Real Highway (RHW) - Development and Support

[Tarkus 6,932]

Might it not be possible to just do a consolidation to the monolithic NAM without too many enhancements, just to get a working version on the scene before all the radical adds? Or perhaps it is too late and the work has progressed to the point where it as hard to go back as to go on.

I did, as a test, put together a "monolithic" version of NAM Version 30. The file runs about 42MB for a Windows installer, and the Mac .zip version is 85MB. I built it mostly for curiosity, and I'm not sure if it makes sense to release it.

How much more memory residency will be needed for all this additional RUL code? If it is one cell per line, it is starting to look like 4 MB assuming 32 bits per entry. Without modern address translation this would be slightly impossible for an earlier machine.

In terms of the actual filesize of the NAM Controller, it'll pretty much be about the size of the RUL2 file itself. The way that the DBPF format stores text files, once the SAM re-write was put into place for NAM Version 30, it exceeded the maximum size that the game allows for compressed files, and we're now having to store it uncompressed. However, I haven't noticed any real impact in terms of performance from having to store RUL2 uncompressed in the controller. However, when the .dat containing the uncompressed RUL2 file is itself compressed in making the installer, there appears to be no real difference in the actual size of the downloaded package.

Will any of this invalidate other mods besides the NAM related ones. I have a couple of T21 filler mods.

The only part that is getting a massive re-write and Instance ID re-alignment is the RHW. If you have any RHW-related T21 mods, they will cease to work after the Project 0E (RHW 6.0) specs are implemented. All other T21 mods related to default transit networks or other NAM components should continue to function normally.

-Tarkus

  Edited January 31, 2012 by Tarkus  

[Shadow Assassin 336]

However, I haven't noticed any real impact in terms of performance from having to store RUL2 uncompressed in the controller.

If anything, there might be a slight reduction in loading time as the game doesn't have to uncompress the file.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

However, I haven't noticed any real impact in terms of performance from having to store RUL2 uncompressed in the controller.

If anything, there might be a slight reduction in loading time as the game doesn't have to uncompress the file.

This begs a question. Since I have tons of disk space, would I be better off to not compress some of my plugins? I use Files2DAT to compress stuff that comes as separate files. This would save some maintenance on my part in future. I currently have only 3.1 GB used on the disk that contains my SC4 folders, and there are around 195 GB available on that partition alone. If necessary, I could give my plugins folder its own partition of about 200 GB, or if I need more space, I can reformat a couple of my partitions to give it up to 400GB. I currently have 1.2TB on-line and it is mostly empty.

[Tarkus 6,932]

However, I haven't noticed any real impact in terms of performance from having to store RUL2 uncompressed in the controller.

If anything, there might be a slight reduction in loading time as the game doesn't have to uncompress the file.

That would seem to be a logical conclusion, and in fact, the quick testing I did with the uncompressed experimental build jondor did after the SAM ultra-stabilization loaded quicker than the compressed pre-ultra-stabilization build that had about 64% less code in it. It may be worth experimenting with running RUL0 and RUL1 uncompressed, though it's unlikely they'll have quite as much of a performance impact. RUL0 is still growing at a fairly steady (and much slower) rate, and will have probably grown to around 110000 lines by next release, whereas RUL1 hasn't even broken 7500 lines yet.

This begs a question. Since I have tons of disk space, would I be better off to not compress some of my plugins? I use Files2DAT to compress stuff that comes as separate files. This would save some maintenance on my part in future. I currently have only 3.1 GB used on the disk that contains my SC4 folders, and there are around 195 GB available on that partition alone. If necessary, I could give my plugins folder its own partition of about 200 GB, or if I need more space, I can reformat a couple of my partitions to give it up to 400GB. I currently have 1.2TB on-line and it is mostly empty.

Files2DAT and the wouanagaine's similar SC4 DatPacker utility actually don't compress the files--they merely change how they are contained, merging/combining them into a single .dat file, and eliminating duplicate instances. A file that has been loaded into a .dat container uncompressed will remain uncompressed after using one of those tools.

