Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 26th Jan 2010 at 8:46 PM
Default Your Opinions on the Importance of a "Seamless" Landscape
I have restarted my world from scratch about 3 times because I cannot seem to get the camera routing angles right when in map view. I'm planning on spending a lot of time creating my world (months probably!) and would maybe like to share it here, but as the Creator Guidelines state:

* Smooth Edges: Make sure the edges of your non-routable areas are smooth, not jagged or blotchy, so the camera doesn't bump around.


There is always one spot on my land where the camera gets a bit stuck in map view and you have to rotate and adjust to move it again. Getting rid of the camera routing around the specific area fixes this, but it always shows where the land edge and water meet. I can keep working with this, so I am not so much asking for help, but rather opinions on what you would think if you installed a world that was a bit less than perfect when it came to appearing "seamless".

I've thought about this, and I am not really bothered if the landscape still looks somewhat realistic. I concentrate more on the actual lots I am playing than wandering around the whole landscape. A few glimpses of the edges meeting water wouldn't bother me. Although I think that, I still wouldn't want to upload it for people if it wasn't working 100% perfectly. Which is why I am thinking that I should probably just work on this for myself.

What do you think about this? Would you be bothered by seeing the seams of a world that is not supposed to be an island? Would you immediately think that the creator didn't spend enough time working on the world? Does anyone else wish getting the camera routing just right was easier!?

Thanks for your input!
Advertisement
Banned
#2 Old 26th Jan 2010 at 9:17 PM
Smooth edges has nothing at all to do with the landscape. You use the camera routing brush to choose where you can route the camera. You can have a landscape shaped like a houndstooth pattern if you want and it would still rely entirely on whether or not you properly used the routing brush.
Test Subject
Original Poster
#3 Old 26th Jan 2010 at 9:52 PM
Very true. There are some details about how I've terrain sculpted which make the camera routing difficult- like high climbable mountains which you can see the whole land from- including the sides even though the camera routing is thickly past that point, and there are high mountains around the sides as well. I guess I just feel very limited with trying to make the kind of world I want to make. I'll keep trying until I can get it right!
Banned
#4 Old 26th Jan 2010 at 10:17 PM
If you can set the brish to square, do that. When using a circle, it basically makes lots of circles- so the edge has bumps on it. And you get stuck every second or so.

Similarly if you make the routable edge a curve, you have less than 180 degrees of directions you can move- but if it's a straight line, any direction away from that line works. Make sense? If it's a circle you can't even continue in one direction for very long because you immediately get stuck on the curve again.

So try and make routing blocks as straight and smooth as possible while still conforming to what they're supposed to block.
One horse disagreer of the Apocalypse
#5 Old 26th Jan 2010 at 10:16 PM
I think she knows that. She's asking whether anyone would mind if she dispenses with the camera routing paint and just lets the player take the camera where they want - even though by doing so they're gonna see the edge of the world.

I don't actually mind. There are usually camera hacks around to let you do just that!

"You can do refraction by raymarching through the depth buffer" (c. Reddeyfish 2017)
Test Subject
Original Poster
#6 Old 27th Jan 2010 at 1:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Inge Jones
I think she knows that. She's asking whether anyone would mind if she dispenses with the camera routing paint and just lets the player take the camera where they want - even though by doing so they're gonna see the edge of the world.


You're right, I was pretty much just asking for opinions, but I appreciate if people try to suggest things. It may help someone else who's just lurking (like I usually do!).

Of course, people should try to make things the best they can be, but how much of a perfectionist do you have to be to appease everyone? Especially when neighborhoods contain so many different aspects that people have many differing opinions on! Sometimes, aesthetics in a game can be just too horribly annoying to play- even if it doesn't affect actual game playability. I was wondering if being able to see where your world ends (when you're not supposed to) was one of those hugely horrible problems with most people, even though it isn't to me.
Top Secret Researcher
#7 Old 27th Jan 2010 at 3:52 AM
Its not with me. I used cameras with Sims 2 that did just that. Besides, when playing, you don't see that much anyway.
Field Researcher
#8 Old 28th Jan 2010 at 6:19 PM
Just offering my opinion - I personally prefer to be able to zoom out as much as I want to . It really annoys me to be limited with the camera. As someone else pointed out, there are lots of camera hacks to enable people to zoom far away so that shows that there are lots of people who don't mind.

Either way, you please some people and not others :p

~ Nyn ~
#9 Old 28th Jan 2010 at 6:30 PM
As noted by several people above, my home-brew Sims 2 camera hack allows me to see all the way to the edges of the world, and even [from some angles] reduces the entire world to a small blob off in the distance, though I rarely deliberately USE that ability. While I don`t have Sims 3, I do prefer access to the whole world over the illusion of edgelessness. Then again, I have Asperger`s Syndrome, and may be atypical.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Back to top