RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[bsilva]

I love the new NAM.  It's been awhile since I've played my game.  I've noticed that you have added entrance and exit ramps for Ave.  I really love that option.  How ever I was wondering if you could ever do an entrance and exit ramp for One Way Road.  Where I live we have a lot of these style exits.  If you do have that option, can you tell me where I can find it?

Thanks and keep up the great work,
bsilva

[InsanitysMuse]

Thanks for the tips - I'll give that all a shot. My 'city' isn't really that much of a city yet, as you can see by all that open space in the screenshot and for some reason it never occurred to me to just go in the middle of nowhere and test everything.

[isii94]

I love the new NAM.  It's been awhile since I've played my game.  I've noticed that you have added entrance and exit ramps for Ave.  I really love that option.  How ever I was wondering if you could ever do an entrance and exit ramp for One Way Road.  Where I live we have a lot of these style exits.  If you do have that option, can you tell me where I can find it?

Thanks and keep up the great work,
bsilva

You can do this already: If you plop one of these piecs down you only get one side of an avenue where you can hook up your one way road.

[GDO29Anagram]

What's a puzzle piece?

http://www.youtube.com/v/xVK19zljqfE

[Durfsurn]

Is the RHW stub remover thingy going to be replaced with a better method? Otherwise its still awesome! All those draggable possibilities! :O Wow really good job Ganaram and the NAM Team!

[GDO29Anagram]

Is the RHW stub remover thingy going to be replaced with a better method?

The only other method, for the B2 Ramp, is already taken by a different INRUL pattern, and therefore incompatible; if you have an INRUL pattern that's already reserved, but you try to include another INRUL pattern that uses the same pattern but with other adjacent tiles with different flags, I've found that the first pattern will take over and the second pattern won't work, what I call INRUL Interference. So no, there's no other method unless you use FlexRamps. The E2 Ramp has no other suitable alternative that keeps a consistent pattern with its sister ramp, the B2; the closest thing to an alternate pattern causes INRUL Interference with its cousin ramp, the D1 ramp.

The D2 ramp has an alternate pattern that doesn't require the disconnecter, but it "locks" an otherwise normal tile of MIS as a part of the ramp, what I call a "locked starter", increasing the footprint to 7 tiles as opposed to 6, unlike its sister ramp, the A2.

By the way, there are a number of other ramps that require the disconnecter; I've shown this pages before, and it's the D1 Inside Ramp. Guess which ones also require disconnecters.

[Tarkus]

More rampy goodness, this time, with an L1 RHW-10S.





Right now, with the exception of the RHW-3 and the MIS (unless you count the Y and W-splits), every elevated RHW has gotten at least one ramp interface during this development cycle.  Most have gotten multiple.  NAM 33 will mark the coming of age of the elevated RHW system.

-Alex

[Gugu3]

Amazing stuff here Ganaram and Alex!as always what you do is simply incredible

[Geometry123]

What a RAMPage!

BTW, are we expecting a 2014 release of NAM 33?

[Bipin]

That ERHW work looks pretty exciting!  Is there any chance a smoother ERHW ortho to ERHW diagonal curve could be made; something nice and smooth like the L0 RHW curve puzzle pieces?

[Indiana Joe]

That ERHW work looks pretty exciting!  Is there any chance a smoother ERHW ortho to ERHW diagonal curve could be made; something nice and smooth like the L0 RHW curve puzzle pieces?

I think you're the third person to ask in the last two pages.     Since puzzle pieces are considered dead, these would come in the form of FLEX 45 curves.  It's a whole ton of coding, so nobody really wants to open that can of worms, but it is a logical step eventually.  A model-savvy member will have to decide to dive into it.  Maybe if enough people keep lobbying for it.   

[GDO29Anagram]

I think you're the third person to ask on this page. Since puzzle pieces are considered dead, these would come in the form of FLEX 45 curves.  It's a whole ton of coding, so nobody really wants to open that can of worms, but it is a logical step eventually.  A model-savvy member will have to decide to dive into it.  Maybe if enough people keep lobbying for it.

