Finally... terrain and parcels for Alpine Meadows :)

Forum to discuss and coordinate the expansion of the CDS and the redevelopment of existing territories.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Moon Adamant
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Finally... terrain and parcels for Alpine Meadows :)

Post by Moon Adamant »

Hello everyone,

Apologizing again for the delay, here follow two proposals for terrain and parcels for Alpine Meadows.

Some comments on the two proposals:

Terrain is common to both. I tried to follow Rose's idea of terraces to the outmost. I believe that terrain can be tinkered still - but ON the sim - to eventually make the terraces walls a bit steeper at some points. I am publishing two views, one showing the level lines (5 m height) and the other a mesh (sort of).

Also in consideration as regards terrain:
- Insertion of roads from NFS and CN at 148m and 33 m high.
- need to meet the corner of the river in CN, at 20 m high. My idea there is to make a bit of backwater and allow the river to go on in the neighbouring sims.
- the need to make a water line down the whole sim. This will have to be perfected in place. Also for consideration, how is the river born up in Neufreistadt.

As for the two proposals next:

- to simplify, i made parcels up to 4500 m2. (or i would never finish moving little 16m2 squares up and down :) These can be subdivided to accomodate a larger range of parcel sizes in most cases, with a bit more of waste in access alleys. I also made the most regular plots i could (again, those little squares :)
- i also considered the need to link to the future two neighbouring sims, east and west.

Exp9 is a proposal for single prim plots. It has in my opinion the following disavantages:
- need to protect the river by a very strict covenant, as it falls in some of the parcels.
- road isn't very pretty and takes a good bit of public land
- ratio private/public land is quite high (though part of the public land can be sold as prim lots).
- some of the plots don't have a high useful area, namely, those where the river falls and some that need to encompass high-slope terrain.
- there is no room left for the skiing proposal.
I also think (really personal opinion here) that it is too rigid and it shows :)

Exp10 is a proposal for double prim plots. In my opinion it has the following advantages over Exp9:
- plots are 'floating' in the sim. This allows us to evade the river and the trickier terrain, effectively looking for the best location for plots. This also allow us to keep terrain buffers between the plots, thus controlling the appearance of landscape better, and as a whole.
- road takes less space (as it needs to reach less plots) and also can be more plastic.
- ratio public/private prims is very good, similar to CN's.
- there's room left for a ski track and/or ski paths for cross country.

These proposals are here for discussion and bettering up - they're really just a leg up. So looking forward to hear your comments!

http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... 20copy.jpg
http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... 20copy.jpg
http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... 0table.jpg
http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... 20copy.jpg
http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... 0table.jpg

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

I must confess that I liked Jon's terrain map better. I realize using a more strictly terraced plan may be advisable or even necessary to maximize saleable land, especially if we don't double prim the sim, but Jon's approach struck me as more natural looking, and the very terraced plan looks to me more like what the land might look like after significant agricultural manipulation.

Just my $L5 ,of course.

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

I think I still like the "middle.raw" that Jon posted best. I like the idea of double prim lots, but I think that we should limit them to about 2k in size. Since they are double lots that is going to mean double cost.

Rose Springvale
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:29 am

Post by Rose Springvale »

Thank you Moon, for your work on this. I think both are workable, and am excited about the possibility of bigger lots with more prims in CDS.

One thing that occurs to me is that some of us... well Jeremy and I to be precise, might be able to move our prim hungry structures into the new sim, freeing up more lots in Colonia Nova to meet some of the demand for "smaller" lots. Just moving the law office building does that.

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

Since we are going ahead with the terrain in plan exp10, possibly with different plots, I’d like to make several comments.

I agree with Moon that setting the sim so that each resident gets twice the number of prims (and leaving uninhabited buffers to make up the space) makes a lot of sense. If a resident buys a plot of X meters square, they really get the equivalent of a plot of 2X meters square, but are only able to build on half of it. This will give the designers the freedom to create a much better landscape and put highly sloped areas inside the buffer regions.

