schm0

Yes. 2 Dimensions only include 2 axes, the X and Y axis. SC4 was in 3 dimensions, adding the Z-axis. It just defined those 3 dimensions to 4 angles, skewed at 45 degrees from north, south, east and west. When people talk about "true" 3d, they mean a fully rendered 3-Dimensional that can be viewed from any angle, such as an FPS would contain.

I just don't like calling this SimCity 5 when it doesn't stick with the original game's core philosophy. Emphasis seems to be less on the realistic and micromanaged nature and more on a cultural or societal nature. This is the fundamental difference between the two games. It's a simplified (E for Everyone) version of a complex and difficult strategy game. As far as the name, they called it Societies because it focuses on society, instead of the city management itself, from what I gathered.

Originally posted by: topcliff You know, I think this is totally doable. Out of the 170k people here, there has to be some people who work on software and computers. The only thing I want for this possible game is for their not to be growables. Let me explain why: 1. Growables rely on certain factors, and these factors are sometimes unachievable (like the Stage 7's in Vanilla). 2. Uncertainty is the main problem. Players spend too much time on letting things grow, often in frustrating clusters, patterns, areas, etc. 3. After reviewing some of the CJ greats, I realized that most of those are plopped for maximum satisfaction and zero repitition on the player's part. 4. Plops are easier to control, plus give total control to the player in terms of designing their optimum city. TopCliffquote> All you have to do is change the way zones work a bit to make the AI select a more reasonable set of paramaters for building. Ever notice how you have like 6 random squares that don't develop until demand is high in your light industrial areas? The game would recognize that you didn't want a bunch of un-used squares and develop a row of warehouses instead. Justy a thought. Ploppables are nice, but it simply takes too much time to plop an entire city.

I started this thread because it just doesn't look or feel like a typical SimCity. It looks and has all the trademarks of a spinoff with social gameplay elements taking the place of some of the micro-managing aspects of SimCity. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not calling it SimCity 5. I've msg'd all the mods that regulate this discussion to change the title to SimCity: Societies Discussion, not SimCity 5 Discussion. Why the anal-retentive clarification? Because this new style and direction of gameplay does not fit the archetype for a fifth installment of the classic series. While I can't speculate on what these "social" attributes (see the 1up.com article) will actually add to the game, it seems to me to detract from the little details of each of our cities that makes our building style unique. Instead, it appears (and again, this is speculation) that our buildings styles will reflect the social choices we choose for our societies. Do I like the new direction? It's hard to tell. I'll wait to hear more about the actual gameplay. I'm currently wrestling to keep an open mind, but the barrage of daily news is disheartening. Who knows? Maybe I'll actually end up enjoying the game.

Mr. Beebe, I would like to make a few notes on your post and try to address some of the things you wrote in response to our users feedback. Originally posted by: DavidBeebe Folks, (original post edited for brevity) a) no zones. http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/showpost.php?p=157857&postcount=2 Did the Cathedral in that picture evolve from a zone? Did the memorial on the island evolve from a zone? http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/showpost.php?p=157744&postcount=85 Did this airport evolve from a zone? Did the super large tower evolve from a zone? (content edited) quote> The short answer is: no. Obviously, a vanilla version of a game will not include everything a user could ever dream up in his or her wildest fantasy, thus the availability for customizable content is a very important aspect to our humble Simtropolis community. A medieval church or honorary memorial is not something like a 7-11 or office building that you could find on every other corner in any city in the world. Each one is unique, and thus, they are available as a "ploppable" option for those who wish to download it. The power to control those specific options have always been a part of SimCity, and include parks, utilities, and transit networks, among other things. These are all examples of existing "ploppable" things in the game. The concept of zoning is to create areas that simplify the building process, i.e. guiding the game mechanics specifically towards the type of building you want to grow there. The custom areas above were painstakingly designed to look precisely the way they do. Did they use customizable content that "plops" down on the grid? Of course. Are they found every 3 blocks? No. Zones provide the user a way to quickly and efficiently "grow" a specific type of building in a specified area, without having to search through 200+ icons and find the correct "ploppable " for each tile. I undersand your argument, but I think you misunderstand the importance and utility of zoning, and specifically how it applies to SimCity. Perhaps the reason for the lack of zones is the nature of your game design itself... I conject that the philosophy of your game is much different than SC4 and this is at the core of what gamers are upset about. SimCity fans want a realistic city simulator. Most of us are agreed that we already have social simulators (The Sims 2) and historical simulators (Civilization IV, many others) and don't need or want a cross-breeding of the two. (content edited) d) modability is king Again, I cannot say too much. I can point to other games we've made and let you know that scripting, and graphics have been open for the public to tinker with. I've wrote down my notes from the chat session and am presenting them to the rest of the development team. Like Chris, I'm not going to apologize for the game we're making. I'm very proud of it. I want to speak more openly about it. I want to BRAG about it. But I can't. I'm not allowed to. If I do, Chris can get sued and I can get fired. I've asked the moderators of the chat to send me a copy of the chat just so I can cover my butt before it gets posted. Nobody is taking SC4 away from you. When you install the game it isn't going to wipe out any of the work you've done on Sc4. It isn't going to magically un-install Sc4. I'll be around to continue to not talk about the game. David Beebe quote> I don't think anyone here believes that your upcoming title will replace the game we have been playing for 3+ years. Custom content is still pouring in, the best of which is enough to fill two entire DVDs (provided by Simtropolis.) What we were waiting for was an updated and modernized version of the game that has been around since 1989. The game we were expecting is a realistic and detailed urban simulator, which is what has brought the franchise it's success and durability. The game we were expecting would herald new aspects of gameplay that do not fundamentally change the game itself, but add to it's existing structure and promote it's functionality and playability. The game we were expecting does not look like or sound like SimCity: Societies. Please don't misread that last statement. I think most of us are in a state of flux. We don't and can't have access to the information we want, so we sit and speculate based on vague (albeit contractual) statements from your Design staff and a half-dozen screenshots. We speculate and debate and grumble and moan and in the end, vent our frustrations out on each other and you. We appreciate your candor and communication. We welcome you and your staff to our humble home on the web, and implore you to engage us despite our sometimes hostile comments. We look forward to any and all updates and information that you can provide. Whether or not the majority of Simtropolis is happy with the final product, only time will tell. Please bear with us and please continue to pay attention to our concerns. Sincerely,

