Question: the map editor will not let me use new buildings, why?
Buy the new DLC and I see no problems the new campaign.
Buy the new DLC and I see no problems the new campaign.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
European buildings can only be built in European maps. This way, both building sets will not be mixed together by the dynamic city growth.
In order to have a European map you have to create a new map with the editor, it will ask you which theme you want to use before loading the empty map.
I feel cheated, not freely dispose of the new buildings in the map editor, is a scam. I will not buy more products from Colossal Order until this is solved, I want to use, as would be logical, all buildings simultaneously in the map editor. :angry:
Another problem with the new traffic lights, sometimes the game places a lamp post with a banner on it right in front of the traffic light, completely blocking the lights.
It would be great if CO could create a brush tool for the editor that allows us to define areas for the two building sets. So if it's blue American buildings willl spawn in that location. And say redf as EU buildings.
Though simply being able to manually place ANY building within the editor would be most welcome.
Though simply being able to manually place ANY building within the editor would be most welcome.
I am so glad that CO have finally released European buildings! I stopped playing CIM2 not long after buying it (and went back to CIM1) because the American-styled buildings looked so drab.
My only gripe with the DLC is that as the cities grow the terraced buildings are placed somewhat randomly and importantly in almost all cases they have large gaps between them (i.e. they're not attached). I hope CO patch this. It'd be a shame if not as it kills the real-life feel of the cities.
My only gripe with the DLC is that as the cities grow the terraced buildings are placed somewhat randomly and importantly in almost all cases they have large gaps between them (i.e. they're not attached). I hope CO patch this. It'd be a shame if not as it kills the real-life feel of the cities.
I bought the base game because it's a nice sandbox simulation. For a larger add-on priced at 13€ I expect new gameplay and new features, not just new art and a few more hastily thrown together missions to show it off.
Anyone of the fans can make a new map. And new scenarios campaigns in a game I played 100+ hours but actually never saw any fun in spending a single hour inside any scenarios or campaigns? Sorry.
This DLC adds nothing to the game that I am interested in. That is my opinion, you are free to have yours and I'm happy you can enjoy this DLC, but I cannot.
The maps are roughly built together and quite uninspired, i agree. But i didn't expect anything more, because the original default cities were the same lifeless stuff.
The european buildings were one of the most requested features at all.. and the new possibilities in map-making are quite phenomenal. The building set itself is easily worth 13 euro.
I have just spent just a huge amount of work in an european map, which you can see here - and i absolutely love the new european flavour. Complaining about 13 euro is a bit exaggerated in my opinion.
Unfortunately I'm afraid the different building sets will not be mixed together due to technical limitations (it was the same with Cities in Motion 1).
Some people requested new maps and a campaign, maybe they don't like to build maps themselves? We made a European campaign to go with the buildings to cater to those players' wishes. I doubt the price of the DLC would be cheaper without the campaign or maps, though I can only speculate since we don't handle that stuff. In any case I'm sorry the DLC is not to your liking. I hope we'll develop something you can enjoy the future
I'm glad you like the buildings and your map looks amazing!
How I see it, there are no technical limitations*. Only the decision of not using more buildings in one map. Even as "modder" it is possible to combine the two sets.
Just tell us the truth - that (for any reason) you don't want to combine the sets.
Although there would have been many possibilities to solve it in an other (even better) way, it is perfectly okay to keep the two sets separated from my point of view.
*maybe the minimum specifications would have been increased a little bit. However, compared to the whole game the additional hardware requirement for a few buildings is marginal. I testet it myself, even with all buildings on one map the memory usage is not increased above the minimum requirement.
The main problem with memory-related crashes is based on 32bit systems with less than the minimum amount of memory available for the game, and with huge maps (many passengers, lines, etc...)
P.S.: I too like the new buildings and are working on my map as often as I can find time for it.
Edit: removed the "offending part" and rephrased for better delivering my message
Last edited:
First of all I do get offended when I'm called a liar, so please try to keep the messages polite, even when something annoys you immensely.
Unfortunately additional buildings increase the memory consumption and it's not acceptable for us to increase the system requirements at this point. Due to the texture size the increase is noticeable especially on lower end machines and this is a technical limitation. What other possible reason would we have to limit the usage of buildings?
So if modders want to use more buildings in the same map we of course encourage it just like earlier with CIM1. However the crashes happening because of the system running out of memory then is not something we can do anything about. (Though we did fail with the moddability of CIM2 I must admit, but we are sure to put more effort to modding in the future.)
First of all, I am not annoyed in any way.
At least this is no technical limitation but a decision of you guys. Which I can partly follow - of course you want to keep the memory usage as low as possible.
However, the problem with low-memory (low-end) machines is mainly limited to the user space of 32 bit systems with only 2 GB which is not meeting the minimum specifications.
So the minimum spec of 3 GB is really confusing for users of low-end-machines who do not know anything about 32bit or 64bit. This already would be a reason to set the minimum specification to 4 GB.
