RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

For the menu question: I've seen a mod to make available the God's Tools in Mayor's one, so if it's possible to make sub-menus under the buttons it would very useful or if not, make every ramp group type in a separate buttons (ex. A type, B type and so on or A-B, C-D and E-F).[/size][/font]

True, there is the very useful God-mode submenu mod. If possibile, it would be very useful a Nam submenu for some components. What the NAMers here think about its feasibility?

To the best of my knowledge, the reason the GTM mod works is because it's basically combining two existing menus from two different game modes, not creating an entirely new one within a single game mode.  So no, unfortunately, I do not think it would be at all feasible.  If it were that simple, we would have had submenus a long time ago.

-Alex

[vinlabsc3k]

I don't know if it isn't feasible , but I think the menus aren't .exe controlled so there are scripts that control them . Infact if I don't remeber bad , I've seen an in-game submenu in a fan site, but I don't remember the site name and I've find the script that controls the keyboard shortcut; maybe the menu controller is here or elsewhere .

[jdenm8]

but I think the menus aren't .exe controlled so there are scripts that control them

True. However, the buttons and their layout are EXE controlled. As far as I'm aware, they function much like the hotkeys, explained below.

and I've find the script that controls the keyboard shortcut; maybe the menu controller is here or elsewhere

And so has everyone else meddling in SimCity1.dat. The problem is adding hooks for the game to execute when said hotkeys are pressed. They're EXE-Controlled as well.
Sort the DAT contents by File Type and you'll find there are only three files of that type in all of the easily accessible game files, all of which attach Hotkeys to Hooks. First is City Mode (In-City, has stuff like network dragging), Second is Region Mode (In Region, The extremely slow built-in Bitmap to Region creator is contained here) and the third is Global (Available in both, the Cheat Console ones live in here).

[metarvo]

I know this isn't strictly RHW-related, but I thought I would post it here since a discussion about menus and organization is going on here.  On the subject of organization, I think all of the Car-traffic networks can be divided into six categories:

MAVE: Medianless two-way networks.  Includes the Maxis Road (MAVE-2) and Street (NMAVE-2), as well as the NWM ARD, NMAVE, and MAVE networks.
OWR: One-way networks.  Includes the Maxis OWR-2, as well as the NWM OWR networks.
TLA: Two-way networks with turning lanes.  Includes the NWM TLA networks.
AVE: Two-way networks separated by medians.  Includes the Maxis AVE-4, as well as the NWM AVE networks.
MHW: Maxis Highway networks.  Includes any MHW network.
RHW: Real Highway networks.  Includes any MIS or RHW network.

Elevated networks would be included in the categories of their equivalent ground (0 m/L0) networks.
Overpass pieces would be included in the categories of their upper networks.  (e.g.: The Road over AVE-4 piece would be included in the MAVE category)
Transitions and TuLEPs would be included in the categories of their primary networks, determined by position in the list above.  (e.g.: The Avenue/Road Type A +/T TuLEP would be included in the AVE category)

Yesterday, I sat down and started thinking about the large number of networks we have now.  I counted 37 networks that use car traffic exclusively.  This doesn't take into account Rail networks or hybrid networks (such as GLR-in-Avenue).  The above categories might not be what the NAM team has in mind at all, but I just thought I would put it out there.

[Phlogiston]

I have several questions:

1. Whenever I drive on a FAR RHW-4 short curve, my car always vanishes. The paths show they were correct, and I can't find any problems, has anyone experienced it?

2. Is there a diagonal MIS to RHW-4 transition? or did I just missed it?

3. Is it realistic for a RHW to elevated RHW transition to be only 4 tiles long? if 1tile = 16meters that means it reaches 15meters (almost 5storey house) in just 64meters.

4. Is it also realistic for a RHW to elevated curved transition to sit on only 3x3 tiles to climb 15meters? (I think elevated transitions were too steep for me.)

Lastly I have some requests, I hope you can find a way to create these:

1. Diagonal RHW-4 inside entrance/exit (Type A&B)

2. Diagonal RHW-4 entrance/ exit (Type D and Wye)

3. Diagonal transitions 4-6s 6s-8s

4. RHW-4 FLUP Entrance/Exit (One way road FLUP looks ugly because of oversized arrows)

Thanks RHW Team

[GDO29Anagram]

I have several questions:

I have several answers:

1. It could be some sort of path misalignment that none of us have caught before...

2. None at the moment.

3. Nope; The L0 to L2 transitions should really be at least 6 tiles long.

4. In my opinion, nope.

Lastly, I have some responses to your requests:

1-3. All are doable, it's just a matter of when.

4. We have someone who has done a bit of work on FLUP modelling...

You're welcome, NAM user.

