Missing textures and objects after saving

[tomek4zielinski 13]

Good morning,

I need an advice because I can't deal with a serious error. It's like that:

I have a big region with over a dozen cities making one big metropolis together. I use plenty of mods (over 400) including NAM, extra textures, props and many buildings with it's dependencies. So far it all used to go well and I couldn't find a single error anywhere. But yesterday after loading one major city I've noticed many objects missing, they are just empty flat surface. University, objects in residences, avenue bushes and so on.

I used a backup file I'd made few days earlier, loaded it up and it was all ok. After doing some minor work I saved again, but then after reloading - once more, missing objects and flat surface instead of buildings. I suspected this exception to be some kind of error while saving or loading process. I tried to investigate this theory and I came back again to backup savegame, and overwrote it to check if the error reappears. I tried it over 5 times in a row with failure, but once city loaded succesfully. I hoped I have overrun the error and made a savegame. I quitted to region,  did a prayer and then loaded it again - sadly, flat textures again. I can't edit and overwrite this city any more, because every time i do that, this flat texture error appears and I can't go any further with this city.  

It's pretty exceptional, because:

- All other cities are healthy, even those with more data in it (modded buildings, higher population), and also remain fine after overwriting

- There's no mod in this city which isn't already used in other, fine working cities

- Once the city loaded successfully, so it must depend on something

I have also noticed this city loads up and saves longer than others. 

- My PC never had any problems with graphic settings, game was always running fine (once a day the game quits itself to the desktop without warning, but I heard it's a common thing - i had this error with every version of SC4 on every computer since 2003)

What can it be? Is there any way to fix it, has anyone ever faced with it? Please don't tell me I have to do the city all over again. This vision makes me suicidal, I have put a lot of effort in building it.

Help guys, please! I'll be glad for any of your effort.

[xxdita 1,097]

Have you installed SC4Fix? It looks like you're suffering from prop pox. 

There are instructions on that download page on how to correct the problem once you've installed SC4Fix. 

[tomek4zielinski 13]

Well, it was indeed a prop pox. Despite many years spent around SimCity 4 I didn't know about this bug. I've downloaded the fix and did everything according to the instructions - the city looks fine now even after reedit and overwrite. It seems the problem is gone.

Thank you, you've saved my work! 

[xxdita 1,097]

20 hours ago, tomek4zielinski said:

Well, it was indeed a prop pox. Despite many years spent around SimCity 4 I didn't know about this bug. I've downloaded the fix and did everything according to the instructions - the city looks fine now even after reedit and overwrite. It seems the problem is gone.

Thank you, you've saved my work! 

Though there are a few different possible ways to create the prop pox, only one publicly available file has ever been confirmed to cause it, in multiple tests. 

You'd think that by now, the file would either be corrected for future players, or come with a warning and a link to SC4Fix so that nobody has to continue suffering this issue. 

[twalsh102 1,601]

I would have to agree!  @CorinaMarie, @Cyclone Boom?

[Cyclone Boom 16,854]

37 minutes ago, twalsh102 said:

I would have to agree!  @CorinaMarie, @Cyclone Boom?

Cori and I will discuss this.

[Cyclone Boom 16,854]

While Cori and I have no opinion about whether or not the files in question might be potential causes of game glitches, we do feel updates are warranted for the benefit of the SC4 Community. As such, on our authority as admins of ST, we have edited in the patches as a precautionary preventative measure.

-CB & Cori

[xxdita 1,097]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone Boom said:

While Cori and I have no opinion about whether or not the files in question might be potential causes of game glitches, we do feel updates are warranted for the benefit of the SC4 Community. As such, on our authority as admins of ST, we have edited in the patches as a precautionary preventative measure.

-CB & Cori

The empirical evidence is rather difficult to refute. 

Sadly, by 'fixing' the problematic file, you have created further prop pox issues for anyone that updates to the new version, if they already have the prop in place in existing cities, even if preventing new players from having to face it. So I would encourage anyone already using the file to keep the one they have. 

But SC4Fix does exist. It not only inoculates players from prop pox, but can restore affected cities after the fact, as proven in this very thread. Adding a link to the dll on the updated file seems only prudent. It should be considered a dependency at this point. 

[Tyberius06 12,184]

52 minutes ago, xxdita said:

But SC4Fix does exist. It not only inoculates players from prop pox, but can restore affected cities after the fact, as proven in this very thread. Adding a link to the dll on the updated file seems only prudent. It should be considered a dependency at this point. 

