RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

banditp61 · May 10, 2011, 06:59:17 AM

Great work! I can't wait

.

I don't know if this is the right area to ask but. Is there any pedestrian bridges over RWH especially for 6C and 8C?
Also, are there plans for 10C or 4C?

noahclem · May 10, 2011, 08:21:40 AM

@ MrMAvE94 - Yep, Euro textures should be available for everything this time around

@ banditp61 - No functional pedestrian bridges--your best bet is probably to use some of the overhanging bridges available on the STEX--Glenni has one or two that would cross a 3-tile network and there was another package released recently that included a bridge that looked perfect for crossing RHWs. Sorry no links, the STEX isn't working for me at the moment

As for your other question, I think an RHW-10C will be developed eventually, as GDO29Anagram said a few posts down, but not for the upcoming release. I don't think that we will see an RHW-4C, though I could see how it could be handy for RHW-2 merging lanes.

jibjohn · May 10, 2011, 09:42:49 AM

Are there any plans for type c/d ramps on the RHW-3?
I know they are fairy commen in Scandinavia, this one is in norway (for those who like yellow lines in the road): http://bit.ly/jK53Vl

banditp61 · May 10, 2011, 09:43:25 AM

@ noachlem. Thank you for the help. I'll check out the STEX soon. I know RHW-4C won't be useful, it's more for cosmetics. I also see them a lot in the city I live in,, here in Colorado. The highways here are mostly 4C then they spread from the center. If I know how to BAT and do all pathing I would do it myself.

noahclem · May 10, 2011, 10:14:18 AM

@ banditp61 - you're welcome and I came across the recent bridge pack here: http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/files/file/26171-wmp-bridgesdat/--I think I'm going to try the "freeway-looking" one out tonight for an upcoming MD update

Are you wishing for 4C because of the narrower, concrete median? If so, the difference in median width between C & S networks is fairly negligable assuming the S networks are placed adjacent. Mods with walls on the left side (for RHD) for S networks have also been made.

@ jibjohn - C/D ramps for RHW-3 would imply the need for RHW-5C which would be less likely than 4C. We do have those type of ramps around here quite a bit as well though and it'd be nice to have something like that eventually.

metarvo · May 10, 2011, 10:16:28 AM

I can think of one use for a RHW-4C, though. A 4C could be used for more compact RHW-4 diagonals, taking up similar space to a diagonal AVE-4. Right now, the narrowest median possible for a diagonal RHW-4 is ~11.314 m. Of course, it's been said before that the diagonal avenues are too narrow anyway, so an application of the said narrowness to the RHW might be questionable. Just a thought.

jondor · May 10, 2011, 10:26:39 AM

Quote from: noahclem on May 10, 2011, 10:14:18 AM
@ jibjohn - C/D ramps for RHW-3 would imply the need for RHW-5C which would be less likely than 4C. We do have those type of ramps around here quite a bit as well though and it'd be nice to have something like that eventually.

Under current nomenclature, that's true. but things may be a changin' on that front.

In either case, I'm sure a ramp like the one you describe will materialize eventually. The RHW-3 is brand new even to us behind the scenes after all.

jibjohn · May 10, 2011, 10:50:16 AM

@ noahclem - i was thinking more of like a duel ramp, where the lane gaining side is c/d and the opposite side is a normal ramp making the approach only 1 tile wide, the main reason would be to prevent merging on a 2 lane single carrageway (this is banned in the UK), i hope this picture illustrates it well (even if it took 30 seconds):

thankyou anyway for the reply

MandelSoft · May 10, 2011, 01:34:58 PM

We have thought of that, but it's not likely to appear in the next version...

Exla357 · May 10, 2011, 01:55:08 PM

What about interior lane reduction/extension pieces? For example, instead of the outer lanes expanding/reducing, how about the inner lanes? The RHW 6-S lane reduction right cosmetic piece is around but there is no need for it, without interior transitional pieces...

jondor · May 10, 2011, 02:20:02 PM

Quote from: Exla357 on May 10, 2011, 01:55:08 PM
What about interior lane reduction/extension pieces? For example, instead of the outer lanes expanding/reducing, how about the inner lanes? The RHW 6-S lane reduction right cosmetic piece is around but there is no need for it, without interior transitional pieces...

Look back a page: http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=990.msg378159#msg378159

They'll be in the next version.

Exla357 · May 10, 2011, 02:35:28 PM

Hehheh. I knew that. Looks awesome!

