RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Twyla]

Time for a dumb question (which may have saved me a lot of work had I asked sooner):

When modelling bridges, raised roads, etc - is transit applied to the actual model(s), or to separate 'transit pieces' which are overlaid atop the model(s)?

I think I need a better understanding of 'transit capacities' and how it's applied, particularly to above-ground models (including bridges, etc).

[Tarkus]

The transit functionality is applied through the use of SC4Path files, basically simple text files which specify a series of 3-dimensional Cartesian coordinates (units in meters), defining the movements through each 16m x 16m tile.  With respect to the RHW in specific, as long as the alignment of elevated segments match their ground-level counterparts, all we have to do is switch out the z-coordinates on the path files, raising them from 0 to 15.

This thread describes SC4Path functionality in more detail.

-Alex

[Twyla]

Planned, and hopefully in 4.2, though there's been no development on them as of yet, and we're still trying to figure out just how to design them (in particular, how to handle the asymmetrical "7C" setup).

-Alex

I know I'm a day late and a dollar short in responding to this one but, in the process of modelling (and creating textures to work from), a potential solution/workaround for Asymmetrical C Networks could come in the form of segmented Starter and/or Puzzle Pieces.

In short - a normal 6C is comprised of a Center Section and two 6C Outer Sections, where a normal 8C is comprised of a Center Section and two 8C Outer Sections.  By segmenting them, a user could make a 7C using a 6C-Outer/Center/8C-Outer (or reverse).  While not wholly centered over three tiles (the 6C slightly narrow and the 8C overhanging slightly), this could add a tremendous amount of flexibility to the system as well as reducing the texturing and pathing required - in addition to simplifying interchanges/crossovers/ramps/etc.

Just a thought.

[Blue Lightning]

Rotate the 8C starter 4 (or less, depending) times and you'll get the asymmetrical "7C" network

[Kitsune]

Are there plans for sets 3 and 4 for the diagonal MIS over diagonal RHW-4? The current 1 and 2 sets greatly limit interchange abilities.

[Tarkus]

Yes, they've been made and will be in Version 4.2.  Ditto with Diagonal ERHW-4 over Diagonal RHW-4, Diagonal ERHW-4 over Diagonal MIS and Diagonal EMIS over MIS.

-Alex

[compgeek718]

I have a few questions regarding the curve pieces for the RHW. How accurate are they compared to curves used on real life highways? Are the design speeds similar? (Im especially curious about the RHW-4 wide and 8S curve pieces). Lastly, will there be any new curve pieces in the upcoming RHW version? Thanks in advance.

[Tarkus]

I have a few questions regarding the curve pieces for the RHW. How accurate are they compared to curves used on real life highways? Are the design speeds similar? (Im especially curious about the RHW-4 wide and 8S curve pieces).

The Wide-Radius Curves on the RHW-4 should be fairly accurate.  The RHW-8S ones are a bit of a tighter squeeze.  The puzzle piece versions will be going on "Legacy Support" mode for the next version when we unveil the draggable ones of the same size.  Eventually the 8S will be getting proper wide-radius curves.

Lastly, will there be any new curve pieces in the upcoming RHW version? Thanks in advance.

There will be a number of Fractional Angle RHW pieces added in the upcoming version, including the addition of Fractional Angle functionality for the RHW-6C, and a considerable expansion to the existing Fractional Angle MIS, RHW-2, RHW-4 and RHW-6S systems.  I don't know that we'll have any non-Fractional Angle Wide-Radius curves in this next version, however.  Depends on time and everyone's workload.  We're drowning in path files right now, and Wide-Radius Curves tend to require a lot of pathing.

-Alex

[Ramona Brie]

Isn't there some sort of new Dual Lane Shift piece for the RHW-4 as well?

[Tarkus]

Isn't there some sort of new Dual Lane Shift piece for the RHW-4 as well?

Yes, there is.  So I retract my previous statement.

-Alex

[Twyla]

Just a little preview of some of what I've been up to...

In addition to all the basic ERHW pieces (orthogonal only thus far), I've been working on a modular cloverleaf arrangement that will include 225° and 315° ramps (connecting between orthogonal & diagonal) in addition to orthogonal and diagonal versions of the 270° ramps.

Pictured here is the CL4-3/2 version with two exit lanes - which is also designed to tie into the RHW-4 diagonals (as seen here) for additional versatility.


The CL2 versions will feature a single exit lane and also tie in with the MIS diagonals.



I'm also hoping to sell the guys on a modularization plan that, in addition to simplifying things on the coding end of the equation, will allow users to build a near-infinite assortment of RHW configurations from just a few simple pieces - symmetrical or asymmetrical, doesn't matter; the only limit is your imagination.

As an example, here are RHW-4 through RHW-20 - C-versions above and S versions below - all constructed from the same 8 tiles (only 7 of which need pathing):



More to come....

[shanghai kid]

that two lane exit looks great look forward to see more

[supremec]

I agree with shanghai kid
It look great   

[Blue Lightning]

The model looks pretty good there!

As for the modularization, there was some "accidental" work on that waaaaay back.. I want to say Augustish of 2010, from the 10C prototype:
10C:


Have two of the center tile gives you a 16C:


And 3 gives you a 22C


The 8S, 6C, 8C, and 10S do work on a semimodularized concept, and the 6S used to (v4.2 will switch it completely to a 1 tile setup and therefore can't use modularization).

