RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

JoeST · September 21, 2008, 08:45:50 PM

they iz lookin fantasmagorical

seriously, this is going to make me install windows again, just to play with RHW

Joe

Patricius Maximus · September 22, 2008, 03:24:59 AM

I knew something was going on. I felt it as I checked the forum.

The new arrangement of RHW icons look great. It'll really aid in construction of my interchanges.

I think I know what RHW with a plural is. It's more than 4 lanes, isn't it?

MandelSoft · September 22, 2008, 06:41:51 AM

Nice menubuttons. It's more orderned now!

EDGE4194 · September 22, 2008, 07:23:07 AM

alex-

nice work on the menu. (i can be patient.... taking deep breaths... trying to remain calm...)

writingliberty · September 22, 2008, 08:43:05 AM

It's not quite the RHW-26, but I do know of one case of a freeway wider than the Irvine I-5 / I-405 junction... at the south end of I-5 where it merges with I-805 and hits the Mexican border it widens out to accomodate the border guard booths and goes to I believe 22 or 24 lanes.

Also, a request - if this isn't covered by the MIS, though I doubt it is since it would involve putting ramps directly on a curve. I have seen a few RL locations where newer (often elevated) highways have been built as a "bypass" around a CBD (one example of what I'm mentioning is on I-8 at the western edge of El Cajon, CA)... where the "bypass" highway section diverges from the "old" surface highway section (usually the city's main street), the highway makes a 45 degree angle curve while a set of one-sided on/off ramps continue "straight", usually converting into/from what SC4 would treat as an avenue. (In the example I'm giving, I-8 replaced US-80.) Of course, the ramp which connects to the "inside" side of the 45 curve would have to cross the highway lanes; in most cases I have seen this as an underpass, but a flyover is (theoretically) possible. Would it be possible to replicate this sort of junction somehow?

bat · September 22, 2008, 09:02:18 AM

These new buttons are looking really good, Alex!
Wonderful work on them!!

jgehrts · September 22, 2008, 09:58:39 AM

Did the sticky post at the top always say "Rural Highway Mod Version 21 (Beta)--COMING SOON"? I just noticed that.

Tarkus · September 22, 2008, 11:16:18 AM

Thanks for the feedback on the menu buttons--I'm glad you all like them, and you'll be seeing more of what will be placed under them soon . . .

Quote from: Patricius Maximus on September 22, 2008, 03:24:59 AM
I think I know what RHW with a plural is. It's more than 4 lanes, isn't it?

More than an Elevated RHW-4? Possibly . . .
(the RULs can actually carry over directly from the ground versions, and the paths with only slight modification . . . )

Quote from: writingliberty on September 22, 2008, 08:43:05 AM
Would it be possible to replicate this sort of junction somehow?

Yes, actually, it would. There are preliminary plans for some sort of MIS Ramp Interface piece that branches off of a 45-degree curve.

Quote from: jgehrts on September 22, 2008, 09:58:39 AM
Did the sticky post at the top always say "Rural Highway Mod Version 21 (Beta)--COMING SOON"? I just noticed that.

It's actually said that for probably at least 4 or 5 months now.

I'd keep an eye on it, though. It might start saying other stuff at some point.

Back with more in a bit . . .

-Alex (Tarkus)

Edit: Oh, and my nebulous comment last time:

Quote from: Tarkus on September 21, 2008, 06:46:50 PM
I am planning on potentially taking an "interesting" route with the models (at least beginning with Version 22, though I'm leaning toward doing it now), which will open modifying them up to others who don't want to mess around with all the intricacies of transit modeling and lead to a wide variety of third-party modifications for the Elevated RHWs (yes, plural ) and MIS. (Hint: It involves a certain type of file . . .)

That "certain type of file" is a Type21 exemplar, if you hadn't guessed already.

