• Moose


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  


About Tarkus

  • Rank
    Corporate Climber
  • Birthday 10/15/1985

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

197,140 Profile Views
  1. Symantec has, as of sometime this morning, removed the false positives from our Norton SafeWeb rating, with the original installer versions of the files still in place, so they've corrected things (at least for now). Indeed--the size of such a project is one of the biggest stumbling blocks. Even though the false positives on the two installers have been cleared out, it's still something I support doing. The installers are the one thing that's holding our Dependency Tracker system on the LEX back from reaching its full potential. -Tarkus
  2. Thanks for starting this thread and bringing the information here, RandyE. I myself am one of the Norton users who was getting blocked. I did just go ahead and disable the Norton Security Toolbar extension on Firefox, which leaves the rest of Norton operational, but kills the interruptions. Their whole "Minority Report" shtick with all the SONAR/Insight nonsense they added in the early part of this decade is really a menace to non-commercial hobby sites, and a disservice to their end users. I have submitted a "false positive" report to Symantec as of a couple days ago, and I believe at least one other user may have as well, but they advise that it may take them "10 to 12 days" to resolve. In the meanwhile, the "blacklist" they've placed us on has negatively impacted our search engine rankings, though fortunately, it doesn't appear it's really hurt site activity that much. The bigger issue, however, is that it causes virtually any file with an installer off our site to get flagged with WS.Reputation.1, a non-virus "guilt-by-not-being-a-heavily-downloaded-commercial-file" label, which automatically gets quarantined. As there has been some on-and-off talks about repackaging some files (particularly older, frequently used dependencies) as .zip files instead of installers, we are discussing the possibility of moving that project up on the priority list, as even before Norton's recent pants-on-head stupid moves, that had been a regular source of complaints. I do actually have non-installer versions of the two files that Norton is holding against us (one of which has been on the site for 10 years!) at the ready, in case we go that route, though I'd like to see Symantec do the right thing and exonerate us for something that was clearly their mistake. (Also, nice Rush quote in the sig, T Wrecks!) -Tarkus
  3. The game generally sees the crossing of the two freeways as an intersection, so it'll apply the first value of the ITCE to the affected tiles. Changing the DDRHW to be OWR-based would actually drop the capacity and speed of the network (OWR has a higher per-tile capacity than Road and Avenue with the NAM Simulator, but a quite a bit lower than that of the RHW). Due to the EXE-controlled tidal flow system that network has, it would also force all the traffic to move in a single direction (unless implemented as FLEX rather than draggable, and at that point, you'd be better off using the MHW-based FLEX). -Tarkus
  4. SC4 network capacity works on a per-tile basis. The simulator cannot count lanes. By setting the first value of the Intersection and Turn Capacity Effect (ITCE) in the NAM Traffic Simulator to 1.25 (the default is 0.7), and using dummy paths ("distilled intersection paths" or "DIPs") to make the simulator think the orthogonal network is actually an intersection, we are able to trick the game into giving some override networks a 25% boost over the listed capacity. But that's as far as we can go. The DDRHW-4 is a single-tile override network, based off the RHW network with the DIPs applied, so its capacity is 1.25 times the listed capacity for a single tile of RHW. The RHW-4, however, is a dual-tile override network, based off the RHW without DIPs, so its capacity is 2 times the listed capacity for a single tile of RHW. We did, at one point, try to trick the game by using the Rail network as a basis for the DDRHW, as it had a higher listed capacity, but it was later discovered that capacity only applied to rail traffic--putting car/freight truck/bus traffic on it caused the game to revert to the Road network's capacity and speed. The only way we could actually get the DDRHW-4 beyond a DIPs multiplier is if we changed the implementation from an RHW-based draggable to an MHW-based FLEX setup (which, after receiving DIPs, would actually be at a 56.25% boost over the single-tile RHW capacity), but that would considerably impact the ease of use of the base DDRHW-4. The RHW-3 also is a single-tile network with DIPs, so it has an identical capacity to the DDRHW-4. A few other things to note about DIPs and the ITCE trick: Crossover paths, used on some of the wider RHW and NWM networks (namely, the RHW-6C, RHW-8C, RHW-8S, RHW-10S, TLA-3, TLA-5, TLA-7, OWR-4, OWR-5, and AVE-6), also invoke the ITCE effect, and will receive a 25% boost per tile. This does mean that