Anyone else feel like this? Or am I just weird?

Friendly conversations, and everything that doesn't fit into the other forums.
  • 1
  • 2
13 posts Page 2 of 2
kent
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:54 pm
by kent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:29 pm
@MiToVo

Yeah, I really dislike the current terrain materials deal. Making terrains use the regular materials is on the block for 4.0, because the odd half-n-half materials it has now is definitely less than ideal.

As for the flatten terrain, I think it's intended to flatten at the average point, compared to the set height function, which sets it to an explicit height. But yeah, I can see what you mean about flatten sampling the height when flirst clicked, and then acting as setHeight as long as the mouse is held down. Maybe as an alternate mode for flatten to dictate weither it re-evaluates the height, or just paints-to-height of the initial click.
The current approach to flatten seems to be envisioned for creating flat surfaces that also have a degree of elevation rather than creating surfaces which are strictly perpendicular to the Z axis. It is attempting to flatten the triangles relative to each other, not to set all points at a uniform height. There is value in the tool as it works currently, and I don't think a new mode is the best way to go here at all.

The "flatten" functionality envisioned in this thread describes the "set height" tool. IMO, the problem is a lack of easy way to determine what height should be entered in to the text box for any given terrain situation. Using the tool requires that whole "fiddling with numbers" process to find the desired height in almost any practical application. Adding a "click to pick height" functionality of some sort to "set height" (maybe like the Photoshop eyedropper or something) would accomplish exactly what the user wants while keeping the functionality paired with the proper tool for the desired job.

[Edit: seem to have poor reading comprehension today ... guess I'm sort of restating things a bit. But it seems least complicated to implement as part of the setheight tool's basic functionality rather than trying to add modes to flatten.].
Last edited by kent on Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kent
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:54 pm
by kent » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:31 pm
I can't claim it makes you normal ... but you certainly aren't the only one who misses stuff from earlier versions of the engine.
Bloodknight
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 pm
by Bloodknight » Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:37 am
My two pet missing features (haven't checked lately).

Properly and correctly working snapping (worked like a dream in TGE/A)
press and hold hotkeys for switching between move scale and rotate

These two things together made banging out a level very quick, making prototyping incredibly efficient.

Sure, some of the tools have become more advanced, this out of necessity often makes them slower/less efficient, we had a short discussion last week about a level editing video from GDC, which makes some interesting points about various level editors. The end result being a pseudo agreement that some review might be worth doing at some point as a solid single focus project improvement path for T3D. There is also some work done on a new editor layout which i think is now discontinued, which looked very promising (Provides a kick start for this project or at least a prototype).
  • 1
  • 2
13 posts Page 2 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest