Kolyana

There are slight color differences? looks like "Green" and "not green" to me Oh, and as a slight aside, i edited my post

STRAT guide. I never said START guide. Are you crazy man??? Not sure how you can test this, because effect diminshes with range and I know of no way to visibly measure the results of an improvement.

It may be a typo - but if it is, it's on behalf of the Strat guide, because that's what it says in there

This sounds like work and columsn 5 inches wide ...

Go check the "ARC" thread for details on these. BTW, only these buildings offer industrial relief - some in IHT and some in IM. The problem here is that this requires two extra columns just for 4 buildings, or four entries - everything else would be blank. If I did this, then there would eb justification for adding another 2 columns for CO$$ and CO$$$, because there are a couple of buildings that give relief here also. Liek i said, i did add them, but with 99% of these 4 columns being empty, it seemed like a waste of space. Perhaps it could be put at the bottom or something.

When i first created this I actually had commercial and industry columns for demand cap relief, but it ended up being pretty much meaningless: Not a lot of buildings offer this directly, or - more importantly - it wasn't any hard and fast figures. For instance, the airport offers commercial relief based on the amount of commerce with easy access to the airport (or somethign bizarre), whilst industry receives a small portion of relief based on the obscure relief that the commercial area got ... try putting that in an excell spreadshseet The result was that i ripped these columns out - they just didn't contain anything useful.

---------------- On 3/26/2003 5:10:51 PM Sharr wrote: Here is mine ---------------- I like her outfit. ALOT

Dirk, gee, my personality just shines through my posts eh?

Stunning plaza region - truly stunning, I LOVE it. Excellant, excellant work.

Ah yes, very nice - a worthy addition to the .html and excell versions and if we ever sort of the download section, I'll try to ensure that it gets added. I think that I have to say, in my own defense, that I did a .html version because it was - originally - included on this website and wasn't a download. This word version is a good and logical step in the guide's evolution

---------------- On 3/25/2003 8:52:31 PM Screwballl wrote: style XP.... ive heard of that, it basically gives you a MacOSX type of toolbar and also thank you milkman ---------------- "MacOSX" is but *one* theme of potentially thousands. And then you can change the colors within a theme. And the background. And the login screen. And the way the entire interface looks. But yea, aside from that, it basically allows you to use a "MaxOSX type of toolbar"

HAH! That was a temporary location when i first started distributing the file, so please be aware that there is an error with one of the parks, but I forget what it was and to which one You did some good searching there

I imagine that when a link is clicked, it auto-increments the counter regardless of download success. Thanks for the tip-off, I'm surprised someone else didn't bring it up before!!! I've emailed, PMed Dirk and posted about this in the Mod-board, hopefully we'll get an early fix

Actually, something's broken - I'm goign to alert Dirk asap.

Are you trying the html or excell verion? Are all downloads from this site the same? Can you download new regions okay? What version of IE are you using? Have you downloaded and installed the latest MS updates? How does the site ingeneral work for you? Is it slow?

What happens? What error do you get? Try right clicking the download link and select "Save target As..."

Yay, 'bout time we had one of these

I'm greedy, I want it all I wonder if I could get the font small enough to get it all to fit on a landscape print and get a well positioned page break? i could live with 2 or 3 pages like that. BTW Sharr, did you retype everything, or were you able to import it from the webpage?

---------------- On 3/19/2003 7:50:20 PM flywildjaguar14 wrote: They probably got it from the Prima guide. ---------------- I bought the guide and foudn it very useful - I'd encourage its purchase to any SC4 fan. However, I also foudn that the information i needed was spread over half a dozen chapters, so I took the liberty to drag it all into one location.

Nice work - I'd love to get my hands on a printable version oneday, but this is certainly nice. I've recommended to Dirk that he add it as an available download, so *fingers crossed*.

---------------- On 3/12/2003 1:41:18 PM Godrick wrote: I would still maintain that it is not a "new" style, but a mixture of the two distinct styles I mentioned. But that is splitting hairs I suppose. What I intended for this thread was more of a discussion of the different ways that people think about building their city. As this is a free-flowing game, I would suspect that there are any number of methods for planning, with advantages and disadvantages to each. When I said that there are two different basic styles, I suppose that you might say instead that there are two different extremes: pure planning and no planning. Everything else would fall somewhere in the middle. So I suppose the true question is: How much thought do you put into planning your city? Say, on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being no planning and 10 being pure planning. I would put my current efforts at about a 4, though I was planning at closer to an 8-9 before, but it got old real fast. ---------------- I put a great deal of planning into how much plannign will be required ... seriously. I'll think about each city and where everything will be placed and how much of a planned city it will be, and how much grid to apply ... which always depends on the size, water, rivers and elevated terrain

You created a third way when you said "I do a combo of both, a pattern which then changes to fit irregular terrain". And that's exactly what I do. I tend to sit back and look at the terrain, decide where my main grid will go and how this will be affected by the terrain (I don't like completely flat, it's boring). I then decide if it will need a future mass transit system and what this will be and how this will affect things: do I need a highway, do i need and plan on using rail? What will the layout be, what areas will it run through and what bits do i need to leave undeveloped? The result tends to be a good combination of nice-non-repetitive look and above average use of resources, ammenities and space.

I would love to be able to build a cricket stadium. SO I COULD CRASH A METEOR RIGHT INTO THE CENTER OF IT.

You don't need power or water for your city from that point onwards