chris0101

I recently got a new ATI HD 4890 and installed the latest Catalyst Drivers (which I believe are 9.1 at time of this writing). ATI updates frequently. So far I have been thrilled. The GPU was cheap for what I was getting and plus I get virtually no lag compared to my older 8800. However, I have one very serious problem. The rendering does not appear to be proper for either the background or the automata. I see virtually no Sims in the background when I use software rendering. Interestingly enough, UDI mode fixes this problem. And the background ... well a picture is worth a thousand words. Switching to hardware causing serious problems as well. The background renders, but the automata are completely invisible even in UDI mode and the construction sets are invisible. (Note: They are not physically invisible, but they flash for a few fractions of a second before disappearing). All of the buildings, nightlighting, and the like work perfectly in both modes.

Here's the automata in software mode. Note that most of the time, the automata is fine. Trains, monorails, cars, and trucks are generally fine. There does seem to be a similar problem with aircraft though. Boats seem okay as well. In hardware mode, the automata isn't even visible.

Pretty much that is it then. Simulation Z is the best simulator that can be made at the moment, at least without access to the Simcity 4 source code then. Good work!

Does anyone know if a CAM version 2 is in development? If so, what is in it and what makes it different from the original CAM?

Who can I ask for more information?

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Why not answer some of your own questions before blaming the situation on unwillingness to take a tax increase, or on conservatives? quote> Why do I blame them? To be conservative means that you wish to preserve that current situation. Very simply, the attitude of preserving the status quo is dangerous. I expect clashes too with libertarians as such people believe that runaway individualism is the solution, which it cannot be as this is a problem that affects everyone and everyone must work together if a good solution is to be implemented. Sometimes change is necessary. Change for the sake of change itself is not good, but change for the sake of trying to improve society is good. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 I mean, I don't know exactly where the money goes. Though most of it goes to K-12 schools, etc. But there are something to look at. ... so, I think we need more spending, I want that number to be 10% of GDP, only then will our suddenly uncaring and failing students realize that they can go far and wide with a good education. quote> I did indeed mention that spending more will not assure high quality. Let us consider why state a or state b does better with a given amount per head. Accountability here is the solution. Test what works and implement it on a large scale. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 But then. People keep forgetting you can't teach someone who refuses to learn. Systems which put a lot less money into there schools still manage to have amazingly high success rate, such as Japan. Thats because of there culture's high importance on learning. Even in a crappy system, or a rundown shack kids can still learn amazingly a lot if they try at some level, or go above and beyond. Thats not something I would like to happen, but it could still happen. However, many in America do not put that importance on Education, especially in Minorities. I went through a sub-urban school, and it's sad for me to say that most of the African American children there did not give a crap about there education, or really learning. And really, the fail rate would be even higher if it was not for rampant lowering of standers in many schools. I see the same in many others as well. quote> Why do they refuse to learn? Political, social, and cultural attitude/values are the answer. That is another reason why I consider ideology to be a problem and blame people who refuse to embrace a change. Encouraging students to learn requires changes in our social values, something that will be met by great resistance by such people. If you want to encourage students to learn, emulate the cultures that foster such behaviour. For this reason, I disagree with people who attempt to resist efforts to change and make society a better place. Of course there will always be those who don't care about education. The objective is to change their perception. Why don't they care? Do they feel that they are always going to be entrapped? Analyze and address. What "other priorities" do they have? (For example low income family students will be needed to earn money and will have troubles paying for tution - make it more accessible) We need to bring down the percentage of the people who don't care. Although true that not everyone was meant for tertiary or higher level education, generally speaking, in a post-industrial economy, more is better, espeically at this point. With manufacturing uncompetitive, something else needs to replace it. It's either going to be low skillled and low wage service jobs or the very high skilled (which require facilities and training that developing nations cannot provide to their own citizenry in large quantities). Like it or not the high skilled jobs all require a burden, but the long term returns on investment justify the costs.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: manticorefan Originally posted by: Barbarossa But then there are people who could probably spend all day talking about cabinetry or car engines. It is just in our nature. quote> If there were an engine thread on ST, I'd be there.quote> You could always start one. I just might pop in to reminisce over my old '69 Chevy stepside (sold in 1999). That sucker was awesome! Barbarossa quote> VROOM! VROOM! Start a car thread! Originally posted by: Dev This is not a religious debate thread, this is a religious support and preference thread. We have those for other things, I believe that this will work well. quote> But back on topic: The problem with the idea of a religious support and preference thread is that people have different preferences and will support different causes. Debate is inevitable, particularly as many people have very firm beliefs.

