Res Plops

[huzman 445]

Wondering why nobody saw this: Res§, §§, §§§ ARE plopable.

Here is a template Residential Plops that were all ploped with the cheat command "BuildingPlop".
There are hundreds of Res plops available. All good.
"He who said that Res were not plopable and growable should go to front of a firing squad."
I just took it for granted that Res were NOT plopeled. It just hogwash!

(this screen shot is just a template. It is to be used for showing the evolution of seasonal trees thru the seasons.)

These are just from the Euro files. I'm sure it works for the other Hous, Chi, etc.

[Jasoncw 11,839]

Unfortunately none of the ploppable versions of RCI buildings work correctly, but C and I work well enough that you can get away with using them sparingly. This thread is missing its images but it still gets the point across well enough. https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=3036.msg94888#msg94888 

The problem with plopped R buildings in particular is that the sims can't leave the building, thus can't find employment, and so the building abandons. Ripplejet says the same thing happens even when you plop growable lots using the building plops cheat.  

[T Wrecks 10,209]

Yeah, let the simulation run for a few months and see what happens...

[SecretMbr_735754 2,157]

I've never seen any problem with user-created growable residentials as long as they're programmed correctly, but several attempts to at least prevent dilapidation of an abandoned plopped residential have all failed.   Even many user created landmarks I've found will dilapidate as something is incorrectly programmed.   

[matias93 7,535]

There is, though, the myth that plopping a residential lot over an already existent lot of the same type, size, orientation, wealth and density allows the plopped lot to 'inherit' the commuters of the grown lot it replaces, reducing the risk of dilapidation. I haven't tested it systematically, but I remember it worked once.

[huzman 445]

Oh well... I thought that I had discovered the hidden treasure of Montezuma, but it turned out that the trunk was empty.
Yet, as matias93 post suggests, there is hope.

[CorinaMarie 29,558]

7 hours ago, huzman said:

Yet, as matias93 post suggests, there is hope.

From what I've read elsewhere that method does work, but as @matias93 mentioned it only reduces the risk of dilapidation. It does not prevent it. And the problem comes in that if (when) it eventually dilapidates because of some change in desirability then it will not ever come back even when those factors are resolved.

[T Wrecks 10,209]

With all due respect, this community has been active for ~14 years, it has been strong not only in numbers, but it has also seen many extremely knowledgeable members come and go (some have stayed, thankfully). These people haven't been sitting on their hands and drooling out of the corner of their mouths all this time. They have researched, tried, tested, experimented, documented, further developed, programmed, archived, refined, improved, analysed, tweaked, patched, expanded and optimized...

So if you take a brief look and see something, chances are somebody has seen it before. Now, by all means, don't let that kill your curiosity or curb your enthusiasm! It's a good thing and the foundation of all improvement. So please do continue and have fun finding out stuff!

However, I'd like to ask you not to jump to conclusions so quickly. In the cheats thread, you made it sound almost as if you had been the first one to document cheats and nobody knew anything about them. However, Cori linked two cheat collections that had been done before. Yours has the potential to become more complete and better, so that's good, and I welcome your effort! However, you could have paused to think for a moment and simply have asked "hey people, I haven't found any cheat documentation - hasn't this been done before?". Because if you think about it, it's very unlikely that nobody has ever done anything about it, isn't it?

The same happens here. A simple question like "hey, look at this - am I up to something here?" would have been enough, rather than storming in and shouting that you have discovered the Holy Grail and wondering "why nobody saw this". We saw it. Just ask us, and we'll tell you. And if it's indeed something we haven't seen, then the discovery and the glory is still all yours, but we don't feel like you think we all may be morons.

I know that feeling when you think you made the discovery of the century, but how do you think it feels for us when we read "I wonder why nobody [of you idiots - that's kinda implied here implictly] saw this", or "He who said that Res were not plopable and growable should go to front of a firing squad." (!!!), or "It's just hogwash!"? So that's why I'd like to recommend you take it a bit easier next time and try to formulate your discoveries a bit more neutrally and centered on what you observed, rather than making comments that sound derogatory.

Now it takes more than a few words on the Internet to insult me, but others may be more sensitive - and what's more important: I don't think it is really your intention, and you are not doing yourself a favour because you might be misunderstood. So just be a bit more careful with your wording next time, ok?

(To be clear, I'm not writing this as an 'official' statement in my role as a moderator, but merely as my personal feelings as a community member.)

[Fantozzi 4,064]

 @huzman

Dont worry too much. Sometimes me too, I'm caned by dad.

(Sorry of topic.)

 

[huzman 445]

9 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

From what I've read elsewhere that method does work, but...

Indeed. The game ran with the cheat buildings and every one went out of work. What misled me was that R### were not plopable. It should have said that they aren't growalbe. To compound the problem, if the cheated building is deleted, it doesn't leave the lot footprint.

 

9 hours ago, T Wrecks said:

However, I'd like to ask you not to jump to conclusions so quickly

You are a little rash. But I agree with your comments.

 

9 hours ago, T Wrecks said:

you made it sound almost as if you had been the first one to document cheats

You mind my enthusiasm? Would these kind of posts will make you (and all the moderators et al) refer to older and forgotten posts? So we can find answers without screaming EUREKA

9 hours ago, T Wrecks said:

"I wonder why nobody [of you idiots - that's kinda implied here implicitly]

Sorry, but it seems you are judge and party. Implicitly is not. We (newbies, greens, beginners) need your (gurus moderators and such) precious comments and always thanked you.

As what I should had said in quotes, aren't  you putting words in my mouth? "idiots?" "morons?" Where do you get that?

I could answer... Oh the hell with it!!!
 

[huzman 445]

4 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Dont worry too much. Sometimes me too, I'm caned by dad.

I needed that kind of humor. Thanks.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,157]

@huzman  I think a few of us got a bit frustrated because a few new members seemed to be asking questions deliberately to play some kind of game with the gamers here in the questioning and replying.   I've always seen that your questions are sincerely asked and you are always sincerely grateful when you get some replies, so in that way you help keep the site active with live information relevant to the game.  And yes, I enjoy your sense of humor.   We'll find the lost treasure of Montezuma yet  

[huzman 445]

3 hours ago, RandyE said:

We'll find the lost treasure of Montezuma yet 

Oh yes, we will!. RandyE: your comments sooth my feelings. Merci. It seems it vindicated me.