RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[mike3775]

And so the teasefest begins...

that is great!Is impossible to do so at the moment,isn't it?

At the least, impossible to do with the current public release.

I don't mind the teases because it gives me idea's on what I can do with them when they finally get released.  I found some old city screen shots in an old folder on a DVD I burned prior to me stopping play in 2009(I saved the plugins in both documents and c, plus regions) and some of them I saw had maps of future interchanges based on what was teased in threads like this that I had planned out.  When I get around to checking those folders again for everything I will probably make a new region and import those folders back into the game again and try the new RHW pieces into them, since some of the teases are now available

[Haljackey]

Want to learn how to build something realistic like this?


Then check out the latest tutorial over at the RHW Interchange Guide!

Link: http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=6843.msg399433#msg399433
(Section 2.6: Realistic Parclo A-4 Interchange)

[Gugu3]

And so the teasefest begins...

that is great!Is impossible to do so at the moment,isn't it?

At the least, impossible to do with the current public release.

This release,together with different height MIS(level 0,1,2,3),will be a great implementation to the game!You will be able to create a lot of incredible interchanges!

[jdenm8]

RHW 5.1 will not include multi-height networks. They're reserved for RHW 6.0.

[Wiimeiser]

5.1 and 5.2 should be more focused on improving existing overpass functionality, such as networks other than road and RHW being able to have diagonal overpasses, as well as FLUPS

[the7train]

the7train: There is indeed a readme-Real_Highway_Mod.html document in the Real Highway Mod folder within your Network Addon Mod folder in Plugins.

Thanks for your help! I'm not sure how I missed it.

Also, does anyone know if there is there a work around for this situation where a diagonal EWRHW4 goes over a RHW4 and then immediately changes to orthogonal?  I thought I saw a work around once, but was unsuccessful searching for it in the tutorial section.  Thanks!

[apeguy]

I don't think that kind of crossing is possible, because the RUL codes for the overpass haven't been written for it (as far as I know.) Hopefully it'll be possible in the next RHW release, a lot of people including me would find it very helpful.

[Mr.Sixty]

Also, does anyone know if there is there a work around for this situation where a diagonal EWRHW4 goes over a RHW4 and then immediately changes to orthogonal?  I thought I saw a work around once, but was unsuccessful searching for it in the tutorial section.  Thanks!

http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/journals/1380/entry-8297-a-quick-rhw-tutorial-tight-overpasses/
There you go

[the7train]

Exactly what I was looking for, thanks Mr. Sixty!

[Lach77]

Question: Is it possible to make curves for the elevated RHW - 6C viaduct?

[jdenm8]

RHW 5.0 includes the following features:

-snip-

Basic, stable draggable diagonal and curving functionality added to the RHW-6S, 6C, 8S, 8C and 10S.  New RHW-3, ERHW-2 and DDRHW-4 networks also support limited diagonal functionality. (ERHW-6S and ERHW-6C cannot yet curve or go diagonal.) Please Note: If you have built any RHW-6C diagonals with Version 4.0 or 4.1, you will need to rebuild them.

-snip-

-The NAM Team

[Lach77]

Thanks for that. 

[Tarkus]

5.1 and 5.2 should be more focused on improving existing overpass functionality, such as networks other than road and RHW being able to have diagonal overpasses, as well as FLUPS

Technically speaking, there might not be an RHW Version 5.1, and at most, a relatively small one that could include things that are already well underway (which does not include diagonal overpasses).  It's extremely likely there won't be a 5.2 or any more 5.x releases--heck, technically speaking, there may not be any more "RealHighway Mod" releases after that.

There's internal discussion underway about two things: 1) a large-scale restructuring of the NAM and NAM Component file packaging, toward the notion of a "monolithic NAM", and 2) a nascent NAM Team effort to make some major under-the-hood changes to the RealHighway, codenamed Project 0E.

The implementation of Project 0E efforts would certainly merit an RealHighway Version x.0 release designation.  But the implementation of the "monolithic NAM" concept means that the RHW would be fully subsumed by the NAM Core--it wouldn't be RealHighway Version x.0 but a feature of new NAM version instead.  (The same thing would happen for the NWM, SAM, RAM, and most other RUL-bound projects.)

-Alex

[Korot]

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but why would one go for a monolithic NAM? What are the benefits, to both the user and the developper? I'm asking this, because I can't think of any myself, while I can think of a downside: filesize. I myself don't use the SAM and RAM, so I don't have those installed, and thus they don't take up any room on my HDD either. But perhaps you can convince me. 

