Real Highway (RHW) - Development and Support

[Kiwi2703 0]

 

Can someone please explain in a little more detail how to fix this? I have exactly this same problem and don't know how to fix it

It's already fixed in NAM 32; if you don't have it yet, download it right away.

 

Oh great, thanks, I had an outdated version

[the_infarcer 1]

Folks, I'm having trouble creating a ground-level SPUI.  Everything goes great until I drag the elevated road over the interchange, and then everything goes all to Hel- I mean, the interchange glitches out into avenue pieces with crosswalks and the inner ramps(?) end and don't go anywhere.

 

Any advice for the uncultured like me?

[Tarkus 6,933]

The FlexSPUI was a system that was designed in the RHW 5.0 era (circa 2011), and hasn't ever really been updated.  It can't handle the L1 elevated RHW networks at all (they didn't exist when FlexSPUI was created), so you're basically limited to L2 RHW-4 (and maybe RHW-6C and 6S) if you want to go over it, IIRC.  While there is a new NAM nearing completion (NAM 33), it does not include any updates to FlexSPUI, unfortunately, though it's something we're seriously considering for a NAM 34 release thereafter.

 

-Tarkus

[the_infarcer 1]

Well damn.  I'm guessing it would take more than a tiny patch on top of NAM 33?  Either way, I'll just bump the height of the overpasses up.  That shouldn't cause the game to freak out will it?

 

EDIT: Only one piece now glitches out.  Intersection along the "lower" (geographically speaking) entrance ramp. 

 

EDIT EDIT: Got that working, but found I couldn't get the spui entrances working properly.  They keep glitching up and just turning into RHW-4 and having the ramps to the intersection itself disappear.

 

 EDIT EDIT EDIT: Fixed the latter problem, but now the first problem is back; the single piece changes into regular avenue, but the other three remain as the SPUI.  Please note this problem goes away if the RHW over it isnt completely over the entire SPUI and connected to the other side.

 

https://imgur.com/L6dWjew

[rsc204 21,866]

Yeah this is a known issue like Tarkus referred to, you could try clicking around the intersection, you may find it stabilises, Flex SPUIs are a bit hit and miss but with perseverance they can work.

[Tarkus 6,933]

Well damn.  I'm guessing it would take more than a tiny patch on top of NAM 33?

 

 

It's going to require a complete re-write of the FlexSPUI RUL2 code, and a ton of testing.  Additionally, the IID system used isn't designed to really work with anything beyond what was available, so it's going to have to be rebuilt from scratch to really work with the current array of options for the RHW. 

 

To paint an accurate picture of where we are, NAM 33 development has been in a state of feature freeze since the end of February (after which the feature set is locked in, with no other additions allowed).  However, many team members have had heavier "real life syndrome" than in years past (myself included), and we're on our third different file depository system this cycle.  All of that has caused the development pipeline to become rather disjointed, so integrating everything into a cohesive whole, to even get an initial testable installer build, has been very arduous.  We just got that first test build with an installer done about 2 weeks ago, and there will probably be a few more before we finally get the public NAM 33 Pre-Release out the door.

 

-Tarkus

[cmdp123789 710]

I know this might not be RHW related, but speaking of NAM, do we get draggable FAR railways? also, what about 7.5m? On the other hand, and this time related to RHW, are we getting the elevated transitions with this new NAM?

[Tarkus 6,933]

I know this might not be RHW related, but speaking of NAM, do we get draggable FAR railways? also, what about 7.5m? On the other hand, and this time related to RHW, are we getting the elevated transitions with this new NAM?

 

Rail development is in an odd spot, because everything's shifted over to the RealRailway specs, which have been in limbo since the head of that project, Swordmaster, went on an extended hiatus due to RL.  There's a few RRW-related things that didn't make it in with NAM 32that will be in NAM 33--really basic things that got lost in transition with Swordmaster's sudden departure--but no draggable FA Rail (to my knowledge) and definitely no Rail Viaducts.  The draggable viaducts (esp. an L1 version) are the top priority going forward post-NAM 33, however.

 

As far as the RHW side of things, if you're referring between transitions from different height levels (i.e from L0 to L2 or L1 to L2), or between different elevated widths (i.e. from L1 RHW-4 to L1 RHW-6S), they're already included. The former has been in place in FLEX form since NAM 31.0, and the latter has existed in static puzzle piece form since NAM 32.  The elevated RHWs will be getting a couple big feature gains this release, with the addition of new ramp interfaces and the revamped FLEXFly.  All elevated RHWs except the L1 and L2 RHW-3 will have multiple on/offramp options for the new release (all draggable/FLEX--no static puzzle pieces).  The same is true with the DDRHW-4, which has been lowered 7.5m and has gained smoother transitions, to ease use and synchronize things for the long-term plans for a DDRHW-8.

