Darmo

You can do both. You can manually enter the numbers, and you can also click on a number field and drag the mouse up or down to raise or lower the number. If you meant actually drag the shape borders in the modeling window, no, it doesn't have that. Also the click and drag only changes it by whole numbers, not decimals. There's a few other minor quirks, but it's still the best option out there that I've seen. I would suggest contacting me before getting too far into a model. We have done quite a lot of animals already - including several that were pre-development-forum, so you won't find them there. If you contact me and let me know what you're thinking of doing, I can tell you if any of it has been done.

Hi RandomASCII. I'm overseeing the modeling efforts for TFC2. I'm not a dev - I can't code - but I can do models and textures. After Dunk left I volunteered to help make models for TFC2, and now I'm spearheading this modeling stuff so Bioxx and Kitty can focus on what they do best - coding. Bioxx gave me the authority to handle vetting of new volunteers, and direct the artistic effort - several other excellent modelers have joined since then. But it *is* an application process, not just any submission is accepted. You should pm me and I'll fill you in on the requirements. If you haven't already, you should read the MCMC tutorial, and texturing tutorial, in this MCMC forum. You will also want to read the TFC2 modeling guidelines post.

That true Chunk, silver garnierite, and graphite can be rare commodities. But I think they're intended to be that way, and the notion of recycling them would kind of defeat that mechanic a bit. Unless crucibles and fire bricks wear out in TFC2 (not a bad idea actually) graphite wouldn't even apply, since it's not a tool metal - the things you make with it don't wear out. Silver and garnierite, the thing about them is in their final forms - black steel and up - they're alloys (well, in TFC1 anyway). So the scraps would be mostly composed of much more common metals. Of the 200 unit of metal needed to produce 1 ingot of black steel, around 2.5 are silver, and 15-25 (avg 20) are nickel. a 50% return would net 1.25 units of silver, which is insignificant, and around 10 of nickel. Again, not that much. Colored metals aren't much better - of the 350 units required for each ingot, around 38 are nickel, and 4-10 are silver. So again, returns are probably very low, depending on how the recycling works. It's all complicated by the 'disappearing' weld-on ingots in black and colored steels. I'm kind of hoping that's not a thing in TFC2, personally. All that said, an average size vein of silver or nickel, even if poor, is probably going to supply the player all they probably will need. There are cases where you get unlucky and the vein is extremely diffuse, or is right at a boundary and most of it got cut off by another layer. But those are rare cases, in my experience. In the vast majority of cases, I think you find one vein, and you're set as far as reaching top tech. If you're a good miner that is. Also, if you find the metal on a surface layer, you'll find more (unless you found just a tiny corner of the layer, and most of it is under ocean). Even mid-layer is going to show in a few spots. Now if one wants to have 1000 blue steel lamps, or an army of red-steel clad armor dummies, ala the terra-cotta army, well, that's another story. But recycling won't help in that case anyway.

I'm curious how you draw that conclusion. There's been nothing said about making procedural metals limited, iirc. As for a config, it's not just that easy. If you're going to allow scrap metal you have to make graphics for the scrap, you have to use item ids - TONS of item ids, and code it all. And for what? In TFC1 there is WAY more metal than you'll ever use. It's everywhere if you're willing to look. We don't know exactly how TFC2 is going to go in terms of quantities, but personally everything I've seen so far suggests there will still be tons, and nothing I've seen suggests there will be limited supplies. I mean, the game is called Minecraft. Is it unreasonable to expect the player to do some mining?

I don't think that should be taken to mean that TFC2 will be definitively different. I think the guideline is, don't *assume* that anything from TFC1 will be the same in TFC2. That doesn't mean it won't be the same, either. But don't assume it will. As I've said before, what minecraft does well is huge sandbox worlds, and building. It's not designed to be an adventure game. The graphics are very poor, specifically to allow massive amounts of world, and the rearrangement thereof - at least that's how I understand it. Personally I think it would be a bad idea to try to make TFC2 be a pure adventure game. There's tons of other games out there that fill that role far better. You've got games like Ark that are trying to do both roles, but their building game is still interior to minecraft, imho.

Anvils don't increase your skills significantly. Maybe welding double ingots increases general smithing? I don't know. The amount of anvil double ingots you'd make across the tech tree, I'd say it's insignificant compared to the amount of welding for bloomeries, blast furnaces, and yes, armor. Armor on the other hand, has a skill specifically for it, and it's combat gear. It's true that in TFC1 armor beyond bronze, and certainly steel, is kind of a bit superfluous outside of a pvp context. But from what we've seen of TFC2 so far, armor and weapons will play very, very central roles, even in solo gameplay. I think the no-melting decision is justified. I certainly wouldn't call it arbitrary. They saw an avenue for abuse and they addressed it.

I'm pretty sure they don't allow tools and armor to be remelted because then you could just re-melt and re-make the items over and over to pump up your skill. This would be especially attractive with armor, since it requires so much metal. Now if the loss started at 50% of the metal gone for an unused armor piece, and went up from there, that would make it much less attractive to abuse.

It would only have that feeling for people who have no idea what's going on Chunk. The fact of the matter would be that, unless there were other penalties, it would be a hands-down better tool and there'd be no reason to ever make the normal tools. I'd argue it's not great game design to add tools that will defacto replace other tools entirely. My point is that mattocks would need to have real disadvantages (or their own unique uses) if they're to be a balanced addition to the game, rather than a poorly thought out 'for the looks' addition. I'm laying out some ideas for possible disadvantages - so far durability, hunger, weight, and destroy speed. To me, durability is very clear-cut. It's math, and it doesn't change. Hunger and weight are kind of situational and inconsistent imo. In some cases they might be a noticeable disadvantage, in others they might not be felt because they player may have plenty of food, or may not be carrying much, and so not care about a few extra lbs. Destroy speed would be consistent, as long as it's noticeable. But again, I question if it's code-possible, and I question if anyone would use mattocks if their destroy speed was slower.

That's interesting you guys would easily forgo the inventory slot for *any* reduced durability. The problem is, why would anyone ever make a 'normal' tool if they could have a dual-use one with the same durability? It won't 'feel' like less durability imo. To use my own habits, I always carry on me a saw and an axe, and most of the time also a pick and chisel. When exploring I also carry a propick. What I do NOT carry often is a shovel. Because the uses for shovels when exploring are very minor, and I just make a stone one when needed. So for me having a combo axe-shovel would be a great bonus, and if there's no durability penalty for an axe mattock I'd never make a normal axe. I'd always, always make a axmattock. Similarly, a pickmattock would be great for mines interspersed with gravel. Why would I ever make a normal pick if I could have both at no penalty? Why would anyone ever make a normal axe or pick if there's no durability penalty to the mattock versions? There'd have to be other disadvantages. What other disadvantage could there be aside from reduced durability? For hunger and thirst drain to be a penalty, they would have to be ramped up considerably while using a mattock I think, because food and water are not that problematic currently. And is that even code possible I wonder? If we're getting a weight limit system, there'd normally also a big weight advantage to two tools vs 3. So the mattock might need to weigh like, twice a normal tool at least. If reduced speed vs specialized tools were possible, that could be a thing. but personally I'd never use mattocks if they had reduced speed. There's just not a lot of great options As far as adzes go, it'd use fewer item ids to just make a single adze tool. But the uses for such a tool are so limited, that probably wouldn't be worthwhile, unless new adze-requiring tasks are invented. If one wants to bring adze type tasks into the game, maybe it's just better to use the hoe, since a hoe is basically an adze anyway. I think the problem is there's a difficulty in balancing mattocks between being obviously way better than normal tools, vs having too many disadvantages. Shovels just aren't that useful outside of mass terraforming or charcoal making, both of which I think are mostly done around a player's base, so it's easy to just hang a shovel on the wall nearby. In most other cases it'll be better to just make a disposable stone shovel as needed. Without it's own specific task, a mattock is always going to be fighting the other tools for supremacy. If some sort of root-bound soil block were added to the game, that'd be a very legit use for a mattock, and is irl what they're best for. Such blocks would not allow tilling, and when broken would yield a normal dirt block. It could make forests less attractive for settlement, due to increased clearance work required. But probably not worth the item ids it'd require to do such a thing.

Interesting idea. I think it'd be good to explore the mechanics a bit more. I don't think we know that there will be any such thing as exhaustion in TFC2, so what other tradeoffs could there be? And how do these fit in the tech tree? You talk about using features normally behind tech gates, but shovel, hoe, and axe are already stone-age. Pick is the only one that is normally behind a gate. It seems to me like it should stay there, unless surface nuggets are no longer a thing. All bets are off then, I guess. I think these tools would be unbalanced if available via knapping - stones are unlimited. So maybe they would only be made of metal, and would take two ingots? The resulting tool could have less durability (compared to if you used 2 separate ingots to make 2 separate tools). So you're trading durability for having a dual-use tool that only takes 1 inventory spot. Also, can you even have an intermediate tool? I think a tool is either a block destroyer for a given type of block, or it's not? A mattock should be useless for sand and gravel, I'd say. But they're quick blocks to break anyway, even with a stone shovel, so that's not a huge disadvantage.

Looks good. I'd suggest angling the belly box as high as possible while still covering the bottom corner of the rump - about -7 degrees or so - so that as little of the belly as possible is visible between the hanging tail feathers.

Oh, I wasn't arguing for scuba gear. That's obviously way too modern. Was just pointing out one very time-appropriate option, and another that, if one is ok with steam power - as many are including me - could perhaps also be ok.

Ah, hadn't noticed that transparent patch. Clever! Ah, that explains it. I was assuming the top section was the parent, and wasn't seeing any decimals. All good then. Well, I'm letting the slanted rump stay, and also the neck with more sections than I'd allow on a smaller animal - both due to the large size of this one. The leg pieces won't be missed at all I think. They're just part of a slippery slope. The belly, part of the problem I have is the corner that hangs down under his rump feathers. The size means there's a good chance this will be seen a fair amount, in addition to the normal death animation, and personally I think it's odd having that corner, and the tail feathers hanging around it. But, examining it again, I see that with the belly gone, the rump box corner is still going to hang down too much to cover with a simple plane, given the height of the transparent feather area. In light of that, and assuming Konlii is right that in actual minecraft, the reverse side of the feathers will render, let's just hope that obscures the belly corner enough. So belly can stay, but still need to remove those leg pieces, unless Bioxx likes them as-is. I'll admit that this decimal box sizes thing allow more finesse of slanted boxes than was previously possible, and smoother transitions. But for now I'm sticking with the minimal slopes guideline unless Bioxx instructs otherwise. As for the animation, I was just musing an issue with larger-than-player mobs. The animation is purely up to Bioxx and what is actually doable in 1.9. You're free to suggest of course, but I have no say in it.

I'd say the size difference is not a big deal. Bioxx should be able to scale it down if necessary. I like it overall. My own opinion, is that for these long extinct animals, we should feel free to take some liberties with coloration at the very least. I wouldn't be opposed to a larger beak for more menace, though their feet would be their main weapon. Some sort of feather crest that raises when they're angry might be interesting. Just some thoughts. As for technical criticisms: - the body and tailfeathers boxes overlap a bit, with z fighting. One needs to be made slightly smaller. Somehow the top leg boxes seem to be avoiding z-fighting the body, even though they're co-planar near as I can tell. I'd suggest moving them either inward or outward at least .5 pixels just to be safe. -The slanted R1b box on each leg isn't necessary, nor the Belly box. You'll need a plane under the ragged tail to conceal the lower portion of the Rump box. - The L4 and R4 claws are pretty puny compared to the other 3 claws, I'd suggest either making them 2x2 so they're more substantial, or just nixing them. I realize they're probably supposed to represent spurs, but minecraft just does such a bad job of spurs, due to the flat ends. They just look like anemic toes to me. Those things aside, I like it. The texture is very detailed. Hopefully we can somehow have an attack animation eventually. It doesn't lend itself as well to the imagination as mobs that have their jaws at about player height.

Diving bells have been around a very long time. Apparently Aristotle described one in the fourth century BC. The classic porthole diving helmet was apparently invented in the early 1800s. Which is about the same time that the first steam locomotive was invented. So if one is ok with steam power in TFC, one should be ok with porthole diving helmets, really.

Definitely better. I think it would benefit from a more consistent color strategy with regards to the stringy bits. In the following image, I've circled a couple areas. The green circle is where you have a couple longer strands being light, and the 'shorter' area between, which does not descend as far, is darker. This helps it recede, making the longer stringier parts appear to be in the foreground, and emphasizing that you're trying to portray long strands of matted hair, rather than a uniform area of short fur or hide. The red circled area has the opposite occurring though; a darker strand surrounded by shorter, lighter areas. I think it's not as good an effect. I think having the longer strands be lighter, and thus in the foreground, is better, and it would be good if this there were a consistent order to this for all the strands, with the longer being lighter, and the shorter darker. I think this would strengthen the impression of matted strands of fur.

Good, good, Ii like what you did with the horns there. Qiviut coverage might be a little much now, I think it'd be better if it were stringier. Like the middle photo above. And maybe use some color to give an impression of stringiness even when you're up above the bottom edge. Right now it looks rather uniform, like he was dipped in butterscotch. Also maybe add a little bit to the back of the head, so the transition is not so abrupt.

