CAM Revival Project

[deezedgod 177]

What is the CAM Revival Project?

With the CAM Revival Project, I want to provide high-quality CAM-patible lots for popular creators and buildings. As a new player, it's often hard to find CAM versions of popular buildings—or you end up having to mod them yourself to use them with the CAM. I wanted to make it easier and more accessible for all players to grow their collection of CAM buildings by creating packs of CAMelots for popular creators that have never released CAM-patible versions of their buildings.

Want to contribute? See the section below for how you can be part of the project.

The Long Explanation

Let's talk about the CAM!

For those not in the know, the Colossus Addon Mod is a classic SimCity 4 mod that "expands" the game upwards by adding more growth stages to the game. If you want a much better explanation than I can provide, check out @Tarkus's excellent blog post on what exactly the CAM does.

The problem is that CAM is getting old and hasn't had a lot of love in a while. There was @InvisiChem's excellent version 2 of the CAM, but there hasn't been much fanfare since. There's still tons of CAM packs on the LEX, but a problem with a lot of these buildings is that they're very old. Not to diminish the work of classic SC4 creators, but many older buildings just don't look as good as some more recent custom content, with extremely detailed BATs and lots. Even if you don't mind installing older buildings, you're still missing out on so many amazing newer buildings! To a new player looking into CAM for the first time, like I was upon returning to the game recently, it doesn't look like CAM is really worth the trouble anymore.

So if you're looking to install the CAM today, you're going to have to track down the few newer CAM-patible buildings or manually go through and PIM-X a lot of in-CAM-patible buildings yourself. A lot of us on this forum are crazy enough to recompute hundreds of buildings ourselves (myself included) but most people aren't going to want to go through the hassle.

This got me thinking... what if we had sort of a "CAM revival" of sorts and published tons of CAM versions of popular creators like the days of old? I think the game is a lot more fun with the CAM and I'd like to share that with others. It felt weird sitting on my stack of CAM-ified buildings like a dragon for them only to be used by myself.

That's why, over the coming months, I'm planning on going through a lot of my favorite creators and releasing growable, CAM-patible versions of their buildings. Sort of like @kingofsimcity's Diego Del Llano growable pack. It's great, but I want more! (I'm actually planning on making parts 2, 3, and 4 of the @Diego Del Llano growable pack... stay tuned!) There are lots of other great creators that have great towers and skyscrapers but all of their buildings are released either as ploppable only or stage 8 growable. CAM versions are easy to make but not everyone is going to want to get their hands dirty editing the lots themselves. That's why I want to make it more accessible to everyone with this project, the CAM Revival Project. (Pretty catchy, huh?)

Besides releasing CAM-patible buildings myself, I wanted to highlight a list of CAM-patible creators and buildings already available. It's not as easy these days as just going to the LEX and getting your CAMelots from there, as many of the best CAMelots can be found only on the STEX (if you know where to look).

How to Contribute

While I plan on doing a lot of the work myself, I of course would be very grateful if anyone else wants to contribute. However, I want to make the quality of the CAM Revival Project high and consistent across different uploads, so I want to add a few guidelines if you wish to contribute to the project. For an example CAM Revival Project lot pack, you can download one of my packs here as a general idea of how it should look.

1. Files should be grouped by the original creator. I think the best way to organize is by a single creator. For example, if you want to create CAM versions of @AndisArt's buildings, they should all be released together as a singular pack so users don't have to download so many separate files. However, if there are too many buildings in a single pack (20+), they can be separated into their own packs. (I like to separate by year released.) Of course, if a building has been released somewhere else as a CAMelot, don't re-release it in your pack.
2. Only include CAMelots in the pack. If the building is under stage 8, generally it shouldn't be included. However, if the author has not released a growable version of a building under stage 8, feel free to include it as well.
3. Buildings should all be created using PIM-X. The exemplar names should be in this format: OriginalCreator_NameOfBuilding. A User Visible Name Key with just the building name should be provided as well. For filling degree, your best judgement should be used, but I will add a couple of examples so we aren't too far off from one another.
4. Lots shouldn't be changed (much). The original lot should stay mostly the same, but a few small changes can be made (like converting an overhanging lot or rotating the building to face the correct direction).
5. Only .sc4lot and .sc4desc files should be included. No .sc4model files or other dependencies should be included in the file. These should all be linked separately for the user to download (with instructions to only copy the .sc4model files).
6. The directory structure should stay the same. CAM lots should be under CAM/original author/separate folder for each building. A readme.html and image.jpg should be included inside the .zip with building stats. For the readme template that I use, you can download it here and modify it for your lot pack.
7. Please make sure that both Maxis and DarkNite versions work, if possible.
8. Releases should be marked somewhere as CAM Revival Project to indicate that they are part of the project. Post in this thread as well so it can be added to the list of CRP files.
9. If you want to create a pack for a creator, please post what you're working on in this thread to avoid duplicate work. However, for now, leave the NDEX, @DuskTrooper, @eburress, @ILL Tonkso, @oneil_1, @Chris M/DragonAnime, @SimRabbit, @SimRabbit123, @Superstar, @kd5rax, @Equinox and @Glenni contents as is, as @Tyberius06 is currently working on expanding these CAM lot packs. If you have any questions, please contact him.

