Menu

LEX File Exchange
EA Support Files
SC4 Wikipedia
Network Addon Mod
Dependencies
Chat
Welcome to SimCity 4 Devotion. Please login or sign up.

September 25, 2022, 11:00:20 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Downloads

How to create a basic RHW 4C

Started by Will12, January 29, 2012, 02:54:49 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Will12

Ever wanted a RHW 4C? Heres how:
Plop RHW 6C starter piece:

Next drag out the MIDDLE only of the starter piece:

Delete the starter piece:

Plop the RHW 8S starter piece like in the picture:

And drag out the shoulder:

Delete the starter piece. Do the same on the other side:

Drag out the shoulder and delete the starter piece:

It includes ramp interfaces as well but no overpasses or transitions:

Also no CP's or neighbour connections either although freight trucks will work and maybe cars through the middle 2 lanes. Here is a pic of the pathing:

Pretty useless as its 3 tile wide it can't connect seamlessly to any other networks and any over or underpasses but maybe the NAM team can change this or any other modder/texturer. Don't worry about the double lines as that's just a catch of using this system.
Thanks for reading Will12 (Billy)

gn_leugim



riiga

#3
Very useful... or not.  &sly

It's not really a RHW-4C either since it's 3 tiles wide, which is wider than the RHW-4. A C-network has to be narrower than the equivalent S-network.
And not to mention the textures...

Will12

#4
Quote from: riiga on January 29, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Very useful... or not.  &sly

It's not really a RHW-4C either since it's 3 tiles wide, which is wider than the RHW-4. A C-network has to be narrower than the equivalent S-network.
And not to mention the textures...
Oh well maybe RHW 4W (Wide?)?? Textures well...

riiga

Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
Oh well maybe RHW 4W (Wide?)?? Textures well...
Perhaps, but there's a much easier way to make a RHW-4W. Just put two RHW-4 stretches with a one tile gap.

Tarkus

#6
Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 29, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Very useful... or not.  &sly

It's not really a RHW-4C either since it's 3 tiles wide, which is wider than the RHW-4. A C-network has to be narrower than the equivalent S-network.
And not to mention the textures...
Oh well maybe RHW 4W (Wide?)??? Textures well...

After the Version 4.0 release, when the RHW-6S was switched from being a full 4-tile wide network across its full span to being a 2-tile network with an overhang, the official definition of a C-type network was changed from "Compact" to "Combined"--e.g. not separable, and by necessity, carrying traffic in both directions.  The smallest "official" C-type network at present is the 6C, though the argument has been made that the base RHW-2 and 3 networks are technically C-type networks. 

People have been fishing around for some sort of mythical "RHW-4C", and that term has been applied to a wide variety of ideas recently, some of which are quite problematic in terms of implementation, and some have also mistakenly used it to refer to the Maxis Highway revamp that jdenm8 is doing.  The way the tile system works and the way that 4 lane setups lie on it, 4 isn't really conducive to having a C-type network.

This setup sort of meets the definition of a C-type network, but in and of itself, it can't be considered a network--it's a glitch that produces a result that almost looks like one.  While there are paths on it and vehicles can use it, and there are crossover paths, those crossovers don't really line up--one set's derived from the RHW-8S setup, and the other is derived from the RHW-6C.

I wouldn't call this an RHW-4C, or a 4W.  It's a glitch.

-Alex

Will12

Quote from: Tarkus on January 29, 2012, 03:34:41 PM
Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 29, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Very useful... or not.  &sly

It's not really a RHW-4C either since it's 3 tiles wide, which is wider than the RHW-4. A C-network has to be narrower than the equivalent S-network.
And not to mention the textures...
Oh well maybe RHW 4W (Wide?)??? Textures well...

After the Version 4.0 release, when the RHW-6S was switched from being a full 4-tile wide network across its full span to being a 2-tile network with an overhang, the official definition of a C-type network was changed from "Compact" to "Combined"--e.g. not separable, and by necessity, carrying traffic in both directions.  The smallest "official" C-type network at present is the 6C, though the argument has been made that the base RHW-2 and 3 networks are technically C-type networks. 

People have been fishing around for some sort of mythical "RHW-4C", and that term has been applied to a wide variety of ideas recently, some of which are quite problematic in terms of implementation, and some have also mistakenly used it to refer to the Maxis Highway revamp that jdenm8 is doing.  The way the tile system works and the way that 4 lane setups lie on it, 4 isn't really conducive to having a C-type network.

