• Moose


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  • Most Liked  


rsc204 last won the day on
May 15

rsc204 had the most liked content!
View Past Leaders

About rsc204

  • Rank
    Simtropolis Geek

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,604 Profile Views
  1. There is no problem with simply deleting entries for the lot files, so long as you have the files elsewhere. Maybe best to make a duplicate copy of the file just in case until you've verified the change. You can copy/paste entries between files open in Reader. So if you need to move things around it's pretty easy. There is no cut feature though, so after copying you need to go back and remove the entries from the old file.
  2. Sounds right to me, since Hardware Acceleration is just another way of saying utilise the GPU. It depends on the browser you use really, in Firefox the option is called Hardware Acceleration, but I couldn't say exactly for other browsers. By removing it, you should reduce the chance of incompatibilities between the graphics drivers and the browser causing a BSOD.
  3. You used a family ID, which means all the textures are technically the same group. F8D8 0004 Here the 0 or 5th digit represents a texture family, it's a little hard to explain, but using 0-3 here will act as a wealth flag: 0 = No Wealth 1 = $ 2 = $$ 3 = $$$ If textures use these IDs, the one you see will be the one matching the wealth of the lot itself. You will see a similar behaviour with some of the Maxis grass textures. The far simpler answer here is that it's best not to use 0-3 at all for the 5th digit and skip ahead to 4. Because it's rare that you would want this behaviour in practise. Simpler still, based on your texture range of F8D8, I've attached an Excel sheet with the first 768 texture IDs you should use listed. If you need more, you can easily generate them following along to this: TextureIDRange-Tyberius.xls
  4. You could try disabling hardware acceleration in your browser, it might help.
  5. Already been done. There is no way around this limitation sans creating a plugin DLL that alters the game's .exe. Which whilst great in theory has never actually been done. Cracking this would take someone with extraordinary talent and the time to devote to such a task. Since placing a starter is so easy, it almost begs the question, why bother doing all that work?
  6. It really depends on your definition of new networks. Sure as @matias93 points out you can't add a completely new network, but must override an existing one. But, I'd still argue that a new SAM mod is a new network, even if it uses the Street network as it's base and requires a starter to instigate it. To create such a network requires making the starter, creating the textures/models and the coding in RUL to make it work.
  7. It doesn't really work like that. You can scan a folder or your entire plugins suite and it will show you any missing props/dependencies. But it won't know what they are called or the pack containing them unless those files are also loaded during the scan. However, if you have loaded everything, you can see easily which dependencies are used on a given lot. Other ways to find out include: The Maxis LE embeds a special file "LD" which lists the dependencies used in lotting. However this doesn't include textures. SC4 PIM or PIM-X has a function that lists the dependencies used on a lot. Again provided such files are loaded when the application starts.
  8. No they are separate things. SC4 PIM is basically an updated version of the original PIM and LE in one program. Datanode is a scanner for your plugins, which can help you identify missing plugins and problems with mods.
  9. This can be the case with any chip. NVidia licence a reference design to the manufacturers. Then to differentiate themselves, the manufacturers will do various things. Some will tweak the cooling system, overclock the card slightly or use varying amounts of RAM. Whilst the chips are pretty much identical, the quality of the cards and components can vary hugely. I've stuck with ASUS for a long time, since I use their motherboards pretty exclusively. The last ones I bought even came with a 5 year extended warranty if you registered the card. One thing you need to be careful about though, BSODs are not normal, they indicate a problem somewhere with your system. Replacing the card won't necessarily fix that problem, it really depends on what the cause is. One thing you do need to check is that your PSU is sufficient to power your system, the graphics card can be a major part of that equation. PSU Calculators exist online to give you a good rough idea if you have a sufficient wattage PSU for your machine. But if you are having BSODs from the display driver, maybe it's time to install the driver from the manufacturer and not the one recommended and/or supplied by NVidia, which includes drivers distributed through Window Update. Because if the manufacturer did alter the reference design specifications for your card, almost certainly the generic drivers won't be coded to handle that. Which can easily lead to such BSOD problems too. As mentioned previously, that might leave you having to use a far more out of date driver though.
  10. The thing about buying a GPU is that it's never as simple as saying get X. There is always a sweet spot between price and performance, regardless of your budget. The point where the next card up is too much extra to justify for the performance or where you might as well spend another $20 to get the better card. So in essence start by asking if you want an NVidia or ATI card, I'm guessing the former. Then look at what your budget allows for in terms of the chip on the card. Ideally you want as much vRAM as you can afford, 4GB is a minimum these days, but 6GB or 8GB would be better. Then try to buy a brand of card that gives good performance, a decent cooling system and driver support for the long term. Because manufacturer enhancements aren't always best supported by the generic NVidia drivers. But after a certain point only NVidia bother to update them. Personally I tend to buy the same brand card as my motherboard, but it's not really necessary. The more you pay, the better the card you should end up with at the end of the day.
