Block Change Request: Removing Timber Frame Cross Blocks CTM

[DutchGuard]

Request: Removing Timber Frame Cross Blocks CTM

Request Type: Change

Try to describe all current uses of the block you request to be changed. Do you foresee any issues/ problems that could result from changing the block?
I would like to ask that the horizontal CTM of the Cross or "X" and "/" blocks of the timber frame blocks be removed. By removing the intermediate vertical studs in the framework you render the structure unstable. That is not to say that this is impossible, but it is very hard to find historic examples of it IRL.




I would propose instead (or in addition to), a vertical CTM, which stretches the X, /, or \ vertically across the height of two blocks, as illustrated below.



Types of evidence to support your request: Historical

Historical Evidence
My historical evidence is actually a lack of evidence of the current use of the CTM. All the cross blocks are set within individual square frames.






By adding the vertical CTM blocks, we could better depict structures such as:

 

[EStoop]

I like how Conquest handles this. They have vertical CTM for pretty much the same TF patterns as we have, while their [empty] timber frame has two identical variations.

 

[Emoticone11]

There's two suggestions here, so I'll reply to them separately:

Adding new vertical CTM timber blocks. As much as I love how Conquest went about their timber frame sets (and deeply regret not doing ours in a sensible way when we created the custom blockpack) - I previously made a decision to draw the line at the two vertical beam variants (vertical + close-studding) we added in the last update, and I'm not really inclined to change this decision on a whim without new justification presented. In particular, I'm concerned with the logistical aspects: what affect this will have on older builds, specifically those recently completed, and how we plan to allocate limited community efforts to keep these projects up to date. After observing the outcome of adding the two aforementioned vertical beam variants, I got the impression that these variants were right at the threshold where, for instance, Ark didn't feel a need to drastically modify the existing timber frame houses at Highgarden to feel happy with the style there after the update. I don't believe that this will be the case with adding timber variants that are more elaborate, such as 2-high diagonal beams.

Removing horizontal CTM on timber blocks. This is easily done; just depends on builder preference. Personally, I find that having horizontal CTM for the timber frames with cross beams helps improve aesthetics in many cases, even if it's not entirely realistic. I also see it as representing something like the patterns circled red in this image, except just with different diagonal beam arrangements.

 

[DutchGuard]

There's two suggestions here, so I'll reply to them separately:

Adding new vertical CTM timber blocks. As much as I love how Conquest went about their timber frame sets (and deeply regret not doing ours in a sensible way when we created the custom blockpack) - I previously made a decision to draw the line at the two vertical beam variants (vertical + close-studding) we added in the last update, and I'm not really inclined to change this decision on a whim without new justification presented. In particular, I'm concerned with the logistical aspects: what affect this will have on older builds, specifically those recently completed, and how we plan to allocate limited community efforts to keep these projects up to date. After observing the outcome of adding the two aforementioned vertical beam variants, I got the impression that these variants were right at the threshold where, for instance, Ark didn't feel a need to drastically modify the existing timber frame houses at Highgarden to feel happy with the style there after the update. I don't believe that this will be the case with adding timber variants that are more elaborate, such as 2-high diagonal beams.

Removing horizontal CTM on timber blocks. This is easily done; just depends on builder preference. Personally, I find that having horizontal CTM for the timber frames with cross beams helps improve aesthetics in many cases, even if it's not entirely realistic. I also see it as representing something like the patterns circled red in this image, except just with different diagonal beam arrangements.

In principal I agree with these assessments. As for removing the CTM, even just adding a non-CTM variant would be good enough for me (kind of like how we addressed the vertical CTM on other timber frame blocks).

 

[EStoop]

Removing horizontal CTM on timber blocks. This is easily done; just depends on builder preference. Personally, I find that having horizontal CTM for the timber frames with cross beams helps improve aesthetics in many cases, even if it's not entirely realistic. I also see it as representing something like the patterns circled red in this image, except just with different diagonal beam arrangements.

I changed the image slightly to better represent our texturepack.



What I wanted to portray with this is that you managed to pinpoint a handful of situations in which our texturepack accurately-ish represents actual timber frame technique while ignoring the majority of the structure which simply cannot be made on the server, primarily the [X] blocks.

Horizontal CTM in our timber frame blocks almost always breaks up the timber frame pattern.

 

[Emoticone11]

In principal I agree with these assessments. As for removing the CTM, even just adding a non-CTM variant would be good enough for me (kind of like how we addressed the vertical CTM on other timber frame blocks).

I could make a duplicate version for each timber type that currently has horizontal CTM, but I'm not really keen on this approach since it'd involve close to doubling the amount of timber frame blocks in the pack, and introducing a fair bit of redundancy. Per EStoop 's reply, I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to just remove the horizontal CTM on the [X] blocks and the [ ] blocks, while keeping it on the [ / ] and [ \ ] blocks which tend to not be used in long horizontal rows?

 

[DutchGuard]

I could make a duplicate version for each timber type that currently has horizontal CTM, but I'm not really keen on this approach since it'd involve close to doubling the amount of timber frame blocks in the pack, and introducing a fair bit of redundancy. Per EStoop 's reply, I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to just remove the horizontal CTM on the [X] blocks and the [ ] blocks, while keeping it on the [ / ] and [ \ ] blocks which tend to not be used in long horizontal rows?