Generally speaking, I am reasonably satisifed with our healthcare system. However, there are several major pitfalls: 1. The doctor to population ratio is unacceptably low here. It fact, it is about half of what it is in Europe. This, despite the large number of otherwise qualified students that could get into medical school. This has led to high wait times. Finding a doctor isn't hard in cities, but can be hard in the rural areas. The rhetoric of "choice" that the US spurts out is pure garbage. I get to select whichever doctor in whichever clinic I want (preferably one reasonably close to my home) to be my doctor. There are also walk-in clinics (one which is 5 minutes from my house) that will see anyone, appointment or no. Many clinics do these walk-ins where you see a doctor if you develop a sudden illness. I am happy that this is covered, although as mentioned earlier, the shortage of doctors can mean longer than desired wait times. 2. There is a shortage of some machines, such as MRIs. This has lead to a long wait time. Apparently, Canadian doctors screen their patients more aggressively for cancer via MRIs compared to UK or US doctors, further stretching limited resources. I think that more money needs to be spent. 3. Some things such as eye care and dental are not covered. I would urge that these are covered. I never knew that dental problems could be fatal until there was a news report of someone that did indeed die in the US from this. 4. Brain drain can be a problem, but is not really anymore. The amount of Canadian doctors returning from the US to Canada exceeds the ones going south. This is due to the rising costs of malpractice insurance, lawsuits, and other expenses. I personally feel that if the Canadian taxpayer pays for a doctor's education, they should have to stay in Canada for x years or else pay back the money used. 5. Some programs are underfunded and need expansions. I would urge the government to spend more on vaccination and R&D. As a percentage of GDP, I feel that the government alone should spend 1% of the entire nation's GDP in research to better the general population's well being. 6. I think that ambulances should be made completely free and paid for by taxes. Although making them free would encourage more usage, it would also help prevent any tragedies from people who were reluctant to pay the costs, especially in the lower income brackets. 7. Preventative medicine needs to be more strongly emphasized. Programs to stay healthy and exercise should be free to help people and give them an incentive to use them. Other than that, I am very proud to be in a nation that has universal healthcare. Most of these problems are long term problems. I believe that with increases in government spending, all of these can be solved with time. Sadly, this could be difficult as politicians love ribbon cutting, not things that require time to give away an investment. Convincing such people could be a challenge, but will see overall gains in long term health, happiness, and well-being. On top of that, I don't have to go through co-pays, deductibles, etc. True, taxes are higher, but like it or not, the more that the people pay as a whole, the more you get back. I would not trade my health card for an American HMO card. Although I could always go south to upstate New York and pay cash for a private healthcare if I needed it, I don't see the need to at this point. For every person you see from Canada moving to the US, you see a lot more who have gotten the needed care. And as a percentage of the population, how many people in the US have skipped vital treatments because they cannot afford them? Probably a lot higher. 1 in 3 bankruptcies before the current recession occurred in the US because people couldn't afford their medical bills. I have lived in the US before as a child and on the whole, I feel that the system in Canada is better.

Even if gamers who were ripped off don't get a cent (ex: all money is paid to the government), this is still a victory. It will discourage EA from doing this in the future for fear of more fines, more bad press, and perhaps more boycotts.

