Show us Your Interchanges!

[Lenzar86 0]

I wish I could get such nice looking junctions! I find that I get 'invalid grade to build' or 'unsuitable to build network', even if I use a slopemod,

What mods are you guys using to get RHW interchanges looking so realistic?

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I find that I get 'invalid grade to build' or 'unsuitable to build network', even if I use a slopemod,

What mods are you guys using to get RHW interchanges looking so realistic?

Creativity, experience, and knowing where to flatten out large plots of land beforehand.

Oftentimes, when you're getting unsuitable grade messages or when you're placing multiple puzzle pieces next to each other, try levelling the ground first.

  Edited April 17, 2012 by Ganaram DI  

[AIX 270]

I wish I could get such nice looking junctions! I find that I get 'invalid grade to build' or 'unsuitable to build network', even if I use a slopemod,

What mods are you guys using to get RHW interchanges looking so realistic?

Having a slope mod often causes that "unsuitable grade for construction" issue because in order to have more smooth (and realistic) slopes, the game needs to be more "strict" about what can be built on what terrain.

If I am building a large freeway junction, I make sure the terrain is totally flat before starting to mitigate this. If you are new to using the RHW, I highly recommend the interchange guide at SC4Devotion. Link --> https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?board=419.0 . It has step-by-steps on numerous interchanges.

[YUUU 65]

[Moskva 75]

I guess most of people here are american. If you actually ask an european (like me) what are the most realistic interchanges, he would say (i would) Maxis ones. Here in Europe space is often limited, or we simply dislike wasting space. Our interchanges are quite compact. However this is also because of the limitations of the RHW. The Maxis ones are just a big well-worked model, meanwhile the RHW is a long list of pieces, and i think you know, the model looks better in the end. This is why i go with Maxis standard stuff, it looks cooler to my european eyes. Surely i guess working with the RHW may be way funnier and satisfactory, but to me there's no discussion on most realistic interchange at the end, always considering my european point of view, of course. To be short, Maxis interchanges are not "to forget" or laugh on it, they can fit very well an european looking city, or at least the mind of an european player.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

To be short, Maxis interchanges are not "to forget" or laugh on it, they can fit very well an european looking city, or at least the mind of an european player.

On the one hoof, that makes for a (somewhat) valid point, but then how many people actually use MHW for that purpose? Typically the ones who don't know how to use RHW, no offence.

On the other hoof, I know of at least one European user who can actually disagree with that.

-----

MHW setups and AVE-OWR interchanges, to me, are becoming less common as time passes, only to be overtaken by, well, RHW. Does it make MHW useless? The interchanges, yes. The network itself, not necessarily...

[Moskva 75]

Instead of admitting i don't know to use RHW, i'll admit i fell no need to learn using it, i am more pleased with original Maxis stuff, for once. The standard interchanges are not useless! They are easier and quick to make, and can look better for some people (me) and i've the fell they have less commuting issues, sims will recognize and use compact interchanges better. RHW totally looks american, there's no room for that in the most of Europe, our highways are a bit different, actually every country has different styles, but they stay compact usually. I also think of the name, RHW, which is rural by definition. I've seen tons of people using it among sprawling metropolis. Their choice, but even on american metropolis the standard highway would fit better, i know some american cities, thank you Google Earth lol. Best example coming up to my mind is NY or even Los Angeles (the city SC4 is based on, kinda). However i know the RHW is complicated to use, much choice and must take planning, with pencil and paper if you want to do a good work, making you in the end kinda proud, at least i guess.

[AIX 270]

I guess most of people here are american. If you actually ask an european (like me) what are the most realistic interchanges, he would say (i would) Maxis ones. Here in Europe space is often limited, or we simply dislike wasting space. Our interchanges are quite compact. However this is also because of the limitations of the RHW. The Maxis ones are just a big well-worked model, meanwhile the RHW is a long list of pieces, and i think you know, the model looks better in the end. This is why i go with Maxis standard stuff, it looks cooler to my european eyes. Surely i guess working with the RHW may be way funnier and satisfactory, but to me there's no discussion on most realistic interchange at the end, always considering my european point of view, of course. To be short, Maxis interchanges are not "to forget" or laugh on it, they can fit very well an european looking city, or at least the mind of an european player.