The game never used really more than 2 GB on my computer. And the memory problems are majoritarian related to larger transport systems with a high number of lines, vehicles, stops, passengers, or even the overall number of buildings directly increasing the population of the map.
The only limitation could be an increased memory consumption relating to the graphics card. However, this game - as a simulation - has much higher requirements on the CPU/RAM as on the graphics unit.
So: I feel sorry that I offended you. However, from my point of view I can not see a limitation constrained by 30 additional buildings. Even if you insist that this can cause problems on low end machines (which have problem nonetheless, even without additional memory requirements, so obviously the minimum requirements should be increased anyway), you could offer the option to use one set, the other, or both
However, I understand, that separating the two sets is the easiest way for you to do it and as I already explained I do not judge your for this.
For me reasons that I can follow would for example be: You don't want the dynamic city growth to mix up the buildings or you want a clear separation of styles, maybe even regarding future differentiation in street textures (as with the traffic lights). Or a technical limitation could be that players with and without EU DLC could not play maps which include EU buildings.
I don't know, there are some reasons you can think of
Just relating the missing option of combining the sets by stating that low end machines can not handle 30 buildings does not make so much sense for me, since low end machines have memory problem either way, which are more related to other factors than the number of different buildings.
To make it clear: I know that the limitation will not be changed and I -personally- have no problem with this.
At least this is no technical limitation but a decision of you guys. Which I can partly follow - of course you want to keep the memory usage as low as possible.
However, the problem with low-memory (low-end) machines is mainly limited to the user space of 32 bit systems with only 2 GB which is not meeting the minimum specifications.
So the minimum spec of 3 GB is really confusing for users of low-end-machines who do not know anything about 32bit or 64bit. This already would be a reason to set the minimum specification to 4 GB.
The game never used really more than 2 GB on my computer. And the memory problems are majoritarian related to larger transport systems with a high number of lines, vehicles, stops, passengers, or even the overall number of buildings directly increasing the population of the map.
The only limitation could be an increased memory consumption relating to the graphics card. However, this game - as a simulation - has much higher requirements on the CPU/RAM as on the graphics unit.
So: I feel sorry that I offended you. However, from my point of view I can not see a limitation constrained by 30 additional buildings. Even if you insist that this can cause problems on low end machines (which have problem nonetheless, even without additional memory requirements, so obviously the minimum requirements should be increased anyway), you could offer the option to use one set, the other, or both
However, I understand, that separating the two sets is the easiest way for you to do it and as I already explained I do not judge your for this.
For me reasons that I can follow would for example be: You don't want the dynamic city growth to mix up the buildings or you want a clear separation of styles, maybe even regarding future differentiation in street textures (as with the traffic lights). Or a technical limitation could be that players with and without EU DLC could not play maps which include EU buildings.
I don't know, there are some reasons you can think of
Just relating the missing option of combining the sets by stating that low end machines can not handle 30 buildings does not make so much sense for me, since low end machines have memory problem either way, which are more related to other factors than the number of different buildings.
To make it clear: I know that the limitation will not be changed and I -personally- have no problem with this.
I am allowed to ask again what changed with 1.6.1 at the Engine Level and if you plan to change the size of the traffic lights and road textures?
There were basically no changes at the engine level other than one bug fix with upgrading the underground depot. I'll have to get back to you on traffic lights and road textures.
I do like making maps with CiM2, and I understand why the two sets of buildings cannot coexist in the same map.
What I don't like is having to redo a lot of work I have already done once. Should I have invested a lot of time in drawing a map of, say, Stockholm, Zurich or Milan, it would bug me no end having to redo the work in order to be able to place European-style buildings in them.
Had I already placed North-American style buildings in them, OK, I can see that the codes for them might not be understood if the underlying building style is European. Alternatively, the dimensions for a building code may be different, creating havoc with the relative placement of streets, buildings and so on.
But if no buildings have yet been placed in a map, how hard can it be to change the code from North American to European style? I understand that the building style specification is in something called the header. Why not give users the capability of changing something this simple?
What I don't like is having to redo a lot of work I have already done once. Should I have invested a lot of time in drawing a map of, say, Stockholm, Zurich or Milan, it would bug me no end having to redo the work in order to be able to place European-style buildings in them.
Had I already placed North-American style buildings in them, OK, I can see that the codes for them might not be understood if the underlying building style is European. Alternatively, the dimensions for a building code may be different, creating havoc with the relative placement of streets, buildings and so on.
But if no buildings have yet been placed in a map, how hard can it be to change the code from North American to European style? I understand that the building style specification is in something called the header. Why not give users the capability of changing something this simple?
I agree, but I'd like to expand on it a bit:
How about being able to convert all maps. For example, if there was a function to change the map type, and it happens that there are American style buildings on the map, they all get removed during the conversion process.
Still can't get over the fact that we can't combine sets though
Yeah I know, I'm whining.