Real Highway (RHW) - Development and Support

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Something like this for each add- on would be a great help to many I'm sure.

One.

This is a transition chart showing what networks can transition to what, assuming that only one lane can be lost or merged with another at any one time on one side of a network, going from the widest permissible network to the smallest. The thing about RHW-4 is that it's neither S nor C, though one call it S, with its C being the RHW-3.

NWM would also have a similar transition chart, though networks such as NRD-4, TLA-4, RD-4, and AVE-4 would be able to transition between one another, and be collectively considered as an individual network. Given the principle of S and C networks as with RHW, the only analogue in the NWM are One-way Roads and two-way roads (TLAs, RDs, AVEs).

TuLEPs are to NWM as RHW RIs are to RHW, except that trying to get any sort of periodic sense out of something like the TuLEPs has been nearly impossible. REALLY impossible. There are, however, five or six basic types proposed, but the naming of what's what has been going back and forth.

Someone proposed the RAM having a similar RHW RI scheme, but the only caveat is that the number of branching tracks can also equal the number of mainline tracks.

Roundabouts, however, I came up with this scheme:

At this very moment, I have a proposed nomenclature for the size and number of lanes for the whole RA itself: RA-(X)-(Y), where X is the diameter of the RA, and Y is the number of lanes. (Hyphens may be omitted, like the FAD's, but they'd like two-digit numbers.)

The constituent tiles that would make the RA itself would be called RATs. Nomenclature for non-connecting pieces (corners, sides, etc) is RAT-(X)-(Y). Nomenclature for "connecting pieces" is (Network name) RAT-(X)-(Y).

Given what already exist in the NAM, they would classify as the following:

- RA-2-1: Two versions already exist in a RUL-2ish INRUL-ish fashion: Street and RD-2. Connects to both, and OWR-2. NWM-wise, may theoretically connect to OWR-1. RHW-wise, may theoretically connect to RHW-2.

- RA-3-1: Exists for OWR-2. Connects to Street, RD-2, and OWR. NWM-wise, may theoretically connect to OWR-1, TLA-3, and AVE-2. RHW-wise, may theoretically connect to RHW-2 and MIS.

- RA-4-2: The AVE RA. Connects to AVE-4 and some OWR-2 and RD-2. NWM-wise, may theoretically connect to TLA-5, RD-4, and maybe RD-6 (given RA-4-3 corner pieces). RHW-wise, may theoretically connect to RHW-2, RHW-4, and MIS, unless you want an RHW version of one.

The two major addons, mind you, are RHW and NWM, and everything else is just too small or just too intuitive or just not easy, so the only periodic tables you'd probably get are for NWM and RHW.

In fact, the only thing that would need a periodic table is RHW RIs; The rest are just flowcharts. If that's fine with you, then that's fine, but finding a pattern that can be described to the audience is the first thing that has to be done. For the record, I wasn't even a NAM Team Member yet when I first proposed my original RHW RI table...

[Wiimeiser 445]

Okay, an idea:

List the buttons like this:

RHW itself, Draggable network

RHW Starters/Fillers

RHW Ramps/Transitions(FLEXRamps should keep things a bit smaller. If not, keep the two separate)

Smooth Curves

FARHW

Cosmetic Pieces

NC Pieces

DDRHW Pieces

GHW

EHW

Parallel & Perpendicular ramps, Maxis default

Single-side GHW Ramps

Single-Side EHW Ramps

Tbone & Cloverleaf Interchanges, Maxis default

Custom Interchanges

Symphony

Controller Version

  Edited September 15, 2012 by Wiimeiser  

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

That's more or less the order in which everything currently exists in, except for DDRHWs being separated and certain MHW items merged into one button. I'm calling that unnecessary; DDRHWs can still fit under RHW starters, and MHW tab rings will likely be left untouched, since it has nothing to do with RHW at all. Only Symphony would warrant a new button, so that's likely the only new button to be added.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Instead of constructing tables and diagrams best understood by we programmers, why not create a simple document in plain English that can be easily translated by anyone who needs to do so? If it is too complicated to write down there is something wrong with it.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

[i've retracted my original idea.]

