RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[GDO29Anagram]

The DIP effect is used by exploiting a feature in the Traffic Simulator that says that all intersections have 1.25 times more capacity, and by using what are called Distilled Intersection Paths (small slivers of paths touch all other sides of a network tile), you can effectively trick any single-tile network into having greater capacity.

However, since an intersection is considered to be any network tile with paths entering or exiting 3 or 4 of its sides, all TLA networks and any network with crossover paths (6C, 8C, 10C, 8S, 10S, 12S) are immediately considered intersections.

And no, we can't just throw out all of the crossover paths for the sake of DIPing such networks; Without them, any wider RHW network will cease to function and would be treated as though they were completely separate RHW networks, and by that, I mean that traffic will no longer be able to interchange between both halves of a two-tile S-network or the median and shoulder of a 3-tile C-network. This is what makes the game see multi-tile RHW networks as a single multi-tile network, despite being made from a single-tile network.

Additionally, there is no way to turn this off selectively, and there is no way to "Double-DIP". It's all or nothing, or in boolean, on or off. The closest to being able to do that is with using OWR for TLA-9 and AVE-8 outer lanes, but that has its own share of potential problems...

-----

Worth pointing out that certain traffic simulators (the older ones) actually decrease the capacity of intersections, so a DIP'd or COP'd network will actually have less capacity if you have an incompatible simulator.

EDIT: Did I mention this is an FAQ question on the NWM but, oddly enough, wasn't copied over to the RHW?

If you've managed to increase the capacity on some networks, why is there still no difference between the OWR-4 and OWR-5, OWR-1 and OWR-2, ARD-3 and NRD-4 and TLA-3, TLA-5 and RD-6, RHW-8S to 12S, RHW-6C to 10C, and RHW-4 and MIS?

There are limitations to the technique that allowed us to increase capacities on certain networks.  Essentially, it involves exploiting a feature in the NAM Traffic Simulator, in which the first value of the Intersection & Turn Capacity Effect value is set to 125%.  The capacity of any tile that the game considers an intersection gets multiplied by this value. Alex (the NAM Team Tankadillo) was able to ascertain what modifications were necessary to the path files to make a non-intersection tile be seen as an intersection and gain a capacity increase as a result. 

The technique does not work in reverse, which is why the OWR-1 cannot be affected, or why the MIS network cannot be downgraded (and no one has ever asked...). Making the OWR-1 Street-based was considered, but no such equivalent exists for the MIS network.

With regards to the all networks with crossover paths for both RHW and NWM, those networks have a series of "crossover paths" to allow switching between the two tiles, allowing the full width of the network to be used.  The crossover paths are already considered intersections by the traffic simulator.  The intersection effect cannot be "doubled up", meaning the capacity-increasing trick would be useless in increasing the capacity of networks with crossover paths.

Additionally, TLA networks have greater capacity than their RD counterparts (TLA-3 and RD-2, and TLA-5 and RD-4; The capacity of TLA-3 are identical to NRD-4 and ARD-3, and the capacity of TLA-5 and RD-6 are also identical to each other) because of their turn-lane paths that immediately consider them intersections. These turn-lane paths are what give the TLA networks their turn-lane functionality.

[Twyla]

EDIT: Did I mention this is an FAQ question on the NWM but, oddly enough, wasn't copied over to the RHW?

If you've managed to increase the capacity on some networks, why is there still no difference between the OWR-4 and OWR-5, OWR-1 and OWR-2, ARD-3 and NRD-4 and TLA-3, TLA-5 and RD-6, RHW-8S to 12S, RHW-6C to 10C, and RHW-4 and MIS?

There are limitations to the technique that allowed us to increase capacities on certain networks.  Essentially, it involves exploiting a feature in the NAM Traffic Simulator, in which the first value of the Intersection & Turn Capacity Effect value is set to 125%.  The capacity of any tile that the game considers an intersection gets multiplied by this value. Alex (the NAM Team Tankadillo) was able to ascertain what modifications were necessary to the path files to make a non-intersection tile be seen as an intersection and gain a capacity increase as a result. 

