• Moose
  • Announcements

    • Dirktator

      March goal: We're almost there!   03/20/2017

      Hi Community! We're almost there for our March goals!  I just wanted to keep the momentum going so if you are able to help, please donate and get some gifts in exchange! Thanks so much to those who have helped out this month, we really appreciate it.
DJDL

Peg's Brigantine Mod--Norton AV deletes extracted files

18 posts in this topic

Hello all!

I have downloaded Peg's Brigantine Water Mod, but when I go to extract the files, my Norton AV declares its unsafe and deletes it.  I have downloaded other Peg Mods with no issues (Streams, Ponds, Utopia, SPAM, etc.).

Has anyone else had this happen and do you know a workaround?  Simtropolis has an excellent reputation of keeping viruses and other bad things out of the community, so I find it hard to believe it could be a virus.  If anyone would like to investigate this, here is the file Norton Insight removed and quarantined as a medium risk:  

http:simtropolis.community.com/file/file/11836-peg-water-mod-brigantine/?do=download   

and the .exe file:

peg_watermod_brigantine_205.exe

Thank you so much for your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I'm concerned about a file I use the VirusTotal website cause that will scan with multiple different programs. Here's the result I get for that .exe file:

Peg%20Brigantine%20Scan_zpsh2njp4b4.jpg

So, 1 out of 61 of them is concerned about it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the tip, Corina.  So, you've never had a problem installing the file, I take it.  Unfortunately I can't even get the file to test it.  It's a shame because this mod would be just what I need to make a seamless transition from a stream to in-game water.  Well, I guess the search continues . . . .

Thanks again. *:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah!  I can scan the zip file and Symantec does list this as suspicious.  *:???:  Someone should tell them there is such a thing as being *too* diligent. smh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always prefer to have every one of the scanners say something is safe. (Which I had not done previously for this file.) I have installed this mod myself when I was creating Cori's Water Shoppe and I didn't notice any ill affects. That was on a stand alone comp with no internet connection. (I copied the .zip over via a flash drive.)

I'm not an expert here so let's wait for the gurus and see what they say.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have for some long time been getting the same anti-virus smackdown with the 2015 updated Simtropolis package.  Norton flags the .exe installer as a medium "WS.Reputation.1" threat, meaning it has been used by too few users within Norton's reporting community to gain a trustworthy reputation, and leading Norton to swiftly remove the .exe upon extraction from the .zip download.  This is not a positive detection of any actual threat, only the suspicion of a potential one from a file with a commonly abused file type and which Norton has not cleared as safe by reputation through widespread use.

There is an option in Norton's details settings as it is taking quarantine action to override the removal and restore the file.  As few people like overriding their own anti-virus software, I wouldn't be surprised if many or most Norton users are simply spooked into avoiding this newer upload altogether, which might then always keep the reputation low.

Buried away in the hoard I still have an older 2005 upload either from a previous Simtropolis release or straight from Peg's, and it does not have this issue as the downloaded .zip contained a manually installed .dat rather than an .exe installer.  I wouldn't be surprised if many or most of us here still were using this older package such that even though we may now have a more assertive Norton, we never encounter this issue with the newer package.

This might be something the custodians of Peg's works or the crew looking to tidy up the STEX can look into.

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, WS.Reputation.1 is exactly what Norton is classifying this file. I am toying with the idea of restoring the file and running it through MalwareBytes, precisely because this file has a low rep only because not many have used it (because they can't).  I've downloaded and installed numerous mod .exe files recently and never had a problem.

I took a long hiatus from the game so I missed Peg's original release of this mod.  And I was so sorry to learn that his website is no longer in operation.  Thankfully, many of his creations still live here and at SC4Devotion.  Thank you for your help and insight, Odainsaker.  *:)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another workaround is remove any "downloaded" red flags from the .zip file, which Norton takes into account when assessing new and unfamiliar files.  Move the downloaded .zip file onto a USB flash drive or portable hard drive, remove the drive from the USB port, replace the drive back into the USB port, and move the .zip file from the drive back onto the desktop.  When the .exe is then extracted from the .zip, Norton will no longer red flag it as a mysterious download coming from the hot and wild web, and will allow the .exe file to be placed onto and even run from the desktop.  Directly scanning the file with Norton and Malwarebytes actually then finds the file safe.  I guess having a low use reputation, an often abused file type, and being freshly downloaded off the wild web were just too many initial red flags for Norton.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Although added caution is never a bad thing, this in all probability is a false positive.

