Jump to content

Ad\Disadvantages between RWGmixer and Manual Terraform


Recommended Posts

Ad\Disadvantages between RWGmixer and Manual Terraform


I don't know a better way to describe it, but i had a short Discord

conversation regarding another modders opinion, on the merits, of

Modding rwg vs the original A17 manual ability.


I realize that it comes down to preferential but I would like to see

others views. This is not a snipe hunt, but a fact finding pursuit for

me. To better incorporate the best of both.


I use Rwg now mainly for Poi distribution, the two methods are Rwg group

to World prefabs.xml, and Biomes probability filler for wilderness Pois.

I only mention this because this foundation is what guides my opinion.

If you respond can you give the foundation used to give a clearer

picture\path. I also use a hybrid formation, Render a default world,

to have default folder and files in place. I then edit to preference.

After i use it as a template for future seeds.


Convenience: Rwg is push button render; Manual is just that, manual

requires more work.

Opposite viewpoint is Libnoise has learning a curve, and not many gui

representations to see what each numeric combination will yield. Kin and

TFP have provided the viewer, but each iteration or change to achieve a

player's ideal terra must go through long process to fine tune. A few

that have excelled can do it in less moves. Manual terra learning curve is

simpler to me, grayscale represents absolute height. Present is 0M to

251.1M so knowning what i want to produce. i just use the scale for height.


Using a gradient i can create a slope, undulating mounds, a cavern to bedrock

A mountain range to world plateau, and a precise regulation of displacement of

each. This is just using a single or multiple grayscale images. Step two Biome

placement, I pick biome map color and paint an area the shape and size i wish.

instant wasteland hub this playthrough, dont like it, dump the region files and

paintbucket green to make forest, upon load no more dog mobs, now i have trees

and the rules and spawn governed by that biome. Plus the forest now has the terrain

that i liked; border to border. Waterways custom contoured by a paintbrush instant

relog. Multiple biomes in a precise area according to elevation; no xml rewrite

necessary. manually place a POI cluster or clusters, Paint a level color mark

NE cords LxW to get the rest of area and assign pois or paint roads and allow

Rwg to do its work. Perdition roads, Erase and paint them to follow a perceived

logical path. Paint a level path to create passage between two rock formations

to emu a natural flow use simple gradient for rise over run.

This when combined with biome prob placement. Creates a distributed exploreable

scenic multiple physical enviomental foundation for game play. Thematic.


Example: Biomes Waste,desert,burnt,forest,snow,water. I have a map with the first

five rendered twice, in precise shapes and locations, and eachhas an independent terrain

formation or landscape, a waterway with varying depth simlar to a regular river.

At elevatated and depressed portions ie: mountains valleys and gorrges.

Painted sub biomes for visual rep and flow. Gradient slopes to water access and

treacherous terrain acces at others.


The main diffs i see are precision of placement, learning curve, keeping vanilla xml

untouched and visual enactment speed.


From your experience when RWGmixer.xml was and is fully functional, From a Vanilla

and Libnoise perspective what are their advantages over manual Terraforming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...


I am new to the forum and a tad lazy with posting in general. But terrain generation and biome altering is a special interest of mine. Btw, amazing community. Cheers.

I totally agree. I like scenic views and interesting places to visit in the game. That has to be done manually.

I also alter biomes, streets by changing the png files. Well as you already mentioned, With the rwgmixer I see the main advantage in POI placement in reference to street generation. Its quite some work placing 2000+ prefabs manually. I don't know anything about cluster placement. That would help. Maybe you can elaborate. Thanks


In general I like the idea of combining a custom terrain height map with autogenerated POI placement. If you check the vanilla rwgmixer.xml, Devs have already scripted an idea as far as I can judge. I could not get it to work though. Hope they will provide it in the future.

What I do right now is a hybrid. I autogenerate terrain height map with the rwgmixer and then I edit the heightmap raw file with Photoshop according my needs and interests and save it back into the game. I try to make sure not changing terrain where POIs are already placed. Can get messy. But still you can manually delete the POI or replace it. For me its the best solution right now.


rwgmixer.xml script for reference:



<terrain_generator name="vanilla2" base_height="32" water_level="38">

<module name="HM" type="NoiseFromImage">

<property name="metersPerPixel" value="15.14"/>

<property name="imageFile" value="sarek.png"/>


<module name="BIAS" type="BiasOutput">

<property name="sourceModule" value="HM"/>

<property name="bias" value="-30"/>


<output module="BIAS"/>


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manual height map data can be very interesting if you want to enjoy real world terrain, like an island or parts of a mountain range.

For example I used the island Rhodos once. Its not too big and suits fine.

Or try to use a volcano island with high mountains. A lot of fun. I also used parts of the alps. Many options, but then manual POI placement is a chore. Checkout the link please.

Unity 5 - Adding Real World Height Maps To Your Game:


Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...