Question about texture sizes and performance.

Actually the texture scale has no impact on performance None of the settings in the building menu (that's opened by holding c) really affect performance. Only the total number of pieces used have an impact on performance (although this is typically only getting relevant if you use hundreds of thousands of pieces, for example)

Quote from red51

Actually the texture scale has no impact on performance None of the settings in the building menu (that's opened by holding c) really affect performance. Only the total number of pieces used have an impact on performance (although this is typically only getting relevant if you use hundreds of thousands of pieces, for example)

If I resize to 3x3x3 it is 1 voxel but if I drag out to 3x3x3 it is 27 voxels? So people should resize as much as possible rather than drag to make walls and floors?

Is it possible to increase the max size of blocks? I ran into an issue that I wasn't able to load my world due to too many blocks in a certain area.

Quote from krazmuze

If I resize to 3x3x3 it is 1 voxel but if I drag out to 3x3x3 it is 27 voxels? So people should resize as much as possible rather than drag to make walls and floors?

If by “drag out” you mean place 1 block 3x times instead of making 1 block placed once but stretched to fit, then yes that is correct. I found this out the hard way when making a super detailed dungeon column and experiencing lag when I placed 50+ of them. After rebuilding the column with far less blocks (and half the detail) it no longer lagged.

Quote from Desmagu

Is it possible to increase the max size of blocks? I ran into an issue that I wasn't able to load my world due to too many blocks in a certain area.

In survival it is 5x5x5 but in creative it can be 32x32x32.

Quote from ROEN_44

If by “drag out” you mean place 1 block 3x times instead of making 1 block placed once but stretched to fit, then yes that is correct. I found this out the hard way when making a super detailed dungeon column and experiencing lag when I placed 50+ of them. After rebuilding the column with far less blocks (and half the detail) it no longer lagged.

That is why I asked - I have been using 3x3x3 resized blocks as that is what classic D&D maps use - 5' voxels (as a unit block is 20"). Sometimes blocks get reset so I just drag the unit blocks out but what also considering using smaller blocks to detail damaged walls.

I really need to go in then an eliminate the corner blocks I used for snapping that you cannot see but since my dungeon flooded I fear maybe that it leaves an invisible leak at the seam. So I dammed things up filled with stone and carved it out hoping that leaves stone inside all the blocks - but then found out you still have to pickaxe the corners even using the area cut tool. So maybe it still leaks!

Quote from Desmagu

Is it possible to increase the max size of blocks? I ran into an issue that I wasn't able to load my world due to too many blocks in a certain area.

Yikes what is the cluster block limit? My megadungeon is certainly multiple clusters deep and wide but I had no idea there was a forced limit (other than server lag - I do single player and have 64GB of core mem and a RTX4090 with lot of GPU mem) I wonder if I should redo some longer walls and floors with creative resizing as they are made of dragged 3x3x3 resized blocks - still a lot of blocks! Just easier when building to be able to punch out door holes.

Quote from krazmuze

If I resize to 3x3x3 it is 1 voxel but if I drag out to 3x3x3 it is 27 voxels? So people should resize as much as possible rather than drag to make walls and floors?

Yes, using larger blocks (i.e less elements) results in better performance Although I wouldn't focus too much on this kind of optimization... the game handles lots of blocks very efficiently, so I'd only try to reduce elements when working with a very high level of detail, for example (e.g when working with tiny blocks, much smaller than 1x1x1), or when having tens of thousands of blocks in a single chunk etc.

Quote from Desmagu

Is it possible to increase the max size of blocks? I ran into an issue that I wasn't able to load my world due to too many blocks in a certain area.

Right now the max size in survival mode is 5x5x5, while in creative mode, it is 32x32x32, as mentioned by ROEN_44 ... there had been considerations to change the limit in survival mode, but I'm curious about the world loading issue I remember you sent me your world back then due to a loading issue (although IIRC that was fixed in the meantime)... but was there still an unresolved issue?

Quote from ROEN_44

In survival it is 5x5x5 but in creative it can be 32x32x32.

I know, that was not my question

Quote from red51

but I'm curious about the world loading issue

Its better when I explain it in German:

Ich habe drei Gebäude innerhalb eines Radius gehabt die Insgesamt auf 1,5 Millionen Blöcke gekommen sind. Dazu kamen Blöcke für Straßen ect. dazu. Ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt ist dann der PC komplett abgestürtzt und jedes mal als ich die Welt geladen habe ist dann das Spiel abgestürtzt bis ich die Grafikeinstellungen reduziert habe. Mit reduzierten Grafikeinstellungen konnte ich die Welt ohne Probleme wieder laden. Wenn ich diesen Bereich mit den blocklastigen Gebäuden verlassen habe konnte ich die Grafikeinstellungen wieder höher setzen. Als ich mich diesen Gebäuden genähert habe ist das Spiel wieder abgestürtzt.

