Census Repository - Support and Discussion

[rooker1]

I like the phone booth.  I got a chuckle when I first saw it.  It reminds me of Dr. Who.

Robin 

[Gringamuyloca]

Would someone clarify for my pea brain.... 


NetworkAddonMod Traffic Plugin ZP Medium.dat  = RW 3x1 Census Repository Facility 6000.SC4Lot

(RW 3x1 Census Repository Facility 12000.SC4Lot not recommended for NAM Z Medium)

Correct???


Just realized:  3 years ago nothing in the above sentences would have made a bit of sense... WOW, I'm starting to speak Simeese

[RippleJet]

Instead of recommending one of the existing ones, I'm attaching custom ones for all Z Traffic Plugins to this post.

RW_3x1_Census Repository Facility_2400.SC4Lot is compatible with:

• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_Low.dat
• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_ZP_Low.dat

RW_3x1_Census Repository Facility_4000.SC4Lot is compatible with:

• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_Medium.dat
• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_ZP_Medium.dat

RW_3x1_Census Repository Facility_6000.SC4Lot is compatible with:

• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_High.dat
• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_ZP_High.dat

RW_3x1_Census Repository Facility_12000.SC4Lot is compatible with:

• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_Z_Ultra.dat
• NetworkAddonMod_Traffic_Plugin_ZP_Ultra.dat

[Gringamuyloca]

Sweet!

Thanks so much....

(I am constantly amazed at the quality of 'support' on this site... and forever greatful!  )

[RippleJet]

I have now also updated the Census Repository on the LEX to include all those four lots compatible with NAM Z Traffic Plugins.

(I am constantly amazed at the quality of 'support' on this site... and forever greatful!  )

My pleasure! Thank you!

[SC4BOY]

I dl'd your Regional Census Repository item v3 (been using v2 beta) and followed the direction. Have no problem with selecting the proper plugin lot to match the simulator used. Thought I'd mention though that your install says one will be default installed.. my install didn't put any in.. so I guess a tweak to the "install" section of the html doc might be in order.. unless it put it somewhere I couldn't find it..

I'll get back to you after I try it.. I'm sure it will be interesting.. jeje

[SC4BOY]

Yes, and that error will unfortunately appear in numerous Cleanitol files,
as BSC_Essentials.dat was renamed into BSC Essentials.dat with the latest upgrade.


EDIT:
At least the Cleanitol file in this upload on the LEX has now been corrected though

Hope this doesn't look like a thread highjack, but the easy way is to put both variations of the name in the cleanitol file.. I think which name you have to a degree depends on how long its been since you upgraded. The name has varied over recent years.

Just so it isn't a total highjack and while I'm thinking about it I installed the v3 upgrade. The report is as shown. It worked before, so I assume I've simply crossed files somehow.. I'm using simulator z high for now and copied the correct file over I think.

[RippleJet]

Hope this doesn't look like a thread highjack, but the easy way is to put both variations of the name in the cleanitol file.. I think which name you have to a degree depends on how long its been since you upgraded. The name has varied over recent years.

That would mean you would always get a report of a missing dependency. If you do not have the latest version of the Essentials, you'd get a report that BSC Essentials.dat is missing. If you do have the latest version, then you'd get a report that BSC_Essentials.dat is missing.

Just so it isn't a total highjack and while I'm thinking about it I installed the v3 upgrade. The report is as shown. It worked before, so I assume I've simply crossed files somehow..

This is the old version 1 by RalphaelNinja.
In order to remove it, delete the following files:

• CensusRepository_dd41d65.SC4Lot
• CensusRepository_NoConditions.SC4Lot

[SC4BOY]

Gosh.. I'm really sorry.. How'd I miss that? I've never even used the original one.. lol..  It worked before and I ran through the instructions. Perhaps the file order changed on a rename or something and got packed differently.. or...  Maybe I'm getting old...

Regarding the "missing dependency comment" I meant in "cleanitol remove" files.. you're right it would not work on the install and dependency check. In virtually any release a "remove file" probably is prudent as it removes any ambiguity on the "dependency" file.

edit: Hmm.. ok I scanned my files.. and found that I've always had the original 1.2 version file in the plugins.. I suppose I dl'd it during your beta stuff.. anyway it has these files in it:
CensusRepository-0x5ad0e817_0x6dd414f2_0x30000.SC4Model
CensusRepository_dd41d65.SC4lot

I don't  have the other file you mentioned.. should I delete that whole folder?