Cowcorn: Where did you get the following trails? I'm curious. Likewise, dahawk: Where did you get the dark get trails?

The name "societies" suggests a social sim, not an urban planning sim. Is this SimCity 5? Or is it a spinoff with a completely different aspect of gameplay?

Tilted Mills better show me the money, so to speak. I know we only have one screenshot, but I saw a 45 second trailer for GTAIV and I was blown away. It's a shame that GTAIV can create a better re-creation of a downtown urban area than TM.

huh? BA+? If I knew what you were talking about, I could help you. Are you talking about the Building Architect?

Originally posted by: edwardolardo how do you get ramps to sunken highways?...i can't seem to work the stexquote> The ramps are within the NAM. You can download the latest version at sc4devotion.com

I've always had several gripes about sunken highways. The textures are all over the place, the shading is never right, the ramps or textures bleed through each other, you get bumps (or stunt jumps, as I call them) in your overpasses if you happen to mess up and your elevation is over or under 15m, and you can never seem to place the puzzle pieces right the first time. Does anyone else have this problem, or is it just me?

I suggest moving this thread to the Modding section.

Sometimes Sims just want something to do. I believe in one of the tutorials on the Omnibus this phenomenon is discussed. When this happens, it is suggested that you purposefully degrade your city and build a new central area in an adjacent city to provide a "new haven" for your Sims to flock to. Once this area thrives, slowly build up the original city and provide services to it and bring new vitality to it. That would be my suggestion. How is pollution in your city? Are you using any traffic mods? Perhaps noise pollution or air pollution are causing this to happen. Also, what kind of Sims are moving in to your city? Have you built any new zones here recently?

Let me rephrase: Let's have this discussion be about evolution and creationism as they apply to our own planet. We may discuss the outer cosmos and the evolution of our solar system, our galaxy, the universe, and everything in it, as long as we bring it back to how it relates to the debate occuring on our planet today. I use the words "human culture" to leave a broad interpretation as to what that may infer. (On a further note, I never meant to kill the Kentucky debate, but perhaps we should start posting a single news story in light of the broader subject, with a "bigger question" to be asked of the reader/replier. For instance, at one time, there were three seperate global warming threads going at the same time, but only one that addressed the larger debate.)

Originally posted by: sam Originally posted by: Sc4_cewlWhen it comes to explaining the begininng of the earth, most evolutionists say big bang theory. quote> Well they might, but only because some of them may (or may not) accept both theories. However big bang theory has nothing to do with biological evolution. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe came into being, nor how the earth got to the point it did when life appeared. Those belong to other areas of science, not biology. Evolution attempts to explain the reasons and mechanisms behind the diversity of life and how life changes through time, nothing more, nothing less. So most evolutionists would not really attempt to speak professionally on origins of time, the universe and the earth, although they may hold their own personal views on such things, as almost everyone does. However those views may be diverse, and may or may not include big bang theory. Also many biologists would not say that evolution covers how life got here, that is covered by the theory of abiogenesis, although some similar principles may apply to both theories. quote> As long as the writer can bring it back to how it applies to modern evolution (on Earth), then it fits within the scope of the conversation. There are similar aspects to both theories, and ironically, the science of big bang theory caters to the idea of a creator more than creationist theory as it applies to Earth does. There is something to be said about Creationist theory being a bit narrow-minded, as it doesn't really explain anything outside our own planet. However, I am reluctant to begin a larger tangent into the cosmological and universal evolutionary theories, as I created this thread to discuss how evolution and creationism affect the culture of human ciivlization on Earth. I don't mean to discourage others to discuss these areas, just make sure you bring the argument "back down to Earth."

