RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

darraghf · May 27, 2009, 02:18:21 PM

Well I know we are going off-topic here, I have to agree with the above post. If the NWM thread is locked, it is locked because they do not want any more questions and requests, for now anyways. This thread is for the RHW and not the NWM.

Can we please go back on topic now?

-Darra (Darraghf)

allan_kuan1992 · May 27, 2009, 05:38:37 PM

The radio dial here likes to move too much.

(attempts to re-tune the radio)

But anyway, as others have already said, this is the RHW thread and discussion should be limited to that only. I can see why you were talking about the NWM (with the NWM 6-AVE over RHW 6), but at the moment the NWM project is on hiatus and judging by the the thread posts it could be like that for a few more months at the best. It'd be more understandable to talk about interfaces with existing networks, and I'd refrain from posting about something that won't be released for some time until definite progress has been made.

- Allan Kuan

simzebu · May 28, 2009, 01:36:42 PM

Real quick on-topic question and comment.

The question is if there is a plan for a El-RHW4 -> El-Maxis HW conversion piece.
The comment is that, in the mean time, it's possible to end the El-RHW right against an El-Ave->El-MHW. So, if the first won't be done, please don't change the paths for the El-RHW end piece.

Thanks!

deathtopumpkins · May 28, 2009, 01:41:06 PM

What's wrong with the El-AVE to FHW transition piece?

simzebu · May 28, 2009, 01:47:02 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2009, 01:41:06 PM
What's wrong with the El-AVE to FHW transition piece?

It looks quite ridiculous. Here's a picture:

Cosmetically, it's a mess. It works, technically. But, if I'm not mistaken, the Ave also has lower capacity, which in a high-traffic situation (which this will very soon be), will be a cause of unneeded congestion. So as far as priorities are concerned, this is pretty low. It'd be nice, but it's not urgent. I'm just curious if it was in planning at all.

Tarkus · May 28, 2009, 01:52:44 PM

Quote from: simzebu on May 28, 2009, 01:36:42 PM
So, if the first won't be done, please don't change the paths for the El-RHW end piece.

The end piece on the ERHWs won't be changed, fortunately. It was set up the way it was to make things easier with connecting the EMIS with the Elevated NAM Puzzle Piece/EMIS Intersection pieces, and they also make it possible to use an ERHW-4 to connect into the NAM AvenuexRoad/OneWayRoad + and T Intersection pieces as well (instead of using Elevated OWR puzzle pieces).

I can easily add in an actual draggable ERHW/Maxis Elevated Highway transition, but it'll probably end up looking essentially the same cosmetically. Generally, Maxis Highway/RHW interfacing is a very low priority, though I've fixed some of the overpass/underpass stuff for Version 4.

-Alex

deathtopumpkins · May 28, 2009, 01:55:41 PM

I think any way it could be changed cosmetically would not look even a bit better. FHW is just hideous to begin with though IMO...

writingliberty · May 28, 2009, 02:08:59 PM

Just an idea or two...

How about a series of on/off ramps which have a built in ground-elevated conversion? (Like an ERHW off-ramp that drops down to a ground level MIS, or vice versa)

Another "cool" would be an ERHW equivalent of the type B on/off ramps, as well as a 180 degree (diagonal to diagonal) MIS ramp which slopes between ground and elevated so that it could be used with the two B-style ramps to create a truly circular (inside) cloverleaf ramp.

I don't know if this one is possible, but another would be a ramp like the current RHW-4 wide type A (the one where it comes out to the second tile to the side) which does NOT force the ground level flat (so the ramp itself could ramp up or down to intersect with a crossing route that is either up or down slope, rather than needing to be spaced farther away from the cross-route so the MIS can seperately tackle the slope). - this last one is based on the way many highways in and around San Diego were built, either above or below the surrounding streets by use of berms or canyons. Neither the highway or the crossing street is technically "elevated", but they are at different levels and the ramps slope up or down (as needed) as soon as they seperate from the highway.

Also... I have no idea how to make them, but I have a couple ideas (based on real-world highways) for another style of ramps, and something else that I'm not even sure is doable but would be really cool. If anyone wants to know...?

genemc777 · May 28, 2009, 02:32:46 PM

I really do like the RHW and everything but i think that the Maxis Highways are better for like the downtown areas and around the city because they take up less real estate, you can make bridges with them, and they have more lanes on the elevated version. But on the ground version, RHW wins hands down.

Blue Lightning · May 28, 2009, 03:13:59 PM

RHW can make bridges

Though as for the urban/suburban/other, I use it all around since to me it looks waay better than maxis hwy anyway, but thats just opinion.... More types of ERHW are in the works/planned.