[RippleJet]

anyway it has these files in it:
CensusRepository-0x5ad0e817_0x6dd414f2_0x30000.SC4Model
CensusRepository_dd41d65.SC4lot

I don't  have the other file you mentioned.. should I delete that whole folder?[/i]

If you want to keep those buildings you already have plopped in your cities (the single tower), then you want to keep CensusRepository-0x5ad0e817_0x6dd414f2_0x30000.SC4Model. Otherwise you'd get brown boxes.

[pierreh]

I feel like a terrible noob while writing this post. I did some searching but no-one else seems to have asked, so here goes:

I downloaded and installed the Census Repository. But I cannot get the Facility to work in any of my cities, because of the CAP constraint. My cities are rather successful, growing properly, nearly all with populations in the hundred thousands (up to 750k for the largest at present), but their various respective CAPs never exceed 20% - far below the 60% for a CAP required when playing at easy difficulty. Is there a fast and easy way to increase a CAP to 60%, so that it will trigger the Facility, without resorting to dirty tricks that will alter the appearance of a city or have even worse effects?

[SC4BOY]

Not sure I understand what you're asking, but there is the one 2x2 1 story plop that is available immediately on building a city in the REWARDS menu.. it takes no cap at all.. Start with that and it will allow you to have full access to the Repository reports.

[RippleJet]

My cities are rather successful, growing properly, nearly all with populations in the hundred thousands (up to 750k for the largest at present), but their various respective CAPs never exceed 20% - far below the 60% for a CAP required when playing at easy difficulty.

That means you're quite successful in providing CAP relief (e.g. parks for residents, plazas for commercial offices),
well in time before hitting the current CAPs.

That also means you won't be offered the full Census Repository Facility and would have to use the Census Repository Vault instead...
...at least for the time being.

The bigger your city becomes, the tighter (percentually closer to 100%) your CAPs will become.
Sooner or later the Census Repository Facility will be offered,
and that's the moment you need to start checking the Census Repository more regularly and see what kind of CAP relief you need to build next.

Is there a fast and easy way to increase a CAP to 60%, so that it will trigger the Facility, without resorting to dirty tricks that will alter the appearance of a city or have even worse effects?

No, but all rewards can be enabled at any time by pressing Ctrl-X and writing the cheat code You don't deserve it.
Once you save your city, exit and re-enter, those rewards will once again not be enabled, so there are no worse effects than that.

[pierreh]

Thanks a lot for both very informative answers!

Yes, I should use the Vault until I am offered the Facility. I did plop the vault in a relatively small city but not in larger ones, somehow I had this wrong idea that the vault was not suited to large cities.

I am also possibly too liberal in providing amenities like parks, plazas etc for my Sims, thus keeping cap values low. I'll be more restrictive and see how this affect the caps. I may also use the rewards cheat. All in all, yet more pleasure playing the game!

[Strategist01]

Well, If you go for the Idea of plopping the Vault in smaller cities, make sure that they have some farms there, as only the vault provides cap relief for farms...or just plop it anywahere, but If you connect a small city to a big city, and want the samller one to have farms, plop enough of the Vaults to satisfy the Cap. Just a little tip

[cogeo]

It may sound easy to make, but is there some sort of civic building that displays the custom query, but without the CAP relief effects? Not everybody wants or needs them, particularly the way they are set. I would instead prefer a usual civic building with a relatively low budget, a proportionate number of employees, and maybe some little landmark effect, if the BAT is really nice (again proportionate to its budget and in line with the other civic buildings), no other effects, and no conditions to get it (build it if your budget allows it and/or you wish to stimulate growth with the extra civic jobs and land value with the landmark effect). That is a "Statistics Office" sort of thing, which the player may elect to plop or not. There might be some criteria to get them, if it's finally a reward, but not really hard to meet, eg 1000 residents. Another idea could be to make it upgradable, like the city hall or the airports, so that you don't have a big and spectacular office in a... village, but this going way too far I think.