The BSC's "Miramba Experiment" from early 2006 showed that merging files using utilities of that sort did noticeably speed up load time, so there are still benefits there. The only reason the NAM Team has generally discouraged users from running merging utilities like these on their NAM installations is to cut down on the number of "red arrow bug" cases we get, when folks forget to delete the merged file upon upgrading to a new NAM release. Otherwise, it does improve load time.

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This begs a question. Since I have tons of disk space, would I be better off to not compress some of my plugins? I use Files2DAT to compress stuff that comes as separate files. This would save some maintenance on my part in future. I currently have only 3.1 GB used on the disk that contains my SC4 folders, and there are around 195 GB available on that partition alone. If necessary, I could give my plugins folder its own partition of about 200 GB, or if I need more space, I can reformat a couple of my partitions to give it up to 400GB. I currently have 1.2TB on-line and it is mostly empty.

Files2DAT and the wouanagaine's similar SC4 DatPacker utility actually don't compress the files--they merely change how they are contained, merging/combining them into a single .dat file, and eliminating duplicate instances. A file that has been loaded into a .dat container uncompressed will remain uncompressed after using one of those tools.

The BSC's "Miramba Experiment" from early 2006 showed that merging files using utilities of that sort did noticeably speed up load time, so there are still benefits there. The only reason the NAM Team has generally discouraged users from running merging utilities like these on their NAM installations is to cut down on the number of "red arrow bug" cases we get, when folks forget to delete the merged file upon upgrading to a new NAM release. Otherwise, it does improve load time.

-Tarkus

Thanks. I guess I'll continue as I am. I don't use dat packer because of maintenance issues. I generally keep all my NAM-related Plugins in in the default folder created by the NAM installer. This makes installing a new NAM as easy as deleting the relevant folder or substructure. Each part of the transit mods has its own subdirectory where feasible. So far, no red arrow troubles, ever.

[Tarkus 6,932]

A little announcement--many of you may be interested to know that there will be a "Future of the RHW" seminar this coming Saturday in Simtropolis Chat, discussing Project 57/0E and other relevant developmental topics. You can find more details here.

-Tarkus

[Wiimeiser 445]

Unfortunately I missed the seminar. Don't know how to get onto chat though; plus I live on the other side of the world from you guys...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Unfortunately I missed the seminar. Don't know how to get onto chat though; plus I live on the other side of the world from you guys...

You should be able to find the seminar transcript over in Simtropolis Related.

[pahs1994 6]

Unfortunately I missed the seminar. Don't know how to get onto chat though; plus I live on the other side of the world from you guys...

I just got done reading the log and looking at the slideshow provided, as i showed up late at the very end of the chat yesterday. Log

I want to thank you tarkus, brian, maarteen and everyone else involved for putting that on. I really enjoyed reading about all of the stuff that you have been working on.

  Edited February 19, 2012 by pahs1994  

[Durfsurn 539]

Thanks to Brian, Alex, Riiga, Mrtnrln, for helping and presenting the seminar and to Shadow Assassin, and Xyloxadoria for moderating the seminar especially to Xylo for moderating the busy Q&A Session afterwards who was being bombarded by people asking many questions of were helpful to many and answered by the NAM team. Sorry if I have missed any helpers or any "unsung heroes"!

[aaaling 83]

I've seen the WIP ERHW Cosmetic Mod update and it's nice! However, are the supports inline like with the inline support mod? I really like the ERHW Cosmetic Mod but the old version has staggered supports. I prefer inline supports more than staggered supports.

EDIT: Is the concrete bridge deck at must for your DarkPhalt or this upcoming cosmetic mod? I like your DarkPhalt and I want to create some old highways by using concrete instead of asphalt, but I might also want only DarkPhalt or regular bridges.

  Edited February 22, 2012 by aaaling  

[Tarkus 6,932]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words on the seminar! At any rate, a few more little development screenies . . .

A little look at how the ultra-stabilization is going:

And the code on this is being a pain, but it's almost there . . .

