RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[jdenm8]

They don't happen at all here. There is a clear distinction between Motorways (What the RHW tries to simulate) and Surface Roads (TLA).
If you live on a Highway, you drive to the next interchange and turn around.

[MandelSoft]

In Europe, center turning lanes like on the TLA are considered dangerous and are therefore not used. If however the area between the two driving sides is asphalted, there's always a barrier in the center.

Here in the Netherlands they only appear on small stretches, often results of road works. These were ment to direct traffic to one side of the freeway while widening the other side.

Just like in Australia, here in Europe there's a distinct difference between freeways/motorways, highways (these have lower design standards than freeways) and other roads, and this division is often also visible at road numbering: for instance, here in the Netherlands, all freeways are numbered A## and all non-freeway routes are numbered N##.

Best,
Maarten

[banditp61]

This Alex? I live in Colorado. And yes, "TLARHW-5" is fairly common.

I live in Colorado as well, and it's true "TLARHW-5 are found in a lot of places, mostly in business districts of suburbs though. At least that's where I've seen them the most. I don't know what part you are from Ex;a367. I am from the Springs and there's a few "TLARHW-5" around.

To me it would make more sense to just use TLA-5 with a few transition pieces instead of working on a whole new network.

[Exla357]

I'm up in Fort Collins.

The major RL TLA-5 up here is North College avenue. It is a long stretch with just businesses on either side, so accessing those is easy.

But enough on TLA, thats for the NWM thread 

[j-dub]

I don't know how the heck that happened, but I am glad that's over with. However, I have to admit,

some of the lane indicating arrow RHW pieces, do come in handy for both use with ramps, and regular X / T intersections.

[ivo_su]

Much of the arrows in the mark would have tremendous application  in TuLEP's for OWR and not only.

[Twyla]

Sorry if I seem to be posting a lot, but a notion crossed my mind earlier today - one which I would think to be a great boon to RHW users.  The Catch-22, of course, is that I'm not sure if it's something that could be implemented (or how much work it would be if it *is* possible).  My limited knowledge of RULs, coupled with that of RHW's 'drag-a-ramp' capability, is inclined to think it can be.

In essence, it would be a 'master piece' similar to the FlexFly - single lane (ala MIS) for now, though dual lane (ala RHW4) might be in its future. 

The first piece (for proof-of-concept) would probably be a 270° ramp - 9x9 tiles, with the little 'construction site' dead center.  In placement, it would require RHW in the two tiles radially adjoining the ends as in the reference pic below (using RHW-10S):
(Please excuse the crudity of the picture - it's just a quick mock-up for illustrative purposes)

When placed, the 'construction site' would perform two tasks:
~ 1 > Auto-place the appropriate Type-A Ramps (or, possibly, Type-C), connecting the 'FlexFly' piece to both routes (future versions might allow the user to select between A/C Ramps for each connection, similar to the Bridge options)
~ 2 > 'Build' the cloverleaf, using the appropriate pieces to transition between the levels of the two ramps it placed

Again, I'm not certain how readily (or if) this concept could be implemented, but what I understand of it implies that it shouldn't be too onerous a feat.

[GDO29Anagram]

A 270-deg piece...? I thought just plopping three consecutive pieces would suffice already... But if it's going from one height to another, there are already curved Ground to El. Transitions for MIS. Besides, constructing a 270-deg MIS curve out of three curved pieces (RHW Ground Curve or FlexFly) would result in an 8x8 footprint, 17 tiles less than a 9x9 footprint.

The so-called "Drag-a-ramp" (They're called DRIs, Draggable Ramp Interfaces) is currently limited to A and B. I have no idea how the footprint for a C/D ramp would be (No C/D DRIs so far), but it would for sure be involved in connecting three RHW widths together: MIS, RHW(X) and RHW(X-2). I always thought to myself that a B-Ramp would be smoother than an A-Ramp connection, though there are cases where people get around that (Once upon a time, D-Ramps didn't exist). But an auto-build feature for after a specific piece is plopped is in itself a tall order (More like impossible). If I were constructing a cloverleaf, I wouldn't use three 90-deg curves and two A-Ramps for the loops (The exception is if I were dealing with ERHW); I'd use two 45's, one 90, and two B-Ramps. Then again, people have different construction tactics.

