RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

Had a thought - with the FLEX Height Transition, are the same processes applicable to things such as RHWxRHW overpasses for tight spaces where you can't easily have a stable override?

Such as, you have a L1MISxL0RHW4 pice that you plop down, but dragging L2MIS to the L1 makes it L2xL0, etc.?

In theory, you could.  But in practice, it wouldn't be the best use of resources.

Firstly, if such a piece were to exist, it'd have to be very generalized, or else we'd blow through the allotment of viable "false intersection" triggers for those cases pretty quickly, with all the network combinations we have.  Doing just two levels, by my calculations, you'd be looking at 100 FLEX pieces, if making a network specific setup like you've described. 

Beyond that, you'd be duplicating a setup that can be built through draggable means, whereas the best use of FLEX items and "false intersection" triggers is for things that can't be built through draggable means, but require the flexibility of an override setup.  Additionally, because of the additional FLEX pieces that'll be available, plus advances in override techniques that will allow for some previously very difficult setups to become much more stable, such pieces would quickly devalue within the RHW ecosystem.

Now, with regards to Half-SPUIs, they seem to be a fairly rare occurrence.  Right now, the design of FlexSPUI isn't particularly conducive to making them, so it'd require a little further investigation.

Speaking of FLEX items, while I may not have a video to share, I do have an image of a "Secret Weapon" that is particularly applicable to this discussion.



Merry Christmas to all the NAM users out there.

-Alex

[gn_leugim]

Fle-Hill-transitions-ex?  nice 

Happy holidays for you too

[sim_link]

Holy Flex-Transitions - awesome. This will really simplify the building process. Great work! 

[GDO29Anagram]

I think you know where this is going.

Fist, the FlexFly, then the FlexSPUI, then the FlexRamp, then the Flex-Height-Tansition, and now the Flex-OnSlope-Transition.

[sunv123]

What's next? FlexTunnels? Flex must be the "new" word.

[Kitsune]

I think you know where this is going.

Fist, the FlexFly, then the FlexSPUI, then the FlexRamp, then the Flex-Height-Tansition, and now the Flex-OnSlope-Transition.

Flex-Transitions?

[ivo_su]

I have a suggestion concerning the label of Alex (Tarkus) - I suggest to be replaced by Mr. Puzzle Piece to the Mr. Flex Pice
Otherwise, the pictures look more promising. When everything is ready, it will be really great for us ordinary users.

[chosenreject]

 Flex / Alex ?? hmmm this is like the National Treasure movies. there are codes within codes!

[GDO29Anagram]

What's next? FlexTunnels? Flex must be the "new" word.

It's more of a new standard; Otherwise, we'd have to make 300+ new puzzle pieces, the majority of which are more or less identical to one another. The idea of FlexRamps has been around probably since Version 5 development, and it's an upgrade from using Version 4's DRIs in that FlexRamps have slope-tolerance and are what I call a "One-size-fits-all" solution (or rather a "one-piece-fits-all" solution).

It's also a lot more elegant than what the old-school ramps needed; Just one FlexRamp type needs only one block of INRUL-14 code, and only a handful of RUL-2 code per network, whereas the old-school ramps needed the same amount of RUL-0 code repeated over and over. Plus, who'd wanna tab through 300+ pieces?

BTW, this principle is theoretically expandable to accommodate for all types of puzzle pieces, except for pieces that need higher levels of intricacy and fine detail (CPs).

And no, tunnels are at best unworkable.

Flex-Transitions?

They've been revealed already, but I suspect you mean width transitions. There's currently nothing solid for that yet. Remember, there are three kinds of transitions:

- Height Transitions (Alex calls them Ramp-styled transitions, but I call them Height Transitions to differentiate from Ramp Interfaces.)
- On-Slope Transitions
- Width Transitions
- (There's technically a fourth one, but they're just called Curves; Directional Transition, in case you were wondering.)

hmmm this is like the National Treasure movies. there are codes within codes!

inb4 Codeception. All I can say is that the code is very tricky to decipher (there are a LOT of numbers). Besides, the most you'd find are the comments that are left there for reference.

[sunv123]

As in Flex Tunnels, i was sort of pointing to Flups Tunnels. Like the network could have a transparent texture. Now that i think about it, it sort of seems like a useful thing for realism. Then again, you caan't reallyu see what's going on with it, because it's transparent. Just an idea. I don't expect you guys to go all out on this, even more start developing it.

I think that i'll just use Blahdy's Big dig projects.

