GMT

ok so I got this weird problem for a couple of hrs straight: using firefox, youtube videos wont play on youtube, but if they're embedded on other sites (like here) they work just fine. on other browsers (IE and Chrome at least) it works flawless as well. what happens is, this "loading"-wheel pops up and get stuck at the very first dot, no video toolbar no nothing and that's it. if I go fullscreen and back, I get the video toolbar but can't click around and that's about all that happens. but like I said, youtube videos embedded on websites work perfectly fine and that got me wondering as this rules out a bunch of related problems. Yet I tried all the common helpythings (most of them useless anyway as I don't use any addons or blockers, nor do I have a browser history or cache or cookies enabled) but w/o success. recent firefox, no addons, latest flash, vista hp 64. any ideas next to reinstalling (which I'm to lazy to do atm ^^) ?

29.0.1 and like I said already in the opening post, I used all the common helpers already which of course includes reloading the page and clearing cache, cookies and history (at least to the extend they are available as I have these features disabled as far as possible) and updating relevant software, virus scan, cleaning temp files, disabling plugins... even restarting the pc didn't help yesterday. Which adds another big ? to my head because today, it's all fine. No problems playing youtube videos on youtube itself. Only technics-god knows what happened but thanks tho for the quick help!

I'm counting the days... til this is finally over!! the hype is just over the top. there's figuratively nothing that is not soccer-themed right now and that to a point it somewhere between ridiculous and annoying. granted, I am not a big fan of soccer. too much hate too much violence among the "fans". you just can't go to the local pitch to watch a game with the family without being alarmed the entire time cuz there's always nutjobs around tryna start a fight... got into this once on a darn youth game n these f... fine people didn't even make a difference between father, son, mother or daughter and even worse, planned this right from the getgo, spying on "us" all the game to check for the quality of the upcomming fight!! nope never again Ima put step even near a soccer game... And then there's too much idiocy on the field both with players, fair play is a 90s myth, and the refs... I don't even start with that, just this much: I'm fine with difficult decisions as the speed of the game is insane, but still the number of obvious misjudgements is too damn high. But of course I'll watch the games on TV as far as my schedule allows it since the time difference between the old world and latin america is high. oh and yes even tho I'm european I prefer to call it soccer as football to me always was and always will be handegg aka american football

very nice terminals there Captain Slow EDIT: Nooooope I can't let it be. Started constructing the 3rd airport in my new region, this time a small commuter airport literally across the river from where I planned downtown (sort of inspired by old Hong Kong or London City... or what Berlin Tempelhof could've been if it was never shut down)... Well, here's to a small WIP teaser:

I think this thread is getting a bit away from the actual idea. It doesn't matter if Cryengine is made for shooters or not or which game is an FPS or not to justify the use of Cryengine (I don't even mention all the non-shooter games and Cryengine experiments). The fun part of SimCity on Cryengine, like any other "modded" game shown off on youtube utilizing Cryengine, are the graphics and obviously not the gameplay mechanics (duh) You can easily change the latter to your needs and only keep the graphics frame, altho I think it would be easier to completely write your engine frome scratch, not just because of legal puropses but also because there's a hell of a lot of specific stuff within Cryengine you just can't use in a city builder. And don't forget the resulting cpu/gpu time needed to get a usefull gameplay experience. I don't think it's any fun to play a city builder at 3 frames per hour just to have picture perfect visuals.

the nostalgia in this thread is too damn high :kitty: reading all the names again, simtropia, anduin valley, green depra, secrets of haalu or jacqulina's paradise falls... those were the days I guess. at least for me

I was more thinking of the actual marker being white instead of yellow I just checked my windsock-lots in the reader, it seems there's 2 windsocks props, one normal and one offset (diagonal) and they're part of the RMIP2.

that's a nice lot there art128. I'd like to see some white lines to better blend with the other markings but nevermind. as for the windsock, I know there's a windsock prop in one of the airport packs but it's not lotted, maybe even the RMIP, not sure tho where exactly but it's definitely there as I made a lot with it myself. I'm at work now so I can't look up which prop pack it came from, I'ma check on this later. for the localizer beacon, the one in this pack is the only one I know of atm but I think you got it already.

Your markings look good to me now, same for the placement of the Glideslope antenna. Your PAPI... well it's placement is good, but what you did is you put 2 APAPI next to each other. PAPI (precision approach path indicator) and APAPI (abbreviated precision approach path indicator) do the same, but in a slightly different fashion. A PAPI usually consists of 4 units next to each other and is adjusted for the optimum approach angle, like the glideslope, but shows it visually with red/white colored lights: ©tc.gc.ca funfact: even their specific placement is regulated: 15m from the runway shoulder and 9m between each unit. Same method, but reduced to 2 units is how the APAPI works: ©tc.gc.ca both do, just like the Glideslope antenna, give you an idea of the ideal approach slope for the runway, placed and adjusted by the same formula (d=tch/tanθ) with the "color" code adjusted to fractions of the ideal glideslope in degrees and minutes and is achieved by either using special lenses and filters in a single lamp or by using multiple lamps. fyi: on a regular 3°/5% glideslope, the coding is: all red/white at +/- 0°30' off glide, one red/white at +/- 0°10' off glide for a PAPI and both red/white at +/- 0°15'. Another very common system working by the same principle, but in a longitudinal pattern rather than a lateral pattern is a VASI (visual approach path indicator): ©bayareapilot.com This is a 2 bar VASI and basically the standard configuration for a this system, but there's also other configurations with 3 bars (complicated as you have to ignore the upper or lower bar depending on how big your aircraft is). That's also where the mnemonic "red over read your dead, read over white you're all right, white over white high as a kite" comes from (or variations thereoff, that's how I learned it but I've heard others) On a sidenote: there's also a couple of other such systems, both electric and non-electric but I keep it at this. No there isn't a lot for this, at least none that I know of. One thing you must understand is, that while there are a hell of a lot of common criteria for the construction of airports and the lighting, marking and instrumentation to be applied, there's still minor variations between all the countries and on top of that, between all the "musts" there's also "cans", so not everything is a rule, there's also enough suggestion or general ideas. This shows itself in the RMIP which is clearly inspired by north american standards. These chevrons on the runway shoulders for example is something I haven't seen outside the US or US installations. Or take a look at the TDM, while they're solid bars pretty much all over the world, the UK offers this as per CAA regulation: Concerning the runway markings at halfway as seen on Toyama, I must say that I've never seen them outside Japan, at least not in this fashion. There's several ways utilized to show a pilot that he just crossed into the 2nd half of the runway, be it the alignement of these chevrons in the US, a loooong centerline dash in Iceland, a sign on the side of the runway or whatever they come up with. If you know you're way around the lot editor you might find a way to create such a sign, maybe you gotta create a texture for it first... idk

Thanks Drack for posting this picture. In fact, for runway markings, the RMIP tutorial is always a favorite to consult. As for RJNT (or TOY in IATA speak; Toyama Airport) rwy20, I measure the "GS-antenna" 130meters off centerline and 193meters from the threshold on google earth... quite a difference to your figures, but I also measure the PAPI at about 360meters off the threshold, exactly the value given in the airport diagram to RJNT I found here, on rwy 02 it's stated 444meters and I measure 445... so I wonder where you took your measurements? But I come back to this a little later with some findings... Concerning the distance between markings you're perfectly right tho, there's always 150meters from the beginning of one marking to the beginning of the next marking. This is hard to recreate in SC4 tho because the runway puzzle pieces actually work in multiples of 32 rather than 16, so you can't nail it at 150 meters. I space mine just the way it's shown in the RMIP tutorial, I cover a total of 10 tiles from the beginning of one striped puzzlepiece to the next... this is only about 10 meters off compared to a total 8 tiles (128m) and also facilitates the use of taxiway connectors imho ... Nevertheless, a big thank you for your input on clarifying the matter at hand, always happy to see that I'm not the only one trying to help. thanks Now back to the RJNT plates: Thanks to them I can show a very interesting thing and sort of come back to the glideslope-antenna discussion: First off, there's no ILS installed at Toyama because second, there localizer is not aligned with the runway centerline. That's why you can only fly LOC/DME (Y and Z for 2 methods for the same approach) VOR/DME and RNAV (GPS) approaches. On page 13 of the document you see a great diagram illustration the situation. Also, the only instrument-based approaches are to runway 20 or via cycling to runway 02 which is a semi-instrument approach; you fly your regular instrument approach and then break out of it and fly some sort of a pattern to land on the opposite runway, only possible in visual meteorological conditions. Every other approach to runway 02 would be a real visual one. While it sounds weird at first it's pefectly fine and not rare either because every now and then, especially on smaller airports, certain aspects demand for such a displaced localizer. Of course this renders ILS approaches impossible per regulation. This brings me to the conclusion that there's most likely no glideslope antenna at all at Toyama Airport because this only makes sense in a full ILS approach and where're probably talking about the placement of a facility which maybe is just a weather station. An ILS approach automatically turns into a LOC approach once the GS antenna is offline for whatever reason and you have to determine your vertical profile via different means, most likely a DME (distance measuring equipment) + altitude reading taken from associated approach plates, basically telling you when on the localizer track, at x nautical miles from the DME station, you gotta be at least y feet in altitude. There's also no GS antenna in FSX either to underline my idea. But a definite answer to the question delivers this video here, at marker 3:19 you can clearly see that whatever this structure is, it is not a GS antenna. (fyi: the numbered plates show the amount of remaining runway in 1000s of ft) But since we are talking about an inspired airport and not a recreated airport, art128, feel free to create a valid ILS installation. The localizer antenna goes per FAA definition not less than 200meters or the end of the safety area (whichever is greater) and not more than 600meters from the far end of the runway it serves - even tho a) I'm not sure if there's actually an sc4 lot for the ILS antenna except the one you used and b) there's always exceptions to the rule - and the glideslope antenna goes at d=tch/tanθ from the threshold. Haha just kidding, that's the formula to calculate the accurate distance, just place it within one or two, maybe 3 tiles from the touchdownmarkers aka aiming point and at a lateral distance of not more than 400meters from the runway centerline... just far enough away that a big aircraft or one that slips of the runway not destroys it. 3 4 5 tiles or something like that. Just what Drake already suggested. Same for the PAPI or VASI lights, but they can be closer to the runway than the antenna as they are only a few feet tall depending on the terrain and this doesn't mean as much an obstruction to aircraft as the antenna is. I never measured them, but the picture below gives an idea of the size differences and why the GS has to be further away from the runway as the PAPI does: ©fandwelelectrical.com and naksys.com here's a picture of how I layout all my runways as of late (minus the taxiway layout of course) I removed some of the stuff there to allow for a good measurement via the grid: note that I just decided to rework the taxiways cuz I don't like them anymore... again... for like the 20th time lol As you can see I use a 3 TDM 2 2 1 1 layout which is US standard and simply because I like it better as compared to the non-US single-stripe layout 1 TDM 1 1 1 1. But of course, I encourage you to keep the 3 TDM 2 1 layout you adopted from RJNT as this is where you got your inspiration from. Drack also mentioned the correct placement of the GS antenna. A little tricky a topic as SC4 lacks the level of detail do be certain. A GS antenna has several, often 3, horizontal antenna bars slightly displaced to each other, facing towards the approaching plane (as logic predicts, we're talking about a directed radio sigal so you need a beam-transmitting-antenna, but that's going to deep into radio-technical geekery). Again, at a detail SC4 can't display. From looking at the placed GS antenna in SC4, the only look that resembles the original is when the antenna is on the left and the technics-shelter on the right, looking at it in the direction of flight, so it should look something like the below picture: EDIT: please let me add, at this point, that the description of how to place the GS-lot refers to the one from the RMIP. There's another GS-beacon available but to determine it's orientation is much easier ... I really love geeking around

