Francis90b

Yeah, like the first one you posted - i'm going to use it, and then switch to Milw if and when i get bored of it, well done .

Another skin pack in your collection, and i'd say i'm quite fond of this one because it includes some 1950's paint schemes i really like (i like most of them, actually, but this pack includes some of my faves). May I ask if you, so far (i know you've been fairly prolific with this type of content), attempted doing any of those schemes? 1) Northern pacific two tone scheme (somewhat different than the one you've used in this pack though - lower light green, top dark green - i guess they used them in different periods) 2) MKT ("Katy") railroad texas special paint scheme ( used on their flagship train in the 50's). 3) McGinnis or late McGinnis paint schemes from New Haven railroad (Mc Ginnis is also used by some metro north units nowadays as some kind of heritage scheme) Naturally, i wouldn't mention them if i weren't to be fond of them...but i'm interested in knowing wheter you have already attempted to replicate them (perhaps in another skin pack), not to request these if you hadn't - the sheer number of skins in this pack alone would be enough variety to try out for an entire lifetime of SC4 gameplay, methinks .

My two cents. I'd mention another situation which generated a radical transformation in urban environment, that of the early stages of industrial revolution. Factories literally dictated the way cities were built, to the point that the difference between "urban" and "human" needs and "factory" needs was extremely feeble if not existent. Factories needed railways - so railways came in, cutting and crisscrossing cities like spiderwebs, often running between buildings, on viaducts and even on streets, bringing in their share of goods as well as noise and fumes. Around that steely web even more factories came, often lacking any attempt to respond any concern that wasn't that of immediate profit and strict adherence to the conditions that would generate as much of it as possible. And next to these, neighborhoods sprang to host the human multitudes factories needed, and attracted. Close to factories, sometimes literally at a stone throw from them, built without any concern other than providing a dwelling as fast and economically as possible, they often suffered from severe pollution coming from railways and factories, poor construction, cramped, substandard dwellings - And awareness and concerns about all this took decades to build up. Our reality is different - more advanced modes of production and transportation transformed it, and we're aware of the extent and of the severity of most of the environmental, urban and human implications contained within the few lines i wrote only because of old, faded postcards and photos and sometimes written accounts. It's worth noticing that a number of concerns that were considered as almost irrelevant back then would seem quite relevant and legitimate to us, and we certainly wouldn't downplay them as secondary issues or outright non-existent issues in the path of progress - as much as it's worth noticing that man adapts himself to live in almost any condition and situation - man adapted himself to live in cramped, miserabile dwellings in early 19th century london, he managed to adapt himself to mine coal and asbestoes in the most primitive and unsafe of the working conditions, and to work in non-fireproof textile factories which claimed the lives of many if, and when, something went wrong -Indeed, mankind adapts itself to any condition he sees fit to generate in order to follow economic imperatives, yet this certainly doesn't mean that every and any living (or working) condition mankind adapts into can be considered acceptable.

That was just a list of changes i could observe by looking at aerial pics. Knowing about the changes, and looking at how things actually looked like (i.e. looking at the pics) - may open more possibilites for you about how to exactly model the roof. Your plans, as of now, are mostly about trying to avoid modelling HVAC units - but by looking at the pics you may find other things you may or may not want to do. Given that you'd prefer not to work too much over the roof, i'd suggest 1951 appearence.

1930's pic: Quite appropriately, the roof seems to be topped by a mast. (From doitt map aerials): Looking at 1951, the mast seems to remain in place, and no roof junk was added. By 1996 an huge box was added on the top level, and some equipement on the small roof on the right. By 2008 the box was removed, and the two vents which you can see on current bing maps aerial were put in it's place. Roof objects on the small roof on the right appear to be more or less the same 2006-2013. Looking at the 2006 pic it looks like a tar roof was installed (and it looked relatively new in 2006) - further pics (2008, 2010) show more signs of ageing. EDIT:I've noticed my pic disappeared - reposted it, and while i was at it, i noticed this: Nothing to do with the BAT, but i guess that 1930's pic are always a nice sight .

