Mizari

Not too happy about this. T++ made my game sluggish, so I got rid of it after a short try. On the other hand, your mod doesn't have these issues. It will obviously include the improvements with the performance which have so far not been included in official T++, so I don't think there's going to be any problem on that front.

Ah, the memories! This was a hot-topic when SC4 was released, the growth of the silo's on agricultural zones and Wren's Insurance... the big pests. I'm doubtful it was actually intended to be so numerous. I think a mod limiting the building was one of the first I ever downloaded-- luckily, it's not that big a problem if you have a lot of custom buildings, though.

I believe this online component is the No. 1 reason for the decision to have static inter-city connections and the spaces between towns (for the latter the display constrains might have had a thing to play, but frankly, even if the other cities viewed from active town looks low-res, I'd rather have that than some wasteland.)

The fact that the city is the only one in the region and has all those large buildings despite having 1,090 population is... depressing.

Not really. For a proper high-standard motorway, yes, but in reality they come in many shapes. There are plenty of interchanges even smaller in terms of consumed space. Not everywhere has those bloated U.S. interchanges. But I forgot - this is, after all, The United States Mid-West/West-Coast Town Simulator.

All the architecture in this game is very... The Sims 3-ish... and I don't quite like it.

The video clearly shows that there is an empty space between the cities that can't be tweaked and/or edited. Which has nothing to do with the simulation engine itself necessarily, but rather with the necessities for even borders as relates to multi-player.

The stunning game SimUK, of course.

Cities in a vacuum? Even going back to SimCity 4 there was not a vacuum. There was a basic background demand and a further level affected by the existing cities of the region and their connectivity. Indeed the system was very flawed and far from fulfilling and certainly worthy of a overhaul, this issue was attacked from the wrong angle when the development of the new game began. As Maxis themselves admitted it was developed around the multi-player aspect, and this I feel was a serious error. It is further worth mentioning that resource management is not a significant contributor to the processor load as only the active tile is computed at the moment it is played whereas the other reference numbers are static, and that even in what is now envisioned we have something that in a more flashy and advanced way essentially mirrors the trade of Cities XL's dreadful planet offer. So far there have been hints, though no clarity, that it is possible to play in a region of your own - would it then be independent of the "world commodity exchange" or still affected by it? What if I want to control my own commodity production without some meddlesome other players? But I am not fundamentally against multi-player integration (especially if voluntary), but not at the cost of in-game choices. Interconnectivity, potentials, I'm not opposed to that whatsoever - but if the price for said interconnectivity is severely limiting and throttling the scope of the game, then it is a misguided effort that should not be pursued - which it demonstrably is from what we so far know. The current direction of the game forces the player down a certain path of conduct, rather than allow the player to decide how to go about it. The potentials are limited in a number of ways. Some players do not wish to see their hard work ruined by some petty & ridiculous disasters, and others find tremendous enjoyment in watching their creation go up in flames, so let them decide, don't ruin the enjoyment for all by insisting on a predetermined course. Apart from merely the tile-size there are other concerns: 16 "towns" in the whole region, static city-to-city connections (what do you do if it is filled to capacity, or does it simply have infinite capacity?) Surely the intent of a game like Simcity should be to allow for the greatest variation in possible styles of play and creativity, instead of Small Town In the American Mid-West Somewhere Simulator; for if it merely "simulates" something real that exists, then what is there a need to simulate at all?

Sure, sure, all is well -- but the main problem stems from the catastrophic error of prioritising to an absurd degree this on-line nonsense. The reason that there is little terraforming stems from this - to discourage absurd changes at borders and so on; the small sizes of the maps could have easily been remedied to a large extent by allowing directly bordering tiles, but this was not done, for reasons to not make individual players in an online scenario uncomfortable, and this is also why it does not allow custom-made player interconnection between tiles nor any customisation thereof on a basic player level. This is also the reason for the utterly indefensible idea of making disasters impossible to disable. The focus on the multiplayer aspect is such that it infringes the very core of the Simcity experience, turning it into the simulation of detached villages. It is too late now. It has gone too down this wrong path already, but it will be its undoing, lest it somehow miraculously be saved by the most extensive and dedicated modding effort ever.

I must say the restriction of large buildings to large roads is absolutely preposterous as well. In most actual cities, particularly new developments (even going back to the 50's and 60's housing estates, etc), buildings are generally advisable not to be set directly against large roads because this is a traffic bottleneck waiting to happen. Instead service roads will serve access-departing traffic and major avenues through-traffic with limited number of connection point between those. With commercial the tendency for organic growth to cluster around large throughfares is more predominant, but for housing this is not the case. You don't see the 1970's tower blocks line large avenues, they were intentionally set in parks, with narrow roads serving the final access. This traffic-dependent outlooks limits the planning potential for the player and restricts the style and course of development taken in a very unpleasant way, I feel. Furthermore, as regards city-sizes: sure, fine, medium-size, I can live with that, if I can make a metropolis of interlinked medium-sized tiles. DIsconnected city tiles with swaths between them, I cannot say I feel impressed (though I do feel better about the game in general than initially, indeed, I must confess that I am slightly excited.)

