Darf

I´m currently working on some LA buildings. One building I always found iconic for Hollywood and LA is the fantastic sunset tower hotel. At first I wasn´t completely sure how to approach this, but I decided to model the full lot. The tower is kinda simple but all the dimensions for the rest of the building are really hard to get right. Here´s some early renders: There will be some more art deco buildings (well more like Streamline Moderne) in this release, but for now this'll keep me busy for a while.

Nvm, I figured it out.

Hmmm, that's a very interesting mod. Does it require any different setup of the illum map? Or do you need to seperate the illuminated parts in a subobject? A tutorial would be greatly appreciated.

Guess they are still bugged then, it happened sometime after snowfall.

Whenever their edges dont matchup you want them to have their own edge. Otherwise your altering the edge of the other face.

Can't yopu just use the spawnpoint?

Did you take a good look at the SketchUp Model? Anyways it´s very simple, every start and endpoint of a line/edge in SketchUp will create a vertex point. Every vertex point inserted will cause faces to be connected to that vertexpoint. So you have avoid creating unnecessary vertexpoints on existing lines in Sketchup Example, for example a basic polygon in Sketchup: I divided it up to show how the face will act: two faces atm. Now we attach a face. Sketchup is different from other modelers in that it let's you connect lines all along an existing line, instead of only points. We attached a polygon to the existing rectangle. Now the old rectangle consists of 3 triangles instead of 2 triangles that are necessary. You inserted a vertexpoint on the existing object. If you don't want that you have to make the existing rectangle a seperate group or element: Now connect the new rectangle like you did before: Result: 4 triangles instead of 5 triangles. In your model for example the tower: To clean up your model I made the blue component in groups (the clocks are also seperately grouped) and I redrew the face on the bottom. The red drawn rectangle is the old situation, the green rectangle the new situation. Because the geometry is grouped you can also divide it up more easily. You can just draw a line in the middle to divide up the face now. It won't have an effect on the geometry above. It's not connected to it. If you ended up creating up unnecessary geometry, it´s not that hard to clean up. Let´s take your old model in 3ds max: Here's a face divided in 3 faces, could be 2. Select the face and detach: Than select the new object and convert to editable poly: Select the unnecesary vertex point and press ctrl - backspace: Result: Now select the rest of your model and attach the object (it's under no selection, attach all in the modifier window)

Terminology is not different in Blender - it's mostly the same across most 3d modelers (with the exception of SketchUp I'll admit). It's always scene - object - element - polygon - face - vert. You literally have an object mode mode in Blender! (modes in blender work mostly the same as in 3ds max). The Lod is indeed a different object in my scene. But I could just join the objects together and it becomes an element. The same is true for SketchUp, you got objects - elements - polygon - face - vert. The difference with SketchUp is that you don't have an object mode. You start in what's equivalent to poly edit mode in most programs. You can make elements - groups, whatever you can do in most other full fledged 3d modelers, but because the basis is your poly edit mode, people new to using sketchup don't actually make use of them, because the basic result looks the same. If they connect elements of their model they basicly insert verts in their existing geometry. SketchUp is very easy to use - might be a bit too easy - that's why you see lot's of beginners use it. But it doesn't actually create geometry in it's export process or unintended geometry, it's just user error. I only use it for poly edit, because it's really fast and really precise - good for architecture. I'll have to check for the export process inserting verts, I atleast don't get any different results exporting from Blender or 3ds max.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tVzOj--j9P4g5_GnqIghKWngwEe0D8g3/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xaoDiZzXGZqpaoTK75aU9iImWs4QffIK/view?usp=sharing There you go, also included a 3ds scene with both models.

Working with Blender you never use one object and no, working with one object isn´t fine, you could never make complicated models with only one object in Blender if you don´t join them together. If you join them together they become elements = not connected geometry in the same model. Even then for all things texturing purposes you will still want to poly edit your objects. Neither is all things blender create holy grail geometry wise. For example: Here's one of your buildings Avanya, looks all fine geometry wise right? Well no, there's a lof extra vertices, because you create a lot of different elements within your model. The vertices aren't connected together. As you can see the roof consists of four different elements, that are not connected geometry wise. Each window is a different element as well. These are combined objects. Here's the amount of vertices with everything welded together (2878 to 1323). Here's a sketchup model of mine with it's geometry. Next I will show you some of the different objects I combined to avoid creating unnecessary geometry, yet not needing anymore vertices: @Down_men send me your Sketchup model, I'll show you how you can create a clean model in Sketchup easy peasy, no extra steps needed in 3ds or blender.

No it doesn't. It's just inexperienced modelers. What people do is create a model using one object. If you create a model in any program with one object it will create a lot of unnecesary geometry. Because Sketchup doesn't learn you by default to combine a model out of multiple objects you see a lot of unoptimized models.

The thing you're seeing is not because of Sketchup, but because you did flatten mapping in 3ds Max. (Stop assuming stuff about Sketchup Avanya). Select all faces and use the box mapping feature in 3ds max. Also if you want to clean up your model in 3ds max, you can do so by converting the model to an editable poly. Than select the points which are not necessary (or break polygons) and press ctrl + backspace.

Use plop the growables, find it and anarchy to creat neighbourhoods like that.

You can also download a different theme. Owl's albedo roads are pretty realistic.

Sorry, took me a while to reproduce the problem, some locations actually retained their height positions after I put them down. Here´s some screenshots of what´s happening: After Save: After deleting the path:

That's the thing, the developers don't see these things as problems, but they are designchoices. Apparently they don't stand in the way of their product selling 5 million copies. That doesn't make C:S a good game, I know. That's my whole point: they got some good programmers, if you look at CIM1+2 visually they can definitely make some good looking stuff as well, but we see some very mediocre designchoices. For us, the community it's clear by now. C:S is a citypainter and most of the mods that are developed at the moment are to enhance it as a citypainter.

Some of my current city:

I think it might have something to with flatten terrain, it mainly happens near roads and quays. As for my mod list... that´s a big list. But if I had to pick a culprit, I think it might mostly be due to using anarchy and placement of other networks near the paths with anarchy that flatten terrain.

You say that, but they actually added some pretty usefull technical systems over the last 3 years: day/night system, subbuildings, moddable lights, second level lods, trams/helicopters/other transport systems, quays and canals, map/citizen/scenario/network editor. From a technical pov the game is pretty good. Most of the things you and others point out are not because they are technically not possible, but because of design.

Well sort of, I think most of the expansions for C:S are made by a maximum of 3 people. The mainteam at CO are working at something else. So that's why the expansions are pretty limited in scope and not many communityrequests are fullfilled. It's also the reason why a total overhaul of the game mechanics is not possible.

SimCity 5 would've been a fine game, if they handled some things better: Bigger plots, much bigger plots. This is the mainaspect that C:S handled right. They got some nice renderingtricks in the engine that allow for the much bigger plots. Some aspects we're not properly balanced (tourism for example), wealth and traffic. The multiplayer aspect was a good idea, but Mods are much more important for citybuilding genre. If they could combine the multiplayer aspect with mods (buildings at first, but later also gameplay mods) it would've been great. It was much more enjoyable to actually built a city and specialize one. The gameplay aspect they got right. Visually it was also more appealing than C:S vanilla. It was just hard to fail a city in that game also. The coregame died, because there wasn't really anything to do after an hour of 15. The game was kind of too easy balanced or badly balanced in some other regards. Not enough room and no custom mods to built beautiful cities and the aspect of multiplayer wasn't necessary and didn't really stimulate people to play together. Community died fast and than sales we're thrown into the abyss, so combined with the bad publicity EA killed it.

Hey, I've been using your pedestrian paths for a bit now. They're great! But for some reason on some slopes the height data doesn't save accurately or something. They kind of fall through the world after I load a savegame. After I rebuild them all of it seems to be fine for the current game, than after a save the height data resets again and they cause huge craters. You know what might be at work here?

Pff how did you create that crown, it's magnificent! It's a ton of tris, but really well done!!

Send you a link with my progress (just study for dimensions and sizes). Yeah floorplan would've been very nice, should google on those more often.

Your big problem is actually no problem at all. Just take a look at the assets your missing, it might just be a couple of props like Avanya pointed out, than they won't appear on buildings - not really a big deal. I generally don't download a lot of the required props.