mpetryni

Date: 2/18/2006 4:04:45 PM Author: Zoso_69 Ps The most annoying part of the game is the fact that you cant freehand your streets, especially avenues and highways. The way you can't make an ending intersection diagonally with an avenue and street almost made me throw out the game lol. Thx for your thoughts... quote> Actually, I can't remember with complete certainty, but I believe the Network Addon Mod (NAM) fixes the diagonal street-avenue intersection deficiency, as well as other previously illegal road-laying moves. Link: https://www.simtropolis.com/modding/index.cfm?mode=details&show=380 . Anywho, good luck with your replica city!!

Yeah, it's the standard GLR tram that comes with the four basic GLR stations - a red, blue, green and yellow one (I think this is the SFBT Tram Mod - so maybe it's not standard after all). I believe it does spawn from the building. If you can't spawn any more than an one unit train for the building, that would indeed explain why I'm having so much trouble. I was under the impression that it was possible to have more cars than the engine and it was just modded not to for realism or to save the trouble of having to make car models or something. I don't know I'm not really very well-educated on the subject of transit modding at all.

Date: 2/8/2006 8:03:06 AM Author: Andreas Roth @mpetryni: You could also use the tram models for regular el-trains, but depending on the usage, the trains will have up to eight or nine cars - which looks a bit odd, I guess. Regular trams don't have more than two or three cars at most, that's why we made the cars invisible and only use the engine.quote> That makes sense. I just sorta wanted to know if there was a way I could change the standard GLR tram to either show the cars or maybe show more than one engine in like, a train? It may not necessarily be realistic. I tried tweaking the Commute Train Length exemplar everyone was talking about but it didn't seem to change anything: I just still have the single GLR tram engine. Anyway, it's not really a big deal, I'm just trying to figure out how to modify it. I'll try using the models for the regular el-trains instead. Thanks a bunch for your help, guys. The GLR is excellent!! Thanks for all your hard work - much appreciated.

Hey, I have a question that's been bugging me for some time now and I can't seem to find an answer. Is it possible to have a train (ie. more than one tram car) in the standard GLR trams, or the ones that come with the GLR Tram Mod stations, as in the STEX pictures below: http://stex.simtropolis.com/lots/andreas%20roth/andreas%20roth_bsc%20sfbt%20glr%20tram%20mod/BSC_SFBT_glr_tram_mod1.jpg align=baseline>http://stex.simtropolis.com/lots/andreas%20roth/andreas%20roth_bsc%20sfbt%20glr%20tram%20mod/BSC_SFBT_glr_tram_mod2.jpg align=baseline> (Credit to Andreas Roth for the pictures, they're just the ones on the STEX) Is it possible with these tram cars to have like, a train of them instead of just one in each trip or whatever? If so, how would I go about doing this? Thanks a bunch for the help!!! I love the GLR by the way!

The Seattle Monorail Project. Link: http://www.elevated.org/ They came up with some financing plan that was like, three-quarters of the costs were interest on a loan spanning 75 years. Or something like that. For one line of the system.

Somehow my post got deleted. I think it was a mistake, but I hope I didn't violate any rules. The moderators would tell me if there was something wrong with it, wouldn't they? That being said, I shall attempt to re-post. Love this journal! Can't believe how often it's been striking parallels with real life... Luckily for Eureka, Hiro and his staff are much more competent than a lot of the planners and politicians I've run into during RL growth struggles. It's going to be interesting to watch Eurekians deal with the prospects and challenges of new growth, especially with leadership that appears to really know what they're doing. I wish them well! I've heard a lot of Wendgramian (Wendgramish?) talk from the sprawl-builders in my community too, and you've sort of nailed it down to the punctuation. However, I have noticed a new trend as well: billing sprawl projects as new urbanism to get the planning scholars on board with them. Often, this ends up being some pretty preverse stuff. One of the projects is a plan for a 14-story mixed-use condo building across the street from a conventional sprawling strip mall and next door to the typical apartment complex on parking lots. This building, built on previously rural land with no plans for installing a new grid system, transit improvements, or improvements of place, is being touted as the center of a new urban village. The hope would be that the project would be an anchor to help correct mistakes of the past. (Not likely though, as the next door projects are virtually as new as the condo proposal.) In this way, a developer is using new urbanist language to promote what is clearly an insane overdevelopment in a region where the city government has failed to do its job to properly regulate and use growth to improve the old city rather than degrade it. Sometimes I worry that a misunderstood brand of new urbanism maybe even more detrimental in terms of growth impact than conventional sprawl, simply because it brings a massive population into an area with the same infrastructure problems as sprawl. It's sorta like sprawl on steroids, as opposed to actually smart growth. Anywho, given the political environment in Eureka, Wendgram could learn from these developers and try to enact his own twist of new urbanism. Something tells me, though, that Eureka's mayor would be much more capable of distinguishing true principles of smart growth from more deceptive ones. PS. Thanks for the help with terraforming tools. Much appreciated.