  Edited September 15, 2012 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[Haljackey 17,355]

Instead of constructing tables and diagrams best understood by we programmers, why not create a simple document in plain English that can be easily translated by anyone who needs to do so? If it is too complicated to write down there is something wrong with it.

+1. I agree 100%.

---

Many people aren't gonna have the time to read a document; If anything, they're better off watching a video of the same exact document. People are relying more on visual cues than textual cues nowadays.

Example: There's very little documentation on TuLEPs. Do you still need documentation after watching this?

Personally, just having hard documentation is not enough. You'd need actual media to portray what's happening.

...And that's why I call it a demonstration, not a tutorial or a guide. At no point did I ever explain what the pieces were or how to use them in the video.

Having documentation may not be enough, but you need it in order to further explain things. Without its foundation, there's nothing to refer people to if they don't understand it.

  Edited September 15, 2012 by Haljackey  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Everything needs to be well documented. What you seem to have created so far is an in-group of keen people who really want to use the NAM extensions. It would be much better if it were a little less impenetrable. The present documentation needs some kind of preface and index to make it easier to understand the rest.

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

I no longer wish to take part in the discussion regarding reform of any NAM documentation, only SUPPLEMENTAL documentation, which was my original intention.

  Edited September 16, 2012 by Ganaram Inukshuk  

[MandelSoft 2,770]

Instead of constructing tables and diagrams best understood by we programmers, why not create a simple document in plain English that can be easily translated by anyone who needs to do so? If it is too complicated to write down there is something wrong with it.

Everything needs to be well documented. What you seem to have created so far is an in-group of keen people who really want to use the NAM extensions. It would be much better if it were a little less impenetrable. The present documentation needs some kind of preface and index to make it easier to understand the rest.

We already have quite some documentation on the NAM and its components. However, from our experience, not much people are reading it. The most notorious example is the "Where's My Water?"-issue, which pops up every now and then. At these time I think "RTFM!" (Read The Freakin' Manual), hence my signature warns people if they don't do that.

For everyone complaining about the NAM documentation: if you're not satisfied about it and you think you can do it better, why not write a better manual/tutorial? Maybe you come to the conclusion that we did something wrong indeed or that we couldn't do it anything better. Complex mods often have complex manuals...

Best,

Maarten

EDIT: I'm reading the RHW Readme now and actually, it already covers everythiung. I advise you to read all these readme's again and give me exact sections where the readme can be improved.

[TekindusT 3,809]

Let me do an experiment... I've redownloaded the NAM just as I was a newbie user and I wanted to install it. The first thing I see is the installer and a "Read me first" file. It's quite explicit, it HAS to be read by a newbie as it's going to be critical for the correct installation and further enjoyment of the NAM.

Everything which needs to be enphasized, it is, with a red and bold font. The first thing you see is:

Before your run off in excitement and install the new NAM version, please make sure to read this (short) document first and then take action, otherwise some things might go wrong.

And the file goes on, explaining how to uninstall the previous NAM, using the Cleanitol, etc; and enphasizing the important parts.

With this, I mean that the it's difficult than the NAM Team can do much more things in order to get new users to RTFM. Almost everything that can be explained, it is; and in a quite plain English, IMO. Of course there can always be room from improvement, but the whole thing is not a chaos. It is a user's manual, as the one coming with the printer or the fridge.

Users, specially new users, have to treat the NAM documentation as a user's manual. Probably, the question they're about to ask, is stated in the documentation; but it's far more easy to open a new thread and waiting for someone to post the answer rather than skimming the documentation to see where's the fault.

My suggestion for improvement? Perhaps giving the whole documentation a PDF format and compiling all the different topics in a single file would help creating that "user's manual" feel, including a division by chapters and the usual tips found in a user's manual.

[Wiimeiser 445]

Take it from me: The FARHW/TULEPS pieces introduced in the latest version needn't be just for diamonds. They can be used for parclos or even a terminus, especially if the freeway will be extended later and the terminus upgraded into a diamond.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

All I am suggesting is a consolidated index. This will take the time of an experienced NAM team member who probably doesn't have enough time to do the development work. This is not an easy task, but I most certainly an not qualified to do so.

With the upcoming consolidated distribution, perhaps the pressure will be off enough so that one or more team members can give this some attention.