Well, after the things what I learnt about static and timed props in the past few years, I agree with @xxdita concerns, and also agree referencing the SC4 fix just in case as a dependency. 
I just checked the referenced upload, but don't know what changes have been made on it so far. The original upload was around dec 2007 and then it was updated in 2015 (probably the description, when the rest of the collection came from the dead site), but after I downloaded the file, in the zip the *.dat file is dated to 2017 (????). So what is the update now?
I would go further anyway (you know me) and would fix the file for sure and fix the affected original lots with the fixed props, so at least from now people could be relaxed with those stuffs. That would be the most beneficial for the community, regardless what have been the different oppinions in the past 10+ years.

- Tyberius

[xxdita 1,097]

21 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

Well, after the things what I learnt about static and timed props in the past few years, I agree with @xxdita concerns, and also agree referencing the SC4 fix just in case as a dependency. 
I just checked the referenced upload, but don't know what changes have been made on it so far. The original upload was around dec 2007 and then it was updated in 2015 (probably the description, when the rest of the collection came from the dead site), but after I downloaded the file, in the zip the *.dat file is dated to 2017 (????). So what is the update now?
I would go further anyway (you know me) and would fix the file for sure and fix the affected original lots with the fixed props, so at least from now people could be relaxed with those stuffs. That would be the most beneficial for the community, regardless what have been the different oppinions in the past 10+ years.

- Tyberius

The problem is that we're talking about a Maxis prop that has been used on Maxis lots. There's nothing wrong with the lots at all, or with the Maxis prop, only in the way the prop exemplar overrides the original Maxis prop exemplar. This prop is used on 17 Maxis lots, as well as the 4 custom lots included with the download. And who knows how many others... 

I have just downloaded the file in question, and though I do see an edit to the description, I don't see that any change has been made to the contents of the file in any way. The timed prop is still timed. 

[CorinaMarie 29,578]

@Tyberius06

The patched .dat files are indeed from 2017, but there wasn't a consensus at that time about whether or not to post them. Today, we slipped them into the existing zip files and that's why they maintain that date.

The files updated are:

• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/19111-peg-oww2-bdk-beach-development-kit/
• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/19145-peg-oww2-bdk-beach-restrooms/
• https://community.simtropolis.com/files/file/19363-peg-oww2-rebalynns-beach-hut/

 

Since a LEX admin said this:

21 hours ago, xxdita said:

You'd think that by now, the file would either be corrected for future players,

We figured it was time to dust them off and do the updates.

 

19 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

I would go further anyway (you know me) and would fix the file for sure and fix the affected original lots with the fixed props, so at least from now people could be relaxed with those stuffs

Sure, go right ahead. We both know you know way more about the internal parts of the .dat files than CB or me. You have our permission to make sure the files are fixed properly.

[xxdita 1,097]

PIMX allows all lots using a given prop or prop family to be opened at once (at least any lots that exist in folders selected upon opening PIMX). The Maxis beach umbrella is used on 17 Maxis lots. PEG's timed override of this beach umbrella as found here is likewise used on those same 17 Maxis lots. 

I don't know what's been changed, but the modified umbrella still overrides the Maxis prop exemplar. So it hasn't been fixed in any way. 

[CorinaMarie 29,578]

1 minute ago, xxdita said:

I don't know what's been changed, but the modified umbrella still overrides the Maxis prop exemplar. So it hasn't been fixed in any way. 

As we understand it, the difference has to do with RTK1 vs RTK4 and that was what needed changed.

The files were provided to us privately since this was a hotly debated topic (which we'll not re-hash here). So, we aren't revealing who did the fix, but we are confident it was done correctly.

[CorinaMarie 29,578]

Here, it might help if you have both sets of .dat files to compare:

OWW Files - Old and New.zip

[Cyclone Boom 16,854]

Going a step further to assist the precise investigation, here are the comparisons of which exemplars have been modified per file entry. In the below lists, the "Num" is what corresponds to the entry listing in each .dat file. According to Reader 0.9.3 these are the only ones which have changed between them.

