RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[zakuten]

Apparently though they announced it's gonna be a v3 instead, though

[Tarkus]

You mean there wont be a RHW 2.1...
So, this is the RHW 3.0? 

Apparently though they announced it's gonna be a v3 instead, though

Indeed it is.  I was wondering when someone was going to notice.

I figured there were enough changes in this upcoming version that jumping it all the way up to "3.0" was warranted.  I never really liked the existing numbering system as it had no real sequential logic.  The fact that the first version was actually "Version 12" has kinda bothered me for some time now--though there's been a variety of different placements for the decimal point for awhile now.  I've seen Version 2.0 called "2.0", "20", and "0.20" by various folks.  Putting the decimal point in the middle makes the initial version "1.2", which makes a good deal more sense, and calling my initial "bugfix" releases "1.3" also seems logical.  

And given that "2.0" was really the "next generation" (compared to the "1.x" releases) with the introduction of the MIS, it seems logical that the introduction of the Elevated RHW and MIS, along with the (orthogonal-only) RHW-8 and 10, should warrant a "next generation" version number as well.  Plus the "RHW Team" (really a subset of NAM Team members) has changed over the various versions.

So the decimal point being in the middle is now officially standardized.    And, like zakuten, you're free to just call it "RHW Version 3".  

And sorry for the numbering excursion there . . . hope that makes some sense at least.

Before I release Version 3, though, I need to get the next Alpha build done for the NAM Associates to give a test.    

-Alex (Tarkus)

[un1]

Before I release Version 3, though, I need to get the next Alpha build done for the NAM Associates to give a test.   

-Alex (Tarkus)

Aww  , we have to wait that long? Well can't wait for the teasers from the NAM Associates. 

-un1

[Patricius Maximus]

All hail RHW v3.0!

I like the new numbering. It is logical. It would also be logical to call the newer, smaller releases in the future 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and so on (unless one of them is revolutionary  )

Just one more alpha build? I feel more jittery than ever.

[Tarkus]

Just one more alpha build? I feel more jittery than ever.

It's possible, but it's likely that it may require more, depending on the number of issues still present in the next Alpha Build.  Version 20 went through probably about 10 or 11 alpha builds (the last few were daily builds). 

And yes, it's likely the one after 3.0 will be 3.1.  (Just like the long-running Windows version from the early-90s. ) 

-Alex

[nerdly_dood]

All hail the occasional name change!

So was it supposed to be called RHW v2.0 all this time, with v1.7 canceled, or what? These numbers are somewhat confusing... 

But hey, only one [i think] more alpha build to go1 Can't wait for v3.0 (or is it v.30?)

[Haljackey]

I'll have to get used to this new name change. 

Having followed this project from its birth, I am very accustomed to the numbering system.  Going from 0.20 (Yes, the current version is 0.20, but is also referred to version 20) to 3.0 is quite a change.

So I take it that,
-The "1's" (Version 0.12, 0.13, 0.13A, 0.13B and the canceled 0.17) are considered the first generation. 
-The "2's" (version 0.20) introduced the new puzzle piece overrides and MIS
-The "3's" (upcoming version 0.21) take it one step further by going wider and elevated.

IMO, version 0.21 should be in the "2's" category mainly because it hasn't nearly evolved enough to be in its own class.  Version 0.20 did turn the side-by-side drag method of the ANT into starter pieces, which certainly made it in a class of its own.  Version 3 should further expand on this (for instance, eliminating the need for ramp puzzle pieces, draggable overpasses or something like that). Version 0.21 still uses the technology in version 0.20 (call it "2.1" if you will) but applies much more with the addition of content.  To me, it's just not enough to call it 3.0 at this time, but we'll see what Alex has up his sleeve before I draw any conclusions.

Just my thoughts on the matter.  It will take a while to get the new numbering system to stick, but in all honesty it makes sense.

Best,
-Haljackey

[zakuten]

Also, what was this cryptic response I got over at the NWM about the possibility of Super-2 limited-access functionalities? A glimmer of hope there? 

