RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

There is a way to transition from L2-L4, either via on on-slope or a "ramp-style" height transition, but you're not going to find a dedicated piece for it under the Height Transitions button, as we've stopped making traditional, static puzzle piece-based height transitions.  In your particular situation, find the "2-level FLEX-OnSlope" under the FLEXHeight button, and drag the L2 RHW-4 into the ground end.  It'll convert to an L2-L4 OnSlope.

-Alex

[Allein]

Thank you for that informations. I've tried to do like you said, but the RHW section on slope doesn't appear after dragging RHW L2.

[thomaslc]

I tried and got the same result as you. Seems it's not supported.

[dyoungyn]

Tarkus,

First, I want so say I love all the hard work you did with NAM32 and the new features, BZ to you and all those involved. 

I am having a problem with RHW6C over 6C.  It all looks great from a distance but as you zoom in, you will see under the upper piece the patch show a bug.

The maps that currently have this configuration load fine, but if I were to create a new interchange, since NAM32, I get this.  I love this configuration as it works perfectly with AVE7.

Don

[jdenm8]

We changed the model specifications for ERHW-6S and ERHW-6C in NAM31 and not all of the models have been completely updated to the new specification. That's one of them.

[Tarkus]

Thank you for that informations. I've tried to do like you said, but the RHW section on slope doesn't appear after dragging RHW L2.

Confirmed on this end.

-Alex

[woodb3kmaster]

Creating a 6C bridge would be impossible to do in single segments since there's no way to create side-by-side bridges, and the best way to do so would result in a bridge that's 2/3rds functional. The only other possible method to explore would be to employ the Diagonal Bridge Enabler for use with draggable side-by-side bridges, but I've conducted rudimentary tests and found it hard to do.

Pardon the late reply, but I'd be very interested to know exactly what issues you ran into when conducting those tests. I'm interested in building DBE-based bridges for RHW-8C (and I even started a thread on the topic), so any information you can share regarding your experiments would be very useful. I myself tried dragging an RHW-8C orthogonally across a drained waterway with the DBE installed, but I was unsuccessful; I always got the "Failed Smoothing Terrain" error message. If you ran into this same problem, were you able to overcome it, and if so, how? And what other problems, if any, did you run into in your tests?

Thanks in advance.

[Blue Lightning]

You need to define the pylon properties for the ortho tiles for RHW-2 (or something like that - I don't remember off the top of my head). I experimented with it a long time ago and just found it fairly awkward to use (placing pieces in the right spot, mostly. I guess going for an override based bridge (like the rest of the DBE) would make it easier to use).

[memo]

Pardon the late reply, but I'd be very interested to know exactly what issues you ran into when conducting those tests. I'm interested in building DBE-based bridges for RHW-8C (and I even started a thread on the topic), so any information you can share regarding your experiments would be very useful. I myself tried dragging an RHW-8C orthogonally across a drained waterway with the DBE installed, but I was unsuccessful; I always got the "Failed Smoothing Terrain" error message. If you ran into this same problem, were you able to overcome it, and if so, how? And what other problems, if any, did you run into in your tests?

It is indeed very well possible to apply the DBE technique to orthogonal (multi-tile) networks, but you need to add those exemplars that Blue Lightning mentioned. They are in the default game for the Road network, so you can already drag Roads across a gorge.

However, you may have noticed that all the diagonal bridges have pylons in fixed intervals of at most 4 tiles, since the pylons are added via T21s, so it would be impossible to make a suspension bridge in the same way (that is, T21-based). What is more, 4 tiles on orthogonals are shorter than on diagonals. I have read somewhere it would be possible to have larger T21 pattern sizes, like for 1 tile out of n, which would be perfect for any orthogonal bridge, but I have never tested this myself. Still, you would have to stick to fixed-size intervals, which would be hard to use in case of a suspension bridge as the user would have to ensure the length of the bridge in the game is a multiple of the size of one interval. I am only reflecting about a draggable approach here, by the way. Though, a bridge like the one in the picture would be easy to implement, both on the modelling and modding end.

Still, a suspension bridge would not be impossible to do, but it would require some work. For instance, it would be possible to write certain RUL2 overrides that calculate the length of a bridge using marker tiles and, based on that, automatically convert the plain network to a bridge of a suitable layout (which is basically how the Maxis suspension bridges work, too, only performed manually). It is not trivial though, neither the modding nor the modelling. It would require quite some RUL2 code, but considering recent advances in custom controller compilation, I don't think this would be a problem. Regarding the models, you'd have to ensure to have models that can be puzzled together for any length of the bridge. You would have to render cabels that are 14 tiles long, 15, 16, etc., for instance. This is exactly what makes the Maxis bridges cumbersome, but it's the only way to implement suspension bridges, so I'd suggest to have a look at the models of the Maxis suspension bridges. I'd be absolutely willing to do the modding, if you provide aesthetic models, as the idea of a 3-tile suspension bridge is rather cool and I would like to see, if I can get those overrides to work. There's just one problem, I guess: You don't want to start extensive modelling before you are sure this will work, and I don't want to implement it, before any models are available, as neither of us would want to see one's work in vain, if the other part does not work out as expected.