Die Lösung war dass ich bei zwei der Gebäude die Blockanzahl jeweils von ca. 512k auf unter 300k reduziert habe. Insgesamt habe ich knapp über 600k Blöcke wegoptimiert indem ich die Blöcke so lang/groß gebaut habe wie es nur ging. Seitdem spiele ich wieder mit höheren Grafikeinstellungen ohne wieder dieses Problem zu haben.

Wären die Blöcke nicht auf bis zu 32x32x32 begrenzt hätte ich noch mehr Blöcke einsparen können. Das Problem wird sein wenn meine Stadt dichter wird dann könnte ich wieder auf solche Probleme stoßen

So I guess where one would get into trouble is using all the clutter blueprints people make as they are small detailed voxel objects made with resized blocks - they are not regular inventory items with defined meshes because those cannot be placed yet.

But just using 3x3x3 resized blocks that it is near a thousand blocks if making a solid cluster cube stack - but then it would not be a dungeon with rooms so I should be OK probably only hundreds in a cluster as long as I do not go ham on clutter and details.

One of the megadungeons floors is a crystal/mushroom farm so I was looking forward to that clutter pack - but maybe not a good idea. I have not got there yet but the D&D map for it was scaled down with a smaller 5' grid just to fit the page compared to the others. Pretty big - but seems it is more about the map depth than map breadth as levels range from 10-30' deep there are probably a few levels in each cluster.

Quote from red51

Right now the max size in survival mode is 5x5x5, while in creative mode, it is 32x32x32, as mentioned by ROEN_44 ... there had been considerations to change the limit in survival mode, but I'm curious about the world loading issue I remember you sent me your world back then due to a loading issue (although IIRC that was fixed in the meantime)... but was there still an unresolved issue?

I really want survival to have volume based resourcing and do away with the limits. If I have enough stones I can make it. Since mining a large block of terrain gets lots of stones, making a large block should also use lots of stones. I find myself needing to go creative just to make larger circle blocks and domes but it has free resources, but I do not want survival to be one stone makes any voxel size.

Quote from Man With a Plan

While I agree about stones and havint lots of it, but what about people, who build from wood? I dont want to cut down 50 chunks of trees to build log cabin. So increasing elements size limit is still best option. You can always throw away excess stone.

Instead of saying do not do it because I do not like it, instead say if you do volume resourcing add an option to toggle it back to single resource which is what you like. Survival is all about balancing logisitics of getting necessary resource while trying to survive, not easy resourcing.

Quote from Man With a Plan

Should have included that in your own post above. Then there were no opposition.

The game has lots of options so it should not need to be said. If you do not like it you should know you should be able to turn it off. So instead of telling me to throw away stone just say you will turn that option off. I had to turn that inventory full auto drop option off because my megadungeon was so cluttered with stones I had to start pickaxing the pickaxed stones to delete them to even move. So instead i have to pay attention to inventory full and throw away the stone stacks in the trash icon - so it is a frequent reminder that if you have volume mining you should match it with volume building so that I do not have to use the trash workaround. Because if it if fair for you to trash talk me and say trash your stone then it if fair for me to say get busy chopping wood - that gets the game nowhere fast.

Wood is also not a challenge - use the chainsaw or fast harvest animation on your tree farm which is a sustainable resource with saplings. Make the harvest timer faster if you want even more logs. I can do the opposite and use the logs I cleared in summer for my land claim to build the cabin that winter - then have to wait a decade for sapling renewal else find another forest and risk getting mauled by another bear.

Likewise if I lack skill at building I should be able to download a cabin blueprint plans, it should also say I OPTIONALLY need a forest full of logs and it should take some time to get all that inventory dumped into the blueprint.

It is up to the dev to decide if is worth the time and money to work on new features (this requires nothing more than basic geometry sure its been a while since highschool but I bet wikipedia has the formulas for spheres and cones) and provide more options to attract more audiences to get more people to provide more money to afford more time.

Now if they decide to support larger sizes in survival, Yes it is better if I can make any size in survival (maybe add a task timer) but it should not take one resource, so do not do it unless that option to do resource volumes is added.