I think that's a good compromise, and I agree adding redundant blocks would get a little messy.

 

[Thamus_Knoward]

This seems like a fairly low-hanging fruit in terms of implementation and detrimental to get in while the KL update is still underway. @Emote did you consider this for the next update?

 

[Emoticone11]

This seems like a fairly low-hanging fruit in terms of implementation and detrimental to get in while the KL update is still underway. @Emote did you consider this for the next update?

I still need to dedicate a good chunk of time to test it and see how it impacts existing builds. I don't consider it super high priority since it's intended to retroactively improve existing facades automatically, so I'm not sure if it'll make it into this update or the subsequent one (it should be in "in progress" though... moving now).

As an aside, one nice thing we may get from the 1.16 migration is the ability to control the side timber beams for each of the timber blocks using the debug wand, assuming we migrate each one to multiple blockstates (vs. CTM textures). If any timber frame block currently connects horizontally, this will continue to be the default behavior in 1.16, but it should be possible to toggle the blockstate to one that doesn't connect.

 

[Emoticone11]

Here's a version of the resource pack with the horizontal CTM on the [X] and [ ] timber frame variants removed. You need to replace the WesterosCraft.zip resource pack with this one in the Resource Pack settings.

Please help me test it if you want this change to be included in the coming update! Explore various builds (old and new) and let me know if anything seems noticably worse with this change.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[DutchGuard]

Thanks for putting this together Emot!
I've gone around and taken some screenies comparing the differences.
Obviously I am in favour of the change, but hopefully these images will better inform the opinions of others.
In general I have found people tend to avoid using the horizontal X ctm, but there are a few notable examples which seem to have a preference for it.
In some cases the change makes some of the facades look "busier" but this is something that I feel can be addressed with minimal adjustments.
In most cases, I actually think its an aesthetic improvement as well as a practical world building one.

https://imgur.com/a/yebAw4g

 

[Jakethesnake8_8]

I think people use the horizontal X CTM as a way of adding detail without creating these vertical segments or box-y strips of timber. I think the change looks good in some of the houses but others not so much.

 

[DutchGuard]

I think people use the horizontal X CTM as a way of adding detail without creating these vertical segments or box-y strips of timber. I think the change looks good in some of the houses but others not so much.

Agreed, but this is essentially the problem. As discussed earlier in this thread, timber framed buildings need vertical load bearing posts. Small (1x2) areas might be connected, but generally long rectangular areas without vertical supports aren't best practice.

 

[Emoticone11]

Bumping this. If anyone still has any objections to making this change, please speak them now. I'm aiming to include this change in the coming update.

 

[RavishMeRed]

I think the one potential downside is that this change could possibly create too much visual interest in daub patterns. however, this can be easily avoided/worked around so its not that much of an issue.

 

[AerioOndos]

Yeah, I'm on the side of keeping the vertical CTM because I love using the linking to reduce business in a facade. Certainly a lot of the daub facades I've built are done with that white borderless bit in mind and I kinda feel like I'd need to go back and change them to make it fit again. I'd also definitely avoid using the X wattle blocks if with this change because of that high amount of texture. However, that's a lot of just personal issues I have with it.

Essentially, my point is that the business and detail of a facade has been created with the CTM in mind and by removing/adding in the vertical wood borders, it will suddenly change facades away from what builders intended and would not necessarily outdate, but modify the style of much of the structures on the server.

While it could definitely work in some places, I feel a large amount are going to be too distorted. Perhaps this is something that could be manually done with a debug tool or brush in future updates?

 

[Jakethesnake8_8]

I agree with Aeks, I think there’s gonna be a lot of facades to rework as a result of this block change. I think having diagonal supports that are on the X timber can still provide support to the rest of the wall. I think making this change would really isolate the X timber as a standalone detail block and we’d see a lot less interesting facades as a result. In a lot of cases, the X timber being horizontally connected allows us to avoid everything looking like segmented squares, notable examples of this at Old Anchor, Maidenpool and Tumbleton based off the pics Dutch provided. I’m steadfastly against implementing this.

 

[Elduwin]

Could an option be to just add a X frame block with vertical borders and no CTM? So that builders can use both systems?
There are some places where I think the vertical frame makes a lot of sense (even aesthetically), but I can understand that for some facades it would mean working over them to adapt. So having the option with a new block might just help in avoiding the work to update many facades.

 

[Emoticone11]

Could an option be to just add a X frame block with vertical borders and no CTM? So that builders can use both systems?

We should essentially get this for free out of the 1.16.5 migration, assuming that the timber CTMs get mapped to blockstates:

"As an aside, one nice thing we may get from the 1.16 migration is the ability to control the side timber beams for each of the timber blocks using the debug wand, assuming we migrate each one to multiple blockstates (vs. CTM textures). If any timber frame block currently connects horizontally, this will continue to be the default behavior in 1.16, but it should be possible to toggle the blockstate to one that doesn't connect"

I'm not really keen to add duplicate blocks with different CTM patterns for that reason.

 

[Emoticone11]

Since there seems to be some pushback on this change, I think I'll refrain from adding it until there's more of a consensus. I'll make an overlay version of the above pack that people who like the change can continue to use, though.