RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[GDO29Anagram]

I was wondering will there be more development on the FlexFly?
I.e.- 4ELRHW FlexFly; Curved Sloped MIS or 4ELRHW FlexFly; possibly even just straight pieces.

I'm not sure to call it "spitballing" if you're right on target; Though there's currently no ERHW-4 FlexFly planned for this release, there was one GMAX picture of such back in page 300-something.

If by "curved-sloped MIS" you mean a curved ground to elevated transition, then that one already exists.

[Tarkus]

I was wondering will there be more development on the FlexFly?
I.e.- 4ELRHW FlexFly; Curved Sloped MIS or 4ELRHW FlexFly; possibly even just straight pieces.

To my knowledge, BL is looking at resuming FLEXFly development after Version 5.0 is released.  I believe the plans include the addition of 45-degree EMIS and ERHW-4 FLEXFly pieces, but no 90-degree ERHW-4 FLEXFly, as it would need to be of a massive radius to be realistic for a road of that width/design speed.  (At that point, you can also just stick two 45-degree ones together.) 

A straight "flex" piece makes no sense--it'd just be a glorified starter piece.  WAVERide/Flex is designed to make otherwise un-draggable setups act like draggables and be able to overridden--i.e. odd curves and intersections.

As I am finally using a large amount of RHW on my new "New Seattle" region, I am finding that not having elevated roads over RHW8c or 10c (same for tunnels) is hampering some of my plans.

There isn't a 10C network currently--if you're meaning 10S, there are elevated road-over pieces already in Version 4.1.  The 8C currently doesn't have them, but they will be included in Version 5.0.

-Alex

[Blue Lightning]

I was wondering will there be more development on the FlexFly?
I.e.- 4ELRHW FlexFly; Curved Sloped MIS or 4ELRHW FlexFly; possibly even just straight pieces.

I don't know much about the FlexFly's and their limitations, so I'm just spitball-ing ideas.

Eventually.



I'm a lot farther than you think (pic is about... a month old?)

[jdenm8]

We're still in the process of expanding the original FlexFly (RHW-8S under MIS Type A/B FlexFly is being added in RHW v5.0), so it'll be a little while yet. 

[Mr.Sixty]

A straight "flex" piece makes no sense--it'd just be a glorified starter piece.  WAVERide/Flex is designed to make otherwise un-draggable setups act like draggables and be able to overridden--i.e. odd curves and intersections.

If I understand it correctly, a straight "flex" piece would probably make sense if you wanted to make some kind of flexible double decker setup with the lower deck on the ground. But then again there would still be the problem of cars jumping between the decks.
Well, it is just an idea anyways.

[jdenm8]

If I understand it correctly, a straight "flex" piece would probably make sense if you wanted to make some kind of flexible double decker setup with the lower deck on the ground. But then again there would still be the problem of cars jumping between the decks.
Well, it is just an idea anyways.

Actually, no. It still wouldn't. WaveRide (the underlying technique) works by overriding an intersection. The same network travelling straight into itself isn't an intersection, it's a straight, orthogonal section.

EDIT: Some things probably would work for if there was no draggable equivalent, like Rail Viaducts, but... the concept is kinda pointless now.

[jondor]

More specifically, it works by overriding intersections between two anchor points.  The Flex system is really no different than any normal override network, except that it is set up for specific situations.

What people might be thinking of as a "Flex-Straight" piece is already accomplished by the MIS and RHW-4 network drags (and any other network for that matter).  A useful non-curved Flex piece would be something like the new Flex-SPUI or a Flex-elevated transition, so that you could drag higher or lower heights under or over it.

Right now we don't have the infrastructure for such a piece, but with a full five level system such a transition could be very useful.

[Tarkus]

EDIT: Some things probably would work for if there was no draggable equivalent, like Rail Viaducts, but... the concept is kinda pointless now.

Of course, the Rail Viaducts will be getting a draggable equivalent in the next Rail Addon Mod (RAM), with the El-DTR network.  I'd imagine the NWM RULs getting ported over to make draggable versions of the Road, OWR and Avenue viaducts as well, which would render the "FlexStraight" idea completely null and void.

