RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[bob56]

great! HE's thought of eveything!

[Tarkus]

I read over the FAQ post, I didn't find any hints...

It's really subtle.  You'd have to know the FAQ post inside and out and be looking for it to find it, more than likely.  It involved the removal of one rather important word . . .

You said, RHW 3.0 will only use traffic simulator A or B.
When installing the NAM it gives you a long set of options for your custom traffic simulators, if you make a custom traffic simulator is it considered A or B or as custom? Or will I have to change my simulator to A or B when installing the RHW?

Well, the mod will technically still function with any NAM Simulator installed, but the Wider RHWs will not function properly.  

In case anyone is wondering why, there's a couple reasons:
-Congestion vs. Speed Curve values

The Congestion vs. Speed (CvS) Curve, which really ought to be called the "Capacity vs. Speed Curve", is what controls the rate at which traffic flows at a given percentage of the listed network capacity, with respect to the network speed.  The CvS curves in Simulators A and B (as well as the current version of z's Simulator Z) use values higher than 100% for the speed multiplier at the low end of the curve, whereas the default Maxis Simulator's CvS curve does not.  All the old NAM Simulators (Simulators C, D, and E--aka "Standard", "Better Pathfinding" and "Perfect Pathfinding. respectively) use the default Maxis CvS Curve, so they function in the same way in that respect.  

Speed values larger than 100% at the low end of the curve allow for vehicles to use both the inner and outer tiles of the Wider RHWs (RHW-6C, RHW-8, and RHW-10--but not RHW-6S) as well as the various NWM networks in development.  With Simulators C, D and E, traffic will be stuck to one side of the Wider RHWs, and will not begin to move over onto the other until the traveled side becomes severely congested, effectively defeating a lot of the purpose of the wider networks.

Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect

The Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect is what controls congestion at intersections, and the two tiles surrounding them--a series of three values which specifies the capacity at intersections as a percentage of the network capacity.  The Wider RHWs have crossover paths to allow traffic to move between the two sides of the highway, and because of this, the game effectively considers them to be intersections.  And because of this, the capacity of each tile of a Wider RHW is multiplied by the first number of the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect property.  

If this value is set below 1.0, it will actually diminish the capacity of the network.  In Simulators A, it is set to 1.5, meaning that the capacity of one side of an RHW-8 will actually be 7200 rather than 4800 in A Hard (150%).  (Across the two tiles, this would mean the full capacity would be 14,400 and across a full 4-tile cross-section, it would be 28,800.)  In Simulators C, D, and E, this value is set to 0.7, meaning that the capacity of one side of an RHW-8 would be 3360 (70% of 4800 capacity).  It is also set to 0.7 in the current build of Simulator Z.  I do need to make a correction to my initial recommendation, though, as it is set to 0.9 in Simulator B, which will lead to a slight decrease, to 4320.  

So what does this all mean?
[tabular type=4]
[row] [head]Simulator[/head] [head]Allows Spreading[/head] [head]Effect on Wider RHW Capacity[/head][/row]
[row] [data]A[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Increase (to 150%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]B[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Decrease (to 90%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]C ("Standard")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]D ("Better Pathfinding")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]E ("Perfect Pathfinding")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]Z[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

Recommendation--use Simulator A at this time.  There may in fact be an update to it at some point as well.  If you're using B or Z and are really attached to them, you'll probably be alright--you'll get the spreading, but the capacity will be a little off.  Avoid C, D and E at all costs.

And bob56, they're puzzle pieces in the current version (2.0) but they'll be switched over to work with Draggable GLR in Version 3.0.  The old puzzle piece will be phased out--it's been left in the mod for Legacy Support purposes, but you won't be able to place the puzzle piece in 3.0.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[un1]

Thanks for that clarification Tarkus. 

-un1

[nerdly_dood]

Is there a RHW-2/MIS splitter that makes two orthagonal MIS ramps instead of an orthagonal and a diagonal, or one with both being diagonal? Cause what I'd like to try is take a RHW-2 then split it into a pair of MIS ramps with a median, and I guess I'll have to draw this...

The RHW-2/orthagonal MIS x2 split is in the inset, pointing more or less to the corresponding part of the intersection below. Don't mind where the ramp connects within that part - its a bit squished.

Amazing what Paint can do, eh?

[Haljackey]

nerdly_dood: Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking in your post. 
-Are you referring to a RHW-2 that has ramps on both sides?  If yes the answer is yes.

Here's a pic containing all the RHW-2 puzzle pieces as of the latest alpha build:


Yes, they do apply to real life.

Hope that helps!