GDO29Anagram · May 10, 2011, 04:30:51 PM

Before I forget,... The idea of a "4C" would be a great idea, but redundant for Ortho RHW4. It would work for Diag but people would've gotten used to the median metarvo described. Why not for FARHW? Even placed side-by-side, the gap there is even wider; You could mentally cram a FARHW2 in the middle. The same can be said for 6S, but when you think about it, that's what the 6C is for, anyway.

jondor · May 10, 2011, 04:51:52 PM

Quote from: GDO29Anagram on May 10, 2011, 04:30:51 PM
Before I forget,... The idea of a "4C" would be a great idea, but redundant for Ortho RHW4. It would work for Diag but people would've gotten used to the median metarvo described. Why not for FARHW? Even placed side-by-side, the gap there is even wider; You could mentally cram a FARHW2 in the middle. The same can be said for 6S, but when you think about it, that's what the 6C is for, anyway.

A FARHW-4C would make some sense, although it might suffer from congestion problems if the pathing isn't just right. But a diag RHW-4C with a median like the diag AVE-4 would be problematic due to the shared tile congestion issues that plague the AVE-4.

Ortho is redundant of course, with one possible exception. It might be nice to see a TLRHW-5 (ala TLA-5). I'm not sure how common they are in the US and elsewhere, but several older US and state highways here in Oregon are built like that, particularly Hwy 30 between Portland and St. Helens (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=U.S.+30+%26+NW+Cornelius+Pass+Rd,+Skyline,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97231&aq=&sll=45.7257,-122.876918&sspn=0.013407,0.01914&ie=UTF8&geocode=FdCWuAIdLW-t-A&split=0&hq=&hnear=U.S.+30+%26+NW+Cornelius+Pass+Rd,+Skyline,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97231&t=h&z=17)

It would be really nice if it had the capability to allow RCI access to low density only, but oh well.

j-dub · May 10, 2011, 04:59:06 PM

Wait, does this mean you and Alex live in the same place, close enough you could physically exchange folders by hand? Without the signal, I thought I at least saw a prototype 4 way RHW-4 intersection with a turn lane setup like that picture plenty further back in this thread, similar to the TuLEPs that are out now.

Exla357 · May 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM

This Alex? I live in Colorado. And yes, "TLARHW-5" is fairly common.

The NWM already has a TLA-5, so a "TLARHW-5 would be a bit redundant. Connection to RHW-4 can be achieved by dragging the RHW up to the edge of the AVE-4 to TLA-5 connector piece. A whole different RHW network would be a bit redundant, wouldn't you say?

Just throwing that out there,

Alex

GDO29Anagram · May 10, 2011, 05:36:37 PM

@Exla: No, the other Alex: Tarkus.

Possible idea for a diagonal 4C: Instead of merging everything into that one single-tile (and hinder capacity), we "nudge" the textures and paths closer to the middle (and therefore give the diag RHW4 a larger shoulder as well) and make up for the ensuing chips with overhangs, like on the tri-lane NWM networks. Somewhat to the split-tile setup used in the diagonal TLA5, OWR5, and MAVE6, (Reference) but if you think about it really closely, you'll see my reasoning for overhangs.

However, seeing how far the RHW v5 texture progress has gone, it'd be too late for a revision. Then there's the puzzle pieces... (Headaches ensue...)

Tarkus · May 10, 2011, 06:00:24 PM

Quote from: j-dub on May 10, 2011, 04:59:06 PM
Wait, does this mean you and Alex live in the same place, close enough you could physically exchange folders by hand?

We're both in Oregon, but at different ends of the Willamette Valley.

-Alex

jondor · May 10, 2011, 06:15:32 PM

Quote from: Tarkus on May 10, 2011, 06:00:24 PM
We're both in Oregon, but at different ends of the Willamette Valley.

-Alex

Yup. This here new-fangled World Wide Web is still quicker.

Quote from: Exla357 on May 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
This Alex? I live in Colorado. And yes, "TLARHW-5" is fairly common.

The NWM already has a TLA-5, so a "TLARHW-5 would be a bit redundant. Connection to RHW-4 can be achieved by dragging the RHW up to the edge of the AVE-4 to TLA-5 connector piece. A whole different RHW network would be a bit redundant, wouldn't you say?

Just throwing that out there,

Alex

Given the limitations of SC4 to make it anything other than eye candy, I have to agree. Doesn't stop me from dreaming, though.

metarvo · May 10, 2011, 06:18:07 PM

Quote from: jondor on May 10, 2011, 04:51:52 PM
It might be nice to see a TLRHW-5 (ala TLA-5). I'm not sure how common they are in the US and elsewhere

I agree with you there. I've even seen new projects to widen RHW-2 to RHW-4 include TLRHW-5 segments, particularly in business areas. Of course, the RHW sadly dosen't provide RCI access in this game, unlike RL, so I wonder how viable a TLRHW-5 would really be. Traffic would only use the center turning lane at intersections. I do sometimes set RCI buildings back a tile from the RHW and use street stubs to build driveways to the buildings, to provide a degree of RCI access.