When I first heard about this plan, Moon told me that her intention was just to set out large blocks of land to establish the prim budget, several of which would then be divided into smaller plots for sale. A small group of members have expressed that they strongly oppose any subdivision into smaller plots. This question has not been put up for a vote.

1. Since the Monastery has asked to buy one of the plots in the new sim, this plan, if unmodified, provides for only six additional citizens. That means all the work (including software development, modeling, mapping, drawing up covenants, etc) that has and will go into sim development will benefit only a handful of people and not expand our population significantly.

2. Because all the plots are very large, ranging from 3840 m2 (equivalent to 7680 m2) to 4480 m2 (equivalent to 8960 m2), and because the bordering plots on both NFS and CN are large, this plan creates a space that is limited to only the most wealthy of our citizens and excludes small holders.

There is a good chance that many of the volunteers working on (or who would work on) the new sim development will not be able to afford land in the sim they are building. We will be excluding all but the wealthiest of our population from full participation in the project.

3. Our covenants currently limit each resident to owning no more than 4096 meters square in any one sim. This policy insures that we use our space to build our population and provides for diversity.

The largest plot in the plan, without subdivision, is 4480 meters square. Given double prim allocation this is really the equivalent of 8960 m2 in the other sims. This proposal more than doubles the prior limit, and makes a few new citizens very prim rich. Basically this is a major change in the way the CDS works, and as such we all should have the chance to voice our opinion on it.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

Valid points, Jon, and certainly much to think about. OTOH, this model all but compels this sim to be rural space. I think we need some of that, so CDS doesn't turn into a large (albeit carefully themed) sprawl. If you're going to have a sim that's not population dense, aren't large lots kind of inevitable so the sim will pay for itself.

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2wd3l81f]Valid points, Jon, and certainly much to think about. OTOH, this model all but compels this sim to be rural space. I think we need some of that, so CDS doesn't turn into a large (albeit carefully themed) sprawl. If you're going to have a sim that's not population dense, aren't large lots kind of inevitable so the sim will pay for itself.[/quote:2wd3l81f]True, Claude, we do not want a density higher than the NFS valley, but none of the valley plots are more than 2150 m2 (with single prims), and many are considerably smaller. This sim starts with more than half its land in buffer area, and those buffers cannot be built up, so average plot sizes similar to the NFS valley would allow the sim to be half as dense. Fortunately we can solve these problems with some mild changes that keep us far below NFS valley density. As I see it, there are (at least) two solutions:

1. We could offer a mix of plot sizes. For example, take each of the six open plots and divide it into two or three uneven sections, with some of those sections being small plots, some medium sized, and other large.

2. Create one or more clusters or "village" areas with a total of eight or so smaller house plots somewhere in the sim. You can create lovely effects with smaller houses that cluster where houses would naturally be denser in real life, and in this way leave larger open spaces.

User avatar
Moon Adamant
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:26 pm

Post by Moon Adamant »

As Dnate asked, here follows a map of terrain only.

Mind that:

- The insertion from the two roads from CN and NFS is marked by the thick grey lines, at 33 m and 148 m high respectively.

- I have left the grid to help, each square is 4*4 m.

http://temp.betatechnologies.info/Moon/ ... p_grid.jpg

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

I don't see anything wrong with the bigger plots, mostly. I think we can tweek them so it is slightly different. We would also place a strict limit of 1 plot per person in this sim. I think having a rural area is a good thing. The down side is that means that you are only going to have a few owners. Things like this fall because of the overwhelming desire to connect CN and NFS. If we didn't have to do that, we may have gone with a theme expansion rather then having a semi-new theme. Expanding either sim would allow for a much more dense population.

Basically, what I am saying is that go with the bigger plots in AM, (BTW, do we have an official name yet?) because I would venture to guess that there would be a bit of migration from CN and NFS. Maybe those that have more then one plot in those sims will be selling and moving to the new sim. We will still expand, because these people own more then 1 plot currently. Then we can focus on the next sim. I figure if we start now, we may be able to get the next one by Jan.

