There's something about Sandbox that's bugging me. I really hoped that Bungie would have tried harder to fix some of Foundry's problems. For example, making large walls, floors, and block structures. Why do we need to use more than one object? It's much more difficult than it needs to be. Let me explain. The most obvious example I can think of is the Grifball court on Foundry. Why should a forger have to use dozens of walls and boxes to make a single, large wall? Why not make it only necessary to use a single wall? Here's the way I see it: Wall and Block objects on Sandbox should be adjustable for size. Think about it. It's already possible with several objective points, e.g. "hills" and VIP points. Their parameters are adjustable, and I see no reason why walls should be any different. But if this were so, the game would not run smoothly! People would make enormous objects that fill in the entire sky bubble! It would never work! Console performance is not an issue. Sandbox can already support a certain amount of walls and a certain amount of double walls. Simple math reveals the "wall limitation" of Sandbox (excluding "wall corners," "quarter walls," and "half walls": (40 walls x 1 sq. unit each) + (40 double walls x 2 sq. units each) = 120 sq. units of walls Let's say that a creation on Sandbox can run at optimal conditions if it contains no more than 120 sq. units of walls. No problem; just put a limit on the area of walls on the map. For example: I place one "custom wall" object and set its parameters to 10x4 sq. units. Then I place another "custom wall" object and set its parameters to 9x6 sq. units. That's 94 sq. units so far. Say I place another "custom wall" object and set its parameters to 10x5 sq. units--the game denies my request because that would mean there is a total of 144 sq. units of walls on the map, and an area of only 120 sq. units is allowed. Accordingly, why stop at walls? "Double blocks", "large blocks," "tall blocks," and "huge blocks" combine for a total of 1,320 sq. units. A "custom object" could not only account for width and length, but also height. Now, instead of an area restriction, there is a volume restriction. As I said previously, this type of system is already in the game in the form of some objective points. Creating a "custom object" from these points would not be difficult: Give the object a collision model and a tileable skin and you're good to go. It's entirely possible. Why did Bungie not give it to us? Discuss.
Super-huge grifball-sized walls would create serious issues for object load distance in splitscreen Custom sized objects *with physics* are probably not possible with Bungie's current forge engine, as it so far only supports custom sizes on objects that define areas rather than objects that can be walked on or shot at. I do wish we had at least triple blocks, or 2x2 squares though.
I don't think creating a hill area is the same as creating a wall, I mean think about it, a wall that enormous would have it's textures stretched out thin, and would look blurry or overly pixelated. I think a great fix would be allowing us to snap walls together (like the tin cup magnetism), after a certain degree of alignment has been reached the wall snaps onto that other object, no bumps, and it would share the same angle co-ordiates as the other object. Though of course, the inability to do these things makes the maps that come out looking great even that much more special. Who wants a map that is perfectly smooth but plays terrible?
Yeah, that would be great and all if Halo's engine could support it. If you didn't notice the largest amount of square units is located in a double box. You will never find an object with more. A large column has the same amount, just placed differently. Sure you can have a paper thin wall that covers the width of Foundry, too bad grenades, bullets, melees, vehicles, and maybe even people would run through it. Short story, impossible.
He's right. A wall is a solid physical object and a hill isn't, sam with territories. I did wish for alot of new objects on sandbox but i cant complain. I mean if you like foundry you should like sandbox too, no being this disapointed that they haven't made the specific object you wanted.
You're not getting the idea. I'm saying that if Sandbox can support X square units of walls in the form of 20 walls, why can't it support X square units of walls in the form of one single wall? The method for adjusting the parameters is already a feature in the game. I don't want people telling me "the Halo engine can't support it, it won't work" because nobody here knows that for a fact. If you're going to provide insight, please back it up and be able to account for your explanation. This is entirely possible to do by modding. I just don't see why Bungie doesn't make it a Forge feature.
The reason hills and objective points work in variable dimensions is because there are no physical or graphical models that need adjustment. But for the other objects (walls, boxes, etc.), they all have preset hard-surface and graphical models that would need to be modified and stored individually for each and every version of that item placed. Seeing as how the items use a preset cookie-cutter model for each copy, it would require a modification of the forge engine itself. Now, I can see how you'd think that dimensions wouldn't be something that aren't variable, but I don't think you realize how much stress stretching or tiling the face graphics to match the physical dimensions of the object would be not only on the RAM but on the GPU of the XBox 360. Creating an object that could stretch like you're suggesting it would require it to be so ridiculously graphically plain in order to not over-tax the system that we'd essentially be dealing with gray, luster-less boxes. Not to mention with items like that, the filesizes of maps would skyrocket; yet more system-slowing obstacles to creating items that could do what you're suggesting. It's a great idea in theory, but it's entirely impractical.
And I don't want you telling me that the halo engine can support it, because you don't know that for a fact either. Until a precedent has been set for a physical object having variable size, it is smarter to assume there's a good reason it hasn't been done(it can't be done) than to assume that it can and Bungie just doesn't want to for apparently no reason.
The Forge engine has trouble keeping walls straight. Why would you think it could handle even just PLACING a giant wall?
First of all, collision models are simply coordinates. By adjusting the size of a wall, you would change only the coordinates of the collision model. That's not taxing on the system by any means. I've already addressed your second point. The walls would have a tileable texture so that no matter how big the wall would be, the texture would remain a certain size and not become distorted. The skins would look the same as they do now. Sure, hills and VIP points are not normal objects, but just because they don't have collision models does not mean they're simple objects. If they just sat there with no collision model and did nothing, that would be different. But the game can detect when players are in the hill or the VIP point. Therefore, they run off of a coordinate-based system. Applying a collision model to this preexisting objects seems entirely possible to me. My entire post outlined reasons why I think there should be giant walls. If the forge engine can support dozens of walls/blocks, why can't it support an identical area/volume in the form of a single wall/block? I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm presenting a logical explanation for why I think this should be in the game, and backing it with knowledge of the game's schematics.
I agree with you completely, because a single block should have the same number of polygons as a double block. I'll try to explain it better: Let's say you have a pair of 6 sided dice. One is about a 1/2 inch in width, length, and volume, while the other is 1 foot in width, length, and volume. Even though they're completely different in size, they are still both 6 sided dice. I was hoping Bungie would add a gigantic wall, so people could even use it as a floor in skybubble.
Also, it'd be too easy. Maybe in H3: ODST, as there are probably restrictions to the physics of such objects, but it would be too easy that way. Anyway, we got something similar in Avalanche (the energy blockers)
What do you mean by "too easy?" Too easy to forge maps? Also, what do you mean about the energy blockers? How are they similar? Thanks for your post, LuiginDaisy. You bring up a point that I entirely forgot about: Arguably the aspect of Halo 3 that taxes the engine the most is first person views. I'll try to explain. When modeling weapons, or anything for that matter, each face (flat side) is automatically separated into triangles. Each triangle is called a poly (polygon). Halo 3's engine supports a certain amount of polies per object in order to run smoothly. For example, say you're modeling a cardboard box (a cube). It has six faces; each is a square. By connecting two non-adjacent corners on a face, you create two congruent polies. When all of these polies are displayed up-close on the screen (as in a first-person view), the engine is working pretty strenuously. I personally know that Halo: Combat Evolved could handle weapon models containing around 5,000 polies. I would imagine Halo 3's engine can support more polies, but all default weapon models in the Halo games are pretty simple. Probably just a few thousand polies. The rest is the weapon's skin. Anyway, that's your introduction to modeling. How this applies to my "ultimate wall" idea: A tiny cube, a medium-sized cube, and an ENORMOUS cube all have the same number of polies. So a default "wall, single" would have the same number of polies as a "wall, single" that was stretched to 10,000% its normal length. Granted, such an exageration would cause graphics problems due to the pure immensity of the object. However, poly count, which is one of the main elements in determining framerate, would remain the same.
yeah, the wall thing would be great. You know. a single wall would be 4$ and a larger wall that is the equivalent of 6 single walls would be 24$. see the problem. There is a set size. Sure you may have a single object but it will cost more if you have a bigger single object. All in all, the bigger the object (or in some cases the more complex it is), the more its gonna cost.
Im just dissapointed that they didn't at the least give us a giant wall lets say the size of 4 doubles or even 2 doubles it wouldn't have been that hard to put that in our list of objects and changing the dimensions is probaly out of bounds for this map editor its to bad maybe in the future (ODST)
Umm, no? I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but let me be sure that this was a simple math equation.. (40 x 1)(40 x 2) = (40)(1)(40)(2) right? so umm, (40)(1)(40)(2) = 3200.. Just no.. don't reply, just no.. if math was a person, she would slap you right now..
It's called a typo. Clearly the operation in the middle should have been addition. But thanks for being arrogant about it.