crishy

Are you able to click in what previously was a city, and select it and play it? If the cities are indeed gone and only flat areas appear, and they appear as "create new cities", and placing the cities back in the region not worked, the easy next solution would be creating a new region, copying the config file, and moving all the cities manually one by one to the new region. If you have a lot of cities I would rename them with different names and create a physical map with their locations, to avoid cutting and pasting a city in the wrong spot, as you would have to cut and paste that city to yet another region and back, wasting some time in the process.

The file I obtained as described before was from the manual download from the link provided by the readme, after unziping it there was no dll extension. I will try again and see what happens. EDIT - as it turned out apparently the former downloaded ZIP file (downloaded from the same source) was corrupted, but anyhow, after putting it first in the directory of the program and then in System32 and a reboot, I still get the same problem. I get errors for both. The application says the file is missing (even though I attempted to run the software with the dll in the software's folder) and regsvr32 says it may not be compatible with my version of Windows. EDIT 2 - Ok, I just tried to run the software directly from the executable in the installation folder instead from the shortcut, and finally managed to get through. I imagine that that fail shortcut was from a prior installation of DatPacker. Thanks for the help everyone.

Thanks for the replies, I attempted to put them on the same folder where the application is installed, but it says that either the file is not designed to run in Windows or has an error. I did notice that the file I downloaded from the link provided did not have the .dll extension so I added it manually by simply renaming the file. Obviously without the extension the program complains the dll file is missing.

I wish it all goes well, Nonny.

As per title, SC4DatPacker requires Mfc71.dll. The tool's readme provided a link where I could download it. Problem is, I use Windows 7 64 bit version, and it appears that the dll (which is 32 bit) does not work in my version of Windows. I attempted to register the dll (regsvr32 <filename>) both in the System32 and SysWOW64 folders. Any input would be appreciated. As of now I cannot datpack newer files, and worse, unpack older packs, making changes involving replacing or removing older files much more inconvenient, to say the least.

Yea sorry to hear that. A digital copy is the way to go with SC4. It also automatically installs the latest patch, which the CD version cannot do, and the SC4 website where the manual updates were hosted before, are long gone, and so they have to be hosted offsite in SC4Devotion. EDIT - removed as crashes are all the time and not random.

Is it an old city that you worked on previously? I have heard around that CD copies have problems in the latest versions of Windows (anything after XP) as per the following quote: Did you attempt creating a brand new city and an untouched tile? If you are trying to open an existing city and it crashes immediately after loading then the problem is with your city, likely from a glitched lot that somehow did not crash the game immediately after appeared or was plopped. In this case the city is lost forever. To prevent this always run the simulation for a while after plopping things up, usually if the offending lot has not crashed the game then it will when starting the simulation. Oh, and of course, remove the offending lots from your plugin folder. Backing up your regions now and then is always a good idea to replace bugged cities. It can also be due to the removal of specific plugins that made it work and/or the addition of plugins that conflict with the former. For example, tree tools. You need to restore the old one, delete the lots from the city, and then you can remove the old plugins from your folder.

You can expand to the bottom and the right of the region by adding to the existing config file. Now, if you want to expand upwards and leftwards, then the only option is to create another region, and design the config file so that somewhere in the middle of the new region you can fit all the old cities in. You can just copy and paste the old config file in the middle of the new config in Paint. Then you will need to manually transfer all the old cities to the new cities. I suggest creating a backup of the old in case you do mess up in the transfer. For large regions being transferred to even larger regions, you probably want to (re)name every city tile with a different name and create a physical map so that the transfer goes smoothly. The new tiles in either case will be completely flat but you can use SC4 Terraformer to terraform it outside of the game, or download a new region and move some of the new tiles to the old expanded region, these are the easier options. In the latter case, you can download a larger new region, delete some of the inner cities so that the old region fits inside, and make sure the old region config fits exactly somewhere inside the inner cities that you deleted in the new config file, and then if necessary terraform as needed so that they blend in. Remember, config files use red for 1x1 cities, green for 2x2 cities (in blocks of 2x2 pixels), and blue for 4x4 cities (in blocks of 4x4 pixels). And yes, you can use MS Paint to edit them. Use the Pencil tool to edit the pixels one by one, and keep an eye on the pixel X/Y plot in the bottom left of the application.

