Block Change Request: Removing Timber Frame Cross Blocks CTM

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.

2021-03-24_22.50.30.png
2021-03-24_22.50.34.png

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.

Untitled.jpg

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.

1616626560209.png

1616626823171.png


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

1616627383398.png
1616628007564.png
 

Emoticone11

The Dark Lord Sauron
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.
 
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

Firemage
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.

1616744357339.png

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

The Dark Lord Sauron
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?
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SseriousBusiness