Here are pre-built app bundles for macos: macos.zip

The discussion was never about its latter attested haimaz cognates not meaning some kind of settlement (are you getting confused with the þurpa discussion?), but if that was the case in Proto-Germanic times. That's why I agree with the quotes you bring up, but they are completely irrelevant to the point in question. By "early" and "late" I obviously meant in reference to the Germanic-Celtic split, bringing up the "late medieval" period is quite the misrepresentation. Your source (Brink) does address what you keep ignoring regarding Celtic by saying "in Old Celtic languages we find a related formation that demonstrates another interesting theme, namely the meaning 'love'", and as you quote, concludes his chapter with: This is exactly my point (yet again you are brushing off the actual conclusions of your own sources). He refers to one's home (one's "area and place"), this doesn't necessarily point to a type of settlement, and at no point he claims that in Proto-Germanic times it referred to anything outside one's own (as seems to happen in Gothic and later, but it's completely different in Proto-Celtic and later).   I completely agree, since this is my exact argument regarding þurpa.   I'm glad you brought up this point, since it's the one I was going to follow up with. Two characteristics are important to name a Phase: its "multiple dwelling" quality, and its development stage. Regarding Proto-Germanic haimaz, your source doesn't claim anything beyond that it referred to one's home, even if that could have indirectly referred (only to) one's own settlement, and we both agree it can be of any size. Regarding Proto-Germanic þurpa, I've already proven its "multiple dwelling" quality using your own sources, and we both agree that it's small.   Simply put: no. Urban development is the actual point of Phase names, and you know it, that's why you are pre-emptively trying to dismiss this obvious conclusion supporting what I say (as you've tried to do before). You have reached, in good part by yourself, the conclusion that þurpa is more appropriate than haimaz for Phase I, according to each of both important characteristics mentioned (being multiple dwellings, but a few).

It was supposed to also include the worldmap data for selecting the digital elevaiton area for terrain building from scratch. It also removes (now, after bug fixing) teh not needed part of the libraries so the exe goes down from 142 MB to 98 MB for mercator and for post-Atlas from 116 to 97 MB. For me the startup process of the exe files with the "onefile" option is still way too long. This is due to the need to unpack everything during each startup. I will instead now change that to "onedir" i.e. an exe plus a folder with runtime libs. These must stay next to each other at all times.

Could we have bronze elements as well?  