If you have any questions regarding these guidelines, please post them in this thread and I'll do my best to answer them.

[deezedgod 177]

CAM Revival Project Releases

This is a list of lot packs that have been released so far.

• Diego Del Llano Growables - 2017 Pack Two
• Diego Del Llano Growables - 2018 Pack
• Diego Del Llano Growables - 2019 Pack
• Reddonquixote CAMeLot Pack

Other CAMelots

This is very much a work in progress, but I'm creating a list of available CAMeLots by various creators to make it easier to find and download them. You can view the current list here.

[rsc204 21,804]

This is a great idea, I’m firmly in the camp that it makes no sense that a bunch of people all have to do the same modding, whilst simultaneously keeping them out of reach of most users who can’t or won’t mod things. It’s much better to have folks collaborating so each such conversion only needs to be done once then shared so anyone can make use of it. I wish you luck with this project, I’m sure it will be of benefit to many CAM users. 

[bhmantan 2,045]

This is a great initiative!

I just got back to playing SimCity 4 again and only knew about adding mods to it for the past 2 months.
It's so worth it after you've got to collect some kind of set of them, but finding them all is really a tedious task. Feels like going through a rabbit hole.
So, I think this initiative will be really helpful, especially for people that new to using mods just like I did.

[nos.17 5,111]

Love this idea. I am happy to contribute all I have done for myself so far. Attached is the list of my plugins I have processed/CAMified so far. FINAL.html

Highlights are CAM content from Aaron Graham, bixel, Cockatoo, Darknono35, Diego Del Llano, IDS2, Jasoncw, JP Schriefer, Kellydale, ks, marcszar, Mattb325, spa, T Wrecks (including some IRM content). There's content from both major exchanges plus the majority of non-English ones too. Simfox, Equinox, Glenni, RDQ, ILL Tonsko, Simgoober, barbyw, and remaining IRM content are all still on my todo list.

The downsides:

• All tilesets are adjusted to work with Jigsaw's Tileset Mod
• Many of the lots are also custom. I'm working on some tools to make figuring this out much easier though.

[Jasoncw 11,839]

The CAM is severely underrated imo, I think of it along with the NAM as one of the handful of essential mods.

Anything made with PIMX is already CAMpatible, and I imagine most content made in the last decade was made with PIMX? It might be more practical to find individual creators who didn't use PIMX (if the exemplar has the "Unknown" (Filling Degree) property in the Reader, then it was made with PIMX and should be fine), or creators who never actually made growables in the first place. Even if they used the default 0.5 Filling Degree, it will still have the correct relationship between jobs/residents per tile and stage, and it will be consistent with its other properties, the building will just be a bit bigger or smaller than you'd expect based on the stats.

For my stuff, everything from 2012 and onward is CAMpatible. Anything over stage 8 gets a CAM and non-CAM lot which are the same but one has the stage truncated to 8. Everything from before 2012 has values that were based on similarly sized Maxis buildings, and should be pretty good overall, but might not have the correct stage.

[Tyberius06 12,170]

I'm not a CAM user, but I see, that how much it is underrated, specially since the BSC became dormant/defunct. As @Jasoncw said, anything made by SC4 PIM-X more or less campatible, however for proper stages and stats ergo proper functionality setting up the more or less right filling degree is kind of necessary.

So far I've seen two methods regarding making straight CAM buildings to be rather CAMpatible (meaning a building which would go above stage 8 with the proper filling degree was downgraded to fall to or below stage 8):

a) as Jason suggested, one can modify the stage to 8.

b) one can take the half of the proper filling degree using PIM-X. For example a model would have a 0.8 filling degree and would produce a stage 11 lot. I've seen examples when this 0.8 was halved to 0.4 and by this one would get a stage 5 or 6 lot, which would be still CAMpatible. 

Some of you might know that I'm working on a few bigger organization projects on the two main exchanges. It was always on my to do list to expand the CAM lot packs (even if I don't play currently with CAM), but the here proposed/discussed scope of the project a bit bigger than what I had in my mind among my midterm plans. 
I would have one request to those who start working on this project, for now leave the NDEX, @DuskTrooper, @eburress, @ILL Tonkso, @oneil_1, @Chris M/DragonAnime, @SimRabbit, @SimRabbit123, @Superstar, @kd5rax, @Equinox and @Glenni contents as is, because essentially most of the NDEX contents will have a complete rework which includes their update with PIM-X and during that process they will be either CAMpatible or straight CAM lots. The re-worked NDEX related contents will be available on both main exchanges. 

Also worth to mention that the current Project ZIP efforts over at SC4D LEX (getting rid of the *.exe installers and building up unified folder structures) are following more or less the BSC and PEG folder structure building methods and I shared some proposals about a general folder structure set-up for custom contents creators. Some people since then started following this method. Why I'm bringing this up is because during Project ZIP and later organization projects made by me the CAM related contents (strictly the COM-RES lots above stage 8 - stages 9-15 -, and Industrial lots above stage 3 - stages 4-10) will be organized into a dedicated main CAM folder, which will take place in the root of the plugins folder (like the default BSC or PEGPROD folders). 