[deecee]

It may sound easy to make, but is there some sort of civic building that displays the custom query, but without the CAP relief effects? Not everybody wants or needs them, particularly the way they are set. I would instead prefer a usual civic building with a relatively low budget, a proportionate number of employees, and maybe some little landmark effect, if the BAT is really nice (again proportionate to its budget and in line with the other civic buildings), no other effects, and no conditions to get it (build it if your budget allows it and/or you wish to stimulate growth with the extra civic jobs and land value with the landmark effect). That is a "Statistics Office" sort of thing, which the player may elect to plop or not. There might be some criteria to get them, if it's finally a reward, but not really hard to meet, eg 1000 residents. Another idea could be to make it upgradable, like the city hall or the airports, so that you don't have a big and spectacular office in a... village, but this going way too far I think.

i love this idea!  unfortunately i know absolutely nothing about making anything so there is that.  hopefully someone with the know-how will read this and want to make it - that'd be cool!  i'll have to keep checking in on this.  DeeCee

[RippleJet]

I really like the new Census Repository, especially the addition of the tax rates to the display.  But these rates are truncated to the nearest whole number (at least for the Vault), whereas a difference of just 0.1% can often have a dramatic effect on demand.  Is it possible to have the tax rates displayed to the nearest 0.1%, as shown in your picture, for both the Vault and the Facility?

I have been fighting this since you posted that question, Steve.
The strange thing is that those decimals appeared correctly for some users (including me), but not for others...

Today I've finally updated the Census to version 3.1 with a fix for those decimals...
The solution was a rather crude one, replacing formulae like this one:

• #string.format('%4.1f',game.g_tax_rate_r_low)#%

with formulae like this one:

• #RJCR_TaxRate(game.g_tax_rate_r_low)#

The LUA function RJCR_TaxRate is the crude part of it...
with a dirty, but certain, way of converting a decimal number to a string:

Code Select Expand


function RJCR_TaxRate(SetTax)
if SetTax < 0.05 then return "0.0%" end
if SetTax < 0.15 then return "0.1%" end
if SetTax < 0.25 then return "0.2%" end
if SetTax < 0.35 then return "0.3%" end
if SetTax < 0.45 then return "0.4%" end
if SetTax < 0.55 then return "0.5%" end
if SetTax < 0.65 then return "0.6%" end
if SetTax < 0.75 then return "0.7%" end
if SetTax < 0.85 then return "0.8%" end
if SetTax < 0.95 then return "0.9%" end
if SetTax < 1.05 then return "1.0%" end
if SetTax < 1.15 then return "1.1%" end
if SetTax < 1.25 then return "1.2%" end
if SetTax < 1.35 then return "1.3%" end
if SetTax < 1.45 then return "1.4%" end
if SetTax < 1.55 then return "1.5%" end
if SetTax < 1.65 then return "1.6%" end
if SetTax < 1.75 then return "1.7%" end
if SetTax < 1.85 then return "1.8%" end
if SetTax < 1.95 then return "1.9%" end
if SetTax < 2.05 then return "2.0%" end
if SetTax < 2.15 then return "2.1%" end
if SetTax < 2.25 then return "2.2%" end
if SetTax < 2.35 then return "2.3%" end
if SetTax < 2.45 then return "2.4%" end
if SetTax < 2.55 then return "2.5%" end
if SetTax < 2.65 then return "2.6%" end
if SetTax < 2.75 then return "2.7%" end
if SetTax < 2.85 then return "2.8%" end
if SetTax < 2.95 then return "2.9%" end
if SetTax < 3.05 then return "3.0%" end
if SetTax < 3.15 then return "3.1%" end
if SetTax < 3.25 then return "3.2%" end
if SetTax < 3.35 then return "3.3%" end
if SetTax < 3.45 then return "3.4%" end
if SetTax < 3.55 then return "3.5%" end
if SetTax < 3.65 then return "3.6%" end
if SetTax < 3.75 then return "3.7%" end
if SetTax < 3.85 then return "3.8%" end
if SetTax < 3.95 then return "3.9%" end
if SetTax < 4.05 then return "4.0%" end
if SetTax < 4.15 then return "4.1%" end
if SetTax < 4.25 then return "4.2%" end
if SetTax < 4.35 then return "4.3%" end
if SetTax < 4.45 then return "4.4%" end
if SetTax < 4.55 then return "4.5%" end
if SetTax < 4.65 then return "4.6%" end
if SetTax < 4.75 then return "4.7%" end
if SetTax < 4.85 then return "4.8%" end
if SetTax < 4.95 then return "4.9%" end
if SetTax < 5.05 then return "5.0%" end
if SetTax < 5.15 then return "5.1%" end
if SetTax < 5.25 then return "5.2%" end
if SetTax < 5.35 then return "5.3%" end
if SetTax < 5.45 then return "5.4%" end
if SetTax < 5.55 then return "5.5%" end
if SetTax < 5.65 then return "5.6%" end
if SetTax < 5.75 then return "5.7%" end
if SetTax < 5.85 then return "5.8%" end
if SetTax < 5.95 then return "5.9%" end
if SetTax < 6.05 then return "6.0%" end
if SetTax < 6.15 then return "6.1%" end
if SetTax < 6.25 then return "6.2%" end
if SetTax < 6.35 then return "6.3%" end
if SetTax < 6.45 then return "6.4%" end
if SetTax < 6.55 then return "6.5%" end
if SetTax < 6.65 then return "6.6%" end
if SetTax < 6.75 then return "6.7%" end
if SetTax < 6.85 then return "6.8%" end
if SetTax < 6.95 then return "6.9%" end
if SetTax < 7.05 then return "7.0%" end
if SetTax < 7.15 then return "7.1%" end
if SetTax < 7.25 then return "7.2%" end
if SetTax < 7.35 then return "7.3%" end
if SetTax < 7.45 then return "7.4%" end
if SetTax < 7.55 then return "7.5%" end
if SetTax < 7.65 then return "7.6%" end
if SetTax < 7.75 then return "7.7%" end
if SetTax < 7.85 then return "7.8%" end
if SetTax < 7.95 then return "7.9%" end
if SetTax < 8.05 then return "8.0%" end
if SetTax < 8.15 then return "8.1%" end
if SetTax < 8.25 then return "8.2%" end
if SetTax < 8.35 then return "8.3%" end
if SetTax < 8.45 then return "8.4%" end
if SetTax < 8.55 then return "8.5%" end
if SetTax < 8.65 then return "8.6%" end
if SetTax < 8.75 then return "8.7%" end
if SetTax < 8.85 then return "8.8%" end
if SetTax < 8.95 then return "8.9%" end
if SetTax < 9.05 then return "9.0%" end
if SetTax < 9.15 then return "9.1%" end
if SetTax < 9.25 then return "9.2%" end
if SetTax < 9.35 then return "9.3%" end
if SetTax < 9.45 then return "9.4%" end
if SetTax < 9.55 then return "9.5%" end
if SetTax < 9.65 then return "9.6%" end
if SetTax < 9.75 then return "9.7%" end
if SetTax < 9.85 then return "9.8%" end
if SetTax < 9.95 then return "9.9%" end
if SetTax < 10.05 then return "10.0%" end
if SetTax < 10.15 then return "10.1%" end
