[GDO29Anagram]

Since 8S and 10S (and an potentially upcoming dual-tile 12S*  ? ) share a common inner tile that isn't part of any of the right hand exits, save splitters involving 6X networks, the modding sounds relatively straightforward.

<snippy snip>

* Is 12S really "ultra-wide"? It would fit on 2 tiles per side and would be necessary in at least a limited form for 10 lane highways to have merging lanes. Because these technicalities are so important 

More importantly, I've been really meaning to comment again on how fantastic all the new stuff is looking. One thing no one's mentioned yet is that the diagonal ANT stability will make dragging diag-RHW-6C a lot easier 

Even I don't know where the line between standard-width RHWs and ultra-wides is (I'm suspecting it begins at 10-something), but I've been in favour of raising the draggability cap to 12S and 10C, simply because there's room on the 8C/10S footprints.

All I can say is that it is (theoretically) possible to go there, but how far until we run into capacity, RULing, and ease-of-construction issues? (There is an established cap, but it's yet to be announced...)

Interestingly, although the 6C and 8C share the same median tile, the 8S and 10S do NOT share a common tile. (An added bonus of P57 is that it removes that 8S/10S inner tile redundancy. Less RULing, pathing, and texturing that way.)

As of the T21 aspect, one could simply reuse Maarten's barriers for the S-networks, but I don't know if it's a single-sided barrier or a double-sided barrier; Somepony would have to ask him about that. They're technically not models, for the record, so I doubt you'd have any graphical bugginess.

As of the 6C diagonality aspect, the footprints are the same as with the AVE-6 (and it's recommended to do it that way); That would equate to a lot of dead space, but it's designed for modularity and smooth transitioning between 6C and 8C, should we ever get to diagonal transitions. The only thing that would make diag RHWs hard to draw is the fact that RHW has this auto-connect feature.

EDIT: Since I started the next page, I added the last post from the last page.

[Moonraker0]

Would it be possible, to make in the center of RHW4, 6S, 8S and 10 crash barriers? Cause in europe in the center of every highway are those.

Yes, there's a mod by Xyloxadoria that adds them.  Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated to cover the cosmetic pieces and draggable ramp interfaces, so those won't have barriers (or lights) on them.

[GDO29Anagram]

Yes, there's a mod by Xyloxadoria that adds them.  Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated to cover the cosmetic pieces and draggable ramp interfaces, so those won't have barriers (or lights) on them.
[/quote]

Those are Jeresy barriers, not Euro crash barriers.

[mike3775]

Tarkus, is that diagonal aspect also going to apply to the MIS ramps as well?

[GDO29Anagram]

Tarkus, is that diagonal aspect also going to apply to the MIS ramps as well?

If you can get multiple DxO and DxD crossings to work for RHW-2 crossings (which, initially, was the goal of all that INRULing), you can override it to apply to all networks.

[Tarkus]

I wouldn't consider the 12S an ultra-wide, at least since the V5-Spec textures came into being . . . I think the redefinition of the 10C would also put it in the standard "wide" category.  "Ultra-wide" means S-type networks that take up 3 tiles per direction, or C-type networks that take up 5 tiles total. 

There's also been the question raised of whether or not S-type networks make sense that wide, again, due to the urban "there's almost certainly going to be a barrier" nature of such networks.  The one example I can find that might merit the inclusion of S-type ultra-wides is at the El Toro Y, the major interchange of I-5 and I-405 in Irvine, CA.  [link].  (Note that all my lane count figures include the HOV lanes.)

As you can see, there's basically an RHW-14 of some sort there with a flyover ramp in the median . . . in actuality, it's an elevated RHW-2 with a center jersey barrier, which acts as the HOV ramps connecting I-405 SB to I-5 SB and I-5 NB to I-405 NB.  The question at that point becomes whether or not this is means it's a RHW-14S flanking an ERHW-2, or if it's an RHW-16C with the center lanes displaced by elevation.  Just south of the El Toro Y, near the Lake Forest Drive interchange, I-5 does actually turn into an RHW-16C (technically, just south of Lake Forest, it's even a 17C due to an additional decel lane).  North of the interchange, I-5 becomes an RHW-8C.

Implementation-wise, if/when we do ultra-wides, the prevailing view from our theoretical development chats in the super-secret private board* has been that we forgo making them draggable, and go puzzle-only.  (And speaking of the cutoff, those of you wanting the infamous RHW-26S of yore will be disappointed. )

Tarkus, is that diagonal aspect also going to apply to the MIS ramps as well?

If you can get multiple DxO and DxD crossings to work for RHW-2 crossings (which, initially, was the goal of all that INRULing), you can override it to apply to all networks.

