Slashdot Mirror
This 'SimCity 4' Region With 107 Million People Took Eight Months of Planning
Jason Koebler writes: Peter Richie spent eight months planning and building a megacity in vanilla SimCity 4, and the end result is mind-boggling: 107.7 million people living in one massive, sprawling region (video). "Traffic is a nightmare, both above ground and under," Richie said. "The massive amount of subway lines and subway stations are still congested during all times of the day in all neighborhoods of each and every mega-city in the region. The roadways are clogged at all times, but people still persist in trying to use them."
The rent's too damn high. He built the city, but some of us are forced to live in it.
All we need now are Street Judges!
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
Just need more corruption and less jobs.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
All they need now is someone to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aavS_XUITXU
I haven't played Simcity since the original...but if you can still create and cause disasters....I would LOVE to see that.
too bad it is over 10 years old at this point.
lose != loose
Did it also crashed 107 million times while simulating this city?
So, it's Los Angeles?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Tetsuoooo !!!!
(Couldn't he have credited the music ?)
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Another cool effort, in SimCity 3000.
I wonder if, in time, we will see a regression back to city-states once urban populations get big enough. Tokyo is basically its own country, and the same goes for SF, LA, and NYC.
... you expect me to buy this? Hahahahaha! I'd sooner have a boil on my dick lanced.
Seriously,,, If they had to default back to SC4, it shows that SC5 was not a real enough simulator and totally incapable of fielding such a project.
A company I once worked for took 12 months planning to update all their systems to a "client / server" model a decade and a half ago.
It was, as I'm sure you've already guessed, an enormously expensive, badly managed failure.
This article is all about speculations on our megacity future, I was more interested in how he got the city that big.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Until you realize that the money being taken OUT of Detroit wasn't done by Democrats.
All the city's productivity and investment? Gone, because private companies decided they could just pack their bags and walk away.
Leaving all the costs behind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-detroit/2013/07/26/132c2932-f478-11e2-9434-60440856fadf_story.html
But hey, I'm sure Grover Norquist really is out for the common man.
Soooo... You suggest keeping people or businesses in areas at gunpoint to milk them economically when the denizens of the area become incredibly hostile to them politically and socially?
I believe the USSR referred to that policy as a "closed city". And it didn't fix anything, unless you count " murdering a lot of political enemies" as a success. I get the feeling you might.
Building using a grid layout never changes. Back when I first played sim city on the Super Nintendo, the strategy to build megalopolis (population 500k+) was building on a grid. You build using 3x3 clusters of R, C or I but left the center of the 3x3 open. Instead you put special buildings and police/fire buildings in the center of the 3x3. To reduce pollution you built rail instead of roads. Fun game for its time and a friend and I came close to a megalopolis on stock maps without beating the scenarios, alien invasion and getting the water free map. I think we had 480-490k people.
This city sounds like an incarnation of Hell.
You need to read my post again, which was addressing the subject of blame.
Do you disagree that blaming the wrong causes for a problem is a bad thing? I get the feeling you might, since you seem to prefer to create a fantasy to joust against rather than discuss what I said.
If you wanted a suggestion, you should have asked for it, rather than creating your own strawman idea. We could have discussed possible mechanisms for addressing the problem.
But no, you didn't choose to do that, did you? You must get a lot of inspiration from Grover Norquist. He loves that kind of vacuous hyperbole too.
Eight months? Wouldn't it be more efficient to learn programming(if needed), understand the layout of the map file, and write a script to generate this very well structured and organized hell on earth?
Really, imagine the nerve of someone packing up their property and finding a more welcoming place.
We should have a federal law in the US that makes it illegal for a business to ever relocate or close its doors.
No, he was wondering why you are suggesting that people stick around to get slowly bled to death instead of taking their stuff to a more welcoming environment and doing more with it.
Man! Aliens would invade and most people wouldn't even know!
Show us on the doll where Grover Norquist touched you...
All the city's productivity and investment? Gone, because private companies decided they could just pack their bags and walk away.
And they were right. Once again, the victims get blamed because the city drove them away. All these companies, all those workers, and all that productivity and investment would have stayed if the environment were far less toxic.
I also find it odd how irrelevant the "myths" of your story are to the original poster's assertion. For example, "Detroit will be saved by bankruptcy" is just so totally on topic.
That wasn't inquiring, no. That post above was about making an absurd strawman.
As I already said, I was addressing the subject of blame for it.
If you, or the above poster, wanted a suggestion, asking for it would have been the thing to do.
And no, it wasn't simply taking their stuff to a more welcoming environment. That's the thing you don't understand. It was making a mess, then leaving all the costs behind with no thought or consequence to it.
Maybe, but I don't think that any real discussion could be had about our megacity future based on this type of video game. Notice there is no food growing anywhere, very little greenery (think pollution), every inch of terrain was flattened, there was no water, etc..
Don't get me wrong, I think SimCity is a cool game. I don't think it's simulation software, and therein lies the big issue.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Right? In what sense? That they could make more money elsewhere? Sure. Just like a con artist is right that they can make more money by selling promises than actually doing work.
They could have stayed, and fixed their mess before leaving, but instead, they picked the cheap way out, and left a toxic environment behind, and then have the temerity to blame the victims who suffer from their actions.
And FWIW, Detroit was one of the scenarios in the original SimCity. But if you want to complain about the thread starting, go to the beginning, with NotDrWho.
Detroit failed because of those policies that drove the tax base away. Yes, that is entirely the city's fault. No one has any moral obligation whatsoever to live in any given place. Quite the reverse: it's the city leadership's job to make the city inviting. But Detroit chose a different path.
Tax laws are a big part of what makes both people and businesses want to come or go, balanced by the degree to which those tax dollars actually make the city a better place (the absence of corruption). A city seeking prosperity needs to remember that. You can tax all the things, and give all the money to your friends - but not forever.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's a lot harder to pick up and walk away if you have actual money invested.
No, the mess in Detroit was created by the corrupt government and they were always Democrats.
More blaming the victim garbage (though bonus points for pretending the victims were the perpetrators). There are plenty of other cities out there that would and, as it turned out, did treat the people or businesses formerly of Detroit well.
You can spin these ridiculous fantasies about "con artists" and "fixing their mess" (said mess not actually being theirs), but the bottom line is that in a free world, other people aren't forced to deal with your shit. When you treat them like crap, they leave.
As an aside, there's been a number of complaints in recent years about work and how there's too much of it. The basic idea there seems to be that people are forced to do it so everyone needs more freedom in being able to reject choices that cause them to endure more work drudgery.
Well, this is one of those choices. And as a result, somewhere around half the population of Detroit decided they'd rather be somewhere else than suffer through Detroit and its many problems. So you have to decide what is more important, your particular moral opinion or the freedom of people to make choices that you don't like.
My view is that if a moral rule or obligation results in massive defection or resistance, then there's something wrong with the rule - not with the people.