schm0

I would love to help with the smaller lots... as anything over two stories intimidates me. Give me direction, and I'll try and help as much as possible.

Originally posted by: MrFingersbut if anything, CO2 is GOOD for the environment. quote> ... in the sense that is has been vital to providing life on this planet and helping shape the balance in our atmosphere that gave birth to our civilization. We are tinkering with the ratio of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the point in which they have increased global mean temperature by an entire degree. I hate the light too because it has a narrow frequency (mostly bluish), but realise that it is less wasteful because 90% of energy used in an incandescent light bulb is *waste* heat. waste, only in the sense that the heat emitted is not useful, which is sometimes not true. quote> LEDs are the future. hybrid cars are a joke, they are 30% more expensive, and almost equal in fuel efficiency to a lot of cars. do not buy them, they are for gullbile fools. quote> The technology is continually improving, just as it had with early automobiles. You have to learn how to walk before you can run. Gas mileage from hybrids is a battle between technology, cost-effectiveness, and consumer demand. The people who are bleeding from their wallets trying to afford gas are not likely to be able to buy a new car any time soon. Government subsidies and new CAFE and environmental standards should provide a path for the auto companies to produce these cars for an affordable price in the future. Your argument is akin to telling someone in 1910 to forget about buying a Model-T because a horse can go just as fast and you don't have to crank-start it. How could someone back then have possible imagined such technology would bring us the vehicles we see today? A gimmick that will hurt poor people most. much like everything else in the global warming arena.quote> I agree with the first statement. Bio-fuels are short-term solutions. The utopian result will be a fossil-fuel-free and pollution-free energy source. Your second statement is without merit. plus windfarms are 164 times more dangerous than nuclear power, much less efficient, very low energy density, unsightly as you say, basically they are a grotesque waste of money.... much like most things the bloody government has to show us.quote> Dangerous to whom, I ask? Birds? Seriously, 164 times as dangerous as Chernobyl? I'd like to see the news coverage of the wind turbine that did that damage! What is more efficient than free, infinite and renewable nature-propelled energy? Which will last longer: a wind turbine on a hillside, or all the world's coal burning in a heap? You're telling me that the cost of putting up a wind turbine is more than digging, transporting, housing and extracting energy from coal or uranium? Originally posted by: MrFingersThis all hinges on the assumption that corrupt agenda ridden IPCC is right, and Al Gore is not infact a lying scum-bag sniffing for money. quote> I could just as easily dismiss any scientific concept by calling it's theorists, experts, scientists, data and findings are all part of some global conspiracy, but instead I support my arguments with fact. To be completely frank, your continued insistence that the world's leading scientists and most of the world's civilized governments are united in a global conspiracy is completely ludicrous. You have no basis for any such argument, nor have you ever offered one. Your intense focus on one man is similarly incredulous; the environmental movement isn't all about Al Gore. My species has control. My species is superior. Tough. quote> I would love to see you say that in the face of a 60-foot tsunami, a 10,000 ton mudslide or a 120mph hurricane. Just grab on to a tree, close your eyes, and keep telling yourself that. More than just several dozen mate, we've got petitions with 17,000 scientists (2,400 of them in relevant fields) proclaiming their opposition to the global warming myth. On the opposite you've got the IPCC with 2,500 supposed scientists supporting their agenda, but none of them wrote the summary which is stuffed with crap, many of them have since retracted their support, and some have even had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the list. Stop trotting about the "scientific consensus", it simply does not exist.quote> I have disputed that "petition" in previous posts and it was found to lack any real evidence that the signatories were real or even in fields related to global warming. The petition to which you refer has never been shown to be valid. Your claim of "many" people wishing to retract their names is actually only a handful of people. As far as the consensus, scientists and the general public alike agree that global warming is a real threat and that action must be taken to confront it. Furthermore, I have re-read the summary and the word "crap" isn't mentioned. Not even once. GPO Poll on Global Warming "A very strong majority of the US public embraces the idea that global warming is a real and serious problem even though only a slight majority perceives that there is a consensus in the scientific community on this question. The majority endorsing action divides on whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low-cost steps. However, when asked to assume that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming, support for taking high cost steps increases to a majority. A majority rejects the argument that taking action is too economically onerous and is optimistic that in the long run reducing greenhouse gas emissions will actually benefit the economy by increasing efficiency. In a multilateral context support for taking action becomes overwhelming with very large majorities wanting to do as much as other developed countries to reduce emissions. Awareness of global warming is quite high." There were many others to be found with similar results. Occasionally, you will find a poll here or there that will show a deviation from this trend, but an overwhelming majority (hmmm, a consensus perhaps?) all agree that Global Warming exists, is caused by man, and will affect the future of the earth's climate and the way we live.

Woohoo! I got mentioned in the podcast.