This setup sort of meets the definition of a C-type network, but in and of itself, it can't be considered a network--it's a glitch that produces a result that almost looks like one.  While there are paths on it and vehicles can use it, and there are crossover paths, those crossovers don't really line up--one set's derived from the RHW-8S setup, and the other is derived from the RHW-6C.

I wouldn't call this an RHW-4C, or a 4W.  It's a glitch.

-Alex
What ever you call it I don't mind but I will continue to call it RHW 4C.

riiga

Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
What ever you call it I don't mind but I will continue to call it RHW 4C.
Do so is erroneously and ignorant of the RHW specification.  :thumbsdown:

Will12

Quote from: riiga on January 30, 2012, 12:08:34 AM
Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
What ever you call it I don't mind but I will continue to call it RHW 4C.
Do so is erroneously and ignorant of the RHW specification.  :thumbsdown:
Tarkus says himself that the C means combined not compact. So technically it is 4C

Tarkus

#10
Quote from: Will12 on January 30, 2012, 03:18:05 PM
Quote from: riiga on January 30, 2012, 12:08:34 AM
Quote from: Will12 on January 29, 2012, 09:32:57 PM
What ever you call it I don't mind but I will continue to call it RHW 4C.
Do so is erroneously and ignorant of the RHW specification.  :thumbsdown:
Tarkus says himself that the C means combined not compact. So technically it is 4C

That does not, however, change the fact that this is a glitch that may not function properly, that is produced by putting together pieces of two different starters, that aren't intended to go with one another.  It's pieces of an 8S sandwiching a C-type median.

It's also a bit problematic from the capacity side . . . theoretically, if one were to build a real RHW-"4C" on a 3-tile setup similar to this, it'd end up having the same capacity as a 6C and an 8C.  That's a large part of the reason there isn't a "4C".  It just doesn't fit nicely.

-Alex

Will12

#11
Right. So since its a glitch rather than anything else it's not correct to call it RHW 4C? Thank you Riiga and Alex for explaining this to me andirons sorry  for being arrogant.

apeguy

Just discovered this thread, so I thought I might as well add my bit in. :D

As mentioned by Alex and Riiga, an RHW-4C on a 3-tile-wide setup is impractical, but if an RHW-4C was to made, I see two ways it could be done:

The first is to make it on 1 tile with a slight overhang, similar to the RHW-6S, but with the overhang on both sides, and no hard shoulders. In a way it would be like a higher capacity, RHW version of the NMAVE/NRD-4. But to be honest there wouldn't be much use for that, you could just use NRD-4 or just RHW-3.

The second would be to make a mod that alters the RHW-6C or 8C and changes the number of lanes from 3 (for 6C) or 4 (for 8C) to just 2. Again, it would be wider than the standard RHW-4 and so it wouldn't be much use, but at least it would be fully functional in terms of paths. Something like this would be perfect.


I know I'm a bit late for this discussion, but that's my opinion anyway. :)

The Deltan Empire is here! Click the Banner to have a look! | Kanalka City, Capital of the Barrier Islands

PlayStation Network ID: theapeguy

Kitsune

We need a 5c so we can have seamless exit / entrance / slip lanes with the 4c....
~ NAM Team Member


apeguy

Quote from: Tarkus on February 17, 2012, 11:10:54 PM
Quote from: apeguy on February 17, 2012, 04:24:31 PM
Something like this would be perfect.

My April Fools' Day mod? :D

-Alex


Exactly. It would mean less effort to get a 4C than making a whole new network. ;)

The Deltan Empire is here! Click the Banner to have a look! | Kanalka City, Capital of the Barrier Islands

PlayStation Network ID: theapeguy

Twyla

If there is ever to be an RHW-4C, it would be using the standard C-Type central median with overhanging lanes on both sides - technically a single-tile network.  As the C-Type networks have a capacity of 12,500 per tile (NAM Medium), this would give the RHW-4C a capacity of 12,500.  This is more than single-tile RHW-2's 10,000 and less than dual-tile RHW-4's 20,000.

While all the above works out, I honestly don't see a great deal of application for it.  Only thing that comes to mind would be between 6C-Type E/F ramps (which don't exist yet either).