-Alex

[simlink 1,098]

Great to see how stable the RHW is becoming. I recently came across a stability issue with the RHW but found easy solution. Just moved things around a little.

At any rate, multi-height is looking superb!

[Jazzmaster 716]

It looks great!!!

Random question, but are there currently any plans for a L4 on-slope transition for any of these components?

[alvinheriadi 2]

I have an issue about FARHW pathing, The UDI mode exits at inner lane of FARHW-4 Outer Curve and outer lane of FARHW-4 to diagonal Inner piece.

Fix it on NAM 31 plz...

or NAM team can release FARHW-4 Outer Curve & FARHW-4 to diagonal outer piece Path Fix

Btw, is the RHW-6S Bridge is finished yet? I want this, beacuse if I using RHW-4, it's like an intercity highway/ rural highway.

And an issue again. Why I Plop RHW Curves (ex. RHW-4 Dual Curve), then the rhw-2 stub appearing?? not RHW 4?

  Edited February 23, 2012 by alvinheriadi  

[jdenm8 362]

I have an issue about FARHW pathing, The UDI mode exits at inner lane of FARHW-4 Outer Curve and outer lane of FARHW-4 to diagonal Inner piece.

We keep fixing this one, but the fix never seems to make it into the Release Candidates.

And an issue again. Why I Plop RHW Curves (ex. RHW-4 Dual Curve), then the rhw-2 stub appearing?? not RHW 4?

Because it means that the piece would become hard to use on slopes.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Random question, but are there currently any plans for a L4 on-slope transition for any of these components?

There are indeed. I'm still at the point of focusing on getting the draggable side switched over to the new P57 specs (the starters are the only puzzle pieces up to the new specs right now), but that'll commence in earnest before too much longer.

Btw, is the RHW-6S Bridge is finished yet? I want this, beacuse if I using RHW-4, it's like an intercity highway/ rural highway.

The bridge has been updated twice on our end, most recently to Project 57 specs. But given that Project 57 (P57) constitutes a massive change to the RHW system, there's no sense in releasing a P57 bridge before P57 is ready, nor does it make sense to revert the bridge back to the old specs.

-Tarkus

  Edited February 23, 2012 by Tarkus  

[Jazzmaster 716]

Random question, but are there currently any plans for a L4 on-slope transition for any of these components?

There are indeed. I'm still at the point of focusing on getting the draggable side switched over to the new P57 specs (the starters are the only puzzle pieces up to the new specs right now), but that'll commence in earnest before too much longer.

-Tarkus

Does that mean the new L1, L3 and L4 content was already somewhere early in development before 5.0, or did you just mean the currently available stuff?

Just curious, there's really no need for me to know. But I'm glad my question got a yes. Keep up the great work my friends.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

While not currently a user of RHW because I don't really need it, I am consistently blown away by the progress and enhancement of this product.

My complements to the team, and do keep going folks. A job being very well done.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Does that mean the new L1, L3 and L4 content was already somewhere early in development before 5.0, or did you just mean the currently available stuff?

There was only a very tiny bit of multi-level stuff in a very rough prototype that had been in place before P57 started. Most of the multi-level stuff you're seeing has been built in the past 4 months--including the roughly 200,000 lines of RHW P57 RUL2 code.

-Tarkus

[Tarkus 6,932]

Double posting . . . but I think this is worth it.

-Tarkus

[Durfsurn 539]

And reading today's news... Tarkus unveils totally new and awesome looking complete Multi Height System. Will there be ramps and height level transitions too? Also what's happening with the flex curve trans ramps etc?

[ashley123 2]

Awesome work. cant wait for this to be released Anyway i was just wonder with the multi height system (L0-L4) is there would be a transition such as in the link? it would be fairly useful i think if it was placed at L1 so it would split to go onto the L0 and L2 roads. you'll understand what i mean when you see the link

http://g.co/maps/udhjd

Thanks

Ashley123

[simlink 1,098]

I think the double-posting was worth it, too. Very exciting! Despite not using RHW-10 often (traffic levels never reach the need for that many lanes) it is still cool to see. Never know, it may come in handy.

