That's solved, the lot "shadow" doesn't cover the part of the moved lot that was the road, so there is actually less space for the lot in front than it appears in nhood view.

Has the moved lot been changed and saved since the move?

Have you verified that the move did not change the (flat) terrain at the front of the moved lot, so that it is no longer flat?

Have you removed the road tiles from the moved lot? If not, could you try removing them, to see whether this helps?

Could you try setting U10=0 for the moved lot, to see whether that changes the games ability to place other lots around it?

No other thoughts right now.

So .. there is nobody here who can make sense of the crash logs that have been posted, is that right? Would it make sense if I post them at MATY to see if JMP or someone can give us a clue? I know you don't want to spread the discussion over 500 threads but .. if the crash is because of something in the lots (not a game bug), and people start redistributing lots now, it would be really stupid if it turns out later on that it would have been fixable.


aelflaed: In my opinion, redistributing shrunk lots (and other possibly broken stuff) is OK in principle as long as they're clearly labeled experimental and testers wanted etc. This is *mod*ts2 after all. I haven't had a single "this doesnt work you suck" post yet, much to my relief =).

On one hand, if we upload more of these lots, the discussion becomes less manageable; on the other hand, the more uploads there are, the more testers we have. I for one would be very interested to see if lots built by other people exhibit the same behaviour as mine -- right now it's only my lots that have been tested (unless I missed something), but who knows if the crash isn't due to something that I do.

I'd say we should cross-reference our uploads in any case: PM me when yours is up and I'll add a link, and link to mine, so that if people have a problem they can find out for themselves if it's specific to one lot or all of them. There is a "known issues" checklist in my Backdoor Lane thread that you can copy or link to (distinction between general issues like the "vanishing front yard" and actual shrunk lots issues). Please feel free to copy+paste from my posts if you want to (regarding testing, feedback etc -- I went through those texts a couple of times yesterday so they should hopefully be OK now).

Backdoor Lane 42:
http://www.modthesims2.com/showthread.php?t=254042
General issues:
http://www.modthesims2.com/showthre...042#post1804517
Row house tutorial:
http://www.modthesims2.com/showthread.php?t=254032


I just hope that there won't be any shrunk lot uploads by people who aren't even aware of possible problems .. that might become a bit of a mess.


ETA: I just looked at the numbers and the warning labels in the Backdoor Lane upload seem to do their job -- we don't need to be too afraid of people inadvertently messing up their game, I think. The Backdoor Lane thread has 3.500 views and only 500 downloads, which is extremely low (normally the download count is always 40%-50% of the number of views) .. to me this means that people do read the warning and decide they don't want it.

A lot with U10=0 has no road. Therefore, it will never be able to snap to a road. Which means that it will never be able to be removed from the lot catalog. This is the reason that I have been avoiding setting U10=0 when moving a lot using the LotExpander. As long as the (unused) road does not get in the way, it's safer to keep the correct U10 value.

Have you tried running the LotExpander and not specifying any size change, but leaving "move portals" checked? I'm not 100% sure that this will work, but it's worth a try and shouldn't hurt. If it doesn't work, then I think that there must be a residual check in the LE which doesn't move the portals unless the size is changed - an easy thing for me to fix.

I'm still processing the results of all of these tests. Thanks to everyone for all of the work... sounds like the move feature is basically working as expected, but we stilll have some issues.

As long as people agree that the existing interface is adequate, there's no need to change anything. I'm only trying to make things as clear as possible.

How about a generic warning on the Advanced Features screen which warns users that changing any of these values can cause issues with your lot? I hate those pop-up messages anyway. I've been unable to find any way to change the font size to make them readable.

Could you try temporarily setting U10=0, to see whether the lot "shadow" accurately reflects the lot size, including the previous road space? Thanks.

Yes to everything above, and no change. You'll probably be pleased to hear that as I know you don't want to unset U10. In fact I am not having any problems that appear to be directly related to U10 being non-zero, even though I unset it in my previous experiments.

I can't help thinking the answer is somehow in the fact the lot can be moved directly in front of the moved lot, but acts as if some tiles to the right of it are the problem. Remember I already moved it right, and the places I can't put the lot from the bin are not where any lot was earlier. It's as if something on the moved lot "contaminated" some space nearby, but not so badly that it can't take a virgin lot template. I can understand you thinking there is a levelling problem, but I checked both the moved lot and the lot I was trying to place (I also tried to place other made and saved lots to ensure it wasn't just a dodgy lot). And I am completely sure I am using totally flat terrain.