[eggman121]

Pardon the late reply, but I'd be very interested to know exactly what issues you ran into when conducting those tests. I'm interested in building DBE-based bridges for RHW-8C (and I even started a thread on the topic), so any information you can share regarding your experiments would be very useful. I myself tried dragging an RHW-8C orthogonally across a drained waterway with the DBE installed, but I was unsuccessful; I always got the "Failed Smoothing Terrain" error message. If you ran into this same problem, were you able to overcome it, and if so, how? And what other problems, if any, did you run into in your tests?

It is indeed very well possible to apply the DBE technique to orthogonal (multi-tile) networks, but you need to add those exemplars that Blue Lightning mentioned. They are in the default game for the Road network, so you can already drag Roads across a gorge.

However, you may have noticed that all the diagonal bridges have pylons in fixed intervals of at most 4 tiles, since the pylons are added via T21s, so it would be impossible to make a suspension bridge in the same way (that is, T21-based). What is more, 4 tiles on orthogonals are shorter than on diagonals. I have read somewhere it would be possible to have larger T21 pattern sizes, like for 1 tile out of n, which would be perfect for any orthogonal bridge, but I have never tested this myself. Still, you would have to stick to fixed-size intervals, which would be hard to use in case of a suspension bridge as the user would have to ensure the length of the bridge in the game is a multiple of the size of one interval. I am only reflecting about a draggable approach here, by the way. Though, a bridge like the one in the picture would be easy to implement, both on the modelling and modding end.

Still, a suspension bridge would not be impossible to do, but it would require some work. For instance, it would be possible to write certain RUL2 overrides that calculate the length of a bridge using marker tiles and, based on that, automatically convert the plain network to a bridge of a suitable layout (which is basically how the Maxis suspension bridges work, too, only performed manually). It is not trivial though, neither the modding nor the modelling. It would require quite some RUL2 code, but considering recent advances in custom controller compilation, I don't think this would be a problem. Regarding the models, you'd have to ensure to have models that can be puzzled together for any length of the bridge. You would have to render cabels that are 14 tiles long, 15, 16, etc., for instance. This is exactly what makes the Maxis bridges cumbersome, but it's the only way to implement suspension bridges, so I'd suggest to have a look at the models of the Maxis suspension bridges. I'd be absolutely willing to do the modding, if you provide aesthetic models, as the idea of a 3-tile suspension bridge is rather cool and I would like to see, if I can get those overrides to work. There's just one problem, I guess: You don't want to start extensive modelling before you are sure this will work, and I don't want to implement it, before any models are available, as neither of us would want to see one's work in vain, if the other part does not work out as expected.

The only solution I could think of is creating cosmetic puzzle pieces with the desired props to make the suspension bridge. e,g the DBE Viaduct Rail is placed onto the drawn out diagonal rail Bridge with puzzle pieces used like the usual Viaduct Rail, some with pylons some with none. It would however need multiple models and would be fixed in length that Memo was referring to.

-eggman121

[vinlabsc3k]

Another two:




Edit:
I have a strange behavior with NAM 32, in some cities at zoom 3-4 in every orientation the game close to desktop when I move versus some zones of the map.
In the reference city, I noticed that in the view there are an ortho RHW L1 over ortho PS HWY L0, a PS HWY tunnel, 4 PS HWY Ramps B1, a RHW FLUP Ramp, a RHW-2 18° and 45° Curve and other hundred things that don't remember, because of the CTD.
I've installed all the components except the BTM and other mod are: CAM, Industry 4x, Diagonal Bridge, Extra Terrain Tool, Extra Cheat, HWY Light Mod, Rivit's Tunnel and Bigger News Window.

Anyone notice my report?

[Tarkus]

Yes, but the reply to it got lost in the shuffle.  I've fixed the AVE Viaduct issue, and you can pick up an updated copy of NetworkAddonMod_RoadViaducts_Draggable.dat here.  Simply replace the existing copy in your Network Addon Mod\Elevated Road Networks folder.

I haven't investigated the RHW-3 situation yet.  That's one I thought I had already fixed, but the RHW-3 and I have a history of not getting along.   Your "zoom" issue sounds like the standard "zoom CTD" that a number of users have experienced over the years, rather than a NAM 32-specific situation.  Also, the Industry Quadrupler is not compatible with the CAM, per the inCAMpatible list.

-Alex

[vinlabsc3k]

...

I haven't investigated the RHW-3 situation yet.  That's one I thought I had already fixed, but the RHW-3 and I have a history of not getting along.   Your "zoom" issue sounds like the standard "zoom CTD" that a number of users have experienced over the years, rather than a NAM 32-specific situation.  Also, the Industry Quadrupler is not compatible with the CAM, per the inCAMpatible list.

-Alex

Thanks for the patch!!
It's strange because I have never experienced this until the NAM 32.

[jdenm8]

...

