• Moose

rsc204

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4,172
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  

    82

rsc204 last won the day on
July 5

rsc204 had the most liked content!
View Past Leaders

About rsc204

  • Rank
    Simtropolis Geek

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,827 Profile Views
  1. Bear in mind, that patch is also pretty out of date, because it's purpose was to make the existing puzzle-piece designed stations work with the then new draggable GLR system. Some of the lots may have been updated in the meantime, in short, if you can drag El-Rail through a station (without the patch installed), you don't need a patch for it.
  2. That may be the case, but unfortunately the way RHW works is not based on coding every eventuality, it's a continual evolution of what works and right now, that setup doesn't. In an ideal world, super-tight compact setups would work for every piece, but in reality it would take many more years of code improvements for such a thing to happen. As such, this isn't a situation where we'd consider it a bug, just a work in progress code-wise. When those come up, the best solution is to find a work around.
  3. There are plans to make them eventually. For now though a simple workaround is to use RHW-6C which will transition smoothly to the TLA-7. This is much less likely, because of the sheer number of potential variations make it a lot of work to realise. Every single tile of the curve needs a piece, code and paths for it to work, even before you get to all the different network variations, it makes for a lot of potential combinations. Perhaps it will be done some day, but for now such things are limited to the supported FlexFly setups. You probably need to move the elevated ramps one tile further apart on each side to keep this setup stable. You might get away with placing some elevated RHW-4 starters where the overpass needs to be, it's possible to drag through these starters, which may be enough to make it work.
  4. If you are talking about models created using the SC4BAT tool, it would appear they have identical IDs. Each building needs it's own unique ID or they will conflict with each other. SC4 BAT usually handles this for you, but if you open the same file when you make a different building, that is the most likely explanation for the problem. You need to open a new file in SC4 BAT and re-render for each model, that should ensure they all have unique IDs. This will require replacing the buildings on your lots too, since they need to be updated with the new IDs also.
  5. Then we don't agree, Piggy-backing simply doesn't happen, it is not how the internet works, I don't know where you get this idea from and it has nothing to do net neutrality, which has always been the default way the internet has worked. You suggest Net Neutrality is a new thing that is crippling the internet, that's simply not true, it's always been a thing and the internet has thrived despite it. That is simply wrong. Sure some parts of the web do require low latency, but if your argument was true, how on earth do those services work under Net Neutrality right now? Things like NetFlix, YouTube and other streaming services absolutely work with Net Neutrality in place. Prioritising packets is not the solution, nor is it necessary. As I mentioned in my post, it's investment in local hosts and mirrors that allow such services to work. So if it's not broke, what are we trying to fix? But more importantly, why are we trying to fix it? LOL. Hysterics, that's your opinion... The fact is, however you look at it, Trump's word means absolutely nothing, he's proven himself to be in an ethical vacuum. But this is important, why would a person like that want to disband Net Neutrality? Doesn't Trump always do things that help big rich individuals and corporations to make more money? Isn't that what he really believes in? So if he wants to ditch Net Neutrality, do you REALLY think it will be for the greater good of the average person? Come on, seriously, if he wants to do it, it's probably nefarious. That was my point, which I tried to make in a rather stupid and humorous way. Why so serious man, I can't have a serious conversation about the joke that is the US president, it's simply too staggeringly ridiculous to think he's in office to take seriously. Trump wants to ditch Net Neutrality, because his rich friends know by doing so, they can monopolise the internet better and make more money. You think you will get your subsidised seat on the plane, but the reality is that the plane will be a private charter and you won't be allowed to fly unless you've got the bucks. But that is again flawed logic, the internet is not free because other people pay more, but you absolutely can pay more for a better service, without compromising the ideology of Net Neutrality. But more doesn't mean you get to use your internet at the expense of others, it just means you get more bandwidth, rather than priority. If you want priority bandwidth, there are service providers who can give you that, but it's much more expensive, because they have exclusive hardware dedicated for their paying customers only. For example, a company can have a super-fast regional fibre-optic pipe that no one else can use. That does not break Net Neutrality rules, because all packets using that pipe must be dealt with on a first come first served basis. But you still get access to a priority pipe with improved access speeds over other service providers. That's what people who think Net Neutrality should be ditched seem to fail to understand. Having those rules does not prevent investment or specific businesses from offering a better service. It simply protects traffic from being prioritised to one service, customer or business over others. No that's not a good thing. NetFlix could pay so much that literally no other video streaming service could possibly work. That's the equivalent of a monopoly and very bad for user choice, it would be a harmful business practise for the consumer. If I paid the same for my internet connection as you, why shouldn't my 4GB anime season download with the same priority as someone else playing a game online? What if I didn't want to leave it running overnight, what if I was waiting for it to finish so I could watch it right away? But this argument is predicated on the idea that somehow I can't download my anime, whilst others play games at the same time. When the reality is, the ISP should have sufficient capacity in the system to allow both things to happily work simultaneously without problems. The issue is all about scale, if your ISP has sufficient capacity to serve everyone's needs, it simply doesn't matter. Take away Net Neutrality laws and the ISP could decide to bork everyone's downloads, so one person could play their game, how is this fair? Especially if we are all paying the same fee for the same service. Why should someone who chooses to play a game have their usage prioritised (i.e. subsidised) by others who's data needs are considered less important. We all pay the same, we should all get the same service, even if we are doing different things. Yes, I'm flaming you... or could it be that I'm simply pointing out you have a very flawed idea of what Net Neutrality means in the real world. I'm sorry, but if that article fits your narrative, it too is simply wrong, because Net Neutrality is not breaking the internet. Again, for that to be true, the internet couldn't work as it has been for the last 15-20 years, yet somehow, despite Net Neutrality being a thing (it is not a new thing either), the internet does work. If you are arguing Net Neutrality is new, you don't know what you are talking about. If you are arguing the internet doesn't work with it, you simply couldn't be more wrong. That's not flaming you, it's just pointing out your argument is completely wrong. The same logic can be applied to many of the arguments presented in that article, it simply doesn't stand up to the most basic and obvious scrutinisation. For example, the article argues that somehow, given prioritisation of packets, a new start-up would be able to gain a leg-up on the established competition. Really?, do you seriously believe if I started a new search engine tomorrow, paying ISPs for priority access over Google, somehow that would help to gain market share? The cost would likely be exorbitant, way more than a typical start-up would reasonably have. It also blissfully ignores the fact that if someone were to do this, Google could simply pay the ISPs more to make their service an even higher priority. If you start such a war where the highest bidder gets priority, isn't it likely that those with the most money and resources will always come out on top? Isn't that exactly why Net Neutrality laws are there, to protect users from such anti-competitive behaviour? You mean exactly as we have been doing since the beginnings of the internet? Again, if it's so harmful, why are things working? Once more this argument is simply turned around and based on flawed logic. It's not like all the laws for Telegraphs were used for the basis of the internet. Just one principle of them, which is that no packets should be prioritised over others based on commercial interests. I'd argue that totally applies to the internet, I'd also argue it's working just fine this way. I'd add too, this still has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter, PB and the changes made to their service, a point I note you didn't care to comment upon.
  6. You shouldn't need to rebuild it, that will always be a lot of work. Have you tried simply moving the content from the xPlugins folder into Plugins? That should work, unless all the files inside it have been locked too.
  7. The thing is, to really go through a problem, it's necessary to get feedback, so when I asked this: Having not got an answer if this worked, it's hard to advise you on the best course of action. I need to know if another folder named "Plugins" exists, also if a simple reboot helped. Windows will often lock files like this, it happens and is the OS being over-protective of you, by not giving yourself the necessary "rights" to alter your own stuff. But, it can be reversed, it's just easier to start with simple solutions, before we get to messing around with the permissions.