Best,
-Haljacley

[Tarkus]

nerdly, I think I know what you're talking about . . . it's not going to make it into Version 3.0, but it's near the top of my aforementioned big list.   

-Alex (Tarkus)

[JoeST]

are those pieces flippable to both on and off configurations of both sides of the road?

btw, they loook GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

Joe

[z]

Using other simulators will result in improperly diminished capacity, so with RHW Version 3.0, it will be required that you switch to "A".

[tabular type=4]
[row] [head]Simulator[/head] [head]Allows Spreading[/head] [head]Effect on Wider RHW Capacity[/head][/row]
[row] [data]A[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Increase (to 150%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]B[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Decrease (to 90%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]C ("Standard")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]D ("Better Pathfinding")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]E ("Perfect Pathfinding")[/data] [data]No[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]Z[/data] [data]Yes[/data][data]Decrease (to 70%)[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

Recommendation--use Simulator A at this time.  There may in fact be an update to it at some point as well.  If you're using B or Z and are really attached to them, you'll probably be alright--you'll get the spreading, but the capacity will be a little off.  Avoid C, D and E at all costs.

I would just like to clarify the above information slightly.  Although the 70% figure for Simulator Z is correct, it's important to know, 70% of what?  For the current release of Simulator Z (Alpha 4), the RHW capacity is 2.78 times that of Simulator A.  So 70% of that is 194% of Simulator A's capacity, compared to Simulator A's 150%.  Based on my testing, this should be more than enough capacity to completely nullify the intersection and turn capacity effect for RHW under Simulator Z.  I would also like to affirm that Simulator Z is committed to fully supporting RHW (as well as NWM), so users need not fear getting inferior performance from Simulator Z on these roads.

[TEG24601]

I have to ask, as I haven't seen it yet... Will there be a better transition from single-lane MIS to OWR/TWR?

TEG

[yoshiisland2]

Great job on those RHW-2 pieces!

[Flo8472]

  looks very nice. good job!

[Tarkus]

Although the 70% figure for Simulator Z is correct, it's important to know, 70% of what? 

If anyone is curious to see the exact capacity statistics, I've posted them down below for both the standard Simulator Z a04, as well as Simulator Z-MT.  They are side-by-side with Simulator A and B:

[tabular type=4 caption="Capacity for RHW Networks on Per-Tile Basis"]
[row][head]RHW Type[/head] [head]Z-Standard[/head][head]Z-MT[/head][head]A-Hard[/head][head]A-Medium[/head][head]A-Easy[/head][head]B-Hard[/head][head]B-Medium[/head][head]B-Easy[/head][/row]
[row][data]RHW-2[/data] [data]30000[/data] [data]15000[/data][data]4800[/data] [data]7200[/data] [data]10800[/data][data]4800[/data][data]7200[/data] [data]10800[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-3[/data][data]30000[/data] [data]15000[/data][data]4800[/data] [data]7200[/data] [data]10800[/data][data]4800[/data][data]7200[/data][data]10800[/data][/row]
[row][data]MIS Ramp[/data] [data]30000[/data] [data]15000[/data][data]4800[/data] [data]7200[/data] [data]10800[/data][data]4800[/data][data]7200[/data][data]10800[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-4[/data] [data]60000[/data] [data]30000[/data][data]9600[/data][data]14400[/data][data]21600[/data][data]9600[/data] [data]14400[/data][data]21600[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-6S[/data] [data]60000[/data] [data]30000[/data][data]9600[/data][data]14400[/data][data]21600[/data][data]9600[/data] [data]14400[/data] [data]21600[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-6C[/data] [data]63000[/data] [data]31500[/data][data]21600[/data][data]32400[/data][data]48600[/data][data]12960[/data] [data]19440[/data] [data]29160[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-8[/data] [data]84000[/data] [data]42000[/data][data]28800[/data][data]43200[/data][data]64800[/data][data]17280[/data] [data]25920[/data] [data]38880[/data][/row]
[row][data]RHW-10[/data] [data]84000[/data] [data]42000[/data][data]28800[/data][data]43200[/data][data]64800[/data][data]17280[/data] [data]25920[/data] [data]38880[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

The two flavors of Simulator Z do overcome the low Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect to allow for higher capacities on the Wider RHWs, but just barely.  So effectively, while one tile will have a capacity of 30,000 as per the "per-network" capacity with standard Z a04, having an Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect of 70% means that each tile on a wider RHW will have a capacity of only 21,000.  It actually eliminates most of the incentive to upgrade between an RHW-4 and an RHW-6C--there is only a 5% capacity gain (60000 vs. 63000 or 30000 vs. 31500).  There is also only a 40% capacity gain by upgrading to the RHW-8 and 10.  

