]

I hope the RHW-6S A2 and B2 FlexRamps can be overriden into RHW-8S, 8C, and 10S A2/B2 ramps in the next NAM version. But as always, we'll never know if that functionality will be in NAM 32, or not. Only time teasing will tell.

[Kuewr665]

I think it was missed, but are C and F ramps going to be made into FLEX pieces?

[GDO29Anagram]

I think it was missed, but are C and F ramps going to be made into FLEX pieces?

That's the eventual plan, but there's the matter of getting it working with Fractionally Angled RealHighway, and the eventual plans for that are a few pages back.

[Shadow Assassin]

There are a few thorny implementation issues with Flex ramps for FARHW, namely the fact that most of the ramp interfaces need to be different sizes to suit differing widths of RHW. That being said, though, it theoretically is possible to extend the base pieces so that they can scale well.

That being said, however, there probably won't be any draggable setups because of complexity of interactions in that poor, abused RUL2 file.

[Shadow Assassin]

Double post:

Spot the difference!



Top is Illustrator, bottom is Photoshop. You can probably see my workflow there.

Ignore the fact that line markings are missing, that's because I haven't got around to doing them yet.

There's a reason why I'm remastering the FA textures

[APSMS]

FA-2 for RHW?

[metarvo]

So, now I know how the road engineers in my area pave roads.  They must have RHW brushes.  I thought they just used blacktop and paint this whole time, but I must have been wrong.    This ramp looks even better the second time around.  I can tell it's going to be a FAR out day.

[Gugu3]

Amazing stuff SA!

[Shadow Assassin]

Nope. Not FA-2.

Here's FA-2 in comparision to the existing FA-3 ramp.



As I'm posting this from a mobile phone if the above link doesn't work, click here: http://www.ld-host.de/uploads/images/87f6c6ebf372df43c81892454709605f.jpg

[Geometry123]

That's just epic.

[APSMS]

I'm still not sure that I understand what exactly I'm supposed to be looking at. FARHW-2 looks good, especially for MIS, but unless the extra bits are supposed to be stubs (which I'm guessing they're not from the Photoshop pic) it just looks like a redone texture with a little bit more wear evident on the road.

Though reworked specs are always welcome.

[GDO29Anagram]

I've been able to spot the difference, actually: The yellow line on the branch extends further into the gore, whereas in the current texture set, the yellow line switches to a white line before it reaches the end of the gore.

If you guys don't know what the gore is, it's the triangle of unmarked asphalt between where the branch and mainline split into two. I'm specifically referring to what the MUTCD refers to as the theoretical gore, which is the diverging point as painted out by those paint lines and not by the asphalt.