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.

Originally posted by: codyg1985 Wow, thanks codyg1985! This is what I was trying to say (rather shoddily) earlier on. The player could use a tool to click points PC and PT on a grid coordinate. A straight line would be drawn between the two and then the player could subtend the line to the desired degree of curvature. The road would maintain its width, as the other side of the road (the line marked with the Ds), would also have the same degree of curvature. Come to think of it, the whole road network could be constructed like this, even straight sections. That way, you could break away from having 90 or 45 degree roads only. I might want a road from point X1 (9, 4) to point X2 (16, 24). All I do is click the two coordinates, choose not to subtend the angle, and the road is created between the two points, even though it has an inconvenient gradient of 70.7 degrees. I don't know if this is possible, but Creathir might be able to shed some light, given his programming experience.

Originally posted by: hamish Someone should make a reference to this over at sc4devotion to link them back to this. It would be a boost to get the people over there. I would but im not to familiar with sc4devotion. quote> I think someone should be in charge of spreading the work. ie, keeping a record of what sites this project has been posted on and monitoring the response. Perhaps people could mention it on this thread when they've posted about this on another forum, or PM someone who nominates themself. I would, but I'm about to go to bed - it's been a long day! Also, it would be better if longtime members of the other sites posted them rather than someone who deliberately joins up to do so - it would have more credibility. Of course, that is if we want to start spreading the word about this. It may be better to discuss the possibilities quietly for a while before alerting many others.

I doubt it. The fact that the whole game is now focusing on these 'societies' means we're losing most city-building concepts, it seems. The whole project seems to be taking a big step backwards, and I wouldn't be surprised if this cherished feature from SC4 was to disappear as well. The fact that the cities will develop such individual societies and cultures would indicate that they couldnt all possibly be found in the same region. It would be highly unrealistic (not that I think that would bother EA).

Originally posted by: BC_Rich_Warlock sc4melbourn wouldn't be too much like SC4 in the way of "wedge" curvesquote> Actually, I've had a bit of a think about this and I've thought of a better way to manage curves with more flexibility. Firstly, use a special cursor to click on one side of the road on a grid co-ordinate where the curve is to start. Then, click on a grid co-ordinate where the curve for that side of the road is going to end. Then, a straight line appears connecting these two points, and the player moves this line to distort it and change the grade of the curve. The game then builds the road, whilst maintaing the width of the road. This reminds me of using a graphics program to draw a curved line, and obviously this level of detail may be difficult to code and may frustrate some players. However, the latter point could be overcome if the most common types of road curves (22.5, 45, 67.5 degrees) were selectable as menu items. This tool would only then be necessary for intricate road layouts. Also, I'm a little confused by joerg's and david1314's discussions about using splines and w2w setups (more technical jargon). What I can gather from this is that roads will have an invisible line down the middle of them which delineates both sides of the road into different blocks? Then, each block would be given a number, and pathfinding routes devised for the block? If this is what you mean, it sounds like a good idea. I'm starting to teach myself something about BATing and MODing at this stage, so that I can keep apace with these discussions.