  8. Two ways to find this information, either just look at the base textures in the Lot Editor, which all are organised by ID. Otherwise extract them all from the SimCity_2.dat file (which is where all the LE textures are located).
  9. There is a bug in gMax, that still affects new versions of 3DS max, when you right-click something, the listings appear to be greyed-out, i.e. options are not selectable. However, this isn't the case, just click the option you want and see how it still works just fine. If that isn't helping, I fear the simplest solution is uninstalling SC4BAT, gMax and then re-installing them both.
  10. I don't disagree that starting over would have a lot of negatives attached to it, but it would bring a lot of positives also. Assuming it took off, you could reasonably expect for the amount of choice in terms of content to be available in future at some point. The key difference is, if we start with the basis of using SC4 as a platform, in 10 years time we might have something that no longer works on modern PCs. In less than that we might have a product that no longer allows users to make new models, 3DS max support and the lack of an update to BAT4Max is a real problem we're going to face soon. The real benefit to a new open-source variant is that it would give us the flexibility to ensure a continuing future for the platform, something which we will never have control over with SC4.
  11. Yes, I would, because the vision of Net Neutrality presented in your post is very far removed from what it really means. There are so many holes and factual inaccuracies in your argument, I really can't fathom how you've got things so mixed up. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with piggybacking packets of data, it's all to do with prioritisation of packets. Now those two might sound similar, but the distinction between them is hugely important. It is a principle that states, no one packet should be given a higher priority than others, all should be treated equal, on a first come first served basis. This fundamental internet democracy, all packets are equal, is there to protect the internet, it's a good thing, we should all be fighting for it to remain. This doesn't even stem from the internet and is not a modern principle either, it dates back to using Telegraph systems, where the government of the US decreed that all traffic should have equal priority, except for emergency and government use. This principle was taken on board very early in the Internet's life, to protect the freedom of the internet and it's users from commercial interests dictating the quality of a given service/site. I mean come on, it's not like Trump to make out he is the one with moral high-ground, using a factually ignorant argument, to pretend the evil he's about to do for his billionaire mates, is actually what's best for the common man now, is it? Jeez, if you buy anything that man says, go look up the word gullible and try to apply it's definition to your life. Trump thinks he was born rich, because he is better than everyone else, you know he has a higher calling and deserves what he got for nothing. You know, like some sort of royalty, what an ego-maniac, how can any person trust a single word of out his sexual harassing, failing businessman, douche bag mouth, I'll never understand. He is scum, he is a liar and his continual use of oxygen is an injustice to mankind as a whole. Geez, even when presented with unequivocal evidence of his wrongdoing, no one cares, how brainwashed is that? He is not fit (ethically), to sell girl scout cookies on doorsteps, let alone to be president of the USA. Anyway, before getting into Trump bashing, a subject I could write a thesis upon, here's a practical example of how Net Neutrality laws protect people against commercial interests: Let's say your ISP did a commercial deal with NetFlix to prioritise all their data packets. But you had paid for a subscription to another provider for movies/videos. Without Net Neutrality laws, your ISP could prevent your packets from having the same priority on the network as those for NetFlix. In short, that would make NetFlix's service the only viable option, since it might be your service simply could never provide you with the bandwidth needed to sustain a quality video stream. All because your ISP was being paid to ensure NetFlix customers had their content served up as a priority to other video-streaming services. Such a system is not currently allowed, because it protects people from corporate interests interfering with the order or priority which data is served by your ISP. Bandwidth has very little in the way of costs associated with it, that's why for the longest time, you have not had to pay for it. For example, you connect to your ISP, their systems then connect to the outside world, which at some point connects you to the service provider hosting the content you wish to see. The bits in-between obviously do use third party networks, but the real cost there is not in sending/receiving packets of data, it's mostly from putting in the infrastructure in the first place. Sure there are fees charged when data moves from your ISP onto networks they don't own, regional carriers and transatlantic pipes for example, but you are paying for that. Your ISP must factor in