Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Inventor
#76 Old 27th Oct 2018 at 6:36 PM
Thank you @Quietscheente ! I downloaded the file at the link and replaced my skins package. I now have the missing clothes and hair =D . Which is excellent, as I have a character who could use those dresses!
Advertisement
e3 d3 Ne2 Nd2 Nb3 Ng3
retired moderator
#77 Old 27th Oct 2018 at 7:30 PM
Thank you @Quietscheente !
Glad you fixed it @Devon Aster .
Lab Assistant
#78 Old 2nd Nov 2018 at 12:24 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simsample
@willow_kidd Try replacing the H06 and H06 files in [install location]\EA GAMES\The Sims 2\TSData\Res\Catalog\Bins.

I uploaded fresh copies here if you can't get them off your disc:
https://simfileshare.net/download/799858/

Those files are where the Holiday stuff content is located.


Valiant effort friend, but alas, no luck. Thanks all the same!
Mad Poster
#79 Old 2nd Nov 2018 at 12:31 AM
Damn I saw a fix for this on Tumblr just the other day, but I didn't check this thread and assumed someone had already posted it.
Mad Poster
#80 Old 2nd Nov 2018 at 10:35 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Quietscheente
The missing Happy Holiday stuff is a known problem with the UC and apparently the problem isn't the H05/H06 files but the skins.package file - see here for details/possible solution.


This fix worked for me.
Forum Resident
#81 Old 16th Nov 2018 at 11:16 PM
@omglo -- is this what you were complaining about?? LOL!

Show me where I deliberately "shoehorned" a link complaining about a borked lot I downloaded into the thread, WITH the expressed written purpose of diverting attention to my irrelevant issue, and i MIGHT owe you an apology.

Until and unless you can...
...i think I'm not the one who owes an apology. I did not post any false accusations against you.


-gE
Alchemist
Original Poster
#82 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 12:20 AM Last edited by omglo : 17th Nov 2018 at 12:46 AM.
@grinevilly I didn't ask you for an apology, nor am I going to apologize to you.

ETA - Erased all the extra explanation because I'm not doing this with you. My original point in the other thread was clear, and if you didn't get it the first time you're not going to. I'm not going to engage in dragging this topic from thread to thread (furthering hijacks, the horror!).
Mad Poster
#83 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 12:57 AM
Quote: Originally posted by grinevilly
@omglo -- is this what you were complaining about?? LOL!

Show me where I deliberately "shoehorned" a link complaining about a borked lot I downloaded into the thread, WITH the expressed written purpose of diverting attention to my irrelevant issue, and i MIGHT owe you an apology.

Until and unless you can...
...i think I'm not the one who owes an apology. I did not post any false accusations against you.


-gE


Please stop. You're just making yourself look more of an ass.

I'm secretly a Bulbasaur. | Formerly known as ihatemandatoryregister

Looking for SimWardrobe's mods? | Or Dizzy's? | Faiuwle/rufio's too! | smorbie1's Chris Hatch archives
Mad Poster
#84 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 2:58 AM Last edited by kestrellyn : 17th Nov 2018 at 3:23 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Peni Griffin
The randomizers are still broken, and likely to remain so. Most randomizers in most programs are, I believe; because true randomness is not testable and programmers hate that.


It's perfectly possible to get numbers that are random enough for most purposes *and* testable. When you want the numbers to be random, you seed the random number generator with the current timestamp (which is guaranteed to be different each time you run the program, although it's not really unpredictable). When you want to test, you seed the random number generator with a constant that is the same from test to test and the "random" numbers will be the same every time. In practice, though, you usually don't test with an actual random number generator, generally you test by setting up a specific situation and test how a specific thing works in that situation. If your program/game is complicated enough that testing this way is not exhaustive enough, the best way to test is to have your QA team play the game/use the program and try to find ways to break it.

(Getting random numbers that are random enough to say, do cryptography with is a little harder but still not impossible. Even these random numbers are not "true" random numbers, but they are random enough for almost every purpose. The reason we don't have true random numbers has nothing to do with testability and is just because that's a natural limitation of computers that behave in deterministic ways.)
Mad Poster
#85 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 7:20 AM
I think there's an online RNG that uses atmospheric noise. I'm not sure how that works.

I'm secretly a Bulbasaur. | Formerly known as ihatemandatoryregister

Looking for SimWardrobe's mods? | Or Dizzy's? | Faiuwle/rufio's too! | smorbie1's Chris Hatch archives
Mad Poster
#86 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 10:49 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Bulbizarre
I think there's an online RNG that uses atmospheric noise. I'm not sure how that works.


random.org

They have an explanation on the site.

I use it as a substitute every time someone steals my dice bag.

Pics from my game: Sunbee's Simblr Sunbee's Livejournal
"English is a marvelous edged weapon if you know how to wield it." C.J. Cherryh
Mad Poster
#87 Old 17th Nov 2018 at 11:04 PM
It's kind of funny that they seem to imply that people who are "used to dice rolls and lottery drawings" wouldn't be happy with pseudo-random numbers, because a) I'm pretty sure humans (as opposed to computer programs) can't really tell the difference without sitting down and doing a lot of math, and b) any source of randomness that involves physicial objects like dice is going to be somewhat non-random because individuals have particular ways of throwing dice/etc. that will influence the result (and in a lottery, the order the tickets were added influences the result, even if you try to shuffle it up a bit). And who knows, maybe some day we will discover that the method used by random.org is not as random as we thought, after all. There's no real way to prove that you are really getting true random numbers. The only thing we really know is that it's at least possible that they're true random numbers, because the source is something unrelated to a computer.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top