akbear

Maarten, I really do think that last bit was uncalled for, I wrote nothing that justified that response. As I said, I have the limitations of older hardware and that I felt modelling has gone well beyond my own abilities over the years. That said, If I offended anyone, or ruffled too many feathers, I humbly apologise, and I'll quietly slink back to my corner where I belong.

which pretty much confirms that anything road related has to be done by or with the coöperation of the NAM team. The closest I have found on the subject were these sets http://www.bripizza.net/sc4/1103overpass/1103overpass.html which seemingly dealt with the lightpole conundrum by placing them on the ground, and these which only make a foundation wall by lowering terrain after they are placed and incomplete (as well as incomplete for anything more than bridging a gap) as the pathing once corrected still breaks on a non-surface connection (though it still seems to work). So it's kind of like a choice of one style that works, but doesn't allow for variation, and the other that does allow variation with severe limitations but really doesn't work well.

I'm sure just like me, many simply queried the my computer icon and got a result that said less than 4, but then again, maybe not (I can recall long ago having to allocate hard drive space for virtual ram, so who knows what tricks may work)

Now that is a pleasant extra surprise, I simply accepted that those of us with older machines or OSs would be left behind in the dust. Those deck hopping sims are going to have a rude awakening one day....

But that doesn't mean they can't be built completely outside the NAM. Transit stations are an excellent example of this. wish I could do those too, I'd sure love to have a 1x1 sandstone GLR station with just a centre fancy light pole

As far as I can tell, no. There's also the other key thing to consider: Those are out-of-scope items, and aesthetics like that are best left to third parties. Reason: Some people prefer having something else, or nothing else, and having it integrated into the NAM implies that it's a standard feature, which can be a deterrent for simplicity users. I think you might have inadvertently brought up the catch. Anything road related needs to be NAM compliant to be useful to most players, but anything out-of-scope languishes since it needs the talents of the NAM team to comply. So that leaves third parties mostly to the building and eye-candy realm. I've seen so many ideas shot down because they are told it's not realistic, practical or appealing to a wide enough audience, and I think that's sad since this is a game of creativity, uniquness and implementing ideas. A jigsaw puzzle only has one solution, that's why we're playing with tinker toys instead. https://www.sc4devotion.com/forums/index.php?topic=7912.0 is another example of an attempt at this, and there certainly is no lack of enthusiasm or players wishing for such a project to become a reality.

I suspected as much, that's why I thought an expansion of the rail viaducts to go along with existing or modified puzzle pieces for the actual bridge parts might be a viable solution Then you have probably no idea how hard it is to implement True3D transit models into SimCity 4. It's pretty labour intensive and it has been a structural problem ever since the NAM came into existence. Being that modelling got so far past my comprehension and hardware capabilities over the years, I don't doubt the challenges. On the other hand, there is always a new generation of fresh minds, new ideas and new methods based upon the years of knowledge and past advancements, that it's certainly not impractical to bounce the idea around again or think that someone would be up to the challenge of revisiting a project that hit the wall. Obviously I don't know the specifics of the wall Xloxadoria's viaduct replacement mod hit, but if it was related to the lighting or wealth stages, it's a shame to scrap such a useful project over some things that could be worked around or just don't do everything, and perhaps it would also spur someone to break down that wall if the missing elements bothered someone enough. If I had the knowhow and the equipment, I certainly know I'd be dabbling with it trying to find the solution. But more than anything, my suggestions are not out of ingnorance to the amount of work and time that goes into a project, and certainly not with lack of respect and appreciation, but rather an encouragement to creativity without which we are again locked into a box of rules that we have fought against since this franchise emerged a quarter century ago. I really do hope this conversation does spark some minds to revisit some abandoned ideas and cause some of them to become realities, it's a shame for all that work to fade away along with what's already been lost simply because the files are no longer available or buried off in such an obscure site that no one can even find them anymore.

I would have liked to run the 4G patch myself and been able to have the option of the upper levels of overpasses, but from what I finally came to understand, after sorting through all the threads about it, is that being on XP3 32-bit it locks me out of that as well, so no giant spaghetti monsters to be lurking in my future.

I suspected as much, that's why I thought an expansion of the rail viaducts to go along with existing or modified puzzle pieces for the actual bridge parts might be a viable solution

The only reds we get here are low shrubby things, like tamarack, wild rose and fireweed along with some small things such as cranberries, which does make a nice tapestry, but it's mostly the darkening green of the spruce against a blaze of yellow that fades into brown of the birch and aspen. It can be impressive at it's peak, but I do miss the complete palette of autumn.

I came across them once on an oriental site after trying dozens of outdated links in buddybud related threads here and at sc4d in a sunken wall set, but I have no clue where that was EDIT: What ever happened to Xloxadoria's Viaduct Replacement Mod (retaining walls for NAM)? It certainly looked promising.

I still say it's witchcraft and virtually nothing has been invented in the past 30-40 years, It's now just repackaging, repurposing, tweaking and combining to re-patent something. What really new leap of creation or imaginaiton have we seen since the pc and the carphone went mobile? (and I certainly don't count the seqway as anything monumental)

let's face it, has there truly been a benchmark hardware leap since the 8086? As far as I'm aware PCs are still locked into 640k of conventional memory and only reach higher through the witchcraft of expanded, upper, higher and extended memory I am afraid it does skew the results. We're interested in the amount of physical memory here; we know that not all of that is usable by user processes. If people who voted as you did could revote specifying their amount of physical memory, that would be helpful. Thanks! ok, changed my answers to at least 4 gb and yes at least 4 gb.

if it wasn't for the high ridge in the back, I would have placed the picture in southwest Wisc (driftless area)

Now that most of the dust from 31 has settled, could we possibly get the option to have walled viaducts instead of open and pillared ramps and on-slopes, or possibly an expansion to the rail viaducts with road, OWR and RHW pieces? Or perhaps an add-on with pieces similar to buddybud's viaducts that would also satisfy those wanting to build parkways and turnpikes without resorting to sunken overlays? One other thing I'd really like to see is either a road/RHW or AVE-2/RHW junction or puzzle piece (similar to the MHW euro entrance/exit ramp or some of the roundabout interfaces that include a directional guiding island) preferably one tile but no more than three which would be great advantage to those of us needing some compact interchange solutions