1. Having insurance is not necessarily the be all/end all in getting quality healthcare in the US. Often the HMOs in the US will hire people for the sole purpose of denying payments. There are also limits sometimes on how high a medical bill can go before the insurance stops paying for it. They have limitations on ambulances, which hospitals you can go to, etc. The massive resources and administrative work on spending to deny people healthcare ironically, can sometimes approach (or even exceed) just giving them the money. As for waste, I consider things like marketing to be wasted money as it is not going to treating anyone but to attracting more customers to their insurance, Other administrative costs could probably be minimized with a central nationalized system (the economies of scale). If a government program is held accountable and fully transparent, the likelihood of wasteful money will be greatly minimized. (And government is much more accountable to the public than private businesses are). Certainly, the profit is a huge motive at the senior level in business, but let us think about this for a moment. The average worker is not going to care about how profitable the company is, unless of course, they are in danger of being laid off. They care about their paycheck. Typically, unless you are in sales, your bonus/profit sharing payouts are not a significant portion of your salary. The profit motive at the higher level is high, but at the lower level is minimal. Government certainly suffers from the diseconomies of scale and I am not denying it, but I wish to inform you that the "profit motive" is vastly overstated. In the private vs public debate, each side has its drawbacks and benefits. So does using a combination of the two. 2. On the preventative care graph: Credible sources please. I need to know whether or not you just took Paint and drew that graph, which I suspect that you have done, or whether or not you can back up that claim with empirical evidence. Another consideration of preventative medicine is time lost. When a person is ill, they suffer and they would otherwise be doing something useful to society (ex: working at a job). If preventative medicine is used, they may not fall ill at all. What about things like regular cancer screenings? It may cost money, expensive equipment and doctors, etc., but what are the costs to society of a person getting sick? The lost economic value that the person may have contributed had they lived a few more years or perhaps even decades? The impact on their family and the lost productivity due to grief? (Although things like funeral and legal expenses do generate some economic activity, I have severe doubts that this offsets lost productivitity on the person's immediate losses in productivity). Now, there are obviously diminishing returns, but at what level (what dollar amount per head) is the optimal? The situation probably differs across nations if not regions of a nation. 3. Generics vs brand name Whenever possible, I think, buy the generics. As for "natural sources", well, a molecule composed of x hydrogen, y carbon, z sulfur, etc. is the same molecule with the same chemical properties wherever it comes from. (Assume that the isotopes are the same or the most common ones like hydrogen - protium, carbon 12, etc.) Where it comes from is chemically irrelevant. Generics are at heart the same chemicals. Just make sure that the dosage and active ingredients are the same. The reason why is because of intellectual property. Patents allow pharmaceuticals a monopoly on a drug for x years, giving an incentive to research (to make money). When it expires, we now have a free market at work as the monopoly is broken. Privately, I feel that in North America, intellectual property laws could be weakened somewhat without radical decreases in R&D expenses, as they give a monopoly for x number of years, meaning that the maker sets the price. Such laws should allow just enough a profit margin to justify researching, but not too much to give an extended monopoly, which in turn will cause higher prices and deny people who would otherwise buy the drug the drug (which would then prevent them from being more productive). Back on topic though (and lets turn this thread back on topic from the different nomenclatures of drugs)" One idea though is to look at the % of GDP and the dollar amounts per head that each nation spends on healthcare. The US is top in both. Then compare that to things like infant mortality, lifespan, etc. The US is near in the top 10% of course, but nations with public healthcare seem to do better. Empirical evidence suggests that when compared between a private and public healthcare system, universal healthcare, although not without drawbacks (such as higher taxes) delivers cheaper and higher quality of care to more citizens than private healthcare.

Originally posted by: JayStimson IMO Windows 95 was the first real MS OS improvement. After that, each new MS "OS" simply becomes the next bigger resource hog. If it wasn't for most major applications and games being developed primarily for MS Windows .... I'd buy a MAC. And if I really had any say in the world (which of course I don't) I'd switch the whole world to Unix.quote> OR Linux. Of course, Linux is considered "unix-like". We need a common widespread OS-OS "open source operating system".

Originally posted by: hym Product development costs are often much higher than most people realize. People complain about how a heart medication (I forget which one) costs $150 a bottle, but most don't realize that GlaxoSmithKline worked 20 years and spent billions of dollars to develop the drug. The situation with Windows (and Office too) isn't quite the same, but it is similar. Windows and Office aren't just having to pay for their own development (which isn't cheap); they're having to provide the money for the Microsoft to pay to develop other software that it gives away for free. Microsoft can't afford to charge for them if it wants them to be widely adopted, but it can't just ask the developers to work for free while they're working on those projects. quote> The margins for Windows and Office have always been huge for Microsoft. Perhaps on the order of 80-90% even. Other things like the XBOX are often money losers (even after the profits from games are factored in). Microsoft needs Windows to survive right now. There's no other real reason apart from a monopoly that they can do this sort of thing. For pharmaceuticals I can understand, however, if you compare the costs of pharmaceutical drugs from the US vs Canada or Europe, you really have to wonder. Every software or drug or R&D project is a risky venture and there is no assurance that there will ever be a profit from it. The only assurance is that spending money on it is a cost. I can accept that profits are needed, but not the way that Microsoft has been running things. Originally posted by: hym What exactly is wrong with Vista's application handling? I have yet to see anything abnormal. quote> When Vista was first released, it was heavily criticized for its slowness, incompatibility with XP, etc. SP1 and SP2 have solved most of those, but when you look at benchmarks, XP tends to be about 10% faster. WIndows 7 in its current iteration is inconsistent. In some areas, it has been on par or perhaps even faster than XP, in others, slower than Vista. One thing is certain: boot time appears to be considerably faster. However, we should probably withhold judgement until the final release is out.

I'll try some tests. Things to experiment include: - How much time, if any is saved by lowering the pathfinding heuristic even more? 0.003 seems like a good compromise, as lowering to 0.001 produces little tangible results. - What if the boolean about busing adding traffic was changed to false? Will that make more Sims take the bus? - Altering the intersection and turn capacity effect. As the intersections have less and less effect on traffic, will they make the Sims more likely to want to use their vehicles? By how much? - Changing the max mass transit strategy trip length. When increasing or decreasing it, how much will it affect Sims' choosing of mass transit. Although the answers to some of these questions may seem obvious, the question of context and magnitude of effect are not so easy to answer.

Originally posted by: z1 Originally posted by: rudric in the game. maxis had restricted possible commuting vehicle change to i think 3, what is the value in Z?quote> I'm not quite sure what you're asking; there's nothing in the traffic simulator that restricts how many time Sims can change vehicles. quote> I believe that he was asking whether or not there was a restriction in how many time you can change vehicles. For example, say a Sim drives to a parking garage and changes to walking. That counts as a change in mode. The Sims gets on a subway and takes the subway to the nearest station. Another change. The third change in mode is from subway to walking. Rudric believes that the original Maxis simulatior limits changes to 3 and is asking what the limit is on simulation Z. As you have pointed out, it is unlimited on Simulation Z. I have however seen Sims go from driving to walking to monorail to subway and get off at the RTMT in front of their work (or closest and walk). I believe that it is unlimited as well. I've seen ferries and other modes in use.

Capacities are a huge problem. Look at what I had to do to modify my city: (Click for full resolution to see text) (For your reference, the city has a population of 543,202. CAM was not used).

Here's mine: Bullet trains going through each other?

Lol - I too am a fan of planned cities. I prefer a grid with monorails going over them directly, a subway system underneath, and bus service provided. As the city expands, tram on road will be added.

Here's one of my midtowns. (Click for full resolution!) It is in a high wealth commerical district. Mostly upscale offices and the like. Note the fact that so many of them are Maxis buildings. I intentionally did not download too many midrise buildings to keep the unique style. I plan to upgrade this place into a downtown. Note how closely the monorail stations are. They are designed in a manner to handle the expected increase in traffic.

Where can I find the transitions from the avenue GLR to subway?

We're all used to the traditional grid style design that the game uses; indeed real life cities are based on it. I just read an article about how to deal with free flowing traffic. I was wondering - could this work? www.geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/freeflow.htm An octagonal shape: This the authour argues is the solution: Would this work in real life?

Out of curiosity, will it get rid of the need for those interim GLR stations? I noticed that there are signs with GLR underneath them on the transport volume map as well. https://www.simtropolis.com/stex/details.cfm?id=21158 Or will that wait for RTMT v4. Thanks. Great work as always.