  Edited February 26, 2012 by sim_link  

[Tarkus 6,932]

And reading today's news... Tarkus unveils totally new and awesome looking complete Multi Height System. Will there be ramps and height level transitions too? Also what's happening with the flex curve trans ramps etc?

Yes, there will be ramps and height transitions. The height transitions can be generated from existing models, so there's no problem there. Only ramps that we have existing models for at some elevated level will be able to be immediately ported over . . . we'll need more models to have more ramp interfaces. All that said, we're waiting to get the remainder of the P57 RUL2 revamp for the base draggable content in place before we do much of anything in terms of puzzle piece-based content.

FLEXCurve is basically done and mostly updated to P57 specs already. The FLEX versions of transitions and ramp interfaces will wait until the P57 base draggable content is in place.

Awesome work. cant wait for this to be released Anyway i was just wonder with the multi height system (L0-L4) is there would be a transition such as in the link? it would be fairly useful i think if it was placed at L1 so it would split to go onto the L0 and L2 roads. you'll understand what i mean when you see the link

Being elevated, that's model-based content, so we're going to need models (to proper RHW specs) before we can consider doing anything like that. We also haven't really worked out anything on the implementation for splitters on inclines like that, so there will need to be a fair bit of conceptual planning before that point.

-Tarkus

[packersfan 666]

I am so excited for the 5 different levels!!! Now I know I will be able to build some tight stack interchanges in my downtown!

[jdenm8 362]

A demonstration of new NAM Mod interoperability.

Some of the errors in that pic have been fixed now, so that picture does not accurately represent the current status of any of the pictured mods.

  Edited February 29, 2012 by jdenm8  

[Jazzmaster 716]

Looking good!

I do wonder though, the future of the RHW and the entire NAM now that SimCity 5 seems more and more imminent?

That's assuming that SimCity V is a proper successor and not a Facebook game...

[Tarkus 6,932]

I do wonder though, the future of the RHW and the entire NAM now that SimCity 5 seems more and more imminent?

That's assuming that SimCity V is a proper successor and not a Facebook game...

Given that the rambunctious "we want SC5" crowd has had a well-documented tendency to "cry wolf" over the years, I was initially a bit skeptical when the first wave of speculation came in, though I had a feeling this situation was a little different, now that a true next-generation city simulator is on the verge of being feasible with the current state of computer hardware.

I'm now convinced that we're looking at the real deal, mainly because of the GDC presentation with Ocean Quigley. Given that there's a lot of talk about graphics engines and what not, I don't think this is a Facebook game. Many of the other members of the NAM Team I've heard from are also quite convinced now as well, and like myself, they've been among the most skeptical, and the most dedicated to SC4's continued viability as the king of the city-simulators. We still don't have an official announcement, but there's some pretty obvious harbingers, and my educated speculation about the direction the city-simulator field would go have generally proven eerily accurate.

We haven't really discussed what the seemingly impending announcement of a proper sequel will mean for the RHW and the NAM. It's only been 24 hours or so, and I think we're all still absorbing the information, though it may be prudent for us to begin discussing it. Personally, even before legitimate talk of a sequel started, I had long anticipated that while I would be in it for a long haul, I wouldn't be modding SC4 forever. There were a few goals I had with transit modding, and we've nearly accomplished them--the Multi-Height System with the RHW is really the last big one. I'd like to at least see the last bit through.

-Tarkus

  Edited March 1, 2012 by Tarkus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ The only thing that might be impacted by a new SC5 would be Buggi's Boomtown project. There is no reason to drop what you are doing unless it becomes clear that everyone is switching over. I predict that conservatives like me will adopt a wait and see attitude. We've been disappointed by EA too often in the past to get very excited now. Besides, if it is true, the game probably won't be delivered any time soon, and then has to be checked out by enough users to convince us that it is worth switching. Remember SC:S? Cities XL? Ho Hum.