I did not talk about direct copying. Nobody forbids to see a set of blocks that were used and draw the like. Triangles and squares were also used there, why were they then used in conan?) I hope I explained the point quite correctly.
For horizontal construction (fundamentals) there are not many parts. Only 4 (square base and ceiling, triangular base and ceiling). Based on this, the choice is not great.
Yes, it has one side longer than the others. You even implemented this unit in a vertical plane (by the way, it also exists in space engineers! Oh, you bad guys )
My proposal can be called a temporary patch. Do not need walls. This block will set the outline of the building. It will smooth corners that look wrong for the eye.
Please consider the question about ceilings. I think many would be happy. If you returned the opportunity to put a triangular foundation on a triangular ceiling. Thanks. This is really very important.
I assume by “smooth 90 degrees” you mean a 45 degree angle?
That’s simply not possible. Mathematically speaking. At least not as long as the (again, very reasonable) constraint of “equal side lengths” is in place.
There’s several pitfalls that it’s easy to run into - and if you want to cover the entire floor of your base with blocks, it’s almost inevitable you’ll run into it eventually (unless you just build with squares, which is boring).
Here’s another common one:
The fact is that the square and the 60-degree equilateral triangle enables an astounding number of builds with just those two basic shapes - and calling the devs lazy for not including the many many weird shapes required to fill any holes is unfair.
Ridiculous. I do not even know what you are trying to tell me … Perhaps my English does not allow you to properly convey a thought to you
I apologize if so. I will try to explain as simply as possible.
I understand that it is not uniform.
I understand that one side will be longer. (Re-read my posts, I talked about this 2-3 times).
The idea is to smooth the angle of 90 degrees.
No other block will be attached to this block from the side of the hypotenuse. But you can attach the same unit.
Attaching the same block aligns the structure from all sides (although there is no thought why this might be necessary).
Such a “patch”, you can complete the building smoothly.
She to complete the building. Not for the internal structure.
If you are ready to continue the dialogue without insults. I’ll be happy.
In that case, please read what I wrote above.
The idea is not to cover everything. The idea to create a “patch” for the outline of the base. Walls, castle, houses and other things.
If they implemented that half square triangle shape they would need to add all the accompanying walls, fence pieces, roof pieces etc that go with it so people can use it to complete their bases or they could not enclose a base using that shape as part of the design.
I understand that you do not want to at this time on that base … however i would like to consider the following…if they had put only the foundation and ceiling piece you are asking for and you “smoothed/finished” your design … but then you wanted to expand that building on the right onto the base foundations to the left … well with only a foundation and ceiling piece available it would be impossible… you would need all the other building pieces.
Okay I think I get what you’re trying to say. You basically want a custom building piece that plugs the hole in your “baseplate” (foundations), and you don’t really care that it would be fairly useless for any other use than that, unless a staggering amount of extra pieces were added.
That’s not laziness on the part of the developers, it’s sound thinking. Any suggestion for new building pieces, if they want a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming reality, have to adhere to the “1-unit-wall-length” constraint.
I understand what you’re getting at, but it’s not possible without cascade failures. The walls you show are for supporting the roofs which lean at 45 degree angles and imo does not affect anything else while building as you’d be well crazy to try and incorporate them in any way other then roofing “support”
What you’re asking for and please correct me if I’m wrong is a unequal sided triangle with a 90 degree corner. Which does not work as previously stated as walls and anything else for that matter would not connect properly. Which would leave gaps in the wall. Ff I still had 3d software on my PC i’d model it for you so we’re all understanding eachother.
Referencing the first picture you posted you’d still have an issue as nothing else would connect to it. Causing a cascading change, unless you enjoy holes in the walls who am I to judge.
Suggestion:
Do something like this.
Blue is your existing build. Black is the tower (or whatever it is).
Red is the offending piece from your OP.
Orange would be new pieces.
I can’t see the rest of your structure so it’s hard to say if it’d fit. But it would at least begin to fill out the shape.