There's no easy way about it. I tend to build my subway networks as complex grids. That way, you can link together Real estate becomes precious at 10 million. I wonder if supporting a city of 15 million people is possible. I have heard that somebody did once build a large city with about 25 million commercial jobs, and 5 million (or so) people surrounded by 4 large residential cities. Traffic is apparently a nightmare there. So is the eternal commuter bug. I suppose that you'll use a network of E-SURE links along each city, as the grids are simply intolerable. The problem is that it can get confusing as you need to know which ESURE lines go where. Here: 4 D 3 B A C 1 E 2 Each is a large city. Despite using straight subway lines that run underneath the cities, there are problems. Cities B-A-C are linked as is D-A-E. The problem occurs when you want to link say, B-A-D, B-A-E, C-A-D, C-A-E and on top of that, you want to avoid the eternal commuter bug. It is technically possible, but the ESURE links apparently get very confusing at times. Developing cities 1,2,3, and 4, will add to the confusion as you want more links. On top of that, some Sims use the bus connections sometimes to cause the bugs. (thank god r$$$ rims haven't thought of using helicopters to get to work - as most modern skyscrapers have helipads on top!) The reason is because subway and rail and elevated rail and monorail get so crowded that busing or driving becomes compeititve. There are lane restrictions, such as those no truck lanes, no car lanes, bus only lanes that you can download, which can be something of a workaround. And leaving zero neighbourhood connections hampers industrial growth. As you have pointed out on Sc4 Devotion, what we really do need is an underground puzzle piece, preferably 3x3 or a cross that has a non-intersecting subway system that is clearly marked and visible to help solve the eternal commuter bug. (Of course, what we really need is access to the source code to allow cities to somehow better communicate with each other to avert this bug to being with). In the meantime, I think that the only real solution is RTMT v4. Hopefully we'll have a system of underground railway stops as well as subway stops. Won't that be interesting though? A subway/underground rail/GLR/bus stop, with GLR in road, a subway underneath, and an underground rail underneath. The ultimate space saving system, unless of course, you care to add a double decker on top of that. I suppose that such a system is needed for super-dense cities with 25 million+ jobs in them and may be the only viable logistics solution. Indeed, one of the reasons why I use monorail so much is becuase intersecting tiles don't cross, along with the avaliablility of puzzle pieces like high monorail to avoid congestion. The problem of course is that monorail and elevated rail take up valuable surface space. On an unrelated note, how does the Z handle busing? If I recall originally, buses do not add to traffic, but Z has changed that. Well, a road should be able to handle more bus capacity than cars. Just how effective is bus at reducing traffic? When I build my RTMT stops and train stops, etc. I tend to build the multiusage ones with the bus, the T-RAM (if there is GLR on the road), and subway. Bus is sort of an afterthought bonus. Some Sims do take it though, so, it is worth it, but how effective is it? It seems to exchange buses for cars 1 for 1. I noticed that when park and ride versions of Z are enabled, road capacities are the same, no matter whether it is for bus or traffic. (Sims take the bus a lot with the park and ride interestingly enough). Sometimes slow buses are attractive, even for R$$$ sims. So is ferry for that matter. I'll do some tests to see how ferry routes will change between Z and other simulators. For the most part, Sims like bridges more than ferries. R$$$ Sims especially seem to avoid the ferry. Of course, ferry has its beneifts. Ferry takes up little space on land, uses otherwise wasted space on water and can go diagonal.

I think that at this point, with existing stations, the only real solution is to mod them ourselves. I have found that my monorail/BTM stations are overcrowded, as are my subway stations. Simulation Z has a preference towards them (monorails with the BTM mod @ 400km/h), and I have updated them to keep them with Simulation Z Ultra's capacities. It is even possible withe plenty of mass transit in very dense cities to jam Simulation Z Ultra's one ways, avenues, and highways, especially in cities with populations above 10 million. At that point, even high capacity RTMT can have troubles supporting the capacity needed. One annoyance is that when you have GLR on a road or avenue and then a subway running directly under that road/avenue, the data view can be very annoying if it is crowded. Which one is crowded becomes the big question? This is a problem that originated in the game itself as elevated rail is just "elevated subway" and GLR is just "surface subway", if you get what I am saying.

Originally posted by: SockoJr53 As with anything you read on the internet, my first question is, what are the credentials of this author? A quick look at his resume on the linked pages tells me that the majority of his background is in Computer Science, not Civil Engineering, and specifically not Highway Design or Traffic Engineering. I can tell you for a fact that most of his numbered grievances in the beginning are incorrect, or misinterpreted. I won't go into too much detail on each point (#7 is a ludicrous claim an cracks me up) quote> As you have pointed out, here is his resume: www.geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/lrresume.htm And here is a short speal about his (albeit with very little content) www.geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/aboutme.htm The very reason why I asked these questions are because I doubted his reasoning. And when you look at his other work, such as his claims about UFOs, they further threaten the credibility of this work. So for that matter does his anti-government rants. Edit: I asked this because in real life, I know that Y-Intersections often have a lot of problems involving merging and often with handling high volumes to traffic. Of course, as you have already implied, the internet is full of garbage that anyone can write up. Here's a funny example - dihydrogen monoxide (water!): www.dhmo.org/ It does however beg a question, if you could build a city from ground up in real life, how would you design the downtown's traffic layout?