Aircraft don't need no 100m wide wings to crash into this windmill. Just some bad weather and malfunctioning navigation equipment and you get your sorry behind way closer to that windmill than you comfort zone allows for it... Anyways, there's rules for construction of high structures at/around the airport to ensure safe operation, defining zones with maximum building heights and my guess is, this airport probably - but the regulations definitely - being much older than the windmill, so this windmill would've never existed in the first place. The smoking stack a bit further to the left (powerplant?) has better chances to remain in place. It's equally close to the scene of action and as much an obstruction as the windmill, but I can see it probably being older than certain regulations or even the airport. That said, I like the layout of this airport. Nice idea with all the drawn paths and the turning area on either end for backtrack. Underlines the "smallness" of the airport. And as always a great eye for detailing the landscape. Runway markings are wrong tho, from distance markers to touchdown markers (1000ft *wink*) and the glideslope antenna isn't placed too well either. Like all radio signals, it spreads as a straight line and you follow it down to where it comes from, usually at 3°/5% slope and in this case, that's exactly the threshold. No need to say what happens when the pilot comes in too low on the glide. Just half a scale too low get's you landing in front of the runway threshold. no safety margin at all. 2005 formulated FAA siting rules for ILS equipment (105 pages lol) suggests orders that "the glideslope antenna system is located near the runway approach end at a distance from the threshold to provide optimum theshold crossing height" which is an arbitrary height set up to ensure that the combined guidance line of the ILS-system, from it's intended touchdown to 4NM out, provides ideal obstacle clearence (way to geeky subject I hope I simplified it enough). Practice shows that the comfort zone is somewhere in the 20ft to 30ft wheel height, some 30ft to 50ft antenna height (remember: only the radio altimeter is calibrated to show main wheel height). Taking this into account, the usual approach slope of roundabout 3°/5%, on the bottom line, gives you a glideslope antenna placement somewhere in the 1000ft area. Oh the irony, that's just where the touchdown-markers are supposed to be and the circle is closed. Also to point out is the placement of your localizer antenna, which gives the horizontal guidance to the runway and, together with the glideslope antenna, make the antennas for an ils aproach. By design, the localizer antenna is placed at the far end of the runway it serves and sends it's signal along the runway centerline. So with this setup you show, you have a glidslope for rwy01 and a localizer for rwy19. Now a thing firsthand: The glideslope and localizer are paired to the same tunable frequency on your receiver and a glideslope cannot be used without a localizer for safety reasons, but the other way around works pefectly fine (e.g. loc/dme approaches). There's a situation in which you utilize the backbeam of a localizer antenna, the socalled backcourse. It's a little tricky as you tune for a runway's localizer but approach it from the other side and this literally turns your instrument readings around (e.g. it shows you you're left of the signal while in fact, your right of it) unless compensated for by setting it for backcourse, which to my knowledge only works via the flight director and not the actual instrument, so you might compensate for this in your head. Further it narrows down the signal's width to as little as 14% of the frontcourse signal's width at the same distance from the threshold (according to FAA study FAA-FS-600-8 from 1972), meaning the instrument readout is way more "nervous" than you're used to. and on top of this you have to disregard the glideslope as it is tuned to the frontcourse. Back to your setup, you basically provide a localizer backcourse with glideslope for rwy10. a perfectly fine idea at first, but with some twists as afore mentioned FAA study shows. In short, extensive testing took place at Minneapolis St. Paul Intl. flying such approaches to see how practical they are, with the result that, even tho all limits for CAT1 approaches were kept, only once the localizer signal was not lost. Because of this, all testing pilots suggested radar monitoring of backcourse approaches and the FAA suggested that they're perfectly fine if the glideslope antenna is in the correct place, which it is not at your airport as pointed out above. oh boy much more than I wanted to say in the first place... damn geeks...

farmville is about as much a simulation as duke nukem is family friendly. just sayin. granted, it made casual gaming mainstream (again) and forced the social gaming aspect down everyone's throat, but it's nowhere near a simulation. at best, it's a management game, but it definitely isn't more than guided clicking and a tidbit of creativity (considering the things to chose from) presented in a very family friendly way. it lacks a hell of a lot of realism to be considered a simulation since that's what simulations are ment to do: depict reality to a certain extend. neither the presentation nor the complexity of farmville is worth even to remotely consider it a simulation. and on top of it, farmville's place in the simulation world is already taken by farming simulator. of course, no simulation is capable of depicting real life accurately and even the most sophisticated simulations only focus on a certain slice of the pizza, but this part should at least look and feel like pizza to call it a simulation.

I somehow miss the old, grey-ish textures...

NX-74205 nuff said

that micro-heartattack when you - being german - read that the NPD (a german far-right party) defines core gamers/games... lol as for the discussion itself, just take a walk through your trusted games store or read gaming news to see what's what... and that the non-political NPD did a good job to define it, no matter how many self-declared "gamers" now ride the wahatrain to the whinery. EDIT: ok maybe minus the casual/mobile definition because simulation games - even tho they're undeniably a niche product not appealing to the majority (aka core) of gamers - are far from being casual, let alone mobile. just take a look at us here, or the aviation simulation community which goes as far as to simulate whole flights with "real" air traffic control (real as in real persons organized in intl. networks act as traffic control following real-world rules) and real procedures... in real time of course. that's anything but casual. but then again one can ask how much "game" there is to simulation, where to draw the line to tell both genres apart and so on...

