4sheetzngeegles Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 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 More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.