if SetTax < 10.25 then return "10.2%" end
if SetTax < 10.35 then return "10.3%" end
if SetTax < 10.45 then return "10.4%" end
if SetTax < 10.55 then return "10.5%" end
if SetTax < 10.65 then return "10.6%" end
if SetTax < 10.75 then return "10.7%" end
if SetTax < 10.85 then return "10.8%" end
if SetTax < 10.95 then return "10.9%" end
if SetTax < 11.05 then return "11.0%" end
if SetTax < 11.15 then return "11.1%" end
if SetTax < 11.25 then return "11.2%" end
if SetTax < 11.35 then return "11.3%" end
if SetTax < 11.45 then return "11.4%" end
if SetTax < 11.55 then return "11.5%" end
if SetTax < 11.65 then return "11.6%" end
if SetTax < 11.75 then return "11.7%" end
if SetTax < 11.85 then return "11.8%" end
if SetTax < 11.95 then return "11.9%" end
if SetTax < 12.05 then return "12.0%" end
if SetTax < 12.15 then return "12.1%" end
if SetTax < 12.25 then return "12.2%" end
if SetTax < 12.35 then return "12.3%" end
if SetTax < 12.45 then return "12.4%" end
if SetTax < 12.55 then return "12.5%" end
if SetTax < 12.65 then return "12.6%" end
if SetTax < 12.75 then return "12.7%" end
if SetTax < 12.85 then return "12.8%" end
if SetTax < 12.95 then return "12.9%" end
if SetTax < 13.05 then return "13.0%" end
if SetTax < 13.15 then return "13.1%" end
if SetTax < 13.25 then return "13.2%" end
if SetTax < 13.35 then return "13.3%" end
if SetTax < 13.45 then return "13.4%" end
if SetTax < 13.55 then return "13.5%" end
if SetTax < 13.65 then return "13.6%" end
if SetTax < 13.75 then return "13.7%" end
if SetTax < 13.85 then return "13.8%" end
if SetTax < 13.95 then return "13.9%" end
if SetTax < 14.05 then return "14.0%" end
if SetTax < 14.15 then return "14.1%" end
if SetTax < 14.25 then return "14.2%" end
if SetTax < 14.35 then return "14.3%" end
if SetTax < 14.45 then return "14.4%" end
if SetTax < 14.55 then return "14.5%" end
if SetTax < 14.65 then return "14.6%" end
if SetTax < 14.75 then return "14.7%" end
if SetTax < 14.85 then return "14.8%" end
if SetTax < 14.95 then return "14.9%" end
if SetTax < 15.05 then return "15.0%" end
if SetTax < 15.15 then return "15.1%" end
if SetTax < 15.25 then return "15.2%" end
if SetTax < 15.35 then return "15.3%" end
if SetTax < 15.45 then return "15.4%" end
if SetTax < 15.55 then return "15.5%" end
if SetTax < 15.65 then return "15.6%" end
if SetTax < 15.75 then return "15.7%" end
if SetTax < 15.85 then return "15.8%" end
if SetTax < 15.95 then return "15.9%" end
if SetTax < 16.05 then return "16.0%" end
if SetTax < 16.15 then return "16.1%" end
if SetTax < 16.25 then return "16.2%" end
if SetTax < 16.35 then return "16.3%" end
if SetTax < 16.45 then return "16.4%" end
if SetTax < 16.55 then return "16.5%" end
if SetTax < 16.65 then return "16.6%" end
if SetTax < 16.75 then return "16.7%" end
if SetTax < 16.85 then return "16.8%" end
if SetTax < 16.95 then return "16.9%" end
if SetTax < 17.05 then return "17.0%" end
if SetTax < 17.15 then return "17.1%" end
if SetTax < 17.25 then return "17.2%" end
if SetTax < 17.35 then return "17.3%" end
if SetTax < 17.45 then return "17.4%" end
if SetTax < 17.55 then return "17.5%" end
if SetTax < 17.65 then return "17.6%" end
if SetTax < 17.75 then return "17.7%" end
if SetTax < 17.85 then return "17.8%" end
if SetTax < 17.95 then return "17.9%" end
if SetTax < 18.05 then return "18.0%" end
if SetTax < 18.15 then return "18.1%" end
if SetTax < 18.25 then return "18.2%" end
if SetTax < 18.35 then return "18.3%" end
if SetTax < 18.45 then return "18.4%" end
if SetTax < 18.55 then return "18.5%" end
if SetTax < 18.65 then return "18.6%" end
if SetTax < 18.75 then return "18.7%" end
if SetTax < 18.85 then return "18.8%" end
if SetTax < 18.95 then return "18.9%" end
if SetTax < 19.05 then return "19.0%" end
if SetTax < 19.15 then return "19.1%" end
if SetTax < 19.25 then return "19.2%" end
if SetTax < 19.35 then return "19.3%" end
if SetTax < 19.45 then return "19.4%" end
if SetTax < 19.55 then return "19.5%" end
if SetTax < 19.65 then return "19.6%" end
if SetTax < 19.75 then return "19.7%" end
if SetTax < 19.85 then return "19.8%" end
if SetTax < 19.95 then return "19.9%" end
if SetTax < 20.05 then return "20.0%" end
end


Download version 3.1 from the same place as before...

It may sound easy to make, but is there some sort of civic building that displays the custom query, but without the CAP relief effects? Not everybody wants or needs them, particularly the way they are set. I would instead prefer a usual civic building with a relatively low budget, a proportionate number of employees, and maybe some little landmark effect, if the BAT is really nice (again proportionate to its budget and in line with the other civic buildings), no other effects, and no conditions to get it

You can use any static landmark or civic building for that purpose.
All that's needed is to change the building's property Query exemplar GUID to 0x4EE8D5D3.

The file RJ - Census_Repository_Model_and_Query_3.1.dat would of course then become a needed dependency.

[cogeo]

I have been fighting this since you posted that question, Steve.
The strange thing is that those decimals appeared correctly for some users (including me), but not for others...

I have found that this depends on the computer's regional settings. If you set the decimal separator to a comma (,) rather than period (.) it works! The output is a string with the comma as the decimal sepaarator, eg 8,5%. I believe this happens because the LUA interpreter attempts to interpret the format string (that '%4.1f') and if the decimal separator is the period, it is... successful at this! Instead it should take the string as a literal and not process it in any way, just pass it to the format function. In the case of comma as decimal separator, it fails to convert the 4.1 clause to a number, so it uses it unchanged, which makes it work!

Today I've finally updated the Census to version 3.1 with a fix for those decimals...
The solution was a rather crude one, replacing formulae like this one:

• #string.format('%4.1f',game.g_tax_rate_r_low)#%

with formulae like this one:

• #RJCR_TaxRate(game.g_tax_rate_r_low)#

Maybe you should post another update (version 3.2?). A possible solution could be to include the percentage sign in the format string (instead of concatenating it to the result of the format() function), so that it can't be converted to a number, eg:

• #string.format('%4.1f%',game.g_tax_rate_r_low)# OR
• #string.format('%4.1f%%',game.g_tax_rate_r_low)#

(check to see which one works)

The LUA function RJCR_TaxRate is the crude part of it...
with a dirty, but certain, way of converting a decimal number to a string:

As a quick test, you can try modifying the RJCR_TaxRate() function as follows:

Code Select Expand


function RJCR_TaxRate(SetTax)
return string.format('%4.1f',SetTax)+'%'
end

(I think the concatenation operator is the plus sign - or the double dot .. ?).
I don't think including the percentage sign in the format string is needed here, as this is real LUA script (not referneced strings), so the LUA interpreter should work normally.

I have a question, doesn't CAM change the neutral tax rate percentages? Then shouldn't we release a CAM-specific version of the script? The population levels and their corresponding neutral tax rates (I mean the ones displayed) are hardcoded in the script.

And another question, concerning the query: is there some reason why the fields displayed are GZWinBtn (buttons) instead of simple text fields (GZWinText)? They recede when they are clicked, and this looks weird. It's not really hard to change this, the UI files are actually XML, it can be copied as XML and changed using any text or XML editor (incl notepad), and then imported again (ie no need to change the fields one by one in the reader's awkward UI properties editor).

You can use any static landmark or civic building for that purpose.
All that's needed is to change the building's property Query exemplar GUID to 0x4EE8D5D3.
The file RJ - Census_Repository_Model_and_Query_3.1.dat would of course then become a needed dependency.

I know this (thanks anyway), what I wanted was to avoid making a new BAT, lol  . I suck with civic buildings and nice facades. I searched the LEX and STEX, but didn't find anything really suitable (to my taste), but I do have some ideas, and I'm going to post some pics.

P.S.: Tage, like your new avatar!

[RippleJet]

Let me return to the LUA decimal tinkering when I've done some testing myself.

I have a question, doesn't CAM change the neutral tax rate percentages? Then shouldn't we release a CAM-specific version of the script? The population levels and their corresponding neutral tax rates (I mean the ones displayed) are hardcoded in the script.

CAM 1.0 doesn't change the neutral tax rate... CAM 2.0 currently does.
If that remains in the release version of CAM 2.0, then a CAM specific C/R will be needed.

And another question, concerning the query: is there some reason why the fields displayed are GZWinBtn (buttons) instead of simple text fields (GZWinText)?

Yes, there is a certain reason for that...
the tiptexts (the text you see when hovering above them) only work with buttons.

P.S.: Tage, like your new avatar!

Thanks!