Will Skylines avoid the poor elevation handling of Sim City?
- Thread starter unmerged(344448)
- Start date
-
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.
SimCity has improved on this but it hasnt been completely eradicated. But yea, hopefully the ground is leveled between roads & Buildings.
San Francisco is a good example of how it should appear, it is also safe to say that driving a manual is a pain in the ass
San Francisco is a good example of how it should appear, it is also safe to say that driving a manual is a pain in the ass
Heh, that actually looks pretty nice compared to vanilla SC4. What mods are you using?
I remember the ridiculous stuff you'd sometimes see in SC4, like a gigantic stadium or airport supported by a gigantic blob of concrete or something.
I'm talking about this, which just looks miserable:
Well, that's actually pretty good.
The thing I see they should improve (and hopefully the house/terrain generation algorythm of cities skyline will have considered that) is that terrains should always be aligned with the adjacent street which doesn't seem to be the case in that screenshot and that's precisely what makes it look horrendous.
It's strange people assume SC4, it's as if they can't believe anyone would be playing the latest version
Actually thinking on it since I bought SC5 in a sale earlier this year (after the offline play was allowed) I think I've played CitiesXL much more often.
There's something about SC5 that doesn't make me want to go back to it as much.
Is that SC5? I never played the game but I guess that close up shot doesn't really look like the other screenshots of the game I've seen. It looks like a cleaned up version of SC4, especially the roads and the cars in the driveways. Plus SC4 didn't handle elevation changes well either.
I'm talking about this, which just looks miserable:
Actually, the road slope doesn't look bad AT ALL! At least compared to CXL and SC4 without the extreme slope mod.
I hope CO will put some effort in smoothness of roads and put some road slope gradient restrictions. (like <5 or <10%)... and such.
I'm especially concerned about this:
we definetly need slope restrictions. maybe make them higher than in real life, but find a good middle between realism and gameplay.
Maybe we shouldn't have angle restrictions. Sometime you just want to build cities with weird and unrealistic roads
Sc5 looks awful on hills, you can end up with near vertical slopes that somehow have vehicles above/below them. Sometimes the vehicles are hovering, sometimes they clip through the slope. The parked vehicles appear horizontal no matter what the slop they are parked on. The hilly streets themselves look ok, apart from the occasional huge concrete retaining walls with no railings to stop people falling to their death. The building plots in sc5 have to be flat and are built at whatever hight the terrain is at the centre of the plot. Around the edge of the plot is a narrow 'skirt' which slopes to meet the surrounding land, often resulting in crazy steep driveways. Also, look between the houses in the bottom right, there is a giant jagged wall of terrain between every house because the skirt is sloping to the original terrain height and not the height of the adjacent plot.
Then there was sc4's attempt at hills, which could result in crazy distorted lots with tiny shacks built on 10 storey high foundations with no possible access to the front door and 45 degree swimming pools. Either that or a huge retaining wall 10 storeys high across a parking lot entrance, but somehow cars still manage to enter.
CIM 2 looked a bit better on hills, helped by the fact that the buildings are plopped on the terrain rather than having a plot of land around them. You could still end up with hovering front doors though, it would be nice if the game could raise/lower buildings so that the door is level with terrain, or they could add steps to the front door.
The problem all city builders have suffered on hills is that all the buildings have been designed to sit on flat terrain. In real life buildings are adapted to the terrain. For example, my house is on top of a steep hill. It is two storeys high at the front but three storeys high at the back, so the front door is essentially on the middle floor.
Then there was sc4's attempt at hills, which could result in crazy distorted lots with tiny shacks built on 10 storey high foundations with no possible access to the front door and 45 degree swimming pools. Either that or a huge retaining wall 10 storeys high across a parking lot entrance, but somehow cars still manage to enter.
CIM 2 looked a bit better on hills, helped by the fact that the buildings are plopped on the terrain rather than having a plot of land around them. You could still end up with hovering front doors though, it would be nice if the game could raise/lower buildings so that the door is level with terrain, or they could add steps to the front door.
The problem all city builders have suffered on hills is that all the buildings have been designed to sit on flat terrain. In real life buildings are adapted to the terrain. For example, my house is on top of a steep hill. It is two storeys high at the front but three storeys high at the back, so the front door is essentially on the middle floor.
I've thought about this problem before, and one of the more elegant solutions I've seen partly implemented in some games, is extending the foundation of the building below the ground. Here's a quick example I've mocked up:
On flat ground only some, (or none at all) of the foundation/basement would show, but when placed on sloped terrain, the foundation would show. This would allow the building to contour to the ground instead of altering the ground mesh to meet the building.
In the past these kind of polygon collisions would have caused issues, but as I understand it, modern engines don't usually have a problem doing this. The real issue is that the foundations sections would be still be rendered by the GPU even if they're hidden completely below the ground. This could slow down processing time possibly taking a hit on the FPS.
On flat ground only some, (or none at all) of the foundation/basement would show, but when placed on sloped terrain, the foundation would show. This would allow the building to contour to the ground instead of altering the ground mesh to meet the building.
In the past these kind of polygon collisions would have caused issues, but as I understand it, modern engines don't usually have a problem doing this. The real issue is that the foundations sections would be still be rendered by the GPU even if they're hidden completely below the ground. This could slow down processing time possibly taking a hit on the FPS.
I've thought about this problem before, and one of the more elegant solutions I've seen partly implemented in some games, is extending the foundation of the building below the ground. Here's a quick example I've mocked up:
On flat ground only some, (or none at all) of the foundation/basement would show, but when placed on sloped terrain, the foundation would show. This would allow the building to contour to the ground instead of altering the ground mesh to meet the building.
In the past these kind of polygon collisions would have caused issues, but as I understand it, modern engines don't usually have a problem doing this. The real issue is that the foundations sections would be still be rendered by the GPU even if they're hidden completely below the ground. This could slow down processing time possibly taking a hit on the FPS.
That's the same solution I had as well!
Although, that would only solve that problem for buildings with extended front lawns. What would be the solution for buildings with entry doors at the edge of the lot, unless those types of buildings can't be built on slopes?