The technique does not work in reverse, which is why the OWR-1 cannot be affected, or why the MIS network cannot be downgraded (and no one has ever asked...). Making the OWR-1 Street-based was considered, but no such equivalent exists for the MIS network.

With regards to the all networks with crossover paths for both RHW and NWM, those networks have a series of "crossover paths" to allow switching between the two tiles, allowing the full width of the network to be used.  The crossover paths are already considered intersections by the traffic simulator.  The intersection effect cannot be "doubled up", meaning the capacity-increasing trick would be useless in increasing the capacity of networks with crossover paths.

Additionally, TLA networks have greater capacity than their RD counterparts (TLA-3 and RD-2, and TLA-5 and RD-4; The capacity of TLA-3 are identical to NRD-4 and ARD-3, and the capacity of TLA-5 and RD-6 are also identical to each other) because of their turn-lane paths that immediately consider them intersections. These turn-lane paths are what give the TLA networks their turn-lane functionality.

I remembered the part about not being able to 'downgrade' below the network's base capacity, but I never saw anything (before) about not being able to tell the simulator that an intersection wasn't.

[jondor]

@Twyla

You are definitely good at thinking outside the box, so I have to give you credit there.  But the sad truth of the matter is that we can only do so much with this game engine and we're already pushing it to the limits.  Your 4m modularity idea is good, but it unfortunately only works for orthogonal sections as Ganaram said.  Diagonals are a whole other can of worms, one which is already proving a minor problem for the wider shared median networks.

Not to mention the fact that I just finished remastering the entirety of the RHW-2 textures and models to the v5 specs, and I don't relish the thought of redoing all that work, especially with the RHW-3, 4 and MIS ahead of me, not to mention the models and smattering of textures for all of the other networks.

[Twyla]

Speaking of models....



Need an RHW-4S crossover so peeps can make diverging interchanges?  (A few tweaks and it'll work for RHW-6S as well, though there aren't any inside ramps for 6S yet.)

[gn_leugim]

RHW-6C/8C bridges will probably be implemented via a DBE-esque method. The prototype I have works very well and has full capacity.

Speaking of bridges...

first, nice brigde

and second. being implemented via DBE, how do a moddler (I) get the model set for final moding? as 16mx16m pieces? or is there any other way?

someone?

[Twyla]

and second. being implemented via DBE, how do a moddler (I) get the model set for final moding? as 16mx16m pieces? or is there any other way?

someone?

Tarkus's Tutorial on making models for Transit Networks in general
jeronij's Tutorial on making models for Bridges in particular (referred to by Tarkus's Tutorial)

[AngryBirdsFan436]

I think the MIS can be nicknamed the RHW 2S because if you put two side-by-side MIS, it will look like an RHW-2S!

[GDO29Anagram]

I think the MIS can be nicknamed the RHW 2S because if you put two side-by-side MIS, it will look like an RHW-2S!

I personally don't think so. Though S-C logic does make sense that way, the name MIS has been around for almost as long as RHW itself, and it's the primary interchanging network of the Modular Interchange System, whose history goes farther back when it appeared when wider networks of MIS network were considered. The idea of a MIS-2 and MIS-3 is pretty much in the hands of RHW-4 and 6S.

If anything, it should be called PIN: RHW-PIN, RHW Primary Interchange Network. (Tease tease.) Not really; The name's been around so long that a namechange would lead to confusion, unless the public unanimously likes the idea.

[Wiimeiser]

I definetly think the MIS should get the same features as the other RHW networks, like the ability to cross rail and SPUIs

[Tarkus]

I originally decided back during RHW 2.0 development that the MIS wouldn't be getting at-grade Rail crossings.  This is mainly as the network was intended to be used for exit/entrance ramps, and it's only on substandard and very outdated interchanges that you typically see Rail crossings on those.  It would be easy to add them, but I'm not sure if they really make sense.  Generally, if a certain RHW network can't intersect another network at-grade right now, there's typically a conscious functional reason for it rather than simple omission.