Originally posted by: joerg I dont know about the rest of you, but looking at what we have seen so far from SCS makes me believe that there is no reason to continue following its development. The game doesnt appear to have a single feature we have all been wanting. So I present you guys with my proposal, this is going to be fairly long so bare with me. Ill start with the games basic concept. -No more regions, but instead a tile system much like the trainz series uses. For those not familiar you basically start with one tile and when you fill it up you simply go to the edge of the map and add another and keep going like this. This will provide us as the developers with the easiest and most effective means of making a massive city simulation. -Full 3d, for the sake of fast development and custom content creation the game needs to be built in full 3d. Sure 3d has ruined a vast amount of sim like games, but i feel we can create something worth while. Look at games like Trainz, Flight Sim, and many others to see good examples of what 3d gaming is capable of with decent textures and rendering. For those fearing the need for enormous computing power I propose we use a hybrid of the current sc4 system and flight simulator. This basically means there will be a field of view component to the game so buildings, trees and automata x distance from the camera will fade out. Furthermore buildings could have 2 models created for them one complex and one a simple lod much like we have now, the lods could be auto constructed and rendered very quickly much like they are rendered now but with side and top camera angles instead of iso metric. ( To elaborate a bit more the simple lods could basically be 6 sided objects and each side could be rendered out in max and then mapped as a texture to that side. This would create a very simplistic structure, but it would only be for max zoom distance and when something is far off in the distance.) -Stick with a grid, but make it much much smaller. Two huge problems arise from using a grid, first roads are limited to only a few basic angles, and second scale is limited by the grid size. Going with a smaller grid like 1 square = 1 meter would mean that networks could have far more complex paths, the best example of this is if you go into paint and you draw something on a document that is 10x10 pixels and then zoom in it looks jagged, if you draw the same thing on a 100x100 pixel image it will look much smoother when you zoom in. Drawing roads could follow the same principal. Infact with the ability to go full 3d we could simply do roads as paths and say that this path fills (X) tiles. Using smaller tiles presents us with a small hurdle though. what in the world can we use to fill in all the empty squares that are left next to diagnol paths (transit networks)? The answer is rather simple.... Filler Tiles. As city builders we are constantly manually placing parking lots and empty grass tiles and things to take up this extra space where there simply isnt room for a large building. Well guess what if we divided a normal sc4 grid into 1 meter squares we would have another 256 squares in every sc4 tile. Now lets say a path cut through this tile and used about 200 of these squares. We could easilly tell the game to fill the tile with filler squares that are designed to match the zone they are placed in. For example low density res would simply use grass or bushes, and industrial could use parking or barrels. -Zoning needs to be improved, but the complexity of writing code that deals with the way zones work and everything seems staggering, but this is my proposal. Lets simplify zoning basically no more individual zones but instead one massive zone that buildings place them selves in according to a set of rules. So basically it would work like this you lay down a road network and pull out your zoning tool, the tool would have 2 options fill much like a paint bucket in ms paint or photoshop works, and normal grid based zoning. Lets say you use fill and you just fill in an area defined by 4 roads. Now the game has this basic blob of zone with no predetermined lots. The game can now start applying rules to fill in this area. Rules like: -Buildings must face a road and be no more than (X) tiles from a road or pedestrian side walk -Buildings must first attempt to fill a zone starting from the corner so as to leave room for other buildings. -Filler tiles can grow after buildings have been put in place -Parking lot filler tile can only grow in (X) zones, must be directly adjacent to another parking tile or a road. -Other filler tiles could all have their own sets of rules and such. quote> I think this idea sounds brilliant. The first thing that entered my head was how such a massive project could possibly work, but then I thought of 100,000+ very vocal members on ST, and the hundreds of BATters and Modders who have produced work of such a high standard over the years. I think looking at the Charles River Crossing Project by Tarkus and blahdy is a fine example of this. With such a cooperative and talented, and most importantly LARGE group of people, this has some (however slight) chance of really working. The first thing, though, is who has the skills to start such a project from scratch? It is a good point that the SC4 source code would be an enormous help, and even then the task would be mammoth. It takes a large jump from being a Modder to encoding a game from scratch. Those few practical musings aside, I'd like to share some of my ideas that I have developed over many years of fantasizing about the perfect SimCity. 1. The 3D issue - I know many people will disagree with this, but I think sufficient realism can be created without necessarily going 3D. The graphics that we are seeing from BATters such as Porkissimo are incredibly rich in detail and are eye candy worth drooling over. 3D seems like a huge barrier that would take a lot of experimenting to overcome, and I don't know whether it would be worth it in the long run. I know this project would take a very long time, but creating it in 3D may require incredibly powerful computers to actually play the game. I'm not an expert on these issues, so others could perhaps enlighten me some more? 2. Now to the nitty gritty - the part I love. I agree with joerg's idea about keeping the grid system and making tiles of 1x1m. The grid system would become almost unnoticeable (in terms of limitations) at this scale, and would be easier to code (wouldn't it?). 3. Roads I think that paths and roads should be separate menu items. And, because of the small grid, there should be many road options. I did a bit of research into lane widths, and have come up with some standard width definitions. Consult this: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/rural/report/RSC%20REPORT-12.htm. So, roads, avenues and highways should all have set widths per lane, and when you select that road option from the menu, you will place a piece of road which takes up, for example, 7 tiles width for a two-way urban road. The road can then be dragged to a desired length as per usual. For turns, premade curves could be used, in addition to 'wedge' pieces for customised bends in the road, which would connect together. 4. Zoning I like joerg's idea for zoning as well. Filling a whole block would be a great idea, rather than dragging a zone across tiles, which could be quite fiddly with the very small grid size proposed. And, yes, buildings should develop within this zoning in logical places, albeit random places. For example, a skyscraper should have its closest side a minimum of X distance from a road, and a maximum of Y distance from that road, so that they don't build right on the kerbside. Only the actual building should build, and then filler lots such as plazas, paved walkways, fountains, grass areas, trees, kiosks, etc. could fill up the spaces between buildings (a bit like the 'Grounds' in HT zones). One difficulty with this, however, would be buildings that need to have a special plaza or entrance in front of them. Perhaps these would have to develop with the plaza or whatever other features they should have. 5. Civic Services I don't know what others may think of this idea, but I think it should be possible to incorporate certain civic services into commercial or residential buildings. For example, libraries, museums and health clinics can often be found inside a large office development or a retail mall. For some buildings, there could perhaps be an option to sacrifice some of that building's population or jobs capacity to make way for a civic service. It is a bit odd having a small library squished amongst huge skyscrapers either side. These are just some of my many ideas. I'll add some more later when this thread develops a little. Thanks again to joerg for this great idea, and may I say I would be more than happy to be involved in this in some way, even though I'm not talented at BATting or Modding (not yet at least) - so I guess I'd be best on the Logic team!