Um... You are the first and only person I have seen in here hold that opinion. I know of a few people from Europe who would disagree. The Maxis cloverleaf is way too tight - even by standards in Germany. Maarten talked about this in an RHW seminar (link > http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3334309 ). He superimposed the size of the Maxis cloverleaf over one in Germany on this slide > http://www.majhost.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3334265 .

I like to compare the Maxis highways to Barbie dolls - way out of proportion. If you were to enlarge a Barbie doll to be "life sized", her legs would be 6 feet tall.

[Moskva 75]

I had no idea the size was so different, good to know however, but i think it's true usually americans have wider interchanges. When i look at a Maxis interchange and the surrounding buildings altogether, i don't find it weird, perhaps because i got used to the game. What i was thinking about the RHW are the half-city occuping interchanges, those are kinda... exagerated. But i understand different tastes, just wanted to point out my personal opinion, which reveals to be just mine (not a problem, i like making my own way ).

[AIX 270]

I had no idea the size was so different, good to know however, but i think it's true usually americans have wider interchanges. When i look at a Maxis interchange and the surrounding buildings altogether, i don't find it weird, perhaps because i got used to the game. What i was thinking about the RHW are the half-city occuping interchanges, those are kinda... exagerated. But i understand different tastes, just wanted to point out my personal opinion, which reveals to be just mine (not a problem, i like making my own way ).

RHW doesn't need to take half a city tile. That is why so many people overwhelmingly choose RHW over Maxis: fully customizeable for size and shape. I have seen some very compact RHW interchanges in this very thread. It's fine if you like Maxis highways as it is opinion, I just don't think you will find many people who share it xD

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

The MHW versus RHW debate is something that has popped up time and time again, and speaking from experience, RHW is for those who are experienced and have a taste for realism, and MHW is typically for those who are either beginners or those who simply don't wanna try it for whatever reason.

Even so, it's quite possible to make compact-enough interchanges using RHW, just as it's possible to create a gnarly MHW interchange using the limited selection of MHW interchange pieces.

[Moskva 75]

I knew most of people prefer the RHW, no problem at all with that, i just wanted to take defence of the standard Highway . I believe it is important not only to share opinions but also to listen to discordant opinions sometimes. I didn't want to begin a fight at all, in fact there's no fight at all, both systems have pros and cons but are chosen mostly because of style, it would be like debating about 2 soccer teams. For what regards beginners using the standard highway and "pros" using the RHW, that's statistically true, like there's also who just enjoys another flavour of asphalt.

[Cob92 360]

I had no idea the size was so different, good to know however, but i think it's true usually americans have wider interchanges. When i look at a Maxis interchange and the surrounding buildings altogether, i don't find it weird, perhaps because i got used to the game. What i was thinking about the RHW are the half-city occuping interchanges, those are kinda... exagerated. But i understand different tastes, just wanted to point out my personal opinion, which reveals to be just mine (not a problem, i like making my own way ).

RHW doesn't need to take half a city tile. That is why so many people overwhelmingly choose RHW over Maxis: fully customizeable for size and shape. I have seen some very compact RHW interchanges in this very thread. It's fine if you like Maxis highways as it is opinion, I just don't think you will find many people who share it xD

RHW tears up the cityscape a lot more than Maxis highways do, however. Because of the unpredictability of RHW on uneven land and the space required to build everything, you end up with wide-open swaths of land bulldozed to fit the interchange in. I also like that the Maxis highway allows me to set up the sort of frequent ramps that one finds along inner city highways, and that it does it with 6 lanes instead of 4 (6 lanes is a small highway in my experience; big city highways are usually 8 and up). In addition, where I'm from most highways are made of concrete. Asphalt is usually only seen on country highways; everything in the city is gray, concrete, and walled off. Oh, and there's the fact that RHW has no bridges or tunnels.

  Edited April 19, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Deal with it. In Real Life, you also can't simply build a freeway through a city. And I'm not even talking about protests against new freeways. Freeways consume quite a lot of room, especially in the interchanges. It's no different in Real Life. Maxis Highways are way too small, in lane width (only 3m) as well as interchange sizes (225x225m for the cloverleaf interchane). Real life interchanges are at least twice as big, but often three or four times as big. The RHW takes up a no more than reasonable amount of surface area. In fact, you still can build compact interchanges with the RHW, even when using wider RHW variants:

Also, I see you like to build your interchanges close together. You obviously have never heard about weaving, do you? It's a much undesired effect that causes traffic jams and my also raise the risk of accidents. My advice is to put the ramps preferably 1km apart.