those charges when it decides how much to bill you for using it's network every month. Here is the best explanation I could find that breaks down how internet traffic works. Just like how your telephone service includes the costs of network switching as part of a call, these costs for routing internet packets are included in your ISPs subscription charges. Part of the way the internet works is that providers who want a better service for their customers, invest in infrastructure to ensure you can access their site, from the closest possible server to your physical location. This actually applies in the case of ST, since the hosting provider has deals in place to mirror the site to various locations for quicker access worldwide. For example I know CloudFare is being using by the hosting service ST contracts with. My connection to ST is hosted in my city, Frankfurt, on one of those mirrors. So likely my ISP has barely any costs for connecting with ST, if any at all. The ISP hasn't paid for this setup, the hosting provider has, to provide a better quality service for it's customers, making it's packages more desirable for it's clients. Of course this might sound like it goes against the principles of Net Neutrality, but since the packets are not what's being prioritised, simply an optimisation of the connection, this does not break such rules. Of course not all web traffic works this way, some do connect to a lone physical server that is the only one. But, most large hosting providers have long since moved from this system, because it's much cheaper to use such localised hosting services. Not to mention the improvement in the speed and quality of a connection, if YouTube was all based in the US for example, the odds of a quality video stream in Europe would be very low. Thanks to their scale, they can have server farms "data centres" that are closer to where the demand for their services are. This is totally not why PB are needing to charge. The simple fact is, PB have to host and pay for the bandwidth for everything being viewed on their servers. Net Neutrality does not make this more expensive, the two are not related in any way. PB is spending a lot of money to deal with the content of a huge number of members, 10,000,000 of them, this is really expensive. My guess is, the subscriptions simply were not enough to pay for all those costs. That would explain why their service has been very slow for the longest time. It also explains why the sheer number of ad's they put on their site, along with the annoying implementation that bombards you with them, took root. But this is speculation, I can guarantee you however, Net Neutrality rules have nothing to do with it.
  12. Yeah you can't rename the folder if another one with the same name exists. Otherwise, if a folder name change is locked, the first step is simply to reboot the PC to see if that unlocks things.
  13. Well the textures, like all SC4 textures, are compressed as FSH files, when certain detailing is employed, it can lead to such artefacts displaying. For example I noticed that my Industrial SAM textures do a similar thing when there are lights around. The root cause is the detail of the textures, when brightened or darkened, it alters the way you see them. Everyone will have a slightly different setup/display in-game, due to differences in the components/drivers used to render their games. It would appear though that your game is brightening things considerably, you might try altering the Gamma setting of your videocard when running SC4. Bear in mind this change will affect everything in-game, but you may find you prefer the results. Assuming you have either an NVidia or ATI dedicated graphics card, you should be able to alter this in the respective control panel application. You should also be able to specify the change to only apply when running SC4. A lower gamma value will be darker, a higher value will be brighter, you only need to make small adjustments, but with some trial and error, that shouldn't take too long to get a better colour balance.
  14. Logically a re-install isn't likely to help, whatever is wrong here is remaining in your save files, so even after the re-install will still be there. Best guess is there is something wrong with the lots and the best course of advice in the first instance is to refrain from using them. I would try using the immortal lot removal tool to remove the lots, re-plopping them first so the tool can do it's job properly. Hopefully that will remove the lights along with the lot. But sometimes things get stuck in the save file and simply can't be removed. I've had this in a couple cities where I did some serious alterations with terraforming and a few garbage zones would simply never go away. It's rare, but when it happens, there isn't always a lot you can do about it.
  15. This is a common misconception, but if you have a newer version of DirectX, you have all the older ones already installed, there should be no need to install older versions. Since the latest versions always contain the full set of files for compatibility with older variants. There are some rare cases where a specific .dll might be needed for an older game to work, but SC4 is not one of them.