networks with crossover paths cannot receive further DIPs treatment--"double DIPping" is not possible. The networks that currently have DIPs are the RHW-3, DDRHW-4, RHW-6S, AVE-2, ARD-3, OWR-3, NRD-4, and RD-6. The Type 110 and Type 220 setups in the future FLEX Turn Lanes (FTLs) and existing Turn Lane Extension Pieces (TuLEPs) also possess DIPs. The exact size of the boost is dependent on the first value of the ITCE property. It is possible to raise this value above 25% (the old Simulator A by jplumbley had this set to 30%--it was with Simulator A that the boost idea was first observed on a TLA-3 prototype), but the end result is that this will also boost the capacity of intersections, and of networks with crossover paths. z1 and I came up with the 25% value, as the best compromise, given which network features are affected by that value. In order to get the same basic effect of the original game values, while still allowing this capacity boost, z1 dropped the values of the second and third values of the ITCE property (which control the capacity of networks one and two tiles away from the intersection, respectively) to 0.2 and 0.4, from the default values of 0.8 and 0.9. This will cause the tiles adjacent to the intersection to appear congested more quickly (though this effect can be tuned down with the "Intersection Effect Multiplier" option in the Traffic Simulator Control Tool (TSCT), which can alter these values). Because the default Maxis settings put that first value at 0.7, trying to use an RHW or NWM network that has crossover paths or DIPs with the default simulator will actually reduce the network capacity by 30%, instead of boosting it by 25%. -Tarkus Edit: Corrected value of boost of using MHW-based FLEX with DIPs--it's actually 56.25%, not 50%.
  5. Regarding FA-RHW development, it's on hold until we have the time to fully commit to a FLEX and/or draggable implementation. I am considering dusting it off down the line, in order to produce a more geometrically-realistic diamond interchange for the RHW QuickChange Xpress system, but that will likely require some modeling work, which is always a choke point in the pipeline. As far as the F1 dual setup, that's something I've had planned for quite awhile, though I still haven't gotten to it. Elevated Ped Walkways are going to need to be draggable once we get around to expansion. -Tarkus
  6. SC4D Admin here. I have manually activated the account on the LEX, so you should be able to log in now. Apologies for it taking a couple days, but I've been working overtime at two jobs this week, which means I've barely been home (aside from sleeping), while also preparing for an out-of-state trip, and have only just now seen this thread. Manual account activation requires Admin privileges, and the rest of the Admin team has been spread a bit thin with real life as well. Of the other three besides myself, one is building up a law practice, one is finishing up his master's degree, and the other is in the process of starting grad school. The site owner is also quite busy in his life outside of the SC4 world, and except for emergency situations (i.e. database and server issues) and site finances, has largely left operations of the site to the four of us. It may, for the foreseeable future, take us a few days to handle manual activations for LEX and/or SC4D Forum accounts. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but thank those who are patient with us, as we try to balance our real world obligations with our continued, long-running passion for this community. -Tarkus
  7. If you're going to buy another copy of SC4, I'd recommend GOG.com (Good Old Games) instead of Steam. It's the same price as Steam's version, but there's no DRM associated with it. If you're willing to push Origin customer service enough, you can probably get a refund from them, as the user in the thread I linked did. -Tarkus
  8. If you're on 1.1.613, that's the European unpatched version. You'll want to install the SKU2 version of the update. If you bought the game from Origin, unfortunately, you're out of luck. Origin is selling an unpatched and unpatchable version, which is missing a number of stability fixes, and can't run the NAM. See this thread. There's several other threads around as well. Apparently, Origin even issued an "update" at one point, that actually downgraded people's copies to the nerfed 1.1.610. -Tarkus