While many post 1961 residential towers are "towers in the park", many others have podiums, sometimes even several stories high - some are made up by a podium and a smaller protruding part, others are mostly flush with the street level and just have a small paved plaza between them and the sidewalk - you might do other things other than a tower in the park.

Wait...what i've told months ago was, to look at the bulk and massing rules contained within the zoning regulations that were in place when that building was built. The existing building looks like it could have been built anytime from 50's to 70s, and in 1961 New York switched to a new set of zoning rules that mostly abandoned the rigid bulk and massing rules that forced most of pre-1961 buildings as "wedding cake" masses, rising from the ground then tapering in a series of setbacks. According to pre 1961 rules, the tower portion of "aronic place" could not have been built in the way in which you've designed it (should someone ask for it,i can provide all the details that led me to that conclusion) - but perhaps post-1961 rules were in most cases more flexible. This building could be modified, and do well, as a 1950's wedding cake (or partly wedding cake), tower building (still affected by pre 1961 rules) or as a bulky, straight 1970's tower (built after 1961 new zoning codes)... ...all you need to do is simply to look at the rules (pick just what you need to know, for Lord's sake!), and decide which way to go....you may have many alternatives, and all of them would fit with a specific moment of Nyc evolution...not knowing the rules would likely lead you to a result that "somehow" imitates "NYC" "style(s)", without ever coming close to any of them - turning out to be just a shallow mock up. I would digress here, and state that among the things i really like in buildings there are the dumbbell shapes of 1880-1900 NYC tenements, prewar chicago towers (bulkier, shorter and less wedding-cake than NYC ones), and the Philly prewar downtown buildings shaped by the conflict between desire for height and the desire not to surpass william penn's statue atop the city hall...Many things we might find interesting IRL were not shaped by lack of rules, and unlimited possibilities unleashed in this way, but by strict and specific limitations peculiar to place to place, and by people's way to cope with them. Knowing what thoser rules were, what they dictated and why, allows someone who would like to "design" a building model from scratch (or modify an existing one) to add another layer to his creation - probably adding elements no designer (RL architect or internet BATer) could have ever thought about, weren't it for some "pesky", "irrelevant" rules which forced him to do so....

By looking at the building, we notice patches of brick cladding replacements over the wall. Then we look at the windows, and the overall impression is that they hadn't been cleaned for decades - then one can look at cheap curtains obscuring pretty much every window, and then one can focus on this lovely shot. Then, we ban delight our eyes by looking at the wonderfully unkept grass within the building's front yard, and peeking out from the building's wall when it meets the sidewalk...and we can observe the cheap main door replacement (even some of the most run down art decò buildings in the Bronx retain their original ones, but not this one). I think we already got our "ghetto" version, and it couldn't get any worse without being abandoned or burnt out... I'd also suggest to have one version faithfully depicting current situation ("ghetto") and one depicting the building in 1940, shortly after it was built and when most of Bronx was still a decent place to live (perhaps it might be a mid wealth version)

You can easily correct that by using that floorplan as a reference by remaining within existing dimensions, and without chopping off any window. You will have to move around stuff in either way - if you squash the building horizontally and remove the windows, it will look off in another way...it would be like chopping off your feet because of an ingrown toenail. SimFox said something about using the floorplan as a way to model things - we're going to use part of it. 1)make sure your building is, from W2W side to alley, 30,5 mtrs wide - that's how much RL building is wide. 2)then take your floorplan pic, chop off anything you won't need (any white space outside of the floorplan proper), make a plan of appropriate size, as wide as the building (30,5 mt) 3) apply the bitmap over the plane, make sure it displays correctly, then flip it so that the floorplan's front facade is opposite to the building's facade 4)then use that to move things around, and you're done. It's actually easier done than said, and in any case i can still take a look at it, and give you all the dimensions you need - give me this night (it's night where I live).

Yeah, that would be the idea - the alley would belong to the building, and if the building has a sunken rear yard, then the alley would need to go down to reach it.

