Architecture Dependency Issues
issueid=2505 03-08-2017 09:03 AM
Sir_Tiberius
Architecture Dependency Issues
Structures cannot be dismantled even if dependent structures are supported elsewhere
It's problematic that a structure cannot be dismantled even if the structures above it are supported elsewhere.

For example, say I have a beam supporting a truss as part of the base of a large building. Now say I add a post near the beam that happens to be in a location where it is directly under a post of the truss. What happens if I want to remove the post I just added? I'm totally screwed because now that post is considered required for the truss. I would have to dismantle the entire building to remove the post I just added.

In this scenario, the post isn't really required to support the truss, since the beam is doing that job. However, the game still thinks I have to dismantle the truss (which might be essential to the whole building) before I can dismantle the post.

Instead of blindly requiring me to dismantle the truss before I can dismantle the post, the game should first check and see if the truss would still be supported without the post, and if so, not require me to dismantle it first.

Thanks,
-Geezer
Issue Details
Issue Number 2505
Issue Type Feature
Project Suggestions
Category Unknown
Status Accepted
Priority Unknown
Suggested Version Unknown
Implemented Version (none)
Votes for this feature 3
Votes against this feature 0
Attachments 0
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




03-08-2017 09:12 AM
Xsyon Citizen
Another benefit to this change would be the that if you ever wanted to modify part of the base of a building without having to dismantle the whole thing, you could build temporary structures that support the rest of the building while you make changes to the base, then remove the temporary structures when finished.
Reply Reply  

03-08-2017 09:21 AM
Xsyon Citizen
I like this idea. I think it would help with people building wondrous things.
Reply Reply  

03-08-2017 12:59 PM
Xsyon Citizen
O.O

Ya I hate this situation. I was at your camp and saw how you were building. I had made a comment earlier to you about using small floors instead of large ones so you could add more inside walls. Neither here nor there atm...Lets say that nothing can be done in the short term...I will remind you of the 20 stacks of VHQ logs I chopped to the north of you. At least the mats are quite close.

I actually hate building but I do it to pass time, especially right now to keep my mind busy and not thinking of my Ma's recent passing. I have already had to diss 1/2 of my new structure due to placement of one cantilever by .10 off ( its hard sometimes to read the placement when ghosted)

Bottom line, I can understand why but what a discouragement to new players...having to diss and remake mats. Needs to be looked at. Good post.

Mookie
Reply Reply  

03-08-2017 08:19 PM
Xsyon Citizen
To be clear, I'm not advocating that all dependency rules be eliminated. I too don't want to see floating structures everywhere because people were able to remove the supporting structure after building something.

All I'm saying is that if a structure is supported by two or more redundant means, then both means shouldn't be considered required. We should be able to remove one of them as long as the remaining structures have valid support.
Reply Reply  

03-11-2017 01:34 AM
I'll look into this. The tricky part is the performance of the dependency check. I originally tried a system that checked all dependencies and it caused serious lag. I had to reduce the checks to what we have now to still prevent floating structures.

Now that the code has been further optimized I'll see if I can go back to the original checks.
Reply Reply  

03-25-2017 02:38 PM
Xsyon Citizen
Thanks for the response. It seems like most of the mechanisms to make this possible are already in the game.

When I try to dismantle something, the game recognizes which structure(s) are dependent and cannot be removed. All that is left is for the game to do a hypothetical check if that dependent structure still has valid placement without the structure I'm trying to dismantle.

Thanks for looking into this.
Reply Reply  

03-25-2017 02:54 PM
Xsyon Citizen
The motivation for this is that I'm building a treehouse, using posts hidden inside a tree. This requires planting the tree before adding structure, because planting does an interference check. If I build the structure around the tree, then someone knocks the tree down, I'll have to dismantle the whole building, since I can't replant with the interference detected.

If this dependency issue were resolved, I could temporarily support the main post with beams, then remove the lowest posts that interfere with tree planting:


____________ ____________
| |
| |
| |
| ___\ |
| / ___|___
| | |
| | |
Reply Reply  

03-25-2017 02:55 PM
Xsyon Citizen
(I had intended to draw and ASCII picture of what I was trying to do, but that was a flop)
Reply Reply  

03-26-2017 07:04 AM
Xsyon Citizen
You can build the treehouse with a grown tree . the one at pawnee was built with a full grown tree. It would have been hard to account for the invis wall arround one side if the tree. I can help you if you catch me in game.

~ keleris ~ pawnee tribe
Reply Reply  

03-26-2017 08:24 PM
Xsyon Citizen
Hi Keleris,

Yes, I'm aware that you can build around a grown tree. In fact, the tree must be placed before the structure, because planting trees is not allowed if there is nearby structure. Thus if the tree ever needs to be replaced, there might be a need to alter the support of the main "mast" with horizontal beams instead of vertical posts - to allow space at the base to replant the tree.

Currently, there is no way to do this since you can't build an alternate support method. If you build an alternate support method, then both are considered required. This was the point of my original post. If redundant support methods are used for a given structure, they shouldn't both be required. One support method should be removable as long as the rest of the structure would still be valid. Currently, this is not the case.
Reply Reply  

03-27-2017 02:56 AM
Xsyon Citizen
A tree on tribe land is locked to all non members, so you don't have to worry about some troll trying to grief you by cutting it down.
Reply Reply  

+ Reply