[GDO29Anagram]

As in Flex Tunnels, i was sort of pointing to Flups Tunnels. Like the network could have a transparent texture. Now that i think about it, it sort of seems like a useful thing for realism.

And the following explains why there are no plans for adding such a network, and why no such network has ever been added:

- Use of an ORN (Override Network) to simulate an underground network, the "above" stuff: First issue is exactly that: You can't see anything. However, take the Big Dig, for example. There's a park directly over the tunnel. To satisfy people who want that to be recreated, there would have to be a transparent network and a non-transparent network.

- Implementation: Second issue is that you need to make one underground network for each network. There are 11 "primary" RHW networks. We've just finalised the entire RHW IID scheme a long time ago, and we can't add in any new networks. Besides, it's already been decided that no new RHW networks are to be added (save for the 12S, 10C, and the ultra-wides).

- UGORN (Underground Override Network) versus FLUPs: You have a network in which you can't see any indication of its presence, and you have a lot of them, versus a multi-purpose underground network puzzle piece set. The FLUPs were specifically designed to work with every network, and because it's all underground (and on top of that, bidirectionally pathed), you don't need to make FLUP pieces for every network (except for the entrance pieces) or even an override network for each network. And yes, it satisfies the condition of having transparent and non-transparent pieces. This is exactly why the FLUPs have long-since overtaken the idea of an UGORN.

- History: Back in RHW's version 1 era, there was such a plan on adding an underground RHW-4, along with DDRHW-4 (although this prototype was RHW-based). That idea was scrapped in favour of using FLUPs instead.

[sunv123]

Still, there is a big downside to it, and that is that you can't do anything over it. With the transparent texture, you could do anything over it, no just having a blank space on top of it.

[dragonshardz]

FLUPS have a transparent piece and you can do things over them with overhanging models.

[kbieniu7]

Hi!
I have an idea for a new junction piece, useful when less space avaible. Well, nothing "brand new", probably more cosmetic. Just a little suggestion for indefinite future

[img]http://i443.photobucket.com/albums/qq160/kbieniu7/Beznbsptytu1420u_zps844ee2bd.png[img]

[GDO29Anagram]

I have an idea for a new junction piece, useful when less space avaible. Well, nothing "brand new", probably more cosmetic.

It's essentially a glorified 6S E1 ramp combined with a MIS to RHW-4 transition. The offramp version doesn't fit the ideals of what some want out of an exit ramp, and the onramp version is where the redundancy comes in.

Since it's a 6S E1 ramp combined with a MIS to RHW-4 transition (for the record, the OWR-1 to OWR-2 transition can be used here), it would effectively take up the same space as the proposed piece. The proposed piece is two pieces combined into one, which is redundant to make when the existing pieces to make the same setup already exist.

In short, too specialised and fairly redundant.

[Strife]

hi

im looking for some advice about making parallel ramps with RHW, i used to make some of them with MHW but now i want to try it with RHW, seems to be an easy way to make connections with these networks since im still new with RHW. i have seen some guides about interchanges or other things for RHW but nothing about parralels. im trying to make something like this:



but as you can see the connection between the parallel OWR and the ramp isnt smooth at all, is there any mod or something to make those Y intersections with roads smoother, or anyone knows any other way to make parallel entrance/exits with RHW and OWR?

[sunv123]

There's only one way that doesn't look like that and that is by turining the OWR to RHW 4 and making a ramp there. Some cosmetic mods make it a little better, but it can't make it look "smooth" Links to them below.

http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2589 WINDOWS
http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=2590 MAC OS
http://sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=1526

[GDO29Anagram]

but as you can see the connection between the parallel OWR and the ramp isnt smooth at all, is there any mod or something to make those Y intersections with roads smoother, or anyone knows any other way to make parallel entrance/exits with RHW and OWR?

The better alternative is to take out a small section of OWR and replace it with an RHW-4 A1 Inside Ramp.

[roadgeek]

FLUPS have a transparent piece and you can do things over them with overhanging models.

 

Now, if only FLUPs had open air pieces, I would really be in business, especially with the space between frontage road and MHW or RHW.

[roadgeek]

There's only one way that doesn't look like that and that is by turining the OWR to RHW 4 and making a ramp there. Some cosmetic mods make it a little better, but it can't make it look "smooth" Links to them below.

And then what we need is RHW6S to OWR-3 and RHW8 to OWR-4, and, and, and RHW10S to OWR-5....yeah, I know, NAM32.