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Post by Jon Seattle »

Dnate Mars wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with the bigger plots, mostly. I think we can tweek them so it is slightly different. We would also place a strict limit of 1 plot per person in this sim. I think having a rural area is a good thing. The down side is that means that you are only going to have a few owners. Things like this fall because of the overwhelming desire to connect CN and NFS. If we didn't have to do that, we may have gone with a theme expansion rather then having a semi-new theme. Expanding either sim would allow for a much more dense population.

I don't see how the things connect. You could even take the same land area and create a variety of plot sizes keep a total of six residents if you like, or add just a few. The only excuse for these enormous plots is the desire to lock out small land owners.

Dnate Mars wrote:

Basically, what I am saying is that go with the bigger plots in AM, (BTW, do we have an official name yet?)

If the plots stay the same size, I would propose we name it "Mansions and Estates".

Salzie Sachertorte
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:00 am

Manse sim

Post by Salzie Sachertorte »

I have to agree with Jon - I really don't see why the CDS is expending its resources and the good will of its volutneers to build what is essentially a private sim for the seven folks lucky enough to land one of the plots.

Makes me wonder by what system the lucky seven shall be selected.

/Cynicism

edited to add:

I think this sim should be a void to avoid these problems and to handle the altitude changes from NFS to other sims.

Last edited by Salzie Sachertorte on Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Post by Dnate Mars »

Jon Seattle wrote:
Dnate Mars wrote:

I don't see anything wrong with the bigger plots, mostly. I think we can tweek them so it is slightly different. We would also place a strict limit of 1 plot per person in this sim. I think having a rural area is a good thing. The down side is that means that you are only going to have a few owners. Things like this fall because of the overwhelming desire to connect CN and NFS. If we didn't have to do that, we may have gone with a theme expansion rather then having a semi-new theme. Expanding either sim would allow for a much more dense population.

I don't see how the things connect. You could even take the same land area and create a variety of plot sizes keep a total of six residents if you like, or add just a few. The only excuse for these enormous plots is the desire to lock out small land owners.

That is so untrue. It is still part of the CDS is it not? What I want is to not have a ton of builds filling up the land. The best way to do that is to have bigger plots. We need a build buffer between the 2 sims. On the one side, we have NFS main city wall, the other side we have 4 plots that are themeless. We don't need a hillside city between these 2 thing. If things had gone differently, I would have rather had a void between them.

This sim must not have a lot of plots, it will ruin the effect I think that most everyone envisioned. This sim will be a sim that is meant to be looked at more then lived in. Get this sim sold, and we will work on the next one. We can make that one an urban center like NFS and CN are.

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Re: Manse sim

Post by Dnate Mars »

Salzie Sachertorte wrote:

I have to agree with Jon - I really don't see why the CDS is expending its resources and the good will of its volutneers to build what is essentially a private sim for the seven folks lucky enough to land one of the plots.

Makes me wonder by what system the lucky seven shall be selected.

/Cynicism

If there is a demand for more of the open double sims with just a few plots, that makes it easy to decide on what the next sim will be.

As for building, the only building that really needs to be done is a river and roads. That isn't all that hard.

Salzie Sachertorte
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:00 am

Re: Manse sim

Post by Salzie Sachertorte »

Dnate Mars wrote:

If there is a demand for more of the open double sims with just a few plots, that makes it easy to decide on what the next sim will be.

As for building, the only building that really needs to be done is a river and roads. That isn't all that hard.

So, you are going to cater to the rich?

Dnate Mars
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am

Re: Manse sim

Post by Dnate Mars »

Salzie Sachertorte wrote:
Dnate Mars wrote:

If there is a demand for more of the open double sims with just a few plots, that makes it easy to decide on what the next sim will be.

As for building, the only building that really needs to be done is a river and roads. That isn't all that hard.

So, you are going to cater to the rich?

We will cater to demand.

Post Reply

Return to “Sim and City Planning”