Originally posted by: NMUSpidey Wow, this is really cool. I also happen to be from SE Michigan, I graduated from Bedford HS in Temperance, MI ("Where Michigan begins!") in 99, and earned my BA from Northern Michigan University in 05. Is this going to be mainly Detroit and ann arbor based (I can only take so much *ugh* ann arbor)? Or will this eventually expand to encompass the whole of MI? I would LOVE to help/see/use a Mackinac Bridge or aid with the buildings in Marquette.quote> Michigan has a land area totalling 253793 km2. That's 15,862 separate true-scale regions. Now that's a project.

Yikes... someone get a moderator.... or manticorefan, just edit your original post.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok Also, could anyone explain the thing I posted a little while ago about the cosmic dust on the moon indicating that the moon is only a few thousand years old? quote> Yes. There were lots of things NASA's scientists thought about the moon that they were incorrect about. They thought that the moon might have an iron core, and thus a magnetic field similar to Earth's. (It does not.) The concern for the level of dust arose because they did not know what to expect when they landed. There were some at NASA that felt that because the moon held no atmosphere, and thus no erosion, the moon could not possibly be anything but a giant field of rock with valleys filled with thousands and millions of years of impact dust. Fearful that the lander would set foot in this dangerous setting, this theory was a legitimate concern at the time. The astronauts were relieved to find the gravity of the moon and the power of the solar wind had left only a thin layer of dust on the surface. Every single rock that was brought back from the moon was shown to be MUCH older than 6,000 years old. (Just trying to bring this around to being on-topic. ) Also, everyone reading this forum thread: Let's make sure we reply respectfully to one another, and not just go bashing everyone else's ideas, theories or arguments. Choose your words well, and try to persuade the other person to your own point of view with carefully constructed language and logical conclusion. Just a friendly reminder!

Originally posted by: MrFingersCarbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of. And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs. quote> I can give you five more detrimental effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere: Warmer temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere, caused by increased levels of CO2, will: 1) create larger and more devastating weather patterns 2) more extreme droughts and floods 3) cause an exponential increase in melting rate in the world's land ice 4) eliminate thousands of species, and disrupt the global food chain 5) not bother you in the least I wonder what you would say if an alien species were to decide your extinction didn't matter because they considered their lives a "higher priority" than yours. How unfortunate that would be, indeed. The fact is, you can cherry-pick the several dozen scientists in the world who actually think that global warming is not happening, and show their credentials and all that, but you can't ignore the vast volume of data that has led the rest of the world's scientists to a different and conclusion. As for the Saharan issue, the last line of the article you quoted speaks volumes: "But there is confusion over why the Sahel is becoming green. Rasmussen believes the main reason is increased rainfall since the great droughts of the early 1970s and 1980s. But farmers have also been adopting better methods of keeping soil and water on their land." Similar to other strange patterns that have yet to be explained (such as increased snow fall in Antartica) do not refute what is going on in the rest of the world. Furthermore, the reasons which could explain these events do not necessarily strike discord with Global Warming Theory. These elements need and require further study to determine their causes before we can jump to conclusions and point them out as contradictions in theory.

Originally posted by: sobol Yea... I have tried various combinations fo the NAM.. and I swear.. they are just as stupid in their commute options as ever. Okay, maybe a little less stupid... but not by much.quote> What are you talking about? The routing in SC4 is perfect!

Sometimes the game needs time and patience to adjust to new settings. New zones and development might not enter in to calculations right away. Always give your city a couple months to get everything up to speed. You'll notice this when a new building arrives on a lot. If you do a path query on it, nobody will be going to or from that location. Fast forward a couple days/weeks/months, and it will appear.

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Originally posted by: russb Originally posted by: N_O_Body No. The only thing you can do in Regional View is terraforming. quote> I'm sorry for this minor hijack, but, How do you terraform from region view?quote> In region view you are in god mode. When you start a city, you can terraform it before switching to mayor mode. Other than that, nothing. It is just a set of snapshots to allow you to pick your city.quote> Yes, but you can't terraform from Region view. You can only terraform after you select and load a single city. You can terraform at any time in city view by pressing CTRL+ALT+SHIFT and click on the God mode button, which is the left-most icon. Make sure you pause the game and save before you do any terraforming... that way you can always exit and reload if you do something you don't like.

Well, I am totally taking advantage of the ferry situation. If they only worked like they did in real life (to transport to an island or across vast distances of water, i.e. the Great Lakes, the Mediterranean, down a river, etc.) in the game, then they'd be useful. Maxis should have used boats as a more industrial or recreational function, and not a transportation option. How many people in RL travel to work by boat?

That is the stupidest use of electricity in the entire world. I would be pissed if I had to adjust my blinds every 30 minutes or so. Watching the big game on my widescreen, then the touchdown is obscured by the blinding glare from the sun. I don't care if the view out my window changes... What happens when the thing breaks down (and it will)? Are people so impatient and bored with looking out their balcony that they have to get one with a moving vista? If you want to look out a window and see the scenery move, um... get in a car or something. Someone will climb up this thing and get caught between levels and squished into smithereens. Another waste of technology for the extremely rich to blow their money on. What's the next thing? A house on wheels?

