RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[jdenm8]

There are multiple problems.

A. If there was a DDRHW based on the RHW, it would have the same capacity as RHW-4 due to game limitations meaning there would be four lanes with the capacity of two lanes. It would be more advantageous to build a standard RHW-4 motorway.
Besides that, we do not have another single-tile road-based network with a higher capacity than RHW, meaning DDERHW will be a sweet dream until we discover a workaround.

B. Road Network over another Road Network would not work because the game does not see two different networks. To the game, Street, Road, Avenue, Highway, RHW, are all duplicates of "network" with special properties, speed, capacity and kind of vehicle paths it can carry are the most influential ones.
Puzzle Pieces need one basic network which defines the speedlimit and capacity.

Because SC4's pathfinder (and lane swapper for UDI) do not 'see' the Y axis, traffic will flit between decks. This is probably only true of car paths as they are the only network that can change 'lanes' (in actuality, just paths that are within a certain distance of one another and exit and enter on the same sides), although the other networks may do it.

[GDO29Anagram]

A. If there was a DDRHW based on the RHW, it would have the same capacity as RHW-4 due to game limitations meaning there would be four lanes with the capacity of two lanes. It would be more advantageous to build a standard RHW-4 motorway.
Besides that, we do not have another single-tile road-based network with a higher capacity than RHW, meaning DDERHW will be a sweet dream until we discover a workaround.

Amen. Besides, we're out of base networks to work with, and not even the DIPs would be able to make up for the capacity loss.

[j-dub]

As for the tunnels, disregarding the lack of simulated traffic, it was nice having streets and RHW dragged through hills, sure I still had to place in and out car/subway blocks at both ends of the no tunnel hole so simulator cars resumed, but having the blank hole there was easier to cover up then an existing dragged Maxis model. It looked funny when the overhanging tunnel model bled through the Maxis one. It would be nice to have actual RHW tunnel models though.



However, there is a chance the car to subway I was using was modified for a higher capacity/speed, but it was the closest thing to a working dragged RHW tunnel for me then nothing.

[Twyla]

Because SC4's pathfinder (and lane swapper for UDI) do not 'see' the Y axis, traffic will flit between decks. This is probably only true of car paths as they are the only network that can change 'lanes' (in actuality, just paths that are within a certain distance of one another and exit and enter on the same sides), although the other networks may do it.

Does this remain to be the case when the paths do not align?

Using US roadways as an example - the right shoulder is (in most every case) significantly wider than the left, so meaning that the opposing traffic flows wouldn't align.

From what I've seen, this flitting only occurs when the paths do align.

[jondor]

Does this remain to be the case when the paths do not align?

Using US roadways as an example - the right shoulder is (in most every case) significantly wider than the left, so meaning that the opposing traffic flows wouldn't align.

From what I've seen, this flitting only occurs when the paths do align.

The UDI side of the coin is not really important aside from aesthetics.  Where the real issue lies is in the traffic simulator.  take for example a theoretical FLUPs piece: Parallel Orth-road beneath Orth-road.  Ignoring pedestrian paths for the moment, there are four paths on the tile, two in each direction, one opposing pair at ground level, one opposing pair 10 meters below the surface.

To us in the real world, those paths would be totally separate and distinct.  You can't simply jump 10 meters through concrete and dirt and whatever else just because you want to.  To the game however, the situation is completely different.  All the traffic simulator sees is two paths running from north to south and two paths running south to north.  The up and down y-axis doesn't exist to the traffic simulator, all it sees is the flat grid and paths running between the four edges of each tile. Precisely why such a piece does not exist.

Now, in the case of a double decker highway where each deck runs in opposing directions, it is possible to avoid jumping because all paths that run in the same direction are at the same height.  However, another issue emerges, this time one of capacity.  Since SC4 assigns capacity based solely on a tile for tile basis, regardless of the number of paths on any given tile, a tile with one path in each direction has the same capacity as a tile with two paths in each direction.

DIPs get around this by taking advantage of the intersection capacity settings of the traffic simulator.  All intersection tiles (defined by the game as any tile with paths touching 3 or 4 edges) are 25% greater in capacity than non-intersection tiles.  So for example, the NMAVE-4 has 25% more capacity than the base Road network, although this is the same as both the TLA-3 and ARD-3.  Some flexibility but not much.

As for automata, the game does allow for misaligned paths within a certain margin, so cars can flit between paths when they don't line up at tile edges.  When you change lanes in UDI, any parallel path is potentially valid, but I don't know for sure if people have tested multi-height lane changes since it's merely a cosmetic thing and the pieces in question break suspension of disbelief when it comes to the traffic simulator anyway.