I haven't investigated the RHW-3 situation yet.  That's one I thought I had already fixed, but the RHW-3 and I have a history of not getting along.   Your "zoom" issue sounds like the standard "zoom CTD" that a number of users have experienced over the years, rather than a NAM 32-specific situation.  Also, the Industry Quadrupler is not compatible with the CAM, per the inCAMpatible list.

-Alex

Thanks for the patch!!
It's strange because I have never experienced this until the NAM 32.

Tarkus has put a lot of work into improving and refining the P57 codebase. This would be a new bug introduced just by human error.

[woodb3kmaster]

It is indeed very well possible to apply the DBE technique to orthogonal (multi-tile) networks, but you need to add those exemplars that Blue Lightning mentioned. They are in the default game for the Road network, so you can already drag Roads across a gorge.

I see. That's good news; just how hard would it be to add pylon properties to the RHW, and what exactly would need to be set? I've never modeled or modded a bridge, so I have no idea what's involved.

However, you may have noticed that all the diagonal bridges have pylons in fixed intervals of at most 4 tiles, since the pylons are added via T21s, so it would be impossible to make a suspension bridge in the same way (that is, T21-based). What is more, 4 tiles on orthogonals are shorter than on diagonals. I have read somewhere it would be possible to have larger T21 pattern sizes, like for 1 tile out of n, which would be perfect for any orthogonal bridge, but I have never tested this myself. Still, you would have to stick to fixed-size intervals, which would be hard to use in case of a suspension bridge as the user would have to ensure the length of the bridge in the game is a multiple of the size of one interval. I am only reflecting about a draggable approach here, by the way. Though, a bridge like the one in the picture would be easy to implement, both on the modelling and modding end.

Yes, using T21s would likely not be the best way to make a suspension bridge. Based on the discussion in the thread I posted earlier, I think the best option (unless we resort to the radically innovative ideas you discussed later in your post) would be to have a model for the bridge deck without any pylons, and then make the bridge towers and cables an overhanging prop located on the puzzle piece that initiates the override for the bridge deck.

Still, a suspension bridge would not be impossible to do, but it would require some work. For instance, it would be possible to write certain RUL2 overrides that calculate the length of a bridge using marker tiles and, based on that, automatically convert the plain network to a bridge of a suitable layout (which is basically how the Maxis suspension bridges work, too, only performed manually). It is not trivial though, neither the modding nor the modelling. It would require quite some RUL2 code, but considering recent advances in custom controller compilation, I don't think this would be a problem. Regarding the models, you'd have to ensure to have models that can be puzzled together for any length of the bridge. You would have to render cabels that are 14 tiles long, 15, 16, etc., for instance. This is exactly what makes the Maxis bridges cumbersome, but it's the only way to implement suspension bridges, so I'd suggest to have a look at the models of the Maxis suspension bridges. I'd be absolutely willing to do the modding, if you provide aesthetic models, as the idea of a 3-tile suspension bridge is rather cool and I would like to see, if I can get those overrides to work. There's just one problem, I guess: You don't want to start extensive modelling before you are sure this will work, and I don't want to implement it, before any models are available, as neither of us would want to see one's work in vain, if the other part does not work out as expected.

That sounds like a phenomenal improvement over what I was planning to do. If you can pull it off, I'm totally willing to put in the modeling effort. I've already started doing some research into the dimensions of the bridge I want to model. We can continue our discussion in this thread, if you like.

[spot]

I don't know if the RHW team is accepting ideas, but it sure wont hurt share it. 
Here it is:

[Shadow Assassin]

I've never thought about a ramp type like that. Let me see if I can whip a texture up.

[Thomas Diamond]

I would like to propose the idea of giant multi-height flex-fly pieces. They would have about the same radius as wide radius Rhw- 4 curves. They would come in MIS, RHW-2 and RHW-4 and would come in L2, L3 and L4 height levels. Their main purpose would be for realistic 4 and 5 level stack interchanges.

I really like the new FARHW TuLEPs. I especially like the one with two left turn lanes and one right turn lane, I see myself using it a lot! But since I find it weird to have three lane ramps in a diamond interchange, I would like to see a RHW 4 < -- > RHW 6s fractional angle transition.

[eggman121]

I would like to propose the idea of giant multi-height flex-fly pieces. They would have about the same radius as wide radius Rhw- 4 curves. They would come in MIS, RHW-2 and RHW-4 and would come in L2, L3 and L4 height levels. Their main purpose would be for realistic 4 and 5 level stack interchanges.

A similar idea was proposed a while back for the revamped FLEXfly Pieces. The models exist BTW thanks to jondor. Its just a case of implementation. From memory it would take a lot of RUL2 code to make RHW go under and over the pieces but less code if you just want the Pieces to act like smooth curves like the L0 smooth curves we have now. I am eager to see 45 degree multiple level smooth curves even if they are just curves without the RHW going over or under the pieces. Much like the quickchange parclo system in NAM32.

Just my 2 cents

-eggman121

[Gugu3]

45 degree smooth curves would be very nice to have...agree with you eggman :)think they're not so easy to achieve though...