Many (if not all) PEG files are bundled using an older version of the Clickteam installer. Now for some reason, some antivirus suites have been known to flag these up on occasions, even though they're in all likelihood perfectly harmless. I've also noticed this previously while using Norton, and it is an extra hassle. While they're intended to make life easier, installers are a pain enough already without having to manually grant each permission to do their job. A laborious task made all the more tedious.


With threat detection...

They work by analysing common patterns and trends in the file structure, through a series of (often quick) tests. If these are similar to known threats, it'll mark the file as a potential risk and deal with it accordingly. And generally, they tend to err on the side of caution just in case. One possibility here is since an installer is basically a template containing files, out in the dark corners of the internet, there are likely actual viruses bundled with Clickteam installers.

So if the AV is aware of these, it could say:

"Hey look, I've seen something like this before, so I'm taking no chances here."  *:read:


A thing to consider is these files have been tried & tested over a very long period. PEG Brigantine in particular has been around over 12 years (checking the date modified of the exe proves this). So if there was a legitimate problem, people would have likely complained by now of ill effects after running the installer. Being one of the most reputable creators, @Pegasus would certainly not have stood for actual threats bundled with the content.

Also, Simtropolis or any moderated SC4 exchange would quickly take down uploads proven to contain malware. The safety of users is taken very seriously.

So for this reason, I'd be inclined to suggest this and similar files are safe to whitelist in Norton (or other AV).

 

2 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

So, 1 out of 61 of them is concerned about it.

So the only detection is from "TheHacker". Hmm, I'm a little sceptical in trusting what that reports... :uhm:

Although some of the less known names may carry benefit, think it's usually best to play safe and rely on the more common AVs. I'd much rather invest trust in a known reputable company, where their software is tried and tested on a larger global scale.

Choice is always helpful however, which is clearly why VirusTotal uses a wide variety of scans. With more evidence, it's then easier to make a judgement.


Anyway, I wonder why Norton (Symantec) doesn't flag it there. Maybe because it wasn't executed and only scanned.

 

1 hour ago, Odainsaker said:

I have for some long time been getting the same anti-virus smackdown with the 2015 updated Simtropolis package.

That's interesting, as the actual exe still reports being modified in March 2005:
 

h20IRn5.png

(Corresponding to the original upload date)

I wonder if the installer was simply repackaged in 2015 (in a new zip). This could have occurred during the process when PEG files were moved to the dedicated section on the STEX. Not sure why the zip would be modified though.


This may explain the low reputation. For me, Norton reported there were only 100's of users:

n5sQcUv.png

 

It may not be a large audience. But considering how many users have download the file since 2015 and have Norton as their primary AV, this does seem reasonably plausible.

(Interestingly I didn't receive a reputation warning or quarantine action, and the file is labelled as "Good". Think I recall previously whitelisting similar installers, which might explain why my config isn't concerned.)


  Edited by Cyclone Boom

Added additional info.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the name of the .zip had somewhere changed, from "PEG Water Mod Brigantine.zip" to the current "PEG_WaterMod_Brigantine_205_SU.zip"  My "PEG Water Mod Brigantine.zip" contains a .dat and readme, and no .exe.  I don't recall which exchange it originally came from.

These comparisons might be helpful, now that I can actually inspect the more recent .zip without Norton flashing red and immediately squirreling the unzipped contents away every time I extract them.  I just downloaded the .zip this evening just for this topic, and I haven't whitelisted anything in Norton.

AtDYS4m.jpg

xxPiJI6.jpg

I wonder why the matured release dating is different, and I wonder if they cast different nets in different regions or for different Norton versions (Internet Security 22.9.0.71 on this machine).  While Insight above didn't like it, outright scanning the executable yields...

xoolfV2.jpg

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

My "PEG Water Mod Brigantine.zip" contains a .dat and readme, and no .exe.  I don't recall which exchange it originally came from.

I'd guess from the old PLEX at SimPeg. Not 100% on this, but I seen to recall some downloads there didn't include installers.

After checking my archives, I've found a file I downloaded in 2014 named:  PEG_WATERMOD_Brigantine_205.zip

This also doesn't include an installer. Just the DAT file modified on Feb 25, 2005, along with a preview image and readme.

 

23 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

I wonder why the matured release dating is different, and I wonder if they cast different nets in different regions or for different Norton versions (Internet Security 22.9.0.71 on this machine).

Yeah, that is rather strange whatever the release date's referring to. o.O

So counting back, mine says November 2010 and yours reports December 2009. Maybe it's the first time the exe was added to Symantec's database. Although why these are different dates with the same identical file is quite peculiar...

 

Anyways, just to add something else to the topic...

For added precaution with opening installers (or any executable files for that matter), one option is to use a sandbox application. These allow files to be opened or run in an isolated area away from your main system. So should there be an actual threat (improbable in this case), it could be contained and not affect your PC.

In the past, when I was a little unsure dealing with these installers, I generally made a habit of using Sandboxie for this task. Extracting all SC4 content to a contained folder, and then copying them back once the actual files had been manually scanned.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems to me that PEGASUS never used the installation exe files. He worked with dat files only. I do not remember about exe and this is not the PEGASUS's style.


  Edited by Silur

clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments.  Sorry I've been absent--busy weekend coupled with a low pressure headache.  Lots of great suggestions!

As some of you have mentioned, I also ran a scan on the zip file with both Norton and MWB, and they gave it a green light.  The version I downloaded is the 205_SU.zip version.  

I think I have a spare USB lying around, so I'd like to try your suggestion, @Odainsaker.  Thanks! *:)

On 3/17/2017 at 10:15 PM, Cyclone Boom said:

Many (if not all) PEG files are bundled using an older version of the Clickteam installer. Now for some reason, some antivirus suites have been known to flag these up on occasions, even though they're in all likelihood perfectly harmless. I've also noticed this previously while using Norton, and it is an extra hassle. While they're intended to make life easier, installers are a pain enough already without having to manually grant each permission to do their job. A laborious task made all the more tedious.

On 3/17/2017 at 10:15 PM, Cyclone Boom said:

A thing to consider is these files have been tried & tested over a very long period. PEG Brigantine in particular has been around over 12 years (checking the date modified of the exe proves this). So if there was a legitimate problem, people would have likely complained by now of ill effects after running the installer. Being one of the most reputable creators, @Pegasus would certainly not have stood for actual threats bundled with the content.

Also, Simtropolis or any moderated SC4 exchange would quickly take down uploads proven to contain malware. The safety of users is taken very seriously.

So for this reason, I'd be inclined to suggest this and similar files are safe to whitelist in Norton (or other AV).

Yes, I absolutely agree.  Just to reiterate, I've recently downloaded and installed other Pegasus files that contain executables through the Clickteam Installer without a problem, which is why I was puzzled about this incidence.  And I absolutely trust everything on this site--I know well the reputation for utmost safety of this site, SC4Devotion, and, of course, Pegasus.  My guess was that this incidence is more of a technical issue rather than a malware issue, and the comments from all of you have verified that.  *:thumb:  Now, of course, I could just scrap the idea of using Brigantine and search for another water mod.  There are lots of good ones.  But I do have my heart set on this one because I really want to use Peg's streams and ponds mods (which I've already installed without a hitch) and have a seamless transition with Maxis water.  :wub:

On 3/18/2017 at 10:42 PM, Cyclone Boom said:

For added precaution with opening installers (or any executable files for that matter), one option is to use a sandbox application. These allow files to be opened or run in an isolated area away from your main system. So should there be an actual threat (improbable in this case), it could be contained and not affect your PC.

That is a very good idea, @Cyclone Boom!  You know, with my propensity bordering near-paranoia about computer security, its amazing I've never explored sandboxing.  A quick search brought up a  number of free software, and I'm leaning toward Sanboxie or a virtual machine such as VirtualBox or Vmware, if they are very user-friendly.  Would you, or anyone reading this thread, have a favorite you can suggestion for someone with some tech knowledge but certainly not expert or even high-middling?  *:P

Thank you, everyone!  You've eased my mind.  I'll post back once I've tried your suggestions.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, there is not a virus in this file, I guarantee it. A false positive is generated because your AV software doesn't have it in its "trusted" whitelist. There are two benefits to this approach for security, firstly it makes you as a user "think" your AV is protecting you. This in turn makes people think they must continue to pay for AV apps to be safe.

Statistically speaking, free AV apps are often as good if not better than paid ones. However the most commonly used brands are some of the most likely to let real nasties into your system in the first place. Precisely because lazy coding has made them check a list, rather than look for the behaviour that would confirm unwanted behaviour. All you have to do is get certified on the whitelist and your code is free to replicate without issue. Not to mention, hackers etc, target the most commonly used AV/Security suites, precisely because that's their #1 hurdle.

IMHO Norton is one of the worst pieces of software I've ever come across. Personally I'd save my money and use the one that comes free with Windows.

