McDRye tries BAT again..

[DocRorlach 24]

Impressive; that actually made sense to this mathematically challenged head of mine. Thus I guess you are right, might as well incorporate all possible futures. And as MG pointed out, there are efforts under way to accomodate the 7.5m depths.

MightyGoose: would the effect of a .5 depth not show up if you used, for example Ennid's fiendishly precise slope mods? I find myself repeatedly switching his medium_315 mod off and on; visible there seems to be no difference between, say, one tile and the adjecent tile. But then trying to drag, for example, rail onto a TE lot more often than not fails because of a minute and certainly invisible height difference. Hence fractions do make me wonder..

[armpit43 168]

Is this comming out? I despretly need thses lots, I am trying to do a "Sub surface widenend line" theme, and build a Thameslink style Line. I am a very strong supoorter of these PLEASE bring them out! Will you be making light GLR stations that can be manually put in a cutting like say-Farringdon?

Oh and also, anyone know where I can find a "Ctiy Thameslink" style station?

[mcdrye 86]

armpit43, this station I made a while back is a very similar style to a City Thameslink station expect the signage is London Underground.

Update!

I got a normal quality render in with my walls and it looks okay, obviously I'm going to need to do some tweaks and put them on my own lots (NOB's pathing is non-UK for a start)...

[DocRorlach 24]

McDrye, it is getting better with every post. Seriously, time to upload, don't you think? Just in time for the holidays.

Questions, though, I have: the automata token above the lot - is that for the trains? Which appears to be a tad off track (but London Underground in the days of Boris always is). And, strictly for future updates, I noticed the other day that some of the real underground walls do actually contain tunnels, doors, I even saw a shed, I think. Would it possible to have random (or lotted) version. I am thinking along the lines of BuddyBud's sunken highway walls which tend to change with every plop. But then again, as usual, this is me being greedy..

Edit: sorry for the earlier double-post; ST6 was acting up again (Cold Fusion). But I have a quetion re that Churchstreet station: would it be possible that you could release just the street-level building (including the stairs) as a prop? one could then use it with home-made sunken rail stations..

[armpit43 168]

More of these stations Mcdrye!

Also, great work on wikipedia, with the fictional underground maps. Didnt you have one large map that shows all the extenstions proposed and closed stations opend?

[Blueeyesman 5]

Im so getting the Sub Surface Rail set when u release it..

Quick question will the SSR be u-drive-it capable?

[Follarch 310]

So this really isn't completely underground? It's sunken but visible? This looks absolutely amazing! You're doing a marvelous job with this. The walls are very detailed!

I may have to seriously get this when it's released.

[mcdrye 86]

Thank you all for the positive comments!

armpit43: Yes I do somewhere on my old backup, I'll dig it out at some point as the old link is dead.

Right, I've been working on the end piece for the SSR but I've hit a wall (and so have the trains) with regards to visible automata.

When automata reach the end of an end-piece and appear to enter a tunnel/arch, they disappear, as to be expected since it is leaving the lot. So I tried placing 2 end pieces in a 1x4 lot with an avenue passing through the middle so that trains would seem to pass underneath. I don't think it is possible though to transit enable a lot with 2 modes of transport (it already has El-Rail to display automata).

Is there a way around this? I was thinking of having bridge arches as props so trains could pass freely underneath but that still wouldn't allow roads etc to cross over it. I could just have a 1x1 lot with the end-piece but automata would appear and disappear, and U-Drive would be unusable.

On a lighter note, I'll be posting a picture (or two) of the Lucky Penny Casino very soon...

[DocRorlach 24]

But dual network pieces are possible - NAM does it all the time (albeit not always with the best results). And others have made rail or road underpasses without using the subway alternative. So it must be possible. That said, I would give U-Drive a miss; I mean, it is a subway - what can you expect from u-driving it? A quck read of the London Times about fare increases?

[mcdrye 86]

Yay I managed to get trains flowing through using FLUP from NAM!

Works like a charm now, except the FLUP piece has slightly lower pathing, would it be possible for them to provide a piece with a higher path? (Please ignore misaligned pieces as this is still in testing)

[DocRorlach 24]

It looks really stunning, however, it appears it needs absolute flat terrain becuase in your picture there are alignment issues, visible the wall and he track. One other thing is the bridge vs. the tracks: the train dipping and rising over the short distance is odd, especially since the empty track next to it does not decline. I think you may be better off to move the tunnel entrance one tile back on either side, effectively making this a 1x3 piece. Avenue underpasses might not need this.

[mcdrye 86]

DocRorlach as I said in my post, alignment issues should be ignored as they will be fixed for the final version, also the train dipping is unfortunely due to the NAM piece that connects the 2 end pieces uses a different pathing height, which I'm trying to sort out.

Currently I'm (re)working the 90degree turn piece to fit in with the new height and design

Also as promised, here is a look at my Lucky Penny Casino

As you can see, it's nearly done, but I'm open to critique!

[mightygoose 81]

the underpasses look great, i think in future nam versions the flups may get corrected to 7.5m depression. as for the lucky penny. i am no simfox, but the roof looks great but the black asphalt looks very dark... too dark. to saturated, as is the red compared to the green but not by as great a margin.

[DocRorlach 24]

Not being much of a fan of any casions I can only second what mightygoose says: the colours on the Penny are somewhat off the beaten track of SC4; not just the red trimmings but the underground entrance looks as if it has never been used. My other qualm are the flora. I know, this is from Vegas. I just don't like being stuck with the palm trees. Something more neutral would allow this to be placed in any climate zone. Where I disagree with MG is on the roof; again, since we're talking about a place in Vegas, those tar run-offs and stains are rather realistic - I've seen them.

