MallowTheCloud

Date: 6/2/2005 11:46:38 AM Author: newyorkrunaway1 looking good, keep it up! by that i mean, you noobs keep starting threads without searching and looking in tha obvious places first. good job, good way to spam and clog bandwith!!! quote> I'm hoping this is sarcasm. Because, Madawac, you posted in the correct forum, and did an amazing job! Keep up the good work!

Wow. In picture 80.05 you prove that you can even make dirty industry look great! You are incredible, Jeroni. Not just as a city creator, but as a person. I'm glad this Earth has a person like you.

Date: 6/1/2005 6:03:42 PM Author: cogeo Wow, Terrain Generator's config.bmp creator? This sounds really interesting! Where can I get it from?quote> I meant Landscape Designer ... the Terrain Generator is one of the many features of the program, the config.bmp creator being another very handy one.

Here! And, I'm also glad you're still here, TNS.

Date: 6/1/2005 3:07:13 PM Author: cogeo Well, you do have a point. However, in both patterns I have suggested, most of the surface is still covered by large cities, plus in many of your maps posted on the STEX I can see that you may still use medium and small cities (in most cases to pad the config.bmp up to the dimensions of the map). Consequently, the rendering time might be some 50-100% longer. To me, the better playing experience (arising from a better set-up map) is absolutely worth it, and believe me, if I like the map, I would certainly do it for myself. You don't even need to make any kind of 'exhaustive' testing (a trial-and-error procedure), instead you can make a 'mask' from the map jpeg (indicating the water and the land) and project it over the bmp (these are simple tasks that can be carried-out within minutes in Photoshop or PaintshopPro). I really believe that these little extra steps (and time) are absolutely justified (for both players and creators) in order to get more well-crafted maps, and as I said before, I would certainly do it for myself. Thank you for your replyquote> It's true that I did use medium and small cities in the past to pad the edges, but I have made sure to make my maps' length and width multiples of 4 recently so they could be purely large. I also agree that different sizes are worth it. But, there are two reasons I still do all large cities: 1) Some people have slower computers, and as most of my regions are large to begin with, I don't want to have them waiting for 4 or 5 hours for a map to render. 2) It is faster for me. This may sound a bit selfish, and I suppose it is. But, as I said, if anyone wants a custom config.bmp file, I'd be happy to make it for them. Just send me a PM or something. By the way, Terrain Generator's config.bmp creator works well to create a custom config that's high quality.

Date: 6/1/2005 4:59:49 AM Author: ephorex_77 Now that the thread's mainly not about heavy metal, rock and other bands, I think it's time for me to jump in. I like most composers from the Classical and Baroque period. Mozart, Pachelbel (Canon in D ), Vivaldi, Beethoven, Telemann and others. . Can't really single out a composer as their music is all great in one way or another. quote> Well... since I've heard Pachelbel's Canon in D so many times... I'm basically sick and tired of it. I do love hearing it in minor, though. Mozart's music is good, but it's all really generic in my opinion. Vivaldi... well I like most baroque music, so he's not too bad. Beethoven has some good music. I love the overture to Egmont. Now that I'm talking about overtures... one of my all time favourite classical pieces would have to be Suppe's Poet and Peasant Overture. I dunno though, Grieg's Peer Gynt suite and Dvorak's Cello Concerto and 8th and 9th Symphonies are up there as well. Bah, so much classical music, so little time to listen to it all.