Also, the last piece that was 9x9 was the 90-deg rail curve. And even THAT was a nightmare to create.

Maybe if I pull something out from what I told someone else...

Actually, network widening isn't limited to rendering; It's only limited to practicality¹ and realism². Besides, MAVE6 is 6 lanes; Is it all in one direction? This also brings up how an OWR6 can be "theoretically" possible: Same size as a MAVE6, but all the lanes are in one direction. Same can be said for an RHW12S, though with the 12S, you can fit that many lanes into the same space as an RHW8S or RHW10S. At the very least, these networks can have more than five lanes, in ANY size of city tile.

1 - This includes in-game limitations, such as capacity and how big of a footprint such a network would need. Example: The RHW8C was once considered impossible because overhang technology wasn't developed then (Neither were the V5 lane size specifications), and it would've taken up FIVE tiles. Another example: Limitations with the RULs, making the NWM, at the time, incompatible with the RTL.
2 - This reflects on how real-life road systems are used as a benchmark and how close the NAM team can get to that. Example: The reason why the cutoff for OWR is five lanes is because that appears to be the average maximum size for a one-way road (At least in the US). Though there are some cases (Even in the US) where there are six-lane OWRs.

This could also apply to puzzle pieces. A 9x9 piece is just pushing it; Cutting something up into smaller multi-purpose pieces is a lot better than having one big bulky piece with limited usage. Just the size of such a piece already makes it difficult to make.

[Kitsune]

The 270 deg depends on if its transitioned from 0 to 15m from beginning to end... if so it would be a very very nice piece to have.

[riponite]

Yes.  I know I could use something like this if it had a gradual grade differential.   I like your ideas Twyla.  [I wish I had the skills to help out, but alas, I do not.  I can only thank those who do.]

[greckman]

I often browse through the world using Google Earth, and I see 270° grade differential ramps and so I think that would be a very useful piece to have.

[bremner19]

I am soooooo excited for the release!!!!  Wish it was sooner than later.

[jdenm8]

Okay... let's look at the type of intersections that would utilise this piece... The Cloverleaf.

This can already be easily achieved using two FlexFly Type-B curves and the curved MIS to EMIS transition (ala half Cloverfold).



The DRI integration would be impractical. It would make MIS an absolute nightmare and further pigeonhole the piece to Cloverleafs.

[Twyla]

A 270-deg piece...? I thought just plopping three consecutive pieces would suffice already... But if it's going from one height to another, there are already curved Ground to El. Transitions for MIS. Besides, constructing a 270-deg MIS curve out of three curved pieces (RHW Ground Curve or FlexFly) would result in an 8x8 footprint, 17 tiles less than a 9x9 footprint.

A ) Three FlexFly/WA-MIS pieces would be 10x10 (making this smaller than its counterpart by 19 tiles).
B ) The arrangement you listed can be made - HOWEVER, the 3x3 gap remaining is too small for the ramps (the ramps need a minimum of 4 tiles).
C ) And - let's face it - the sudden change in elevation just plain looks bad.  There's already loads of comments about the 15m change in height over such short distances being ugly/unREAListic.  Several comments thus far show a distinct appreciation for being able to graduate the transition over 270° vs 90°.

There's also the general construction to consider...  A common comment/gripe I've seen regarding RHW is the finesse needed to construct various interchanges, mainly due to a the interaction of a few quirky bugs - though I suspect many of those have already been addressed in the forthcoming release.  But it remains that one misplaced piece (which can happen for any number of reasons) can have a player bulldozing the entire interchange and starting over from scratch - an inherent liability to the "No Pre-Fab Interchanges" stance.

The so-called "Drag-a-ramp" (They're called DRIs, Draggable Ramp Interfaces) is currently limited to A and B. ...  But an auto-build feature for after a specific piece is plopped is in itself a tall order

I was mainly referring to the DRI's as an example of how the 'technology' in over-rides was already part of RHW - making this feasible.

