Not logged inOpenClonk Forum
Up Topic General / Feedback and Ideas / Diagonal Buildings
- - By ala [de] Date 2010-11-15 19:27
What do you think of the removal of the straight linear, horizontal settlements like in this screenshot.  The possibility to incline your settlement would match the rough unlinear landscapes of Clonk, and it would make building things easier and provide a more individual look to it. Moving vehicles and moving things in general could become easier for a clever settlement designer, because he wouldn't need an elevator for every obstacle - building paths down or up will do.

Well, "removal" as in the first sentence is the wrong word of course: The player would still be able to build horizontal settlements if he wished to.
Parent - By Maikel Date 2010-11-15 22:41
I like that. Definitively something to consider, if there are not too many implementation hurdles to be taken.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2010-11-16 16:17
Hm, how would castles and walls fit into this? Having them match the landscape more organically would be great, but I'm not sure it can be done...
Parent - - By AlteredARMOR [ua] Date 2010-11-17 07:04
Well, the walls can still be strictly vertical but with non-horizontal floor...
Reply
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2010-11-17 16:55
Well, right now we can't easily do shearing transformations, as far as I know. Plus they probably wouldn't look good anyway.
Parent - By Günther [de] Date 2010-11-17 20:53
We can, using SetObjDrawTransform2. Though if we want to seriously start using that, we need a better story for the lower right parameter than simply dividing by 1000 like the others. Also, now that the object parameter is gone, we don't need a separate function for the full matrix anymore.
Reply
Parent - - By Newton [de] Date 2010-11-17 20:40
Obviously certain structures need to be vertical. F.e. also the elevator.
Parent - By PeterW [gb] Date 2010-11-17 21:52
Well, but if some can, we are talking about special rules for special buildings here. I would like to avoid that.
Parent - By Profpatsch [de] Date 2011-01-23 00:32
Language: Enlish don't know the abbreviation f.e., it's rather e.g. (from some latin words).
Only to make it more understandable for non-german people :)

Und ja, ich bin immer noch Deutscher :P
Reply
Parent - - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-01 15:35 Edited 2011-02-01 15:39
New ideas for good old Peter, looks cool, huh?

Eh well:

>but I'm not sure it can be done...


Why not?

[Edit]
Well ignore the typos, I don't have much time today.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-01 18:19
Uhm, leaning tower of Pisa? Now that just doesn't look right, even ignoring a good number of issues this might have in the context of continuing castle building. I kind of see you point with the vehicles, though.

Still. This smells like we could get ourselves into a lot of trouble. Sooner or later the landscape will change and the "natural" leaning of the buildings will look really silly. And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off. Bamboo huts are cumbersome already. Now imagine having to adjust half you base after a few meteors dropped.
Parent - - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-01 18:46 Edited 2011-02-01 19:24
I didn't suggest to build every building diagonal, like you are picturing it. The whole thing could be limited: In my picture the inclined castle part is connected to a vertical part just fine.

Look at the castle here. The author did work around the vertical parts to connect several unconnected castle parts which were not build in a perfect line.
With inclined buildings, the alchemy labour would be inclined to the elevator - and the castles would connect.

But yeah, I see your point as well, example: Inside a mine, there is no room for a vertical building, but diagonal the building would fit into it. Because of that the player will build a leaning building ontop of a vertical underground - that should be avoided.

>Sooner or later the landscape will change and the "natural" leaning of the buildings will look really silly. And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off


Hm, well I don't know. A small adjustment would be: the higher diagonal side would come down to the smaller if: No materials around the buildings are holding it, nor another building is doing that job.

[Edit]
I'm not sure if diagonal remains in a worn out landscape really look that bad, I'm still all for trying it out :)
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-01 18:59

>the alchemy labour would be inclined to the elevator - and the castles would connect.


But it could not connect to the tower above if it was inclined
Parent - - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-01 19:21
Hm, yeah. The connection thing with the castles gets kind of complicated this way, and they should be solved automatically ingame. I'm not sure if I can come up with a solution, might be a nice riddle for one of you programmers.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-01 20:18

>might be a nice riddle for one of you programmers.


No, the behavior of the castle parts is a design choice and belongs into the design document :P

PS: I don't like having the inclined-buildings stuff, but I DO like giving the player more building parts to make a weirder/more interesting castle
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-02 00:54
Any specific ideas? Would be pretty timely, as I'm currently trying to become clear on what to make out of Clonkonaut's suggestions.
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-02 06:28

>as I'm currently trying to become clear on what to make out of Clonkonaut's suggestions.


Mh, I really don't know whether I like the idea that you can extent your castle from the inside. But I do like the idea that you can change the type of a wall or add/remove doors later (that is, first you build a tower - and if you extent your castle further you can remove that inner tower if you need to).

>Any specific ideas?


Thinking of Profpatsch's/Clonkonaut's suggestion: Special buildings could have some requirements. For example a fire/furnace could always produce smoke that you do not want in your castle. Give the players the ability to build a chimney through the roof of a castle part and hilarous castle design is ensured
- you have a "smoke-room" where you direct all the smoke instead of building the furnace on the highest level of your castle? Sure, why not.
- you use the chimneys as a duct for your electric lines? Sure, why not!
I was probably mainly thinking of stuff like hatches (like in CR), though. I really don't know whether I like the idea of Clonkonaut's noses, since you could do stuff like that already with loam (and actually require some thought/effort from the player if he wants great castles) - adding the graphical representation of a nose automatically could still be done.
I will probably have to think about that a bit more (what other kinds of castle parts other than walls, doors, towers, (hatches, chimneys) make sense)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-02 16:02

> For example a fire/furnace could always produce smoke that you do not want in your castle.


Sounds nice, but this seems like a somewhat heavy-weight approach for something as simple as smoke hovering in the air. Maybe if smoke became more interesting gameplay-wise (smoke bomb?).
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-02 17:28

>Sounds nice, but this seems like a somewhat heavy-weight approach for something as simple as smoke hovering in the air.
>Maybe if smoke became more interesting gameplay-wise (smoke bomb?).


The smoke should hover in the air - but there should be a reason why you would not want that smoke to be IN your castle (can't breath in it, doesn't look nice, whatever). The coolest possibility would be that the smoke behaves like a material with negative acceleration, of course (aka, liquid physics, gogo!) ;)
My point here is just that I don't want to give the players artificial restrictions like saying "you cannot build that XY here, it needs a chimney!!!" when the player wants to build, say, a furnace.
I want the player to notice himself that he does not want the smoke in his castle and find an own way to work around that - without having artificial restrictions from the game.
(And hey, if you have such a "smoke-room", you could catch the smoke and fill it into smoke bombs, of course!!)
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-02 17:35
Well, inverse-gravity material would certainly be in the realms of the possible. Still, you wouldn't see it inside the castle, as material is drawn behind the castle walls.
Parent - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-02 17:48

>Still, you wouldn't see it inside the castle, as material is drawn behind the castle walls.


yet! ;)
I know that probably noone is gonna change that anytime soon - what I wanted to say is that I would like the smoke to always behave the same (going up as far as possible and using small cracks that is).
The chimney is not "needed" for the furnace - but a player should see the benefits of a chimney and get to the conclusion himself that chimneys are good.
I don't ever want to see a message like "you cannot build a camp fire here, you need a chimney first!". Hell, I could even build a camp fire in my living room if I wanted to - whether that is wise is another question that is left for the player to decide.
Parent - - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-03 02:14

>Still, you wouldn't see it inside the castle, as material is drawn behind the castle walls.


Still? Can't this be done? I mean, snow before the huts, water in the castles, earth from earthquakes in front of the entrances.. all this things were always annoying - fixing this would be definitly worth something.
Parent - - By PeterW [gb] Date 2011-02-03 12:57
Well, how would you decide what's in front and what's behind the landscape?
Parent - - By Matthias [de] Date 2011-02-03 13:15
At least water could be in front of everything except HUD-Elements. Also, castles could be behind every material.
Reply
Parent - By Caesar [de] Date 2011-02-03 17:26
In front of Clonks?
Parent - - By Ringwaul [ca] Date 2011-02-03 19:59

>Also, castles could be behind every material.


