Bumdark

It works! Thank you! Is it all right with you if share this on the other forums where I asked this question (Steam, Paradox Forums & Reddit)?

Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately, it didn’t work – the moment I hit “Run”, some red error text flashed across the console, and once the Map Editor loaded (which it doesn’t at all when using the old code), it gave me a blank, glitchy map with the following error message: File format version not supported (5788513 > 111015)! [System.Exception] Details: No details Anything we can do about this?

I want to load a savegame into the Map Editor so that I may publish it, along with its road network, as a map for new games. I just found this year-old post on Reddit regarding a Mod Tools hack that seemed to work at the time, but I tried it now and all I get is a readout of errors ending with “Failed to compile command-line”. Unfortunately, I know nothing of coding or modding, so I can’t troubleshoot this myself. (It’s possible I may be using Mod Tools wrong – this is my first time trying it.) Does anyone have a fix for this, or barring that, some other method of extracting a map from a savegame? It would be really appreciated.

Just noticed this pinned thread (oops). I already have a thread opened for this, so I’ll repost it here. (Let me know if I should close the original – not sure what the proper etiquette is.) What I’d love are traffic lights styled after those in Québec, Canada. They’re mounted horizontally and have two red lights, and each light is shaped differently (square reds, diamond yellows and arrow greens; the lights on the right typically have up- and right-pointing arrows, whilst lights on the left typically have left-pointing arrows). Here’s a Google Image Search with some more examples. I think they look distinctive enough that they could really add a nice flair to cities – plus they’d add a touch of home for me. It’d be extra awesome to have street lights (both single and double) to match the style, but I’d choose the traffic lights first. I’m happy to compensate (pay) any interested modders for their work, too. That’s how bad I want these babies.

I’d like to add a little touch of home to my cities, so I’d love to replace the vanilla traffic (intersection) lights with ones modeled after those in Québec, Canada, for a touch of home in my cities. Unfortunately, I can’t model or script at all. So I’d hugely appreciate it if someone could model/texture these lights and script them so that they replace the default lights. I’d be happy to compensate (pay) them for their work, too. As for the traffic lights: They’re mounted horizontally, with arrow-shaped green lights, diamond-shaped yellow lights and two square-shaped red lights. Here’s a Google Image Search showing some examples. I’ve attached a couple pics. There are a few things I’d like to do if it’s possible, such as different lights for different sizes of roads. But if that’s not doable, I’ll be happy with just reskinning the default lights. If anyone’s interested, please let me know. Otherwise, I’d also appreciate it if someone could refer me to established modders who do this kind of work (I don’t know who the big players in the C:S modding scene are). My thanks to anyone who replies.

… Right. STEX. Totally knew that. *bashes head on desk* Pardon my apparent n00bishness; I haven’t played SC4 or browsed ST in far too long. xD Thanks.

I read the Readme and most of the rest of the documentation (it’s far too long to read fully, I just skimmed to the relevant bits), I did searches for “roundabout” and “filler”, but I never found how to actually install roundabout fillers. Could someone please tell me what I’m missing?

In a nutshell: Alan Turing is pretty much the man who single-handedly saved the Allies's asses in WWII. He was a mathematical genius who not only broke the German Enigma codes, which not-so-subtly turned the tides of the war to our advantage at last, but he also came up with the basics for what would soon become the entire field of informatics and computer programming. In other words: he's a hero who saved countless lives, plus he laid the foundations for the entire modern world, as far as technological revolution goes. Problem is, the man was also gay, and a while after his heroism, he was tried and prosecuted for sleeping with another man, hence the "gross indecency" charge. He was given the oh-so-fair choice of either going to jail, or undergoing "anti-gay treatments" which consisted of female hormone injections intended to chemically castrate him. (Because, somehow, his production of sperm made him gay, or something. Yes, that was how medical science was back then.) Following the castration, he committed suicide only two years later, obviously unable to live with the shame and ostracizing anymore. Why is it important that the government apologize to him, even if he's dead and obviously won't care either way? A) he still has living relatives, and I don't think they'd dislike having such cruel treatment of a family member, especially a heroic one who couldn't possibly deserve what happened to him less, denounced; and second, it shows that the government (and people in general) have a conscience and recognize how such things are utterly horrific, and how they can never be allowed to happen again.

