Some suggestions for the game

Are you thinking of the smaller block system like in Blockscape?

Yeah! These look really really good. Myself and others have brought up integrating a small block grid into Rising World that would be similar to what Blockscape uses. It would really bring a new level of construction detail to the game that is not so easily achievable with the advanced construction system in RW. In short, the block idea wheter in Minecraft or Rising World works but the blocks are just too large

How is Blockscape coming along btw? I've take a peek at it periodically but it just seems like development of that game is slower than Rising World. Rising World seems to be quickly catching up to Blockscape which has been in early access for far longer. Rising World arguably looks better too and with all the changes coming up that should take place this year, it will probably surpass Blockscape.

When you think about it, Minecraft blocks still work well but the problem is not enough customization of block shapes. For example, fences in minecraft look nice (especially after applying texture packs and shader mods) but are still technically blocks with just a very unique shape. What we probably need is to update the block bench to create lots of additional shapes (in addition to the existing block, slab, ramp, stair) such as fences and walls. This would likely be much easier to implement than the tiny block grid and building system that Blockscape uses.

Ya, I'm desiring more block types myself. The small ones I've used before in Miencraft's FTB mod before, panels, and all that. You get finer detail out of being able to use smaller blocks, and block types, that you can go back in awe at it. I forgot the mod name, but it allows you to build smaller. There's another one where you can shrink yourself & build smaller, yet forgot the name of that also. You can make things grow & shrink. It's amusing.

And Foxfire is right that Rising World shall now surpass Blockscape. There's more passionate updates being released that you can see more love & care. More willingness to update. Took a skim of the first video with it being awesome.

The SuperSlopes mod added a variety of block shapes to minecraft. Ofcourse, Rising World offered that from the beginning.

Also a request was made recently and Red agreed to adding either a half sphere or a quarter cylinder block. Personally I think both would look nice.

Quote from zfoxfire

Also a request was made recently and Red agreed to adding either a half sphere or a quarter cylinder block. Personally I think both would look nice.

Yeah I made this request almost a year ago in a picture basically like this in Past Suggestions. One of my suggestions 1 of 4 new blocks, I recolored it red just now for clarity. Other quick 2 examples I also inserted would help for servers. The half spherical I never thought about. But adding bigger cylinders in game using the 1/4 block would double size of cylinders right now, we kind of lack of dynamic cylinders in the game. At least with creative mode you can
make spherical shapes but of course on most servers not allowed. I don't know any easy way right now to make big spheres using bricks and certainly not cylinders larger than one block wide. Of course we got some people hacking plank textures to make look like stones or blocks but I don't consider that part of the game. Nice to have cones too but the pyramid can mimic that close enough.

A sphere block should be added as well. The most common triangle angles are 30 (opposite of 60), 45, and 90. A wedge block of each angle would be good. I guess the current ramp block has the 45 degree angle covered.

And regarding 1/4 blocks or large spheres, well... When the new construction system comes, its supposed to allow for scalable blocks. This was mentioned by Red last year sometime but and I know no other details other than that he confirmed that I could essentially build a pyramid out of giant blocks (because I am lazy and like the puzzles with the giant pieces).

I was curious how this would work with the existing block grid and its limitations. I think that what might happen is that once you scale a block, it will eventually become a construction object rather than a block. The fact that blueprints were recently modified to greatly increase the number of construction objects supported. So with a block now as a construction objects, all the manipulations that can be done with beams and planks now apply to what was a standard block. The rammifications of this are huge! Think how detailed you can get with the smaller block grid in Blockscape. But since we are now freed from the block grid, it should be possible to scale and also rotate blocks or perhaps goups of objects as we wish. I think grouping of objects will have to also be implemented in order to pull off the kind of crazy construction I am envisioning. I guess the blueprint rotation restriction will be gone now if blocks are no longer treated as blocks since the block grid is no longer a factor.

We are going to be able to do some really advanced building that will go far beyond the clever ways players have found to build out of wood planks and beams. A way to copy an existing construction object would also be a way to rapidlt assemble structures on a large scale. The current system only remembers the length, width, and angle of the last item placed which puts a limitation on how you construct something.

When I think of the kinds of massive scale builds that Minecraft pIayers make such as the Mines of Moria, I bet we are going to see Minecraft builders flocking to Rising World once they see the possibilities once they are freed from the block grid.

I think we need a few more block types such as a ring (or maybe a circular window frame) and a hollow cylinder.

I am also thinking of custom objects such as the stepping stones sugested by ArcticKitsu. I want to build some fancy looking fences and custom lamp housings. Basically anything we can build out of blocks can be scaled to a smaller side and now you have something more higly detailed than what was possible with beams or planks. Now you have someting really cool to blueprint.

zfoxfire, I wasn't saying 45 deg I was saying 22.5 to get half blocks and lower pitch roofs instead of 1/2 pitch (45) as it is now, Here is a better illustration if you didn't understand it's 1/4 pitch I left outline of original side angle. I have several problems with only 1/2 angels I am running into walls I can't slowly turn such as a long castle wall, or ancient building roofs, ramps / inclines for bridges, oriental structures.

I had this in my past suggestions but perhaps it was misunderstood or ignored because I wasn't clear I tried to diagram more clearly my proposal and reason for it I show examples for the doubters of how much two bricks added could improve the choices of builders. I want TWO bricks that are separate not combined but you can put side by side to get the results shown below.

I will show a structure examples as well my choices in a castle building would change a lot if I would go from max curve of an octagon all the way up to 16 sided structures almost circular. Provided that the two 22.5 degree blocks would rotate exactly like the current 45 degree one rotates. You could build boats, barns, roofs, and various other things out of wood/stone blocks rather than entire server almost is exclusively using wood planks now. But just by adding in two new blocks you got another option you normally don't have.

I have medieval project I am working on Freaks UR us Server same server I think you are also using zfoxfire, I am having hard time on getting semi circle towers and angled roofs as well as long arches these two blocks would help a lot in those buildings as well as help low pitch roofs which even simple builders would help in designs.

Every-time I place a block currently I have only really two blocks to work with be nice to have few more choices.

Ahh, I see now. Thankyou for clarifying. I am totally onboard with this. I like the idea of having blocks with different pitch options but my only concern is that now we have to add more inner and outer ramp corners. I'd like to see Red ad some grouping to the blocks and in addition to the rotating preview, set a background image in that area showing the top and side views of the block. Another idea is to combine the individual ramp blocks that you described into a single rectangular block object (two blocks combined) unless there are other uses in construction for the individual blocks.

Just curious, so is 1/3rd pitch (30 degrees) uncommon compared to 1/4 pitch (22.5 degrees)? Why not have options for both?

Quote from zfoxfire

Ahh, I see now. Thankyou for clarifying. I am totally onboard with this. I like the idea of having blocks with different pitch options but my only concern is that now we have to add more inner and outer ramp corners. I'd like to see Red ad some grouping to the blocks and in addition to the rotating preview, set a background image in that area showing the top and side views of the block. Another idea is to combine the individual ramp blocks that you described into a single rectangular block object (two blocks combined) unless there are other uses in construction for the individual blocks.

Just curious, so is 1/3rd pitch (30 degrees) uncommon compared to 1/4 pitch (22.5 degrees)? Why not have options for both?

The reason I said 2 blocks and had them as individual blocks not as a group blocks is because of programming. Red51 could easily add in two blocks like I proposed but if he groups them as two blocks then he has all sorts of programming issues. Such as placing blocks in two locations, rotating, breaking blocks in two locations. Having combined bricks would make his job much more difficult to group blocks. I want it to be simple for programming that's why I am saying two bricks so it's not complicating his job. Right now my proposal isn't much work yet benefits builders. However if we did as you hinted at to combine two blocks grouped together would causes a rewrite of the current block placement system.

Why I choose only that pitch. First by having the block exactly in 1/2 the height of next block (correction noted (26.5)) which 1/2 of (45) allows only two blocks needed but gives a high benefit. Also it works perfectly fine with current block placement system. As you can see in my examples using the two new bricks allows correction noted (26.5) incline bricks allowing for various other builds since it's exactly 1/2 way up the height of next brick. So the following brick could even be a slab which is 1/2 height brick and be exactly even so that's why I proposed (26.5) degree that over any other angles.

Lastly if the people want a joining block like the 45 degree one has 2, that requires 4 more blocks to join to angles of two intersections of (26.5) but I don't think that is necessary I prefer the block even without the less used joiner blocks. But if you added the Joiner block I basically could make full blown high peeks on towers and redo my tower.