-----

On the subject of organization, I think all of the Car-traffic networks can be divided into six categories:

Apparently, I'm not the one who calls the "Road" network "MAVE-2"... To me, it just makes better sense to call it "MAVE-2".

Random thought: Technically the default Road network would be seen as a "MAVE-2," right...?

MAVE: Medianless two-way networks.  Includes the Maxis Road (MAVE-2) and Street (NMAVE-2), as well as the NWM ARD, NMAVE, and MAVE networks.
OWR: One-way networks.  Includes the Maxis OWR-2, as well as the NWM OWR networks.
TLA: Two-way networks with turning lanes.  Includes the NWM TLA networks.
AVE: Two-way networks separated by medians.  Includes the Maxis AVE-4, as well as the NWM AVE networks.
MHW: Maxis Highway networks.  Includes any MHW network.
RHW: Real Highway networks.  Includes any MIS or RHW network.

Interesting, and I would agree to an extent. I did a similar thing where I organised just the NWM networks:

SC4 Road Types vs NAM non-RHW Road Types:
       - SC4 Road Types are as follows: Street, Road, Avenue, and One-Way Road. Nothing special about them; Their name implies everything, at least for OWR...
       - NAM non-RHW Road Types are as follows: Street, SAM, AVE, TLA, MAVE, OWR, and ARD. Street and SAM are in their own little group, so let's skip to the rest.
       - AVE refers to a road network having a concrete median separating the two directions of traffic; Symmetrical AVEs are denoted in even numbers.
       - TLA refers to a road network having a central left turn lane (or suicide lane) in the middle; Symmetrical TLAs are denoted in odd numbers.
       - MAVE refers to a road network with a set of double yellow lines separating the two directions of traffic; Just like AVEs, symmetrical MAVEs are denoted in even numbers. It should also be noted that the network called "Road" is classified as a MAVE-type network: MAVE-2.
       - ARD refers to one special asymmetrical MAVE: The ARD-3; A 2+1 road, if you will. Other asymmetrical MAVEs might be called MAVEs, as opposed to ARDs, though ARD can also be used to describe a highly uncommon 3+1 road (ARD-4?).
       - NMAVE refers to the one-tile version of the MAVE-4. The most lanes one can put on a single SC4 tile without narrowing the lanes is 3, though with lane narrowing, it's possible to raise the bar to 4.

What's different is that I isolated the Street network into the SAMs; I then thought of the Street as being SAM-0. Also, keep in mind that there are two types of RHW networks: S-type and C-type (S for separate and C for combined). I usually think of the MIS and R2 (my shorthand notation for RHW-2) as a 2S and 2C, whereas the R3 is another C-type network, and the closest thing to a 4C.

I think OPPs (my shorthand for overpass pieces) should be organised by what's at the bottom (especially for RHW), but all of the non-RHW OPPs might become draggable one day, so there's no point in that.

Also, we had a discussion on TuLEP organisation on the TuLEP development/support thread a long time ago, and it led to the following:
- The definitions of A, B, C, D, and E TuLEPs (That was me)
- Isolating all Road (MAVE-2) TuLEP pieces, TuLEP Intersection Pieces and SIPs, AVE-network TuLEPs, OWR TuLEPs, and speciality pieces into their own separate buttons (suggested by Nego)

Let's see,... NWM (13) plus SAM (8) plus RHW (15, disregarding the 7C), plus the defaults (4) and MHW (2), that's 42 car-exclusive networks. If you thought that's a lot, think again...

[Tarkus]

I'm almost wondering the MAVE designation should be done away with entirely.  Just use "Road".  The MAVEs (and ARD) are really just giant roads anyway.  The MAVE-4 and MAVE-6 would become RD-4 and RD-6.  Would cut down on all the confusion with people calling AVE-6 a MAVE-6 and vice-versa, too.

-Alex

[io_bg]

Sounds like a good idea to me!

[Gringamuyloca]

I'm almost wondering the MAVE designation should be done away with entirely.  Just use "Road".  The MAVEs (and ARD) are really just giant roads anyway.  The MAVE-4 and MAVE-6 would become RD-4 and RD-6.  Would cut down on all the confusion with people calling AVE-6 a MAVE-6 and vice-versa, too.

-Alex

Yes   Alex.

This makes good sense. 

[GDO29Anagram]

Yes   Alex.

This makes good sense. 

Then why don't we take it over to the NWM thread? That's NWM-related, after all...

[metarvo]

Given that the MAVE networks are Road-based anyway, this makes perfect sense.  The Maxis Road would also be known as the RD-2 in much the same way that the Maxis OWR is also known as the OWR-2.  The ARD designation could be dropped as well and the ARD-3 would just be the RD-3, much like the RHW-3.

