RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

Also, just me: why are crosswalks needed to cross the avenue? It's not typical for people to walk alongside highway ramps. (Though avenue crosswalks across the MIS are practical.)

Here in Oregon, it's standard practice to have crosswalks at Avenue/MIS intersections crossing the Avenue on at least one side.  As such intersections are typically signalized, it provides a logical place for pedestrians on one side of the Avenue to cross over to the other.

Would there be FAR MIS intersection with a AVE?

The closest thing you'll probably see on that for awhile is the intersection SA posted an image of back in May, which is actually a FARHW-4 acting in an MIS-type capacity.

-Alex

[jacksunny]

It appears that version 5.0 is getting the most votes. 4.2 seems more reasonable considering that a change in the major number (that's the number in the front) usually represents a major change. In this case, nothing is really changed, there is just more additional things.

Let's use Internet Explorer as an example. Whenever there is a new version (7, 8, 9 etc.) there is usually a UI change. The RHW's representation of a UI could be its texture. That is why I believe it should be 4.2 and that the major number should only be changed when there is a texture or other major change.

Regards,
Jack 

[woodb3kmaster]

Remember, however, that there will be a texture change for the next version - to the "v5-Spec" textures.

Progress is looking great, folks (i.e. Alex and the other team members)! you all have shown some really revolutionary stuff recently [although I wonder if I could perhaps help make the eventual DDRHW-8 a reality sooner rather than later (and to that end, I'm willing to learn just about everything that would be needed)]. I look forward to watching the next (final?) WMC video.

[MandelSoft]

Here in Oregon, it's standard practice to have crosswalks at Avenue/MIS intersections crossing the Avenue on at least one side.  As such intersections are typically signalized, it provides a logical place for pedestrians on one side of the Avenue to cross over to the other.

Here in the Netherlands, it's a real no-no, unless when it's used in cities. The majority of roads where freeway ramps are connected don't have sidewalks, so there aren't pedestrians on these roads either. However, some inner-city freeway ramps do cross pedestrian or bike routes...

[jdenm8]

Here, if there's no marked pedestrian crossing, you simply go when there's a gap. If there is a marked pedestrian crossing, then you press the button and wait.
That is, unless it's specifically signed that you're not allowed to cross there.

[metarvo]

Here, if there's no marked pedestrian crossing, you simply go when there's a gap. If there is a marked pedestrian crossing, then you press the button and wait.
That is, unless it's specifically signed that you're not allowed to cross there.

This is basically how we do it here as well.  Ramps in rural areas are almost always fair game for crossing, although they are typically unsignalized.  The only places I've seen No Pedestrian Crossing signs used for this purpose are urban areas.  Most of the time, from what I've seen, a crossing of this type in a city over here includes traffic signals and sometimes walk signals.

[Tarkus]

For those of you wondering about whether or not the DDRHW would be getting ramp interfaces . . . wonder no more:



-Alex

[louistsw]

  That let me think this
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF&ll=35.655505,139.739286&spn=0.003605,0.0103&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.655518,139.739179&panoid=rJOaYEnN5GxzFq3R01w7aQ&cbp=12,269.83,,0,-6

[westamastaflash]

Will there be any DDRHW-4 Bridges?

Pittsburgh has some pretty cool Double decker highway bridges, it'd be nice to be able to create something like them.
Both the Ft. Pitt and Ft. Duquesne bridges are actually 8-lane double deckers!

[samerton]

Will there be any DDRHW-4 Bridges?

[sepen77]

Why does it always seem like the DDRHW will collapse?
Would it be possible to increase the number of support pylons under bottom the highway?

[jdenm8]

The number of support pylons in the picture looks low mainly due to the fact that most of the DDRHW-4 in that picture is actually Bridge, which has a a two repeat gap between each. Normal stretches of DDRHW-4 will have the same frequency as all of the other ERHWs.

[banditp61]

Why does it always seem like the DDRHW will collapse?
Would it be possible to increase the number of support pylons under bottom the highway?

Yeah, I agree with sepen77

[Nego]

Normal DDRHW-4 support columns repeat every other tile as shown in the picture below. As jdenm8 said, they're just spread out more in the picture quoted by samerton because that is a DDRHW-4 Bridge and there needs to be room for wider boats to fit between the columns.

[strucka]

There could be either an arched like figure underneath the lower deck or a truss system. Even better would be if the truss system would be applied all over the DDRHW. =)

[sepen77]

Still, the number of pylons under the highway is much less compared to the number of pylons supporting the top level. There should always be more pylons under the whole thing cause it has to support the force of both the levels.

[MandelSoft]

^^ Not neccesary. If the supporting colums and the road deck are thick and strong enough, this can be possible (and believe me, Construction Mechanics is one of the subjects of my study).

[GDO29Anagram]

Still, the number of pylons under the highway is much less compared to the number of pylons supporting the top level. There should always be more pylons under the whole thing cause it has to support the force of both the levels.

That would require redoing the models, and look how far along DDRHW is already. Think about it; If DDRHW had to be redone for that reason, it would delay the whole production process (and you'd have to wait even longer for the new RHW then, and that would disappoint everyone).

(EDIT: If it's just adding more pillars via T21s, then it technically wouldn't take that long.)

Think about the current pillar arrangement this way: The upper columns are smaller and weaker, and more are needed, while the bottom pillars are larger and stronger, and less are needed. Plus, do you know how expensive it is to build THIS many pillars?

http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=132.0 (Thread is read-only; It's by Fukuda)

[freshballin365]

Can't wait for RHW, Version 5.0!  Thanks to everyone who's making it happen! It looks amazing already! I have one question: Will there be a smoother curve between the diagonal and orthogonal networks of ERHW-4?

[noahclem]

Just to through my 2 cents in on the DDRHW support columns: I think placing them on the corners of the tiles (instead of the middle) could make a lot of sense and look really nice. That way there can be one continuous column coming down from the top and networks passing under the DDRHW won't result in a missing support column.

@ freshballin365 - Unfortunately all new pieces for elevated networks require 3D modeling which substantially complicates the process, so available options for elevated stuff tends to trail way behind what's possible for ground stuff. Hopefully something like that is created before too long though, as it would be something very nice to have--I know the wide-radius elevated heavy rail wide-radius curve has been of huge use for me.