I would like to request, whoever is start working on and sharing CAMyfied contents, please, use this dedicated CAM parent folder with your upload. Ideally this would look like something like this:
CAM/original creator/either a separate folder for the lot or the lots loose in this creator folder. 

OR 

CAM/the LOTter of the camyfied new lots/

This would help keeping track of things for users. 

This project anyhow is really exciting. Great idea!

- Tyberius06

  Edited November 21, 2022 by Tyberius06  
crossed wrong information

[deezedgod 177]

5 hours ago, nos.17 said:

Love this idea. I am happy to contribute all I have done for myself so far. Attached is the list of my plugins I have processed/CAMified so far. FINAL.html

Thanks, this is really helpful! I'm not organized enough yet to take advantage of it, but in the future I'll make a section for how you can help! I'd like for others to be able to release CAM-patible packs as well but use a similar structure so they're somewhat uniform.

1 hour ago, Jasoncw said:

Anything made with PIMX is already CAMpatible, and I imagine most content made in the last decade was made with PIMX? It might be more practical to find individual creators who didn't use PIMX (if the exemplar has the "Unknown" (Filling Degree) property in the Reader, then it was made with PIMX and should be fine), or creators who never actually made growables in the first place. Even if they used the default 0.5 Filling Degree, it will still have the correct relationship between jobs/residents per tile and stage, and it will be consistent with its other properties, the building will just be a bit bigger or smaller than you'd expect based on the stats.

You're right, most content is made with the PIM-X these days. I'll be mostly working on creators that have made ploppables only and content with no filling degree. I probably won't be touching much content that already has a filling degree, unless I think their calculations are way off for the CAM (like some skyscrapers that have a 0.2 filling degree in order to artificially keep the stage at 8).

That's why I also want to create a list of creators/buildings that are already CAM-patible as well (and your buildings will be there!).

1 hour ago, Tyberius06 said:

So far I've seen two methods regarding making straight CAM buildings to be rather CAMpatible (meaning a building which would go above stage 8 with the proper filling degree was downgraded to fall to or below stage 8):

For my projects, I'm going to be using Jasoncw's method of truncating the buildings to stage 8 and occupancy to ~7500. For some creators that have never made growables, I want to release vanilla versions of the growables as well.

I'll leave the NDEX projects to you then. Sounds like you've already gotten some work done, and I don't want to step on any toes.

Also, I like the folder structure you've come up with. The only issue is that I'm planning on releasing some content like the Diego Del Llano Growable Pack, where some buildings are CAMelots (stage 8+) and some aren't (stages 7 and below). Should these all go in a CAM/ folder or not? I agree that the more consistent we can make the folder structures, the better.

[rsc204 21,804]

It is not true that any lot made with PIM-X is CAMpatible, only that PIM-X defaults to working with the CAM Growth Stages/Capacities. Let's take an example from this thread:

7 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

one can take the half of the proper filling degree using PIM-X. For example a model would have a 0.8 filling degree and would produce a stage 11 lot. I've seen examples when this 0.8 was halved to 0.4 and by this one would get a stage 5 or 6 lot, which would be still CAMpatible. 

A lot made in this way is not CAMpatible in the true sense, yes it will work with CAM, but then anything will so that's a meaningless statement. The problem would be that it won't grow within the correct parameters as intended by the CAM mod, hence it is the definition of an inCAMpatible lot.

I'll also note the rule is that any CAMified lots using the higher stages 9 through 15, should always be Stage 8 for vanilla users, so this example is bad modding in every sense. Another consideration a PIM-X user needs to make, is that above a certain capacity lots simply won't grow, because there is a much more limited amount of demand that is possible without CAM. So as a user of PIM-X, but one who doesn't use CAM, I am constantly forced to 'tweak' or flat out change things PIM-X does. Filling degree too is a subjective matter for some people, whilst ideally most content creators would agree on the setting within a reasonable variance, you likewise can't count on it though.

This leads nicely to one thing I would value in a project like this, consistently modded lots, meaning all such downloads followed a few basic rules. Those are no more complex than following the original instructions from the manual for PIM-X, ensure the Occ. Size/Filling Degree are set correctly and that where suitable, higher CAM stages 9-15 are correctly implemented. But I also think for a collaboration like this, the original Lotting should remain unchanged, so any changes other than to CAMify it should not be undertaken.

I feel the need to point out that whilst there is no problem releasing modified Buildings/LotConfig Exemplars, it should remain obvious that you can't include models, dependencies or anything covered by long-standing community rules on re-distribution. In other words this needs to be done in a manner where users will still need the original download, therefore care needs to be taken to ensure that the CAM modifications work/fit easily with the original download as overrides or replacements.