There are some wider RHW bridges under development in the future, but that will have to wait until the next release (due to implementation troubles):

At least, we now have RHW-2 and RHW-4 bridges, as well as MIS, RHW-2, RHW-4 and RHW-6S and 6C overpasses.

There were plans from some team to make a full concrete texture set for the RHW as well as the NWM and all Maxis networks, but as far as I know, that mod was never completed. Don't blame the RHW mod for it; it's labour intensive to make such a mod (it took me 3.5 months to completely Eurofy the RHW).

Best,

Maarten

  Edited April 19, 2012 by mrtnrln  

[Moskva 75]

Most of urban interchanges or freeways don't look like the RHW but more like the standard Maxis. Take Los Angeles as good example. The RHW fits cool in the nature, in fact the R was for Rural, not Real, initially. I could agree the RHW is more eye-candy in the countryside, but when it comes to urban side i'd disagree. You Marteen have shown us nice pictures but real urban interchanges often are not that green, they're more like concrete, but i just said often. For what regards risks and realism of lanes, i personally don't care that much, i care about the "functionality" part of ralism and the eye-candy factor, also because if you had to take into account also the problems about the lanes, i think this would become more a long list of troubles than an entertaiming game. Just different views, and like i said, it is most of all a matter of taste, not just realism, danger, functionality and so on. If i wanted to learn to use the RHW, i could, but i am just preferring the Maxis one.

[Wiimeiser 436]

Which brings into question what the new MHW redesign and "Symphony" is all about.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Which brings into question what the new MHW redesign and "Symphony" is all about.

All that does it bring the MHW to RHW standards and add some RHW-style ramps that connect to the restyled MHW.

[Cob92 360]

Maarten,

1. 3m is not unrealistically small. Go into Google Maps and measure the lane width of an inner city highway. I did, and came up with measurements ranging from 3m to 3.5m at the most for lane widths. In an urban area you don't have room to put giant sized lanes.

2. I see tons of wasted grass space in those pictures (ok, the first pic is somewhat reasonable, but 16m of grass along the side of the highway is quite a lot to have). Where I'm from, the norm is to build right up to the highway; that's why we line them with frontage roads, which allow businesses and homes to be mere seconds away from freeway access. There's no room for grass space along an urban highway; you flush expensive land down the toilet if you do that.

3. I know that weaving creates the potential for accidents. But I'm not trying to build an idealized autobahn system, I'm building cities that resemble the real world, and in the real world you can and often do have ramps much closer together than 1km (and they do have a LOT of weaving; you simply have to learn how to deal with it when you drive in the city). Again, I can pull out several examples here of urban highways with less than 500m space between interchanges.

The RHW is fine for when you want to build an idealized city and you design the highways before building the city. It's very, very bad when the city is already built and you have to try and crush this highway into a confined space that happens to contain tangled streets (which have to be rerouted around the highway), rail lines, hills, and bodies of water. Consider that most urban highways are 8 lanes or wider, and then you've got an RHW that basically is useless in any built-up area.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[Moskva 75]

I think here i'll break stick and give half to Marteen and Cobhris, i measured few lanes, they range in the 4-5 meters universe.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Maarten,

1. 3m is not unrealistically small. Go into Google Maps and measure the lane width of an inner city highway. I did, and came up with measurements ranging from 3m to 3.5m at the most for lane widths. In an urban area you don't have room to put giant sized lanes.

2. I see tons of wasted grass space in those pictures (ok, the first pic is somewhat reasonable, but 16m of grass along the side of the highway is quite a lot to have). Where I'm from, the norm is to build right up to the highway; that's why we line them with frontage roads, which allow businesses and homes to be mere seconds away from freeway access. There's no room for grass space along an urban highway; you flush expensive land down the toilet if you do that.

3. I know that weaving creates the potential for accidents. But I'm not trying to build an idealized autobahn system, I'm building cities that resemble the real world, and in the real world you can and often do have ramps much closer together than 1km (and they do have a LOT of weaving; you simply have to learn how to deal with it when you drive in the city). Again, I can pull out several examples here of urban highways with less than 500m space between interchanges.