MIS-1: MIS-1 Starter
EMIS-1: EMIS-1 Starter
RHW-3: RHW-3 Starter
RHW-4: RHW-4 Starter
ERHW-4: ERHW-4 Starter
RHW-6S (v4.1 and below): RHW-4 next to RHW-C Median (yellow line on RHW-4 facing away)
RHW-6S (v4.2 and above): RHW-6S Starter
ERHW-6S (v4.2 and above): ERHW-6S Starter
RHW-6C : RHW-4 next to RHW-C Median (yellow line on RHW-4 facing towards)
ERHW-6C (v4.2 and up): RHW-4 next to ERHW-C Median (yellow line on RHW-4 facing towards)
RHW-8S: RHW-4 next to "+2" starter
RHW-8C: MIS-1 next to RHW-C Median (yellow line on MIS-1 facing towards)
RHW-10S: RHW-4 next to "+3" starter
RHW-10C Prototype (IIRC): "+3" starter next to MIS-1 next to RHW-C Median

Any network that reaches 3+ tiles in size (for S networks, C networks are more of 2 edge + 1 median) will be in a modular fashion, just because the center piece can then be repeated ad infinitum (hence why the 10C prototype allowed for 16C and 22C, along with their respective asymmetrical setups)

[Twyla]

What got me started on the modularization idea started with the mention (either Lightning or mrtn, IIRC) of bringing the lane widths down to 4m.  Since none of the 4m textures were available to me, I started playing around on my own and came up with:

The Combined and Separate versions of the inner medians...



...Single, Double, and Triple Lane tiles...



...the Quad Lane tile (stand-alone or with its companion shoulder)...



...and the lonely 4S (identical to the 03, sans one lane/path).

(just the orthogonals so far - diagonals later)

In addition to being able to build any conceivable RHW network (existing or otherwise) from these eight basic tiles (including the nefarious 7C)

only 4-1/2 versions of any ramps/exits/etc need be made and pathed (the 1/2 being the 4S, which is the 03 with an inner shoulder rather than a travel lane).  As an example - the 10C, 18C, 6S, 10S, 14S, 18S... would all use the exact same pieces (add/subtract a lane, exit, off-ramp, etc).  S/C conversions can also double as FAR pieces, etc.

As this notion also greatly simplifies the required pathing (7 orthogonal paths total), it should make it far easier to handle overpasses - only 92 possible orthogonal/orthogonal combinations for ANY size networks vs the hundreds needed for just the few that currently exist.  368 paths (if my math serves me) should cover every possible orthogonal/orthogonal, orthogonal/diagonal, and diagonal/diagonal overpass combination - which I suspect is fewer than what exists in the current RHW release.

I fully realize that this would take some ground-up retooling, but I think the potential (particularly in terms of flexibility) warrants consideration.  Possibly as an option for 5.x or later?

[Tarkus]

The geometry on that ramp is fantastically smooth--fantastic work, Twyla!   On the modular end of things, the we've been headed with some prototypes in the past is basically using the same modular starter approach for the ground versions, using the same +1/+2/+3-Lane starters as Vince mentioned, and just substituting the ERHW-4 or EMIS starter for the ground RHW-4 or MIS starter.  When we get into multi-level ERHWs as we head toward Version 5.0, it'll be possible to use the same techniques to generate pretty much any width ERHW at any height.

What got me started on the modularization idea started with the mention (either Lightning or mrtn, IIRC) of bringing the lane widths down to 4m.  Since none of the 4m textures were available to me, I started playing around on my own and came up with:

Actually, the .zip package I sent you with the models has PNGs of some of the new, narrower textures.

-Alex

[Twyla]

The geometry on that ramp is fantastically smooth--fantastic work, Twyla! 

Danke!  Getting the guardrails that smooth took the lion's share of the poly limit, but the entire ramp model comes in a hair under 500 polys.

Actually, the .zip package I sent you with the models has PNGs of some of the new, narrower textures.

-Alex

Ah!  Okay, I see where you're going with that.

Those textures are 4m between the stripes - the ones I made are 4m on-center (vs 4.375m OC).  That's what threw me.
Damn the trucker in me (all those mountains of DOT regs)...

So...

Where do we tweak?  The models or the textures?



PS ~ I think this one came out a bit on the large side...

Serves me right for putting the cart in front of the horse.

[ivo_su]

Wow this is what I always wanted to see from the outset of the RHW and always was a big failure. The model looks remarkably even I would say perfect. But I worry that if so much as see the picture then all of clover on the highway will not be less than 35x35 tiles. And I think it's pretty much space but if there is no way better way than nothing. Congratulations on your work.

- Ivaylo (Ivo)

[Twyla]

Well, 25x25 for the full interchange, but still....


Note:  I'm not officially part of NAM (at least, not yet), so my failure doesn't really count against them.   

But as my grandfather would often tell me...  "The only people who never fail are the ones who never try to accomplish anything."

[ivo_su]

You should definitely be part of the NAM team. I think that is clear and Alex and everyone in this forum. I have no idea how they do things and where you're so familiar with modeling but keep still.

- Ivo