Just having a bunch of people throwing together their own modding wouldn't necessarily make for a consistent set of content. So it's important that before any modding happens, everyone involved has a clear idea of how things should be modded. Otherwise, IMO, you aren't really fixing things, just fudging things in a slightly different way. As mentioned above, getting the stats consistent for CAM should be a no-brainer, because by default PIM-X does it that way to begin with. So provided everyone contributing is not messing around with values, that shouldn't be a problem. But I feel it's essential that everyone is doing things the same way, otherwise you will miss the opportunity to properly harmonise everything for CAM users, kinda the whole point of this, right?

[Tyberius06 12,170]

36 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

A lot made in this way is not CAMpatible in the true sense, yes it will work with CAM, but then anything will so that's a meaningless statement. The problem would be that it won't grow within the correct parameters as intended by the CAM mod, hence it is the definition of an inCAMpatible lot.

 Whups... you're right. Short memory. I've already discussed something like this with Jason earlier this year, though I forgot about it.

[deezedgod 177]

5 hours ago, rsc204 said:

This leads nicely to one thing I would value in a project like this, consistently modded lots, meaning all such downloads followed a few basic rules. Those are no more complex than following the original instructions from the manual for PIM-X, ensure the Occ. Size/Filling Degree are set correctly and that where suitable, higher CAM stages 9-15 are correctly implemented. But I also think for a collaboration like this, the original Lotting should remain unchanged, so any changes other than to CAMify it should not be undertaken.

I feel the need to point out that whilst there is no problem releasing modified Buildings/LotConfig Exemplars, it should remain obvious that you can't include models, dependencies or anything covered by long-standing community rules on re-distribution. In other words this needs to be done in a manner where users will still need the original download, therefore care needs to be taken to ensure that the CAM modifications work/fit easily with the original download as overrides or replacements.

I think it's a good idea to establish some ground rules as well to keep the quality consistent and high. Like you said, running things through the PIM-X is fairly simple, but there should still be some rules set in place to ensure that the project isn't all over the place.

I'm planning on releasing the first file soon, and that should serve as an example. But here's my (preliminary) list of rules for releasing something under the project name.

1. Files should be grouped by the original author. I think the best way to organize is by a single author. For example, if you want to create CAM versions of @AndisArt's buildings, they should all be released together as a singular pack so users don't have to download so many separate files. However, if there are too many buildings in a single pack (20+), they can be separated into their own packs. (I like to separate by year released.) Of course, if a building has been released somewhere else as a CAMelot, don't re-release it in your pack.
2. Only include CAMelots in the pack. If the building is under stage 8, generally it shouldn't be included. However, if the author has not released a growable version of a building under stage 8, feel free to include it as well.
3. Buildings should all be created using PIM-X. The exemplar names should be in this format: OriginalAuthor_NameOfBuilding. A User Visible Name Key should be provided as well. For filling degree, your best judgement should be used, but I will add a couple of examples so we aren't too far off from one another.
4. Lots shouldn't be changed (much). The original lot should stay mostly the same, but a few small changes can be made (like converting an overhanging lot or rotating the building to face the correct direction).
5. Only .sc4lot and .sc4desc files should be included. No .sc4model files or other dependencies should be included in the file. These should all be linked separately for the user to download (with instructions to only copy the .sc4model files).
6. The directory structure should stay the same. CAM lots should be under CAM/original author/separate folder for each building. A readme.html and image.jpg should be included inside the .zip with building stats. (I plan on creating a template in the future that others can use.)
7. Please include both Maxis and DarkNite packs, if possible.
8. Releases should be marked somewhere as CAM Revival Project to indicate that they are part of the project. Post in this thread as well so it can be added to the list of CRP files.

Am I missing anything?

Optionally, if you'd like to be nice, if the original author hasn't created vanilla (non-CAM) growables you can also upload a vanilla version by using the Reader to truncate the growth stages to 8 and the building capacities to 7,500. I believe that buildings with capacities under this number can be grown in the vanilla game--but I've heard conflicting things about this, so if someone with more knowledge can fill me in, that would be helpful.

[Jasoncw 11,839]

11 hours ago, rsc204 said:

It is not true that any lot made with PIM-X is CAMpatible, only that PIM-X defaults to working with the CAM Growth Stages/Capacities. ... The problem would be that it won't grow within the correct parameters as intended by the CAM mod, hence it is the definition of an inCAMpatible lot.

A lot made with PIMX, even if it has an unideal filling degree, will have the correct stage for the number of jobs/residents (important for not breaking the growth simulator), and it will have the correct garbage, power consumption, pollution, etc. stats for the number of jobs/residents as well. The lot will be modded perfectly. The only problem is that the building would be bigger or smaller than you would expect it to be based on its stats. Most of the variance from the perfect filling degree imo is within the realm of reasonableness, since different buildings have different "capacities" in real life based on the size of the elevator core, or the efficiency of the floor plan, or how much of the building is mechanical or decorative space. It's true that with low enough of a filling degree you could turn an apartment tower into a house, and for the player that would not be expected and it would make sense to fix it in a project like this, but as far as the game is concerned the lot is modded perfectly. It's impossible to make a broken lot with PIMX.

[AsimPika3172 1,129]

Maka CAM a great again! 🤭

[rsc204 21,804]

13 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

It's impossible to make a broken lot with PIMX.