May I clarify before departing for the laundromat...?

1. Puzzle pieces are dead. Or at least they will be for RHWdev continuing on from here.

2. Theoretically, there could just be a singular (or many?) master FlexCurves whose base is the L0 RHW-2 network, and can be overrideable to fit other RHW curves, such as MIS, RHW-3, and RHW-4. I'm excluding RHW-6S because it was given unique geometry that's still locked as a puzzle piece (and what's worse, it was decided before anyone else can plan out Flexing any of the curves). HOWEVER, it won't be like the FlexFly where you can just run networks above or below; its flex properties are only limited to overriding to form other single-tile RHW curves excluding 6S. Therefore, there'd have to be a MAJOR distinction and renaming between a FlexFly and a FlexCurve:

FlexFlys are curve-like structures that allow networks of differing height levels to fly over OR under, hence the fly in the name. These pieces are NOT slope-tolerant. The width and height levels of these pieces are typically locked in by unique anchor tiles. This means the L0 FlexCurve needs to be an L0 FlexFly, as odd as that sounds, even though elevated networks would still fly over it, while its elevated sisters can fly above ground networks.

Unless a better name come along, FlexCurves are curve-like structures that DO NOT allow other networks to fly over or under it. They are flexible in the sense that they can override according to height and width, to an extent. These pieces are layed out typically by INRUL code, and would be more slope-tolerant than its cousins, the FlexFlys.

That's all I can say right now.

[Tarkus]

BTW, are we expecting a 2014 release of NAM 33?

We've been back on the "no release date or timeline for release" strategy since NAM 31.0, so you likely won't know until it's actually released.

The rampage, however, marches forward.

FlexFlys are curve-like structures that allow networks of differing height levels to fly over OR under, hence the fly in the name. These pieces are NOT slope-tolerant. The width and height levels of these pieces are typically locked in by unique anchor tiles. This means the L0 FlexCurve needs to be an L0 FlexFly, as odd as that sounds, even though elevated networks would still fly over it, while its elevated sisters can fly above ground networks.

Unless a better name come along, FlexCurves are curve-like structures that DO NOT allow other networks to fly over or under it. They are flexible in the sense that they can override according to height and width, to an extent. These pieces are layed out typically by INRUL code, and would be more slope-tolerant than its cousins, the FlexFlys.

The one issue we'll have to work out on that is the fact that the original (and current) name for the existing L0 FLEXFly is in fact "FLEXCurve".

For those keeping score at home, here's where we stand as far as FLEXing things:

Fully FLEXed

• Height Transitions and On-Slope Transitions
• SPUI interchanges
• FLEXFly system (undergoing revamp)
• SPUI interchanges

Largely FLEXed

• A, B, D, and E-Type Ramp interfaces

Early Stage FLEXing

• FARHW

Not yet FLEXed, but planned

• Width transitions
• Wide-radius curves
• C and F-Type (FARHW) ramp interfaces

Unknown plans

• Diverging Diamond Interchange pieces
• Volleyball Interchange pieces
• Cosmetic pieces (may be the one thing that stays puzzle-based)

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

Right now, with the exception of the RHW-3 and the MIS (unless you count the Y and W-splits), every elevated RHW has gotten at least one ramp interface during this development cycle.  Most have gotten multiple.  NAM 33 will mark the coming of age of the elevated RHW system.

Now it's just the RHW-3 that has no new ramps.



Oddly enough, for those playing at home, the code for the MIS A1 Ramp was already there to begin with, so I did no RULwork for that ramp. The B1 Ramp was a copy-paste job from an existing B1 ramp, so except for me having to do a find-replace operation in addition to the copy-paste, the codework was already there to begin with, also.

Though I'm gonna need some critique on the markings for these ramp interfaces. First of all, there's already a MIS Type C1 Ramp already in existence, though it's pretty much unmarked. However, the MIS Type A1 and B1 ramps are marked, and in the same way (chevrons and dashed lines) as all the other Type A1 and B1 ramps. Should the MIS Type A1 and B1 ramps be marked the same way as its other sibling ramps, or would it be a unique case and, like the already-existing Y-splits and the C1, be unmarked?

[Wiimeiser]

Flexing the DDIs would probably be a smart move, since it could potentially allow for several combinations with just 1-3 pieces depending on the width of the surface road.

[Tarkus]

Regarding the MIS A1 and B1, I'd mark them as such.

I also agree on FLEXing the DDIs.  They're kind of difficult to use in their present state due to the slope tolerance matter, if you're trying to build it such that the Avenue is elevated (which most of the DDIs I've built have done).  Might also be able to get some new setups integrated that way.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

Got these two ramps done at about lunchtime: MIS Ramps Type A1 Inside and Type B1 Inside.



And a video on how to draw the four MIS ramps:

http://www.youtube.com/v/-fUH-7LwkVg

As with all the Type A1 and B1 outside ramps, you'll need to connect the appropriate starter to the ramp. However, with the Type A1 and B1 inside ramps, you'll need the disconnector; yes, this is another ramp that requires the disconnector. Why? It's actually far more stable to create dedicated INRUL patterns for the outside and inside ramps, since there have been complications with having outside and inside ramps share the same pattern, that being you'd have to reverse the direction of the branch and you'll have residual overrides un-reversing the branch.

Another note is this: The patterns for the MIS A1 Inside and B1 Inside Ramps were originally the patterns for the RHW-4 A1 and B1 Inside Ramps; in order to get the RHW-4 A1 and B1 Inside Ramps (and anything above that, like 6S and 8S+), you now have to override the MIS Inside Ramps.

[Durfsurn]

If my computer hadn't just had a hard drive crash I would have finished off this piece by getting it in game and maybe pathing it but oh well Here is the image for the NAMites that would like to finish it off if it hasn't been done by someone else already. It's what I believe what would be called RHW-8S Type F1 ramp inverted.

[GDO29Anagram]

If my computer hadn't just had a hard drive crash I would have finished off this piece by getting it in game and maybe pathing it but oh well Here is the image for the NAMites that would like to finish it off if it hasn't been done by someone else already. It's what I believe what would be called RHW-8S Type F1 ramp inverted.

Actually, due to how people are, 1, now used to the unamended naming scheme, and B, where I had to put certain ramps, that ramp would have to be an RHW-8S Type F3 Outside.

However, I'm still reluctant to call it an F3 ramp; by analogy, the RHW-10S equivalent would be an F4 ramp and the 12S equivalent would be an F5 ramp, neither of which makes sense because the 8S and 10S are not to be used as branch networks, and that there's no room at all to include such ramps.

Under the original naming scheme, as I pointed out ages ago, the wrongly-named 6S F2 Ramp should be an F1 Outside Inverted Ramp; its sister ramps would not be D2 or E2, but D1 O-I and E1 O-I. Similarly, yours would be an 8S F1 Outside Inverted Ramp (note the distinction of outside; inside inverted would be weird).

However^2, there's a level of continuity with calling certain ramps D2 or E2 when it should be D1i or E1i; it's when it hits the 10S where things get problematic. Therefore, your ramp has two acceptable names?

As of where to put it, ideally it would be in the FlexRamps range, but I'm not sure as to where it'd be since I don't know what Daniel's had planned for FlexFARHW; there'd be issues with dealing with up to three additional fractional angles (in addition to FA-3, there'd be FA-2, FA-1.5 and FA-6), and some weirdness as to what to assign those ramps in terms of how to fit them into the general FlexRamp scheme. However, I've been told that FARHW will only be a ground-level affair, so there could be room to accommodate even the most exotic FA ramp.

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/v/G3vU4zPTabA

Time to call it a night.

[Gugu3]

So many things going on here!!!
This is amazing really!
Well done on all these implementations!