  11. Looking at what you want to do, I think you want to make a custom prop family for use with SHK's props, which is reasonably easy to achieve. Start by working out exactly which props you want to appear on your lots and collecting the prop exemplars for them in a new DAT. Then in reader highlight them all, right click and select "Generate new group and instance", which will give them all new unique IDs. You might want to edit the prop names at this point, to differentiate them in the lot editor. Now just replace the current Building/Prop family with one of the unique id's assigned to you. You might want to use multiple families that do different things. Also you should note that the ones used by SHK are in timed groups, so the cars change throughout a day. Although if the plan is simply to remake the SHK groupings so that the flash cars aren't part of them, you don't need to concern yourself with this overly.
  12. Knowingly killing a bunch of children is slightly different from being ordered to bomb/invade/capture something without bothering to check it's all clear of innocents first. I don't think anyone in the armed services would knowingly slaughter a bunch of children frankly, even if some bad guy/(s) were there. You know, rules of engagement and all that. Isn't that statement more an affirmation that you would equate the two acts as being the same, when the reality is they are anything but? In any case if you take that to mean I was calling everyone in the armed services mentally deficient, you clearly have misunderstood what I was trying to convey at some fundamental level. I think there is a distinction to be made here. The point I was trying to convey previously is simply that many of those committing so called terrorist atrocities recently are not actually terrorists. They do not belong to any terrorist organisation, they were not trained by one nor radicalised in the strictest sense. Some of them are just people who decided they wanted to hurt people and end it all, giving themselves a cause to die for in the process. As for whether that is the case in this instance, well it remains to be found out, I was just putting that out there as a possibility. Not all terrorists are insane, not all bombers are terrorists and many of those committing these acts would be considered to have mental deficiencies. But what does that mean? A serial killer might just be someone who doesn't place a value on the lives of those they kill. But it is society that has created standards, including what is and isn't considered sane. But, we know that some of those recent incidents, not explicitly the person behind yesterday's attack, were not what society would call mentally stable. In all likelihood that is the main reason behind their crimes, but they are chalked up to terrorism instead. Yes and no. Because what we're getting into here is what is considered by most in civilised society to be rationale and sane. But these are human constructs, born by a desire to evolve beyond our animal tendencies into civilised beings. You could argue life isn't worth a damn, the universe is chaos and random and so nothing we all do matters. After all we're pretty sure one day it will all end somehow with another mass extinction anyway. But I think most people do think life has value. Just because cows who are bred for the express purpose of being eaten and used in products are slaughtered, does not mean it follows it's OK to slaughter humans. That's a really poorly thought out argument that completely ignores the reason why we're doing it in the first place. There wouldn't be anything like as many cows, chickens, pigs, sheep etc if we were not breeding them to eat and survive. If the process seems heartless, perhaps you should take a look at the number of people that need feeding these days? If we were going around taking pot-shots at animals for fun, or for some religious reason, that would be a different story altogether. But do such animals bred for an explicit purpose hold a similar value to humans? Of course they don't, suggesting they do is frankly ridiculous, if we weren't eating them, wouldn't exist in the first place. Which is really the entire point I was trying to make earlier. We can't assume this is the work of ISIS or a terrorist group at this time. If indeed he was working alone, which of course is speculation at this point, there is a possibility he was not a terrorist. At the very least he wasn't a part of ISIS in that case. And we as a society should stop playing into this narrative, because it makes groups like ISIS look far bigger and scarier than the actual reality is. That's exactly the effect the news is trying to create, in some ways governments too. Since it justifies a limitless invasion over our private lives, creating laws which are rarely used for the defined purpose. Want an example of why that's bad, imagine a 21st century Gestapo with access to everything you've ever done and said online? Now that's something to truly be scared of. The reality is that however terrible the acts of terrorists are, over the course of a fraction of an average year, more will die in traffic accidents. In 2015, 1,732 people were killed on the roads, but few are scared of cars. Yet we are far more likely to die in one than by the hands of a terrorist. It's about remaining grounded enough to see things for what they are. We're not going to stop terrorism, murderers or people dying, to think we could simply belies the reality of how things work. There will always and have always been people who wish to do others harm. But we need to put the actual risk into perspective, that's all. Again I fear you are comparing apples with oranges, you know an eye for an eye, so it's somehow all the same. But knowingly blowing up young people and children is very different to trying to stop an evil dictator who's murdering his own people on a daily basis. I think it's pretty obvious that children were a target in this case, but you can't tell me the US, UK or other countries involved in action in Muslim countries are targetting children. Sadly, war is a nasty business, people get caught in the crossfire. Where do you really think the refuge problem stems from? The root cause is Assad's regime and the manner in which it was treating it's civilians. Other groups then waged war to try and depose him, in the meantime