RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[jdenm8]

I found where FLEXfly doesn't work properly



A1 and A2 both have the same result. I placed A2 by accident here but placed A1 later.



A1 is the top ramp in that pic.

Not meaning to be a pain but would would like to use FLEXfly here,
Jdenm8

[jondor]

I don't have any pictures to hand right now, but there have been situations I've noticed (usually regarding that particular tile) where a given crossing only works in 2 or 3 out of the 4 possible rotations.  And I was using RHW-4 at the time.

[mariuszd]

This could be solution but then order is different.

[Blue Lightning]

Sorry, apparently I didn't catch that one (somehow missed it in the brute force section). I'll add some additional code tonight, you should see it in the next NAM controller update.

Note to self:
Case: RHW-6CEdgeLWB@pos5/2' next to pos0'net43

Thanks for the bug report! And remember, if anyone else finds an issue, just post it up! I'll try and see if I can fix it.

[vitorhnn]

I have a lil' request for RHW 4.2, 180º MIS to EMIS transitions... it would help alot!

[Twinsfan14]

I would like a 270 degree MIS to EMIS transition.

[Tarkus]

I have a lil' request for RHW 4.2, 180º MIS to EMIS transitions... it would help alot!

I would like a 270 degree MIS to EMIS transition.

Both of those requests kind of duplicate functionality that's already in place, between the existing curved MIS Ground-to-Elevated Transition and the MIS 90-Curve.  I wouldn't completely rule it out, but I think they may be borderline on being too "pre-fab".

-Alex

[swamp_ig]

I want a 720 degree transition. Totally useless, but hilarious!

[jdenm8]

Well, for the simple fact of looking nice, the 270 degree ramp makes more sense. I don't think I've ever seen a 180 degree ramp. a 270 degree ramp would be useful for Trumpet and Cloverleaf intersections as well as maybe the odd Parclo. And yes, while it may be duplicating functionality, I personally find the existing solution quite clunky, with the 90-degree curves of the correct size not wanting to place correctly.

[GDO29Anagram]

Alright I know I'm a fan of RHW so I can't help but to post all possible non-RHW-2/6C/8C ramps that I can think of.

There are six ramps listed in the RHW by letter: A, B, C, D, E, and F. These ramps already exist. This is how I define the ramps: A/B for splitting off MIS without changing the number of lanes, C/D for splitting off MIS, but reducing the number of lanes, and E/F being FARHW variations of A/B and C/D.

Now, there are ramps that split off RHW-4 off the main highway; I gave them other classifications: G/H is as follows with the formula RHW-X -> RHW-(X-2) and RHW-4, where X is the network before it splits off, EG the RHW-6 splitter that splits a highway into two RHW-4; I/J is as follows with the formula RHW-X -> RHW-X and RHW-4, such as the RHW-8S splitter that splits into two RHW-4's; and K/L ramps, FARHW variants of the G/H and I/J ramps. (Tarkus, if you remember, I requested a FARHW ramp for RHW-8S.)

Note that I added RHW-12S; I doubt it's likely that such a network would be created at this point (Or at all), making RHW-10S C/D type ramps impossible, along with all other ramps for RHW-12S also impossible.

Note that there are no G-L ramps for RHW-4; An RHW-4 cannot be split so that an RHW-4 branches off and another network such as another RHW-4 remains; The same can be said for RHW-6S I/J/L ramps.



Don't mind all the Russian letters; I wondered what it'd look like if I used the Russian alphabet instead.

Of course, this is an incredibly radical proposal, in terms of ramp design and ramp nomenclature beyond F-type ramps.

Remember, I said that this doesn't include ramps for RHW-6C, RHW-8C, RHW-2. I also didn't list special RHW-4 ramps that split into two MIS or any ramps that transition from RHW-(X)S to RHW-(X)C and two MIS (This kind of transition/ramp have a C/D ramp design in mind.)

Note: I've been putting RHW-(X) everywhere in here; Mathematically speaking, X, in this case, is any even number.

Hopefully you can read the chart. The ramp types I circled are the already existing types of ramps for the corresponding networks. Everything else are ramps that are possible but uncreated. (Except for ramps that contain RHW-12S).

There are a lot of ramps here...

[Tarkus]

That's quite the list there, GDO29Anagram!  I'm really quite impressed with it, and I kind of like the idea of continuing the "letter name" types to the ramp interfaces with RHW-4s branching off that we have (somewhat inconsistently) marked as "splitters" right now.  It may prove to be a rather useful resource as we continue development.  And of course, the number of possible ramps increases even further when one considers Fractional Angle and Diagonal rotations of those, plus the Inside and Wide ramps and the elevated versions. 

A few folks have, over time, also requested splitters for the RHW-10 involving an RHW-6S branching off . . . perhaps a Type M, N and O?   I'd be curious to see if there might be a way to incorporate the other splitters into the scheme as well, as the single-letter nomenclature has a nice consistency to it--perhaps considering their base network type as MIS?  Reminds me of a prediction I made back in 2008:

Oh, and just out of curiosity, I did some calculations on the number of MIS Ramp Interfaces needed to, in my mind, effectively make the RHW "complete" in that regard.  Assuming seven width variations--RHW-2, RHW-3, RHW-4, RHW-6C, RHW-6S, RHW-8, RHW-10--and three heights--Ground, Elevated, High Elevated--there would be roughly 50 basic ramp designs (combining both orthogonal and diagonal), so total, there'd be about 300 MIS Ramp Interface puzzle pieces when it's all said and done. 