[jdenm8]

I imagine that tapping the left/right button while in UDI just selects the next path that goes that way.

Capacity is the biggest issue here. Even if we used DIPs, the capacity would still only be that of RHW-6S, still one lane too few.

[Ramona Brie]

Amen. Besides, we're out of base networks to work with, and not even the DIPs would be able to make up for the capacity loss.

*sniff sniff* SecretNetwork was built into SC4!?

[Tarkus]

All I will say about "SecretNetwork" is that while it is "RHW-style", it is not "RHW-based".

-Alex

[Opkl]

All I will say about "SecretNetwork" is that while it is "RHW-style", it is not "RHW-based".

-Alex

So you guys found something that Maxis planned, but didn't add to the game like the dirt road?

[GDO29Anagram]

So you guys found something that Maxis planned, but didn't add to the game like the dirt road?

We found a second Dirt Road? What? Impossible... Then again, what cards did Maxis left stuck up their sleeves...?

DIPs get around this by taking advantage of the intersection capacity settings of the traffic simulator.  All intersection tiles (defined by the game as any tile with paths touching 3 or 4 edges) are 25% greater in capacity than non-intersection tiles.

I'll bet this is why networks with crossover paths have the DIP effect, which is something I've been wondering about for a while. Well, just in case anyone else was wondering, now we have some info to back it up.

I was actually gonna ask about DIPing the two-tile networks, such as AVE-4. Has it been experimented on the diagonals, especially the shared-tile part? It might alleviate the capacity problems associated with it, but it would still fall short of the full capacity.

Actually, given what Jondor said, the shared-tile already has the DIP effect. Huh... _{(Note to self: Stop talking to myself.)}

[j-dub]

While the green simulator arrow just vanishes straight into the empty hole, I would like to think traffic was going straight. I thought normally the cars would just disappear in front of the subway, but they drive straight past the sub without stopping, and follow the car path right into the hole where the subway is exposed.

It was almost like a working tunnel, except there are no models for any RHW width. While I did not take another picture, leaving the play button on, I demolished the middle sub stations, and only left the loop connectors there, the simulator still thought the RHW tunnel was valid. Stations gone, subway was still intact, but built under both RHW-4 tunnels.

There is a chance this was just a momentary fluke, IDK, but it left me wondering if loop connectors to subway under dragged RHW 4 tunnel were just enough that the traffic simulator did not want to show the number zero.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[jondor]

While the green simulator arrow just vanishes straight into the empty hole, I would like to think traffic was going straight. I thought normally the cars would just disappear in front of the subway, but they drive straight past the sub without stopping, and follow the car path right into the hole where the subway is exposed.

It was almost like a working tunnel, except there are no models for any RHW width. While I did not take another picture, leaving the play button on, I demolished the middle sub stations, and only left the loop connectors there, the simulator still thought the RHW tunnel was valid. Stations gone, subway was still intact, but built under both RHW-4 tunnels.

There is a chance this was just a momentary fluke, IDK, but it left me wondering if loop connectors to subway under dragged RHW 4 tunnel were just enough that the traffic simulator did not want to show the number zero.

[image]

Me thinks thou shalt have to explain the situation in more detail.  I, for one, am completely confused here.

[Tarkus]

Looking over the paths, it appears he built an RHW tunnel, plopped Neighbor Connector pieces next to it and then dragged a subway through where the non-functioning tunnel was.  Intriguing idea . . . I shall have to give it a try.

-Alex

[kassarc16]

It will be extra sweet if it works with buses and trucks! Great find j-dub, hopefully this goes someplace!

Oh, and the new FLEX looks wonderful Alex!

[Tarkus]

I've just done a series of experiments with it . . . haven't had any success, unfortunately.

-Alex

[ivo_su]

Ehh pity
Will not you at least a little hope to get these tunnels. What exactly hinders the work so much.
And these new networks that speak when you are expected to occur and something in addition to RHW or you will be completely new structure.

- Ivo

[io_bg]

And these new networks that speak when you are expected to occur and something in addition to RHW or you will be completely new structure.

All I will say about "SecretNetwork" is that while it is "RHW-style", it is not "RHW-based".

[ivo_su]

Ioane my friend I read what you show me the 2 nd time but still I can not imagine how these new networks will be in style RHW but will have their base. Maybe a picture would help me to understand more clearly what it is.

Ivo

[jdenm8]

No pictures, it wouldn't be SecretNetwork any more then 

[io_bg]

What's the point of hiding something that will be revealed soon?