Heya Phineas, long time no see! So when I originally proposed a revised spider to Bioxx back when I first started, he said to hold off on that for now, so I would suggest not investing any more time in that unless Bioxx pops in here and gives it the green light. That's why we've been sticking with fairly conventional 4-legged animals, and significantly terrestrial birds. Personally I think it'd be better if we had a better handle on animation, so the legs could be articulated. I think 90% of the spider creepiness comes from their legs. What you've got there does work for simple wobble-legs. But what I'd like to see for a new spider is 2 legs forward and two back - somewhat like a typical American garden spider - and the legs are articulated to actually bend. If there's ever a creature that would benefit from putting in the effort of leg animation, it's spiders. I think this split leg format would work best with articulated legs, vs the legs being evenly spaced radially. I'd also suggest they arch above or at least level with the abdomen. And lets stay away from the cliched black widow thing. There's a lot of much more interesting color schemes to go with. In the end I'm hoping we can have at least a couple spider models - a 'hunting' type for above ground, and a 'web type' with more bulbous abdomen for caves. But at this time, our mandate is 4-legged animals, and birds.

There's a few issues at play here. You didn't mention procedural metals at all, so I don't know if you've seen the metal tiers post. In this post Bioxx moots the idea of metal after steel being procedural. In effect randomly generated, and even suggests the possibility of them being named by the first player to discover them. This system was never elaborated on though, and Bioxx has recently stated he's still not set on procedural metals. There's also the question of keeping it 'real' vs full on fantasy. Personally I'm fine with named fantasy metals. In the past I would have agitated for mithril, adamantium, and maybe other historical fantasy metals (and meteoric iron of course). I would have suggested they be y-limited, so the player was forced to dig deep to find them, with tougher monsters appearing at great depths. However now that we know the plan is for the new world to have sea level at 60-ish, like vanilla, that's no longer a very practical suggestion. It could be that perhaps some are found only in a certain new fantasy stone, that hugs the bedrock. I think it would be interesting if such stones required powder kegs or other special technology to mine, beyond pickaxes. But it wouldn't be as epic a journey to get to them as in TFC1. To me, it seems like there's more interesting possibilities in having a more structured format, having several higher tier metals, each with their own interesting system of refining. I think the worst idea would be to have procedural metals use the same format of melting down and combining lower tier metals - in this I agree with you Spinnach. that process just gets super-grindy. It depends on the goals of the devs though. I think it would be great for steel to be the gateway to coal-fired steam engines, and further tiers of metal would require powered blowers or other technology that uses said engines. Perhaps even an arc furnace at some point. As long as it's not just melting metal and hammering ingots. Beyond that, I think TFC2 needs to have an alloying system that allows for extraction of bad mixes (assuming the alloy system is even remotely similar to TFC1). Nothing leaves a sour taste in a player's mouth like losing a ton of work to an accidental mis-click ruining a batch of high tier metal. Even in the early game, it's really, really frustrating to mix up a batch of bronze, then add a bronze ingot and it ruins your batch. That's highly illogical, and needs to not be a thing in TFC2. I think ingots should track exactly what is in them, and if the player messes up, they should be able to melt down their mistakes and extract the constituent parts - albeit using a possibly very complicated, high tier, tricky device. If they can't stack with different composition ingots, oh well. I think it's worth it to not frustrate the player.

I think the eyes are much better this way. If we're being honest cats are just sneaky and shifty by nature, I think it works well. The cheek fur, it is kind of difficult to read in a still picture, with the body behind. Though if I'm reading it right I think it's better. I think the bobcat tips could probably stand to be a pixel shorter. They just don't have the long tips like proper lynxes. The legs are a bit thick for a bobcat perhaps, but in the interest of keeping a common model, I think we can probably live with them as they are. If you want to do another texture, that's fine. As you say Bioxx may or may not want to make that many lynxes, so it's kind of your risk. But I think as long as they have different climatic preferences, they're more likely to make it in game. So maybe arctic lynx for arctic, Iberian for sub-arctic, bobcat for temperate, ocelot sub-tropical, 'african' lynx for tropical? That would be 5 lynxes for 5 zones.

I think you had it right the first time Krono, with the taller dome. Maybe post that model, and we can call this final, if nobody else has a comment.

Ya, I think that's much better. If nobody else has any comments I'd call it final.

Here we have a Caribou (Reindeer) application by KronoNomicon. He even did 3 textures for it. I think it's pretty good, and could see it being used as it is. But I wanted to get other opinions on the branched antler tips especially, which are 2d sprites rather than full 3d. This avoids bunched 3d boxes which might get messy, and saves a lot of boxes. From the front they can kind of disappear though. So what's everyone think? Caribou03.MCModel

No prob, work is getting really busy for me too, so I probably won't have much time either for the next month or so. But as for my suggestion, I may not have come across clearly - I wasn't suggesting an angle change. Just the shape of the pads, from square to rectangular. Something like the attached image (but with more care paid to the tine arrangement than what I did there).

As far as clothing goes, there's already a thread devoted entirely to that.