Somewhat related to this, interestingly--the RealHighway development group is currently discussing the possibility of a major realignment of the button/TAB Loop setup for the mod, with an eye toward streamlining it for the users.  Right now, the current setup involves a "by-type" arrangement, where items are grouped according to whether or not they are ramp interfaces, transitions, etc.  The course of action we are looking at involves a switching to a "by-network" arrangement, under which all pieces of a given network will be grouped, with the intent of minimizing the amount of switching between different TAB Loops and even across menus.

A little over two years ago, when RHW Version 3.0 was in the midst of its lengthy development cycle, this topic was being discussed then, too, as it was the point where the size of the mod really began to expand to some semblance of its current proportions and scope (RHW Version 2.0 had one RHW Puzzle Pieces button with only 18 pieces under it).  I held a poll here for user input on that topic, with three options--a "by-type" setup, a "by-network" setup, and "no preference".  The latter won by a landslide, with "by-network" slightly edging out "by-type" for second.  Because of how RUL 0x10000000 technology was at that time and trying to figure out how to assign a single network to transitions and things like C Type ramps (which hadn't quite gained a relatively unambiguous single-network identity as they seem to have nowadays), by-type made more sense then. 

However, with 12 buttons spread across 3 separate menus, some of which have as many as 40+ puzzle pieces (ramp interfaces) and may expand exponentially through the 4.x series and into Version 5.0, it is looking like continuing with "by-type" may cause an "information overload" to many users, while switching to "by-network" would mitigate it, in addition to potentially speeding up the amount of time required to build complex RealHighway setups.  The benefits may be particularly noticeable on the MIS side--having Ground-to-El transitions and FLEXFly under the same button and probably in close proximity.

The number of buttons required to contain all current RHW Version 4.1 functionality at this point would be 8, assuming combining elevated and ground networks of the same width under a single type.  Combining related network types that have fewer pieces (i.e. combining both existing "C" networks) could reduce this even further.  The longest RotationRing that would result, for the RHW-4, would be of comparable length to the existing Ramp Interfaces button at this current stage of development.

-Alex

[MandelSoft]

Well, a RHW-6 I, J and L style ramp are indeed possible: the TOTSO (Turn Off To Stay ON) ramps. You just have a MIS ramp going straight and a RHW-4 branching off.

[Highrise99]

Well, a RHW-6 I, J and L style ramp are indeed possible: the TOTSO (Turn Off To Stay ON) ramps. You just have a MIS ramp going straight and a RHW-4 branching off.

I've been thinking about this for a while.  It would be great to see some of these in future releases, along with all those in the diagram, with other networks. Also, I wonder if it would at least be reasonable to, on FAMIS of FARHW exits/splitters, to have the exit an obtuse fractional angle. (instead of about 18 degrees, 108 degrees)

[noahclem]

Hi guys, nice to see a bunch of activity around here 

GDO29Anagram, that's a thoroughly thought out list (which I'm glad I took the time to read    )  I agree with you and Alex that it would be nice to continue into former "splitter territory" with single-letter nomenclature.

Alex, if you're holding a new vote I would go with a "by network" organization of RHW pieces. That really just sounds like a huge step forward in user interface    I think I would vote against combining 6C & 8C however.

The thing I would like to see the most is 7.5m elevated networks. The greatest thing RHW has accomplished in my mind is allowing realistically-scaled, natural-looking highways and 15m/50' overpasses seems pretty excessive while 7.5m/25' should be more than enough clearance. Now that 7.5m elevated RHWs are planned for eventual inclusion I hope that they are created with the same or greater amount of function as 15m elevated RHWs so players can use them as their "default elevated freeway".

Keep up all the great work guys 

EDIT: I'd really like to see a "type-C" for this situation with MIS directly adjacent to overhanging RHW-6 (pretend the MIS isn't curving away right there, it could also be moving parallel to the RHW-6). It looks so awesome and every bit of space saved counts....

[Blue Lightning]

Like this?

[noahclem]

Yes, exactly like that. You rock Vince!

[Nego]

Wow. That's pretty amazing how you can make RHW textures just like that. You're definitely an asset to the NAM team.

[figui]

(...)
The thing I would like to see the most is 7.5m elevated networks. The greatest thing RHW has accomplished in my mind is allowing realistically-scaled, natural-looking highways and 15m/50' overpasses seems pretty excessive while 7.5m/25' should be more than enough clearance. Now that 7.5m elevated RHWs are planned for eventual inclusion I hope that they are created with the same or greater amount of function as 15m elevated RHWs so players can use them as their "default elevated freeway".
(...)

i'd also support this idea!

mauricio.

[GDO29Anagram]

Me again.

I'm just wondering if starterless on-slope pieces can be made or are being made/planned, because...



I got this to happen... 

Note: I got this to happen by dragging RHW-2 perpendicular to the starter piece straight through both sides, and carefully bulldozing the RHW-2 stubs up to the starter piece. I may have to show in full detail how I did this...

[MandelSoft]

WOW! That's a great discovery, GDO29Anagram!

EDIT: Tried to replicate it, and it worked!