The "highways" are clearly just ground-level arterial roads and not motorways/freeways, another annoying fact. As if the tiny map-size wasn't annoying enough. The logical progression now broken: by SC3k, we had 256x256 tile cities. In 4, this was not expanded, but that was all right, because you could build a city across multiple tiles. Now, we have fractured villages posing as "metropolises" on shrivelled-up mini-maps, with undeveloped reaches of wilderness between them, and they ("Maxis") seem absolutely oblivious to the idiocy of it all.

The most awful thing (apart from the tiny map-size and the way the cities seem to not touch each other so you cannot make a metropolis) in the gameplay video is when they show these motorways/freeways with at-grade junctions. It would not be hard to implement flexible flyovers/flyunders...

If it's online-only, you can keep it. Better to sticking with SC4 in that event.

When running the install the "connecting-" starts but apparently does not connect to anything and downloads nothing (selecting all options in the installer still shows space requirement of 811.5kb). Am I doing something wrong?

So how do we get to download it now?

Why was the C2 rendered as a single-lane roadway? The sections of it that are above ground are double-decked, which I guess unfortunatelly cannot be rendered properly in Simcity, but they are two lanes each way like others in the vicinity. Was it for the sake of ease or something that it was made single-lane? A second question, where'd you get those Keisei train skins? I've looked for such but never been able to find any.

What are those tower blocks in the "Million programme" area? I've never seen those before. I love million programme areas.

Originally posted by: LBII Ah come on guys! Mass transit = Planet Offer! Stop complaining about it and buy the Planet Offer! Too tight finance? Then go back to Sc4 and let people who enjoy the concept actually enjoying it, or accept the fact that you play solo with a game without all of the options! It's a company and like other companies, they enjoy having profits at the end of their fiscal year, trying to do that by putting video games on the market. You bought the game? Then you accept the deal that most of the new options weren't to be free of charges if you want them (A little research before buying a game never killed anyone!) MC own you NOTHING so try to live your life! quote> If anything Monte Cristo owes us everything. They have assured us they that at least the busses would be allowed for free, and they have made other promises they didn't keep. Why are you defending them? Do you think they deserve being defended? Monte Cristo stands and fall with the customers. Furthermore, I don't want to play with other people. I don't care about the charge. I'd even pay it as long as I can play on my own. Edited for derogatory bashing. --Liv CXL Forums Moderator

Originally posted by: Wheezy Originally posted by: Jumpthefence I don't really live in an urban area or much of a suburban area either but my opinion in pro-sprawl. I think it really shows ingenuity of people who want to densely populate people in a very small space. Look at Tokyo, the sprawl has forced builders to make the most technically advanced buildings they can, the one I especially like was built on a street corner and is a triangle about 5x40 feet. The sprawl will always force engineers to outdo themselves, so I say YES TO SPRAWL!quote> Remember: Tokyo, in addition to being huge, is one of the most densely-packed cities in the world. (I believe it's right up there with Hong Kong & parts of New York.) It also has one of the best transit systems anywhere. Sprawl itself is not the problem, but the terribly-planned, cars-only suburban sprawl we've been complaining about. quote> I believe Jumpthefence must have been confused as to the meaning of the expression "sprawl" It does not just denote any enormous city. There IS sprawl in Tokyo, but not all that much of it compared to a city in the U.S. Even the single family housing subdivisions in the outskirts of the greater metropolitan area display urban characteristics and a density above that found in for example a true sprawl-city like Phoenix, Arizona or Houston.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: Nena^` So? There's nothing wrong with dictatorships. People should not be allowed to aspire to be "free", as they so naïvely put it. quote> There are no words to describe what is going thorugh my head right now, although ignorant, fascist, brainwashed and supression come to mind. For some strange reason, I suspect you live in Russia or a current/former satellite, like Belarus. Barbarossa quote> That was pretty generic. Your assumptions are all way off. Brainwashed, by who exactly? Surely not more than your average Human Rights fanatic, average lover of the Western hegemony. And ignorant? What exactly am I ignorant of? Are you so trapped in your westernised sensitivities that you believe I must be either ignorant or joking to not arbitrarily regard dictatorship as the very epitome of evil? And supression of what? And the closest connection I have to Russia or indeed any former Eastblock nation is that my mothers family has origins in emigrants leaving Russia in the 1700's.

Originally posted by: Francis90b Originally posted by: Nena^` But that is sort of the same thing; they do it themselves, they get stoned off their arses, or they drink till their livers collapse. Thus, someone must step in, and stop it. Nothing will ever cure human stupidity, of course, but it might at least improve the situation, assure that it's moving in the right direction. quote> Really dangerous if applied to real life.Remember that many dictatorships started with the goal of prevent people from harming themselves". quote> So? There's nothing wrong with dictatorships. People should not be allowed to aspire to be "free", as they so naïvely put it.