As follows:

PEG-OWW2_BDK_RESOURCE.dat

 

PEG-OWW2_BDK_Beaches_110.dat

 

PEG-OWW2_3x3_Beach-Hut_101.dat

 

PEG-OWW2_2x3_Beach_Bathrooms_100.dat

 

We'll leave it to the experts to precisely determine the differences between the originals and new fixed versions.

[xxdita 1,097]

47 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

Here, it might help if you have both sets of .dat files to compare:

OWW Files - Old and New.zip

The fixes seem to line up with the data I've read and suggested fixes. 

So after well over a decade of problems being reported, hopefully Prop Pox can now be completely in the rearview mirror. There have been far too many threads similar to this one over the years. New players that have no idea how to even describe what they're seeing, much less how to search for answers. So I hope that everyone that sees this thread pays attention to the pics in the OP. 

I still strongly encourage everyone to use SC4Fix, because while these files have been corrected, it's impossible to say that there aren't more out there, or that there won't ever be again. 

[rsc204 21,806]

On 28/04/2020 at 1:12 AM, xxdita said:

Sadly, by 'fixing' the problematic file, you have created further prop pox issues for anyone that updates to the new version, if they already have the prop in place in existing cities, even if preventing new players from having to face it. So I would encourage anyone already using the file to keep the one they have. 

No, that's not correct, anyone with the old file is already suffering from the problem anyway, so why would providing a fixed version be bad? This logic simply doesn't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, not that it matters. Have you actually checked what the changes are between the old and new files? The Prop Exemplars have been given new, unique IDs, hence there is no further overriding going on here. In short, it's simply impossible therefore for further Prop Pox issues to be caused as you state, because that only happens when the same IDs are used. It's also why two other files needed updating, to make sure they included the new ID'd props on the lots, not the old ones. For someone who's always bemoaning how others don't fact-check every little detail, I'm surprised you didn't take all of the two minutes necessary, to actually check the facts.

[xxdita 1,097]

6 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

No, that's not correct, anyone with the old file is already suffering from the problem anyway, so why would providing a fixed version be bad? This logic simply doesn't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, not that it matters. Have you actually checked what the changes are between the old and new files? The Prop Exemplars have been given new, unique IDs, hence there is no further overriding going on here. In short, it's simply impossible therefore for further Prop Pox issues to be caused as you state, because that only happens when the same IDs are used. It's also why two other files needed updating, to make sure they included the new ID'd props on the lots, not the old ones. For someone who's always bemoaning how others don't fact-check every little detail, I'm surprised you didn't take all of the two minutes necessary, to actually check the facts.

Maybe you should take the time to finish reading the thread, before commenting? 

[rsc204 21,806]

4 minutes ago, xxdita said:

Maybe you should take the time to finish reading the thread, before commenting? 

I did, but isn't the point of fact checking to know the state of things, before you make assumptions? That's my point, you clearly didn't even check before you stated something as fact, quite forcefully I find too. Given you've made such a big deal out of this recently a number of times, I wanted to make certain you were aware of the problem. Let's face it, whomever made those fixes, shouldn't have to deal with people making accusations about potential problems, especially from someone who hasn't even bothered to get their facts in order first. Personally, if I'd got something so wrong, I'd probably amend my original post to clarify the error. There is always the chance someone will not read further or take a small section of the whole out of context otherwise.

[xxdita 1,097]

Let's be clear. This thread never had to happen. Prop pox was first detected in 2007, and by 2009 there was irrefutable evidence of the exact props that would cause it, along with the specific directions on how to fix the files to avoid Prop Pox. So it has been over 10 years that these files have been known to be problematic, with no corrective actions taken until this thread. 

So I don't really understand your issue with me being reluctant to give the all clear for a few hours. 

[CorinaMarie 29,578]

2 minutes ago, xxdita said:

So I don't really understand your issue with me being reluctant to give the all clear for a few hours. 

I believe the point @rsc204 is making is that you initially stated that nothing was fixed. It was only later where you did approve of the changes made to the files. So, if someone later reads the thread only to the point of your initial dismissal, they might believe the files are still borked, or even worse, borked more.

[xxdita 1,097]

Just now, CorinaMarie said:

I believe the point @rsc204 is making is that you initially stated that nothing was fixed. It was only later where you did approve of the changes made to the files. So, if someone later reads the thread only to the point of your initial dismissal, they might believe the files are still borked, or even worse, borked more.