the world powers have dipped one toe into the water and picked their sides. It's this ongoing war that has led to a mass exodus. It's not like it's all the fault of those fighting against it, the problem is much more complex than that. To conveniently ignore all those factors doesn't help anyone, simplification of very complex events ultimately leads to big misunderstandings, sometimes with terrible consequences. Should we have just sat by and watched Hitler take over the globe piece by piece? At some point, for the betterment of mankind, someone had to have the guts to stand up to his regime. Of course not all such wars are so black and white, but I'd like to think the idea of protecting the people of Syria from Assad, is ultimately a moral one. How we go about that, well that's a lot more tricky, since the last thing people support is long and drawn out conflicts. So instead we go in with limited people on the ground and using technological and weapons superiority. That brings a whole other bunch of problems and morality issues into the fold. But let's not forget the target in this example is a maniac prepared to use chemical weaponry on kids (and adults), among his many crimes against humanity. Of course it's true that we try to assign ethicality to such scenarios, yet we turn a blind eye to similar or worse atrocities where it suits our interests to ignore the plight of those involved. Just like it can be said we could go about fighting such evil better and avoiding more innocents getting caught up in the ordeal. But rather than bomb you because I disagree with your solution, rationale people prefer to try and open discourse. There are people who believe (wrongly), that this is all some anti-Muslim crusade, which couldn't be further from the truth. So if that's your starting point, I think it's fair to call you delusional at the very least. But looking at the events rationally, even if you disagree with one side of it, is no justification for spilling more blood, you'd have to be crazy to think that way.
  13. That's sadly not anything like as difficult as you might imagine. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to assemble an IED from items you can buy quite legitimately. We don't know this, could have been coincidence after all? Either way that doesn't make you smart or sane because you thought it through. Depends really, psychologically speaking the desire to commit such an atrocity suggests a mental defect of some sort. A completely sane person would see that their actions wouldn't bring about any change whatsoever, thus were unjustifiable and pointless. Add to that when someone is willing to kill themselves in the process, you don't really end up painting a picture of a rational thinking person. Why is a suicide bomber always a terrorist? Isn't the definition of a terrorist someone who wants to force you to do something and is willing to kill others to make it happen? Usually as part of a larger group with some political or ideological goal? Just because someone thinks they are in ISIS or another terrorist group, doesn't mean they have any connection to it. So if you have no official affiliations with any terrorist group and kill yourself in the act, aren't you just a killer? For example, was the pilot who deliberately flew the Lufthansa jet into a mountain a terrorist? No, just someone who was mentally ill, wanted to kill himself and others and become "famous" in the act. Once more he planned this deed in advance and took steps to ensure he would succeed, that doesn't make him sane, quite the opposite. Just because you bring religion into such an act, doesn't change the nature of the offence. As such, if this person didn't have official ties to a terrorist group, he is simply a murderer. In fact, most of the recent spate of killings are similar, there is no actual link to ISIS or another terrorist group. These are just murderers. It's just the world terrorist is so much more scary than murderer in these cases, so that's what the press go with. But in reality, most of them are simply not, by definition, terrorists, even if they choose to call themselves that. We only serve to strengthen the fear ISIS and other groups have over us by going along with this fallacy.
  14. Sad news, such events are becoming all too frequent these days. I was in London when the last one hit the UK in March, although safely waiting for a Eurostar train at the time. The thing is, the IRA weren't a bunch of nice people trying only to cause panic and damage to property. They killed many people indiscriminately and found a way to justify their actions. Geez, look at the bombing in Warrington where they set a second bomb to catch those fleeing from the first one. Just because sometimes they gave a warning doesn't really make their actions any more acceptable. When it comes down to it, they were also a bunch of cowardly blackmailers, using the threat of violence and death to get what they wanted. I fear however we use the word terrorist all too quickly in this day and age. If someone who is mentally unstable decides to go on a killing spree in the name of ISIS, that doesn't make them a member of ISIS, nor necessarily a terrorist. But it's much easier to lump all these separate acts into one scary group, than see them for what they are. This is partly the fault of the media, because it's easier to make people afraid this way, suggesting there is one scary group coordinating the whole. The fact is there have always been nutcases, murderers and terrorists. Sure most of the events recently can be attributed to some sort of religious motives, based around Islam. But frankly, unlike groups like the IRA, what they want is even less clear. As such, I'm sad to say I don't see this issue going away any time soon.
  15. Usually this occurs when you try to load HD textures (those above 256x256px), but SC4 is not using the DirectX Hardware renderer. Making a water mod is not too difficult, you just need to make a set of 5 textures and give then the right IDs. Just take a peek inside an existing mod to see what I'm getting at. By comparison making a new terrain mod is a huge amount of work. This is because the sheer number of variations there are of such textures. Creating a complete set whilst ensuring they all play nicely together is a big undertaking.