Yup.  MIS, RHW-6S, and so on.  The floodgates are open.

*There's actually two NAM Private Boards.  One's for the Associates.  There's another "super-secret" developmental board beyond that, where said discussions happened/are happening.

Also, it appears we're on page 500 now and are about to approach the 10,000 post mark.  Thank you everyone for all your support of the RHW project over the past 5 years it's been here at SC4D!

-Alex

[ivo_su]

Congratulations Alex, Ganaram, Maarten, Vince, Andreas and all members of the NAM - nice for us to learn things from your kitchen.
  But I want to throw attention to Something not so important but interesting account of this. RHW page commemorative figure reached 500, but someone thought it is a chance that soon ...
we may have 1 million views as so far only David and his 3RR project. I think that before the release of NAM 31, we will reach one million views on this topic, whether you agree with that?
  I also think that by autumn, RHW will surpass watched, 3RR.

[Indiana Joe]

Also only 13 replies away from 10,000 in this thread.  Congrats guys, thanks for all the hard work, keep it up, all that good stuff. 

[Wiimeiser]

As I said before, definetly do the 12, then vote on the others one at a time until it's accepted you've probably gone a bit too far. That's what I'd do.

[mike3775]

Thats awesome Tarkus.  I was playing around in a test city trying to make interchanges between 3 different RHW-4's and always kept running into the same problem of diagonal/diagonal crossings.

Man that area you posted, last time I was in that area, that was all under construction still(1998).  Amazing how much that has changed  lol

[MandelSoft]

Would it be possible, to make in the center of RHW4, 6S, 8S and 10 crash barriers? Cause in europe in the center of every highway are those.

I've got these kinds of requests quite some times, and it has been a real Brainbuster for me for multiple reasons:

1. I got quite a lot of other plans and projects running at the same time, like my recently released SRM.
2. There are quite a lot of RHW-tiles to cover and I'm not sure it's worth the extra effort with P57 on the way.
3. The orthagonal setups look good, however, the diagonals look really screwy on even the slightest slope.

[MR.Y]

@Maarten: I know, we had this theme before with the diagonal ones, cause of this I ask here at the creators of tne RHW, if they can build RHW4 with crash barriers, so it would be the same work like on tne -C Networks...

[drjumbajookiba]

hey I want to show how DD should look compered to the DDRHW s Curve

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s972_Tdpszo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


plus these are some new ideas if you can intigrated into the RHW system

[GDO29Anagram]

hey I want to show how DD should look compered to the DDRHW s Curve

I had a ramp chart that took into account every possible ramp configuration for every RHW network. If anything, the most basic configurations should be there. There were a number of TOTSO's in your vid, but integrating them is yet to be determined.

Additionally, I've found the following in your vid:

 - DDRHW-4 Smooth Transition - Requires models for an ERHW-4 S-curve first.
 - DDRHW-4 DDA1? - Requires DDMIS, which doesn't sound very practical as a full-fledged network. Alternative is to use a single DDRHW-4 A1 inside ramp for one deck, an A1 outside for the other, and well-spaced L2 and L3 MIS.
 - DDRHW-4 WRCs - Models; If we don't have them, we can't make them.

[el_cozu]

who's gonna be Reply 10,000??

[ivo_su]

countdown begins

- 5

[Indiana Joe]

Alright, don't spam it up for the last few posts.  This is about RHW development, it's not the 10,000 post thread.  Besides, Blue Lightning will inevitably get it anyway.

How's stability coming?  I want to see more pretty overpasses please.

(4) 

[ivo_su]

Beautiful overpasses - I think it would be very easy to draft Dexter (Matt) for FLUPs models RHW and NWM. And of course multi-level system of RHW.

- 3

[Tarkus]

To further Indy's call for not spamming, I may as well show a few development pics.

I've begun SAM crosslinkage . . . the ortho continuation stability on the ERHW hasn't been coded yet for this situation, so that's why it drops off to an RHW-2 right now. 



And now, you can have diagonal Elevated Light Rail crossing an ortho RHW-8C, too . . .

Beautiful overpasses - I think it would be very easy to draft Dexter (Matt) for FLUPs models RHW and NWM. And of course multi-level system of RHW.

Matt's already a NAM Team member.  There's something . . . interesting . . . I'm planning for the implementation of those FLUPs portals, when I get to that point.  I'll leave it at that.

-Alex

[ivo_su]

Great work Alex - I like the diagonal crossing lines, with El-RHW-6C.
I long to know about Matt - he's very talented and would be a crime if its FLUPs models were not included in NAM plans.