I believe I have defended my position several times regarding my suggestion. Cognates derived from “haimaz” that mean “village” or “settlement” have the advantage of being supported by the Gothic language, which is the attested language chronologically closest to Proto-Germanic. There are also clear examples of their use to mean “villages” and “hamlets” in Old English, Old High German and Old Frankish. Finally, place names ending in -heim, -hem, -ham, etc., are among the oldest Germanic place names, representing one of the earliest chronological layers of naming. But since my arguments have already been lost amid the recent debates, I will present a fresh set of arguments. To do so, I will begin by quoting at length from a scholar I already mentioned, Stefan Brink. In 1995, he wrote a chapter titled “Home: The Term and the Concept from a Linguistic and Settlement-Historical Viewpoint.” While it is not an exhaustive compilation of all the evidence, since it focuses on his extensive knowledge of the Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon worlds, it serves as a very solid foundation from which to begin. 1. A collective meaning is part of the inherited Germanic evidence The modern meaning of home should not be projected backwards as though it exhausted the historical semantic range of “haimaz”. As Brink points out, ancient related Germanic words could refer not only to an individual dwelling or a farm, but also to an estate, a group of dwellings, or a village. This makes “haimaz” a plausible term for a primitive residential community rather than simply a private home. In this introductory excerpt from his article, he provides a few examples and makes it clear that the meaning of a collective dwelling is entirely valid: 2. Gothic and Lithuanian provide direct and ancient evidence of the meaning of the word “village” The Gothic evidence is especially important because it is considerably earlier than most of the surviving West and North Germanic material. Wulfila’s use of haims to translate Greek kōmē, “village” or “hamlet”, demonstrates that the collective settlement meaning was already established in a fourth-century Germanic language. The opposition between plural haimos, “countryside”, and polis, “town”, also places the word within a clearly rural settlement system. Stefan Brink considers these meanings derived from Gothic to be consistent and convincing. He even notes the similarities with two loanwords found in Lithuanian that have virtually the same meaning as in Gothic, conveying both the sense of a village and that of the countryside: 3. The toponymic evidence confirms that the word could designate an inhabited community The place-name evidence independently supports the collective use found in Gothic and Old English. Names in -ham are interpreted not only as references to farms or estates, but also to hamlets, villages and the territories occupied by particular communities. Formations such as Amersham and Gillingham show that the element could identify the settlement or district associated with a person and their followers, rather than merely that person’s individual home: 4. Specialists generally reconstruct an original meaning centred on settlement The Scandinavian material is particularly valuable because it preserves both the territorial and residential dimensions of the word. Despite continued debate over the precise scale of the referent, Brink observes that most scholars regard “settlement” as the original meaning of -he(i)m. The underlying concept is therefore not simply a house, but the place where a person or community has settled: 5. The settlement use is demonstrably ancient The collective or territorial interpretation cannot be dismissed as a late medieval development. Brink identifies a group of very old Scandinavian -he(i)m names that were probably formed around the beginning of the Common Era, including one securely dated to approximately AD 200. This places the use of haimaz and its descendants as settlement names within the chronological horizon relevant to early Germanic societies: 6. The word could include both the habitation and its surrounding resources Brink ultimately argues that the traditional opposition between “habitation” and “settlement district” is too rigid. His proposed meaning, “settlement or settlements with an area of resources”, accounts for both an individual farm and a wider community or territory. This is highly relevant to an early Germanic “village”, which need not have consisted of tightly clustered buildings but could instead have been a socially coherent settlement together with its fields, pastures, woodland and other resources, exactly what we have in the game: 7. The semantic core is an inhabited territory, not merely a building Brink’s conclusion brings the different strands of evidence together. The essential meaning of haimaz and its cognates was the place and surrounding area where a person or group lived. Depending on scale and context, this could be a farm, settlement, village, community territory, or settlement district. This semantic flexibility does not weaken haimaz as a phase name. On the contrary, it makes it particularly well suited to an early form of village whose identity rested on shared habitation, territory and belonging rather than on urban density. This concludes the excerpts from the chapter written by Stefan Brink. I will also highlight some other points that have already been mentioned. Here an excerpt of the description from the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017) about -heim place-names: I will also add two excerpts I already posted from the digital portal for place-name research in Switzerland: Another excerpt, this time from the German National Atlas: Taken together, these sources point to the same conclusion. Place names derived from haimaz belong to one of the oldest settlement-naming traditions of the Germanic world and are consistently associated with villages, hamlets, estates, and inhabited communities rather than isolated dwellings. In the Old High German sphere, -heim names are generally regarded as belonging to the earliest layers of settlement nomenclature, appearing at least during the Migration Period and possibly even earlier. The continuity of this evidence across Germany, Switzerland, and the wider Germanic-speaking world strongly supports the interpretation of haimaz as a term connected with settlement and community from a very early date. Similarly, Richard Jones, David N. Parsons, and Paul Cullen take the same position regarding England: place names related to the word “ham” date back to the earliest period: Albert Hugh Smith himself believed that place names derived from “ham” were part of the oldest layer of place names in England: Finally, there is also Old Frankish, which provides fairly strong evidence that words derived from haim often had a collective meaning. In addition to the fact that many linguists suspect this is the origin of the French word “hameau”, there is also ample evidence derived from an analysis of legal texts from the Frankish Empire. Maurits Gysseling’s analysis of the Germanic vocabulary preserved in the Lex Salica provides substantial evidence from the Frankish linguistic area. His reconstruction of haima- and his analyses of anði-haim-ja- and haima-þeuða- consistently support a collective sense equivalent to “village”. In several independent contexts, haima- clearly refers to an organized rural community rather than merely to a private household. This makes the collective meaning part of the Frankish evidence itself, not a later interpretation inferred solely from place names. To summarize, the strength of the argument does not rest on a single piece of evidence, but on the convergence of multiple independent lines of evidence, all pointing in the same direction: Taken together, the Gothic, Old English, Frankish, Baltic, Germanic, toponymic, and settlement-historical evidence converges on the same conclusion: haimaz was not simply a word used exclusively to refer to a house or a private residence. Across both language and place-name evidence, it consistently appears as a term that could denote a settlement, village, inhabited territory, or organized community. Moreover, the forms derived from it belong to some of the oldest naming traditions in the Germanic world, making haimaz not only linguistically defensible, but arguably one of the best-attested and most historically appropriate choices available.