[T Wrecks 10,063]

I see DocRorlach's point about the flora, but if you don't feel like changing it, players can still pretend that the casino wanted to mimic that typical Vegas flair and hence had some palm trees planted on its premises. As long as your setting is a moderate climate zone, you might get away with it - especially since casinos can look somewhat tacky and "loud". I love the glass, and I'd really like to see the other side of the building, where the glass cannot reflect what's actually there.

[mightygoose 81]

by black asphalt i meant the ramp, doc, the roof is fine.

[Hiandby4 1]

 Now that building is amazing but the thing that upsets me is that there is not one tutorial that can teach you how to make night lighting like that and on the omnibus there's only one night lighting tutorial. Amazing job by the way.

[DocRorlach 24]

Oops - apologies, MG. Then we are, for once, in utter agreement. And me too, I would like to see a day shot of the front of the building.

[mcdrye 86]

The red could easily be toned down, I'll try that.

The ramp texture is actually the games texture, just modified in size, also the roof textures are the Bellagio's from satellite view, just colour altered and resized.

I can understand why palm trees aren't too welcome but this is a casino, it's decoration is supposed to stand out, and you won't be placing 20 of these in your city, I just do think generic bushes will do it any favours.

Here a picture of the front, please bear in mind its a bit grainy like the one above as I lowered some settings to speed up rendering for preview purposes. Also the front canopy texture isn't really that dark, theres an error there, that strange line underlining the big sign is it's shadow but it looks weird.

[sbh565 2]

thats incredible... great work!

[Utvaw 45]

That casino looks FANTASTIC.

As for it's nightlighting, will it be only like the picture above or will some of the hotel rooms have their lights on?

SO glad to see a casino in the works.  They are one thing the game is really lacking in.

[Roger51 381]

That is looking fantastic!!!! It is the right size for the casino, not to big like the ones from Vegas, but a mid-ranged casino Oh and the pool looks so inviting, I just want to jump in

[SimFox 734]

It's great! I personally don't think that red is all thata too much, it is after all not, as author pointed out, a building that is to be popping out all over. In fact my only objection is the texture on the ramp. It's just way way too dark. First of all textures from game can't be used right away in BATs Game and BAT lighting is just too different. Plus usage of dark road texture that isn't too realistic even in game is also questionable. Ramp like that is more likely to be paved with edged concrete block or something along those lines.

Another thing I would take another look is vegetation May be it should be just a tad darker and may be some slight variation from plant to plant, to make it stand out a bit more. That would balance red nicely. And I think it needs it as not to be lost next to the in-game vegetation...

[Bastet69008 1,086]

Awesome!

[SimHoTToDDy 2,898]

Really lovely.

If you are still wondering how it will look in game, just photoshop it into a screen shot! You can tell immediately that the asphalt is much too dark (value was 6 -4% too low when using eyedrop tool). I think the red looks great. Although some subtle adjustment might be in order (Looks a little too yellow in the base, but that is probably from the other materials not the red itself), I think the intensity is lovely (if I were a hummingbird I'd know where to go!). It adds a nice splash of color on a building that intends to say "look at me" anyway. I think the trees look fine in terms of hue, but they do look a little thin and wimpy next to most other foliage, plus, as Simfox mentioned, some more variety could never hurt.

There are a few places on your roof bitmap and your HVAC units that approach pure black (which is odd for direct sunlight). While not catastrophic, it would be good to adjust any spots that would look odd in game.

By the way, this is fantastic work you are doing. Please keep it up

-Todd

[harishna 827]

I love the casino, and I think the vegetation (given the changes suggested by SImfox) needs to be tacky and exotic, instead of trying to make it blend in it should stand out, after all is a casino.

[Jasoncw 9,452]

Yeah, I definitely agree.

Normally I don't like palm trees in the game, but this is a casino so you can have tacky palm trees. 

If the casino was located in the north, the palm trees would just be fake.  And if it was located in a tropical climate, well, the palm trees still might be fake...

[DocRorlach 24]

Ok, I retract the veggy stuff. But now that I see the front I am wondering about the reflection ofthe three columns of glass panes on the left: they seem to show something, a wall, a street, that simply is not there. Moreover - but this maybe nitpicking -as that particular reflection continues into the top row, should it not be offset more to the right?

[SimFox 734]

DocRorlach:

You have to grasp one thing - it IS a reflection, not "reflection", meaning not a picture/bitmap applied to the "glass". Windows reflect what is in front of them. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it is not there. It is simply hidden from camera. So that clear you can drop all that what should be where. The only thing to be concern is not where it is but what else it might have been.

I, myself personally have strong reservation of making "real" reflections. Putting some game elements on the ground plane may seem as a great idea - c'mon it will reflect what will be there. But... I have a sneaking suspicion that it will come with a price. Yes, some elements will be reflected "right" but other will not. and it is exactly this contrast that in my humble opinion can simply break the illusion. Here we see road, sidewalk and what an appear to be a meadow beyond it. The contrast from something very recognizable to something totally abstract and at that so different (in structure) may be too much. I still think that some abstract, random appearing splashes of color, bright/dark areas would be more confusing - and confusing is good when you really have nothing to show.

Yeah! Fake palms! Reminds me this:

[DocRorlach 24]

SF: I should have explained myself better: on the back of the building it works to reflect what is actually there. Well done (actually: brilliant), on the front something appears to show that will most likely not be there: as in the eight pane columns on the right (excepting the jutting entrance). That whitish bit on the left appears to be too distinct. Then again, we are looking at the full-sized model, in-game it probably won't be noticed.

As for te fake flora: yuk! Hope nobody starts putting those onto lots. That red sunflower looks absolutely menacing: what is doing? Spraying pedestrians? Listening in on the street chatter? Reporting pedestrian count to Google Earth?