Regards,
Korot

[MandelSoft]

I can think of the following reasons why we actually should do it:
- Some projects have crossovers with other projects. For instance, the RAM, HSR and NWM can cross the RHW and there are NWM-TuLEP interfaces and in the future, there will be NWM and RHW FLUPs. You see that multiple projects are crossing each other, which can sometimes give you an headache (heck why there are seperate RHW-overpass, NWM-TuLEP and GLR FLuP buttons). Combining all in one mod will leave less problems on that point.
- The NAM is already too big for the STEX. Combining all in one download will not only make it easier for users to get all stuff at once, they might want to use something they normally wouldn't...

Best,
Maarten

[DAB_City]

I can think of the following reasons why we actually should do it:
- Some projects have crossovers with other projects. For instance, the RAM, HSR and NWM can cross the RHW and there are NWM-TuLEP interfaces and in the future, there will be NWM and RHW FLUPs. You see that multiple projects are crossing each other, which can sometimes give you an headache (heck why there are seperate RHW-overpass, NWM-TuLEP and GLR FLuP buttons). Combining all in one mod will leave less problems on that point.
- The NAM is already too big for the STEX. Combining all in one download will not only make it easier for users to get all stuff at once, they might want to use something they normally wouldn't...

Best,
Maarten

That reminds me, I've been complaining about the menus getting too large recently! Either DAMNing the NAM (making Rotation Rings redundant!) or merging some of the menu items would be useful. I can understand the headaches caused by having separate components.

I was actually wondering if it would be possible to create an installer for the Mac NAM components. I will be asking over on the NAM thread, but I could easily knock something together (I have a Mac and a PC!). At first, I only used the NAM, but I have started to integrate several lengths of RHW into my cities, mainly replacing the default MHW. I'm also beginning to use the SAM and RAM, but I'm leaving the NWM for now...

I'm looking forward to future versions of the RHW, even though I haven't even figured out most of the current features! Thanks for your excellent work.   

[vinlabsc3k]

@DAB_City:Simply copy your WIN plugin folder to MAC one. Then for the TE Lots find the MAC patch if exist.

[jdenm8]

Either DAMNing the NAM (making Rotation Rings redundant!)

At present that isn't possible due to the situation of all of the piece definitions. The DAMN throws a tantrum (quite literally) if it is made to reference a H3ID larger than four digits. We use five for every rotation that isn't the first and also for the second instance of each ring (Positions 2-8).

There's more of a chance of dropping DAMN support compared to taking it on as the primary method. People who use SC4 with Steam (Like me, I have a Retail CD but I use the overlay) can't use the DAMN anyway as it doesn't load correctly.

As for the Mac Installer, there was an unofficial NAM 29 one, but none have been made for NAM 30 to my knowledge.

(EDIT: By the way, dropping DAMN support will allow us to create 268,435,456 (Seven digits of entropy) puzzle pieces, completely using it will limit us to just 4,096 (three digits of entropy))

[DAB_City]

Either DAMNing the NAM (making Rotation Rings redundant!)

At present that isn't possible due to the situation of all of the piece definitions. The DAMN throws a tantrum (quite literally) if it is made to reference a H3ID larger than four digits. We use five for every rotation that isn't the first and also for the second instance of each ring (Positions 2-8).

There's more of a chance of dropping DAMN support compared to taking it on as the primary method. People who use SC4 with Steam (Like me, I have a Retail CD but I use the overlay) can't use the DAMN anyway as it doesn't load correctly.

As for the Mac Installer, there was an unofficial NAM 29 one, but none have been made for NAM 30 to my knowledge.

Ah, OK then. I just hope that the number of visible menu items can be reduced in the future...

Perhaps I could attempt a NAM Mac Installer sometime? It would be especially useful if the NAM components are to be merged, so that users could pick which feature sets (RHW/NWM/SAM/RAM) they would like to use.

[apeguy]

There's internal discussion underway about two things: 1) a large-scale restructuring of the NAM and NAM Component file packaging, toward the notion of a "monolithic NAM", and 2) a nascent NAM Team effort to make some major under-the-hood changes to the RealHighway, codenamed Project 0E.

The implementation of Project 0E efforts would certainly merit an RealHighway Version x.0 release designation.  But the implementation of the "monolithic NAM" concept means that the RHW would be fully subsumed by the NAM Core--it wouldn't be RealHighway Version x.0 but a feature of new NAM version instead.  (The same thing would happen for the NWM, SAM, RAM, and most other RUL-bound projects.)

-Alex

I think that a monolithic NAM is a good idea, provided that you can choose which components and options you want when installing. I use all the NAM components except SAM, so I'd want to be able to deselect the SAM option.

Either way, any changes made to the NAM can only improve it.