sc4melbourne

I find this lot very useful. It may be of interest to you. https://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=11210

Here are some examples of trams 'stops' (not stations) in Melbourne. The one below shows a city tram stop, where there is a small area for passengers to stand between the tram and the road, as well as a barrier separating the waiting area from the road. Some stops will have a small shelter as well. However, most stops don't have any of this. For example: On this road, tram stops are marked merely by posts on the side of the road where passengers wait. When the tram comes to the stop, all cars travelling in the same direction as the tram must stop and wait until the tram starts moving again, allowing passengers to cross and embark. However, on busy roads in Melbourne it is becoming a trend to narrow the road at tram stops, either merging two lanes in to one or getting rid of the parking lane: Furthermore, we are also starting to see more dedicated tram stops, which are similar to the GLR stations you are planning. Hope these have given you some ideas.

Originally posted by: david1314 The vast stride to be taken in city simulation is to free the transit networks from the grid. Not only directionally, but also free the number of lanes, width of pedestrian sidewalks... I mean, you can break Sim city down into as many more iterations of binary you want. But first, go open a city save file in ilive's reader and look how everything is defined in that environment... Now we were talking 1m squares? Multiply cities' file size (and load times) by 256.....Oh, and that's if we stick with the stupid 4km boundaries of the grid. I want transit networks that are fully customizable (in elevation, width, no. of lanes/tracks, functionioal ped. paths...) Why are we still even speaking of the grid. The superiority of splines is clearly established.quote> David, even if transit networks were to use splines, which is what is seriously being considered over at the Urbs Urbis forums, a grid system would still need to be in place for buildings and props. You could not have buildings being orientated parallel to the splines because that would require 3D - the buildings would have to be rendered from all angles. So, you cannot fully use splines unless you go 3D, but the community has already decided overwhelmingly in favor of 2.5D (both here and at the other forum). Instead, the proposal that I had way back on page 8? (Ithink), could be used to allow more freedom with a small grid. It's also posted with more detail over at the UU forums (http://dev.simcities.com) in the thread 'Splines with the Grid'. One more thing, would having a 1x1 metre grid really make loading times 256 times longer? Surely there must be a way that the game can be coded to cut down on this. In fact, over at UU, there is serious discussion abot having a 2x2 metre grid, which would only 64 times the size. I encourage everyone to join up over at http://dev.simcities.com, as the development and management team which was concerning some has now been dismantled for the time being, and the forums are open for eveyone's contributions, in a democratic and equal way. Thanks for eveyone's input!

Originally posted by: haljackey With the road networks we have seen so far, it doesn't look feasible. There are no diagonal roads, and only 1 type of road seen so far. Without things like highways, streets, etc. I don't think UDI will come into play.quote> Why wouldn't UDI be feasible with just roads? Sure, it would be boring, but it would still be feasible and in fact easier than having many road types and angles. However, I do believe that highways and diagonals will be included in SCS at some stage. I think TMill are doing all they can to quell community outrage, so they would have to address this issue somehow. Besides, I think having UDI would be infitting with the shift away from core SC functions.

I agree with Barbarossa. SC was never made to be a driving game, and it showed in the UDI. However, with SCS, and the ground-view possibilities, it could work a bit better. I did use the UDI occasionally for a bit of fun, but after a few minutes of driving it really became frustrating. If people want to play this sort of game, then there is GTA (and I might spend my money on that rather than SCS). If it is included (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), I think that the rewards should be removed. City-building or even society building is not about receiving bonuses for your driving skills. SC is a game of logic.

If the game were to be distributed for free and be open source, then we wouldn't have to purchase the open source, would we? The non-commercial version, however, is much cheaper, around $200. I imagine though that a number of copies would need to be purchased for all the individuals working on the programming. However, we're not even close to deciding on a game engine yet. I'd be interested to hear joerg and others' opinions as to which game engine would best serve our needs and would be the most economical. Best to leave it to the experts. Furthermore, before we become too involved in worrying about even these basic details, some of the ground framework needs to be laid. Influential members of other sites need to be contacted and we need to bring some big names onto our side. That is BATers and MODers and programmers who have a good reputation and know their stuff. Even after that, much more consensus over what direction the game should take needs to take place before we can really know what software will suit our goal. Fundamentals such as to what extent the game should be 3D, grid or no grid, level of zoning, etc. As I said in an earlier post, everyone out there who supports this project and who are members of other forums and have other contacts, spread the word. I've been taking down key points and collating some key contributions to this forum, so I propose that if you are posting about ST 1000 on another forum, PM me and let me know, and I'll monitor the reaction there.

Congratulations on the million. I also agree you should create a CJ. The highway and avenue system in the city looks interesting, wouldn't mind seeing it close up. Also, I like that you don't have too many bridges in the city. It's quite possible to achieve good traffic flow with a limited number of bridges if the system is well laid out. Good luck with this city into the future.

david, that canal city is amazing. Your definitely should turn it into a CJ. If we all could create cities like that, there'd be no need for an SC5!

