RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Shadow Assassin]

Heh, thanks, metarvo



This is the hard bit... I hate pathing. :p

[Gugu3]

Daniel the progress with FAR is impressive
Keep it up
Guglielmo

[Geometry123]

CRUEL. JUST CRUEL!!!

You are under arrest by EA for breaking the grid.

[gn_leugim]

CRUEL. JUST CRUEL!!!

You are under arrest by EA for breaking the grid.

your only way to escape prison is to make this plublic available 

[vinlabsc3k]

Amazing job!!! I want it!

[Kuewr665]

Do transit enabled lots for RHW created before conversion to new specs still work? I mean lots like riiga's toll booths.

[MandelSoft]

Yes. I see no way why the would stop working.

[Tarkus]

Thanks to the draggable Road/OWR/AVE viaducts, you'll now have more options yet.  This particular intersection didn't exist with the old puzzle pieces (let alone at L1).



-Alex

[Durfsurn]

Is it me or is that texture a little off? Otherwise GREAT work Alex!

[dyoungyn]

Tarkus,

I can't tell you how excited I am to see this draggable  L1 Road/Ave networks  over for what I hope is also good for RHW as I currently use the Flex Slope L0-L1 piece as a work around but to me defeats the view in the Region View as I want to see all Rd/Ave indicators and not RHW pieces, i.e. for what I define as County highways.

Please do keep up the great work you are doing as it is so truly appreciated.  Break.

One RHW bridge that I have been wanting ever since RHW 3.1 came out is RHW 6C bridge(s).  I hate using the transition piece very time as I really like to keep things tight.

Dyoungyn

[GDO29Anagram]

One RHW bridge that I have been wanting ever since RHW 3.1 came out is RHW 6C bridge(s).  I hate using the transition piece very time as I really like to keep things tight.

There's a sort of 6S-6C paradox that came about when RHW Version 4.x came out: The 6S is now more compact than the 6C, even though the 6C has 50% more capacity and takes up 50% more space than the 6S.

Creating a 6C bridge would be impossible to do in single segments since there's no way to create side-by-side bridges, and the best way to do so would result in a bridge that's 2/3rds functional. The only other possible method to explore would be to employ the Diagonal Bridge Enabler for use with draggable side-by-side bridges, but I've conducted rudimentary tests and found it hard to do.

There's really no other alternative to using the 6S bridge. Unless you were oblivious to the existence of this Dual 6S bridge and instead referring to the single 6S bridges?

http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=990.msg422354#msg422354

[APSMS]

Umm...did I miss the paradox? It seems like that makes complete sense since the 6S is smaller than the 6C. Unless you're referring to intended capacity with the old 2-tile wide 6S versions, which seems like the only advantage would be the interface with the 8S w/o needing the additional tile for accel/decel lanes, but since the 6S is usually used in this fashion by a wide number of users (for whom a RHW-4 is considered a high-speed roadway--sorry, as a Southern Californian I feel uncomfortable driving fast on these types of freeways), it seems like the design choice was a smart one.

Are the S highways supposed to be higher capacity than their C variants?

Also, the main thing that irks me about having to use the transition piece from RHW 6C to 6S is that the puzzle piece is 5x5 not 5x3 (at least for the symmetrical version), which causes problems when I'm trying to build stuff close by. Perhaps an overhang approach would be especially useful in this circumstance? I don't recall any pathing stretching over the middle wide section, which is what struck me as odd and left me thoroughly surprised at the design.

[GDO29Anagram]

Umm...did I miss the paradox?

. . .

Are the S highways supposed to be higher capacity than their C variants?

A single 6S was originally two tiles wide, so a Dual 6S would be 4 tiles wide, hence the creation of the 6C, which was intended to be more compact (hence the C) than a dual 6S by being one tile smaller. Developments of an 8C were more or less resisted because such a network would have to be 5 tiles wide. In fact, one of the first neoprototypes (I'm saying neoprototype because the original prototype 6C's and prototype 8C's actually used the same outer lanes but used different medians) for the 8C wasn't called the 8C, but the 8R. Oddly enough, both the original prototype 6C and 8C had the same three-tile footprint.

It wasn't until RHW Version 4.0 that overhangs were implemented which reduced the footprints of both the then-two-tile 6S and the then-five-tile 8C, which called for a redefinition of what an S and C network was. S stayed the same (separable), but C went from compact to combined, hence the paradox.

In either case, neither the 6S nor the 8C had any capacity advantages over the 6C nor 8S, respectively. Because the shoulders of the 6S and the would-be 8R were unpathed, those unpathed tiles were, from a functionality perspective, fairly useless.

Ironically, even with version 3.x and 4.x, RHWs were more or less wrongly scaled, and RHW version 4.x was when the RHW textures were most overscaled, which led to long-term resistance to implementing a 10C.

There's no common S-C relationship that says that one is more capacious or more compact than the other; in fact, the development of the original 6S and 6C network brought about the ability to have a separable median and a conjoined median; it should never be thought of being where one is more capacious than the other, rather how far or not each half can be separated; I mean, have you ever seen a dual 8S diagonal? If you tried to get them to be as close to each other, there will always be an insanely wide gap between the two halves, and that's occupied by the dead space on the network tiles themselves. There's a similar dead space with the RHW-4 and 6S but it's far smaller. The only way to even it out is to use an 8C or a dual 8S with a one-tile gap.

With the 6S and 6C, the 6S is more compact but the 6C is more capacious, but it's backwards with the 8S and 8C with the 8S being more capacious and the 8C being more compact. The 8S-8C relationship would hold true with the 10S, but despite the magic of overhangs and realising that a third path can comfortably fit on the 8C outer shoulder, the 10S doesn't get a 10C due to aforespoken reasons involving oversizing the RUL-2 file by over 30%.

As with the 6S-6C transitions, it had a completely different development plan; my guess is that it was developed before overhangs were fully integrated, hence the redundant tiles and maybe why its starter is different (yes, there's a completely different 6S starter). In fact, it wasn't until RHW Version 5 that a full-fledged single-tile 6S starter was added; before that, it still used the old two-tile starter (dragging out of the shoulder end was useless but was needed to create the 6S override; the 6S starter at the time was made out of an RHW-4 starter and a 6C median starter and having the 6C starter touching the shoulder of the RHW-4 created the necessary override; having it the other way around would produce two-thirds of an RHW-6C), but oddly enough, the 6S-6C transition was the first piece to use a single-tile 6S starter.

[Kuewr665]

About that... Is the 6S-6C transition with a single tile gap going to be upgraded so it uses overhangs and the single tile RHW-6S starter? I once tried to have a ramp next to that transition but forgot that the piece still does not use overhangs.

[dyoungyn]

I guess the main reason for the RH6C bridges is because 6C  merges in beautifully with AVE6 and works great for 4 leave clover interchanges.  Another thing I love about 6C is the barriers in the middle.  If 6S was to the same and can merge with AVE6 then I would use more 6S.  Which brings up another wish item or can you tell me where I can get such a mod that turns 6S with concrete/barriers in the middle.  I do see them from time to time.  Again, the 6C and AVE6 work great as they both use 3 tiles.  If 6S as the same applies with the barriers using 3 tiles, then 6C in my mind are OBE.

dyoungyn

[Tarkus]

Limited support for diagonal FLEXRamps is on its way.



-Alex

[gn_leugim]

now that will be uber useful   

[Kuewr665]

Woohoo!

[vinlabsc3k]

Limited support for diagonal FLEXRamps is on its way.



-Alex

I want it!!

I use very often RHW2 so for me is very useful.

[Gugu3]

Good to see more progress on the way