Allow More Building Styles - DLL Plugin

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

As a guinea pig to find the best method of distributing building styles I just uploaded a new download that would be a new building style

Any feedback to improve mod distribution is accepted

Note: Mod metadata is being updated for SC4Pac users

[simmering 2,637]

I am intrigued by this example, @Ulisse Wolf. Thank you, I can now start to imagine how this all works. As a mere player, let me see if I understand the whole concept:

1. By installing Building Style: Neo Futurism I can get the style "Neo Futurism" into the game's controls, provided I install:
   • Submenus DLL for exemplar patching (I assume this is a technical necessity)
   • Allow More Building Styles for the logic of adding new styles
   • Building Style Control UI for the Building Styles DLL to update the frontend with additional slots
      
2. But I also need updated lots, which is where version 2.0 of your AndisArt CAM Building Pack comes in. Only the updated lots allocate a building to the Neo Futurism style. Without them, I would see the controls but they'd have no effect.
3. Obviously, If I do not have them yet, I would need AndisArt's models as well.

Please let me know if I understood this correctly.

I also have a few questions:

• I noticed that AndisArt CAM Building Pack has one building allocated to Art Deco. I assume the fact that there is currently no building style mod for it does no harm
• Your mod is called Building Style: Neo Futurism. Are you planning to publish other styles like Art Deco separately as well or do you envision that content creators should publish complete sets? It makes a difference for players as separate publication allows us to mix-and-match. On the other hand, installation of individual styles would be a lot more work, at least without sc4pac.
• I assume that the lots like AndisArt CAM Building Pack must replace any existing lots, otherwise the old lots will show up with the old (Maxis) styles, right?

Thanks again for this practical example.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

3 hours ago, simmering said:

I am intrigued by this example, @Ulisse Wolf. Thank you, I can now start to imagine how this all works. As a mere player, let me see if I understand the whole concept:

1. By installing Building Style: Neo Futurism I can get the style "Neo Futurism" into the game's controls, provided I install:
   • Submenus DLL for exemplar patching (I assume this is a technical necessity)
   • Allow More Building Styles for the logic of adding new styles
   • Building Style Control UI for the Building Styles DLL to update the frontend with additional slots
      
2. But I also need updated lots, which is where version 2.0 of your AndisArt CAM Building Pack comes in. Only the updated lots allocate a building to the Neo Futurism style. Without them, I would see the controls but they'd have no effect.
3. Obviously, If I do not have them yet, I would need AndisArt's models as well.

Please let me know if I understood this correctly.

I also have a few questions:

• I noticed that AndisArt CAM Building Pack has one building allocated to Art Deco. I assume the fact that there is currently no building style mod for it does no harm
• Your mod is called Building Style: Neo Futurism. Are you planning to publish other styles like Art Deco separately as well or do you envision that content creators should publish complete sets? It makes a difference for players as separate publication allows us to mix-and-match. On the other hand, installation of individual styles would be a lot more work, at least without sc4pac.
• I assume that the lots like AndisArt CAM Building Pack must replace any existing lots, otherwise the old lots will show up with the old (Maxis) styles, right?

Thanks again for this practical example.

Based on what I understand

• The new system requires you to create Building Style Exemplar and also Exemplar Patch because this system does not support scanning building exemplar
• Updating lots to include buidling style may help if you want to go manual procedure (Manually edit BuildingStyle.ini)

Only @Null 45 can answer you on this

For the AndisArt CAM Building Pack issue

• You obviously need the original models. You can find them on SC4Evermore and Simtropolis.
• The Art Deco building is not left behind. I will post the art deco style later along with other styles but they do not have this urgency. Now let's just focus on figuring out the best distribution method
• AndisArt CAM Building Packs are new lots. They do not interfere with the original lots. They are designed only to work with CAM. You still have to replace the files if you also want manual support

[Null 45 3,041]

1 hour ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

• The new system requires you to create Building Style Exemplar and also Exemplar Patch because this system does not support scanning building exemplar
• Updating lots to include buidling style may help if you want to go manual procedure (Manually edit BuildingStyle.ini)

The Building Style Exemplar is an alternative method to to register a new style in the UI, previously that would have required the user to manually editing BuildingStyles.ini for each style mod they download.

