SpokaneFlyBoy

The cheat should unlock it regardless as I understand it. As for the naming of the cursor, it's aptly named and stems from the same Latin route as course, cursory, and cursive. It's from cursus, the past tense of currere and means "to run".

Originally posted by: MCO1254 That is a very impressive airport Mr. Diamond, one of the best I have seen here. And it's very realistic, except that I don't see how people get to the right terminal, underground rail maybe?quote> Underground trams are the most common way. Seattle-Tacoma International (KSEA) runs trams out to its north and south terminals and Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International (KATL) also has a system of trams between terminals.

I often get my regions fully landscaped and forested before I begin naming things and then I start coming up with a history behind them. Sometimes they're named for prominent features in the landscape that jump out at me, or I may find my little histories I develop brings a name.

Along with shutting off the U-Drive It flags, I would also suggest turning off the zones by using the "cheat" zoneria; and if you find water, power, or unemployment zots popping up, those can be turned off with the "cheat" tastyzots. Then after you've taken your screen shots, type the cheats again to turn them back on.

Another aspect to a real city is to occasionally change concepts as the city grows to simulate the changes in civil engineers. Occasionally you have great ones in office, some times you have ones that you really wonder if they actually had any formal training in civil engineering.

Originally posted by: autoVino Originally posted by: pepsi71ocean Guns don't kill people, its the people behind the gun, Look no further than Canada for the proof.quote> That is a statement I can agree with. Guns can help out and protect, but they can also do the opposite. If taking away guns, though, the problem should be solved. Of cource, then there's the fact that if oyu really really want a gun you can still get it... no matter if it's leal or illegal. But I'm rather against gun usage... whether it's for good or bad, getting shot is pretty painful... do people, whether they're good or bad, deserve to get torchered in such a way? Is there a reason why crule and unuluas punsihment is illegal in the US? same idea can be applied to gun usage. Getting shot is rather cruel for the individual being shot.quote> It's not even guns. It's knives, cars, ropes, bricks, shovels, poisons, propane tank IEDs, scissors, ball-point pens, bare hands, etc. If someone has set it in their mind to kill, they have all the tools they need. If we bas a gun shot as cruel and unusual and the reason for banning then we must ban all other objects that can be stabbed into someone. Having spoken with gang members when I used to do ministry on the streets, I've heard that knife attacks generally feel about the same as - if not worse than - gun shots. Neither sounds particularly pleasant to endure.

Originally posted by: crazyyaya Originally posted by: gabetx W00! Go Second Amendment! Never Ever Ever [...] Ever Ever Ban Guns!!! Then The Government Will Take Us Over!quote> Um...I think the government would have taken over the people if they wanted to by now. Is that actually your reason for supporting the second amendment? I hope people realize that the amendment was put into law so that militias could be armed (this was before the government ran an organized military) to prevent the British from invading America. I'm pretty sure the British aren't coming. So once the government began running a military to protect the country, the amendment really became obsolete. quote> If you do some study on the subject, quite a few of the of the letters circulating at the time the Bill of Rights was made, it shows that the thought had more to do with the peoples' right to defense against tyrannical governments. Unfortunately, with the nature of modern warfare, we have little means to do such against our government should it become tyrannical. Measures taken after the Civil War helped see to that. In short, the Second Amendment had every thing to do with views held by the founding fathers. Take note of the Declaration of Independence. This is the fist portion of it. "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government." They had hoped to safe-guard against a government wielding power over the people again by allowing the people to defend themselves against such governments.

Originally posted by: bighaben SpokaneFlyBoy: Ah, thanks, lines were never something I really knew about. Guess my municipal airport I just built is wrong as it doesn't have any ILS (of any category) system in place.quote> If you've planned your airport to have an NDB or VOR based approach, the fix is as simple as removing the TDZ Markers and leaving the Aim Point Marker. For a runway with no instrument approach, you just remove all the Markers and leave just the Runway Identifier to create a Visual Runway. But of course, this is all more personal taste since knowing what approaches come into your airport are whatever you say they are. Though, eventually, I'd like to see ILS shack and tower props to sit alongside the runway.