What houses are these? He's LOTted them himself, they're not available for download anywhere. Partially true. The houses themselves are available, maybe I can find where I got them as I got them all myself. Ace just relotted them so they can be used as such waterfront property seen plenty times in the wealthier burbs around Florida. If you find out, will you tell us? here you go, these mansions are part of can't say they've ever been released as an actual lot tho as my use is also based on a lot I made myself with the editor...

you can't look at a single airline here. of course it's true that emirates uses dubai intl. as their base of operations and therefore offer a lot of traffic, but it's strategic location for middle eastern / asian pacific flights turn dubai into a hub for the major carrier congolmerates, star alliance and one world. most of the traffic at dubai intl. comes through one of these networks, same for any hub airport in the world. especially with connecting flights you come across one of these 2. a look at the daily traffic board in dubai suggests that emirates is not the main traffic generating "force" there despite dubai being their base. in fact, over 100 airlines operate regularily at this airport and emirates only makes up for about 1/3 of the aircraft movements there. their passenger volume tho is quite a lot as they operate a lot of high capacity aircraft such as the b777 and a380. and don't forget the role of dubai itself. It's a very fast growing commercial location attracting a lot of customers and businessmen from all over the world. and with it's trademark architecture and economic programs to create a working post-oil economy dubai also increases it's touristic appeal.

What houses are these? He's LOTted them himself, they're not available for download anywhere. Partially true. The houses themselves are available, maybe I can find where I got them as I got them all myself. Ace just relotted them so they can be used as such waterfront property seen plenty times in the wealthier burbs around Florida.

TekindusT that's an awesome and complete set of license plates. very well done

Drack That's a great airport here at Izuna Kamui. Love the layout and eye for detail. Well designed cargo terminal and great use of all the markings and eyecandy detailing. Also, the passenger terminal is a nice eyecatcher. And definitely more than enough free space for aircraft to taxi about (and probably futher expansion). Another thumbs up for the 4 wide runway and good placement of the atc tower. You also thought of instrumentations and even fire crews have their posts and passengers enough places to park their cars. great. As for Yurizawa, there's not too much to comment on, but what I see goes along the lines of Izuna Kamui, well planned and well executed airport layout. omer584 I like the cargo terminal. Well done. I also like the 4 runway design with crossing runways, although this is a very tough design in terms of traffic coordination. Plus their parallel design only give little relief on approach/departure as they're too close together to actually be used in full parallel operation, especially when weather conditions render visual approaches impossible. Actually pointless are the 2 VOR (VHF omnidirectional range) stations at the far side of these 2 runways. VORs are enroute navigational aids sending for many many many miles, if line-of-sight allows for it. Therefore, their signal is rather coarse (predictable accuracy is 300ft at 2 nautical miles from the station) and not suitable for precission approaches (also there's a cone of silence above the antenna, but that's a different story). So, no need to equip individual runways with VOR antennas. If there's an airport within the range of a VOR station and the runway suitably coinsides with the signal directions of it, you can use it for the approach (often, airports do have their own or a relatively near VOR so many airports offer VOR approaches). also the runway markings (at least the distance indicators and touchdown markings) are wrong. They are used by defined standards (very capacious and detailed, we're talking 100s of pages here) and, long story short, put the actual TDM - touchdown markers, the big ones - 1000ft from the runway threshold (that's why they're called "1000ft-ers" here and there) and the smaller ones in set distances of about 500ft from each other in a 3-TDM-2-1 or 3-TDM-2-2-1-1 fashion. The runway designators are also too far away from the threshold, they're supposed to be as close to the threshold as possible for practical reasons such as a last and definite method of identifying the runway you're about to take off/land on. As a pilot, you don't wanna waste a single inch of runway, at least not more than you do anways. For further reference on the use of runway puzzle pieces, I suggest to consult the documentation delivered with the RMIP

Los Angeles mixed with Phoenix and a tidbit of Copenhagen would probably make the perfect town for me... lol LA for the coast and lifestyle, Phoenix for the landscape and overall feeling and Copenhagen for the girls and food and style

looks like my post didn't make it onto this page... well, let's try it again: I'm one who wants to dive into a game, get lost in it for hours, days even, maybe for too long. And that's why I am team SNES. Sega consoles always were too much on the arcade side of gaming imo. Not that they didn't offer something to my liking - RPGs, simulations from business to sports - but the overall offer was the better one on the SNES, not to mention the names/franchises that settled here or even grew big on this somehwat iconic console.