CasperVg · September 22, 2008, 11:39:29 AM

Although the icons look pretty nice, I would actually advocate the usage of a more common terrain mod in those icons; since they more conform to the fact that most people use more ehm.. lush terrains. Interesting T21-idea tho.

metarvo · September 22, 2008, 12:41:41 PM

Quote from: Tarkus on September 22, 2008, 11:16:18 AM
It's actually said that for probably at least 4 or 5 months now. I'd keep an eye on it, though. It might start saying other stuff at some point.

Oh, my. Here we go again, Alex.

I will keep a constant eye on that subject line now, that's for sure.

jgehrts · September 22, 2008, 12:59:22 PM

Quote from: Tarkus on September 22, 2008, 11:16:18 AM
It's actually said that for probably at least 4 or 5 months now. I'd keep an eye on it, though. It might start saying other stuff at some point.

Apparently I'm a little slow up the uptake.

I have a strange feeling that, when the new version is ready, you'll change the stickied post but not say anything right off the bat... just to see how long it takes for somebody to say something!

nerdly_dood · September 22, 2008, 01:11:53 PM

Not bad - much better organization than in v.20

Also, I'm looking forward to interpreting another nebulous comment or three

Tarkus · September 22, 2008, 01:41:23 PM

Quote from: jgehrts on September 22, 2008, 12:59:22 PM
I have a strange feeling that, when the new version is ready, you'll change the stickied post but not say anything right off the bat... just to see how long it takes for somebody to say something!

You're giving me ideas now.

I hadn't thought of that . . . I rather like it.

-Alex (Tarkus)

Patricius Maximus · September 22, 2008, 02:08:28 PM

Ha, Ha. This reminds me of the so-called "Veepstakes". Don't know much for sure, but it really is fun guessing.

Thanks for the info. The RUL's copy quite nicely? I gather the hardest part of making them is the modelling.

jplumbley · September 22, 2008, 06:21:05 PM

Quote from: jgehrts on September 22, 2008, 12:59:22 PM
Apparently I'm a little slow up the uptake. I have a strange feeling that, when the new version is ready, you'll change the stickied post but not say anything right off the bat... just to see how long it takes for somebody to say something!

Hey... we've never been known to do anything like that have we? Diagonal SAM was never included, what are you talking about.

pagenotfound · September 22, 2008, 08:07:38 PM

This menu organization is much better; more convenient. And elevated multi RHW? (that gives me an idea

)

choco · September 23, 2008, 05:21:12 PM

QuoteRHW-2 and RHW-4 Bridges

any chance on how these are being constructed, or should i wait until release to start modeling additional bridges?

ie, there's nothing in the INI files for ANT bridges, so is it using OWR?

Tarkus · September 23, 2008, 05:34:25 PM

choco, to answer your question, they are true RHW-based bridges. The next update of the Bridge Controller will include INI entries for them. (There's a "dummy" entry under "DirtRoad Bridges" in the current Bridge Controller file). smoncrie also managed to get the RHW Bridge RUL file (0x0000100b) working, too, which one of the bridges uses.

-Alex (Tarkus)

nerdly_dood · September 23, 2008, 05:39:58 PM

What I'd like to know is this: Will there be bridges for both ground and elevated RHW like there is for GLR and ELR? That would be best for greatest flexibiliity.

choco · September 23, 2008, 05:51:27 PM

Quote from: Tarkus on September 23, 2008, 05:34:25 PM
(There's a "dummy" entry under "DirtRoad Bridges" in the current Bridge Controller file).

doh.....saw that and never put 2 & 2 together.....much appreciated

Quote from: nerdly_dood on September 23, 2008, 05:39:58 PM
What I'd like to know is this: Will there be bridges for both ground and elevated RHW like there is for GLR and ELR? That would be best for greatest flexibiliity.

i hate to assume, but it could be similar to HSR.....same model adjusted for the Z difference. im drawing a blank atm, but theres a property that'll shift the Z, i believe.