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft's free suite is lousy, but it gives me peace of mind and at least doesn't bother me like Norton, Avast, or McAfee. It also uses almost no resources.

The best protection against viruses is yourself. If the source is trusted, it's unlikely to be corrupted. If the source isn't trusted, use a sandbox or for goodness sake don't download something from a site you don't trust! The chances of a secure download being corrupted are unlikely, and if it is, then no AV is equipped to deal with the problem, unless they happen to be particularly snappy (which, given the kludge that most AV software behaves like, is highly unlikely).

Antivirus software recovery after an infection is pathetic as far as my experiences go, so Norton is really useless once the computer is infected. In general, use a basic one to protect against website and email-based malware that you might download in the course of browsing, and ignore the rest.

It's good to be cautious, but there's caution and then there's foolishness. At worst case, the file is corrupted and won't work. You may lose a city or two, but the computer itself will be OK. This is my experience encountering corrupted files from trusted sources. Untrusted sources went into the sandbox, after which I usually deleted them out of paranoia. Either you trust something or you don't, and the amount of recourse you have if you're not a Computer Whiz is almost nil, so why pick hairs over flags from a site that you've otherwise downloaded potentially hundreds of other files from with zero issue whatsoever, especially if that file has been available for a significant amount of time and the site in question has active admins and moderators whose sole job is to maintain the massive file repository and keep it free from bad files?

Maybe some of the sites I've DL'ed files from have been questionable, but at the end of the day if I didn't trust a download I didn't grab it, or deleted it soon afterwards. It's not worth the gray hairs that stem from thinking there are gray areas about your otherwise trusted software.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/03/2017 at 0:47 PM, DJDL said:

A quick search brought up a  number of free software, and I'm leaning toward Sanboxie or a virtual machine such as VirtualBox or Vmware, if they are very user-friendly.  Would you, or anyone reading this thread, have a favorite you can suggestion for someone with some tech knowledge but certainly not expert or even high-middling?

Sandboxie I've found to be a very handy utility which I would recommend. It is free for personal use, which prevents more than one sandbox being used at once.

There's some useful info posted in the FAQ (the analogy with paper is a good one).

My main use nowadays is for trying out applications, prior to a proper install on my system. Actually I made use of it only yesterday for this reason, while testing a desktop wiki application. Or occasionally it comes in useful to diagnose issues with browsers.


Everything is contained within a mirrored folder structure:

E.g. For my Applications sandbox:

"C:\Sandbox\User\Applications"


So there's folders representing each physical drive, user data folders, and local AppData. These will be created on demand when needed by the program running inside. Each sandbox has its own registry store, so any installations write entries there, and not in the main Windows registry. There are also permission settings which can be tweaked as needed, and there's options to recover (move) files out of the sandbox. But unless you allow it, everything is contained within, and only has read-only access outside.

It's possible to create multiple sandboxes and configure each how you'd like. For example, to disable internet connectivity, or prevent certain applications from running. Things may be changed here to resolve any compatibility issues. Lots of options, but at the same time is very easy to use.

The great thing is since everything is contained inside one parent folder, it makes backups very straightforward. Just make a copy of the sandbox (e.g. Applications folder), and they can be seamlessly swapped over.

By default, starting an executable inside the sandbox folder will run it inside. There can also be an optional right click context menu added (in Windows), where any program or file can be run inside the chosen sandbox. As a visual indication, it's possible to highlight sandboxed applications by adding a yellow border to the window when hovered, or hashes (#) can be shown in the window's title.

 

A virtual machine is certainly another useful option. Providing the host system isn't linked to the guest OS (e.g. via a file transfer mode or networking), they are technically even more isolated than a Sandbox. Although I haven't used it much recently, VirtualBox has been my preference for this. Sometime I'm planning on trying out Linux Mint.

Apart from a dedicated environment, a very useful feature is the ability to quickly restore to a snapshot of a saved state. Accidentally deleted your System32 folder? No problem! :whatevs:

The main drawback to VMs is they need considerably more resources (hardware quotas and of course a separate OS).

 

Here's a nice article I found explaining the comparative differences between them both:

http://ask-leo.com/whats_the_difference_between_a_sandbox_and_a_virtual_machine.html

(And before anyone wonders, I'm not Leo with the 'boom' connection.) *;)

 

On 23/03/2017 at 6:05 AM, rsc204 said:

Statistically speaking, free AV apps are often as good if not better than paid ones. However the most commonly used brands are some of the most likely to let real nasties into your system in the first place. Precisely because lazy coding has made them check a list, rather than look for the behaviour that would confirm unwanted behaviour.