Originally posted by: Jasoncw None of the Sim City games are realistic. Casually looking at the game, you might not notice, but look how oversized and chunky the Maxis buildings are. Look at how colorful the graphics are. SC4 has a very very poor and unrealistic sense of scale, on all levels. And I don't think SCS will be realistic either, but if we can modd it, it will give us a great opportunity to make realistic buildings.quote> It is true that the Maxis buildings have relatively poor scale and are somewhat chunky. But the talented team of BATters that we have has helped to introduce a lot more realism in the game. So, I think the best way to compare SCS and SC4 is to compare the original buildings in the game. It seems to be the overwhelming opinion that SCS original buildings are worse than SC4 buildings. So there has been a step backwards, despite 3D. Furthermore, nobody knows the ability of SCS for custom content. There are no signs that there will be stunning customisation available, and given the relatively quick treatment of important aspects of the game such as transport, it seems unlikely that there will be much customisation available for transport. SC fans have always liked creating there own content, but we need a flexible game to do that with. SCS is not turning out to look promising at all. And from what is being said elsewhere, it looks like most of our talented BATters and Modders will be sticking with SC4.

Hey people, I'm hardly new around here but I've certainly been very quiet. I don't think I ever properly introduced myself, so I think I'll take the opportunity to do so now. Certainly with the news of SCSoc, I've been prompted to make more contributions to the forums, rather than spending countless hours just reading them! Well, my name is Calum. I'm in high school, completing VCE (final two years of school, essential to get into uni), and, as my username might suggest I live in Melbourne, Australia. Hopefully now I'll make more contributions to these forums. Thanks everyone!

Compromise, you'll be glad to hear that England did very well yesterday, picking up 5 gold medals: 2 in swimming, 2 in gymnastics and Peter Nicol won the men's squash final.

off subject ~zel~ I'm sure those who took part in the gay parade were not thinking about politics - they were just providing some happiness in the aftermath of devastation.</P>

Hi everyone! I'm new to the site hence why I'm posting in this section and introducing myself. I've been looking around the site quietly for a few days now, and already I'm in awe and very grateful to all the people who contribute. Since finding this site and looking around the forum, SimCity 4 has taken on a new dimension for me, after downloading several mods and lots which have made the game far more enjoyable to play. Everybody here is so warm and welcoming and dedicated - thankyou. I hope to keep posting and hopefully put something back into the site (I may some day even dip into that daunting pool that is BAT) THANKYOU!!! Oops! I forgot to introduce myself after all that - I'm 15 and live in Melbourne, Australia (name gives it away!).