deanej

I was thinking about this yesterday when playing on a hilly tile; the simulator was causing issues where the shaping of the terrain for a tile of road would make it impossible to complete the road as I planned because there's no way to communicate that to the game so it can shape the terrain accordingly.

I doubt the server would do much more than resource calculations and facilitate multiplayer. It would be too much of a load. More likely each action would generate a "message" that would be sent to each client computer and processed locally at the same time; this is how Civilization IV handles multiplayer. This also has the advantage of making multiplayer and single player identical from a coding perspective.

Another reason to use points is that they make more money off of inexact conversions resulting in points that never get used for anything.

If quad cores are so dirt cheap, why are the majority of new computers still sold with dual cores? I will also be laptop-only for quite a while. I'm a college student, so a desktop makes absolutely no sense for me - there's no space in my dorm for it, and why would I want to haul a bulky desktop with me every time I go on break? Though my desktop is ancient now (though it still runs SC4 well on the highest settings... helps that it was built for SC4 though), and I won't be able to afford a new one for quite some time yet. Laptops are great for consumers as well. Portability is awesome regardless of whether you're a business user. I upgraded from Vista to 7 while watching Star Trek on our 50" flat screen TV at home... couldn't do that on a desktop!

I'd much rather they use the XML, python, and SDK (C++ DLL) model Civilization IV used. Not only is it more powerful for modding, it's easier to use to make simple mods (not just BATs). The multiplayer issues are easily resolved if Maxis restricts mods in multiplayer to those that don't cheat while allowing SP to be modded freely (though they'd have to give up the idea of everyone being tied to the global marketplace).

Given that the SC4 minimum requirements stated 256 mb RAM, I'd consider these complete BS. It's not like minimum system requirements are ever high enough anyways.

But why can't SimCity intelligently flatten terrain itself? Personally, I use RHW so I can determine highway size and build custom interchanges, not to have an exercise in civil engineering.

You need to install the java runtime engine.

Even so, the scale is WAY wrong. Here's a google maps view of what constitutes a large city in SC4 (verified with the terrain generator): http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&ll=43.227976,-77.530947&spn=0.022733,0.055575&z=15

Also too bad that a "city" is such a small area. Even a large city only holds a quarter mile.

I would like to make RL-quality highways that don't have scale problems with the city and region sizes and aren't blocky. You won't ever get that with the RHW due to SC4's limitations. It's too bad Maxis locked the game data in .dat files that you need editors to work with and didn't let us modify any of the core rules of the game (unlike civ4, where everything except the graphics system is moddable). It seems the only type of modding they anticipated (or wanted) was adding new lots and buildings.

The diagonal overpass pieces. They always wanted to go in the tile next to the one I wanted or have the RHW go perpendicular to the direction it was drawn. Had to use the starter pieces to fix the RHW2 stuff with flexfly. I think I'll wait until 4.1 for flyover ramps - with the realigning of what I plan to do, I won't need them as much. I don't think Maxis ever used the scale for anything other than saying there was a scale. I plan to use exclusively large maps for this stuff because of that. It would be nice if Maxis could have chosen a different scale - an entire region is only the size of Manhattan.

Another issue: the Flexfly pieces cause any RHW pieces between them to revert to RHW-2. Is there any way to fix this? Also, how do I drag elevated pieces away from them? Still waiting for an answer to my question on diagonal pieces. I'm thinking I'm going to have to scale back my plans for SC4 and the RHW. It's too hard to master, doesn't let me build the interchanges I want to build, puzzle pieces don't work at all (they will let me build at any orientation and tile conceivable EXCEPT the orientation I want on the tile I want), and the interchanges are scaled too large relative to the city and lot sizes, and there's no way I can make an interchange looking even remotely as nice as one on a map. In short, it doesn't allow me to do what I want to do. I guess what I really need is a brand new city builder built from scratch for this purpose, but I don't have the expertise to make one.

Originally posted by: jgehrts On the contrary, the original highways are a cheat - the size is FAR too small, which one could easily argue gives you an unfair capacity for the size of the road. quote> The size isn't far too small when you compare it to the size of everything else in the game rather than the Maxis-given size of the tiles. Say all you want about the size of the highways not fitting the tile scale, but nothing else in SC4 matches the tile scale either. Personially I just ignore it. Only in SC4 with the RHW are interchanges the same size as a military base. Yes, the highways may be undersized, but so are the city sizes and just about everything else in the game. But they aren't as undersized as you think; just check out this interchange (as well as the ones before and after it on the same road): http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=&hnear=Rochester,+Monroe,+New+York&ll=40.806736,-73.922775&spn=0.005896,0.013894&t=h&z=17 The Maxis highways may be way undersized compared to midwest interstates, but compared to the old expressways in the northeast, they're not that bad.

If the network's already established, what do you need the diagonal pieces for? Wouldn't the overpass already be their then?