Except background materials like tunnel.
Reply
Parent - - By Zapper [de] Date 2011-02-03 20:21
noooooo

PS: Is every material layer one render pass anyway or how does that work?
Parent - By Ringwaul [ca] Date 2011-02-03 21:07

>noooooo


So castle-parts should be hidden behind tunnels? ō__Ò

That doesn't make sense.
Reply
Parent - - By Günther [de] Date 2011-02-03 22:15
Castles could replace the tunnel with sky, and the sky with castle-ruins on destruction.

Multi-layer landscapes are on the todo-list for years. With 3d-models already requiring a fast GPU, we probably can at last get away with them. (The highres-landscape-option used about 128 landscape layers already, but mixing them with objects would have to be the default.)
Reply
Parent - By Newton [de] Date 2011-02-03 22:42

> Multi-layer landscapes ....


Polygon-landscape to the rescue!
Parent - By Profpatsch [de] Date 2011-02-04 09:38
There are no multi-layer landscapes implemented yet? oO
Reply
Parent - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-03 14:09
I'd simply put buildings behind materials. Ingame wise it has been just like that for all time: If you enter a free room with earth in front of it, you will see an empty room now - but you'll stuck inside the earth if you actually enter it, the only difference would be the display.

But: Fundaments would not been seen as fundaments this way.
And if this whole thing causes problems we could arrange some sort of half transparent solutions for the problem cases (Earth in front of the elevator, but you can still see the elevator - or if we don't want this, objects could now be buried and hidden with this method. Objects causing this problems seem to be able to move around, perhaps a solution could be done this way as well).
Parent - - By Caesar [de] Date 2011-02-03 17:27
Hm, fluids could be transparently drawn onto objects.
Parent - - By Kizzurazzgabi [us] Date 2011-02-08 09:22
I think the multi-layers idea is cool, and would be GREAT if implemented, but there are questions that come up.
like how would flints/bombs work? If you throw something, how would the game decide which layer it hits?
if you shoot at someone, not only can they dodge it, but will they be able to switch layers?(in the castle/tunnel?)-if they do, then dodging arrows-spears would be very simple and would handicap the projectiles effectiveness.
If your standing on a castle, and the other is standing on the ground, how can someone shoot at you-or you shoot back? because they are shooting from a completely different layer/land.

By the way couldn't decide where to post this reply so i put it here, ;)
Reply
Parent - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-08 15:12
Layers like hell and heaven - divided for eternity?
Eh, actually layer interaction is no problem at all. And actually Günther was talking about landscapes and materials - not about object layers.
Parent - By ala [de] Date 2011-02-13 20:53

>And when buildings start adjusting and rolling around, all bets are off. Bamboo huts are cumbersome already. Now imagine having to adjust half you base after a few meteors dropped.


By todays train travel boredom I met that problem while concepting another idea (well never mind now)..

The current (CR) building-falling behaviour is a nightmare. Currently the lighter buildings are already falling around: especially the windmill with water. Static castle structures fall around if their fundaments are broken, and cling themself to a single material pixel in the sky - also the anvil and similar structures often end up hanging on a pixel in the air - making them really hard to destroy and hard to use. Also the staircases are well.. behaving the same. If lucky you can teleport through the map, just with staircases.

We really need to change this.

And here we go: I actually wouldn't mind them falling around like in the inclined building idea, well.. if they work inclined, and if material will actually be painted infront of the buildings. The current vertex behaviour however is too accurate: A building shouldn't fall around just because one vertex has lost it's ground. Also it should be too easy to undermine settlements this way - fundaments will still be needed for some structures... inclined fundaments!!
Parent - By Ringwaul [ca] Date 2011-02-01 21:01
I would just like to point out the cannon already works precisely as you've illustrated; it will rotate to the landscape and it's Firing Range will be relative to the angle of the chassis.
Reply
Up Topic General / Feedback and Ideas / Diagonal Buildings

Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill