Of course Spiffing Brit creates a city where the residential and the commercial/industrial sections are separated by a day of public transit that costs $96 to take.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Of course Spiffing Brit creates a city where the residential and the commercial/industrial sections are separated by a day of public transit that costs $96 to take.
I've actually created this in Cities Skyline I by accident and in a city that actually looks normal from the outside.
The base game is absolutely horrible with traffic management with no ability to finely tune lanes and cars will just jam up and not stick to their lanes or take the intended way to travel.
I was faced with a city of constant traffic jams so rather than fix the traffic, I just spread out the cars by surface area until all the traffic was seemingly no-longer jammed up. Unfortunately it takes hours for someone to get to a destination since they have to go through byzantine loops of roundabouts, highways around the map, and via underground tunnels to actually reach a destination that is only a few blocks away by walking. Actually that sounds like real city planning...
I like that the citizens just don't seem to care it takes days to get to work
For a while I was hooked on watching videos of guys fixing traffic for cities viewers would send him, they'd use some mods that let you configure things like crazy.. super impressive to see a gridlocked city become free flowing.
What a weird future we live in.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Traffic is the big reason I just can't get into modern city builders. I love SimCity on the SNES, SimCity 2000 and 3000 on the PC, but after that they just seemed to turn into traffic management sims with the city itself being secondary
The Following User Says Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
I played Cities: Skylines 2 on a PC equipped with an i9 9900k and an RTX 3080, a rig that's perfectly capable of solid performance when it comes to even the most technically demanding games out there. Still I found myself needing to drop the settings not just down to medium, or even to low, but to very low in order to get frame rates that exceed 30 frames-per-second with any regularity. Forget the 'Can it run Crysis?' meme, because PC gamers are about to start using 'Can it run Cities: Skylines 2?' as the new benchmark of top-line gaming power.
I played Cities: Skylines 2 on a PC equipped with an i9 9900k and an RTX 3080, a rig that's perfectly capable of solid performance when it comes to even the most technically demanding games out there. Still I found myself needing to drop the settings not just down to medium, or even to low, but to very low in order to get frame rates that exceed 30 frames-per-second with any regularity. Forget the 'Can it run Crysis?' meme, because PC gamers are about to start using 'Can it run Cities: Skylines 2?' as the new benchmark of top-line gaming power.
To be fair any 9th Gen Intel CPU is going to bottleneck a 3080. I recently upgraded my CPU for this exact reason, it was becoming an issue in many games for me
From what I'm reading around the interwebs, you'll get much better performance out of the game if you turn off things like depth of field, motion blur, vsync.
__________________
"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity" -Abraham Lincoln
From what I'm reading around the interwebs, you'll get much better performance out of the game if you turn off things like depth of field, motion blur, vsync.
Camera effects like motion blur and chromatic aberration should be turned off for all games. I don’t know why you’d want your game to look like it’s being viewed via a camera.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DownInFlames For This Useful Post:
Camera effects like motion blur and chromatic aberration should be turned off for all games. I don’t know why you’d want your game to look like it’s being viewed via a camera.
Yup, I always turn that crap off. Just makes games look worse
Getting about 16-18 fps on medium settings on a 100K population city. You can download some benchmark cities from a few places online to test it out. The game is kind of ugly... there's an ugly filter/ugly lighting luts on the city. In Cities I, there was the ability to change the lighting theme for something that better fits your taste but there's nothing in this game. Everything is a shade of depressing brownish yellow tint and dull grass. The buildings look brutish and the engine doesn't do anything to create variety in buildings so you get many of the same buildings side by side and it look awful.
I've seen creators employ strategies to ensure this doesn't happen through careful zoning and making sure they don't have the same size plots side by side but that's honestly way too much work.
Cities Skylines looks like a place I would want to live in and this game makes cities look like places where I would be depressed lol.
Performance is decent for me but my biggest complaint is definitely just that the game is pretty ugly. I checked probably 5 times to make sure it was running at the right resolution, everything is just a little blurry and crappy looking
Edit: Nevermind, my fault. I left Depth of Field on, like an idiot
there's an ugly filter/ugly lighting luts on the city. In Cities I, there was the ability to change the lighting theme for something that better fits your taste but there's nothing in this game. Everything is a shade of depressing brownish yellow tint and dull grass. The buildings look brutish and the engine doesn't do anything to create variety in buildings so you get many of the same buildings side by side and it look awful.