RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

Tarkus · July 30, 2013, 11:01:17 PM

That's definitely a large part of it. But controlling that priority is a handful, as it really depends on where you click.

-Alex

Edit: Here it is behaving, rock solidly.

Took code to handle the adjacency of the on-slope to both the possible + and T-intersections on the ground RHW-4, and overriding the potential for the L1 RHW-4 to deconvert to either an L1 RHW-2 or an L0 RHW-2. Suffice to say, it took going at it from 4 angles. It'll get messier with higher levels, but as long as I can remember to copy the appropriate code over to all the various possibilities, we're on the way to showing what FLEX-HT, FLEX-OST, and the like can do when they're fully in place.

metarvo · July 31, 2013, 07:39:23 AM

On the diagonal starters front, I've been getting by with building the aforementioned diagonal ramps so that the starter will be placed where desired (i.e. near a wide curve piece or intersection) and bulldozing everything except the starter. It comes in handy when there must be an intersection (or driveway for RCI access) in between two wide curves. A pure diagonal starter would simplify this method, but the current one is fine by me for now.

Nice work on the overpass/on-slope adjacency, Alex.

This reduces the necessary ROW for the lower RHW, while adding space for development or frontage roads on top. It looks like stability is in style.

Tman · August 14, 2013, 08:06:11 AM

Hey there guys. I'm trying to troubleshoot a small yet frustrating issue with bridges.

I can't seem to get that piece (which is in the on the opposite side of the bridge, just in the other direction) to change. I've tried fillers, starter pieces, playing with the terrain... nothing seems to work. Any suggestions?

MandelSoft · August 14, 2013, 08:34:10 AM

Which version of the NAM do you use? It should work fine in the NAM 31.2.

Tman · August 14, 2013, 08:36:26 AM

I'm using NAM 31.2, actually. I just went through a process of updating SC4 just to get it.

MandelSoft · August 14, 2013, 08:45:51 AM

Have you just tried to click on the stretch somewhere with the RHW tool. Sometimes that helps...

Tman · August 15, 2013, 12:14:42 PM

Yeah, I tried and that didn't work either. I ended up getting it to work though! I deleted the bridge, removed the NAM folder in my plugins, reinstalled it, and did it and it worked fine. I have no idea why after I had already tried that it decided to work... oh well. Thanks for the help man!

Tarkus · August 15, 2013, 12:37:51 PM

It sounds like you might have still had a piece of an old NAM release around before your deletion/reinstall. Glad to hear you've gotten it cleared up now, though!

-Alex

Geometry123 · August 17, 2013, 08:16:52 AM

Happens with the RHW-10S too. Guess I'd have to wait of NAM 32 for this to be stabilized...

Tarkus · August 19, 2013, 02:43:18 AM

Quote from: Geometry123 on August 17, 2013, 08:16:52 AM
Happens with the RHW-10S too. Guess I'd have to wait of NAM 32 for this to be stabilized...

It's not a stability issue, but rather, a wrong IID in the code. That part's fixed on this end now. The ML Shinkansen deconverting to Monorail is a different issue entirely, and it'll entail having to rebuild the entire RHW crosslink of that plugin (as it was built to pre-P57 specs), which is a project I won't be tackling for awhile.

-Alex

Geometry123 · August 22, 2013, 06:05:19 AM

Okay... but will the fixed version of the Monorail/El-Rail (it happens with the El-Rail too) X RHW-8S/10S link (at least without the BTM crossing) be attached or we'll have to wait for NAM 32 or a hotfix? If I have to wait for NAM 32 or a hotfix, it's okay. There are thousands of workarounds for that problem!

epicblunder · August 22, 2013, 08:42:17 AM

An in-the-meantime workaround is to reduce the RHW to segments of 6 lanes or smaller and convert it to a corresponding section of NWM. Then your monorail will cross it fine. It'll look less than ideal and obviously wont carry as much traffic but it's a decent stopgap measure.

jdenm8 · August 22, 2013, 08:50:14 AM

This is a RUL error, so it needs to wait for the next major release.

Haljackey · August 22, 2013, 10:49:09 PM

I was bored tonight and this randomly popped up in my head. Decided I may as well make a post of it before I forget.

RHW Networks by release without looking anything up (I wonder how right I am

)

ANT: RHW-2 (with standard road texture)
RHW 1 (12, 13, 13a, 13b): RHW-4
RHW 2 (20): RHW-6S, MIS
RHW 3 (21): RHW-8S, 10S, 6C
RHW 4: RHW-8C
RHW 5: RHW-3
NAM 31: RHW-4C (so-called name of Project Symphony)
NAM 32: ?

Planned: RHW 12S, 10C
Conceptual: 'Ultra-Wide' (3 lane filler tiles)

In the pre-RHW 1 days there was also a modified ground highway network with no side walls that was being considered to be the RHW network. The ANT network was (thankfully) chosen because it could be separated by empty tiles creating a more realistic rural highway (the original name of the project)

Tarkus · August 23, 2013, 12:54:13 AM

You've got it as far as the ground-level networks go. If you expand to include elevated content:

RHW 3: L2: RHW-4, MIS
RHW 4: None
RHW 5: L2: RHW-2, 6S, 6C; DD: RHW-4
NAM 31: L1: RHW-2, 3, 4, 6S, 6C, 8S, 8C, 10S, 10C, MIS; L2: RHW-3, 8S, 8C, 10S; L3: RHW-4, 6S, MIS; L4: RHW-4, 6S, MIS

As far as the future goes, NAM 32 won't be adding any additional RHW networks. In fact, for the foreseeable future, that lineup of networks is likely to remain constant. The 10C and 12S are on indefinite hold, and it's unlikely they'll be added anytime soon.

For those who are wondering why, there's a couple reasons for that.

1) Controller strain. The RHW RUL2 code is, by several orders of magnitude, the largest component in the NAM Controller. The reason for this is RHW-over-RHW crosslinks. When you have 33 networks--which is the case at present, without the 10C and 12S--there's a lot of crosslinking to handle. Rough math comes to 4 · (33)² = 4536 situations. (The 4 is to account for OxO, OxD, DxO and DxD). Also add in the fact that in order to have more compact setups, where you have RHW-over-RHW-next-to-RHW-over-RHW setups, they require adjacency stability code, and that causes things to grow very quickly (and it becomes easy to screw up things). Adding those new networks means more crosslinks, and, had we included the L0, L1, and L2 as originally planned for the 10C and 12S, we'd be at 39 networks, which would mean about 34% more crosslinks on the whole. Unless there's a huge developmental breakthrough or other paradigm shift, whereby we can shed a few hundred thousand lines of code and still have a satisfactory level of stability for those situations, there's not much sense in adding to the current repertoire of networks.

2) Shifting focus toward other aspects of the RHW. As you can kind of see by the overall trajectory of RHW development, we've cranked out a lot of new networks for many of the release cycles. But there's some gaps in those networks' functionality that need to be filled. Additionally, FLEX items will continue to be a main focus--getting stable, generic FLEX items that can be overridden in various ways eliminates the need to go digging through hundreds of static puzzle pieces. Aside from TuLEPs, I've basically stopped making static puzzle pieces.

Quote from: Haljackey on August 22, 2013, 10:49:09 PM
In the pre-RHW 1 days there was also a modified ground highway network with no side walls that was being considered to be the RHW network. The ANT network was (thankfully) chosen because it could be separated by empty tiles creating a more realistic rural highway (the original name of the project)

That was before I got involved with development, but I believe Teirusu and qurlix were originally using that wall-less MHW as a proof-of-concept, to show that the side-by-side ANT override system worked. Once the concept was proven, then new textures were commissioned, resulting in this familiar blast-from-the-past:

-Alex

kassarc16 · August 23, 2013, 03:14:22 AM

Man, looking back at the beginning of the RHW over on ST.. I realize requests I made kind of got the ball rolling. I almost feel instrumental in the whole thing, though I think some slightly edited textures that may have never been used were my only actual contribution. Other than moral support and lots of nagging.

Gugu3 · August 23, 2013, 04:43:13 AM

Don't think we actually need more RHW networks than the ones we already have...i find the idea of having flex pieces and draggable functionality much more intriguing.
The lates flex additions were amazing!

Durfsurn · August 23, 2013, 04:46:09 AM

i hope one day we can run RHW under an EL-RHW ramp and the like. Also RHW under L2 transitions would be cool too. However these seem very labour intensive... coding wise

Wiimeiser · August 23, 2013, 05:04:31 AM

Actually, you could probably squeeze in the last two planned networks as cosmetic pieces.

metarvo · August 23, 2013, 05:43:43 AM

I think it makes perfect sense to expand the functionality of the RHW networks we already have rather than continually making newer, wider ones which are rarely used IRL. Not only would wider RHW networks require more work in and of themselves, but there would be questions like, "Will Lx RHW-y be able to go over RHW-z?"