[jdenm8]

In response to this:

1. Whenever I drive on a FAR RHW-4 short curve, my car always vanishes. The paths show they were correct, and I can't find any problems, has anyone experienced it?

That bug was 'fixed' in a patch for RHW 4.0, but it was never applied to 4.1 or 5.0 by mistake.

[Kitsune]

Can RHW-4 atleast be made compatiable to make T-Interchanges with an Ave? ie the RHW-4 would end at the AVE. This would allow for proper A4 parclos and allow use to make better use of the RHW-4 tuleps..

[Haljackey]

Can RHW-4 atleast be made compatiable to make T-Interchanges with an Ave? ie the RHW-4 would end at the AVE. This would allow for proper A4 parclos and allow use to make better use of the RHW-4 tuleps..

Well you can do something like this:


Or convert your RHW-4 'ramp' to OWR a tile before the intersection.

Good point though. Having RHW-4/ave intersections is would also be useful for building an at-grade RHW expressway. I always have to convert my RHW to ave/OWR for ave intersections in this case.

[Tarkus]

The RHW-4 Cosmetic Pieces are just that . . . Cosmetic Pieces.  I don't think they were really conceived of as TuLEPs (more for placement at offramps), though it's obviously a very easy jump to look at them that way.

The situation of Avenue/RHW-4 intersections has been a controversial one.  I certainly see how they could have some use as dual-lane ramps for diamond and parclo interchanges with Avenues, I've been hesitant because of the prospect of folks using them for at-grade RHW-4/Avenue intersections.  I'm sure that many folks (particularly users from the Midwestern and Southern US) are probably reading this and thinking about the cornucopia of RHW-4-style expressways with at-grade Avenue intersections and such. 

My position, at least since the RHW 1.3 days, has been that it would be better to force users to downgrade to an Avenue (perhaps coupled with Avenue TuLEPs or the Avenue Turn Lane Plugin), to better represent the lesser capacity of these intersections and encourage folks to upgrade to a grade-separated interchange when merited.  That's why those intersections haven't been created.

Unfortunately, the way things work, if we were to enable a direct draggable connection for dual-lane RHW-4-based diamond and parclo ramps, those undesirable at-grades will become possible as a side-effect.  T intersections are less problematic than + intersections, though.

-Alex

[Haljackey]

My position, at least since the RHW 1.3 days, has been that it would be better to force users to downgrade to an Avenue (perhaps coupled with Avenue TuLEPs or the Avenue Turn Lane Plugin), to better represent the lesser capacity of these intersections and encourage folks to upgrade to a grade-separated interchange when merited.  That's why those intersections haven't been created.

This I will agree with. You have to weigh the pros with the cons, but this mod has come a long way since the 1.2-1.3 days. The advancements made, especially when it comes to ramps/MIS, may warrant things they never have before.

If someone wants to make a RHW-4/ave intersection nowadays, its not because they're 'cheating', because making simple interchanges for these is now very easy and are not space-consuming. With the invention of the TuLEPs, it will help influence the user to build a ave/ave intersection for at-grade RHWs as well.

Furthermore, a RHW-4/ave puzzle piece could be created for entrance/exit ramps which could bypass the problems surrounding this issue altogether. In fact, one such piece has already been made (the FARHW-4/Avenue T-intersection piece).

This mod has evolved considerably from it's early beginnings, and many times change is good. What would evolution be without change?

[Tarkus]

A puzzle piece may be the best solution--it'd be consistent with the TuLEPs paradigm and would allow the intersection to be properly signalized, due to the finer control of Network CheckTypes afforded by that method.

-Alex

[Koenieboy997]

Hi, i'm facing the following problem:

I'm currenty making a turbine interchange and I'm trying to split a RHW-6S to RHW-4 (as exit) and MIS (as mainroad). I'm doing this because the RHW-4 is linking the ring roads who are at the south and west of the interchange. But I can't find the right exit. When I try the RHW-6s type D1 exit, the highway changes the direction. Can somebody help me?

[jdenm8]

You won't find an Puzzle Piece to do what you want. It's part of the often requested though unimplemented TOTSO series (where more lanes exit than continue straight).

[DAB_City]

That reminds me, I'm looking for a RHW-8 </> RHW-4 & RHW-6 "A3" MIS piece. Any chances that you could make one of these, and other similar pieces? (see the A1(M)/A14 J14 in the UK, links below) 

http://g.co/maps/9cuw6
http://g.co/maps/45mbn
http://g.co/maps/edtrq

http://g.co/maps/j4xqv
http://g.co/maps/shxdd
http://g.co/maps/5rnk6
http://g.co/maps/8h7xy