Since this modest suggestion has provoked some discussion, it would seem that some interest has been raised. The existing documentation is quite good as far as it goes, but it is piecemeal. There needs to be a central point, and it should probably be in the Omnibus.

[MandelSoft 2,770]

Putting the NAM readme's in the Omnibus... maybe not a bad idea after all

[Niellezzz 38]

Hi all,

I'd like to see the following ramp in the next RHW:

Here's an example in RL (SW > SE):

Example

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

Hi all,

I'd like to see the following ramp in the next RHW:

Determining on the terminology, that would be a 6S D1 Inverted or a 6S E1 Inverted/TOTSO.

What needs to be done first before adding such a ramp is how to implement it; We're doing away with most of the puzzle-based ramp interfaces and replacing them with Flex-based versions.

Flex - A term used to describe an overridable puzzle piece. Related terms: WAVERide, INRUL, DRI, FlexFly, FlexSPUI.

[jdenm8 362]

Determining on the terminology, that would be a 6S D1 Inverted or a 6S E1 Inverted/TOTSO.

6S D2 actually or 6S D1 Inside on Curve. I prefer 6S D2 because it stays consistent with what's leaving that line of tiles.

  Edited September 17, 2012 by jdenm8  

[Tarkus 6,932]

Regarding the documentation topic, I had been planning a thorough revamp for the NAM documentation in light of the transition to the "Monolithic NAM". The documentation for the NAM proper has gotten a little long in the tooth, and it's not really designed for the type of release we're planning for NAM 31. The RHW and NWM documentation, however, have gotten thorough makeovers each release.

I think from our standpoint as developers, it'd be nice to know what people are looking for out of our documentation. When I've written up the NWM and RHW documentation (as well as the DBE documentation this past cycle), I tried to include with as many illustrations and as much plain language as possible, but we still get "is there a tutorial for this?" and "is there a video for this?" questions, from people who have read the documentation, on things that we thought we had explained well enough. That seems to suggest to me that there's some disconnect somewhere there that we're just not seeing.

Then there's the folks that just don't bother. First, we had the DBE "where's my water?" debacle, and the most recent trend has been folks downloading the Windows NAM and just unzip it to their Plugins, and not only neglect the documentation, but fail to notice there's an installer, and then proceed to post "why isn't NAM showing up?" threads. This is a long-standing problem in the software industry, with no surefire solution, but the level it's been reaching lately here is absurd.

-Tarkus

[Hellken 1,658]

I think from our standpoint as developers, it'd be nice to know what people are looking for out of our documentation. When I've written up the NWM and RHW documentation (as well as the DBE documentation this past cycle), I tried to include with as many illustrations and as much plain language as possible, but we still get "is there a tutorial for this?" and "is there a video for this?" questions, from people who have read the documentation, on things that we thought we had explained well enough. That seems to suggest to me that there's some disconnect somewhere there that we're just not seeing.

-Tarkus

Your tutorials on Youtube were helpful. Video helps most people who get lost.

For example, I knew there was something wrong with my first SPUI until I saw your video and realized I was missing a turning lane.

[Haljackey 17,355]

Then there's the folks that just don't bother. First, we had the DBE "where's my water?" debacle, and the most recent trend has been folks downloading the Windows NAM and just unzip it to their Plugins, and not only neglect the documentation, but fail to notice there's an installer, and then proceed to post "why isn't NAM showing up?" threads. This is a long-standing problem in the software industry, with no surefire solution, but the level it's been reaching lately here is absurd.

This would need to be discussed with the webmaster (dirk), but ultimately the best thing I can think of when the "Monolithic NAM" comes out is to have a tab at the top of the page specifically for this mod. (Next to forum, STEX, City Journals, Omnibus, Etc.)

In addition, I'd like to see a sticky thread on the NAM boards of both ST and SC4D dedicated to NAM terminology, acronyms and definitions. I mean the readme and things are nice, but it would be nice to have a dedicated thread for this for easy reference and to be a place where members can ask questions and seek additional information.

Just my 2 cents.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

This would need to be discussed with the webmaster (dirk), but ultimately the best thing I can think of when the "Monolithic NAM" comes out is to have a tab at the top of the page specifically for this mod. (Next to forum, STEX, City Journals, Omnibus, Etc.)

