IMPORTANT: Massive Blueprint Changes coming to the 1.2 Spring Update!

Curlyriff

Curlyriff
AndyC said:
So, we've been looking into this for a while - and it really isn't this simple I'm afraid when it comes to blueprints and terrain. While the terrain in RCT3 was a simple heightmap, because Planet Coaster's terrain is voxel based you can't just simply think in terms of heights. What if I make a blueprint with some path in it, winding up a hill to an overhanging cliff edge? Simple "push / pull terrain to path" operations break in this case - as we said you would end up with something that looked quite different to how your blueprint looked in game, or possibly even an invalid path layout if you tried this.

It's complicated - but we're still on the case :)

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

Could we not just have it so for the width of the path the terrain pulls direct those edges. Then if we want to fill in between those points we can do so accordingly with the tools provided. It means that if I had a spiral path then the terrain would follow that spiral and we can fill in between the faces as such.

Note: just not isn't trying to state is it not just this easy, but would the easier solution than trying work out how and guess what the player wants to do with said terrain that keeping the terrain tight to the path make this easiest.

I am not sure I understand the issue of where the player could not fill in between these areas then. For instance on the cliff edge that you are discussing then it would mean that we can then eat away at the terrain that has pulled up. Or if the path is to one side of the cliff then we are able to pull the terrain out accordingly as at least with the levels in there and the path joined to the terrain we have the ability to pull it about.

At the moment it is impossible to pull any of it close to the path without placing blueprint, then pull the terrain in place and then make the path which is much more time consuming, difficult and often leads to results that are not as good as already having different height paths able to have the path pulled too automatically.
 

AndyC1

A
The issue is where you have a concave area with a path, some terrain above it and a path on top of that. You can't just pull terrain up to these paths - you'd end up with at least part of the pathway having to become flying path (with all the path support issues that this would create). The worst case is that you'd actually end up with an invalid path placement - and certainly nothing that resembles your original path layout at all.

Cheers

Andy
 

breezerHOG1

breezerHOG1
I'm really confused about why "terrain" is the reason we cant save paths with a blueprint. Nobody makes blueprints with terrain because we cant, so people use rocks to make mountains instead. Nobody is going to build a blueprint with a terrain hill or a terrain tunnel and then expect other players to match that in their parks. Every blueprint is based on a flat surface so if I went into a new sandbox and placed it, thats how it would come is with no terrain

AndyC said:
What if I make a blueprint with some path in it, winding up a hill to an overhanging cliff edge?
Click to expand...
I don't understand... is that possible to make a blueprint with a hill and overhanging cliff edge? No it is not possible to save a hill made of terrain, the path would simply be a bridge that floats in the air. 99% of players know they cant save terrain and would not make a blueprint as such
 
Last edited:

AndyC1

A
As i said - paths are inherently linked to the terrain. You may not want to consider the two as linked, but the various systems responsible for dealing with them do. I'm trying to explain why the problems associated with projecting a pattern of path down onto the terrain (or having it flying above the terrain) can create problems if you simply remove the terrain from the equation. I would draw you a picture showing the issue, but my art skills are best described as "programmer". I'm a bit busy preparing stuff for the upcoming update at the moment, but if I get some time I'll create some screenshots of paths in game and try and use that to show why "paths in blueprints" without some fairly horrible restrictions are as hard as we say they are :).

It's complicated. Real complicated. Sure, the simple terms of "square path around a fountain" is easy to cope with, but the difficult cases that I've described all need to work with this too. We need more time to investigate how to cope with these difficult problems, but rest assured we're investigating it.

Cheers

Andy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vampiro

Volunteer Moderator
Vampiro
AndyC said:
We need more time to investigate how to cope with these difficult problems, but rest assured we're investigating it.

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

Thats all we can ask for ;)

The updates we get are already making a -huge- difference! Personally im very happy with the ability to add flatrides! There are quite a few skins out there already but mostly those are very difficult to place correctly. With the new update it will be way easyer to place ride skins which opens so many more possibilities :D
 

breezerHOG1

breezerHOG1
AndyC said:
We need more time to investigate how to cope with these difficult problems, but rest assured we're investigating it.
Click to expand...

its cool you guys are continuing to expand the game in many ways, cant wait for more future updates [up]

CoasterDrive said:
we need to be able to switch between "hugged paths" and "flying paths" by raising/lowering the terrain. It drives me mad every time that you have to decide for one way or the other. Hugged paths sometimes look wobbly so when the terrain is lowered they should warp into flying paths, raising the terrain again and the terrain smoothly hugs the paths without changing them back.

With that in place you could add options when placing blueprints to raise/lower terrain to fit to the paths of the blueprint. (pretty much like how it worked in rct3 when placing flat rides)
Click to expand...
this is probably the best way to put it, if I build a sloped path or staircase and then raise the terrain below it, it should auto-snap into place directly underneath or "hugging" the terrain. That problem is very annoying
 
Last edited:

Curlyriff

Curlyriff
AndyC said:
The issue is where you have a concave area with a path, some terrain above it and a path on top of that. You can't just pull terrain up to these paths - you'd end up with at least part of the pathway having to become flying path (with all the path support issues that this would create). The worst case is that you'd actually end up with an invalid path placement - and certainly nothing that resembles your original path layout at all.

Cheers

Andy
Click to expand...

Ah yes concave is something I hadn't thought much about but then I believe the solution there is of course that the terrain pulls up and you can't place the blueprint below the ground initially. I f you want it lower you have to dig an area lower and then infill. Yes it isn't ideal but it then isn't any different to coasters that are designed to go into the ground where we have the same issue there.

Of course as you say it does then become more complicated. But I appreciate the further replies and feedback. Thank you Andy :)
 

rdrunr7

R
Just wanted to say thanks to Andy C & Bo for letting us know that "we are heard" & to explain why paths in blueprints is so complicated.
 

Ramm

Ramm
Forgive me if this has answered before but it's April now, any news on which day the update comes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom