Title sounds so exciting, but actually its something that Starbound already does: Extend the end of the landscape with the beginning of it. So you would go into the border and come out of the other without noticing because its rendering a complete thing. Hard to explain for me, Its just like both ends are wrapped together and you don't notice the ends except it looks familiar.
Something that isn't in favour for all scenarios but maybe one could make it as an option in Scenario.txt.
Something that isn't in favour for all scenarios but maybe one could make it as an option in Scenario.txt.
![[cn]](/mwf/flags/cn.png "China")
But why? What kind of scenario do you have in mind?
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
This could be very useful for scenarios where you don't want to have borders at the sides at all.In melee scenarios with bases and more than two teams you had to defend both sides of your base without someone being at a secure border of the map.
In settlement scenarios you wouldn't have this cut through your map, you could just walk on.
I totally like the idea, there are also old discussions about it: http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?tid=168
Depends on map-designers intentions. Might work for melees and for settleing scenarios aswell. For example Queron 3 in CR coud make a good use out of it. Or some DM Melees where you don't have that 2-team-based structure of a scenario. Or y-axis based settleing scenarios.
See old thread:> I had actually implemented the graphical part and the simple object wrap once (i.e., ignore BorderBound and teleport out-of-map objects instead of removing them). But then I realized how much work it would really be and scrapped it.
> Admittedly, I might have kept the code if we had had the distributed version control system back then ;)
> I had actually implemented the graphical part and the simple object wrap once (i.e., ignore BorderBound and teleport out-of-map objects instead of removing them). But then I realized how much work it would really be and scrapped it.
Ah, yes I remember us talking about this a couple of years back. You convinced me, that it is far too much work - but now that I think of it, there is no need for perfectionism, is there?
It might still be funny to implant just the graphic&warp part and flag the whole thing as "experimental"? - sure: map generation, path-finding, coordinate-functions - these sort of thing would be broken. But some eager developers could still use this, I mean - if they are careful with their map design, and perhaps build in a few scenario scripts that tweak small bugs (would probably mostly occur around effects searching for targets), it would be possible to use this for scenario design.
Of course, I don't know if you can just recreate that code (or how much work that would be).
What would be the problems/hard work?Wouldn't it be enough to just draw the parts of an object that are outside the map on the other side of the map and if the object leaves the map, it is teleported to the other side as you mentioned?
Will there be problems with materials such as water flowing through the border? Or will some calculations become very slow if not done properly?
There will be problems with any script function that uses coordinates.
Which functions would that be?Functions such as PathFree or ObjectDistance would have to check both possible paths.
Other functions that do something in a rectangle like DigFreeRect needed to check beyond the border, too.
Generating the world dynamically without ending up with stairs could actually be tricky.
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
