Why just square and 30 degree blocks? there should be 90 degree blocks as well.
Because the hypotenuse would be longer than the other sides, which would complicate snapping parts together.
And if it’s impossible to snap building parts without the same length, wouldn’t it resolve the problem ?
Good point there… Still… There’s a mod that does it and I think it works out OK from what I’ve seen though I’ve never used it myself.
Sorta. This subject has been brought up a lot, so I’ll be mostly brief.
Pythagoras (since I help maintain it now) works decently well. However, the rotations are very wonky, you have to set it up in a perfect way in order to place ceilings on the long side. That’s just how the Socket code is set up, it’s not designed to rotate along that side. So the sockets themselves would need a lot of additional code and revamp just to accommodate that side alone.
Then the art side of things, you would need a long piece for every, single, object in the game. Every 1 (that is a huge amount of data when you start to factor in the DLCs). Pythagoras does it for walls, ceilings, and fences (I’ll add more eventually), but it’s done in the only way us modders can do it. That is, I and Sunday, stretch out and morph the existing mesh and textures to accommodate the longer sizes. What this ends up being is the object is stretched out, and doesn’t look professional. But we don’t have a choice, it’s the only way it can be done.
In order to fix that, I would need the actual source files, the ones the artists themselves used (as not the FBX in the dev kit, the real shabang). I would need to redesign the low and high poly models, rebake the normals and masks, remake the diffuse map, and so on. Translate that into the professional world, they would have to do the same. For every single building piece, that’s a lot of work.
Thus, you factor in the cost of time and development dollars it would take to add, along with a great deal more of hard drive space and server performance for additional building sets, and having to recode the socket system, it no longer becomes worth it from a development stand point. It “can” be done, but it’s not worth it in my opinion, and I say that as a mod author contributor for Pythagoras.
Us modders love to play with things that should probably never be in the vanilla game, this is one of those things.
2 Likes
Can we also, at level 60, make T1 craftables like sandstone craft faster? It takes longer to make a sandstone foundation that it does to make a t3 one.
2 Likes
I never noticed that… I just set a bunch to craft and go either do some inventory management or get upp and get something to drink or whatever.
I would like to be able to make them in a station though. Some soft of Carpenter Thrall station where you can save resources/time based on the level of the Thrall.
What about repeating textures?
It may be beyond the capabilities of UE4 but what if the building replaceable where just points and they aren’t textured or whatever until the block is placed so the size, in terms of the “skin”, is immaterial until block a meets block B. I realize you’d still end up with weird sides unless the side that’s hits a socket first (for the 90* blocks) determines the overall volume of the block based on the side it connects.
So, if a 90* blocks hypotenuse attaches to a normal square block the right angle sides scale accordingly and shut down sockets on those sides.
… hmmm… that’s actually a lot more complicated seeing it written down than it was in my head and would likel kill UE4.
Oh well… /shrug
[quote=“Multigun, post:5, topic:77121, full:true”]
Then the art side of things, you would need a long piece for every, single, object in the game. Every 1 (that is a huge amount of data when you start to factor in the DLCs). [/quote]
Why should that be necessary? Who says it must be possible to build a wall on that edge? That 90° wedge could be used only for completing a floor area. Even if it only does nothing else other than existing, that would still be a great help for builders. No need to be greedy and demand that we’d be able to build on it, too.
Most people would expect that. They can build walls on any other floor piece after all, be it foundation or ceiling-used-as-floor.
Okay, so maybe not you, alright that’s fair enough, but I think the amount of (in that case justified) complaints we’d see about the “missing wall pieces” would be way higher than demand for the “90° piece” (nitpicky aside: isn’t it a 45° piece, I mean square foundations are 90°…).
2 Likes
Well a foundation piece that you can’t enclose with a wall and ceiling to make a solid building and one you can’t put an anti-climb wall/fence on would not be very useful on PvP and PvE-C servers. It would even be very desired on PvE if you had to leave part of your building unfinished.
Therefore players would be very justified to complain if funcom introduced the isosceles right triangle (45degree-45degree-90degree triangle) without all the additional pieces.
It would be a very rare case where one would want to complete a floor area and not add walls. I guess you could build octagonal open-air foundations for map rooms, wheels of pain and other stuff that’s hard to enclose, but having a foundation edge you couldn’t attach to anything (not walls, not other foundation pieces, not stairs, etc.) would probably be more annoying than the lack of said piece.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.