This is just horrible beyond words. So many dead ... villages and cities destroyed, a disaster zone the size of a nuclear blast (and about as effective in terms of damage as well, minus the radiation contamination) ... Horrible. My best wishes to all those affected, particularly fellow STers who may be in the area. I'd send donations if I had any cash. And to the arsonists who have been proven to have caused this murderous inferno ... I cannot write what I'm thinking here, as 1- no words are dark or violent enough, and 2- I'd probably get banned ... But seriously, anyone who thinks it's fun to light bushfires then stares while said fires kill hundreds of people and destroy entire villages ... Hanging isn't hard enough for those demented murderous bastards. This sort of stuff makes me sick.

The words speak for themselves. Enough said.quote>Ok, so you don't understand that, unless you referenced my age sometime in the past, then that simply does not apply to *you*, but to the select twits, especially on IMDb.com, who *did* 'call me out' on being 15-16 (and now 17)? No offense (honestly) but you're still misunderstanding what I wrote. Where did I ever mention I was personally offended by your comment? I said I noticed it, and chose to comment on it as a sidebar. I certainly do not have a 'persecution complex' or a chip on my shoulder or anything of the sort. I simply like to write alot, and oftentimes I catch myself rambling on about things even I don't care about. And again, I never called you a 'moron' or'ageist' or anything at all. I said *all those who used it against me* had, in those specific cases, been moronic themselves, judging by what they wrote before/after and how they wrote it. I'm certainly not afraid or hesitant to call a moron a moron if I encounter one, and so far it appears you are not - merely misunderstanding what I write. If you never used name-calling or age-calling on me (ie. you haven't), then that does not apply to you, as it was not intended to. Besides, it was always ever used on me in the swamps of IMDb.com, so unless for some reason you posed as a twit who insulted me like that, on IMDb, long ago, then it simply does not apply to you. I'm not still replying because of any open wounds or unhealed scars, don't worry about that. I just like matters and records to be set straight, and this one stands thus: I never insulted you. You never insulted me. You made a snide comment, which you say you regret. I just commented on your comment, which led us down this unpleasant tangent. You misunderstood what I meant (twice) and name-called me, whereas I never said anything of the sort to you. That's all ... If I was to get worked up about something I'd go all postal on you, and seeing as I personally find myself to be quite serene, perhaps a tiny bit ... um ... (damn you, small vocabulary) whatever the word is for 'tired of explaining this three times', then you can sleep safe knowing I certainly don't give a crap what people think or say about me either. I've dealt with worse than being called 'teen' before, I can assure you that. o_o I'd be happy if you didn't reply and I didn't either. Pointless tangent. Starting to wish a Mod would delete the lot of it (oh wait - Page Flip Bug ... grrr). I certainly do not feel offended, or any negative feelings towards you ... Let's agree to keep it that way, alright? :-) Glad to be back on topic ... I agree with your last sentence. You might elaborate more (unless you've posted your more-detailed thoughts here before, which I would then have missed ...)

// I find this most recent post to be most hypocritical. // Odd, seeing as I neither mentioned you directly nor indirectly, nor even had you in mind. I was commenting on the use of the 'He/she's a teen' tactic in general, not anyone in particular. It has been used against me, fact. Every single time by people who thought they were right when I knew, thanks to logic and/or knowledge (or simple common sense), that they were not. Fact. Then things got nasty when I politely pointed out they were wrong when they used the 'You're just 16, just a stupid kid, what do you know, blaaah ...' cop-out on me (I've never felt the curiously common urge to hide my age). So where exactly did I name-call you, or what? Nowhere, and nothing. Yet I was treated to 'name-caller' myself, even 'hypocrite', not to mention that dang metaphor that's used ad nauseum these days. So you can keep your 'hypocritical' to yourself. That post is/was neither ad hominem, nor insinuations of any type. I do hope that was your last post if that is how greatly you misread what others may write. And yes, one can be humiliated in a so-called 'anonymous' public forum. Pick an argument with an honest idiot (over on IMDb though, considering the mods' zeal for censorship here) and throroughly prove him wrong again and again, blast away any credibility he/she had, and just ram them into the ground. If that's not 'humiliation' on their part I seriously need to read the dictionary again. (Yes, that was dry humor.) (Not to mention my mention of 'them can't taking that a kid could humiliate them' or however I phrased it originally was clearly intended as a comical side-remark, not a serious observation.) (Mods: none of the above was any sort of flaming. At least, definitely not intended as. Just pointing out the fallacies of calling me a hypocrite when he misunderstood my post to begin with.) Now if that's done with ... Well at least this was a bump for this thread in any case. Come on folk, discussions are begging!

