RHW (RealHighway) - Development and Support

[Tarkus]

The DDRHW already supports inside ramps, though they're not the easiest to construct.  You can use the existing DRI or FLEXRamp setups to get them, though as there's no code at present to allow the DDRHW-4 to override the MIS that comes out either end, you'll need to have a DDRHW-4 starter right next to the the ramp setup, which will initiate the override.

The C networks technically do have an inside setup--the RHW-6C D1 Dual Shift Inside, which splits the inner lanes of the 6C into an RHW-2, with the outer lanes becoming RHW-4.  It's one of the few non-deprecated puzzle-based ramps left in the system, though it is planned to receive the FLEX treatment in the future.

The FLEXHeight technically isn't a puzzle piece--it's a FLEX piece.  As far as its side-demolishing behavior, I haven't really investigated it.  It wouldn't surprise me if the particular RUL1 setup used for the override initiation on one or both ends had something to do with it.  It's probably advisable to use the Disconnector on it instead of the normal Bulldozer tool, anyway.

-Alex

Edit: I've just added some additional overrides to allow the DDRHW-4 to run over the base MIS that the A1/B1 Inside ramps spit out by default, so the DDRHW-4 Inside A1/B1 setups will be a lot easier to use with NAM 36.

[Wiimeiser]

Thanks for that, it'll make things much easier.

I'm aware of that piece. When a FLEX version appears there might have to be RHW-8 support as well.

As for the FLEXHeight issue, I noticed if you demolish the top part, sometimes the bottom turns into what appears to be a perpendicular straight rail. I read that rail used in this manner also appears to be what causes the "infinite construction sounds" glitch, though figuring out exactly how it works would require some sort of memory viewer...

EDIT: This is causing me no end of trouble. Random stability or no, the rail seems to be a big culprit here.

This is the rail piece I was referring to.

[b22rian]

This is quite the interesting error your reporting here..

I do not think i have ever seen that rail piece pop up like that ..

But when you say "demolish" i assume your still than using the bulldozer rather than the preferred  RHW Disconnector Tool. I would tend to use in such a complex RHW set up ?

[mgb204]

This is one of those setups where a brief understanding of RUL2 code, and how it works illuminates the problem. The sheer number of different crossings stacked together make this a hugely complex setup, one that the code simply can not handle. The real problem though is the Road 7.5m overpass next to the road over rail piece. I'm guessing code simply doesn't exist for those two pieces to exist right next to each other. If it were just those two with some gaps either side, you might be able to lock in the override, but with other crossings on either side, it's never going to work. Because the code needs to be there not for a simple overpass segment, but for the road over rail to fit next to a L1 4-way road intersection. Not to mention all the other stability code needed to make it work.

Since that code is quite specific, coupled with the rather unconventional design of your network, the only solution is to use a workaround. My advice would be to move the rail one tile over, to give a single tile gap between it and the elevated roadway that currently runs parallel to it and the L1 RoadxMIS intersection. You will additionally need a L1 Road starter in this gap, to have any chance of making it work. However done this way it will stabilise (tested). Realistically speaking that's the only way you are going to get anything like this to work.

[Wiimeiser]

Actually, that elevated road was just an attempt at a workaround, it was supposed to go under.

[mgb204]

How about thanks for taking the time to look at the problem? Or yeah, maybe you are right, I just need to accept a gap needs to be here. If you are wondering why you keep failing, it might be because you are too inflexible?

[Wiimeiser]

Sorry, thanks for looking into it. I'll just move the road between the highway and rail so it merges with the road on the other side.

EDIT: Done

[roadgeek]

Are there any proposed U-Turns in the works.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/75+Parker+Rd,+Plano,+TX+75023/@33.0376027,-96.70462,193m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c1854b4df77ed:0x4ffbf693fcfc997f!8m2!3d33.0380466!4d-96.7065124

Moved out of the dead NAM OSITM thread from a year ago. -Tarkus

[Tarkus]

In the works, no, but it is something under consideration down the line.

-Alex

[Wiimeiser]

The two features of that SPUI (U turns and no corners, the other underpasses can just be done with MIS) are probably things you could quickly code up while redoing the FlexSPUI code (if it's not being done this version, that is)

Maybe Quarter-SPUI pieces could be a thing? Would that be possible?

EDIT: Maybe even MIS and 6S support for ramps? Of course, that's wishful thinking...

[nighthawk9008]

I think it would be cool if the NAM team was able to bring multiple selective highway textures for all the roads, because not all the roads in the world are freshly paved. I know its probably not possible, though (graphics glitching & crash to desktop issues). If i could find a Rural Highway 1.x  download, i would like that just for the classic texture

[APSMS]

I think it would be cool if the NAM team was able to bring multiple selective highway textures for all the roads, because not all the roads in the world are freshly paved. I know its probably not possible, though (graphics glitching & crash to desktop issues). If i could find a Rural Highway 1.x  download, i would like that just for the classic texture

Yes, well... The resident texture maker has since retired to ETS2 (is that really a retirement?) and since texture creation is very time consuming, aside from basic euro texture compatibility all texture options are on the back burner. You are welcome to create you own set of textures. The NAM team is very supportive of these efforts and provide support where needed, though in that case having a proof of concept is usually a good place to start.

There really just isn't enough manpower to work on cosmetic requests given all the moving parts and coding that goes into the NAM, but new contributions and development are never a bad thing.

[Wiimeiser]

Would it be worth making the future FlexSPUI revamp only a quarter of an interchange instead of a half?

Also wouldn't hurt to make variations with U-turns and/or only inside turns, I guess?

[Tarkus]

The quadrant idea has been considered, given there are an increasing number of "Half SPUIs" out there--I know of one in Washington, and have recently discovered a couple (which don't even have a highway overpassing them) in Arizona.  The trick is to figure out just how the implementation would work.  It would more than likely throw a big wrench into the FlexSPUI revamp that's been underway since the NAM 35 cycle, however, due to the asymmetry.

-Alex

[Wiimeiser]

I more thought of the quadrant idea because someone else requested U-turns, and there's also the odd case of inside turns only.

[Kitsune]

I understand the quick interchange thingie is still several cycles away however are there plans to put incoporate a 8s d1 into that project ?

[Tarkus]

The QuickChange (QC) and QuickChange Xpress (QCX) setups are all built using the existing FLEX items, so whatever you can do with the FLEXRamps and FLEX Height Transitions can also be done with QC and the future QCX.  The design of the QCX setups has not been finalized, but at least at ground level, you should be able to use an RHW-8S D1 setup in some fashion.  The L1/L2 networks don't support the standard D1, due to the overhang on the RHW-6S elevated models, so there'd have to be some sort of other variant to handle them. 

I have actually been considering making some of the QCXs use new FLEX versions of the Type C or F ramps for a number of reasons, one of which being that it would avoid this issue.

-Alex

[Kitsune]

ok ... as yeah that no d1 makes the elevated 6s harder to use. I've tried doing the wide d1 and the pieces just end badly aligned and I assume not supported.

[Haljackey]

It seems stage to me that the new curve pieces are smoother than the fractional angle pieces:


Also original cloverleaf compared to my newest interchange:

[Tarkus]

12 years ago today, on November 16, 2005, the first release of the now-RealHighway package hit the web.  Here's to many more.

-Alex