There's no doubt free software can be underestimated. As long as it's from a proven trustworthy entity and is still in active development, open source is never a bad way to go.

It'd be fascinating if there has been proven research into the detection rates of free vs paid AVs. It's true the Symantec's of security providers hold the majority market share. So if deliberately taking shortcuts, they're not fulfilling their dominant role, which really would be major cause for concern. Flaws on such a scale means they are indeed the larger target for potential exploits.

I wonder since they are paid services, this promotes laziness on part of the users. By paying for a subscription, you expect clear benefits over a free option. Otherwise why would you simply throw money down the drain? Maybe it provides an artificial assurance that you're paying for better protection. When in actual fact, this is only the brand power, marketing, and the nice flashy GUI & graphics. Under the hood is what really matters with security. The rest is merely superficial.

As a Norton user myself, I use it because I've always used it. Habits are often hard to break.

I think on the whole though, the best firewall is your own common sense. Sure no website's immune to risks -- that's the very nature of the internet. The digital world is a fragile, dangerous and often hostile platform. This can't be controlled and will likely never change. What you can control as an individual is by being selective in the sites you trust, what you download, and those emails you open.

No antivirus is perfect, and protects no one from rash and stupid decisions. *:no:

 

@APSMS

Ha, looks like we basically said the same thing!


  Edited by Cyclone Boom
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cyclone Boom said:

It'd be fascinating if there has been proven research into the detection rates of free vs paid AVs.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/is-paying-for-antivirus-a-waste-of-money/

Quote

At least for many years, perhaps more than ten, they've found no malware on my computers. None.

Perhaps I'm a more sophisticated user and I'm less likely to be taken off guard, but that can't be the whole answer. By the same token of expertise I take certain risks with dangerous files and sites that I would urge others to avoid like the plague.

This... I have the exact same experience. Sometimes I get the feeling AV is just unnecessary in today's world. Far more important is ensuring you have Windows, your browser and other apps fully updated to protect you from threats. But if you don't mess around the dark parts of the internet, your odds of having a problem are very slim. Similarly being careful with what you download and click is far more important too.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/free-anti-virus-software

Of course some articles are clearly written from a perspective that knocks free AV systems. In my experience that means they are simply biased, because I find Paid AV to be more trouble than it's worth. Generally far more intrusive, more likely to get things wrong (false positives) and using far more system resources. I also don't like a free AV app to be bugging me constantly with ads or to pay for a subscription either.

Frankly the MS free software is more than most users should ever need. Paranoia fuels the AV market, but if you see things for what they are and take sensible precautions. There is simply no reason to pay upwards of $50 a year to 'protect' your PC. Ask yourself, have you ever had a virus, trojan or other malware? I mean a real one, not a false positive? I bet most of you have not, so what exactly are you paying to be protected from? AV is a form of insurance, but if the policy costs more in 10 years than your computer did, that's simply madness.

When I do see virus-ridden machines, the #1 culprit is the user. Because it's always someone who mindlessly clicks about on the internet. Opens the attachments they shouldn't, reads the suspicious e-mails the rest of us delete. AV is about as useful as a chocolate teapot for these users. But for sensible folk who can resist the urge to run around the internet with reckless abandon. You need the equivalent of a door lock, just a sensible precaution to stop it being open access for all. Free AV gives you this, in many cases all you are paying for is fancy features, the free versions have an identical scanning/protection system. Personally I like the MS free AV, even if it is the worst one out there, it's still been as much protection as I've ever needed.

The one recent occasion I had to deal with a virus at home was on my wifes PC. She tried to get rid of a pop up window that wouldn't close and noticed something odd. She turned the PC off and came to me. Because of this, I was able to clean the infection in minutes. It was nothing complicated to do. You can download a bootable CD from the Web that runs on Linux/Unix, so a Windows virus won't work in that system. So you can safely run scanning/removal tools to find and remove the threat. Sure, if you are a little non-technical you might need assistance here. But even in such an event, the cost shouldn't be more than a yearly subscription to AV. Not to mention, most people know someone who will help them fix problems should they run into them.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rsc204 said:

Ask yourself, have you ever had a virus, trojan or other malware? I mean a real one, not a false positive? I bet most of you have not, so what exactly are you paying to be protected from? AV is a form of insurance, but if the policy costs more in 10 years than your computer did, that's simply madness.

When I do see virus-ridden machines, the #1 culprit is the user.

