RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

Nego, please note the date of the post you are quoting . . . 5 months/12 pages ago is kind of pushing it on the relevance factor, especially for a question that was already answered then.

Just a refresher on what the "official" plans are on the stack functionality, though, as the subject has been raised again: they will become possible with the advent of multi-height ERHWs/EMIS Ramps (7.5m, 22.5m and 30m in addition to the existing 15m), which are planned as a "flagship" feature for RHW Version 5.0.  5.0, of course, has no release date, nor do any of the incremental 4.x releases expected to precede it (including 4.0).

-Alex

[dedgren]

Here's a recently built major interchange about a mile/1.6 kilometers from my home in Alaska.  We do the "dashed line" thing the exact opposite of our friends from Oz here, apparently.



The only dashed line is when the northbound freeway widens to three lanes just before the Palmer exit.  I guess folks merging on just have to take their chances and pay attention.


David

[canyonjumper]

That's a cool interchange, David!

[Blue Lightning]

Oh hey my stack prototype... ugh. Well I can just say now that I've ditched the idea of a puzzle piece based one (which you see above, from November of 2009) for modular draggable semi-WAVERide/FLEXFly based system.

David: That's a pretty cool interchange! Around here in Ohio, either we're really inconsistent with our dashing or I haven't seen the pattern yet, though I'm guessing its dependent on the length of the merging/splitting lane.

EDIT: Oh canyon, to answer your question on the last page, I did and didn't use a template for them. The sign texture is a US-ified version of my Devlinal/Destinial sign system, but those signs actually exist IRL.

EDIT2: Just dug this up, something for the 4.x series.

[canyonjumper]

Thanks, I'm going to start making signs for my MD

             -Jordan

[woodb3kmaster]

Just a refresher on what the "official" plans are on the stack functionality, though, as the subject has been raised again: they will become possible with the advent of multi-height ERHWs/EMIS Ramps (7.5m, 22.5m and 30m in addition to the existing 15m), which are planned as a "flagship" feature for RHW Version 5.0.  5.0, of course, has no release date, nor do any of the incremental 4.x releases expected to precede it (including 4.0).

Five levels of (E)RHW? I can already imagine the possibilities that will unleash (besides stacks, of course)! Of course, it'll be a while before that makes it out to the public (maybe sooner if I started making the models for each height ), so I'm not holding my breath...

@David: Cool interchange you've got there! Apologies in advance for the off-topic question, but does Alaska have a State Route 47?

[Tarkus]

Five levels of (E)RHW?

Actually, with the FLUPs stuff, it'll end up being 6.  The main thing with doing all those levels is having enough RUL 0x10000002 stability code in place.

-Alex

[metarvo]

That's some good stuff there, BL.    I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses both the RHW and the MHW, so I have been dreaming of a good connection between the two.

[jdenm8]

Yes! No more weaving! Thanks for the teaser BL! I'll be one of the first downloaders of that one!
And I tend to agree with you... That stack interchange would look better with FLEXfly.
Tarkus... Are you saying we'll get RHW FLUPs in 5.0? 

[Moonraker0]

I am having an issue with running two MIS ramps under an elevated RHW-4.  One of them always turns the opposite direction, even if I delete the first one.  I tried everything I could think of:  demolishing the ramp next to it and moving the RHW-4 Dual MIS Splitter further down.http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1707/penleyapr19041271632208.png

[Tarkus]

I am having an issue with running two MIS ramps under an elevated RHW-4.  One of them always turns the opposite direction, even if I delete the first one.  I tried everything I could think of:  demolishing the ramp next to it and moving the RHW-4 Dual MIS Splitter further down.http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1707/penleyapr19041271632208.png

That's a RUL-bound issue there.  I believe that was fixed or at least improved with Version 3.2 . . . make sure you're using the most recent public NAM Controller build (July 2009) . . . the little NAM icon on at the bottom of your Roads menu should tell you which build you have installed.

If you do in fact have the most recent controller build, and its still acting up, the solution is to wait until 4.0 gets released.  I've overhauled that code again and it will be considerably more stable this time around.

-Alex

[Moonraker0]

Thanks for the reply, and it seems I do have the July 2009 NAM Essentials, so I will wait until the next one is released.

[fafalone]

I've gotten around issues like that by restarting only on one side with a new starter piece, then being careful not to bulldoze too close to the overpass so it doesn't revert again.

[Exodia the forbidden one]

how do you get tunnels for RHW?

[Tarkus]

See FAQ Item #7 for info on tunnels.  They're technically not possible due to factors beyond our control, though there are workarounds.

-Alex

[swamp_ig]

If you do in fact have the most recent controller build, and its still acting up, the solution is to wait until 4.0 gets released.  I've overhauled that code again and it will be considerably more stable this time around.

Is it worth reporting another bug like this one I've found?

[MandelSoft]

^^ Yes, it's still usefull to report a bug like that. We can check if it's still there in the current controller. If so, then we would have missed an error during development. So it's quite usefull indeed.

[noahclem]

Better RHW-MHW connectivity would be nice because of the things RHW just can't do like tunnels and two-tile-wide bridges so it's something I would really love to see. But... is it possible to visually make the MHW an RHW 6 (same textures, lane width, etc)? Maybe eliminating extra space in the median and having narrower or overhanging shoulders? Further down the road it would be sweet to see new bridges (like a 2-way RHW-6 version of one of Chaco's 1-way RHW-10 bridges) or maxis bridge refits for such a network. I understand the emphasis of this project is not integration with or use of MHW--but couldn't it be possible to co-opt MHW into the RHW in a useful and aesthetically pleasing way?

What do you guys think?

[strucka]

I am full on for this coexistance of RHW and MHW, because in packed downtown's and areas that are more crowded you just have to use the MHW, which actually is also a lot more usable and stuff. And then having the RHW's as they were ment to be... rural. Well I'm just starting to make my HWY's into RHW's, because it was a lot easier to make MHW's by now.

[deathtopumpkins]

It is not "meant" to be rural. RHW is "meant" to be realistic. Thus, RHW = RealHighWay.