Originally posted by: the olive Maybe your right, but Simtroplis 1000 will be better for sure, nothing can stand up to it. quote> Too right, olive. cologned91, there was much initial outrage, and with a few calmers amognst us, things have settled down now to a level of disappointment rather than anger and hatred. There are even a small number that are starting to see SCSoc as something positive. However, this new game has become very divisive, and I think members of the community will make up their own minds. People such as yourself are urging others too look for positives, whereas a large number are deadset against the game and are already exploring the alternatives (eg. ST 1000). Ultimately, everybody has their own very specific ideas about what makes Simcity the game it is, and this biases our view on the new game. I say, those who are interested in SCS, good luck to you. To those of us who have always thought of SC as something quite different, we'll get over this disappointing news and start working towards something to satisfy our needs. If people aren't interested in SCS, there's no point in pushing them. I can tell quite clearly from the outset that I do not like the 'society' direction and neither do many others. I think we'll continue to maintain our passion for SC as a city-building game, with or without EA.

I like the sound of iCity! Or maybe UrbGen. I know it's not important right now. But after doing some serious thinking about this all day, I need something light to talk about.

Okay, so I'm just trying to grasp how lots would develop in ST. If we follow david's idea of splines (I'm convinced about it now), then would we do away with lots in the traditional sense. Instead of having lots made up of the main building, then props and fillers, these should all be come independent objects, which still have some dependencies on each other. Say a lot took up 4x3 tiles in SC4, of which 2x2 were the actual building, and 8 tiles were filled with props and ground textures. In ST 1000, the building should take up the same amount of space (1024 sq metres), and be the same shape. However, the filler tiles should not have to be the same shape. The whole lot over all may be triangular or pentagonal in shape, because the filler tiles are arranged in a different way. The fillers and props will still occupy 2048 sq metres, but in a different layout. So, it could be coded that Building Y have X square metres of filler objects around it, and Z sq metres of that should be dedicated to a parking lot. This way, a parking lot or a plaza area around a building does not have to be a set shape, but the game will decide its shape to fit in with buildings and roads around it. I still think that an underlying grid would help with the placement of filler tiles though, even if it can't be seen.

Originally posted by: david1314 Nardo:- no graphics engine - auran jet...best thing I can put forth....suggestions? quote> Have you looked over at this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Free_Engines Auran Jet isn't on the list, but the first one, Agar, seems like it would be suitable.

Wow, it's really difficult keeping up with this thread. I spent about an hour ctaching up with what I missed in sleep, and then I went away to write up the document below, and when I returned there was another whole page of comments! Anyway, I drew up this rather quick document outlining how I think the grid system should work (and it could work really well), seeing as there seems to be quite a bit of support for retaining the grid. The first page is as an image because I couldn't get the graph on any other way. The text beneath is the continuation of the document. Now, as you can see, I’ve numbered some of the grid tiles above. This is to show which tiles will be considered road tiles and which won’t. Any tile which has any part of the road running through it is considered a road tile and therefore cannot have a building on the same tile. So, tiles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and road tiles. And, tiles 3, 8 and 13 are not road tiles. So, you may be wondering what happens to the road tiles which only have the road running through a small section of them. This will be explained below. Four object types: I think that there should be four types of objects in ST 1000, buildings, props, fillers and transit networks. Well, at least these are the four I have thought about so far. It may be necessary to add others later. The objects could be described as such: Buildings: This one is self-explanatory. Basically, any building which is going to have a residential, commercial or industrial capacity or which serves some other purpose (except carrying automata). More specifically, an object which affects gameplay and is not purely placed for aesthetic reasons. Props: Any object which is 3-dimensional yet has no function and is purely placed for aesthetic reasons. Just like the props which we find in SC4 lots. May be a lamp post, bin, flower garden, etc. Fillers: 2-D objects which are purely for aesthetic purposes. Basically, these are textures which are placed on the ground. They may be a sidewalk, plaza, cobblestones or gravel path. The only function these objects have are to carry pedestrians or animals (and cars when they crash off the road). Transit networks: These are objects such as roads, railways, etc. Pretty self-explanatory. They may be 2-D as in a flat road, or 3-D as in a railway viaduct. When an object occupies a tile, that tile is ‘catalogued’ as belonging to that object type. In a case where an object is half on a tile, that tile may be catalogued as belonging to two object types. For example: a road occupies half a tile and a filler (sidewalk) also occupies that tile. There will be obvious limitations on to what object types can share a tile: Building: can only occupy a tile by itself or share with a filler object only if the building does not occupy the full tile. Filler: can occupy a tile by itself, or share with a building, prop or road, but only if the other object does not fully occupy the whole tile. Prop: can occupy a tile by itself or share with a filler only if the prop does not occupy the whole tile. Transit network: can only occupy a tile by itself or share with a filler only if the transit network does not occupy the full tile. A filler tile will always occupy a full tile, so a building and a filler may overlap. However, the filler should be coded to be hidden underneath the building (like you send an object to the back in a Word document). ------------------------------------------------------- If anyone is interested in this, or knows if its possible, etc. please let me know. I have more to expand on this idea.