Yes but my point was that to be considered as fully CAMpatible, it should have the correct Growth Stage and stats. If modded too far outside of the correct parameters, it won’t grow as and when it should. If you reduce the filling degree too much or use a small invisible prop as the building (without correcting the Occupant Size), you can distort all the stats you mention, from just this one property. Is that broken?, no but it’s not what I’d call CAMpatible either, the term is literally for content designed and/or optimised to work with CAM. I never used the term broken, I just wanted to emphasise the need for good modding, I.e. CAM optimisation. 

[ASV7900 89]

May I ask, as part of this project, will there be a CAM 3.0? With more and more enhancements and improvements vs. 2.0?

[deezedgod 177]

7 hours ago, ASV7900 said:

May I ask, as part of this project, will there be a CAM 3.0? With more and more enhancements and improvements vs. 2.0?

No, the scope of this project at this time is strictly to add more CAM-patible buildings to download and to make it easier to find them.

Besides, I can't imagine what additional improvements to the CAM one could make at this point. I think it's pretty feature-complete at this point.

[deezedgod 177]

The first release of the CAM Revival Project is here! The first CAM lot pack is a collection of @Diego Del Llano's excellent BATs from 2017. You may remember the first pack from @kingofsimcity, which I thought was great and provided a ton of new CAMelots. But since then, Diego Del Llano has released a smorgasbord of new BATs. Since kingofsimcity never released his long-awaited Pack Two, I decided to take matters into my own hands and make it myself!

You can download it here: Diego Del Llano Growables - 2017 Pack Two

Of course, as part of the CAM Revival project, the focus is on new CAM buildings (with a few non-CAMelots but still CAM-patible buildings). But I've also released a Vanilla version for non-CAM users. Hopefully this whets your appetite, with 24 new CAMelots.

Of course, I'm not even finished with all of Diego Del Llano's BATs. Expect a 2018 and 2019 pack in the future as well!

This pack (at least the CAM version) should also serve as an example for anyone else who wants to contribute to the project. If you're interested in being part of the CAM Revival Project, I've added a new section on How to Contribute to the original post!

[Tyberius06 12,170]

5 hours ago, deezedgod said:

The first release of the CAM Revival Project is here! The first CAM lot pack is a collection of @Diego Del Llano's excellent BATs from 2017. You may remember the first pack from @kingofsimcity, which I thought was great and provided a ton of new CAMelots. But since then, Diego Del Llano has released a smorgasbord of new BATs. Since kingofsimcity never released his long-awaited Pack Two, I decided to take matters into my own hands and make it myself!

You can download it here: Diego Del Llano Growables - 2017 Pack Two

Of course, as part of the CAM Revival project, the focus is on new CAM buildings (with a few non-CAMelots but still CAM-patible buildings). But I've also released a Vanilla version for non-CAM users. Hopefully this whets your appetite, with 24 new CAMelots.

Of course, I'm not even finished with all of Diego Del Llano's BATs. Expect a 2018 and 2019 pack in the future as well!

This pack (at least the CAM version) should also serve as an example for anyone else who wants to contribute to the project. If you're interested in being part of the CAM Revival Project, I've added a new section on How to Contribute to the original post!

Congrats for the first CAM Revival Pack of yours. Looks quite thorough. One small suggestion, though. Please, name the readme and the splash according to the given pack. F.e. readme_CAM Revival DDL 2017 vol02. Or something similar.  

Otherwise it looks pretty good compilation! Thanks!

- Tyberius

EDIT:
@deezedgod One other thing which worth to mention because I'm not sure that you aware of that. As I see @Diego Del Llano made most of the DarkNite and Maxis Nite model versions on two different TGIs for his BATs. It's a common "mistake" among BATters and they are usually advised to use the same TGI for both versions so the models can be interchangeable if a player wants to switch between MN or DN. It's easy to recognize with PIM-X because if you load both versions of the models and only one of them shows up, then you don't need to  create to different LOT versions dedicated to either MN or DN, but you can use the very same lot for both versions. Most of the BATters later on their carrier are using the "same TGI" method, some of them wouldn't. As I see most of Diego's models has separate IDs, which requires the two separate lots files, but when the IDs are matching and the models are interchangable, you only need one LOT. 

[deezedgod 177]

1 hour ago, Tyberius06 said:

Congrats for the first CAM Revival Pack of yours. Looks quite thorough. One small suggestion, though. Please, name the readme and the splash according to the given pack. F.e. readme_CAM Revival DDL 2017 vol02. Or something similar.  

Otherwise it looks pretty good compilation! Thanks!

- Tyberius

EDIT:
@deezedgod One other thing which worth to mention because I'm not sure that you aware of that. As I see @Diego Del Llano made most of the DarkNite and Maxis Nite model versions on two different TGIs for his BATs. It's a common "mistake" among BATters and they are usually advised to use the same TGI for both versions so the models can be interchangeable if a player wants to switch between MN or DN. It's easy to recognize with PIM-X because if you load both versions of the models and only one of them shows up, then you don't need to  create to different LOT versions dedicated to either MN or DN, but you can use the very same lot for both versions. Most of the BATters later on their carrier are using the "same TGI" method, some of them wouldn't. As I see most of Diego's models has separate IDs, which requires the two separate lots files, but when the IDs are matching and the models are interchangable, you only need one LOT. 

