RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Gugu3]

Nice to hear we will finally have the RHW 6s bridge released!!!
regarding the flexy fly..of course having a RHW4 flexy fly would be fantastic but maybe Alex is right...45degree EMIS comes first...
anyway nice to hear about all this implementations
Thank you for what you do guys!SC4 is another game thanks to you!

[GDO29Anagram]

One of the things to account for, especially with the Multi-Height System, is that just saying ERHW or EMIS is completely ambiguous; How tall is it when you have up to four different kinds of tall?

That's why I emphasise the importance of saying the height level, such as L1 RHW-2, or L2 MIS.

[kj3400]

Or at least use the heights, like 7.5 m, 15 m, 22 m, and....um...
What are the heights for the multilevel RHW again?

[GDO29Anagram]

That's what L1 through L4 represent: 7.5 meters, 15 meters, 22.5 meters, and 30 meters.

[Tarkus]

I and I guess many others are disappointed by this turn of affairs, mainly by postponing the development of FlUPS models by Matt and Flex Fly RHW-4.

On the FLUPs side, I think when you see what we have planned, you'll understand the reason for the delay.

  Others for which I apologize is Alpha Build process. Now you have to Alpha Build 3, but what are the indices and indicators that distinguish Alpha Build 4 of 5? Have you pre-set goals and then achieve them close this time and pass to the next. Example
Step 1 - Design
Stage 2 - textures
Stage 3 - path
Stage 4 - RULs

The goals depend really on the general trajectory of development.  Because of the revamping of the specs, there hasn't really been cause to release a new build to the Associates.  The goal I have for Alpha Build 04 is to have the L1 RHW-2 in a more or less working/complete state.  That may entail getting the other networks into minimum working condition, so as to test RHW x RHW crossings involving the L1 RHW-2.  The subsequent builds will probably gradually ramp up the other networks into more completed states. 

I'd still say we're looking at about a 20 build process.  We've designed things so that we can have a more controlled and methodical rebuilding of P57, however.

I'm so happy we're getting a 6S bridge!  Cramming a large freeway down to a -4 just doesn't feel realistic.  Does the bit about he -8S and -10S mean you're going to try to get them into this release or don't hold your breath until NAM32?

There will be at least something on the 8S and 10S, as well as the RHW-3.  It might be plain (e.g. just porting the standard elevated models over), but it'll get the job done.  6C and 8C will most likely end up being DBE-style, and I'd say those are less certain for this next release.

-Alex

[Kitsune]

At this point in the re-development, we're basically putting together a template.  Once it's solid and finished without errors, it can be copied to the other networks and other heights with mainly the use of the Find/Replace function.  Other minor additions, subtractions, and edits have to be made, especially when the RHW-2 code gets ported to the RHW-4.  Certain changes have to be made to account for the asymmetry, but those changes can carry over to every other asymmetrical network (all of them except the 6C/8C/10C Median).

A 10C network? A freudian slip?

[Tarkus]

Nothing Freudian about it.  We've designed the P57 specs to handle them from the start to support an RHW-12S and an RHW-10C, which share an inner tile with the 8S/10S and 6C/8C, respectively.  I don't know that the 12S and 10C networks will make it into the NAM 31 release, but the groundwork will be in place. 

-Alex

[Haljackey]

This project has become fantastically complicated, at least if you compare it to the 'good old days'. Its becoming a bit of a challenge to keep track of all the stuff you guys are creating.

Excellent work, and keep it up!   

[GMT]

dunno if this has been asked before, but do we get more flexibility when building diagonal RHW networks? like more transitions and on/offramps for 6, 8, 10?

[Tarkus]

There will be further improvements to diagonal functionality, but I'm not sure as to just what we'll have with respect to transitions and ramp interfaces at this point.

A few overpasses knocked out before bed . . .





These guys still need to be stabilized a bit, but they're there.

-Alex

[wschmrdr]

This project has become fantastically complicated, at least if you compare it to the 'good old days'. Its becoming a bit of a challenge to keep track of all the stuff you guys are creating.

Excellent work, and keep it up!   

I think this is why we have seen creations of "cheat sheets", such as the Periodic Table of Interchange Ramps. You've helped quite a bit, too, as sometimes there are special tiles needed to create the interchange intersections themselves, such as the diverging diamond or the FlexSPUI, as well as the need for the other levels to complete things such as Stack Interchanges.

These pictures are looking good, Tarkus!

[epicblunder]

There will be at least something on the 8S and 10S, as well as the RHW-3.  It might be plain (e.g. just porting the standard elevated models over), but it'll get the job done.  6C and 8C will most likely end up being DBE-style, and I'd say those are less certain for this next release.

Excellent!   

Time to start planning for that in my fresh layouts from here on out.  Even the bare-bones level bridge for any new networks would make me exstatic.   

[wallasey]

I dunno about anyone else, but I am really looking forward to see how this excellent work is incorporated into peoples cities. It's going to be an interesting time!

[noahclem]

Great work again Alex 

I dunno about anyone else, but I am really looking forward to see how this excellent work is incorporated into peoples cities. It's going to be an interesting time!

That is exciting! And one of the best things about the next release is that some of the things that make such a drastically expanded system reasonably manageable should actually make it a lot easier for people to get into than previous, simpler RHWs. Draggable diagonals alone is just huge!

[GDO29Anagram]

I think this is why we have seen creations of "cheat sheets", such as the Periodic Table of Interchange Ramps.

The story behind the Periodic Table of RHW RIs came about because I wanted to name all of the ramps that were named "splitters", and I wanted to display continuity between what are now the A/B/C/D/E/F-1 Ramps with all other ramps. Since then, it's become the standard of how all ramps are named.

Therefore, calling it a cheat sheet is just an understatement: It's how it's done, plus it makes for a great assignment.

[gn_leugim]

yes indeed, adding the new multi height system and a way stable way to just drag stuff out will make highway constructions way better, simple and easier and also more realistic 

[Patricius Maximus]

I appreciate all the new developments with the overpasses. You're laying a terrific foundation that will, after this relatively more difficult stage, bear fruit with the P57-era EMIS, ERHW-4, and ERHW-6, for L1, L2, L3, and L4. That's a big lineup in and of itself.

I have a question about the RHW-10C. I assume that it is still a 3-tile network, since 4 tiles would make it redundant with the 10S. The RHW-8C already takes up all the space available with 3 tiles, so to keep the 10C within 3 tiles I assume you're going to use an overhang for the shoulder similar to how the RHW-6S is arranged. Could any of you insiders confirm this? I also assume that the 12S would function in the same way, since the 10S likewise takes up all available space.

I like to think about the far future of the RHW, what could be termed "advanced research" when it comes to RHW networks and features. I was thinking that 3-lane ramps (RHW-6S or MIS-3), such as for high-capacity diamond interchanges*, will certainly feature in releases down the road. I for one could use such high-capacity ramps in my own regions. You can have such ramps now, but there are no Type X3 splitter pieces yet, rightly so because only the RHW-12S can support them, barring "inverted" ramp splitters. So, you have to expand a RHW-4 ramp to create one. I've tried to do this and this is one area that really needs to be worked on at some point.

For one, Type X3 ramps and the RHW-12S will be prerequisites. Secondly, to intersect with a surface street (presumably an avenue or wider NWM network), it would have to transition to a OWR-3, and the transition between the RHW-6S and the OWR-3 is rather clunky and just looks weird intersecting with an avenue. Perhaps at-grade intersection capabilities will eventually be given to the RHW-4 and 6S, but in any case TuLEPs will be very useful. Something similar exists for the RHW-6S, in the form of a cosmetic piece for the 6S Type x2 splitter. The only problem for using this for diamond interchange is because it has no left turn markings. So OWR-3 and/or RHW-6S TuLEPs will need to be designed and built into later releases.

So, you can see that a simple 3-lane ramp intersecting with a surface street will need a lot of work. This is also a brilliant example of how the currents of the RHW, NWM, and TuLEPs converge into a harmonious whole. This concept also intersects with the notion of RHW TuLEPs, NWM TuLEPs (as would be needed if RHW-6S met a TLA-7), and if I'm not mistaken "advanced TuLEPs". The whole thing would entail the creation of a brand-new network, brand-new types of ramp interfaces (the Type x3), and advanced TuLEPs for RHW and NWM networks. Wow.