As to the configuration...

I was originally working on one intended to match up with the B/D ramps, but the variegation in the leading angles made an attractive cloverleaf close to impossible - mating up to orthogonal connections is far simpler and less 'jarring' transition-wise.

This could also apply to puzzle pieces. A 9x9 piece is just pushing it; Cutting something up into smaller multi-purpose pieces is a lot better than having one big bulky piece with limited usage. Just the size of such a piece already makes it difficult to make.

Judging from the responses thus far, there's a pretty clear interest/demand for such a piece.

I can handle the modelling (and texturing, if desired) no problem.  Might could even manage the pathing, if need be.

[Exla357]

Have fun pathing that thing...and modelling it, and finding room for it

[Tarkus]

Regarding the footprint, I just measured it in-game, and it's actually only 7x7:



The following is extracted from a post I made on the private RHW development thread about 2 years ago:

I've also been thinking that once the loop ramps come into play, it might make sense to divide them into quarter-sections, to allow for maximal modularity, especially since it is looking like the 7.5m (and 22.5m) ERHWs will probably come to fruition.  I'd similarly produce edited/spliced versions of the existing ground-to-elevated transitions.

Here's one such concept I was thinking of:



-Alex

Having a system as shown in the diagram above actually be to the service of not only cloverleafs, but parclos and parallel/frontage interchanges, with a variety of different heights of RHWs and surface networks.

swamp_ig has provided me with his original .max models for the Ground-to-Elevated (15m) Curved MIS Transition, and between that and slicing up the existing non-curving Ground-to-Elevated Transitions, it should be possible to produce such a system built entirely from modified versions of existing parts.  The main reason it hasn't been done yet is lack of time, but I may use the little bit of free time I have tonight to see if I can whip something up along those lines.

Regarding a DRI/Flex-style system, I have some interesting ideas on that front . . . not quite ready to share/reveal those yet, as there still needs to be a viable proof-of-concept before then.

-Alex

[GDO29Anagram]

@Alex:

7x7?

I've been measuring using just the ground WRCs... Forgot the curved transitions were 3x3... Why not 4x4? It would make things uniform, unless you want to try that for the curved L0-L1 and L1-L2 transition. (I would consider it...)

There was one other proposal for a WAVERide-based piece I had in my mind: A "Flex-Transition-Curve", IE, you can drag L0 RHWs under an L1-L2 MIS transition-curve. Such a piece should be 4x4, because it would fall in line in size with the current L2 FlexFlys, and be big enough (and wide enough) for the job. And for an L2-L3 MIS-"TransCurve", you can drag L1's and L0's under it, and for L3-L4, you can drag L0, L1, and L2 under it. Tall order as you go along. (I just pulled all this out of my head. Then again, Multi-height RHW is still a long ways away, how much more to the FlexTransCurve?)

I would imagine fooling around with the FTCs and making a spiral out of them... Then there's the practical spiral: The 270-deg one. (Someone once requested a 720-deg piece, but immediately claimed it would be redundant.)

[ivo_su]

This range looks great and will have significant application in the construction of clovers. I have not tried to see but is it possible for such a circuit using the RHW-4 and how many tiles would eventually took?

- Ivo

[Twyla]

I have not tried to see but is it possible for such a circuit using the RHW-4 and how many tiles would eventually took?

Your basic bare-bones cloverleaf (with existing RHW pieces) is 16 tiles on the grounded path and 18 tiles on the elevated path.


The full interchange (w/straight auxiliary feeds) is 36x36 (not counting the starter tiles beyond the ramps themselves.


With a little finagling, you can squeeze it down into 30x30 (again, not counting the ramps' starter tiles), but this is as compact as a cloverleaf gets with the current RHW.

[ivo_su]

I think you do not think you understood me. These clovers are really great but my question wason the ramps and circles of the RHW-4and not the MIS that you used you . My idea is at the crossing of RHW-8 with ERHW-6 to be used as outputs and connections to wider RHW-4 and not as usual MIS.

Ivo