Cleveland will be swept, mark my words. We played too desperate, and it goes to show whenever I actually sit down to watch an entire game, my team ends up choking. Oh well, I can't complain about a team that has dominated the Eastern Conference for 5 years running and made it to the Finals or Conference Finals for each one of those years. We're the only team that plays as one, and the only team with consistent, hard-nose defense. Unfortunately, that got us into foul trouble in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. I'll take my team over a superstar surrounded by mediocre players any day.

Yes, more information would be nice. Most importantly, what other cities on your borders are flourishing? Your Sims could be leaving the city for greener pastures, or what they believe are greener pastures. Also, make sure you satisfy whatever they seem to be demanding as far as zones are concerned. If they need jobs, provide them there or in a nearby city. I've found the two most common problems with building deterioration are commute times and RCI demand being supplied elsewhere. Higher educated Sims need higher paying jobs, so they'll look for C$$, C$$$ or I$$$ jobs somewhere else if they're not readily available. They also won't use mass transit as much as poorer Sims. More information, a couple screenies and some more in depth explanation would be helpful.

I would use BigRedFish's traffic mod that blocks all truck routes out of the city. I force all of my trucks to use the rails, since they don't really get used by industry without them.

Originally posted by: Kraetos Hello there, this is my first post, but I do read a lot of these threads and I like this board a great deal. That said, I apologize if this has been covered somewhere else. I searched but came up with nothing relevant. Maybe I was entering the wrong search terms, I don't know. Also, I am not sure if this is the right forum... I don't think its a bug as much as its me doing something wrong This happens every so often when I generate a region using this tutorial: http://www.sc4ever.com/knowledge/showarticle.cfm?id=1103 Basically, there are large, thin holes on the bottom of every city in my new region. I cant figure out what causes them to appear or reappear. My config.bmp is 12x12 all blue (so 9 large cities) and my greyscale map is 769x769. Everything works fine until I generate the region, and then the big ugly holes pop up. This has happened to me on more than one computer, as well. Does anyone know whats going on here? I feel like I can't be the only person experiencing this problem, but if nobody knows whats going on I'll gladly post a screenshot. Thanks in advance, guys. quote> I believe your .bmp file isn't done correctly. You should download a program called SCRACC, the SimCity4 Region & Config Creator. It's much more intuitive and easier to use than any other program I could find.

Originally posted by: Voar TokOn a side note, schm0, I remember you asking that we keep this out of the realm of the entire universe and limit it just to the earth or something, but it's impossible to truly comprehend this without getting to the source of the issue, and the source of the issue appears to be even beyond the universal level. quote> It's not that I don't mind talking about universal evolution, but the relevance of the topic is very much limited to our own planet, and the creation stories surrounding it. When the Bible was written, not many theologians realized we orbited the sun, so the concepts of solar systems and universes were not yet formed. While evolution certainly can be applied to cosmology, I'd like to keep the general scope of this discussion on evolution limited to the flora and fauna located on our planet. We can have smaller side discussions on universal scales; however, the main focus should be on evolution on Earth and how the debate affects the human culture. As long as it brings the focus back to Earth, then it should be fine. Your post is well within the intended discussion... I just don't want this to turn into the thread on solar evolution and galaxy formation.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 uh oh, looks like evolutionists will have a hard time arguing this quote> I'm sure the monkeys indigenous to the locations where bananas where first discovered had claws or other dissimilar appendages instead of hands. That would explain why all monkeys absolutely detest bananas. God was just saving them for us and Chiquita stockholders.

Wow, they finally figured out how to mix two of the most geekiest populations on the planet. I can say that, cuz I'm a geek.

Originally posted by: redhed55 you cant prove creationyou cant prove evolution so i guess you could be right and say it is pointless to argue about which one we came from. but as a lot of people have said, evolution is obviously happening right now to other organisms. it is very hard to be a strong believer in creation, as i am, knowing this is true. i guess what im trying to say is that its everyones choice to pick which one they believe in well thats just my 2 cents quote> The word "proof," in a scientific or mathematical sense, is the method of coming to logical statements following various statements that lead to a conclusion. The theory of evolution, in fact, is such a "proof", as it provides statements (backed by data) that can be logically followed to the next point, and so on and so on to prove it's conclusion, which is modern zoology is the result of millions and millions of years of random and sporadic natural and unnatural selection. As Romaq pointed out, you can not prove the existence of a deity or any creation theory that goes beyond scientific reason and into the realm of the supernatural. It is the essence of the supernatural that makes it unprovable. The debate is not over who is right or wrong, but in the choices we make concerning the two sides as it affects our culture. Is it right to teach creationism in the classroom? Perhaps the focus of religion should be less on the beginnings of their beliefs, but in the moral teachings that come from such texts. I see no moral benefit to teaching a creation story.

