[Editor] Two-phase editor

[Chevron]

First phase: You are in the editor where you can see only a clear surface without any hills and without any backgrounds (tribunes at stadium). There is an adapting grid that ‛makes’ a rectangle around your track: (with a limit, eg. 60×60)


.

Second phase: With a finished track you move to the ‛normal’ editor (such as we know now) where you place your ‛rectangle’.

This would quicken the building process because you wouldn't need to think: ‛Where to start to build my track so the track will fit to the grid.’

[tcq]

If i understand you right, you want to be able to build in a specific area without constraints. My post now is based on the point of view, that the map size (not the building space, but the actual data file size) should be as low as possible for a good online experience. But nevertheless, i really like the idea to be able to build different kind of tracks (long and small, or small but high).
To keep the map size acceptable to all other players, you need to set a maximal limit of places where you can build blocks in the grid (e.g. 60x60x20 or so). If you change this factors, the actual scenery outside of the map building space needs to be integrated as well (thinking about the city in bay, which you can see in the background). For this you need to shrink the outer scenery (where you can't build anything) to your map size, to get a benefit for maps with smaller size (because the calculation of distances to the scenery costs you calculation power) then the actual maximum (as in TMU, you can build in a small section, but the maximal building space stays the same and therefore the angle of your view to the surroundings).
Hopefully my thoughts are reconstructible, because i can't explain it better

[Chevron]

Of course there would be a limit, eg. 60×60. If you finished building your track you would place your ‟rectangle” with a track within the maximum grid.

[tcq]

Of course there would be a limit, eg. 60×60. If you finished building your track you would place your ‟rectangle” with a track within the maximum grid.

But if you say that you keep the maximum grid, then there are two possibilities. Either, you are in the maximum grid then there is no application of your proposal or you are not.
If you are not then have to take a look at the general idea why we are doing this algorithm. Are you willed to reform the shape of the rectangle form a quadratic one to a not quadratic one because you need more building space or do you want to use this technique to reduce the map size (which would be the point i would favor).

[Chevron]

I rewrote the first post.

[haenry]

The idea is nice, but I am not sure if the filesize of the track decreases with this rectangle.
example:
When you place no blocks around your map, then there shouldn't be an information in the gbxfile like "x=4;y=10;z=3 no block". Instead the gbx file should just show nothing " " about these coordinates and TM interprets them as no blocks.
I am really not sure, but that's the way a gbx should work, because otherwise the filesize has to be the same on an empty map or a full map. Since the only difference is the name of the block, which replaces the 0 (or whatever). Only the rotation of the block would be an additional information (bigger filesize). But I don't think, that it's making such a huge difference

So if you have now this rectangle, then it cuts off all the empty blocks around. But (if my assumption is right^^) a gbxfile does this automatically but just showing nothing " ".
That's why I think it's not necessary for filesize reduction.
You understood it ?


The only advantage could be ( as tcq already wrote) to build maps with a different basemap.
You have not a solid place to build in, but instead you can change the width, length and height. Only the overall number of places you can build blocks in should have maximum.
For example the usual space is 60x60x20. The overall amount of blocks is: 60*60*20=72000. So if you want to build a longer map than 60 you are able to change the 60 to 100. So you have a size of 100x60x20. But the overall amount if blocks would be too big. So TM should reduce the other 2 numbers. One possibility could be 100*60*12=72000 or 100*40*18=72000. Also a very flat map could be possible: 268*268*1<72000 (=71824 to be exactly )
This would really be an advantage I see.

But there is still one problem with the landscape around the map. Around the map the landscape has a sold scale. For example the Stadium at stadium. You cannot build a 268*268*1 map in there, since the stadium isn't big enough...

what a long post

[Chevron]

My aim is not to decrease the filesize but to quicken the building process. There still would be a normal editor but there would be a before-editor, in addition.

[haenry]

what do you mean with "before-editor" and how should it quicken the building process?

[Chevron]

Read the whole first post again.

[smwforever45]

You're getting to the edge of the map while working on a track and have to rebuild everything again because you can't build on like you wanted to when you started building your track. I've been in that situation for many times already, and it cost me lots of time and was much work. That two-phase editor would be the perfect solution to that problem in my opinion, and I'd really like to see it in TM²! It would make my life as a track builder much easier, and it might even make my tracks better than ever before! =)
Fully supporting the idea!