That's fine by me as long as I don't have to "answer" it

Quick addition regarding the 7PM crash: some (niol; Inge?) mentioned it may be related to the streetlight at the edge of the lot -- but in my game (no hacks/lighting mods), the outdoor lights are turned on at 6PM and not 7PM (yes, it's silly, was Maxis' idea not mine). It could still be that the game does something with the light at 7PM, but the point where it gets turned on is earlier than that.

Yes, you are welcome to do this. I have many things which I am working on and have not spent much of time on these intermittent crashes. But, I am still hopeful that they are related to something in the lot package itself, since that type of problem should be fixable.

By the way, I'm not sure that I agree that I can't "make sense of the crash logs". It's more accurate to say that I haven't attempted to. It's a lot of work, but not impossible. I am a skilled programmer and do not believe that this is beyond my abilities. I'm sorry if I sound overly sensitive, but I do take pride in my skills and the quality of my work.

Note that niol also presented a good list of things that we can do to try to find the problem.

That said, I'm very happy to have other people trying to narrow down this issue. It would be wonderful if people could point me to an exact record type, instance, or version which was causing the crashes.

You are correct, I really don't want to have a lot of threads on a lot of websites that I need to monitor. So, please be sure to make it clear that this is an unsupported test version of the shrinking code, that we know that there are intermittent crashing problems, and that we are soliciting solutions on one thread at MATY.

Would you be willing to summarize any useful feeback (and cull the inevitable insults) and direct it here? It would also be nice if you could give us all a link to the MATY thread, for anyone who wants to monitor the discussion.

I agree. I'm very concerned about this getting out of control. A lot of people have download version 1.2.7.8. Although I try to warn people in the download post that this is an unsupported test version, it's clear that not all of them have bothered to do their research on the lot expander before downloading it.

I know that Doc Doofus has posted an upload at MATY, without much explanation and with no apparent warnings:
http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/s...?topic=10087.25

I have no idea where else he or other people may be uploading these lots.

I'm glad to hear that. If you have any suggestions on how I can increase the warnings on the shrinking code, please let me know. I am concerned that a lot of the people who have download the lot shrinker may be unaware that they are supposed to be testing the code.

Which reminds me, the tutorial says "1.2.7.8 is the latest stable test version". Perhaps we need more dire warnings?

OMG sorry. I didn't mean it that way. Please do keep in mind that I'm speaking a foreign language here. I'm *very* fluent, but subtleties do sometimes escape me.

I meant this with regard to the outcome, not the ability: say I look at an English text (perhaps I only have 5 minutes to do so) and go "I'm not sure what the artist wants to say" .. this is different from "I don't speak English". Do you know what I mean? I'm assuming you looked at the logs, they didn't tell you anything, and you have lots of things to do other than just worrying about this one particular crash related to one specific use of the LotExpander. It may be a detail problem that's not very important for the overall development (but it is important for folks who want to share shrunk lots with a clear conscience -- again, one specific use out of many).

(Also, from all I hear about Maxian coding, being a good programmer may not have very much do to with being able to figure out their code .. it often sounds like it requires the skills of a spaghetti wrestler or somehting, not a coder =).


Yes, the fact that the lots sometimes crash (and we're not sure why) would be the entire reason I'd post there, so that part would be pretty obvious I believe. I'll try to gather all important info -- reports of the crashes, comments (like niol's list, and what you said about .. record types .. instances .. all of which goes way over my head), links to the lots they happened on --, so that it's clear what the current status is. Not planning to do a "help! this dosent work!!1!", in other words =).

Also, I don't expect this to become "talk of the town" there, with threads all over the place .. I'd be happy to get one reply like "looks like this is related to xyz in some way" and maybe that will help you to narrow down the problem. Or even just "those logs aren't saying anything specific, you could do x y or z to test this further". Or something.

I just think MATY might be of help, because posting a log and someone (JMP most of the time) commenting on it seems to be standard procedure there, and I don't see that happen very often here on mts2. But maybe that's just because I don't usually frequent the actual modding forums -- if you have an idea where else to post (that you would prefer), please tell me.


Yes, of course. Will do so.


There's two different concerns here, in my eyes: one is that folks get 1.2.7.8 without realising it's a pre-release version, never check back, and possibly screw up *their own* lots with it. I think in your download post the warnings are pretty clear though .. you can't be much clearer about this. Except that if you want people to *test* it (in the sense of post feedback), you might want to state that more clearly -- right now it only says "use at your own risk".

In any case there's only so much you can do -- at some point it's really *their* fault, not yours, when people d/l something labeled as TEST in big friendly letters and expect it to work like a release version. (That said, if you think my links are worded too "weak" with "latest stable test version", please do let me know what you'd prefer and I'll change it)

The other issue is people uploading shrunk *lots* while the 7pm crash and possible other unknown issues are still unresolved. They have a different target audience I believe -- folks who want to mess around with resizing lots will be generally more aware of the technical basis of the game than those who just want a nice house to play with. Still, test lots make sense, I think -- we wouldn't have got Rascal's report, for example, if there hadn't been a public upload. I for one was about to shrug off my crash as a coincidence until she proved me wrong.

Maybe we should talk to the moderators (I know that v1nd1care is one of the ones in charge of lot uploads -- or has been, in June), to be sure they're aware how experimental this is? We could ask them to only accept lots, for now, made by people who are obviously aware of the issues .. or lots that are clearly labeled as "experimental" .. or somesuch.

At least on mts2 the upload posts are read by a human, and the moderators do talk to each other, so you don't need to worry too much about *this* site I think.


I've seen that, yes. Not your responsibility, I would say .. again, there's only so much you can do. I can post a comment in that thread if you want (about 1.2.7.8 being experimental and please post feedback etc) .. are you more concerned about that lot crashing people's games, or about people blindly d/ling 1.2.7.8?

What you could also do to keep things under control is add a note in the 1.2.7.8 download post and ask people to post a link to any uploads they make using this test version. So that you don't have to feel like you need to chase them down, I mean.

I understand your concerns that people might mistake 1.2.7.8 for a release version and think less of your work if it causes crashes -- but in my eyes that's their own fault, not yours. Right now I think crashes/problems are a good thing (I actually kind of *want* my lot to crash people's games) since they may help to find the root of the problem. I am not at all worried about "your lot sucks" replies in my thread. Not my problem. Even if people go "plasticbox's lots suck in general" -- it's their problem, not mine, if they don't read the label. We have no influence over who downloads our stuff; we all have to live with that.

[roads non-stand.]

OK, one thing I'd like to point out but unrelated to the above experiment is that the road can overlap with the road of an another lot, right?


[chit-chat]

lol, sorry for my inactiveness these 2-3 days... I was fixing my neighbourhood shader mods for BV updates...


aelflaed,

Eek, BV... securom... omg... The damned SecuRom had me restart the game several times in order to have the game run. Sometimes, my PC suddenly can't recognise the DVD-writer, and I've to restart the PC to the DVD-writer. I've never installed Rom simulation software in the OS copy I'm using. So, may burn your stuffs before using BV in your system just in case weird problems it can cause.

Inge's slide show - much more efficient testing than mine - backs up what I observed. Well, the other way around probably, since it's better organised. Anyway, all the lots I tried to place around the moved lots were saved ones, not templates.

Thanks for the portal patch, Inge.


I see the problem. How about locking the other direction when a value is entered for either left or right? There is a similar limitation on the shrink/expand screen already.

Hear, hear! I noted it doesn't appear for one of the options - can't remember which.


Yes, my moved lots have been changed and saved. I'm pretty sure everything is flat. Except the bit where Sumatra distorted the road. The road tiles have been removed on Park South, not on Park East. I can try changing U10 and see what happens...is that still worthwhile? Inge is probably ahead of me by now. What if it does fix the lot shadow, and then is changed back again to allow snapping?

Plasticbox, I think it would be good to have a lot by someone else also being generally used, as you suggest. So unless someone beats me to it, I'll finish one and submit it so we can double check. I have not had any crashed lots, yours or mine, apart from one very early one which is long gone.

Okay, caught up for now.

How about this?

You'll notice that I added disabled checkboxes for the roads. This allows us to have an advanced option to allow the user to add or subtract roads in the future.

Better? Worse? Incomprehensible?

This sounds like a good idea to me. Will you do that, or shall I?

Looks perfectly comprehensible and usable. Just wondering now what is the position on someone who is thinking of expanding on the right and shrinking on the left. It used to say you couldn't do that. Is it ok now? If not, do you have measures in place to prevent it?

7PM CRASH PLZ HELP!!11! thread on MATY:
http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/s...p?topic=10117.0
I'll watch this.


I can do that. I have a bit of time on my hands until Monday, would like to make use of it while I still can =).

Regarding the UI:

On Screen 1 ("ChangeSizeOfLot") it says "viewed from the front road" -- I haven't really kept up with this, but isn't it possible now to have roads on *other* sides than the front? If yes, I'd write "viewed from the front SIDE".

On screen 2 I find the wording "Over the road (only enlarging front yard)" easy to misunderstand -- it sounds like if you check this, your lot will *only* be enlarged on the front (not the sides). How about "Enlarge front yard over the road"?

I disagree on the grounds that when dealing with technical matters it's better not to use one word for two different meanings. In this tool, the front is not a side, because side has its own meaning. Edge would be better maybe. Personally I don't have any difficulty with the existing however.

Now I have had another think about the over-the-road thing, I agree it's not comfortable. But I think it's because that tickbox belongs immediately adjacent to the "Front" expansion input box on the main expansion screen. Yes, strictly speaking it's an advanced option, but the extra obscurity in seperating it from the context it belongs with undoes the good of putting it on an advanced page. I wonder if instead of having an advanced options page, it would be better to have an advanced options *option*, which unlocks/reveals the advanced controls on the screen each is most related to?

Right you are. Didn't think of that. Yes, Edge is probably clearer.

Edit: How about "Viewed from the front"? Less is more, perhaps?


Mootilda, I just PM'd V1nd1care.

This is something that I want to implement, but the code isn't done yet. You should notice that it is impossible to decrease one number while increasing the other side.

This is good news. I don't have any problem with setting U10=0, except that we'd then have to provide people with a method to reset U10 to the correct value - just in case they weren't happy with the results. It's nice if these lots can just be snapped back to the road if a mistake was made.

I don't believe that there's a levelling problem. I'm just trying to rule out the obvious explanations for this behavior. We know that the old LotExpander code occasionally created ridges in the expanded terrain, so I wanted to double check.

Unfortunately, I don't have any other ideas yet. It seems especially odd to me that this problem is offset to the right of the lot.

With the shrink/expand screen, there is a good reason to have both left and right - you can expand in both directions or shrink in both directions. I also intend to implement expanding in one direction and shrinking in the other.

However, it never makes any sense to move both left and right, or both forwards and backwards. Unless we want to implement a LotDancer.

Can you explain why you would like to see both? Do you think that it's confusing to move a negative amount in order to move forwards or to the right? Would a slider make more sense to you? Is there some other issue that I don't understand?

Now that there is an Advanced Features screen, I feel a lot less need for the annoying message boxes. I'm hoping that the warning at the top of the screen is sufficient.

I didn't put in a message box for unchecking the "move portals" option. When Inge first asked for this, it wasn't a big deal because we were only expanding lots. Now that we can shrink lots, people can misplace their portals by unchecking the box, so I suppose it can be a bigger problem.

Still, I hope that people can get their portals back easily by using the (undocumented) unlock feature with the "move portals" option checked. Did you ever try this on your lot with the lost portals?

I thought that setting U10=0 might convince the game to display the correct lot size. If it's useful to allow people to turn off the road, then I just need to be sure to allow them to turn it on again.

[Update:]

I just read the following post on MATY:

Since setting U10=0 corrects the lot outline, I think that the LotExpander should provide this as an option.

I used the term "front road" to distinguish between multiple roads, but I wasn't completely happy with the phrase. If you think that "front side" makes more sense, it's easy to change. Or perhaps just "viewed from the front"?

Yes, I've been wondering how to better rephrase Andi's wording. I like your wording much better.

Please note that if you check this box, then your lot will only be enlarged on the front, not the sides or back. I believe that Andi did this because the road cannot be regenerated by snapping an "over the road" lot to a road. I have no intention of changing this. The only way to get the road correct on this type of lot is to expand the lot on the sides and back as desired, snap the lot to the road in order to regenerate the road, then expand the lot "over the road" in a separate pass.

Which reminds me, we need to test that you cannot shrink a lot "over the road".

[Update:]

Oops. You can shrink a lot "over the road". Guess that I'd better fix that.

Hi, I hope this is the right thread to put these. I was mking a row house, to go behind another king. I shrunk the lot, but accidentily left some stuff on the outer area of the lot. I tried to delete the leftover roof, but it crashed. I expanded it back to normal size. here are some pictures of it afterwards. notice the roof walls on the right side are missing, but not on the left. the top of the foundations are also missing. there are some more obvious things missing.

Oh. Now I'm confused .. if this is so, the old wording would actually be correct (if not very clear)? Maybe it could be made more obvious, "this will enlarge the front yard only", or something (because this is what threw me off -- I thought it meant "(applicable) only (when) enlarging the front yard".

I should stop commenting on stuff I haven't actually tried myself.