 

-Tarkus

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

So, when you are ready for your release candidate, please try to avoid a non-selective general release unless you feel good enough about it that everyone gets a kick at the cat.

[APSMS 1,893]

Keep in mind that the public "beta" RC is only released after the private alpha versions, which are tested internally by the NAM team and associates. Everyone getting a kick at the cat (so to speak) is desired because often the uninitiated may try things that experienced users or people familiar with development may not try due to experience.

 

If the inexperienced/unfamiliar manage to break features using them unconventionally, then the NAM team wants to know about it so that they can either address the issue or warn others of similar setups.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

All things considered there is method in that approach.  However, if I see a release marked Beta, I won't use it.  I've run so many tests that I was paid to run, that I have now stopped volunteering with software.

[Tarkus 6,933]

In essence, the NAM 33 rollout is going to be set up just like what we did with NAM 32.  Our internal alpha phase (what we're currently in) is designed to shake out the really stupid bugs, particularly those related to integrating separate components for the first time, getting things to a point at which they're generally accepted as safe.  As the NAM 33 Pre-Release will fix some issues with NAM 32, in many ways, it'll actually be a more stable release with respect to existing features, and accordingly, we'll be shifting all of our tech support resources over to the NAM 33 PR.  The more people there are using NAM 33 PR, the more polished the final NAM 33 will be.  The NAM Team's incredible longevity (2015 marks 11 years since NAM 1) is ultimately dependent on that forward motion.  I'm becoming very hard and fast with the feature freezes, as these 16-18 month development cycles for releases we've been having aren't doing anyone any favors.

 

-Tarkus

[Titanicbuff 1,262]

ya- I'm always finding ways to make interchanges given the restrictions NAM 32 has offered. I seem to do quite well with it. I'm usually experimenting with what I can and can't do- and so its always important to find your limits.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Actually, I am a pretty minimal NAM user at the moment.  I don't even load RHW, GLR not RRW.  I tried out Project Symphony but found it not to my taste.

 

I am looking forward to trying out RRW if the next iteration warrants it because I am a strong rail user.  If it looks good, I will probably do a restart (wipe all regions) since I have no emotional attachments to any of them. 

 

By now many will have realized that I am extremely conservative when it comes to upgrading anything, but the NAM installer has been a godsend and a good job too!

[cmdp123789 710]

Actually, I am a pretty minimal NAM user at the moment.  I don't even load RHW, GLR not RRW.  I tried out Project Symphony but found it not to my taste.

 

I am looking forward to trying out RRW if the next iteration warrants it because I am a strong rail user.  If it looks good, I will probably do a restart (wipe all regions) since I have no emotional attachments to any of them. 

 

By now many will have realized that I am extremely conservative when it comes to upgrading anything, but the NAM installer has been a godsend and a good job too!

 

I truly admire you.. it is almost as if you like the vanilla version of it, and you seem to have so much fun with it... if it wasnt for all the mods out there, Im pretty sure that I would not be playing the game nowadays. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Fact is that I cannot play this game without the NAM.  It fixes so much in the transportation system plus some of the options to allow blacktopping of the Maxis highways makes everything much nicer.  You might say that I am a NAM addict, but I have not climbed the learning curve for RHW.  I used to use GLR but my present style doesn't need trams.  The multifaceted modularity of this package makes things ever so nice.

 

A future breakthrough to reduce the amount of interpretation of RULs would be nice, but doesn't seem to be in the cards.

 

It is a job being well done, and here's hoping for a bright future for the group in spite of RL getting in the way. 

[J0nnD0ugh 31]

Can anyone help me figure out why this interchange isn't working? Does the current NAM not support Maxis diagonals over RHW diagonals?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I have a feeling that is is a matter of trying to mix oil and water without a homogenizing agent.  Have you tried building ramps?

[J0nnD0ugh 31]

No I haven't. I was attempting a sort of trumpet w/o having to resort to drawn, sharp 45 degree angles in as small a footprint as possible. I think they just didn't program a pathway for diag over diag between Maxis & RHW. That's my hypothesis anyway. IF you notice closely, there is a 3rd lane arrow where the 2 hwys cross over. Don't know if that is significant.

[Tarkus 6,933]

As j-dub and jdenm8 pointed out over at SC4D, it's definitely a pathing issue.  It looks to be on the "shared" diagonal tile on the Project Symphony-style Maxis Highway. It's being discussed in our NAM 33 Testing thread at present.  There's apparently more where it came from, and the discussion presently is that it may have to wait until NAM 34, for a more thorough review and update (akin to the FlexSPUI situation).

