Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

What do you think about this concept?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by darkhog, Sep 14, 2015.

  1. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    This is not another "herpadepr I have $1,000,000.34 idea, now do it for me" thread. Instead I want to tell you about something that bothers me in modern building survival games: Lack of ability to put as much detail as you want into your constructs because they're usually only let you to build from specific, predefined parts.

    Now, obviously what follows doesn't have to be applied to survival game, that's just example.

    I'd pretty much like something more realistic.

    I wonder, how about making it so you get box of building materials (planks, bricks, beams/bars, maybe some basic mechanical things like hinges, etc.) and have you build, in the world from that instead of having very specific things like door "block", wall block, column block, etc. Think of GMod, but on much smaller scale.

    Of course everything would be susceptible to physics, so if your building is shoddy, it won't last.

    Cool idea huh?

    The thing I worry about though is impact on performance of such thing, user-friendliness of such system I have figured out already.
     
    jpthek9 likes this.
  2. Ony

    Ony

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Posts:
    1,977
    Build it and see if it works.
     
    derkoi, Aiursrage2k and zombiegorilla like this.
  3. antislash

    antislash

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Posts:
    646
    the risk is you will end with a lego game....
    IMO what the player will want is a good gameplay..
    maybe refining denfensive systems an traps and ambush mechanics would be the better move

    this game http://miscreatedgame.com/
    has a good base building system
    is a good example.... if you follow their forums you'll see that some players complain about gameplay being a little basic..

    so just FWIW , i wouldn't go too far and focus on the core gameplay, the ambiance, the feeling..

    (i have been helping a little with vegetation last year , they wanted me for anims but omg life is a b...)
    veg1.jpg
    veg4.jpg
    veg7.jpg
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2015
  4. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
  5. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    KSP zombie survival game? I'd play it.

    One challenge you would need to resolve is the time pressure. Survival games typically have very defined time limits. Physics enabled building games tend to allow a lot of time and iterations for players to get things right.
     
  6. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    Still, you build from "blocks". I'm talking about constructing things from single planks, bricks, etc. - pretty much like you'd do it in real life.

    //edit: But the most important tidbit here is performance - have no idea how it would behave with few large houses built like that and can't really prototype it as this is largely idea for future project and I'm already working on Computer Virus Simulator where it simply wouldn't fit so prototyping it right now isn't probably a good idea.

    Fun of building/easiness of it - I've already figured how I'd do that, but there's no sense doing it if it'd run like 0.0000000001FPS.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2015
  7. CaoMengde777

    CaoMengde777

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Posts:
    813
  8. Shushustorm

    Shushustorm

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    1,084
    Sounds like a good idea to me. But I think those interests may be conflicting:
    - People enjoying survival games don't necessarily enjoy building things and vice versa (not saying that's bad, but you will target a very specific user group).
    - Survival games are typically rather fast-paced. You have to run from something, hide quickly to survive, whereas you typically want to spend your time when building things.
    Of course, especially the latter, this could be the new key element that lies within the gameplay: You have to build something precisely to make it last, yet you have to hurry because you are being followed by danger, which makes the game even more stressful.
    I'm not completely informed about Minecraft, but your concept reminds me of that game.
    You have to build a house and escape from zombies.
    Your concept, on the other hand, seems more like a "realistic", yet exaggerated Minecraft.
    Building will be harder and more complex and at the same time you are pressured even more than in Minecraft.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2015
  9. antislash

    antislash

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Posts:
    646
    this...

    if you allow the player to build complex stuff in a survival game, it should be to add interest to the survival gameplay like : traps, ambush stuff, defensive stuff, crafting weaponry and vehicles etc

    OTOH, it could be a neat add-on
     
  10. Mwsc

    Mwsc

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Posts:
    189
    I suspect a lot of people want something like this, in theory. Minecraft, but better! The problem is, it requires more complicated code, more complicated gameplay, and of course this leads to the speed concerns you mention. It would be much more difficult to make work at all, let alone make fast and fun. I think you would be on to something if you narrowed the scope some. "Build anything you want just like in real life" is pretty darn open ended. Maybe focus on a specific core building mechanic. Minecraft had blocks, but what if you could sculpt mud to make huts and other structures? Or what if it was still blocks, but they didn't have to be squares aligned on a grid?
     
  11. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Kind of reminds me of 7 days to die where the builds are mostly blocks but they have structural integrity. Minecraft with physics!

