Francis90b

I'd say to add back the vegetation between rails and platform, which would make sense, and get rid of the flower beds on the platform, that probably wouldn't.

What i'm going for: I'm not going to include just the tunnel portal, but all the possible road access to it (e.g. a couple of ramps, an access plaza, and toll booths), and other things that would be needed, IRL, for it to work (e.g. service vehicle parking, ventilation towers, an administration building). Everything will be made in pieces. All the road sections could be either TE'd lots, or puzzle pieces.The tunnel portal will work as a road to subway transition.Everything else will be ploppable landmarks with jobs. Perhaps a MML would be nice to keep all things together, and avoid unnecessarily clogging game menus. NWM: Yep, if i modd the pieces as TE'd lots NWM OWRs would be necessary to join them together - and this would make it quite specific. What if i modd the pieces as puzzle pieces?

Then, as Gutterclub said: "you don't need to fall for the 'you need more roof junk' line, its never normally true."

Here's the roof - no "ventilation pipe" except at the box marked with (2). (1) is an antenna, (2) is the only noticeable roof pipe, and (3) is a long chimney slab - that's how it looks in Bing Aerial.

Thanks, TWrecks! I took a look at puzzle pieces modding.IDK what to say about it, the process seems fairly clear to me, however what i'd like to do would require the modding of several puzzle pieces, so i'm not too confident about trying it. I guess i might consider using transit-enabled lots to get the result, this would require having TE'd lots with overhanging models to cover the "gaps" in the places where connecting road network tiles would be located. Now, is a one tile gap between two different transit-enable lots enough for them to be connected and work properly? And, should i take any care about using non-original network types, like NWM? - I plan to build the whole so that 3 lane NWM OWRs could (should, actually) be used as it's connecting road network type.

I can easily figure in my mind Michelangelo being told from a street thug about what he should paint...oh well, can't say wheter it's amusing or disconcerting - i can only issue a disconcerted laugh. Speaking on the behalf of the author on his own thread, and more than likely without his agreement or permission (second statement of the post i quoted), makes for a very fitting conclusion to the post, an icing to the cake, i'd say.

Ok, so, i have some plans for the future - concerning finishing and expanding the selection of commercial buildings i attempted to do - but before them, i'd like cleaning up my plate a bit. One thing i think i should finish, or at least move forward with, is my tunnel project.So, here are some questions: 1) I would like to know the exact dimensions of SC4's subway tubes.The reason is that part of the model would be visible in underground view, and i'd like things to fit as seamless as possible. From eyeballing, i got the impression that a subway tube is as wide as the standard widht of SC4 roads traffic lanes standard widht, that would be a total 9,6 mtrs (a).I also got the impression that the subway tubes are at -15.5 mtrs or somewhat like that (b). If you have more accurate informations, please share. (a) Some math:a standard SC4 road takes one tile (16 mtrs) and is composed by two lanes, and two sidewalks, each being composed by two 1,6 mtrs tiles - therefore, the widhtt of the road lanes could be obtained by doing 16-(1,6x4)=9,6 mtrs - that's how i got that number. (b) From eyeballing i had to guess they followed the same standard as in El rail (+15,5), just below ground rather than above it. 2) Someone once tried doing sub-surface railroads eye-candy pieces - i might try doing something similar for ramps and approaches, therefore i might look into that.If someone remembers about that project, could he-she please give me the "juice" of what it took - what was necessary to do, and how could it work? 3)Also, it is possible to connect two puzzle pieces or TEd Lots one after another, with no gap between them?

Nice! I'd copy two things from the perspective drawing: 1) The white on the ground floor 2) The ornamental cladding of the water tower.

I'd say, desaturate them more than just a bit...however, it looks really good .

True, no pics so far...but i will oblige .

Looking good! You've been using the same (exactly the same) colours for a wide number of BATs - you might instead try experimenting with colours a bit, trying to cover some colours you didn't really cover so far - e.g light brown. Here's some ideas, i can't grant they would fit in game exactly as they are- those are quick drafts of some other colours that might be used, but they're nothing more than hurriedly-done drafts. 1) One kind of mid-brown, not red-brown and not dark brown: 2) Light orange - not flashy orange, a lighter and less saturated version of it: 3) Light brown I admit i could have done a better job with this one, but again, those were quick drafts. 4) Pale yellow or cream yellow - the least successful of my drafts, methinks. It didn't really turn out as i wanted it to, but anyway...you know the colour of cream-flavoured ice cream? Yeah, should be that colour, just slightly less intense. Also, i thought about a kind of red-brown that's like the "brown" you use, just with a little shift in hue towards red, and more darker, and then ivory white, that should be between "cream" and "white", and about a type of brown that's even lighter than the brown i called "light brown"...

Hmm, personally i find it slightly overscaled if compared to the size of that subway train (2nd pic) and of the green roof station (4th pic). However, discussing about scaling like this to me looks like discussing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Maxis did follow any scale it saw fit - 3 different scaling criterias for different wealt levels, plus another for sims, probably even another one for automatas, plus different scaling critierias even with similar buildings!, and since BATers often followed whatever scale they thought fit, there's no point in discussing wheter something looks overscaled or not, because you have no real valid term of comparison... I'd say make sure what you did is close to RL.Some BATers BAT things closer to RL, and in long run it's better to get compatibility with them, and not with other stuff, methinks - point is, all those people follow ONE scale, while other people follow whatever scale they think fit, and therefore getting something that could fit with many of those custom scaling criterias at the same time would be very difficult... Another example would be the one of languages - you can think of BATers and the way they scale their buildings as if they were nation states, each using his own languages. If I, as a BATer, use a custom scaling criteria, then that's going to be my own "languages", that's not used in any other "country" - so, there would be a language for each "country". If i follow RL dimensions and scaling, then the language i use would not be just my own individual language - any other BATer who BAT and scale things close to RL is using my same "language" - And now think, if you were to write an essay, so that it could understood by as many people as possible, would you use a language that's used in just one country or some limited geographic area, like Slovenian or Hungarian language, or would you like using a language that's more widely spoken and understood, like French, English or Spanish? BAT things to RL dimensions, or as close as possible to them, and you wouldn't have to worry about that - your BAT is going to look out f scale with some other BATs, but given how things are, this is going to be unavoidable even if you were trying to get it fit with any other BATing scale...

Concerning about the model, you are trying to force an open door - i actually stated how things are in the exisiting building which is the base for this BAT, and took no position as wheter a roof garden should be placed or not.

I'm afraid you might miss my point - i was aiming at suggesting to take a wider perspective at the issue of observing and analyzing things, and acknowledge that reality might often have more nuances and undertones than we might think about in first place - and that we should enquire about a wider context, and not at just what we see or expect (or wish to see), in order to make a truly reasonable decision.

True we are not in the 1920's anymore, yet things are slightly more complex. For example, buildings don't always go complete renovations - and in this case some areas of the building might be left as before, while other might be changed - even facade cleaning, or partitioning apartments inside a building, or replacing window sills, might be "renovations". And, when they go for a complete renovations, some things might be left unchanged, not because the developer doesn't want to change them, but because the way in which the building was built could not allow him to implement those changes at all, or without paying an huge price. Therefore, some knowledge of the past might be an additional layer of information which could be used in order to make a more sensible and accurate decision - and therefore, produce a more exact representation of a possible reality, be it at 1920, 1967 or 2012, or any time you wish. And, if we decide to dismiss any additional information and claim that what we see now is just the only relevant information upon which to base our decision, then we should double-check concerning the firmness of our grasp into the current reality... I would suggest you taking a look at Park Avenue on Bing maps - lots of building have residential penthouses and roof gardens, lots of other ones have nothing of this...in the current year 2012.

Looking good! Up until the early 1920's, roof and penthouses on NYC apartments were not generally used for residential purposes or for roof gardens, but rather, for laundry and storage.This happened even in luxury residential buildings. With time, penthouses in older residential buildings were occasionally converted for residential uses, and roof gardens were sometimes built, but this might have happened or might not have happened. Speaking about 876 Park avenue, it looks like having some plants on it's roof, which could be recreated or not. A wall ad for this type of building is probably not a good idea. Side and back walls of commercial and industrial buildings, and of hotels, were often painted for advertising purposes, but this was less common in residential buildings.Additionally, it's extremely unlikely to find ADs on buildings located on mostly-residential neighborhoods, like for example Upper East Side. Something you might find from time to time is a banner, hanging from the wall, advertising apartments on the building. This is usually found in newly built or newly renovated buildings, and on rental apartment buildings. All things considered, i'd say it would be rather unlikely to be found on the type of building which is being BATed now.

I read that as well...and while i had nothing to obbject about it, it didn't change the meaning of the last part, about which i had to object.

It is quite a mystery to me how a thinking like "what other people do" or "what people would or wouldn't notice" since this is more or less the general quality level" - which is the kind of thinking you'd use for your job, or that you used at school - could be applied to something you do for you and for your own pleasure. And, i don't think it would be respectful to offer such kind of "feedback" to someone involved into an hobby, even if you'd like to get something into the end - and i want getting the BATs i comment on exactly as much as you want. That's true - as long as the flues wouldn't end up opening into the exact area where the stairwell is - which is the situation i've highlighted. On the other hand, moving them on the opposite side would have them opening on the front room of the rowhouse, or maybe on the cooking area, that's where probably chimneys were necessary.

Some things i noticed today, and missed so far: Chimneys (green and red) should not go on the same wall that's likely to be covered with stairwells and access corridors (yellow). Another thing, you might add a roof access - would be a reasonable thing to do, and would make things more "interesting".

In real life roof junk is put on the roof to perform some scope, and not to be eye-pleasing for someone watching it from above....so, wheter there is roof junk, and which, and how much, is strictly linked with pratical consideration, i.e. is it necessary? Wheter the result looks interesting or dull or empty is simply a subjective value statement.

Yep, it would do - actually, it's much better. I'd listen Dark42 about the other metallic parts - e.g railings, bench and roof supports, etc...

Nice seeing you there. I think roof could be lighter.

It's also hard to understand how could people fail to put what they read into a context, moreover fail to understand what is written and then react in a butthurt way as soon as someone dares to criticize them for that... Personally, i was disappointed to find a bump in this thread this morning.But now, watching at how things unfolded, i must admit i had some fun out of it - thanks to all the parts involved, especially the ones bumping over a bump in order to question the reason of being of the said bump.... As a selfish little creature, i'd step out of my "team member" role, and tell you, from a strictly personal perspective, that i would not mind any bump on this thread, as long as you folks manage to keep things funny . On the other hand, i did not choose to post there simply to share my amusement, but to give an answer to the only comment, among all the recent ones, that deserved to be listened to and taken seriously, SimCoug's.: I'm sorry your hopes had been deluded, SimCoug - however i can tell you that the project had been resumed, something is actually going on, and when it will be time to post about it we will. I know it's not much, but i hope it's enough to keep you, and other people following this, hopeful about the future - don't let down your hopes, i think there's no reason why .

Good luck with your studies. ENSA might be an unique addition to the game, looking forward to it.

I'd associate myself with previous feedback expressing concern about the darkness of materials, bricks in particular...RL thing actually looks lighter, or at least "feels" lighter. Oh, another difference is about the flutings in the lower part of the building - which appear being in the same color as the rest of the front facade. Keep it up.