-Alex

[DAB_City]

EDIT: Some things probably would work for if there was no draggable equivalent, like Rail Viaducts, but... the concept is kinda pointless now.

Of course, the Rail Viaducts will be getting a draggable equivalent in the next Rail Addon Mod (RAM), with the El-DTR network.  I'd imagine the NWM RULs getting ported over to make draggable versions of the Road, OWR and Avenue viaducts as well, which would render the "FlexStraight" idea completely null and void.

-Alex

I was just about to ask about draggable viaducts! I guess the road/owr/avenue ones will be in NAM Version 30... A bit off topic, sorry, but you are still working on the RAM? I'm desperate for RAM 2.0, after RHW 5.0 has been released! All these plugins 

[Tarkus]

I was just about to ask about draggable viaducts! I guess the road/owr/avenue ones will be in NAM Version 30...

There will be new models for the Road/OWR/Avenue ones in NAM Version 30, but they aren't yet draggable.  That'll happen some point down the road.

A bit off topic, sorry, but you are still working on the RAM? I'm desperate for RAM 2.0, after RHW 5.0 has been released! All these plugins 

The RAM is indeed very much still an active project.  The development thread made the move over to NAM Creations (the RAM Team board will be going away) and can be found here.  There's a fair bit in place for a Version 2.0 of that mod, and it'll kick into gear more once the NAM Version 30/RHW 5.0/NWM 2.0 cycle is done.

-Alex

[ivo_su]

  There's a fair bit in place for a Version 2.0 of that mod, and it'll kick into gear more once the NAM Version 30/RHW 5.0/NWM 2.0 cycle is done.

This cycle  of releases will be there within a day and which projects will be put together? I am sure that the versions 30/5.0/2.0 but wondered whether and Advanced will be attached or will be left for later? And a  little silly question  - where will be put first in the STEX or LEX because it is impossible to  be uploaded simultaneously  at 2 locations.

Best regards,
Ivo

[Tarkus]

This cycle  of releases will be there within a day and which projects will be put together? I am sure that the versions 30/5.0/2.0 but wondered whether and Advanced will be attached or will be left for later?

The upcoming release cycle includes NAM Version 30, RealHighway Version 5.0, and Network Widening Mod Version 2.0.  Advanced TuLEPs will not be part of the release cycle, though there will be some expansion to the Basic TuLEPs set included in the NAM, plus a few TuLEPs items included in the NWM to support the new triple-tile networks.

And a  little silly question  - where will be put first in the STEX or LEX because it is impossible to  be uploaded simultaneously  at 2 locations.

Typically, it ends up on the LEX the quickest, as I have FTP access.  The STEX uploads usually are up within about an hour after the LEX uploads, sometimes sooner. 

-Alex

[GMT]

I wonder if there will be a transition from 2 parallel MIS to RHW4?  We got a similar transition already but this only allows for parallel MIS if there's at least 1 tile free in between them (even here your bond to a little stub of ongoing diagonal at the transition from diagonal to orthogonal). What I have in mind is 2 parallel MIS adjecent to each other - as in neighboring tiles - to turn into an RHW4 lane (and o/c the other way around).
Stumbled over this setup a few days ago creating a T intersection and realized some on and offramps won't hurt and thought I might as well ask if such a thing is planned... 

[MandelSoft]

I wonder if there will be a transition from 2 parallel MIS to RHW4?  We got a similar transition already but this only allows for parallel MIS if there's at least 1 tile free in between them (even here your bond to a little stub of ongoing diagonal at the transition from diagonal to orthogonal). What I have in mind is 2 parallel MIS adjecent to each other - as in neighboring tiles - to turn into an RHW4 lane (and o/c the other way around).
Stumbled over this setup a few days ago creating a T intersection and realized some on and offramps won't hurt and thought I might as well ask if such a thing is planned... 

Good news: there will be. Watch closely...

[GMT]

yay 

[GDO29Anagram]

*cough* RHW-4 D1 Ramp *cough*

[Tarkus]

*cough* RHW-4 D1 Ramp *cough*

In fact, as of this afternoon, the LTEXT description now reads that.

