Briman

Well it is nice. I for one feel that putting in those large structures doesn't mean sims will want to live near them. Also would be nice to show if what you are planning will develop. Give it some run time is what I mean. Consider traffic noise and pollution. Will there be demand for what you are placing and are they transit enabled?

Simple and nice.

SO along with a lot of you writing here I was hoping the launch would be successful. But I did carry around the thought what if it wasn't. So thoughtfully I have followed the forums here and elsewhere before launch and since launch. The fact that every time I signed in to Origin I had to change my password was a clue of what was to come , for me anyway. So for now I haven't ordered it. Ill continue watching the forums for comments to gauge the progress at Maxis. I would feel miserable knowing I spent so much money for something I couldn't use and not being able to return it or get my money back. Im sure over time they will get the server issues solved then you can go back to complaining about content. SC4 will rule a while longer. Thanks for supporting SimCity and Maxis.

Consider. most if not all support for SC4 has come from the community. If you have used SC over the years it has gotten better only because of that. EA is trying to make SC into the Sims and cant quite figure out how to do that. Overall it is about control of their bottom line. I forsee addons coming which will cost users(instead of mods and bats). All the input given to make the new platform better has not gone un heard. Online play is a way for EA to research how SC is used to support charging us for the features we would like to see, The new SC will never equal SC4. Then again it might but it will be a program for for people to play, not use. Look at all the online stuff which is free but to get anywhere you need to take out the plastic to move forward. I spent time playing Evony which was fun but you get these players who have the time and money to sit there and make themselves into uber players. This in turn causes a select group to essentially control the experience which I can see happening with Region players. SC4 started out as a game but has become an artisticly functional entity in its own right. This wasnt due to EA. So for EA to justify a server for online game it will need to get more out of us to keep it evolving alas loosing the interest of many along the way.

Just a suggestion how about diagonal elevated crossings for the RHW, even better would be real three level crossings without using tunnels. Im sure the latter is way down the road. But anyway I know there are puzzle pieces for diagonal crossings,makking diagonal crossings at 45 degrees would allow very much more flexibility.

When starting a new city you wont see much rail use unless you have another city in the region that is connected by rail or road. What I do whenI start a new region with one city is to just connect the rail to the next city. I fyou have roads connected the freight trucks will use the road instead of rail. When you have an established region where demand is higher your trains will appear,both passenger and freight. Try cutting road connections and your passenger and freight trains will appear. Passenger will only appear when you have demand for it in another city or the city you are building has more than one passenger rail station and demand for it is high enough.

Just got a new rig. Trying to reproduce my SS4 from old rig. Im looking for the Diagonal Streets Mod. At least I think its a mod. Been looking through Stex for days now havent seen it.

All good. Very impressive ,most of them. But there arent any usage stats included. are these just eyecandy construction projects? Or are they really functional. some of them the size is way out of porportion to the surrounding developments.

Date: 7/30/2004 10:52:49 AM Author: Terse Pig Date:5/16/2004 8:53:05 PM Author:iamrobk Date: 5/16/2004 2:45:15 AM Author: Okay, I've read the whole thread, and I don't think I missed anything... Why doesn't anyone seem interested in rail-over-road? For me, most of my rail is in a tight spot, but frequent road intersections and highway proximity make road-over-rail impossible, and sometimes lots would face the road-over-rail...but the rail line has all the room in the world for an overpass, since it crossing nothing but the roads it needs to go over. It has all the room it needs in its thin corridor. So can I request rail-over-road, or is there a reason this has been abandoned? quote> The main reason people don't want this is because it's simply unrealistic. Toroca can explain it a lot better (he's the one who started the anti-rail-over-road thing, really), but in short, it's just not able to be done in a realistic way. And T7T's, glad to see you gettin right back to work! quote> OK, I'm only partly through reading this thread but this comment drew my attention so I apologize in advance if someone has already addressed this. In my town, Orlando, there is a place where rail does go over road. Now, I'm not saying that this is commonplace but to have the opportunity to do so in case you need it would be great. There are also some places on I-75 through Florida that have RR going over it. Just my .02 ¢ quote> Yes and Im sure it is an at grade crossing. Meaning that it doesnt go up a hill on one side and back down on the other. There are instances where rail does actually go over roads in the real world but it has to be done in a practical manner. That means the grade of the rail is basically unchanged. Or maybe the grade the rail is climbing is much longer and the road just happens to be there so they put a rail bridge over the road. That practical.