I had this on my family's home computer. Many, many photos were lost in an attempted recovery (we were fools wandering around systems we didn't understand).

The culprit was my brother (who was 10?) at the time. The AV software we had did absolutely nothing. The file was an innocuous music file, but the AV failed to detect it, and also failed to get the virus off of the computer. The site was not reputable. The AV was Norton at the time.

We still have the computer. We did a system reset not knowing it would wipe the hard drive (in theory). We stopped using it in the hopes that we could have the data restored somehow (after reading how Windows "wipes" drives, I'm a little more optimistic than I used to be, but not much), and ended up buying new computers entirely (another one went down at the same time for apparently an entirely different reason).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an Account  

Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  :thumb:


Register a New Account

Sign In  

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now


  •  
  • Similar Content

    • By RandyE
      These textures are freely useable and distributable for any SC4 user created content, if they are used in lot-making it is better to refer to them as a dependency and link back to this file to keep file space on the STEX free of mulitiple repeated content.  The texture data file is located in the FOLDER: Elements Textures DAT, 3 sample lots are in the FOLDER: Elements Sample Lots, and 1 7x8 test lot showing all 55 textures  is now included in the FOLDER:  Test Lot 7x8 Park. Also included are the 2 previews showing all the textures and this text in readme.txt and HTML.
      The texture '.dat' file size is 498K with 55 textures.  This volume is called 'Elements', including diagonal, broken, patterned and squared stone, dirt, grass, metal, pavement, sand, water and wood.  Also included are 3 sample lots found in the Parks Menu, each have been made functional for radical purposes of helping with start-up cash, reducing pollution and garbage, and recovery from nuclear meltdown.
      DAT FILE INCLUDED:
      FOLDER: Elements Textures DAT
      FILE: SC4_BaseTextures_Vol01_1_Elements.dat
      FOLDER: Test Lot 7x8 Park
      FILE: A0A_Base_Textures_Vol01_Elements_55_Test.SC4Lot
      This is one lot with all 55 textures in a 7x8 grid.  This lot may be used to preview the textures in-game, then delete. 
      FOLDER: Elements Sample Lots
      ---------------------------------------------
      1.) Subfolder: Patterned Grass (Anti Pollution)
      Menu description: Base Textures Elements (Anti-Pollution)
      Vol. 1: Grass Texture.  This lot is a sample which also provides some radical relief from pollution and garbage.
      _________________________________
      2.) Subfolder: Color Reg Mark (Radiation  Reducer)
      Menu Description: Base Textures Reg. Colors (Anti-rad.)
      Vol. 1: Elements, Use this lot as a registration mark for color and contrast.   In RGB, Red (255,0,0), Green (0, 255, 0), Blue (0, 0, 255), and Gray 50% (127, 127, 127).  This lot will radically decrease radiation.  Use this lot in the event of a nuclear power plant meltdown.  When you plop this lot you will see the Maxis 'Sparkles of Purification'.
      _________________________________
      3.) Subfolder: SC4 Logo (50K Business Deal)
      Menu Description: Base Textures Elements (Bus. Deal)
      Vol. 1: Elements. 55 Textures: Stone, Dirt, Grass, Metal, Pavement, Sand, Water, Wood.   Use Lot Editor to see all the textures. This lot will radically increase your income by 50,000 Simoleons a month,  Use this lot to help get your city started, then bulldoze it.   When you plop this lot it will appear as a 'Business Deal' in your budget panel.
      _________________________________
      INSTALL the TEXTURES and SAMPLE LOTS
      To install the sample lots copy and paste the 'Elements Sample Lots' folder into your User\Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins folder.  The sample lots are found in the Parks Menu.
      To install the textures copy and paste the 'Elements Textures DAT' folder into your User\Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins folder.
      _________________________________
      ABOUT the TEXTURES, INFO FOR LOTTERS and GAMERS
       