Originally posted by: PathE I have argued about this topic many times, then I came to realize: If we already have evidence for evolution, killer bees, and fossil evidence for evidence: different types of humans like the neanderthals, why argue about it with an opinion? Arguing opinions is silly, you can not win whatsoever.quote> I think that the fundamental issue isn't who is right or wrong, but moreover how we as a society are impacted by such issues. Discussion and opinion, therefore, is arbitrary in the end, but it helps to understand both sides of the debate. Originally posted by: nealos101 I believe god when he tells me he created everything in six days, and I'll believe a scientist when he says that the earth was created in so many million years...(edit)....So I shall beilieve them both becuase A) God is my diety and I trust him and B) Scientists are my fellow men and women and I trust them. I don't try to mix them... It doesn't really work that way... Maybe put one before the other... But don't ever try to mix them up. ...You'll get confused if you do. N.quote> How do you reconcile the two? Don't they cancel each other out? Herein lies one of the fundamental questions: who do our youth turn to for their information about the beginnings of our planet and the life contained on it? Originally posted by: N_O_Body Allow me to point out that this discussion is nugatory. Both sides are infected with the "Don't confuse me with 'facts', my mind is made up" syndrome......My only point is that with a little work, both theories could be reconciled....Who is to say what the length of the 'day' is for the deity? What is "light"? Is "light" knowledge? Is it visible wavelengths? All spectral wavelengths (who knows what wavelengths the deity sees?)?...There is pretty good evidence for evolution. Who is to say it is not designed by the deity? After all, if you are a creationist, who designed DNA and the general system of life as we know it?quote> The same could be said about any heated topic of debate, but that doesn't stop everyday people, educators, scientists and the media from talking about it. There will always be those on either side of the aisle that simply won't budge from their positions, no matter how rationally you plead your case. You also make an excellent point by melding the two ideas into an arguable defense for a logical theist position. Perhaps the authors of the Bible might not have gotten the timeline just right, but maybe just the overall idea? Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Then what is God? An anthropologist, a sociologist and a human Geographier will say God is a discourse in our attempt to categorise things, the same as Science, physical and cultural evolution theories Schm0, I love to keep this global but I believe the stars do hold the ultimate answer as I said abovequote> Well, we all came from the stars anyways... you and I are made from stardust, my friend. Originally posted by: neder Originally posted by: Duke87Why do christians insist on taking the part of creation literally when much of the rest isn't? Why don't they take help from science to explain creation? I think religion would be taken more seriously if they did.quote> quote> I think Christians (and anyone who has a distaste for the idea of evolution) take offense to the idea that we are unique on the planet, and therefore of a higher order than the common animal. Evolution suggests that we are all part of the same family, even down to the common insect. Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Wonderful! Someone created yet another thread that puts member against member in a heated, endless debate! ...i'm off to play SC4 then...the real reason why this site is here...quote> There are about 150 other forums that concern SimCity... that's why this forum is called "Off-Topic." You don't have to read off-topic threads if you don't want to. Just a couple of ideas to throw back at you all...

Originally posted by: Palpatine001...Now I might be going off topic but if you look at that theory... I'll come back later and see what is said to my piecequote> Let's stick to evolution on a global scale, and not stretch too far into the cosmos. Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Its an almost pointless agrument. I can cite as many references as you want me too for evolution/adapation ect actualy hapening as we watch. however its the same as the beliving in god or not, you either do or do not and no amount of argueing, name calling or pointing out facts or supposed facts will change the minds of those who belive the other side. quote> Then why post anything at all? I think this thread could harbor some interesting conversation, but I don't think it will cause a global revolution of ideas. Discussion and argument help us solidify our own beliefs while causing us to listen to others and hear varying points of view. This, in itself, is more beneficial than proving one side or the other. I'd still like to hear everyone's thoughts on how Creationism and "Intelligent Design" impact our education systems and culture (i.e. the topic that got us here) and how these ideas, contrasted with evolution, can influence the way we think as a society. Some questions for you readers to ponder: Can you be religious and believe in evolution? If we believe in evolution, does that mean we are forsaking our religion? Is teaching these ideas to our youth in a public setting acceptable? Can such ideas co-exist, or are they exclusive? What is the evidence behind Creationist theory? Does it stand up to scientific standards (on either side)?