Note that there are two distinct steps required to make use of the new styles from the Building Style Index, updating building(s) to use the new style(s), and adding the new styles to the Building Style Control UI. I am wondering if there may be some confusion with the techniques used for those two operations, so I will try to clarify that.

1. Updating buildings to use the new styles.
   • This is done by adding Building Styles and Building Is Wall To Wall properties to the building exemplar.
     • This process can be done by either directly editing the building exemplar or using an exemplar patch to inject the new properties.,
     • As far as SC4 is concerned, the end result of either method is the same.
2. Adding the new styles to the Building Style Control UI
   • Using a Building Style Exemplar
     • This is recommended for mods that are distributed on the exchanges.
     • New styles automatically appear in the UI without any editing of BuildingStyles.ini.
     • It forces style mod authors to provide the style name in a LTEXT file for ease of translation.
     • But the user has no control over where the styles appear in the UI.
   • Using BuildingStyles.ini
     • Recommended for initial development of a new style, as it does not require the use of exemplars/LTEXT files for the style id/name.
     • Can be used for fully custom style configurations, including overriding the name/UI position of an exemplar style.

[Kel9509 1,363]

38 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

But the user has no control over where the styles appear in the UI.

How does the mod decide where the styles appear?  Randomly?

[Null 45 3,041]

19 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

How does the mod decide where the styles appear?

The styles are assigned sequentially to the available style check boxes, the first style would be assigned to checkbox 0 (if available), the second to check box 1 (if available), and so on.

If multiple exemplar styles are present, the styles will be listed in low-to-high order based on the style id. That was easier to implement than sorting based on the style name, which can get complex even when only dealing with English text.

[simmering 2,637]

6 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Now let's just focus on figuring out the best distribution method

I was trying to do just that with my post and my questions. And for a player it is relevant if you have a lot allocated lot a style that is not supported by a building style mod.

But I see the discussion has turned back to further technical questions. So I will be patient and leave you developers to it.

[Null 45 3,041]

1 hour ago, simmering said:

And for a player it is relevant if you have a lot allocated lot a style that is not supported by a building style mod.

In that case, the building will never grow. Inactive or nonexistent styles act as a blocker.

I have an Art Deco style implementation as one of the Building style exemplar examples on GitHub.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

7 hours ago, simmering said:

I was trying to do just that with my post and my questions. And for a player it is relevant if you have a lot allocated lot a style that is not supported by a building style mod.

But I see the discussion has turned back to further technical questions. So I will be patient and leave you developers to it.

I'm giving it a few days to see if everything is okay or changes need to be made, and then I'll post the other styles

Also, the AndisArt CAM Building Pack download will undergo a final final update to fix things

[Kel9509 1,363]

Something is not right, or I'm doing something wrong.

Using the latest version of the Additional Building Styles DLL Mod, with the CoriBoom UI control v46beta.  I've got my Building  Styles INI file starting at x2005 as a test case, similar to how I tested it out earlier when working on my RCI DLL Query to show examples of building styles for the query which worked fine.

I created a new building with the latest version of PIM-X downloaded from SC4E, which has the latest version of new_properties.xml.  I noticed it assigned a building style placeholder as x2004, consistent with the dummy placeholder that was discussed previously here.  

This is how the building looks in PIM-X:

And here's how it looks in Reader:

But this is what the query shows:

No building styles are shown, either the original Maxis ones or the placeholder.  Shouldn't the Maxis ones show, given that they're listed in the building exemplar?  I'm also using the latest version of the QueryTool UI Extensions DLL.  

Frankly, I don't know if the building will grow at all.  Something is not right. Either the Maxis styles aren't displaying when they should, or something else is going on that I can't understand.  

 

[Null 45 3,041]

37 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

Shouldn't the Maxis ones show, given that they're listed in the building exemplar?

No, the Maxis styles are overridden by the Building Styles property. The Reader data looks correct, so that likely isn't the issue. 

Do you have a check box for the 0x2004 style in the UI?

Looking at the code that generates the style list, I found a bug were it wouldn't print anything for style ids that aren't in the UI. I thought the code already handled that case, but apparently not.

[Kel9509 1,363]

10 hours ago, Null 45 said:

No, the Maxis styles are overridden by the Building Styles property. The Reader data looks correct, so that likely isn't the issue. 

Do you have a check box for the 0x2004 style in the UI?

Originally my INI file had 0x2004 defined as a Paris style.  When I looked at the building in-game, it showed the Paris style as a building style and nothing else. So then I changed the INI to start the custom styles at 0x2005.  When I did that, the building showed no style at all as indicated in my screenshot.

I went and looked at my older buildings I edited for showing the Query mod and I did in fact apply all the original maxis styles as well as the newer ones in the new Building Styles exemplar, so they all would show.   At that time, there was no placeholder and the application of the building styles was done manually (because the maxis occupant groups would be blocked with the use of the building style exemplar, as intended). Everything displayed and worked fine.

But now, if you want to create a regular building in PIM-X that uses the default Maxis occupant  group styles, it also applies the placeholder style and no Maxis styles appear in the Query.  My understanding is that the mere fact that the placeholder is there should not act as a blocker towards the use of the original Maxis building styles.  So if the Maxis occupant groups are not blocked, is it possible for them to still be shown in the query despite having the placeholder style?  (I knew that the placeholder style would cause trouble).

Frankly, I think the placeholder is still a problem and it's early enough for it to be discarded, especially if you now have a new program that can assign styles somewhat automatically, as well as a new way to distribute styles without editing the INI file.

Bottom line, if the building is using the Maxis styles despite the placeholder being there, the Query should show the Maxis styles since that's what is used in-game.  I vote for getting rid of the placeholder if this is a major issue.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

29 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

Originally my INI file had 0x2004 defined as a Paris style.  When I looked at the building in-game, it showed the Paris style as a building style and nothing else. So then I changed the INI to start the custom styles at 0x2005.  When I did that, the building showed no style at all as indicated in my screenshot.

I went and looked at my older buildings I edited for showing the Query mod and I did in fact apply all the original maxis styles as well as the newer ones in the new Building Styles exemplar, so they all would show.   At that time, there was no placeholder and the application of the building styles was done manually (because the maxis occupant groups would be blocked with the use of the building style exemplar, as intended). Everything displayed and worked fine.

But now, if you want to create a regular building in PIM-X that uses the default Maxis occupant  group styles, it also applies the placeholder style and no Maxis styles appear in the Query.  My understanding is that the mere fact that the placeholder is there should not act as a blocker towards the use of the original Maxis building styles.  So if the Maxis occupant groups are not blocked, is it possible for them to still be shown in the query despite having the placeholder style?  (I knew that the placeholder style would cause trouble).

Frankly, I think the placeholder is still a problem and it's early enough for it to be discarded, especially if you now have a new program that can assign styles somewhat automatically, as well as a new way to distribute styles without editing the INI file.

Bottom line, if the building is using the Maxis styles despite the placeholder being there, the Query should show the Maxis styles since that's what is used in-game.  I vote for getting rid of the placeholder if this is a major issue.

To be precise.

The current IID of the placeholder style is 0x7B6BC069 
which was changed from 0x2004 as it is is part of the famous community style range

Currently PIM-X uses a publicly available version that has this problem while on github there is the version that uses the true placeholder style IID

Obviously I can't post the updated version because there is more work to be done especially after you have decoded AMPS and can figure out how to change things

[Kel9509 1,363]

9 minutes ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

he current IID of the placeholder style is 0x7B6BC069 
which was changed from 0x2004 as it is is part of the famous community style range

Currently PIM-X uses a publicly available version that has this problem while on github there is the version that uses the true placeholder style IID

Obviously I can't post the updated version because there is more work to be done especially after you have decoded AMPS and can figure out how to change things

Ok, but that doesn't change the issue.  I manually applied the placeholder style of 0x7B6BC069 to the new building.  Even still, the Query shows no building styles - even if it's supposed to be using the Maxis styles.  The Query UI Extension DLL assumes that with the use of the building style exemplar, Maxis styles should not be shown.  So I guess this isn't an issue with the Additional Building Styles DLL mod, but maybe with the Query UI Extension DLL.

Still, I'm not sure why new_properties.xml cannot be quickly updated for the correct placeholder.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

2 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

Ok, but that doesn't change the issue.  I manually applied the placeholder style of 0x7B6BC069 to the new building.  Even still, the Query shows no building styles - even if it's supposed to be using the Maxis styles.  The Query UI Extension DLL assumes that with the use of the building style exemplar, Maxis styles should not be shown.  So I guess this isn't an issue with the Additional Building Styles DLL mod, but maybe with the Query UI Extension DLL.

Still, I'm not sure why new_properties.xml cannot be quickly updated for the correct placeholder.

It cannot be updated quickly because there are too many experimental things that easily break PIM-X and Reader (1.5.4).

Only now the situation has stabilized at a semi acceptable point but it is still not ready for public release

[Kel9509 1,363]

I still think that the placeholder is ultimately the cause of this issue.  The Maxis styles would show if PIM-X didn't add the placeholder.  Unless Null 45 is gracious and able to find a way to display the Maxis occupant groups in the styles list despite the placeholder, then my view is that the placeholder should go.

[Null 45 3,041]

30 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

I still think that the placeholder is ultimately the cause of this issue.

No. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was a bug in the code the builds the style name list.

That doesn't solve the blocker issue that occurs when users have buildings installed without the matching style in the UI, but that is a much harder problem to solve in any way other than just writing an error to the log file.

[Kel9509 1,363]

8 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

No. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was a bug in the code the builds the style name list.

That doesn't solve the blocker issue that occurs when users have buildings installed without the matching style in the UI, but that is a much harder problem to solve in any way other than just writing an error to the log file.

Ok, hopefully the style list can be fixed to address this issue.

As for buildings installed without the matching style, I'm not sure if there's a way to solve for that.  It's like missing a required dependency.  

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

The current problem is PIM-X is a broken program and I have to abide by its rules. If we want a user friendly system I have to enter a specific iid for the property to be generated if not I get error and crash the program

If we want to go the TE Modding style route instead then we can remove IID and force the person to first use PIM-X and then a Reader to add the property

No one escapes on this, and a decision must be made taking into consideration the best way forward for the average user

[Null 45 3,041]

14 minutes ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

If we want to go the TE Modding style route instead then we can remove IID and force the person to first use PIM-X and then a Reader to add the property

My Assign Building Styles Tool can add those properties to buildings in bulk, but it is command-line based so it my not be the most user friendly. Of course, someone could always write a wrapper for it, or use the code as inspiration for a better tool. 

17 minutes ago, Kel9509 said:

As for buildings installed without the matching style, I'm not sure if there's a way to solve for that.  It's like missing a required dependency.  

Fair point. Even the log file approach would be costly if performed automatically, but it could always be made a cheat code if there is a need for it.

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

6 minutes ago, Null 45 said:

My Assign Building Styles Tool can add those properties to buildings in bulk, but it is command-line based so it my not be the most user friendly. Of course, someone could always write a wrapper for it, or use the code as inspiration for a better tool. 

I have seen. it is an improvement but it remains too much CMD Style which is not very user friendly.

However. I do not perform any modification for now. Until the new stable version comes out we can have plenty of time to figure out how to proceed

[Kel9509 1,363]

I will try testing the Assign Building Styles Tool later tonight or tomorrow.  I'm hopeful it is as good as it sounds, even if it's a command-line program.  Like I've always said, the Allow More Building Styles mod is an advanced tool for advanced users.  But hopefully it can be intuitive enough for most modders.

That said, I want to clarify and understand the choices here:

1. Continue to permit PIM-X to assign the placeholder so that the exemplar is added to new buildings.  This will allow modders to edit the styles directly in PIM-X (assuming they're using the advanced edit functionality) easily.  For people who want to create new buildings and not worry about the building style mod, the Query UI mod will need to be fixed to display the original Maxis styles notwithstanding that the building style placeholder is there.  Additionally, modders can also use the Assign Building Styles Tool to add building styles outside of PIM-X, which is preferable if doing that in bulk.

2. Alternatively, if the Query UI mod cannot be fixed to display Maxis styles, then PIM-X should remove this from its new_properties.xml, and modders who want to assign building styles will either need to do it manually in reader, or use the Assign Building Styles tool.

Do I have that right?

[Ulisse Wolf 4,412]

1 hour ago, Kel9509 said:

Like I've always said, the Allow More Building Styles mod is an advanced tool for advanced users.

this thing is debunked because many people with little experience are already using the mod for their own purposes and I'm seeing it on discord. So to say that this mod is for advanced users is meaningless now.

1 hour ago, Kel9509 said:

1. Continue to permit PIM-X to assign the placeholder so that the exemplar is added to new buildings.  This will allow modders to edit the styles directly in PIM-X (assuming they're using the advanced edit functionality) easily.  For people who want to create new buildings and not worry about the building style mod, the Query UI mod will need to be fixed to display the original Maxis styles notwithstanding that the building style placeholder is there.  Additionally, modders can also use the Assign Building Styles Tool to add building styles outside of PIM-X, which is preferable if doing that in bulk.

2. Alternatively, if the Query UI mod cannot be fixed to display Maxis styles, then PIM-X should remove this from its new_properties.xml, and modders who want to assign building styles will either need to do it manually in reader, or use the Assign Building Styles tool.

Essentially this is the problem and we have to choose better QoL because there is no going back

[Null 45 3,041]

8 hours ago, Kel9509 said:

1. Continue to permit PIM-X to assign the placeholder so that the exemplar is added to new buildings.  This will allow modders to edit the styles directly in PIM-X (assuming they're using the advanced edit functionality) easily.  For people who want to create new buildings and not worry about the building style mod, the Query UI mod will need to be fixed to display the original Maxis styles notwithstanding that the building style placeholder is there.  Additionally, modders can also use the Assign Building Styles Tool to add building styles outside of PIM-X, which is preferable if doing that in bulk.

Which PIM-X placeholder are you talking about? I already treat 0x7B6BC069 as off limits, and make any building that only uses it fall back to the Maxis styles.

The current public 0x2004 style that PIM-X uses for a placeholder is more problematic. Due to it being part of the community style range, I can't (nor do I want to) mark it as off limits. But as long as those buildings get updated with a valid style before being publicly released there shouldn't be an issue. 

A related issue to the 0x2004 placeholder style is the scenario I mentioned above, where the user has buildings installed without the matching style in the UI. I plan to fix that by expanding the 'fall back to the Maxis styles' conditions for the Building Styles property to include any building where none of the styles are available in the UI, in addition to the existing behavior of reserving specific style ids as off limits.

I may also include a cheat (or automatic check when loading the first city) to look for buildings where the Building Styles property is set and none of the styles are available in the UI, and write the offending style ids to the log file. I haven't decided on the exact log format. I could just write one line with all the unsupported styles, but it would be more useful (if chattier) to log each building individually with the TGI and possibly the file name.

8 hours ago, Kel9509 said:

2. Alternatively, if the Query UI mod cannot be fixed to display Maxis styles, then PIM-X should remove this from its new_properties.xml, and modders who want to assign building styles will either need to do it manually in reader, or use the Assign Building Styles tool.

The query DLL is getting that information from the Building Styles DLL, so that is where any fixes would need to be applied.

6 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

this thing is debunked because many people with little experience are already using the mod for their own purposes and I'm seeing it on discord.

I haven't been seeing much discussion of the mod on Discord, but maybe I overlooked some of those conversations.

6 hours ago, Ulisse Wolf said:

Essentially this is the problem and we have to choose better QoL because there is no going back

I may be misunderstanding the problem, but what is the QoL issue? Most SC4 modding requires knowledge of the Reader, and with tools like sc4 cli I don't think command line interfaces are so obscure as to be unusable.

[Kel9509 1,363]

On 8/3/2025 at 11:56 PM, Null 45 said:

Which PIM-X placeholder are you talking about? I already treat 0x7B6BC069 as off limits, and make any building that only uses it fall back to the Maxis styles.

Yes that's what I'd expect based on all that you've said.  The placeholder I was referring to was 0x2004 initially before I saw it was showing as a Paris style in my game, and then later to 0x7B6BC069 which showed no styles.  If 0x7B6BC069 allows the Maxis styles to grow that's great.  

On 8/3/2025 at 11:56 PM, Null 45 said:

The query DLL is getting that information from the Building Styles DLL, so that is where any fixes would need to be applied.

I'm not a programmer and I'm not sure where the issue lies, and whether the lack of showing Maxis Styles here is also related to your fix about reverting back to Maxis styles if there's another style (apart from 0x7B6BC069) that's not in the INI.  I'm just trying to be clear that the Query doesn't show the Maxis styles with 0x7B6BC069 included as a style in the Building Exemplar.  Just to be crystal clear, at no point did I have 0x7B6BC069 as a style in my INI file.  I'm not sure if that's required to successfully activate the block, or also show the Maxis styles in the query.  See:

On 8/3/2025 at 11:56 PM, Null 45 said:

The current public 0x2004 style that PIM-X uses for a placeholder is more problematic.

I agree.  It's forcing me to revert to an earlier new_properties.xml file, or at least see if I can fix it myself.  There is no reason this cannot be a quick-patch fix that can be applied ASAP, without waiting for further CAM-related or other AMPS developments.  The new_properties.xml file is bugged, and leaving it out there intentionally is very strange when the fix should be easy to apply.  I don't know how many modders are in this situation as mine, or are following along here, but great new buildings get posted daily and they quickly amass 40-50 downloads a day, and I wonder if those have errors or not.

[Null 45 3,041]

3 hours ago, Kel9509 said:

I'm just trying to be clear that the Query doesn't show the Maxis styles with 0x7B6BC069 included as a style in the Building Exemplar.

That is a bug in 3.5.0, which has been fixed for the next release. I have no idea what caused it, but the changes I made adding the fall back names for the Building Styles property seems to have fixed it.

4 hours ago, Kel9509 said:

It's forcing me to revert to an earlier new_properties.xml file, or at least see if I can fix it myself.

There is a fixed version in the staging branch, but I have no idea what other properties have been modified. Fortunately the change appears to be a simple search and replace, swapping the value 0x00002004 for 0x7b6bc069.

In my opinion, there is no reason for the PIMX automatic templates to be setting the Building Styles property to any default value. If PIM-X requires it due to not allowing the user to add arbitrary properties like the Reader, then it sounds like the wrong program to use for building style editing.

5 hours ago, Kel9509 said:

I wonder if those have errors or not.

No idea. As far as I am concerned, if a 0x2004 community style gets defined some day and starts breaking released buildings it is a PIM-X bug that I won't be doing anything to handle.

[Null 45 3,041]

I am debating if I should mark the 0x2004 community style as off limits due to PIMX using it as a placeholder. I can't think of any easy way to detect the placeholder usage versus a legitimate style, and the current public version of PIMX have been silently inserting that placeholder into every building built with its template.

Feedback on this would be welcomed.

It is not yet a critical issue due to the fact that no community styles have been defined, but it would become a problem if 0x2004 was ever used.

If I block 0x2004, I would add an INI option to override it for people who are using fully custom styles. Another somewhat clunky option would be to add a marker value, e.g. a placeholder style id that tells the DLL that 0x2004 is to be handled as a legitimate community style.

[CorinaMarie 29,605]

1 hour ago, Null 45 said:

I am debating if I should mark the 0x2004 community style as off limits due to PIMX using it as a placeholder.

If that makes coding a whole bunch easier and clearer, I say GFI. We can live without 0x2004.

[Crossroads Inc. 68]

my god, that would be a literal game changer!

[Kel9509 1,363]

1 hour ago, Null 45 said:

I am debating if I should mark the 0x2004 community style as off limits due to PIMX using it as a placeholder. I can't think of any easy way to detect the placeholder usage versus a legitimate style, and the current public version of PIMX have been silently inserting that placeholder into every building built with its template.

Feedback on this would be welcomed.

I took a look at all buildings uploaded since July 1 (going back to the IDS offices).  Only 1 building has 0x2004 as a placeholder, which is the 20 North Clark by @Fargo:

All others since July 1 are not affected.  I don't know when 0x2004 was added to PIM-X, maybe April?  It might only be a handful of buildings and they might be easily fixed.  I don't think it's worth it but again this is just further evidence that new_properties.xml needs to be updated ASAP.