    They even have smooth voxel terrain which, in the next update, will be deformed every time you smack it! The current system is what you'd expect from a block/voxel game, where you mine something for a few seconds and then it just breaks off. But now you'll see the impact of your hits on the material.

    Their blocks can actually fracture, so that's a step above 7days. I think since it's been out longer and optimized more, 7days supports more complex structures without your framerate dying.
     
  12. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Building/survival games are cool, very cool in fact but it has been done to death over the last few years. I have an idea or two to improve on it or just go a different way...
     
  13. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    I think everything has been pretty much "done to death" at this point yet people are still pumping out FPS, RPGs, Platformers, Rogue-likes, abstract/weird "new" games and so forth. Might as well make a building / survival game as anything else.
     
    Tomnnn likes this.
  14. ostrich160

    ostrich160

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Posts:
    679
    I've tried this before. The issue is, garry's mod is already hard to build with, and that gives you the powers to weld and such, which of course a survival game wouldnt

    I wouldnt be so sure
     
  15. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I'm with @GarBenjamin on this one, especially for survival&building games. It's really easy to mess those up and the user knows within the first hour if it's junk or not. So if you take into account survival & building games that are made well, the list is quite short. 7days is still my favorite!
     
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  16. Eric-Darkomen

    Eric-Darkomen

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2015
    Posts:
    99
    Has anyone encountered a good rebuilding game yet? I mean survival sure and building is a natural extension but in the even of an apocalypse surely there'll still be a ton of infrastructure to reclaim piece by piece. In the event of a zombie outbreak I'm unlikely to seek shelter in a plywood box or palm fronds lashed together on the side of a mountain.

    Add in some building customization with free-form placement rather then a full blown construction sim, you know water tanks on the roof made of container + piping (where container could be a bucket or a proper water tank and pipes could be garden hosing or copper plumbing), and go from there. State of decay still comes out every so often in my house and I think there's a fair amount of room to develop some of those mechanics out.
     
  17. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    There is Fallout 4's settlement building.

     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2015
    antislash and Eric-Darkomen like this.
  18. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    You pretty much just described 7 days to die. :D There are plenty of in tact houses, but the majority are boarded up with furniture pushed up against the windows and doors. There are also decayed buildings that have partially collapsed. And with their newer destruction systems, now they collapsed materials form piles of said material on the ground where ever it fell. If you want 90%+ destroyed buildings there are apocalypse-like terrains that are very dead, full of tough enemies and there are ruins everywhere.

    There is also structural integrity when you build or destroy, so be careful :p

    The terrain is smooth voxels, buildings are mostly blocks for free-form building. In their next update, things will deform as you hit them, showing progress of destroying any given voxel. As for the water pipes you mentioned, ARK is the only game I've seen do that.

    --edit

    At some point they also want there to be NPCs to rescue / take missions from.
     
  19. Eric-Darkomen

    Eric-Darkomen

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2015
    Posts:
    99
    Yeah, drool :)

    You know I've missed that one and rust, both I really wanted to try. Its the terrible tug of war between working all the hours that god sends, working on my own projects and actually getting some time to just chill and play. At the moment its all about Heros of the Storm, Destiny and Hearthstone, i.e. games I can play for an hour and then put down to crack on with something constructive - also helps that my Mrs and son are avid Heros players so whenever we're in the mood to play something I end up healing those noobs :p
     
  20. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    7days is getting more rust-like in terms of harvesting, but I would definitely say at this point it is the more feature-rich product. And every feature in the game feels like it has a purpose. With the harvesting change, even previously not-frequently-used tools will have new purpose :D

    Rust is still rebuilding itself, but the if you enjoy multiplayer with randoms there will be less desync issues in rust. Maybe that'll change with alpha 13 of 7days right around the corner, but who knows. Last time I played multiplayer on 7days (a few patches ago), players and buildings were fine but zombies appeared to always be running (in a walk only server) and they were bouncing diagonally. It was very hard to kill things.

    Talking about 7days reminds me that I want to make my own zombie game, filled with original zombies! And to anyone who knows about that conversation, it turns out I was sort of wrong. The first iteration of "zombie" comes from voodoo, and those zombies can be killed if you put salt in their mouth... because their infestation was magic rather than some kind of virus.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  21. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    I have this pretty much figured out (controls I mean) and if I'll be able to pull it off, it will be better than gm's building and easier at the same time. But the most important here is performance.

    I'll probably be able to prototype it once I finish Computer Virus Simulator's basic system (so I can start cranking off the levels without rebuilding game), but this is something that may not be too performent, so I fear I'll have to forgo structural integrity for that (though I'd love to have it).
     
  22. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Sounds like it's moving from a 7 days to die building system toward a the dead linger building system. You can use a hammer to 'weld' planks together and they can be freely rotated before being attached. As long as 2 are colliding and you hit the one you're holding with a hammer, it'll be stuck into place, physics be damned.

    There are pros and cons to both, and when you're focusing on fun, there are more factors to consider for structural integrity. If this is going to start as a proof of concept then your change in direction is for the best.
     
  23. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    Yeah, you nailed it (pun intended), pretty much same system as in that dead linger thing, though I never heard of this game until you've mentioned it. Might check it out to get ideas.

    As for welding thing, I'd want to use Unity's joints system that have that nice option that makes joint break if too much force (or too big mass ;)) is acted upon it, so if you'll build house crappily, just sticking it together, it will fall into bits and pieces (no fracturing is planned as for now, so just from something that looked like house, it'll be just a bunch of planks.
     
  24. Not_Sure

    Not_Sure

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2011
    Posts:
    3,546
    I'm seeing in my mind a bridge builder game, but with a building and waves of zombies.

    And TBH, that sounds freaking rad.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  25. snacktime

    snacktime

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    3,356
    So very interesting topic to me as I'm putting an asset on the asset store that does runtime building.

    I started out with a completely freeform system, which is still the base of the system. But gameplay testing quickly showed that in many ways the more structured it was the more fun it was. Freedom sounds great in theory but in practice it can be quite a mess.

    Take a simple structure for example. Floor, 4 walls and a flat roof. I give you those 6 pieces and a system that lets you place them freely. The floor easy, but where do you place the walls? What is the offset? Oh you didn't think about that until you got 3 walls in place WRONG and now you are screwed.

    I can give you a whole set of modular components that fit together cleanly, but if the system is fairly freeform that means you can also build them in ways that end up very wrong. You can easily spend an hour to find out you have to start all over. And for most people that's not fun.

    Freeform is great for some things. More so for larger pieces say outside walls that sort of thing, But I think for good gameplay it needs to be simple enough that you don't really have to think. Variety is great, choices are great, but thinking not so much. And you can't let players go on for hours after making a mistake that can cost them all of that time.

    The reason minecraft works so well by being freeform is that at it's core it's incredibly simple. You have cubes. Easy to see and put together, easy to reason about. If you start to add in all kinds of new shapes you have to bring the complexity down. The way I did it was by letting the system decide where stuff goes, but you can still choose from half a dozen modular pieces to go in any one spot, or decide what the material/color is, etc.. So you still have lots of choice but the overall complexity is kept fairly low.

    My very first iteration was completely freeform. I did snap stuff to a grid. So even with parts that fit together well and snapped on a grid, I still could not build anything of reasonable size without messing it up after a while. And being off by just one 'snap' can lead to being off by much more the further away you get from the mistake position. It was also incredibly hard to place stuff that was small. Looks wise you might want some walls to be fairly thin, but just try aligning stuff that's 0.2 thick in game. It's hard!
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  26. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    First of all, you won't be getting "modules". You'll be getting only basic building materials, like poles, planks, nails, bricks, etc. It is up to you to fit those together to make wall, floor, roof, etc.
     
  27. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    To clarify for people unfamiliar with the difference -

    Modules typically snap into place and can only be placed onto specific parts of other modules. "Weld" style building has the same prefabs as modules, but they can be connected in more ways.
     
  28. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    In my case it won't be "same prefabs", as prefabs for "modules" are usually:

    • A ready-made wall
    • A table
    • A chair
    • A window
    • A weird sculpture of an octopus holding bottle in one of its arms
    • A roof piece
    Whereas in the system I envision, it'd be:
    • A plank
    • A brick
    • A pole
    • A metal plate
    • A metal bar
    It'd be up to you to construct something meaningful out of these.
     
    Tomnnn likes this.
  29. snacktime

    snacktime

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    3,356
    It's kind of a distinction without a difference in the context I was speaking of. My point was about complexity in this kind of system and how it effects gameplay.

    Object placement is largely orthogonal to whether the object is a plank, wall, has joints, whatever. Or at least it should be. One of the things I didn't like about every other building system I saw is that they all had some specific way that objects fit together, which I thought was the wrong way to do it. I built a system where the core is a group of methods that give you possible placement points based on raycasting, neighbors, orientation to neighbors, is it colliding with other specific layers, etc.. Then you decide what restrictions should be applied based on the type of object being placed.

    For example, I can specify per object if it should be placed at ground level, inset into the terrain, use physics for placement, use physics for destruction, what interval the grid should 'snap' at for that object (down to a tenth of a unit), etc..

    The 'modular' system where it guides you and snaps objects together for you is just a layer over the above. I have several different layers like this that encapsulate different styles of building.

    Structural integrity is also pretty much orthogonal to object placement itself if you do it right.

    In the end you can have any type of build system you want, but you have to guide players to success. A completely freeform placement system with structural integrity will lead players to failure more often then not. I think the trick is putting in place guidance systems that make you feel like you have complete control, but in subtle ways the system is guiding you.

    One approach I'd like to try is making an overlay that gives you a bunch of information about the objects you have placed, and also about the object you are placing. It would show you what objects align to other objects, distance, and for structural integrity how much load an object is bearing.

    In the real world you have things to help you make the right decisions. In a building game you need some mechanism that does the same thing. It's just one of those things that at the high level idea phase it's easy to miss. But once you get into actual gameplay with a working system it becomes painfully obvious.
     
    Deleted User and Kiwasi like this.
  30. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    Great idea especially for VR!
     
  31. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    Thank for the tips, snacktime! Will take them under consideration when I'll be prototyping it.

    I don't think I will make mandatory guiding system that "feels like you have full control", because in some cases you'll end up fighting it to make it put thing where you want. However, such system would be in place if default building wouldn't be fun enough, but completely optional (though turned on by default).
     
  32. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I imagined it would have both, but having only the raw materials / basic shapes is an interesting take on the idea.
     
  33. jpthek9

    jpthek9

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Posts:
    944
    Unity: The Game Maker

    That would actually be really cool.
     
  34. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    You should probably think about whether this makes sense in your game. I mean: does it improve the user experience? Is it fun? Is it worth spending extra hours to make this feature as best as it can be?

    I'm asking these questions because though its quite cool; sometimes going the simple and unrealistic route is best. Games like 7 Days to Die implement a gravitational effect on blocks; yet when they come down its far from realistic. The game is fairly poor in the graphical aesthetic at least in my own opinion, yet this style of gravity fits. If your goal is a fully realistic and immersive experience, then go for it. Definitely go for it if you feel you have the ability to pull it off.

    I really think its important to make a polished work, something people would want to throw their hard earned money at you for, rather than focusing on adding dozens of cool features. 7 Days To Die is a good example of the converse. Its got tons of really great features; yet not very polished. I think that if they at least made the gunplay and zombie intelligence more fun it could be much better. Its just very stocky and rigid when you play it, at least the last time I played it (about 8 months ago).

    Of course its also important to lay out your priorities. Creating a polished game takes resources away from implementing those features you think may define your game. Likewise, unless you have a team of devoted devs its difficult to implement X features and still have a polished game.

    @snacktime I think you are above all, correct about those things. To concisely put it: players aren't engineers or architects, so give them some guidance to help them build things to have fun.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  35. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    I see. Thank you. The thing I fear the most is the performance, but if I can figure it out, I'll probably manage to do that.
     
  36. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Some players (and yourself) will figure it out. You can let them save & share finished designs :D -regarding building things

    Let prefabs exist via community saved designs, maybe.

    --edit

    What if you let them change the length and width of the basic parts? Then you'd have even more building options! And your game would start to remind people of legos lol.
     
  37. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    Or if you don't want them to simply be able to plop down a design and be done with it, you could approach it so that the design is an overlay in the world showing you where to put each material but still requiring the user to assemble it.
     
    Tomnnn likes this.
  38. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    so... ikea simulator? Oh no wait, that exists already.
     
  39. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    @Tomnnn I've thought about stretching things out, but then you have to deal with things like stretched blurry textures that doesn't look nice or weird effects stretching can do to the model geometry. Having not deal with stretched textures is one of reason behind Computer Virus Simulator's flatshaded untextured artstyle. The fact levels are built from basic primitives instead of complex models is the solution of unwanted effects of stretching on the (complex) model geometry.

    But most likely, I'll provide variety of plank sizes from small ones to ones that are 5 meter long, which should be enough for most buildings.

    As for blueprints, I may add them later if the basic building is fun and I see sense in implementing those as you need to implement additional save format for blueprints and way to spawn blueprint (or outline) in the world.
     