Below is a table of the capacity gains between the Wider RHWs in Simulators A, B and Z, compared to the RHW-4 capacity:
[tabular type=4 caption="Capacity Gains On Wider RHWs"]
[row] [head]RHW Type[/head] [head]Z[/head][head]Z-MT[/head][head]A-Hard[/head][head]A-Medium[/head][head]A-Easy[/head][head]B-Hard[/head][head]B-Medium[/head][head]B-Easy[/head][/row]
[row] [data]RHW-4[/data] [data]60000[/data] [data]30000[/data][data]9600[/data] [data]14400[/data] [data]21600[/data][data]9600[/data] [data]14400[/data] [data]21600[/data][/row]
[row] [data]RHW-6S[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data][data]0 (0%)[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data][data]0 (0%)[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data] [data]0 (0%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]RHW-6C[/data] [data]+3000 (5%)[/data] [data]+1500 (5%)[/data][data]+12000 (125%)[/data] [data]+18000 (125%)[/data] [data]+27000 (125%)[/data][data]+3360 (35%)[/data][data]+5040 (35%)[/data] [data]+7560 (35%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]RHW-8[/data] [data]+24000 (40%)[/data] [data]+12000 (40%)[/data][data]+19200 (200%)[/data] [data]+28800 (200%)[/data] [data]+43200 (200%)[/data][data]+7680 (80%)[/data][data]+11520 (80%)[/data][data]+17280 (80%)[/data][/row]
[row] [data]RHW-10[/data] [data]+24000 (40%)[/data] [data]+12000 (40%)[/data][data]+19200 (200%)[/data] [data]+28800 (200%)[/data] [data]+43200 (200%)[/data][data]+7680 (80%)[/data][data]+11520 (80%)[/data][data]+17280 (80%)[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

Keeping the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect at 70% will also effectively mean that the TLA-3 network, which has crossover paths, will actually have a lower capacity than the Road network--a 30% decrease.So, while a Road has a Capacity of 12,000 in Simulator Z-Standard, a TLA-3 will only have a capacity of 8400--a decrease of 3600.  

I'm not saying this to panic everyone--I'm merely trying to identify a problem so that we can address it to ensure that all the Simulators available will allow proper RHW and NWM functionality.  I don't think Maxis ever anticipated us ever figuring out how to widen networks with RUL Overrides, so were getting into uncharted territory, which has a variety of implications.

Thus, my recommendation is that when we get around to updating the currently available Simulators--and they all need updating ("A" for different reasons)--that the first value of the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect is raised to at least 100% to ensure proper functionality with the RHW and NWM.  In order to make up for having less "slowdown" at intersections, I'd lower the second value a bit more--this would also accurately represent the "bottleneck" phenomenon that occurs when a lane goes away on an RL freeway.  

If there are folks that aren't planning on using the NWM and RHW, it may be okay to allow Simulators with values lower than 100% for the Intersection Effect to continue to be circulated, but they need to be clearly marked that they are not compatible.

And TEG, to answer your question, there is an MIS/OWR transition.  There was an image shown of it shown back on October 2nd on Page 157.  I've reposted the pic below for convenience sake . . .



There is no transition between MIS and Road, though.  Perhaps in a future release, though--could be good for replicating some of those I-84 exits in the Columbia Gorge.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[TEG24601]

And TEG, to answer your question, there is an MIS/OWR transition.  There was an image shown of it shown back on October 2nd on Page 157.  I've reposted the pic below for convenience sake . . .

There is no transition between MIS and Road, though.  Perhaps in a future release, though--could be good for replicating some of those I-84 exits in the Columbia Gorge.

-Alex (Tarkus)

Thanks, that along with exits with frontage roads was what I was thinking.

TEG

[Monorail Master]

nerdly_dood: Hmm, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking in your post. 
-Are you referring to a RHW-2 that has ramps on both sides?  If yes the answer is yes.

Here's a pic containing all the RHW-2 puzzle pieces as of the latest alpha build:


Yes, they do apply to real life.

Hope that helps!

Best,
-Haljacley

You know what I call that?



SWEET!!!!!

[z]

The two flavors of Simulator Z do overcome the low Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect to allow for higher capacities on the Wider RHWs, but just barely.  So effectively, while one tile will have a capacity of 30,000 as per the "per-network" capacity with standard Z a04, having an Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect of 70% means that each tile on a wider RHW will have a capacity of only 21,000.  It actually eliminates most of the incentive to upgrade between an RHW-4 and an RHW-6C--there is only a 5% capacity gain (60000 vs. 63000 or 30000 vs. 31500).  There is also only a 40% capacity gain by upgrading to the RHW-8 and 10.

