![]() Have you manually set (some setting in WINE I guess) for the game to run on just a single-core of your CPU?, it's the #1 cause of CTDs under Windows. But if it was close, I think personally if you want to play with mods, rather than just install a handful, it's just less hassle to run the game in Windows. I think at this point, that special version of Wineskin would be worth checking out, if you manage to get SC4 working, you can compare for yourself performance. I saw no dent in performance when I upgraded to a QHD (2560x1440) display and was playing either, which is nice. I've played SC4 a lot, and the performance of the Mac version, considering I've only a late 2012 mini running on an SSD, with 8GB RAM, but otherwise just the 2.5Ghz i5 model but possibly more exceptional and common among Macs, only the Intel HD4000 onboard graphics. Yes I do find cities lagging a little around 80k sims or so on large maps, but that's with a lot of mods and full NAM install. My suspicions are that the 64-bit version seems to support multi-core to some extent. That said, it's not a million miles performance-wise from when I ran SC4 under bootcamp on a late 2009 Mini, aside from the faster single-core performance, which helps the game's simulators to keep up a little longer before lag sets in, you don't really see the benefits of hefty spec machines at all. But all systems will succumb as cities and your region gets larger, more so if you have a lot mods installed. I run a i7 4790k/32GB Ram/NVidia 960 4GB/1TB NVME SSD system and frankly SC4 simply can't begin to take advantage of that sort of hardware. I'd like to build up a stash of potentially hundreds of customs buildings to really get an experience that feels different graphically would it be prohibitive to edit hundreds of buildings in this way? How long does it take per building, and can it be automated at all? I suppose I should just look at the instructions you linked to lolīut I was also interested in trying the Windows version because I heard it can run faster than the Mac one is that your experience? I get slowdowns occasionally on Mac. I've gotten used to most of the other little annoyances (using Filejuicer for mods, etc)-the only other big hangup is the nitelights. But I was also interested in trying the Windows version because I heard it can run faster than the Mac one is that your experience? I get slowdowns occasionally on Mac. Using Parallels or Boot Camp feels like a lot of work. Hard to believe they haven't updated Wineskin for 64-bit after all this time. Much thanks for this I'm going to try this new Day and Nite mod now! If you didn't have lots of buildings to alter, it's not that much work to change the IDs so they work. Similarly, it's not impossible to have nitelights on custom buildings on a Mac, but since the Mac version lacks the two official SC4 patches, you have to use a particular GID for it to work. That said, I looked at the Day and Nite mod, I believe I have fixed the Float32 error that was causing it to CTD, I'll update the version on the STEX, but for now you can download it here. I personally feel that the Mac version is just too much effort for serious modded play, hence I keep it just for testing/light mac-related modding personally. ![]() That said, I looked at the Day and Nite mod, I believe I have fixed the Float32 error that was causing it to CTD, I'll update the version on the STEX :edit: Done, re-download if you need the fix. You'd need to have Steam installed under whatever "Windows" system you intended to make use of, to do so. I don't think Steam will allow you to download a Windows game from the Mac Client. Otherwise you could go down the path of using a Virtualised OS, using something like Parallels, if going this route you need something that supports DirectX/Virtualised GPUs though. ![]() Your best bet would be to make use of BootCamp to create a Windows Partition for playing SC4. Are you using Catalina or Big Sur? If so then WineSkin no longer functions under Catalina or later due to it's 64-bit requirement.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |