3018019

Originally posted by: Kippis05 I'd like to visit Asia someday, and i'd really like to go to Australia, because of their funny trademark "so where the hell are ya?" quote> It is supposed to be "So where the bloody hell are ya" but i think in some countries saying 'bloody' is too offensive and have to be removed from the ad. So in some countries they have the word in others they don't. I know they had problems with other things in it too but i forget what they were. All I remember is the censors in Canada and UK both took issue with things in the ad.

Singapore? If im not mistaken Singapore has more high rise and a great big mountain behind it.

Yea those housing commision buildings are absolute eyesores. On top of that they were built in the dingy area of town way back when and those areas have since become very trendy. Some of these flat have great views and the land they occupy would be worth millions. I think it's only a matter of time before the government can no longer resist the cash that could be had from a sell off. Also i feel i need to correct zane. It is an extremely broad and inaccurate statement to say that the low density suburbs are 'dirty'. I'm assuming that u mean they are the less desireable places to live. The greater Mebourne area occupies almost the same area (approx 8000 square kilometres) as the greater New York City area, inclusive of New York City, Newark, New Jersey, etc, yet it has about a sixth of the population. Melbourne's low density suburbs are actually very nice places to live. Out of the entire city there are only 3 or 4 suburbs (totalling maybe 10 square kilometres) that one might class as undesirable or 'dirty'. Melbourne and indeed Australia in general has no urban areas at all that one might class as ghettos. This is almost undoubtably due to Australia having far less people below the povety line than in the US. THe CIA factbook stats that Australia's % of population below the povety line as N/A. Anyway it's a given that Melbourne's commercial zone is smaller than that of New York. Most cities in the world have smaller commercial zones than New York does. All Australian cities have less skyscrapers then the average city because down here space is not at a premium (at least up until recently). In a city like Sydney of some 4 million it is not impossible to have a stand alone house with a garage and backyard. That would be unheard of somewhere like New York, Hong Kong, Singapore and a number of other places. However things are changing, it is becoming more desirable to live in proximity to the CBD and the various governments are actively trying to limit the urban sprawl and the drain in puts on infrastructure and the environment. In all the cities over the last few years residential talls are starting to spring up. In Melbourne alone a few of the recent buildings include Eureka, Verve, and Freshwater Place and i'm sure many more will follow in the not too distant future. In short i put melbourne as a 9. Its a great place to live but like everywhere in the world there is always something that could do with improving.

I live in Melbourne Australia and it will always be home for me. I would like to live in other cities around the world for periods of time but wherever i go i will end up returning to Melbourne eventually. Most studies show Australia (at the moment at least) is one of the best places in the world in which to live in terms of health, safety, education, the economy, cost of living and the like. Melbourne along with the rest of the major Australian cities consistantly ranks at or near the top of the least as the world's most livable. If for no other reason, the weather here is great. There are many cities in the world I love to spend time in but where i will choose to live permanently has more to do with quality of life and practicality than how many tall buildings are there.

A question that I'm not if it has been answered or not but i cant find it: What happens when you connect pieces of different networks together? I wanted my rail line run above a street for a sort distance and so the only way to do it was to use EL pieces. I didn't think it would work but i tried any way and it seemed to be ok. The trains (automata) would keep driving straight over the EL and back onto normal rail with no trouble. I thought success but afterwards my pathfinding showed no train passengers were going this way anymore. Instead they were taking a detour around it. I tried experimenting to determine if they had found a better route or what but its a bit inconclusive at the moment. Does this mean that mixing pieces like this looks fine but doesnt actually work with the pathfinding? I would have assumed this in the beginning but was surprised to see the trains travelling over the EL rails. Thanx for your help people. The NAM is a huge improvement over the regular Rush Hour.

Currently working on as accurate as possible BAT of 101 Collins. Hope to get it on here when its done but in the mean time progress is a bit slow trying to research the demensions of the podium and lower few floors. Also difficult to find shots on the net showing the roof details and such. But it's coming along slowly nonetheless. Will be the full 190 metres to roof and 260 metres to spire when finished.