What ban him because he raises some pretty valid points of which I and many others feel the same... Reading his posts is reading exactly how I feel about the game too...
Bigger maps confirmed? In this beta video?
- Thread starter Ramm
- Start date
What ban him because he raises some pretty valid points of which I and many others feel the same... Reading his posts is reading exactly how I feel about the game too...
i think past games one track piece was 4m, so 254x254 maximum size in rct3 was 1016x1016m
that seems to be exactly what we were asking for and 1000x1000 seemed to be the maximum size you could paint the terrain in the alpha. Which was why people were expecting or maybe are still expecting this is gonna be the area you can purchase later on.
Right now I secretly still hope for this that we can expand to 1000x1000 instead of 500x500 but i am careful with expections because frontier hasn't said anything.
All I know is someone from Frontier once "hinted" at the forum if we would rather have tile-expansion like cities skylines or smaller expensions like the classic rct games, that is all I know. So deep down I have still hope in my heart but im careful with it
A test was done in TPS and the results were approximately 1 square mile based on a grid scale of 10 ft. x 10 ft. I just did a physical count of squares on the present build-able area of the map by placing a wall at each of the 4 corners and counting the squares on one side as shown here:
and came up with 125 squares per side which if that is multiplied by 4 meters (basic grid size) equals 500 meters per side or 250,000 square meters or 2,690,977.6 square feet which I then converted to square miles and ended up with 0.09652554 square miles. So indeed if my count and math is correct TPS did indeed give a larger map size. TPS as park designer is pretty good except that the detail level is not as fine as Planet Coaster and it lacks the voxel terrain or management aspect. Even so it is far better than the *cough* other game.
That being said, however, could the present limit on map size have something to do with the voxel terrain tool? Possibly?
Last edited:
They have answered the question ... on Facebook
Is it a deal breaker for me .. nope not at all.
However what I don't understand is why Frontier felt the need to put effort into transport rides when they are completely unnecessary. That time could gave been spent building more flat rides and go karts for example.
Seems really odd from a development point of view.
Ah well we have our answer now .. can we all get past this please and just enjoy PC for what it is.
Yeah, they should give us the ability to buy more land within that lighter green area. I'm hoping at release maybe that option will be available. Why give us a smaller area than RCT3? Because the graphics are better than RCT3 so having an RCT3 254 x 254 size park will slow the game down?
wat
i refuse to believe this
please tell me this is a big troll and frontier isn't going to walk in EA's footprints by doing something like this [knockout]
I don't personally think it's as bad as Simcity. In the end in that game you are trying to build a city, and you are lucky to be able to build a small town.
PC isn't quite the same thing . But yeah that's an official response, I don't see how anyone can twist the words any other way.
Sure we might get bigger parks in the future, but that could easily be 6 months to a year away.
Planet Coaster sounds like you can build your dream park with more than 10 coasters
I mean isn't it obvious that if you work on your dream park you have of every ride 1? This was the case with the old rct games so why not with Planet Coaster. I think the ammount of 20 coasters in my dream park is reasonable, maybe 30 flatrides or so. Right now it's difficult fitting 5 big coasters in your park without them being right next to eachother. Imagine recreating some existing parks with lots of coasters
I just hope it is currently turned off and it isnt impossible to make it bigger ever like in Sim City because then I will be quickly done with this game and I dont want that to happen because I love the game but it's just that if you dont have room to play what's the use?
Move on Fanboy. Like I would care for your opinion
Then you had unrealistic expectations from the start. Frontier haven't set any expectations at any point to suggest what you would be able to put into your park.
You assumed that would be the case. A reasonable assumption? Maybe , but an assumption regardless. Am I disappointed sure .. but not to the point where I am getting the pitchforks out.
being able to paint the terrain 1000x1000m and being able to build 500x500m suggested that at some point you were able to unlock the rest of the area
also i'm far from getting the pitchforks out, I have been nothing but fair, positive and reasonable at frontier. I still praise the game and every feature but not having bigger maps ever is simply where I draw the line and disagree with their choice.
I believe that this opinion of mine is more than fair and reasonable.
Having bigger maps is like a 5min jobs for them. get in the editor change the values and voila: done. Its not like we are asking for features! we are asking for the removal of the stupid articicial limitation!
But would that affect something else and possibly cause unforeseen problems that would have to be tracked down and corrected? Programming is not always so cut and dried. They would have to do more optimizing and possibly change the voxel terrain tool. My point is that there might be more things affected than we think there is besides simply changing one or more values, so values get changed and viola maybe another bunch of bugs.
Last edited:
You don't know that .. you cannot possibly know that . For all we know the limiting factor might be the voxel terrain.
There is obviously a reason why it's the case for release. You really don't have a clue how game development of the real world actually works.
I would say that's a pretty good guess. [yesnod]
Last edited:
It might has to do with engine limitations. If they would say: Sorry the engine just cant handle it then at least it would be clear. It's that they don't acknowledge the reason why that is frustrating. Or the people in the forums saying "oh you dont need it anyway because I dont myself" where the frustration lays.
So yeah a discussion about yes we do need it no we dont need it is kinda useless.
If you dont need it you can build smaller.
If you do need it you can't build bigger.
Simple as that, so there is no reason to disallow us to build bigger unless it is impossible engine-wise. So it would be nice of Frontier at least gave us the reason why otherwise this discussion is pretty useless anyway.