RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[pierrebaptiste]

Hello

  for lanes with speed limits (even if it is again in project )

So I have any problem when i use traffic generator in RHW ( 2x3 lanes by moment  , always with 2x4 and 2x5 lanes ) cars twine in 2 lanes . It is very bad for a realism  . So i thinks that you don't change it , but i prefer prevent of this problem  

For a futur Nam i have serverals ideas can i propose it ?

PS : you do a go job  

[jdenm8]

Another bug to report. I don't know if this happens with RHD, but when travelling on the inside lane of FARHW-4, the paths seem to be broken. Automata will not use the inside lane and UDI will end when in the inside lane.
I can't really can't provide a screenie because the paths appear intact.

[MOREOPTIONS]

I have one brief question,  Would there by Chance be anyone working on 22.5 degree angles for roadways, Hwy's and Street's?  and need I forget Ave's

P.S.  would be very very helpfull in making realism...

18.435-degree would work if only can drag at that,.
but considering,.. was thinking we can drag out at 45/90 and so on,. but why not 22.5...  I know it should be possible.. hmmm We could all only hope... perhaps will do some trying on my own and see what can come of it as am learning to mod...

[metarvo]

It was determined that 22.5-degree transit networks were impractical because a 22.5-degree network would require very large puzzle pieces.  However, the 18.435-degree FAR (road) and FARR (rail) are included in the latest NAM, and 18.435-degree FARHW-2, FARHW-4, FARHW-6, and FAMIS to match are included in the latest RHW.  At this time, though, there are no such pieces for Maxis Highways, Avenues, or Streets.

[itfitzme]

The traffic on the ERHW-4 stops to let traffic on the avenue below pass.  It is as if the ERHW-4 is part of a controlled intersection.

[Blue Lightning]

I've actually had that happen to me too... has to do with how the stop points are set up.

[itfitzme]

Currently, tunnels do form but with a blue hole.  I can live with this as my game goal is traffic flow and a tunnel entrance is no more than eye candy.  The RW6 and 8 has become important as the RHW-4 capacity is quickly overloaded.   As traffic is moved from multiple locations far from a single industrial area, interchanges become very important.  Like a chain is only as good as it's weakest link, a system of highways is only as good as it's most congested interchange.  The simplest solution to creating an interchange without the need for a full compliment of overpasses is to simply create burms and tunnels as a substitute for elevated sections and underpasses. 

In Oakland/Hayward, California, a main artery that connects the Pleasant Hill region to the SF Bay coast line is I-580.  It connects to I-80 which serves the entire East Bay, from San Jose in the south to Hercules in the north.  The main connection between the two is a full two lanes.

The existing RHW-6 and 8 to 2x RHW-4 offer a method for emulating this high capacity interchange.   And, theoretically, this should be sufficient as half of the traffic continued forward with the other half taking the alternate route.  In reality, with the two highways already nearing full capacity, the reduction just moves the bottle neck further down stream.  An RHW-4 to RHW-6 transition followed by an RHW-6 to RHW-8 transition help alleviate this issue at the expense of the inability to provide for off ramps immediately after the interchange. 

RHW-6 and 8 to RHW-4 splitters without lane reduction would useful. In combination with tunnels effective high capacity connectivity can be accomplished without the need for for a myriad of under/overpass puzzle pieces.

Now, admittedly, as I recall, the Oakland/Hayward I-580 to I-80 interchange does have a lane reduction as I-580 continues.  And, in the opposite direction it has a single MIS interchange.  (I was going to DL the map but I'm on Dial Up and BW limited. I'm currently loading the RHW Interchange Guide in another window.)  Suffice it to say that Oakland/Hayward still suffers from terrible congestion during commute hours.  They are always behind the 8 ball when it comes to widening the freeways in this area.  Cal Trans has many projects on it's plate and I don't suppose they will get around to this one for a while.  On the other hand, us Sim City mayors can do much better than Cal Trans anyways.

Perhaps on the next revision of the RHW system, the team might consider adding tunnel entrances and additional splitters without the lane reduction.   

[Blue Lightning]

Tunnels. Are. Not. Possible. Am I clear? Me and plenty of other people tried. What did we come up with? Tunnels can be visually made (entrance, exit, paths) but the simulator will not calculate commutes for it. Automata will use it fine however.

Tunnels are, however, hardcoded, so it does not appear that a standard RHW tunnel will be possible at this time.  While it is possible to actually build a tunnel with the RHW, and the Maxis default slope settings for the network will allow it, the tunnel will show up missing models and will not function.  Even if proper models and paths are applied, the tunnel cannot be made to function due to the hardcoding.

Though I suppose this might make some of you happy.

Will be lot or FLUP based NOT draggable.

PS: Full. Stops. Are. Fun.

PSS: Also, for those who want HOV designations for their RHW's, click here.

[WC_EEND]

that looks like a great tunnel, I can already think of a few ways to use it.

[Nego]

Nice Blue Lightning. Now is that a picture of a possible FLUP entrance for RHW-6C, or a never-to-be-released tunnel entrance model you just drew up for fun?

FLUPs for RHW networks wider than RHW-2 would be great. FLUP pieces for under a RHW would be great, too.

Perhaps on the next revision of the RHW system, the team might consider adding ... additional splitters without the lane reduction.   

That does sound nice, but it may look unrealistic. It would have to be looked into.

[Blue Lightning]

Uh yeah we kinda already have FLUP under RHW. Road x RHW button, end of ring.

And I actually do plan on releasing that model, once 3ds max decides to cooperate.

[MOREOPTIONS]

 ,  Now thats what AM talking about Blue.  Love the Tunnel......  I whant I whant ,, grovel grovel.. hehehe...  When can we betta test it?  Would love to get my hands on it. :-)

itfitzme ,  Thats a great Pic,.. there confuser,. should submit to the Pic contest..

[j-dub]

Nice work Blue!

In case not already, I would suggest some simple chevron warning rectangle prisms next to the sides there.

[itfitzme]

Tunnels can be visually made (entrance, exit, paths) but the simulator will not calculate commutes for it. Automata will use it fine however.

The thread continued while I was composing the following.  And, it seems that they are highlighting the very point that I am about to make in the following "essay".  I'm all about finding a solution to the ultimate problem and the compromise necessary to do so.  I sensed an engineers frustration with technology meeting my frustrations in construction.   This leads me to step up the game to a broader "behavioral" level.  And when that happens, I get verbose.

And, you totally nailed the idea with the ploppable tunnel entrance while still expressing a bit of frustration with "Though I suppose this might make some of you happy."  

My apologize for frustrating you.  Had I known, I wouldn't have mentioned it.  On the other hand, I'm just in the mood to build stuff, not program and it seems there are plenty of folks about that are having fun programming.  And, I do expect that you should be having fun.  If you find yourself not having fun, step back, take a breath and relax.  Your certainly not under any obligation to "take your turn" with immediacy.  And, as words are used to communicate as well as to beat others up, please understand that my only intent is to communicate as effectively as possible.  And there are a couple of interesting stories about Nokia and Motorola along with Ford and Chevrolet buried in it.

There were, of course, two parts to my consideration; the tunnel entrance and the transition pieces without lane reduction.  As frustration tend to dismiss everything, for the sake of relieving the frustration over one, I'll try posting my desire for the transition pieces separately, later.  

Clearly, my desire is for some sort of high capacity interchange between two high capacity, perpendicular, RHW's.  The RHW-4 has simply become inadequate.  I was tempted to scrap the whole RHW mod altogether and return to the original Maxis highways as they seem to be as effective as the RHW-4 and the RHW-6/8 is pretty useless without an effective method for creating a high capacity interchange.  I figured, seeing as some very intelligent and dedicated folks went through all the trouble to make the RHW, I'd give it my best shot.  And I am one to assume that there is some good reason that overpasses are available for only the RHW-4, draggable or otherwise.  Now, I must admit that I haven't done a full methodical exploration with a matrix of combinations that I can check off so I am not 100% confident that I haven't missed something.  On the other hand, while I might spend a good week at such a thing at work, I assume were just having fun here so I stopped when I felt reasonably sure that I had considered all existing options, I had some reasonable sense of what might be the easiest approach, and I had done a modest search of the forum for any previous discussion.  

Again, my desire is for some sort of high capacity interchange between two high capacity, perpendicular, RHW's.   The burn/tunnel approach does give me some additional flexibility that I can depend on with regularity.   Now, I suppose this all depends on what you mean by a "tunnel".  Clearly, dragging an RHW-6 across an elevated section of ground creates what appears to be a tunnel.  And, what exits on the other side is the underlying RWH construction element.  So, I suppose, lacking any good test tools, that the tunnel capacity is not that of an RHW-6 but rather the lower capacity of the underlying construction element.  That's fine as tunnels are inherently congestion points in real life traffic situations and so are interchanges even when they have multiple lanes.    This makes the situation actually realistic.  And, of course, I have to live with any fundamental limitations that exist after all possible solutions have been exhausted.

So, while I have heard that "TUNNELS! ARE! NOT! POSSIBLE!", it appears that, with a bit of leeway on the definition of a "tunnel", they are in fact possible.  From my perspective, a "tunnel" is any sort of network that passes through a burm and under some other object above.  That it has a limitation of not being included in commute time calculations is an attribute of that particular "tunnel".  That it suffers from reduced capacity is also an attribute.  The goal isn't the method or materials used in the construction of a "tunnel".  The goal is getting the traffic from point A to point B without interfering with or being interfered with some immovable object in the way. An overpass, an underpass, a tunnel, and an underground road all accomplish this same goal.  Unfortunately, I have no generalized term for this.  

Seeing as tunnels are possible, the only question is what needs to be done to make it as realistic as possible.  The ploppable entrance is an excellent solution towards achieving the goal.  Perhaps a set of them for each highway size would be an excellent compromise.  As the game seems to go, I'm the mayor and your the engineer.  I don't care how you get me to the goal, just that you get me there.  This game, including the community at large, seems to be attempting to emulate the real world as closely as possible while still having fun.  This is, in fact, the very definition of "play" from an anthropological standpoint.  Adult and young humans do this as well as dogs, cats and bears.  In the real world, there is no "can't".  I find, as an engineer, that the sales staff does not accept "can't" as an answer to "the customer needs some specific thing."  Rather, they are quite happy when I give them an alternative that is "close enough".  They don't care what my technical issues are.  Indeed, the plobbable entrance seems to be "close enough" where the underlying technology simply doesn't exist.  

Still, my larger goal is to achieve the highest capacity interchange possible.  Here I have two orthogonal highways coming in from two different residential areas.  One is an RHW-8, the other an RHW-4.  The RHW-4 is already overcapacity and needs to be widened.  I can replace the RHW-4 with an RHW-6/8 but the interchange itself becomes the bottle neck.  All I'm managing to accomplish is to move the bottleneck from a continuous function along the highway to a step function at the interchange.   Now, it would be very effective if the RWH-6/8 had elevated puzzle pieces.  I'm all for that.  

With all this in mind, seeing as "can't" is simply not an option. Typically, as engineers tend to not function well in interaction with sales people, companies have created the position of "applications engineer".  Perhaps there is an applications engineer about the community somewhere?  It is interesting as this very process is how Nokia took the cell phone market away from Motorola.  One of my professors was, in fact, the very individual that accomplished this.  Motorola was very "old school", still functioning in the 1950's perspective, driven by engineering.  Nokia, on the other hand, was driven by sales and the customer's needs.  Motorola's philosophy was, like Ford with the model T, that you could have a cell phone in any color you wanted, as long as it was black.  So when the customer came to Nokia, and my esteemed professor, and asked if they could have it in red, the answer was an unequivocal "yes". Nokia became the leader in the cell phone market and Motorola was left by the wayside.  The exact same thing happened with Ford and Chevrolet.  While Ford continued to sell cars, Chevrolet sold an image.  (Of course, more recently, Ford seems to be winning out in the long run, they did fold the "image" approach into their marketing with the Mustang becoming the "Ford Model-T with attitude" and the Ford Focus being their latest success.

So, if "standard tunnels" are not a solution that you can provide, then...How do you, the engineer, propose to provide for high capacity interchanges and bypasses between RHW-6/8 highways?   (Perhaps there is the terminology, "interchange" and "bypass" combined with "parallel", "orthogonal", etc.)  

Come on, I can't be the only one that really, really, really, want's to connect them darn RWH-8 together with an interchange.  I'm just trying to avoid learning what a T21 exemplar is and how to create a MOD.  But if you enjoy it....and enjoy the accomplishment of seeing others use your newest creation....excellent.

[deathtopumpkins]

After reading most of that essay, I have two things that I feel must be pointed out.

1. As reading through the last few pages of the thread would have shown you, draggable overpasses involving wider RHW networks are already rather far along in development, and should be in one of the next few releases.

2. While for your purposes a RHW tunnel lacking consideration by the simulator may be sufficient, for most players it is not. Such a tunnel would, in the eyes of the game, not be capable of carrying any traffic. Thus you would see no traffic using it, as sims would not commute VIA it, and it would be pointless for players who do anything other than create eye candy, which goes against one of the NAM "mottos": Function before aesthetics.

It would be nice, but the way the game is written this is how it must be.

[Blue Lightning]

So, if "standard tunnels" are not a solution that you can provide, then...How do you, the engineer, propose to provide for high capacity interchanges and bypasses between RHW-6/8 highways?   (Perhaps there is the terminology, "interchange" and "bypass" combined with "parallel", "orthogonal", etc.) 

Of course we have under development wider RHW's over other RHW's and RHW's over wider RHW's so the point of tunnels becomes a null point.
Either way, when I say tunnels are not possible, I mean that they do not function at all. 0 capacity. Does not carry traffic at all. Traffic would take other routes and this would render one of the highways in the interchanges non-usable.

As a side note, remember this is a game and that this is merely a hobby. Its not the real world where people won't take no as an answer (and the sims could hardly care less)

[GDO29Anagram]

Though I suppose this might make some of you happy.

I was about to ask about a FLUP piece based off of the street tunnel entrance; You know, the kind of FLUP entrance that can be placed directly on a slope...?

Even if the tunnels have to be FLUP-based, that's OK, but an RHW-equivalent of the street tunnel piece, I suppose, would be quite an addition to the RHW FLUP selection.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Will the Tunnel have lights at night or even day like Real Tunnels do , or will it be like Maxis Tunnels? 

[strucka]

How about if you were to make an overhanging piece like that, only there would be oneway going underneath it.
Maybe combining these things together:
-RHW-6s/-8s->RHW-4 (just the pathing and stuff, texture would be from RHW-6s/-8s)
-RHW-4 turns easily to OWR-2 so that is less needed
- A long portal for the tunnel (personally this one you've made looks okay, but is a bit too ''heavy''), I can make a model and send it to you if you want.

I hope you got what am I pointing at. It would definately be function in front of aestethics, but would also look like it's a real tunnel. There could also be a piece for RHW-4, but for that you'd need only a portal, because, you can already make an OWR-2 tunnel.

[Rady]

Though I suppose this might make some of you happy.

Will be lot or FLUP based NOT draggable.

Blue Lightning, this will for sure make me happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

If I only could spend you a couple of beers for all that work you do that make our SC4 live so wonderful!!!!

I'm
(1) looking forward for the future releases of the NAM / RHW

(2) still try to cope with all the possibilities that all of you have provided with the latest NAM / RHW release