A few months ago, a few of us took up the task of coming up with a new, streamlined nomenclature for RealHighway ramp interface pieces.  It eliminates the rather arbitrary and vague distinction between ramp interfaces and splitters, and generally makes it easier to navigate the massive array of content.  The new naming will be in place for the Version 5.0 release.

In a nutshell, the entire system is reduced to 6 basic types, with clearly-defined "subtypes".  The definition of the mainline network has also been more consistently codified--in all cases, it is the largest network involved in the piece. The types follow the syntax "Ax", where "x" is the number of lanes on the branching ramp. A Type A1 ramp has one lane on the branching ramp (an MIS), while a Type A2 ramp has two lanes on the branching ramp (an RHW-4), and so on. 

The six types are defined as follows:

[tabular type=2]
[row]
[data]TYPE A1[/data]
[data]TYPE B1[/data]
[data]TYPE C1[/data]
[data]TYPE D1[/data]
[data]TYPE E1[/data]
[data]TYPE F1[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[/row]
[/tabular]

Type A: Ramp branches off parallel (0 degrees) from the mainline, with the innermost lane of the branching ramp being a new lane splitting from outermost lane of the mainline. 
-Existing Type A ramps will be reclassified as Type A1.
-The RHW-6S/Dual RHW-4 splitter with the RHW-4 branch at the orthogonal will be reclassified as Type A2.

Type B: Ramp branches off 45-degrees from the mainline, with the innermost lane of the branching ramp being a new lane splitting from outermost lane of the mainline. 
-Existing Type B ramps will be reclassified as Type B1.
-The RHW-6S/Dual RHW-4 splitter with the RHW-4 branch at the diagonal will be reclassified as Type B2.

Type C: Ramp branches off at a fractional angle from the mainline, with the innermost lane of the branching ramp being a "new lane" splitting from outermost lane of the mainline.
-Existing Type E ramps will be reclassified as Type C1.
-The RHW-6S/Dual RHW-4 splitter with the FARHW-4 branch will be reclassified as Type C2.

Type D: Ramp branches off parallel (0 degrees) from the mainline, with the lane (or lanes) of the branching ramp being formed from the outermost lane (or lanes) of the mainline--"exit only". 
-Existing Type C ramps will be reclassified as Type D1.
-The RHW-2 and RHW-4 Dual Orthogonal/Parallel MIS splitters will be reclassified as Type D1.
-The RHW-8S/Dual RHW-4 splitter and the RHW-10S/RHW-6S/RHW-4 splitter with orthogonal RHW-4 branches will be reclassified as Type D2.

Type E: Ramp branches off 45 degrees from the mainline, with the lane (or lanes) of the branching ramp being formed from the outermost lane (or lanes) of the mainline--"exit only".  Type E1 is identical to the existing Type D.
-Existing Type D ramps will be reclassified as Type E1.
-The RHW-2 and RHW-4 "Type A" MIS splitters will be reclassified as Type E1.
-The RHW-8S/Dual RHW-4 splitter and the RHW-10S/RHW-6S/RHW-4 splitter with diagonal RHW-4 branches will be reclassified as Type E2.

Type F: Ramp branches off at a fractional angle from the mainline, with the lane (or lanes) of the branching ramp being formed from the outermost lane (or lanes) of the mainline--"exit only".
-Existing Type F ramps will be reclassified as Type F1.

Additionally, there will be further subtypes:
"Inside": For RHD users, this means a left-exit (right-exit for LHD), same as in the current system
"Dual": A piece that includes both an entrance and an exit, same as in the current system.
"Shift": A "shift" interface involves a change from an S network to a C network or vice-versa.
"Wye": Both mainline and branch diverge in some fashion.
"Folded": This term applies to the "lateral" RHW-2 splitter--under the new system, it is an RHW-2 Type D1 Folded ramp.

If anyone is wondering why Type E (the FAMIS branch ramp) became Type C, and existing Types C and D became D and E, respectively, it was renamed to show that it has commonality with Types A and B.

-Alex

[Kitsune]

are the tab rings going to be further simplified... or will it all be still on one giant ring?

[Exla357]

Holy wow! I can't wait! And Tarkus! You changed your profile pic! 

[eggman111]

I like the new classification system. That will make it quicker to figure out what's what just based on the description.

Good work so far! I'm looking forward to it when it's ready.