The RHW is fine for when you want to build an idealized city and you design the highways before building the city. It's very, very bad when the city is already built and you have to try and crush this highway into a confined space that happens to contain tangled streets (which have to be rerouted around the highway), rail lines, hills, and bodies of water. Consider that most urban highways are 8 lanes or wider, and then you've got an RHW that basically is useless in any built-up area.

1) Well, you've got a point there, but 3m is really narrow. Here they would give these lanes a vehicle width destriction of 2m (offering a 1m correction space)...

2) I use that space for signage and plopable lights. I like having lights and proper signage. If the walls I used had overhang-lots, I would've made the trench 1 tile smaller on each side...

3) 400m would be the absolute minimum. Less than that you wouldn't have time to switch lanes by weaving, so people potentially miss an exit, or you have to lower the maximum speed to undesireable low levels.

Furthermore, you should actually prevent that you build a freeway through a city. In Real Life, most of these freeways go around the city because 1) it's easier to build 2) it's cheaper to build because you have less buildings to demolish 3) Less chance of protests that can stop the construction from starting and 4) Less nuissance in general. If you look at the Netherlands, although it's quite an urbanised country, you don't find that much urban freeways, and if there are some, most of them are build on the former city edge, they're build with reasonably wide lanes (even including wide shoulders), accelleration/decelleration lanes and often some kind of green "buffer zone".

If you still consider to build through an urban area, you WILL have to sacrifice some minor street connections, buildings, etc. This will happen too in Real Life. Urban highways are just a pain to plan, and in SC4 it will be no different.

I have to admit, bridges are still a problem now, to my regret, but this should be solved in the future...

Best,

Maarten

[Moskva 75]

Maarten, two words: Los Angeles. Take a look at it. Freeways every-damn-where, no grass space left also. I tell you this game was based on LA because Maxis Studios were there (right?). But take a look also to any other major world city... Freeways running around and into the city are common. Every good administration would bulldoze some stuff taking into account greater benefit for the mass, usually protestors are green peace guys and who right lives there.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I tell you this game was based on LA because Maxis Studios were there (right?).

No. Try 370 miles Northwest... In Alameda county...

I'd rather stay out of this argument.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Ganaram DI  

[Moskva 75]

370 miles NW is still California come on, this game is clearly based on California and surroundings mostly. I do realize LA is a driving deathtrap, but you tell me what major city in the world isn't a driving deathtrap? None. Also take a look at any american metropolis, deathtraps (freeways in the cities, like i call them) everywhere.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

I'm not familliar with LA infrastructure. I'm more familiar with European cities, and here it's much more common to reserve space for freeways, even in large cities like Amsterdam, London, Hamburg and Berlin....

Anyway, let's get back to topic, I've more interchanges to show!

Best,

Maarten

  Edited April 20, 2012 by mrtnrln  

[Moskva 75]

Nice work Marteen, Would you be so kind to tell me what filler piece are you using for the slopes? Thanks.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

I'm using mostly this set:

https://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=168

But I do use this set too:

https://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=116

[jacksunny 741]

That's some really nice stuff Maarten!

[Moskva 75]

Here's the F2 - North Vologda interchange.

Due the hills on the right side of the freeway, it was not possible to make a standard ramp, like on the left.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Moskva  

[Tarkus 6,932]

Maarten,

1. 3m is not unrealistically small. Go into Google Maps and measure the lane width of an inner city highway. I did, and came up with measurements ranging from 3m to 3.5m at the most for lane widths. In an urban area you don't have room to put giant sized lanes.

3m = just under 10ft.

Most federal, state and local road standards in the US will only allow 10-foot lanes on side streets with 25mph design speeds. 12 feet is the minimum standard for an Interstate (12-15ft. is typical), and most of the ones here in Oregon have 13-foot lanes (~4m). Maxis Highways have 8.75-foot wide (~2.67m) lanes, which means that in real life, they'd have a design speed of about 15mph if they actually existed (meaning that a road of that width intended as a freeway is probably going to be striped for fewer lanes). Additionally, the 6-lane Maxis Highway is narrower than the 4-lane Avenue.

While I'm sure that some very substandard older freeways that were grandfathered into the Eisenhower Interstate System are narrower than the specified standards, we're probably talking 11 feet and/or no shoulders (which is probably why people say MHWs feel "urban"), not <9 feet.

