RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[jondor]

are the tab rings going to be further simplified... or will it all be still on one giant ring?

The issue of the ever expanding tab rings is still under discussion, however this nomenclature change and some other discoveries we've made are paving the way for improvements in this area.

[ivo_su]

I wonder what will happen to the RHW-10c and will there ever be such a network? I thought more seriously on the issue and I do not know whether it is possible to create a C-type RHW-10 because I did not imagine how this network could be collected within 3 tiles space. A primary objective of C-varieties is to take up less space than S-varieties. Even greater problems would arise if we try to accommodate space for 4 tiles, as typical of the RHW-C networks is that they have the middle section. And since this middle section needs an odd number of tiles, it  remains the only opportunity  to build on 5 tiles space, thus rendered irrelevant all this  madness. Throughout this conundrum I conclude that hardly ever create such a network may be easier and possibly would be something like RHW-12C

Best regards,
Ivo

[Wiimeiser]

If there's a 12-C there'll need to be a 10-C if only for a more realistic transition. That's why there's need for a NAVE-4 even if it won't fit on one tile.

[Rady]

[tabular type=2]
[row]
[data]TYPE A1[/data]
[data]TYPE B1[/data]
[data]TYPE C1[/data]
[data]TYPE D1[/data]
[data]TYPE E1[/data]
[data]TYPE F1[/data]
[/row]
[row]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[data][/data]
[/row]
[/tabular]



-Alex

Tarkus, may I suggest to include this whole explanation of ramp types into the RHW readme somehow ...?

[Tarkus]

I wonder what will happen to the RHW-10c and will there ever be such a network? I thought more seriously on the issue and I do not know whether it is possible to create a C-type RHW-10 because I did not imagine how this network could be collected within 3 tiles space. A primary objective of C-varieties is to take up less space than S-varieties.

The meaning of "C" actually changed from "compact" to "combined" awhile back (see RHW FAQ #12).  When the RHW-6S was converted to an overhang setup, it was no longer consumed more space than the 6C.  BL has played around with a 10C before--it was indeed a 5-tile network.  It is planned to eventually become a part of the RHW, once we get around to adding the so-called "ultra-wide" networks, which will stop at an RHW-16 or 18.

If there's a 12-C there'll need to be a 10-C if only for a more realistic transition. That's why there's need for a NAVE-4 even if it won't fit on one tile.

I still don't understand how a NAVE-4 would solve anything. 

Tarkus, may I suggest to include this whole explanation of ramp types into the RHW readme somehow ...?

Yes, it'll definitely be in the Readme for the new version.

And Tarkus! You changed your profile pic! 

Yeah, for a little while.  Felt having a Vulcan for an avatar would help hammer home the "release dates are highly illogical" business.  I'll probably switch back to my usual tankadillo before too long.

-Alex

[metarvo]

The new nomenclature makes sense now with the way you explained it, and the diagram helps to draw the whole thing together.  Since it is easily applicable across all RHW networks, I can see it working for other networks as well, like Rail.  For instance, the current diagonal STR switch branching from orthogonal DTR would be classified as Type B1, and it would be Type B2 for the DTR equivalent.  That would be logical IMHO, anyway. 

[ivo_su]

Oh my God I did not know that they planned "ultra-wide" networks! Really I'm a fan of grandiose projects like the mega wide networks with many lanes but 16 or 18 is too much even for me. One effect of such large networks, at least for me, they would be used for deduction upon outputs / inputs of the RHW-10, where I guess there will be a detour that would eventually RHW-6 from each side. This is my present is a giant puzzle piece - ramp RHW-16/RHW-10/RHW-6. Unfortunately I see no sence in having such huge networks. However, an area of ​​4x4 km does not make sense of so many sails, because  the cities can not generate so much traffic. Otherwise, here's an interesting picture where found good use of "ultra-wide" networks.



Cheers mate
Ivo

[eggman111]

That was actually photoshopped. As k50dude said on Simtropolis, "It is photoshopped, normally it's an RHW-8 with an RHW-4, all I did was add in a lane between them."

In any case, it looks awesome and it would be great to have in the future. I personally don't have a use for extra-wide highways, but I know many people would appreciate it.

[Kitsune]

it would be nice... I've always thought a rhw-14 cable stay bridge across a certain bay in my region would be perfect... it might actually force me into modelling 

[noahclem]

I think there is a fairly good chance of seeing RHW-12 eventually, as it will fit in 4 tiles with the new 5.0 textures and would also facilitate merging lanes for RHW-10. Ultra-wide versions have been discussed as well, in a very modular way, and could be seen down the road (hehe, pun).