Date: 6/1/2005 11:09:49 AM Author: cogeo My request does not concern any specific region, but instead the way cities are setup. Very often I see a tiled config.bmp with large cities only (blue), like the image shown below. This may look pleasant to the eye, but it's not good for neighbour deals and connections, as every city has only four neighbours. Having more neighbours can have a positive effect in demand, as only the first connection of any specific network type has the max impact, and the rest have a diminishing effect (connections after the third have virtualy no effect). So as to get the maximum possible demand through connection (and therefore higher development potential), there is required a different layout that features more neighbours for each city. For example, the pattern in the image below results in 8 neighbours for each large city (and the repeated tile is a set of one large and one medium city) - each large city still has 4 large neighbours. The next pattern results in 10 neighbours for each large city. The small cities at the border can be used to build dirty industry or undesirable utilities. And of course, the layout need not necessarily follow any pattern. Instead, in many cases an irregular layout that takes also into account the terrain could result in better and more realistic cities. There are some issues that need to be considered, like: - The ability to build bridges (for regions with a good deal of water). Large cities may occupy an area including both shores of a river or canal. Islands may be contained in a city tile with some land as well. - Valleys would better be contained in a single city rather than be 'shared' by two or more cities. This way you can build isoalated settlements, which looks more realistic. etc etc Please take the above suggestions into account. quote> Your suggestions are valid. However, there is one thing that your missing that imho overrides all of that: The fewer total cities on a region, the shorter it will take to render. Large tiles take only slightly longer to render than small tiles. If you have a region that is 32 by 32 km, that would be 64 large tiles. That would also be 1024 small tiles. Now, though it actually takes less than twice as long, for this we'll assume that rendering large tiles does take twice as long as rendering small tiles. We'll make up a couple numbers here: Small tiles = 20 seconds a piece Large tiles = 40 seconds a piece Now, the rendering time for the config with all large tiles would be 42 minutes and 40 seconds. Whereas the rendering time for the config with all small tiles would be 5 hours, 41 minutes, and 20 seconds. See the difference? Now, I know you're not suggesting to make it all small... but think, just one medium sized city in place of a large one would automatically force three more, making four cities to render in the place of 1. That already adds probably a minute on to rendering time. So, my line of thought is, the shorter the time to render, the better. If you would like me to do something else with a config.bmp, let me know. PM me, I will be glad to make you a custom config.bmp file.

Date: 6/1/2005 12:35:04 AM Author: zelgadis I enjoy both Verdi and Berlioz very much. In the latest Star Wars movie, I get the sense that John Williams might have been inspired by these two composers in creating the soundtrack. Verdi seems to come out especially in Episode I, during the fight with Darth Maul. ('Duel of the Fates' I believe it is called.) Anyway, new addtition: Any favorite conductors? I enjoy Stokowski very much. Bernstein I very much love as a conductor but can't stomach as a composer. ISFquote> Well, I do like Bernstein's Candide Overture... but I haven't really heard much more. By the way, I wasn't saying you were grouping Berlioz in with the Russian Romantics. Just saying that... Stravinsky and Mussorgsky (as well as Tchaikovsky) are Russian and Berlioz is French. Anyway... I haven't really studied much about conductors, so I can't say I have a favourite. I do have a recording of Copland conducting his Appalachian Spring. I like that recording. While we're on the subject of modern composers (Bernstein, Copland), whatd'ya think of Gershwin? As I said before, though, my all time favourite composer is Dvorak...

Date: 6/1/2005 1:27:28 AM Author: SkiGeek Date: 4/27/2004 12:33:52 AM Author: Karybdis well it depends on what you're looking for As a person who cleans about 10 computers a week of tons of spyware, I can say happily that 34 is absolutely nothing .... Imesh installs 89 on its own LOL. Once you hit 150, this is where computers start to slow down. Spybot, and Adaware are more than enough though to bring any computer up to tip top condition. If either of them misses any, it should be reported to their respective forums so that it can be added in the next definition. quote> The worst I've encountered is 888. The joys of cleaning other people's computers. quote> Aww, that's nothing. My mom had over 3000!

Date: 5/31/2005 6:44:48 PM Author: hobostank Who is Bach?ive never heard of him.quote> An old composer. See attached file. | | | | V

Date: 5/31/2005 6:11:35 PM Author: Cjah I'm a supporter plain and simple.... I never even downloaded Rude Boys Pack or Divider...Only because I'm ignorant and can't use it.... Look I may be some punk kid to some of you but I stand on the side of justice.... Truth can win if we see more supporters like myslef rise up to the occation... Just post the e-mails and then the fear will fade and the tide will all come to shore... I'm not saying I don't like it here...I'm saying it can be improved....quote> Ya know... I really don't like being dragged in to this discussion. It's really none of my business. However, Cjah, I completely understand why you feel the way you do. In that signature thread, I didn't say it, but I felt the same way. People were being just plain rude to you. Saying things like Why would anyone want to see your milestones? That's not very nice. But, Cjah, I do want to point out that the people saying this were not moderators. The moderator(s) were just telling people in general that they needed to shorten their signatures, and gave valid reasons. They did not tell you what part to cut out, or what part was 'stupid'. Those were (impolite) regular members who were rude. So, because it's already been said that moderator bullying (especially towards noobs) needs to stop, and has been acknowledged, I don't see what carrying this discussion on is going to get any of us. I hope you can understand this. I also hope you understand that Rudeboy may have good intentions, but he is missing the point. Anyway, as I said before, good luck getting this resolved!

Date: 5/30/2005 10:17:03 PM Author: zelgadis Ah, classical. Good addition! (no particular order) Verdi Berlioz Stravinsky Mussorgsky I'm a bit of a fan of the romantic period, as you can see. Beethoven is cool too. John Williams and Jerry Goldsmith are the two greatest composers of modern times. And a nice shout-out to Billie Holiday, who is (imho) the greatest singer of the 20th century. ISFquote> Ahh, Berlioz, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky... all very good. The many Russian romantic composers are all great, imho (though... Berlioz, being French, doesn't belong in that group ).

Date: 5/30/2005 8:55:09 PM Author: hobostank Does anyone like classical?quote> Of course! My favourite composers: 1) Dvorak 2) Grieg 3) Brahms 4) J. S. Bach My favourite jazz band: 1) Count Basie Really, there are only two types of music I don't like: 1) Rap 2) Country But... I don't wanna offend anybody... this is simply my opinion.

Date: 5/30/2005 1:37:44 PM Author: Rude Boy Yes indeed, it WOULD be nice to have some evidence... And it would be even more nice, if the 'evidence' hadn't been deleted from the Forums... Funny how that works...quote> Well, the main point of my post was this: Well, like I said, it's possible. But, I don't see any evidence of it, and I don't personally believe they would do something like that. That's enough for me and probably a few others here to dismiss it as unlikely.

Date: 5/30/2005 1:03:08 PM Author: dirk All I see is pure speculation on your part... quote> I as well have been reading this thread and not responding. One of the things RudeBoy said at the beginning stopped me from responding: Many of these Moderators have a 'Popular Vote' and 'Back Up' from many of the Users here... This is quite simply, because they ARE moderators... People will always 'suck up' to those who have the 'authority'... I haven't posted because I have felt if I did, you would think I was 'sucking up' to those of 'authority'. I don't know what to say to assure you that I'm not. But, regardless of whether you believe me, this is not my intention. The part that I quoted from Dirk is exactly what I've wanted to point out the whole time. Your speculation includes the 'destruction of evidence'... but that reminds me of 'deus ex machina'. It's introducing the 'destruction of evidence' as a way to explain the rest of the 'conspiracy', because without that portion, the rest of it falls apart. However, the 'destruction of evidence' theory itself is just speculation. So, to me, at least, it seems that the entire 'conspiracy' is just speculation. Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm not saying you lied, RudeBoy. It's just that, from my (albeit limited) experience, most of the time the moderators and administrators are very kind and forgiving. The few times in which that isn't the case can only be explained by the fact that they are human too, and make mistakes. It has been said many times before that, if there is a problem, contact somebody about it. It has also been said many times before that rude responses should not be tolerated, and that we know they happen. But, for the moderators to conspire against somebody for no good reason? Well, like I said, it's possible. But, I don't see any evidence of it, and I don't personally believe they would do something like that. That's enough for me and probably a few others here to dismiss it as unlikely. A small side note... it seems that almost everybody here agrees on something: be kind to others. I like this line of thinking. Oh well... I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to get on anybody's good side. I am just expressing my opinion on the matter. Good luck getting this resolved!

Date: 5/30/2005 7:10:07 AM Author: Bellio So SO so .... anyone ?? Jakarta ??? Pretty plueaseeeee..... a full scale if possible please.... 2 weeks had passed. No news from anyone....quote> As I said before: If you've made a request in this thread, I will try to get to it as soon as possible. And, I love the idea of closing this thread until we are finished with most of these requests.

Well... everybody already said it. What's there left to say? Your CJ is consistantly one of the most popular ones around, and it's because your region looks so good. You continue to focus on details, and you know just what to use and just where to use it to make an area look the best it can look. You even pay attention to the angle at which the area is being viewed. It's been said before, but I'll say it again. Jeroni, you are a master at what you do. Everybody here would love to see the journal for a long time yet, so as I've said many times, keep up the great work, Jeroni! EDIT: Congratulations on becoming the #1 most viewed and #1 most replied City Journal on Simtropolis!

I use Irfan View . All ya do is open your file in Irfan View, then save it as a jpg.

Hey... I have a medal... WHAT!? Is this your doing TNS!? Thank you all sooooo much! The Mapp Squad is wonderful!

Wow. I can't think of anything that I have not already said about SCR... It's great, wonderful, amazing, incredible, beautiful...

Wow! This is so great! I'd love to do this some day. Nice job, everyone!

Date: 5/23/2005 3:10:01 AM Author: crookedasscop Okay I have a question from your tutorial...does that come in at a certain step of 7trumpets' tutorial, or is this a completely different means of making maps? Because skimming through your tutorial, that's what it looks like, not using anything from the USGS site at all and so your maps lack elevation. Is that correct? Because I would like the hills and such in for making my first map. I very much appreciate your help by the way, I wish I could get people to answer my questions on other matters the way you do. Hmm, bad news to add. I went ahead and measured the pixel widths of the rivers, and they're only about 5 pixels wide each, not nearly enough. I'm gonna go through it all anyway to see the results. Alright, I went through your tutorial and now have the water template. My next step seems to be merging this template onto the geotiff as an easier means of making the water appear, with the only difficulty being that of making the scale of the template correct...trial and error. At this point I'm going to take the DEM I downloaded and start over the process of making it usable once again. (so I can merge this template on it) Alright, I've run into what looks like a contradiction. The first thing you do after loading up the DEM is go into Display Parameters - Reflectance - and set the water...But! It says set it to RGB 65, when in the template it said to set RGB in there to 75. Is one of these wrong? Or am I supposed to set them different exactly as each tutorial is showing?quote> No, no, no. My tutorial is completely separate and has nothing to do with the7trumpets' tutorial. But, regardless, it DOES take information from the USGS sites and thus DOES have elevation. As for the water, 65 and 75 are both pretty good values. 65 may be the better of the two, because it creates deeper water. Either way, your water is not going to be the actual depth, unless you hand paint the rivers... which is excruciating and inaccurate. So, the difference is... 75 is for somewhat shallow water. It may be that it's not quite deep enough for seaports, so I'd go for 65.

Date: 5/23/2005 12:14:40 AM Author: crookedasscop Yeah I already understand the z-factor as far as adding elevations when finding sea level vs. an ocean town vs. no water on the map, but I was getting really specific as to which elevation of water is best. Because, in the map I'm trying to make, there are two parallel rivers, but both are not at the same level. One is 120m , and the other is 123m. If I choose 120m as the tutorial suggests, that makes me think that the river which is at 123 won't show up and would instead look like a dried up ditch. What I've concluded is that I should either: -Use the 120m in my calculations and then using god mode hand draw the river at 123m Or -Use the 123m in the calculations and then the 120m river would just be exaggerated. I am not sure what would change using either depth as the z factor. I would just try for myself, but I have further complications with the map-making process which I haven't detailed yet and so I can't, I have to ask all these questions. I also seem to have a very difficult time in picking a good map size. For this river area I am working on, the area I chose is less than the 16x16km standard that I didn't know about when I went onto the USGS. Because of this, things have only gotten more and more complicated. It was just supposed to be practice for me for when I make a larger map of the same area. This would just be for me to learn how to paint and such so the water appears as I want it to. On top of all this, I think I read that rivers that are less than 100m wide don't show up right, and the two rivers in my region aren't even half that wide. And as the frustration in my previous reply foretells, I am highly tempted to give up on it and make a map request, and then edit the map to my liking. But I'd really prefer to learn to do it myself, and if I make a request I have a hard time trying to decide how large of a region I would want. (FYI the area I am looking at is central NY)quote> Hmm, well, I'll try to help you out here. I'll make it my goal to get you through your first map here. Regarding the rivers, I don't think three meters will make too much of a difference. So, I think using 122 meters in your case would work out pretty well. As for the map size, the only rule is: (64W + 1) by (64H + 1) where W is the width in small city tiles and H is the height in small city tiles. If ya don't like math that much... say you want it to be 8 small tiles wide and 6 small tiles high. 8 times 64 plus 1 is 513 6 times 64 plus 1 is 385. So, the map would be 513 by 385 pixels. Sorry if I'm explaining something you already know about... So, in the example above, an 8x6 region is 513 by 385 pixels. It would require an 8x6 pixel config.bmp file. As for the rivers, it doesn't really depend on how wide they are in real life, it really depends on how wide they are on your greyscale map. I'd say they have to be at least... maybe.... 10 pixels wide to show up pretty well. The only problem here may be near the edges of the city tiles, where the river may be cut off a bit. But, a little hand terraforming and that can be solved. Anyway, I'd like to know what specific issues you are having here!