Construction of the great city

Hello everyone !! This is my first post on to forum. I wanted to share with my creation, and the screenshots of my city. All your comentaires are welcome. Thank you in advance !!

27 Likes

holy shiitake mushrooms that is crazy :astonished:

1 Like

This city really feels alive. I like a lot how you have done it. Beautiful.

Have fun, Kyth.

3 Likes

glad you could join us :smiley: still looks amazing!

You should post your previous little build as well since it had a lot of charm as well :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you for your comment .
I will present all my building one by one. I’ll make you all this as soon as possible. Another big thank you for all your comments.
it makes fun

5 Likes

The first time I scrolled through those pictures, I missed a lot of the detail. Taking a closer look, I’m noticing things like the way that you filled in grass around all the yards (I’m guessing that was done with the terrain slabs mod?), or how your city really wraps around and tunnels through the mountain.

The more I look at your city and explore its hidden details, the more impressed I become with your dedication! Even though I can look at the different parts and figure out how each one was done individually, I can’t wrap my head around someone putting them all together in a single town – you’ve taken familiar elements and techniques, but done something truly magical with them :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Looks amazing! Nice job.

Thank you for your feedback ! In effect, I like to dwell on all the little towns in my Detaille. I will get into a new building even crazier soon, or I’ll explain Detaille all the methods I use. Once liver thank you for all your positive comments, his drives me.

This is a great example of one end of the realism/fantasy aesthetic that’s unique to stonehearth. The way you go out of your way to texture the grass, build the waterfalls, and work in non-native dimensions is pretty interesting, and yields a much different result than when we see builders stick within the “rules” that the stonehearth team has set for how the world is “supposed” to look. Nice work.

(if you’re confused by the non-native dimensions bit, a great example is that water only spawns in 8x8 squares, so you would never see the edge of a pond as jagged as the ones featured in this build - to make it look like a natural part of the stonehearth world as it is generated, one would need to clean all those corners. Similarly, grass has no such variety in the default game. This isn’t to say that there is anything wrong with the style you’re building in, but to reiterate what I said, it certainly stands on one end of the spectrum with regards to world generation mechanics.)

thank you very much !!! My I do not understand the history of non-native dimmension. Can you explain to me ?

So when you kick off a new stonehearth game and the map is untouched, there are some rules to the way in which things will appear: trees won’t grow over a certain elevation, water appears in certain patterns, etc. The big one of these that I noticed with your build (and only because of how I pay attention to this when I build anything) is that water only spawns in 8x8 squares, which are frequently connected. What does this mean? If you wanted to draw a moat or a pond or something, it would look more like real life (albeit non-native to stonehearth) to have jagged edges and a shape closer to a curve, with little steps down into the deeper part of the water, like a bowl.

However, when I play (and again, there is no right or wrong way to build here, I’m just talking about two different sides of the style coin), I want to make it look as though my structures, or any terrain modification, is supposed to be there. I want to design my ideal landscape and have it be indistinguishable from what the game could have randomly generated. So I end up with moats that look like this:

Native. Or at least that’s the goal. Now, you know that this island isn’t natural, but that’s because I told you. If you had to guess, it shouldn’t be possible, with my design goals, to be able to tell the difference between a man made island and a naturally occurring one. Hope that clears things up for you, and like I said, nice work with your city, it looks great.

2 Likes

Wow, like holy crap, wow.

How much was autobuild?
If there was none, I’m labeling you a magician.

Autobuild? What exactly does that mean?

Autobuild refers to using the “ib” console command to immediately finish the constructing a building, which consumes no resources and doesn’t require the hearthlings. It’s typically the only way to build extremely large or elaborate structures, and was sometimes a solution to the stumbling block of not having enough wood for scaffolding when playing RC.

1 Like

LIke Aethrios said, it’s a command that you can put into the console (ctrl+c) to instantly build a creation. It’s really useful if you want to make a complex structure, but the hearthlings can’t do it.
Side note: I think in alpha 19, radiant fixed a lot of these issues (as well as 18 (it’s getting better all the time))

I’ve found that a nice compromise is to stick to an “odds and evens” rule – measuring the natural features (e.g. how wide is a tree? How wide and long is a body of water?) and keep the scale of any player-made terrain features consistent with a multiple of that value.

For example, I love having shallow streams meandering through forests, connecting up natural ponds. Since the ponds are always a multiple of 8 blocks wide, I keep my streams to 8 or 16 blocks in width (16 is for if it’s a really large lake running to the edge of the world); and if I want the stream to turn then I make sure that the curve fits within an 8x8, 8x16 or 16x6 area. Each “step” of the curve will be either 2 or 4 blocks wide/long, meaning I either get a neat 90-degree bend or a more gradual curve.

This create a visual consistency between the larger and smaller features, allowing the smaller ones to “fit into” the larger ones in an organised way. I guess that, taken to the extreme, these features would tessellate pretty well, with consistent distances between the features and no weird gaps or irregularities.

So, my streams are 8 blocks wide, and 2 blocks deep, with a natural-looking bank; and can fit neatly inside the existing “chunks” of terrain. That way, they can still look like they belong in the world, but don’t have to follow all of the normal rules… which means I can be much more flexible in how I use them :slight_smile:

The same works for all of my designs, though – when I’m working with trees (laying out a forest to replace one I cut down, for example), I make sure that the gaps between the trees are all multiples of a measurement on the tree. When I’m furnishing a building, I let the built-in features (doors and windows) determine lines of symmetry; so if there’s a gap of an odd width between two windows then only furniture of an odd width goes in there. It would be possible to use two items of even width, placed either side of the midpoint; but many people will still subconsciously notice that the windows are an odd width apart and that the overall dispersion of the items isn’t balanced with the amount of empty space, even though the design is symmetrical.

3 Likes

dude you’ve put waaaaaaaaay more thought into it than I have. I’m just like, “Does this look okay?” and that’s my criteria :stuck_out_tongue:

3 Likes

Oh, that’s exactly how I started out too, LOL! I tried a couple of different things with my first streams, rivers and other such terraforming projects, some looked ok and some felt really out of place. I took a closer look to figure out what felt so “off” about those ones, and figured out what to avoid next time around. Eventually, I realised that the water features looked better when built with certain rules, that houses looked better if built with slightly different rules, and so on… so I tried more things, refined the rules better; and now I have a lot of info to use for future projects.

But at the time, it was all just playing around with trial and error, I didn’t put any in-depth research or anything like that into it. I simply tried to learn from what did or did not look ok in the past, so that I can zero in on what works for me and save myself time in the future hahaha :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

I’m glad to see that there are other people putting a genuine level of thought into a lot of their construction. I like where you’re heading with your logic, and I can appreciate the methodology.

Alternatively, I begin more with an aesthetic I want to see realized, and then construct until I find something that works… I have an embarrassingly large save file full of failed buildings that tried to walk the line between gritty medieval realism and fictional whimsy, and never really cut it on either end!

I’m sure plenty of other people who were drawn to stonehearth started with minecraft, but it was building in there that really gave me the sense that internal consistency, e.g., making sure that if I establish a theme in my building that I don’t break it unless there’s a good reason to, matters way more than trying to follow the rules to a T. But I also like stonehearth’s natural world generation, and my respect for that is (I hope) apparent in my construction.

Thanks for taking the time to write out something detailed, it’s a great read.

2 Likes

I really like the blending of the Rayya’s style with your individual elements. It looks really good.

I especially like the little dining room set into the cliff overlooking the fields. It looks like a really refined place to eat and consider trade deals.