 

-Tarkus

[J0nnD0ugh 31]

As j-dub and jdenm8 pointed out over at SC4D, it's definitely a pathing issue.  It looks to be on the "shared" diagonal tile on the Project Symphony-style Maxis Highway. It's being discussed in our NAM 33 Testing thread at present.  There's apparently more where it came from, and the discussion presently is that it may have to wait until NAM 34, for a more thorough review and update (akin to the FlexSPUI situation).

 

-Tarkus

That's disappointing. I thought this was my best custom interchange to date. Sad we are so far away from getting a fix. Anyway, here is the new, not necessarily improved version. I had to resort to MIS for the East to North Hwy. And the North South route has too much weaving.

 

[Titanicbuff 1,262]

doesn't look to bad though- 

 

 

As j-dub and jdenm8 pointed out over at SC4D, it's definitely a pathing issue.  It looks to be on the "shared" diagonal tile on the Project Symphony-style Maxis Highway. It's being discussed in our NAM 33 Testing thread at present.  There's apparently more where it came from, and the discussion presently is that it may have to wait until NAM 34, for a more thorough review and update (akin to the FlexSPUI situation).

 

-Tarkus

That's disappointing. I thought this was my best custom interchange to date. Sad we are so far away from getting a fix. Anyway, here is the new, not necessarily improved version. I had to resort to MIS for the East to North Hwy. And the North South route has too much weaving.

 

 

Doesn't look to bad though.

[J0nnD0ugh 31]

Thanks. Not as sleek as I would like though.

[the_infarcer 1]

Spacey, but I have to agree with the last fellow; it's pleasing to look at it.

 

Anyway, I have another issue with the RHW tonight.  I can't seem to get the fractional RHW-4 straight piece to link up with the fractional RHW-6 Ramp C variant.  Anytime I move either piece to place, the piece I am attempting to place just changes the direction it's facing in e.g. it starts pointing in another direction.  This happens whether I place the ramp first or the straight piece first.  Was hoping to hear why I'm having trouble with this while I can see a tutorial for a fractional Y-interchange that does this exact method.

 

Also, when you guys are updating your highways, how do you decide to where to start running new highway thorugh former development?  I mean, have you ever found that the only solution to a really nasty traffic problem was to just run an elevated highway right though downtown?

[airman15 4,113]

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I have a question about a bug with a part of the NAM.

 

I recently updated the NAM from 31 to 32 and so far it's a fantastic! I like how everything is a lot more organised and I can just pick out the components I need. I went to try out the RHW like I normally do so I can try turning a trumpet into a 4-way but when I go to drag a starter piece, it just remains the 2-lane base highway. I tried it on the RHW-4 and RHW-6 but nothing happens. This is only for the draggable components of the RHW. The SAM, single track railways, NWM, and HSRP networks all drag like they're supposed to. 

 

Is there something I have missed? I have never had this happen before and I would like to solve this problem soon as one of my biggest cities depends on it's highway networks.

[Tarkus 6,933]

It's possible you might have inadvertently checked "Enable RUL Decoupling" in the installer, and decoupled a bunch of the RHW networks in the process.  Reinstall, making sure that option isn't selected.

 

Glad you're otherwise enjoying NAM 32!  NAM 33 is also in the works, and should be yet another step up.

 

-Tarkus

[airman15 4,113]

Will do, but to confirm it is the same installer for the NAM 32, correct?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I think the installer remained the same except that the options were upgraded.

[APSMS 1,893]

Will do, but to confirm it is the same installer for the NAM 32, correct?

The installer for NAM 33? There are no plans to change it currently. The main dev for the installer has been in poor health lately, and unable to work on the project for a while, so if you were/not hoping for an installer change, it will have to wait for future iterations. The team is far to busy with RL to work an overhaul of the installer as well as make sure that everything else is working properly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The present installation program works fine and is hopefully table driven so that new updates for V33 are simply a matter of changing the table.  It is a vast improvement over what was available before since it is capable of customizing features and recompiling the controller to allow only those selected elements to be present.  This produces a considerable space saving for people like me who are concerned about the amount of disk space taken by items on the machine.

 

The only requirement for the full use of this installer appears to be an installed Java Compiler (development suite).  This is provided free of charge by the owner.

 

[Historical note:  I am of the generation where disk space was at a premium and cost as much or more than the central machine.  Big data bases used to be very serious investments in hardware (disk drives and controllers) in the bad old days.  Today, the industry is driven by Moore's Conjecture, with the result that hardware is becoming smaller and much more cost effective.]