Thanks for the feedback! This is my first time publicly releasing any lots, so having another pair of eyes to look everything over is appreciated. I've changed the readme and splash files to have their own unique names (e.g. readme_cam_dn).

As for DarkNite and Maxis Night models, I saw during some testing that most lots can use either the DN or the MN model files. But I saw that when I tried to do the same for Diego Del Llano's buildings, I got a brown box, so I just relotted the MN files as well. So most of the time I won't have a separate version for DN and MN, just for Diego Del Llano (and any other BATter that does the same).

[Tyberius06 12,170]

5 minutes ago, deezedgod said:

Thanks for the feedback! This is my first time publicly releasing any lots, so having another pair of eyes to look everything over is appreciated. I've changed the readme and splash files to have their own unique names (e.g. readme_cam_dn).

As for DarkNite and Maxis Night models, I saw during some testing that most lots can use either the DN or the MN model files. But I saw that when I tried to do the same for Diego Del Llano's buildings, I got a brown box, so I just relotted the MN files as well. So most of the time I won't have a separate version for DN and MN, just for Diego Del Llano (and any other BATter that does the same).

The reason why I'm asking the readme name change is because the different readmes from different packs would override each other if they have the same name. Technically with the current pack this would mean 2 uniquely named readme files  and one uniquely named image file for the screenshot/banner. One for the CAM lots and one for the Vanilla lots (because of the different stats and stages) as the dependencies are the same. Maybe the readme could contain a line about the necessity of choosing the right night version of the models.

Many of the BATters start with this separate TGI methodology, until some of us from to community ask them to switch the method to the same-TGI for both night lite versions. Whenever a new BATter shows up with different DN-MN versions under different IDs, I write a comment or DM and explain the situation. I don't know if we sent such request to Diego back then. 

[deezedgod 177]

23 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

The reason why I'm asking the readme name change is because the different readmes from different packs would override each other if they have the same name. Technically with the current pack this would mean 2 uniquely named readme files  and one uniquely named image file for the screenshot/banner. One for the CAM lots and one for the Vanilla lots (because of the different stats and stages) as the dependencies are the same. Maybe the readme could contain a line about the necessity of choosing the right night version of the models.

Many of the BATters start with this separate TGI methodology, until some of us from to community ask them to switch the method to the same-TGI for both night lite versions. Whenever a new BATter shows up with different DN-MN versions under different IDs, I write a comment or DM and explain the situation. I don't know if we sent such request to Diego back then. 

Thanks, that makes sense. I've updated the filenames so unique files aren't overwritten. I actually have 4 unique readme files, as the MN version is missing a building/dependency (due to the creator not releasing a MN version).

I've also included a line in the readme about choosing the correct night version to download—good idea. (Just to make it a bit clearer.)

[deezedgod 177]

I've released several more CAMeLot packs. I've released two CAMeLot packs for @Diego Del Llano (2018, 2019) and one for @Reddonquixote (here). You can also help the project by suggesting creators that I should CAM-ify next! (Right now, I'm working on lots from @Darknono35, @JP Schriefer and some additional IRM lots from @T Wrecks.)

I'm also building a list of CAMeLots. I want to compile a list of available CAMeLots from different creators. The goal is to help players find CAMeLots from different creators, especially on the STEX where it can be difficult to tell which files are CAMpatible and which ones aren't. Right now, I've compiled a very WIP list inside this Google Doc.

Ideally, I'd like the list to become something like the original CAMeLot list from SC4Devotion, just more up-to-date. Although I'm not sure of the best way to organize it. I'd prefer to categorize the lots by the original creator, as I like to download every building from a creator if I like their work. But the original list categorizes them by lot type (e.g. R$$$, CO$$, etc.), so I'm not sure. I'd appreciate any feedback or ideas on how to organize this. Would it be better in a spreadsheet? Eventually, I'd like this to be a resource people can link to if someone is downloading CAM for the first time.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,042]

Although I do not use CAM, I am currently in the process of downloading many BATs to enrich my gaming experience but many (especially older ones) will probably need a rebalance.

I have to say that upon reading @Jasoncw and @deezedgod inputs regarding PIM-X values, I have been able to better understand the mechanisms and stats that govern BATs! Thank you for starting and participating in this discussion! I never thought I could learn something from this topic, being a non-CAM player!

My only question, which I believe applies to CAM as well as non-CAM game, regards saving the PIM-X edited BAT.

If I recompute a building's properties, do I need to destroy the existing instances of this building in all my cities...?  You know, the same way as you'd have to destroy all hospitals or power plants before modding them? Or do the stats simply update themselves in vivo?

[rsc204 21,804]

45 minutes ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

If I recompute a building's properties, do I need to destroy the existing instances of this building in all my cities...?  You know, the same way as you'd have to destroy all hospitals or power plants before modding them? Or do the stats simply update themselves in vivo?

In theory they should update, although I believe Cori showed a while back how something like the Industrial Doubler or Quadrupler mods required the city to be saved for the values to be updated for occupancy.

Frankly though, the more I test these things, the more convinced I am that it's just a really bad idea to mess with existing content, there is so much that can go wrong even if it doesn't obviously appear that way. For example, Capacity Satisfied which is the property used for the number of Sims/Jobs seems to update correctly. But the extremely similar Demand Satisfied Property most definitely does not, although no one seems to have bothered to check it. Interesting since this was related to the BSC Seaports, and providing Cap Relief by adding this property is one of the big things that mod shouts about. Yet once you actually are looking, it quickly becomes apparent not only does it not work, but it ends up screwing up figures such that the results easily become quite negative. It strikes me in a similar vein, no one has really done adequate testing in this regard, because at first glance the figures update they assume everything under the hood is correct, but IMO that is quite an assumption to be making. Ultimately each user gets to decide if they are willing to take the risk I suppose.

[Tyberius06 12,170]

56 minutes ago, TheMurderousCricket said:

My only question, which I believe applies to CAM as well as non-CAM game, regards saving the PIM-X edited BAT.

If I recompute a building's properties, do I need to destroy the existing instances of this building in all my cities...?  You know, the same way as you'd have to destroy all hospitals or power plants before modding them? Or do the stats simply update themselves in vivo?

I'm not sure that to apply the update on the STATs (like occupancy or jobs, residents other stuffs) you need to destroy the buildings, however that is crucial, you must be very careful with the recompute process. I don't know if you familiar with the Immortal Lot Syndrom (ILS) bug, but as I discovered recently (it might have been documented somewhere else in the deep jungles of the forums, though I haven't found any reference and since there was rather a ILS killer lot created, I'm not sure if it was discussed at all), a LOT would become immortal (as far as I know) only when the Occupant Size in the building exemplar has bigger values on the dimensions, than the building representative rectangle on the LOT/in the lot config exemplar. Building representative rectangle is the blue (SC4 PIM-X) or grey (Maxis Lot Editor) rectangle called building property. That doesn't mean that in all cases it will cause ILS, but in many cases it will. 

Why is this important? PIM-X is working with the Occupant Size, by default that is the dimension of the LOD box, yellowish box around the model. The Filling Degree is based on how much space the actual model occupies within the LOD box. But for this the FD uses the occupant size. If you change the occupant size to 1x1x1, then the filling degree will calculate with that dimension. In certain cases there is a necessity to change the occupant size BEFORE one creates the LOT, because they either want an overhanging building, or the building is not centered well, but otherwise would fit onto a smaller lot, so decreasing the OS would result a smaller building rectangle which could fit onto a smaller lot. With PIM-X where you create the building exemplar and LOT as well, it is necessary to make these edits before you create the lot itself. Otherwise you need to use both PIM-X and Maxis LE until you figured the proper building rectangle size out. Anyway. In the past or even nowadays in some cases the Occupant Size is different than the real dimensions of the model, but to get proper STATs with the filling degree, you need the real size of the building. In PIM-X there is an option to recalculate the Occupant Size based on the model. And then you can use the filling degree and/or the recompute the values option. However in any cases, if the OS was different you need to make sure, that after you set the proper/chosen filling degree up, change the OS back to its original value because PIM-X won't update the size of the rectangle on the LOT. And if the OS is bigger than the rectangle, then you might end up with an immortal lot. The Occupant Size property by the way is an editable property in PIM-X. Alternatively (but that comes with a bunch of possible issues too) you can replace the building rectangle in Maxis LE, but I would only recommend it when/if you really are aware of what you are doing. 
So this is one thing what you need to pay attention. If you were about to recompute the building size (OS), it's better if you first open it for editing, COPY it, then do the recalculate building size process, then edit the filling degree, then open the for editing the occupant size again and past the old values, then save the building exemplar.

Just for reference. The CAM version of the Bixel Residentials over at SC4D was locked down for almost a decade because of an Immortal Lot issue with one of the lot, which used a custom OS and it was recomputed for the CAM version which caused the difference between the OS and the size of the rectangle which cause the ILS. 

14 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Interesting since this was related to the BSC Seaports, and providing Cap Relief by adding this property is one of the big things that mod shouts about. Yet once you actually are looking, it quickly becomes apparent not only does it not work, but it ends up screwing up figures such that the results easily become quite negative.

Though it's not that topic, but I'm curious if this is only with updated lots or this "does not work" applies for the freshly plopped lots too? Anyhow, good to know about these issues...

- Tyberius

[rsc204 21,804]

23 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

In certain cases there is a necessity to change the occupant size BEFORE one creates the LOT, because they either want an overhanging building, or the building is not centered well, but otherwise would fit onto a smaller lot, so decreasing the OS would result a smaller building rectangle which could fit onto a smaller lot. With PIM-X where you create the building exemplar and LOT as well, it is necessary to make these edits before you create the lot itself. Otherwise you need to use both PIM-X and Maxis LE until you figured the proper building rectangle size out.

It gets more complicated than this sadly, but you are correct in saying that the Occupant Size as listed when you create the Lot is the one that remains, regardless of any changes. Sure, in PIM-X or even the Lot Editor it may appear from the bounding box that the item has been updated, but if you take a gander at the Hex data for the Building Entry, it literally never updates after it's initial creation. I myself didn't realise this and for years mistakenly thought I had been using a small OS for my filler set, done to allow the maximum area for MMPs to fit on the lot. Only in v2 did I finally realise I had to manually edit the Hex Data in order for this to actually update the OS. PIM-X doesn't allow you to change the Building on a lot, whereas the Maxis LE does, so it may well be the LE does update this value, honestly I don't use the LE ever so I can't say for certain.

How does this relate to issues surrounding the Immortal Lot syndrome, well it certainly means you need to take great care when editing such properties. Frankly, unless there is some actual need for using a blank model as the Building and turning the 'Building' model into a Prop, such modding methods are best avoided. Sadly, this was considered for too long to be a good way of doing things, but it only leads to problems, so many uploads with missing dependencies for such Blank models, many different Blank models, when one for every purpose you could ever need is sufficient and Maxis included one with the game that can be used. Again a lot of this comes from people using the PIM/LE (Maxis Tools) which were never really intended to do half the things modders have done with the game, I don't think Maxis ever thought there'd be anything like the amount of custom content there is today. Certain tricks were employed because every new lot starts off as a copy of an existing one, which just isn't a good way to do things. PIM-X fixes this by allowing the creation of new lots from pre-set templates (categories).

As you state, if you need to adapt the OS to get an accurate set of properties, that's fine, just be sure to return the original value having done so to prevent issues.

Quote

Though it's not that topic, but I'm curious if this is only with updated lots or this "does not work" applies for the freshly plopped lots too? Anyhow, good to know about these issues...

So far as my limited testing goes, it just doesn't work, specifically no actual Cap Relief gets provided. Worse still, even if it's a totally new fresh plop, having Cap Relief for a Seaport messes with the actual values and I've seen how you can very easily cause the 100% Cap problem as per the original user reports from earlier this year that brought the issue to my attention. My guess is Maxis cut this feature because there was a bug they either couldn't track down or didn't have time to fix. But seemingly it can't correctly calculate the Cap Relief, so it could be much like the I-HT no $$$ jobs problem, in that the math just doesn't end up with the expected result due to a cascading function in the code. Of course, without the source code, it's impossible to say for certain, but it fits with what we know about the game and what I am seeing.

This is an area I will get into as mentioned previously, but it's not a huge priority. After all, my game never suffered for the lack of Cap Relief and if it's a problem, my conclusion is that the simplest solution is just to use a cheat lot that bumps the Caps up and be done with it. Interestingly in this vain, after all these years it's finally clear why I-AG suffers from dead demand eventually, it's simply that the Cap is fulfilled by every R/C/I building, not only I-AG. In other words, once your combined R/C/I population hits a certain level, you will hit the Cap and demand is killed off permanently. As you grow further, the amount of relief required to compensate can become quite huge. For example if you have a city of 100k residents with 50k jobs, you'd need a total I-AG cap of over 150k to see any I-AG demand. This is also why overcoming this requires a very large amount of Cap Relief, potentially in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Yet, it is all controlled essentially by this one single value, the I-AG Cap, I think for a long time it seemed it would be more complex, but it isn't.

[TheMurderousCricket 5,042]

6 hours ago, Tyberius06 said:

I'm not sure that to apply the update on the STATs (like occupancy or jobs, residents other stuffs) you need to destroy the buildings, however that is crucial, you must be very careful with the recompute process. I don't know if you familiar with the Immortal Lot Syndrom (ILS) bug, but as I discovered recently (it might have been documented somewhere else in the deep jungles of the forums, though I haven't found any reference and since there was rather a ILS killer lot created, I'm not sure if it was discussed at all), a LOT would become immortal (as far as I know) only when the Occupant Size in the building exemplar has bigger values on the dimensions, than the building representative rectangle on the LOT/in the lot config exemplar.

Yes! I know what you are referring to and I've seen discussion on that - overhanging buildings can indeed royally mess things up.

However, I do not intend to alter the occupant sizes for the buildings, I'm not touching this or any other similar property at all. My goal is to only validate whether the demand, occupancy and utility data are standardized.

[nos.17 5,111]

Any plans in place for IRM expansion content? If not I'm up for it - it's actually been on my list for awhile and this would be a great excuse to start.

[Tyberius06 12,170]

46 minutes ago, nos.17 said:

Any plans in place for IRM expansion content? If not I'm up for it - it's actually been on my list for awhile and this would be a great excuse to start.

If I recall correctly @T Wrecks has never finished the original expansion of the IRM. Many more lots were on the making line, the growable blocker file for the expansion has all the lot names which he meant to create.

[nos.17 5,111]

18 minutes ago, Tyberius06 said:

If I recall correctly @T Wrecks has never finished the original expansion of the IRM. Many more lots were on the making line, the growable blocker file for the expansion has all the lot names which he meant to create.

This is an interesting development. 🤔