Originally posted by: bighaben Excellent work on that airport, good attention to detail, the only problem is spacing, the terminals(concourses) should be spaced further apart, as well as the runways, both of which, or at least one, should be extended. The use of the lights, and the markings on the runway are very well done. Except they should be in a different order, the aiming point is after the numbers. I believe it goes like this "L" "R" "C" "Numbers "Triple Lines" "Aiming Point" "Double Lines" "Single Lines" "Single Lines" "Single Lines" I'm not sure though.quote> It depends on country. For the US, you are mostly correct, though there should be two sets of double line TDZ Markers and two sets of single line TDZ Markers. The exception to this is if both ends have markings and the markings are within 900feet (270m or 27 tiles) of the runway midpoint, then any markings that are in that zone are omited. It should also be noted that that is only for the Precision Runway Markings. For Non-Precision, there are only the Aim Point Markers and the runway identifier. For Visual Runway Markings, you only have the runway identifier. The terms Precision and Non-Precision do not describe the level of care put into painting down the markings, but whether the navigational aid that brings you into the runway has a glide-slope (vertical) component or not. Some precision aids such as ILS CATIIIb can bring you down to the runway without ever visually sighting the runway until the wheels touch. This is the reason for those special markings as they let you know how far down the runway you are and if you have enough left to safely stop. On the subject of runway markers, the numbers, for those that do not know, indicate compass heading as you approach the given end of the runway. Given that Sim City does not have declination between true north and magnetic north, we'll assume that they are one and the same here. 9 is 090° also known as East, 18 is 180° also known as South, 27 is 270° also known as West, and 36 is 000°/360° also known as North. Another thing to keep in mind is that the letters are only used when there are parallel runways and each letter is only used once, then it is moved to the next number. Example: Incorrect 9 9 9 9 L C C R Correct 9 9 9 10 L C R &

Yeah, one of the two runways that 2nerdy4u pointed out should be nixed as you could not safely operate both simultaneously, thus making one of them fairly useless. Otherwise the layout seems quite nicely thought out, though I do wonder what sort of city could support such an airport financially as well as in infrustructure. Also, do you have plans for cargo ops within this airport? They are usually in their own area away from the terminal since they'd only waste space better suited for passenger planes when cargo ramps only need large ramp space and a building to hold offices, employee lounge, and ramp equipment maintenance and sometimes warehouse space if trucking is operated from the same site as well as hangars if the airport is a maintenance hub for the outfit.

Originally posted by: neongamer rodent1989: I happen to be an aspiring pilot, so I have picked up a lot of info along the way .quote> Welcome to the club. I've got my private, and aspiring to get my commercial. Though I'm looking more into the Part 135 ops than the 121.

I unfortunately suffered a crash of my computer as well around the same time and until I can get the money for a new graphics card (and what other problems may exist beyond that), lost my computer that can run SC4 as well as the planned guide I had been working on for the AC. Sorry to hear that RIMP's going defunct. It's been a pleasure helping you along the way.

Originally posted by: david1314 Originally posted by: SpokaneFlyBoy Originally posted by: 2nerdy4u I am totally aware of the taxiways over the roads. Coolest thing in the world to see a plane crossing above. The majority of planes don't use these taxiways, however, and stay on one side of the airport. I think these taxiways are for accessing service areas or something.quote> I can easily explain the reasoning for this. Time costs money. the other runways are closer for the airlines and thus less fuel and time to reach it and get in the air. Every minute wasted on the ground is easily several hundred dollars when you have jet engines guzzling fuel at rate close to 1500 lbs of fuel an hour (approximately 250 if I recall the weight of jet fuel correctly). Unless you really need to be on the other side of the airport, or the runway(s) designated for take-off on your side are so congested that taxiing to the other side is actually quicker, it would be illogical to do so.quote> Sorta...The time you are likely to cross the roads are on intercontinental flights, and arrivals and departures at individual airline rush hours. Its simply a question of how many planes you have coming in at once. The nature of airports is that small areas of the terminal handle large amounts of traffic at a time, this is to facilitate connections. At an airport where the commuter terminal and the majority of AA's gates, when all 4 (I know there are 5, but only 4 can be used simultaneously) of the runways need to be used to land planes, it doesn't matter how long the taxi is....10 mins of taxi is MUCH less expensive than 1 minute of flying. 'Time is money' doesn't apply so much when fuel is the major elastic cost in the equation rather than labor. But anyway, because Hubs are designed wholly on the premise of facilitating connecting flights, the goal is quite literally to place the maximum number of flights to the minimum area...we call it a terminal . But to get that many planes in to the gates, you runways can only handle so many aircraft per hour...so quite simply, if you have x planes arriving to the B concourse within 1 hour of eachother to connect you need more than 2 runways to service it...necessarily planes will have to cross the field. It is true that outbound flights will much more often use the runway on the same side as the terminal, but particularly with landing aircraft, it is much less expensive to get it down somewhere and then maneuver on then ground. Intercontinental flights work in much the same way because they all tend to arrive at similar times of the day to other aircraft arriving from the same region due to timezone considerations. There are of course tons of other factors that go into runway usage, but as far as airport design goes, those are the main considerations.quote> Quite right, I was speaking on departing aircraft and in doing so neglected the factors on arriving aircraft. Thank you for expounding on the aspects of the arrivals that I forgot to give attention to.

Originally posted by: MayorTim Please don't bump old.... Oh wait, it's Digby. Ok, fine, bump it! quote> I have to agree, I subscribe to this thing just out of hope. It really needs to be made into a sticky or some thread of "Greatest CJs of All Time".