Maybe this? https://www.sc4devotion.com/csxlex/lex_filedesc.php?lotGET=3126

That lot is logan123456's Main Railway Station. It has a ton of dependencies, so it can be easy to miss one. The link to the file is as follows: Please note that all the links to the files hosted in Simtropolis (in the dependency list in the link above) are broken so you will have to search using [search for "Files"] and the description of the files given in the list. I think the missing dependency should be one of the BSC prop packs. I believe you are referring to these:

Central areas often have significant amounts of residential buildings so you could develop a mixed zone neighborhood, which is the case in particular in European cities. Taller buildings of either type are usually next to arterial roads (with the office buildings commonly around one or two old commercial roads), often with heavy rail transit nearby. In western world suburbs, office buildings have large parking lots, little transit of any kind, with residential areas (usually low density, some cities do have a good amount of suburban high-rises though, of course, not clustered as their urban counterparts are) well separated. Shopping areas are also diverse, ranging from streets lined with small shops to large shopping complexes. Like the above, usually they have large parking lots in the suburbs, or good access to transit in the center. Given the wide range of neighborhood types that exist and their distinct histories, is hard to provide a good answer tailored to your liking. Google [Maps] and Wikipedia are your best friends. I use them a lot when looking for sources of inspiration for my cities.

After these eight years one would hope that Trump would be long gone by then. He makes W. Bush look like F. D. Roosevelt. I agree with a strong revision for that matter. Gerrymandering comes to mind for example. It is a disgrace in the US.

Well, 200 bi is a lot when you consider the potential ridership is rather low, even if you tack in a few other large cities in the middle of the route, which would be essential anyways in order for any fixed-line system of this magnitude. To put things into perspective, one way NY to LA airfare is around 200$, and the current NYC-LA air routes generates only around 2 mil passengers per year. Chicago generates close to 3 mil to NYC/LA, and Denver generates 2 mil passenger traffic to NYC/LA. Cost per mile for a dedicated HSR track is approximately 80 mil, and should not be that much different for Hyperloop, so the prospect of a fully national network of either is daunting. Boston-Washington has the Acela Express (not dedicated and rather slow, not exactly HSR, but slowly being upgraded) and LA-SF will eventually have a fully dedicated HSR of its own. Market elsewhere is not very enticing, especially outside the East Coast. Chicago-NYC would be an exception, and likely would be covered if a hypothetical NYC-LA hyperloop route ever be considered. And one of the "features" of Hyperloop is its very small profile, which is a must-must in order for their claims of lower costs in relation to HSR have any chance of success. Given the very small volume of the cars required , it is likely going to be a very uncomfortable and claustrophobic (probably no windows, you will be looking at the inside of a tube anyways) ride. New technologies are indeed welcome, but not necessarily when they offer a less pleasant experience than its predecessors. Yes you are right. Was 6 AM when I posted that, must have been still groggy from sleep haha.

I would take Clinton over Trump any day. There is a reason even Republican themselves are panicking. Although worst case scenario, much of the exuberant (i.e. controversial) promisses that Trump is using to attract voters are never going to see the light of the day anyway, either he is going to "forget" them after he is elected (like usual), or if he really insists, they are going to be outright blocked.

If it could happen, it would be nice. However, I agree with the skeptics mentioned in the article, there are a myriad of issues that make adoption of this technology in such a large scale unfeasible for a very long time, if at all. Maglev itself has a long history in paper and testing, but it took long before it started to be used commercially, and even now very few systems use it or plan to use it commercially. Intracity implementation wise, North America is one of the worst, with its vast distances and low population density. Oh, and strong NIMBY and anti-tax culture too. Maybe intracity and in the Northwest and some other selected NA city pairs, though NY and LA would be very farfetched - roughly 200 bi for conventional dedicated HSR, not including stations, stock, and overhead, I doubt it would be that much cheaper for Hyperloop - the enterpreneur behind it says otherwise, but has not provided solid studies to back the enterpreneur talk yet.