In addition, I'd like to see a sticky thread on the NAM boards of both ST and SC4D dedicated to NAM terminology, acronyms and definitions. I mean the readme and things are nice, but it would be nice to have a dedicated thread for this for easy reference and to be a place where members can ask questions and seek additional information.

Just my 2 cents.

You can add my Nicklas Wirth. An easily accessed repository for the documentation of all things NAM, complete with a index would be very useful indeed. With proper set up it might even relieve the necessity of including all this writing with the download, but only a link or links to the specifically needed articles.

[Tarkus 6,932]

Here's a quick run-through of stuff in progress. I've been getting the Level 1 ("L1", 7.5 meter height) RHW-2 network in place. And that network is nearing completion on the RUL side.

All of those are draggable, RUL2-based setups. The only draggable overpass setups left to cover are orthogonal L1 RHW-2 over diagonal 6C/8C/10C, and diagonal L1 RHW-2 over diagonal 8S/10S/12S/6C/8C/10C. After that point, pathing will be added and it'll be made available to the NAM Associates, and further networks will be built up the same way, though it'll take less time now that the L1 RHW-2 effort has worked out many of the kinks.

We've also got transitions . . .

-Tarkus

[nathanthemayor 1,262]

Wow nice photos. Keep up the good work!

[Hellken 1,658]

It will probably be many years from now but I can't wait to see the Multi-Highway System. It will be a very important day when it comes out. Good luck NAM team!

  Edited September 29, 2012 by Hellken  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Highways are all very nice, but we must have a full set of civil and budding civil engineers. How do you plan to serve all that concrete spaghetti? With Voiture-des-flics sauce, peut-être?

[MandelSoft 2,770]

FYI, I'm the only real civil engineer in the NAM Team (well, student, but that's close enough)

And yes, we know that organizing this concrete mess is going to take a lot of effort...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, good luck in your studies. Do you graduate soon?

[MandelSoft 2,770]

Well, I'm in the third year of the bachelor programme and if everything goes right, I should be able to finish it in the nominal period (3 years). After that, I can start with the master programme.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is different over here. Engineering programs usually are four years and lead to a B.Sc. or B.Eng. degree which is sufficient for membership in the Engineering Society and the designation P. Eng. Masters and Doctoral programs are also offered by most universities with Engineering Programs. At least it was that way when I was enrolled in one in 1957. I don't see any reason for them to have changed.

[Haljackey 17,355]

This is a little off topic but worth noting...

As some of you may or may not know I make some timelapse driving videos every now and then. After recently filming a route, I figured out that just about all of it could be built with the current RHW we have now (with the exception of the 8 lane bridge). This brought me to the realization that this mod has worked its way up to the point that it can rival RL creations. By the time P57 and multiple levels are done, we can use it to practically recreate just about anything we see in the world today. Just think about that!

Here's the video if you want to see it. (I've got other driving timelapses on my Youtube account as well)

This blew my mind, and perhaps yours as well when you come to think of it. Crazy stuff eh?

Keep up the great work guys!

[Ganaram Inukshuk 906]

By the time P57 and multiple levels are done, we can use it to practically recreate just about anything we see in the world today. Just think about that!

And with that regard, I would agree. The only caveat is that it's impossible to account for every possible RL setup, but I believe we can get close.

There are a few interchanges along Interstate 10 (In California, east of the Cabazon/Banning area and down into the Palm Springs area) that are being retrofitted from diamonds to parclo interchanges, and there are a number of ramps right now that can achieve replicating those exact interchanges. Some of them would need to be rotated so it's completely orthogonal, and there's also a height discrepancy, but that's beside the point.

Then there's the T-bone interchange right in the middle of the forest of wind turbines that I did try replicating one time, but even with current RHW items, I don't think I can even come close to achieving that.

-----

Don't forget this, either: Not only will it be possible to build even more wild interchanges, but the process of building them will be even more streamlined: We're getting rid of a bunch of puzzle pieces (mainly ramps) and replacing them with Flex-based versions, so that instead of having 200-300 different ramp interfaces in one tab ring, you'll only need about less than ten that can override to conform to every RHW network there is.