Looking at satellite pics i realize i've been mistaken, the passage would actually belong to the corner building. But there are good reason to incorporate it to your own lot. First, the builder couldn't have built windows on that edge if he didn't knew what there was next - he knew that there was a small corner building with a passage between it and 1225 Morris - that's why he was able to do what he did. Second, under a gameplay perspective those windowed walls are looking nice and good if there's no BAT next to your BAT that chops them off at some point....if you can add an alley on that side, the windows would look good no matter what else goes up next to your BAT. Third, your current "spacing between the windows" is off - the building is slightly narrower, 30,5 mtrs instead of 32. Therefore, by adding that alley you would get something more accurate, and you would make that side wall look good regardeless of what might happen around it in game.

It's nice-looking so far, but the building is not W2W on both sides - on the side that has the windows (lower right) there would actually be a narrow passage connecting the rear yard with the road.

Looking good so far . The facade is now completely clad in red bricks, but used to be white with grey horizontal bands - the fun thing of those buildings is that, often, cheap renovations made them drabber than they were before. Pre 2009:

I'd totally say you should model the window frames as per drawing .

^ Personally, I couldn't care less about the issue i've mentioned - for i usually tweak the stats of the things i download . However, i know that some people did upload some larger BATs to adress this "problem" - therefore i can't but think that if someone does not meddle with it, such problem should, in general, exist... On the other hand, the part where you (TWrecks) mentioned that "you've modded all the smaller commercials in your plugins folder" - so perhaps many smaller commercial buildings are indeed modded with stats that have less occupants than they should in order to fit SC4 system...so, perhaps that "C$ need" problem might actually be a true problem for many people... But then, i don't really know myself - i mean, i didn't really experience it - it's been quite a long time since i tweaked all the content of my plugins folder according to other criterias, so i can't even remember how long ago it was the last time i've played an untweaked game .

(wrote this, then thought it was useless at the point where things went, then changed my mind again) 133% comes in part from "traditional wisdom", and in part from experiments. The reason why you perceive 133% scaled objects as "stretched" has nothing to do with the height factor itself - in fact, 133% would give you 1:1 widht and height on the BAT's front side (whatever is the front side on any of the four possible directions). The problem is that in order for things to appear exactly "correct" in SC4 projection you would also need to scale a bit up the "depht" of things (whatever is the depht on any of the four possible directions) - something you can't do. And given you can't do this, you will never have a cube looking like a cube, even if you were using some intermediate scaling factor between 100 and 133%. So, one would need to consider what's the most important thing - 133% allows you to have no squashing (and a fairly correct representation) of dimensions within the "front" side of your BAT, some intermediate factor might try adressing the perception of the overall mass at the expense of any dimensions and proportions within all of the sides of a BAT, 100% would give you a realistic depiction on how things would actually look like if someone IRL was to put himself at the same angle as the one used in SC4 - then of course you will see squashed things, pretty much like things do appear slightly squashed in Google or Bing 45 degrees aerial views. FYI look there:http://www.significant-bits.com/a-laymans-guide-to-projection-in-videogames

Apartment buildings, especially those where affluent people live, are places where many low pay jobs happen...think about the guy washing the lobby's floors, the receptionist, the private nurse working for some elder person, the one hired to tidy up someone's house and so on...IRL a simple apartment building might be a workplace for many. In SC4 many of those jobs would probably fall in the C$ cathegory, and it would be nice to have some C$ ploppables for apartment buildings to represent that, as well as soaking up in game's sometimes huge C$ demand...perhaps they could be modded so that you can only plop them once you've actually got enough demand (therefore C$ ploppable locked by demand requirement, e.g. building X provide for 50 C$, you got citywide demand for, let's say, 84 C$, therefore you can plop it) - of course this would require some work, but it could represent reality, and prevent SC4 dense residential neighbourhoods from being residential-only. Speaking of apartment buildings with shops, they're a bit troublesome...they probably wouldn't look right in many commercial areas, or in many quiet residential streets, therefore one needs to control where they grow...which means, they can be made only as ploppables - commercial ploppables in residential areas, which is what Aaron is doing, if i'm not mistaken.... They surely cover just a small niche, but this whole game is what it is because someone thought about small niches. If i can expannd this, and I really hope that my considerations won't be perceived as meddling, i think that, all in all, Aaron should do the majority of his residentials as shop-less buildings (they would be usable everywhere) - and do a small fraction of buildings with shops, to be used as commercials.