[SusanMarie1956]

I hate to nit-pick, but on the info screen at the top of each page should read:

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS--Version 2.0 is no longer available

instead of :

CURRENT PROJECT STATUS--Version 2.0 publicly available (see below for download link).  Patch for Version 2.0 (fixes several paths, including Rail-over-RHW-4 and the OWR/MIS +-Intersection) available as well (see below for download link). 

Yes, Tarkus, we are watching and waiting patiently. I've got a major freeway area just waiting to be rebuilt. The dreams of constructions, the agony of traffic congestion. How glorious it will be.

[nerdly_dood]

@ Zakuten: A while back Tarkus showed some MIS ramp interfaces for RHW-2 - and by that i mean that you could use RHW-2 as a super-2 without a center division. Or you could use MIS as the highway itself for a divided super-2 and use the MIS splits as ramp interfaces.

[j-dub]

 

Don't worry, this won't say that for long, thanks for spotting it for us.

[zakuten]

@ Zakuten: A while back Tarkus showed some MIS ramp interfaces for RHW-2 - and by that i mean that you could use RHW-2 as a super-2 without a center division. Or you could use MIS as the highway itself for a divided super-2 and use the MIS splits as ramp interfaces.

Yep, that's perfect! The super-2's I've been on had no center division, so I was looking for something like MD route 90, so yeh, those ramp interfaces would be perfect~

[Patricius Maximus]

To clarify the versions and groups:

[tabular type=2]
[row][head]Group[/head][head]Versions[/head][/row]
[row][data]1[/data][data]1.2, 1.3[/data][/row]
[row][data]2[/data][data]2.0[/data][/row]
[row][data]3[/data][data]3.0, 3.1[/data][/row]
[/tabular]

That is, as far as I know of. 3.1 is scheduled according to Tarkus, so I included it in.

And the decimal point is in the middle in 3.0 and 3.1, and it is retroactive across all versions.

Hope this clarifies it.

[toxicpiano]

what  was version 1.0 then or was that internal?

[darraghf]

I have 3 questions,

Does "orthogonal only" mean straight, not curved?

What's and alpha build?

and,
How long does an alpha build take?

[JoeST]

darraghf:

1. orthagonal means straight but not diagonal
2. alpha build is a test copy that is unreleased to the public
3. it takes however long it takes to sort out all the bugs

joe

[BigSlark]

An Alpha build has almost everything that will be released to the public, the Alpha Testers basically find the bugs, report the bugs, see if the bugs have been fixed, and report back. Sometimes that cycle takes a little while, especially with a project as large as RHW 3.0.

That said, I think its getting pretty close...

Cheers,
Kevin

[Tarkus]

what  was version 1.0 then or was that internal?

To my knowledge, there never was a 1.0.  qurlix just sort of started the numbering at a somewhat random point when he released the first version.  So 1.2 is sort of technically 1.0, but since the "12" moniker has been applied to it, calling it "1.2" makes the most sense.  No need for heavy revisionism, just a little flexibility with the decimal point.

Oh, and I've successfully fixed the issue that necessitated Haljackey's "How to Make Tighter Curves" guide.  No workarounds needed now.

How long does an alpha build take?

Well, the time between Alpha Build 01 and Alpha Build 02 of RHW Version 3.0 was actually about 5 months--long story I won't get into here.  But Alpha Build 03 will arrive much sooner, and any remaining Alpha Builds after that will likely be "quickies" to fix a few (hopefully) small bugs the testers find in the final go-overs.  Gotta make sure this stuff is safe for public consumption.

-Alex (Tarkus)

[metarvo]

Gotta make sure this stuff is safe for public consumption.

Take your time, Alex.  I'll try to be ready for it when it's ready.  If all of the bugs are worked out beforehand, then you probably won't get as many "Why won't this work right?" questions. 

[sim-al2]

Personally, I would take a longer release time over something with a bug that keeps you from using the new features.