Haljackey · May 29, 2009, 12:38:11 PM

Quote from: writingliberty on May 28, 2009, 02:08:59 PM
Just an idea or two...

How about a series of on/off ramps which have a built in ground-elevated conversion? (Like an ERHW off-ramp that drops down to a ground level MIS, or vice versa)

Actually that reminds me of something similar back in the day:

Is this what you are requesting? This was one of Alex's first modding attempts at the RHW.

As for your other requests, I think something similar to those are in the works, but only Mr. Puzzle Piece can officially confirm this.

-Haljackey

Tarkus · May 29, 2009, 01:30:15 PM

Haljackey, that pic brings back a lot of memories.

Actually, as I recall, that particular pic (which would have been from January 2007) was mainly to check to see if the old MIS Ground-to-Elevated transition was lining up with the original RHW-4/MIS Style A Interface design that mjig_dudy supplied (at that time, the only design planned). I don't remember ever an actual Ramp Interface/Ground-to-Elevated combo being planned, and in fact, the Ground-to-Elevated transition was broken into several pieces initially as part of that prototype (from back on Page 2 of this thread):

writingliberty, I agree with you that the the slope flattening situation is probably one of the trickiest things to work around when building modular interchanges with the RHW, and I speak from experience as someone who uses an extremely restrictive slope mod. The problem is actually the starter drag stubs. Fortunately, there's a few ideas floating around that show promise in terms of alleviating that issue, which you'll possibly see in Version 4.

The main issue with adding more ERHW ramp interfaces is that new models will have to be made. Thus, it's not likely that any new ramp interfaces will be added to that network for awhile. The loop ramp idea has been in discussion for awhile, too--basically the same thing there.

-Alex

KoV Liberty · May 29, 2009, 01:55:03 PM

Is a RHW 8 & 10c possible?

io_bg · May 29, 2009, 02:13:26 PM

The letter "C" means compact, for example the RHW6C is on 3 tiles intstead of 4. RHW 8 and 10 are wider so I don't think they would look realistic on 3 tiles. (especially the RHW 10)

deathtopumpkins · May 29, 2009, 02:19:13 PM

Well look back a page or two and you'll see the equivalent of an RHW-8C: The RHW-8R, being developed by Blue Lightning.

simzebu · May 29, 2009, 02:39:05 PM

Quote from: Blue Lightning on May 28, 2009, 03:13:59 PM
RHW can make bridges Though as for the urban/suburban/other, I use it all around since to me it looks waay better than maxis hwy anyway, but thats just opinion.... More types of ERHW are in the works/planned.

The only problem (and the only reason I use MHW anymore) is that RHW can't do bridges right next to each other, and it can't do any elevated bridges (yet). So above, where I needed to fit a bridge into a very tight space, I needed the FHW so that I wouldn't have to go down to ground level (even with E-RHW bridges, I'd need to go down, since the ground is 30m below the highway there, not 15), move one direction over a tile (actually, 2 tiles due to the way the canal set is made) go over the canal, bring them back together, and then bring them back up. But I agree, MHW is way too ugly and unrealistic for me to use for any real distances or interchanges anymore.

writingliberty · May 29, 2009, 03:00:44 PM

Haljackey, Alex... that pic is basically (from what I can tell) one of the variations of what I was talking about, yes. Would allow for the ramp to connect to the crossing road (street, avenue, etc) without using two seperate pieces for the ramp + elevation...

I'd volunteer to help, but I've got an old machine, I'm not very good at graphics and there's folks around with a lot better resources (and experience), so I'd better stay out of it.

I love a lot of what you've been able to do with the RHW so far. Would like to see the elevated RHW and/or MIS be able to cross ground RHW on the diagonal, but... well, maybe next version?

writingliberty · May 29, 2009, 03:03:02 PM

Quote from: io_bg on May 29, 2009, 02:13:26 PM
The letter "C" means compact, for example the RHW6C is on 3 tiles intstead of 4. RHW 8 and 10 are wider so I don't think they would look realistic on 3 tiles. (especially the RHW 10)

Maybe he meant a RHW-10C on 5 tiles (the regular RHW-10 takes 6)?

deathtopumpkins · May 29, 2009, 03:08:17 PM

No the current RHW-10 takes 4.

Blue Lightning · May 29, 2009, 04:05:38 PM

Yes, so the RHW10"C" would be 5 tiles like the proposed 8"C". However, since a 3 tile wide RHW10 would look unrealisitic, it would likely be implemented like the 8R.

The 8R has the same capacity as the 6C because of the way the lanes/paths are situated (same situation as the RHW4 and 6S). However, the 10R would be truely wider. It is 5 tiles wide and has a higher capacity of the RHW8S, 10S, and 6C.

Vince