This is a triangle with two even sides and a 90 deg corner between them - this is basically the kind of situation you're in. I took two arbitrary decisions - first, i decided that it's hypotenuse was to be positioned on MAX's "south" or "front", second i decided that the model was to be twice as tall as the triangle's hypotenuse. I rendered it as it was, which means no vertical scaling had been applied, and went to measure both sides - the triangle hypotenuse, which is the model's front lenght, and the box height. I did actually count the pixels, but one pixel less or more is not that much important...it serves to the purpose of giving you an idea about how things are, though. With no scaling applied, it seems like the model's front lenght and height and height are at about 0,66:1,00 ratio - but i guess we would like to get the "real" ratio between the two. Then i tried the same, but with 133,333% scaling applied - result seems to be a lot better, quite close to the 1:2 ratio that's the ratio that "should exist". So, again, 133% is not the reason of your troubles. One thing you might do is try inferring what angles does SC4 perception uses between it's axis, take a paper, draw them there, draw a scale drawing showing the generic outline of your building, try different factors, then take a ruler to measure the results (which is what i did, and i admit i did so in a rather rough way, with my triangle's experiment) - anything else is honestly pointless.

SC4 uses a trimetric projection, i.e. things would need two different foreshortening factors, one per axis, for things to actually look "correct" - if you were to model a box, scaling it by 133% would make for the correct ratio 1:1 between it's height and it's base lenght - then you'd need another factor to adjust it's widht, something that unfortunately can't be done. Again, by only scaling things up by 133% you only adress the problem between base lenght and widht - that's only half of what should be done, the remaining half is unfortunately un-doable... this sets up some troubles with spheres, as they would actually look "stretched" if flat 133% was to be used - what actually happens is that their height and lenght are correct, their widht is off, but this is very noticeable, unlike what hapens with cubes - if we've got a cube, 133% scaling makes height and lenght correct, perception of widht is not as noticeable, and all in all it's probably the best possible compromise,. We are now talking about a triangle with a bulging side - that's basically what your building is - but we still fall on the "box" situation - therefore there's no reason why 133% shoudn't be applied there. On the other hand, given that we are seldom given the exact blueprints of a building, there's still possibility for errors from the modeller's side - one looks at pics or streetview shoots, and decides, if we are to use that metaphor, that an "object" is a "cube" - if his guessing is right, 133% scaling will give him correct results - but chances are that that person's measurements might indeed be somewhat mistaken...and given that one modeller might be mistaken, perhaps other people's BATs are not exactly the most reliable source for comparison or measurements even when the said BATs were done as literally as possible as far as horizontal and vertical dimensions are concernned. One thing that could be done, then, would be to take yet another look at building's proportions, overall height, etc, and judge from there if you did something wrong or not...if it looks like you did, and you can't possibly find any reason of doubt, then chances are that the building model is indeed looking correct, and your perception isn't - that's a somehow interesting topic, for it sometimes happens - perception is an odd (and sometimes misleading) thing.

The national gallery is looking quite interesting in game...as it is IRL. I've red the building actually dates back from the 1960's, yet it almost looks like some postmodern take on traditional chinese architecture...yep, if i didn't know you recreate Melbourne, i could have almost guessed it actually was Beijing .

I really like how it's going! I would consider altering the scene by adding some more tall, bulky buildings - that's what situation is IRL (where the real building is almost completely surrounded by bulky skyscrapers) or would probably happen in-game (after modding it you'd probably have some kind of stage 7-8 CO$$-$$$, rising among similar buildings).

