new OverGrowth editor feature idea - Lock grid

[GDer]

So this is the idea that came in my mind when I talked with Jeff about how Valve Hammer Editor does snapping.
<I forgot to add summary of the feature, so here it comes in my version of English (so you may ask me to try using different words): It simply makes other object use the snapping grid that the object that has locked grid uses.>
The idea is presented in 2D but it can easily be converted to 3d.
Click here for the full size version of this image: http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/9258 ... eacrop.jpg

1.
What we have is 3 different objects.
We could build another house.

2.
This is a way to do it in Overgrowth's editor right now in 1-2 minutes. (Many spaces between objects).

3.
This is how it would look after the same 1-2 minutes if this feature (lock grid) would be there.

How to use it:
4.
Place an object.
-> Press "Lock grid" hotkey.
5.
Place other objects and they will together make no space between them. (snapping AABB must be editable because there might be some blocks that have some parts attached that should not be snapped to OR when dragging in directions that are parallel to face's normal, the face that the cursor was pointing at can be used as a temporary snapping AABB side).

6.[not in the picture]
There are some tweaks for this feature that will stay in my mind for now. Because my English sucks, I'll be able to show them with images or by pointing at Valve Hammer Editor (for HL1/CS, editor version 3.5).

================
I think we all know what will happen if people like this idea.

Options for lock grid feature:
snapping distance (grid cell's length/width/height);
AABB source (object's face or custom AABB from object's xml file);
(don't) draw grid option;

[Ac30]

Yes! this would help so much with building creation.

[Nimai]

I asked john about a 'snap to grid' feature a while ago (I forgot what he said about it).
I'm glad you brought it back up
I think its a great idea!.

[Ozymandias]

Could've sworn I suggested this except not as nearly well explained.

Anyhow, it would mean building objects would need to be made all to the same proportions and such so that there's no weird clipping and gaps.

Speaking of Hammer, perhaps the cube we have in the editor now could just have interchangeable textures, sort of like how in Hammer you make a shape and apply textures to different faces of the shape (dunno if OG could do that though.)

Similarly, maybe several objects have different texture options, such as a door that looks like one kind of wood, and using the same object you select a different door texture and it becomes, say, a rotted door that looks like it would be in a swampland of sorts. But that's a bit off topic.

[GDer]

Speaking of Hammer, perhaps the cube we have in the editor now could just have interchangeable textures, sort of like how in Hammer you make a shape and apply textures to different faces of the shape (dunno if OG could do that though.)

OG editor is object based. Valve Hammer editor is based on brushes, entities and CSG (Constructive solid geometry). That means those blocks are not actually 3d models, they're just blocks until the map is compiled where blocks lose unused sides (a feature I'd like to see in OG too, but off-topic) and can be splitted by texture usage.

Anyhow, it would mean building objects would need to be made all to the same proportions and such

We can avoid this because:
1. scaling can change object's AABB;
2. when using a face of an object as the source of AABB to snap to, size will not matter at all.

[Johannes]

Yeah, having things snap to a grid by default would be nice, perhaps when you press 'G' by itself it would toggle that.

[Ninjas]

For this to work like you guys imagine I would have to make all the models fit the grid ahead of time, which is kind of a pain, and certainly not true of the existing assets. There are not really supposed to be straight lines and 90 degree angles in Overgrowth so I barely ever snap things to a grid when I am making OG maps. For times when I do need snaps we have a "snap" button (hold ctrl while translating). If we do a game set in the future, with lots of corridors, we will probably add something like a universal unit grid and custom assets to fit it.

There isn't anything wrong with clipping objects together. In fact, I designed most of them with that in mind.

That said, there are some things that are kind of a pain to make with the current set-up. I intend to make some new roofs and roof parts to make that easier. We also have some new features planned for larger objects.

When I get serious about making maps instead of working on the assets, I am going to start by making a bunch of prefabs. I imagine that editing existing prefab structures to be unique will be much easier than starting from scratch every time.

Thanks for the input though. I am glad people are giving the editor a try!

[GDer]

For this to work like you guys imagine I would have to make all the models fit the grid ahead of time..

No, I already said that we will be able to fix those differences in size by scaling objects in editor. You don't need to make them fit the grid, just because objects can be cloned, we won't need to scale them every time. But if we really would hate cloning them, developers could add UI editboxes to change initial scaling values for objects. So you could continue working as you do it now. Everything's thought out here.

[Ninjas]

What can I say, other than I have actually built levels as a level designer using modeler assets on commercial products, and have made modular assets before, and what you are saying won't work in practice any better than what is already in the editor.

The assets are not designed to to fit next to each other perfectly (with the exception of the cube), and so even if you scale them the best you can, even if we added more precise scaling tools, there will still be gaps, which are very obvious if you can see the sky through them. You basically have two options. Design your art from the ground up to fit together perfectly, or design things so that they overlap.

also, the survey at the top of the post should read "What important editor feature would you like to give up for grid placement?" or "How many weeks worth of delay do you think this feature is worth?"

I think once you accept how the tools are designed to work (ie, to work in the way professional level designers actually make levels of the type we have in Overgrowth) and stop wishing it was mechanical engineering CAD software, you will find the tools we have (the ones that are finished) are supremely functional.

[GDer]

Of course the assets won't stick together like it's in the picture. I'm just presenting a way to get rid of level "bugs" quicker. I have no doubt that objects will overlap. But my aim with this feature is a bit different. When you place a block, you have to precisely drag it so that parts of it doesn't stick out walls or similar constructions in all of those 3 axis. There are currently no features that allow us to move objects on only one axis while looking in a direction that is perpendicular to it. With this feature, editor will do the biggest part of the work and we'll be able to do more important things than moving blocks one or two pixels to the right or left.

[Johannes]

There are currently no features that allow us to move objects on only one axis while looking in a direction that is perpendicular to it.

Try shift+r-click when using the translate tool. add control in there if you want it to snap.

[Ninjas]

Thanks JoShadow-- beat me to it

[Skofo]

Yes.

Also, having 2D views like in your pictures would help a lot as well.

[GDer]

Try shift+r-click when using the translate tool. add control in there if you want it to snap.

while looking in a direction that is perpendicular to it

But I tried it this way.
I pushed the object away, then put the camera in the right place (the viewing direction parallel to the plane where I want the object's side to be), then pulled the object. Then I did the same to those two other axis. It took me 1 minute to align one block to another and even then it wasn't perfect!
Maybe you can think one more time about the feature?

[Phillip]

I think there are a lot of really cool ideas here. Thanks for the suggestions GDer! (and you others who have suggested similar things in the past). I'd like to eventually come back to snaps, and if I do, I'll definitely take these ideas into account.

But, we can only do so much, and right now we have a bunch of higher priorities to get through first. As Aubrey pointed out, better snaps would be essential for, say, a futuristic space station game, but for OG, we are going for a different look. I don't think we'll need a full grid system for the types of levels we'll have. Still, it would be cool as icing. Maybe once the core stuff is done, we can come back to it.