[MandelSoft]

Well, I actually never use anything wider than RHW-8S or 8C. I've used the RHW-10S once, but that section is demolished and replaced by RHW-8C (in the particular situtiation, the new setup seems more logical). So actually I'm not really waiting for any wider networks.

However, for the other RHW networks we have a whole new bunch of ramps ready:
- RHW-2 Ramp Types C1, C1 Dual
- RHW-3 Ramp Types A1, A1 Dual, B1, B1 Dual
- RHW-4 Ramp Types D1, D1 Inside, D1 Shift, E1 Wye
- RHW-6S Ramp Types C1, C2, D1, E1, F1
- RHW-6C Ramp Types C1, C2
- RHW-8S Ramp Types D1, E1, F1 and F2

[ivo_su]

it would be nice... I've always thought a rhw-14 cable stay bridge across a certain bay in my region would be perfect... it might actually force me into modelling 

I think even a narrow bridge as RHW-8C but fair and beautiful architecture would be a great achievement. AFAIK friends of motel architects focusing on bridges and extremely aesthetic and karasotata. This is mainly because of the symbolism of bridges - they are designed to connect, unite and gather. That's why when bridges are equally important as technical and engineering side, and architectural aesthetics. In this line of thought, my  favorites are those bridges with arches - as the one in Sydney, the likeness of which is made by Maxis.

Regards,
Ivo

[Haljackey]

I've been 'stress testing' RHW 5.0 over the past little bit, determining how flexible the new components are and how they act in certain situations. I've got to say Alex and the NAM team have done an excellent job, as I've found very few kinks with the new version. Let me tell you that this goes against what I went through with testing previous versions. 

Anyways, I've also made some pretty nifty creations I've built for testing purposes. I'd like to share some of them with you.

Here is the new Diagonal RHW-4 to orthogonal MIS ramp, which forms a half-diamond interchange with a road.


...And with eyecandy added to show how the new RHW looks in contrast to the surrounding area.


Zooming out, we see that the half-diamond only makes up a portion of a complicated RHW junction consisting of several interchanges.


Moving the camera to the east to see another RHW pass under as it begins to climb a hill.


And lastly a look at the same junction before I modified it for testing purposes.


Anyways, hope you guys enjoyed this little tease.
-Ryan (Haljackey)

[jondor]

Glad you like the new ramp, took me the better part of a day to put together my first real puzzle piece. 

[thornyjohny]

BL has played around with a 10C before--it was indeed a 5-tile network.  It is planned to eventually become a part of the RHW, once we get around to adding the so-called "ultra-wide" networks, which will stop at an RHW-16 or 18.

I would love an RHW-18, one of my RHW-10s is all clogged up with more than 200,000 vehicles.

[Kitsune]

BL has played around with a 10C before--it was indeed a 5-tile network.  It is planned to eventually become a part of the RHW, once we get around to adding the so-called "ultra-wide" networks, which will stop at an RHW-16 or 18.

I would love an RHW-18, one of my RHW-10s is all clogged up with more than 200,000 vehicles.

wow... time to do a collector / express system for that highway.

[ivo_su]

I think  it would be super hard to make splitter piece of MHW, to OWR-3  and from there as we know it will be possible  to spill into the RHW-6C. The existence of such a splitter is more than necessary and although NAM will hardly want to deal with it, Mills to do  my best to be fact. I hope more people help me to be able to handle.

Best regards,
Ivo

[MandelSoft]

^^ Well, if such transistion is going to be created, it would probably a MHW-to-RHW-6S transistion rather than a MHW-to-OWR-3 transistion. MHW-to-MAVE-6 seems also quite likely.

However, the largest problem is modeling and making the transistion smooth...

[ivo_su]

^^ Well, if such transistion is going to be created, it would probably a MHW-to-RHW-6S transistion rather than a MHW-to-OWR-3 transistion. MHW-to-MAVE-6 seems also quite likely.

However, the largest problem is modeling and making the transistion smooth...

I started with making textures now, although I'm still at the beginning and I do not know if you ever get, but I must try. If you are Maarten played with something like this before will be happy to accept one of your PNG file. You know how much I appreciate your work and not once have you said makes perfect texture. Otherwise if I do once a working piece of OWR-3, then will naturally try to MAVE-6. Wait for me a lot of work and hopefully deal - I've never done puzzle pieces.

Best regards,
Ivo

[Tarkus]

Actually, textures aren't the problem with MHW transitions--it's the models.  Whole different ballgame.

-Alex