What's required to construct a 4-lane diamond interchange or a 4-lane SPUI (where two lanes feed into the single intersection and two lanes feed out) is even more nightmarish. As a matter of fact if you run down the list of components needed to build such an interchange in SC4, virtually none of them even exist yet, nor do they come close to existing. In theory the components required would be a surface street at least as wide as a TLA-9, a RHW-8S/OWR-4 transition, cosmetic pieces/advanced TuLEPs for the ramps and surface street, a ERHW-8 to overpass the surface street, a RHW-16S network, and a RHW-16S Type E4 splitter. For a SPUI you could dispense with the TuLEPs, but another FlexSPUI piece would have to be created.

*I encountered one of these while traveling earlier this month. There was a three-lane entrance ramp to a road, and there was also a traffic signal, and I never saw so many green arrows in my life (three of them). Anyway, back on topic.

[wschmrdr]

I think this is why we have seen creations of "cheat sheets", such as the Periodic Table of Interchange Ramps.

The story behind the Periodic Table of RHW RIs came about because I wanted to name all of the ramps that were named "splitters", and I wanted to display continuity between what are now the A/B/C/D/E/F-1 Ramps with all other ramps. Since then, it's become the standard of how all ramps are named.

Therefore, calling it a cheat sheet is just an understatement: It's how it's done, plus it makes for a great assignment.

One other big thing it does is provide organisation which can help city planning. Ever since I've been having traffic problems due to the lack of highways, I've took the time on this region to actually plan it out, and although I decided on the 100-block method, I can not only plan what size highways I want, but also what type of exits to use, which has given me the inspiration for SPUI and volleyball-roundabout hybrid.

[Tarkus]

Thanks for all the kind words, everyone!  Glad you're enjoying the new developments, and I should have more to showcase before much longer.

And Patricius Maximus, those are some very detailed thoughts, which I enjoyed reading.  I'd briefly like to respond to a few points:

I have a question about the RHW-10C. I assume that it is still a 3-tile network, since 4 tiles would make it redundant with the 10S. The RHW-8C already takes up all the space available with 3 tiles, so to keep the 10C within 3 tiles I assume you're going to use an overhang for the shoulder similar to how the RHW-6S is arranged. Could any of you insiders confirm this? I also assume that the 12S would function in the same way, since the 10S likewise takes up all available space.

Yes, I can confirm that the 10C and 12S are set up exactly that way.  Their current state is that there's textures, models and RULs assembled for the base network, but no paths, and the starter pieces haven't been built.  X3 ramps are on the docket for the 12S.

For one, Type X3 ramps and the RHW-12S will be prerequisites. Secondly, to intersect with a surface street (presumably an avenue or wider NWM network), it would have to transition to a OWR-3, and the transition between the RHW-6S and the OWR-3 is rather clunky and just looks weird intersecting with an avenue. Perhaps at-grade intersection capabilities will eventually be given to the RHW-4 and 6S, but in any case TuLEPs will be very useful. Something similar exists for the RHW-6S, in the form of a cosmetic piece for the 6S Type x2 splitter. The only problem for using this for diamond interchange is because it has no left turn markings. So OWR-3 and/or RHW-6S TuLEPs will need to be designed and built into later releases.

The long-term plans have, for years, excluded at-grade functionality for the RHW-6S, and limited it for the RHW-4 (no One-Way Road, Avenue or NWM intersections).  We most likely would have had the RHW-4 intersections in place already if they were on the plans.  However, that part of the plans has been under re-evaluation, and the case you've made about the 6S is intriguing.  The possibility of restricting them to TuLEP situations and not doing draggables also merits consideration, though coupling them with draggables would ease construction. 

Then, there's also things like this [link]--is that an AVE-6, or is it an RHW-6S expressway?  It basically was a semi-rural RHW-4 expressway that, as the town around it grew exponentially in the late-90s, kind of turned into a weird hybrid.  I'd also be really interested in seeing the RL X3 ramp you recently ran across, to study it some. 

-Alex

[Haljackey]

I have a question about the RHW-10C. I assume that it is still a 3-tile network, since 4 tiles would make it redundant with the 10S. The RHW-8C already takes up all the space available with 3 tiles, so to keep the 10C within 3 tiles I assume you're going to use an overhang for the shoulder similar to how the RHW-6S is arranged. Could any of you insiders confirm this? I also assume that the 12S would function in the same way, since the 10S likewise takes up all available space.

