Dungeon optimization tools

[Azel]

I'm also really curious what reasonable features Azel thinks could possibly be added to the editor itself that would help with this, lol.

You, moreso than me, could easily create a full feature request that would make Modding life easier. But I assume you haven't done that yet because if that happened... well hell, you wouldn't have many justifiable reasons to doodoo on our heads

My tiny list would include:

1) A thin wall that has collision and Minimal Save state options would be a good start. Right now users have to use something like a Tomb Door with the Model disabled. The problem is that the door is set to a Save State of False by default, leading to memory issues - and the biggest reason you walk around the forum waving your Boom Stick. The best suggestion you had was that people clone a Door, remove the Model, and define the Minimal Save state (set to true). The Dungeon Editor should allow us to do that via the GUI. Having to resort to playing with Script files for something this tedious yet highly critical for the 32-bit limitation is absurd.

2) The Editor could also use a checkbox next to each and every asset that allows Minimal Save State to be added/removed.

3) A Garbage Collector to destroy objects that are falling/flying through space (eg, spells cast out in to open waters)

4) The ability to Clone an object, attach any of the full list of default Classes and their associated properties.

5) A Memory Manager: Run-Time stats for a level, a display of all Timers being executed at any given time, Frame Rate, and the amount of memory used by assets with a Save State, without a Save State, and the impact to gameplay (both FPS and Memory) during script execution. Scripts that spawn Assets impact performance, especially if the spawned assets are custom assets. Giving Modders the ability to see how their assets are impacting performance is invaluable.

Just those 5 would make my Modding life a bit more enjoyable, and potentially empower the beginner/novice Grimrock Modder just enough to release their creations without major gameplay flaws.

But if it makes you all feel better this was going to be my last substantial post for a long time anyway (probably until my next mod release),

So us mere mortals will have some time to fumble through the rubble in our painful journey to become better Modders? Should be interesting. Enjoy your break; and thanks for the flaming sword

[minmay]

I've added the object merger to the first post.

as an aside, I have never suggested putting a DoorComponent on an object without a model, mainly because that doesn't work.

[Azel]

I have never suggested putting a DoorComponent on an object without a model, mainly because that doesn't work.

In many cases the Model becomes Disabled since it is being used to help create a Thin Wall.

For reference, this was your exact post:

You have 1224 instances of castle_secret_door, which does NOT have minimalSaveState. This is a major burden to save! I strongly recommend making a separate version of that object with minimalSaveState, for use in places where you don't need it to open. (I assume you are making big walls out of it.) Or, if it's easier, redefine castle_secret_door with minimalSaveState and make a separate copy of it without minimalSaveState to use where you do need it to open.

http://grimrock.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... &start=340

I have seen the Dungeon Files of a few published Dungeons, and anyone making a thin wall uses a door with the Model disabled. That is all I was referring to. I bet that a large number of those 1,224 castle_secret_door objects in Drakkan's dungeon are not visible, and only used to help make a Thin Wall (just a guess in this case).

[minmay]

disabling a ModelComponent is not the same as removing the model

[Azel]

disabling a ModelComponent is not the same as removing the model

And I already said, "That is all I was referring to." I'm not making them the same, I am clarifying what I was referring to.

Removing the Check on the Model option in the GUI is not the same as removing the Model itself; Captain Obvious to the rescue. This wouldn't be the first time you resort to semantics during a discussion. That's the fun thing about technology right? We can choose to either deep dive an issue or present a high-level abstraction view, and eventually we can make ourselves seem "right"

I still like the time you said that a swimming fish is not the same as the dead fish. You gotta stop spending so much time in the Asset Definitions, minmay. It just aint healthy for ya

[minmay]

actually im pretty sure that a live fish is different from a dead fish irl too

[Azel]

So in minmay's version of real life, when you see a fish in the water alive, and then see someone kill it... in your mind the original fish went away and was replaced with a dead version; 2 entirely different entities. I feel like you try to act like a jerk with everyone else who doesn't see it your way.

[THOM]

Ah, come on - don't bore the forum with another controversy...

[Azel]

Apologies. It just really bothers me to watch minmay constantly ridicule the very people who do nothing but compliment him. I dont mind at all when he ridicules me, because I don't think highly of him; but when he does it to decent folk like Drakkan... well, I guess say more than I should. But enough derailing from me

[THOM]

I meant both of you...