      The texture images are derivatives of images from a variety of commonly, freely shared sources, hand re-worked for use with SC4.  The design of the textures leans toward lower contrast, saturation and brightness as more usual in realism, and for dimmer screens.  
      If using them for creating and distributing SC4 lots the '.FSH' file may be extracted and included as a '.DAT', but don't re-distribute changed associations between the image and the ID (instance) as that could impact another user of the file.  No crediting is required, but no claim of original artwork should be made if redistributing them with SC4 lots.
      The Texture ID Range was assigned by the BSC Texture Index at SC4 Devotion.  http://sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=2101.0  To redistribute variations of the textures or to make your own, request and use a unique personal Texture ID Range at SC4D.
      ---/---
    • By RandyE
      Contains 9 2x2 lots to choose from.  Each lot has a different character, animation, and a variety of props from SC4 Deluxe.
      All lighthouses cost 4000§ (Simoleons), earn 100§ a month, slightly reduce air and water pollution nearby, and have a moderate local park and landmark effect.
      All lighthouses are in the Reward Menu and are available for immediate plopping. The Maxis Reward lighthouse is not replaced and becomes available as usual.
      No External Dependencies:
      The dependencies in version 1 have been removed. I am using a smaller texture pack that I made for my lots which is included, and have replaced the Bus Stop with an extended Toll Booth Platform.
      The 'BaseTexturesElements_Grass.dat' is an internal dependency required for the lots above; it is included in this package in the folder 'z_Grass Base Textures'.
      I have made a 500K Base Texture Volume with textures I made for my lots linked below.   If the texture file below is used then delete the ' z_Grass Base Textures' folder as the textures are the same and don't need to be loaded twice.
      Base Textures Vol 1 Elements
      INSTALL
      To install select the folders for the lighthouses you want to use and delete the other sub-folders.   Don't delete the 'z_Grass Base Textures' folder unless you are using none of the lighthouses which require them or are using the larger texture volume (see above). 
      Copy and paste the 'Lighthouse 2x2 Lot Pack V2' into your User\Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins folder. 
    • By RandyE
      This lot has been tested in-game, it was found that at least 2 of them are required to almost completely reduce pollution across a large tile as well as to provide water across a grid of pipes covering the whole tile.  It was tested also with the Utility Radius and Traffic Pollution Modd.  Use the Data View and Cheetah Speed to monitor changes in water supply, air and water pollution.  The pump is programmed to consume a very small amount of water so plop the pump in a non-polluted area as tests indicate it will not immediately clean its own base area and may fail to operate. 
      Location: Water Menu under Utilities Menu, and Power Menu for 1x1 Generator
      Stats:
      Lot Size: 5 (width) by 6 (depth)
      Water Produced and Treated: 1,000,000 cubic meters per hour.
      Pollution Reduction: -1200 over 300 
      Plop Cost: 25,000§
      Maintenance Cost: 10§
      Jobs: 15§, 290§§, 15§§§
      Moderate Landmark and Park Effect. 
      Transit and Network Enabled
      Power Consumed:  200 MWh (megawatt hours)
      Dependency: Included base texture .dat file.
      Maxis Night-lighting
      FOLDER: Radical Water Pump and Pollution Reduction V1
      File: List of Alternate Water Systems.txt
      File: Preview and Install.html
      File: Readme.txt
      SUB-FOLDER: Radical Water Pump and Pollution Reduction
      This is the folder inside the unzipped title folder to be placed in your User\Documents\Simcity 4\ Plugins folder.  It contains 2 files: 1. the Radical_Water_Pump.SC4Lot, and 2. the BaseTexturesElements_RadicalWaterPump.dat file with base textures extracted from my Vol.1 Base Textures Elements package.  If you use the larger package then delete the smaller .dat file included as the textures don't need to be loaded twice.  The larger package is linked below:
      Base Textures Vol 1.1: Elements, for SC4 1.1.0
      SUB-FOLDER: 500 MWh Power Generator 1x1
      File: RadicalWaterPump_PowerGenerator.SC4Lot
      I've added a 1x1 lot to generate power for the water pump.  If you use the Data View Moisture Mod to locate a high volume of water it may be in a remote area, otherwise a non-polluted area may also be in a remote area.  The power generator is equal to 2½ times the wind power plant.
      Previews:
      The 2nd preview shows the progressive reduction of air pollution; the reduction of water pollution is about the same. The test city has 2 heavy industry areas and congested traffic generating severe pollution over the entire tile. A third radical water pump would completely eliminate both across the entire tile.
      The 3rd preview shows at bottom Cori's Data View of Moisture mod which uses the radiation data view to show changes in moisture from rainfall.  In more complicated terrain the moisture data view is useful to see where to place water pumps which depend on aquifers. The mod is linked below:
      Cori's DataView - Moisture v 2017.01.22 by @CorinaMarie
