RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[j-dub]

I 2nd that.

[Shadow Assassin]

Very nice - though the only thing that needs to be done, really, is the texture needs darkening (corrected in BAT) - which is something that will need to be done manually.

Any chance of one for individual sides of a RHW, and an on-slope one?

[MandelSoft]

It only requires the addition a single ramp variant and it would be perfect!

If you don't mind, would you alse create some variants for wider RHW's and NWM networks too? It just requires some re-fitting of your model, so it shouldn't be that hard, right?

[Tarkus]

Dexter, that is one fine-looking ramp there.  My (figurative) hat is off to you.

In case anyone is wondering where we are in development, RHW 5.0 is on Build 13.  There will probably be some slight tweaks on the RUL end, and some minor cosmetic things (a couple color-corrections on puzzle pieces, new icons), and I'll need to update the documentation and the installer.  Build 14 or 15 will probably be the release version.

The NWM's on Build 12 with Build 13 nearing completion.  There's been a lot of path things (particularly on the LHD side) that have required adjustment in the final push, and there might be some RUL stability tweaks in a few instances as well.

-Alex

[bremner19]

I hope ya'll finish for play by this weekend.....wishful thinking i guess.

[io_bg]

Alex, thanks for sharing the NAM/RHW/NWM progress with us! As for the NWM, which build will be the final one?

I hope ya'll finish for play by this weekend.....wishful thinking i guess.

Don't hurry that much I really doubt it'll be ready by this weekend but in my view it could be released this month. Though only time will tell

[SeanSC4]

Great progress on everything and thanks for the updates! Is it my understanding that existing RHW networks will be backwards-compatible once the new version gets released?

[MandelSoft]

No, not all. the diagonal wider networks are incompatible with the new version (but it's not that bad that it causes the game to crash)

[Shadow Assassin]

No, not all. the diagonal wider networks are incompatible with the new version (but it's not that bad that it causes the game to crash)

To clarify: with 6S and 8S, you will need to bulldoze existing puzzle pieces (though you can keep them if you wish, or can't be bothered replacing them) and re-drag the diagonal stretches of 6S and 8S.

[MandelSoft]

^^ Don't forget the RHW-6C new IID scheme.

[thornyjohny]

^^ Don't forget the RHW-6C new IID scheme.

What's that?

[jdenm8]

Diagonal RHW-6C has been completely rebuilt from the ground up to fix numerous IID-related (Nearly all related to wealth levels) bugs with it.

[Tarkus]

Actually, at least the limited draggable Diagonal RHW-8S functionality will be backwards compatible.  The puzzle pieces will sort of work.  Their paths might be a bit funky, but they'll still show up and at least partially work if you install the RHW 4.x Legacy File.  The puzzle piece 8S curves/diagonals have actually been disabled, and you'll have to use the draggable functionality (which is far more stable than it previously was).

The RHW-6S diagonals have been completely reconfigured to have a different footprint (overhanging single-tile instead of shared dual-tile).  If you've got the old puzzle pieces around, they'll still show up and partially work, but they'll have Version 4.x textures on them.  To build RHW-6S diagonals in the new version, there's draggable functionality, which works just like the RHW-4 and MIS diagonal functionality.

If you have any draggable RHW-6C diagonals built with Version 4.0 or 4.1, demolish them.  Their instance ID scheme was changed to fix "sidewalk glitches", and they will not function and have big chunks missing out of them with Version 5.0.  The draggable diagonal 6C is also far more stable than it was, too.

We've also added draggable diagonal functionality to the RHW-8C, RHW-10S, and the new RHW-3, ERHW-2 and DDRHW-4 networks.  The other new networks, the ERHW-6S and the ERHW-6C, will not have diagonal functionality of any kind in Version 5.0.

-Alex

[Korot]

We've also added draggable diagonal functionality to the RHW-8C, RHW-10S, and the new RHW-3, ERHW-2 and DDRHW-4 networks.  The other new networks, the ERHW-6S and the ERHW-6C, will not have diagonal functionality of any kind in Version 5.0.

-Alex

I pressume the later means that the ERHW-6's can't go round corners either?

Regards,
Korot

[ivo_su]

Dexter I can tell you that I am extremely amazed at what you accomplished. Remarkable Models, which I can not find fault and to have a place in the NAM. Must continue the work later, since it appears that you have great talent. I nikava idea how long you took this job 3DModel, but it would be nice to have such and RHW-6C, 6S, 8C, 8S and 10S.

Best,
- Ivo
[/quote]

[metarvo]

No kidding, diagonal DDRHW-4?  I tell you, just reading that made my day.  There was a time when even the orthogonal DDRHW-4 was only a dream, but now we get diagonal DDRHW-4.  Of course, I don't want to overlook the excellent modelling Dexter has done here.  RHW FLUPs are going to be very useful, considering the fact that RL RHWs pass under other networks in addition to passing over them.

[noahclem]

I pressume the later means that the ERHW-6's can't go round corners either?

Regards,
Korot

That is correct. The ERHW6 networks are mostly (I think) for overpass purposes this time around. And the model-based nature of elevated networks makes curves a lot more of a hassle than the ground ones (though given your knowledge I'm sure you already knew that).

However, you may notice I have made a schoolboy error with this. I have made the depth of the portal at -15m, as for some reason I'd assumed that FLUP pieces were of the same height as the overpasses, but upon comparing it with the existing transitions, I now know they're much shallower  .

Seriously though, once I've made some adjustments to the depth, would this be considered for inclusion in the NAM at some point?

I agree with everyone that it is beautiful!    But I also strongly agree with you that 15m/50' is too deep. I would love to see this in the future but I would love it a lot more if it were realistically scaled with regard to height 

[ivo_su]

Dexter I can tell you that I am extremely amazed at what you accomplished. Remarkable Models, which I can not find fault and to have a place in the NAM. Must continue the work later, since it appears that you have great talent. I no have idea how long you took this job 3DModel, but it would be nice to have such and RHW-6C, 6S, 8C, 8S and 10S.

Best,
- Ivo

[Dexter]

Hi everyone, just thought I'd share the progress I've made this afternoon:





Unfortunately, I'd already made changes to the depth before I read any of the comments on here, but I personally do think it looks better, bearing in mind that (here in the UK at least) the speed limit on divided carriageways is 70mph, and the slope I had before would just be far too steep to safely take at such speeds.  I just hope 7m clearance is enough for the wacky SC4 scale .

Alex, Unless I'm going mad, I'm sure you had posted an image a while ago that could be overlaid in photoshop to compensate for the mismatch, but I can't seem to find it.  Is there any easy way to make everything match up?

Also been toying around with some other ideas  .





-Matt

[ivo_su]

Matt is really quick  and quality work on your part and I'm really  surprised that you managed to do this only for one afternoon. I also agree with your opinion that the 15 m tunnels  are more suitable than  7m. It seems more realistic and descent is more gradual. I hope everything  is okay and to see them in future RHW 6.0 or a new version of FlUPs

Cheers  Mate,
- Ivo