I should have clarified. Unlike Sim City, afaik, Goat Simulator was never intended to be a real game. Obviously Sim City or any simulator has an immense suspension of disbelief, and the game sure looks like some ridiculous fun. My point was that it was ten bucks for a game that was not intended as such. Sim City, on the other hand, was intended to be a real game in the sense that its supposed to make money and it's supposed to work reasonably well (obviously there are limitations), whereas the goat simulator is neither, and yet it still cost $10. and that's where successful businessmen come from lol. this "game" is, as such, not noteworthy. yet there was a demand for it, most likely because it looks fun and definitely is something innovative in terms of content; something today's gaming environment dramatically lacks... 95% of the so-called aaa titles are reboots/prequels/sequels/spinoffs with only little innovation besides technical aspects. that is, btw, the reason why the indie-genre boosts like a rocket lately, because they are independent from investors or shareholders and can therefore take the risk to be innovative... and success proves them right. and what did the smart businessmen do? they sell it. for a price little enough to keep impact on the demand negligible, yet high enough to make quite a buck, almost literally out of nothing. nothing wrong about that and I guess they put the dollar earned into new projects that are meant for release right from the start... Interesting thought though there. When you think about it, a large number of cities around the world started out from an empty plot of land, many far from anywhere. Las Vegas could be a notable example, as well as a lot of Western American Cities. So on a whole, it can be realistic. Granted, there are other aspects that aren't, but it's besides the point I'm making I was more aiming at the likelyness to do so rather than the idea.

Still dont Explain BOTH transponders being turned off. If you have 2 of something like a transponder sending out your position one is a back up for the other and would be on a totally separate system then the other one. or i guess it should be anyway. it does explain why. if you get the idea that there might be an electrical failure possibly leading to a fire, the easiest and fastest and therefore used way is to cut the entire electrical systems, first bus 1 then bus 2 (as most planes only have 2 redundant systems), because the alternative would be to cut each indiviual power-user, one by one, which are a hell of a lot of fuses to pull (some 120 on the 777) and you simply don't have the time because such a fire spreads really fast and is the most dramatic as the electrical systems are hard to reach because it's almost entirely covered with paneling, insulation material, flooring and the likes. so you might have to cut the entire electrical system off and that's when you go black on the radar and all you're signals are gone. what happens from there on... well... who knows... also, modern cockpits don't have their actual instruments within the cockpit but in the avionics bay somewhere within the mainframe of the ac and they're only remotely interacted with from the flight deck via some sort of interface (monitors, switches, all the crazy gizmos you see in an airliner cockpit). just like your desktop pc at home, you work your mouse and keyboard while staring at the screen, but the magic doesn't happen there). what if the electric fire struck the avionics bay? kills pretty much everything you use in the cockpit in a matter of minutes. same if you're entire fuse box goes bye-bye if the fire spreads there. interesting idea because it's part of the overhead panel of the 777 and this might easily lead to pilot incapacitation...

Real like being the mayor of a city that goes from 0 to metropolis on an empty plot of land far from everything? I hate to break it to you but games are not supposed to be real because they're just... like... games... even tho they bear the word Simulator. anyways, Goat Simulator was a funny programming excercise to enhance knowledge of UE3, PhysX and Apex and actually never ment to be released but a gameplay video went viral and the gaming community demanded a release... far from an april fools joke, but definitely a sarcastic hint at the amount of ridiculous yet more or less successful "Simulator" games out there and a good exaggerated hint at what games in general are: nothing to be taken serious. Definitely the most expensive 5 minutes of fun I had in a while, a complete waste of money and already uninstalled again, but I had fun with it. Pure, mindless, nondemanding but effective fun. Mission accomplished I guess.