Uh, it's not that hard to get a screen name and password over at sc4dev... Why all the fuss? Leave the poor guy alone.

ArtMan94: Ever play GTA:SA? There's one by the airport in San Andreas.

I don't download based on it's ratings. I'm uh, how do you say?.... Selective?

Ferries are pretty darn fast. Must be jet ferries or something. I'm building a region with a major river coming through it... who needs highways or avenue bridges if I can just toss them on a boat?

Remember that to use the 15m digger to make the puzzle pieces look nice. The problems I've had with lowering/elevating terrain when I drop the puzzle pieces is that changing the camera angle fixes it all. (Why this works, I don't know.) Come to think of it, this is a bug that can be fixed. I'll probably end up starting another post on the Bugs/Technical Issues forum. Smsstevenms: That's not a NAM puzzle piece, which is why it doesn't match. The designer of the bridge either made the base texture or the lot itself that way so there's the gap you're seeing. My best bet would be, uh... use another bridge?

It's all about RAM. And the others are correct. You should be able to get large cities buy creating a brand new custom region. Look into creating your own maps with custom BMPs, which can give you an area filled with only large cities.

I tried using that, but it wouldn't let me drag the networks on to the lot.

This is the very first post of the newly announced Citizens For Better Highway On/Off-Ramps Project, or C4BHWO/OR Project for short. Yes, the acronym is a joke, but I'm totally serious about the project and am willing to dive in (even though I know nothing) to help this project come to fruition. Here's what I'm looking for: Taking this: And turning it into something like this: (Pardon my horrible photoshop-editing skills) I am currently recruiting anyone who can help, specifically: ** People with transit-enabling experience (any level) -- whether it's for your lots or if you've worked on any NAM project and can offer experience and insight. ** People with texturing experience -- take the current NAM on/off ramp textures and modify them to function as pictured (see above) without clashing with the current NAM style. ** People that have worked on the NAM and understand how to make it compatible with the latest update. ** People with time on their hands to offer critique and analysis, and perhaps a helpful pointer here and there. My experience is limited, but I offer my time and services to those with a bit of patience so I can assist in the project. We can think up of a new acronym or specific project title in the mean time. Anyone on board?

Fantastic update direct from Tarkus on sc4dev... Enjoy Hi Scott- The ramp you've suggested as part of the C4BHWO/OR project (nice acronym, by the way Wink) is definitely possible. When I have a little bit more time, that's something I could definitely look into. I think it may just be a matter of re-doing the Elevated Highway version by changing some coordinates of the model in the Reader. It is actually possible to redo the model mathematically that way (and that's actually how most NAM pieces are produced nowadays). After that, it would mainly be a simple fix with the CheckTypes and changing the RUL CheckTypes from Elevated to Ground Highway. If you're curious about why I haven't planned on interfacing the MIS with the Maxis Highways, it is primarily for the same reason you're pursuing this project. The scaling difference between the two networks is vast (all networks in the game including the RHW and MIS are close to 100% RL scale, whereas the Maxis Highways are at 50% scale). It would be extremely difficult to reconcile them aesthetically, unless I redid the Maxis Highways. However, I have considered doing this, as I would like to somehow provide the community with a better looking highway/freeway aimed for more urban usage. As far as the best place to contact me, I'm hardly ever at ST anymore, and I've essentially moved all of my developmental work over here to SC4D now, so this is the easiest way to contact me. Hope that answers your questions, and I'm happy to help out. Smiley Best Regards, Alex (Tarkus) quote> So, let's cross our fingers. I'll contact him and see if there's anything we can do to help.

Hello?

Several solutions have been offered as a form of venting our frustrations in a productive manner. Making our own game, while ambitious and in good spirit, depends on talent, money, and the donation of thousands of hours of work. While I support this endeavor, I fear it will fall short of our ultimate goals. Petitions against TM or EA will have little effect as they are under contract and already in development. Talking with TM on their forums will achieve a good and necessary conversation, but will not change the finished product by leaps and bounds. I have given up on hoping that SCS will contain any playable content that I would be interested in. I believe an open, peer-edited letter to Electronic Arts will have the most impact. If you all agree, we will need to address several key issues: the main statement (thesis) of the letter, three to five supporting arguments, and the conclusion. And, of course, the signatures of over 1000 people. I think this is a modest goal, and if made available to the public, could have significant impact on the production of SimCity 5/6/Whatever. Of course, I would not ask it to be endorsed by Simtropolis itself, but rather use it's fan base as a catalyst. What do you think?

I believe you'd have to get your entire region's education level to the point where they can work there, too.

Can't we all just get along?