... 

Keeping the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect at 70% will also effectively mean that the TLA-3 network, which has crossover paths, will actually have a lower capacity than the Road network--a 30% decrease.So, while a Road has a Capacity of 12,000 in Simulator Z-Standard, a TLA-3 will only have a capacity of 8400--a decrease of 3600.  

First, please remember that this is an alpha version of Simulator Z that you are testing.  For the alpha version, my goal was to get basic, if less than perfect, functionality for a product that hasn't been released yet.  So far, it appears that that goal has been met.

The first beta version is now finished and well into testing.  It has completely different capacities from the alpha version, as well as a number of other changes.  I don't want to fill up the RHW thread with a description of these, but a full description will soon be available in my New Traffic Simulator thread.

Meanwhile, there's the fundamental question of how to handle the intersection and turn capacity numbers.  The numbers originally supplied by Maxis - .7, .8, and .9 - are too high to accurately simulate intersections with stoplights; they're not even low enough to accurately simulate a four-way stop.  Nevertheless, I appreciate the requirements of RHW and NWM, and as I've stated earlier, I am committed to having Simulator Z fully support both of them.  I have been looking at solutions that would do this and still preserve a reasonable intersection effect, but the two requirements are, of course, very much at odds.  The most encouraging avenue (if you'll excuse the pun) that I see is that a previous post states that it is only the intersection number that directly affects the RHW roads, and some of the NWM's.  So I have a couple of questions, whose answers will help me better support these roads in Simulator Z:

First of all, it seems to me that 100% of capacity would be sufficient for the first number, as I would expect cross traffic to be minimal compared to the volume of through traffic.  Is this correct?  Has anyone made any measurements of the volume of cross traffic compared to through traffic on these roads?

Second, as far as the RHW and NWM are concerned, is there any restriction required on the values of the second and third numbers of the intersection and turn capacity effect?  Adjusting these numbers lower is certainly a good way to compensate for raising the first number, and if done properly, could even be fairly realistic in terms of intersections.  Considering that most roads carry a volume less than their capacity, often by a large amount, the settings in Simulator A essentially mean that most of the time, Sims zip through intersections with stoplights without even taking their foot off the gas.  Due to the way Maxis wrote the game, it's not possible to correctly simulate stoplight behavior, but I think it's good to come as close as possible while still respecting the requirements of RHW and NWM.  So answers to these questions would be very helpful to me in balancing these requirements.

[metasmurf]

The change in the FAQ is that SA is working on euro textures for version 3.0, right ?   

[remanh]

Isn't the change in the FAQ that v.2.0 is temporarily unlocked?

[Kitsune]

The latest update was that SA is working on a Euro set for v3 ....

Also, a request for some future version - some merge lanes for the RHW-2 would be nice.

[Tarkus]

The change in the FAQ is that SA is working on euro textures for version 3.0, right ?   

Actually, that wasn't the one I was referring to, but I did change that as well.  As did the bit about Version 2.0 being temporarily unlocked There's another one, though, that's really, really subtle.  A missing word with a double-digit number of letters, somewhere.

For the alpha version, my goal was to get basic, if less than perfect, functionality for a product that hasn't been released yet.

Sounds exactly like what I've done with the RHW Alphas.

I am committed to having Simulator Z fully support both of them. 

Excellent!    Always good to have options out there!

First of all, it seems to me that 100% of capacity would be sufficient for the first number, as I would expect cross traffic to be minimal compared to the volume of through traffic.  Is this correct?  Has anyone made any measurements of the volume of cross traffic compared to through traffic on these roads?

Are you referring to traffic using the crossover paths between the two tiles?  If so, then yes, it does tend to be minimal--most of the crossovers between the the tiles on the Wider RHWs tends to be right at the starts and ends of the networks, and from what I've seen, at Entrance/Exit ramps.

Second, as far as the RHW and NWM are concerned, is there any restriction required on the values of the second and third numbers of the intersection and turn capacity effect? 

No, there isn't any restriction on them from what I've seen.  The second and third values will in some cases affect transitions (especially between RHW-4 and RHW-6C, since the RHW-4 is not affected by the intersection capacity, whereas the RHW-6C is), but that actually is a realistic side-effect, as it helps emulate the "bottleneck" that often occurs when a lane goes away.  So you can still create a reduction of capacity at intersections using those two values.

Hope that helps!

-Alex (Tarkus)

[nerdly_dood]

Oh, so SA IS working on a Euro set! Awesome, I thought he was gone for good...  That's something I've been hoping for for quite a while.