      The top 2 frames show the progressive increase of water-flow over the entire tile.   Water pipes are tedious to place in large tiles requiring about a 30x30 grid.  To make the task of watering the tile easier use the Utility Radius and Traffic Pollution Reduction Modd by RalphaelNinja linked below:
      UtilityRadius TrafPollution Modd by @RalphaelNinja
      The last preview is of this .SC4Lot in production in the Lot Editor for anyone who has enjoyed using SC4 as a design tool, creating .SC4 city tiles, and who may be considering taking the next step of creating .SC4Lot files.  Using Lot Editor is not much more complicated.  Below is the tutorial that got me started almost a year ago.
      Lot Editor: Beginner's Tutorial by @jbbry232
      ___________________________________________
      Sci-Fi Description:
      The science-fiction descriptions for alternate tech. lots with radical improvements helps to fit the lot conceptually into the game while justifying what others might simply call a 'cheat'.  This one is a bit of a whopper, but entirely plausible. 
      Water is compacted into super-dense ice crystal cubes and delivered to the Aquifer generators by vertical descent from orbit.  Anti-grav. tech. is used to manage the very heavy cubes (not shown).  The cubes are then decompressed and the water is pumped into the aquifers, providing fresh-water to civilization and to ecosystems suffering drought.  The added benefit is improvement of atmospheric, tectonic, and tidal ⇌ (equilibrium), and saltwater pH balance for life-support of the Earth.   This tech. may also be used to re-pack glaciers effective to surface albedo and global climate improvement .
      ___________________________________________
      INSTALL:
      To install copy and paste the Radical Water Pump and Pollution Reduction folder into your User\Documents \SimCity 4\Plugins folder. 
      To also install the power generator copy and paste the 500 MWh Power Generator 1x1 folder into the folder above.
    • By huzman
      A curious situation happened to me with a given city. It was (is) a losing situation : high unemployment, dwindling funds, no growth, etc... So I though to nuke the city. If I choose the option from the main Region map to delete the city, everything gets erased including the topographical map. I didn't want that, of course. So I decide(d) to erase everything with the B/V options. Once that done, I reset my Moolah back to 500 000§. That's when I asked myself "Am I cheating or not". On this case, I didn't think so.
      But then, changing the city/region/mayor's name, is it cheating ? I don't think so.
      Using Ctlr+x to have all the techniques, then yes that's cheating. So there is a subtle from cheating or not. What do you think ?
      (BTW, I think that outright cheating is a way of showing a very low opinion of yourself)
    • By RandyE
      An application for post-nuclear technological civilization.
      8 (width) x 4 (depth) Lot Size. Power and Water produced: 8,000,000 MWh/ Gal. per hr.  Water Treatment and Recycling: 1,000,000/ 60%,   Maintenance Cost: 0, Monthly Income: 50000. Landmark and Park Effect: 10 over 20,  Pollution Reduction -10 over 50.  Transit and Network enabled.  Maxis Night Lighting. Location: Power Menu, Business Deals, Trash Presort Ordinance
      The textures file below is no longer a dependency. I've extracted the 4 metal textures and included them in the folder containing the lot.  If the texture file below is used then delete the 'BaseTexturesElements_Metal.dat' (40K) file in the 'Cosmic Neutrino Power Plant' folder as the textures don't need to be loaded twice.  (The metals textures .dat file may be freely used and included in works other than for the purpose of this lot.)
      Dependencies:  Base Textures Vol 1 Elements for metal base textures.
      NO DEPENDENCIES
      FOLDER: Cosmic Neutrino Power Plant
      There are now 2 sub-folders containing 2 versions of the power plant, one has the 50K business deal, and the other has a 50K cost for plopping the lot but no business deal.  Use either the 50K PlopCost folder or 50K BusDeal, not both.  Select one and delete the other. The lots are copies of each other so the game will not separate them into independent lots. Neither have maintenance costs.
       
      Description:
       
      What this power plant (hypothetically) does is filter neutrinos from the origin of the universe that are the background static before all construct of atomic matter.  The series of high power super-cooled magnetic plates slow down the neutrinos until they exert inertial force which is converted to thermal energy driving electric generator turbines.
      For the electric power needs of the entire world, only one of these plants is required as its capability of generation of power vastly exceeds what the demand would ever be for civilization on Earth. 
      This power plant requires no use of any other fuel and produces no waste or radioactivity.  There are no costs involved in either construction or maintenance as the power plant, once operating, eliminates the need for any form of abstract valuation of property, labor or resources.   There are no security risks in the operation of this power plant as there is no excess of source, transmission or storage of energy.     
      Dedicated in memory of March, 11, 2011.
      Install:
      To install first open the Cosmic Neutrino Power Plant folder and choose one of the versions, delete the other sub-folder.   Copy and paste the Cosmic Neutrino Power Plant folder into your User\Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins folder. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.