Yes the 10C will be an overhanging network like the current 6S. The 12S will as well.

I like to think about the far future of the RHW, what could be termed "advanced research" when it comes to RHW networks and features. I was thinking that 3-lane ramps (RHW-6S or MIS-3), such as for high-capacity diamond interchanges*, will certainly feature in releases down the road. I for one could use such high-capacity ramps in my own regions. You can have such ramps now, but there are no Type X3 splitter pieces yet, rightly so because only the RHW-12S can support them, barring "inverted" ramp splitters. So, you have to expand a RHW-4 ramp to create one. I've tried to do this and this is one area that really needs to be worked on at some point.

3 lane ramps are the maximum width planned for ramp pieces. They will definitely be useful for C/E setups as well as interchanges. If there is a 3 lane ramp connection to a RHW-4, that would indeed be 'inverted' or even be deemed a 'left exit' since more lanes leave the orientation of the highway than stay on.

For one, Type X3 ramps and the RHW-12S will be prerequisites. Secondly, to intersect with a surface street (presumably an avenue or wider NWM network), it would have to transition to a OWR-3, and the transition between the RHW-6S and the OWR-3 is rather clunky and just looks weird intersecting with an avenue. Perhaps at-grade intersection capabilities will eventually be given to the RHW-4 and 6S, but in any case TuLEPs will be very useful. Something similar exists for the RHW-6S, in the form of a cosmetic piece for the 6S Type x2 splitter. The only problem for using this for diamond interchange is because it has no left turn markings. So OWR-3 and/or RHW-6S TuLEPs will need to be designed and built into later releases.

I suppose so. Since you can't make intersections beyond RHW-4 (which itself is rather restricted) you would need to transition to another network in order to make a 3-laned connection. A TuLEP that makes two lanes turn left and one turn right or transition to a slip lane would work best in my mind.

So, you can see that a simple 3-lane ramp intersecting with a surface street will need a lot of work. This is also a brilliant example of how the currents of the RHW, NWM, and TuLEPs converge into a harmonious whole. This concept also intersects with the notion of RHW TuLEPs, NWM TuLEPs (as would be needed if RHW-6S met a TLA-7), and if I'm not mistaken "advanced TuLEPs". The whole thing would entail the creation of a brand-new network, brand-new types of ramp interfaces (the Type x3), and advanced TuLEPs for RHW and NWM networks. Wow.

Brand new network? I think not. These connections just add to the existing networks, and overall it's just the road network anyway. SC4 considers street, road, avenue, OWR, highway and the ANT as the road network with different speeds and capacities. This new creation would just be a mishmash of the existing networks since a new network cannot be created without modifying the EXE file.

What's required to construct a 4-lane diamond interchange or a 4-lane SPUI (where two lanes feed into the single intersection and two lanes feed out) is even more nightmarish. As a matter of fact if you run down the list of components needed to build such an interchange in SC4, virtually none of them even exist yet, nor do they come close to existing. In theory the components required would be a surface street at least as wide as a TLA-9, a RHW-8S/OWR-4 transition, cosmetic pieces/advanced TuLEPs for the ramps and surface street, a ERHW-8 to overpass the surface street, a RHW-16S network, and a RHW-16S Type E4 splitter. For a SPUI you could dispense with the TuLEPs, but another FlexSPUI piece would have to be created.

To be honest here, why would you ever need a 4-lane interchange? Isn't 3 lanes enough in SC4 to recreate real life designs? Making 4 lanes would mean an additional tile and a lot of additional work as a result. You could use a RHW-8S or OWR-4 splitter piece to separate right and left turning traffic to make the design less complex. RHW-16S remains a 'ultra-wide' network, which is possible with the use of filler pieces but isn't planned at this point. These filler pieces could create very wide RHW networks taking up multiple tiles. Remember the RHW-52S Tarkus posted a long while back? (26 lanes on each side )


Anyways hope this helped with your pondering and questions. As I said earlier, the RHW has become fantastically complicated at this point when you compare it to the current and previous releases. Thinking of even more widths and pieces can turn any unknowledgeable person's mind to mush. 

Qurlix never lied when he said the RHW had nearly limitless possibilities, that's for sure! 



EDIT: Looks like Tarkus got back to you before I did. This is without a doubt an interesting discussion that's for sure!