The other issue I see with only wanting the ceiling and foundation piece in that particular shape is you could not finish your building if you want to put fencing on it for any reason either pure decoration or as part of anticlimb protection in a PvP setting …
I get, and feel for the OP. There have been SO many times in building that I have desperately sought after a isosceles “half-square” that the OP demonstrates in the first post. This would be so powerful… so amazing… and would really transform building in a good way!
I also get Mikey and Funcom’s position on this. In order to implement isosceles “half-squares,” they would also need to implement hypotenuse length walls, fences, doorways, and ceiling tiles. It adds pretty reasonable complication to the existing system.
While I would not ask or expect this tomorrow - how reasonable or unreasonable would the request actually be? Hell - were this a DLC feature - I would probably buy it.
Tascha: As this was an early on discussion, has the discussion come up again? Based on where you are with the game, is this an aspect or potential feature enhancement that might be revisited?
Very true,
Though how many times i wished i had these pieces in the game…
But yeah i guess that’s too late to implement those by now and it could Indeed overload the amount of building pieces already available in the game.
Pythagorean Polygons are arbitrary enough to work with, as opposed to equilateral triangles.
The problem with Pythagorean Polygons however (what I call those half-squares…) is that the wall along it’s Hypotenuse (the longest side of the Polygon…) is longer than the standard wall.
When you work with that elongated wall, you must in turn make elongated roofs, and any other permutations of that elongated walls… sloped, slanted, diagonal, etc. And all of those tiles actually become incompatible with standard tiles…
Whereas equilateral triangles might be a pain to use, but they ensure compatibility with all other tiles.
I personally stick with strictly square builds which resemble the Parthenon, because I do not like maths. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that.
hehe, im not that experienced with building structures in the game yet, but i do remember h2=a2+b2
in theory, a triangle shouldnt be longer than the wall/edge, if the 2 halves of the triangle are a fraction smaller in size so that they simply are the right height and width to fit but seeing Pythagoras mentioned, reminded me that there are a couple of mods on steam workshop, that might be able to help you? (if you are using a server that can have mods)
No that’s perfectly fine, what I take umbrage with is calling others lazy because one does not want to bother with anything but squares.
In a perfect world I’d love to see all these odd pieces, but in this reality that we live in, I think we should take a step back and appreciate just how much is actually possible with those two basic shapes.
I do not understand if you had such a tool. You knew a minimum of shapes from which to create anything. Why didn’t you bring up this topic?
Here is the minimum set that any construction problem solves. An absolute paradise for building lovers.
Yes, it will complicate the game, it will introduce a huge number of blocks. Then let it be in the form of additions.
I would gladly pay one more cost of the game if focum added all these blocks (screenshot penguin-war).
@Tascha pay attention to these blocks and my proposal. Additional earnings for the company and a huge stream of players.
Well, the tool does not define a “minimum set” to me. It just has more pieces than is needed to do CE builds. Other than that, I’ll just quote myself from one post up:
Are you aware just what a gigantic task your proposal would be? Though in your “minimum set” there’s only two you can’t make with the pieces you have today. The white one, and the purple one. All the others are doable with the triangle piece already.
That you correctly noticed. I messed up a screenshot.
In my opinion, the addition of two blocks and additions to them (walls, ceilings), although this is a laborious task, can be solved. Moreover, such innovations will significantly improve the construction possibilities in the game.
I am in favor of optimization. But this problem is also important.
I think without fences, gates and doorways, it won’t get any worse. You can do without them.
By the way. The introduction of such double blocks would have a positive effect on optimization. It does not require the introduction of new ceilings, walls, but the number of calculations will greatly decrease. Especially in huge buildings.
Thanks. You are right, maybe I hurried with the price. But for me, as a person who likes to build large-scale buildings and conan, it would be useful. And I would pay so much, once.
Why do I agree to such a price? Because for me it is faster and easier to spend time trying to make a lot more money. Than to waste time and break my head, how to make beautiful, practical, united. Still, much can not be done.
)