Feedback It's sometimes fair to state that perhaps "out-of-there" people might often "have little knowledge about the topic, and no sense for it" . Even in BAT threads, not all feedback is worth the same - someone with an architecture degree (there are some few folks that have one) would be able to give me accurate and informed feedback...while some other posters would just post "advice" without much knowledge or reasoning behind it, sometimes even relying on their own biases and unfounded subjective expectations (pretty much the opposite of "unspoiled" advice...) - and sometimes you might indeed get something like "it's pink, therefore i like it!".... BATers are in general open to suggestions - and some would try to satisfy pretty much everyone's wishes regardeless of the quality of the "advice" that's being offered - someone said that a BAT is the result of shared expectations, the BATer's, and those of the ones advising him. If i may, i would reword that as the following: "A BAT is the result of a BATer's awareness and knowledge, and the knowledge and awareness of those advising him". People Someone has used the word "people" to back his own point - my concern was to clarify what "people" might mean. -Who "people" are? -And once we know who they are, is there any way to infer what their thoughts might be? -And if so, is there a common compromise that would please them all? -Or, any path one might go, only a minority of them can be pleased? -Would it be fair to give everyone else a BAT that had been tweaked to please those few? -Or wouldn't it be better to produce something that represent the BATer's best strive at an unbiased result? Art... BATing is no exact science, but has within it's making some traits that are the keystone of science - observing reality (in it's many faces), analyze it, reason about it. The very quality of a BAT often relies on those steps- one can reason over things and choose a possibility after having gathered some knowledge about a topic - i'm sure that Darn42 has looked at the pics of the Chase that were shown him within this site, as well as looking himself for more material - he might surely have realized that "pic X" had been shot under an overcast sky, that "pic Y" had been shot at a clear, sunny day, that "pic Z" was underexposed, and so on - and from there, from gathering those infos and analyzing them, he came with results - results that changed over time, but results that sprung from observation and analysis, and not from that mindset that claims "there's no right or wrong, things are ever-changing, therefore i'd pick whatever floats my boat". Art pt. 2: choosing There's a common misconception that links "choosing" with "art - now, let's imagine a botanist surveying an uncharted, exotic land, full of unknown-so-far species of plants...the botanist and his expedition crew venture in this land, observe, survey, analyze...then they choose what to do with those new species they've discovered - what cathegory should they fit in? How should they be presented to the scientific community? What name we ought to give them? - that's some choosing as well, and is in no way different than what a BATer does - BTW, would you ever call a botanist an artist? I bet you wouldn't. A BATer would, like a botanist, move into an uncharted land (the building he would like to recreate, or the idea of that building), observe and analyze it's plant (gather datas), then decide what to do with them, and present them to the scientific (BATing) community. That said, i'd suggest to move this whole discussion in another location, should a mod see it fit.

It doesn't. This was originally started as a SimMars BAT a few years ago, and now I'm adapting it. That's why it doesn't have any windows and why in general it doesn't make much sense, because it was basically a sci-fi BAT. It's also now an I-HT, and of course in real life those are just plain warehouse-looking buildings. This would definitely be buildable in real life (later I plan on breaking the concrete down so that it's not one giant piece), but it would be very expensive. The only practical thing I've figured is that the reflecting pool could be a cooling reservoir for computers or whatever is inside. So, if this is just a quick recycling of a SimMars shell, then let it be it. The concrete, however, is quite a good idea, and can actually be used for something else...

You don't have any idea about what "people" might think. Harsh... please recheck my quote then your quote.. I didn't say anything about what people might think. Why would anyone post something like this to someone who is just trying to help? I suppose i might have needed to explain myself better, then. Facts: 1)You commented on skyscraper's work, stating, among other things, that the awning seemed too clean. 2)Skyscraper stated that shared your points, but has also shown a view of the actual awning - stating that while it felt "empty" even to him. 3)You posted your post, part of which i've i quoted. You mentioned the need to find a "compromise" because "people" won't have a pic of the RL thing to look at each time they will look at his BAT. This means you assume that "people" might not find a faithful depiction of RL thing as "acceptable" to them (unless they have a RL photo to look at, which of course isn't gong to happen), and that therefore "some compromise" might be necessary...but from where is that assumption, which is basis for your suggestion, coming from, especially given that you can't possibly know what "people" might think? This is why i pointed it out - and then i moved from this specific episode to a more general perspective. I'm sorry that you took my post so badly, and i reckon your good will in attempting to help - but i would like to ask you wheter would (or should) goodwill alone be able to shield an opinion or argument from any consideration that goes against it... My upload score is non-existant, and someone burned or upset by my criticism can easily take this as a nice pretext to ditch any criticism or opinion I express.Some find it comfortable to react in that way...

How does it work?