  9. Regarding the seemingly "animated" commute query arrows, it doesn't actually look like there's anything wrong there. The NAM does add some additional pedestrian paths to the sides of the various car-based networks, in order to allow direct connection to the Pedestrian Mall (PedMall) pieces, and I suspect the simulator is simply "exploring" them (there's a pair on each side). The NAM simulator also gives the commute engine a much stronger drive to seek out less congested routes--actually a necessity for proper functionality with some of the wider override networks in the mod (i.e. in the Network Widening Mod and RealHighway plugins), and it's possible this might also be impacting that. I've noticed the pedestrians going to the neighbor connections as well, and that's likely because of the fact that the NAM simulator increases the speed for walking from the default 3.5 to 15 for most networks, in order to make pedestrian and transit-based commutes more viable. Provided there are jobs in the next city tile on the other side of the neighbor connection, the game sees the edge of the current tile as a "job" to which the sims can commute, and since the game can't run the simulation on the next city tile over, it has no way of knowing whether or not the pedestrian commute option continues to be viable on the other side. This is simply an effect of the game's neighbor connection functionality not being finished to the extent Maxis really wanted--the "Eternal Commute Loop" is another similar issue. Both issues exist in the base game without mods. -Tarkus
  10. The one issue there is just how symbiotically the Steam Workshop is tied into C:S. You can browse it and download and install the mods right in game, without having to worry about where to put them. They've also already covered curation, with the "collections" feature. Unless someone can trick C:S into looking to another location besides the Steam Workshop, and build an API that allows a similarly seamless browsing and installation process, you're going to be looking at the pains of getting the C:S community on board with an SC4-style distribution system, with manual installs. Given that SC4 players used to the system still complain regularly, and C:S players have been spoiled by comparison from the very beginning, I don't see more than a small niche of advanced players being on board with that. And there's one huge problem with creating an "Underground Workshop" in this plan. Community activity on the forums like ST and SC4D is, to a large degree, driven by proximity to the STEX and LEX. Many people come to the sites initially to check out the files, and then some of them begin to check out the forums. This was how I personally ended up on ST over 11 years ago, and I suspect many, many others have a similar story. Substituting in that "Underground Workshop" as described wouldn't give you that pass-through from the STEX to the forums, which was so vital for the development of the SC4 community here. You'd be simply looking at an in-game interface inside C:S. Even worse, the net result would be that the host of this workshop would be forking out for bandwidth that would otherwise be coming out of Gabe Newell's very deep pockets, without any real benefit. The best case scenario ST has as far as gaining activity from C:S users is the one @Hamish recently outlined, in which users become tired/frustrated with the sanctioned discussion forums for the game (Steam Community, Paradox Forums, and /r/citiesskylines), and seek out a new place to talk about the game. That's not going to have the usual firepower of a vital on-site exchange behind it, however, because of the monopoly Steam has on that side of things. The real best scenario for ST would be if someone decided to enter the market and compete with C:S, and not go all-in on Steam. Indeed, I think this is the biggest, long term set of issues we need to address if we want the SC4 community to survive in any way, shape, or form. My big proposal on the permissions red tape is this--if reasonable attempts at gaining permission are made, and there's no word from the original creator after 3 months, the files become "fair game". This is actually a rule we've been following somewhat informally over at SC4D for awhile now, but I'd like to ultimately have some sort of "roundtable" with the key stakeholders who are left, to hash out a more formal policy for the larger community. Repackaging is also going to be a necessity in the long run as well. "Binge downloading" tends to be the main way people assemble things now, and the current system isn't at all conducive to that. My efforts on these fronts have stalled a bit, due to my other SC4 projects and now fairly heavy RL (which looks as though it will get really heavy in a couple months, as I'll be moving, possibly a considerable distance), but I'm hoping to really get back to that in earnest once I've landed in my new spot. In retrospect, Pegasus' long-time policy of putting his files on multiple exchanges looks like a pretty smart move on this front. Had he only hosted things on SimPeg, the process of re-assembling his catalog on the STEX would have been a much more difficult affair than it was. I think cross-uploads and/or the creation of some sort of emergency "file vault" would be prudent steps to take, to ensure we don't lose all this stuff we've worked for almost a decade-and-a-half to build. The lower activity levels at SC4D have actually allowed us to reap some savings, which will allow us to keep the site up longer. -Tarkus