... What is this about 'Seth McFarlane' and 'God farts' and whatever? Were those posts deleted or did I just miss a few again? I'm far from being any sort of scientist, much less a Hypothetical Astrophysicist, but I do have my own opinions/thoughts on how our Universe began ... Usually I elaborate for decades and go into all sorts of metaphors, but my show's about to start so I'll cut the crap. Personally (and I dunno if there's any 'name' for this particular hypothesis), I do not believe in 'God' as the Bible and scriptures and religions and all that stuff will tell you He is like. I do believe there is *something* out there, but that whatever it is, 1 - it is so vastly 'out there' and strange to us that we couldn't even wrap our minds around the concept of It even if we were presented with a HD picture with explanations, and 2 - I don't think It gives the slightest crap about us (Humans, life, Earth, etc.). See how often praying has helped people in need. Now, this being/intelligence/creator/whatever pretty much wrote the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, all that sort of stuff, and basically 'threw it all out there' in the form of the Big Bang, along with the basic bits of matter necessary for the creation of the Universe as we'll eventually know it. This 'throwing out there' is the Big Bang to me. Imagine it as like a programmer who inputs a few basic lines of instructions into an infinitely powerful machine, then he lays back and hits 'Execute' on his keyboard. The machine starts equating and equating, performing calculations, adding and multiplying this and that, etc. and all the matter and stuff start to interact, build on itself, grow more advanced and complex, until eventually we have stars, planets ... life. Of course this is about as good a guess as any at the rate of knowledge we have (ie. very little) on this matter, but it seems to make sense from how I see it. Without a Designer, and if nothing is truly 'eternal' and everything has a beginning, then how could it have all began if there wasn't something to create it? (I'll stop now before this turns into a tangeng on Intelligent Design or whatever.) Just my 1.85c.

@hym: So my question is, exactly how to you reason with a mindset that only desires to kill you? //quote>Different terrorists had different mindsets, different goals, and different possibilities for ending the fighting. What I said didn't target any particular group - Islamic extremists, IRA, FLQ, etc. - I meant the 'terrorism' aspect in general, which admittedly takes on a very wide range of circumstances and differences between groups and ideals. As I said, it's not like offering peace and compromise on both sides will invariably end in love & peace. Of course some (if not many) of the groups simply refuse any and all alternatives (and here I *do* mean mostly Islamic extremists) other than the retreat or destruction of their 'enemies'. I meant the sort of terrorists who *could* be reasoned with. Why fight when peace is possible? @hawkpride147: weren't we at "peace" before September 11th?quote> As Jasoncw stated above, no, America was not at peace with the Middle-East prior to 9/11, nor was the attack entirely unprovoked. Of course I'm not insinuating anything as stupid as 'America got what it deserves'; I'm saying, you can't continually step on people and bully others without eventually finding someone who's tougher and more insane than you are and is willing to take you on, either for dominance or for vengeance for whatever reason. America (and many others) has been meddling in the Middle-East for a long time, so it was only natural and expected that eventually some of them got real pissed and decided to throw the fight back to America. i mean seriously if you're getting pushed around unprovoked at work or school by the bully, and you offer peace, what will they do? laugh in your face, call you weak, and increase the intensity of the attacks because you will not stop it.quote> Not to split hairs, but you can't logically compare being harassed by a schoolyard bully, which is out of nothing more than idiocy and immaturity on the bully's part 90% of the time, and being persecuted by terrorism, whose reasons are far deeper and political/sociological. @Easy Bakes: People seem to have found a way to reason with the IRA.quote> And there's my beloved proof-of-concept. Some may not be reasonable or negotiable, but others are, and if there's a chance an offering of peace could work, what sort of insane self-flagellistic idiot wouldn't want to jump on it? Remember, not all terrorists can be reasoned with, such as Islamic extremists, but some *can* (as stated above with the IRA example). You can't kill a mentality, but you could try to convert as many as you can from it. I'm not trying to sound idealistic or martyristic or whatever; I'm speaking logically. It's simply impossible that any two parties at war can win. The killings and massacres will be everlasting, there can be no other way around it. Troops are lost, others are recruited. The only way anything ever stops is if one surrenders, or both parties agree to a ceasefire and sign a truce/treaty/whatever. That's just how it is. Example: in recent times, how many battles/wars between two iron-willed parties who both refused to surrender, ended by one of the parties completely eliminating the other? (Answer: None.) [Edited for typos. Argh.]