  40. snacktime

    snacktime

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    3,356
    You can do a lot in the performance area by only enabling things that actually need to be active based on range from the player. In some cases I even combine meshes into an alternate model at runtime that has no colliders or physics at all, then it's really cheap to disable one and enable the other when I need to.
     
  41. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Are the shapes going to be merged into one mesh when they're done? How is this going to be performance wise?
     
  42. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    @darkhog I think instead of stretching the prefabs, you could try an incremental approach. If player has X wide modular prefab, but wants 3x wide modular of the same prefab do this: add a similarly looking prefab on to both sides of it, or just on one side of it if 2x or for some other width.

    I try never to think in terms of "that's it there's nothing more I can do", instead I try a solution oriented approach by asking myself this: "Y solution isn't as good as it could be (ie. stretched prefabs) now what can I do to improve it and achieve the same results?"

    Come to think of it I should try that line of thought with other parts of my life -.-
     
    Dreamaster likes this.
  43. darkhog

    darkhog

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Posts:
    2,218
    @Braineeee That's a good idea. Hm.

    @Tomnnn That's the problem - if I want to have them to fall apart (as in KSP fall apart) they won't. Though I can disable rigidbody and colliders for objects too far away to matter (like 100-200m).
     
  44. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    hmmmm.......

    I got nothing. Anyone can write up a system that makes objects stick together, but even the best of them will suffer from performance issues on big builds. Besiege, the dead linger, subnautica... in all of those, building a large enough structure will murder your framerate.

    7 days and minecraft seem to have it worked out somehow. Despite having structural integrity per block, you can walk through a town in 7days surrounded by hundreds of buildings made from hundreds of blocks and have no impact on performance. The only occasional lag is when a large structure collapses, and even that has been optimized a lot in the past few major updates. It must be much easier with blocks.

    If they can do thousands of blocks with structural integrity then I'm sure it's possible to do what you're trying to do without structural integrity. Maybe you can combine meshes and find a cheap way to break them off that mesh later.
     
    Deleted User likes this.
  45. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    @Tomnnn: Outside of liquids and a tiny number of blocks Minecraft doesn't really have physics. What little it does have isn't even running non-stop but rather is triggered by an equally small number of events. The result is that Minecraft has very little to actually do each tick.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
    Tomnnn, Kiwasi and Deleted User like this.
  46. snacktime

    snacktime

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2013
    Posts:
    3,356
    I use spatial grids combined with runtime mesh combining. I can tune how big the combined meshes are, and flip back and forth between combined/uncombined as I cache both versions. So a projectile hits a combined mesh, I uncombine just that small area to apply physics.

    I have 3 stages for objects. Completely out of range completely disabled. In visual range but not interacting with anything, combined. And in situations where something is interacting uncombined.

    The biggest challenge I had was materials. I basically ended up with a top level which is the spatial grid that divides the world into chunks. Then within each chunk you have to group combined meshes by their materials. If models use a lot of different combinations of materials you end up with more combined meshes which is more objects overall. Then you have to dynamically account for vertice count limits so you don't go over the max.

    While it was a chunk of work, it was worth it because I can scale up to several hundred thousand objects and still have good fps.
     
    Ryiah and Tomnnn like this.
  47. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    Most of that was in regards to 7 days, who has a lot going on everywhere :D

    I was thinking of something like this, but I didn't know how to put it into words. I'm glad it's doable.

    Sounds like it. I wouldn't even know where to begin... even after you detailed the basics just now. But maybe that'll be enough of a hint for @darkhog for something related.

    @tatoforever I wonder if that's still the case if it's true, because there's a big terrain update in alpha13. Dynamically deforming meshes to show damage to voxels :D
     
    tatoforever likes this.
  48. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    How about chunking and loading, for large / pseudo-infinite worlds?
     
  49. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,965
    @tatoforever: If I recall correctly it also includes a pretty hefty price tag. Though this is just coming from memory. You have to contact them for licensing details now. Any idea how it comes to a much more affordable asset like Ultimate Terrains?

    http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/uterrains-ultimate-terrains-voxel-terrain-engine.304908/

    @Tomnnn: It reads like it does. There's a thread on it if you're curious.

    http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/te...es-infinite-procedural-smooth-terrain.174595/
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015
    Tomnnn likes this.
  50. Tomnnn

    Tomnnn

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,148
    I see it has things for infinite world, so maybe. Very impressive tool!

    --edit

    It's not available for sale though. I guess I'll just wait on my friend to finish his isosurface terrain engine.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2015