theBrad

Another thing about this image below. Viewing the houses, it appears there is a walkway between them, such as an alley. But I think I definitely see steps. Am I seeing that correctly?

I would say the smaller lot sizes are an absolute necessity. I'm thrilled rail will be coming for 2011 & buses were included last winter - but the lot sizes are limiting my enjoyment of the game. It is almost like the original Sim City all over again with the standard lot sizes.

I haven't seen any clarification - but the 'rails' that will be included on CXL2011 - is this a strictly heavy rail mass transit or is it also a traditional railroad (passenger & freight)? The picture so far looks like an above ground transit line, which of course is great. But I would hope we can also develop a railroad system to connect to the outside world to build up passenger & freight traffic for commerce. Also of course, though I know it is a long shot - I would still like light rail.

I had believed the policy for all video / computer game purchases in the US was that the game can only be replaced.

Maybe it is because there is already a thread regarding freight visible, last updated a few days ago titled 'How do i increase the available freight?'. Otherwise I can provide the rundown, more high capacity road connections & a harbor.

I was just curious at what scale other people play. I myself play almost exclusively at a smaller scale, that is I play at a macro-level where I never view the minute details of the game. So, I never notice the types of cars, types of people and graphic details of the game. Admittedly, it would be nice to be able to play at a larger scale in order to appreciate the details of the graphics, but I find it impossible to actually 'play' (build or manage anything). So, am I alone here? Anyone else regret not being able to view actual cars rather than the simulated grey dashes on the roads? Or not able to, at a micro-level, view what kind of city you have built. My opinion - the game play & limited modeling ability do not create a gaming atmosphere where I even care what the buildings or streets look like at close range. It all looks like carbon copies of any other part of the city. As much as I would like to play at a large scale 'neighborhood' city model & design, Cities XL essentially wastes all the graphics used because it performs as a macro-modeler.

^ Same thing here, I'm on yahoo & discovered email from them in my spam folder.

I would agree - if running the patch before installing works for you, do it. Don't know what prevented me from doing that, but I uninstalled anyways. Nonetheless - I'm up & running & I have give my thanks to Gregory & Monte Cristo to getting this resolved.

Pappy, from Cities XL tech support - thank you for your request. Unfortunately there have been some problems with Steam versions of Cities XL. Please reinstall the game and download this new patch: http://static.citiesxl.com/CXL_1.0.3.297_to_CXL_1.1.0.457-B4.exe Best regards, the Cities XL Team

Tech support told me to uninstall the game first, hopefully for those that haven't uninstalled simply installing the patch will suffice. Nonetheless, it would be a lot cooler if I didn't have to uninstall the game.

Thank you Gregory - already have contacted over the weekend.

Thanks mentarman but I have not installed the patch yet. Hopefully I will get a response from their tech support. Update - I have tried the patch & receive the same error that the game is not installed. Update part 2 - I didn't notice but I had not reinstalled the Visual C++ Redistributable file. It is located C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\cities xl\vcredist_x86.exe . Still the same problem.

Same problem - I last played over a month ago & thought I would give the game another shot. But no matter what - I am unable to log in on the game intro screen, despite using the same username / password on the cities xl website. What gives?

As much as I use the auto-placement tool for placing zones, I find myself later into the game regretting the road capacity that was used during the auto-placement. Obviously I could have gone through the ardous process of individually placing each zone square & using a higher capacity road rather than the default. But part of the charm of Cities XL is the mass placement of zones. So - a suggestion for MC (or future modder): either specify the type of road for zonal auto-placement or better yet - specify a right of way (ROW) size. At least in the US, most cities built were laid out with a ROW much larger than the street size. Not to get into a history lesson, but this was initially done to control the spreading of disease & later part of the City Beautiful movement. So, though the residential neighborhood may only be served by a 2 lane street, the ROW may be as large as 100 feet, therefore providing additional greenspace parralel to the street. Over time, during the 1900's as density or zone changes occured, the road capacity would be improved, therefore using additional ROW space, a 2 lane street was widened to 4 lanes. What this means for the application into Cities XL - when selecting auto-placement, be able to modify the ROW size of the road, either using the default, or selecting a ROW size based on a higher capacity road. When placing the street could still be the standard small street size, but adjacent would be park space that would still provide connectivity for the neighboring zones to insure the zones will develop. When the player wishes too, he may delete the adjacent park space & delete the street & place a higher capacity street (wider street up to the size of the ROW). Why I think this is an improvement - rather than developing unorganic obsessively planned towns where the user places streets that are far over capacity than existing needs require, the user can build more traditional towns that evolve organically over time. The existing method of deleting the under-capacity street & deleting adjacent zones & replacing with a new road & park space (because there is not enough room for zones) is impractical & unrealistic & also - a pain in the butt. I realize this won't likely be implemented, at least in the short term (this or next year), but I think it would make a nice improvement & would at least be one reason for me to play right now. As it is, I've only played the game a few times in the past 2 weeks instead choosing other games.

Andre - I am thoroughly impressed. I will make the time (when I have the time) to try out the mod & other mods you have worked on. Thanks -

My biggest beef is not getting to try out the bus system while on the free trial period for the Planet Offer. If I knew how well or how fun the bus system is, maybe (but unlikely), I would be interested in paying the $9 a month. But as it is, I don't see too much of a difference between single player & PO from what I am interested in (maybe trade which in itself is a pain, but certainly not chat).

I would agree - for $20 Cities XL isn't too bad of a game to play. As it is now, it feels like a $20 game, though pretty - it feels incomplete.

I don't know - for $20, even if the game is a let down from expectations, that's a good price. But it does indicate MC are having serious problems selling the game. But for $20 that is practically a cut-out bin game, I'll pick it up on Steam now.

Not yet, I'm still holding out for the single player to make improvements. Though I do have a good excuse now - I'm broke. Nonetheless, I like many are so far disappointed in the single player mode but am optimistic that by early next year MC can resolve those issues, which are: Mass transit Varied lot sizes (especially more realistic single family lots) Resource availability (based on various reviews there do not appear to be enough resources avaialble to a single user player which prevents development) ...huh, that seems to be it. I expected to list more concerns. I'm sure there are others, but those are the only 2 issues that would prevent me from buying in the future.

[sarcasm] I for one would be very excited about the prospect of my avatar getting a customized Cities XL t-shirt! [/sarcasm]

It's a deal breaker - I've been wanting light rail for nearly 2 decades & still nothing.

It really sounds like there are 2 different camps here, city planning sim fans & city social interaction sim fans. For a city planning simulation game, driving, prettied up details, & 3d views are pointless frills in my view. Yeah, a bit of an a-hole comment that will likely offend some people, but I have to be honest. It was all the gee-whiz neato gadgets that killed the SimCity series. Stick to the basics & expound on them.

NIMBYism. It was an ugly word in SC3k, but I think it is a necessary component in a city-building simulation. When there are few / no parks in a specific residential neighborhood, people should complain. As they should when there is poor healthcare, heavy traffic, poor schools, industrial uses near homes, etc. These NIMBY activists would identify specific areas rather than a general complaint and would be persistent. Thus, the player would be oriented away from simple (and boring) exercise in building highways and skyscrapers, but would have a greater investment in improving the city. Commercial Influences. This was promised with SC4 but they shied away from it before the release. Museums should influence nearby businesses toward arts, farming uses should influence any businesses toward agriculture, government structures (city hall, court house, etc.) should influence businesses toward government-support such as law and even bail bondsmen.

Dropping by after many years (didn't post too often though) to congratulate Dirk & Wren on the peaceful transition . I started posting at sc3k in 2001 & started here... I think within days of this site beginning.

I must be something...