// I'm sure that the terrorists would love to do nothing more than disarm their car bombs and go to a local starbucks to talk about how to solve our differences. // If there's ever to be some measure of peace and quiet between terrorists and the people being terrorized, one of the sides has to initiate the peace offerings first. It may or may not work, but someone has to try something if anything will ever be achieved. Both sides keeping up a fight is not exactly the way to solve a conflict, unless one is eventually wiped out. That is impossible, as you're not dealing with finite numbers of troops, but a mentality/idealogy. Such things can not be extinguished with bullets or bombs, but only with knowledge, reason and compassion. Terrorists terrorize for two basic reason: their anger/resentment for the people they attack, or to achieve a goal. Steps should be taken to try and amend both cases. If they're angry, then try anything to reconciliate, forgive & forget, etc. I'm not delusional to the point of saying it will absolutely work. I'm saying it's the only way it could ever work, if anything is to work. If they terrorize to reach a goal, then both parties would need to compromise, which is also possible. Terrorists are not animals, devoid of intelligence or capacity to reason/be reasoned with. Lord do I know how easy, even feel-good, it is to let anger and hatred for them and their terrible deeds overshadow and cloud our judgment towards them - same for them towards us. I'm saying that, idealistically, both parties should just work things out. Nothing ever *needs* to end with bloodshed and bullets. If it usually does, it's because one (or both) were unwilling to compromise and attain peace. I'm probably just rambling because I've been up for nearly 24 hours, but I think that, instead of trying to nuke them and them trying to nuke us perpetually, someone - us, they or both - should just lay down arms and say, 'Hey, look, how 'bout we talk about this? See where that leads ...' or something. Again, they can be reasoned with. We just have to come to them at a specific angle and show them that even though we're not 'giving up', we're just sick of fighting, for both ours and their sakes. People only say that one party should be obliterated when they're either too obtuse or too stupid to allow the thought into their minds that peace can exist after all. I'm saying, it's not like they'll drop arms at once and surrender, nor should the attacked party drop arms and surrender to them. I hope I don't sound like some sort of idealistic 12yo here or something ... Just so tired ... Just remember ... Whomever thinks they're the 'right' side is irrelevent ... No-one's ever innocent, even if they don't know which crimes they've commited.

// The question is: is a fetus a sapient and/or sentient life-form? // (For anyone else reading this: sapience is the ability to apply knowledge and/or skills to a task (hence our scientific name 'Homo Sapiens-Sapiens') - ie. intelligence, while sentience is the ability to think and percieve for oneself and to have an awareness of one's surroundings, and being able to react to stimuli with thought-out actions and reactions - ie. the 'soul' or 'consciousness'.) So no, a fetus is neither sapient nor sentient. It is not aware of its surroundings (some minor reactions to physical stimuli aside, which are a sign of it merely being alive rather than it being conscious), does not think, feel, or anything of the sort. Its brain is simply not developed enough to enable such advanced processes as of yet. So no, it's not a person, so no, ending its life is not important, or 'murder'. // Why would these be exceptions for something you consider to be killing a human life? That smells of hypocrisy. // Many pro-life people, at least those who accept the possibility of abortions in only the gravest of cases, seem to think a fetus' life is important enough to spare it the abortion, but less important than the mother's, which I think half makes sense, and half is ridiculous and hypocritical. . Makes sense: a fetus is incomplete and realistically worthless: it hasn't accomplished anything yet and cannot do so in its current condition, whereas the mother, if she has an abortion and is still reproductively able, can make more children. You're basically throwing away a cookie but keeping the mold - the cookie itself is unimportant, the mold can always make more. (A very crude way of looking at it, but it works.) . Hypocritical/ridiculous: according to their own arguments, 'all life is sacred', 'any life is a life', 'all life must be saved', etc. So permitting abortions, even in the most extreme of cases, directly goes against their own sayings. // Well, I do agree with you on the first definitions, and do agree that the latter definitions are the ones that are used by various factions in this argument. // Indeed. Whatever the words/terms meant originally, or 'properly', is now pretty much irrelevent as they no longer mean those things in the common consciousness. // That is agreed. I did not respond to it as a person's age is irrelevant in this argument. // It is a cowardly tactic I've had employed against me many times before (each and every time by morons or ignorants who simply didn't take it that a 'kid' would humiliate them in a public forum. XD). I simply wouldn't let it fly. Anyway, number one rule: attack the topic, not each other, right? Not to mention ad hominem, except for very specific cases, pretty much automatically disqualifies one and grants victory to the other as you've shown you can't be rational and mature in a debate. Personally, I only use ad hominem when I feel like being a jerk (it does happen ), but never to try and 'sway the argument in my favor' as that's just pathetic. But enough of that ...