RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Ryan B.]

I be lookin' like a fool with my jaw on the ground . . . .

Swell work, y'all!  That RHW-4 / left turn lane picture Alex posted screams Texas to me. 

[metarvo]

That RHW-4 / left turn lane picture Alex posted screams Texas to me.

I have to agree with you there.  From what I have seen, rural non-freeway RHW-4s in Texas typically have left (and often right) turn lanes at side street intersections, and sometimes the turning lanes are present at crossovers as well.

[Blue Lightning]

We have one RHW-4 crossing a road around here... has dedicated left and right turn lanes, similar to what Alex's setup is like.

Oh, and if you're wondering, just got this done.


v4.2 at the earliest

[el_cozu]

I knew it!!

[Moonraker0]

Will there ever be any puzzle pieces for double height networks over RHW?  This would allow people to cross elevated rail and monorail over sunken or elevated RHW, and would be a very helpful addition.

Oh, and whatever happened to the Maxis highway to RHW-6S transition?  Will it ever be implemented into the RHW?  I saw one back on page one-thirty-something, but it's not in the mod. Nevermind...I just remembered that Tarkus seems to have said on the NWM thread that there will be transitions from Maxis highway to OWR-3 and MAVE-6 and also between these two networks and RHW (RHW-6, I assume).

[Twinsfan14]

We have one RHW-4 crossing a road around here... has dedicated left and right turn lanes, similar to what Alex's setup is like.

Oh, and if you're wondering, just got this done.


v4.2 at the earliest

That's exactly what I need in my city! I assume that there will be added diagonal functionality, too (eg. diagonal MIS over RHW 6C) 

ALSO the RHW TULEPS are perfect for non control-access highways. They are used everywhere around here for gravel roads by farms.

[itsacoaster]

Here's my first contribution to transit modding!

This is just perfect.  Exactly what I need.

[swamp_ig]

Negro:

I've got a background in software development, so it's probably a bit easier for me to understand how it all works than your average.

I learned how to mod by looking at the documentation here and on the wiki. It's not that difficult just takes getting to grips with the data files, plus knowing your way around 3ds max or equivalent. There's documentation around on the wiki and in the forums, you can get there with some persistence.

[swamp_ig]

I had a bit of a thought overnight....

Has anyone ever attempted to do path crossing models (ie: ERHW4 over RHW8, or whaver) by using T21 exemplars?

I'll explain what I mean:

From my understanding T21s are basically props for transit networks. I know props are created by box shaped LODs, but I don't think there's any particular reason why you'd have to do it that way. If this is the case, then the models for the network pieces can be T21s. This is useful because the actual crossing itself wouldn't need a model that combines both parts, you could just use a 'blank' model, a path combining both, plus two T21s with the networks rotated to whatever direction they were going in.

This is very handy because it means that rather than having to create models for every possible intersection, you just combine the parts to get what you want. You could probably even write a script to generate all the required exemplars and paths.

Furthermore, you could code el-network over ramps in a similar way, especially if their models were mostly overhang models from a single tile. This would result in being able to run el-networks over ramps as well.

I might do some experimenting and see if this works out....

[JoeST]

Curving ramps, WHERE ITS AT!!!!

thats awesome, thanks very much

JOe

[MandelSoft]

I had a bit of a thought overnight....

Has anyone ever attempted to do path crossing models (ie: ERHW4 over RHW8, or whaver) by using T21 exemplars?

I'll explain what I mean:

From my understanding T21s are basically props for transit networks. I know props are created by box shaped LODs, but I don't think there's any particular reason why you'd have to do it that way. If this is the case, then the models for the network pieces can be T21s. This is useful because the actual crossing itself wouldn't need a model that combines both parts, you could just use a 'blank' model, a path combining both, plus two T21s with the networks rotated to whatever direction they were going in.

This is very handy because it means that rather than having to create models for every possible intersection, you just combine the parts to get what you want. You could probably even write a script to generate all the required exemplars and paths.

Furthermore, you could code el-network over ramps in a similar way, especially if their models were mostly overhang models from a single tile. This would result in being able to run el-networks over ramps as well.

I might do some experimenting and see if this works out....

No, T21s works for 3D objects only, not paths.

[swamp_ig]

Yeh the paths would need to be merged.

However the paths are small, very easy to merge with a script, and potentially reusable across multiple network types.

The models on the other hand have large file sizes, are difficult to merge, and each x el-network over y ground network is another intersection piece.

[Blue Lightning]

I find it generally extremely easy to adapt a model to another network type, especially for ERHW-4 over RHW-x. I simply just change a material IID, make sure the UV mappings are right, and done. Then again I am extremely familiar with the Reader's s3d editor.

As for the RUL code, a lot of it is modular and nowadays a lot of things are copy-paste-replace-fillinthegap jobs. Paths aren't that hard either. (Exceptions being new things (you gotta code it from scratch) or WAVERide (case by case, however the submodules are copy-paste-replaceable))

Plus... non tru3d models don't exactly look as good as tru3d models. Tru3d (RKT0/RKT3) models take up less memory space than regular RKT1 models, since you only need 1 with more vertexes/triangles, which don't take up as much memory, compared to 20 models plus 20+ textures (1 per each, more per each depending on size of model) for a RKT1.

[noahclem]

Beautiful stuff guys, can't wait! Wow.

Thanks for your contributions swamp_ig! Somehow it took me a day to realize those curves were also ground to elevated transitions  

I had a couple questions about a large-ish interchange I'm working on:



First (in yellow circle), will there ever be a way to connect the MIS ramp to the adjacent RHW-6? Or to convert the RHW-6 to RHW-4 while still adjacent to the MIS? MIS adjacent to RHW-6 like that is pretty visually appealing I think. Especially with RHW-8 on the one side (a type-C ramp I think)....

Second (red circle) I tried to convert that RHW-6 to RHW-4 here but the piece almost completely flattened the spot (undesirable in this case as I'm trying to sneak a rail tunnel under the highway approximately where the yellow circle is). Is there a way to place that kind of piece on significant slopes? My slope mod doesn't affect RHW. I noticed a similar issue with TULEPs pieces where some are slope-friendly and some not.

Thanks  

[MandelSoft]

(1) Type-C ramps are in the works, only the MIS would be one tile further away from the RHW-6S.

(2) Draggable RHW stubs require flat ground, because technically they are intersections (which also require flat ground.

[Blue Lightning]

Though we have considered the "stubless" puzzle piece route. Also, I've played around with starter stubs, and I have made slope conforming stubs. There's a catch though - if you demolish the stub it takes out whatever network is directly next to it with it.

[noahclem]

Thanks for the replies Mrtnlrn and Blue Lightning. Slope-conforming stubs could be really cool. I'm used to tip-toeing around bulldozing RHW anyway as it often has unintended consequences so maybe the slope-conforming stubs wouldn't be too much worse.

Is no-one else interested in interfacing between directly adjacent RHW-6 and MIS though? I think it looks really good and could be a neat addition. Besides pleasant aesthetics it would also conserve space in tight spots.

[j-dub]

I thought there was a straight merge ramp that connects that yellow circled area together, yes MIS to RHW-6. I don't see why a matching curved exit/on ramp would not be developed in the future to connect that section.

[TJ1]

It appers ive missed alot, since my copy of SC4 is forced to hibernate for 4 weeks on my flash drive. I cant stand being grounded right before my birthday. I'm going to explode

[kj3400]

I may have missed it so feel free to redirect me if I did, but is there any chance of making more ramps for left hand exits?