Let me ask you this--does this look sufficiently "urban"?

That was just something I was screwing around with awhile ago . . . it's the ERHW-4 model with a narrower 6-lane texture tacked onto it, roughly keeping RHW scale in tact, otherwise.

The RHW is fine for when you want to build an idealized city and you design the highways before building the city. It's very, very bad when the city is already built and you have to try and crush this highway into a confined space that happens to contain tangled streets (which have to be rerouted around the highway), rail lines, hills, and bodies of water. Consider that most urban highways are 8 lanes or wider, and then you've got an RHW that basically is useless in any built-up area.

Actually, working out those logistics is part of the fun, to be honest. Maxis Highways provide no challenge. The wider RHWs are slowly getting more functionality as we go forward. The Project 57 revamp of the RHW has already made some tremendous strides on that front.

Yes, that's an ERHW-8C going over another ERHW-8C.

-Tarkus

[Cob92 360]

Maarten,

1. 3m is not unrealistically small. Go into Google Maps and measure the lane width of an inner city highway. I did, and came up with measurements ranging from 3m to 3.5m at the most for lane widths. In an urban area you don't have room to put giant sized lanes.

3m = just under 10ft.

Most federal, state and local road standards in the US will only allow 10-foot lanes on side streets with 25mph design speeds. 12 feet is the minimum standard for an Interstate (12-15ft. is typical), and most of the ones here in Oregon have 13-foot lanes (~4m). Maxis Highways have 8.75-foot wide (~2.67m) lanes, which means that in real life, they'd have a design speed of about 15mph if they actually existed (meaning that a road of that width intended as a freeway is probably going to be striped for fewer lanes). Additionally, the 6-lane Maxis Highway is narrower than the 4-lane Avenue.

While I'm sure that some very substandard older freeways that were grandfathered into the Eisenhower Interstate System are narrower than the specified standards, we're probably talking 11 feet and/or no shoulders (which is probably why people say MHWs feel "urban"), not <9 feet.

Let me ask you this--does this look sufficiently "urban"?

That was just something I was screwing around with awhile ago . . . it's the ERHW-4 model with a narrower 6-lane texture tacked onto it, roughly keeping RHW scale in tact, otherwise.

The RHW is fine for when you want to build an idealized city and you design the highways before building the city. It's very, very bad when the city is already built and you have to try and crush this highway into a confined space that happens to contain tangled streets (which have to be rerouted around the highway), rail lines, hills, and bodies of water. Consider that most urban highways are 8 lanes or wider, and then you've got an RHW that basically is useless in any built-up area.

Actually, working out those logistics is part of the fun, to be honest. Maxis Highways provide no challenge. The wider RHWs are slowly getting more functionality as we go forward. The Project 57 revamp of the RHW has already made some tremendous strides on that front.

Yes, that's an ERHW-8C going over another ERHW-8C.

-Tarkus

The RHW in your first picture is a fairly accurate depiction of what I see driving around Houston (TBH, I run into a lot of highways here where the shoulder is just barely big enough to fit a car, and I drive on plenty that don't have any shoulder to speak of; there is a marked difference between the urban highways with narrow lanes and the new suburban/rural highways with wide lines and shoulders). I wouldn't mind seeing the Maxis highways replaced with something like that.

The fun of RHW only lasts so long as problems are solvable. Like I said, I play in regions with bumpy, uneven land and lots of random water puddles all over the place, as well as big bays that the highway needs to cross, not to mention medium and small city tiles where RHW doesn't really fit well. I like to try and keep the highway within a 1-block (4-6 tiles) wide corridor, so that can create problems as well when it comes time to make a bridge. I've now got to find space to open up this median between the two sides of the highway and shrink it to 4 lanes for the crossing. For small bodies of water, I can just make a land bridge and lay the highway on top of that, but land bridges are hugely impractical for crossing large bodies of water, not to mention that they block ships from crossing. The RHW needs to be able to function better in imperfect scenarios then it currently does in order to be truly useful as a gameplay element and not just an ornament.

These are some of the junctions and bridges that I use the Maxis highway for. What you see here is typical of all of my urban areas:

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no way to cross over the tram roads with the RHW. Nor is there any easy way to recreate these bridges. Oh, and the elevated-only segments are also unbuildable because of the lack of proper ramps.

  Edited April 20, 2012 by Cobhris96