Longer explanation:
1/3 pitch is common in building because of inches, I even had this in my suggestions an image of pitch roofs (see signature link below) 4/12" 8/12" 12/12" which I wasn't considering that bricks were fixed on grids. So it wouldn't clearly land on another block that's why I said (26.5) degree pitch so it end up exactly two blocks if you do 1/3 as well, you have to end up making it dividable by blocks below itself. So In order to line up you have to have your angle divided by the bricks below it. IMO 30 degrees wasn't enough difference from 45. I also don't know how you do that without confusion you end up make 3 bricks if you want to keep single brick unit type. If not you run into the problem I mentioned above like two three brick positions. I just don't know if it be worth confusing everyone with many different pitches at least 3 new blocks for 33.33 and 2 new for my (26.5). I had this in my own suggestions a year ago but at the time I didn't realize how he was using units of single blocks for everything such as blueprints, rotation and orientations. I think planks/boards are big reason we don't have rotating blue prints the angles of the beams and planks would have to be recalculated to new angles but a brick unit wouldn't just rotated, so that's why I was only suggesting bricks. If you draw out 1/3 pitch then try to get that to line up to next brick you probably needing I imagine at least three new bricks confusing people with more bricks of what to place in what order also vary little would be different in size between a 30 degree pitch brick and 22.5 as a single unit. Also (26.5) degrees allows the inverse that to make it steeper where as 1/3 pitch is not in-between the 45 degrees we have now. If your convinced 1/3 would be easier in the one brick unit type that Red51 is using draw it out on graph paper mark off when it hits ratio divisible unit. (26.5) ends up hitting it in just two bricks. You can make a picture show how yours would work.

Example here of type of problems I have ... First: I am talking bricks not beams or planks

1. The best anyone can do on server with bricks trying to make a cylindrical tower is an octagon. ...
2. Making a Barn like roof I only have 45 degrees no arch
3. Making arches other then two wide ... imagine it's arching
4. Making a cone any cone the only thing I can imagine is a pyramid shape that is not circular but ends up in four 45 degree squares going to top.

Here's what my two bricks proving evidence overlaying few real life examples:

I totally agree with making the coding as easy as possible. For as much as I know, Red wants to focus more on the construction system rather than blocks. Implementing relationships between blocks and fixing the rotation restriction can be done but fixing old code can become quite time consuming because there's more impacted systems to consider. I'm guessing that blueprints were not part of the original game plan otherwise the rotational bug would not even exist right now.

For what it is worth, me too I totally agree with this suggestion, which would significantly enlarge the building possibility with quite a limited addition to the repertoire of shapes and no new special case in the code.

As a side note, three points to note:

1) The angle at the tip of the slope is not 22.5° but ca. 26.565° [<= asin( 1 / sqrt(1^2 + 2^2) ) ].

2) As @zfoxfire hinted at, four more block shapes would be needed: the 'upper' and the 'lower' half of both the inner and the outer ramp corners, for a total of 6 new blocks shapes.

3) Possibly, three block shapes would be enough, if the 'lower' half of ramp, outer corner and inner corner could be placed at two levels (1: ramp bottom at block bottom, 2: ramp top at block top, simulating the 'upper' half), similarly to what is possible now for the "half block", so no new coding case. This would work fine when looking from outside/above, but would leave 'steps' when looking from inside/below or sideways.

EDIT: In the formula above, I skipped the "sqrt"! Corrected.

Another Idea is to go the route of StarsOne and rather than finalizing the shape on the block bench, you could finalize it while placing it. A RMB menu could let you select the shape you want in a menu like below or simply add some construction window popup showing all the blocks to choose from.

Block
Slab
+- half-height
+- quarter height
Pyramid
Cylinder
+- Full
+- half +- quarter
Ramp
+- 45 degree
+- 22.5
+- upper
+-
+- Curved
Corner-Ramp
+- Inner
+- 45 degree
+- 22.5 degree
+- upper
+- lower
+- Outer
Stair
+- Type 1.
+- Type 2.
+- Type 3..
....

Quote from Miwarre

For what it is worth, me too I totally agree with this suggestion, which would significantly enlarge the building possibility with quite a limited addition to the repertoire of shapes and no new special case in the code.

As a side note, three points to note:

1) The angle at the tip of the slope is not 22.5° but ca. 26.565° [<= asin(1 / (1^2 + 2^2)) ].
Guess I don't remember trig. Your totally correct that's not linear.
2) As @zfoxfire hinted at, four more block shapes would be needed: the 'upper' and the 'lower' half of both the inner and the outer ramp corners, for a total of 6 new blocks shapes.
I agree I just noted too as in reference "half block" I think that's currently unstackable in 1/2. IMO annoying blocks at least what I remember never rotate vertical, so the units are in full 1:1 ratios for blocks currently so that's why I didn't bother confusing some people reading this conversation. That we could get by with only three blocks (if we could stack the current "half-block" and new blocks stack that way as well) but yes it would require six now to have a complete set for just this angle not including intersecting 45 degree blocks without reprogramming for half blocks. But I rather have those two blocks over no new blocks.

3) Possibly, three block shapes would be enough, if the 'lower' half of ramp, outer corner and inner corner could be placed at two levels (1: ramp bottom at block bottom, 2: ramp top at block top, simulating the 'upper' half), similarly to what is possible now for the "half block", so no new coding case. This would work fine when looking from outside/above, but would leave 'steps' when looking from inside/below or sideways.

Display More