RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Shadow Assassin]

Considering that 25x25 would be made up of multiple puzzle pieces, it wouldn't be too bad (in fact, there would be some existing ones that can easily be used in that cloverleaf, such as the 45-deg smooth curve and the ground-level ramp interface down below).

We do need additional elevated ramp models, and it's actually a fairly time-consuming process building those elevated models, which is why we haven't really even looked at them over the past few RHW releases.

And once the groundwork is laid for all that stuff, it can be cloned to other levels.

[jdenm8]

It certainly is a bit on the large side. Too large in fact

I believe that the Maxis Cloverleaf interchange is the biggest PP in the game, and with good reason, I'm sure it's actually largest a single Puzzle Piece in SimCity 4 can be, a total of 8x8 tiles (64 in total) I think, but I'm not completely sure. (and would someone else prove me right or wrong?)

I think the 90° Heavy Rail curve is the largest custom puzzle piece and I believe Tarkus had a real hard time with it.

EDIT, Shadow Assassin has confirmed I was wrong
It's 16x16 which your piece fits into the bounds of.

[Tarkus]

I think the 90° Heavy Rail curve is the largest custom puzzle piece and I believe Tarkus had a real hard time with it.

It's the largest non-Maxis Highway piece . . . a 9x9.  I was also saddled with RL at the time and it probably took me about 3 months to make that one piece.  There was just so much pathing to do.

That dual-lane curving ramp looks like a great idea, Twyla!  I'm certain it'll prove a very useful addition.

Where do we tweak?  The models or the textures?

On the model end, it looks like the only adjustment needed would be moving the outer barrier slightly on that 8C.  If we change the lane width on the textures, it'll be a more involved process at this point, as we'd have to re-align any textures for curves, intersections or ramp interfaces as well, likely repathing those items as well.

That being said, this all raises an interesting point.  The current lane width on the new V5-Spec textures is not really conducive to an infinite-width system with a repeatable segment of inner lanes, however, and trying to do anything wider than an RHW-18S (a 6-tile-wide network) or a 14C (a 5-tile-wide network) would start to become cumbersome. 

This begs the question . . . how wide of a highway do we actually need?  I originally stopped at the RHW-10 with RHW Version 3.0, keeping in mind the fact that users could always add more capacity by creating collector-distributor setups as often happens when you get that wide, for engineering reasons.  As there are mainlines out there that are bit wider, however (I-5 north of San Diego and I-75/85 in Atlanta come to mind), it seems logical to enable at least those.

I'm definitely open to feedback/thoughts on all this, though.

-Alex

[MandelSoft]

@Twyla: the model looks great. However, I think you should fit the models to the textures of the RHWv5. If we would change textures now, that means repathing like hundreds or thousands of pieces, just when we nearly finished repathing from v4Spec to V5Spec...

[Twyla]

We do need additional elevated ramp models, and it's actually a fairly time-consuming process building those elevated models, which is why we haven't really even looked at them over the past few RHW releases.

It actually didn't take long at all to model that ramp - I know lots of neat modelling tricks.

It certainly is a bit on the large side. Too large in fact

EDIT, Shadow Assassin has confirmed I was wrong
It's 16x16 which your piece fits into the bounds of.

Also confirmed in Tarkus' Modelling Tutorial.  Even though it's a valid model, it still strikes me as being a bit large (75m radius - near-standard for RL high-speed interchanges, though I've seen considerably larger).  Trying to make it match up with a 45° sorta demands it being at least that large.

That dual-lane curving ramp looks like a great idea, Twyla!  I'm certain it'll prove a very useful addition.

One minor detail I'm still rather proud of (particularly with as little effort as I put into it), is the accurate-to-life banking.  It's not obvious in the long shot (and may be too subtle to even show up in-game), but here's a close-up of it (click da pic for a larger version):

@Twyla: the model looks great. However, I think you should fit the models to the textures of the RHWv5. If we would change textures now, that means repathing like hundreds or thousands of pieces, just when we nearly finished repathing from v4Spec to V5Spec...

Thanks!!

As to the pathing, I wasn't aware of how far along the current revisions were.  There was also some confusion (mainly on my end) about the statement of using 4m lanes - as I mentioned in an earlier post, it's the trucker in me.  DOT regs cite lane widths on-center (with some debate as to between the centers of the stripes or the lanes themselves, though it works out the same either way), so the textures being 4m between the stripes threw me.

That being said, this all raises an interesting point.  The current lane width on the new V5-Spec textures is not really conducive to an infinite-width system with a repeatable segment of inner lanes, however, and trying to do anything wider than an RHW-18S (a 6-tile-wide network) or a 14C (a 5-tile-wide network) would start to become cumbersome. 

This begs the question . . . how wide of a highway do we actually need?  I originally stopped at the RHW-10 with RHW Version 3.0, keeping in mind the fact that users could always add more capacity by creating collector-distributor setups as often happens when you get that wide, for engineering reasons.  As there are mainlines out there that are bit wider, however (I-5 north of San Diego and I-75/85 in Atlanta come to mind), it seems logical to enable at least those.

There are so many schools of thought on that subject it'd crash the forums to itemize them all, but the three key ones (IMHO) are:

• Realists - Those trying to reproduce real-life examples as accurately as possible
• Extremists - Those who would be ecstatic to build single-tile networks with unlimited capacities
• Moderates - Those content with most any reasonably functional balance between the two

The biggest issue with overall widths (particularly for the Realists) comes in the form of interchanges.  A 12-lane urban freeway frequently expands to 20 or more lanes (not even counting HOVs) --((Which brings up one other curious thing that occurred to me as a possible addition...  bi-directional lanes.  Not even sure if SC4 has the capability of reversing the pathing on transit tiles based on Sim-Time.))--  to facilitate access to and from 2- and 3-lane interchanges.  *Technically* not an actual issue with Sim Drivers - who, even with their accident rates, strike me as better-than average - but still an aesthetic issue, and remains a valid consideration for the "Real" aspect of RHW.

Collector-distributor setups do work, yes, and have their applications, but they don't always fit the bill.  My notion (which obviously won't see the light of day until at least v6.x) puts that decision in the user's court - they can build as wide as they want.

From a practical standpoint (the modular idea aside for the nonce), the 18S & 14C expansions should cover the majority of considerations - particularly once curves, diagonals, overpasses, etc for them are supported.


Personally... I'd love to see more attention to transitional pieces between RHW and ground transit, though I'm sure that's already in the works ( somewhere).

[Shadow Assassin]

It actually didn't take long at all to model that ramp - I know lots of neat modelling tricks

Modelling the ramp isn't the problem. It's actually getting it into the game that holds the whole process up. You actually have to slice and dice the model (easy enough), export each and every one as .3ds (easy), then import each model individually into a S3D filetype in the Reader (tedious and boring).

Believe me, it's an exercise in willpower... particularly if you've worked with over 500 S3Ds in a single session (then lose all the files because you accidentally delete them)... >_<

[jdenm8]

A few things I have to say:

It's something that's been wanted for ages, but SC4 cannot reverse lane directions according to game-time. It's just not possible.

And with transitions, RHW-4 is capable of transitioning to Maxis Highway, One Way Road and Avenue and RHW-2 is capable of transitioning to almost all the road networks (aside from the Maxis Highways)

The catch is they're all draggable, like one Maxis network to another.

I believe an RHW-6S to Maxis Highway transition has been in the works for a while too.

[JoeST]

Modelling the ramp isn't the problem. It's actually getting it into the game that holds the whole process up. You actually have to slice and dice the model (easy enough), export each and every one as .3ds (easy), then import each model individually into a S3D filetype in the Reader (tedious and boring).

Is the import step one that cannot be automated by software? as in does it require you to tweak each one? I'm guessing its just not used enough to justify a tool?

[MandelSoft]

And with transitions, RHW-4 is capable of transitioning to Maxis Highway, One Way Road and Avenue and RHW-2 is capable of transitioning to almost all the road networks (aside from the Maxis Highways)

The catch is they're all draggable, like one Maxis network to another.

And there are also textures between RHW and NWM transistions ready:

RHW-3 to ARD-3


RHW-6C to AVE-6


WRHW-2 to AVE-2


WRHW-2 to TLA-3

I believe an RHW-6S to Maxis Highway transition has been in the works for a while too.

Well, that one has been on hiatius for a long while, although there were several attempts creating these pieces.

Best,
Maarten

[jibjohn]

WRHW-2 to AVE-2


WRHW-2 to TLA-3

one small question, will all WRHW-2 (inc euro) have the "ghost island"/hatching? in the middle as in the UK (I'm not sure about the rest of europe) wide Single Carriageways tend to be painted normally to allow overtaking into oncoming traffic:



and then split to 2+1 like this, (i couldn't find a conflicting example):

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=penzance&aq=&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.344606,39.331055&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Penzance,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.174239,-5.426313&spn=0,0.01369&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.17423,-5.425855&panoid=u4Q2yr4UgBTdvsrMU8JG9w&cbp=12,96.48,,0,4.73

John

[MandelSoft]

^^ That looks... odd...

The WRHW-2 is ment to be a filler piece between two RHW-3 stretches, you know, where the center lane switches direction.

[jdenm8]

If I end up making the Euro versions like I did the US versions, the chances of getting Crosshatching are very high.
The method I used to create these textures differs greatly from how the textures are usually made (due to software limitations on my end) which is time-consuming and tedious.


I will be taking the opinion of European members of the NAM team though.


This Wide two-lane stuff will likely not make it in due to the infamous 'shared lane', Traffic will sit in the middle like it's another lane.

Also, as mrtnrln said, WRHW-2 is only intended to go between RHW-3 lane swaps and in fact is pretty much its only purpose.
WRHW-2 is actually almost the same as it was when it was first developed, a puzzle-plop network.

[Wiimeiser]

I'd say 4 tiles wide with overhang per side, at the absolute widest. RHW-12 is probably the widest that could turn and have neighbor connections...

[jibjohn]

I did a bit more research into the wide single carrageway, although the rules and regulations exist to build them, they aren't really built anywhere (i guess if they want to widen to duel carriageway in the future the roads are just too wide and  expensive). Unlike these "shared lane" roads which are now a definite no no:


The longest sections of wide single carrageway (A303 Ilminster bypass) was changed after some bad accidents, from this:


to a 2+1 like this:


on overtaking lane road markings, the brand new highways agency advice (for 2+1's) is to red paint and hatching between directions of travel like this:

Thats on page34 of this: http://www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section1/td7008.pdf
I only know one place which is painted like that though (and the lane was closed shortly afterwards due to accidents), more commmen is the example a gave about which "swaps" lanes like this:
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.942742,-2.893723&spn=0,0.006845&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=50.942662,-2.893405&panoid=Tl0WwbOJMm6pL2S31jw-uA&cbp=12,278.62,,0,9.31
John

[Twyla]

And with transitions, RHW-4 is capable of transitioning to Maxis Highway, One Way Road and Avenue and RHW-2 is capable of transitioning to almost all the road networks (aside from the Maxis Highways)

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.  Admittedly it may simply be a cosmetic issue, but I was speaking of something along these lines:

(based on loads of intersections like this one, which were virtually everywhere I grew up)

[ivo_su]

Oh boy, oh boy really
this is amazing. I am delighted by your work. The only bad news is that these models can not add them to the version of the RHW 4.2 at the earliest, maybe after a year of RHW 5.0
For this I can offer to make models and RHW-8C and RHW-10C because there is enough time until then.
On the ideas that offer - I agree completely with them but must lunches NAM team that they deserve.

Best,
Ivaylo (Ivo)

[MandelSoft]

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.  Admittedly it may simply be a cosmetic issue, but I was speaking of something along these lines:

(based on loads of intersections like this one, which were virtually everywhere I grew up)

Although it looks nice at first glance, I have a few things to note:
- Look at the slopes! They are awfully steep! No car would make that slope (let alone a truck!), or at least not when driving 120 km/h / 75 mph.
- Pre-fab interchanges were never created for the RHW since they are inflexible and it costs a lot of work to create them... That's why we chose the modular approach. TuLEPs may help here...

Best,
Maarten

[GDO29Anagram]

@Twyla: I took a closer look at that interchange via Google Maps, and it's more of a highway with a frontage road system; A setup like that could be easily achieved using RHW with some One-Way Roads running parallel to the sides, but with the addition of several more FARHW ramps (and a few for the One-Way Roads), and several OWR TuLEPs (Something for the Advanced TuLEPs), all of which are unfortunately unavailable.

People have brought up having OWR Ramps in the same style as the RHW Ramps. I would go as far as requesting a direct OWR-MIS ramp, in the same styles as the current RHW4's ramps, but more like those AVE ramps in development. At least having those, at least I thought, would lead to proper RHW-frontage road interfacing, like with the MHW versions of such pieces. That, in turn, would be a start to build such an interchange.

As of that isolated "turnaround" lane to go from one frontage to another, Someone drew up textures for an OWR-OWR ramp that would aid in that. (It was buried deep in the NWM Thread; Something along the lines of this OWR5 to OWR4 and perpendicular OWR1)

Some ideas for OWR-4 and OWR-5 joins and splits (Pics still include unmodified OWR around):

. . .

I think it could be a 1x2 piece, with various OWR stubs sticking out. (Why OWR stubs and not starters? So you can "plant" TuLEPs on them. ) If the frontage roads were absent (thereby rendering it to a diamond), that turnaround lane might not be needed, leaving the only thing needed being the OWR TuLEPs. There are TuLEPs planned for RHW as well, but I believe they go up to RHW4, and they only allow RHW4-Road crossings. The rest are merely cosmetic pieces.

It's still a rather elaborate interchange, though; I would have to agree with Maarten with having to go modular; That's why I brought up so much from two different NAM Projects: The NWM and TuLEPs.

[Exla357]

With regards to Maarten's slope complaint:
"- Look at the slopes! They are awfully steep! No car would make that slope (let alone a truck!), or at least not when driving 120 km/h / 75 mph."
Although this may be true, the current RHW-4 to ERHW-4 are about that steep, as well as the NAM elevated ramp pieces. So if you want to complain about slopes, you'll have to complain about all those, too 

[Twinsfan14]

Ay me! That be the Texas U-Turn! Cool!