  11. The capacity for the FLUPs is going to be based on the network listed on the CheckTypes definition for the piece in RUL0. The actual portals themselves correspond to the network they appear to support, but that's not the case with the actual underground portions, which actually carry paths for just about every type of transit type. Looking over the RUL file, it would appear the underground portion is actually Light Rail-based--not surprising, considering they were Chrisim's baby, and the Tram-in/on Dual-Networking items were his other specialty. The blank tiles and FLUPs-under-Park tiles seem to have dual Light Rail/Road CheckTypes. This means that Light Rail paths will be at the catalog capacity for the Light Rail network, but as was discovered with the failed attempt to give the Double-Decker RHW (DDRHW) a big capacity boost (which occurred after the FLUPs pieces were made), putting car paths on networks that don't normally carry cars causes the car/bus/freight truck capacity to instead inherit the capacity of the Road network. There may be situations with FLUPs-under-network items where the catalog capacity of the other network may end up applying, but that depends on the network hierarchy, and is difficult to discern at a glance. I'm honestly not sure if the capacity situation was something that was given a ton of thought when FLUPs was initially developed. The long-rumored "alternate implementation" would, based on what I know, be saddled with a similar situation, but would be far simpler to use. -Tarkus
  12. The big problem with Cities: Skylines and its role in our community is that, despite ST's efforts to embrace it in the same way they did SC2013, Paradox and Colossal Order had other ideas. They're running everything through Steam, their own Paradox Forums, and Reddit. Because they've done Steam Workshop integration to handle mods/plugins for the game, it's largely cut independent exchanges like the STEX out of the loop. The C:S players who are around ST are mostly people who were already here for SC4, SC2013, and/or CXL, who have loyalties to this site. Unfortunately, the majority of the "new" C:S players out there don't know and don't care that ST exists, because they can get everything they need off Steam. -Tarkus
  13. Thanks for posting that screenshot (that's what the like is for--major unlike for being stuck with a bunk copy). It actually helps a lot with documenting everything--the date modified info matches up with the other recent Origin versions I've seen, and suggests that Origin reverted from the proper 1.1.641 digital copy to their special nerfed 1.1.610 edition in November 2015. Unfortunately, that does mean that there's probably a lot of unsuspecting people who got jobbed by Origin, as it took over a year for the first confirmed reports of this happening. I'm going to try fighting the system again, to see if I can force Origin to do the right thing. The one thing you might be able to do still to get a legitimate copy without having to shell out is to redeem your CD key with them--for some reason, they give the CD key folks the proper 1.1.641 version for free, but the people who pay $20 get screwed. -Tarkus
  14. Don't feel too bad--those of us left on the team feel disheartened about the scale of what would be necessary to sufficiently document what's presently in the NAM, too. Especially as we're probably going to have to rebuild much of it from scratch. The decision to move away from our more compact HTML-based documentation to the PDF-via-Google Docs/Word setup was, in retrospect, a mistake, because it left us with something very difficult to edit/update. The fact that we've also been undertaking a series of massive, wholesale implementation changes for some plugins also hasn't helped with documentation. The scale of those projects--some of which were started in 2011 and are still ongoing (see the RHW, in particular)--has also left some NAM plugins in a series of awkward transitional states during that time, as we've had to do things in phases, out of sheer necessity. -Tarkus
  15. Dang, that's a bummer. I'm guessing your NAM install must have come from an old plugins folder from when you were still using a disc copy? The NAM installer spits out an error message and stops installation if it encounters a 1.1.610 copy. SC4Fix won't fix the issues with 1.1.610--it's designed to solve a notorious crash-to-desktop that exists when NAM puzzle pieces are in close proximity to stations or other Transit-Enabled (TE) Lots. EA/Maxis released a patch to solve the 1.1.610 issues back in 2004, the EP1 Update 1 patch, which upgrades the game to Version 1.1.638. However, because Origin has altered the checksum of the executable, as a product of removing the original SafeDisc DRM for their own DRM, the official patch cannot be applied to Origin Version 1.1.610 copies. One Simtropolis user successfully got a refund from Origin over this (albeit after considerable wrangling with their customer service) back in February. If you can get a screenshot of your version number, that would greatly help my efforts in documenting Origin's continued failings with SimCity 4. I may make another push to get some more coverage on this, as it seems Origin reverts to screwing customers when no one is looking. -Tarkus