RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Gugu3]

Amazing work Alex...looking forward to seeing more from you

[Wiimeiser]

IIRC the game considers paths to be going in the same direction if they have the same exit point, only Car paths count the entrance point, to prevent problems with the elevated highways.

[Tarkus]

Regarding the oft-asked same-direction double-decker issue: it's not going to happen, ever.  The deck jumping occurs pretty much no matter what fancy thing you do with the paths.  I've actually experimented with it extensively, and there's a GIF file I made on one page way back that shows this.  Edit: Back on Page 499.

Wow that revamped FlexFly looks nice! The concrete barriers on the FlexFly match the ones on normal EMIS much better than that of the current FlexFly Just curious, are you going to make it be at L1, L2, or both? It would be really nice to have it at both levels; then you could use two FlexFlys to do make a compact, decent-looking directional-T interchange where the intersecting freeways are wider than four lanes.

The original plan had been to do it at every height the MIS has, so L0 through L4.  The model, path, and exemplar files that jondor left us--the last thing he made before he retired from SC4 modding--include everything for 90-degree FLEXFlys at all those height levels.  Whether or not we'll get through all five levels--especially with the code size matter--remains to be seen, though, but we're going to do more than just L2 for certain.

-Alex

[compdude787]

Regarding the oft-asked same-direction double-decker issue: it's not going to happen, ever.  The deck jumping occurs pretty much no matter what fancy thing you do with the paths.  I've actually experimented with it extensively, and there's a GIF file I made on one page way back that shows this.  Edit: Back on Page 499.

Wow that revamped FlexFly looks nice! The concrete barriers on the FlexFly match the ones on normal EMIS much better than that of the current FlexFly Just curious, are you going to make it be at L1, L2, or both? It would be really nice to have it at both levels; then you could use two FlexFlys to do make a compact, decent-looking directional-T interchange where the intersecting freeways are wider than four lanes.

The original plan had been to do it at every height the MIS has, so L0 through L4.  The model, path, and exemplar files that jondor left us--the last thing he made before he retired from SC4 modding--include everything for 90-degree FLEXFlys at all those height levels.  Whether or not we'll get through all five levels--especially with the code size matter--remains to be seen, though, but we're going to do more than just L2 for certain.

-Alex

The FlexCurve (FlexFly for L0) works just fine as is, so no need to do anything with L0. Same with L2; the current FlexFly works fine--now that McDuell has explained to me how to get it to play nice--so doing that might not be of the highest priority either. Although I'd suppose it'd be cool to have two sizes of FlexFly for L2 to give you more flexibility (no pun intended). I'd like to have L3, too, because that would allow me to build a fully-elevated directional-T interchange that I've been thinking of building in my downtown area with another road running at ground level underneath the interchange.

I'll give you two thumbs up for working on expanding the FlexFly; writing 50,000 lines of code for each level sure seems like a lot of work when you'd probably rather be playing the game! But either way, I'm already looking forward to NAM 33...

[Tarkus]

Although I'd suppose it'd be cool to have two sizes of FlexFly for L2 to give you more flexibility (no pun intended).

The plan had been to phase out the 4x4.  While it might work with some tricks, it's not behaving the best since P57, and doesn't support any but a few isolated instances of L1 networks.

-Alex

[compdude787]

Although I'd suppose it'd be cool to have two sizes of FlexFly for L2 to give you more flexibility (no pun intended).

The plan had been to phase out the 4x4.  While it might work with some tricks, it's not behaving the best since P57, and doesn't support any but a few isolated instances of L1 networks.

-Alex

Okay, but I take it you'd keep the old piece there just for legacy support (since the new one is slightly bigger anyway). I'm glad to see that you're working on fixing and expanding the functionality of this very-useful puzzle piece! I don't know if I inspired you to do this, but I really appreciate your efforts to smooth out our elevated RHW.

[roadgeek]

Although I'd suppose it'd be cool to have two sizes of FlexFly for L2 to give you more flexibility (no pun intended).

The plan had been to phase out the 4x4.  While it might work with some tricks, it's not behaving the best since P57, and doesn't support any but a few isolated instances of L1 networks.

-Alex

Is the 45^o still in the works? I would find that a much more useful curve.

[Tarkus]

It's still on the docket, and has been as long as we've had FLEXFly.  But it's not in the works at present, because we don't have the models.

-Alex

[roadgeek]

It's still on the docket, and has been as long as we've had FLEXFly.  But it's not in the works at present, because we don't have the models.

-Alex

A while back somebody mentioned using Project Symphony. That looked promising.

[Blue Lightning]

Project Symphony wouldn't have anything to do with FLEXFly, besides the ability to use FLEXFly over/under a Symphony highway.

[roadgeek]

Project Symphony wouldn't have anything to do with FLEXFly, besides the ability to use FLEXFly over/under a Symphony highway.

Referring to Eggman's post on page 599.

[GDO29Anagram]

Referring to Eggman's post on page 599.

It still wouldn't work because of how the MHW is not centred the same way as RHW-4 or MIS, so it wouldn't be easy at all if you just directly ported the models.

[Tarkus]

It's the barriers, UV mapping, and slicing that are the killer in terms of making the models, in general.

I'll just leave this here.



-Alex

[roadgeek]

I don't think I can envision anywhere where that interchange might be useful.
I have looked at the tutorial for making puzzle pieces (I assume that is what is meant by "Models") and it is too confusing. I have looked all over YouTube to find such a tutorial, and have yet to find anything. I would hate to have to wait for NAM 34 to get 45^o elevated curves, flexed or non-flexed.

[GDO29Anagram]

I have looked at the tutorial for making puzzle pieces (I assume that is what is meant by "Models") and it is too confusing.

No; the puzzle piece tutorial only makes mention of flat 2D models; what we're talking about is 3D models, something that takes a program like Blender or 3DS Max to create, and that's even more complicated than making anything that's flat.

In other words, you need to be somewhat of a 3D designer in order to make anything suitable.

[roadgeek]

No; the puzzle piece tutorial only makes mention of flat 2D models; what we're talking about is 3D models, something that takes a program like Blender or 3DS Max to create, and that's even more complicated than making anything that's flat.

In other words, you need to be somewhat of a 3D designer in order to make anything suitable.

I should have known that. In fact, I found some tutorials on 3DS Max. I'll have to see what I can do. Given v33 came out only a few months ago, and the long release cycles of NAM, I'm sure I will have time to come up with something.

[APSMS]

I don't think I can envision anywhere where that interchange might be useful.

That is entirely beside the point. The purpose of the image is to demonstrate the stability code that is working behind the scenes and ensuring that the flyover doesn't deconvert when a setup like that is constructed. There are a lot of ways that particular little flyover could have gone wrong, especially with the elevated networks.

Alex, thanks for sharing with us. Nice to see the progress you're making.

[GDO29Anagram]

I guess it's my turn to show what I have. Good luck.

http://www.youtube.com/v/DqxCFm5PH_4

[Wiimeiser]

I don't think I can envision anywhere where that interchange might be useful.

A more compact version of this without the surface street ramps, maybe?

[roadgeek]

...The purpose of the image is to demonstrate the stability code that is working behind the scenes and ensuring that the flyover doesn't deconvert when a setup like that is constructed...

So...when would a setup like that ever be constucted?