If one were to go by the Last Updated date of the files, or the actual file dates of the updated files, it would seem as if nothing had been changed since 2017. So further investigation was required, and done, in a matter of hours. That's certainly a faster turnaround than any other development we've seen on this issue. 

[rsc204 21,806]

48 minutes ago, xxdita said:

So I don't really understand your issue with me being reluctant to give the all clear for a few hours. 

That's rather a distortion of your words, don't you think? You did not say anything was pending your approval, you stated the following:

On 28/04/2020 at 1:12 AM, xxdita said:

Sadly, by 'fixing' the problematic file, you have created further prop pox issues for anyone that updates to the new version, if they already have the prop in place in existing cities, even if preventing new players from having to face it. So I would encourage anyone already using the file to keep the one they have. 

My emphasis in bold. I'm sorry, where within this would any reasonable person believe you were "looking into it"? That is absolutely the opposite of how you have come across. This is quite an accusation and it would be reasonable to think that anyone casually throwing it around, would have checked this to be true. So when you later respond with:

On 28/04/2020 at 5:09 AM, xxdita said:

The fixes seem to line up with the data I've read and suggested fixes. 

What you are not doing is coming back and giving the all clear. You are correcting your original error, talking about time-scales is just another illusion, designed to divert attention from the actual matter at hand.

Of course, you can keep ignoring the facts as they stand, you could shut up and move on or you could contest the actual facts. What you can't do, is continue to defend your actions as a form of aggression towards the person who called you out on it.

I suppose this is where I'd put my moderator hat on and ask that if you must continue to respond, would you kindly ensure such actually adds something to the discussion at hand.

[xxdita 1,097]

I have not thoroughly tested the corrected files, nor do I have any intentions of doing such testing. But I did research the matter after comparing the old and new files posted above by @CorinaMarie, and I am satisfied that the updated files will not lead to Prop Pox for new players. That is a significant step and I am glad to see that decision finally being made. 

In fact, part of that research included one of your own posts  If changing the RTK is indeed the cause of Prop Pox, then changing the RTK back to its normal state may also cause Prop Pox, for any props already existing in a city tile. If testing exists to disprove this, I have not seen it. 

So I will continue to be cautious on this matter, and continue to recommend that all players use SC4Fix regardless of which version of the files they may use. I will also be optimistic that the STEX Admins will continue their current policies of correcting problematic files as necessary. 

As for being productive in this thread, I managed to help the OP fix their issue with my first reply. 

[rsc204 21,806]

26 minutes ago, xxdita said:

In fact, part of that research included one of your own posts  If changing the RTK is indeed the cause of Prop Pox, then changing the RTK back to its normal state may also cause Prop Pox, for any props already existing in a city tile. If testing exists to disprove this, I have not seen it. 

At the risk of repeating myself, the IDs have been changed!!! 

If you understand the problem, you should know, it's impossible for Prop Pox to occur, unless Props are overridden. It doesn't mater what RKT state is/was used, because the Props have new, time/date-generated random IDs. So, the only way this would be possible, would be if somehow other RKT 1 props out there happened to have the same IDs. Frankly the odds are billions to one on that, but again this is irrelevant, because no modder can avoid this 100%. We can but react if a problem is found.

Also, who changed the RKT type? It's still 4, just like PEG's original files. You know, if there is some part of the modding/changes you aren't seeing or don't understand, I'd be happy to explain it to you. Because really, once you see the changelog in Reader, tracking down what's been altered should be really simple for anyone who understands what they are looking at.

30 minutes ago, xxdita said:

As for being productive in this thread, I managed to help the OP fix their issue with my first reply. 

That was then, right now, this has absolutely no relevance to your continuing posts. I feel like you just need to get the last word in. If that's the way you want to go, then I will lock this thread to new replies.

As I said before, you can either choose to leave it or engage in the very specific subject matter being discussed. Under normal circumstances, I simply wouldn't bother making such a big deal out of this, but if your opinion on their "quality", means as much as you seem to be hinting at, then you should be responsible and alter the incorrect information. Not least because, as you've freely admitted, when you posted that, you hadn't even looked at the fix!?! Seriously, do you not understand why this is irresponsible for someone of your standing?

I mean we can go through this over and over, but frankly your opinion on the matter means little to me personally. Precisely because you've shown how it's more important to ignore, deny and deflect, than it is to admit an error of judgement. Really, considering how you've attempted to police such things among others, this reflects terribly poorly upon yourself.

[xxdita 1,097]

To clarify, if the IIDs have been changed, then for all intents and purposes, these are now new props completely? Not overrides? 

[xxdita 1,097]

What confuses me is that PIMX gives me the ability to open all lots that use a given prop/family. So when I do that with the Maxis beach umbrella, with only SimCity selected to load at startup, then about 19 lots open up. And these same lots open up when I start PIMX with only SimCity and the PEGPROD folder selected at startup, selecting the Timed Beach Umbrella instead of the Maxis prop. Which would indicate that PIMX still sees these props as one and the same. 

So even with the new IID, PIMX is showing that this newly created prop is in use on original Maxis lots. I see nothing that suggests that the Maxis lots have been redone, to replace the Maxis prop with the newly updated PEG umbrella. 

Do you have a rational explanation for this? Can you provide any threads showing testing of such a thing? 

[mattb325 28,880]

Let's back this up a little bit as it is derailing the very good outcome of prop-pox being finally contained by the admins.

@rsc204, your post (#17 in this thread) only partially quotes @xxdita's post (#8 in this thread).

You then use this partial quote to run your argument. That's your call, but had you quoted xxdita's post in its entirety,  the final sentence "But SC4Fix does exist. It not only inoculates players from prop pox, but can restore affected cities after the fact, as proven in this very thread. Adding a link to the dll on the updated file seems only prudent. It should be considered a dependency at this point." would have rendered your discussion point spurious.

Based on that piece of information, whether the file update is an over-ride or new lot actually takes a back seat: if it is an over-ride, existing cities may have their save file poxxed and the solution is the SC4Fix+the updated file. If it is a new IDD, then the SC4Fix is still required for existing cities. This of course, is what xxdita's initial post non-specifically referenced, but you didn't quote that part.

If your only beef was pointing out potential ambiguity in xxdita's post, you've chosen a mightily circumlocutive way to go about it.

[CorinaMarie 29,578]

14 minutes ago, xxdita said:

What confuses me is that PIMX gives me the ability to open all lots that use a given prop/family. So when I do that with the Maxis beach umbrella, with only SimCity selected to load at startup, then about 19 lots open up. And these same lots open up when I start PIMX with only SimCity and the PEGPROD folder selected at startup. Which would indicate that PIMX still sees these props as one and the same. 

Disclaimer first: I have only a passing acquaintance with PIM-X.

But, the logic here has me confuzzled.

• SimCity selected = about 19 lots
• SimCity + PEGPROD selected = the same 19 lots

Doesn't that indicate that no new lots appear when adding Peg's folder to the start up search? In other words, wouldn't that actually be showing none of them in Peg's is now using that prop?

@mattb325

Yeah, SC4Fix.dll is recommended for anyone, especially if using the NAM. There isn't any disagreement by anyone about that point. The point of contention was stating the fix would make the pox worse or that nothing was fixed at all. And it does seem that part of the discussion is now over.

[Cyclone Boom 16,854]

In attempt to set things straight so this discussion can get back on track...

It seems there was an initial misunderstanding with how the file had the 2017 dates. Also the file being updated silently using the admin tool, which is what we usually do when updating older files which haven't been patched by the author previously. In hindsight we should've stated this to avoid the mix-up with how the file didn't appear to be updated. Anyone who tested this and inspected the files, had every reason to question what was updated. So for this reason, we see how initially it seemed like maybe we'd botched up the update. Some may wonder how we, as admins, can endorse a patch for which we don't fully understand the technicalities of. It's simple. We have complete faith in the modding abilities of the highly skilled person who created these patches, and they assured us of the method's technical correctness.

This patch as done for all the 3 PEG content items was proactively created back in 2017, but the update was stalled due to ongoing internal staff discussions. Since Cori and I have both become admins, a big thing on our agenda has been the restoration and preservation of content. Also the case of doing what's right to benefit the community. That was the reason we'd decided to update the file upon it being requested here in this very thread. It helps as a precaution for the purpose as known.

So yes, it might've seemed like the patch wasn't patched. Perhaps that was jumping to conclusions a little too soon, but it seems like our fault which caused the confusion to begin with. Since that's been clarified though as it has been, it's time for the topic to resume relating to the technical matters.

Continuing to discuss the subject and not each other would be appreciated from this point forwards.

Thanks everyone,

-CB & Cori