The EMIS can cross over ground SPUIs already, though across the board, MIS/SPUI interactions were a very low priority, as they weren't thought to be something that would get utilized much.

-Alex

[Wiimeiser]

Then Why did I have to use OWR as a workaround in the DDRHW case? And the SPUI reverts when I drag MIS over it...
Maybe I should drag the MIS first?

[AngryBirdsFan436]

Anyway, hows P57?

[GDO29Anagram]

Alpha Build 3 and modified elevated RHW models. That's all you need to know.

[gn_leugim]

and second. being implemented via DBE, how do a moddler (I) get the model set for final moding? as 16mx16m pieces? or is there any other way?

someone?

Tarkus's Tutorial on making models for Transit Networks in general
jeronij's Tutorial on making models for Bridges in particular (referred to by Tarkus's Tutorial)

thanks

[Kuewr665]

I have a suggestion for the lanes being added to the left. An RHW-4 with a 2 tile median could be widened to RHW-10 without an empty median by having its lanes added to the median. The ramps would use the existing RHW-10 ramps.

[GDO29Anagram]

I have a suggestion for the lanes being added to the left. An RHW-4 with a 2 tile median could be widened to RHW-10 without an empty median by having its lanes added to the median. The ramps would use the existing RHW-10 ramps.

As in, overriding RHW-4 into the 10S outer shoulder, with the 8S inner shoulder accompanying it to the side?

Theoretically doable, but you need special overrides for it.

[drjumbajookiba]

Are there any plans for RHW 12 yet?

[GDO29Anagram]

Are there any plans for RHW 12 yet?

We only have the designated ID range for it, and which RHW-12 are you talking about? (I exercise an extreme emphasis on differentiating between S-networks and C-networks, and P57 RHW networks will be labelled in this fashion, save for RHW-2, 3, MIS, and 4.) 12S is doable, but 12C is NOT.

And if you looked at my previous post,...

The P57 IID scheme had to be revised many times (and we're only at Alpha Build 3), and the absolute limit on what to add is pretty much final: 11 different widths of draggable RHW, times three to account for L1 and L2 variations, plus an additional 6 for L3 and L4. The final widths are RHW-2, RHW-3, MIS, RHW-4, 6S, 8S, 10S, 12S, 6C, 8C, and 10C. All of which will be receiving L1 and L2 variations, and only MIS, RHW-4, and 6S are receiving L3 and L4 variations. Only two widths (12S and 10C) won't be making a début.

[Twyla]

10C is as much as can be crammed into a 3-tile network (even with my 4m suggestions).  Options for 12C include:

A ) Overhanging Paths - doable, but liable to have your automata driving through embankments and other solid objects
B ) 5-Tile Network - doable, but creates a wide 'dead zone' alongside the route in addition to being a massive pain when it comes to curves (the primary downfall of 4m as well)
C ) 4-Tile Network - The 12S already fills this niche

[GDO29Anagram]

10C is as much as can be crammed into a 3-tile network (even with my 4m suggestions).  Options for 12C include:

A ) Overhanging Paths - doable, but liable to have your automata driving through embankments and other solid objects
B ) 5-Tile Network - doable, but creates a wide 'dead zone' alongside the route in addition to being a massive pain when it comes to curves (the primary downfall of 4m as well)
C ) 4-Tile Network - The 12S already fills this niche

There's already a big dead zone with the 8S already, so a 5-tile 12C made using puzzle pieces would be no different. Besides, the extra tile would be needed for capacity, anyway.

A 10C would overhang similarly to the 6S, and its overhang would be slightly wider than that of the 6S. Upscale that analogy to the 12C and you'd have the same footprint-to-asphalt relationship as the 6S-8S relationship.